Trump Just Hit His Worst Approval Number EVER (w/ David Pakman)

0:00If you like YouTube, you'll love YouTube Premium. Hi, I'm Sean Evans from Hot Ones and I want to tell you about YouTube Premium. It has offline downloads, so you can watch without Wi-Fi, background play, so you can lock your phone and it still plays baby. Oh, and it is completely ad-free. Yes, I said it, ad-free. Try YouTube Premium for two months free at youtube.com slash premium. How eligibility varies? Terms apply? Cancel anytime. Bite into a stacked sandwich made with hero bread. And the only thing you'll think is... Delicious! You won't think it has up to 19 grams protein. 11 to 32 grams of fiber or just 0 to 5 grams net carbs. But it does. Hero bread. No compromises, just low of spuns, tortillas, bagels and noodles packed with flavor. Right now, get 10% off at Hero.co with code iHeart. All figures for serving up hero bread, see nutrition facts on hero.co. Hey, everybody, it's Tim Miller with Bullwork Takes Delighted to be here today with a host

1:05of the David Pakman show. He's also the author of a new book called Pay Attention, How Algorithms and Media Wars Are Suppressing Truth and Rewiring Your Brain, which is out tomorrow. It's David Pakman. Good to see you again, brother. How you doing? Tim, always good to see you. Thank you. Congrats on the book. We'll get to it in a second. It's a slog. Doing a book's a slog. I'll give you props for doing it while you're grinding out the content. I want to first start with a couple of these items. As we were just starting to tape here, I saw something very exciting. It is the very first poll where Donald Trump has hit the 20s in favorability. This is the lowest approval he's recorded with any pollster in either term. American Research Group has meant 29 approved, 68 disapprove. I'm wondering where your hope-yum level is right now. You know, I know that sometimes... This is related to the book a little bit. Sometimes you have to guard against what you want and what the audience would want versus your sober analysis. As your sober analysis here, the Trump is in his bad position as it looks like in the poll.

2:06Well, I am completely sober right now. It'll be that kind of analysis. I always suspected the rock-rock bottom is like 27. I don't think he could go really lower than 27 just based on the true cult. I think believers, etc. So 29 is very interesting and it's starting to kind of get there. Listen, I care primarily about what happens after these midterms. And I think the most important thing is neuter this guy such that he can play no role in continuing the legacy of MAGA into and beyond 2028. And the better Democrats do in November and the lower that Trump's approval is, the worst position he will be to play Kingmaker in 2028, which of course he's going to try to drag out as long as possible because he knows this is his last hosting gig to use like the reality show terminology. He's going to turn it into a reality show for as long as he can.

3:06If he's in the 20s, the degree to which he can help anybody starts to become... It starts to approximate zero is the way I would say it. And so I think it's interesting, 2931, okay? But his ability to play a role in 28 is what I'm most interested in. Yeah, and I also think the degree to which people bend the needle. I just think that when you talk about all these outside institutions, you'll be seeing CEOs, universities, there's going to be corruption all the way up to the last minute. And there's going to be chocainery where he tries to hold on to power and make as much money as possible for his family to the last second. But yeah, his ability to do that, I think it's partially limited by Congress checking, but also partially limited by the perception. This is a weak guy and his movement is over. And I think that if that starts to congeal, then other players start to act differently, which isn't a profile and courage, but whatever. We are what we are. Nate Silver has not been super-resistance, whatever, Trump to Rangeman's Syndrome guy at all.

4:10He right now has the Democrats winning 53 Senate seats, which would be really insane. And that has a full sweep of the kind of Ohio, Texas, Iowa, Alaska quadrant, which is pretty notable. The other thing is, I've said for a while, I think Trump wants the next Republican nominee, whether they win or lose in 2028 to do terribly. And the reason that I think that's the case is, Trump's ego is not suited to calmly leaving and then having someone replace him who's really popular, well-liked, and does anything that people are proud of. And so because Donald Trump wants to... Which is different than maybe how it would have been last time, because he would have been scared to jail. Yes, absolutely. But this time with immunity and all that, yeah. Absolutely. I think Trump wants to be able to leave, and either the 28 nominee loses and Trump goes, see, I was special. I really was the only one who could do it. Or if the Republican nominee wins in 28, Trump wants them not to do well, so that Trump can go, I told you guys, I was the only one who could do this. So that, I think, is going to be exacerbated by this low approval rating that Trump has,

