EPISODE 183 | LSR Podcast

A Closer Look At The Path To Profitability | Sports Betting News Today


30 min
Video preview

A Closer Look At The Path To Profitability | Sports Betting News Today | LSR Podcast 183

Join us today on the Legal Sports Report podcast for the latest sports betting news and updates. We take a closer look at the path to profitability as sports betting earnings calls are filled with talk of profit and efficiency, but what has it taken for some sportsbooks to get closer to being in the black? The crew also looks at the return of official league data talk, positive signs for a Minnesota bill, and a throwback to the days of DFS.

Full transcript

Matt Brown (00:09):

Hello and welcome to episode number 183 of the LSR Podcast. My name is Matt Brown, joined each and every week by the brightest minds in all of the gaming industry. With me, I have two of them again. I got Dustin Gouker. I got Adam Candee. You can follow them on the Twitter machine, and you should, it’s free: @DustinGouker, @AdamCandee, two E’s, no Y. And if you hate yourself, you can follow me @MattBrownM2. Everything we mention on this podcast can be found over at legalsportsreport.com, so be sure and head over there and take in all the great words Adam and company are getting done.


We are going to talk Tennessee and what might happen with some official league data there, some Minnesota news as well, what’s going on over at the PrizePicks land. But Adam, let’s kick things off here, because look, earnings calls, especially as we’re moving into maybe a new phase of a lot of these companies, are definitely top of mind, for not only investors, but for us as well to kind of see what they’re saying is the path to either profitability or greater profitability somewhere along the way.

US legal sportsbooks profitability

Adam Candee (01:14):

Yeah, Matt, I think I have to say earnings season — not as fun as the holiday season, maybe not as fun as baseball season, but it is a season, and it is a season that Legal Sports Report covers quite in-depth. We have stories on most of the major operators and their earnings calls up at Legal Sports Report and a few more to come this week as well. I wanted to focus in particular on some discussion that was going on around DraftKings and Caesars over the last week or so, as we heard from both of them talking about when profitability will arrive, and you referenced that a moment ago. And that certainly has been more of a focus through 2022 and now into 2023 as investors have rightfully started to say, “Hey, by the way, all this money you’re spending, all these customers you’re bringing in, when is that going to turn into you making any money with these companies?”


And we saw from Caesars’ call that its loss widened a little bit in 2022, and that was somewhat expected, especially considering what we saw in New York with Caesars at the beginning of 2022. And we saw DraftKings get a little bounce in its stock from discussion of profitability potentially next year as well as they moved up toward $20 again, which doesn’t sound like much when you think that they were up over $70 at one point. But certainly when they were hovering with dropping below $10 at various points during last year then $20 looks a lot better. And a lot of the stories that came out, especially around the DraftKings stock situation were that investors are reacting well to the talk of profitability. And I think what we kind of lost in this whole thread and discussion of profitability and efficiencies, is what it’s taken to get there for these companies.


This has not necessarily been a story of, “Oh, it’s organic growth and we’re winning more, and so on and so on.” No, it’s been a story of having to cut spend in both cases. In Caesar’s case, we talked a lot about the fact that they went out with a huge offer in New York of over $3,300 and then immediately came back and said, “Yeah, you know, I think we’re done here. We don’t need to spend anymore. We’ve accomplished what we came to accomplish.” We saw their market share drop after that offer went away, but they made a point of saying, “We are not going to be spending on marketing the way that we were before.” They talked about it with NFL season, although I think the ubiquity of the Mannings on your NFL TV screen would suggest that maybe it wasn’t cut all the way back in terms of marketing spend.


And then on the DraftKings side, look, they executed very smart PR strategy, in my opinion. One hundred and forty layoffs, or they didn’t want to call them layoffs, but job eliminations, one way or the other for DraftKings. That story came out about a week or two before the earnings calls, and that kind of got that news out there. And now people are talking about profitability and efficiencies without necessarily talking about what it took to get there, which was the fact that they’re going to have to cut a number of jobs in the process of trying to deliver that profitability.


So, it’s not to drag any of these companies for doing what they have to do to deliver what they have to for their shareholders. It is to say, though, it’s a story that needs to be told in full when we talk about what it’s going to take to get there. And all of these companies essentially chasing FanDuel in some way, shape or form, which has not done a lot of those similar machinations just yet. We haven’t heard from BetMGM in terms of what they will do. Of course, they have their joint venture partner in Entain, who we reported recently, MGM will not go through with any further bids to buy Entain. But when we talk stock, when we talk profitability, all of these things, I think it’s important that we talk about a full picture.

