Investors should keep buying, here’s why

Welcome back, everyone today on the Joseph Carlson Show. We've had a busy week over the weekend. Of course, we've had the huge news of the United States launching Operation Epic Fury. That's the name of it. But what it really is is a direct attack on the Iranian government, an effort to overthrow the regime. Now, this has caused the market to start off a little bit shaky, but it looks like we're actually entering into the green. We have some opinions on this as well.

Steve Eisman believes that investors should continue to buy. He thinks that this isn't going to be a problem for the markets long term. We also have Tom Lee giving his his take on this. We'll be looking at his as well. And then we also have a lot of other big news that happened just recently. For example, Duolingo reported their earnings.

Many investors were hopeful, but the stock did what it's known to do. It dropped and it dropped significantly, 20% in a single day, and it continues to go down. What is going on with Duolingo and where is the bottom for this stock? After all, it was as high as $500 plus a share. It dropped to $300 and then to $200, and now it's below $100 per share. Where is Duolingo headed? Why is it dropping? Is it being disrupted by AI? We're going to be looking at all of that with this latest

earnings call. And then we also have Netflix that just recently had a major move upwards. The same day that Duolingo dropped, Netflix went up 14 plus percent. It's not plus 27% from the bottom because Ted Sarandos said that they're walking away from buying Warner Brothers Discovery. That's right. They had the deal signed and agreed upon at one point. Now they've walked away. What does this mean for Netflix's future? What does it mean for my position?

What does it mean for Paramount? There's a lot going on with this. And why did Netflix walk away from the steel in the 1st place? We're going to be looking at all of it in this episode as well. And of course, we have the fail of the week, which in this case is the CEO of McDonald's doing a taste test review of this new Big Arch burger. We get to see his reaction to eating McDonald's, which it appears that this is the first time he's ever done it, and

we'll be going over that together in the fail of the week. Now to start things off again, we have this big news. We have a conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran and it's taken off with a lot of airstrikes trying to change the regime and change the government in Iran. Now, one of the people that I like getting the opinion on this when they have him on is Steve Eisman because he's typically level headed in most cases like this. He has a pretty long term

perspective. So go ahead and listen to what he says that he believes investors should do with this news. President Trump is a polarizing figure. There are things that he does that I completely agree with. There are things that he does that I disagree with, like like any president. But on this, he's 1000% correct. And I, I'm befuddled by, by anyone who who thinks that what he's doing is, is not right.

The the Iranian regime is a death cult and that a death cult can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles. It can't be allowed to go and kill thousands of Americans over 40 years. And what he's doing is 100% correct. The only, the only thing I would just say which, which I don't think a lot of people recognize, is that this is going to take some time because a a normal regime in the face of the might of the United States of America

would have surrendered already. But this regime is capable of absorbing a lot more pain than a normal regime, because they view pain and death of their own people as a sign of their own righteousness. So this is the right move according to Steve Eisman, but it will take time because of how ideological the Iranian regime is. He continues on giving his opinion that specifically what investors should do knowing what's going on right now as far as the markets. Go would, would would you?

Change anything based on. Based on this, yeah, not a not a not a single trade. I think long time this is very, very positive because it means the Middle East will be a a lot. I think it eventually a lot, not a negative even with oil. And and and. Volatility react because of what's happening. Oil prices are obviously up, but if it goes well, you know, two months from now oil prices will

be back to where they were. He wouldn't do a single trade based on the events going on, which again is a very level headed view, especially considering that Steve Eisman is someone that will exploit systemic problems. He did so with the banks failing in the United States.

So if you thought that there was something that could be exploited for investors that we could make an easy trade based off of this, he would give it. But he just doesn't see 1 here and the market seems like it's treating it the same way. Tom Lee also expressed a similar sentiment today. That's right. I mean, nobody likes to see headlines and images of explosions and war. And so we know risk premium jumps.

That's why the VIX jumps. But it's not really going to change the fundamentals of the US So in the past, markets kind of sell off into the build up and then they tend to do better once the battle begins. And I think this is going to be similar. This isn't going to change much with the United States, but he did mention that this does increase risk premiums. It increases the chance of a

greater global conflict. Yeah. I mean, I think a lot of experts are going to worry that this could, you know, encompass a larger conflict, you know, something that would be, you know, World War three or something, right. But in the absence of that, I think the worst of the sell offs going to happen this week and you know, I, I would expect actually March to be an up month for the stock market. And I agree with both of them.

