xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing. ♪ emily: while the me too movement has rocked the worlds of entertainment, media and politics, it got a head start in the tech industry. in early 2017, a young engineer named susan fowler published a scathing memo about sexual harassment at uber that kicked off a deluge reports about men behaving badly across silicon valley. the revelations lit a fire in the hearts of women in tech who had had enough.

in 2018, a group of female venture capitalists banded together to found all raise with the goal to change the face of those investing in tech startups and the people who build them. it is the industry that's changing the world faster than any other, yet it is also one of the most dominated by men. joining me today on "bloomberg ," aileen lee, founder of cowboy ventures, kirsten green founding partner of forerunner ventures, and maha ibrahim, general partner at ataan ventures, all partners all raise. ♪ emily: in april of 2018, you all were on the cover of forbes magazine. this is space normally reserved for men, normally reserved for male billionaires, and this is the first time, as i understand it, that a group of women was on the cover. when you saw this, how did it make you feel? >> we were all in awe. this was the culmination of

months of work, and frankly, at this point, in decades in the background conversations, and wondering whether or not our industry was finally going to be as diverse as we all wanted it to be. so i would say that the first reaction we all felt was this level of awe that it was coming to the forefront. >> well said. emily: now aileen, it was about a year before that you wrote an email to 20-some female vc's and you had had enough. what was the spark that lit the fire that got you to do that? aileen: we've all been in this industry for a decent amount of time. when you enter venture capital, you enter tech, after being fortunate to go to good high schools and selective colleges, there are as many women as men in your undergraduate class and you wind up in tech. you look around the table and there's really no women, no people of color. it is this bizarre other universe. i had been thinking about it. you know i know enough of these , women. we are friends with each other. we all, behind closed doors or over cocktails and after board

meetings, compare notes about these kinds of issues. there is enough of us now. we all feel the same way. we are starting to collaborate with each other more. we should get together. i wrote this draft and kept it in my draft folder for a couple weeks or a couple of months. what if everyone is like, i don't want to do it. i don't know. one day i decided to hit send. emily: you get this email. what did you think? kirsten: i think it was the right time with the right message. it felt like, here is an opportunity to do something productive, right? i think everybody has a combination of outrage over what was happening, feeling exhausted of being frustrated with the situation, and the original impetus was let's do something productive with it. emily: i think one thing people forget is you are all competitors. you compete for deals. why collaborate with the competition? aileen: that is what makes all raise so special. by the way, the competition is nothing new in the venture

industry. our male colleagues have been doing to as long as i have been in venture. kirsten: we have. we are competitive, but we also have to be collaborative. that is something about the industry. very seldom do you see a company that goes from their round of funding to their exit opportunity with one firm. if not never. emily: how did you decide to make all raise a thing? there is the careers program, there are female founders office hours. you now have a conference. maha: this was not something that happened overnight. -- we all knew each other fairly well. it is not like we were coming together -- nice to meet you. that is what made it so special. it was so authentic, so natural, and we all had this call to action by the virtue of what had been happening in our industry over the 2017 period that it was a point in time thing that when aileen pressed send, there was no saying no. emily: do you know of any woman who has gotten an opportunity or has been hired, a company that

has gotten funding because all raise exists? aileen: many. but also, we get regular emails from women who have been doing office hours, never raised money before, or outside the technical ecosystem and they are not in the bay area, didn't go to stanford or harvard, don't know anyone growing up in tech. and they feel like an outsider. they say i feel like for the first time like people are looking out for me. literally we have gotten emails from women who said this changed my life. i feel like i can do this now. emily: that said, there is is activism, conversation, organizations like all raise, but when you look at the numbers, 30 new women partners were added since march 2018, but still only 10% of vc's in the united states are women. 73% of firms still don't have a female partner. >> i know. emily: is that progress? >> it's opportunity. >> yeah. >> that is what we are doing. that's what we're working towards. it has been one year we have mobilized forces against that. i think 30 new female partners that have a community behind

them to help them be better and more successful in their new roles. aileen: so in our industry, things move slowly. my firm is, and you know this, because you have interviewed all of us, we are a case study in what having female investors can mean for the number of females that actually receive capital. emily: right, canaan partners has three female partners, and you have been there for years. maha: i have been there 19 years. we have 40% of our investment professionals are female. forerunner is larger than that percentage. [laughter] maha: and i would make a bet that my firm and forerunner and cowboy probably have a higher percentage of females being invested in than anybody in the industry because we have females at the investing table. so what i would wait to see is how that number changes over the next five to 10 years, unfortunately, not over the next one to two. emily: there are those who think all raise isn't necessarily

going to be as successful as you think. another investor is skeptical of the work you're doing, saying, "it willte, predictably fail. adding a single white woman partner is not going to change the vc firm." maha: she is absolutely right. that is why all raise exists. we are a coalition of women who are supporting women. it is incredibly important that we have not one woman at the investing table, but two, three, four, and that not only are they in the door, but they stay in the door, and stay successful. aileen: it is also fair, i think, to be skeptical because there are examples of firms that are either marketing that they have women or hiring investment professionals and not supporting them, or saying i hired a woman, like check, done. high five, let's do what we were doing before. and that is not good. and it does not work. and we are on to that. emily: you all hear a lot of things and a lot of things that happen behind the scenes. do you think that bad behavior has been rooted out in silicon

valley? is it still happening? kirsten: i mean, bad behavior happens in life. it is like people. you know ?there are good people, ?- you know there are good people, better people. i mean, i think, i don't know it will get rooted out in all kinds of places, but i think there is a light shone on it and there is a conversation acceptable to have about it, and questions that are fair to ask or even expected to ask. emily: i get asked a lot, can these guys have a second act? we hear, some of these are writing books, raising money. they are the ceo of a startup. is that ok? is there room for redemption? kirsten: i mean, i think we have to stay hopeful that people can change and that people can evolve. emily: so that is a yes. kirsten: i want people to be the best versions of themselves, and just because they found themselves at a time in their life where they have not lived up to that, i hope that does not mean they have to walk around for the rest of their lives not being the best version of themselves. aileen: i am really focused on

giving people first chances. maha: that's a good answer. aileen: there are a lot of people who have not been given first chances, and that is what we are trying to work on. ♪ maha: growing up in tech and in venture capital, when you are the only woman around the table is not easy, and you see and experience a lot of things that by legal definitions are not legal. ♪

emily: let's talk about how you all got your first chance. aileen, i want to start with you. aileen: i am a first-generation daughter of immigrants from china. i was fortunate that my grandparents and parents sacrificed a lot and emphasized education for my sister and myself, so we both got into selective colleges. i eventually wound up, i did banking and worked at gap. so i also am a person that -- like kleiner perkins took a , chance on me. they had hired all men in the past, generally people who went to stanford and worked in tech. and i was working at gap.