Matt Brown (04:57):

So Dustin, here’s the thing, and I think I speak for you as well with this. Look, cut back on the mailers. Cut back on the email if you have to, do some eliminations there. Take hand sanitizers out of the bathrooms at the casinos, I don’t really care, but do not get rid of J.B. Smoove. I do not want to have to live in a world in which the cuts involve J.B. Smoove. He has to stay a Caesar for eternity. This has to be what happens here.

Dustin Gouker (05:22):

Yeah. They have to get him on a lifetime contract at this point, right? He’s part of the brand now. There’s lots of interesting stuff in here. Another aspect we saw, I saw CEO, DraftKings CEO, Jason Robbins also say they were going to do cutback on team and league deals as he said that these are not terribly efficient marketing strategies for them. And I have always agreed with this. You and I know this going back to the DFS days, when DraftKings and FanDuel were bidding millions and millions of dollars on these deals, then sports betting comes around, did a lot of these same deals or expanded them with either the leagues or teams and markets with sports betting.


And it’s an interesting dynamic because, yes, it’s 100% not an efficient way to acquire customers.


Everything else that they’re doing from just regular TV commercials to any other acquisition that they’re doing is better than this because that’s just branding really. Nobody’s looking at a DraftKings sign in right field and saying, “Oh man, I’m going to go play at DraftKings now.” That is just keeping DraftKings kind of top of mind brand. Is that something they need right now? Arguably not. But it does set up this dynamic, I think, where leagues and teams and the operators become more at odds because, they’ve been playing nice because they all want the same thing. They want more sports betting, they want more engagement. The operators are paying the leagues and the teams with advertising or sponsorship deals or whatever. So if that gets pulled back, are they more at odds? Because the end game here is, and this is why we always had the leagues kind of at odds with sports betting and as the legalization process, is that they want to own this. They own licenses, they want licenses to come through them. They want to be the end game for all of this.


So does that realization that DraftKings is pulling back, they’re certainly, along with FanDuel, the two biggest spenders on these kind of partnership deals. What does that mean? That’s a fascinating part of this in DraftKings trying to get to profitability and trying to get all this marketing spend a little bit more under control, because that is a large category both for the … It’s a large category at this point for the leagues and the teams too. If that money starts to dry up a little bit, it’ll be interesting to see where all this goes.

Matt Brown (07:38):

Yeah, Adam, when we look at these deals, I think this is the first and most obvious thing as ways to cut spending, because for several of the points that Dustin already mentioned. And then also when you take a look at it … Look, because these athletes can’t endorse and pitch for you as it is. It’d be one thing if the star of the team could stand up there and say like, “Hey, I bet it X, Y, Z, you should too,” or whatever, or something like that. That would be one thing. But you can’t do that and that’s not a thing that can happen. And so really, like Dustin mentioned, you’re really just paying a bunch of money to have your stuff plastered on a wall, which I don’t think any of us believe truly moves the needle or anything like that.


If there could be a true endorsement from a player, a team, the whole team at once, they’re all sitting there and they’re like, “Hey, we all bet it whatever…” and all. That’s one thing and maybe that could convince someone and whatever. But not being able to get that aspect of all of this, it certainly seems like the first and most obvious place, for me anyway, that you would want to cut some spending.

Adam Candee (08:42):

Well, I think the question for all of them is, what does the return on investment look like for the customers that they’re getting out of these deals? Because it seems to me that you get two things in particular. You get access to customers at the game, you get them in the stadium and you get the ability to have your employees in front of them, walking them through a sign-up and getting them to become bettors with your app. And if that turns out to bring you profitable customers, great. And I think the other thing that you get, is you get access to email and contact databases that allow you to get directly to certain customers that you might not have had access to otherwise. I think there’s probably a reasonable question for some of these deals as to how much overlap there is between the email database of a team and the email database that, say, a DraftKings or FanDuel might already have had through DFS for those customers who are going to turn out to be their better customers.