5:12where he may be even more interested in kind of tearing it down on the way out. That's higher on the Hopium scale than I thought you'd be, since. Good to know. On the media crackdown, this is also kind of related to the book and trying to identify truth and the challenge in a liberal democracy of being able to identify truth. We have on Friday, Trump kicks out MSNOW, CNN and Politico, from the White House press corps. We have this morning before we start taping. Interestingly, the TV networks and of standing in solidarity and saying that they will not pool the president's events. This even includes Fox News, if he doesn't reinstate CNN and MSNOW. Just wondering what you think about that, like the state of play, and like how worried you are that we're moving, maybe even potentially among presidents of both parties, until more of a propagandistic news corps covering them. I'm very worried about that. Trump put me on an official list at Whitehouse.gov.

6:14There's a section now on Whitehouse.gov that says... I can't grasp. My colleague Adrian Karskiyos on there. So you guys have it together. My mom is very proud. I have to tell you the same. Listen, you've got these three parts. You've got the lawsuits against Stefanopoulos in 60 minutes, etc. And basically, either because they want a merger approved or because they're just worried about ongoing litigation, they're giving Trump money. So that's like number one. Number two, you've got the targeting of people like Adrian and myself and Brian Tyler Cohen, etc. on an official Whitehouse.gov website. And then now you have this. It is the 20th century authoritarian view of the press, which is you publish things I like and you get access and adulation. And if you don't, we might sue you. Maybe the next thing would be criminal charges. I don't know. Or we will put you on a list and hope that other people get scared off. And I'll tell you something to him. There are a couple of creators who said, as I have been doing this book tour, I don't want to interview you solely because you're on that list.

7:15And I am worried about ending up on that list. And I don't have money if I get a definition. Now I think maybe it's a little exaggerated. But like that is the self-sensorship that it is all designed to push. Yeah. All right. Let's talk about the book. I'll give it to the elevator pitch. Well, the elevator pitches, you've got to understand the incentives of the digital platforms we exist on. Once you understand that the incentives are to keep people on these platforms, you realize you aren't getting fed stuff because it's true or because it'll make you a better voter or a more informed member of society. That is not why. You are getting fed stuff that makes you angrier or afraid if it identifies a scapegoater of villain even better. And the whole point is keep you on the platform, keep you sharing content. That means the left is at a disadvantage. And the left is at a disadvantage. I argue not because the right has like figured out how to talk on these platforms, but because the right's messaging is just more naturally suited

8:17to creating fear and anger and identifying scapegoats. That's interesting. This is one way to combat this. That I kind of vacillate on that you hear from left creators, left strategists is that the left just needs to be better at that part, like just accept the world that we're in and the left needs to be better at creating bad guys, creating enemies, and a lot of times then the outgrowth of that is focus their messaging more on the billionaire class and the Epstein class and what they're doing to hurt people. And that would maybe be better than what we've seen from more establishment Democrats who are less comfortable with making those kinds of, slightly in a pejorative manner, like Demogodgojik arguments about foes. What do you think about that? Does that one of the things you think's worth contemplating? That's not really the argument that I'm making in the book. I think that there is a debate as to whether the focus

9:20in terms of public outreach should be more economic, more about corruption, more about the Epstein class. I think that that's a perfectly legitimate debate. I think it definitely shouldn't be about the social issues that are losers at the get-go and that by even engaging in them, you're already seeding the framing to the right. I definitely shouldn't be that. The argument I make in the book is more about the left needs to understand how to frame and talk about issues in an emotionally salient and authentic way. If you take housing as an example, which is very anodyne and boring in a sense, it's about zoning and it's about the interplay between federal, state, and municipal and all this other stuff, you've got to find some way to grab people by the emotional core of the issue. Hey, if you live in LA and you work full-time in LA, it shouldn't be unaffordable to where you go, I have to move two hours away.

