General Motors says compensating victims of its faulty ignition switches will cost $400-600 million, maybe more. That doesn’t include repairs and other costs associated with multiple GM recalls. The company’s recall crisis isn’t readily apparent in auto sales numbers. New GM cars are selling well, without the company having to offer big incentives.
“It’s amazing. General Motors would have had an outstanding quarter had it not been for all of the costs associated with the recalls,” says AutoTrader senior analyst Michelle Krebs.
Car industry watchers credit GM’s improved public relations response after early bumbling. But not everyone is impressed.
“If I were grading them in my class, they’d get a low pass, which is sort of the equivalent of a D,” says Paul Argenti, who teaches corporate communications at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business.
He wants to see the company better explain how it’s going to change a corporate culture that led to serious, deadly engineering flaws getting on the road. That goes beyond a simple PR response. It’s a real leadership challenge for CEO Mary Barra. Breaking decades of bad habits is a lot harder than fixing an ignition switch.
“All of what she’s doing and all of what she says will go for naught if a year from now, it’s business as usual,” says auto analyst Maryann Keller.
Mark Garrison: You wouldn’t think GM is the company going through a recall crisis based on sales numbers.
Michelle Krebs: It’s amazing. General Motors would have had an outstanding quarter had it not been for all of the costs associated with the recalls.
AutoTrader senior analyst Michelle Krebs adds that recalls actually provide a sales opportunity.
Krebs: A lot of these recall people are coming into the dealership and liking what they see in the showroom. They get their recall fixed, but they buy a new car.
And GM is driving sales without giving away the store, says Sean McAlinden with the Center for Automotive Research.
Sean McAlinden: They have not resorted to incentive campaigns to keep their sales up. Profitability on some of their newer models is very healthy.
Car industry watchers credit GM’s improved PR response after early bumbling. But Paul Argenti, who teaches corporate communications at Dartmouth’s business school, isn’t impressed.
Paul Argenti: You know, if I were grading them in my class, they’d get a low pass, which is sort of the equivalent of a D.
He wants to see the company better explain how it’s going to change a culture that led to serious, deadly engineering flaws getting on the road.
Argenti: What people wanna know in a crisis is why it happened. But then they also wanna know why that’s just not gonna happen again.
And that’s a real leadership challenge for CEO Mary Barra. For auto analyst Maryann Keller, it’s about action, not talk.
Maryann Keller: All of what she says will go for naught if a year from now, it’s business as usual.
And breaking decades of bad habits is a lot harder than fixing an ignition switch. I'm Mark Garrison, for Marketplace.
A couple years ago Facebook had to prove it could figure out how to make money off its mobile services.
Consider it done.
Revenue from mobile ads helped propel the company’s profit to $800 million in the second quarter, up from $333 million a year earlier.
Those ads feature products like furniture or detergent, and they now appear — like it or not — as regularly as your friends' adorable baby photos in your Facebook mobile news feed.
“The mobile ads business is growing faster than anyone had anticipated,” says Ben Schachter, internet analyst with Macquarie Capital, which invests in Facebook.
Google still owns the mobile ad space. The search giant took in 42 percent of all U.S. mobile ad revenue last year, according to the research firm eMarketer. Facebook commanded about 16 percent. But Google has been losing ground and Facebook is coming on strong.
“The thing is they're growing so fast, there's already the question, when are they going to take over Google,” says Karsten Weide, vice president for media and entertainment at International Data Corporation.
But there are some tougher questions, too, like how Facebook is going to keep up its daily user base, which didn’t grow in the latest quarter, and how Facebook plans to make money off new services like private messaging and virtual reality.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in a big campaign finance case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. The justices voted 5-4 to overturn certain limits on how much money Americans can give to candidates and committees.
The reaction was swift. There was concern, among the dissenting justices and campaign finance reform advocates, that the decision would open the floodgates, allowing more Americans to give more money. But so far, it seems the decision has only affected a small group.
Gone are what are called “aggregate limits” on political donations. That is, according to Emory University School of Law Professor Michael Kang, “the total amount an individual could give to candidates, parties and other PACs.”
In the past, a donor could give a maximum of $74,600 to party committees every two years, and $48,600 to federal candidates. A Republican donor named Shaun McCutcheon challenged those, and the court’s majority ruled they were unconstitutional. But, Kang says, here’s the thing: “The court striking down the aggregate limit probably won’t affect that many givers going forward.”
That’s because most Americans weren’t already affected by them.
