emily: from pier three in san francisco, welcome to the best of "bloomberg west." i am emily chang. every week and on the "best of west," we bring you the top interviews with the power players in technology and media companies that are reshaping our world. we begin with google. the search giant faces biggest issue ever when the eu began

slapped them with an antitrust complaint. the eu began investigating google search practices. after competitors complain. google started to settle, three times to no avail. the eu has filed -- specifically the eu claims google favors it's shopping service over that of its rivals, for instance, when you search for an item like a laptop, google shopping results show up and are prominently displayed. leading the charge is a top danish competition. >> it is of course limited and is also the first place where we have a complaint. first place where we got a complaint, that google is favoring its products in search for the longest period of time.

however, we will continue to look at google's conduct in other areas. emily: vestager also opened a probe into android. she is still investigating search results for hotels. google controls 92% of the search market in europe, compared with just 75% here in the united states. in response, google is not backing down. meaning the case is likely to go to trial. google's head of search on that says google might be the most used search engine for finding information in different ways, and allegations of harm for consumers and competitors have proven to be on the mark. -- wide of the mark. in 2013, the u.s. ftc launched a similar investigation the close it without taking action. not so in europe. if found guilty, google could be fined as much as 10% of its revenue, which would amount to $5.3 billion last year. they could face severe

restrictions on how it operates. still, lingered legal experts believe such a fine is highly unlikely. i spoke with paul, an antitrust lawyer ben, a former coo of google europe. and our own editor at large, cory johnson. ben: this is been going on for quite a while, it is not a new revelation. the statements of objection are relatively bland. i think a lot of it will come down to is google dominant, and how they view that dominance. if you look at a universal search, google versus yahoo, if you look at how people shop for hotels, consumer electronics credit card banks etc., they use mobile apps. google has not passed that.

for example, yelp says 40% of their restaurant bookings come straight through their app. with no use from google at all. number one, are they dominant? number two is are they abusing it? google will always say, how do we give consumers what they want? knowing google in the way that that they work i don't think , they will have ever said let's place our products first. they would have said, consumers seem to like vertical specialist search. let's change our format and see if they like it. before handing back to you, every time google makes product searches, algorithm changes, there are no surprises that people have had been hit and have complained. the question is is that it is upheld based on our they dominant. emily: paul, how serious is this allegation against google? how serious is it that the eu has ratcheted this up to formal charges?

paul: i think it is important to emphasize that this is that the first stage, it is just an interim stage, this marks the end of the first phase of the investigation. the statement's of objection is a short surmise of where it has gone to in its investigations. and no google will have the opportunity to go in more detail. is important to emphasize there is no finding in liability. it is the direction of travel in the commission's thinking. we do not have a conclusion in terms of if there should be a fine. if there is a fine, it could be up to 10% of its turnover. -- of google's group worldwide turnover. i think it is fair to say it is serious. google has been trying to settle this through some form of commitments. unfortunately, that has not worked. it will still have the opportunity to offer concessions, but unlike the ftc

investigation, it has not been able to close it via that channel. emily: in the worst case, cory how could this hurt google? cory: what is google actually doing? i looked back at the google ipo today, and the company has set our search results are unbiased. people believe google will give them the best search results. if you are to go on google and search for flights from charles de gaulle airport the results of will be the same. i did a kayak search and a google flight search and guess what? i found cheaper flights on kayak. that says to me, the real risk is that the information is sometimes biased in favor of google favored results. not the best deals for

consumers. that could hurt this company even more than $5 billion. emily: ben, what is your reaction to that? ben: my reaction is that they not that google is being biased but if they do not do a better job, they may become irrelevant to consumers because they are realizing they are not getting the best deals on google. it is a proven fact with lots of data with desktops and mobile, that less and less consumers especially sophisticated ones with a lot of money are starting , their search journey with google because they're finding better deals and better experience elsewhere. google has an obligation to its customers and shareholders to improve its results. that means improving formats. that means having more choice, more images. more ability to select and filter and sort the way kayak does. the way amazon does, etc. otherwise, they will become irrelevant.

