Tackling Sports Streaming: The Hidden Cost of Watching Sports

Watching your favorite team used to be simple. Turn on the television, find the channel, and watch the game. Today, following one team can mean navigating multiple streaming platforms, subscriptions, blackout restrictions, premium tiers, and constantly changing media-rights deals. In this episode of We Fixed It, Renee Washington joins the conversation to unpack the rapidly changing business of sports media and what it means for the people who actually watch the games. Renee brings experience from across sports broadcasting, including work with ESPN, FIFA, NBC Sports and other major sports platforms, along with her background as a former professional soccer player and three-time All-American. The conversation explores why sports leagues are increasingly prioritizing global audiences, how enormous media-rights deals are reshaping distribution, why local broadcasters and communities still matter, and why athletes themselves are becoming increasingly powerful brands. For decades, sports broadcasting was built around a relatively simple relationship between fans, teams and television. That relationship has changed dramatically. Today, leagues are negotiating enormous media-rights agreements with traditional networks and streaming platforms. A single sport can appear across multiple services, forcing fans to figure out where individual games are being broadcast. Renee Washington explains that the driving force behind much of this change is money. Sports media rights represent enormous revenue opportunities, while streaming platforms see live sports as a way to attract audiences, collect viewing data, build habits and introduce viewers to their broader entertainment ecosystems. But the financial opportunity comes with a cost: complexity. Fans can find themselves juggling multiple subscriptions simply to follow one team. Local broadcasts have also become less prominent in some markets, while national and global programming has become increasingly important. What You Will Learn • Why watching sports has become increasingly complicated • How the battle for sports media rights is reshaping broadcasting • Why streaming platforms are aggressively pursuing live sports • How multiple subscriptions affect the fan experience • Why sports leagues are increasingly focused on global audiences • What local broadcasters bring to a team's relationship with its community • Why some sports broadcasts are produced away from the actual venue • How athlete-driven fandom is changing traditional team loyalty • Why players can now build audiences that transcend teams and countries • How soccer's global model has influenced American sports • Why the NFL's predictable broadcast structure works differently from other sports • Why baseball, basketball and other leagues face different streaming challenges • How exclusive media-rights agreements affect where fans can watch games • Why streaming platforms care about more than the game itself • How sports broadcasts can become gateways into movies, shows and other programming • Why audience data has become such an important part of sports media • Whether a single team-based login could simplify sports streaming • Why leagues and networks may resist simplifying access • How sports could preserve local communities while expanding globally • Why more in-person experiences could become important in the future Connect With Renee Washington Website: www.reneepwashington.com Renee Washington can also be found across social platforms under Renee Washington, with her X account using @ReneePwash Connect With the Show Subscribe for more deep dives where we fix big business problems with fresh perspectives. Website: www.wefixeditpod.com Follow us on: Instagram: @wefixeditpod LinkedIn: @wefixeditpod YouTube: @wefixeditpod Disclaimer If you liked this episode, don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with your friends! Keep listening to find out how we fix companies and put them back better than we found them. A quick disclaimer. We are going into this somewhat cold and nothing we say should be construed as legal advice, financial advice or anything that would get us in trouble. These are our views and opinions. We’re here to ask the kinds of questions everyone’s thinking, have an engaging conversation and maybe come to some conclusions that we feel are worth exploring. By the end, if we fixed it, you’re welcome. All trademarks, IP and brand elements discussed are property of their respective owners.

