Bill and Andrew pull out their crystal balls to peer into the future and predict how technology will usher in massive shifts in the economy. These shifts may be 5 – 20 or more years away, but they can potentially have a huge impact on your business.
From self-driving cars to negative interest rates, large pools of employment sectors could face the chopping block as our society embraces the next generation of technological advances. Tune in to join the conversation so you can prepare your business for a future that may already be upon us in this two part series.
Andrew: Welcome to the eCommerceFuel podcast, the show dedicated to helping high six and seven-figure entrepreneurs build amazing online companies and incredible lives. I’m your host and fellow ecommerce entrepreneur, Andrew Youderian. Hey guys, it’s Andrew here and welcome to the eCommerceFuel podcast. Thanks so much for tuning in today’s episode. Today on the show, gonna be…do something a little bit different. Obviously, we focus on ecommerce and business here but from time to time, like to mix things up, and want to talk about massive world shifting changes headed your way from kind of a macrolevel, both because it’s an interesting to talk about and also potentially because, you know, could have an impact on your business. So here to kinda peer into the crystal ball with me, mister Bill D’Alessandro. Bill, how you doing buddy?
Bill: I’m doing very well and I did bring my crystal ball today. I’m excited.
Andrew: Oh yeah, you got one of those crystal ball, or are we talking, like, the magic eight ball you shake and look into it?
Bill: Yup, yup, exactly. After every question you ask me, I’m just gonna tell you what the eight ball says.
Andrew: It’s interesting, the original notes that we put together here, we had to par down because we had so many different things that we’re like, “This is gonna be, like, an hour and a half discussion.” Not that that necessarily means that we’d be any more accurate. I don’t know, I think it’s pretty safe to say, maybe everyone throughout history’s already said this, but I feel like there’s like a lotta change on the horizon.
Bill: I think there is too and the topics you have picked for us today are all topics upon which I have very strong opinions. So this should be a good, good episode.
Andrew: And there’s a couple that I thought we’d be in agreement on and was not the case. So hopefully we can keep it civil for people, what do you think?
Bill: I think we can try, yes. We’re just screaming at each other by the end.
Andrew: Yeah. All right, let’s dive into it. So Bill, the first prediction that we have, thing that’s coming, and I’m gonna break these down into things that are coming and things that are disappearing in terms of massive shifts and kinda the world in general. And the first one is a pretty broad category and it encompassed a lot things that I thought about, that you thought about, and we kinda talked about it. It’s really what I’m gonna call it, the robot in AI revolution in terms of just robots, but smart computers, so much automation.
Automation has been a big part of the last, you know, 100 years one way or another, but just the rate at which it’s gonna accelerate, the rate at which it’s going to really make a lot of jobs and occupations that we have now completely unfeasible. It’s got some really huge implications on in terms of just the convenience side of things, the efficiency side, but also in terms of social aspects of what do you do in a world where, you know, a good percentage of people, they don’t have the skills to be meaningfully employed. So that’s kind of a high level thing, a lot that we can unpack about that, but what are your thoughts on this?
Bill: I think maybe first, we should frame the projection. So I am I think in agreement with you that strong AI and robots are coming. And strong AI, the definition of strong AI is basically an artificial intelligence that is sentient and smarter than people and can self-improve and can program new forms of artificial intelligence, improve itself, read all the books in the world, write new books. You know, strong AI is the AI of science fiction. Weak AI is kinda the AI that we already have where Pandora can recommend the next song that you wanna listen to. So weak AI is really already here, but strong AI is coming. If you read Google’s most recent 10K or 10Q, their last quarterly report, there’s some really interesting comments from their DeepMind team, and the DeepMind team at Google is the team that researches, is pushing towards a strong AI.
And the head of their DeepMind team believes that they will have, that Google will have a strong AI inside of 5 to 10 years, which is really soon and has all kinds of implications, and not just the matter of, you know, a Siri that you can ask anything and that will understand you and give you the right answer, but I’m talking replacing people with computers at large scale. I’m talking about no more need for doctors because a computer can diagnose you, can analyze all of the health data of everybody that ever was, cross reference you against all the patients who have ever walked into a hospital worldwide and diagnose you instantly to know all the drug interactions. I mean, there are millions and millions of drug interactions and no human being can possibly memorize them all. But a computer can know them all. So it’s coming and it’s gonna change the world dramatically, and there are some very positive implications of that as far as just incredible ease of use, wealth increases, you know, happiness gains as far as your daily life, but I think there’s a flip side of what is it gonna do when the machine’s can do most jobs that we do, only better?
