Welcome back to the Deep Dive. We are doing something
a little different today because we are looking
at a brand that is arguably one of the most confusing
paradoxical entities in American history. Absolutely.
I mean, you can walk into a mall in Dubai and
buy a T -shirt with this logo on it. You can.
You can see it painted on the tail of a U .S.
Navy aircraft. It's everywhere. It is. It's a
symbol that represents, you know, the sexual
revolution, the girl next door, and this whole
idea of... democratizing nudity and yet and this
is the crazy part when you look at the source
material we have today this same entity is responsible
for serializing ray bradbury's fahrenheit 451
which is just wild it published vladimir nabokov
margaret atwood kurt vonnegut i mean the list
is staggering it was the platform where a future
u .s president admitted to having lust in his
heart and where martin luther king jr gave one
of the longest most in -depth interviews of his
entire career So we are talking, obviously, about
Playboy. But I want to be clear right off the
bat. This isn't a retrospective on, you know,
the glory days of the mansion. Hello, not at
all. The sources we've pulled together paint
a much, much grittier picture. We're going to
look at how a kitchen table startup became a
global empire, for sure. But we also really need
to unpack the serious literary weight it carried,
the very dark realities for the women who worked
there, and the absolute nosedive the business
took in the digital age. It's a fascinating case
study because it sits right on this cultural
fault line. The magazine sold fantasy leisure,
sophistication, sexual freedom. The good life.
Exactly. But the reality behind the scenes was
often a grind of litigation, corporate maneuvering,
and a constant struggle to keep up with the very
revolution it helped start. You know, it's the
business story that interests me the most, honestly.
Because when you think of Playboy, you think
of the mansion, the grotto, the silk pajamas.
The whole Hefner persona. You think of Hugh Hefner
as this titan of industry. But looking at the
origin documents, the start was incredibly scrappy.
It wasn't some media mogul launching an empire.
This was a guy who was flat broke. It was so
precarious. I mean, if you look at Hefner's resume
in 1949, he's a psychology graduate from the
University of Illinois. Okay. And he's kind of
drifting a bit. He ends up working in Chicago
as a copywriter for Esquire, which was, you know,
the premier men's magazine at the time. Great,
the gold standard. But the job that really gave
him the toolkit for Playboy is the one that always
makes people laugh. You're talking about children's
activities. I am. I looked this up because I
genuinely didn't believe it at first. The founder
of the world's most famous erotic magazine cut
his teeth working in circulation for a children's
magazine. It sounds like a joke, but it actually
makes perfect sense. It does, right. That's where
he learned the mechanics of the subscription
model. Precisely. He wasn't there for the content.
He was there learning the direct mail business.
He figured out how to get people to subscribe
and, more importantly, how to get them to renew.
So he took the business logic of this wholesome
children's publication. And just applied it to
the adult market. Completely. And by the spring
of 1953, he had the whole concept mapped out.
But here's the first major hurdle that almost
killed the company before it even started. The
name. The name. Right. In the early drafts, it
wasn't Playboy. He was completely obsessed with
calling it Stag Party. He was. He had even formed
the corporation as HMH Publishing and was like.
Ready to go to print with Stag Party. What happened?
Well, there was an existing men's adventure magazine
called Simply Stag. Uh -oh. And it was published
by a guy named Martin Goodman who, and this is
a great fun fact, was also the publisher behind
what would eventually become Marvel Comics. No
way. So you have the future Marvel guy threatening
to sue the future Playboy guy. Basically, yeah.
Yeah. Goodman's lawyers sent a cease and desist
letter saying, essentially, if you use the word
stag, we will sue you into oblivion for trademark
infringement. And Hefner couldn't fight that.
No chance. In the 1950s, trademark law for publication
titles was getting really strict. He knew he
couldn't win a legal battle against a funded
publisher. He had zero money for lawyers. So
he has to pivot. And this is where the story
gets almost cinematic. He gathers his inner circle,
his wife Millie, and his friend Ilden Sellers.
Right, and they just start throwing names at
the wall. I saw the list of rejected names in
the notes, and they are. They're very telling.
They're fantastic cultural artifacts, aren't
they? They're considered top hat. Which feels
very Fred Astaire. A bit dated, even for 1953.
Very old -fashioned. Then there was Gentleman.
