CEO.com
Dispatches from the frontiers of leadership.
CEO.com Podcast
How today's CEOs are thinking about tomorrow.
Featured Essays
The tariff gambit: Trump's long game and America's trade reckoning
On April 2, 2025, Donald Trump stood in the White House Rose Garden, surrounded by a group of advisors, and declared what he termed "Liberation Day.” With a stroke of his pen, he imposed a sweeping range of tariffs -10 percent on all imports, with higher rates of 34 percent on China, 24 percent on Japan, and 25 percent on Canada and Mexico (later reduced for USMCA-compliant goods). The announcement, presented as a national economic emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, sent shockwaves through global markets. The S&P 500 dropped nearly 5 percent the following day, its worst decline since June 2020, while gold surged to $3,100 an ounce amid inflation concerns. Economists, business leaders, and foreign allies rushed to analyze the consequences, while Trump, ever the showman, celebrated it as the culmination of a promise he had been making for four decades.Trump’s fixation on tariffs isn’t new. It dates back to the 1980s when he was a brash real estate mogul criticizing Japan’s trade practices in interviews and op-eds. By June 16, 2015, when he descended the Trump Tower escalator to announce his presidential bid, tariffs and trade deficits were already his rallying cry. "China has our jobs, and Mexico has our jobs," he declared during his announcement speech, promising to reverse decades of what he viewed as America’s economic surrender. Now, nearly ten years later, with the U.S. trade deficit with China reaching a staggering $295.4 billion in 2024 under the Biden administration — an all-time high — Trump’s tariff crusade feels less like a campaign stunt and more like a personal vendetta turned policy cornerstone.The roots of the deficit: NAFTA and Clinton’s legacyTo understand Trump’s fervor, one must rewind to the 1990s, when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) reshaped the U.S. economy. Signed by President Bill Clinton on December 8, 1993, NAFTA was heralded as a bipartisan triumph, with Clinton flanked by luminaries like George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole. "We’re going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs," Clinton proclaimed, envisioning a borderless North American market.Since the 1990s, the U.S. has lost a significant number of manufacturing jobs — decreasing from 16.8 million in 1993 to 12.4 million by 2016, a 26 percent decline. The auto sector experienced the loss of 350,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico, where employment surged from 120,000 to 550,000. The textile industry fared worse, witnessing nearly a 90 percent decline in employment as China and Mexico filled U.S. shelves. Clinton’s free-trade vision, while stimulating GDP, left behind a landscape of shuttered factories, a reality that Trump capitalized on. By 2025, the White House claims that 5 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 1997, a figure that, while debated, supports Trump’s narrative of betrayal by globalist elites.Trump’s case: A reckoning with ChinaTrump’s tariff salvo is fundamentally a response to this history and to China’s significant trade deficit with the U.S., which rose to $295.4 billion in 2024. This imbalance, overshadowing the $6 billion deficit of 1985, illustrates China’s emergence as a manufacturing powerhouse, driven by state subsidies, low wages, and, until recently, currency manipulation. Trump’s "reciprocal tariff" formula — calculating the deficit divided by imports and then halving it — produced China’s 34 percent rate, a blunt tool to penalize what he refers to as "cheaters." His advisors, including Peter Navarro, contend that this will bring jobs back to America, reflecting Trump’s long-standing concern that the country’s openness has been taken advantage of.The benefits of this approach resonate with Trump’s base. Tariffs could generate $100 billion in revenue, according to White House estimates, helping to offset a federal deficit that is ballooning toward $1.8 trillion. Ford’s Jim Farley may warn of a "hole" in U.S. industry, but Trump responds that 50 percent of cars sold in 2024 were imported — why not manufacture them here? His first-term tariffs on steel and aluminum, after all, spurred some domestic growth, and the USMCA, which he pushed through to replace NAFTA, strengthened rules to favor American workers. For Trump, the trade deficit with China isn’t just statistics — it represents a symbol of lost sovereignty, a grievance he’s harbored since the Reagan era.Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns provide an interesting parallel. In 2008, he scarcely addressed China or tariffs, concentrating instead on domestic issues during the financial crisis. By 2012, confronted with a struggling industrial heartland, he made a significant shift. "I will crack down on cheaters like China," he proclaimed, promising to label Beijing a currency manipulator on the first day and impose tariffs. This stance was tougher than his free-trade inclinations as a Bain Capital executive, indicating political expediency. Trump, however, has surpassed Romney’s rhetoric, transforming a campaign promise into a second-term crusade, driven by the conviction that China’s $295.4 billion deficit in 2024 supports his argument.The drawbacks: Friedman’s ghost and modern warningsYet, Trump’s tariff triumph is accompanied by a chorus of dissent, reflecting the free-market principles of Milton Friedman. The Nobel laureate, a giant of the Chicago School, regarded tariffs as an economic sin. "They raise prices for consumers and waste our resources," he wrote in 1993, arguing that free trade benefits everyone by allowing nations to specialize. In "The Case for Free Trade," he debunked protectionist myths — exchange rates, not tariffs, balance wage disparities, he argued — and advocated for unilateral free trade, a radical idea that Trump scorns. Friedman’s influence is significant: tariffs, he would contend, would drive iPhone prices to $2,300, according to Rosenblatt Securities, impacting consumers the most.Contemporary economists amplify this critique. The Budget Lab at Yale predicts a one-point decrease in GDP by 2025, with unemployment rising from 4.2 to 4.7 percent, potentially costing millions of jobs, according to Harry Holzer of Brookings. Nomura Securities forecasts a modest 0.6 percent GDP growth, with inflation approaching 4.7 percent. Reuters warns of a global trade war, with JPMorgan estimating a 60 percent chance of recession by year-end. Lawrence Summers, former Treasury Secretary under Clinton, described Trump’s plan as "dangerous and damaging," likening it to "creationism in biology." The IMF’s Kristalina Georgieva anticipates a decline in global growth from 3.3 percent, while Fitch’s Olu Sonola points out that the U.S. tariff rate — now at 22 percent — matches levels seen in 1910, risking a Smoot- Hawley repeat.Businesses already feel the pinch. Stellantis has shuttered a Windsor plant for two weeks, idling 3,600 workers, as Canada retaliates with 25 percent tariffs. The Beer Institute is concerned about a 25 percent tariff on aluminum cans, which threatens a $7.5 billion industry. The OECD projects that U.S. growth will slide to 1.6 percent in 2026, a stark drop from 2.8 percent in 2024. Critics argue that Trump’s formula misreads trade deficits — driven more by U.S. consumption than by foreign barriers, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — inviting chaos rather than clarity.The verdict: A high-stakes betTrump’s tariff gambit is a high-wire act, balancing visceral appeal with economic peril. On one side, it’s a populist outcry against a $295.4 billion Chinese deficit, a 40-year obsession now transformed into policy. It promises jobs, revenue, and a manufacturing renaissance, tapping into genuine pain — those 5 million jobs lost since 1997 and the devastated towns NAFTA left behind. Romney’s 2012 pivot demonstrated that this chord resonates; Trump’s just playing it louder. Yet, Friedman’s logic and modern forecasts warn of a boomerang effect — higher prices, global retaliation, and a recessionary spiral that could overshadow any gains.The trade deficit with China, peaking in 2024, serves as Trump’s Exhibit A, yet his solution risks fracturing a world economy he claims to save. For every factory revived, a consumer pays more; for every dollar in tariffs, a market trembles. As the Nikkei, FTSE, and S&P reel, Trump’s "Liberation Day" may liberate America from one burden only to bind it to another. Four decades in the making, this is his moment — but whether it ends in triumph or tragedy depends on a ledger still unwritten.