i have loved my job ever since. emily: you joined kleiner perkins as an associate partner. you worked closely with john doerr. it is interesting because kleiner is one of the more storied venture capital firms, but was also sued for gender discrimination by ellen pao. what was your experience at kleiner like? aileen: growing up in tech and venture capital when you are the only woman around the table almost all the time is not easy. and you see and experience a lot of things that by legal definitions are not legal. and people choose to handle it in different ways. emily: ellen lost her case in court, but do you think she should have won? aileen: i was surprised on one of them that she did not win. that is all i will say. emily: what made you decide to leave kleiner? i know you suggested investing in uber, and they were not interested at the time. there were moments where you had ideas, and they did not listen. aileen: some good friends of my

husband and mine are entrepreneurs. they are always thinking about startups. we were having dinner. well and knewirm me really well and said, when will you leave to start your own firm? it had not crossed my mind i could do that. it had not crossed my mind that people would think they would still be my friends if i left kleiner perkins. >> wow. >> oh wow. >> good thing you debunked that. aileen: i realized i had gotten a little too attached to it. i had been there for 12 years. and then this whole new seed ecosystem was developing, which was more collaborative, a different pace and velocity of investing, and also i would have a chance to really find my conviction and my gut. when you are at a big firm, even

though you are a senior partner, there are a lot of big egos in the room, generally at all venture firms, and you are gaming the system when you bring companies forward based on how you think they are going to be received. it felt like coming back to the basics, really small, low overhead, just meeting with companies, working with founders, and not having a lot of infrastructure is what i wanted to do next. emily: you left and started your own seed fund. that was a big deal when you did that. aileen: i guess at the time i did not realize it was. maha: we had a lot of conversations about starting a firm around that time. emily: this is the perfect segue, because you, kirsten, came from outside silicon valley. kirsten: when i got an email from aileen lee saying i hear your name, you are doing this and that, we should get together, it was like i got an email from a celebrity. i was so excited. [laughter] kirsten: it was validation to me about how important it was to have community in this business. emily: you started as an analyst. you are going to malls, trying to figure out foot traffic and what was happening in e-commerce. kirsten: i was drawn to

investing because i was interested in learning, and i was comfortable with math and analytics. that seemed like a good combination. finding unique investment ideas that other people were not onto already is what hooked me in the business. emily: ironically, a company you both invested in, dollar shave club, a razor company that sold for $1 billion. kirsten: yes. aileen: high five. emily: maha, you are unique in that you have had check writing privileges from day one, correct? maha: that is correct. emily: you came in, and you did not face a lot of these things in your own firm. maha: i didn't. and i didn't know at the time, or for years, that it was unusual. i had always been, through high school, through college, my phd program, through working at a telecommunications startup, always been in the minority. so it was not anything that i felt was strange going into a

venture firm and being the only female, right? i was at a 1000-person startup with four female vps, of which i was one. that was just what i knew. i was acclimatized to it. emily: you have always looked at consumer and enterprise. maha: that is correct. so i started my career, and probably for the first eight or nine years only invested in infrastructure and data center and storage type deals. it was not until 10 years ago i did my first consumer investment, and that was not planned. it was a company that ended up being a consumer company over time. i would say i kind of waded into it inorganically. emily: you are all sort of unicorns in venture capital because of what you have accomplished, and aileen

actually coined that term. i want to take a moment to recognize that because that term came from you. aileen: the analysis that underpinned it i am equally if not more proud of, because our industry historically has been very -- even though we manage so much money and create so much economic opportunity, there has been so little data and analysis historically of private companies, that i was interested in trying to do a truly accurate quantitative analysis of what these companies have in common and the trends. and some of the trends i thought were hopefully helpful for the entrepreneurial ecosystem. ♪ maha: the tariffs that our government has put in place are ruinous for our economy. ♪

emily: hundreds of billions of dollars have been wiped off the market caps of big tech companies in the last several months, and there is fear about a broader economic downturn and whether that will impact tech. is that impacting your strategies? aileen: it absolutely will. there are positives and negatives to what has been

happening. one, on the negative side, the tariffs our government has put in place are in the long-term, and maybe this is my economist background speaking a little bit more, they are ruinous for our economy. they are ruinous for the global economy, and even when i look at our micro little world in silicon valley, when we think about prices going up, both for direct goods and the supplied goods, the components effectively, these are unnecessary price changes that the only beneficiary of that is, frankly, nobody who needs to have that money. i do believe the tariffs put in place are anti-capitalism, and will in the long-term negatively

affect gdp around the world. emily: i wonder if some of these companies have also shot themselves in the foot. if you look at a company like facebook, is the damage self-inflicted? kirsten: i think the consumer response or sentiment around facebook, i guess one opportunity is it creates windows for new startups. because, you know, if there is a startup that will promise certain things around privacy or your data and you can share, and i think we have learned a lot about social media in the past five or 10 years -- this is part of the cycle of creation, destruction, or evolution in technology. you learn from the predecessors and then people come up with new products. emily: mark zuckerberg and sheryl sandberg have been scrutinized for their leadership. where do you think they went wrong? maha: i mean, it is pursuing dollars at any cost at the end of the day, right? they were willing to -- whether it is them or people under them, i have no idea. that is for you to figure out as journalists, but i think they

were willing to sacrifice a lot of their principles for the almighty dollar and share price. emily: sheryl sandberg, specifically, has been heavily criticized for whatever shortcomings she may have had. do you think that criticism has been fair, or do think that criticism has been disproportionate? aileen: i think in many sectors of society we are witnessing how women are treated and viewed in the public media than men are treated. emily: so you think she is getting criticized more because she is a woman? aileen: obviously, it is not binary. right? she is the chief business officer of the company, and there are a lot of business issues or business decisions and policy decisions that fall under her purview. but, i think if you look at politics in particular right now and how females in office are being viewed by the media or by

the public versus men, there is clearly a double standard. and i think the same is true in business. emily: where are the double standards? if elon musk can talk to the new times" to "the new york and cry in an interview -- >> or smoke during an interview -- [laughter] emily: can women do that? >> no. >> no. >> what do you think? emily: that's why i'm asking you. >> #fundingsecured. [laughter] kirsten: it is not ok but we are on a continuum of integrating women into different roles and different businesses, and while we are on that path to that opportunity that we are held to a higher standard. emily: i wonder if we are doing this to our detriment of society, these companies. like marissa mayer, who was so picked apart. where is she now? aileen: there has to be an acknowledgment that we are not all uniform. that one woman does not equal the next does not equal the next. >> totally, right?

maha: we are all very different. our investment styles and personalities are different. that doesn't mean we can't come together and produce something that is excellent and where we can succeed. in fact, that means we can come together and do great things. aileen: the other thing that i think has changed in the past year that i am excited about, we are seeing more men stand up and call these things out. i think it is exciting to see more men willing to stand up and say what they think about the issues. emily: there is talk about amazon needing regulation. are you concerned about regulation for tech? could that hurt? kirsten: when i think about it from a business perspective and a consumer perspective, i don't want to live in a world where there are five choices for everything. it is not enough. it is not going to be as interesting. i do not think it will ultimately be good for us. if you go back to why the regulations exist, why do the antitrust laws exist, it is to protect the consumer, right? i think it is your definition of what has been protecting the consumer has been about price and access, so that is where we

are running into interference around how those companies, if they interfere with that, but i think maybe that needs to be re-explored, about what are the standards that govern the way we think about when a company is too big. emily: are you concerned because of the macroeconomic slowdown that funding could dry up? maha: i am concerned about that. i believe that is why a lot of companies raised the capital they did in 2018. i think fear as opposed to greed was driving a lot of the large capital raises. people were feeling like this party has to end at some point in time. the problem is or the benefit is i don't really see the party ending. aileen: yeah. maha: there is still a huge amount of cash in the system looking for returns. they are not getting it on the stock market. they are not getting it in emerging markets. >> it is fund flows. aileen: -- maha: it is a macro

