carol: welcome to bloomberg businessweek. we talk about the wall between instagram and facebook. taylor: the walls between the u.s. and facebook. taylor: and walls between the u.s. and mexico. carol: and we changing of the guard once again and deutsche bank has a new ceo, but the same old problems. taylor: all this on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ taylor: we're with joe lever, and a couple of big european companies, volkswagen was the global cover last week.

the other one was deutsche bank. you guys cover this in the finance section. >> the deutsche bank story has been one of the favored wall street stories to keep an eye on an kick around. it is a story of a company that tried to get really big, right? it was intended to be a european version of goldman sachs. and ever since the financial crisis, it has been receiving. the latest news came out last weekend. which was about the board reconsidering its ceo, and potentially replacing john cryan, which happened. and our story pick that up. because, it is, like, what is deutsche bank on to become? taylor: why did they go internally? they pulled someone from the outside. the new ceo has grown up in the

ranks. >> yeah, he is like a homegrown guy. still worked in the same town he was born and raised in. so you cannot get more local than that, right? there is reporting about people is generally who were, like, who? it is an interesting choice. deutsche bank has always been somewhat hamstrung of this need to have a german ceo, or at least someone who could speak german. it feels like there are a bunch of boxes that they have had to check, and this guy checked all of them. maybe he wasn't the best candidate, but is the next step. carol: the company has gone through a lot. >> it has been a revolving door. it go? the strategy which john cryan double down on it, it is going to becoming more deutsche deutsche bank. they will look domestically and try to become the german bank. carol: there was a great

headline, more deutsche, less bank. [laughter] >> and it's going to be a really boring bank. [laughter] across the financial landscape, that is the take away that is happening. it is what the future of banking looks like. only this version is like almost especially born. [laughter] taylor: you mentioned takeaways. i am wondering what they can learn from other european lenders? you talked about ubs which has focused on their wealth management unit. what is deutsche bank's strategy? >> credit suisse is another one. so, all of these choices are really meta-strategy choices. where are we going to go? where can we find stability and return on investments that can stabilize our business going forward? and deutsche bank has had some acquisitions that they made that they have to wrestle with. and it sees its domestic market being the strongest place to grow from. and that growth is small. carol: more deutsche. taylor: what is not small is instagram.

we heard from mark zuckerberg on capitol hill this week. walk us through instagram. fascinating story, right? facebook, you have heard of it. instagram is its other social network. one thing we thought was fascinating about this story, and why it is important to talk about, instagram is approaching a billion users globally. that is a huge number that when instagram was purchased by facebook for $1 billion, which looks like a bargain, it had a fraction of that. zuckerberg did not view it as a competitor at that point. according to our reporting, it is a peer in his eye. that is where it gets really interesting because with all of the controversy that facebook has been surrounded with, this looks like it's future. you know? the question is really, can instagram save facebook? carol: we got more on this story with lots of details.

>> you see an office that is a very successful company. there are dioramas on the walls that you can pose in, like a sunset the and a spherical moon. you basically feel like that you are one of the best of the best in silicon valley. the thing you do not see is any sign of facebook, which is the company that owns instagram, unbeknownst to a majority of users. >> i love this. you talk about how it is a five-minute bus drive away. that these two headquarters are physically separate, and that seems to come through in the way that employees are, and the way that the different brands of -- the different brands are branded so to speak. >> it is a totally different culture at instagram. basically, facebook group to prominence by trying to grow

based on what users want. the data showed them what would be popular. they built it. whatever they could build to make facebook more popular and worth spending your time on, they did. instagram thinks about its product very differently. they spoke with me. the ctl at instagram build the share button early on in the company's history, but never launched it. even though sharing would have made instagram possibly more popular, things could go viral there, they thought it would affect the experience in a way that was not what they wanted it to create. an intimate, artistic, cultural environment. while facebook has a move fast break things mentality, carefully at what it adds, and trying not to ruin what they have got. taylor: i love what you say.

