♪ emily: i am emily chang. this is "the best of bloomberg technology." we bring you all of our top interviews from the week in tech. coming up, sales forces marc benioff on his new co-ceo, his new magazine, and the responsibility tech leaders have to shape the world. plus, filtering out. instagram's founders are leaving facebook. the surprise announcement raising concerns over the future of the social network and competition with snapchat. big tech and congress agree on

the need for stronger digital privacy laws. how strong will those privacy laws go? we will have the latest. first, salesforce kicked off its annual conference this week in san francisco with a record 170,000 attendees. this year, the company's outspoken cofounder marc benioff had a lot to talk about. in the last few months, he bought the iconic but struggling time magazine. he opened the tallest building west of the mississippi and appointed a co-ceo, promoting keith block to the top job. we sat down with him for a wide-ranging interview on the state of the company, the economy, and facebook, a company he says should be regulated like big tobacco. as usual, he did not hold back his opinions. i started by asking why benioff decided to share his job and title? marc: he's fabulous. he has been with us five years. he is a great operator. he has done a great job at salesforce. i felt like he needed to be recognized.

he is co-ceo. the company is more successful than ever. i cannot be happier. emily: co-ceos have not worked out in other places. it is harder to be decisive and ambitious. how do you avoid those problems? marc: we already had a great relationship. because we had a great relationship, giving him the title is how we were running the company in partnership. i have been running salesforce in one capacity or another for 20 years. titles don't really mean anything to me. the most important thing to me is the success of all of our stakeholders, our customers, our employees, our partners. our public schools, the communities. that is what i really focus on. i am so excited that keith is now co-ceo with me. emily: there were reports that

salesforce was interested in buying twitter, which investor -- investors did not seem excited about. do you still think there's a possibility of salesforce having a consumer facing subsidiary some day? marc: we have billions of users today using salesforce in want to or another. the biggest thing for me is our stakeholders. i am listening deeply. when you think about investors, they are one of my key stakeholders. customers are a stakeholder. employees are a stakeholder. public schools are a stakeholder. investors, i'm about to meet with them. you will probably cover that. when i meet with those investors, i am listening to them. when they said we would like you to buy this company or not that company, or we want this strategic relationship, i take that seriously. consistently, and we have been public 14 years, a business for 20 years, we listen to them. you look at our stock chart, the

reason it is up into the right is because we listen to our stakeholders, including investors. emily: what does the m&a future look like and do you have any interest still in buying twitter? marc: i look at every company. we have to look at every deal. we look at private companies, public companies. we just acquired a couple of amazing companies. you saw we bought an amazing company called zeta ramos who are able to do market analytics in an amazing way. this summer, we also bought an amazing integration capability. a whole new vision of customer success called customer 360. it is a company that we bought for $7 billion. we are deeply integrating that product. it is incredible. it is one of the reasons we raised our guidance again. and why we are so excited about our future. you will continue to see us do deals where it makes sense for our customers and where we are

helping to get our customers to connect with their customers in a whole new way. emily: speaking of acquisition, facebook bought instagram six years ago. we now know the founders are leaving. this was one of the bright spots for the company. is that a bad sign for facebook, that something has gone wrong? marc: it is a sign for them. they need to start paying attention. i have been talking about this for nine months. our industry has changed. you have already seen this. every ceo needs to ask themselves, what is the most important thing to you? what is the most important thing to your company? what is your highest value? i know what our highest value is at salesforce. it is trust. nothing is more important than the trust we have with our customers, employees, partners, top executives. when you see top executives walking out, customers questioning your privacy practices or how you are misusing data, you need to listen and you need to wake up.

