This is a preview of a research report from BI Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service. To learn more about BI Intelligence, click here.

What is eSports? History & Rise of Video Game Tournaments

Years ago, eSports was a community of video gamers who would gather at conventions to play Counter Strike, Call of Duty, or League of Legends.

These multiplayer video game competitions would determine League of Legends champions, the greatest shooters in Call of Duty, the cream of the crop of Street Fighter players, the elite Dota 2 competitors, and more.

But today, as the history of eSports continue to unfold, media giants such as ESPN and Turner are broadcasting eSports tournaments and competitions. And in 2014, Amazon acquired Twitch, the live streaming video platform that has been and continues to be the leader in online gaming broadcasts. And YouTube also wanted to jump on the live streaming gaming community with the creation of YouTube Gaming.

eSports Market Growth Booming

To put in perspective how big eSports is becoming, a Google search for "lol" does not produce "laughing out loud" as the top result. Instead, it points to League of Legends, one of the most popular competitive games in existence. The game has spawned a worldwide community called the League of Legends Championship Series, more commonly known as LCS or LOL eSports.

What started as friends gathering in each other's homes to host LAN parties and play into the night has become an official network of pro gaming tournaments and leagues with legitimate teams, some of which are even sponsored and have international reach. Organizations such as Denial, AHQ, and MLG have multiple eSports leagues.

And to really understand the scope of all this, consider that the prize pool for the latest Dota 2 tournament was more than $20 million.

Websites even exist for eSports live scores to let people track the competitions in real time if they are unable to watch. There are even fantasy eSports leagues similar to fantasy football, along with the large and growing scene of eSports betting and gambling.

So it's understandable why traditional media companies would want to capitalize on this growing trend just before it floods into the mainstream. Approximately 300 million people worldwide tune in to eSports today, and that number is growing rapidly. By 2020, that number will be closer to 500 million.

eSports Industry Analysis - The Future of the Competitive Gaming Market

Financial institutions are starting to take notice. Goldman Sachs valued eSports at $500 million in 2016 and expects the market will grow at 22% annually compounded over the next three years into a more than $1 billion opportunity.

And industry statistics are already backing this valuation and demonstrating the potential for massive earnings. To illustrate the market value, market growth, and potential earnings for eSports, consider Swedish media company Modern Times Group's $87 million acquisition of Turtle Entertainment, the holding company for ESL. YouTube has made its biggest eSports investment to date by signing a multiyear broadcasting deal with Faceit to stream the latter's Esports Championship Series. And the NBA will launch its own eSports league in 2018.

Of course, as with any growing phenomenon, the question becomes: How do advertisers capitalize? This is especially tricky for eSports because of its audience demographics, which is young, passionate, male-dominated, and digital-first. They live online and on social media, are avid ad-blockers, and don't watch traditional TV or respond to conventional advertising.

So what will the future of eSports look like? How high can it climb? Could it reach the mainstream popularity of baseball or football? How will advertisers be able to reach an audience that does its best to shield itself from advertising?

Robert Elder, research analyst for BI Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service, has compiled an unparalleled report on the eSports ecosystem that dissects the growing market for competitive gaming. This comprehensive, industry-defining report contains more than 30 charts and figures that forecast audience growth, average revenue per user, and revenue growth.

Companies and organizations mentioned in the report include: NFL, NBA, English Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, NHL, Paris Saint-Germain, Ligue 1, Ligue de Football, Twitch, Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, ESPN, Electronic Arts, EA Sports, Valve, Riot Games, Activision Blizzard, ESL, Turtle Entertainment, Dreamhack, Modern Times Group, Turner Broadcasting, TBS Network, Vivendi, Canal Plus, Dailymotion, Disney, BAMTech, Intel, Coca Cola, Red Bull, HTC, Mikonet

Here are some eSports industry facts and statistics from the report:

• eSports is a still nascent industry filled with commercial opportunity.
• There are a variety of revenue streams that companies can tap into.
• The market is presently undervalued and has significant room to grow.
• The dynamism of this market distinguishes it from traditional sports.
• The audience is high-value and global, and its numbers are rising.
• Brands can prosper in eSports by following the appropriate game plan.
• Game publishers approach their Esport ecosystems in different ways.  
• Successful esport games are comprised of the same basic ingredients.
• Digital streaming platforms are spearheading the popularity of eSports.
• Legacy media are investing into eSports, and seeing encouraging results.
• Traditional sports franchises have a clear opportunity to seize in eSports.
• Virtual and augmented reality firms also stand to benefit from eSports.  

In full, the report illuminates the business of eSports from four angles:

• The gaming nucleus of eSports, including an overview of popular esport genres and games; the influence of game publishers, and the spectrum of strategies they adopt toward their respective esport scenes; the role of eSports event producers and the tournaments they operate.
• The eSports audience profile, its size, global reach, and demographic, psychographic, and behavioral attributes; the underlying factors driving its growth; why they are an attractive target for brands and broadcasters; and the significant audience and commercial crossover with traditional sports.
• eSports media broadcasters, including digital avant-garde like Twitch and YouTube, newer digital entrants like Facebook and traditional media outlets like Turner’s TBS Network, ESPN, and Canal Plus; their strategies and successes in this space; and the virtual reality opportunity.
• eSports market economics, with a market sizing, growth forecasts, and regional analyses; an evaluation of the eSports spectacle and its revenue generators, some of which are idiosyncratic to this industry; strategic planning for brand marketers, with case studies; and an exploration of the infinite dynamism and immense potential of the eSports economy.