10:21That's maybe the emotional core of the issue. Then you get into the zoning and the other stuff. It's more about that and a lot of the rights messaging just naturally lends itself to that. Yeah. I do wonder if maybe the right got trained a little bit on decades of talk radio. Because I think about this and I think about how, in a lot of ways, rush, understood the Republican electorate better than the Republican politicians did. And eventually, there ends up being Trump as the avatar of this overthrow of the old establishment. I remember, I was talking to Bill Crystal a couple weeks ago about the Harriet Myers nomination for Supreme Court, which is this silly story from another time. But it's like the Republican talk radio was aligned against it immediately. Republican politicians were doing the more traditional old thing of like we should trust the president and she's called. And then eventually, they start to follow that. And so I think a lot of the Republican politicians now were like trained on this. Like they grew up like listening to rush,

11:22watching Bill O'Reilly, et cetera. And I think that a lot now, you see the Democratic candidates sometimes feel like behind content creators in like being able to talk about things and frame things in a way that resonates with the base. Because they don't have as much practice on it. I think that's absolutely true. But if you take an example like the COVID vaccine. When Tucker and Brett Weinstein and whoever else go, 10 million people died from the vaccine. I don't think it's that they learned how to talk that way. I'm not sure. It's like that is a crazy idea. But it's short. It immediately makes you go, I'm furious with whoever did that to us. I'm afraid a family member is going to do that. And you're going to share it. You're going to engage with it. If I come in and I go, hey guys, you want to know the truth about the COVID vaccine? Not so good at preventing transmission, but like it'll probably keep you out of the hospital. Very safe, but your arm might hurt. I'm explaining, I'm losing, it's boring. Like I'm telling the truth, but it does not matter on these digital platforms.

12:25The 10 million people died of this thing. It's just naturally going to do better. You didn't do campaigns before this. You came up with this in the media standpoint. And but like in some ways, you're running like a running focus group. Because you see what the reaction is to the topics you talk about and to the way that you frame the topics. And so I talked about how that experience kind of has informed your suggestions on this. It's sort of like every single day you iterate a little bit and like you try some different titles and thumbnails or like let me bury the lead versus like go right up front with what the main point of it is. And you just like are constantly making all of these little tweaks. And like my advice to the, I'm not like a big strategist guy, but like my advice from just doing it for a while is we should really always be framing every issue as compellingly as we can up to the point at which we're being dishonest. So like imagine a Caroline Levitt press conference. She's gone now, but like you know, she used to occasionally do press conferences. If I go through the trouble of putting a video together

13:28and then I call it government official speaks to the media, that's a bomb. That's just that's not going to do well. That's extraordinarily boring on YouTube. If I go the complete other direction and I go, Caroline Levitt faints after smoking pot. It'll get a lot of clicks once, but it's untrue and I'm losing credibility with my audience. You can try that trick once, but you can't do that more than once. So like where we kind of end up landing is like Caroline Levitt spends another hour lying to the press. It's more interesting, but I can defend it and I can explain what the lies are. So like I think you always have to be thinking and like what is the line of dishonesty and like let's push up against it. This message is sponsored by ZockDock. If you've read false flag or watched me on Maga Monday, you know I spend a lot of time investigating other people's problems, but sometimes I'm not merely as good at dealing with my own. It's not that I don't want to take care of my health. It's that finding the right doctor can feel like a whole project. You're calling offices, waiting on hold, playing phone tag, trying to figure out if they take your insurance,

14:28it's really annoying. That's why I've been using ZockDock. ZockDock lets you search and compare high quality in network doctors. ZockDock's website has tons of reviews from real patients and detailed doctor profiles to help you choose the right one. See actual appointment openings and click to instantly book a visit. Your health matters and taking care of yourself shouldn't be complicated. Ready to be seen? Head to zock.com slash bowlwork takes to get started and check that appointment off your to-do list. That's zocdoc.com slash bowlwork takes. You also talk a bit in the book about it's like this question as a creator that you have to deal with audience capture and how you think about that and how that will be right to and what that looks like. Talk about your experience thinking about that and what you think maybe implications are for other people who are either consuming this content or who are running for office.

15:29So basically audience capture in short means your audience has captured you and they are now directing what you're talking about and how you're talking about it in a way that may not reflect your authentic views or interests. So like for example, sometimes you'll see these creators. We won't name anybody who go, listen, I'm on the left but like here's one little thing where I kind of think Democrats are going wrong about. And then that attracts this influx of right wing people who go that that's the thing. Eight months go by and now you're a right-winger, you're speaking at right-wing groups, you're note you've left the left, right? I think that that's a form of audience capture that can't possibly be an authentic change in someone's political views. Like if you're in your late 30s, early 40s and you do this 180, I really struggle to believe that you've just had an awakening. I think that that is like cynical and the result of being captured by your audience. What I also say in the book though is seeing feedback that is authentic from your audience is useful.

