employee or contractor? the future of all kinds of san francisco start-ups rest on that very question. expert analysis this morning from venture capitalist. plus, business tips from the guy who invented the bubba gump chain of restaurants. and mark johnson's new venture in space. our reporters, michelle quinn of the san jose mercury news, and quentin hardy of "the new york times" this week on "press:

here." good morning, everyone. i'm scott mcgrew. when i heard serial entrepreneur mark johnson was using government satellites to spy on plants, i assumed he was trying to figure out what the chinese factories were up to or maybe he was somehow involved in the iran nuclear deal, but it turns out he's really looking at plants. his latest company is actually looking at plants from outer space. wheat and corn and soybeans, trying to figure out what grows where and why. mark is incredibly well thought of in the world of inventors and entrepreneurs. when elon musk can only invite a few friends to a rocket launch, mark is one of them. joined by quentin hardy of "the new york times" and michelle quinn of "the mercury news." let me ask you the question everybody asks you. that's, why are you looking at wheat plants? they don't seem like they do anything interesting. >> one nice thing is they don't

wander around. if you're looking for things to look at from space, that's a good start. one of the things we found surprising when we started this project is that no one has ever made a map of the entire planet, what the major crops are growing, where they are, and how healthy they are. as you can imagine, that's of great interest to everyone from a commodities trader to the countries growing those commodities. >> i've seen bits of this kind of thing before, and it's very exciting because the pitch is, if there are 7 billion people on the planet headed to 10 billion, how are you going to feed them if you don't turn the world basically into a big greenhouse where you try to manage for efficiency wherever possible. that sort of the same idea you're doing? >> absolutely. i mean, you know, you want to know where crop failures are happening. you want to know the best places to plant crops. it ranges from, on one side, precision agriculture. like, where should you be planting things right now? how is the climate changing? corn is moving north, for example, as the planet heats up. on the other hand, you want to efficiently get those crops to

the people who need them. there's four companies that move around 90% of the grain on this planet, and making that process more efficient helps to get the food to the right people. >> i was going to ask you, what sort of insights you've had already. one you just mentioned, corn moving north. what else? usually we can tell like a couple months ahead of time, like, okay, ethiopia is going to have a bad crop this year, you know, north korea is going to have a famine. what kind of things is the data sho showing you already? >> so far we're just focusing on predicting how much corn is coming out of the u.s. we're going to the global crop prediction next. i feel like we're find a lot of insights, but we're just in the beginning stages. we're just nine months old. >> this is the speed bump in this argument of turning the world into a greenhouse. the u.s., which is the big customer for your data, is also producing far above the average they project the world needs. the real need is africa and india and china and the less efficient farming areas.

but who's going to take your data into that area? who's going to buy this? >> i think this is one of the early insights we had. we looked where data is available. the u.s. has the best data of anybody. if you go to india, china, brazil, you know, whereas numbers here, as we report them, they're in a few percentage points off from what the final production is. in india or china, the numbers could be 20% off. >> mark, surely we've been looking at crops from satellites before. this is not an entirely new concept. >> never at this scale though. so there's a few challenges of doing so. if you look at, for example, all of the pictures taken by the publicly available satellite imagery from nasa -- >> dating back quite some time, right? >> back to 1972. we couldn't even store them in computers. that's a lot of data. and those used to be locked on nasa servers. only recently have they moved into the google cloud, where your computation and data are

next to each other. so you can do these large-scale analyses. so a lot of the papers that you see are from a small part of kansas. >> can you analyze something from 1975? would it have the bandwidth, the pixels you need to say, ah, that's a wheat plant? >> yes. we've analyzed satellite imagery all the way back to 1982. >> our satellites were that good back then? >> yes. it's incredible. the great thing about crops is unlike some satellite imagery where if you're doing something where you want to count something on the ground, you need very high resolution. we're basically at 30 meters per pixel squared and up. that's okay for crops. >> what are you finding about global warming? we're entering the presidential debate season. global warming is always an issue. what's your data showing? you've got data from 1970 and pictures and analysis. >> i mean, again, we're trying not to make, you know, any predictions about weather or what's happening with the

climate. again, that data will start to fall out as our analysis moves forward, but for now we're just focusing on what the protection level is. >> the science, i think, is pretty clear and quite substantial. the trick is the mechanism getting it right to farmers. who's the middleman, who's the partner? does this mean you're going to be working with monsanto on a global level? you have to deal with the government of brazil, china. they have to get the data, the know how all the way to the farmer. what's that mechanism look like? >> the way we look at industry is a lot of folks have been focusing on the farmer. there is, you know -- the combines are much more advanced than they used to be. they drive themselves. >> in the u.s. >> in the u.s., exactly. what we're focusing on are commodity traders, insurance and reinsurance companies. so most of the crop insurance in the world is in the u.s. that's bad because the rest of the world doesn't have as stable of a food supply because they don't have the right kinds of information. >> they're the people who would be cutting you a check.