UPS has spent 119 years building one of the world's most disciplined operating systems. But now the company is changing that machine from the inside: consolidating responsibility, restructuring operations, reducing costs, closing facilities and moving away from Amazon volume that no longer fits the economics of the business. Noel Massie knows what that machine looks like from the inside. He spent 42 years at UPS, beginning as a college student loading trucks in 1977 and eventually becoming a president of five business units and Vice President of U.S. Delivery Operations. He describes a company where managers were given real ownership, frontline employees were trusted to make decisions, and culture was treated as an operating system rather than a poster on the wall. Aaron Wolpoff, Chino Nnadi and Melissa Eaton use Noel's experience to examine a much bigger business question: Can a company become more standardized and efficient without becoming too rigid to respond when reality gets messy? The conversation goes deep into UPS's long-running transformation, its volatile relationship with Amazon, the economics of unpredictable volume, the difference between standardizing guardrails and localizing judgment, and why Noel believes the company's biggest competitive advantage is ultimately its culture of ownership. About the guest Noel Massie is a former UPS executive with more than four decades of experience in operations, logistics and leadership. He began working for UPS in 1977 while attending San Jose State University, initially taking a night-loading job to pay for college. He expected to leave UPS after graduation for a position at Hewlett-Packard, but the company convinced him to stay and promoted him into management. Over the course of his UPS career, Massie became a manager, mid-level leader, president of multiple business units and ultimately Vice President of U.S. Delivery Operations. In his final role, he supported the company's domestic presidents and provided perspective on last-mile delivery, P&L, service levels and succession planning. Today, he works as an author, executive coach and leadership consultant. His LinkedIn profile identifies his specialties as executive leadership, operations management, and supply chain & logistics. What you will learn Why UPS's latest restructuring is not actually as sudden as it looks from the outside, and how its current transformation has been developing for years. How UPS went from 76 domestic business-unit presidents to 17, and what that consolidation says about the company's changing operating model. Why Noel believes ownership—not just stock ownership, but decision-making authority—is central to UPS's culture. The hidden cost of having one enormous customer: how Amazon's explosive growth created capacity, staffing and aircraft-planning problems for UPS. Why Amazon's growth eventually forced UPS to rethink the relationship—and why more volume does not automatically mean better business. The operational reality behind Amazon's unpredictable volume, including one period when Noel says UPS needed seven additional aircraft in a single day. Why "UPS doesn't need no supply chain company freight or otherwise [give] free shipping" became an important part of the Amazon conversation. Why the best operating model may be to standardize the guardrails while localizing the judgment. Why Noel describes UPS's culture as a "Yoda culture"—where experienced leaders invest in younger people before expecting results from them. Why companies going through massive change need to make employees feel that they matter more, not less. The leadership blueprint the panel believes other companies can take from UPS: invest in people, expect change, protect autonomy and build ownership. Connect with Noel Massie: LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/noelmassie/ Website - https://noelmassie.com/ Connect With the Show: We Fixed It, You're Welcome Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/wefixeditpod/ LinkedIn - linkedin.com/company/wefixeditpod/ If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to Like, Subscribe, and leave a review. Share it with someone who loves business strategy, operations, leadership, branding, or marketing. Disclaimer A quick disclaimer. We are going into this somewhat cold, and nothing we say should be construed as legal advice, financial advice, or anything that would get us in trouble. These are simply our views and opinions. We're here to ask the kinds of questions everyone is thinking, have engaging conversations, and explore ideas worth discussing. If, by the end, we fixed it... you're welcome. All trademarks, intellectual property, and brand elements discussed remain the property of their respective owners.