We’re deep in the weeds on this. When we talk about these deals in particular, I think the sort of unspoken part is that during the DFS days when all of this was thought of in some way as, “Is it legal? Is it shady?” all of this. There was credibility attached to getting a deal with a league or a team. That’s not a question anymore. It is legal. In states where they have chosen to legalize it, it is legal, there is no question as to the credibility. You don’t need your name attached to a team. I think the question becomes a lot more about, what is the most efficient method of acquiring customers? And it seems to me that with the numbers that were being thrown around in these deals in the early days of legal sports betting, that it’s a natural place to look to say, “Is this delivering what we want it to deliver us?” Because it’s a multi-step process with one of these deals to ultimately deliver a customer that you want to keep.

Matt Brown (10:31):

And maybe honestly, maybe the answer is both. Maybe the answer is, it just kind of runs its course. Maybe at the beginning, where if you’re into a new market, it does bring a little bit of credibility to say, “The official blah blah blah of that team…” when you’re in a new state or something. But does that really play three years later? Probably not. So maybe it just kind of wears off over time.

Adam Candee (10:55):

Yeah, diminishing returns, right?

Matt Brown (10:56):


Adam Candee (10:57):

Sorry Dustin … Diminishing returns, absolutely. And just to add one more thing before Dustin gives his opinion here, becauseI forgot to mention this earlier. It seems that Caesars has already made its decision when it comes to the cut that it is going to enact. And I’m sorry to report, it’s Carl. Carl is no longer in the advertising. J.B. is here, the Mannings are here. What happened to Carl? I haven’t seen Carl in forever.

Matt Brown (11:28):

This is true. It is a point that you brought up there. But Dustin, yeah, you were going to put a bow on this.

Dustin Gouker (11:35):

Yeah, I think the last part of this is, what happens with these companies moving forward? The profitability is one thing, but if you’re stopping in the marketing or pulling back, or not scaling anymore. Like DraftKings is a clear number two. Caesars is clearly not there, they’re in the second tier along with MGM, arguably right now. It’s FanDuel with a bullet, DraftKings two, MGM and Caesars at three and four in some order depending on the market. So Caesars gets the profitability, but how exciting is that profitability? It’s the same thing we’re going to see with Penn and Barstool, too. So Barstool, we know, has said they’re going to ramp up marketing. Does that push them up?


Because at the end of the day, profitability is great, but if you’re profitable on 3% of the market and you’re not growing anymore, that story, again, becomes not that exciting to me as an investor or validating the space. Caesars again is a large multinational company that has casinos and has a lot more skin in the game than just online sports betting and online casino. So along with profitability, the scale. And can somebody, can a Fanatics, come in and disrupt, can a Barstool actually spend on marketing and disrupt? That’s the other side of this coin when we’re looking at everything going on in the profitability and these earnings reports.

The return of official league data

Matt Brown (12:59):

So Dustin, I’m going to keep on rolling with you here as we head to Tennessee and look at some of this official league data stuff that we talked so much about a few months back here on the pod.

Dustin Gouker (13:09):

Well, I mean years back. This whole podcast feels like a throwback to me. Because this is an early one. Along with integrity fees, my favorite thing from the sports betting space is official data. Official league data has been part of the conversation pretty much since we started looking at legalization of sports betting in the states. And finally, this kind of came up as an issue in Tennessee, where two operators have gone to the regulator and said that official league data from the NFL provided by Genius Sports is not available to them on “commercially reasonable terms.” This is what has gone into the language in Tennessee and some other states around how official data should be provided to sportsbooks. And this is the first time we’ve seen this, operators come out, any operator come out say, “Hey, this is not, ‘commercially reasonable.’” Which means they’re saying they’re overcharging versus what their activity is. Because if there’s a flat fee being paid here, it’s easier for a FanDuel or DraftKings to eat than the small operators who have complained here, which are SuperBook and Betly in Tennessee.


So it’s an interesting dynamic here, because Tennessee could end up being a proxy for this fight, other places, and all of a sudden, this official data kind of felt settled, but now it’s not maybe. If they win, then it sounds like there’s going to be a hearing about this possibly in the spring about whether if this data is being provided at commercially reasonable means. And it’s not just with NFL. This is every league, all the Sportradar, Genius Sports, all of these companies that provide this data who are in partnership with the leagues, it’s opening up a can of worms that will be fascinating to watch if anything happens on this front.


