The Weekly Listen: Why Pavel Durov’s arrest spooked social media giants, swapping barcodes for QR ones, and more

Audio by Marcus Johnson, Rahul Chadha, Sarah Marzano, and Carina Perkins | Sep 6, 2024

Episode Transcript:

Marcus:

eMarketer is your trusted partner for actionable data and insights on marketing, advertising, commerce and more. But you know, were you familiar with the fact that eMarketer also has a division focused on B2B media solutions? Maybe not, but you are now. Partner with eMarketer today and connect your brand messaging with our powerful audiences. You can learn more of course at eMarketer.com/advertise.

Hello everyone, and thanks for hanging out with us for the Behind the Numbers Weekly Listen and eMarketer podcast. This is the Friday show that didn't know what the world did before ketchup. A plain hotdog? Oh, what a terrible place to live. No one else agrees?

Sarah Marzano:

Mustard.

Carina Perkins:

Yeah, I was going to say mustard. Mayonnaise, more importantly.

Marcus:

On fries.

Sarah Marzano:

I'm not eight years old.

Carina Perkins:

Yeah, mayonnaise with everything.

Marcus:

Mayonnaise with everything, that is true. Definitely not on a hot dog, that's insane. Mustard on your fries? Sarah.

Sarah Marzano:

No, I'm an aioli on the fries. I'm getting [inaudible 00:01:05], I need a little fancy [inaudible 00:01:05]-

Carina Perkins:

Oh, nice.

Marcus:

Wow, how European of you.

Sarah Marzano:

Yeah, I'm sophisticated.

Carina Perkins:

[inaudible 00:01:07] style.

Marcus:

You've changed.

Sarah Marzano:

Thanks, guys.

Marcus:

You've changed. In today's show... Oh, I'm Marcus by the way. You knew that, you might not have. It doesn't really matter. But today, we're talking about can tech executives be held responsible for what happens on their platforms? Is Walmart+ a legitimate threat to Amazon Prime? Will swapping out barcodes for QR codes move the needle? Can retailers start their holiday marketing too soon? And why do dogs tilt their heads when you talk to them sometimes? Joining me for this episode, we have three people. Let's meet, then we start with our principal analyst who covers everything retail media, based in New York City, it's Sarah Marzano.

Sarah Marzano:

Hi, Marcus.

Marcus:

Hello, there. We're also joined by our director of reports editing, he is based in Maryland now, I believe, it's Rahul Chadha.

Rahul Chadha:

Hey, Marcus. Thanks for having me.

Marcus:

Hey, fella. And finally, across the ponds on the south coast of England, we have our senior analyst, who covers everything retail and e-commerce for the UK and a bit of Western Europe as well. It's Carina Perkins.

Carina Perkins:

Hi, Marcus. I'm so thrilled to be here.

Marcus:

Okay, let's just get this out of the way. So I told Carina this was a video podcast in the subject line of the email, and she thinks that I didn't, or it wasn't in the correct place, and so is mad [inaudible 00:02:31]-

Carina Perkins:

I'm not mad, I said I was thrilled to be here.

Marcus:

Your tone said otherwise. It's Carina Perkins.

Carina Perkins:

Just my UK tone.

Marcus:

Great to have you. I know. We only have one. All right, what do you have in store for you is story of the week. We have a debate for you in the middle today, and then we end with some random trivia. Of course, we start with the story of the week. "Can tech executives be held responsible for what happens on their platforms?" questions Adam Satariano and Cecilia Kang of the New York Times.

They note that French judicial authorities brought preliminary charges against Pavel Durov, Telegram's founder and CEO, as part of an investigation into illicit activities on the messaging app that set off worries about the personal liability of tech executives. France is charging Mr. Durov with complicity of organized crime on his messaging app Telegram, including money laundering, drug trafficking, and distributing child sexual abuse material, according to reporting from the BBC, the AP, NBC... Not Universal, NBC News, and French newspaper Le Monde.