Which is just boring. So boring. Then they got
weird with Sater and Pan. Sater is a bold choice.
I mean, naming your magazine after a mythological
half -goat creature known for drunken debauchery,
it's a little on the nose, isn't it? A little
bit. It was too intellectual, maybe. Too focused
on just the sexual appetite without any of the
sophistication they were going for. They wanted
something that... It implied, you know, urbanity.
So who came up with Playboy? It was actually
Eldon Sellers. There was a defunct automobile
company called the Playboy Motor Car Corporation.
And Sellers' mother had actually worked for them
for a short time. He just liked the ring of it.
It's amazing how much that one word changed the
lexicon. Because before that, a playboy was kind
of a derogatory term, wasn't it? Oh, totally.
It meant a rich wastrel, someone who just inherited
money and didn't work. Good for nothing. Exactly.
It was a slur for idle rich men. And what Hefner
did, which was genius, was he reappropriated
it. He turned the playboy into an aspirational
figure. A man who worked hard but played harder.
Right. A man who appreciated jazz and good wine
and, of course, women. He turned a negative term
into an entire lifestyle brand. But to build
that brand, he needed capital. And this is the
part of the story that just blows my mind every
single time I read it. The financing. There was
no venture capital. No bank loan. Nothing. He
scraped together just over $8 ,000. That was
it. He sold his furniture. He borrowed from everyone
he knew. But the most significant chunk of that
money, $1 ,000, came from his mother. His mother.
A woman of that era, presumably a somewhat conservative
Midwestern woman. Handing her son $1 ,000, which
is about $11 ,000 in today's money, to start
a girly magazine. The irony is just incredible.
But Hefner always said his mother didn't believe
in the magazine. She believed in him. Wow. It
was a maternal investment in his potential, not
the product. But that money, that thousand bucks,
allowed him to print the very first issue, December
1953. Produced on his kitchen table in Hyde Park,
Chicago. Literally. on the kitchen table. And
the most famous detail about that first issue,
the thing everyone knows, is that it doesn't
have a day on the cover. That's right. It just
says Vol 1, no one, no December. And that's because
Hefner was genuinely terrified there wouldn't
be a second issue. He was hedging his bets. Completely.
He wanted to be able to keep it on the newsstands
in January or February if it didn't sell out
right away. He needed it to be evergreen because
he was operating on such a razor -thin margin.
But it didn't sit on the shelves. It flew off
them. Yeah. And we have to address the elephant
in the room, or I guess the blonde in the room.
The reason it sold wasn't the graphic design.
No. It was Marilyn Monroe. It was Marilyn. But
the backstory of that centerfold is a real lesson
in the economics of exploitation. Because this
wasn't a Playboy photo shoot. Not at all. Hefner
couldn't afford to hire Marilyn Monroe. By 53,
she was already a huge star. So how did he get
the photo? He bought the rights to a calendar
image. It was a nude study she had done years
earlier when she was a struggling actress named
Norma Jean, posed on some red velvet. So he just
bought it from a third party. He paid a calendar
company about $500 for the rights to publish
it. And Marilyn, how much did she get from this?
From Playboy, zero. Nothing. From the original
photo session years before, she'd been paid about
$50. $50. So you have the launch of this multi
-million dollar empire built squarely on the
back of a woman's image for which she received
effectively nothing. It established a dynamic
that would really haunt the brand for decades.
Which is what? Immense profit derived from female
bodies, often with the women themselves seeing
just a tiny fraction of the value they created.
Despite the questionable ethics of it, the business
tactic worked. The first issue sold 53 ,991 copies.
For a kitchen table startup, that is a grand
slam home run. An absolute sensation. It was.
And it proved the concept. There was a massive
market for a magazine that combined erotica with
a respectable package. But now that he had an
audience, he needed the logo. He needed something
to stick on the cover that said, this is us.
Enter the rabbit. The rabbit. I've always found
the choice of a rabbit so interesting because,
okay, sure, breeding like rabbits, we get the
joke. Right, the obvious part. But Hefner had
a much more specific. almost philosophical reason
for choosing it, didn't he? He did. He gave this
very telling interview to the Italian journalist
Oriana Falaci, where he completely deconstructed
the rabbit. He said he chose it for the humorous
sexual connotation, obviously. Of course. He
described rabbits as fresh, shy, vivacious jumping.
