tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 13, 2016 10:30am-12:31pm EDT
second question is, while the fbi, obviously, operates under the constitution and laws of the united states, but internal justice department guidelines like the attorney general guidelines that restrict them from looking at material when they're making judgments about which threats are are aspirational that is you know people who are just talking about it. versus threats that are operational when this guy mateen been on fbi radar went and bought asawflt rifle and pistol a week ago he clearly that was an indication that he was turning from aspirational to operational so you want to make sure that we had the investigators have the tools they need to be automobile too pick up that change had and act on it.t. fnght when you talk about that change from inspiration to aspiration, how much are they going to go back to review meetings that took place of the attacker in 2014 and what clues will they be
looking for in there that they, obviously, missed at that time? >> no what's interesting because the head of the fbi office and people in the orlando area say o they have gone back and looked at those files and based on what they knew at that time they don't believe they missed anything.he he was sort of a blow hard. he was talking about support. there was nothing, you know, we have a first amendment in this country people can say all sorts of offense i have things so that wasn't enough for them to act, and then they are will certainly look at the later interview and 14 where he had contact with an american suicide bomber in syria. although they've said to us going back and looking at that file, it was minimal contact. i think internally they are going to have to decide whether or not that judgment that the contact with these suicide bomber was only minimal was a correct judgment or could they or should they have done more to understand that relationship. >> we're talking with grantng wt
committee for combating for homer counterterrorism advisor through 2008 works as executive vice president for worldwide government legal and business affairs at the mcandrews and "forbes" incorporated. before we let you go but these lone wolf acts how can this country better defend against these type of attacks? >> very difficult. look, it is a single -- self-radicalized lone wolf provide much fewer opportunities for law enforcement to disruptrt that cycle of radicalization to violence. and do you think it requires communities and families to be alert and to look for sign, someone that is moving down a spectrum towards violence. and you know, our law enforcement offices are only as good as the communities that support them and so without the help of the general public,
we're not going to beat this. regrettably i think you're likely to see or more of these type of attackings buts it's republican important that community leaders and communities work with their local law enforcement because that's where these happen and that's where they're sort of last line of defense is. >> thanks so much for your time on washington journal. >> thank you. ♪ >> our c-span campaign 2016s bus continues its travel throughout country to honor winners from this year's student camp competition. recently our bus stopped in maryland at washington, d.c. at montgomery blair high school in silver, spring maryland 41 students presented with awards in front of classmates, teachers, parents, and local elected officials for producing 14 winning videos including first cam documentary titled "drawing" and won for infrastructure spending. our bus also made a stop at
wilson high school in washington, d.c. where mark jackson and ali received honorable mention for rewarded $250 each, and mia, david, and ali won $750 for their winning videos on money and politics and a poverty and homelessness in the united states. a special thanks to our cable partner for helping coordinate visits in the community and you can view all of the winning documentaries at student camp.org. >> other roles -- now army vice chief of staff general daniel alan will talk on readiness and posture of the u.s. army. we join this event live at the heritage foundation in washington, d.c. >> general alan i think is perhaps the most uniquely qualified for this conversation because it's his history of serving in leadership roleses basically every level of army
from platoon through division level, staff assignment at the battalion through staff level served in panama, saudi arabia, kuwait, iraq, and most recently in afghanistan. he also has a master's degree from naval war college. so a little bit of navy thrown in there as well. without further adieu let me introduce to you the 35th vice chief of staff u.s. army, general dan alan. [applause] >> i don't know about you but i always get tired of people going through my bio because it tends to wear me down just thinking about it. good to see you all friends here today. thanks for joining in. it's an honor first of all to be here today. but before i begin a brief introductory phase of remarks, i do want to extend our heart felt condolences to all of those stricken in orlando and all of
families recovering from that tragedy. obviously, it reminds us that even here at home it's a dangerous environment. and i know that our hearts go out to all of the families that are working through the horrific events of this past weekend. so we certainly in the army are all too familiar with tragedy. but it is -- it is something that most often brings us together to address so where do we go from here and how do we move forward? i suspect we as a nation will do so. so with that as a opening, we in the army have been focused on this very unstable world for the last several years. and we certainly don't see conditions in the world improving and, in fact, we see instability on the rise virtually in every combat
commands area of operation. so what does that mean for the army? well for the army that means that we have prioritized readiness to ensure that we can deliver forces and the capabilities that are needed by our combatant commanders to enhance stability in these -- unstable parts of the world. and responds to the crises that emerge. and the challenge for us in the current fiscal environment most of you know since 2010, by the time we finished the drawdown path that we are, we will have reduced 120,000 soldiers from the strength we were at in 2010. and so at a time when crises around the world are on the rise and instability on the rise, the force is available in the united states army to provide train and ready capabilities in response to those are in a reverse
vector. so we are constantly working to ensure we balance as best we can the delivery of ready force and ready capabilities to meet emerging demand while still understanding the challenges of the future and building the force that we will need for the future. the channel that you have in a suppressed fiscal environment is at least for the army readiyness must remain number one, and that means we have a tendency to consume our readiness as fast as we can generate it and to in many respects mortgage our ability to build a force that we're going to need in the near future. and so that -- that is a tough environment to be in. but it is the situation that we face, and i'll try to calibrate
a bit for you what i mean by the demands that our army faces. today about 180,700 soldiers are serving around the globe and a 140 different locations. those are as i mentioned total force sol years about 25,000 of those soldiers are are from the national guard and reserve. so meeting day-to-day tempo that is total force in doing so. which is a good news story. we are sustaining the operational readiness of our reserve component. but it does come at risk because as most of you know, that reserve capacity is part of our surge capacity to respond to a significant crisis that yet today has not emerged, so we have to balance how much of that available force in the reverse component is being leveraged to
meet current operational tempo. right now for the army, we're meeting about 64% of the combatant commanders plan needs that the department events delivers in other words 64% of what is being provided to combatant commanders comes from the united statesarm. all right, that's what we know about which each year starts. and then as is always the case, there are emerging dhandz that come out that were not landed for. and the united states army provides about of the e emerging demand that comes at us. and that tempo and demand signal has been steady. the number i sited for you of nearly 188,000 troopers that variance on that in two years has been less than 10%.
so the demandal isal is ready an it describes to you why our chief of the staff and secretary of the army has placed priority on readiness to continue to meet that demand with train and ready forces. now we have focused on transitions from a principle focus force to one that is ready for high spectrum combat operation. and for for many soldiers in the united states army the force that entered into this war had had the benefit of about two decades of focus on that type of warfare pep and so the average battalion commander going into a combat situation had six to ten combat training center rotations where they prepared for that type of operational demand.