The economists were wrong before
Most economists would disagree with Donald Trump's new reciprocal tariff policy, unveiled yesterday as the cornerstone of his second term. They would argue, with furrowed brows and stacks of data, that tariffs distort markets, inflate prices, and invite retaliation — textbook heresies against the gospel of free trade. Yet most of those same economists spent decades nodding along to the previous approach, the one that sent jobs and manufacturing overseas in a slow bleed that transformed the Rust Belt into a mausoleum of shuttered factories.The Rust Belt seems to trust Trump, delivering him the presidency based on his promise to enact the very tariff policy announced yesterday. Why are the voters mistaken and the experts correct? This is an important question that experts and the media must answer, as they show no hesitation in expressing their excitement at the prospect of Trump's failure. They may end up being right — the consensus is overwhelmingly in their favor at the moment — but isn’t it worth exploring how and why they were wrong in the past?The irony is thick: the consensus that once promised prosperity through globalization now stands accused of hollowing out the very nation it claimed to enrich. The story of how we arrived at Trump's tariff gambit involves hubris, unintended consequences, and a populist backlash that has been simmering since the giddy years of the last century.Let’s return to the late summer of 1999. The dot-com bubble was swelling, Y2K paranoia was a faint hum, and America stood atop a unipolar world. The Soviet Union was a ghost, and globalization — free markets unfettered, borders softened — was the triumphant creed. Bill Clinton, with his Cheshire grin and third-way swagger, had already shepherded NAFTA into law five years earlier, cracking open the continent for a flood of goods and capital. The World Trade Organization, which the U.S. joined in 1995, represented the next step: a global pact to weave the planet into one vast, efficient bazaar. Economists cheered, pointing to GDP spikes in nations that embraced the gospel. Corporate chieftains salivated over labor costs that plummeted when you relocated a factory from Toledo to Tijuana. It was, as the think-tank clerics at Brookings called it, the era of the "Washington Consensus" — a belief that open markets would lift all boats, from Wall Street to Main Street.That faith was a mirage, the wreckage undeniable. The middle class, once a broad and sturdy plank of the American edifice, has splintered. Manufacturing jobs — six million of them — vanished between 1990 and 2010, sucked into the maw of China's WTO-enabled rise. Towns like Youngstown and Flint became sepia-toned postcards of a lost age, with their steel mills and auto plants replaced by Dollar Generals and despair. The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the folly of it all: supply chains, stretched gossamer-thin across oceans, snapped, leaving America begging for masks and chips from a China it now regarded as a rival, not a partner. Globalization, the golden calf of the nineties, morphed into a scapegoat for a nation unmoored.The nineties didn’t just create legendary country music; it was also a time when the U.S., drunk on post-Cold War confidence, viewed itself as the architect of a borderless utopia. NAFTA was the opening shot, a deal that filled shelves with affordable TVs but devastated factory towns. The WTO established the rules, prioritizing efficiency over sovereignty. Corporations flocked to Shenzhen and Bangalore, seeking wages far lower than the American norm. The Brookings crowd celebrated the benefits — lower prices and global growth — while overlooking the fine print: the American worker would bear the burden. And bear it they did. The data is grim: income inequality widened, the top one percent thrived on global profits, while the bottom half saw their share diminish. The Atlantic, reflecting on this period, described it as a "Roaring Nineties" for some — a roaring disaster for others.Enter Trump, stage right, with a policy as retro as it is radical. Tariffs aren't new — Alexander Hamilton loved them, and they bankrolled the government for a century — but they're a middle finger to the past thirty years of orthodoxy. Robert Lighthizer, the owlish ex-lawyer who's spent decades brooding over trade deficits, is the brain behind it. On The Tucker Carlson Show last month, he laid it out with a flinty clarity: "A country that doesn't make things is a country destined to lose." For him, tariffs aren't just a tax; they're a defibrillator for an industrial heart that's flatlined. Trump's pitch is simple: slap duties on imports, force production back home, and watch the mills hum again. It's a vision that's less about economic fine-tuning than about national resurrection — one that's found fertile ground in a populace fed up with elite promises.There's a cultural thread here that runs deeper than spreadsheets. Globalization didn't just offshore jobs; it eroded something intangible — pride, identity, and the quiet dignity of a "Made in America" stamp. Lightizer frames this as a moral struggle: A nation that can't stand on its own is a nation adrift. Trump understands this. His tariffs, along with tax breaks for domestic companies, aim to rebuild not only the economy but also a narrative — a story of strength that globalization's bland uniformity erased.Back in 1999, the dream of a borderless world felt invincible. Markets would solve everything; sovereignty would be a relic; workers would adapt. It was a beautiful theory — until it wasn't. Trump's tariffs, blunt and brash, represent a repudiation of that hubris — a bet that America can reclaim its footing not by retreating but by remembering what it once knew: that a nation thrives when it builds, not just when it buys. Most economists might scoff, but it’s worth remembering they have been wrong before. The tapestry of globalization is in shreds, and Trump is threading a new one, stitch by stubborn stitch. Whether it holds is anyone's guess.