Interested in getting the full report? Here are two ways to access it:

1. Subscribe to an All-Access pass to BI Intelligence and gain immediate access to this report and over 100 other expertly researched reports. As an added bonus, you'll also gain access to all future reports and daily newsletters to ensure you stay ahead of the curve and benefit personally and professionally. >> START A MEMBERSHIP
2. Purchase & download the full report from our research store. >> BUY THE REPORT

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Sean Astin talks about the most shocking scene from ‘Stranger Things 2’

• "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" will be the longest film in "Star Wars" history, director Rian Johnson announced.
• "The Last Jedi" will clock in at 150 minutes, including credits. 
• It opens December 15.

The upcoming movie "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" will be the longest film in the history of the "Star Wars" franchise, the film's director Rian Johnson said on Friday. 

In a press conference, Johnson announced that movie's runtime will be two hours and thirty minutes (including credits), according to The Playlist. 

At 150 minutes, its runtime surpasses the previous longest film in the franchise, George Lucas' 2002 prequel "Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones," which clocked in at 142 minutes.

The last two films in the franchise, "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" and "Rogue One," were 135 and 133 minutes long, respectively.

"Star Wars: The Last Jedi" opens on December 15.

Watch the trailer below:

SEE ALSO: The 50 best movies of all time, according to critics

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: These realistic animations will mess with your mind

Mario is on the verge of starring in his biggest game in years.

Forget about that smartphone game — "Super Mario Odyssey" is a massive, insanely-good, open-world Mario game. And it's only available on Nintendo's Switch.

Though there are plenty of games on all three major game consoles this holiday, a few blockbusters are exclusive to each. Starting with "Super Mario Odyssey," we've put together the three heavy-hitter "exclusive" games for Sony's PlayStation 4, Microsoft's Xbox One, and Nintendo's Switch console this holiday season.

SEE ALSO: 6 reasons you should buy a Nintendo Switch instead of a PlayStation 4 or Xbox One this year

1. "Super Mario Odyssey" on the Nintendo Switch

Just as "The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild" was a massive evolution of the long-running, celebrated "Legend of Zelda" franchise, "Super Mario Odyssey" challenges and evolve the "Super Mario" formula.

"Super Mario Odyssey" is an open-world, nonlinear game starring Mario. That means you're not running from a beginning point to, say, a flagpole. We're talking big open worlds that are packed with details: secret areas to find, puzzles to solve, and — bizarrely — even some old-school 2D Mario thrown in for good measure. Seriously!

This is an area you enter, and play, in "Super Mario Odyssey":

Instead of reaching an endpoint, your goal in "Super Mario Odyssey" is to collect moons, of which there are many in each world. The closest comparison is to "Super Mario 64." It may be too early to call it, and there are a dozen other incredible games this year, but "Super Mario Odyssey" — to me — is the game to get this holiday season.

Check out our review of the game right here.

Check out "Super Mario Odyssey" in action right here:

Youtube Embed:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/wGQHQc_3ycE
Width: 800px
Height: 450px

2. "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds" on the Xbox One/Xbox One X

"PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds" boasts a bizarre name and a brilliant concept: 100 people on a massive island, armed with their wits and a scattered arsenal, fighting to the death. Whoever survives at the end of the match wins — and there can only be one.

Each match of "Battlegrounds" starts the same way: You're in a derelict airplane with 100 other actual people; as you fly over a deserted island you're able to choose where you'll parachute down. Since you're unarmed, if you land near anyone it's up to you to choose whether to run (an attempt to arm yourself and/or escape) or to fight (with your fists!) to death. As the match progresses, the area of the island you're able to occupy shrinks — thus forcing you closer and closer to your opponents.

It sounds intense because it is intense. There is no single-player, no "campaign" mode. Just the terrifying island and 100 actual people.

OF NOTE: This game is an "exclusive" insofar as it's only coming to the Xbox One this holiday season. The game is already available, albeit unfinished, on the PC; it will also head to the PlayStation 4 further down the line, though it's not clear when.

Release date: December 12

• Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi," the world's most-expensive painting, was auctioned off for a staggering $450 million.
• You can't rush art.

The world's most expensive painting was auctioned off at a staggering price of $450 million Wednesday, offering a glimpse not only at the supposed artwork of a world-renowned artist, but the prohibitively expensive world of art.

Bidding on Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi," which translates to "Savior of the World," opened at $70 million, but increased almost immediately to $95 million. The 26-inch-tall depiction of Christ dates back to around 1500, and is one of the fewer than 20 artworks in existence that is generally accepted to be from Leonardo da Vinci.

As the price went up, agents could be seen frantically discussing the developments over the phone with their clients. During the proceeding, Jussi Pylkkänen, Christie's Global President and auctioneer for the sale, made a few classy quips during the process.

"Are we all done," Pylkkänen coolly asked the room at one point, gesturing toward the busy agents. "Maybe not, don't take the photograph quite yet."

"Will you give me 290," Pylkkänen asked one of the agents.

"300," the agent replied.

"I thought so," Pylkkänen said, amid gasps and applause. "$300 million. Let's see if that's done it."

But the bidders weren't done. Nearly 20 minutes after the start of the auction, the last bid was finalized with an audible smash of Pylkkänen's gavel. A buyer's premium and fees would eventually be tacked on to the final bid, bringing the total price to $450,312,500.

Around 1,000 people were reportedly packed into Christie's Auction House in New York to bear witness to the historic event, while thousands more watched a live-stream. The video now has more than 1.5 million views.

"It is every auctioneer's ambition to sell a Leonardo and likely the only chance I will ever have,' Pylkkänen said, according to Christie's. "It's the pinnacle of my career so far."

"The excitement from the public for this work of art has been overwhelming and hugely heartening."