Can companies predict the future? Allen Nejah, founder and CEO of SunMan Engineering, joins Aaron Wolpoff and Melissa Eaton on We Fixed It, You're Welcome to explain why he built a connected, voice controlled car dashboard in 2005 and then watched the rest of the industry sell it fifteen years later. This is a conversation about corporate innovation strategy and the distance between a good idea and a good idea at the right time. We get into why only 12% of advanced manufacturing companies ever commercialize an innovation at scale, why 95% of filed patents never earn a dollar, how quarterly earnings pressure quietly shrinks R&D ambition, why a corporate innovation lab has to be funded and measured differently from the rest of the business, and how large companies use patent litigation to push small inventors out of a market. In 2005, Allen Nejah built a touchscreen tablet that lived in a car dashboard, connected to the internet, and answered when you spoke to it. He called the voice assistant Genie. The iPhone did not exist yet. Tablets did not exist yet. The carriers he pitched asked him whether he was trying to get people killed. Twenty years later every car on the lot ships a version of what he built, and he is not the one selling it. Aaron Wolpoff and Melissa Eaton use his story to work through the question sitting underneath every innovation budget: how do you tell an idea that is wrong from an idea that is only early? The conversation runs from Ernst and Young's finding that just 12% of advanced manufacturing companies ever commercialize at scale, through the legal machinery large companies use to squeeze small patent holders out of a market, and lands on a practical playbook for funding, measuring and killing innovation projects without punishing the people who ran them. It is for founders, R&D leads, product people and anyone who has been asked to justify a project that will not pay off this quarter. About the guest Allen Nejah is the founder and CEO of SunMan Engineering, where he has spent more than 35 years doing product development and prototyping across automotive, aerospace, robotics and telecom. His team has delivered over 1,670 projects for clients including IBM, Sony, Samsung and Apple. He is a serial entrepreneur and a professor at San Jose State University, and he holds patents on the connected car technology he started building in 2005. He is currently developing what he describes as the smallest transmission in the world, a robotic transmission his research suggests could increase EV range by 40%. What you will learn Why Allen's 2005 connected car system was allowed only a seven inch screen, and what that reveals about how organisations decide what is possible The two numbers Melissa opens with: 12% of advanced manufacturers commercialize at scale, and 95% of filed patents never earn a dollar How a nonprofit law firm funded by the largest players in an industry can invalidate a small holder's patent, and why Allen was told he could go to jail for owning one Why Allen says engineers build from product to customer, and why reversing that order is the mistake that has cost him millions The case for funding an innovation lab out of the cash cow rather than the operating budget, and giving it milestones instead of company OKRs Why "fail fast" is mostly a slogan when pilots run for eleven years, and what rewarding the kill instead of only the win looks like in practice How Sunman builds its own technology in the idle gaps between client projects, and what that funding model makes possible In this episode: - The driverless car project Allen started in 2005, and the tablet he had to build himself because none existed yet - Why carriers and automakers told him internet in the car would get people killed - The Ernst and Young numbers sitting underneath most failed innovation programs - Why engineers build from product to customer, and why that order has cost him millions - Funding an innovation lab out of the cash cow instead of the operating budget - Rewarding the kill and not just the win, and why "fail fast" usually is not fast - The robotic transmission that could add 40% to EV range, seven years in and still waiting for a window Connect with Allen Nejah LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/allen-nejah/ Connect with We Fixed It, You're Welcome Website: https://www.wefixeditpod.com Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/wefixeditpod LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/wefixeditpod YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@WeFixedItPod If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to Like, Subscribe, and leave a review. Share it with someone who loves business strategy, branding, or marketing. Disclaimer A quick disclaimer. We are going into this somewhat cold, and nothing we say should be construed as legal advice, financial advice, or anything that would get us in trouble. These are simply our views and opinions. We're here to ask the kinds of questions everyone is thinking, have engaging conversations, and explore ideas worth discussing. If, by the end, we fixed it... you're welcome. All trademarks, intellectual property, and brand elements discussed remain the property of their respective owners.