Bedtime stories can’t buy G-Wagons
Some lunch meetings have more impact than others. Ron and Jacob’s once-a-quarter bread-breaking, something they’d held sacred since they met almost four years ago, was nothing if not high-impact. It always left both feeling pleased to have invested their valuable time in building the relationship. It doesn’t need to be stated, and a better narrator would simply omit this detail, but neither Ron nor Jacob has so much as touched a loaf of bread in years. Sure, the title of the ritual outing was always “Breaking Bread” on the calendar invite, but that’s nothing more than a touch of wit and humor between professional acquaintances. (The wit stems from how closely the title resembles their shared favorite television show, while the humor arises from the fact that they both practice intermittent fasting.) They do order food to maintain appearances. This particular lunch took place in the same spot as the others. I’ve chosen to omit the restaurant’s name since they declined to sponsor this story — a request they didn’t understand, and I couldn’t explain. I will admit that the establishment is known as the gathering place for prominent founders and investors. The food is overpriced, and the drinks are watered down, but, as I mentioned earlier (proving I may have been selling myself short as a narrator), these days, no one eats lunch or drinks anything other than the enhanced water they bring from home.“Bro, I’m telling you, you have to come tonight,” Ron said to Jacob after they finished ordering entrees. “The fireside chat will be dogshit boring, something about how to raise venture capital, but the networking will be so baller — so money — that skipping whatever you said you had to do tonight is the only option.”“I don’t know, man. My wife will kill me if I miss another one of my kid’s concerts.”“Your wife? Doesn’t she know you’re only doing it for her future?”“I mean, you’re right, of course, but that doesn’t track whenever I try to explain it to her that way.”“Would a brand new G-Wagon track? Because that’s the kind of business that can come out of tonight. I’m telling you — everyone will be there.”“I wish she understood I don’t like going to these things — at all. Just a bunch of egos in a room pretending to like each other so they can gain some sort of advantage.”“Yeah, you’d never hang out with the kind of people who go to these events in real life, but you’ve got to be willing to suck it up if you want to win.”“You’re right. I’m sure I’ll see you there.”“Wait — did you say you have a kid? How old?”Ron was right about the fireside — it was dogshit — but wrong about the networking. The people there weren’t the right people. He didn’t want to talk to those people; he wanted to connect with the people who weren’t there. Frankly, he would have preferred speaking to literally anyone other than the people who showed up. Where were the right people? He hoped they didn’t find out he was there. That wouldn’t be a good look — attending an event that wasn’t worth the right people’s time.On the drive home, with the All-Podcast playing in the background, Jacob thought about how close he was to achieving his goal of becoming successful according to the standard of strangers. He deserved it. He’d put in the work, sacrificed what really mattered, and did a cold plunge every morning at exactly 5 am. Unfortunately, all this hustle was putting a major strain on his relationship with his wife and kids. They could tell he was distracted, struggling for presence even at home.He was starting to wonder whether his wife still respected him. She seemed unimpressed by his accomplishments and had begun to resent his work. As a wife and mother, she wanted him to be nothing more than a husband and father. Had he taken the best days of her life in pursuit of the world's respect and admiration while losing it from the only people who truly matter?He wasn’t sure if his kids understood what he did outside the house; they probably wouldn’t recognize out-of-the-house dad. They knew he was gone a lot. Why did other people need their dad more than they did? Jacob knew he couldn’t rise to his own defense if asked. As Childers sings, there was a good man in the making once, but is he still alive?As he snuck into his daughter’s room to kiss her goodnight, she woke up and asked, “How did the event go, Dad?”“It was fine, sweetie. How was your choir concert?”“It was good. I missed a few notes, but Mom says no one noticed. She recorded it on her phone for you.”“I can’t wait to watch it. Sorry I missed it, kiddo.”“It’s okay, Dad. I know you’re busy. Love you.”“I love you, too.”Jacob turned off the night lamp and gently closed the door. He stood outside his daughter’s room longer than necessary. At the event, one of the speakers discussed the importance of balancing work and home life. Don’t hesitate to work hard, he advised, knowing it will pay off when you achieve success and can spend your time as you choose. As he listened, Jacob thought about all of the time he would spend with his wife and kids once he reached the finish line. That’s who he’d want to be with after finally achieving success. Now, at home with everyone asleep, he wondered why he couldn't bypass the success part — whatever that meant — and just choose his wife and kids right now. What was he waiting for?Jacob typed the question in his notes app so he could discuss it with Ron at their next lunch. Glancing at the time, he realized he needed to go to bed soon if he hoped to get tomorrow morning’s cold plunge in. He needed the clarity that icy water offered before another day of sacrificing himself to the grind.