Watch the video here:

SEE ALSO: Rare Leonardo da Vinci painting sells for record $450 million

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We just got a super smart and simple explanation of what a bitcoin fork actually is

• Vine's creators are behind HQ Trivia, a unique trivia-style app that around 60,000 people play twice a day.
• HQ Trivia is run like a game show, with two live game sessions each day at 3pm ET and 6pm ET. Winners are allotted real cash prizes, and it's free to participate.

HQ Trivia is quickly becoming one of the most buzz-worthy gaming apps on the market: a trivia-styled, fast-paced mashup of 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire' and 'Jeopardy' for the internet age.

HQ Trivia doesn't work like other gaming apps you might have played: it's free to play, but hands out real cash prizes if you win. Another big difference from its competition is that you can't play whenever you'd like: You can only play HQ Trivia twice a day, when the app streams a video with a live game show host who rattles off questions in real time against a swirling polka-dot background 

The app sends push notifications when the game is about to start; everyday at 3 p.m. ET and 9 p.m ET. There's a countdown, and then the round begins with a series of multiple-choice questions that draw from historical events, literary devices, celebrity knowledge, and more. The few times I played, I wasn't able to get beyond the fifth question, but other players were luckier: one game divvied up $1,000 between 8 winners (that's $125 per person), and the app's co-founder, Rus Yusupov, has plans to up the ante. "I'd love to give away a million dollars someday," Yusupov told Business Insider.

This isn't Yusupov's first foray into video apps ―  he was a key player in the development of Vine in 2012. One of Vine's co-founders, Colin Kroll, also joined Yusupov's venture into gaming, and Yusupov says the hype surrounding HQ Trivia is similar to the success Vine experienced early on. 

You'll typically find about 60,000 players tuning into a single game on HQ Trivia, with varying cash prizes awarded. 

Here's how HQ Trivia works:

All you'll need to sign up for HQ Trivia is a unique username and your phone number. The app will prompt you to allow notifications when you sign up, which is recommended if you don't want to miss out on future games.

Each day at 3pm ET and 9pm ET, there's a notification and a countdown begins. Players can participate in the strolling chat at the bottom of the screen while they wait for the game to begin.

You'll find the number of participants indicated in the upper left of the screen. When the game is about to start, the host welcomes the players Wheel of Fortune-style.

• Rob Huebel and actor Justin Long disrobed to film a scene on a nude beach for Huebel's YouTube Red series "Do You Want to See a Dead Body?" 
• Huebel said that beachgoers immediately started filming them, and the producers had to convince them to stop.
• The series is out now, and some episodes are free to watch.

While filming an episode of his new YouTube Red series, "Do You Want to See a Dead Body?," comedian Rob Huebel had to get his producers to sway people not to sell naked videos of him and actor Justin Long to TMZ.

Huebel's "Do You Want to See a Dead Body?" follows a fictionalized version of the comedian as he swindles celebrities into hanging out, with the promise that he'll find them a dead body to look at. In one episode, Huebel convinces Long to trek across a nude beach with him to look at a dead body that has washed ashore.

Huebel told Business Insider that he and Long actually had to be nude while filming on the nude beach. 

After he and Long disrobed, Huebel said that beachgoers immediately took out their cameras and started filming them. 

"We had to shoot this scene on a nude beach, and you know it's pretty humiliating getting nude out on the beach," Huebel said. "But Justin was just a really good sport about it, and we talked him into it. And of course as soon as we take our clothes off everyone on the beach starts filming us with their cameras, and it was really embarrassing."

Huebel said he had to ask the shows producers to "run around and go up to all these strangers on the beach" to convince them not to post any videos of them on the internet, or sell them to TMZ. Luckily, Huebel and his producers were successful and videos of him and Long nude on the beach have yet to surface.

You can watch all 15 episodes of "Do You Want to See a Dead Body?" on YouTube Red now. While the YouTube Red subscription is $9.99 a month, some episodes are marked as "free" for anyone to watch.

Watch the first episode of "Do You Want to See a Dead Body?" here:

SEE ALSO: Under fire for pointing kids to disturbing videos, YouTube promises to put in place new age restrictions

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's why people are afraid of clowns — and what you can do to get over it

• Roku has tripled since going public in late September, spiking on Monday after reporting sales that beat Wall Street estimates.
• Traders betting against Roku have lost more than $100 million since the company's initial public offering.

When it comes to television these days, it never pays to bet against the cord cutters.

Traders in the newly public Roku are finding that out the hard way.

They've piled into wagers against the company as the stock — which started trading on September 27 — has tripled in price. That surge to $42 a share from the initial public offering price of $14 has resulted in $108 million in mark-to-market losses for short sellers, according to data compiled by the financial-analytics firm S3 Partners.

That includes a $48.5 million loss on Monday alone as Roku shares climbed by as much as 28%, riding the momentum of a better-than-expected earnings report, S3 data shows. With sales that beat Wall Street estimates, Roku is giving investors confidence it is making progress on its plan to evolve from a commodity hardware company into an advertising business.

While short interest — a measure of bets that a stock will fall — has multiplied since Roku's IPO, it surprisingly has stayed mostly unchanged in November. To S3, this means traders haven't been taking profits on short positions, which in turn suggests that the recent move higher is due to outright bullish sentiment. That's a good sign for a company like Roku, which is navigating a crowded field of digital competitors.

And if you're looking at Roku's elevated price and thinking now's a good time to get short, you may be sorely disappointed. S3 points out that the number of shares available for lending is starting to dwindle, which is driving up costs.