Mr. Durov is a French and UAE dual national, billionaire originally from Russia, who founded the popular Russian social media company Vkontakte, 10 years ago. He left Russia after refusing to comply with government demands to shut down opposition communities on the platform, notes Graham Fraser of the BBC. A year before this, he had founded Telegram, running the company from Dubai in the UAE, where he now lives. Telegram is the world's eighth largest social media messaging platform, says the Economist, popular in India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, and the Ukraine, as well as other countries, with a self-reported 1 billion monthly active users worldwide. That makes it nearly three times bigger than Twitter and two thirds the size of Instagram.

Judges have placed Mr. Durov under court monitoring. He must visit the police station twice a week, and stopped him from leaving France, requiring him to post a $5 million bail. The investigation could take months or even years, and judges could ultimately decide to drop the charges. Okay, lots going on. Rahul, what's your take on this case, and this concept from the New York Times of... Or this question of whether tech executives may be, in the future, be held responsible for what's going on on their platforms?

Rahul Chadha:

I mean, I think it's really interesting that they went after this guy. You know, I think in the past, most regulatory actions that have been taken against tech platforms, my sense is most of them have been in the EU, largely around privacy issues or antitrust issues. And EU will levy fines against these mammoth businesses that are just part of the cost of doing business for them. They're generating billions in revenue, 10, $100 million fine's kind of a slap on the wrist for them.

Putting these executives, forcing them to put some skin in the game in terms of liability, in terms of what's happening on their platforms is maybe a new approach, and maybe will motivate these people to figure out how to adhere to the regulations that are on the books a little bit tighter. You know, I think The Times article pointed out that the bar is really high for these prosecutors, though. You know, they have to prove the execs knew about the illegal activities on their platforms and did nothing.

I think the First Amendment, or I guess on an international level you're talking about free speech adherence are going to complain that this limits the ability for people to express themselves on these platforms freely. I think it's instructive. This guy came from Russia, too. I don't think it's an accident that he's probably a free speech absolutist from that term, I mean from that perspective. But you know, this is a debate that's been going on, at least in America, since our inception, free speech versus the cost of free speech, meaning a speech that might be abhorrent to some people, and trying to find a balance is just an ongoing process I don't think we're going to resolve perfectly.

Marcus:

Yeah, it does seem as though, when you talk about personal liability, it does seem as though that gets more attention than, like you said, slap on the wrist fines that don't really... Pretty inconsequential. This arrest does seem to have spooked social media companies, kind of asking this, "What does this mean for us?" Sarah Oh Lam of the Tech Policy Institute was saying his arrest, Mr. Durov, and charges have unnerved people across the social media industry, and Ms. Kang and Mr. Satariano of the New York Times writing, "As law enforcement agencies, regulators, and policymakers ramp up scrutiny of online platforms, they are increasingly considering when to hold company leaders directly responsible."

This shift was punctuated by the charges against Mr. Durov raising questions over whether tech executives like Meta's Mark Zuckerberg also risked being arrested when they set foot on European soil. Things do seem to be changing, though. I mean, in the US, we have Section 230, Communications Decency Act that protects internet platforms from being responsible for harmful speech. It doesn't apply to some forms of outlawed speech, such as child sexual abuse, so it doesn't cover everything. But in the UK, Carina, they've passed an online safety law that can hold tech leaders personally responsible if their companies are made aware of content that risks child safety and systematically fails to remove it. To Rahul's point, that's what they have to prove here, that they knew about it and then did nothing on purpose.

Carina Perkins:

Yeah, and I think, look, the issue here is accountability. And the problem is now that social media platforms have such massive influence, they really do have influence over people, and I think that they're going to have to start meeting the same kind of accountability as large media platforms on that count. So you've got libel laws and things like that, that if someone says something defamatory, if a newspaper prints it, the newspaper will be held account, but so can the editor, and so can the individual journalist.

So I think that, really, social media has kind of escaped that personal accountability, but I think that it is something that is going to have to happen, if they are to really take action on some of the more problematic areas on their platforms. And there are some problematic things on their platforms. I'm 100% all for free speech, but there does need to be a certain amount of responsibility and accountability when it comes to what kind of things are being promoted on their platform.