Even though this is huge news internationally, I don't believe it's going to impact U.S. stocks in the long term to any meaningful degree. And I I think that investors should just stick to their plan. These type of events are expected. The world is chaotic. There's going to be more of them. We saw what just recently happened in South America. Now we see things happening in the Middle East. Next month it's going to be something different.

There's always something chaotic going on in the world. My investment strategy remains the same. I'll continue to build positions and high quality companies. Part of my investment philosophy already encompasses the idea that there's going to be global conflict, so nothing about that changes how I view My Portfolio now. Overall, this portfolio has been moving up over the past week. We're back to $320,000 of gains in the passive income portfolio if we switch over to the story fund.

The story fund is also made a big move upwards from around $90,000 in the green to around 119,000. The reason why it's moving back up is primarily because of Netflix. We have two stocks moving in different directions. 1 of them is Duolingo.

Duolingo's going down and we have Netflix and Netflix is going up, but overall, the portfolio is moving up big because of the weighting of these stocks. If we look at just the weighting, I want to illustrate this because I think it's an important principle. Let me zoom in here and you can see it right there. This was my weighting of My Portfolio in total prior to the

Duolingo 20% sell off. So as you can see, prior to Duolingo selling down the most recent 20%, it was a 1.2% total weighting in My Portfolio. So even though that one's moving down, which is unfortunate, it's not a massive position. It's a couple $1000 down of the the whole portfolio. Duolingo is a smaller market cap, more speculative company with the lesser proven Moat than the majority of My Portfolio. Because of that, I intentionally weighted it as a smaller

position. That's why I controlled for risk. I never made Duolingo a top five position. It's never been one that's going to be like the size of Amazon or Meta or MasterCard. Now the reason for that again is because the dispersion of possible outcomes, the probability distribution is much wider for a smaller, more speculative company, one that has a a much smaller market cap. There's also a smaller amount of capital to be able to move the stock in either direction.

Short sellers can push it down. Any actives investor can push it up. There's so many things can affect Duolingo stock price dramatically that it's a dangerous one to put as a top position.

So I've tried to control for that risk and I think in a good way by making it a smaller position, I still have upside if Duolingo does go up 4 or 5X. If it's a stock that really compounds well, I can still make some returns with it, but it's always been one that I've respected the unpredictability of it by putting it as a smaller position.

Now, one of the companies that did move up massive just over the past week was Netflix. Netflix is an 8.68% position before that move, and it moved up another 15% since then. Because Netflix is such a large position, that move upwards had a big proportionate impact. When we look at Netflix, the reason that the stock is moving up is of course because Ted Sarandos, the Co CEO of the company, said that he's no longer buying Warner Brothers Discovery.

They're walking away. They're letting Warner Brothers Discovery sell their company to Paramount after they submitted what they consider to be a superior offer. Now, I'll admit, I was a little surprised that Netflix didn't match the offer or raise their bid at all. They could have certainly raised it another 5 or 10%. Netflix has the financial strength to do that. But like I've always said, Netflix is going to do what's

disciplined. They're going to do what they believe is the best for the shareholders in the long term, and they showed that in this response. This is an incredible display of a disciplined management team, one that had a framework for what they thought the asset was worth and what they thought it wasn't worth. They didn't have greed overtake them. It wasn't a buy at all costs. It wasn't a buy now and figure it out later. No, they modeled it out. They did a discounted cash flow analysis.

They looked at what it would be worth and what they're willing to offer, and when it went past that point, even by a penny, they stepped out. That is the reason that the stock is up so big. That is the reason that Netflix is now traded back up to $96 per share. Before they even announced they're buying Warner Brothers Discovery, Netflix was only $103.00 per share. It's almost back to that stock price.

And keep in mind, the market has been crushed over this time period, so Netflix has held up proportionately very well. And that is because of this new confidence that investors have in Netflix's management. Again, I can't stress this enough. When I looked at the different possibilities of what may happen in the future with Netflix buying Warner Brothers Discovery, I thought it was a win win and well, a win win win. But the third option wasn't as good. The first win is that Netflix

ends up with the asset. Netflix would have done great with Warner Brothers Discovery because they have the financial support to be able to support that asset in that scenario that Netflix owned them. I think that would have been a win for the shareholder long term. The other win was that Netflix gets out competed after they've already signed the deal and that the company that out competes them has to pay a no shop fee of $2.8 billion.