cory's point to me is that kayak is still winning so why would kayak worry about google? i realize there are more subtleties and that, but google needs to keep improving if it wants to do more of the same rather than lose its battle. coming back to the $5 billion fine, i think a fine is far less $5 billion worrying to google than saying you can't do vertical search or you have to separate it and run it separately because that would mean the google experience would get worse and worse compared to the virtual search specialist over time which would make , google less and less relevant. i think the fine is far less worrying than google having to stop innovating or something like that. emily: paul, paint the most dramatic scenario for google. in the most dramatic scenario, does google have to breakup in europe? paul: i don't think it could come to that. under what we call a behavioral investigation. it could be that google would, in search of a concession,

i think this is an unlikely scenario it could have a formal breakup to placate the commission's concerns. i think as your guest said, the most worrying aspect is that google will be forced to comply with a legal precedent. which really drives the coach and horses through the way it does business. emily: paul henty, partner at charles russell, ben legg formerly of google europe, and our own cory johnson. up next, hillary clinton is in the race for the white house but the digital campaign will be different from the last time she ran. her former senior adviser joins for innovation at the state department alec ross joins me next. later, how will social media be a game changer in 2016? that is all coming up on "bloomberg west." ♪

emily: this is the best of "bloomberg west." i am emily chang. she is in. former first lady hillary clinton has finally announced her candidacy for the white house. the response on social media has been overwhelming with over 5 million video views in the first 24 hours of her new campaign video. how big a role will text continue to play her campaign? i spoke with alec ross, former her former senior adviser and at the state department, and started by asking what his involvement would be. alec: i do not think she wants more from me than the other 320 million americans, which is support for her presidential run.

when we connected, she was in ohio on her way to iowa. and very excited about her new presidential run. emily: how did she feel about the rollout so far? alec: the rollout has been a huge success. it is kind of bananas. they came out with this new video, and in the, i do not know, the first 18 hours, it was viewed 5 million times. one of the other presidential candidates who gets credit for being tech savvy is rand paul. his introductory video had been watched 250,000 times. i think 20 times as well as the next tech savvy candidate is not too shabby. so she feels pretty good. emily: here is the question -- do video views and likes and followers on twitter and facebook, do they translate into votes? alec: i do not think that those individuals metrics do, but i think engagement does. we are far past the days of ronald reagan doing a perfectly executed campaign event with the flag positioned just so, and

then he shows up again three days later. you have to have a continuous dialogue with the american people. you have to educate them about who you are and why you are running. that is what really matters. the 5 million video views and so matters insofar as it means 5 million people people listened to what she had to say in her rational for running. emily: using social media is a given these days, yet she literally just joined facebook. she is already doing quite well but still -- she joined twitter relatively late. why has it taken her longer than some of the candidates to embrace these platforms? alec: the biggest reason was that when she was secretary of state, secretary of state is a lousy job to be using social media because in diplomacy there is so much nuance, so much attention given to every little comment, every little semicolon, and it just did not lend itself to 140 characters or lend itself

to liking and unliking. i was with her at the state department, and i was all for diplomats using social media but i do not blame her for not using it personally while she was at the state department. emily: the republicans have caught on. marco rubio saying he is on snapchat. how big are hillary's challenge s going to be in the new different, and hit to the change republican media landscape? alec: in 2008, obama won because insignificant measure because he figured out how to use technology very effectively. then almost surprisingly, in 2012, the republicans were still fairly incompetent. mitt romney's technology platform broke down on election day. that will not happen in 2016. whoever the republican candidate is whether it is bush or paul or cruz, they are all

technologically savvy. and they all get it. i think will be a challenge for hillary in that they are going to be competing fiercely with her, and whatever democrats run against her in the primary as well. they are quite likely to understand the importance of technology from day one. emily: what is her mindset when it comes to leveraging technology, leveraging these new tools? obviously we saw a different kind of campaign announcements . what else are we going to see? alec: we will see which tools get used. what i do believe we will see is an unprecedented use of big data in this campaign. to the extent of that social media was defining in the 2012 race, i think big data will make a big impact. emily: alec ross, former senior adviser for innovation at the united states state department. the 2016 candidates are already sparring over twitter and youtube, but when it comes to tech and politics, campaigns it is not just about social media.