fund flows issue. it will go towards high beta, high innovation, high potential return, and that is venture. emily: you are all on a lot of lists these days, the midas vc lists.women list, how do you use that power? kirsten: that is a great question. one thing is we made all raise happen. we decided to take some of that notoriety and influence and really direct it towards goals we feel like are worthwhile. 2019 was the year where i realized that we collectively have reached o.g. status in this industry. [laughter] aileen: i'm not sure how to feel about that. >> it is scary. it is sad. >> let's own it. to that extent, i am trying to own it, and with

that owning or power comes the responsibility, as far as i am concerned, to make sure that we are bettering this industry, that we are making sure we have a class of junior people in this industry that are doing the right things with our founders and our companies, etc. >> there is still so much opportunity regardless the funding or economic environment. both -- and also, cowboy ventures is a start up. we are very small and early, so we have a lot to prove. i still have a lot to prove as a venture investor and a founder of a firm that i hope will last beyond me. yeah, and the opportunity we have, all of us, and many who are not here right now who are involved with all raise, that family and that community will grow much larger in 2019. it comes from such a good place. i am sure we will make mistakes. and we have not done everything perfectly, but it really comes from a place of checking any kind of personal agenda or self-help at the door and truly trying to create a better, more-inclusive tech environment where all kinds of people from

different backgrounds have an opportunity to thrive, and that is super important to all of us. emily: all right. aileen lee, kirsten green, maha ibrahim, thank you so much for joining us. so glad we got to do this. ♪ here, it all starts with a simple...

hello! hi! how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today.

♪ emily: she is one of the most prominent ceo's and women in tech history. meg whitman ran ebay, then ran a theed campaign as republican governor of california. whitman lost that race but didn't stop there. she runs a massive turnaround effort that and the splitting hewlett-packard in two. she started her latest outside of silicon valley. she's team to work -- she upamed up -- she's teamed

with dreamworks founder jeffrey katzenberg are to start quibi, which they believe will revolutionize entertainment. joining me today on "studio 1.0", quibi ceo and also the former hp ceo and chairman, meg whitman. thank you so much for joining us. it is really an honor to be here with you. so thank you so much. meg: you are welcome. emily: you have had a few life changes in the last year. i know. -- meg: i know. i stepped down from hp in march and thought i would take some break. emily: did you take a break? meg: not really, which might be my nature. my long-term friend jeffrey katzenberg came to see me after i was stepping down from hp, and he shared this idea for what became quibi. i spent 3.5 hours at dinner and then i said this is a good idea. i might have one more start up in may. emily: you met at disney. you were on the board of dreamworks. did you want to leave silicon valley?

were you ready for a change? meg: i wasn't thinking that i was necessarily going to leave silicon valley. i loved the bay area. it has been my home the last several years. but now i live here. when you do a startup, you have to live with the company is. ultimately, i decided that we have to be together. emily: you were employee number one. quibi makes quick bites. this is a short form video platform betting on six to 10 minute episodes. why do you think that is the future? meg: we know the revolution that has been started by mobile. today, our target audience of 25 to 35-year-olds is spending five hours a day on mobile. this is every morning you leave with this tv in your pocket and get all of this in between moments. waiting for me to meet you here, waiting for a friend for lunch, waiting at a doctor's office.

you have 10 minutes and want to see something great. you watched some of the great youtube and snapchat and facebook, social networking, maybe playing casual games. we want to steal a little bit of that in between time by making hollywood quality content in short form. emily: it is interesting you mentioned facebook, youtube, because it doesn't seem the audience has flooded there in droves. what makes you think this is the right idea? youtube does mostly user generated content. this is not. this is produced hollywood quality content. it is the greatest show runners, directors, writers we can put together. it is a really unique content strategy that we think will fit that on the go lifestyle perfectly. you can't afford to make this quality content if advertising is your main form of monetization. this will be advertising plus

subscription which allows us to , spend the $125,000 a minute for what we call our lighthouse stories. emily: what makes you think people are going to pay for another subscription service? netflix just raised their prices. meg: this is a very different use case from netflix. netflix is fantastic for, you get home from work or you are on a weekend, you immerse yourself in a show. we are going after a completely different use case, during the day. do you remember when hbo launched, their tagline was we are not tv. hbo. they spent a lot of money. "band of brothers" was $30 million an episode. they were able to do content like "sopranos" and others that would not have been allowed on network tv. today there are many subscribers. we think this can live right along side whatever you choose to subscribe to. emily: you've raised $1 billion

from some of the major studios. , investors in china. do you have enough to compete with the likes of netflix? meg: we are not competing with netflix per se. emily: you are competing for mind share and attention. meg: only about 10% of hulu, netflix is actually watched on mobile. they are primarily a living room experience. so this is a entirely different use case. i would say we are competing more with social network and casual gaming than netflix. emily: you have attracted big names. steven spielberg. meg: this is where my partner jeffrey katzenberg is successful to the company. he has been in hollywood 40 years. he's very well known, highly respected, and has been able to curate the show runners, stars to make content for us. the first content i would call stories that are long but are told in chapters.

i will give you an analogy in another medium, "the da vinci code." "the da vinci code" is 464 pages and 105 chapters, so each chapter is five pages long. if you have 10 minutes, you read two chapters. nothing like that da vinci code is lesser except the length of the chapter. then we have content that we think is really quite unique to quimby. if you saw it on some other platform you might think it is strange that it is here. one of our favorites is justin timberlake is going to host a show with singers. the question is who is the song and who is the singer that inspired you. it is really a show about inspiration. in 6.5 minutes, a little gem you might watch while you are on the go. emily: is there a target audience? is it tv for millennials or younger than millennials? meg: it is 25 to 35 is our target target because startups are all about focus. how about we do small things really well instead of trying to

solve world hunger? emily: what about distribution? meg: yeah, so first of all it is an app. we may well do a partnership with the streaming music services. we will also have the talent to help market this. and then brand advertising and explain to people what this is. it is a completely new behavior in a new form. emily: in the last year, the streaming landscape has changed dramatically. disney pulled their content from netflix. disney long to get sewn streaming service -- disney launching its own streaming service warner, comcast , launching streaming services. how do you keep up the majority meg: i have never seen one be as disruptive. there is lots of change. most of the competition today is moving towards longform ott streaming services. they are all chasing netflix honestly. we are doing, everyone is is zigging, we are zagging. emily: disney and other -- i've heard completely binary

views on netflix. if disney and other companies are pulling content, what does netflix have? meg: first of all, we have tremendous respect for netflix. i mean, let's just pause for a moment and contemplate what they have built. it is extraordinary. they have revolutionized an industry and have incredible content. the best talent in hollywood is making content for them. so i think this will be a battle, but there will be room for one or two players, maybe even three. you know, i think it is very much possible that netflix continues to do well. emily: you think there will be consolidation. but netflix is -- meg: netflix will be one of the winners. i can't see a scenario where netflix is not one of the winners. emily: do you think as many streaming services as exist now will exist in the future? meg: probably not. i mean typically, watch, when you watch a new industry being born, think about the car industry. at one point there were

something like 100 car companies and now there is effectively three u.s. car companies. i suspect there will be a lot of entrants, then there will be consolidation. there will be winners and losers but certainly netflix and disney i am sure will be a winner. ♪ meg: i think we need to be prepared for the global economic slowdown. ♪

emily: you are now an outsider looking in on silicon valley. it has been a volatile year, for tech, hundreds of billions of dollars wiped off from facebook, alphabet, apple, amazon. jim buss around facebook iphone , and sale slowdown, government scrutiny of tech. why do you think the cloud has -- the clouds have darkened over suddenly silicon valley? meg: let me tell you what is still remarkable about silicon valley, especially being removed, you almost appreciate some things more. it is the most entrepreneurial place in the world. it is just a hub, a center of ideas and new thoughts. it is honestly i think the most creative place in the world. that is still true.