That is exactly what happened. The deal had already been signed by Netflix, so they were supposed to have the asset. But they said you can entertain other offers as long as you pay us that breakup fee if you go with a different offer. And that is exactly what they did. Warner Brothers Discovery said that Paramount's offer was superior. Netflix decided that they didn't want to match it. That means that Paramount and Warner Brothers Discovery, one of them, they owe Netflix $2.8

billion. And Paramount already sent the check. They've already paid it. So Netflix got to walk away from this, not take on the complexity, not take on the debt, not take on the regulatory burden or the hassle, the year and a half of it being dead money, not take on any of that and get as a consolation price, $2.8 billion that will be immediately returned back to the shareholders through buybacks. That's equivalent to a $0.65 per share dividend given to the shareholders.

So Netflix wins in that scenario. They just won just by bidding on it, winning the asset, pushing up the price for a competitor, making it so that Paramount has to pay literally billions of dollars more for the asset, plus Paramount has to pay billions of dollars more to Netflix investors directly. Netflix killed two birds with one stone. They won in multiple ways in this scenario. The worst scenario for Netflix, the worst outcome, was that they go through with this all the way

through the end. They get to the regulatory process and it gets blocked by regulators. Then they have to pay a massive $5 billion breakup fee. That would be a lose because Netflix wouldn't get the asset and Netflix would have to pay money directly to a competitor, which is Warner Bros. So that would have been the worst case scenario. Even then, they would have blocked Paramount from having the asset for a year, presumably, but again, that one was a toss up.

That would have been the worst case scenario. That didn't happen. In any case, when I look at Netflix and what happened over the past couple of months, it gave investors an opportunity to exploit the short term view of the market. Investors look at stocks very short term. They try to say that they're long term, but investors were looking at Netflix and calling this stock dead money just a couple of months ago. It's dead money. Who's going to want to invest in

this? They're going to have to go through a years of regulations. They're going to be scrutinized by politicians in the Department of Justice. Even when they're done with that, they're going to be paying off debt and integrating businesses. It's going to be dead money now. It's not dead money All of a sudden, a couple weeks later, Netflix is alive and well, up 27% in two days. The stock's surging now. It's one of the better performers here today.

It's in the green by 6% and it still has momentum. Netflix immediately went from dead money to not dead money very quickly. And the investors that bought in during these time periods, of which I hope you're all one of them, you got in a deal on Netflix. You're already up nearly 30% on this stock. And I did take advantage of this. I did buy more Netflix during this time period. There's a $5000 buy at $85 per share. That was one of the the most recent ones that I've done.

So we have Netflix here moving back upwards. We have Ted Sarandos saying that they're going to step away, and I think that this speaks very positively of both Netflix and their management. Again, overall, part of the reason that I'm I'm so confident in Netflix is because I have confidence in their management. I do think that they look at what's best for the shareholder. They gave up a lot and not bidding for Warner Bros. The management could have owned Netflix plus Warner Bros together.

Can you imagine the power that you would feel owning all of that, the esteem, going to red carpet events, knowing that you control all of HBO and all of Netflix? I mean, you must feel like you're like the most powerful person in all of Hollywood, basically the whole world at that point, right? You control so much media. That's how it would fill to some people and their greed would make it so that they would want that. And the shareholders that would come second place.

That's what many management teams do, but not Netflix's management. When it didn't make sense, they immediately stepped out of the deal. And that's what Ted Sarandos highlights here. Let's go ahead and just take a look at this interview with Ted Sarandos where he he goes through some of the reasons and some of the questions of why they stepped away and the motivations behind it. First, he mentions that we had done all the scenario planning so we didn't have to go back to

the board. We knew what we wanted to do. Sarandos says that we had a very tight range of what we'd be willing to pay and made that offer back when we close the deal. We hadn't moved much from that except for moving to cash, which served to move the deal faster. I'm happy that we got where we we are in and happy where we got out. Now there's some speculation that it was the meeting with Trump that caused Netflix to get out of the deal, and Ted Serranos addresses this.