But the key was what he was contrasting it against.
Right. He was positioning it against the femme
fatale. Right. That was so popular in the noir
films of the 40s. Exactly. Hefner apparently
hated the femme fatale, the mysterious, dangerous
woman in lace and garters. He called that look
mentally filthy. Wow. OK. He wanted the playboy
woman to be the girl next door. He said she should
be naked, washed with soap and water and happy.
Which is a very sanitized. very suburban view
of sexuality it is it completely domesticated
sex it took it out of the shadowy brothel or
the dark alley and put it right in your living
room and the rabbit which was designed by art
paul captured that perfectly it was playful not
predatory and art paul sketched that logo in
minutes by the way i heard that It was meant
to be a throwaway end note for the second issue,
but they realized pretty quickly it had this
incredible graphic power. It's one of the few
logos in the world that is recognizable just
by its silhouette. You don't even need the letters.
For sure. And speaking of the logo, we have to
debunk a myth that I heard constantly in high
school. The stars. Oh, the stars on the cover.
Yes. Everyone knew that the number of stars on
the letter P on the cover rated the centerfold.
Or the more leered version. was how many times
Hefner had slept with her. Like, five stars meant
he really liked her. That is the ultimate urban
legend. And it really speaks to how much men
wanted to believe they had some inside track
on Hefner's private life. So what was the reality?
The reality is remarkably boring. The stars,
which appeared from about 1955 to 1979, were
purely for distribution logistics. No way. Yeah,
they just indicated... Which advertising region
the magazine was for domestic, international,
military, things like that. It was a code for
the guys driving the delivery trucks, not a rating
system for the women. That's amazing. We create
these huge misologies around brands. And the
truth is just paperwork. It usually is. But let's
pivot now to the other side of the magazine.
The whole I read it for the articles joke. Because
when you look at the source material, there is
a massive list of literary heavyweights. This
wasn't just filler content between the pictorials.
No, and this was Hefner's strategy from the very
beginning to avoid censorship. If he wrapped
the nudity in high art, he could argue in court
that the magazine had redeeming social value.
A legal shield. But the quality of the work went
so far beyond what was legally necessary. I mean,
in 1954, just the second year of publication,
they serialized Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.
Which is just so incredibly ironic. Oh, so. You
have a story about burning books and the suppression
of ideas running in a magazine that was constantly
being banned and hidden under mattresses. The
irony was likely very intentional. Bradbury was
a legitimate sci -fi icon at the time. But just
look at the rest of the roster. It's insane.
Vladimir Nabokov, Margaret Atwood, Saul Bellow.
Kurt Vonnegut, Haruki Murakami, Roald Dahl. These
are Nobel Prize winners and literary giants.
Why were they publishing in Playboy? Two reasons.
One, the pay was the best in the industry. They
paid double, sometimes triple, what The Atlantic
or The New Yorker paid. Money talks. It does.
And two, Playboy didn't edit them heavily. It
gave them an incredible amount of creative freedom.
They could write what they wanted to write. And
then you have the interviews. The Playboy interview
became its own genre. It did. It was long -form
journalism at its absolute best. You have Alex
Haley, the author of Roots, interviewing Martin
Luther King Jr. in 1965. That interview is still
cited by historians today. Because King had the
space, you know, thousands of words, to really
expound on his philosophy of nonviolence in a
way that television soundbites just didn't allow.
But they also accorded a lot of controversy.
I mean, Haley also interviewed George Lincoln
Rockwell. the head of the American Nazi Party.
And that was a terrifying interview. But the
editorial stance was that sunlight is the best
disinfectant. They let him speak so people could
see the hatred clearly for what it was. I want
to talk about the Jimmy Carter interview in 1976
because I think it's hard for modern listeners
to understand how huge of a deal this was. It
was seismic. Just completely seismic. You have
Jimmy Carter, a peanut farmer from Georgia, running
as a devout, born -again Christian. The moral
majority is rallying behind him. Exactly. And
then he sits down with Playboy, which to that
same voting glock was the absolute symbol of
moral decay. And he drops the famous line. The
line that almost cost him the election. I've
committed adultery in my heart many times. He
was trying to explain a theological concept,
right? He was trying to explain the Christian
concept of sin, that the thought is as bad as
the action. But the media just ran with Carter
admits to adultery. Wow. It showed the immense
cultural power Playboy held at the time. A presidential
candidate felt he had to talk to that demographic
to win. And then there's the John Lennon interview.