“There really weren’t a lot of people bumping up against these aggregate limits. So, in 2012, I think the number is roughly 650 maxed out,” says Heather Gerken, a professor at Yale Law School. To “max out” means you gave as much as you could to candidates and committees – tens of thousands of dollars.
During oral arguments, the justices debated a hypothetical: With no aggregate limits, a donor could, in theory, funnel millions of dollars to a single candidate through committees. Gerken acknowledges that is plausible, but she says she doesn’t expect it will happen too often.
“If you have enough money to give $3.5 million in one check, you probably have enough money to fund your own super PAC,” she says, noting that is something many big donors have done. If you have your own super PAC, you have a lot more say over how your money gets spent.
So who has been affected most directly by the Supreme Court’s decision? Lobbyists.
Kelly Bingel is one of them. She is a big supporter of Democratic candidates.
“I think, as soon as the decision came out, every lobbyist in Washington, DC was looking at their checkbook, thinking, ‘Oh my gosh, what does this mean for me?’”
A lobbyist’s checkbook gets a lot of use. Part of her job, Bingel says, is to give money to politicians. She plans for it every year.
“This was a part of my family’s budget,” she allows.
Bingel pays out of pocket to go to political fundraisers, and there are a lot of them.
“We could spend breakfast, lunch and dinner with folks,” Bingel says. “My personal preference is to have breakfast and dinner with my family.”
Bingel estimates she gets around a hundred solicitations a day, mostly by email. In the past, those aggregate limits the Supreme Court overturned gave her an easy out:
“I mean, it used to be you could say, ‘I’m sorry. I’ve hit the max.’ Now, you have to say, ‘I’m sorry. I just can’t…’”
Lobbyist Kenneth J. Kies, managing director of the Federal Policy Group, used that line.
“In my case, it was actually true,” he says.
Kies bumped up against those caps many times. He has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican candidates and Republican Party committees.
Kies also worried about the effect of the McCutcheon decision, joking, “I was going to get rid of my email address and delist my phone number.”
One limit is still in place, a cap on how much a donor can give to a single candidate: $2,600.
“I think from the standpoint of campaign finance reformers, they feel like they dodged a bullet here,” says Kang, noting that “base limit” is something the justices could address in the future.
“I don’t think it’s too sweeping to say that the court really is on a path toward something approaching total deregulation of campaign finance,” he says.
If that limit on individual donations were to disappear, that would affect many more Americans.
Computer science is still a brogrammer’s world. But efforts to bring more girls and minorities into the field may finally be paying off.
According to the College Board, which administers Advanced Placement tests to high schoolers, the number of girls taking the AP computer science test in 2014 increased by 35.5 percent over last year. For boys, the increase was 24.5 percent. While the participation for white students grew by 21.6 percent from 2013, the rates of increase were even larger in other racial categories, including for non-Mexican Latinos, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and those who described their race as “other.”
Students who do well enough on the exam earn college credit for the course.
The College Board itself may be partly responsible for the increase. In collaboration with Google, it brought roughly 500 new AP math and science courses to schools with populations that are underrepresented in the STEM fields. One College Board official called the AP results the “first real indication of progress” for girls and minorities in years.
The exam is still dominated by boys, specifically white and Asian ones. And while the percentage of male test-takers dropped to its lowest level in five years in 2014, overall they still accounted for 80 percent of all students taking the test.
Similarly, while the percentage of white students who took the test dropped to its lowest rate in the last five years, white students still make up 50.4 percent of all test-takers.
The numbers are preliminary; the results of some make-up tests have not yet been recorded, according to Trevor Packer, who runs the AP program at the College Board.
The charts below show the number of boys and girls who took the test from 2010 to 2014, as well as the increased participation rates by race.
Walk into an American Girl store - any American Girl store - and you'll see different shades of pink. Everywhere. That, and dolls, which cost a minimum of $110. Accessories and services like ear-piercing cost more.
American Girl has been around since the 1980s. Their dolls started out as historical characters, who starred in accompanying books about significant periods in American history. Over the years, the line has expanded to include more contemporary characters.
Jean McKenzie, the woman who runs American Girl for its parent company, Mattel, says parents see the dolls as an investment. "I think they feel good about it because it’s quality and there’s just a lot of meaning behind it.”