it is very serious. i'm not going to call out any one company and say this company has to change. what i am saying is for every ceo in our industry, we see what the employees are saying. we have to operate at a higher level. let me give you an example, we just created a new office of ethical and humane use reporting directly to me. because when employees have concerns, or customers or partners or other stakeholders, i want them to be able to come directly to me and have that conversation. we are in the fourth industrial revolution. everyone wants to know, is your product being used ethically and humanely? every company has to operate at a higher standard. every enterprise company like us and every consumer company like a facebook and others. every ceo has to look at this. it is very serious. that is why the government is involved. you know i called for

regulations in january. emily: you said that facebook should be regulated like big tobacco. that was before cambridge analytica. that is before they were called to testify. how do you think they should be regulated? marc: facebook is the new cigarettes. it is addictive. it is not good for you. consumers need to be aware of what can happen. that is why the government is involved and needs to be more involved in the regulation of facebook and other social media companies and in the example of companies that have questions about are their products being used ethically or humanely, they need to create structures where they can evaluate the ethical and humane use of their technology. technology is never good or bad. it is never good or bad. it is how you use the technology that matters. but you have to be crystal clear with your employees, your customers, your partners, with everybody about what your values are. what your practices are. if you don't, you will see

customers leave you or executives leave you or employees leave you. we have examples now throughout the industry this year. you know that. you have been reporting on them. you will see more of this until ceos change. they all need to change. they need to pay attention. that is true for me. that is true for every ceo in the industry. emily: do you think mark zuckerberg is not paying attention? marc: i think every ceo has to get to another level of excellence. there is no question. look, in the fourth industrial revolution, we are all connected. everyone and everything is connected. you know that. look at this show. it is amazing what is happening, the examples. but when everything is connected, everything is changed. behind this is our core values. our company, built on trust, those companies also have to articulate, what are their values? what is important to them? what are they willing to stand for? and then, we will know if they are acting correctly because their employees will stay. their executives will stay. their customers will stay.

their shareholders will stay. and you will not have that question. it should not be a question that any reporter or ceo has to ask. we all need to look at this deeply now. emily: you have had some employees be critical of the work salesforce does with u.s. customs and border protection. you said your software is not involved in family separation. there are some protests happening outside and we have heard some customers are not happy. what is your response to that? marc: i think this is a moment in history, where i come a the -- where, the ceo of salesforce, has to deeply listen. if 15 people show up outside the conference, even if we have 170,000 people here, here, i don't dismiss them. i listen to them. i engage with them. every employee, everyone who has asked a question, i have personally called. based on that, what i have heard is are you deeply connected to the ethical and humane use of the technology? yes, i am.

show us. i have created a whole new structure in the company, the office of ethical and humane use. run by our chief equality officer. we have partnered with the leading ethics organizations in the world to build a structure that we can bring everyone in and have this conversation. this conversation is not going away. it is not. because now the technology is at the center of everything we do, ethics are at the center of everything we do. every ceo will have to answer that question, are you operating ethically and humanely? emily: you and your wife are buying time magazine. you said you are not going to get involved in editorial decisions. but you clearly have strong views, strong political, strong ethical views. how do you plan to run this magazine? how can it not be an opportunity to take a moral stand? marc: we could not be more excited about the opportunity now to be the stewards of this

historic and iconic brand. our whole history of our nation is reflected in the covers of time magazine, the editorials, the stories, the photographs. it is amazing what time magazine represents, and the opportunity to acquire the company and be the stewards of the future was something we could not pass up. i hope it will continue to be a positive global impact opportunity, the way it has been for the last century. i hope we will be able to usher it into the next century. emily: did you talk to bezos about his experience with the washington post? how can we be sure that your political views will not influence the coverage time does? marc: we are committed to keeping our relationship with time magazine at arms length. the editorial board is one of the best in the world. everyone knows that. we are going to maintain that incredible editorial leadership and deliver a world-class product.

this will be a fabulous opportunity for us to unshackle time and let it run as an independent organization. it has been a long time since time magazine was independent. now we are going to see this amazing team and let them go and do something incredible. emily: you have a co-ceo, iconic magazine, you continue to focus on philanthropy, would you consider running for public office? marc: this is the greatest platform for change. our opportunity to change the world is right here. we understand already, we can see our politicians are fundamentally not able to do that. the opportunity for change today is with business. yes, the political structure has to be a public-private partnership. the mayors were here. our superintendent of schools was here. our local officials are here. state, federal, and local government officers are here. let's bring everybody together.