i don't think that changes. some of this is just growing pains and growing up. you know, i have confidence these companies will sort out some of their challenges. there will be bumps in the road. emily: facebook has run into a pretty big bump in the road. lots of controversy, scandals, loss of user trust. where do you think they went wrong? meg: it is easy to look at them and say where did they go wrong? listen, when you are growing at that rate, you have become so ubiquitous. you do the best job you can at the time, and sometimes you make mistakes. you don't see things as clearly as you might have. the question is, you will make mistakes. now the question is, now how do you fix? the proof will be in the pudding, but there is the commitment to fix those mistakes that they have acknowledged making. emily: you navigated a historic split at hp. do you think some of these companies, big tech companies are too big for their own good? meg: i don't know. i felt certainly that hp had to

be broken into smaller, more nimble pieces. if there was a time for a big i.t. supermarket where tech spending was rocketing, then there comes a time where an industry shifts and you become too big to be nimble enough to fight off the competitors that are now disrupting you. that is what we saw at hp. i think when industries get mature or there is a different lifecycle you are faced with, sometimes smaller is better. not always is bigger better. so we will see. i don't think the same thing is driving this. people are asking if it is too big because there is too much power consolidated in these companies. that is different than what we faced at hp. emily: do you think regulation is a threat to these companies? meg: i think the government is very interested in these companies. and you know, having been a politician, what i will tell you is politicians see something happen, and their instinct is what should we be doing to regulate that industry or

protect consumers. and that instinct isn't necessarily wrong. they have to know what they are doing, and they have to be thoughtful about it, but there could be a role for some regulation. emily: the sort of big tech companies, where do you see the biggest risk? meg: i will tell you tech is moving at lightning speed. i have never seen anything like this. i think in my early days in my career, you have sort of, you had trends coming and you would have a year or two or three to adapt. now you have a month or two or three to adapt. the biggest challenge is time of innovation has shrunk. you see these new companies come out of nowhere to disrupt the very thing you thought was safe. emily: are facebook and amazon disruptive? meg: i think they are. jeff bezos has said someday amazon will be disrupted. you read about sears today. sears 100 years ago was the amazon of that time. they have been disrupted. business is darwinian. there is no question. emily: when you were running

ebay, you made a pledge to win china. well, won china and no u.s. tech company did. meg: you are right. emily: you ever -- you said whoever wins china wins the world. is china as important today as it was back then? meg: i think china is very important. our joint venture partner in china is likely to be alibaba. i am glad to be on the same side of them this time. [laughter] emily: it is a huge film market , but it's also been difficult for the u.s. entertainment industry to crack. meg: china is a unique market, and it is unwise to think about going to china alone. i lived in china for four months when i was trying to fix ebay in china, and it is just completely different. having a strong partner who understands that market is really important. emily: what will alibaba provide? meg: they have tremendous scale

in china. it is remarkable how much they have the grown in the last 20 years and have a platform called yuku. they have alibaba pictures, music, they have got a lot of entertainment properties that hopefully we can leverage, and they have remarkable technology. emily: what is your take on the u.s.-china trade tensions? meg: yeah, yeah. emily: as we sit here in the middle of a trade war? meg: maybe you know this, i tend to be a free trader. i think global trade, while there is dislocation, it is actually the right thing to do. you want it to be a level playing field. there are things we can do better with china, but honestly the free movement of goods and

ideas and trade has always been the right thing for the united states. emily: what is at stake? meg: well, listen, i think we have to be very thoughtful. they are the second largest economy in the world. there is lots of things we should be doing together. is it good for every single person in every single community, no. but overall, whether it is immunotherapy, robotics, ai, let's make sure we are the best at the industries of the future. that is always what has made america great. emily: are you concerned about a sharp chinese economic slowdown? meg: the economies are now completely interconnected. what happens in the u.s. influences china, what happens in china influences europe. to the extent that there are things that disrupt this connectivity, it is possible you see a slowdown. emily: what about a broader economic slowdown? meg: if you look at the trends, we are due for some correction, and you have seen that a little bit this year. we need to be prepared for a global economic slowdown. emily: you have lived through a couple of bubbles and not all bubbles look the same, but are we in one? meg: no.

it doesn't feel the same as it did in 2001, 2002. it doesn't feel at all like 2008, which was a catastrophic correction. but the economy overall feels weaker to me. sometimes these things are self correcting, and sometimes these things are much more severe. ♪ meg: the hardest thing i ever did was run for public office. ♪

emily: you famously ran for governor of california as a republican. meg: i did. emily: you endorsed hillary clinton in the last election, and not much love for president trump from you. [laughter] emily: what is your reaction as you have watched the trump administration unfold? meg: well as you pointed out, a was a lifelong republican, but supporter of hillary clinton, not for donald trump. the reason i thought was

experience actually really did matter. you might remember i ran for governor. one of the things i said we need to run the government like a business. that was a little naive. experience, and i think hillary was the most qualified person. you are starting to see the challenges associated with the country's leadership. emily: is the dysfunction enough for you to change party loyalty? meg: i actually am now registered as declined to state in california. i am not a registered republican anymore. i am not a registered democrat. i want someone to lead us out of this, and you know, create economic opportunity for f -- for everybody to live up to the american dream. emily: you said you were among the women most likely to become president of the united states. i know you said you would never run again. has that changed? meg: no. i will never run again. you heard it here. [laughter] emily: that seemed pretty

definitive. what do you want to see in 2020? are there any candidates you are excited about? meg: it is too early to say. i am hoping -- when america has been at our most challenged times, someone arrives hopefully to lead the country out. you can go back -- remember i just walked the ken burns' "the civil war" again. that was pretty bad. comes abraham lincoln and navigates the country. i am hoping someone will emerge who can navigate the country through what i think is a difficult time. emily: do you think there is a real risk of populism dividing our country? meg: you do see big divides. i mean, the biggest divide i have seen probably in my lifetime. and we are at our best when they -- when we come together to solve problems. we are at our best when there is an art of compromise. that seems to have largely broken down right now and i don't think it is a good thing. emily: should another republican challenge donald trump in the primary? meg: it is hard to challenge a sitting president.

if you look at the history, that is a really difficult thing to do. we will see what unfolds. emily: any democrats catching your eye? meg: i think there is going to be, what, you can tell me, 24 people at least. i am sure there will be one of those 24 i think is interesting and may be able to lead the country. emily: you were one of the most prominent and earliest female executives in history. so first of all, thank you. thank you for paving the way. what has it been like to watch the #metoo movement unfold? you were here first. meg: i was. i was. i think it has been -- let me give you a couple of analogies. surprising how widespread it has been. it has been i think uplifting for many women, and i think it is going to fundamentally change how business is done, entertainment is done, law is done. it will change everything. you can argue it was overdue. we are in a better place as a country and society because of this. there is no question.