She took Marketplace host Kai Ryssdal on a tour of her store, at The Grove in Los Angeles He's ... well, you should just watch:
Video produced by Preditorial
Director: Rick Kent
Producer: Mimi Kent
Director of Photography: Anton Seim
Editor: Zachary Rockwood
Music: "Run Amok" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
Parts of rural America might be getting an infrastructure upgrade.
The Department of Agriculture is partnering with the private sector to launch a new investment fund stocked with $10 billion to go toward rural infrastructure development.
The idea is to bundle projects together so investors can more easily fund them, ranging from schools and hospitals to wastewater treatment facilities or even broadband.
For example, the state of Georgia exports nearly 30 percent of its agricultural products, according to Kent Wolfe, director of the Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development at the University of Georgia.
“In order to get those products to the port and compete on a global basis, we need to make sure that we have an efficient transportation system, requiring additional funds in rails, roadways, and port facilities,” Wolfe says, describing the type of investment his area might benefit from.
Especially in more rural locations, communities simply can’t afford to do these large projects on their own.
“Rural areas often have farmland and lower cost rural housing and that’s about it to tax,” says Larry DeBoer, a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University. “In order to do a big project, the tax rates you’d need to do this sort of thing at normal interest rates would be quite high.”
CoBank, a national cooperative bank based in Colorado, is putting up the first $10 billion, though the Department of Agriculture is seeking additional funding from other private sources, like pension funds, endowments, and foundations.
The agency will then act as the matchmaker, finding projects for this fund to invest it. Some loans will be all private money, others a mix of private and public funding.
Corporate tax inversions are the latest topic of debate on Capitol Hill. Allan Sloan, senior editor at large for Fortune magazine, appeared before the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday to talk about international taxation and ways to reverse American companies reincorporating overseas.
Click the media player above to hear Allan Sloan in conversation with Marketplace Morning Report host David Brancaccio to explain the maneuver, why it’s happening, and what government should do to regulate it.
Retirees and employees have voted to accept benefit cuts under Detroit’s bankruptcy blueprint, but not all creditors are on board. Two of the biggest holdouts are bond insurers.
Some are cooperating with Detroit’s plan, but not Syncora Guarantee Inc.
“They’re fighting tooth and nail against the city’s proposed settlement, because it’ll cost them money,” says Alan Schankel, a municipal research analyst at Janney Montgomery Scott.
Syncora and Financial Guaranty Insurance Co. (FGIC) insured almost $1.5 billion of Detroit’s pension debt. The city is offering ten cents on the dollar, or less. That may not be enough.
“Bond insurers got in a lot of trouble in the 2008 crisis. A lot of them were investing in some very exotic derivatives and other things,” says Eric Scorsone, a public finance economist at Michigan State University.
Syncora was insuring mortgage backed securities and other complicated financial products, says analyst Alan Schankel. As the housing crisis hit, Syncora lost capital and its AAA rating.
This all comes at a time when fewer muni bonds are even getting insured. Schankel says before the financial crisis, more than half of new bonds got insurance.
“This year to date that percentage is 4.85 percent,” he says, calling it a precipitous drop.
He believes marketshare will improve over time. The question is whether it will happen in time for Syncora.
The issue of how to deal with young illegal immigrants has been particularly troubling for the Obama administration, with more than 57,000 young migrants, most from Central America, apprehended at the southwest border since October.
María Elena Salinas co-anchors the Univision Network’s national newscast “Noticiero Univision” and the weekly primetime newsmagazine “Aquí y Ahora." She took a recent trip to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador to explore the social, political, and economic reasons why children are fleeing from those countries to the United States.
Click the media player above to hear Univision anchor María Elena Salinas in conversation with Marketplace Morning Report host David Brancaccio.
In the tech industry, one of the central debates has been over whether continued technological innovation can do much good for a wider group of people than just a narrow slice of the urban upper middle class. Tessie Guillermo, CEO of the tech consulting company ZeroDivide, has been thinking about these issues.
The “digital divide” — the gaps between technology haves and have nots — which inspired the name of her firm, is a real and pressing issue. The skewed demographics of the tech industry can also make using technology to improve social outcomes a challenge.
“It creates a lot of anxiety and fear,” says Guillermo.
The ability to give digital literacy to these groups — community organizations and underserved communities — is difficult, and the demographics compound the challenge.
Furthermore, the way the tech industry sells these improvements could be counterproductive.
“There’s not necessarily an app for everything,” says Guillermo.
There is an impatience to how the tech industry deals with problems, in terms of the constant iteration, that doesn’t always translate to other contexts.