let's create a more positive world together. it has to be a multi-stakeholder dialogue. that is how we will create multi-stakeholder action. you don't me as a political official. i don't think i would be a very good one. you know me very well. the reality is i feel very empowered and enabled to make a positive impact on the world based on the platforms that i have been given, and i am grateful for that. emily: salesforce has done the hard work to close the pay gap. now we hear about the equity gap across the industry and silicon valley especially. what is the hard work you are doing year after year to make sure the pay gap and equity gap does not widen? marc: every ceo has to be focused on equality. at the show, you will see, you can see behind us, we have the most diverse and inclusive set of partners in the industry. we are working to make it more

so. that is one of the key equity gaps i see, bringing everyone in, having inclusive capitalism. we're also fighting for gender equality and we are fighting for lgbtq equality so that we do not discriminate against the lgbtq community. we are working to make sure we have the equality of every human being. these aren't just the values of san francisco. that is easy because we are the home of the summer of love. everywhere around the world, we are going to fight for the same values, trust, customer success, innovation, equality. these are our core values. you can't separate that from salesforce. we are going to take it to the next level. emily: salesforce founder marc benioff. coming up, we just heard marc benioff share his take on instagram founders leaving facebook. we will dig into what really led to their departure and how the street took the surprise announcement. that is next. and, check us out on the radio.

listen on the bloomberg app and on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: instagram's cofounders unfriended facebook tuesday. sources told bloomberg they left over growing tensions with mark zuckerberg. the duo had been at the company since facebook acquired instagram in 2012, and had largely been able to operate independently of facebook and zuckerberg. keeping control over their brand and product. but lately, they had become frustrated with an unusual uptick in day-to-day involvement by zuckerberg, who is now more reliant on instagram, now worth $100 billion, for facebook's future growth. sarah frier followed the story. sarah: facebook is so much more dependent on instagram now than it ever was. because facebook's own growth is going to slow. they are going to have to spend more to grow in new areas. instagram is so crucial to that picture. it just hit one billion users,

but there are many more users they can still add. the advertising business is thriving and they have the products that everyone wants to use. there has been a lot more attention paid to the way that instagram could drive traffic to facebook, which is kind of a new dynamic. basically in the past, instagram was very dependent on facebook for its growth, now facebook is becoming more dependent on instagram. emily: two years ago, i sat down with kevin systrom, and asked him, do you regret selling? facebook bought instagram four -- for $1 billion and then went on to buy whatsapp for $20 billion. of course, he said no and talked about all the great things facebook had done for instagram and talked about how great it was to work with mark zuckerberg. take a listen to what he told me two years ago. kevin: think of it like having like the best board member in the world. imagine how many companies would love to have mark zuckerberg on their board. that's what we get. it's independent, but you get amazing guidance from someone who has been able to build a tremendous company.

emily: fast-forward to today, and this is what kevin systrom says in his statement. "we are planning on leaving instagram to explore our curiosity again, which requires us to step back and match that with what the world needs. that is what we plan to do." missing from the statement was anything about mark zuckerberg. sarah: what i thought was fascinating about that statement is that at the very end he says something to the tune of i wish the best of luck for both companies going forward. they are the same company. when the founders leave instagram, it is no longer this company within facebook. it becomes more of a facebook product arm. there is nobody with the authority of a founder to challenge zuckerberg's vision, should they want to, and say this is not where we see instagram going. systrom has been historically very stubborn in terms of the product and the vision for it and what he wanted to maintain for the culture.

this opens up opportunities for zuckerberg to do more, to do what he wants, to integrate instagram. at the same time, it could threaten this unique brand that the company has built. emily: meantime, mark zuckerberg did say kevin and mike are extraordinary product leaders, i've learned a lot working with them for the past six years and i wish them all the best and look forward to seeing what they do next. now, the whatsapp cofounders have also left the company. brian atkin, one of the cofounders, tried to kick off this #deletefacebook movement. this does not look good. what are employees on the inside telling you? are they seeing this tension? sarah: the whatsapp situation with the founders of whatsapp being replaced by someone who had run internet.org at facebook, chris daniels, that was heralded as a scary thing that could potentially happen to instagram if facebook was not careful.

