The P*rnhub Email Recap Marketing Strategy

Did I actually talk about the Pornhub email marketing recap strategy with you?

No.

Okay, you know what this is though, right?

No.

So here, check this out, check this out.

I just know that company had issues with like check or something. Didn't they get sued and private equity took them over or something like that? It was all over TechCrunch.

That I have no idea, but here, let me give you this, okay? This is a Pornhub email marketing strategy, okay? It says, your Pornhub 2025 recap. It says, nah, just kidding, Camille. Since you're reading this, it's Mike. Are you already using Salesforce at your company? We help early stage and growing stage startups set up Salesforce instances. This is going to have a high click-through rate, right?

So I saw this, you, you forwarded it to me.

Yeah. Oh yeah, I did. That's right. Yeah.

I didn't know that's what you're talking about, email. I thought you had like some viral way to capture more emails, but, um, I think this is going to have amazing open rate, kind of. And the reason I say kind of, for when it lands in the inbox, I think it's going to have a high open rate, but I think that title and saying adult words in your subject line is going to cause a lot of the emails to go into the spam box.

Yep. And I think people mark it as spam too. I think some people are going to find it in good taste, like you and I would find it funny. I think some people will really not like it and mark it as spam. And I think it's going to do more brand damage than it actually helps. So I don't think it's worth it. The trade-off isn't worth it. To get this type of response unless you're like a meme, you know, channel or something like that.

Wait, did they get a lot of likes on LinkedIn?

This guy posted it like yesterday, so it's already old news, but on Twitter just got a lot of engagement, a ton of engagement.

Not on LinkedIn though.

No, not on LinkedIn. Yeah, I think it's like 200 likes or something, which is like decent.

Yeah, because on LinkedIn it's so corporate and proper and people can see who likes what and they're like, oh, this can make me look bad.

You know what I say too, if you want to move quickly with the, the pace of information, it's, it's X, like not even close. It's, it's like LinkedIn is like, it's so proper. It's so like, The news you get on LinkedIn is sometimes it's even months old.

So, but I would clarify on that. I think LinkedIn, I mean, X is the place to move forward on information when it comes to news and politics. I think for a lot of other stuff, it is not the source where people are releasing information and launches and updates and all that kind of stuff. I think it's X is a place to go for mainstream news. And you can see in some cases or a lot of cases, I would say What's more accurate. But a lot of the times, and I'm a heavy X user, I probably use X more than any other social network, just as an FYI. But a lot of times it is off. And a great example of this is, and there could be community notes now, but when I saw yesterday something on X that said Madani, who's the new mayor of New York City, Has froze all sales of homes. You're no longer allowed to sell homes. And right away I Googled it. It was gaining traction. I'm like, this can't be true, right? Because whatever he wants to end up doing, to some extent, people, the city or the government, whatever you want to call it, is just going to get sued and people are going to win. It's very hard for the government to tell you, you bought a home with your own money, you're not allowed to sell it. And I knew that was wrong, but on X right away it showed that, you know, it was there and it was gaining traction and no community notes.

Yeah. I mean, because of the speed, sometimes the information's going to be off. And there's a— I actually read this on X. The reason misinformation happens, remember the game we used to play as kids, Neil? Telephone? No, like people twist things into their own words and that's how misinformation happens. So no matter what, there's always going to be misinformation, right? Because you transfer it, someone will exaggerate a little bit, they'll take something out. to, you know, maybe make their view look more favorable. So just take that part into account too. It's always a game of telephone, and that's why you have to look at information, but you have to learn how to make decisions for yourself and learn how to think for yourself. People on X are better at doing that than people on Threads, I'll tell you that much.

So there's an interesting telephone experiment, right? And this talks about misinformation on the web. When I was a little kid in school, we had telephone. I don't know what my class size was, call it 20-something students. I'm making up And when I say a little kid, like, you know, like 9 or 10 years old, right? So not too young, but still young enough. And the teacher said, I'm gonna tell this person something. They're gonna tell each of you and you pass it down. I want you to repeat it exactly like the person told you. Don't change it. Just repeat it exactly.

All right.