If music tech nerds had a patron saint, that patron saint might be electronic music pioneer Robert Moog. As an inventor and entrepreneur, Moog's impact on synthesizers and electronic music in general is best described by gear heads who are more knowledgeable than yours truly. Nonetheless I've been thinking about Moog and his synthesizers a lot.
The 9th anniversary of Moog's death is just under a month away on August 21st. I've been thinking about Moogs in part because of the band Neutral Milk Hotel, which played Brooklyn on Wednesday. At this point, the band has reached a kind of classic indie rock status — known far more now than it was back when it was making records. And one of the great songs in the band's set right now features a special version of the Moog called the Rogue, played by bassist Julian Koster. Not designed by Moog himself, the instrument has its supporters and detractors.
But dang if it doesn't sound pretty awesome when Koster plays it on this tune. The first time I heard it, I was floored. Check it out (gets good around 2:00):
Instrument technology in the electronic age has vastly expanded the number of options musicians have when they go about making their music. That’s had a massive impact on the art form—maybe more than other disciplines, though that could be my bias.
As an example, the Rogue is actually pretty old fashioned. It came out in 1981 — since then there have been so many other kinds of synthesizers and digital instruments that have appeared to change the landscape for musicians. But it was cheaper than earlier models, making it easier for people who wanted a monophonic synth to get and play with.
For musicians, most of whom do not start out rich, price point is often a key deciding factor. And as technology advances, it often gets cheaper. So I think the Rogue is still one of my favorites — proof that innovation at its best can move the needle and the listener.
Workplace discrimination comes in many different forms and shapes. But research out of the University of Colorado shows how women and minorities are often punished for promoting other women and minorities.
Researchers at the University of Colorado say they think they’ve solved the puzzle of why there is still a glass ceiling. They say women and minority leaders are discouraged from focusing on diversity, while white men are praised for doing so.
Matthew Kohut is Managing Partner of KNP Communications and co-author of the book, “Compelling People: The Hidden Qualities That Make Us Influential.”
“This is a double standard. There’s no question that this is straight up discrimination,” says Kohut.
Kohut says a positive case for diversity has to be made again and again.
“Certainly my hope would be that, that would minimize the impact of this double standard and that would begin to chip away at it,” says Kohut.
But in the meantime, the best and brightest employees could still be overlooked. Lissa Broome heads the Director Diversity Initiative at the University of North Carolina Law School.
“So I would really hate the result of this to be that people don’t go to bat for whomever they believe the best candidate is regardless of that person’s gender or race,” said Broome.
The study suggests one way to change this behavior is to get rid of the idea of “diversity” and instead focus on “demographic unselfishness.”
Not to pick on GM, but it does bear a mention that the company issued another recall today. More than 700,000 vehicles.
That brings the total number of cars and trucks General Motors wants back — just for this year — to 28.77 million.
To put that in perspective, GM alone is close to breaking the record 30.8 million vehicles recalled industry-wide in 2004.
This being capitalism, GM shares are off a percent today.
Target, the big box retailing giant, keeps trying to wedge its offerings into smaller and smaller stores. The company has already made a play for urban customers with its scaled down CityTarget stores. But even those will be five times as big as the new TargetExpress store that opened on Wednesday, in a Minneapolis neighborhood called Dinkytown.
TargetExpress offers some of the same items like electronics, baby bibs and groceries that are for sale in the larger Target stores. But there's just a lot less of them—about 1/5 as many items.
The clothing options include basics like socks and underwear.
"You have no quarters for laundry, here you go,” says Target spokeswoman Erika Winkels.
The TargetExpress in Dinkytown will cater to college students from the nearby University of Minnesota and other urbanites who need to do convenience shopping.
“It's these fill-in trips, trips in between the big stock-up trips; that is the biggest opportunity in retail right now,” says Carol Spieckerman, president and CEO of newmarketbuilders, a retail strategy firm.
Graphic by Gina Martinez & Shea Huffman/Marketplace
Spieckerman says Target and Wal-Mart, which are both trying out small formats, can use the mini stores to connect shoppers to inventory not available in-store. A tablet in the TargetExpress lets shoppers search for products and buy them online.
But for customer Josh Egge, the TargetExpress's value is its location. He manages a rental property near the new store and wants to tell potential tenants there are grocery options nearby.
“In the past, I've had to tell them walk five blocks and take a bus an extra two miles. So this will be really nice,” he says.