Andrew: Yeah, it’s interesting. You sent over a really interesting video called Humans Need Not Apply. We’ll link up to it over the show notes. And it kinda makes the case for this, with the end goal saying AI and robots are gonna replace, you know, huge chunks of the population in terms of their application. And interesting, I mean self-driving cars is obviously a huge one, but it also expounded into, like, things like white collar jobs, writers. Obviously, computers are writing a lot of news articles right now. Lawyers. It was interesting, they said, you know, probably 80% of the work that lawyers do, it’s not in a court room, 90% maybe, it’s discovery, paperwork and computers are already being used really heavily for that.
Like you mentioned with doctors, I think they said in one case a computer that just listen to a patient talk in natural language about their symptoms was able to diagnose them with, like, 88% accuracy. And then at one point, it’s like, you know, bots can even write music. The music that they had behind the video itself was written by a bot. So it’s crazy. I don’t know, Bill, if I’m with you where in 10 years we’re gonna have a deep AI where you really are able to talk to a computer and not know that it’s a computer and that it’s….you’re gonna be able to have a computer that say, “Let’s say we be an entrepreneur,” that could look at such…make all these decisions that have a lot of uncertain variables, and there’s so many different judgement calls that an entrepreneur has to make. I don’t think we’re gonna see that in 10 years, but I think we’re gonna see some pretty substantial advances that are gonna make a lot of existing jobs probably irrelevant.
Bill: Yeah, I think we will. And there’s a difference between strong AI and passing a Turing’s test. A Turing test is where a human being cannot tell the difference between a computer and another human being. That’s called the Turing test. But you can still have a strong AI that doesn’t pass the Turing test. You know, a human can still identify it as a machine and they can still be a strong AI. So those are kinda two different, I think, facets of it. But, you know, like you said about Watson replacing doctors, IBM Watson who probably everybody knows from as the guy that beats humans at jeopardy. Watson’s day job is to try to be the best doctor in the world, as you said, and he put it in the notes here straight from that video that he could diagnose with 88% confidence real patients walking into a doctor’s office, which is incredible because people go to school for decades to become doctors and to diagnose people with 88% confidence.
So it’s gonna be crazy and to be more specific, I pulled out some stats and if you haven’t watch this video, you really should. Just go to YouTube and type in “Humans Need Not Apply”. It’s 15 minutes long and it will blow your mind. I pulled up some stats because as far as tangible ways that the AI revolution is coming, and the first one which you touched on is self-driving cars. The technology is basically already here. My dad just bought a new Audi and it drives itself on the highway. All Teslas have autopilot baked into them now. It doesn’t work in necessarily all situations, but it’s really good on the highway. And when you talk about economic impact, the AI replacing sort of cars is cool, but the real sort of social upheaval comes when…from self-driving trucks, when you have AI that can a drive a truck from New York to San Francisco and pull a trailer.
And I pulled some stats, there are 3.6 million Americans that work in the transportation industry. Most of those people are truck drivers. So that is 3.5 million people whose jobs are potentially at risk or 90% of them are at risk. When you can have a human truck driver take it kind of from the suburbs out to the highway and then enable autopilot and get out, and then the truck can drive 95% of way across the country before another human driver picks it up and brings it into the dock, you need dramatically lest truck drivers. What are all those people gonna do? And it’s not just all the truck drivers, it’s all of people that work at all the gas stations, the truck stops, you know, the repair shops, the maintenance shops, everything that supports those 3.5 million truck drivers. All of those jobs are in jeopardy too because computers don’t need to stop at a truck stop and, you know, buy a hot dog and take a shower. So now you’ve got 3.5 or, you know, I think the second order of facts when you talk about all the gas station people are upwards of seven or eight million people who are out of a job. I mean that’s one or two points unemployment. That’s 1% or 2% of the country that is suddenly unemployed, and what does that mean? And that’s coming.
Andrew: Yeah and I think those…I mean it goes to taxi drivers, it goes to car manufacturers, it goes to the point where maybe you even have…one of the reasons so many people have, like…I own, you know, three cars and one of them is kinda like the van I love, you know, having adventures in, but the other two are… not necessarily because we’re always using both cars at the same time, but for that rare instance where, you know, maybe we…Annie needs one and I need one, and that’s only, you know, that’s 3% of the time, but we both wanna have that flexibility. If you can, we have self-driving Uber cars that drive all over, the demand for people needing two, three cars goes, you know…or even one car a lotta time goes through, but let me take…let me twist it a little bit, play a little devil’s advocate.