So when kids are young, And a teacher's telling them something, they usually try to follow instructions. And I don't think they would try to do anything malicious because most kids don't understand the concept of misinformation. But what I learned from it was still when the teacher told everyone to repeat it exactly, it wasn't the same at the very end. And what ends up happening is it's not that people are trying to cheat or lie or screw others over. It's that people interpret certain things a different way than you or me or other people in this world may. It's just how their brains work. So they say something a little bit different unintentionally, and it's really hard to fix misinformation. And I think this is actually the biggest problem of AI and that we're going to see in 2026 and 2027. Everyone's talking about how it's going to do everything for you. AI is really often a lot of research. AI is often a lot of stuff because they're scraping the web, which has a ton of misinformation, and it's hard to get rid of misinformation. You You always have more and more coming every single day, and you have strong social signals and just algorithm signals for both the misinformation and the accurate information.

This kind of reminds me, Neil, that little book that I read, The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity. So the whole idea behind this book is because there's so much misinformation and because you have people— there's 4 categories of people. You have intelligent people, you have stupid people, you have bandits, and you have people who are helpless, right? Now, it is none of— it's actually only— it's not even the bandits who ruin the world. It's actually— it says it's the stupid people that ruin the world because they'll interpret information, you know, in a way that isn't helpful. And whatever they try to do, they end up hurting society and they end up hurting themselves in the process, right? So I highly recommend that book. It's only 73 pages or so, and I think it teaches you a lot. And I've actually never thought about stupidity that way. But something to keep in mind. Do you want to say something else?

No.

If you're in B2B, here's the deal. LinkedIn account-based marketing sucks, but it doesn't have With Karrot, it allows you to create personalized ads towards your customers and also personalized landing pages that align with the ads. So you're going to have higher conversions and influence pipeline reporting to prove that your ABM works. So if you want to learn more, just go to karrot.ai and you can join the waitlist. Again, it's Karrot, K-A-R-R-O-T.ai, and we'll see you on the other side. Okay. So I was, um, Neil, I mean, you know, in investing there's a concept of high alpha and low beta. Right. How would you define those 2 if you had to define those?

So high alpha, from my understanding, is like high return. Like you can end up making a lot of money on something. Low beta, is low beta low commitment?

No, low beta would be like low volatility. So like bonds. Yeah. So yes on the high alpha. So when you're talking about like a stock that's high alpha, you're looking to outperform the index, right? We agree on that. And if we're talking about—

you're looking for outsized returns with high alpha.

Correct. And then low beta, you want low volatility. So that actually applies into organization. So in your organization, sales, high alpha or low beta?

Low beta. It's pretty consistent.

No, high, high, high alpha. You want someone that's going to outperform, right? In sales, right?

I thought you meant like as an organization, like sales is very predictable. There's not tons of ups and downs.

Sales as a role, right? And like, uh, let's say operations.

Oh, you're talking about an individual contributor, not a whole department. Not like our numbers for the month.

Yes, yes, yes.

Uh, Yes, we look for the people who are way better than the average so they can close way more. Like we have some sales reps who are way better than the average and they really crush it for us.

And these people, a lot of times they're, they're very creative. They're also very aggressive and they'll push boundaries, right?

No, no. I would say the ones who are high alpha for our sales team is a little bit different. They're not actually salespeople. They tended to be product people or account managers, and they're subject matter experts and they understand it really well. So instead of looking at sales as a sales role, they'll look at it as a problem-solving role and they're super analytical. And when you're pitching enterprises, that actually works way better than someone selling.

So you're making my point for me. So it's, I, I'm, what a high alpha role is very dynamic. Okay. So Now, the point that I'm trying to make here, Neil, is low beta would be someone like in finance, for example. You don't want someone who's that super, like a controller. Okay? You don't need them to be that. You need them to be on the dot. You need them to be detailed. Okay? Now, maybe different with a CFO. You want them to be more strategic, right? So my point of saying all this is that there, I hadn't thought about this way. Like obviously high alpha and low beta applies to investing, but you're also investing in people too. And so I was talking to someone on my team, I'm like, hey, how would you define yourself? She's like, well, I'm very high alpha. Like she is jumping around, she's solving a lot of problems, right? I was like, yeah, exactly. That's why it's not the role that you're in right now is actually a low beta role where you actually just need to make sure you're running the trains on time. That's why you're the right person, but you're in the wrong seat. And so a lot of times I think we need to think about our people as investments and think about, hey, like are they actually high alpha, low beta? And are they actually in the right role? And that's something I don't think enough about. Um, I'm pretty sure you don't think about it either, but it's— I think it's nice to think about.