the early facebook motto, move fast, break things. the motto for instagram could be, do not ruin it. it is interesting that because if you go back to the early days when facebook first bought instagram, they were a little bit more involved, correct? >> they were. instagram had none of the growth muscle that facebook had. the metrics that track how people use the app, why they are coming back, why they deleting it, what causes them to share and comment more? all of these things that really helped facebook with its growth strategy, and what is working, and fix it very quickly. all tracked on the dashboard, they brought back instagram. and instagram had to think carefully about the data. there is a point in 2015 when actually instagram was losing some of its core audience and the united states, the young people, the teens that really make the app cool and popular, and facebook noticed, and said instagram had to do something

about it. so, there is a little bit more involvement, even though the app is so separate in the minds of consumers. carol: facebook is in the news they time this week. the cover story is on facebook and instagram. mark zuckerberg was made the cover model. so, chris, the global story this week is on instagram. it is a very important part of facebook. chris: for the cover, we were thinking about a lot of different ways to tackle this. obviously, we have mark zuckerberg in congress testifying. we wanted to use things that apply to this moving facebook story. taylor: everyone knows the filters. you have managed to capture the filter on the cover. different layers of the filters as we see the progression. chris: one of the editors sat down and started writing these funny, playing up the various stages of this kind of facebook story.

i kind of sat down and figured out what each of those think should look like. we start off with no filter. then selloff, regret, and apology. carol: what i really loved, too, is the boldfaced type you have of the title of the story. facebook is at the company that owns instagram, but instagram is a force to be reckoned with. they got like a billion users. chris: there is a different aspect going on, an idea that instagram can steer around the problems that facebook has. taylor: we talk about instagram and the filters, which one was the hardest to make from your end? chris: they all came naturally. i really one of the last one to -- i really wanted the last one to be kind of weird. we turned up the volume to 12 on that one. carol: great story, great cover. everyone to check it out. chris: thank you, guys. carol: coming up next, which country may suffer the most in a trade war. taylor: we talk trade in an excuse of interview with imf managing director christine lagarde. carol: this is "bloomberg businessweek."

♪

♪ carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm carol massar. taylor: and i'm taylor rates. you can find us online at businessweek.com. carol: and on our mobile app. opening the magazine this week, talking about the looming threat of a trade war between u.s. and china. taylor: and the phrase, i love the law of unintended consequences, here is peter. peter: the law of unintended consequences was actually a phrase we think we had forever that was coined in 1936. it says what you think it says. you do one thing, and you think you will get this result, but instead you get this result. so, the question is whether the tariffs that trump wants to impose would be like that? taylor: and what countries would win, and what countries would lose between the u.s. and china? peter: it looks like both are

going to lose. trade wars are not good things to have. i should back up. if we actually do have a trade war. trump says he does not want one, and his advisers say the same thing. that putting out the tariffs is just a way to force china to the bargaining table, and it is actually true. the trump team has a very good point that china has not been following a lot of the rules. and something has to be done. so the question has always been, ok, what? in the previous presidents, republican and democrat alike, have tried to use the existing international institutions, the wto, he has no patience for that. trump promised as a candidate, he is following through to do something more dramatic. so, and away, what he is doing

is taking a deck of cards, throwing them up in the air, and we will see where they fall. carol: we are laughing, but it is not funny. china is listening, and we get feedback from them about what they might do, and you got companies getting nervous about what the implications might be for them. peter: xi jinping, the president of china, spoke at a conference, and said some stuff that is mildly encouraging. he portrayed it as being in continuity with past practices, but more in the tone of opening up. carol: greater openness? peter: right. and the trump people are looking at this and saying, we got what we wanted. it worked. but it is still early on this one. we know that china has a long history of a sense of resentment about foreign domination, going back to before the communist revolution. and that sits very deep within. -- deep with them.