And certainly, if there's any kind of criminal activity on their platform, then someone has to be held accountable for that. And as Rahul said, the problem is that big fines, they're not a massive problem for very large companies, whereas that kind of personal sanction might have a bit more of an effect in making them act. I think prosecution's quite unlikely, but I can see what the prosecutors are trying to do.

Marcus:

Yeah, it does seem as there's kind of a spectrum of you can say anything, and two, "We're going to really restrict what you're able to say on this platform." And it does appear as though Telegram was on the, "You can pretty much say anything on this platform," end of the spectrum. And they were pretty kind of lax to non-existent in terms of content moderation policies.

Matthew Dalton of the Wall Street Journal writing that, "Mr. Durov's laissez-faire approach to policing the platform saw him impose few, if any, restrictions on content shared on Telegram, despite mounting concern, particularly in Europe, the online platforms were enabling illegal activity, spreading misinformation, and fueling hate speech." For years, Telegram has ignored subpoenas and court orders, according to someone close to and Mr. Durov, and Mr. Fraser of the BBC writing that, "Cybersecurity experts say its moderation of extremist and illegal content is much weaker than other social platforms and messaging apps as well." Sarah, what was your biggest takeaway from this story?

Sarah Marzano:

Yeah, I mean, I think what's really changing here is, and a couple of the other folks here have pointed out just the massive scale and influence that some of these social platforms have. And what we're seeing is that there's this huge variety of approaches to international laws regarding the responsibility of social media platforms over the content their users post. And so I think we're going to keep seeing things like the US's strong free speech approach getting challenged by what's happening in other countries. We're seeing, as the world becomes more global, it's also becoming a bit smaller, right? And it'll be interesting to see sort of who blinks first when it comes to the approach. And we see a lot of these CEOs digging their heels in, but it'll be interesting to see whether this has any effect.

Marcus:

Yeah, yeah. Telegram, there have been bans temporarily or permanently in over 30 countries, according to VPN software maker Surfshark. Now, they do say that they comply with the EU's Digital Services Act, which requires companies to cooperate with authorities in countering the spread of illegal content on their platforms. However, one of the things that's holding them back here is the size of the company. It might not have a large enough team to even moderate the content if it wanted to. They apparently have somewhere around 50 staff.

I don't know, even if it's triple that, or quadruple that, or 10 times that, there's really nothing compared to... Like, Facebook has 40,000 just in its safety and security teams alone. So that's part of the problem. And then, social media, they kind of prioritize correcting the worst content moderation offenses. If they can't do it all, which it seems like it's almost impossible to do, they'll try to go after the worst stuff. And Alessandro Accorsi, a researcher of the International Crisis Group, saying, "The effectiveness of content moderation is largely dependent on the platform and the resources it allocates to safety." Social media companies are often reactive, since they want to limit the financial resources dedicated to moderation, as well as possible legal, political and ethical headaches.

So what usually happens is that they will focus their efforts on a few groups or issues for which inaction on their part carries legal or reputational costs. If convicted of complicity and illegal online transactions, Mr. Durov faces up to 10 years in prison and a fine that really doesn't matter to a billionaire, about 500,000 euros, pretty much the same in dollars, a little bit more. This was noted in the journal as well. I guess one part of the problem here, finally, WhatsApp, they limit group sizes to 1,000 users. Telegram, you can have up to 200,000 users in a group. And so it does seem like regulating... Sorry, trying to moderate any of this content is just an absolute nightmare, but we'll see. That's what we've got time for the story of the week. We move now, folks, to a debate of the week. Today's segment, Make the Case.

This is where Carina, Sarah, and Rahul present the for and against arguments for each of the following questions based on three news stories. Two contestants will face off per question. Following takes don't necessarily reflect the analysts' personal views. Their job is to just present the best case regardless and offer objective analysis.