Latest Articles
Trump grants 90 day tariff reprieve
President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff plan took a dramatic turn on Tuesday as the White House announced a temporary reprieve, reducing the universal tariff rate to 10% for 90 days on most U.S. trading partners while escalating duties on China to an astonishing 125%. This move, intended as a negotiating tactic to reshape global trade, has instead unleashed chaos in financial markets and drawn sharp rebukes from both allies and adversaries.This announcement marks a shift from the administration’s earlier hardline stance. Just last week, Trump vowed to impose reciprocal tariffs — some as high as 50% — on dozens of countries, citing what he termed a “national emergency” due to trade deficits and currency manipulation. However, with over 75 nations reaching out to U.S. officials to negotiate, the president seems to have reconsidered, offering a three-month “pause” to promote dialogue.“We’ve had calls from all over the world—everyone wants to talk,” Trump said. “This is a chance for countries to come to the table, or they’ll face the full weight of American strength.”Trump’s tariff strategy relies on the assumption that foreign nations will surrender, resulting in the return of manufacturing to U.S. shores. However, experts argue that reshoring is not straightforward. Chris Snyder from Morgan Stanley predicts only modest gains — perhaps a 2% increase in output — without significant workforce retraining and infrastructure investment. Meanwhile, the potential for China to sell off U.S. treasuries remains a wild card.For now, the 90-day pause provides a temporary respite. However, as markets fluctuate and global tensions rise, the president’s tariff strategy remains a precarious endeavor — one that could either redefine America’s economic future or plunge it into turmoil.
Money Moves: David Snider's bet on brains over buzz
In a city like New York, where wealth is both a currency and a cult, David Snider moves with the quiet confidence of someone who has seen the machine from the inside and decided to tinker with its gears. At forty-something, with a résumé that reads like a tech-finance bildungsroman — Bain Capital, Compass, and now Harness Wealth — he’s the kind of person you’d expect to find sipping an oat-milk latte in a Flatiron co-working space, surrounded by the low buzz of venture capital pitches. But Snider isn’t here to disrupt for disruption’s sake. In a recent interview with CEO.com, we learned he’s here to tackle a problem that is both mundane and maddening, yet almost radical: helping people determine what to do with their money once they’ve earned it.Snider’s origin story isn’t the classic Silicon Valley garage-to-riches tale. He grew up in Massachusetts and attended Duke, then Harvard Business School — standard elite credentials, sure, but he didn’t leap straight into the startup fray. Instead, he spent years at Bain Capital, the private equity giant, where he helped orchestrate deals worth billions, including the IPO of Sensata Technologies, a sensor manufacturer that’s about as exciting as a spreadsheet but made a lot of people very rich. It was there, he says, that he learned the art of “optionality” — a term he uses often, meaning the ability to keep doors open and pivot when the moment demands it. “Private equity teaches you how to see the chessboard,” he tells me. “But it’s also a little like playing with someone else’s pieces.”By 2012, he was ready to move on. He joined Compass, a real estate tech startup, as its first business hire at a time when it was just a seed-funded glimmer in the eyes of founders Robert Reffkin and Ori Allon. Snider became its COO and CFO, guiding the company from a scrappy outfit to a $1.8 billion valuation before its 2021 IPO. It was a wild ride — eight rounds of fundraising, late-night strategy sessions, and the kind of growth that transforms a team into a tribe. “Compass was about taking a traditional industry and dragging it into the future,” he says. “We didn’t always get it right, but we learned how to scale chaos.”Yet, even as Compass soared, Snider felt restless. He had witnessed the other side of wealth creation — employees with stock options they didn’t understand, founders overwhelmed by tax complexities, and millionaires who had achieved greatness but were clueless about sustaining it. “I kept meeting people who had won the game but didn’t know the rules of the next one,” he says. That’s when Harness Wealth began to take shape, first as a vague idea during his time as an executive-in-residence at Bain Capital Ventures and then evolving into a genuine platform that connects high earners with advisers and equips them with technology to manage their financial lives. It’s not a robo-adviser, he insists — it’s a “supercharger” for human expertise. “The goal isn’t to replace