they could lose what they built in this independent brand. there is definitely a lot of concern about what happens now. i am told the most likely person to take over instagram from here is adam massari, the man who previously ran facebook's news feed. this is a lot a change for instagram in such a short period of time. they have lost their ceo, cto, coo, will there be any other c-level people in the future? that is really what facebook has to decide. how much do they want to integrate instagram, how quickly should they move to do it? emily: "bloomberg tech's" sarah frier. coming up next, an exclusive conversation with j.crew ceo jim brett. how the company is leveraging social media and why amazon is the perfect partner. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: last quarter, j.crew

finally posted same-store sales growth showing 15 consecutive quarters of negative comparable sales. in the last six weeks, the ceo, jim brett, relaunched the brand. he joined bloomberg's retail reporter emma chandra for an exclusive interview where he also talked about the company's recent decision to sell its mercantile brand on amazon. jim: i really don't believe that we compete with amazon on the main j.crew line. i see the products that are being sold on amazon as more value oriented. mercantile is really a new brand as well that's geared towards a younger customer, still with the preppy spirit, and a greater value. we felt like amazon was the perfect home to launch that new brand. emma: but you are not worried about cannibalization? jim: no. emma: are you concerned how they might use your sales data? jim: i think we have a strong partnership with amazon and i

believe we will maximize the sales for j.crew mercantile by growing j.crew mercantile. emma: do you envision further j.crew group brands on amazon? jim: not at the moment. emma: you also developed a number of other third-party relationships. recently, nordstrom. how big a part of the business do you see wholesale becoming for j.crew? jim: in the short-term, wholesale has been a huge global opportunity for us. we have our wonderful relationship in the u.s. with nordstrom, but we do not have relationships across the globe, so recently we launched all across europe in all of the major department stores. and in south america as well, and we are exploring opportunities in asia now. emma: two weeks ago you relaunched the j.crew brand. what sort of response are you seeing from customers? do you see increased traffic, higher sales?

jim: we are excited about the relaunch. we are definitely seeing an increase in new customers as well as reactivated customers, those people who have left the brand and are coming back. emma: are they spending as much as you would like? jim: they are. it's an exciting time. when i started i received so many e-mails from customers saying, i loved j.crew, but i have grown out of the brand, meaning physically, it does not fit me anymore. we are now receiving so many comments via social media of people who are so happy to be able to shop the brand again. so inclusivity isn't just about trying to be everything to everybody, it's about in whatever you're doing, including as many people as possible. in fact, we received a comment on instagram from a woman who said, thank you so much for showing the extended sizes.

please keep doing it. it helps me a lot. emma: you've talked a lot about engagement through social media. that's another thing we saw with the relaunch, a shift in marketing strategy. have you also relaunched the backend of the business as well? how much have supply chains changed? how much has inventory management changed at j.crew? jim: that's really the work we have been doing the past year. a lot of it has changed. we have organized the business to be more responsive to customer needs, essentially a more customer-centric back end process. emily: that was j.crew ceo jim brett in an exclusive interview with emma chandra. still ahead, big tech on the hill. talking digital privacy, and there was some disagreement with congress on regulation. we will hear what next. bloomberg tech is livestreaming on twitter.

be sure to follow tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: welcome back to "the best of bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang. well, looks like big tech and congress agree on one thing, that there is a need for stronger consumer digital privacy laws. take a listen to what at&t's senior vice president for public policy told senators on wednesday. >> at&t welcomes today's conversation. we believe it is important for congress to weigh in on the issue of privacy, and provide consumers and business clear national rules on how consumer information is shared, used, and protected. regardless of the company that collects it. we are not newcomers to this position. and now there appears to be growing agreement about the need for a new and comprehensive federal privacy law.