Interesting, there’s the Tim Ferriss interview with Marc Andreessen. He was talking about this too and they were talking about self-driving cars and if technology’s just gonna, you know, gut the human labor force and all this kinda stuff and if I remember correctly, his argument was, you know…this is always the argument from the dawn of technology, that we’re a…going back to, you know, the Ludites, we’re afraid of technology, it’s gonna make things worse for us and it’s disruptive in the sense that [inaudible 00:10:02] has some pretty harsh consequences for very concentrated group of people, but overall as a society, it’s great for us and we find, you know, we things to do that replace that higher level activities to do. But granted you could say, it’s different this time because AI is for replacing our minds, but you kinda wonder, like…so were gonna have some jobs made irrelevant, but is it really gonna be cataclysmic?
Bill: I think it is. I think it’s coming, and I think the reason it’s different this time is because in the Industrial Revolution, which is kinda the only model that we have for this in a semi-modern world, the Industrial Revolution eliminated some jobs because it allowed workers to be more efficient. You know, you might be able to build a widget with 10 workers instead of 50 because the 10 workers, their output was amplified, but that’s a 5X amplification. What we’re talking about now with technology and software, we live in a world where, you know, a team of 10 people can make the software that puts 3 million people out of a job. The amplification is just orders of magnitude larger. You know, the software just allows small teams to eat tons of jobs, and then at the same time, you have this…it’s a double whammy, you have people being put out of jobs, not even by AI just by software generally, but then you have AI that is putting higher and higher levels of people out of jobs. I mean, we’ve had software putting people out of jobs forever with, you know, ATM machines, right, and that’s put bank tellers out of jobs. But now we’re talking about putting, you know, branch managers out of jobs, we’re talking about putting people who are actually moving things around out of jobs, you know?
Andrew: If you don’t mind, let me interject one thing. So you just mentioned the ATM thing and ATMs have been around for what, 15 years, 20 years? Like, they’ve been around for a long time, but heck man, I went into the bank this week, there was loads of tellers in there hanging out. And so there’s one thing to have the technology be there, right, in the case of ATMs, it’s another thing to have it replace humans at supermarkets for example. There’s self-checkout things, right? So sometimes I think you gotta think about that human element. Do I love technology? I hate checking myself out of the super market, hate it, you know? And with a doctor, just again to play devil’s advocate, yeah, maybe a machine you can walk into and talk to it and you can eventually at the end of the day get to, you know, the correct diagnosis, but that journey is important, especially with something as emotional as, like, a terminal illness, right? So even if the tech is there, that doesn’t always necessarily mean it’s embraced by people.
Bill: Sure, so I actually, interestingly, you should bring that up. The ATMs, I may have baited you a little bit because I read a article today with an interesting about this. So coming from Charlotte where Bank of America has a big presence here in town, Bank of America just announced that just a few years ago, they had the commercial bank…I’m sorry, the consumer bank, basically the branch network, employed about 100,000 people. That number is down from about 5 years ago, from 100,000 to 68,000 people today. So that’s a 33% reduction already, and they’re talking about reducing it even further. I mean, there right there, and it’s not just ATMs, that’s mobile banking they talk about is really driving that people just not going into branches at all. But either way, that’s no need for bank tellers. I mean, that’s technology putting humans out of a job. So I think it is happening. I mean, that’s pushing 50% of bank tellers at Bank of America that are out of a job now because of technology.
Andrew: And I agree with you ultimately. I was playing a little devil’s advocate there, and if I stood by that position, it would make me look kinda silly with one another one of our points coming down the line. But yes, we should probably move on because we’ve got…we’re 15 minutes into this and we’re 1 of 6 through our list here, but pretty safe to say I think both you and I agree in some capacity, you know, robots and AI are gonna make a big dent in the next 10 years. Next one that’s coming and I’ve kinda eluded [SP] to this in some past podcasts, and actually I have a podcast recording tomorrow on virtual reality, but the widespread adoption of virtual reality, again, alluded to my experience at the Shopify Unite Conference actually experiencing VR in earnest for the first time in kind of an ecommerce environment. I was blown away, I think, with we’re gonna get to a point in the next five years where it’s common place and it’s gonna change a lotta things.