campaigns, including marco rubio's, are already investing and big data to learn more about voters and competitors. i spoke with someone who has seen firsthand obama's campaign. he has seen the impact of the data on a presidential campaign firsthand as the head of analytics of president obama's campaign. >> i think rubio's approach is clever. he is going up against a incumbent who has a huge amount of technology behind him. using the strategies of his father and brother, they are planning on raising hundreds of millions of dollars through traditional means. rubio's strategy is about raising money from investing in areas where they can have a big impact in terms of efficiency. that is where i think using data to help make decisions is critical. emily: areas like what? dan: i think particularly around fundraising. that is the strength of data decision-making right now. if you think about where the campaign can spend their time, certainly as a candidate going through and doing traditional fundraisers in hotels will bring some money, but if they can use optimization and testing to

improve the effectiveness of their website and online presence, that can raise money through many small donors. emily: what is more powerful big data or money? who would you rather be? dan: big data is a way to become potentially become big money. if you look at the history of the hillary campaign versus obama in the primaries in 2007 the first quarter, hillary used traditional means to raise slightly more than obama. but the following quarters through many small donations obama was able to beat a traditional big fundraiser. tactic of doing traditional fundraising. emily: former president obama campaign, dan siroker. ceo tim armstrong explains new technology. ♪

emily: this is the best of "bloomberg west." i am emily chang. aol is taking aim at google and facebook with new advertising technology. on monday, aol unveiled a new ad n open program at ad platform designed to help advertisers figure out how to spend their ad dollars. the technology takes all of aol's ad tech and puts it in a one-stop shop platform. it will allow brands to measure the effectiveness of their ads across all platforms are mobile to desktop to television. cory johnson spoke with aol ceo, tim armstrong to find out more. tim: what is happening today is the biggest pivot point in media, from the way traditional media was done to the way it will be done in advertising, which is the automation and targeting of advertising at a

much deeper level. ott. today, our launch of oneaol was probably the forefront product for the next generation of internet advertising systems. i think as you just described, it is the most powerful time for period for marketplaces in the world. aol is stepping up as the most powerful futuristic marketplace. it has been five years of work. it is exciting externally, but our teams internally are more excited. we know the power of this product. cory: not least of which your m&a team. you guys have done so many acquisitions of little companies. is this the stitching together of all technologies in a single platform? tim: we started five years ago as a team, making large bets before others did. one was an video wanting global advertising one was in global content brands. when you think about those three areas overall, we have knitted together aol historic platforms together with exciting

acquisitions in our space. when you take a step back, aol is a top player in video top player in distributed content on facebook, for social, content news for huffington post, the newsroom is behind me for social, no one has a more advanced system for programmatic platforms that touches ott all the way through mobile than aol does. i think the stitching together of our strategy has been really really important. we have not changed in five years. it is a 20 year to 30 year strategy in front of us. cory: yea,h so ott, over the top. when i think about this, i think about what clever marketers do. i have the ceo of carl's junior. they did not right around the super bowl. they did not buy it a super bowl ad, but they went to the markets were they thought they had the most impact. they recognized they were not mcdonald's, so they wanted a particular ad that would reach a young male customer.