16:30And it's fine if that informs what your audience cares about for example and you like consider it in the coverage that you do. So I think like all of these things are a balance. You don't want to be captured by your audience into only doing that first thing I mentioned. But if your audience isn't resonating with the way you're talking about certain issues or finds that you're being dismissive of some angle. Like I think that that's really useful feedback. It's up to the creators to decide what's useful. Yeah, I think about this. When I wrote my book a couple of years ago, I like the one kind of quasi compliment I gave to Bright Bart was it was at that time, 15 years ago now, like the conventional wisdom of people in the media or in politics was like don't read the comments actually even. Like the commenters are crazy, they're not representative and you know just you focus on whatever your policy beliefs are and don't let yourself get solied by what's happening down there. The Bright Bart guys basically inverted that

17:31and they were like no, we are gonna feed the commenters. Like we're gonna find these people that are unhappy and unsatisfied and we're gonna feed them a bunch of material that they would resonate with them. What the result of that was was a lot of pernicious stuff that like they ended up centering a lot of topics like for right wing people, like they thought were legitimate and that we're not getting enough attention by the establishment and that was a lot of way to drive them to power. Now you can see how that goes bad. Then once you start doing that so much, you start indulging in their conspiracy theories and to me like that is the balance I think. Like you know like getting feedback from people like hey we're really upset about this thing and we notice that the main news outlets aren't covering it. Okay that's one thing. It's another thing that when audience capture is, you know like we saw a bunch of this during like like after the Biden debate or something where it's like that was great actually. We don't want to tell people something that's bad or you know like indulging in conspiracy theories that Charlie Carco would ever like. You know to me like that balance is real.

18:31Like how do you think about that in your own platform? I think that's right, but I think the bright bar example is not totally analogous like to what I do and to what you do because there is this kind of parasocial aspect to the creator work that we do. Whether bright bar is cynically doing what you described or doing it because they've come to learn in a completely good faith way about things their audience is interested and it kind of doesn't matter. If I do it cynically, the lack of authenticity I believe comes through and the audience identifies that. And so like there were, you know, I remember creators who kind of came into being their reason for existence was we support Bernie. Cool. When Bernie was no longer still in the primary they attempted to transition into stuff that was not really authentically interesting to them. And it kind of shows through an audience is identify it. And so I think like the authenticity component is so critical. I agree. What, um, talk to the algorithms themselves on what your concerns are.

19:31You cover this also in the book with regards to AI in particular and the content that is coming. I just thought it's well, I just give you an open, open ended chance to cook on that for a second. I'm already dealing with synthetic AI competition to what I do. And so last week an entire channel sprung up on YouTube called the Daniel Carter show. If you search for it, it's gone. But it was basically a guy who looks a lot like me. They soften his features a little bit and made him a little more traditionally attractive. I have to say, um, but I'm handsome. What was the one that they do? What changes did they make? Well, he had better hair. That's hard to believe. Hard to believe. I know. Maybe gave you some thoughts for any future Botox work. They do or anything. So it kind of like it sort of looked like me and the studio kind of looked like mine. And they used an AI voice cloner where the voice literally sounded like me, but they fed it scripts. And this stuff was getting views and some viewers found it. And what's interesting is YouTube knew to recommend it to my existing viewers. So like it detected that the subject matter

20:34was probably interesting. So that's one example. If there's a thousand of those going up every single day, it's of course gonna exceed my ability to find them and to tell our YouTube rep, look, this is using AI to steal my likeness and my voice, et cetera. So I think like the bad side of what's coming is that that is gonna be scaled up almost infinitely because of the technological side. The other side of it, which I think is like a little optimistic, is I'm seeing way more interest in like real interpersonal connections, especially like post pandemic, especially as like the theme on Facebook is I'm not gonna friend every random person I meet. I want to actually be in touch with people I really have a relationship with. I'm doing some book events in person and like they're all like the request for tickets is four or five X, what's available. I'm seeing people wanna connect in the real world in a more authentic way. So I think that although the capacity to scale up these synthetic influencers is gonna go totally nuclear, I think audiences are gonna reject it to the extent that they can identify that it's AI.