advisers,” he says. “It’s to make them better.”Since its launch in 2018, Harness has raised $36 million, including a $15 million Series A in 2021 led by Jackson Square Ventures. Its clients — tech entrepreneurs, startup employees with equity windfalls, and the quietly affluent — aren’t the Forbes 400 set but the “mass affluent,” a term Snider uses without irony. These are people with enough money to require assistance but not so much that they have a family office on speed dial. The platform offers a sleek dashboard to track assets, tax scenarios, and estate plans, then connects users to a curated network of advisers — tax experts, financial planners, and estate attorneys — vetted with the rigor of a private equity due diligence team. “We’re not here to sell you a mutual fund,” Snider says. “We’re here to answer the question: What’s the best next step?”It’s a pitch that seems almost too sensible for the hype-driven tech world, where billion-dollar valuations often depend on sexier promises — AI that predicts the future, blockchain that remakes civilization. But Snider believes the real disruption lies in the unglamorous aspects: execution, clarity, trust. “The wealth management industry is a mess,” he says bluntly. “It’s fragmented, opaque, and half the time it’s more about selling products than solving problems.” He cites a statistic from the interview: Traditional advisers spend only eleven minutes a year discussing clients' actual goals. “Eleven minutes,” he repeats, shaking his head. “That’s not advice. That’s a sales call.”Snider is not above a bit of self-awareness about his own journey. He wrote a book in 2010, “Money Makers: Inside the New World of Finance and Business,” a breezy exploration of Wall Street’s power players that now feels like a time capsule of pre-crypto bravado. “I was younger, trying to make sense of it all,” he says with a half-smile. “Now I’m just trying to build something useful.” That utility-first ethos permeates Harness, which he leads with a team of thirty-five, many of whom are veterans of Compass or Bain. He takes pride in the culture — less bro-y than the startup stereotype, more “thoughtful hustle,” as he describes it. “We’ve got people who’ve experienced big wins and big messes,” he states. “That’s the kind of team you need when you’re handling people’s money.”Outside the office, Snider’s life is a study in balance, or at least an attempt at it. He’s married to Sarah, a former nonprofit executive, and they have two kids under ten. They live in the West Village, where he has been spotted jogging along the Hudson or grabbing coffee at a place that charges $6 for a pour-over. “Family keeps you grounded,” he says, although he admits the juggling isn’t easy. “You’re always optimizing — time, energy, attention. It’s not that different from running a company.”“Wealth isn’t going anywhere,” Snider says. “People will keep making it, and they’ll keep needing help managing it. The question is whether we can make the process less painful, more human.” It’s a modest ambition, maybe, but in a city obsessed with the next big thing, there’s something refreshing about a man who’s betting on the next smart one.
AI's Hollywood takeover
In a Los Angeles office, where the hum of traffic and the rustle of palm trees blend into a restless soundtrack, Bill O’Dowd oversees Dolphin Entertainment, a company he launched in 1996 when the internet was in its infancy and artificial intelligence lingered in the pages of speculative fiction. With a Harvard Law degree and a master’s in modern European history, Dowd stands apart from the typical entertainment mogul. As a strategist and architect, he has spent nearly three decades assembling a mosaic of media ventures — television production, feature films, and a “super group” of marketing agencies — while tracking the industry’s shifting tides. Today, those tides surge with a pressing question: What does artificial intelligence mean for a business built on human creativity, charisma, and unpredictability?O’Dowd’s insights shine in a recent CEO.com interview at a moment when AI has matured from a gimmick into a transformative force — rewriting scripts, conjuring visuals, and guiding marketers with algorithmic precision. With a calm authority that transforms corporate speak into something almost lyrical, he embraces the change. “Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing how we approach storytelling and audience engagement,” he states, a declaration that carries the weight of a mission. It’s not a hollow buzzword but a cornerstone of his strategy, rooted in nearly three decades of navigating Hollywood’s ebbs and flows.The entertainment industry has always been a restless reinventor, lurching from silent reels to sound stages, from radio waves to streaming platforms with the uneven gait of a wounded titan. AI, however, marks a distinct rupture. It’s not merely a new channel but a collaborator — a relentless partner that doesn’t strike, doesn’t rest, and doesn’t demand a vanity credit. O’Dowd frames this as an opportunity, not a peril. Dolphin Entertainment, with its galaxy of subsidiaries — 42West, The Door, Shore Fire Media, and the freshly minted Special Projects — has spent eight years forging what he refers to as a “Super Group of marketing companies” designed to amplify narratives across film, television, music, and influencers. Now, that engine turns toward AI, ready to channel its power into the company’s next act.