Target says it plans to open four more TargetExpress stores next year.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of the table included listed the incorrect number of Super Targets. The graphic has been corrected.
Cash, assets, money. Businesses in the U.S. have a lot of it these days.
$16.4 trillion of it, in fact.
"The ratio of assets to GDP is almost 100 percent," says Joel Prakken, co-founder of Macroeconomic Advisers. "That’s very, very high."
To translate: every dollar spent in the U.S. economy in a year, businesses are holding in cash or securities.
It’s a lot of money, but it’s not necessarily a reflection of a healthy economy. Not all of it was earned here in the U.S., a lot was earned abroad.
“We’ve had very modest economic growth over the last four years and I don’t expect that to change any time soon,” says Scott Wren, senior equity strategist at Wells Fargo Advisors.
And those gargantuan levels of cash and assets aren’t being spent creating corresponding levels of jobs. In previous recoveries, monthly job creation has averaged up to 500,000 positions, but the current recovery is mustering a mere 200,000 consistently.
One reason is the enduring hangover from the Great Recession.
“A lot of businesses felt like the U.S. economy was ready to roll over into another recession,” says Wren. Caution and fear do not promote hiring. Things like business sentiment are improving, but it’s unlikely the country will see consistent economic growth above 3 percent until after 2016.
But that's only part of the story. It turns out businesses are trying to hire a little bit. “There were 4.6 million open jobs in May of this year,” points out Matt Slaughter, Dean of Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business. That’s an increase of 700,000 over the past year.
But firms are running into trouble filling those open positions. They’re so desperate that yearly quotas for hiring high-skilled immigrants filled up in four days with a record number of applications, says Slaughter. “Companies are not finding the right kind of technical or other skills they need to fill some of the jobs they are looking to hire for.”
But maybe there is a bigger explanation, one that many economists including Slaughter, Prakken, and Larry Summers are talking about. Maybe higher corporate profits and lower employment are the new normal.
It’s possible that “the nature of capital investments is gradually changing,” says Prakken.
For many years, a new technology or capital investment might destroy some jobs, but create many new ones. The computer, for example, reduced clerical positions initially, but resulted in an explosion of other jobs over time.
Perhaps, though, we are entering a new era of capital investment, “one which destroys the demand for labor without creating parallel opportunities for displaced workers,” says Prakken.
Although the FAA has banned American companies from flying to Israel, potentially dangerous countries like Sudan, Chad, Pakistan and Niger only have warnings.
Michael Boyd, President of Boyd Group International, an aviation industry consulting firm that works with big carriers, says airlines consider many factors when deciding where to fly.
“Airlines don’t make that decision alone,” he says.
Take the case of Malaysian flight MH17, recently shot down over Ukraine. Lots of entities were involved in the decision to let the plane fly there, notes Boyd. Bodies like Eurocontrol – Europe’s answer to air traffic controllers.
“There were over 400 airplanes the prior week that did the same flight – not a problem," says Boyd. "So there was no strong indication that there was a threat at that point in time.”
And when a route is potentially dangerous Boyd says the U.S. Department of State issues warnings. As a result, passengers don’t want to fly, so airlines cancel flights.
Henry Harteveldt, a travel industry analyst with Atmosphere Research, says the decision about where and when to fly can be much more complex.
“It may be political relationships between the countries. It may be commercial ties between the countries. It may be that while carriers from certain countries are not welcome, carriers from other countries will be welcome," he says.
If airlines have to fly around problem regions Harteveldt says they have to be sure they can accommodate additional flying time as well as costs for fuel and crew. Like pilots who, he notes, have the right to question the safety of destinations. But if one pilot won’t take a flight, an airline can look for another who will.
“Airlines are commercial businesses – they’re there to earn a profit for their investors, as well as provide safe transportation,” he says.
And safety is what a couple of the big carriers say is their top priority. Like American Airlines - it has canceled upcoming flights to Tel Aviv.
First, says Harteveldt, airlines rely on government authorities, like the FAA, to provide either guidance or edicts on what they should do. They may also rely on other intelligence data that they obtain through private parties like independent companies providing security intelligence. But lastly says Harteveldt, there's one final resource airlines turn to:
"They use common sense."
If you spend any time watching viral videos you may have seen some of the latest ads to target women and girls, and their parents. They focus on female strength, and can seem more like public service announcements than marketing campaigns. Except they're coming from companies like Verizon Wireless or Proctor & Gamble – and millions of people are choosing to watch them.