So we’ll see. But it’s a sticking point. We know for a long time, Nevada ran without any kind of official data, and official data has been trumpeted as the future of sports betting that if you don’t have nearly real time and/or official data that your sports betting business is not as good as everyone else. So, it’ll be interesting to see if anything comes of that and if there’s knock-on effects in how the operators work with the leagues and the data companies on official data.

Matt Brown (15:19):

Adam, are you at “data,” “data” or do you find yourself flip-flopping?

Adam Candee (15:25):

It depends on whom I’m talking to. I need to judge just how smart I need to sound. And at that point I’ll probably switch to “data,” because I know that that is more toward the proper Latin. If I am talking about one particular piece of that information and I’m talking to a super smart person, I’ll refer to a datum.

Matt Brown (15:46):

Oh, OK, look at you. See this is where we’re just opening up, pulling the curtain back here on this pot. That is for sure. That is one thing.

Adam Candee (15:53):

Oh yeah, my credentials as a jackass are well-established when I say things like that. Yeah. No question about it. This Tennessee situation is probably long overdue, and I don’t know how far it will go. Because if you read the story from our Mike Mazzeo, it discusses the regulators saying to the books, “Hey, we would really appreciate if you would go figure this out on your own before we have to get into it.” But I think the question becomes, how does this get figured out if SuperBook and Betly, the two operators who are saying, “We can’t get this on commercially reasonable terms,” unless Genius brings the price down, which it’s never shown any inclination to do after having to pay a fairly high price more than a year ago to the NFL to wrest this deal away from Sportradar, how does it get solved?


And our John Holden has written on this before, our legal analyst, essentially almost two years ago, I believe. John wrote a story saying, “What does commercially reasonable mean?” And what we all came down to is, unless it’s ever challenged, we’re never going to find out. We don’t know what it looks like. And when there are no competing alternatives, then it’s hard to say what commercially reasonable looks like.


So for those of you who are new to this, if you haven’t been listening to this podcast for 183 episodes, understand that the idea of mandated official league data is different than just saying there’s an official league data feed. Because what happened was, the talk of integrity fees, and God, we’re not going to go all the way down that rabbit hole again, but integrity fees essentially were chopped up on Sunday night, thrown into a fish stew and re-served on Monday morning as official league data mandates. And the whole idea was, if we can’t get you to just give us money straight out, then we’ll get you to give us money for a data feed that already exists but is the only one that we’re going to claim is totally reliable and the only one that is approved by us. Whatever, they won on that one. And it became more palatable with legislators.


We’ve always said on this podcast, there’s nothing wrong with official league data and the ability to make a deal for it commercially. The question has always been, why is it mandated in law for sportsbooks who have to take these official feeds that ultimately end up being profit machines for the leagues?

Matt Brown (18:10):

David Fizdale would say data, if everyone remembers the “Take that for data!”

Adam Candee (18:14):

“Take that for data!” Why don’t people … I love that clip, and no one remembers it anymore. Thank you, Matt.

Matt Brown (18:19):

Yes. And for anyone wondering, I’m officially a flopper. I know for sure I say “data” and “data.” And no rhyme or reason as to why. Just whatever comes out, however the brain decides it’s going to be said in that way. Adam, let’s head to Minnesota.

Minnesota legal gambling bill update

Adam Candee (18:37):

Up to the Great White North we go, where it looks like more of a promising state than we have seen in the past with Minnesota. Now last year there was a bit of momentum toward legalizing sports betting in Minnesota, and it kind of came apart toward the end of the session with one chamber being on a different page than the other. And we’re still a little bit that way, but it turns out that there’s going to be a lot more power consolidated in one political party this year and that has a chance of pushing this on through.


So Representative Stevenson up in Minnesota has the alignment of the tribes who have exclusive casino gaming rights in Minnesota, as well as six of the professional sports teams in Minnesota with support for the tribes getting exclusivity over legal sports betting in the state. Now, there is a competing bill in the Senate that would include horse racing tracks as part of the deal, but the momentum that has been gathered behind the tribal bill, which was solidified with a letter from those six teams that was released yesterday supporting the House bill, appears to show that this has a pretty good chance in Minnesota. The governor is on board with legal sports betting.


And what happened in the election in 2022 was that you had the Republican Party over on the Senate side expecting that it was going to have control coming into this session, which would’ve changed the equation a little bit. But the DFL Party that is the party of Stevenson, the party of Walls, has now the ability to control the agenda in both houses. So, it does seem like Minnesota is going to move toward the top of the list of states likely to pass something this year.