our current battalion commander in many cases have -- are experiencing their second or third decisive action combined maneuver and high intensity combat environment, and the good news is that that's on the rise. we have provided every brigade combat team that has gone to combat training center this year an opportunity for that type of environment even those preparing for advise and assist missions in iraq and afghanistan. so we build a bench of trained and ready leaders that can respond to these types of situations. so the readiness trends while our surge capacity is not been growing, because the emerging demands have continued to place a high premium on that, we have been able to build the
leadership experience of our tactical commanders to be able to respond to high intensity combat should it emerge. so i'm comfortable that trendlines that we're on in terms of achieving our readiness goals. i am less comfortable with where we're at in terms of modernization. we have, you know, the tradeoff that you face especially in the united states army our primary weapon system is the soldier. and so right fly so about 60% of our annual budget pays for our soldiers and our civilians about 50% for our soldiers 10% for our civilians. so that leaves 40% left to address readiness and modernization. about 22% of that is consumed in readiness generation that leaves about 18% for modernization and
look at 7 to 800 portfolios that we currently have for equipping our army, that gets spread very, very thin. and so we have been forced to prioritize our modernization efforts to address the emerging demand particularly in high intensity combat, and we have a very focused effort on divesting obsolete or redundant systems so we can apply increase funding toward our priority needs. my expectation is that this picture that we are currently facing is not going to change in the near future and so we must look internally to the best of our ability to make the most of what we have to address the emerging need that are out there
and i think the prioritization that we are to address that has been very, very helpful to us in that effort. it's an certain world and unstable world but i'm often asked what is it that keeps you up at night? and my immediate response to that question is nothing. i'm so darn tired by the time i get home i sleep very, or very well thank you. but truthfully what enables me to sleep very well is the quality of the leaders that we have in the united states army at every and they're performing extraordinary heroic actions. they are making tough decisions and very, very complex unpredictable environment and making had extrord extraordinary contribution to civility around the globe and like to talk to
you about leaders or any other topic that's on your mind and with that concludes my prepared remarkses and i look forward your questions and area of focus and interest. [applause] >> thank you for those who don't know -- vice president for policy here heritage, and i thought we would have a conversation so questions sparked by remarks and then i know folks as well so i'll kick it off. if you have a question i'll get to the thing if you raise your hand and we have some microphones if you wait for them and state your name and affiliation we'll broaden conversation with that time that we have. so one question that i want to ask is, you know, one of the things that heritage does every year is index of military strength and try to gauge in a consistent way the level of u.s. military capacity an capability from year to year. so one of the concerns that we talk about in the 1970s and again in the 18990s is this
idea of a notion that not having when you added everything up at the end of the day not enough force to have train and ready forces conduct operationings, you have and prepare for the future. having to make compromises somewhere in that triangle that really left you vulnerable maybe in a bigger way than looking at the raw numbers. so my question is -- how -- how concerned are you about that today? how do you define risk and where did you see the u.s. army in terms of risk? >> well i think you highlight the daily challenge that our chief and secretary face, that is how do you deliver the most capable force you can in a res source constrained environment. and you can't have it all. that is just a raw fact, and so our focus on ensuring no soldier, no unit is sent into a mission for which they have not been adequately prepared adequately equipped, and expect to be well led.
that promises one that we will adhere. now the downside of that is we are definitely facing the potential that two to three years down the road the ability to ensure we deliver the most modern equipment possible is where we have accepted risk. and so you know there's a number of ways you tackle that problem. it is fundamentally a math problem, right, so we have begun to look at, you know, how do we prioritize delivery of capability to a smaller number of units rather than trying to spread the peanut butter for 35 years across the portfolio. and we know that by doing that, there's a couple dynamics at play frankly, technology is changing so fast that we think by the time you feel a smaller set you're going to be going
after newer more modern capability that i, and so it's less of a problem than it may have been in the past. but i think where all of us struggle is should we get into a scenario where it's near a competitor that requires a massive response from the united states military and at the end of that pipeline you're going to stand a chance that some of those forces will not be as adequately prepared and equipped as they should be. >> so really it is taking risk in terms of moderrization capacity but so far risk rising up so -- trying to square that circle got these three components you mentioned total force concludes act of force . army reserve and national guard. so never been -- bluntly how are things at the army national guard these days? what's the relationship like and
how have people dealt with the issue and the animosity it's created and where's the relationship going and how is army national guard a fir and ready forces? >> first of all, when i say army, i mean total army, and so that's tends to be how we communicate. we communicate as one army. we are one army. we fight and bleed as one army. and so first and foremost your army is doing very, very well thank you very much for your interest. the -- as you know national commission on future of the army were a number of recommendations on how we could deliver a more capable force in the future. 63 of them in all actually one of the recommendations is so important they made it twice so there's actually 62 that we are focused on. there are number of though thost include increased capacity, increased focus on delivering
readiness, and as you mention d one of the recommendations retain four apache battalion in national guard between unfunded list to congress the president budget of this year and the budget that we're current stage of preparing. you will see a number of those recommendations actioned. and the challenge that we face, to be brutally honest that national commission brought together a better future army and a number of ways to get there. but it was not provided means. in a strategy has to put all three together. so what we have done is worked within our budget to get after the most important issues first. and some of those clearly
involve increasing our readiness delivering more training center rotations to our national gaitered brigade combat teams which you'll see in next year's budget. reestablishing 11th combat brigade in korea a critical kalibility commission made a recommendation on, and we have a resourcing strait ji to get after that. of course the four battalion whether address thed in current or we address it u through our 18 submission we intend to get after that to best of our ability. so i think what's most important is that -- we're working together to improve the readiness of the total army. all its components. that is not an easy challenge. 39 days of training in a given year is not a ready unit mac so
we've really got to address how we increase the resourcing for those units most likely to have to deploy on a very title timeline in response to a contingency and additional time and additional training and funding for those units. >> most are means and resources. let me ask you a couple of forward looking questions because i know much of the planning in the pentagon is based on notion of well we have to operate under a budget that's a reality they're in. but let's forward to a new administration in a different set of national parties perhaps loosen expanding some of the resources availability to the military in the services. and let's look at two other things two forces, grow forces so they're shrinking it, what would you do? more to what forces would you want? what would be first on your list
to build up the capacity and capability of the ground forces where would you take that? >> suffice to say that forward positioning u.s. forces is a policy decision. so our political leadership will decide are we going to change our posture, our stance? clearly there's a recommendation in the national commission report that address where we should have additional forward presence. the european commander and his confirmation hearing made a clear statement about, you know, where his druthers were on understanding rotational force presence that we have there now. as you know in eastern europe starting on first of january, we'll have a full-time presence of an army brigade combat team. we have committed to resourcing that requirement, and the question was asked -- to general asked which would
rather have forward stition or rotational, an he stated his preference to have forward station. now from army perspective there's a lot of benefits particularly towards deterrents of forward station forces. but there's also sustaining cost that had elevate when you do that. so you know, we've got to waive that and respond to the policy decision that are made. suffice so say we know what capabilities in the army are most under stress, and were the direction that we're on right now to reduce our -- our end strength, relaxed we know which capabilities that we need. and so we will be prepared to, you know, deal with that should there be a change in direction. >> put the same question to you in terms of modernization so if you had additional resources and
you could direct it towards modernization. what would you do with it? >> we've already prioritized within our current modernization program so a matter of addressing those priorities. we have you know high -- [inaudible] response requirements to deliver active protective systems on our combat vehicles and our aviation plat formals. we have great needs to modernize our aviation portfolio in terms an improved engine and eventually a new aircraft platform basically. we've got critical needs in addressing cybervulnerablety across our network. and we've got to continue to get after that. we have already sustained our focus. we have despite all of the cuts that we took in modernization,
we preserved our snt portfolio so that as emerging demands cool out there, we've got a focus investment strategy in that, but my expectation is as we continue to look at pure competitor out there, there's going to continue to be gaps that we have to prioritize and get after, and that's a critical focus as we move forward as well. >> let me ask you one more question then i'd like to bring in the audience as well for that, and -- so there's a lot of reporting about -- army is trying to increase efficient city with resources that it has currently so it's different initiative. reducing the number of nondeployable more operating force to get the field. but look at ways to not have people just rush are to spend your funds so you can figure out a way to recycle that money and use it more efficiently. so from your perspective as vice can you address some of those
things and which ones you think will deliver per army in terms of bringing back sol resome resources? >> a lot of them. we must be good stewarts of the resources we're provided and we know we can do better. we have number of initiatives to make sure that we deliver on that. so for instance, we are while we very much have excess capacity in our infrastructure across the department of defense footprint certainly in the united states army about, you know, 33% excess to current strength level. so we know that the livelihood of a black is not very high. but we've got to right size within our own capacity to ensure that if we can consolidate our current force strength into the buildings that
are in the best shape and set aside those that are in poor condition or failing -- give to marines. [laughter] no -- >> marines will take care of their own internal issues and i have no doubt in the leadership's ability to do that. but we we have -- you have identified one of the most pressing problems that we have and that's our personal readiness quite frankly, it's the number one variable in delivering ready forces in the future . as we've come down in size, and we are struggling with about 10% of our force being nonavailable. the majority for medical reasons. and so we've got to find ways to ensure that we get them the help they need, and then enable them to transition more quickly so that we can get a ready replacement back into the system to meet the needs that are out there for our soldiers. ...