"If shorts begin to eat into this tight inventory and increase their positions we can expect stock borrow rates to increase quickly," Ihor Dusaniwsky, the managing director of predictive analytics at S3, wrote in a client note.

Trader attention will now shift to full-year 2017 results. Roku says it's now on track to bring in $500 million in sales this year, which would be a 20% increase from 2016. If they're unable to achieve that, it would lead to relief for struggling short sellers.

For reference, here's a breakdown of Roku short positions:

SEE ALSO: Tech stocks once again look unstoppable

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Nintendo is dominating like the old days

If you grew up in the '80s, you probably have watched Richard Donner's classic film "The Goonies" a number of times. But there's an infamous scene that was cut from the original theatrical release that you might not know about. We spoke with Sean Astin at the Sharper Image pop-up shop in Times Square to hear more about the scene and how it actually makes a lot of sense considering a certain line at the end of the movie. Following is a transcript of the video.

 Sean Astin: When you talk about "Goonies," it's 30-something years of people's enjoyment of the movie and the kind of fandom that won't go anywhere.

It's just there. People love it. And they love it with their kids. And then when their kids get older, they grow up on it.

Mikey: Hi Willy. You've been expecting me.

Sean Astin: Some people who really follow it know that there was an octopus sequence at the end of the movie, before we left the pirate ship chamber, where a giant, "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" size octopus starts attacking us, and a couple of the kids fend it off.

But it didn't look that good, so they didn't leave it in the film.

Stef: Aggghhh!

Data: Giant sushi!

Sean Astin: But the clue is that Data, Ke Huy Quan's character, when the police ask us what happened, he leads with, "The octopus was very scary."

Man: What happened out there? Were your lives in danger?

Data: The octopus was very scary.

Man: Octopus?

Data: Yeah, it was very dangerous.

Sean Astin: And then I'm like ... I don't know how I feel about the fact that they left it in. Because it's funny. But it's annoying, because it doesn't ...

Apparently there's a version of the movie that you can get on DVD or whatever, where you can see the octopus sequence. And I must say, I've never seen it.

Join the conversation about this story »

How much do critics matter?

For many TV shows, it seems like not that much. In fact, some of the most critically panned TV shows on the air are the most loved by audiences, and have big ratings.

We already collected a list of some new fall TV shows from 2017 that critics hate (but normal people love), and noticed huge differences in other popular shows as well. So we collected a longer list of current TV shows critics don't like, but everyone else loves enough to tune in every week — or to binge-watch on Netflix.

We used critic and audience scores from Rotten Tomatoes to judge, and some the differences are staggering.

Here are popular TV shows that critics hate, but audiences love:

SEE ALSO: 6 new fall TV shows that critics hate, but normal people love

21. "MacGyver" — CBS

Critic rating: 26%

Audience rating: 54%

Difference: 28%

Description: A resourceful former special forces operative is recruited into a clandestine organization.

20. "Bull" — CBS

Critic rating: 24%

Audience rating: 68%

Difference: 44%

Description: A renowned psychologist heads a prolific trial consulting service in this drama series based on the early career of Dr. Phil McGraw.

19. "S.W.A.T." — CBS

Critic rating: 45%

Audience rating: 68%

Difference: 23%

Description: A S.W.A.T. leader is torn between loyalty to the streets and duty to his fellow officers.

• Host of PBS' hit series "Finding Your Roots" Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. helps different celebrities trace their family tree.
• Dr. Gates has helped trace the family trees of celebrities like Scarlet Johansen, and Larry David.

When Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. isn't teaching classes at Harvard University, he's spending his nights and weekends working on his wildly popular PBS series "Finding Your Roots."

The self-proclaimed "genealogy Santa Claus" creates family trees for celebrities like Scarlett Johansen and Larry David on his series, which has now entered its fourth season.

Dr. Gates spoke to Business Insider, about the work that goes into crafting a family tree on "Finding Your Roots," how he learned that Larry David and Bernie Sanders are related, and why he thinks people are so fascinated with their ancestry.

Dr. Gates says it can take anywhere from a couple of months to a year to trace someone's family tree on the series, and that the process is a combined effort.

The "Finding Your Roots" production research staff combs through records and public documents, while the famous Broad Institute at Harvard analyzes DNA independently.

And it was through DNA analysis that Dr. Gates made one of his most striking discoveries on the series: comedian Larry David and politician Bernie Sanders are related.

"We're sitting there fantasizing, going, 'Wouldn't it be wild if we found out they were related?' And everybody goes, 'Man that would be too much.' And then we found out they were," Dr. Gates said about the discovery.

The promotional clip of David and Sanders shocked to learn that they're genetic cousins went viral at the beginning of October - in large part because David has recently become known for his spot on Sanders impersonation on "Saturday Night Live."

The diligent work of Dr. Gates and his staff is one of the primary reasons that "Finding Your Roots" now has an expansive list of celebrities dying to be on it.

People are intrigued by the past, and according to Dr. Gates no one really knows much about their own.

But beyond curiosity, Dr. Gates finds that anxiety about the future often propels people to look into their past.

"People have so much anxiety about the future, so they want to anchor themselves in the past, and not by taking a course in world history, or American history, but in taking the course of their own family history," Dr. Gates said.

Although it's unclear if Dr. Gates' guests on "Finding Your Roots" are able to quell their anxieties about the future, Dr. Gates said that they almost always end up having a far more comprehensive understanding of the struggles their ancestors endured.

SEE ALSO: Watch Paul Rudd discuss the real reason his Jewish ancestors changed their last name

SEE ALSO: Watch Larry David and Bernie Sanders react to the news that they're actually cousins

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's why people are afraid of clowns — and what you can do to get over it

Tennis superstar Serena Williams and Reddit cofounder Alexis Ohanian wed on November 16, 2017. The couple met about two years ago and have a two-month-old daughter.