emily: cali was one of six representatives from big technology companies who testified before members of the senate congress committee. and while they agreed with senators on the need for new regulation, they differed on the details of how those new laws need to work. we spoke to the ceo of the internet association, a tech lobbying group that represents amazon, google and twitter. >> i do think it says a lot that, our members in particular, internet companies are pushing so hard for a national framework to give meaningful transparency and control to all americans over their data. you should know who has your information, how they are using it, and we are calling on congress to pass a law that will have a unified standard for the whole country that protects people, but also allows for the innovation that has made the internet sector so vibrant here in the united states. >> now, ben, richard blumenthal

and other lawmakers called out these tech companies for supporting high-level ideas, but when it actually comes to the bill, they will kill it with their teeth. so, do you think these technology companies are actually committed to this process? >> that's something that michael can speak to. i think details will be really, really interesting. there were a lot of moments where senators urged the various officials who were testifying to weigh in on a particular issue. what they often said was maybe, or a qualified no or qualified yes. this is the law and the language matters, and so it's a little bit hard to go into a hearing environment and toss off an idea and ask someone to weigh in on it or not. but i think when it comes time to drafting that language, there absolutely are going to be a lot of differences of opinion, within tech, and also outside of tech that i think will be worth watching. one of the big ones that i am watching is definitely going to be enforcement. i think some of michael's folks

will be talking heavily about how they want that to look. >> many of the internet association companies have been critical of gdpr. i just want us to take a quick listen to this exchange between a senator and google about gdpr. >> any idea on how many human hours it might have taken for google's workforce to bring the company into compliance with the gdpr? >> we do have some analysis of that that i would be happy to share with your staff, sir. i don't have those numbers available today. >> would you estimate it was in the thousands of hours? >> i would estimate that it was in the hundreds of years of human time. >> hundreds of years of human time. michael, what do you make of that? michael: gdpr is very complicated. it is still being implemented and folks are complying with it, particularly our member companies, but it is a very complicated law, and one that's maybe not best for innovation or startups.

there are many american newspapers, for example, that have decided they have had to shut down their website in europe. even outback steakhouse closed down their website in europe because they couldn't figure out how to comply with it. this is exactly why we need an american approach, we need a federal law in the united states that shows we can be leaders in technology and also leaders in privacy protections. we need to get it right. the details matter. we are behind this 110%. we are working on text and are willing to sit down with all lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to make sure this gets done. >> ben, chairman thune spoke about data security after the hearing. what did you learn? ben: well, he said, as we've known, that data security has been really difficult. it has been being negotiated, really for several years. it has come out over a couple of congresses. this is interesting because security is one of the issues that we have heard, you know, as we have gotten this sort of consensus from industry in the last days and weeks that security has to be a big part of this.

so i think that is another issue i will be watching. companies both in tech and outside of tech are going to be really talking pretty strenuously about what it means to have security, and especially who has the burden for that, and what it looks like if that goes wrong. >> michael, almost all of the privacy proposals that have been floated by the tech community suggests federal legislation should preempt the california state privacy law. so, what are the key flaws they see in this california data privacy law? michael: well, a couple things. one, people's expectation of privacy does not change as you cross from state to state. and it does not make sense if you are driving or flying across the country to kick into brand-new privacy laws as you go from border to border, or if you are facetiming with your grandmother in another state to have the two of you be under different privacy laws. i don't think that makes a lot of sense. as relates to the california law, they just got it wrong. this is something that pushed through in a short period of time. gdpr took years to draft and

california did this in days. also, there are things in the california law that we think make people less private and less safe. there are provisions that prohibit companies from anonymizing and de-identifying information. you cannot aggregate information that is not associated with people to meet the requirements of the law. i think that is flawed and we should do a better job. we should have a state-of-the-art, best in class, best in the world privacy law that protects all 50 states and not a piecemeal approach. >> ben, what is your take on what michael just said? consumer advocates have a very different perspective on the california privacy law and the role state's should play in this conversation. ben: absolutely. a lot of them would like to defend tougher state laws, you know. if states want to go strict, they say there is no reason to stop that. increasingly what i am hearing out of the consumers is they want the federal law to essentially be a baseline, but it's something that the states