“Phase one was really about putting the Super Group together,” O’Dowd explains in the transcript. “Phase two started in 2024, and that’s about going to market with entertainment assets that we have ownership stakes in.” The plan echoes Hollywood’s golden age — when studios owned the stars, the screens, and the stories — while betting on AI as a modern multiplier. It’s a tool to dissect audience data with surgical accuracy, churn out promotional content at breakneck speed, and nudge writers past blank-page paralysis.Imagine a Dolphin-produced series debuting in 2025, where AI scours X posts and TikTok pulses to decode viewer cravings — gritty dystopias, sweet rom-coms, or a hybrid born of data-driven whim. The script emerges from a collaboration between human writers and a language model steeped in award-winning archives, refined to craft lines that resonate powerfully. The marketing, led by 42West and Be Social, employs AI to customize ads for Gen Z scrollers, millennial bingers, and boomers glued to cable — each version enhanced in real time by engagement metrics. The result: a hit that feels both engineered and electric, a fusion of instinct and intelligence.O’Dowd doesn’t shy away from the friction. Hollywood, a delicate web of egos and gut instinct, teeters under AI’s looming presence. Actors fear digital doppelgängers; writers bristle at becoming prompt shepherds; studios prepare for audiences rejecting the synthetic. The labor strikes of recent years, still echoing in April 2025, highlighted the unease — a clamor for limits on AI’s influence. O’Dowd sidesteps despair, asserting that “AI won’t replace the creative spark.” He presents it as a tool, much like the camera or the editing room, with the human spirit still at the helm.Doubt might linger — pragmatism or polished optimism? Dolphin’s ledger boasts Emmy-nominated hits like Zoey 101, a NASDAQ ticker, and PR firms ranked among the nation’s finest, signaling O’Dowd’s knack for weathering storms. Yet AI looms larger than past challenges, redefining not just production but the essence of creation. When algorithms can draft a script in hours or deepfakes can summon a bygone icon, where lies the divide between maker and machine? Between truth and trickery?Ownership underpins O’Dowd’s response. Dolphin no longer merely markets stories; it claims stakes in them — films, products, and even ventures that extend beyond the traditional bounds of entertainment. “We’re always looking for entertainment assets where our form of marketing makes a difference,” he states, hinting at a future where Dolphin might own parts of a sci-fi saga, a trending beverage, or a smart device. AI, with its ability to identify patterns and enhance outreach, drives this advancement. Envision a Dolphin-backed film about AI-controlled cities, promoted by Shore Fire Media with algorithm-generated playlists, amplified by Be Social influencers whose posts are shaped by data, and linked to a co-owned tech line — a closed loop of creativity and profit.A specter haunts this radiant vision. AI’s efficiency could sand down an industry that revels in the erratic—the flukes that spark classics, the flops that find cults, the humanity no code can replicate. Dolphin’s Super Group might produce precision-tooled successes, but will they linger in the cultural marrow? Will audiences, swamped by choice, crave the rough edges AI might erase? And what if algorithms, bloated on yesterday, merely rehash it?O’Dowd stands firm, a veteran of bold bets — taking Dolphin public, snapping up eight companies in eight years, and facing Wall Street’s microcap skeptics. “We’re a stable growing company that happens to have the upside of a biotech,” he asserts, blending caution with bravado. It’s a nod to entertainment’s eternal wager, with AI as the latest dice roll.From his perch in Los Angeles, where the skyline melds ambition with sprawl, the streets below buzz with stories — some human, some machine, and most a blend of both. O’Dowd’s blueprint doesn’t choose a victor but choreographs their duet. In the era of AI, the entertainment industry may not reflect its youthful days of 1996 or the cusp of 2024. However, if Bill O’Dowd’s gambit succeeds, it will still command the stage.
Dispatches from the frontiers of leadership.