expect to get back in by those means. we've got to continue to work with the veterans administration on the vast majority of the rest of them to ensure that we transition them to veterans administration care efficiently and effectively as possible. again so we can deliver ready forces to meet the need. >> as it primarily a resource challenge or just a process question. >> resource challenge in terms of time, so that process now takes too long and we need to shorten it. we are working with veterans administration leadership. >> i like to open up to the floor so if you have questions, please raise your hand and we will start here in the second row.
>> general, i'm in a very different world now than i was on friday. i was at the technology conference with others talking about future capability from robotics to big data and cyber. now i come back down to earth, i think, here. what part of that third offset in vision vision is for the army and to what degree is it a function of really cool things that you guys just can't get to on the current budget with modernization where it is? you have much more immediate things like active protection, for for example. >> thank you sydney, we are thankful that they are pursuing the third offset approach
because it does enable a focus on what we need 15 - 20 years down the road which we must maintain a critical focus on we know, particularly in the area of integrated air defense and long-range fires that there are very specific capabilities that hold promise that we are working very carefully with doctor roper and his team to address gaps that we have, that we know they can help us close. so we are focused on building that future army while continuing to deliver the force that's needed today by our commander. >> thank you. you raise an interesting point because you talk about integrated air defense.
one of the things that we hear now in his actually highlighted in the commission report is increasing the possibility of operating where you don't have air superiority. we look at some of the analysis and they talk about what capability we need to control the air. then how do you balance that. i'd be interested, what would your mix be? would be let's just have more air force or let's build back other capabilities or look at these technologies. what would that mix of solution look like to you. >> the bottom line is we are better as a joint force and we've got to take a joint force approach to it. we have the best air force in the world. we have the best navy in the world. we have the best army in the world and were going to keep it that way. we are going to fight together as a joint team. we are specifically looking at what army capabilities are
necessary and frankly, we believe the army will play a role in seizing at least temporary control of airspace to enable the joint force to deliver what only they can deliver. we are custom in the united states army to having to fight in a contested close fight. we expect that will continue to be the case in the future. we believe we deliver the types of forces that can operate in that highly contested environment and create conditions favorable to our nation. >> what would that look like? would be more organic capability in brigade or the capability that would be deployable in different. >> i think you will see a distributed for second harness the effects in a very decentralized way and create
conditions that enable us to have the kind of outcomes that we need to deliver. >> so here's another question that will go to this one. >> watch this guy. >> i watch everybody. >> general, thank you very much for highlighting all of these efforts. i am michael krause, a soldier no longer young. i've been in three armies the drafted army, the hollow army and the professional army. you highlight the soldier, obviously, obviously, the soldier is everything to our citizen. what worries me is the morale of the force and the support of that force by the nation.
my question is going to be from one of the statistical indicators for retention and recruitment and medical care, for post stress care of the soldier. you mentioned 100k are are non- deployable. you mentioned 180 plus k that have been riffed. how is the morale? >> the morale is good in army today. i would say that is true a across the entire army. it is something we are focused on each and every day. he is specifically spending a lot of time on capitol hill making sure that they understand that some of their efficiencies that are being considered in the current nda a will begin to create a condition in the armed forces, not just the army, but
the armed forces where its death by 1000 cuts. a little cut here, little cut little cut there. what's 1% here. it all adds up and the bottom line is, what's enabled us to be the trusted professional that we are today is that this great volunteer force that we built. that all volunteer force, as you know emerged from the post- vietnam era and has become the professional envy of the world. we need to be very, very deliberate in adjustments that we make and insure that in pursuit of $1 million here or $1 million there that we are not destroying the very trust that enables us to continue to bring great patriots to serve in our armed forces. i will tell you, there's what i
believed to be a national security concern that not being fully aggressive addressed, it's the small percentage of the 18 - 24 population in america that can serve in the military. the last survey that was done was about 360,000 americans in the 18 - 24 rounds that can meet the pre-requisites to serve in the military. they need need 120,000 just to sustain the current force. we are competing against all of the services, businesses, universities for that same segment of the population. if they don't see a great opportunity for service in uniform, then the sacrifice that's inherent in this service will begin to weigh on the decision process and that's something we must be very focused on as we move forward. >> could you talk for a second about where the army is in terms
of this? >> in the past they've been able to do this pretty successfully so what's the status now? >> speaking to your original questions about morale, one of the indicators of the strength of morale is that our retention remains very, very solid. in fact, we have over retained in several of the last few years and we have had to actually ask people to leave because have we gotten smaller we've been over strengthened in certain ranks and grades for the force that we will be in the future. these people that were asked to leave our professionals. most of them, over 50% have two or more combat deployment. they had answered had answered the call and done good service for the nation but as we've gotten smaller, we've had had to ask them to consider another
phase of their journey as a soldier for life. that has been not an easy task to take on. recruiting is where we should see the greater challenge. it's a very competitive environment. frankly there are many youth in america, not a lot of parents want their child to join in army that that war. newsflash. we are competing against france. were competing against a very prolific job market. the economy is in pretty good shape. they aren't being forced to consider service in the military we again, that's the one we are watching very carefully as we move forward. we know we will be strained this year to meet the objectives that we have in recruiting. we have put more recruiters on the street. we are putting our very best out
there. we all have to stay after it. >> this lady and then we'll get back to the front. ray here. >> i'll get your question. >> hello, morgan k from motive international. i like to get your take on what i observe as a declining emphasis on work that you and i have done together which is any enter agency and non-kinetic space. i'm talking i'm talking about civil affair, peacekeeping operations as well as your security corporation. all the non-kinetic stuff that is really what deters, prevents and stabilizes. can you talk about the current threat of instability. i'd love to get your take on how we reconcile that this is one of the areas that i've seen the most declining interest and resourcing and yet it's being the most important for the threats of the future.
and most importantly, what you you describe is a fiscally suppressed environment, what's most cost-effective. it's not hardware intensive, it's not modernization intensive. it's up here intensive. it's the mental hardware. i love to get your take on how to reconcile that. >> is that part of the 40% of requirements that you can't meet on a day-to-day computer security operation and training? >> if you did the fundamental math, it's it's not 40% we can't meet, but most of what we cannot meet is based on demand that exceed supply. they are asking for a capability that we don't have insufficient ready capability or its performing another task that is a higher priority. morgan, to your point, we have been very focused on continuing to deliver what the combatant commanders need for both
security activities as well as institution building and many of the develop parts of the world. the beauty of that effort, as you highlight, is it can be effective in economy. if you look at the continent of africa as an example, we have have a few thousand soldiers that are over there hitting well above their weight class on a daily basis. i'm talking sergeants and lieutenants delivering strategic effects by building the capacity of our allies and partner, be able to contribute to stability in that region after we have finished working with them. it is a constant balancing act. we are major proponents of supporting what the combatant commanders need to shape and
prevent conflict because we would much rather stay in that phase than what we are currently experiencing in afghanistan, iraq, syria and other places. there is always going to be tension, but i will tell you that based on the most high demand capability that the army delivers on a daily basis, civil affairs and psychological operations, many, many of our enabling capabilities like engineer support, the commitment level that we have for those forces speaks to the fact that they are being employed by our combatant commanders to help contribute. is it enough? clearly i know where you feel on that, but it's a balancing act of how much can we give and how do we meet the most critical need. >> will come down front for a few questions.