they want to be treated as equals, and xi jinping does not want to feel like he is being dictated to by an american president. so, trump's blustered could potentially backfire. taylor: he also mentioned the auto sector, opening that up. what sort of sectors are we looking at? auto, we talk about tech, i.t., which sectors are getting hit the worst? peter: you mention that, and soybeans are the biggest one. all the districts in the united states, congressional districts that are the most soybean elevators are trump districts. so, he is really hitting the heart of his political base. not he is, but china is in retaliation for what the u.s. is proposing, and i am sure china is very aware of that, they know what they are doing. so, it will be interesting to see if this splinters trump's

base. taylor: we are keeping the focus on trade this week. the magazine really highlighted bloomberg's exclusive interview with imf managing director christine lagarde. carol: great interview. she spoke with our colleague about protectionism. christine: we have to secure that growth. we cannot let it be wasted. it took us 10 years to get out of the financial crisis, and we are not at the stage where average growth around the world is close to where it was pre-financial crisis. so let us not rock that both of growth. let us make sure that the engine of investment, more of it at the moment, that is good, consumption, confidence is key, and trade, which has been leading growth recently around the world, continue to actually work for all. is it to say that everything is perfect? no. and there are issues that need to be fixed, but they need to be fixed collectively, globally because our economies are interconnected. the supply chain is organized, and that is the message now.

the most important thing is to do more trade than less trade. and there is an entire sector, which is still crippled with barriers and reservations, and that is the service sector, including e-commerce in particular. we need to move ahead. the world is becoming more digital. we cannot stay with the barriers of the past. >> what do you make of the risk though? the u.s. commerce secretary said there would be no trade deal. and when i spoke to the finance minister of indonesia, she said the timing of the tray tension -- the trade tension is pretty unfortunate because the asian economies are building on the growth momentum, but that is not to be now. christine: i do not think we should pass judgment on what is going to happen in the next few weeks and months. what is clear is that there is a

moment him of threat, counter threat, dialogue opening. and that is what we should all be encouraging. as i said, increasing trade, removing barriers, and encouraging a level playing field to which everybody should contribute. it has to be done collectively. it cannot be done by exceptional measures. it cannot be by unilateral threats. it has to be collective. taylor: up next, why so many russian oligarchs call london their home. carol: and venezuela's new golddiggers. taylor: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

♪ taylor: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm taylor riggs. carol: i'm carol massar. you can also listen to us on radio on sirius 119.

106 in boston. 99.1 fm in washington, d.c. taylor: and in london, and in asia on the radio plus app. moving over to the politics section, london is starting to worry about its reputation as being a home to russian oligarchs. carol: and as a playground for billionaires. here's reporter henry meyer. henry: obviously, tensions have risen substantially since last month, when a nerve agent attack took place on a former russian spy and his daughter. and you know, since then, you have a lot of diplomatic repercussions. you have had dozens of russian diplomats who have been expelled by quite a lot of countries, more than 25, led by the united kingdom. and russia responded in kind. that is one thing, but on the

other side, you got the announcement of new u.s. sanctions against russia, which happened on friday. it is not directly linked to the attack on the ex-spy, but more to do with accusation of russian meddling in the u.s. election. and this was seen as a very, very that development in moscow. -- very bad development in moscow. it targeted a number of very prominent billionaires, including -- getting to london, the situation in the u.k. is that it has been a very big center for russian money for many years. particularly since the year 2000, when putin came to power and a lot more money started coming into russia, and a lot of that has gone to the u.k. because it is seen as a safe destination, and because they were not asking too many questions. taylor: it has been a safe destination for them read why isn't the u.k. doing more to

tighten up the control? henry: well, the u.k., you know, london is one of the world's biggest financial centers. and you know, the regulation has been quite light, so that means, they have not actually been, you know, putting too many checks on this money. and a lot of it comes via offshore, so it is not always possible to identify the owners. essentially, there is a big industry in london of financial consultants, lawyers, which are making a lot of money from this. you know? that is probably the main reason why not enough has been done to make sure it is all clean money. carol: and that is what is interesting about this story. you talk about the different russian oligarchs living in the u.k. they raised their families there, they love the schools.