21:37And this is the huge thing. I mean, and thinking about how to regulate it. And this is like slightly different than, you know, Gavin Newsome this weekend announced a new bill that he supported, which is a California influencer law, which basically made people disclose if you're an influencer on Instagram and you're getting paid by candidate X like just like on a regular television ad you have to say I'm paid for, this was paid for by candidate X, right? And to me, there's like a little bit of a comparison between this and AI. I mean, there's a lot of differences, but like in the challenge about how we deal with it going forward, right? Which is that there's just a lot of artificial stuff out. And people's feeds and there's our no editors. You know, it's not like watch the nightly news where they get to sift through this sort of stuff. It's just the algorithms and the people. And if you're getting a fee of a person that you like the stuff that they're saying, and then they start taking money from a candidate, you don't have any way to know, you know? And that or simultaneously, you know, if you get this AI, you know, whatever David Fartman or whatever it was called and your feed

22:38and it looks like you and you start watching it. Like some people are gonna be confused. Some people aren't, but I have had people at our events come up to me and say, I haven't had it for me yet. I don't know, maybe I'm not handsome enough. But like I saw a fake, I forget who it was. I don't know, Nicole Wallace or something or George, and I was tricked. You know, I've had people tell me that they were tricked. And so I don't know, how do you think about how to try to control that, you know, without infringing people's free speech rights, you know, without, you know, trying to kind of limit the growth of independent media? Yeah, that's the trick. Like I am really skeptical. One of the problems with regulation around any kind of technology is that it is usually five years behind and based on misunderstandings that lawmakers have about how things work. So for example, there was this old case I remember covering in New York State that was a, I guess now we call it CSAM. It used to be called child porn, but it's like pornography implies consent so we don't use that term anymore. So it's child sexual abuse material. And there was this technicality, whereas the law was written,

23:40it was about what you downloaded. And because some alleged perpetrator only looked at things in his browser by the letter of the law, he hadn't downloaded anything. And so like one guy went free because of that. So then it took like years and they kind of like redefined the definition, but it was like too little too late. And then we had like five new problems. So my instinct is that especially on something that's moving as quickly as AI, it's going to be really hard to solve this problem by regulation that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some regulations. And it's good that a bunch of governors, I think Pritzker's also doing something on this. And some others, I think that that's great. We basically need a more educated population, quite frankly. And like part of it is understanding, like even with the algorithms, people go and they open up TikTok and they go, I'm seeing these five videos, it must be because they're either true or useful to me in some way. And it's like no, you have to understand why you're being shown that stuff instead of something else. And so a lot of it I think has, it's so boring and I don't know how you do it,

24:40but it's about educating people to understand. The technology is more than good enough to trick you in. Here's me, the former Republican now coming in on the side of more regulation. But I just have, because that's generally not my insight. And I think that my view on regulation just across anything is it should be simple. Right. And actionable, right? And like we should do it. Like you shouldn't create unnecessary complications and then create unintended consequences, right? And for me, the simplest way to look at this is like if you're paid to do an advertisement, you need to say it. Oh, right. If it's artificial, there needs to be a disclaimer that says this is an artificial person. And I don't know, and I don't know, maybe I'm sure there'd be first amendment challenges and a lot of complications there. And maybe then we end up into the place you were talking about with the CSAM thing where it ends up getting written and gets so complicated, there are loopholes. And I don't know, man, I just think that we're really at an inflection point on this stuff.

25:41And I get really worried that even as soon as 28, you get to a period where people are, the stuff that people are consuming about the campaign is more fake than real. The technology is already more than good enough to do robocalls with cloned candidate voices. And this was like tested in 24. There was like one instance of it. So I think cloned Biden's voice in New Hampshire or something like that. That's right. It's two years later. The technology is so good. My team that edits my videos, they can't tell the difference. The Daniel Carter one wasn't so good, but like we've done tests with other voice cloners. My own team can't even tell the difference. So of course a voter on a phone line is gonna struggle to do that. The only, I agree with you on the regulation. The only thing about it is like, imagine the US passes a law. Anything synthetic has to be disclosed. Okay, cool. What about the stuff that's made in France? And it appears on you. So what do we do about that? Yeah. I don't know, man. It's all, it's extremely complicated. And I just, there's a total lack of seriousness