>> thank you. john harper with national defense magazine. can we touch upon some of your modernization priorities, but on the individual soldier level, what kind of wearables are you hoping to pursue to increase them? >> we've been focused on soldier assistance for number of years and as a soldier who came up as a we do see the weight that our soldiers carry, getting commonality on batteries for the multitude of enabling capabilities that our soldiers carry, having solar power recharging capabilities so were not dragging generators everywhere we go, the network radio that were delivering for our soldiers today is extraordinary.
we are having some technical difficulty with our feed. while we wait we will let you know some other stuff going on. following this weekend's mass shooting at it gay nightclub in orlando they have proposed new legislation regarding hate crimes and firearms. democrats push several gun control measure with little success. they want to ban people on the federal watch list from purchasing guns. it did not pass.
[no audio] while we fix this, is here is a portion of this morning's "washington journal". >> thank you very much for taking this time. what is the conversation going to be like and what are you going to say? >> this is a week that we mourns together as americans, not republicans and democrats. let's take time to remember and pray for god's blessing on those who were lost. also pray for the ones left behind. together as a country, we mustt resolve to make sure this never happens again.ther o
that requires parties to shift and come together on solutionsvy to protect every community across the country. >> how do you do that. what are those issues to come together on. so many stories we've read today talk about people retreating to their political corners hours after this event. we know there are two policy lanes we have to look at. w first it's security. what are we doing to surveilled to reflect homegrown terror. this is what a single individual can do to take the lives of 50 individuals. how do we address surveillance
and law enforcement. that's one area. we also know the debate over guns will come up again. how do we protect the second amendment rights of every individual and keep guns out of terrorists. those policy debates we need to have. but we need to have those not as republicans and democrats. not through bipartisan partisanship. >> so nancy pelosi turn and say can we come together. what is the legislation you put forward that might be able to be passed? >> so first, what law-enforcement needs is to increase surveillance and vetting of agents of homegrown terror. people who were born here. american citizens print how we protect their personal liberties while also ensuring that we have a proper look into the lives and
activities and coordination of those who wish to do harm. second, you know that i would do do on the issue of guns as a republican, turned to how local law enforcement officials, our sheriffs and police chiefs across the country and say you lead this dialogue. in the wake of san bernardino terrorist and orlando, i sit with my local sheriff, my local police chiefs and i say what do you think about the current background tracks. where are the vulnerabilities. as republicans many of us local law enforcement leaders understand and believe in protecting the second amendment. they are the right voice to say let's balance the individual protection of firearm ownership with reasonable regulations and fix the soft spots that we know fix need fixed. >> congressman, before you go, one of the colors on the program was from the orlando area and said he first heard about the shooting when he was in church. he said i thought it was a normal shooting that only a couple people had been killed on
a saturday night and then he went home and found out more from the news and found out it was something different. is there something such as a normal shooting in this country or does that say something about this country. >> there shouldn't be a normal shooting. understand this is a shooting that occurred and was waged in the name of a war that agents of terror, isis and isis sympathizers have waged on the united states. we face threat in all 50 states because of a terror organization that has waged war and wants to destroy the west and destroy the united states. we can't forget that that was a motive for the ask about gentleman gentleman on sunday. the gentleman is to jumpwe must generous of a term. we must seek these agents of terror on their land and secure our borders and increase the betting here at home.
we need to make sure this doesn't happen again. then we need to have a gun debate' i come down on the side of the second amendment but if there is a way to improve our gun laws while protecting the second amendment, let's do that as americans. we mourn together this week as american. >> to focus on the first part of your response, some reporting this morning that bill nelsonti from florida said that it's time for the u.s. to declare war on isis, do you agree with that, do you think it's time to declare war on isis. >> i do. i don't believe the president has done enough. he is the commander-in-chief and i respect that but i had begged the president to do more. i we must defeat the agents of terror overseas and we must defeat them here on our homeland. they are attacking the very freedoms upon which our nation was founded.li they are attacking people whot t believe in the freedoms of the west. >> look at what they did inlc paris at a nightclub where alcohol was being consumed, at a sporting event and now in
orlando and an lgbt nightclub. they will continue to attack the freedoms of the west in a very perverted way that does not reflect the broad views which we read about in matthew, do not judge. they have violated all the teachings across the faith. >> one last question for you, for those viewers who have young children who are struggling to explain what happened in florida at the nightclub to them, what is your advice? >> there are people in this world who wish to do harm to uso it is a responsibility of political leadership to make decisions to keep us safe and it's the responsibility of every american that as we mourn for these families that we recognize this is an american issue, not a political political issue.ol
we reject political leaders who will take us down and insteadthy say we are going to stand united with the families and individuals that we lost in orlando and were going to stand united in protecting our own securities as america's. if we fail to do so, we will have squandered the very freedom that generations upon generations of men and women in uniform have fought to protect for us.neratita this is now the task we have before us. we will overcome it because we always do. >> congressman david jolly, thanks for taking the time to join us on "washington journal". >> thank you,. >> on the road to the white house coverage today we are live in cleveland ohio where hillary clinton will talk to supporters at 1230 eastern time. clinton won 81 of of the delegates back in ohio in march. at 230 eastern donald trump will address the crowd in new hampshire college.
he is expected to talk about terrorism and national security. he won the first in the nation primary in february. on our other network, the house returns this week to continue work on federal spending legislation for 2017. we will spend most of the week on department spending per this will be the first appropriations bill to be considered under the new house rules by republican leadership to limit amendments instead of having an open amendment process. they are back at two pm for legislative business today and before they turn to defense spending, they'll take up a number of measures including one to change the freedom of information act and another to come back organ trafficking. at four eastern they look to wrap up work on the defense programs and policy bill. we expect to have a final vote on that bill tomorrow. you can find my coverage of the u.s. senate whenever they are in right here on c-span2. >> we are going public.