Apple has a new CEO. But should John Ternus try to change Apple — or protect what already works? Chris Deaver, former Apple and Disney leader and co-founder of BraveCore, joins Aaron Wolpoff and Melissa Eaton to unpack one of the biggest questions facing Apple's next chapter: how do you evolve a company without losing the culture that made it great? Chris brings an unusually close perspective to the conversation. He worked in leadership development at Apple and worked extensively with John Ternus over more than a decade as Ternus developed into the leader Apple ultimately chose to succeed Tim Cook. The conversation explores why Steve Jobs and Tim Cook were so different, why that difference actually helped Apple, and why John Ternus doesn't need to become either one. They discuss Apple's collaborative culture, the shift from "Think Different" to "Different Together," the company's approach to AI and privacy, the future of AR, the challenge of creating Apple's next major product category, and the pressure on a new CEO to deliver a "mic drop" moment. Chris also explains why Apple's current transition is less about fixing a broken company and more about preemptively positioning a healthy company for its next phase. In this episode: Why Steve Jobs chose a fundamentally different successor in Tim Cook What Apple actually needs from John Ternus Why culture may be Apple's most important product The shift from "Think Different" to "Different Together" Why Apple promotes people based on principles, not just results The danger of a CEO trying to control every function Apple's "category one" philosophy What Disney's succession problems can teach Apple Why Apple's approach to AI is different Privacy vs. AI's dependence on massive amounts of data Why Apple doesn't need to be first The future of AR glasses What would make consumers actually want Apple's next wearable Why Apple's next major product doesn't have to replace the iPhone The pressure on John Ternus to deliver a major signal Why Apple should preserve its culture while evolving its operating mechanics Why Apple needs to sell the thesis, not just live it What you will learn Why Steve Jobs and Tim Cook were intentionally different leaders Why Apple needs the right leader for the right phase, rather than another Steve Jobs Why Apple's culture may actually be its most important "product" How Apple shifted from **"Think Different" to "Different Together" Why John Ternus's biggest challenge isn't hardware — it's becoming a truly enterprise-wide CEO Why Apple promotes leaders who demonstrate its principles, not just performance How Apple's "category one" philosophy allows leaders to own their expertise while trusting other leaders to own theirs Why CEOs can damage companies by trying to have their hands in everything What Apple's approach to AI reveals about its commitment to privacy Why Apple may deliberately refuse to be first in AI Why "we don't care about being the first, we care about being the best" is central to Apple's strategy Why AR could become Apple's next meaningful product category What Apple needs to prove before consumers will actually want AR glasses Why Apple's biggest challenge may be explaining the use case, not building the technology Why the pressure for a "mic drop" product announcement could become a problem for Ternus What Apple can learn from its failed succession stories Why Chris sees the current situation as preemptive positioning rather than fixing a broken company Why Ternus needs to become a deeper collaborator rather than trying to impose a singular vision Why Apple should "sell the thesis, don't just live it" Why the best future for Apple may involve preserving its culture while changing the mechanics around it Notable quotes "The culture is the gift that keeps on giving." — Chris Deaver "For Apple, incremental is revolutionary." — Chris Deaver "Apple's always been a company that is first about getting the principles right." — Chris Deaver "We don't care about being the first, we care about being the best." — Chris Deaver "You don't want to be educating the consumer about this. You want them to experience it." — Chris Deaver "There's not really a broken per se." — Chris Deaver "It's almost a preemptive, like, let's not let it break." — Chris Deaver "Do you really wanna rush Michelangelo's sculpture?" — Chris Deaver About our guest Chris Deaver is the co-founder of BraveCore, a leadership and culture consultancy focused on helping organizations build cultures around co-creation and collaboration. His LinkedIn describes his work as spanning two decades inside organizations including Apple and Disney Connect with Chris Deaver: Linkedin -  LinkedIn Website -  BraveCore Connect with We Fixed It , You're Welcome: Website-  https://www.wefixeditpod.com Instagram -  https://www.instagram.com/wefixeditpod Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/company/wefixeditpod YouTube -https://www.youtube.com/@WeFixedItPod If you liked this episode, don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with your friends! Keep listening to find out how we fix companies and put them back better than we found them. Disclaimer A quick disclaimer. We are going into this somewhat cold and nothing we say should be construed as legal advice, financial advice or anything that would get us in trouble. These are our views and opinions. We’re here to ask the kinds of questions everyone’s thinking, have an engaging conversation and maybe come to some conclusions that we feel are worth exploring. By the end, if we fixed it, you’re welcome. All trademarks, IP and brand elements discussed are property of their respective owners.