but now, they are reaching out to these lawyers because some of them actually don't have damaging reputations, and they are reaching out to these lawyers to show they are somewhat clean. henry: we spoke to the lawyer for two russian billionaires, among the top 20 richest in russia, who commissioned audits from the four major auditing companies in the world, to go to -- to go through their taxes and income for the last 15 years, and to prove, you know, that their money is clean. evidently, the level of concern is very high. this was before friday's announcement of the latest sanctions. and i want to talk a little bit about that because the fact that someone like victor vex oberg was targeted, businessmen less a good reputation in europe and -- who is a businessman who has a fairly good reputation in europe and the u.s., and has not seen someone close to the kremlin.

the fact that he got included on that list was a big shock. after that, people thought, it could be anyone. carol: an economic section, we go to venezuela. nicolas maduro gave up the economy to the military. taylor: and we got the scoop from christina. christine: our reporter went to an area near the orinoco river that is the center of the gold-mining trade. and basically, now it is a militarized zone. it was taken over by gangs at one point after the government nationalized the gold-mining industry, and pushed it away for investors. but, they did not have the company to take over gold-mining, so what happened, it became a giant area of wildcaters. --

in 2016, they said this is crazy, we are losing these resources. we are not collecting royalties from these miners. so, they turned the area over to the military. and what the military has done is basically brought the gangs under its control, and the miners, too. for the miners, life is doubly worse, because they answer to the gangs and the military. so, there is a lot of taking at every level, and the gangs still -- so there is a lot of bribe taking at every level and the gangs still operate. they have not been completely pushed out area people are getting caught in the crossfire between these two groups. carol: so, president maduro has been giving more of the economy over to the military. talk about what he is doing and why. christine: the interesting thing is that maduro does not come from the military. but he has, through various strategies, really cemented loyalty within the ranks.

and one of the ways he has done that is by seeding control of certain parts of the economy to the armed forces. for example, the ports, and the ports are a great opportunity for bright-taking also. all the goods coming in and out of the country. and then also, the distribution of food is now controlled by the armed forces. 14 of 30 to cabinet posts are -- 14 of 32 cabinet posts are now held by former current military officers, and the ranks of the national oil company are filled with members of the armed forces. carol: he needs this in terms of political support because he does not have support from the broader population. so, he needs the military to back him up. christine: yes, his popular support has eroded badly. there is no doubt that maduro will get reelected barring some unprecedented violence. but the fact is that, you know, he needs the support of the military to ensure that he stays in office one tea wins it. -- once he wins it.

carol: up next, the truth about the border wall between united states and mexico. taylor: and burning man steps out of the desert into the art gallery. carol: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

taylor: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm taylor riggs. carol: and i'm carol massar. the sorry state of u.s. portable -- boardwalk technology. and a u.k. bookmaker making a big bet on america. taylor: all of this ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ carol: we're back with the editor-in-chief of bloomberg businessweek, joel weber. anymore must reads in the magazine. in the finance section, you tell us about the long-term stock exchange.

joel: it has been bubbling for a while as an idea. by a guy named eric ries. he looked at the stock exchange and said wait, what if there was a different way of doing this that rewarded long-term investors? so much we talk about is this thing of the market has been rigged in favor of short-termism. what if there was something that rewarded investors were holding with the company for a long time? so he put that in motion, and it turns out the long-term stock exchange takes a really long time. [laughter] taylor: what is it, long-term? you are still reporting quarterly, but how do you reward? joel: to be clear, this remains a theory. he would like it to become something, but there is no timetable for any of this. the idea is one that instead of being judged on daily fluctuations even, it would reward someone -- i have been investing with you for five plus

years, rather than a 1-3 sort of horizon. it was like let's change the horizon of what investments are viewed over, and give the shareholder who sticks around a bigger voice. carol: wait, wait. talk about the tricky part of this. joel: one thing that has happened, though, the question is, do investors really care about that? it is no longer looking a ceo in the eye and saying, i trust this guy. i trust his management decisions. it is less about that than it is about show us the numbers. let the numbers speak. and that is all this quantitative investing that has happened, let's look at the data. taylor: does wall street want this? or giving wall street something they might not know they want or not want? joel: it is an open question. his thesis is one that the marketplace should have a chance to decide on this.