we will be watched by our friends and people across the country and i would hope as i've said before that the senate may change, not as an institution but may become a more efficient body because of televised proceeding. the proceeding of the united states senate are being broadcast of the nation on television for the first time. not that we have operated in secret until now. millions of americans have sat in the galleries and observed
i think it works successfully when we see that we can do that. we can have them normally move into some services into that system and that's really what the grand experiences. >> it sounds like a news bundle targeting millennial's. >> correct. i don't know if any of us know precisely what that's going to be. i think the beauty of having software distribution platforms and the flexibility of using mobility for distribution allows you to try a lot of different things and see where you get some traction and move back from that. >> there are so many players on the stage right now. what about at&t? >> so i think that the one thing that we understand, customers are being really clear. they love using the products and services but they don't like the overheads that go with it. it needs to be a much simpler and transparent experience to get the complement of things that they want, conductivity or anywhere whether they are home or on the go. the entertainment that they can
take with them and get what they believe is a good value out of that. one of the things we need to focus on is a great customer experience. one that is very transparent but they know there are hidden fees and they know what the deal is. there is low overhead and getting that done. when you start looking at these new products, they take a lot of overhead out of the provisioning processes and the customer support processes and they play right into that nice mobile experience. that's one of the things that we need to do very well is play into it. i think over time as you start to have the opportunity to deal with a stack of technology, you can can do things more effectively manage ad loads, you can invest in more exclusive content and you can monetize in ways with subscription and advertising and play on a
different scale and that's what we have to do better. >> what are you seeing in terms of the big picture trend in the industry. just this afternoon i talked with cox communication. they talked about this need to adapt to the consumer and offer different types of packages, perhaps more flexible and smaller. >> i totally agree with that. the consumer today, you think about what their looking at and it's not that they're not engaging with the content or the product that were offering, they're just engaging in a different way. they want to do it on their terms. instead of watching down an hour at a time, they want to watch an entire season over the course of a friday and saturday night. they want the latitude to do it in the house and outside the house. some are looking for different price points. there's no question that the industry kind of fit itself into the premium segment of the price point up at the high-end. we kind of left the scaffold gap of people who need a starter set to move in. i think that flexibility is the key issue. i think the way you can come up with different business models in different distribution platforms and start to take
costs out of how you deliver these products, you start to take cost of the support lifecycle for customers that are less intensive and it all plays within that flexibility and choice that they need. >> do you think these starter packages are gateway drug for getting people to sign up for directv full package or is this a new generation of consumers whose never going to want to pay for a full cable bundle or satellite tv bundle. >> i don't want to characterize it as a gateway drug, but we definitely believe that there is a set of training wheels that are needed, to have a starter set to introduce and try. i do believe there will be some that never come into the echo system. today we have over 20 million people who aren't part of the echo system. some not because they don't want to be part, they can't clear credit checks to get in over these models that required you to have in-service for 14 months before you get payback.
i think we will see some of this where different size bundles and different size offerings allow you to address parts of the market that haven't brought in today's industrial-strength market, but they're going to be some that said don't want to be part of it. i my own curator and i'm okay with this fragmented environment and that's going to be okay. if you build the right kind of architectures and platforms, you can be adaptable and flexible to that. >> that's going to be okay because you're going to region with different packages. >> were going to reach them with different packages or in our case, our goal is to openly provide conductivity and move tonnage. that's a mainstay of our business. if they need conductivity to consume other and move tonnage, we can ultimately earn back returns on investment at that infrastructure. that's an an okay business to be in as well. >> who is your biggest competitor for at&t entertainment? >> i wish i could narrow it down to one.
i think we certainly have the traditional set. we look at what comcast has done with their business and we admire what they've done. i think they've done a great job of building a nice set of entertainment assets. it's a great distribution platform to do that. you also have to look at some of the new nontraditional providers whether it's a netflix or who lou and whether they've done some great things to integrate. clearly customers are voting in saying they like that. we've got a variety of people coming out of from different angles. that is the beauty of it. it's an intensely competitive industry with a lot of different business models emerging. it's a mystery why somebody believes there needs to be more active involvement from a regulatory side of it when there is this much innovation going on but time will tell whether or not the market wins or the regulatory body wins on that. >> so you are criticizing the sec or what in particular.
>> i just asked why we need more regulation whether it's looking at how we deal with pricing on transportation or unlocking the box. it's a vibrant industry with a lot of people coming in. >> so no more regulatory involvement. >> just a final note, we are running low on time, later this afternoon you will be hearing from other ceos. we've seen facebook make a push for its live streaming video. what does that mean for you? is a good to have people streaming more video on their mobile devices or is it competition for your content question what. >> i think it's a great. i think the fact that people continue to want to engage in use data and find ways to be more connected, connect more devices, at the the end of the day that's always good for business. from the dawn of time, what we have made our money on and what were good at is moving our bit around. it's quarter what we do and what we do well.
our job is to continue to invest in our infrastructure that we can continue to lower the cost of how people move those bits so they can find more application and opportunities to use applications like periscope and feel good about it. we think that's a good thing. our approach to that is just constantly invest and drive cost down. i think if you look at what is starting to happen right now, were starting to see the dawn of the ups dream consumption of data. we used to be all push and send it now we are individual creation and more information being sent up to the cloud. at the end of the day we think that's great for a network business like ours. we do entertainment because it drives on a network basis, not because we think we are great at entertainment. >> do you think that will continue to see the rise of traffic going in both ways or is there a limit to that?
>> i think we will continue to see that increase in traffic. in in fact if you look at the upstream traffic, it's on a smaller base but networks are becoming more effective, more capable. you're starting to get a time of her construct that works. i think were starting to see the front end of the innovation of the upstream environment. >> fantastic. unfortunately we are at a time but think you for joining us. we really appreciate it. [applause] so up next we have the ceo and founder of mashable. so pete you come from a different type of business. you build a digital content business and about a year ago you started investing heavily in video. just recently, a couple months ago, you announced you announced
a big investment from a partnership with turner. tell us about this partnership and what brings you here to a room full of television and cable executive. >> i think the way that i think about it is mashable is a startup and its also a decade old at this point. the first point was newspaper coming online. we were able to build one of the new media companies with the biggest distribution and really build the future of newspapers and magazine online. i think it's quite clear that there is now a new revolution happening which is how are people going to consume video in the future. i think smart companies like turner are looking at this and saying we are looking at this in companies that mashable are saying we think there's some other solution that will work as well.we have a data platform which is mashable philosophy and
i think really it's about marrying those trends together. >> tell us a little bit about velocity. it's been very successful in your video content throughout the distribution and creation pit how does it work? >> so we came up with velocity about three years ago because our readers want to know what's new and what's next in media and across the web. we saw it sitting on social media trying to figure out what's going on. at the same time readers are on our site and they don't want to know what the most viral thing is, they want to see what's up coming. so this is a predictive of logarithm it's a learning logarithm so half the time we don't know what it's learning but it's looking at what is the story on mashable look like versus a competitive set.
it has many indexes and watches the whole web and gives dashboards to the staff to say here's what you should focus on, here's what you shouldn't focus on because it's already done. we took that into our developers so will we create content, here's here's where you should focus your piece and here's where you should avoid. we use that in distribution as well. we can say actually this is really going strong on facebook, let's upgrade to the main page for this is something we should new need to push harder on youtube. then we also started using it for branded content. our branded content creators can put in words and say over the past three years, what ideas resonated with female millennial's interested in buying a car. then they can start the process. we still think the people are incredibly important for coming up with original theories for mashable and branded content but this ability to look through
everything that has worked and re-target target those people is really powerful. we plan to take advantage of video. >> how do you expect to apply this to your partnership with turner. >> so one of the events that mashable, we have online distribution and snapchat discover, we have youtube and facebook. we have 13 million plus followers online. were very influential because we started at the start of the social revolution. we have the most twitter followers and facebook fans. there's a few parts to working with the ecosystem peer one of them is just traditional distribution for the shows. another is developing shows together using our data platform. you can have ideas coming from the tv side are coming from our side and analyze the data and targeted to an audience. it really makes it a much safer role. we just signed a deal with bravo to do the same thing.