What happens when one of America's most iconic snack brands becomes a multi-billion-dollar acquisition that’s not as sweet as it once seemed? In this episode of We Fixed It, You're Welcome, the team tackles Smucker's $5.6 billion acquisition of Hostess and asks why beloved brands like Twinkies, Ho Hos, Ding Dongs, and Donettes have struggled since joining the Smucker's portfolio. Joining the discussion is Rebeca Johnson, former VP of Marketing at Frito-Lay and a veteran CMO who has spent decades transforming legacy brands. Together, our panel explores why operational fit matters just as much as brand equity, how evolving consumer habits have reshaped the snack aisle, and what Smucker's could do to turn the Hostess situation around. In this episode: Why Smucker's acquisition has struggled despite Hostess' iconic status The operational mismatch between grocery and convenience store distribution Why nostalgia alone can't revive legacy brands How healthier consumer preferences changed the snack category The importance of shopper psychology and shelf placement Our own product innovation ideas including healthier Twinkies and Smucker's-inspired flavors Why great acquisitions fail despite strong financial models How social media, influencer marketing, and cultural relevance could revive Hostess The team's complete turnaround strategy for one of America's most recognizable snack brands If you enjoy lively conversations about business strategy, branding, marketing, operations, acquisitions, and customer experience, this episode is for you. Connect With the Show Subscribe for more deep dives where we fix big business problems with fresh perspectives. 🌐 Websitewww.wefixeditpod.com 📲 Follow Us Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/wefixeditpod LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/wefixeditpod YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@WeFixedItPod If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to Like, Subscribe, and leave a review. Share it with someone who loves business strategy, branding, or marketing. Disclaimer A quick disclaimer. We are going into this somewhat cold, and nothing we say should be construed as legal advice, financial advice, or anything that would get us in trouble. These are simply our views and opinions. We're here to ask the kinds of questions everyone is thinking, have engaging conversations, and explore ideas worth discussing. If, by the end, we fixed it... you're welcome. All trademarks, intellectual property, and brand elements discussed remain the property of their respective owners.

Research suggests that 30–50% of today’s work tasks could technically be automated. And yet most of us feel busier than ever. So what’s going on? In this episode, we sit down with author, AI strategist, and business coach Steve Ferman to unpack the “automation irony”: the more tools and systems we add, the less time we seem to get back. Instead of blaming the technology, we dig into the real blockers—governance gaps, cultural resistance, change management failures, rising expectations, and leadership blind spots that prevent automation from delivering the relief it promises. This isn’t an anti-AI episode. It’s a pro-leadership one. About Our Guest Steve Ferman is a tech executive, AI strategist, and certified Scaling Up business coach with over 40 years of experience building, scaling, buying, and selling technology companies. Learn more: https://4pillarcoach.com Key Topics & Takeaways Why automation isn’t a tech problem — it’s an operations problem AI sprawl and shadow AI inside organizations The danger of implementing tools without governance or guardrails Why efficiency gains often lead to raised quotas, not reduced workload The “walled garden trap” and siloed automation efforts How automation quietly shifts burden upstream and creates hidden burnout Why layoffs blamed on AI increase fear and stall adoption The cultural gap between automation promise and employee experience The need for executive alignment before tool selection Why adoption requires enablement, not just software licenses The Core Insight Automation is not failing. Leadership strategy is. Companies often start with the solution — buying the newest AI tool — instead of identifying the operational bottlenecks they actually need to solve. Without executive buy-in, guardrails, and employee engagement, automation simply becomes another layer of work. And when time is saved? Organizations often fill it immediately with more output expectations, reinforcing the productivity paradox instead of relieving it. Strategic Fixes Proposed 1️⃣ Start with Operations, Not Software AI should solve clearly defined operational friction, not chase trends. Diagnose before you deploy. 2️⃣ Build Governance Early Create AI councils, guardrails, usage policies, and clear expectations. Avoid AI sprawl. 3️⃣ Ask Employees First “What are two tasks you hate doing?” Automate those first to build trust and momentum. 4️⃣ Protect Reclaimed Time Hard-code reclaimed hours into the operating model. Allocate portions to: Innovation Upskilling Strategic thinking Reduced workload 5️⃣ Redefine Productivity More output is not always better output. Innovation, morale, and long-term sustainability matter. 6️⃣ Treat AI Like a New Colleague Onboard it. Train around it. Clarify when human judgment overrides automation. 7️⃣ Keep Humans in the Loop AI lacks empathy, emotional intelligence, and true reasoning. The human element remains essential. Who This Episode Is For Executives implementing AI initiatives HR and People & Culture leaders Founders and startup operators Technology and operations leaders Anyone feeling busier despite automation The Big Question This Episode Answers Is automation actually freeing us, or are we just running faster on the same wheel? Final Take Automation can absolutely give us time back. But only if leaders resist the temptation to immediately reinvest every reclaimed minute into higher output expectations. The real opportunity isn’t just efficiency. It’s reinvention. If done right, automation shifts work from execution to strategy, from repetition to creativity, from burnout to innovation. But that shift requires intentional leadership, cultural clarity, and guardrails. Otherwise, we're stuck with the burden of knowing we'll never catch up, no matter how many time-saving tools we add. Subscribe for more deep dives where we fix big business problems with fresh perspectives. Steve Ferman: https://www.linkedin.com/company/4-pillar-coach/  • Website – www.wefixeditpod.com • Follow us on: Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/wefixeditpod LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/company/wefixeditpod YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@WeFixedItPod If you liked this episode, don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with your friends! Keep listening to find out how we fix companies and put them back better than we found them. Disclaimer A quick disclaimer. We are going into this somewhat cold and nothing we say should be construed as legal advice, financial advice or anything that would get us in trouble. These are our views and opinions. We're here to ask the kinds of questions everyone's thinking. Have an engaging conversation and maybe come to some conclusions that we feel are worth exploring. By the end, if we fixed it, you're welcome. All trademarks, IP and brand elements discussed are property of their respective owners. See Privacy Policy at ⁠https://art19.com/privacy⁠ and California Privacy Notice at ⁠https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info⁠.