Matt Brown (20:20):

Dustin, a little game we like to play here. Anytime we talk about a state and what they might add to the legal sports betting landscape. How populous is Minnesota in the rankings of states? Where would you say that they fit in the 50 states? What number are they from a population standpoint? Do not Google it, I see you look, do not do it.

Dustin Gouker (20:41):

Well, I thought you were going to ask me and I had to have the answer. So, rank in states—

Adam Candee (20:46):

Give him an over/under. Give him an over/under. Give him a number on an over/under.

Matt Brown (20:49):

Over under 21.5.

Dustin Gouker (20:53):

… 21.5 million? Or no—

Matt Brown (20:55):

No, 21.5 as far as the state ranking.

Dustin Gouker (21:01):

… Under as in lower population?

Matt Brown (21:04):

Correct. Yes. They are 22nd. They’re 5.8 million. They are just ahead of South Carolina and just below Wisconsin, if anyone was wondering. The 22nd most populous state here in the United States.

Dustin Gouker (21:17):

Yeah, also what are you doing in Minnesota all winter? I’ve been to Minnesota in winter, and it is a miserable place. Sorry if you’re listening in Minnesota, but—

Adam Candee (21:27):

I do have to speak up for Minnesota in the summer though, they held the Nickel G’s conference there a couple years ago, and that was a lovely place to have a conference. But it’s always looming when you look up and you see those covered tunnels between the buildings and you’re like, “Ah, I know what those are there for, and I’m not going to be here when you have to use them.”

Dustin Gouker (21:43):

You guys know why I was there, and I think I spent, unless I was walking somewhere, I was not outside. It was a miserable experience. It was literally the coldest I’ve ever been in my life one time when I was … Anyway—

Matt Brown (21:58):

I know. I’m looking at these top 100 golf courses that you can, public golf course you can play. And there’s two of them in Minnesota, and I’m like, “What are they, open 60 days a year? When can you even play these golf courses?” It’s like, how are they still good and then you only get 60 days of business? I don’t even understand how this works.

Dustin Gouker (22:16):

I don’t know. But back to Minnesota and actually the sports betting stuff. This is fascinating, because Minnesota, I think we always kind of chalk up, tribes didn’t really want it. And going to this year, I think we probably would’ve said, “Minnesota, long shot.” And now we all of a sudden become, all the teams and leagues are aligned, we have tribes saying they want it. This is a different ballgame. This is also why handicapping this stuff, unless you’re really well aware of all the little machinations in the background. Minnesota goes from long shot to at least a reasonable shot. I don’t know if the favorite as we sit here, but this is a lot more, this a dynamic that’s very good for Minnesota.


All this coming out together. I know with Representative Pat Garofalo has been working on this, basically since the beginning of time. He’s also a sports bettor. He is a fun follow on Twitter because he is always gambling, I don’t know where, if he goes across the border to bet, but it’ll be fascinating to see if this is … Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It looks like we could see some real movement in Minnesota.

Matt Brown (23:14):

All right. Dustin, it’s a big day for you over there. So we are going to go ahead and just close things out here with some PrizePicks information.

Throwback to the days of DFS

Dustin Gouker (23:24):

Yeah, this one’s … Again, throwback time. A tweet caught our eye, ’cause Adam and I like the Twitter machine for industry scuttlebutt and things like that. So, I don’t know if Jeremy Kudon listens to the, is a fan of the show, if he is, sorry if I say anything wrong. But he’s a lobbyist who has been at the center of both legalization of daily fantasy sports and then into the multi-state approach for sports betting. So it caught our eye when he, there’s a tweet about PrizePicks and how well it’s doing, PrizePicks is one of these “daily fantasy sports” I’m going to choose my words carefully here, because I’m not here to get fined or sued. But PrizePicks is a daily fantasy sports company that offers what is, basically, prop betting, parlays on player performances, things like that.


Is it legal in a lot of states or most states where it operates? It has a very good legal argument that it is. It uses a combination of games of skill. The carve-out in the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act that allows for fantasy sports on the outcomes of sports. But what Jeremy said is that, after saying how good PrizePicks has been doing, it’s like, “This is an illegal VGT company winning an award from the American Gaming Association for Casino Experience of the Year. I know fantasy sports companies, and PrizePicks is not one of them.” That one, that’s aggressive, I’d say. I think we’d all agree.