Question one, Rahul against Carina, is Walmart+ a legitimate threat to Amazon Prime? Walmart+ members have a new perk, discounted fast food, notes our retail briefing analyst, Rachel Wolf. She writes that, "In what Walmart calls its first of its kind partnership with Burger King, subscribers now get 25% off one digital order daily in app or online, and members will be eligible for one free Whopper per quarter with a digital purchase." Walmart's membership costs $100 for the year, 8 bucks a month, and includes free shipping, access to Paramount+, early access to promos, gas discounts, and more. The question is is Walmart+ a legitimate threat to Amazon Prime at this point? Rahul is arguing that it is a legitimate threat to Amazon Prime. 60 seconds on the clock, make the case.

Rahul Chadha:

If the economy turns south, I think certainly price conscious shoppers will see better value at Walmart+. I think you mentioned it's $99, $100 a year, I think, compared to Amazon Prime, which I think is around $140, at least in the US. So that's a $40 savings right there. Walmart has a reputation obviously for being a value-focused retailer. One of the perks is a discount on gas, which is just a fixed cost for a lot of people who are relying on cars for transportation, and they're working to hit parity with Amazon Prime by adding stuff like Paramount+.

Are they going to get there? Probably not. I think it's always going to be a little bit less enticing if you're looking at just the whole suite of products and services that come baked in with Prime. But again, I think if the economy has headed kind of in the wrong direction for a lot of people, it's going to attract a lot of value-focused consumers.

Marcus:

Very nice start. Carina arguing Walmart+ isn't a legitimate threat to Amazon Prime, make the case.

Carina Perkins:

Yeah, I think Walmart+ is undoubtedly gaining momentum. It's doing a lot of interesting things with its membership, but I think it's got quite a long way to go before it's a legitimate threat to Amazon. So this chart here shows that I think there was our eMarketer e-commerce survey found 26% of US adults pay for Walmart+ membership. For Amazon Prime, it's over 65%. So that's quite a massive gap, and Walmart's going to have to do a lot of legwork to catch up, especially when you consider the share of e-commerce sales that they have.

So Walmart Inc in the US accounts for 8.2% of retail e-commerce sales and Amazon has a 40.9% share. So it is still really very dominant when it comes to e-commerce, and I think that's going to be in its advantage when it comes to staying ahead of Walmart+. Also, from a global perspective, Amazon has a huge lead, particularly in Europe, where Walmart doesn't operate at all. Amazon's got a 25% share of e-commerce sales in France and the UK-ish, and about 40% in Germany.

Marcus:

Yeah, I was looking at that data as well, Carina, and not only is Walmart+ used by 26% or paid for by 26% of US adults, but it's up 12 points from a year ago, and that's nearly as many people who pay for Costco and Sam's Club membership. So it's getting up there now, Prime, at 65%, to your point. But Walmart+ is only four years old, Amazon Prime is nearly 20.

All right, folks, let's move to our second round, second question. Will swapping out barcodes for QR codes significantly move the needle? Carina against Sarah for this one. Brands and retailers are working to replace barcodes with the newer, more capable QR codes by 2027, a move that could boost sales and customer engagement rights. Isabella Busquets of the Journal, she explains that barcodes are now 50 years old, made their debut in '74, when Brussels-based not-for-profit organization GS1 created a set of standards to assign every product a 12-digit code, or 13 outside the US. QR codes, invented in '94, and no spring chicken, but can store more product information and even coupons as well. Question is, will swapping out bar codes for QR codes significantly move the needle? Carina is arguing that it will for retailers, make the case.

Carina Perkins:

Yeah, so I actually think this is really exciting, and that might be my slightly inner geeky side. I think barcodes do their job very well from a kind of inventory planning, scanning, and pricing perspective, but they don't really have any added value at all for the consumer. QR codes could do the same job as barcodes, while offering significantly more information for shoppers, and it would make labeling a lot more dynamic and engaging. So in the long run, I think you could actually see retailers cut costs with QR codes. I'm going to explain how.

So if you consider a nutritional label, at the moment, all of the nutritional information has to be displayed on a label in the UK, and if you make an ingredient change, then you have to completely change the labeling run and change all of that information. You could see, potentially, in the long run if becoming a QR code became the norm, the consumer could scan the QR code to get that nutritional information.