He says that he doesn't believe there was any growing political resistance. It was a growing narrative of political resistance, but we were on a normal regulatory path. I was in DC on Thursday for a scheduled meeting with the Department of Justice from a couple weeks ago to go through some questions about the deal. It was very productive meeting. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Nothing had shifted or changed dramatically that hauled me to DC. So he's basically saying that the meeting in DC had nothing to do with this. It was an already pre planned meeting from weeks earlier. There is nothing that shifted or changed the deal in that meeting. When asked about what he thinks will happen with the business, Warner Bros after being owned by Paramount, he says that there's going to be a lot of firings, a lot of layoffs. The deal is dependent on a lot

of cost cutting. We were in the books of Warner Bros and the biggest cost centers are people and productions. There will be cuts in excess of $16 billion. They are telling people who lend them money, That's going to happen within 18 months. It'd be less production, less people working. So a lot of people that were concerned about Netflix buying in the media industry, now they have to contend with the fact that a far less profitable companies buying Warner Bros.

And because of that, they're going to have to cut costs aggressively. 16 billion is an astronomical amount of cost to cut. So we'll see what happens, but that does not look good for the industry. In any case, it's not Netflix's problem now. Now, in this interview, Ted Serranos does take one big shot at Paramount, and that is with the question of an unusual buyer. He says unusual. Yeah. Unusual or irrational? Whatever word you want to use in that, it'll be fascinating to

see the next steps. I have been on the record a lot in the last two weeks talking about what I think the future looks like. I'm confident in our future that we're not impacted by by this at all. In fact, maybe it's to our advantage, but I hope I'm wrong for the sake of the industry. He is obviously concerned about the industry. He believes that Paramount is way over their skis. They're paying way too much. They are at 7 times EBITDA leverage.

Seven times is at the point where you're so leveraged at that point you have to cut costs like crazy. You have to optimize for years. It'll be a a decade of Paramount trying to just get their costs under control. One of the questions or one of the potential impacts of Paramount owning Warner Bros is maybe they could bully Netflix now and no longer license them content, right? Netflix likes licensing content from Warner Bros. You in some cases will have HBO shows on Netflix.

And that's really good for Netflix consumers time to time. And the thought process is maybe they they box Netflix out, make it so that they can't have access to any of their content. But he says that that's not likely specifically because of their financial position. If they are 6 or 7 times levered, they need to make some money and we're buyers. So I can't imagine that's going to be a problem. He's basically calling Paramount broke.

He's saying that they're too broke to not license content to us. We're a good buyer. They're going to license content because they have to. Now the reaction from employees, apparently at Netflix, a lot of the employees are simply just relieved. It was going to be a very difficult challenge to try to integrate the two businesses and make it work. So they're a little bit relieved that they can continue to just build out from their own business and not take on this

huge endeavour. I I've heard from a lot of employees the the vibe there is just one of relief. And from Warner's side, theirs is 1 where they're not happy about this. I've heard rumors from a lot of employees that they'd preferred Netflix as a buyer, which of course makes sense because there's far less likelihood of them getting fired if Netflix is the buyer. But ultimately the market speaks.

Paramount is the buyer. They've already signified that they're going to be combining both services, Paramount and HBO. So you'll have those under the same login, the same service in the future. So we'll see what happens in the future in terms of Netflix investors, things are back on track. They'll continue to build out their business. They'll continue to compound. We'll see if they try to pick up any smaller studios in the process or what their strategy

is going forward. Because I believe Netflix does need to try to build out their own cinematic universes, their own Westeros, those type of things. And we'll see how they do that in the future. Now moving on from Netflix, we get to another stock that went the total opposite direction, which is Duolingo.

Let's go ahead and talk about Duolingo Hair. Duolingo's earnings report has two major parts to it. There's the guidance, which is the primary reason that the stock dropped 20% was because of the guidance that they gave. The other aspect to it is everything else, the questions about the Moat, the questions about market saturation, the questions about their growth and their future. So when we look at Duolingo, let's go ahead and just take a look at some of the numbers here.