The wedding was spectacular — from the guest list (Beyonce and Ciara were in attendance), to the extravagant designer dresses that Williams wore, to the dance performance the couple put on for their guests.

Take a look at the photos below to get a glimpse of the lavish affair.

SEE ALSO: How Reddit cofounder Alexis Ohanian and tennis superstar Serena Williams met and fell in love

Serena Williams and Alexis Ohanian met in May 2015, at the Hotel Cavalieri in Rome. At the time, Williams had never heard of Reddit and Ohanian knew little about tennis. But Ohanian said he knew he wanted to marry Williams by April 2016. He proposed in December.

Instagram Embed:
http://instagram.com/p/BO7GowHgP6_/embed/
Width: 658px

Source: Business Insider

The couple welcomed their daughter, Alexis Olympia Ohanian Jr., in September 2017. Here's Williams holding her before the wedding.

Instagram Embed:
http://instagram.com/p/Bbns0txnejG/embed/
Width: 658px

 Source: Business Insider

"The venue — the Contemporary Arts Center of New Orleans — was a decision we both made," Williams told Vogue. "Painting and art is something I'm really passionate about, so it just felt natural and different to do it at a contemporary art museum."

Source: Vogue

• The Rock created a motivational alarm clock called 'The Rock Clock' as part of a larger initiative called 'Project Rock.'
• I used it for five days to help me wake up an hour earlier. 
• In the app, you can set a project, a deadline, and select the sounds you want to wake up to. 
• After one week of use, I realized that motivation starts with me — and without that internal desire to reach a goal, external motivation won't have the the same impact. 

Waking up is hard to do. 

Sometimes I wake up when I intend to, but lay in bed for an extra 10 to 15 minutes staring at the ceiling, debating the value of those extra minutes, and coercing myself into actually putting my feet on the (cold) floor. Usually this happens somewhere between 7:15 and 7:30 a.m. — even though I tell my phone to wake me around 7 a.m. Usually I end up rushing and not actually checking things off my morning to-do list.

Ultimately, though, the problem isn't my inability to avoid the snooze button — it's that I really just need some extra time in the morning to shower, eat, dress, and chill out for a minute before getting on the subway and heading into work.

I've tested numerous approaches to my morning routine with the hopes I'd find something that sparked some inspiration to become that person that wakes up at 6 a.m. I tried some of the more sudden/scary Apple alarm sounds — like the one that sounds like a truck backing up — and I've made my alarm upbeat songs I liked (that have since lost their previous happiness-inducing power). I've also tried setting the time for drastically earlier thinking my snoozes would then equal out to the time I actually want to get up (that trick never works). 

So when someone at work told me the Rock had a motivational alarm clock — well, I just couldn't resist giving it a shot.

SEE ALSO: I tried eating, exercising, sleeping, and spending 'perfectly' for a week — and realized I've been approaching my goals all wrong

Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson is a wrestler-turned-actor who's equal parts funny and intimidating.

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson made his professional TV wrestling debut back in 1996 on the Survivor Series. Since then, he's won the WWE heavyweight title six times, and has gone on to be one of the biggest action and comedy stars. As of this year he is the second highest-grossing actor in Hollywood — and according to Forbes, he's currently worth $65 million. 

Over 95 million people follow his workouts, projects, and puppies on Instagram.

He released the 'Rock Clock' app as part of 'Project Rock,' a partnership with Under Armour to inspire people to strive for more.

In 2015, the Rock announced a new partnership with Under Armour called "Project Rock" — which officially launched in 2016 — intended to "bring you innovative and bad ass products that inspire men, women and kids to stay hungry, humble and always be the hardest workers in the room." 

As part of this partnership, the brand aims to create inspiring products for audiences hoping to reach their goals — and these products are referred to as "projects." 

The alarm is project number two of four to be released — the first was a backpack, and the last two have yet to be announced.

I downloaded the the Rock Clock and set it up for the work week.

When you first open the app it asks you to type in your goal or project and select an end date — so I wrote "Wake Up Earlier," and set the deadline for the upcoming Friday. I set the alarm for 6:30 a.m.

Lisa and Lena Mantler, 15-year-old twins from Germany, have one of the fastest-growing fan bases on the internet. You've probably never heard of them, but the teen in your life has.

The girls are the reigning queens of Musical.ly, the social-media app of choice for Generation Z. Teens record and post 15-second clips of themselves lip-syncing, dancing to popular music, and pulling stunts. The app launched in 2014 and has racked up over 200 million "musers."

In November, the startup behind Musical.ly was purchased in a deal valued up to $1 billion.

Here's how Lisa and Lena rose to stardom before their braces came off.

SEE ALSO: A lip-syncing app teens are obsessed with just got bought for $1 billion — here's how to use Musical.ly

Lisa and Lena Mantler are Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen for Generation Z.

Instagram Embed:
http://instagram.com/p/BYQEA6jgA8L/embed/
Width: 800px

Teens love them, even if they can't tell them apart.

In December 2015, the twins uploaded their first video to Musical.ly — a six-second clip that showed them lip-syncing to Gnash's "i hate u, i love you (feat. Olivia O'Brien)."

Youtube Embed:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/dEMnaiGZG4M
Width: 560px
Height: 315px

The girls first spotted a Musical.ly video on their Instagram feed.

"We thought, 'Let's try it, it looks fun,'" Lena told online magazine Dazed.