So we don't think about it that way, but close enough. When we're hiring people, we look for not only people that could potentially produce outsized returns and are A-players— that's what we call like high-alpha individuals where they can potentially do more— um, but we want to make sure they're in the right roles. So I'll give you an example of this. So in our Ubersuggest and AnswerThePublic product, we're hiring someone. I forgot what division it is, whether it's engineering or product or support. And we have 2 amazing candidates. One candidate is super overqualified. All right? They can do that job plus a lot more. And the reason— and we'll end up choosing the one that's overqualified.

Yeah.

Because even though that role may limit them, we as an organization tend to say, this is what you need to do and maintain this or make this way better. But on a side note, if you feel you can do anything else to help the organization, come to us and we'll help you get it done. And if they can show that they can do other things and provide a lot more value, We'll figure out new roles, new responsibilities, or expanding their role and making their comp plan align with the value that they're bringing. And we found that to work really well because good people will take a role sometimes that you have that they know they're overqualified for, but if they know there's an opportunity for them to do more and that role, a lot of times they'll jump on it if they can see the opportunity. And we love those people because some people are just like, I'm overqualified for this. I'm not going to touch this. I only want this kind of role. We find that the ones who are more hungry and aggressive and are willing to do whatever tend to produce better returns for us than the person who's like, I'm overqualified. This is the only role I want. We tend to find those people a little bit more complacent and lazy. We like go-getters. And when we have people Including our CEO who's like, I'll scrub a toilet. I don't give a crap. I'll do whatever it takes. We find those people tend to produce the best for us. And those are our highest alpha people.

Yeah. So you can layer this on with top grading, however you look at an A-player hiring blueprint, whatever. And now you have this high alpha, low beta thing. I think it should be a helpful framework for you. By the way, earlier we were talking a little bit about politics and I had this piece pulled up here from Bill Ackman, who is— we were just talking about investing. So I thought I'd pull this up. So You know what's interesting to me, Neil, and I haven't been paying attention to this, but he— so Bill Ackman, who's an investor, shares this tweet. So he says, protesters who are paid should be required to disclose that they are being paid and by whom. Protests are political speech/advertising. Why are they exempt from the same disclosures required for political advertising? And so this person, Wall Street Apes, tweets this out and he's like, check this out. 4 protests in 4 different states. Pay very close attention to solid white signs with black Letter of writing for protests in 4 different states, right? Um, proof this is all paid and organized. So New York City, Chicago, Orlando, Boston, and also check Portland, uh, protests, and they have the same signs, right? And so what do you think about this? Because it is a marketing thing.

And I, I saw that. So I saw it right when he tweeted it out. Um, I agree with it. And this, I think someone was saying that it may be China or Russia, and I don't know what's true or not. I have no proof of any of this kind of stuff. But I know, being someone who makes marketing material and puts it out there, there's no way that you have people in all these cities with very similar signs, if not the exact same sign.

They got 'em up so fast. Yes.

Got up so fast and rallying at the same time. Huh. I wonder who's organizing all of this and funding it. And I forgot who ended up doing this, but someone was going on the street This was during the Hamas, Israel-Hamas, during that time, someone went on the street and started asking people if they were getting paid. And a lot of people were like, no comment. I don't want to respond to this. Now, if you weren't getting paid, most people wouldn't care to be like, of course I'm not getting paid.

Oh yeah. Right?

Yeah, but when a lot of people start saying no comment or I don't have to end up telling you, chances are they're probably getting paid.

I don't know if you remember this, this goes all the way back to COVID, but, um, you would see these videos of people protesting, but you would see a pallet of bricks in the middle of the streets. Just like, how do you just see that? It's like you're playing a video game where you can pick up, like Fortnite, you can pick up the bricks and just like go, like it's just ammo that's dropped in the middle, right? And so you can't tell me this is not paid. And The thing is, they actually went deeper on this because the extraction of Maduro, I think is his name, the Venezuelan president, that happened very early in the morning. By 2:00 AM or so, or 2:30 AM, these signs were already in production. So they were showing these signs in production. And because these protests happened the next day, how is it that they all organized together and they all had the same signs the next day? So I think there should be disclosures here.