can go over and above. i expect that to be another point of tension, not so much within industry, but between industry and the consumer point of view. i think it is important to note that this was an industry hearing. the chairman, john thune, said there would be an early october hearing with consumer advocates, including somebody who was a real estate developer who was kind of behind that privacy law that went into effect in california. emily: coming up, the eu has cracked down on google, facebook, and twitter. now, its latest target is amazon. we will hear from the eu competition commissioner about this latest probe into the u.s. e-commerce giant. and the woman who helped transform ge has written a new book to help guide other companies. we will hear from her later. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: world leaders in finance, business, and technology met in new york

wednesday for bloomberg's global business forum. our bloomberg editor in chief spoke to the eu competition commissioner and asked about the recent probe into u.s. tech giant amazon. >> it's a two-sided market. they have a dual functions. they both host the little guy so he can enter into e-commerce, they provide a number of services which allows also smaller businesses to be active in e-commerce opportunities, and that's great. they are also big guys themselves. bookstore, you know, everything -- groceries, movies, the works. and they of course get all of the data from the little guy and we want to understand how this data is being used, because this is all about competition. because when we say innovation, well, competition is the most important driver for innovation for you to stay ahead of your competitor.

>> do you think the future is a bit like telecoms companies or maybe what happened with microsoft many years ago, where you have a platform company which is then forced to let other people trade and have access to that platform? >> well, i think that is difficult to say, because as was just said in the video, this is a revolution. things change, and we have not even seen what is coming with quantum computing, blockchain. so, we probably have a platform economy that is much more diverse than what we have seen, which is why of course it's important for us to understand, well, what is the new big? how are companies that benefit from network's effects from huge amounts of data, from marginal cost approaching zero, how do they compete? and for us, of course that is the important thing.

>> do you think in some ways competition law has been left behind by big tech? you have these companies where you talked about network effects. is it very difficult to intervene until after they have created these near monopolies as some people would see them? >> i think our principles are fine, because they are about human nature, and we don't change, unfortunately. with all of our good sides and bad sides, i think we remain the same. but of course in the regulation we need to stay alert. because you can be big, in europe you can be successful, but you should not misuse your power. this is actually the story of the two google fines. very successful, very welcome in europe, but we find that they misused their power for competitors not to be as innovative as they ought to, or consumers not to be able to enjoy the benefits of choice, innovation, affordable prices. and that of course is where we

have to be very, very vigilant. >> isn't the google thing an example of what i just said? it took you seven years. in tech, seven years is a lifetime. >> yes, part of that is part of the game. because there is an asymmetry in every kind of law enforcement. because, another example, it takes five minutes to break into your home. it will take the police and the court system quite some time to find the guilty person, to get him or her convicted. >> hopefully not seven years. >> no, but you still have responsibility to due process. because we live in a union based under rule of law and we will never, ever compromise on your right to defend yourself. that being said, of course we can use algorithms, too. we can use all of the tools of the digital world in order for us to be more speedy. >> do you think tech firms have simply become too big in some cases?

>> no, i don't think as such, that you can make that conclusion. but i think they can be much more transparent. my colleagues have made i think very, very good proposals to ensure transparency in the relationship between the smaller business and the platform. and that i think is very much needed, the transparency, the willingness actually to deal with people, and to be much more sort of clear that they respect your privacy, your ownership of your own data, so that we as citizens feel that we can build trust with technology. emily: that was the eu competition commissioner with the bloomberg editor in chief at the annual bloomberg global business forum in new york. our reporter joined us thursday to tell more about her plans to make sure big tech firms play fair. >> she was careful to say that they are just looking at what amazon is doing.