• Google created Google Preferred as a way for advertisers to run ads in the top content on YouTube. But advertisers have found lots of problematic content in the Preferred lineup.
• As more ad buyers dig into what's really for sale through Google Preferred, there's a growing sense among some that Google oversold the premium, brand-safe nature of these videos.
• Google has been purging some channels from Preferred, but advertisers still find their ads next to questionable videos, including clips with foul language, sexually explicit talk, and content aimed at kids.
• "This is not TV," said one ad buyer upset about the content. "Not even close."

If you've spent any time on YouTube, you know there's something for everybody.

Sometimes the videos are weird.

There's a series of videos on the channel called Heroes Team that feature people dressed as Spider-Man and Elsa from Disney's "Frozen" having a baby together. Sometimes the humor is racist, like a recent clip posted in a video-game channel called Cloud9 Mango in which a fan at a Philadelphia Eagles game is described as "Asian as f--k."

Often, they're sexual, too. Ballroom Throwbacks features videos of dance-offs with the performers in various states of undress. Here's a link— but it's definitely not safe for work.

It's the internet. There are far worse things out there.

But for advertisers who pitch their products on YouTube, these kinds of videos are a nightmare. Worse, all the channels, at one time or another, have been part of something called Google Preferred. It's an ad offering launched about five years ago as a way for marketers to run ads on the top channels on YouTube.

You can see why they'd have a problem with this. After being assured their products would be pitched against premium content — and charged more for it — marketers are now saying that Google Preferred is full of landmines. They cite videos they didn't expect to be considered premier content or those that slip through Google's filters and wind up accompanying their ads.

The Cloud9 Mango videos, for example, remain part of the Preferred lineup. Over the past week, Business Insider spotted ads proceeding these videos for Universal Parks and Resorts, including one touting The Wizarding World of Harry Potter.

In the minds of many in the ad industry, Google Preferred was supposed to be the closest thing to buying ads on TV that YouTube had to offer.

• It promised a clean, well-lighted environment for brand advertising, the kinds of ads that have typically run on national TV — like sexy car ads and commercials for the Gilettes, Budweisers, and Cokes of the world.
• They say that Google presented Google Preferred as a way to run ads next to videos only from the best YouTube creators, a group of born-on-YouTube influencers increasingly popular among teens and young adults.
• With Preferred, Google was seen as vouching for these channels

Losing some control

In reality, Google Preferred is all over the map in quality. And because the channels featured in Preferred are selected by an algorithm, advertisers don't always know what they're getting.

"When you commit to this, you get what Google defines as premium, and you lose some control," said Jeff Liang, the chief digital officer at ad-buying agency Media Assembly. "I don’t think advertisers understand how the algorithm works. Unlike TV where you know exactly what the show is about, you still don’t have that control with YouTube. You don't know where your ads are going to end up.

"If you talk to Google, they'll say, 'We have a lot of YouTube stars,'" Liang added. "Brands don’t know who they are, so this collates them for you. But in terms of how big Preferred actually is, that's very difficult to get from these guys. That's something they don’t really share. You're really trusting them. The brand-safety issue is absolutely a problem for them."

Some advertisers and their agencies say this goes beyond a problem for Google. They argue that Google Preferred has not lived up to its premium billing. Many ad buyers spoke with Business Insider on condition of anonymity because, they said, they did not want to damage their relationship with a crucial partner like Google.

These buyers said they felt misled by Google, and they're not happy. Google says it removes channels that aren't appropriate and that it is working on giving the brands more control over what the ads run against. Some of the ad buyers said they give the company credit for its response, but that doesn't keep them from worrying that they could see their wholesome pitch running into trouble.

The year of brands living dangerously

Ever since the subject of "brand safety" blew up earlier this year — after a string of bombshell stories from the Times of London and The Wall Street Journal found lots of big brands' ads next to ISIS videos, clips with Nazi jokes, or anti-Semitic fare — advertisers are scrutinizing everything.

That led to several big ad agencies to dig a lot deeper into what kind of content is featured in Google Preferred and whether brands even belong there.

They say that Google did not actually know the extent of the videos that were featured in Google Preferred — and the company does not have an actual person watch every video in every Preferred channel. But they add that Google has dragged its feet on providing detailed reporting on Preferred campaigns.

Yes, Google Preferred does provide ad space next to videos produced by top popular YouTube creators. But since the start of the year, many ad buyers have found that Preferred also features:

• videos with sexually explicit discussions.
• foul language and misogynistic talk.
• a significant amount of content aimed at kids but that could attract adults.
• a fair amount of content that is not in English, which matters to advertisers marketing in English.
• a large number of videos featuring adults dressed as kids characters that border on the bizarre.

To be clear, the types of ISIS and outright hate videos that set off alarms earlier in the year (which led to a large YouTube-ad boycott) are generally not making it into the Preferred algorithm. More often, brands are concerned about whether the videos showcased on the Preferred channels are appropriate for their brands. Of course what is appropriate is highly subjective and differs by advertiser.

"We built Google Preferred to help our customers easily reach YouTube's most passionate audiences, and we've seen strong traction with a record number of brands using it this year," said Debbie Weinstein, the managing director of YouTube and video solutions. "When we're made aware of channels that don't belong in this offering, we remove them, and are looking into ways to offer our brand partners even more control for what they buy next year."

Regardless, a growing number of top agencies say they feel as though Google Preferred is not what it was billed to be. It's likely why several top advertisers, including AT&T and Chase, have yet to return to running ads on YouTube.

How YouTube sold Preferred

At its annual Brandcast event in New York in 2014, Google formally introduced Preferred. Outside the event, teen fans lined up to see the YouTube star Bethany Mota, known for her fashion tips and life advice.