on turner, the other piece we are doing is branded content per we just announced it on friday and we were actually looking to bring our branded content offering in the future. that would be a unique offering for advertisers to say you had a hit piece of branded content. now you can take it all the way. >> you've clearly had a lot of conversation with television companies. what do you see about their needs and how their needs are evolving in this landscape? >> i think it's been really interesting. it's completely different world when you look at it. i really have been learning a lot about how when you produce for tv, there's a a group for people who come together for a project, and you know we have always been about people learn from the data on the interaction and the readers so it's kind of just the different personnel
function, but the real need is digital distribution and as always, how do you have a hit show. how do you target the right people? what is the hit show now? more and more with velocity we can target the right people for the right show. what used to be a niche show that wasn't big enough or television is certainly something that is very sustainable. >> it's interesting that after building this business online, you are shifting so much attention toward traditional old-fashioned television. does that mean there's less opportunity and online advertising than you thought were. >> we talk about tv and the screen, what were really talking about is in some cases, many cases you will have a bundle and it's going to come to your house in a different way. when we talk about the future of
tv, it still is technically online coming to you from your internet connection. everyone is aiming at that and that is the future. it's more data-driven and more competitive. you really need to fight for your audience. it still online. the dollars are technically online dollars but it's a different way of getting your media. >> what's the biggest challenge for you as you shift gears for mashable? >> i think we spent the last, if you really want to understand where digital media is there are two transitions that happen. one is is going from being a singular platform to being a multimedia company on multi- platforms. last year we were up on snapchat discover. we have to sell stories across multiple platforms.
they want us to develop 35 hours a month with facebook wife. so going from singler platform that everybody happens on mashable.com to everything on multiple platforms is something that we've done. we hit the formula. that was something we launched last summer. the other thing that's changing which is very exciting for us were very focused on it is the fastest growing part of our business is branded content. rather than let's put an ad next to some content it's how do we work with brands to make the reason integrate their messaging, whether we worked with wells fargo and they said we want millennial's to be interested in finance for how do we make it fun and entertaining and also get across the message. so those are the two big changes in media over the last couple years, especially digital companies. we think mashable really nailed both of those which is why we
can focus all our video resoues under the mashable banner because it's really hitting those two-point. >> as you look back at the history of television, there were sponsored game shows going back. >> bringing it back, bring in the back. >> so bringing it back, are there going to be challenges to that. will there be resistance from madison avenue and viewers. will people be more skeptical when they turn on tv expecting to know exactly when a commercial is. >> i think disclosure is very important. i think what we found is video disclosure is a lot easier and using the cross a lot more information in the video format. i think as long as it's great content and as long as disclosure is clear, i think viewers want great content. i love shows like comedians and cars getting coffee. yes it sponsored by a car company but it's really entertaining. that's what i care about for the viewer and i know that viewers
are aware that that type of media is paid for. i think if disclosure is where they are perfectly happy with that. >> we were just talking with at&t entertainment and we were talking a little bit about this before. they're all of these new bundles. you have amazon prime video, you have verizon go 90, everyone, who lou is working on its live video bundle. what is the future of these bundles and where does mashable fit in? >> we did have some friday deals with go 90 and amazon prime video. i think nobody really knows who will win in the bundle play but it's a great time to be a content creator because more and more people want our content because we have that millennial audience. more and more people are paying to get your content into the bundle and competing for great premium content. i think it's something people want then you're well-positioned. i do think there will be a few where consumers decide this is
the bundle i'm going to go for an and people kind of focus on those bundles, but right now there's a lot of opportunity. for us it's just which bundle do we want to be part of and let them compete for our content. >> is a little bit of a bubble right now because there are so many fires that they can't possibly all succeed? >> no, i think it's really just a huge opportunity. if you think in the size of this opportunity, if this really is the future of how you get your media and you look at how large the entire ecosystem is, if a lot of those dollars are up for grab than it's worth people trying to figure out if they can be a bundle provider. not all of them will be. not. not every network will have such differentiated content. we think we would like to be a content provider to those bundles. i think ultimately that will figure itself out and it's great
to be a content creator right now. >> in terms of your own business, it has gotten a lot more expensive to make videos. how do you manage this? >> we have higher margins as well so if we were talking about if we had 69% growth and branded content, it's our fastest-growing part or a business, i think certainly we spent some time investing in our video realizing that were expensive to produce but there's also higher margin on the branded stuff. i think what's different about the way mashable approaches it and the reason networks are coming to us is that we use data a lot more. the great thing about being online is that with our series camelot, we had something in the velocity dashboard that this guy was responding to. he had written aboard about book about it. it was bubbling up on the web.
we said this is interesting, will make a pilot. a pilot is one video. we can put on mashable, facebook, youtube. we can get the data back of who's watching it and when are they watching it. actually we can say this is big it got this many views. then we can say will make the whole series. then we just recorded the second series of that. then many millions of views and we look at that way say how can we do this again and how can we repeat the process with longer turn with data coming from three years of velocity. it's just a much more affordable way to make video. we don't have this huge legacy business that's expensive to maintain. we can just come up with something and see if the data supports her and see if we have an audience we can target and make it with much speed. >> do you find that the data you get from your a logarithms is different from what you get on videos versus print? >> the main thing we evolved is
that velocity was designed for a quick turn. what we've done is we've evolved video so velocity can tell you with about 83% accuracy when to share it and when it's going to double. then it can give you a topical view and say here are the topics you should be focused on in the political race. now there's a story about trump fading up or you can look at anything on the web and see how much life it has left in it. with video we do longer term. we will commit to a whole series. for video it's really about looking at historical databases. >> it takes longer to make a video then write an article. >> we can make video very quickly and we do that. it's more that it takes longer if we are working together with the brand to figure out together, is this this something you want to do. we don't necessarily call them up in five minutes later get approval for it. it takes longer. there's a bit marked medication
going on. we would love to do that if people wanted quick turn video and were doing that with a couple brands this year where we actually take over their whole content strategy and produce on our site and do really quick turn. we are doing that we hope to see more of it. >> right now, to have you here is so great. thank you so much for joining us and we appreciate it. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> for our next conversation, please welcome senior editor of media at, peter and his guest nigel. >> how are you, we did one of these in february. you are a good person to talk to because your business keeps changing. a lot of people in this crowd probably first heard about you last summer, last fall as you
blanketed the airway and tv ads. looks like your entire industry and company were going to be shut down. you're still here. >> we are still here. >> what you give folks a quick update about where you're at legally and you're still operating, but not everywhere in the u.s. >> that's correct. just to give you an idea, we touched on things last october that there was really a crisis point last october. fantasy sports have operated for 50 years but suddenly people are starting to question the legality of it and then what happened was in the numbers, the attorney general wanted to know is this gambling or not. our perspec fantasy games are game of skill. i'm not sure we really operate under that. some people disagree, but we
stopped operating in a number of states. >> i was reading beforehand that basically a quarter of the country can no longer play. >> about 25%. >> that's correct. >> that's not where you thought you were going to be a year ago. >> no we certainly didn't anticipate that. what i would say is that we, i always knew, fantasies boards and the laws that apply was fine when it was a small grassroots but when 50 million people play it, it wasn't a big business so we knew as we started doing big business that we might become an unregulated business but we knew we had to get from here to there that we didn't know how to get there we didn't know what would happen as quickly as this. that's the big thing that has happened. so some of those things we've exited about what we've been doing is working pledge theaters
and i think we've had almost 30 support us and we are very supportive of consumer protection regulations. let's clarify the laws and put in some protection regulations. so we've seen bills be introduced in almost 30 states in the last six months. it was really quite phenomenal. we've seen bills pass and become law and almost. you're going state-by-state.
raising hundreds of millions of dollars last summer. you did not anticipate you are going to spend your money on going state to state, obviously, you spent a lot of marketing and more on that in a minute. are the things you thought you were going to use that money for and expenses you had to put on hold because of financial reasons and also because you were not sure whether it was going >> we definitely dialback on marketing and definitely increase in regulatory and legal . i would say in poor investments of the product, that's been as much and greater than last year. we as a company view that we are transforming the way people consume sports and we've actually expanded our
product engineering teams over the past few months because we want the product to keep getting better, to deliver that mission of transforming sports entertainment. >> you're not worried you're going to out of business? >> that's been good. i seem very strong, last year we acquired a company called number fire with drove sports analytics so that was very strong. today and even more recently, we've been bringing in people that can understand our platform to drive export engagement. >> let's talk about the marketing, the beginning of the conversation everybody here were aware of drafting's and fanduel, they certainly were last fall as a running joke,you spent hundreds of millions of dollars , hours a week on advertising. in retrospect, was that a good idea? >> i would say we definitely made a mistake. we definitely wanted to generate that awareness. we knew we had a product that people loved and our biggest issueis that most people were
aware of it. we knew, we thought we knew what people like about the product . we think the level of advertising and you know, we probably didn't sell all the benefits of the product, the excitement of the product and we obviously overexposed it. over time we were getting there and i think the market sort of blew up last year. >> there's two possible negative side effects of blanketing, one is turning a lot of people off the product and to i think, it seems like you raise your profile enough that people like the attorney general of new york said i'm going to look into things. you think that caused part of the backlash, the legal backlash? >> i think whenever we put it out there people were going to ask the question so i think the issues we are going through now were going to happen anyway. i just don't think they were going to happen as quickly as they happened.