emily: has it caused you to reflect on moments of your career where maybe you were made to feel inadequate or small? meg: yeah. i think certainly, when you are in the minority -- i was at harvard business, 20% women at least in my class. i was in just the fourth class of women at princeton. my first class at procter & gamble was four women out of 100. when you are in the minority, it is able to feel like you are not part of mainstream. so you know, actually i think calling this out and having people recognize the impact they have on others is actually a really good thing. emily: did you feel like you could not be yourself at times? or lead the way you wanted to lead? meg: it is funny, yes. i graduated from harvard and i have always gone by meg. i show up to proctor and gamble at my very first job, and i thought, i have got to be serious. i have got to be taken seriously. i will go by margaret. it just sounded better at the time.

that lasted for two weeks. [laughter] meg: i said, it's ridiculous. i have been meg for 22 years. i have got to be meg. it was an early lesson for me because i didn't know any other way to succeed other than be myself and work as hard as i could and figure out what and add value and be customer obsessed. i never really lost my sense of self they be because of that really early experience. sometimes better lucky than smart. i didn't know any other way to be. emily: you didn't talk about this over the course of your career. women didn't want to talk about being women. why not? meg: as i have gotten older, i have recognized inspiration is an important thing for people. when i looked up at procter & gamble, there were no women. there were a few. i think whether you are a doctor, lawyer, it is helpful to see someone who looks like you, who acts like you, you can look up to.

so i have tried to do more now as mentoring. this morning i spoke to a harvard business school group about, you know, what it was like to grow up in a different era. i think that is actually helpful to people. i am much more open to that than i was in the last decade. my generation was more get the job done and just persevere. it worked out ok, but now we have an obligation to help younger women and others figure out how to make their own journey. emily: do you still see double all standards for women? in politics? meg: certainly in politics. there is no question. the hardest thing i ever did was run for public office. no matter what people say, it is much harder if you are a woman. hair, makeup, how you dress, you are judged. the good thing about business is there is something called results. relative market share, return on invested capital, there are measurable results you can be

measured on whether you did a good job or not. in some fields like politics, there are no results until the election. that is hard i think. it is hard if there is nothing you can hang on to that says i am doing a good job, and i am doing what i'm expected to have done. emily: how did you handle that type of scrutiny? meg: running for politics is the hardest thing i have ever done. it is a full on combat sport. you have to be wired to combat i think to do well in politics. it was probably a bad fit honestly because i was not wired for combat. i found it difficult. when you jump into politics at that high a level, there are things that you don't know. that is why to some degree career politicians -- not all, but some career politicians have an advantage. you have an instinct about what to do. when i was running, my instincts were not finely honed. emily: on your latest startup, what would your advice be to your teenage self today? meg: a couple things, find something you love to do.

i love business, i love working. find people you want to work with. emily: meg whitman, ceo of quibi, meg: take care. ♪ what are you doing back there, junior?

since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing.

♪ emily: he started an e-commerce company in 1995 around the same time as amazon, when nobody believed anyone would ever buy anything from the internet. today, mickey mikitani's rakuten is known as the amazon of japan, but also competes with google, netflix and airbnb, a streaming service, home sharing, e-books, messaging credit card and banking services, and more. though many outside of japan still don't know how to pronounce rakuten's name. >> rakuten.

>> ra-cue-ten. emily: they might recognize it from the jerseys of the golden state warriors and the barcelona football club as the company makes a push for global recognition. joining me today on "bloomberg studio 1.0", founder, chair and c.e.o. of rakuten, hiroshi mikitani, mickey. mickey: please call me mickey. emily: call you mickey. mickey: yes, that's better. emily: your new grand plan, a very grand plan, is to launch japan's newest wireless network, it would be the fourth wireless network. mickey: yes. emily: what is the strategy here? mickey: the strategy is very, very simple. our credit card which we started to issue 10 years ago. after 10 years, now we are the biggest credit card company in japan and we are still growing

close to 25% year on year. the power of our ecosystem is proven. so we can acquire using our network. we can reach out to them, give them special package and ask them to join our network. the cost is pretty low and with this new architecture, we can reduce our investment. since everything is virtualized and software controlled, mostly automated, our maintenance is going to be less than 1% of our competitors. emily: so you say you can do this for 600 billion yen over 10 years. $5.5 billion, or so. investors are skeptical you can pull this off. what makes you think you can? mickey: because we can. we can. i can't control the emotions of investors but i know we can. emily: are you prepared to pay more if you have to? mickey: no, we will do it within budget. i'm confident. we are confident.

emily: how? mickey: these are the costs, this is the software. it's a totally different concept and everywhere think it is impossible, but just wait another few months and everybody will be very, very shocked. emily: how does this wireless network fit into the bigger story of rakuten vs. amazon or who else? mickey: our model is create membership program and use data so we can cross our services and mobile services, a big project we can heavily discount and provide to our merchants. emily: in japan, some would say that you're losing share to amazon in e-commerce. is that fair? looking at the chart. mickey: i don't think so. i do not believe so. a totally different aspect of how to count. emily: how would you characterize the competition in japan? mickey: they do not have to

disclose any numbers, to be honest, so it's very difficult for me to compare. but as far as our growth is concerned, we are growing at the right speed. the challenges, logistics, so now we're engaging in logistics so i think we're in good shape. emily: jeff bezos might be a little distracted lately so that could be an advantage? mickey: i don't think jeff is so concerned about japan that much. [laughter] emily: he has doubled down on india. do you think they've not taken full advantage of the opportunities in japan? mickey: japan is a different market. the consumers are so sophisticated. the variety of the product they want is very high. they want to receive very clean package, not necessarily the amazon approach in the u.s. will do well in japan. we have more smaller stores, smaller merchants. we need to make them happy.

the conceptually, it's very different. we are more partnership driven than amazon. amazon wanted to dominate everything. we would like to help small and medium sized merchants. emily: who's the bigger threat? jeff bezos or masayoshi son? mickey: everybody is a threat, everybody is a rival. one thing i can tell you is we are well positioned because we are not only one single service provider focusing on one vertical. we provide our value as a package including banking, telecom, credit card issuance, shopping, travel, content as a package. so if you want to just focus on one vertical, i think it's very, very risky. emily: masa is obviously a competitor in the wireless business, now he also has the vision fund investing huge amounts of money in tech companies which you also do. what do you think about what they're doing with the vision fund? mickey: i think he's an excellent investor, so he may or may not make it, i don't know.

but about the competition in japan, the quality, cost of our service will be better than anybody for sure. and when we go to 5g, our network will be 5g ready from the beginning. the only company in the world. so i think the future looks very, very good to me. of course, there will be a competition. they will try to do everything to block their usage moving to rakuten. maybe our growth will not be as fast as we initially planned but i think, after all, the structure difference is very, very clear and i don't think they can match, anybody can match our quality and our price. emily: one more question about the vision fund. do you think there are any

ethics issues with their ties to the saudi government? mickey: that depends on the philosophy of the company and i am very careful about taking money from whom. some companies do not care, because money is money. but, you know, it depends on the character of the founders. some companies i have seen are becoming a little more careful about the source of the money because, you know, these innovation companies are very, very emotion driven. it is more value driven. it is not just about money. so therefore some people are more careful, some people don't care. so it depends. emily: is that a mistake? not to care? mickey: not to care? emily: is it a mistake to take money from a government tied to

the murder of an american journalist? mickey: first of all, we don't know the true story, to be very honest. i don't think i have an answer. but for our portfolio company, if you have inference, we will advise to be careful. ♪ -- mickey: i: decided to not use huawei. emily: because of the risk? mickey: because of the risk. ♪

emily: you have been busy making investments yourself. you've taken stakes in companies around the world, not just e-commerce companies, but a giant stake in pinterest, a big stake in lyft. you are on the board of lyft. what's the strategy with your global investments? mickey: we are not a softbank. it's a side business. side business have two meanings.