Yeah. This one. This one gives me chills. It
is a haunting artifact. It was conducted with
John and Yoko, this really long, in -depth conversation.
It hit newsstands in January 1981. Right. But
John was murdered on December 8th, 1980, so the
magazine hits the stands just weeks after his
death. So people are reading his words after
he's gone. And in the interview, he's talking
about the future, about being a father, about
his plans for new music. It became this accidental
last will and testament. It really does cement
the idea that... Playboy was, for better or worse,
documenting the culture in real time. But, and
this is a really big but, we cannot talk about
this brand without looking at the dark side.
Not at all. Because while Hefner was in his office
writing about the playboy philosophy of freedom
and civil rights, the actual machinery of the
company was grinding people up. This is where
the deep dive has to get uncomfortable. We have
to look at the lived experience of the women.
The fantasy was fun and freedom. The reality
was often control and exploitation. And the person
who blew the lid off this first. was Gloria Steinem.
In 1963, A Bunny's Tale. It's an incredible piece
of journalism. Yes. Steinem went undercover as
Marie Catherine Ox at the New York Playboy Club.
And her diary from that time is just brutal.
It completely dismantles the glamour. She details
the bunny Bible. The rule book. The book every
bunny had to memorize. What kind of rules are
we talking about here? It's not just be polite,
I assume. Oh, no. It was this intense, strict
policing of their bodies. There were mandatory
weigh -ins. If you gained a few pounds, you could
be suspended without pay. Seriously. There were
rules about hair, makeup, fingernails that required
hours of unpaid labor every day just to maintain.
And then there was the demerit system. Demerits?
Like in grade school? Worse, because these demerits
cost you money. You could be fined for a messy
locker, for... failing to smile, or for having
scruffy shoes. So they're docking your pay for
not smiling enough. Right. And Steinem calculated
that after buying the required accessories, the
multiple pairs of tights, the special shoes,
and paying for upkeep and fines, many bunnies
were making less than minimum wage. And the interactions
with customers. That wasn't exactly safe either.
No. Steinem described this culture of constant,
low -grade sexual harassment. Customers touching
their tails, which were attached to very sensitive
parts of their bodies. Making lewd comments,
heavy breathing. All of it. And while the club
had an official look -but -don't -touch rule,
Steinem noted that the management didn't always
back the women up, especially if the customer
was a keyholder, a VIP member. She also noted
a racial element. which is so important because
Playboy prided itself on supporting civil rights.
That's the core contradiction again, isn't it?
Hefner supported civil rights publicly, wrote
checks to civil rights organizations. But in
the clubs? In the clubs, Steinem noted that black
bunnies were often referred to as chocolate bunnies
and were frequently relegated to less visible
or lower tipping sections of the club. The progressive
philosophy didn't always trickle down to the
hiring practices on the floor. So that was the
clubs. Yeah. A very controlled, exploitative
environment. But then there is the mansion, the
Playboy Mansion West in Los Angeles. The lore
is that it was this paradise on Earth. Fantasyland.
But we have accounts here, specifically from
Jennifer Saganor, that paint it as an absolute
nightmare. Jennifer Saganor's story is just devastating.
She wrote a book called Playground, a childhood
lost inside the Playboy Mansion. How did she
end up living there? Her father was Mark Saganor,
who was known as Dr. Feelgood. He was Hefner's
personal physician and one of his best friends.
So Jennifer literally grew up at the mansion.
A child living in an adult theme park. And that
is the absolute core of her trauma. She describes
being exposed to overt adult sexuality way before
she had the cognitive or emotional tools to process
it. There's one specific incident she recounts
that I think just summarizes the horror of her
situation. The tunnel. Yeah. She was six years
old. She found a secret tunnel on the grounds.
A tunnel that connected the main house to the
grotto area. And she crawled through it. She
did. And she ended up at a window looking directly
into a jacuzzi. And at six years old, she witnessed
the comedian John Belushi engaging in sex acts.