amazon is a platform, amazon competes with and offers a place for smaller sellers to put their products out into the world. we have a little more detail in a story we put out today. for example, they are going to look at how products that amazon sells themselves, like amazon basics, basically how things compete online on amazon's platform. are they playing fair or not? emily: we don't know yet about what kind of penalty there might be if there is a penalty, but what are the chances amazon could be forced to change its business practices in the eu, especially given that google has been ordered to do so as well? >> as i said, because we are in the early stages of this, we are waiting to see whether there are big problems that the eu thinks it needs to jump on. if it does it will open other probes, and at that point the risks become higher. you can see there's something going wrong, something they need to investigate. at that point, you look at what precise market they are looking at. it's very hard to assess any kind of potential fine right now. with the google fine for example, they picked a small market.

but because it was european-wide, the fines really rolled up. we were looking at 6.7 billion euros. there was one fine this summer already of $5 billion. these things can roll and become very big but we're not quite on that track yet with amazon. emily: president trump has not been shy about his feelings about amazon ceo jeff bezos and tangentially amazon itself. what are the the chances that the scrutiny in europe could spread to the united states? >> that's really a question for the u.s. the market shares some of these companies have, google in particular in europe, are much higher. in some ways some of these issues are specific to europe, and the behavior that the eu will look at are european issues. but yes, i can definitely see that the u.s. has a lot of interest in what the eu is doing. america is the home of antitrust. it's interesting to see how these cases are going on slightly separate tracks, the eu

is jumping on these problems and the u.s. so far have not. doesn't mean it won't. but it's interesting to see what your neighbors are doing soemtimes. why are they going down that path? you can see the commissioner is very much trying to explain why she wants to take these cases. that's a message that some people might pick up on. emily: our reporter for bloomberg news. coming up, beth comstock talks about being ge's first female vice chair and her new book. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: beth comstock helped navigate ge through many successful transformations as well as some ups and downs. as ge's first female vice chair, she pushed the company to adapt to tech trends, and her tenure saw the creation of ge and nbc's green initiative eco-imagination, along with msnbc, hulu, and nbc digital. she led ge to its new slogan, imagination at work.

now she wants to help others successfully navigate change. in her new book, "imagine forward," she shares her own transformation story as well as ge's to guide entrepreneurs and executives through creative risk-taking. beth: we need to think ahead. we need creative problem solvers. i mean, look at what is happening here in silicon valley. you could argue maybe we need a few more people who could think about the unintended consequences of some of our technology. emily: within established organizations it can be so hard to harness the power of change. how can big companies, as big as ge, be nimble in this age of technology? beth: i found most companies want to be nimble but then taking the action to do so is another thing. you must need to create two tracks. you need your core established, optimized, and you need the people who are creating the future. and there are different kinds of people with different measurements, different funding requirements.

it takes a longer amount of time. emily: how did the people who are creating the future convince the people in the first track to do something differently? beth: well, sometimes that's why you need separate tracks often. they need to come together for certain key things clearly, and you need to set joint goals, allign them around common metrics, but i think you also need these rebel pirates, these people that come in, even in big companies, and try to disrupt what's happening. that creates a lot of tension in the early stages. emily: now, look, it's not apples to apples, but do you think it's possible for the ge's of the world to compete with the amazons and apples, facebook, and googles of today, or is it too late? beth: i think it's something we ought to think about. g1, 125-year-old company. it doesn't get to be so old without knowing a thing or two about change. i think we can look at sustainability in these companies, but yes, the stakes are always higher as you get new companies disrupting. i wonder, as investors, we watch amazon, they are getting bigger and more complex, the stakes are higher, the ability to take risks.

so, maybe the question, can these guys continue to compete and be as fast and nimble as we have known them early? emily: that is actually my exact next question. now that amazon and apple and facebook and google are so big, it's hard to imagine them not being so dominant, but do you see that in the future? could they fall from the throne? beth: i think you have to assume that. that is an eventuality. hopefully they are thinking about it. hopefully at amazon today, and netflix, pick your company, there are people sitting there going, are we still willing to take the same kind of risks? can we? they are a public traded company with different expectations. i do think especially founder-like companies tend to get a bit more acceptance. i also think, back to your other question, look at these traditional companies who have done reinvention. what big companies do well is culture. you look at some of the challenges. take tesla down the way, culture is a challenge. i think these companies can learn a lot from some of the established companies that that have had to figure out adaptation, get their culture to