We have the revenue which it it grew rather fast year over year, 35%. So that's still very fast revenue growth, slight deceleration, but somewhat expected. The problem is in the guidance they're guiding for growth around 18 to 20%. Earnings per share growth around the same. So this is much slower growth, a deceleration. Bookings growth of 20% is a huge deceleration. It shows that they're, they're growing their revenue aspect much slower than previously. And we'll get into that in just

a minute. But when we look at the rest of these numbers, we look at the daily active users. This came into 52.7 million, which was actually above where the expectations were. So they gained daily active users a little bit above their guidance, which is good. And you can see overall they're still gaining a lot of daily users. This is a lot of users using

Duolingo everyday, 52.7 million. When we look at the monthly active users, a lot of people point to this to show that there's problems with Duolingo because the monthly active is down quarter over quarter. It's up 14% year over year, but the monthly active has flat lined now. They're not as concerned about this. They've kind of shifted away from even really being too concerned about monthly. They're primarily focused on the

daily active users. Overall, the biggest problem that they highlighted on the earnings call was that they're seeing a deceleration in daily active user growth. This number which they do care about, they care about this one deeply. This is their primary number that they look at is decelerating and they believe it's going to further decelerate in 2026. And the CEO of the company is doing everything he can. He's re changing everything in the company to make this number

re accelerate. And they launched a new goal. Their goal is to get above 100 million daily active users, 100 million, which is roughly double where it is now by 2028. So in three years they want to double the amount of users that would be very strong growth and they gave some numbers of what

will happen if they get there. For example, if we look at the EBITDA, if they don't go across this path, if they don't try to get to 100 million, then their EBITDA will probably be at around $400 million by 2028. So they believe they'll have $400 million EBITDA 2028 under like a normal path. If they continue what they're doing today, they continue on

along the same path. If they get to 100 million daily active users in 2028, then they believe that EBITDA is more around the ballpark of 700 million by 2028. So significantly higher. The company's much bigger at that point, which if that happens, it's just a bigger company, more profits, higher market cap. So they're going for what they believe is the bigger prize. They're, they're focusing on user growth, quality of teaching and taking advantage of this big opportunity.

And because they're doing that, they're less focused on monetization today. They're less focused on converting people from the pro tear to the Max tear. That's really not what they're doing. In fact, what they're doing is they're getting a lot of the benefits from the Max tear down to the pro tear. They're just increasing the quality of their service. They're giving more of the AI benefits, more of the one-on-one teaching. They're giving that to everyone.

They're making it so that Duolingo is a far more personalized tutor than it's ever been before. Typically Duolingo's been looked at as like advanced flash cards, and now it's going to be a highly interactive AI tutor combined with flash card elements, which increases the quality of teaching, the engagement, and the daily active users, because the more they get value, the more they'll use the app. So that is the route they're going. They're focusing solely on this

DAU. They're trying to grow it as much as possible. They want to get to that 100 million mark. They want to make Duolingo an incredibly powerful, personalized tutor, better and more engaging and more interactive and more fun than a real life tutor. And that requires some short term pains. So when we look at Duolingo, there's still a big misconception of what's going on

here. Many bears on the stock will insist that the reason the stock is going down and the reason that Duolingo's struggling to grow is because of competitive forces. They'll say that competition is caught up. The Duolingo can't compete. In a world with AI tutors with chat, GBTS, with Gemini's, with vibe coding, you can easily replace Duolingo. And of course, that's the reason the stock's going down and the

revenue's decelerating. A lot of investors are having their biases confirmed looking at Duolingo's revenue slow down. The problem with that is that none of the actual data supports that. And that is exactly what the CEO of the company says in the earnings call with real data points. OK. So your first question is about market saturation and

competition. We're worried about neither one of those in terms of competition, if you look at language learning apps, we have about 85% of the daily active uses of language learning apps in the world and that number has remained, you know pretty flat over over over a while. But basically we're we're just not particularly concerned about that you. Just addressed AI competition in one sentence with one data point. He completely destroyed the whole narrative.

The Duolingo's being out computed by AI with a single data point. The data point is that Duolingo has 85% of the daily active language learners in all of the market. They hold around 85% market share. That percentage of market share has remained consistent for a long time now. How could their market share hold the same if they're being out competed? How does that make any sense?