And so the retailer, to change the information, would just have to change the information digitally, rather than having to do a kind of complete physical print rerun. So I think it could definitely move the needle forward. I think there are probably quite a lot of barriers to overcome in terms of investment and consumer education to get QR codes on everything, and get consumers to use them. But I think it's quite exciting.

Marcus:

That's a heck of a case. Sarah, I don't really know if there's any point of you going. Should we just skip ahead?

Sarah Marzano:

Yeah, just skip me. I'm just here for [inaudible 00:19:29].

Marcus:

Of course, kidding. Good luck.

Sarah Marzano:

Yeah, so I think the benefits of swapping barcodes with QR codes simply aren't strong enough to outweigh the costs. So Marcus, you mentioned that for retailers, they get the benefit of more robust information on product pricing, promotions, coupons, and I think I read an article that said things like product recalls as well. But every investment that retailers and brands make has to be consumer-centric. And I think from a consumer or shopper's point of view, QR codes are going to remain a nice to have, right? They're a way to access expanded product information that maybe is harder for a retailer to provide in a purely physical setting, things like expanded content, nutritional information, what have you.

That's an added benefit for a really specific subset of in-store shoppers, those that are already really digitally savvy, those that specifically aren't in a hurry, and have time to look up more information and interest there. Those that are really interested in that expanded product information, that's not going to be everybody. And then, from a retailer infrastructure perspective, there was research from Retail Systems Research, around 4 in 10 retailers, at least here in the US, not being satisfied with their in-store Wi-Fi. So there's some foundational infrastructure problems. Wi-Fi is really necessary for things like QR codes that you scan with your phone to work smoothly.

And then, just bringing it back to the customer, unless QR codes can make in-store shopping faster or more efficient, or really make shoppers feel confident that they're saving money, they're going to create friction at checkout, and that is going to prevent them from meaningfully replacing barcodes. I think, at best, we're looking at a future where QR codes go the way of something like self-checkout. It'll be one of several options that shoppers come to expect versus becoming a complete replacement for the barcode.

Marcus:

It's a good round, folks. It does seem like you need to give people a real reason, or real experience, or an enhancement of the experience. One of the examples is a case study in this piece from the Journal, and it was highlighting where L'Oréal experimented with putting QR codes on packages of hair dye that led users to a site where they could do virtual try-ons of that color or watch tutorials. The company said folks who engaged with these experiences were more likely to purchase by a factor of two to three, which is not nothing, but a fair amount of folks already engage with QR codes whilst in stores. You can see from this chart, showing the things Americans use their phones for while shopping. 25%, this is from this summer as well, 25% of US shoppers scanned a QR code on their phone whilst in a shop, [inaudible 00:22:12] retailer services company, SPAR Group.

Let's move on to our third round, third and final of the today's debate, holiday shopping. How early is too early? Sarah versus Rahul. "Consumers are split on when to start holiday shopping," writes Zachary Russell of Chain Store Age. A recent Veracast study found 44% of consumers plan to start shopping for the holidays in October or earlier. That's down slightly from 47% last year. So 44% saying October or earlier, 41% plan to do most of their holiday shopping in November, 33% plan on December.

Our retail analyst Zak Stambor suggests that brands risk marketing fatigue by letting pumpkin spice and Christmas messages creep into August. He says, "Some early promo offenders include Home Depot, who hyped its Halloween decorations in March, Lowe's and Party City started selling them in June, and UK Department store John Lewis showcased Christmas home decor trends in July," Zak notes. Can retailers, though, can they start their holiday marketing too soon? Sarah is arguing that retailers can indeed start their holiday marketing too soon, make the case.

Sarah Marzano:

Yeah, so I think starting holiday marketing earlier as a means to drive sales and capture consumer interest early has been a topic for at least my entire retail career, which I think that setup might take the wind out of my sails a little bit, because this has been going on for a long time, and it keeps going. I think consumers have demonstrated so far a surprising amount of tolerance for early holiday messaging. But I think that tolerance certainly comes with potential limits, and the data that Zak cited showing that there are really mixed results in terms of efficacy.