they're the ones who want to see this data? >> exactly. both the historical data -- for example, if you're going to insure a bunch of fields, you want to know what the historical yield has been on those fields. that data just isn't available right now, which means you can't price the policy properly. >> with the little time we have left, i want to ask you about elon musk did invite you to the most recent rocket launch, which must have been quite an honor. >> it was actually nasa. >> fair enough. is it awkward when the rocket blows up? you were there when that rocket blew up. >> it's really sad because the only other launch i saw in real time as it was happening was challenger back when i was in grade school. it's what got me into space originally. it was very inspirational to me. we spent a few days going around getting behind-the-scene tours of nasa and seeing how much work went into getting this rocket off the grounds. i'll tell you, it really ripped a piece of my heart out watching it blow up. i'm not going to lie. >> they pick up the next day and start again.

that's the cool thing. >> i was wondering what the reaction was of the people around you. >> people were really disheartened, but space is really hard. you've got to keep trying. we who work in space all know this stuff happens, right. this is not like, you know -- you don't have 99% success rates. that's just the way it is. >> even 99% is not enough. we wish you the best of luck. your previous app you sold to cnn. now you're working with satellites. mark johnson, we appreciate you being with us this morning. >> thank you so much. >> up next, the most important question for many start-ups is how many people who actually work for them really work for them? when "press: here" continues.

welcome back to "press: here." the biggest threat right now to any san francisco start-up is not the lack of office space or venture capital funding drying up, it's a court case or two court cases really that call into question whether drivers for uber and lift are depende independent contractors or actual employees. the so-called gig economy, the person like this who shows up to park your car or to walk your dog or do your laundry, clean your house, they're all independent contract employees. case in point, the home cleaning

service home joy, who burned through $40 million in venture funding, but it wasn't until it faced lawsuits from its own workers that the business folded. he's the managing director at general catalyst. he's also deeply involved in two of the hottest start-ups, as a board member of stripe and early investor in snapchat. thanks for being with us this morning. there are lots of businesses that are depending on these sort of temporary employees, these -- the guy who drives for uber in the morning and parks cars in the afternoon sort of thing. if i'm starting up some company, i'm in stealth mode right now, and our whole idea is we're going to rely on these workers, should i be worried? >> i think this is a case where new business models are bumping heads against old policy. if you have a long-term view on this, it should not be worried. i think this will sort itself out. at the end of the day, consumers love these services. we talk to workers, and i think

they like the flexibility. they like the ability to work when they want to. the core proposition is working. i think the issue is in your full-time employment case -- i see you shaking your head. i think the old paradigm used to be there's an employer, there's an employee, and you're reliant on the employer for your economic needs on a full-time level. today it's changing because as you were starting to say, the employee is not an employee anymore. to me it's a mini enterprise. >> they pay me to be paranoid. you say this is the new great thing, but the reality is it's a negotiation. both sides have to come closer. >> absolutely. >> defining these guys as totally independent contractors is probably not the future. >> oftentimes courts don't look ahead. they look behind. they say, this is the way it's

been, this is the way we need to enforce it. it doesn't matter if i like uber. it matters if the courts like it. >> we need an open mind. we need to recognize it's not necessarily the view point that because you don't have these full-time employees you're saving costs. there are other costs for acquiring these contracts that come and go as they please. it's very hard. getting them to be confined to your center is really hard. you're competing with other companies. it's also challenging to build it this way. the reality is that enough workers want to work this way, so i think we have to sort of come up with a middle ground. you don't think about this as a 1099 contract or a full-time worker. >> the incumbents who probably want to get paid or get some consideration to get out of the way, and the workers who want something like a reasonable wage or some benefits structure. that would be maybe some independent contractor insurance thing. something like that has to arise. >> that's exactly right.