26:42about dealing with it right now. And this is another way where the imbalance comes where on the right, like you're saying, like the way that they manipulate the algorithms, it's just like it's inherently more particularly conspiratorial right coded, right? On the one hand. Also, because of that reason, they're not at all incentivized to create new rules about us. You know what I mean? Absolutely. I mean, it's sort of like the, we're gonna do campaign finance reform. Yeah, but didn't you get elected under the system we have? How incentivized are you to change that? And you've got to find people who truly are. Yeah. All right. One more just, you know, as a, from one influencer to another. I'm an, I guess I'm a content creator. What do you keep saying creator? I guess I'm a creator. You know what I mean? I was, it was hard of me to self identify as a journalist. And then I was like, I'm not really that. And then I'm like, now I'm a YouTuber. And now I'm, so I have to deal with create. You know, I'm just trying to, it's about my identity. I'm working for it. I'm okay with you identifying whatever feels, you know, authentic to you. Thank you. I don't know. Just like, how do you, I think about the personal challenges

27:43with all this. And part of it is about like staying in your integrity, you know, and balancing that between working the algorithm. And another part of it for me is like, you do just, I'm sorry, you can't pretend like the algorithm doesn't exist. Like you have to think about it both for, you know, when it comes to attracting people so that, you know, they can, they're going to see your material. But also for like thinking about the strategic ways to get to new people, because the algorithm is also so good at like finding other mat, like the types of people are already listened to your content, like finding matching types of people. And so that's fine. But then you end up in a bubble and in a cocoon. And it's like, I'm part of the work. I, I, I'm part of the work that I find valuable is like sometimes reaching people that are not like already also listening to you and Brian Tyre, Colin and other stuff. Like also going to other people see if, so I don't know, you know, like how do you just kind of like think about that? Like maintaining your integrity, realizing the algorithm exists, trying to get to as many people as possible, you know, without having it, I don't know, solely what you're doing. I think that being on multiple platforms is the best way,

28:47because like I'll hear from people who go, listen, David, I like your content and I like your analysis. But these YouTube titles and thumbnails just piss me off. And I go, hey, we, I have a solution. I have an audio podcast. It's 75 minutes long. There's no thumbnails. There's no, you don't have to, it's the same content. Like that may be the right platform for you. So I do think like to a degree, we're creating for the platforms. If we zoom out just a little bit though, Tim, I think one of the things that happens really naturally algorithmically for the right is that people get funneled down into useful political stuff for the right from broader interest. So like I'll give you an example. Yes. Mom goes on Facebook for crib recommendations. Finds one of these mommy blogger groups, gets crib recommendations. Cool. The algorithm knows a lot of the people who start there get interested in how to decline vaccines when you speak to your people. Or there cat, there's cat litter in the schools because too many kids are identifying as cats. Exactly.

29:47And there really isn't like if you start looking up business content, there's a pipeline to Jordan Peterson. If you start looking up how to wholesale real estate, there's a pipeline to the tape brothers. There isn't really this. For it's to put them in the boys, you know, like all the, yeah. There isn't that real pipeline on the left. And I don't think we should be dishonest to create it. But like we should be thinking about pulling in people who are not looking for political content. That's the takeaway. Yeah, absolutely. I agree with that. All right, brother, anything I didn't ask you, anything else you want to pitch? No, we really did it all. I appreciate the book out tomorrow. Pay attention how algorithms and media awards are suppressing truth and rewiring your brain, David Pakman. Enjoy the book. I will see you soon, brother. Thank you. Always good to see you. Don't you wish everything was more rewarding? With Rakuten, almost everything is. You can earn cash back on those new shoes you've been wanting. You can save on the next trip, your book. You can cash in on groceries. Just join.

30:48Shop your favorite brands and save. Target, Instacart, Expedia. Macy Sephora CBS. The list is long. Save online, in-store, and at over 22,000 restaurants. And when it's time to redeem those rewards, get your money exactly how you want it. Choose PayPal. Check, Bill Points, or Cash Out With Gift Cards. Eligible American Express Card Members can choose to earn membership rewards points instead of cash back, terms and conditions apply. So go ahead, take a trip, fill a cart, order dessert, Rakuten is a world of rewards. Join today for free. Go to Rakuten.com or get the app. That's R-A-K-U-T-E-N. When it's time to scale your business, it's time for Shopify. Get everything you need to grow the way you want. Like all the way. Stack more sales with the best converting checkout on the planet. Track your cha-chings from every channel, right in one spot,

31:50and turn real-time reporting into big-time opportunities. Take your business to a whole new level. Switch to Shopify. Start your free trial today.