one is to understand what is going to happen. so we invest in the ride sharing company to understand what does it mean to our productivity strategy in the future. also, we would like to know where the sharing economy will go. so now we have a deep understanding of sharing economy, not just limited to ride shares. started to get into the home business in japan. now we're talking about eventually launching lyft in japan. emily: lyft hasn't done much internationally yet, so that would be a big deal. mickey: if it takes place, yes. i don't know. there are lots of issues still. emily: what would need to happen? the japanese taxi market is a hard one to crack. mickey: yes. legally speaking, pure ride sharing is still illegal in japan, so i think we need to be very, very smart. emily: are you talking to the

japanese government? mickey: of course i'm talking with the japanese government for many, many issues. [laughter] mickey: this one has been -- i haven't been pushing it too hard because reaction from the taxi unions is so strong. so i just want to be very careful. so we invest into the companies which has something to do or we think will have something to do with us in the future, but performance has been excellent, by the way. emily: yeah. mickey: way bigger than any other business. emily: what are your returns? mickey: the returns are 28.5%. emily: wow. softbank is an investor in uber and lyft. do you find that odd? mickey: uber is much more in -- a much more ambitious company than lyft, for sure. i cannot tell you the percentage but when john logan came to my house, they were kind of

desperate because travis was also good friend of mine but trying to crash lyft. and i gave them $300 million. emily: what was their plea? mickey: plea was about $2 billion. emily: no what were they asking , you for? money: they didn't have in the bank account. uber was trying to crash them so they needed to have help. but i did my homework and i researched through my data team and i find out, ok, 50% of young people, millenials in san francisco, use lyft, not uber. i said, oh, this is encouraging news. younger people were rising up, even the entire market share is very small so i felt, ok, this company has potential to reach, at least 20% market share focusing on younger people. it's different. and they did it.

they did so well executed, they partnered with us. and now their market share is way bigger than what we intended. emily: how do you think the uber vs. lyft competition plays out? mickey: i told to travis long time ago when he was very angry, when i invested into lyft, you know, you need to at least have two players for this kind of totally new services, which is going to replace a huge set of service. we're talking about converting car ownership to mobility as a service. this is big.

and i don't think there will be just one company can do it. there needs to be at least two or even three companies who do it competitively. otherwise, they will face many, many difficulties -- antitrust, push-back from the drivers. so i think it is healthy to have two companies competing each other. emily: is it healthy to have only one search engine or one social network or one e-commerce site in the united states? google and amazon and facebook have virtual monopolies. mickey: yeah, that's a problem. that's a problem. but, you know, people's behavior are also changing, right? for example, many people go to amazon instead of going to google. in u.s., in japan, they go to rakuten instead of going to google. some people have a different idea of getting to the product. all these products, the platform

is to go into the -- need to think about it, how to to democratize their platform. emily: you're a huge investor in pinterest. they filed to go public. how big do you think pinterest can be? mickey: i don't know. [laughter] mickey: but i think when instagram came up, i thought, oh my god, this is going to be a crisis for pinterest, but i was wrong because instagram is about people and pinterest is about product. so, again, more product focused rather than people focused. so definitely there are still many, many people who like pinterest, and they are diversifying their source and hopefully they will -- and their international seems to be going

well. emily: how closely are you following the u.s.-china trade war? mickey: one thing i can tell you is when we are deciding what kind of network equipment we are going to use, i talked with the japanese government and asked about whether i should use chinese network or not and they said, no problem. use it. but i kind of sensed the potential risk, even if 1%. i told myself, i should not take 1% risk, that something may happen to prohibit chinese network to be used for japanese mobile network. so i decided not to use huawei or z.t.e. emily: because of the risks of espionage? mickey: because of the risks. i don't know whether it's true or not. i'm very, very happy i did not choose them. because if i had chosen them,

that means i need to roll back one year and i cannot manage my service. emily: who did you choose? mickey: we chose nokia, but basically, we are building our own hardware. we buy the internal hardware from nokia, but maybe in the next generation we're going to build our own, so it's totally different concept. we are i.t. company integrating , building core network, radio station network, all the technology by ourselves versus other telcos are asking system integrators to integrate everything. emily: so do you think, then, that huawei's business, z.t.e.'s business, do you think those could be seriously compromised as a result? mickey: that's for sure. it's obvious, no? emily: yeah, i guess they're still huge companies. they still have the chinese market. mickey: they are good companies, but i think -- i don't know whether it's going to happen, to be very honest. but as far as the telecom industry is concerned, it is

very difficult to use chinese vendors for a while. ♪ mickey: my father had pancreatic cancer, and i was crazy enough to believe i could find a cure somewhere in the world. ♪

emily: you're perhaps best known in the bay area for sponsoring the golden state warriors. why did you decide to do that? rakuten is on every warriors jersey. mickey: that's right. i like that. that's the point. [laughter] emily: is this delivering for you? sports marketing, has it been a good bet? mickey: yes, our brand awareness has risen so much. it is not as high as it is in europe yet, but i think it is going to get there. most importantly, the warriors

is iconic team. in silicon valley, it works very well for hiring and partnering with other companies. also just pure exposure of our brand to the consumer. so we are extremely happy. emily: you've also got a multi-year partnership with steph curry. what do you hope to get from that? mickey: steph will be our brand ambassador, showing up in our tv commercial and also we are sponsoring his unrated tour to discover kind of hidden player who can potentially become very big. so it kind of is very aligned with our concept. emily: you've also sponsored the barcelona football team soccer , team. what is that delivering for you? mickey: barcelona is the biggest sports club in the world, right? not just the performance of the team, but also the culture and philosophy of the team is very

important for us. emily: you made a big splash by switching all your internal communications to english. mickey: yes. emily: how has that worked out? mickey: it's working very, very well. emily: you did this because you thought it was the only way you could be a truly global company, right? mickey: yes, and at the same time, even to survive in japan because it is obvious that advancement of i.t. technology is speeding up, accelerating, and just doing business with japanese engineers and scientists is impossible. talking about why we are so strongly in japan is because of our a.i. engineers in japan and most of them are japanese. emily: but i imagine it was hard to push everyone over to english. mickey: yes, it was. it was very hard, and we still struggle a little bit, but mostly done.