move. so i think the scale of companies, these newer tech companies can learn a lot from some of the incumbents. emily: which of these new big tech companies do you think is the most disruptable? beth: i think they are all disruptable. i think the ones that think they are not disruptive all are the ones to start worrying about. they all have a head start. i was in the digital media world when we saw netflix just as a litte, tiny whisper. at nbc, we helped seed hulu. we knew that was coming. we did not know how it was going to get there. now you look at it 10, 12 years later. the same forces are going to happen to netflix. so, i really feel like everybody needs to keep imagining forward, new scenarios and new alternatives. emily: your book also gets personal and it's so rare to hear personal lessons from someone who has had the journey that you have. you were ge's first female vice chair. why did you leave? beth: i left because there was a management change.

john schneider came in, new leader wants a new team. i think that's what happens often. so, it was a bit earlier than i expected to leave, but yeah, new guy, new team. emily: what are the challenges we need to know more about in terms of getting more women into the top, top positions? like where you were. i mean, there are so few people who make it to the level of beth comstock. so many who should. what don't they know? beth: i think partly we need to embrace more difference. we hire people like us. it's a human trait we have to overcome. you know it from the work you have done. people have all kinds of excuses why they don't want to hire people who are different. i think women for a number of reasons, most companies have a good track record of hiring women at the undergraduate level, and then lose women as they progress in their careers. we need to address that issue. it's complex. we need to have programs that allow women different ways to

come back in and out of the workforce. and those are happening but it is too slow. at the end of the day we just need to make way for more women. we need to have a pipeline, and that takes time. you need to take your time out there finding the future women leaders of your company. emily: you have a killer line in my book where you challenge a male venture capitalist who had said, we are looking hard for women but we are not prepared to lower our standards. you said, who created the standards? you can't find any women that qualify? that's absurd. what are the real reasons behind the scenes that more women and minorities are not getting hired? because, you know, we are half the population. beth: one, people don't want to take a risk on something different. it's not proven. there's this belief that if they don't have the same path as us, they clearly can't be quite as capable at this job. you document that well. i love the whole discussion of meritocracy. even the false promise of meritocracy, who is setting the merits?

and so, i'd like to believe people are well-meaning and that, but they are not challenging their thinking to say, is this really true? am i doing enough to challenge that belief? and so, i think we just let it pass. people are not taking enough risk to hire people who are different, disruptive, and potentially going to build a brighter new future. it's the risk i think, at the end of the day. emily: we don't use the word "visionary" and "genius" to describe women, yet we use that word to describe dozens and dozens and dozens of men. how fast do you see change happening? people always ask me how optimistic are you? i couldn't be doing this if i wasn't optimistic, but you have been there in the trenches behind the scenes. how fast are we really going to see the numbers shift? beth: well, i'm optimistic. there are a lot of people saying we have to make a change. we have to. i wish it were faster. frankly, having worked a whole

career now, for 24-plus years, i wish there would have been more change. it is disappointing and frustrating. i see it for my daughters and young women coming up. some of this should have changed by now. you mean the salary issues are still what they are? you still are having to work much harder, prove things in a much harder way? how is that possible? emily: what's next for you? beth: i'm off doing my book tour, so that is a big thing. i will reenter work in a very different way. who knows? it will be a very different path. emily: do you think ge can get back to greatness? beth: i think ge is great. i worked there for over 25-plus years, it's a great company that makes stuff the world needs. it's in a bad place with the stock market right now. it's got some complex issues that they have to work through. i think people underestimated the complexity of ge internally and externally, and it's not an easy fix. emily: that was beth comstock. ge's former vice chair and author. that does it for this edition of "the best of bloomberg technology." we will bring you all the latest in tech throughout the week. tune in every day 5:00 p.m. in new york, 2:00 p.m. in san francisco.

and we are livestreaming on twitter. and be sure to follow tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> welcome the daybreak australia. we're counting down to asia's major market open. haidi: here are the top stories. three leading international institutions issue an emergency call on trade. the canadian dollar it's a form of high as nafta