carol: but it also takes executive compensation, right? it ties it to longer vesting schedules. joel: all of it, it opens up everything. what happens though, to bring this to market, a stock exchange is a lot of paperwork. iex is the closest thing we have had to this idea -- it took a really long time. nasdaq, the new york stock exchange held it up for a long time before it actually came out. one of the things eric reis has done with this idea is partner with iex. it has given him a bit of a partnership to feel about this space. carol: but this is still just an idea? joel: it is still just a theory. taylor: sticking with the tech theme as we will navigate to the wall. we talk about the concrete wall, but the story in the features section we talk about electronic wall along the border with mexico. joel: the wall being president

trump's favorite tweet, which we all are familiar with, he wants to build a wall. it turns out there is a version of a wall already in place that is a virtual one. it has been there for a long time and has never been successful. one thing that has happened, because you could not get the funding for a concrete wall, one thing that did happen is there has been a massive rush of money to upgrade the technology in the virtual wall that is already there. that is where the story picks up. it is a hodgepodge quilt that sometimes has worked ok, and most of the time it hasn't. and it is about to have a massive inflow of investment. carol: a lot is going on, a lot of money has been spent. we have more from karen weiss. karen: it turns out the government has been trying to use surveillance on the border for almost half a century. it goes back to the vietnam war era. there is currently and has been program after program trying to survey all -- survey the border,

almost 2000 miles along the mexico border using sensors, drones, surveillance towers, radar, cameras, you name it. the government has tried it. it spent billions of dollars we we often don't hear about, because it is largely invisible. carol: we are talking about five decades they have been working on this. talking about how much money have they committed to building a virtual wall? karen: there has been billions of dollars over the past half a century. the current budget included another $400 million for various forms of technology. carol: karen, has it been effective? karen: generally, no. generally, the government has really struggled to get the surveillance technologies to really work well. the latest iteration -- there are certain programs that have been effective or do work well, but the department of homeland security doesn't even have a

good way of tracking it. they have a database where they are supposed to say when they use technology in different apprehensions, and the database is not accurate. they admit this. they have times where they will say oh, this program helped in these 500 apprehensions in texas, when that program is not even implemented in texas at all. it has been a struggle for the government to really implement it and make it all come together the way you think, in theory, it should work. you should put up some radar and have some drones, and they can talk to each other. vr these days, iphones. why can't we do this? carol: this is wild. we constantly hear bloomberg talk about the advances in technologies. businessweek talks about it all the time. where are the tech companies? what are they doing? they have to be salivating to get this money to help build out this virtual wall. karen: yeah. a lot of the people who work on the virtual wall come from the more defense contracting space, which in many ways have had to become more like tech companies.

because so much of the defense spending is moving toward a more electronic types of warfare. at the same time, one's highest and lowest profile focus on the border wall, an effort by palmer luckey, the founder of oculus who made vr kind of a thing. he has funding from peter thiel, and is working to use advanced surveillance technology on orders, but he is secretive about what is happening. there is not much information about what they are actually doing. although they have hired lobbyists, they are hiring themselves. they are clearly working on it. they would come from a more consumer product type of background, whereas a lot of this comes from defense contractor backgrounds. so the interfaces are not as

slick and things like that. but one thing you have to contend with on the border is the harshness and the variety of the border. if you are out there and really want true surveillance, you have ravines, mountains, you have insects who eat through electronics. you have the wind gusting at 30 miles per hour. that is really different than making an app for an iphone. there is a huge level of harshness and variation across the border. carol: up next, william hill is betting on sports betting in america. taylor: and the effort to keep the scandal-plagued scott pruitt as head of the epa. carol: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