i think it was a commitment, never a compromise, and patience. emily: i understand you've got a new commitment and you want everyone to have a certain level of digital literacy, programming skills. mickey: yes. emily: tell me about that. mickey: well, for sure, if you're working for toyota, for example, you know about the how automobile works, right? if you work for i.t. service company, you need to have the basic knowledge of what's in a computer. that's very, very basic stuff , but the entire organization, at least they understand how the computer program, processing power, processing units, gpu, cpu, what's the difference between gpu and cpu, what is ai, what is deep learning. 10 years from now, the world will be totally different. most of the services we do by

human will be displaced by a.i. , and if our managers are not aware of it, it is going to be a big problem. emily: you're also pouring money into cancer research. mickey: yes. emily: tell me about that. mickey: the story is, my father had pancreatic cancer. we found out five years ago. and i was crazy enough to believe that i can find a cure believe that i can find a cure somewhere in the world, so i traveled all around the world -- to stanford, to columbia university, harvard, paris university -- i went literally everywhere to look for a cure. at first, i didn't find any effective one. but one day my friend, who is also a good friend of my late father, called me and, hey, mickey, i heard your father has

that cancer, but, by the way, my cousin is doing this very interesting project to conquer the cancer. and i asked what it is, and he said using light to cure cancer. so i flew over to washington, d.c. and had meeting with him , and then find out, oh my god, this is going to work. i don't know how much extent it is going to work, but i instantly confident this is am going to work. mickey: so you think we are -- emily: so you think we are going to find a cure? you think you already found a cure? mickey: i possibly think we already found the secret key to unlock your immune programming, specifically targeting to the cancer, the type of cancer you have, whether it's protein or d.n.a. so what we do is we target only

cancer cells. we light, we made scratches to the surface of the cancer so it will explode. once cancer explode, there's no defense system for cancer and your immune system will see it and start to attack your cancer cells. we finish our phase two clinical trial, about to get into phase three, last phase of clinical trial globally in japan, u.s., europe, and in asia. the result has been outstanding. sometimes drugs are strong enough to cure everything with our own drugs. sometimes we need to combine it with other drugs. but long story short, whatever combination people want to do, our drug is going to be key. emily: that's incredible. mickey: maybe i will be known as pharma entrepreneur, not i.t.

entrepreneur in history. [laughter] emily: yeah, wow. mickey, thank you very much for joining us. mickey: thank you. ♪

♪ emily: he is one of the biggest legends in hollywood history. jeffrey katzenberg has produced some of entertainment's greatest hits, bringing us under the sea with ariel in "the little mermaid" and teaching us the circle of life in "the lion king." he is also famous for getting fired by disney and starting a new company, dreamworks. which redefined animation for a digital age, bringing to life a green ogre and his best friend donkey in "shrek," and a kung fu fighting panda in "kung fu panda." today, with the streaming competition heating up, he is placing his next big bet on short form video with a new

startup and $1 billion in his pocket. joining me today on "bloomberg studio 1.0," managing partner, chair and founder of quibi, also of course the former chair of walt disney studios and ceo of dreamworks. great to have you here. jeffrey: thank you for having me , i'm excited. emily: "little mermaid," "flashdance," "star trek," "the lion king." i could talk for hours about each one of these movies. jeffrey: another era, another time. emily: exactly. how has it changed since producing "aladdin," "beauty and the beast"? jeffrey: night from day, different world, different business. great storytelling never changes. those are movies that touch the heart. that really hasn't changed, and there is still that form of

great two-hour storytelling of movies, television, one-hour storytelling. those things are tried, true, him and tested. people still value them. there is more movie watching today than ever before, maybe not in the same places, maybe not on the same devices, maybe not through the same pipes, but the storytelling is actually kind of consistent. now there is a type of storytelling that has changed. i was teasing my old partner steven spielberg a couple of weeks ago that when he did "jaws," he had a cut out of a piece of plywood that he had to drag behind a boat. there were no special effects. if you go back to the 1970's and 1980's, movies were driven more by people stories and less by the spectacle, because we couldn't make spectacle. and so technology and innovation have allowed the types of

stories you can tell and the way in which you tell them to change. it is still good storytelling that matters the most. emily: in a way, you are betting on technology with quibi. jeffrey: i have always bet on technology. i go back to walt disney. he was a technologist. he pioneered and innovated all sorts of techniques that allowed him to make the movies that he made. for sure, that technology has impacted me and the types of movies and stories we make. nowhere is that more true than in animation, where the impact of computer animation completely transformed it. i grew up in an era of hand-drawn animation, so to make that transition was a high bar and a great challenge to do, but exciting. it created a whole renaissance in animation. technology has always been

something -- in fact, that is how meg whitman and i came to be buddies. when she was ceo of hewlett-packard, their number one technology partner platform, lighthouse, dreamworks animation, so yes, technology is essential to the success of quibi, which is why meg and i are partners. it is why i sought her out to be the ceo of the business. emily: having spent your career making feature films, some television, why do you think fixed 10 minute length shows are the future? jeffrey: the world has changed. only a dozen years ago, steve jobs and his genius invented this, created this. and it turns out, particularly among the core audience we are interested in, that if you are 25 to 30 years old, you get up every morning and between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., this device is with you, you spend five

hours on it. we know that. what are you doing? communicating, collaborating, on social media, playing casual games, and today, you are watching more than 60 minutes of bite sized content on the go during your day. different from netflix, hbo, broadcast television. our use case which is now tried, true, tested, and proven. the market is there. there are 2 billion people watching an hour of short form content on the go every day around the globe. if we go out and capture, literally, 2%, 3% of that addressable audience, we will have one of the great blockbuster businesses of all time.

emily: you have had so much success in your career. what does success look like for you? jeffrey: the moon, the stars, the sun, the galaxy, and everything in between. i think we are setting out to do something that if it succeeds -- and obviously i believe deeply that it will succeed -- will be one of the great entrepreneurial opportunities of my lifetime. the turn of the 20th century, the form and format of storytelling were movies. they were two hour to three hour stories and we saw them in a movie theater in a single sitting. in the 1950's, a new form of storytelling came along in television. it had chapters one hour long, but they tended to be stories that were episodic, one hour, or they were serialized, 13 to 26 episodes in length. today, what we are setting out to do with quibi is to converge those two ideas together, create something new and different, and so, to us, a series is two to three hours in length and in

chapters or act breaks under 10 minutes long. emily: you're talking $6 million. jeffrey: it is the top of what anybody spends today. maybe there are 550 shows. there is maybe 2% that cost more than $100,000 a minute. so yes, we are at the very high end of the high quality. why? if you want the best writers, if you want to deliver the production value, if you want the best actors and actresses, if you want the best directors, if you want the best sound, you look at the set up here for this. you have a aaa production here today. you get what you pay for. emily: you have raised $1 billion from studios and other investors. is that enough to compete with

billions and billions of dollars being spent by netflix and others? jeffrey: you have to start, and for sure, the $1 billion is everything we need to get up and get launched. at some point, we will raise additional capital. everybody has known that since day one. that is not new news. the $1 billion was raised by meg whitman, myself, and the business plan. the next $1 billion will be raised on incredible transparency into a fantastic management team, a company at scale, content you can see, a roster of talent, a pipeline of content that is of the best ip in the world, a tech platform and user interface that you will look at and understand how singularly unique it is and how special it is as to the content itself. when you can see all of those things, now you start to get some insight into the business we are building. getting fired from disney was as humiliating and low a moment as

i have had in my career. ♪

emily: your dad was a stockbroker. your mom was an artist. you started as an assistant to barry diller at paramount. what is it you think you did right to get where you are? jeffrey: there is one thing, and i have talked about this before, that has been my north star. i did not know it was my north star as a kid or teenager or working for barry. it was only years later that i was able to express what i've always been trying to do my whole life. it is pretty simple, two words. exceed expectations. and so, when barry hired me to be his gopher, his assistant to run around and organize things, previews, get a script copied or