And here I’m here to tell you, it could be legal, but it is a 100% not daily fantasy sports. It is the equivalent of parlays and props. It may be legal, but it’s not. But it’s also funny because Jeremy and the DraftKings and FanDuel went around the country barnstorming and got a bunch of daily fantasy sports laws and regulations on the book, and they wrote them overly broadly, and that set the stage for exactly what we’ve seen here, which is a continued pushing of the envelope of what is “daily fantasy sports.” So it’s kind of funny to me that, “Oh, can we pass all these overly broad laws and now we’re complaining about it.” One that we know, I think we know, Adam and I at least know one investor who’s been on a crusade about this, is like, “Why doesn’t DraftKings and FanDuel do this?” Because they don’t want to risk their sports betting licenses. So, it’s a funny dynamic with all of this.


These companies are doing very well, we believe, because they’re serving an audience that does not, either has to go offshore or doesn’t have legal sports betting, or it’s a little different experience and product than the sports betting experience at the sports pick operators.


Anyway, it’s fascinating. I don’t know what comes of this, but it’s an interesting story to think about where these companies are going, will they get into the sports betting space? That’s hard, because I think they might have to just quit this largely unregulated, they are regulated in some states, they register in some states that have DFS laws, but I don’t know what the exit is. If DraftKings and FanDuel wanted to be in this business, they’d just be in this business, they don’t need to go buy these companies or somebody else. We saw Monkey Knife Fight acquired by Bally’s, they’re now trying to sell that off. What is the exit of all this? Where does all this head? I don’t know. It’s all fascinating. And this tweet kind of stirred all of this up. And Jeremy’s well known in back channels, not as much known in public circles, but him throwing shade on all this was a fascinating little thing in our industry.

Matt Brown (26:59):

Adam, I’ll just say this. Again, I echo what Dustin said, while maybe technically legal, it is certainly no form of daily fantasy sports that I played for a very long time or anything like that. Might be technically legal, not really DFS.

Adam Candee (27:16):

My favorite part is having played around with one of these products that I will not name, they give you the higher/lower option. The higher/lower, that is definitely not prop betting, but you can’t just bet on one of them. In order for them to take the wager, you have to do at least two. But then the rules get all interesting, because it can’t be two players from the same team. Some of them are even more wonky than that. And it’s all kind of like, “Wait a minute, where are you deciding that this is the one distinction that ultimately makes this OK? What legal opinion do you have that says, ‘Yes, you can do this.’ Where it’s two props parlayed that is definitely not sports betting. But it can’t be two from the same team. Oh, no, no, no. That’s exactly where everyone would step in and say, ‘That crosses the line.’” It’s amazing to me. So, I just enjoyed that back and forth from Jeremy et al., and I think Nick Green was involved in that one too. And yeah, DFS, sports betting, everything old is new again.

Dustin Gouker (28:25):

Remember Matt, when we used to question whether DFS on golf and NASCAR?

Matt Brown (28:29):


Dustin Gouker (28:30):

Just the sport of golf and the sport of … I wrote stories about this eight years ago. We were like, “Is this legal? Is this fit in the UIGEA?” That’s all. That’s wild, we were even … And even DraftKings was like, “Eh, not sure this is legal under UIGEA, but we’re going to do it anyway.” And now we’re just like … Again, this is the outcome of all of this. We create unclear laws and overly broad laws, and this is the outcome, because people are going to continue to push that envelope until somebody tells them not to.

Matt Brown (28:57):

It’s wild. I’m interested to see how this eventually all turns out. As well guys, everything we do here, you can find the written words over on legalsportsreport.com. So please go over there, take in everything that Adam and company are doing. A bunch of hard work goes on behind the scenes for that. Subscribe, rate, review. If you’re watching us on the YouTubes, hit that subscribe button as well. Do appreciate you help growing the channel. And just a bit of advice for everyone listening out there. If you were wondering how you don’t have to cut your marketing spend on a spokesperson, you could just make it Steven Money, who is a fictional cellphone, and then you just don’t have to worry about cutting him because he’s free, so you don’t ever have to cut that marketing budget.

Adam Candee (29:32):

And he will drag the hell out of you if your app goes down. Watch out.

Matt Brown (29:36):

So, there is that as well. For Adam, for Dustin, I’m Matt. Talk to you guys next week.

More Episodes