The way that you see if you're being out competed is by your market share of users going down, by users leaving your application, leaving whatever you're doing and going somewhere else. And that they're growing is a bigger proportion of the pie, but that's not happening. They're maintaining the same market share while growing. So the revenue growth or the daily active user growth going down is for different reasons. And he highlights the different

reasons in this call. Another concern is market saturation. He also says that he's not concerned about market saturation at all. Why is he not concerned about saturation? Let's go ahead and listen to him here. In terms of market saturation, you know, we're for example, we look at things like the, the, the percentage of daily active users in a given country compared to the size of the

Internet base of that country. So for example, in the United States, 2% of all Internet users on a given day use Duolingo. So 2% penetration in the US for daily users in the UK that's 3%, in Germany that's 4%. And Germany is not the highest country we have, we actually think we can get much higher than that. But even if we only assume that every country got to 2%, which is the US penetration, we would more than double our daily active users.

So I I just don't think we're, we're near saturation at all. That answers the saturation question. In the US they're at 2%. That's that's how many people use use Duolingo everyday is 2% of people with Internet access in the United States. They use that same benchmark in all the countries that they operate in based on the proportion of Internet enabled users. If they got to 2%, they would over double their market size, they'd over double their amount of daily active users.

So there's also ample room for this company to grow ample user, 50 million plus users just to get to 2%. And they believe that they can get higher than that. Countries they have right now, like Germany are at 4%. So obviously it can get higher than that. Think about it, if we get more people on math, on music, on chess, there's lots of opportunities to grow that daily

active user. And then he gives one additional data point to actually explain where these users go when they stop using Duolingo, and it's not to a competitor. You know, in general, we're not seeing anything different. For example, we survey our our our churned users, and the answers to the surveys of return users haven't really changed in years. And the most common answer, by the way, when people stop using Duolingo about where they go is

that they stop learning. People quit Duolingo and they just stop learning. They don't go to an alternative service. They don't go to a different language learning tool. In some cases they can. I'm sure that that happens. But the most common reason is people just quit. They just give up. That's the problem they're addressing. They're competing in a race of their own. They have 85% market share. They maintain that market share for a long time. They have a huge total

addressable market to grow into. Duolingo needs to figure out how to make their service a bit more engaging. They need to make the teaching more personalized and AI enabled, and they can offer tremendous value to users. So a lot of the concerns that investors have, like AI competition, are not showing up in the numbers, and it's not what management is even worried about. Now, of course, they're always trying to preempt competition and make sure they're ahead of it.

And that's part of the reason I believe that they're releasing all of these AI features. They're making Duolingo far more of an AI adaptive interactive learning tool where now you can talk to the app and practice language and it will give you feedback and it's bilingual, can talk back and forth with you. It can do that while having all the other mechanisms for engagement. So this is a great direction to

go long term for the company. The big question is if you believe that they have an opportunity to grow into a bigger business here, or if you think that their growth will continue to slow down and ultimately just stall. If Duolingo's growth just stalls, if it really can't grow 100 million users, if they really can't become a highly engaging AI enabled platform, then the stock will stall out.

It won't really bounce back, but I still believe there's a chance that this one could bounce back very strong if they start executing correctly on their plan of doubling their users over the next three years. If they get to $700 million in EBITDA in a year, that's massive. The stock will move up if that happens, especially because over those three years, it will become clear whether or not AI is really disrupting the company or not.

Right now it's not, but we'll see over the next three years and if investors become convinced that that's not much of a problem, they may give the stock a better bid. So as of right now, my plan is that I'm not buying more into Duolingo. I'm not going to continue to throw money into this position, but I will hold it because I believe that there is huge potential upside here in the future. I think there's still a chance for growth and having the position be a 1% position.

It it just is an easy one to hold. It's not difficult for me to hold. My Portfolio isn't reliant on Duolingo performing.

So in the meantime, I'm going to hold on to it and continue to follow it. Now moving on, we get to the fail of the week, which in this case is the CEO of McDonald's doing a food review of one of their newer, apparently impressive burgers that they made. This is the Big Arch burger. It's a new burger from McDonald's, and the CEO is supposed to give us a review of it to show us how good it is. Here we have it.

Let's go ahead and jump in. Chris K here with you've heard about it. Here it is, the big arch. This is something that we have tested already in Portugal, Germany, Canada. I love this product. It is so good. I'm going to do a tasting, right? He can't help it. The guy's so corporate, like he's just, this guy is just like a walking spreadsheet of corporate vocabulary.