If we're measuring success by incentivizing consumers to actually spend more or to shift their spending timeframe, this chart shows that perfectly. Zak's article cited data from Comscore, looking at the share of monthly shopping in October, which has remained stable since 2018, despite giant retailers like Amazon bringing in really significant promotions into the month of October. I think the risk that retailers run when it comes to items that are only available for a limited period of time, say something like a pumpkin spice latte, bringing that availability earlier erodes any sense of urgency and the lift that you can get from the urgency and that special nature that comes with scarcity. If the shopper's trained to see that the best sort of thing is going to be available, right, they're going to be less likely to take action.

And I think that translates over to promotions as well, right? When you run a promotion, you're looking for that shopper to take action. If promotions become sort of an everyday thing, you enter into a race to the bottom, where you've got a consumer who simply won't shop full price and is just going to wait for the very best deal. And again, you're taking away any ability to differentiate yourself based on product or quality. And then, the last thing I want to mention here is that we're asking a lot from physical merchandise in stores. If we're looking to merchandise our stores in line with some of that holiday messaging, we're going to be looking at shelves and products that are getting a lot more shop worn throughout the season and a retail environment that's going to be just less exciting, less fresh looking.

Marcus:

Rahul is arguing retailers can't start their holiday marketing too soon. Make the case, please, sir.

Rahul Chadha:

Yeah, I mean, I think everybody's going to target and seen, whatever, Halloween decorations in June and thought, "What the heck is going on here?" And people are going to gripe about that, but I think retailers are stuck in an arms race. If one actor moves up the schedule on holiday marketing, everybody else has got to follow, I think whether they want to or not, out of a sense of fear and anxiety, if nothing else. And I think consumers are just kind of the casualties in that war.

And I think that stat about these share of holiday sales kind of being flat in October, that could also just be reflective of the fact that they have to do this now just to maintain that share. Even if they're not growing share, retailers can't lose share, either. So if they're operating from a place of fear, I think, yeah, we're just going to unfortunately see these holiday shopping marketing campaigns just move up earlier and earlier, because at the end of the day, I think people will complain, but if they see a deal, a deal's a deal, and they'll buy a Christmas present in October instead of waiting until December, if they think they're getting a good price on it.

Marcus:

Yeah, it's hard to tell whether this matters or not, because when you ask people, they say it bothers them. And then, we've not really seen that much of a shift in behavior patterns for the holidays. So one point, tentpole shopping holidays apparently losing their luster. 54% of holiday shoppers said they don't view Black Friday and Cyber Monday as essential for their needs, according to Basis Technologies and GWI survey.

However, this is also to that point, holiday marketing can wear on folks. 67% of consumers are anticipating marketing fatigue by November 1st, according to a study by Optimove Insights. Does it really change when people shop or how they view their holiday shopping? Probably not. Nice job, folks. Great rounds, great three rounds, great debate. We now move to the final segment of the day, it's Dinner Party Data. This is the part of the show where we tell you about the most interesting thing we've learned this week.

Carina Perkins:

Okay, my Dinner Party Data is inspired by Walmart's New Deal, and it's on fast food consumption, which is taken from The Barbecue Lab, based on Center for Disease Control data. So on any given day, a third of Americans, which is about 84.8 million adults apparently, are eating fast food. 38% of US men consume fast food daily, versus 35.4% of women, and 83% of American families eat at fast food restaurants at least once a week. And the average American household spends 10% of its annual income on fast food, which adds up to $110 billion a year, which could end world hunger for up to three years.

Rahul Chadha:

[inaudible 00:28:23]-

Marcus:

Did you say The Barbecue lab?

Rahul Chadha:

Yeah, that's what I was going to add.

Marcus:

Okay.

Rahul Chadha:

Say your source is The Barbecue Lab? Because I would like to sign up for their newsletter.

Marcus:

Was that the source?

Carina Perkins:

The Barbecue Lab, yeah.

Marcus:

Don't say it like it's a common thing, "You know The Barbecue Lab?"