when you think about that, my personal view is this will sort itself out. you actually want to see more of these on-demand economy businesses. >> i'm sorry. that's a really positive, hopeful view that this is all going to sort itself out, but there has been certain court cases. there was a labor commissioner in california who said that one uber worker was an employee. $4,000 in back wages. what i see is a historic law going up against these companies. i mean, i don't know, i'd be interested in what you think, how much of uber's value would go away if all those drivers were made into workers, employees. same with lift and everybody else. >> so that's a hard question to answer. i can tell you sort of directionally, you know, even in -- if everybody converted into full time, it certainly hits the economics. there's an economic hit on one side, gains on the other side in

terms of what the employees are now obligated to do and what consistent services you can provide. but i think it's going to affect larger companies less than it's going to affect the companies starting out, where you want to have that kind of -- >> that goes to my original question. i've got an idea here. you think it's a pretty good idea. then i say, the whole thing depends on this idea of us picking up part-time contract workers. would you fund me? >> i think i would, depending upon the economics of the business. >> oh, it's spectacular. but it depends on that one thing. >> i would because i think in the early day when is these contractors are working only a few hours and you're building liquidity of workers across the country, wherever you're deploying this, they're not hitting that full-time range anyway. so i actually think in the early days, this wouldn't surface as an issue in somebody who's only working five, ten hours. >> i'll get in your corner, against michelle's point here. if uber somehow made these

contractors into employees, do you think the existing taxicab companies would be in great shape? >> i think they have the same premise, some of the same issues of contract work. >> but service, quality, desirability. >> no, no. i'm not going to defend the cab companies. i'm really interested in the idea of the 1099 worker. this is becoming a political issue. you know, the gop candidates, hillary mentioned the on-demand economy. these are historic protections against workers. or for workers. i did hear that senator mark warner of virginia has come out with a kind of third way you described. >> i think there's a lot of conversation of think abouting it in a third way. to me, the focus needs to be on there are lots of good considerations that were designed in the old policy. let's take those and rethink what it needs to be in the context of these models, rather than these are bad businesses. there are so many reasons why this is amazing.

uber is taking advantage of it all over the world. there's an argument of prosperity here as well in terms of how you start to think about these companies going global. i think we want to make this work. we want to make this work the right way. consumers like the service. you want to do the right kind of social safety nets for workers. there's no way there's not an answer here. i strongly believe there's a solution. >> last question, california often leads the way. i think you're going to see this again with california courts. what flies here may not fly in texas now, but i think what you'll see happen here could. does that seem reasonable? >> i think so. there's going to be a domino effect. my horizon on this is not what's happening this week or next in california. i think this will take a few years to sort out. but when you have a long-term view on how the fundamental premise really works for consumers and workers, i think this gets sorted out. when states like california and texas get their arms around it with the third way as you're describing, which is where the answer lies, there will be a

domino effect. i think it will move fast. >> thank you for being with us this morning. >> thanks, scott. well, can you name all of the restaurants based on a movie? trick question, there's only one. the strange story behind bubba gump when "press: here" continues. >> bubba gump shrimp, it's a household name.

welcome back to "press:

here." have you ever eaten at bubba gump? it's a chain of restaurants you can usually find in touristy spots. this is pier 39 in san francisco. there's another one near the monterey bay aquarium, universal studios in florida. my kids really like it. 250 million in revenue, it's hugely successful. but when you stop and think about it, it's a really peculiar idea. it's a restaurant based on a movie. yeah, there's a scene in the movie where forest and bubba talk about shrimp, and forest and lieutenant dan do become successful shrimpers. but many parts of "forest gump" are really quite dark. who would have thought to themselves, you know what, this would make a really great restaurant. scott barnett did. he's the man who turned it into a restaurant. thank you for being with us. it wasn't your idea specifically. paramount came to you and said, we want to make a restaurant based on "forest gump"?

>> yes. >> and you thought what? >> well, like we told everybody in those days who approached us with an idea, we think that's a great idea. and the reality is that we didn't know. but the market research really confirmed to us that there was an unforced translation from the movie to a restaurant. it made sense. i can't tell you how many times i'd have customers come up to me in the restaurants and say, i knew you had the shrimp company, but i didn't know you had the restaurant. so it was life imitating art. >> two people in our newsroom assumed the restaurant had come first. because remember, forest gets involved in all of these historical items. they assumed that was one of those as well, that the restaurant was before the movie. >> greatness defined right there. >> you said unforced idea. why do you think it worked? >> because it made sense that a restaurant would exist. they do create a shrimp company in the movie. there's so many good feelings. yeah, there are some dark sides to that film, but in the end, it

was a very popular movie and based on some really good feelings. as a result, it made sense that there would be a restaurant since there was a shrimp company. >> and let me guess, hollywood l has been back with other restaurant ideas. what have you turned down? >> i have turned down many. the reason is, frankly, because there wasn't an unforced translation. it didn't make sense. i think that's one of the problems one of our more notorious competition ran into. >> oh, name names. >> well, i think planet hollywood had a hard time creating a bridge from its concept to a restaurant. you have to remember in the restaurant business, it's hot food hot, cold food cold, service with a smile, and pleasant, clean surroundings with a smile. >> god, that's hard. >> you know what, it is hard. it's hard to do consistently. that's really the key thing. >> but there must have been other, you know, pixar movies that could have made great restaurants.