they were clever the way they reached tv markets and markets on the web. social media, going up to the demographic. it sounds like what you're talking about is the shift from demographically focused advertising to results focus. ed. tell me how that might work in a real case example. tim: if you are intouit, which is one of our partners they are , taking advantage of a singular trend, which is media was built in bulk and sent to consumers in bulk. now it is being built on a singular basis in many cases and sent to consumers on a singular basis, so as an appetizer like intouit -- we are in the tax season super bowl right now intuit can talk individually to , consumers. when you think and when you think about it, the future of connecting with people will be on a singular basis. that is why social networking is important. that is why people doing individual searching is important. our platform is the first

platform to take advantage of the singular nature of singular content going to singular consumers. and the other thing when you look at recent tv statistics that have come out the fact that , almost all human beings are walking around with machines in their pockets that are essentially as powerful as a cable box, all of our systems are built to essentially deliver high-quality content and high-quality advertising and a in a singular way into everyone's pocket. that is going to be a very significant shift for the entire media and internet business for the next two or three decades. cory: ok, but there's a technological problem there, right, because smartphones do not have cookies. how can you track an ad on a smart phone when you cannot get the feedback from a cookie like you can on the web? tom: mobile is about device targeting, for us we have about 100 million devices in the united states that we recognize and understand and we can

cross-link that device and ott. that creates a powerful union. if you think about the way consumers consume media, on digital, a broadcast network today with aol's new system one by aol, we can cross format target and target you in general. it actually makes what cookie targeting was in a more powerful way. it is cross device. when you think about advertising in the future, a lot of people think technology will deflate ad prices over time. i would make two bets. one will get better and more creative for consumers, and two is ad prices will go up. there are a lot of ads and you do not know how they work. people still spent $600 billion. imagine how much people will spend when you know how each ad to each consumer works. emily: aol's tim armstrong with cory johnson.

hundreds of commercial planes could be vulnerable to hacking according to a new government report. we talked to one of the researchers behind that report next. ♪

emily: you are watching the best of "bloomberg west" where we focus on innovation, and technology, and the future of business. i am emily chang. in-flight wi-fi connects travelers to the outside world . it could also give hackers a way into planes on the computer system. the government accountability office reports that hundreds of commercial planes could be vulnerable to cyber attacks passenger wi-fi networks. many modern cockpits rely on the same wi-fi that passengers use. are using meaning a hacker could , commandeer a plane and shutdown navigation systems. how can airlines and faa keep hackers out of the sky? earlier i spoke with the co-author of the gao report, dr.

gerald dillingham, and mark chertoff group principle mark weatherford, the former undersecretary for the department of homeland security. dr. dillingham: i think it is important to understand that we are talking about the potential for this kind of intrusion to occur, rather than saying that this is an imminent threat because faa is in fact taking precautions. we are talking about the future as more and -- aircraft become more internet dependent. emily: how exactly does it work? if the plane is on cabin wi-fi the passenger wi-fi is connected to the cockpit system, that is where you see the vulnerability? dr. dillingham: as we described in the report, the example we gave is, in the cabin, passengers have broadband available to them. they can upload a program onto their computer.

if that program has malicious software in it, and again this is important, if in fact the ip connection on the airport is able to connect with the cabin and avionics, then you have the possibility. right now what happens is there are firewalls that prevent that kind of incident occurring. keeping in mind, firewalls are software, too. up-to-date, faa has only special rules preventing this. we are pointing to the fact that 10 years from now when 60% to 70% of the fleet will be like the new aircraft we see today in terms of the dreamliner or the a350, then there needs to be regulations and standards so that this does not become a special condition. emily: mark, you guys at the chertoff group are usually

constantly examining threats like this. how concerned are you about this? how easy is this to do? mark: i agree with the doctor dr. dillingham. the big issue is, as security professionals, we are concerned about technology touching each other. obviously there is a great concern when you think about the avionics of an airplane or the communications of an airplane being able to touch the same wi-fi or entertainment system that the in-flight passengers use. as dr. dillingham said, while they may be contacted with firewalls or other devices those devices are regularly defeated by bad guys. we have to get better about thinking about building security into these controls at the beginning, at the design phase. i posit that building security into the design of the aircraft

