Harvard’s Shane Greenstein explains why Acquired wins by treating each episode like an audiobook—high-signal, audience-first, and built for durable value.

GUEST BIO: Dr. Shane M. Greenstein is a Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, where he teaches technology, operations, and management and writes HBS case studies on modern businesses.

TOPICS DISCUSSED (IN ORDER):

• WHY ACQUIRED WORKS: Breaking podcast “rules,” competing with audiobooks, high-signal editing, host chemistry, and durable content that doesn’t expire
• AUDIENCE & NICHE STRATEGY: High-income aspirational listeners, “big niche” logic, Slack feedback loops, and expanding breadth without losing focus
• BUSINESS & MONETIZATION MODEL: B2B advertisers, high-value contracts, season sponsorships, rejecting 95% of ads, and protecting audience trust
• OPERATIONS & CONSTRAINTS: Extreme prep, editing workflow, no staff beyond an editor, time scarcity, and intentional limits on scaling
• CASE STUDY ORIGINS & RESEARCH: How the HBS case began, analytics access, third-party validation, and teaching-case methodology
• MEDIA LANDSCAPE & FUTURE: Podcasting vs legacy media, audience balkanization, video tradeoffs, and the role of live, unpredictable formats
• RISKS & UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS: Reputation exposure, topic selection risk, family/work tradeoffs, AI slop, and platform uncertainty

MAIN POINTS:

• Acquired “breaks rules” but follows classic business rules: match product to audience, align advertisers to audience, build operations around constraints.
• They win by not wasting time: heavy editing + high density of insight, built for repeat listening and long shelf life.
• Their edge is durability: they target ~80% of content still relevant a year later, so the back catalog keeps earning.
• Their advertising works because it’s B2B + high contract value: a few conversions can justify huge spends; they protect audience trust by rejecting most ads.
• Avoiding video is a control tradeoff: YouTube distribution can mean less control over ad experience and more audience annoyance.
• Scaling is intentionally limited: the “team of 3” model preserves quality but raises risks (time pressure, topic selection errors, burnout).
• Biggest threats aren’t competitors—they’re reputation risk, platform/tech shifts, and AI-driven slop reducing trust.

TOP 3 QUOTES:

• “They deliberately don’t waste anybody’s time.”
• “Their primary substitute… is someone going out and buying an audiobook.”
• “A niche on the internet can be six people in your hometown times a billion.”

🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright
💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/
📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.
⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us.

Thanks for listening!

Tenured sociology professor Mark Horowitz explains why falling preparedness, grade inflation, and perverse incentives are eroding college standards—and why “broke, woke, stroke” helps describe the pattern.

GUEST BIO: Dr. Mark Horowitz is a sociology professor at Seton Hall University and co-author of a survey-based study of tenured faculty perceptions about academic standards, grade inflation, student preparedness, and institutional incentives in higher education.

TOPICS DISCUSSED IN ORDER:

• Why the authors ran a higher-ed “crisis” survey (faculty perspectives vs pundit/parent narratives)
• Horowitz’s “honors student with junior-high-level writing” anecdote
• Key survey findings: perceived decline in preparedness, increased pushback, grade inflation
• “Broke, Woke, Stroke” framework: market pressures, egalitarian/compassion impulses, therapeutic ethos
• “Most shocking” claim: some functionally illiterate students graduating (and why that happens)
• Which factor matters most: Horowitz argues “broke” (economics/market incentives) is decisive
• Admin growth and student-support infrastructure; retention/compassion language vs rigor/merit
• Taboo around ability/intellectual differences; political psychology and educational romanticism
• Concern about watering down harming gifted students; standards vs equity tensions
• Potential solutions: admissions tests, exit/credentialing signals, eliminating student evals; bigger structural funding conversation

MAIN POINTS:

• Many tenured faculty report signs of a standards problem: lower preparedness, more grade pressure, more pushback.
• “Broke” incentives (enrollment/revenue pressure + reduced public support + debt-financed model) push institutions toward admitting and passing more students.
• “Woke” sensibilities (egalitarian compassion for disadvantaged students) can combine with market incentives to reduce rigor and resist sorting/standards.
• “Stroke” dynamics (therapeutic/mental-health framing, protecting student feelings) further discourages hard grading, failure, and frank talk about ability.
• The result is a weakened “signaling function” of the degree: if everyone gets A’s/B’s, employers learn less from credentials.
• Fixes are hard because incentives punish the people who enforce standards (evals, backlash, institutional pressure), but small reforms could still matter.

TOP 3 QUOTES:

• “We use that kind of cheeky mnemonic of broke, woke, stroke.”
• “We think the incentive structure in higher ed right now is perverse.”
• “It’s kind of a tragedy of the commons in a way. No university can afford to raise standards, but if none do, the long-run tendency is to have the system collapse.”

🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright
💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/
📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.
⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us.

Thanks for listening!