♪ taylor: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm taylor riggs. carol: and i'm carol massar. you can also find us online at businessweek.com. taylor: and on our mobile app. in the features section, british bookmaker william hill playing

the odds that sports betting will become legal across the u.s. carol: that is the opportunity of a lifetime and potentially big business. here is reporter evan williams. evan: for a long time now, almost 20 years, sports gambling in america has been restricted essentially to las vegas. the only place that has legalized sports books and happens in casinos all across the strip. new jersey, for four or five years now has been trying desperately to allow its locations, it's casinos and racetracks to allow legalized sports gambling. they have tried in many courts and have lost every single one, and they are at the supreme court right now. we are days away from a decision from the supreme court on whether new jersey is allowed to offer sports gambling. if that happens, as many expect it to, that is going to open the floodgates across the country. carol: and that's the point. it is not just about new jersey, we are talking across the united states. evan: new jersey is the first state doing it, but there are a number of other states that have

already passed laws saying that if new jersey wins, there will be more regulations and this is what they will look like, and there will be many more after that. william hill is a name your listeners will know if they have spent time in the u.k. or europe. it is the oldest bookmaker. the oldest name in betting. carol: they are huge. evan: yes, massive overseas. they did not have a u.s. presence until five or six years ago. joe asher was the man they brought in to run u.s. operations, and they factor into this story because they are going to be the first mover in new jersey. a number of years ago joe cut a it deal with monmouth racetrack in new jersey, the horseracing park. they paid $1 million for exclusive rights to be their sports betting provider. as new jersey went through this process, since they will be the first state, william hill has positioned themselves to be the first within the first state. taylor: they are playing the long game here. they are coming in as the underdog, banking on this ruling

to sort of up the door. evan: exactly, and right now it looks like a pretty savvy business play. they paid $1 million for the rights, splitting revenue 50-50, it is a damn good deal. taylor: the odds are good. evan: the odds are very good. we talked to the guys at monmouth a few days ago, and they made it clear if they cut this deal now, they would have got more money. but because william hill was there five or six years ago, they got sweetheart terms. yeah, if the supreme court rules next monday that new jersey wins, you could see gambling at monmouth under the william hill banner in a matter of days or a couple of weeks. carol: interesting. is there competition to these guys? evan: yeah. there is going to be -- everyone is going to descend on it this. the casinos that have properties in atlantic city, mgm, for example which has a big sports book in vegas they will move , quickly. and then you have everything from the daily fantasy companies like draft kings and fan duel to other casinos, other racetracks in the state, to anybody really.

we wrote a story of couple months ago. verizon is looking into it when it is more nationwide. maybe they will get involved. they have distribution, the mobile network, directv, etc. carol: and there is a lot of money at stake. what is the estimate about how big the market will get? evan: a lot of people have tossed numbers out there, and the rough estimate for the amount of money gambled legally in the u.s. right now is -- illegally is $60 billion per year. taylor: illegally. evan: illegally. and they are not going to bring all of that over to the regulated market. it is reasonable to think this could be a $10 billion industry within a couple of years after a lot of states push their way through it. carol: in the politics section this week, one story we are following -- despite numerous scandals, scott pruitt is still the head of the epa. taylor: most likely because of the connections he has with him business leaders. here is matthew philips. matthew scott pruitt is the : former attorney general of oklahoma. he made a name for himself suing the epa, the very agency that he now runs. he is seen as the most effective

trump cabinet official when it comes to putting in place the pro-business deregulation agenda. and he has gotten into a lot of trouble. he was controversial from the start, one because of his politics and the fact that he discredits a lot of climate science. two, we got a lot of dripping out of things that seemed untoward about his excessive security detail, the fact he put in this $40,000 soundproof booth in his office, that he was insisting on flying first class everywhere. but then we seem to cross a line at the end of march, we started getting details about this deal he had to lease a bedroom in an apartment owned by the wife of an energy lobbyist whose company has business in front of the epa. and that really seems to kick off this push to oust pruitt.