Carina Perkins:

You know The Barbecue Lab-

Marcus:

Everyone's talking [inaudible 00:28:42]-

Carina Perkins:

Everyone's talking about The Barbecue Lab.

Marcus:

No one is, just-

Sarah Marzano:

Now we are.

Carina Perkins:

Now we are.

Marcus:

Exactly. Okay, they're high. I wonder what they include in fast food, though. You know, is an Olive Garden in there?

Sarah Marzano:

[inaudible 00:28:56].

Marcus:

Does that count? Is a Sweetgreen.

Carina Perkins:

I don't know.

Marcus:

Can you get a fast food salad? How fast-

Carina Perkins:

I'll go and interrogate their methodology.

Marcus:

Yes, please.

Carina Perkins:

Sure.

Marcus:

Very good. Sarah?

Sarah Marzano:

I'm so stressed about the time.

Marcus:

Good.

Sarah Marzano:

All right, the Olympics are over, but the Paralympics are airing now through September 8th. So I realized I didn't know much about the origins of the Paralympics, so I pulled some information. The Paralympic Games began in 1948 at a military hospital in the north of London. Neurologist Sir Ludwig Guttmann was trying to find a way to speed up the recovery of his paraplegic patients, all of whom were World War II veterans. He came up with the idea of organizing a series of sports competitions to be held at the same time as the Olympic Games in London.

Carina Perkins:

Wow.

Sarah Marzano:

Done.

Marcus:

Oh, wow.

Carina Perkins:

That's cool.

Marcus:

Bang, in 30 seconds.

Sarah Marzano:

I mean, I had so many more things to say, but I'm just trying to adhere to the timing.

Marcus:

I kind of want one more. Do you have another favorite? This is a fascinating topic.

Sarah Marzano:

I didn't know the prefix para in the word Paralympic means alongside in Greek, and the idea is that therefore the Paralympic games exist alongside the Olympic Games.

Marcus:

Interesting, very nice. That was much better than whatever Carina said.

Sarah Marzano:

Phew.

Marcus:

Rahul, you're up.

Carina Perkins:

Bit harsh.

Rahul Chadha:

Oh, yeah, I found an interesting data point from the European Association for Secure Transaction, or EAST. So according to them, there were more than 4,600 attacks on cash machines in a group of 19 European countries last year, which they tracked. That was up 24% year over year. Attacks on these machines usually come in two different ways, one where the machine is ripped out and then transported somewhere, where they try to crack it open, and another one where they just blow them up and try to get immediate access to the cash. And so there's been an average of two explosive attacks on cash machines per day in the countries tracked by EAST, which I thought was a staggering number.

Carina Perkins:

Wow.

Sarah Marzano:

That's nuts.

Carina Perkins:

What countries are tracked by EAST?

Rahul Chadha:

They're mostly Western countries, I think a few like Romania or something I'd say. So Central Europe, but they're largely Western European countries. I can't remember the list right now, but...

Sarah Marzano:

Wow, what a wide range of data we brought to this dinner party.

Marcus:

Yeah. All right, I've got one to keep in theme with this, why dogs tilt their heads. So, "Dogs tilt their heads when you speak to them to better pinpoint familiar words quicker," notes a BBC Science Focus article. This is done to listen out more accurately for familiar words, such as going for a walk, and helps them better understand the tone of your voice. If a dog doesn't tilt its head, that often as those with shorter muzzles might, it's because it relies less on sound and more on sight.

Dog behavior expert, Dr. Stanley Coren of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver believes that dogs with shorter muzzles tilt their heads less because they have a better view of our facial expressions, and they're therefore not so reliant on their ears to understand us. A dog's range of hearing is wider than ours, but not as accurate. So perking their ears up whilst tilting their heads helps them identify sounds more clearly.

Carina Perkins:

It's interesting. My dog who had massive ears, you can see behind me here... Can you see him? I'll get him.

Marcus:

Yep.

Carina Perkins:

Shall I get him?

Marcus:

Of course.

Carina Perkins:

[inaudible 00:32:25], this is Zappa.

Sarah Marzano:

He's so cute.