Bill: I completely agree. I also had a chance to try virtual reality recently and it was incredible. I think of virtual reality as, you know, like the Game Boy from my childhood, you know, pixelated and it’s basically just a screen in front your eyeballs. But it is come so far. I was at a trade show, and I tried on…I think it was an Occulus. I tried it on and it was a dirt bike video and I was standing there, like, looking around and then the dirt bike started to move and I fell over. And they had to pull it off of my head and, like, look around like a moron, but it was, like, incredible how real it was, the sense of motion. So the technology I think is as they say, the future is here, it’s jut not widely dispersed. I think the technology is very close.
Andrew: What do you think about…because obviously there’s some amazing applications both on the entertainment side, on the productivity side, what do you think about kinda the extreme, maybe viewpoint of let’s kinda be a little bit cynical for a minute and say there’s a good portion of the world and of the population that doesn’t enjoy their day-to-day or in situations that, you know, they really don’t…they’re not happy with. So what happens when you can completely plug out of that and plug into a machine that is…I mean, we’ve always had that to some extent with computers and things like that, but it’s so close to…it mimics reality in a convincing enough way that people are happier spending 8, 9, 10 hours, 12 hours a day in that versus reality and you really get to a point where you almost have people plug into a matrix style thing. That’s a little extreme and I think…I’m sure it’ll happen with some people, but do you think it actually ever gets to a point where it becomes a social problem?
Bill: So what you’re about to expose is the single most controversial opinion that I hold, personally. So it’s very interesting that I’m gonna share this here on the podcast.
Andrew: Do we need to do, like, a time delay here to make sure this is appropriate?
Bill: This is appropriate, but almost every single person I tell this to in person has a visceral…usually viscerally negative reaction to this. And I came to this opinion after long talks with my friend, Zack Kanter, and who you can follow on Twitter @zackkanter. Talks about all kinds of futurism and stuff like that, but I agree with Zack and I feel that… this kinda of a nice segue from AI and putting lots of people out of jobs. In the near future, you know, in the near to medium term future, we’re gonna have a large segment of the population that is unemployable, their skills are not worth…no employer’s willing to pay them for the value they can add because a machine can add more value than they can.
So if you have a large swarth of the population who is unemployable, what do you do to those people? What do you do with those people? What do they do everyday? And I think it is very convenient, that sort of the advent of workable virtual reality is coming alongside this trend because when you talk about…so you have somebody who’s unemployable and you say you can live in your, you know…well let’s say we give you a basic income or, you know, some sort of government subsidy or something like that, but it’s not gonna be a lotta money and you can essentially, like, hang out in your trailer off the side of the highway and eat Big Macs all day, which eventually is just gonna get boring, right? So that’s option A if you’re this person.
Option B is we can jack you into the matrix and you’re Jay Z everyday, all the time, and everybody is Jay Z. What do you think they’re gonna choose? And as a society, we might say, “Hey, it’s cheaper rather than paying for this guy to live and feed him Big Macs all day and pay for his health care and everything like that, maybe it’s cheaper to pay for him to be jacked into the matrix all day, hook him up to a soylent feeding tube, and convince him he’s Jay Z. And so we have all these people that will probably, I think, voluntarily opt in and say, “Yeah, plug me into the matrix. I can’t get a job. You know, my kinda everyday life is not that great, but yeah, I’d love to be Jay Z all the time.” And I think you have people that will raise their hand and say, “Yes, sign me up for that,” and it’s possible that we may get to a point where economically that is the only way to make our country work as far as a welfare system and things like that.
If you have such huge numbers of people that need to be fully supported by the state, I think the economics of that might start to look pretty compelling. And a lotta people say, “Oh, well people will never go for that. Like, where’s the humanity in that? Who would actually sign up? Would people really sign up to just give up their freedom like that?” And to that I will tell you, the average U.S. adult currently today spends 5.5 hours a day watching TV or consuming video content online. So how far is that really from being jacked into the matrix, 5.5 hours a day now out of 12 to 14 waking hours. So it’s possible.
Andrew: Pretty bleak outlook, man.