what we do with the story is kind of look at how the business community and conservative activist rallied very quickly, from washington to texas to oklahoma, to kind of save their guy. carol: so talk about this. who is coming out to support him at this point? matthew all kinds. : you have lobbyists in washington, conservative think tanks. freedom works is the one that got things started with an email blast to about one million of their conservative activists, basically reminding them how important pruitt was to all they wanted to get done in washington. you had business executives, oil and gas executives. harold hamm, the billionaire fracking legend from oklahoma. you have tea party core republican politicians who have written op-ed's. you had people calling into the president late last week and over the weekend, and it seemed to have worked, because saturday night we got a tweet from the president that basically said

yes, the security detail is maybe a little expensive. the deal for the apartment was in bounds with market prices, so good job, scott. so it looks like it worked. carol: up next, a startup is teaches museums how to increase attendance and revenue. and one museum is taking burning man seriously. taylor: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

♪ carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm carol massar. taylor: and i'm taylor riggs. you can listen to us on the radio, sirius xm 119, 106.1 in boston, am 960 in the bay area. carol: and in london on dab mux3 and in asia on the bloomberg radio app. in the focus on section, a fun story.

we take a look at startup called museum hack that is working with the world's top galleries. taylor: while helping them connect with first-time visitors. >> museum hack started out as a hobby that turned into a small business. it is a company that organizes very quirky, irreverent, unusual tours of museums. but in the process of doing that, with some of the leading art museums in this country, the museums started to realize these guys know something about getting younger people into the museums. as with everything else, we want millennials. [laughter] and millennials might not be interested in the same things in art museums that people two generations ago were. they want to take selfies and they want to find the one object that speaks to them or that is cool or irreverent. museum hack started bringing in these crowds. and then museums were like, can you work with us to help tailor certain things? so it is both a tour company and

a consulting firm. carol: talk about some of the specific tours they come up with. they are fun, quirky, they are interesting. i want to go on them. dimitra: yeah, "bad ass bitches" is the name of one of them where they will look at a collection and find women in paintings, or women artists who were really ahead of their time. what is the other one i am thinking of? un-highlights. all museums, you see this in the last decade or more, to try to make a museum more accessible, they have created -- here are the highlights of our museum. if you go into these rooms, you know what you need to know to go to a cocktail party. carol: it is like going to paris and seeing the mona lisa and undone. dimitra: this is like, again, eating in, and figuring out what we have in the collection, what is unusual or weird, what has a backstory, is there some drama to the artist and how the work came around? the people going in today, younger folks -- they are appealing to all ages, they like

this idea that it will be an event. it will be an adventure. you will learn something, but you will be like, wow. everybody can see the highlights, but i know about this one thing about this one un-highlight. it is pretty cool. taylor: tell us about the target audience. what i loved in the piece is it is not someone that goes once a year several times a year, but getting those who never go in the door. dimitra: that is the experience of the founder, nick gray. our writer on the piece rob walker, a freelancer who had done work for us before, and he had been talking to nick gray about something else and in the process he learned about this business. nick gray was one of these people. he just did not like museums. that might seem strange to you or me or anyone else, because you think who does not love art? but they felt cold to him, so he thought there must be other people like that out there like , me, who are not drawn to these really big rooms with a ton of stuff paying in them and we do not know what is in them. so they are very much targeting