is just as important as building safety and efficiency features. into the aircraft. the world has changed. as things are more and more ip -enabled we have to think about , this from a security perspective, just as much as a safety perspective. emily: planes that could be affected -- the boeing 787 dreamliner, airbus a350 and a380. gerald, which percentage are we of commercial aircraft are we talking about being affected here? i heard planes newer than 20 years old. aren't most newer than 20 years old? dr. dillingham: we do not have a count, and i would not say most are newer than 20 years old. i would say that the fleet is being renewed. what is important now, as was said, to build insecurity and

in security and to build in cyber. that is what we were talking about. the older fleet had much more separate controls, and not as many points of potential contacts across the systems. like 1/3 of those are ip-based. going forward, it will be 60% by the end of the decade. that was the point of the report, not to cause concern among the flying public that this was an imminent danger, but to point out that cyber security challenges change every day. the faa must in fact not only build security in, make sure the manufacturers build it in, but constantly monitor it because the threat changes every day. you need to be one step ahead. that was the basic point of our report. emily: still, in the worst case, you are saying a hacker could commandeer the warning and

navigation system. mark, worst-case scenario, could a hacker bring a plane down? could a hacker fly a plane into a building? mark: that is the worst case. i do not think anyone is predicting that. that is certainly be concerned we have. we need to keep the controls separate, the systems separate so that that potential does not exist. when you think about this, when you have a wi-fi network connected on an aircraft, it is just like a wi-fi anywhere else. network connected anywhere else. you could potentially have bad guys on an airplane that could compromise the network on the airplane itself. so keeping these -- segmenting these networks is incredibly important. emily: dr. gerald dillingham and director of civil aviation issues at the gao, and chertoff

principal mark weatherford. up next, another crash landing for spacex this week. we discussed how difficult elon musk's rocket catching plan actually is. ♪

emily: i am emily chang, and this is the best of "bloomberg west." close but no cigar this week for spacex. the elon musk company successfully launched the falcon 9 rocket into space on tuesday but it's attempt to locate on a barge for reason the future fell short. elon musk live tweeted the whole thing. the rocket landed on the drone ship, but too hard for survival. it looks like falcon landed

fine, but excess water velocity caused it to tip over post landing. i spoke to lori garver in washington and our cory johnson about what is next for spacex. lori: people have been trying to take advantage of the reusability of rockets for decades, and i think this is so incredibly close that we will be able to see this happen in one of the next couple of launches. i cannot speculate anymore than elon has. they are looking for more data to come back. the fact that now twice in a row within a couple of months, they have found the drone ship -- the barge -- and been able to land on it, too hard for survival, is still a success. huge success. let's not forget the rocket itself has launched successfully and it will be docking with the international space station on friday. emily: well, in case anyone is worried about elon musk, he tweeted "if this works, i am treating myself to a volcano

lair. it is time." so he is going to keep trying corey. y. cory: the next time i trip and fall, remind me to blame it on my excess lateral velocity. emily: don't crawl into your volcano. cory: everyone should get a volcano. you get accustomed to the heat. it is a dry heat. [laughter] for all the criticism we give up tesla and their financials and the things the market has done on the financial side, this is enormously ambitious. it is very important for the government, in particular, to have a u.s.-based space company. because with nasa out of the game, there are enormous payloads of military and spy satellites and things that have nowhere to go. they have no way to get into space. it is important for this country to have those kinds of spying capacities and military capacities where they cannot

trust a rocket launch by a foreign government and so on. emily: lori, what kind of oversight is necessary to make sure what spacex and elon is doing is actually safe? lori: i would say this is very similar to how we have been going into space for years. i take issue a little bit with the "nasa out of the game." nasa is not out of the game. they are in the game. five years ago, president obama stood at the kennedy space center and outlined a new way of partnering with the private sector to advance space transportation. similar to how we have advanced transportation in all other ways. we would be spending much too much money and no one would be going if we threw away an engine in a airplane every time we flew. we cannot do this in space transportation, either. the government has been utilizing the private sector to launch its satellite, yes, even though they are important military satellites as well as our scientific payloads for decades. the space shuttle that was retired a few years ago with $3 billion to $4 billion a year. it helped us develop the international space station.