Carina Perkins:

And he never tilted his ears, but they were huge.

Marcus:

But he never did this?

Carina Perkins:

He didn't have a short snout, he never did the... My dog now does, my puppy now does, but he never did.

Marcus:

He has a short-

Carina Perkins:

But I think it's just because he had satellite dishes for ears. No, he has, you know-

Marcus:

He could hear everything.

Carina Perkins:

... longish muzzle. But look, I mean, those ears could pick up stuff from space I think. That's my experience to add. Apparently, there was a great documentary on dogs, and apparently dogs, when they look at a human, they look at... I think it's the right or the left side of your face, which is what humans do to each other. But if a dog looks at a picture of another dog, they look straight on. So it's like an evolutionary thing that they've learned to better communicate with us.

Sarah Marzano:

[inaudible 00:33:09].

Marcus:

I did read about this. Yeah, it's fascinating.

Sarah Marzano:

Yeah.

Marcus:

Yeah, I do, sometimes I wish I could talk to my dog, just the one of the four though. I would like to ask him how he would take his coffee, because sometimes-

Sarah Marzano:

Just the one.

Marcus:

... we'll give him a bit of coffee. Yeah, the others don't really talk to you, but this one can't shut up, Riley. And I give him some coffee sometimes, but it's basically just half and half and a ton of sugar, so it's not really coffee.

Sarah Marzano:

I mean, it's powdered coffee, so it's not really coffee.

Marcus:

And I think it's not... Okay, instant.

Sarah Marzano:

Or instant, yep.

Marcus:

Thank you very much.

Carina Perkins:

Oh, yeah, hmm.

Marcus:

It counts. No, don't do that, Carina.

Carina Perkins:

Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm with Sarah.

Marcus:

Us Brits have to stick together, okay? But I'm nervous that-

Sarah Marzano:

[inaudible 00:33:48].

Marcus:

... I feel I need to ask him, because I'm almost certain he's... I'm going to say, "How do you take your coffee?" and he's going to say, "Black, you maniac, "like most normal people. "Stop putting so much sugar and milk in this," but he drinks [inaudible 00:33:57]-

Carina Perkins:

I don't know, I think the dog will always go for the milk and cream option.

Sarah Marzano:

This is so much to unpack, like you guys... We're talking about giving coffee to dogs.

Marcus:

Yeah, just for the record, before animal rights people come to my home, he just has a sip twice a year when I go back, and he loves it. It's his favorite thing, because I'm his favorite person. That's not true.

Sarah Marzano:

Thank you.

Marcus:

Anyway, that's all we've got time for today's episode. Thank you so much to my guests. Thank you to Carina, actually, it worked out okay.

Carina Perkins:

Thanks, Marcus.

Marcus:

Yeah, I had very low expectations. Thank you to Sarah.

Carina Perkins:

As always.

Sarah Marzano:

Thanks for having me.

Marcus:

Thank you to Rahul.

Rahul Chadha:

Thank you, Marcus.

Marcus:

Yes, indeed. Thank you [inaudible 00:34:33]-

Sarah Marzano:

I want a picture of your four dogs to be part of this episode, can we do that?

Marcus:

I will find one and we'll put it on our Instagram.

Sarah Marzano:

Okay.

Marcus:

Do we still have an Instagram?

Carina Perkins:

Oh, can we put my dog-

Sarah Marzano:

[inaudible 00:34:46]-

Carina Perkins:

Can we put Ronnie on Instagram as well?

Sarah Marzano:

Yes.

Marcus:

We'll put all the dogs on Instagram.

Carina Perkins:

Okay.

Marcus:

Or if we don't have one, then we won't, and you'll just have to use your imaginations. But Sarah, I can show you one, because you're right there. Thank you to Victoria, she edits the show. Stewart runs the team, Sophie does our social media, and Lance does our video podcast. Thank you to everyone for listening. We hope to see you on Monday for the Behind the Numbers Daily. That's our 20-minute eMarketer podcast that helps you stay up to date with what's going on in media, advertising, and tech. Happiest of weekends.