people who haven't gone in. and i think logically, that audience is going to tend to be a younger audience. although, you find exceptions. when they talk about who they are trying to reach in their marketing, they will not limit it to millennials. but the types of tours they are doing, the way it is friendly, taking your selfies or exploring in a different way, meeting fun people on this tour, is something that is especially appealing to millennials. carol: didn't he start the company, he went out on a date -- dimitra: he went out on a date, and he thought oh my god, she is taking me to a museum. but she tailored the museum to where she would take him to a room, i love this painting, this is why i love it. because here is some little detail that nobody knows about this. and that is what she did on the date. he left and said, wow, this can really translate into something. taylor: speaking of museums, we are talking about burning man. they have some fans and some critics. carol: they certainly do, but

the smithsonian in washington, d.c. is showcasing art from the festival. chris the challenge with : re-creating burning man is that burning man is a 70,000 person festival that occurs in the middle of nowhere in the desert. it is a city built from nothing. in a week, people are festive for a week. and then it is all taken down. taylor: you know because you have been there. chris: i went last year. it is the craziest thing you will ever see. it almost defies description. in the desert where the people are, in the encampments there is all this art. it is gigantic. giant people. you are biking around and you see a big gothic cathedral. you see huge stones hanging from a structure that you can swing on. all of this stuff is very cool, but no one else gets to see it. the smithsonian felt this was a big part of american culture for decades. let's see if we can rebuild it on the mall and washington,

d.c. carol: a footnote here. it is not about re-creating the experience of being at burning man, it is enjoying the art that is there. chris: yes. the curators very correctly realize you cannot re-create the experience of being out in the desert. it is too crazy. but you can re-create is the experience of interacting with the art. it is not only monumental, but interactive. also -- but also interactive. you can climb into it. you can make it do stuff. you can push buttons and it will react to you. because of that, it is fun for kids. it is like a really cool interactive exhibit that has a lot of surprises. taylor: and you say this is why the smithsonian has been relatively successful when other people have tried and failed? because they missed the mark on what they are trying to grasp there. chris: yeah. you can't really re-create something that is spontaneously created by thousands of people altogether. that is not something that can be artificially redone. but the art does evoke the feeling of being with the art. it is just impressive and fun. our art writer went down, and

some people say the art of burning man is not really serious art, because it is supposed to be in the desert and look crazy for pictures or whatever, but a lot of it is successful art. it has things to say. so it really does work in a museum context. carol: james tarmey went to check out the exhibit. did you like it all? chris: no. some of it is a little cheesy. not be cheesy. -- it is not meant to not be cheesy. if you see a train in the desert that has a movie theater in the train, that is a crazy thing to see. you see it in a museum, and it feels gimmicky and does not really work. most of the art is fun and really interesting, but it is not all stuff that would be in moma, by any means. taylor: my biggest burning question. at burning man, sometimes at the end they burn it down. do we have what is happening after the smithsonian? where do they take it? do we know? chris: that is a good question. a lot of the stuff is a smaller version of the original big art. and a lot of the art that was

wooden is burned. but there is a smaller replica of a dancing woman out in the desert that is in the gallery in d.c. it looks like a disco ball. that art is like any other art, it will be in galleries and it will travel. they are not burning the stuff. so far as i know. taylor: "bloomberg businessweek," is available on newsstands now. carol: and online at businessweek.com and our mobile lap. taylor: what was your top story this week? carol: favorite story this week was the global story on instagram. the deep dive. facebook was so much in the news this week, but what i love about the story, sara asked the question, is instagram facebook's greatest hope? instagram is a powerful company on its own. owned by facebook. a billion users. maybe it is a path forward for facebook. --lor: and i like the story like the swap. carol how about your favorite : story? taylor: it has to be the russian oligarch story.

hiding out in london, i have no idea. it was eye-opening for me as a reader. more bloomberg television starts now. ♪

♪ nejra: europe's next big deadline for general data protection regulation goes into effect next month. how significant will it be? mifid ii back in focus, how compliance has been since the law went live. andy dodd-frank debate begins again. how many changes will be made in congress? we get the latest from washington. welcome to "bloomberg markets: rules and returns." i'm nejra cehic in london. this is the show where we delve into the regulatory challenges and opportunities for markets