now being able to get there with the private sector for pennies on the dollar, that is the right path. and of course these vehicles as well as competitor vehicles will be carrying people to them from the good old usa shores in just a couple of years. emily: lori, give us a better idea of what elon musk is grappling with here. what kind of technology is necessary not just to land the rocket safely but also to make it reusable and save money? lori: reusability has been a holy grail. we know that is what it takes to reduce the cost permanently and have a sustained space activity that will take more people and things to orbit. we at nasa have been working on it more than 15 years ago with a different vehicle called the x33 that would lead to a fully reusable vehicle, the investments are too high. because the technologies involved in materials in

propulsion were not advance enough. the private sector is innovating to do this on a ship in the ocean because they cannot get the capability to get licenses to land on land. this is a great innovation. of course we reused the space shuttle engines that came back and we refurbished them to fly again. but the space shuttle took a number of parts -- the gas tank, the solid rocket models -- that were expendable, thus the cost continued to be too large to be really be sustained for these long-term plans that we have in space. emily: if you think this is only a matter of time, how much time? lori: within the next year, elon will have landed -- spacex will have landed successfully, so starting that reusability, they have six launches now, they are in a 12-launch contract to the space station. i think people will be going on dragons and their competitor

vehicle with boeing here in the next two and a half, three years. emily: lori garver in washington and our bloomberg editor at large, cory johnson. coming up, sprint is making house calls. will it help the company hang onto its edge over t-mobile? that is next on the best of "bloomberg west." ♪

emily: welcome back to the best of "bloomberg west." i am emily chang. sprint is making house calls and could deliver and set up a new smart phone right in your home. as competition heats up with t-mobile, the nation's third-largest carrier is trying to differentiate itself by bringing the in-store experience to the home or office allowing , customers to buy new phones and upgrade from anywhere. i spoke with sprint ceo marcelo

claure about the deal and asked him about how sprint tested this program before launching in kansas city this week. marcelo: we did this with a group of select customers in kansas city. we sent them an offer, they asked for direct to you, and we had our trained experts go to their homes or go to their offices and take them to the whole experience. it is a thorough experience. i don't know the last time you actually went to a store and got a cell phone, but if you are switching from one carrier to another, it takes a long time, and if you are switching from one operating system to another, say from an ios to an android or from an android to ios, it can be painful to transfer content and most people are not tech savvy. before we get our big launch, i wanted to experience it myself. i went to a customer's home and

i went through the whole setup and the customer was delighted. , when we felt the customers were delighted and they wanted to recommend it to others, we said let's announce it, let's go big, let's launch it in kansas city today, let's do miami and chicago april 20, and a nationwide later this year. emily: you have an interesting story, as i understand it, you started by selling phones out of your car in college. you even made house calls. how did that inform this decision? marcelo: that was back in 1996 when i was a partner in a company called cellular solutions in boston. we did something similar. back then it was different, customers had never used a cell phone. we had to take them through the whole experience of how do you make your first phone call. things have not changed that much. if you get your new smart phone, the amount of things you can do, is in many cases like getting a brand-new phone, a lot of customers today, for example do

not want to order one online because when you go home and you get a ups box and you open it up you have an intimidating , latest galaxy or iphone, and it is not easy basically to transfer all of your contacts or your apps or your photos or videos. i have so many e-mails from customers telling us, i lost all of my pictures that i had in my phone. so we thought this would be a clever way to basically go to the customer's home and more importantly, it is delighting your customers. having the ability to go to a customer's home, by the time they are done, i can tell you these are customers recommending sprint to everyone that they know. emily: there seems to be a race to the bottom when it comes to price between the different wireless carriers. t-mobile has been pushing prices down. do customers care more about price order they care about convenience? what kinds of phones are you selling the most of through this program, the higher end phones the higher end plans, or on the are are you seeing things