The message was clear: YouTube has a growing number of clean-cut stars making videos you may not know about, Mr. or Mrs. Media Buyer, but your kids probably do.

During the show, Google explained Preferred features the top 5% of channels on YouTube in a variety of categories, ranging from gaming to comedy to parenting. The channels are selected using an algorithm that factors in popularity, how long people stay on these channels, how often they share content, and other forms of engagement.

"We know that content matters," said then president of Google Americas, Margo Georgiadis, at the event. "So we curated Google Preferred. It’s the top 5% of content on YouTube in areas like food [and] music"

"You can think of it like prime-time television," said YouTube product manager Meredith Bailey.

Except that in prime-time television, ad buyers know exactly where their ads are going to run. Agencies even get flagged ahead of time when big network shows are going to feature hot-button issues like, say, teen pregnancy or gun safety, in case they want to steer their advertisers away from such very special episodes.

That level of detail wasn't initially part of Preferred, which features about 9,000 channels, according to people familiar with the matter. In fact, some agencies say it's only this year that Google has discussed which channels are actually in Preferred in any real detail.

At the 2014 presentation, Google executives focused on talking up budding YouTube stars like Zoella and Michelle Phan. The web-video company Soul Pancake even spoke about how YouTube helped bring recognition to a talented young performer with a terminal illness.

And if advertisers left the event and didn't ask too many questions, they likely came away with the idea that Google Preferred allowed them to buy ads alongside the most popular young creators on the platform. And many over the past few years started moving TV ad budgets to YouTube.

What really irks ad buyers about YouTube

From Google's point of view, Google Preferred was designed primarily to make it easier for TV buyers to understand the vastness of the platform. It was about the most popular content on YouTube, not necessarily a handpicked package of brand-friendly videos.

But it's the idea that Google used the word "curate" that bothers some buyers. "That's total bulls--t," one said.

Along with the TV analogy, "This is not TV," another buyer said. "Not even close."

You can buy web-video ads on the open internet for about $10 to reach 1,000 people. Yet YouTube Preferred commands ad prices that are double or triple that and often comparable to at least cable TV. The difference being, as one ad buyer remarked, "Their inventory really sucks."

Then there's this blurb from Google's industry blog (emphasis added):

Google Preferred aggregates YouTube's top content, such as Michelle Phan and Good Mythical Morning, into easy-to-buy packages for brand advertisers.

Google Preferred offers brand advertisers access to the most popular YouTube channels among U.S. 18- to 34-year-olds. Brands using Google Preferred choose from 12 lineups—or packages of channels—across categories such as Beauty & Fashion, Entertainment & Pop Culture, or Foods & Recipes and share their messages alongside some of the most engaging and brand safe content on YouTube.

Buyers say that Google has recently backed off the idea that they promise brand safety with Preferred. One reason: Google doesn't watch every video on every Preferred channel.

Eyes wide open

For the first few years that Google Preferred was for sale in the market, most advertisers "didn't pay a lot of attention to what their agency ended up buying," said Andreas Goeldi, chief technology officer at the video-analytics firm Pixability.

"There was a cascade of ignorance," Goeldi said. "YouTube looks like a well-lit place. If Google says it's fine, it's definitely fine."

Since early this year, when all the brand-safety issues came to light, marketers have been on high alert and asking harder questions. "They are really overwhelmed with the granularity on YouTube," he said. Naturally, he recommends buying YouTube ads with the help of a third party.

That's why right now several ad agencies and tech companies have junior staffers poring through every YouTube clip carrying their clients' ads. More than one media buyer said they have had to alert their IT department that they may end up watching questionable content as a result.

The tech marketer HP recently pored through the channels it was advertising on YouTube via Preferred and ended up removing 1,400 channels "to bring the network up to a higher qualitative standard, leaving 7,400 of the best channel available to run on," said Dan Salzman, HP's global head of media, analytics and insights. "HP is asking for increased transparency into the quality and nature of the content prior to an ad being run especially if Google Preferred is sold as a premium video opportunity."

Google has also spent part of 2017 purging some channels from Preferred. And in September the company finally rolled out video-by-video-level reporting for advertisers so that they can find out exactly where their ads will run.

That should make agencies happy, though it will give them a lot of data to dig through on YouTube ad campaigns.

"We at GroupM, on behalf of our many clients who use Google Preferred, are pleased with the partnership and improvements Google has shown in the Google Preferred offering over the past year," said Susan Schiekofer, chief digital investment officer at the ad-buying giant GroupM, in a statement.

"Our next step of improvement is to continue to work toward reporting on video level, not channel, reporting for each campaign. Google is moving this work forward and this will allow our reporting to be even more granular. We believe the work we have done together delivers the best of Preferred within our brand safety standards."

Before this year's purge, buyers have been conducting their own Google Preferred deep dives. "The first time we did the audit," said one buyer. "It was bad. Really bad."

That Google Preferred requires so much policing is what irks many ad buyers. After all, it is called Preferred.

The very gray areas

Some videos in Google Preferred are just, well, different. Take this or this or this.

And to be sure, the content in some Preferred videos could be compared to advertisers sponsoring Howard Stern or edgy cable shows like FX's "You're the Worst." Brand safety can be very much in the eye of the beholder.

Take SevenSuperGirls, which features a group of wholesome teenage girls cheerleading, going to the beach, and doing all sorts of fun things. Their videos frequently generate millions of views. And based on the comments section, they seem to have lots of young fans.

Business Insider founds ads for Capital One on this channel.