Oh, God. She wrote in her book, I am no longer
six. I have grown to full maturity in a matter
of seconds. It just shows the total absolute
lack of boundaries. The mansion was designed
for the pleasure of adult men with zero regard
for the collateral damage to the people living
in the margins. And it wasn't just the children
in the margins. The girlfriends, the women who
were ostensibly the queens of this castle, have
spoken out too. Sandra Theodore, who dated Hefner
in the late 70s. Sandra Theodore's allegations
in the Secrets of Playboy documentary are incredibly
serious. She describes a dynamic of coercive
control. What does that mean in this context?
She alleges that the group sex sessions, which
were presented to the public as these fun parties,
were actually mandatory for the girlfriends.
If you didn't participate, you were out. You'd
lose your place in the house, your allowance,
everything. And she also brought up the drugs.
That is the most legally significant allegation.
She claims she was used as a drug mule. She says
Hefner would send her to pick up cocaine because
she was young and looked innocent so the police
wouldn't suspect her. Now, to be fair to the
journalistic record, Playboy and some of Hefner's
defenders have pushed back hard on this. They
have. They point out that Theodore stayed friends
with Hefner for decades and even took money from
him later in life to pay for a divorce lawyer.
Which is true. But as many experts on abuse will
tell you that is a very common dynamic in abusive
relationships. Financial dependence and trauma
bonding can keep people connected to their abusers
long after the relationship ends. It doesn't
necessarily invalidate her testimony about what
happened behind closed doors. It just really
complicates the entire legacy. You can't just
look at the shiny logo and the literary awards
and ignore the machinery underneath. You have
to hold both realities at once. Speaking of machinery
though we need to take a weird detour into technology.
Because there is a very strange direct connection
between Playboy and the reason we can all see
images on the internet today. The Lena. This
is a staple of computer science history. It's
a famous story. So who is Lena? Lena Soderbergh.
She was the Miss November 1972 centerfold. And
in the summer of 1973, researchers at the University
of Southern California were working on image
compression. So basically trying to figure out
how to turn a photo into digital data efficiently.
Exactly. This is the research that eventually
led to the JPEG standard we all use today. And
they just happened to have a Playboy lying around
the lab. They did. They needed a high -quality,
glossy image to scan for their tests. One of
them ran out to his car, grabbed his copy, and
they tore off the top third of the centerfold.
So it's just her face, shoulder, and hat. Right.
And they fed it into the scanner. But why did
that specific image become the standard? Was
it just, you know, a bunch of engineers being
boys? That was probably part of it for sure.
But technically, the image was perfect for what
they needed. It had a great mix of details. You
had the flat, out of focus background, the sharp
lines of the hat, and then the really complex
texture of human skin and hair. So it covered
a wide range of frequencies. Exactly. It was
the perfect image to stress test a compression
algorithm. The thinking was, if you could make
Lena look good, you could make anything look
good. So for 40 years, every time an engineer
tested a new image codec, they were looking at
a cropped Playboy centerfold. It became an inside
joke, a handshake in the industry. It's very
controversial now, obviously, because it basically
cemented a male gaze right into the foundational
code of computer science. But you can't write
the history of the Internet without mentioning
it. You can't. Speaking of the government and
Playboy. We have to talk about the Braille lawsuit
because this sounds like a joke at first, but
it was a very serious First Amendment battle.
It absolutely was. Since 1970, the Library of
Congress had been producing a Braille edition
of Playboy. Wait, really? What was in it? No
pictures, obviously, just the articles, the fiction,
the interviews. And it was very popular. But
in 1985, the Reagan administration and some conservative
members of Congress moved to cut the funding
for it. Their argument being they didn't want
tax dollars paying for smut. Exactly. But Playboy,
along with the ACLU and other groups, sued. And
the argument wasn't about. pornography, it was
about equal access. How so? They argued that
denying blind people access to the same magazines
that sighted people could read was a form of
discrimination and a violation of free speech.
And they won. They won. A federal judge ruled
that the government couldn't pick and choose
what blind people were allowed to read based
on its own moral judgment of the content. It
was a massive victory for the First Amendment
funded by Prayboy. The contradictions of this
brand are just endless. They really are. So we
have the peaks. The legal victories, the cultural
dominance, the literary credentials. But now
we have to talk about the slide, the decline.
Because if you look at the circulation numbers,
it is an absolute horror show for any publisher.
It's a classic bell curve. A huge fast rise and
then a long, painful fall. At its peak in 1972,
Playboy sold over 7 million copies in issue.