So you just can't even help it. It says that we've tested it, We've already tested the product and the product is tested well and the geographies that we've tested it. We've made some food that people love. I mean, why doesn't he talk like a human? He has to talk like corporate, but his whole mind is just corporate jargon at this point. So instead of saying this is a a, a burger that we've made, we've made it so tasty.

People around the world really love it when they get their hands on it. They say this is a a well tested product. It's a well tested product. That we have tested already in Portugal, Germany, Canada. I love this product, it is so good. I'm going to do a tasting, right? Really good product, guys. He's going to taste this product that they've tested. Right now, But I'm going to eat this for my lunch, just so you know. So here we go first, Holy cow, God, that is a big burger.

We've got a very unique kind of sesame poppy sort of bun on it. He opens it up. Wowzers. Holy cow. Boy am I shocked to look at how big this burger is. It's it just doesn't sound natural. I don't know man, maybe just I don't know why it's so difficult for people to give a genuine

review. We could just open it up and say this is a a good looking burger but instead it's wow geez look at how big it the the burger is. Something about this whole review just from the beginning feels incredibly unnatural, and it keeps getting worse. We've got two quarter pound patties, a delicious big orange sauce, and of course, some lettuce. So, oh, there's so much going on with this. First of all, let's try to get this thing I don't even know. How to attack it got?

So much to it. Oh, there's also some crispy onion. What do you mean how to attack it? It's a burger it with two patties. What guy this is? This is something everybody, every. I've ate a million of these. Who hasn't? How do you not know how to hold a hamburger? It's not complicated. He's acting like this is such a crazy burger, he can't even figure out how to hold it. How do you hold the hamburger? How's that difficult? It's just a hamburger. So, oh, there's so much going on

with this. First of all, let's try to get this thing. I don't even know how to attack. It got so much to it. Oh, there's also some crispy onions on here as well. I see those kind of coming out. All right, the moment of truth. That is so good. That's a big bite for a big. That's a big bite, guys. That that this is, this is what this is a big bite. Now, just to put that in perspective, this is the big bite he took. You can't even see where he bit the burger. It looks almost completely

round. That is so good. To him, that's a big bite of a burger nibbling on one. One tiny part of the burger. Huge bite. I, I this guy, I don't think he's, he's, he eats salads. That's what he eats. He eats healthy. He's eating really mixed greens, healthy salads with avocado and maybe some salmon. I mean, this guy is not eating McDonald's every day. There's, there's just a million giveaways pretending like this is a difficult burger to to

have. Most guys would be grabbing this burger with one hand on their way to work while driving, pretending that it's incredibly unique. Obviously he's doing for marketing, but just the whole way that he's going about this feels like he's never actually eaten a burger before. It's really, really quite odd. It's distinctively McDonald's. Only McDonald's could do this type of burger. But it also was unlike anything

else on our menu. So they didn't show him actually like chewing and swallowing it. Notice how they just cropped that out. It went straight from the bite that he took out and then no chewing it's. Distinctively, McDonald's, only McDonald's could do this type of burger. But it also was unlike anything else on our menu. It's a delicious product. You know, you've got sort of. It's a delicious product.

The product is well tested. We had good, good return estimates on the product and it's a delicious product. It's a delicious product. You know, you've got sort of the cheeses and the gooeyness, but those crispy onions as well gives a nice texture. And of course we've got the Pickles. So I'm going to enjoy the rest of my lunch. But big arch, try it when you

can get. It he's so happy, he can be done pretending to eat this and he can go back to eating his extremely well balanced meal that he's going to eat after this. And this of course has blown up online. It's gone viral because it shows it's not good when you try to do something and it's totally inauthentic. He doesn't like McDonald's burgers. It's easy to tell that. You can just tell that watching it. He doesn't like it. So I don't publish a a review of

him eating a burger. It's not good for the brand. They should pick McDonald's customers that are there eating every day and say, what do you like about it? They probably find people that genuinely just love McDonald's burgers that eat it every day and their reactions would be very natural. Not this. This is not natural at all. The fake commentary, the fake compliments, how insincere this review comes across, how uncomfortable it is, how he's referring to it is a tested

product. All of it just comes across as inauthentic. And if there's one thing the Internet will see through immediately is inauthenticity. And that is why this little review from McDonald's is the fail of the week. That's it for this episode. Hope you enjoyed. See you in the next one.