>> you spent hundreds of millions, you and your competitors spent hundreds of millions collectively last fall on football related ads. football is what drives your business right was marked. >> there's been a shift or it football largely is certainly still the biggest sport. but basketball has been the fastest growing one and if you look over the last 15 years, one of the biggest drivers of consumption of the nfl has been fantasy sports. basketball really hasn't seen that growth. what are seeing is nfl is still important, probably the number one importance but we arseeing a huge increase in consumption of nba which is i think in a few years and ba from our perspective will be number one. >> interesting. in your term, near-term this fall, as you make a push for recruiting people during football season, what's going to be different this year? are you going to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars? >> where definitely going to step back, and the first one is last year it was about
awareness. we have tons of awareness, that's not an issue. this year is more about shifting energy to new aspects of the product and just re-explaining how her fantasy is fun and that's something we made a mistake on last year was, it became very serious and we wanted to be more about the emphasis was on how much money you could make that was the focus and we wanted more to get back to, people think fantasy sports is fun. that comes out in all the research and advertising missed that. >> they're not doing it as a vocation. >> we want to see the entertainment aspect on. it's part of the advertisement. the advertising is fun and you switch off on it, that's bad for us. >> so the ad will change, you want to make it more fun. i'm assuming you don't care compare notes with the folks at drafting some you have no idea what they're going to do and in terms of, i was watching football last year. i had to see ads for both of
you guys basically at every commercial break. are you going to pour money into tv and football broadcasts? >> tv is still very important. there's no medium that is good about telling a story and building a brand as tv we've seen a shift over the last few years of more and more digital . particularly social and particularly mobile. the opportunity to target and the opportunity to track there is so much stronger and thirdly, the opportunity to change our expand on mobile and social is very powerful and so as we expand in the future, i see a shift more toward those channels away from td. >> does the overall spending increase? >> it will not increase from last year, it will be down. >> down significantly overall and the mix is going to be more digital and are there people you feel you could reach thecause it seems like you have one product you
should be advertising on tv because again, you've got to watch the nfl . but it seems like if anything you guys should be pushing td. >> td is still a core part of it, absolutely but the greatest thing for us is we know exactly where our fans are. they are on sports television and so we can target them very closely so it's a poor anchor to us but there is still a shift away to dig about mobile. >> are there pockets of digital and mobileyou think that are underutilized as a marketer? >> there's probably smaller ones . i'd say in digital, basically for us it's very effective. it gives us great targeting ability and their very innovative in looking at what we can do this year. it's much more impressive than what we could do last year. >> what are some of the examples? >> innovative ways of targeting people, innovative ways of for example unlike payments where there's a cost acquisition or cost to install instead of a cpm.
>> is that because their product has changed? >> they're shipping the product and more advertising friendly area. >> you want somebody to download the app, they are very strong at that . >> i think they are doing very well. >> is there a benefit that you're not going to have that same sort of public profile it's going to find out more attorney general's? we like that we have the awareness. i think as we shift our messaging more about the fun of the product and it being fun and kind of introduce people to part of the product we didn't really talk about, it's better for us as a brand. >> part of your pitch has been that you work with, many of the investors in your competitor, you work with individual teams. have any of them peeled off over the last year? >> no, not at all. the nba is an investor in us and we're a partner with them. we partnered with six nfl teams. they are kind of a core part
of our brand tory. banjo is about sports and so we want one of our mantras is about bringing people better closer to sports. we can take a cleveland fan and take into account earlier semen i can put him in the front row,we can only do that because we are partners . >> i understand why you would want to partner with them but are they all about ... >> know, they've been supportive. they see in the nba this is such a driver of sports consumption that they have been very supportive of what we have done over the last six months. >> we were talking backstage about where you come assuming that you get to a point where you are no longer fighting state-by-state battles what you can do once that opens up for you. one of the thingsyou want to do is become more of a media platform . >> i think one of your pitches tothe networks , i
think nbc, you guys, fox and draft kings, i think it was my surprise them that you want to become a media platform. >> absolutely. we have several million engaged millennial's. 15 to 35-year-old males, sports fans. they are incredibly engaged, on the platform every day. so for someone like say bud light, we just partnered with on our competition, they are absolutely the demographic we want to what we've done is we branded that competition bud light, we actually have, started the nba playoffs and had tournaments every day. so that is, that's a way for them to reach our base and it's also attractive to our base because it's a brand they are associated with. >>are they marketing you guys then western mark . >> it's more us marketing them but it's definitely a brand association x are they paying you?
so you are generating advertising revenue. >> we think over time it will become a significant revenue stream for us . >> and anheuser-busch is the biggest one. >> it's our first big one. >> what all that always the plan? we planned for some time. we knew the level of engagement we were driving. we knew that was interesting to advertisers so we really were trying to work out a way to package itfor them . >> so you guys, i assume most of the consumption for you is on the phone, on your. >> over 80 percent of our users are on the phone or 80 or 90 percent is it happening while the game is going on? >> what's interesting, there's really three parts to this. the first one is research, i want to research my lineup and the second one is constructing my team and the third is live scoring experience. historically a lot of the research has been on the web but we are putting more of that on. >> on my laptop. >> lotsof different sites.
we're putting more of that in the apps. you can do that part and in terms of putting together your lineup , that's more and more on the phone and the live scoring is nearly all on the phone. that's for people in the sports bar, even in theirhome it's much easier to check on the phone that is to do on the laptop . >> are you able to say to the teams look, we can show about engagement, open viewership? >> we've already done the analysis where we can show an increase in consumption, particularly in the nba. we showed people were going from an average of watching for games a week watching seven games a week whenever they began a fanduel player. the interesting thing i think is when you think of that experience, were trying to put it all on the so the data that i do for research and my team on the app, the drafting is on the app and the golden opportunity i think for us is probably the live scoring experience, watching the game in the app because already i'm doing thing on my app. why can i go to the game and
see how my players are doing? watching click, there's lebron scoring three points for me. i actually want todo that in the app . >> you want to be able to watch the game on the phone. >> our players definitelywant to do that. that will be a good opportunity . ask those rights are expensive in their own by the tv network, twitter. >> there's that challenge what we look at theleague , you look at how they are bundling and going more over-the-top for some of our audience, they are not getting them through, they're not getting them through subscription, not getting them in a linear format. they just want clicks and so i think it's an additive one for thismillennial audience . >> there's always talk, i've asked you before but i will ask you again, you got two very similar companies, serious xm. it's logical that you would combine at some point. are you receptive to that idea?