Bill: I know. See, I told you, this is the most controversial opinion I have here. That’s what everybody says to me as soon as I say this, and I say yeah, it kinda is, but I think it might be coming as sort of…we might get pushed into it because I think it’s, you know, the virtual reality is gonna arrive, that technology is gonna arrive, and simultaneously we’re gonna get hit with this wave of people that need to be supported by society because they’re unemployable because of the AI revolution. I don’t think it’s gonna take very long for us to look on one hand of the VR and on the other hand of all these unemployable people that need a safety net and go, “Hmm.” You know what I’m saying?
Andrew: It’s tough. I mean, to get to that, you got all sorts of, you know, health implications, you got all sorts of… Think about interpersonal too. Like, let’s say for the sake of argument, you do, by your argument, what about relationships for people…because for most people, their relationships are the most important thing in their life, their kids, their family, things like that. Okay, you can maybe try to create that virtually in some sense, but you’re gonna be giving up, like…you can’t duplicate that, a computer can’t duplicate that, and other things like the VR would have to come so far. VR’s really good and I think it’s gonna make a huge impact, but think about the things like taste. Think about the things like touch. I mean, you’ve got hand gloves, but you don’t have tactile, you know, experience with VR. There’s a lotta things that VR can’t copy. So I don’t know, man.
Bill: I don’t think…
Andrew: It’s an interesting hypothesis. Let me guess, if you were gonna say that was gonna happen, what would your time frame be? I could maybe see, let’s say, you know, 150, 200 years, but are you thinking 25 years down the road?
Bill: Yeah, I think it will be possible. And keep in mind, you don’t need a virtual reality that is indistinguishable from regular reality, you just need a virtual reality…
Andrew: That’s better.
Bill: …that’s better than their reality. And right now, TV is better than reality for five and a half hours a day, right? So it just doesn’t need to be as good, it just needs to be good enough that somebody goes, “My other option is sit on the porch in a rocking chair eating Big Macs,” right, “or I could be Jay Z for 10 hours a day.”
Andrew: It is possible to sit on the porch without eating Big Macs though.
Bill: Well, you know what I mean.
Andrew: Yeah, I know what you mean, yup.
Bill: You know, and I think it’s like these things are…it’s not all or nothing and, like, this…I’m not talking about everybody, but I mean, would it be that far-fetched to think you have a million people in that situation in 25 years, I don’t think so. I’m not talking about everybody, I’m not talking about 50% of the population, but is this going to come to some portion of the population? Might this be a “thing” that happens, where that some people choose to do that is semi-mainstream in 25 years, I think is possible.
Andrew: Interesting. So the next one that we’ve got and this is one that, Bill, I kinda put on, and I had proposed putting likeliness of occurring on here, and you before we started, you’re like, “Dude, come on, man up, man. If you’re gonna say it’s gonna happen, let’s say it’s gonna happen. Don’t give me this, like, 60% thing, which I think was good.” So the third one that I think is coming is we already have it in some places, but at least the U.S. I think there’s…we’re probably gonna see at some point, negative interest rates in the United States, and at bare minimum, I think we’re gonna be in a period of a decade, probably, you know, 5, 10 years or longer of just ridiculously low yields of interest rates that are unprecedentedly low. I mean, Bill Gross, the guy behind…I guess he’s not with PIMCO anymore, but he used to be a very famous [inaudible 00:22:14] investor. He had a quote recently, “Global yields are the lowest in 500 years of recorded history. There’s 10 trillion of negative rate bonds, and it’s a supernova that will explode one day.”
So I don’t know, I think a lotta people are at least, I’ll speak for myself, I keep kinda sometimes thinking, “Hey, maybe Feds…maybe this is gonna change around. Maybe this economic environment’s gonna change,” and maybe we’re gonna start to see rates creeping back up, but I think for a lot different reasons probably don’t…probably beyond the scope of this podcast, but due to how much capital’s in the world, due to the fact that a lotta central banks have resorted to really, you know, using monetary policy to ensure there’s no economic, you know, ups and downs, I think it’s gonna be a pretty brutal time to try to get in any kina yield in the next 10 years. I think we’re probably gonna see negative interest rates at some level especially if we have another big crisis here, which is scary and it to be honest makes me a little mad, and it makes…you know, if you’re trying to retire right now, it’s…I would just be irate. So that’s something else I think we’re gonna have coming.
