🐤 Spy game

🏦 Markets: It’s hard to keep Wall Street down these days, and all three indexes rebounded from Monday’s losses with a Tuesday bump.

There’s still some trepidation surrounding the Federal Reserve, however, with investors uncertain about when interest rates will start to fall. As a result, Ladenburg Thalmann Asset Management CEO Philip Blancato advised: “We’re on the precipice of some real volatility in the marketplace, and the last two days are very indicative of what’s to come here for at least the next six to eight weeks.”

🛃 Social migration: America’s southern border has been getting a lot of attention from the media and politicians in recent days as the rate of illegal immigration has hit record levels. And many of those crossing into the U.S. aren’t coming from Central American nations as in generations past, but from elsewhere around the world — including China. Such journeys require a lot of planning and assistance, and a recent “60 Minutes” report indicated many of those migrants are getting help from TikTok videos that identify the most vulnerable areas of the border.

📺 Tuning in: The age of streaming content has splintered television audiences significantly, so it’s much harder for programs to draw the huge number of viewers that they were able to under the network and cable models. But must-see TV isn’t entirely a thing of the past, as Sunday’s Grammy Awards proved. The ceremony drew an audience of just under 17 million people on CBS, Paramount+ and related platforms, marking a whopping 34% boost compared to last year and representing the biggest number since 2020.

🍔 Value meal: McDonald’s was once seen as the destination for folks who wanted to fill up without breaking the bank, but the fast food chain’s menu prices have been steadily increasing in recent years. In some markets, a Big Mac meal can cost almost $18! But CEO Chris Kempczinski is keenly aware that budget-conscious consumers are fleeing the brand and revealed in a recent earnings call that its strategy is shifting. This year, he said the brand will be paying “more attention to what I would describe as affordability.”

☎️ Tough call: Fewer and fewer Americans still have a landline phone in their homes, but you might be surprised by the number of people who haven’t yet cut the cord. And in California, these consumers are starting to speak out against AT&T’s effort to ditch its obligations to continue providing such service in the state. Currently, the company serves as a “Carrier of Last Resort” for more than half a million people who, if its application is approved, would be left with fewer options for potentially life-saving communication, most notable 911 access.

We’ve all been there: You’re having a discussion about a particular item and the next time you scroll through social media there’s an ad for that very thing.

So does it mean that your device is listening in on your conversation? We’ll get to the bottom of it, starting with a rumor that’s been circulating for years.

A myth takes root

As far back as 2016, posts on Facebook and even some mainstream media reports have claimed that the social media app had been collecting personal information collected through the always-on microphones of users’ smartphones.

And it’s easy to understand why so many people fell for it. It was around that time that Facebook had optimized its targeted advertising program, allowing for more relevant ads than ever before. So in many cases, it seemed as if Facebook knew what you wanted even better than you did — and that was the point.

The truth of the matter

Eight years later, people are still convinced that their phones are listening … but even those who helped spread the myth in the first place have since distanced themselves from such claims.

Kelli Burns, a communications professor quoted in early articles, has since clarified her assertion.

“Watching, not listening,” she said. “Never said listening. And by watching I mean tracking.”

And tracking is indeed the operative word. Facebook and other profitable tech companies have optimized their ability to analyze a wide range of data points so they can sell more ads for a higher price.

Sometimes those eerily accurate ads are triggered by Google searches you don’t even remember making. But while your phone is technically listening (as you realize if you use voice activation for your digital assistant), it’s not recording or otherwise using that information to serve you ads.

Whether legal or not, there’s going to be a lot of betting on the upcoming Super Bowl. And while most of those wagers will result in a monetary loss or gain, a growing number of bets don’t involve money at all … and they’re being made by kids on their phones.

The rise of Fliff

If you haven’t heard of Fliff, chances are you know a teenager who has. The app allows users as young as 13 (officially, that is, since kids even younger can download it) to make sports bets of all types using virtual currency instead of cash.

And the results speak for themselves:

• More than 200,000 bets were placed during the NFL conference championship games.
• The app had a total of about 1.4 million downloads last year.
• It beat out apps like the NFL to become the 12th most popular in the sports category.

Even wagers made with virtual currency can be traded for cash prizes — and despite offering what fans say is harmless fun, critics say Fliff and similar apps could provide a gateway to problematic gambling down the line.

Cause for concern

National Council on Problem Gambling Executive Director Keith Whyte weighed in on the potential risks associated with introducing this type of gambling-based social media to kids.

“The people who have gambling problems, who are vulnerable to gambling problems and especially youth, can develop gambling problems based on usage of these apps,” he said.

But the problem spreads much wider than just one popular app. In fact, one big reason Fliff was able to gain such traction in app stores was the 2019 Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on sports betting.

Even in states where traditional sportsbooks remain illegal, social sportsbooks flourish, since they’re classified as sweepstakes instead of gambling apps.

Podcaster Joe Rogan was already getting rich from his widely popular program, “The Joe Rogan Experience,” before inking a new agreement with Spotify worth as much as a quarter of a billion dollars.

And not only will he be getting paid directly by Spotify, but his contract is no longer exclusive … meaning he can also make money from other platforms.

What was Spotify thinking?

On its surface, this deal seems to overwhelmingly benefit Rogan. To be clear, he does come out of it with some major perks.

But if you dig a little deeper, it starts to become clear why Spotify would agree to the terms. It all stems from the fact that the company is in the process of adapting its broader content strategy.

As evidenced by Rogan’s previous deal (and Spotify’s effort to buy up smaller podcasting apps to turn their programming into Spotify-only content), the platform has prioritized exclusivity for some time now. But it didn’t really pan out the way Spotify bosses hoped.

In fact, certain programs lost up to 75% of their respective audiences when they were revamped as exclusive Spotify shows.

Decision time

Rogan stands out as a gem in the Spotify lineup, attaining the status as its most popular podcast each year since it became an exclusive in 2020. But for every hit, there were plenty of misses.

For example, Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, reportedly earned a cool $20 million+ for producing just a dozen moderately successful podcast episodes.

So Spotify is doubling down on the most profitable aspect of its content: advertising.

“Forcing companies that want to buy ads on the Joe Rogan show to do so through Spotify must be more profitable than forcing his listeners to use their app,” reasoned industry insider Amanda McLoughlin.