whatever it was, no matter what he asked me to do, i always try to do it more, better, faster than he anticipated or he expected me to do. and what i found is that when i did things, and i did exceed expectations, his or others, people would give me more opportunity and more opportunity, then i started to realize when i go into a meeting with a staff meeting, you try to exceed expectations in that. you can't do it all the time and you don't do it in every set of circumstances, but that idea is the thing that permeated into me, so i started to think about every product that i make, every movie i have ever made, we started out from a place of we exceed the expectations of our audience, and if we do we will have success. so to populate your life with that idea became the most rewarding and compelling and exciting thing, and i think about it in terms of my

children, you know? they are 35 years old. i still think about, are there things i can do to surprise them to exceed their expectations, as predictable as that is? i just had my 45th wedding anniversary. emily: congratulations. jeffrey: i think about, how do i exceed the expectations of my wife, because it is important to me. that's it. those words, the other stuff, i had no idea. where does a good idea come from? where does the ability to recognize a good idea? i have no idea. a lot of that was great training. i have had great mentors in my career, some of the very best and most brilliant people. david geffen, steven spielberg, and barry diller and michael eisner, these were people who were brilliant and far beyond me, and they were people that at different stages of my career

took me in, believed in me, supported me, forgave me for my sins, sometimes, not always, you know. they mentored me in the true sense of it. emily: your career at disney was legendary for the highs and much has been written about your exit. is that something you carry with you? jeffrey: nope. i have had five careers. emily: i should say katzenberg 5.0 is where we are. jeffrey: i am on 6.0. i had a career in politics and government in my 20's. i had 11 years at paramount. 10 years at disney. 10 years at dreamworks in a partnership with steven and david, and 12 to 13 years at dreamworks animation as a standalone, public company. each chapter for me somehow or

another has gotten better than the one before. i don't know why. i don't know how. it is not something one could have expected, right? in some instances that would seem improbable if not impossible that i could have a better run. somehow or another, every time it has occurred. so getting fired from disney was as humiliating and low a moment as i have had in my career. eight days after i left the walt disney company, humiliated, embarrassed, hurt, broken from a 19 year partnership and marriage, eight days later, i announced a partnership with steven spielberg and david geffen to start dreamworks animation, where we had raised $2 billion. eight horrible days, oh my. so, you know, a chapter closes, and i don't know about you and i don't go back and read chapters again. emily: let's talk about the present and the future.

jeffrey: sure. emily: have you ever seen so much disruption in the entertainment industry? jeffrey: no. emily: who are the winners and who are the losers? jeffrey: it is too early in the game to call winners and losers in something that is in almost cataclysmic transformation where virtually every day or week, there is a tectonic shifting of the plates. it is hard when you are in the center of that storm to have perspective on it. who will be the winners? the winners will be the ones who have the biggest and best businesses and have the greatest leaders. and so, you can't help but look at and admire what bob iger has done. emily: i was going to say, is disney one of those companies? jeffrey: 100%. he has made what may be one of the boldest, most ambitious bets that anybody in modern business has ever made. they are the number one company

today as an entertainment media company, without peer. have the best franchises, the best ip. he decides that the future of the enterprise, which he is the steward at the moment -- he has a great deal of humility about it -- and realizes he has the baton. he's going to run with it, and he is going to pass it at some point. he has decided after 12 of the most spectacular years as ceo, he has decided to push all the chips in to say for this company to have as great a future as it has a past, he has to transform it. bet on bob iger. no problem. emily: would you bet on reed hastings? jeffrey: 100%. and i would bet on steve burke, and brian roberts. i would bet on at&t. these are phenomenal enterprises, great leadership.

they are all going to be in some fashion, shape, or form -- it is not clear what that is yet -- but they will all come out of it with some win. emily: is content still king? jeffrey: no. emily: what makes a king or queen? jeffrey: platform. i grew up in an era where content is king. content is king maker. clearly today, platform is the king. when i mean platform, netflix is a platform. it's content has made a platform successful, but the platform itself is worth $200 billion, so the value of that enterprise is far greater than the content, but without the content, they would not be king. emily: you were instrumental in bringing pixar and steve jobs to disney. do you think apple today can succeed in the streaming business where there are these first movers? jeffrey: it is hard to say yet. i don't think one ever bets against apple. i don't think one bets against $250 billion of capital sitting

in the bank somewhere, you know, just racking up a whole bunch of interest. i don't think you bet against the talent of that company. emily: what about tim cook? jeffrey: i think tim is an extraordinary leader. and so, yes it has been like this and so they have got some headwinds. they will be challenged in new ways, but it is a brilliant company with wildly talented people. they are putting a toe into the water into this content side of the business. it is not clear yet what that strategy is or how they are looking to monetize and capitalize on that content, but, by the way, you could say the same thing about jeff bezos. emily: would you bet on amazon and content? jeffrey: of course. how do you not? his model is completely differentiated from anyone else.

he will give it away for free. you don't have to pay for it. just keep shopping. his paradigm is completely differentiated from these others. now at some point, we get to the point in which there is simply oversupply. we have seen this in many industries before where there is simply too much, more than everybody, not anybody, more than everybody can actually consume, then something shakes out, and the strongest and the best and most creative will prevail. 85% of the movies produced at dreamworks animation were produced by women. ♪

emily: the me too movement hit hollywood hard. did that disappoint you? jeffrey: yeah, of course it did. i think it was a long, long overdue moment of reckoning. unfortunately, some of the worst

actors in this regard are people that have worked for me, and the level of disappointment to have to confront this and to deal with it was really hurtful. and you know, humiliating. i have grown up in this industry. you know, i hope i have conducted myself, you know, with a set of values and an inclusiveness that represented myself well, i hope, you know. i have been a family man. dreamworks animation, 55% of the leadership of the company was women. 85% of the movies produced at dreamworks animation were produced by women. i want to say that again. emily: that is amazing. jeffrey: it is literally the reverse of the entire industry. i did it for business reasons. our audience is moms.

when we were making animated movies, whether my years at disney or dreamworks animation, our customers were moms. mom is the gateway to those children. if she is not embracing you, you fail. and so for me, if she is our customer, how do you not have her fully represented in every aspect of what you are doing in your business, whether it is your storytelling, filmmaking, marketing, distribution? if her voice is not in our room every day, you are not going to succeed, i think. so i did it because i thought it was good business. i also personally prefer working with women. i am lucky i got meg whitman.

i have had super strong women surrounding me my entire career and it has served me incredibly, incredibly well. i find that women, particularly in leadership positions, have a style about them, particularly when it was creative enterprises. it just created a unique environment. emily: you are one of the most prolific democratic donors, and early fundraiser for president obama.

jeffrey: she looks at things from a unique and different perspective from a. we are able to hear each other and express ourselves and get our ideas out, we find that center ground.

we find a place where the right answers reveal themselves and you move on. been around in our democracy. emily: you famously edited out 12 minutes, how in the weeds do you plan to get? jeffrey: we played together from the most talented people, the very best ideas, give them the resources and the platform for them to do their work. there is a difference between being a curator and a platform. and being the storyteller yourself. i'm not the one telling the stories. i want to go recruit the best people i can and give them the

opportunity for them to do that. different kind of weeds. different field. emily: so great to have you here on the show. ♪ eñ

♪ emily: like a shot of adrenaline spiking an extreme athlete's heart rate, gopro shares soared when it went public in 2014. founder and ceo nick woodman became the highest-paid ceo in america. gopro dominated the action sports camera market, branched out into media and content and even launched a drone, but in a spectacular turn of events, gopro's drones started literally falling out of the sky. the stock fell too, and the media strategy sputtered.