>> no real update. we are very focused on our business.we are really excited about our objectives the next few years so. >> are the players loyal to one bland or at during the other or are they playing both of you. >> more casual players tend to be more loyal to one. it takes time to get to know more forms. the most passionate players tend to play a crossbow. there are forms like people like this on that platform, i like this on the other. >> in terms of the legal battle, the other issue from marketing and perception wise was a series of stories, maybe one story repeated that said you guys have positioned this as something anyone can do but it turns out all the winnings go to sort of a handful of players who go to mit and have computers. it's not a game anyone can win, you will lose. how do you fight back against that perception and reality. >> it's not a big challenge and a narrative we need to take on. the first thing is, it's a
game of skill. absolutely we said at the start, this is a game of skill. the more you work at it, the better you get and that being said, some of our tournaments are very different from others so we have 70 million. that's our most challenging competition is the one that's hardest to get into, hardest to win but at the same time we have new players, beginner leagues, we have 5050s where you only have to come in the top half to win so really you will see this season morewe want to move more people to those ones and say look, a new player, these are the ones who should be playing . >> you should not be in the world series of poker. >> you should be in the kiddie pool, you shouldn't be in the ocean and that's the thing that i think historically we maybe want to clear up that people went straight into the most challenging competition instead of learning the product. >> but you could still have the computer jockeys. >> those guys ... >> they can still be in the kiddie pool to. >> the kiddie pool, we want to make sure ... >> you been in from getting in.
>> there are some regulations we are putting in. we have to label the high-value player or the highly experienced players and we also have to carve up areas that they can't play and as only new players are less experienced can play. >> you have to get that marketing out that this is a thing you can put in an hour. >> you can put in a dollar, you are playing other people, just start theproduct and you are playing at a much more friendly environment and also the other one we want to push is the social side. playing your friends , not really develop that i and you know how good they are. you probably think you are better than them, >> you have games where it's me and my buddies and outsiders. that's coming this year? >> are going to see that much more this year. we've always been able to do it but have not pushed it forward . >> just advice for a lot of ulterior probably not working at startups but maybe wish they could, a year ago everyone started to seem very exciting, it was a unicorn, left to the right now a lot of people are faltering,
there's a lot of questions and you faltered in a very public way. what's the biggest lesson you've taken of a rough year? >> i lived through this in 2000, we had a startup back then and went through a lot of challenges. ultimately it became a very successful company. startups are, they don't grow in linear fashions. you have to deal with the bumps as they come. like, we are as enthusiastic today about our long-term vision and how we are going to get there but we know it's not going to be an easy road and i don'tthink we ever . >> there's nothing to lose 25 percent of your user base. >> that's true. but throughout our journey and being at this in 2008, we had moments early on where we were one week away from having to shut down because we couldn't raise money. startups always have uncertainty and that's part of the thrill of being an entrepreneur, if you don't
have the stomach for that and certainly don't do it. >> thanks for proving you have the stomach to talk to me multiple times a year, i appreciate it. thank you. [applause] >> i do give him credit for coming out because he's got a business to run. i want to switch years briefly and bring on kevin bayport from periscope. come on up. >> you did great. you've got a whole collection of art here. >> you're in the media business. >> apparently these guys are in the media business. you didn't start out there though, right? this is your second company. second startup. >> yeah. our first startup, my cofounder and i started a company, we don't mobile applications for universities . >> so you start off in education tech and now your
immediate. >> i like to think we started out building things we wanted to use and at the time we were students. we wanted to build something we could use and it's really no different than periscope. we wanted to build something that would feed the world and it turned out without first startup we graduated to no longer being consumers of our own product but periscope we still get to use it every day. >> you had a wacky year, a pretty interesting 18 months. you sold the company to twitter. launched what, about a year ago? we did one of these conversations onstage a year ago. >> same chairs. >> same chairs. you were ceo, about a month ago he left. you've been working for jack orsi who last year or so, how are things different at twitter with jack dorsey running the show? >> it's special to work with someone who is the inventor of the product over a decade ago. as the inventor, you have a spiritual connection with the product that i think is rare. joe and i certainly feel
passionately about what we do with periscope. to be able to do what we do and work closely with jack and kind of his context and vision for what he sees, twitters value in the world is really special area east someone i've admired for a long time so to be a search with him is awesome. >> he came in as an interim fashion last summer and came on as full-time ceo last. when he came on did you say all right, there are things i want you to do differently than you've been doing before give you different marching orders than what you had? >> one of the great things about jack is he's one of our biggest cheerleaders. he was one of the biggest advocate is for periscope joining twitter in the first place so there was no dramatic moment where he said your mandate was asked and now it's wide. >> he wanted twitters by you guys to begin with. >> he was one of the folks we were most close to . >> not to put a clock on it since these screens have gone dark, just to know this way. so he didn't give you any different marching orders.
he said keep doing what you're doing. >> he's marching orders were continue to do what you guys are already doing which is build out your product and let us know what we can do to help. >> year ago you were live streaming and there was a company called meerkat that maybe look like competition. they went away and now you've got facebook doing live streaming. they are real competition. they are paying celebrities to live stream, they are paying media companies including the one i worked at, fox media to screen exclusively on facebook. youtube is starting to look at this. what's it like to compete head-to-head with facebook? >> the media likes to change a very dramatic picture about competition but the reality is that even when we entered this market, we were never the first. we could name dozens of live streaming asset came before us and many more that will come to the market big and small. i think that's one of the things that drove us about periscope is we didn't want to be first. we wanted to be something
else, we wanted to be best or different or something that wasn't first. that helps us in a variety of ways. it's helped us not yet fixated on this notion that were the only ones were that we were first. it helps us focus on what we want to be which is a fantastic product that people love to use. it's not the first time ... it's not the first time that companies have incentivized financially people to broadcast. >> but is facebook. >> even meerkat was giving equity away. >> it turned out people were going to use that thing and it didn't matter what you were getting equity in your because no one was going to use it. facebook had 800,000 people watching an exploding watermelon, they were going to have an interview with president obama, didn't work but they will try it again. they are pushing it at every opportunity , mark zuckerberg thinks this is important to him so it's not just any other competitor. it was 1.6 billion people pushing you. are you reacting at all to what they are doing? >> i'd say we're flattered that what we've done is good
enough that other people want to shamelessly jump into the space though i think in that sense, other people investing in the live streaming space is actually reputable companies that are as large as they are. >> is that a reaction to you guys? >> what do you think? >> it could be a random coincidence it certainly could be. either way i don't think it really, i reaction is to double down on what we are doing which is staying the course and building a product people want to use and i think other people ultimately , other people in the live streaming state is a good thing. when we first launched, the narrative was very different. it was, this is interesting, people don't want to spend their time live streaming and a bunch of other sort of pessimistic views on whether this medium was actually interesting for people to use so i am excited that that conversation has evolved now to the point where no one questions with the legitimacy of the space. now it's are there
understandable narratives like how canperiscope succeed verses such and such competitors or any number of other narratives . >> you don't even want to mention facebook my name. i have a question about life broadly. i love the internet and i love the internet for a bunch of reasons, one is i can do whatever i want to do when i want to do it. and i love that that on-demand notion has now spread to lots of things including getting cars or i can watch the throne that 9:30, i don't need to watch it at nine. why is live attractive to internet users were used to being able to watch things when they want to watch them, not when they are on? >> one of the things attractive about life is that it works in the first place, not so much of the consumption standpoint but on the creation standpoint. the fact that i can walk around the streets that the staff of my fingers, commanded audience of hundreds of thousands of people, there's something superhero about that that is novel and people will