Seven. Just think about that reach. There were
only about 200 million people in the U .S. at
the time. A massive percentage of the adult male
population was buying this magazine every single
month. It was a monoculture. And then what happened?
Then came the competition. First you had Penthouse
and Hustler, which pushed the envelope way further.
They made Playboy look tame, almost quaint by
comparison. And then in the 90s. Then in the
90s you had the lad mags like Maxim. They captured
the younger generation with beer jokes and women
in bikinis rather than sophisticated interviews
and jazz reviews. But the asteroid that really
wiped out the dinosaurs was the internet. Without
a doubt. Pornhub. All the tube sites. Why would
you pay $7 for a static image of a naked woman
when you can watch high -definition video of
literally anything you can imagine for free instantaneously?
The core value proposition of a centerfold just...
evaporated overnight. Completely. And the numbers
show it. By 2015, circulation was down to 800
,000. By 2017, it was 400 ,000. That is a 95
% drop from its peak. And in the middle of that
free fall, the leadership made a decision that
I still find absolutely baffling. The no nudity
experiment of 2016. It's just what were they
thinking? This was the brainchild of the CEO
at the time, Scott Flanders. And his logic on
paper kind of makes sense. He argued. The internet
has won the porn war. We can't compete on nudity
anymore, so let's compete on lifestyle. He wanted
Playboy to be the next Vanity Fair or GQ. He
wanted to make it safe for work. So they removed
the nudity. For a year. For a year. They took
the one thing that defined the brand and threw
it out. It feels like Coca -Cola removing the
sugar. It was New Coke all over again. A total
disaster. The old subscribers hated it because...
Well, it's Playboy without the main attraction.
And the new advertisers they were hoping for?
The Rolexes and Mercedes of the world. They still
didn't want to buy ads because the brand was
still Playboy. It had too much baggage. It failed
on both fronts. So they had to reverse it. Cooper
Hefner, Hugh's son, took over as chief creative
officer in 2017 and immediately brought the nudity
back with the tweet, hashtag naked as normal.
But the damage was done. The print magazine was
a zombie. And finally, in 2020, it died. Spring
2020 was the last regular printed issue. They
blamed COVID -19 and supply chain issues, which
was, you know, a convenient excuse. But really,
the business model had been dead for a decade.
But the company didn't die. And this is the modern
twist that's so fascinating. Playboy's public
again. Yes, the PLBY group. They went public
in 2021 via a SPAC merger. We should probably
explain that quickly. A SPAC is a special purpose
acquisition company. Right. It's basically a
shell company that is already public, which buys
a private company to take it public without doing
all the paperwork of a traditional IPO. It's
a shortcut to Wall Street. It is. And investors
jumped on it initially. But the new Playboy isn't
a media company anymore. It's a consumer products
company. They're selling the rabbit. That's all
that's left. They're licensing the logo for streetwear
in China, where the magazine itself is banned,
ironically. They're launching Centerfold, which
is basically their own competitor to OnlyFans.
So they've come full circle. Yeah. From a magazine
that tried to elevate erotica. to art, to a digital
platform competing with user -generated content,
and a logo on a hoodie. They're even moving the
headquarters to Miami Beach. They're trying to
rebrand as this high -end lifestyle brand. But
the question remains, without the magazine, without
the philosophy, without the articles, is it just
a logo? That brings us to the end of this deep
dive. We've gone from the kitchen table in Chicago
to the global empire to the SPAC merger. We've
looked at the literary genius and the alleged
abuse. It is a story that really forces you to
hold two opposing ideas in your head at the same
time. Playboy was a liberating force that broke
down puritanical censorship laws. And Playboy
was an exploitative machine that treated women
as commodities. Both of those things are true.
Here's the thought I want to leave you with.
Playboy became a giant by selling a specific
secret. The girl next door. You had to buy the
magazine to see her. She was behind a curtain.
Today, that girl next door has her own Instagram,
her own TikTok, her own OnlyFans, and she keeps
80 % of the revenue. The fantasy has been completely
democratized. The power has shifted. Completely.
So in a world where the models now own the means
of production, is there any room left for the
middleman in the silk pajamas? Or is the rabbit
finally just a relic? It's a completely different
world. The rabbit has to learn some very new
tricks or it goes extinct. Thanks for listening.
We will catch you on the next Deep Dive.