Yeah.

Just like a lot of things don't make sense. Why aren't there disclosures for political advertising? Why is it that no voter ID is required? Like, how does that make any sense, right?

Yeah, we're one of the only countries, from my understanding, that's like that.

Yep. Yep. Anyway, on a more positive note here, Neil, I have— if you were to guess today, okay, what do you think? Because we're talking about all the AI stuff is moving so quickly. A lot of stuff is getting commoditized, whatever. What do you think is the last moat standing? Because people like to talk about distribution, they like to talk about all these things. What do you think it is?

I think the last moat is really brand. I think that is the only moat, at least in marketing, that's left. And I keep using this example, but it's one that resonates with anyone in the world because they all know it. Everyone understands a Michael Jordan shoe. You have the Jumpman logo and people buy it. It's not because it's more comfortable or it looks cool. There's a lot of other shoe companies that can create shoes that are just as comfortable, if not more comfortable, and just as cool. The reason people buy that is because their affinity to Michael Jordan. I think branding is everything in marketing. It's really hard to build a massive brand, and if you can, you're onto something big. Peter Thiel talks about it in his presentation on Zero to One on how it's super important. If you look at a lot of the big companies that are monopolies, they have a massive brand. But it's funny, in his speech, he's like, They have a big brand. I don't understand how they created the brand, right? It's harder for him to compute on that. Really brilliant guy. I'm not trying to diss him, but it is one of the most important things. And I think you build a brand not just by being consistent, omnichannel, doing things for a long time, doing it really well. What I'm seeing in today's world, people really have affinities towards personal brands. And if you can tie in a personal brand to whatever you're doing, I think that does help because a corporate brand is more of a faceless company and it's hard for people to associate with a corporate brand as much as they can with a personal brand. And you can see this, go on social media, look up any company. There's no company that has more followers than like a Cristiano Ronaldo or a Kardashian or any of them. People just associate more with personal brands.

Yeah. So what I'll say, I'll do a modification of this because we've been saying this on the podcast for a while, but I read this piece the other day and the title of this post is The Last Moat Standing. Okay. So the question that this person poses is, if anyone can build your product in a weekend, what's actually defensible? So the truth is the kid in his dorm now can quickly build the same product that your Series B startup took 5 years to piece together. We built it is about as defensible as we have a website. Congrats. So does my dentist. So if anything and everything can be built quickly, what's left to build that has real staying power? Are there any moats left? The answer is simple. The last real moat standing is this: an opinionated perspective on the solution. Or said differently, if you scroll down over here, having a perspective worth paying for. So when you— when Neil just brought up Jordan, for example, Jordan tells a story. Jordan tells a story of greatest basketball player ever, okay? Talks about championships. There's a story around that. A brand tells a good story, and that's how I look at it. Like, why do you buy, you know, uh, Coca-Cola over, like, I don't know, uh, Pepsi, for example? It's because Coca-Cola, you think about the polar bears, you think about having the Coke back with your family during the holidays, uh, back in the day. There's a story with the brand, and I think we're kind of saying the same thing here, what the person's saying. So, so yeah.

It all ties in. To build a brand, a lot of times you have to end up creating a narrative and a story that people can relate to. You know, when you look at Jordan, people understand his story and the hardships. Same with like LeBron James or Kobe Bryant or some of these athletes. Not all of them had hardships, but some of them did, and people can really resonate with them. Or like the Williams sisters, right? Serena and Venus Williams. A lot of people love their movie. I believe Will Smith won an award for it. That was the day he slapped Chris Rock, if I'm not mistaken. But when you look at that, movie, the reason it's done really well is people resonate extremely well with brands and stories, especially ones that are relatable and go through a lot of ups and downs, right? They call it the emotional roller coaster. If you can get people hooked on your emotional roller coaster, you can do really well with your personal brand. Now, the one thing people forget with branding is a big brand without streamlined operations and systems. Isn't that useful. You can't forget the fundamentals, and people believe if they have a brand but they lack the fundamentals, they'll still be okay. This is the reason why companies like L'Oréal and Estée Lauder are so much bigger than Kylie Cosmetics. It doesn't mean Kylie Cosmetics did a bad job. L'Oréal has a ton of distribution and reach and systems and processes that really help their brands make a ton of money.

So that being said, we will catch you later. See you later.