you could solve that problem of great food, great service. >> what would you make, if you could make any movie into a restaurant again? >> i guess i would think about the crusty crab on "spongebob." >> and to the people who object and say there's only one restaurant chain in a movie, there might be a crusty crab or something at universal studios. >> probably is. >> there are restaurants named after restaurants that have been in movies, but there's definitely no chain that's become a restaurant. there is this curious idea of it has to be a treat. i think that's where planet hollywood came into trouble. when planet hollywood cleveland or -- actually, cleveland is a nice time. planet hollywood peoria. it was no longer -- you didn't go to it in london or new york. i realize you're not in charge of bubba gump anymore, but there's got to be a pressure to both grow the restaurant but keep it special at the same time. >> well, the whole idea was to create a brand called bubba gump

shrimp company restaurant that would stand on its own. it was the name that brings them in. in the end, it's the experience that brings them back. we had a 94% intent to repeat, which is exceedingly high in our business. the reason is i think we delivered. we wanted engagement from the customer where they not only went for an experience, they were part of the experience. that was permission to engage that we thought was critical to the success. in the end, we wanted them to come away with an emotional souvenir. hopefully they did and it was memorable. >> you said earlier you actually had a "forest gump" impersonator. >> we did. >> because tom hanks didn't do it. >> he wasn't available. was that part of it? >> everything was. when you walk into a bubba gump this day, they're going to say, hi, how are you, not, two for dinner. they're going to engage you in conversation. they're going to ask you a trivia question about the movie or trivia about the location where you are. that gives you the sense that

you're kind of going back and forth. and your server may sit down with you at table. it's not uncommon. that kind of engagement makes for memorable experiences. >> it's been more than 20 years since that movie came out now. i assume there's a lot of people, millennials, who didn't see it. >> life span. >> what do you think? you're not part of it, but if you were looking at something like that, would you be worried about the brand, or do you think it's now completely free of the movie? >> 90% of america has seen "forest gump" more than once. >> really? >> more than once. that's really amazing. it is a little "wizard of oz-ish" if you will. and it's on cable all the time. if it wasn't existing now and someone came to me with it, i'd go for it. >> what about wall-e? would you make a restaurant? >> you mentioned "wizard of oz." the flying monkeys. you think that works in a restaurant? >> i still cringe.

>> they unionize almost immediately. they're very difficult to work with. lots of people think about opening their own restaurant. i think we all have at one point. what would be the piece of advice to somebody who's seriously thinking about it? >> i would say if you're passionate about it and it's your dream, go for it. but don't be undercapitalized. and know your market and know the rules. know what you have to do to be successful. and lastly, i would say location is important, so is location and location. >> and with a minute left, let me follow up on that. you have times square, you have pier 39. you have to start with a hell of a lot of capital in order to get those spots. >> you do, but we didn't have two nickels to rub together when we started. >> it was monterey bay, right? was that a big place? >> no, we owned a restaurant right on the bay. it was an old sardine factory. we converted it into a bubba

gump. in fact, it's the signature look today. i did it for $685,000. looking back, i don't know how it was possible. >> scott barnett, the founder of bubba gump. your new book is called "gumption." "press: here" will be back in a moment.

that's our show for this week. my thanks to mark johnson and of course scott barnett, the founding ceo of bubba gump. you can see all of our previous shows at presshere.tv.com. i'm scott mcgrew. thanks for making us part of your sunday morning. ]

>> announcer: the following program is sponsored by operation smile. every year, hundreds of thousands of children are born with cleft lip and or cleft palate. >> dr. bill magee: why should any child, anywhere on this planet, have to live a life of misery. >> kathy majette: a lot of people think that children that are born with these deformities are cursed. just imagine a life alone, that nobody wanted to be around you. >> norrie oelkers: and we had children coming in for screening with brown bags over their head. they're never allowed to leave their house unless they have a bag on their heads. >> kathy majette: some children don't live, because they have problems with eating, and drinking, and die of malnutrition. >> mel: and they see us as their last resort. >> dr. jill gora: every child deserves a fair chance at life, >> peggy stillman: it may only take an hour to do something that will change their lives forever. >> noreen kessler: and you just see a whole new person,