selling on the lower end as well? marcelo: customers want to get the latest and greatest device. we realize that if you look at sprint where we did this, we launched one of the innovative ideas we had a few months back we had the first phone leasing iphone for life, that gives you the ability to get a phone and every year you have the ability to get a new phone. you get a lot of people who have a two-year contract with their operator, but the new technology comes up once a year. imagine you sit in your home you have a one-year lease on your phone, and every year you are going to change your phone and you go to an app, you click on your app, and you say where you want the phone to be delivered, and you choose where and someone shows up and basically exchanges your iphone 6 for let's say in the future it will be an iphone 7, that is a type of experience. emily: sprint ceo marcelo claure.

coming up, as etsy makes its public debut, it struggles to keep artisans happy. we will speak with its artisan sellers next on the best of "bloomberg west." ♪

emily: this is the best of "bloomberg west." i am emily chang. wall street may have high hopes for etsy with its trading debut. the handmade goods website raising $267 million in its public offering, pricing at $16 a share. soaring in opening trades. but many of the artisans are not so thrilled. bloomberg news' ipo reporter leslie picker visited some etsy merchants here in san francisco to find out why. leslie: stuffed owls dressed like hipsters are rebecca saylor's thing.

she spends five hours sewing and decorating each one by hand. saylor sells them for $50 a piece on etsy the online marketplace. rebecca: etsy was the perfect platform for me. they were doing their part to elevate the experience of handmade and gain customers. leslie: that is until etsy became more corporate. rebecca: they caused a weird shift in the ecosystem. leslie: 18 months ago, etsy allowed sellers to use manufacturers to produce en masse. the goal was to help sellers grow their businesses while etsy grew at scale. saylor's sales have slipped 15% since then. the new policy has made it harder for consumers to find her pillows and compete on price. why not use a manufacturer to compete? rebecca: etsy sellers have an this extreme emotional

connection to their piece, and they want the public at large to feel the same way, which they do , i am sure, in many ways but at , the end of the day, it is a business. leslie: etsy was founded a decade ago by rob kalin and two friends. it caught the attention of big-name venture capitalists. such as excel partners and union square. over time, success bred conflict, and they rejected any stray from the company core values. he left in 2011. now etsy is going public. the new policies could help make it more attractive to wall street. it charges $.20 for each listing. the more transactions, the better. etsy declined to comment on the policy changes. kalin declined request for comment. these changes are common to the lead up in a public offering

even if it means offending customers. lise: companies need to evolve. those that do not will be left behind in a world that changes around them. the trick is to do it in a gradual way, or way that does not offend your original base. if a company changes to quickly, it could have an impact on the current customer base. that of course shows up in terms of revenues and margins and all of those things. leslie: at an etsy team meet up in san francisco, sellers have mixed reactions to the ipo. some say this is just part of the price you pay to be a larger part of the ecosystem. but rick kitagawa left the site when the changes were announced. rick: for a site that claims to really empower crafters, i did not feel it was doing that. leslie: yet some see etsy's ipo as an opportunity. they have started a campaign to build $1.5 million and create a stake in the ipo. they are starting to do so with their wallet. emily: our bloomberg news ipo

reporter leslie picker. that does it for this addition of the best of "bloomberg west." you can watch our regular show monday through friday. 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. in the west, 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. in the east. catch you later. ♪

>> the following is a paid program. the opinions and these expressed do not reflect those of bloomberg, its affiliates, or employees. >> this is a paid advertisement from united states gold and silver reserve. buying these items carries risk. offers are void where prohibited. information presented in this program is accurate as of the original taping.