In one of the most-watched ads, for Always feminine products, there's no pitch for an actual product. Instead, a documentary maker sits behind a monitor. She asks several young adults to show her what it looks like to "run like a girl."
Each runner flails around, arms flapping, head flopping from side to side. It's a parody of uncoordinated running. Then the filmmaker asks the same question of a ten-year-old called Dakota.
The little girl races on the spot, like an athlete. No flailing. No flopping. The point? Pre-teens haven't yet absorbed the message that doing anything 'like a girl' means doing it badly – that 'girl' amounts to weakness.
"These ads are putting their finger on something that we all know is true but rarely talk about," says Rachel Simmons, co-founder of the Girls Leadership Institute. "In adolescence there is a precipitous loss of self-esteem that girls experience. And this ad explained what was happening and validated the experience of millions of parents."
Which may explain why it's been viewed more than 40 million times in just a few weeks.
Jodi Detjen, a management professor at Suffolk University in Boston, says marketers are pushing messages about female strength and ability to capitalize on a national movement.
"You've got all these organizations trying to figure out how to get more women leaders," she says. "You've got all this pressure on Silicon Valley to get more women involved."
Not to mention the push to get more young women to take up science and technology careers.
Detjen says if advertisers want to get on board too, that's fine with her.
"Because of the complexity of the problem, I think we need these different approaches, so it's just like this perfect storm."
Rachel Simmons says it's not ideal. She'd rather girls learn this stuff from their parents, not a YouTube video.
"I want to have every girl have her teacher to tell her to stop apologizing, not a shampoo commercial. But if we don't live in that world I don't want to throw out the commercial just on principle," Simmons says.
That shampoo commercial she's talking about shows a woman in a business meeting speaking hesitantly, with this line:
"Sorry, can I ask a stupid question?"
Pantene made the ad. It focuses on some women's tendency to preface their words with an apology. Then the ad urges them to stop being sorry, and start having faith inthemselves. Pantene teamed up with the American Association of University Women to promote the campaign and help it reach a millennial audience.
But some women, like Stephanie Holland, don't relate to this particular commercial. They don't like that the ad encourages women to change their behavior. Holland writes the She-conomy blog about women's marketing power. She's also run her own ad agency for 30 years. For a long time, she did change her behavior.
"I have over time realized that I had to act like a man to be successful," Holland says.
And with hindsight, she regrets that. So if over-apologizing is more of a woman thing, she says, so what? Why can't women today be themselves at work, just like men? She feels the ad is condescending.
"At the end of the day, it's saying that we should change and not them. That they're right, and we're wrong."
Holland says some differences between the sexes are OK – and she's not sorry.
Executives at Netflix knew Beau Willimon's "House of Cards" would be a hit, long before anyone saw it.
They'd crunched the copious numbers available on their audience - they knew who was watching what and when, on the most granular of levels (like, yes, if you spend 13 hours in front of your screen without pause, someone out there sees you). Their millions of subscribers liked films by director David Fincher, and they'd watch just about anything with actor Kevin Spacey. The British version of the show was already doing well. It seemed like one sure bet.
Beau Willimon, however, cares about none of this. As he told Kai Ryssdal, not everyone at Netflix is awash in the same numbers - here are the figures that matter to him:Practically 0
...Willimon sees almost no data on "House of Cards." In his words: "I know virtually nothing."Practically 0, redux
... and he doesn't want to see any data.
"Those numbers can lead to either forced choices that have nothing to do with the creative process, or, conversely, coming from the creative side, a form of pandering. Because you become obsessed with those numbers and try to cater to them. So, I don't have to deal with any of that... You can't get addicted to heroin if it's not available to you."26 hours, guaranteed
Netflix made a big promise from the start: Two seasons, no matter what.
"Knowing that I had 26 hours meant that I had a broad canvas I could paint on. I knew there were things I could lay in early on in season one that might not fully come back til the end of season two. So you could really delve deeper into characters. You don't feel rushed. You don't have to force big cliffhangers or jump the shark in order to try to make something dramatic happen unorganically, the way that some shows feel the pressure to, becasue they're in a ratings game week to week, fighting for their life.Infinite
...the amount of angst that goes into "House of Cards".
"All we really care about is the work we're trying to do that day. Trying to tell the best story we can... Constantly contending with our own sense of self-doubt and self-loathing, which is worse than any data set."At least 1
...piece of data he wouldn't share with us.
No, he wouldn't give us a release date for "House of Cards" season three.