In this episode of "We Fixed It. You're Welcome," the hosts explore cultural and product differences between the United States and Canada. They discuss unique Canadian offerings like specialty sauces at Subway, higher quality fast food, and distinctive snack flavors. The conversation delves into consumer preferences, brand loyalty, and government regulations affecting product quality and availability. The hosts examine why some American brands struggle to expand into Canada and vice versa, highlighting the importance of understanding local markets. They also touch on the impact of government monopolies on alcohol sales in Ontario and the potential for cross-border product exchanges. The episode concludes with recommendations for Americans to explore Canadian products and for businesses to consider expansion strategies carefully. See Privacy Policy at ⁠https://art19.com/privacy⁠ and California Privacy Notice at ⁠https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info⁠.

Are too many people being promoted into leadership roles? As a result, are companies becoming too top heavy? If we’ve created a system that values managers over executers, is this a recipe for disaster? In this episode, we’re joined by Ron Hetrick, Principal Economist at Lightcast and one of the most influential labor economists in the country. Together, we unpack one of the most important questions facing today’s labor market: whether modern organizations are overloaded with managers and what that means for productivity, hiring, layoffs, and career paths. Drawing on decades of labor market research and macro workforce data, Ron explains why middle managers are often the first cut during layoffs, how that decision can negatively impact companies, and why a contributor-based evaluation might be a better approach. This dynamic conversation digs into provocative questions we’re all asking, challenges assumptions, and poses some very real solutions about improving our collective thinking about the labor force. If organizations want stability, they must create career ladders where experts can grow financially without being pushed into management roles if it creates misalignment. As Ron explains during the episode: The farther your role is from creating revenue or protecting margin, the harder it becomes to justify during restructuring. About the Guest: Ron Hetrick Ron Hetrick is a leading labor economist and Principal Economist at Lightcast. He previously worked at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and advises Fortune 100 companies, policymakers, and workforce strategists.Subscribe for more deep dives where we fix big business problems with fresh perspectives. • Website – www.wefixeditpod.com • Follow us on: Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/wefixeditpod LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/company/wefixeditpod YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@WeFixedItPod If you liked this episode, don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with your friends! Keep listening to find out how we fix companies and put them back better than we found them. Disclaimer A quick disclaimer. We are going into this somewhat cold and nothing we say should be construed as legal advice, financial advice or anything that would get us in trouble. These are our views and opinions. We're here to ask the kinds of questions everyone's thinking, have an engaging conversation and maybe come to some conclusions that we feel are worth exploring. By the end, if we fixed it, you're welcome. All trademarks, IP and brand elements discussed are property of their respective owners.