Bill: I think you’re probably right. I think it’s probably a result of…I mean, we’ve had more massive wealth creation over the the past 50 years than probably also over the previous 5,000, you know, with the Industrial Revolution, the technology revolution, all of these types of things. So yeah, I think it’s possible that there’s just basically a lot of wealth out there, so that if you need capital, you know, there’s a lotta capital competing to be borrowed, so it’s cheaper to borrow capital. So if that is the case, I mean yeah, it’s tough if you’re trying to retire based on counting on 8% gains in the stock market every year, but equities keep going up. So I guess what I’m saying is what’s the problem with that?
Andrew: The problem with it is I think you’ve got…I think the natural… This is such a complicated machine, it’s hard to say, but from my limited understanding, I would say a big portion of it, not the entirely, but a big portion is that you’ve got central banks that are artificially creating low interest rates. And so what you’re is you’re subsidizing the market, the natural interest rate. And what’s the problem with that? Well, it’s twofold in my opinion. One, the biggest problem is that you’re taking the mechanism, which prices risk, that’s what an interest rate is. An interest rate prices risk. If you are a really great borrower, you get a low rate. If you’re awful, you know, you get 20%, 25%. You’re talking that instrument which prices risk, and you’re playing with it and you are pushing it lower.
And so you’re telling people that wouldn’t otherwise take on projects, “Oh hey, yeah, you should.” And yet at the same time, you’re penalizing savers and you’re supplementing borrowers. And so I think that just has a lot of potential to lead in a bad… Any time you’re encouraging people to take more risk than they naturally should, that’s a bad thing. And on the flip side of the coin, I don’t necessarily buy the argument that there’s so much wealth in the world. I agree there’s a lotta capital chasing yield, but I don’t necessarily agree that there’s…that we’ve created so much more wealth we’re in this kinda situation forever where there’s so much wealth that interest rates naturally have to go lower because I think it’s central banks and other things doing that. And so you’ve taken this kind of agreement that somebody can work hard, they can save money, they can be responsible, they can get to the end of their life, 60, 65 years old and they don’t have to generate a crazy amount of money, but they can generate enough off of their nest egg to be able to retire and you’re completely robbing them of that, and I think that’s atrocious.
Bill: So you’re saying it’s basically that these people work their whole lives with the understanding that they could save an 8%, you know, compounded would be there forever and now it’s not and stretching out the retirement date?
Andrew: Yeah, exactly. I mean, stretching out the retirement date or, you know, forcing…yeah exactly, yeah.
Bill: So you feel like a promise has been broken and you’re not comfortable with that?
Andrew: Yeah exactly, that’s one thing. I feel like the risk mechanism is broken in the world economy and that cannot be a good thing, and I hate the idea of incentivizing people to borrow versus save, I think that’s just terrible incentives. So I think there’s a lotta problems with it. And I do think, I think it’s gonna…and I don’t how it’s gonna play out, but I do not think it’s gonna be good, so.
Bill: Interesting, yeah. By the way, you should be aware my next question was gonna be, so you feel like a promise has been broken, how do you feel about entitlement reform? Because you just made a pretty parallel argument.
Andrew: See, I don’t necessarily…I think those are…they’re not necessarily completely linked up because entitlement reform if…you know what, we can get into that, but…
Bill: A digression, a digression, yes.
Andrew: …we got 3 more to get through and we’re at 30 minutes. So any other thoughts on negative interest rates before we get into things will be disappearing?
Bill: I think it’s probably true. I think the interesting thought is perhaps that when the Fed rate…sorry, lowered interest rates to effectively zero, it’s possible that that’s gonna turn out to be unreversible, which is just kind of intellectually interesting.
Andrew: Yeah, it’s crazy. We’ll see how it all pans out. I’m not optimistic. Hey guys, quick aside here. This discussion actually went so much longer than we planned. I’m gonna be breaking this into two different episodes. So tune in again next Friday if you’re not plugged in to the virtual reality matrix by then. For the second part of this series, we’ll be talking about what things are really gonna be changing in terms of what’s going away that’s gonna make a big impact on the world. So we’ll catch up with you for the second part of this discussion next Friday.
Want to connect with and learn from other proven eCommerce entrepreneurs? Join us in the eCommerceFuel private community. It’s our tight-knit vetted group for store owners with at least a quarter million dollars in annual sales. You can learn more and apply for membership at eCommerceFuel.com. Thanks so much to our podcast producer, Laura Serino, for all of her hard work in making this show possible, and to you for tuning in. Thank you for listening. That’ll do it for this week, but looking forward to seeing you again next Friday.
Photo: Flickr/Russ Alisson Lohr