For generations, a bite of a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup meant one thing: Milk chocolate. Real peanut butter. That unmistakable taste. Now, many loyal fans say something is different. In this episode, we sit down with Brad Reese, grandson of H. B. Reese and self-appointed “Protector of Reese’s Brand Integrity,” to unpack a controversy that has caught the world’s attention. Brad and others are upset about the current quality of Reese’s products under Hershey’s control, pointing to a shift in taste and either proven or alleged ingredient swaps.  Emotions are high - people love Reese’s. They want real answers. This isn’t just about candy. It’s about trust, heritage, and a beloved company at a cultural tension point with its best customers. What Sparked the Controversy? Brad published an open letter to Hershey’s on LinkedIn calling out what he and many consumers observed: Certain varieties no longer list milk chocolate Some now use “chocolate candy,” “chocolatey coating,” or compound coating Peanut butter replaced in some products with “peanut butter creme” Ingredient changes implemented quietly, without announcement While The Hershey Company has publicly stated that core ingredients have not changed, consumers began comparing labels and conducting side-by-side taste tests online. The consumer pushback and Hershey’s response quickly went viral, drawing attention from major media outlets and even commentary from MrBeast while promoting his own line of Feastibles. A Powerful Quote from Brad “They’re stooping for pennies and passing up dollars.” Subscribe for more deep dives where we fix big business problems with fresh perspectives. Brad Reese https://www.linkedin.com/in/bradreesecom/ • Website – www.wefixeditpod.com • Follow us on: Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/wefixeditpod LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/company/wefixeditpod YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@WeFixedItPod If you liked this episode, don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with your friends! Keep listening to find out how we fix companies and put them back better than we found them. Disclaimer A quick disclaimer. We are going into this somewhat cold and nothing we say should be construed as legal advice, financial advice or anything that would get us in trouble. These are our views and opinions. We're here to ask the kinds of questions everyone's thinking. Have an engaging conversation and maybe come to some conclusions that we feel are worth exploring. By the end, if we fixed it, you're welcome. All trademarks, IP and brand elements discussed are property of their respective owners. See Privacy Policy at ⁠https://art19.com/privacy⁠ and California Privacy Notice at ⁠https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info⁠.

What a season it's been! In the Season 3 finale, Aaron, Melissa, and Chino reflect on the biggest lessons, favorite guests, and most memorable fixes from an incredible run of problem-solving. We dig into three popular topics to see what's changed over time, and to add new observations and suggestions that are exclusive to this episode. Melissa revisits Hired or Hustled?, where the team originally exposed unethical recruiters and job search scams. Since then, AI-powered deepfakes, fake candidates, and sophisticated employment fraud have transformed hiring into an even bigger trust problem. The conversation explores why verification has become more important than instinct and what both companies and job seekers must do to stay protected. Aaron brings back one of the internet's most unforgettable branding moments: McDonald's CEO Chris Kempczinski's awkward burger video. Was it simply a bad day, or a missed opportunity to turn self-awareness into brilliant marketing? The panel explores how modern CEOs should approach public visibility and why embracing mistakes can sometimes strengthen a brand. Chino follows up on the viral Japanese 7-Eleven egg salad sandwich experiment after experiencing it firsthand in Canada. While the product generated enormous online buzz, the rollout highlighted a deeper lesson: successful products can't simply be copied into new markets without adapting to local consumer behavior. The team discusses why experience matters more than imitation and how 7-Eleven still has the opportunity to evolve in a creative way. The episode also features a brand-new listener submission about reinventing the Home Depot shopping experience through smarter technology, AI-assisted associates, and better customer service. The discussion highlights the show's recurring theme that the best solutions often combine technology with human expertise rather than replacing it. Finally, Aaron, Melissa, and Chino close out Season 3 by thanking listeners, reflecting on what they've learned from each other and their guests, and teasing what's coming in Season 4, including conversations about sports, space, the future, and many more problems waiting to be fixed. Connect With the Show Subscribe for more deep dives where we fix big business problems with fresh perspectives. • Website – www.wefixeditpod.com • Follow us on: Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/wefixeditpod LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/company/wefixeditpod YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@WeFixedItPod If you liked this episode, don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with your friends! Keep listening to find out how we fix companies and put them back better than we found them. Disclaimer A quick disclaimer. We are going into this somewhat cold and nothing we say should be construed as legal advice, financial advice or anything that would get us in trouble. These are our views and opinions. We’re here to ask the kinds of questions everyone’s thinking, have an engaging conversation and maybe come to some conclusions that we feel are worth exploring. By the end, if we fixed it, you’re welcome. All trademarks, IP and brand elements discussed are property of their respective owners.