Not appropriate for any brand

But Comedy Central's Tosh 2.0 recently argued that channels like this one could be popular among creepy old men. That kind of attention makes advertisers nervous. One buyer called it "child exploitation."

And then there's the world of Elsa, Spider-Man, and the Joker. There are tons of videos on YouTube featuring adults dressed up as these characters, getting into all sorts of mischief. These videos are frequently featured on Google Preferred channels like Toy Monster and Heroes Team.

While The New York Times recently reported on kids being tricked into watching adult-themed videos on the YouTube kids app, these channels seem aimed at a broad audience on YouTube.

YouTube is cracking down on channels using kids characters in questionable ways, reported The Verge. In the meantime, advertisers debate whether their brands should or shouldn't be alongside this surprising popular content. But these channels are still in Preferred.

Some see videos that are just plain weird while others seem something more nefarious. "I don't think these videos are appropriate for any brand," said one buyer.

Credit for taking it seriously

Ad buyers credit Google for taking the Preferred criticism seriously.

"They are really trying," said one top ad executive.

Google is also planning to overhaul how it packages Google Preferred in 2018, according to people familiar with the matter. Ad buyers acknowledge that given the ongoing decline in TV ratings, particularly among young consumers, they'll have little choice but to continue advertising on YouTube, albeit with lots of caution.

"The way we address it is brand by brand," Liang said. "All have different risk tolerances."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Neil deGrasse Tyson and YouTube star Emily Graslie break down what it's like to skin a wolf and the future of museums

Tony Robbins is 57 years old but his schedule is as physically grueling as it's ever been. As the world's most famous life coach, Robbins is constantly traveling the world and averages 60 events annually. It's common for him to put in 16-hour workdays during one of his signature seminar events, and much of that time is spent jumping and running around a stage. This is where Billy Beck III comes in.

Robbins hired Beck as his full-time personal trainer four years ago, and Beck has helped him accommodate an increasingly busy schedule as he gets older.

Beck has his own gym in Florida, has twice won the Met-Rx Personal Trainer of the Year competition, and has had clients like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, NHL and NFL athletes, UFC fighters, and boxers.

Most of his time now, though, is spent traveling the world with Robbins to make sure he maintains his energy throughout his relentless schedule. Beck even bought a house near Robbins' main residence in Palm Beach, Florida, and has his own place next to Robbins' Fiji house.

Business Insider recently traveled to Robbins' Fiji resort Namale and spent several days with Robbins and Beck. And even though Robbins is Beck's client, it became obvious that the two are also great friends. Following is a transcript of the video.

Tony Robbins: Wow, look at the kind of animals that we have here in this forest! It's a lion!

[Meet Tony Robbins' personal trainer]

Billy Beck III: I'm Billy Beck III — trainer to a bunch of people, but in this episode, I am the exclusive trainer to Tony Robbins. We're in Namale. This is Tony's resort in the Fiji islands. This is my little sanctuary. This is where he hides me.

I've trained hundreds of professional athletes. When they come to see me, I take every factor that makes someone better physically, mentally, emotionally, and I make them a complete athlete.

[Beck travels the world with Robbins ...]

Beck: No one does more preparation than this man right here.

[... and it's clear they're best buddies]

Robbins: Yeah, Billy has a hard time having a good time. It's his most difficult situation. He was depressed when I met him. It was an amazing thing.

Beck: Yeah, you are amazing! I wasn't feeling good about myself.

Robbins: We have to figure out how to reverse that pattern. It's a little out of control.

Beck: By the time I was 13, I had to make a decision because I grew up in a trailer. I could either have a bed or a weight bench. So, I slept on a weight bench for three years. I didn't confine myself to exercise. I started studying nutrition. Then, I started looking at sports performance.

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson – I was very blessed to be able to work with him. Worked for him like seven years or something like that. It was when he was looking to go from wrestling into movies.

Richard Feloni: How long have you been working with Tony?

Beck: Like four years?

Feloni: And you check in how often? A daily basis?

Robbins: Pretty much daily. Yeah. When we're at events, it's every day because he's there with me. When I'm on the road, it's not every day. But, we're dear friends also, so we're always connecting, communicating. But, it's constant. Yeah. He's really there because we're always adjusting things to what the environment demands from me.

Beck: He's on stage 12, 14, 16 hours, and he's completely immersed the entire time. My job is to actually stop him sometimes so I can refuel the tank. The level of technology and science that we employ to make him the best he can be is insane. We'll get an extra room in a hotel and bring a portable hyperbaric chamber. I mean, we do cryotherapy. We'll bring it with us. We do lab testing. I do genetic testing to determine what he actually needs more of, you know, from his DNA. So, we're never guessing. I don't like to guess. There's no reason to guess with the way we have technology now.

He pushed his body so hard for so long, that he got in debt with his body. He expended so much without replenishing it, that his body got really beat up. We've been able to correct a lot of this. In the last four years he's — like, this is the best shape he's ever been in.

Robbins: Billy!

Beck: Teamwork makes the dream work!

I see him do stuff all the time that people don't know about. He just loves people, and he hates to see people suffer, and like, if I wanted to be like anyone in the world, it would be like him.

Join the conversation about this story »

• Dee Rees' "Mudbound" is one of the best movies of the year.
• It's also the best movie Netflix has released to date.
• The ensemble cast is terrific, but Jason Mitchell proves he's one of the best up-and-coming actors working today.

Writer-director Dee Rees has been a shining star in the independent film world for years now, having given us movies like her striking debut feature “Pariah” in 2011, about a black Brooklyn teenager struggling with her gay identity, and the 2015 HBO biopic “Bessie,” about legendary blues artist Bessie Smith. But it’s her latest movie that will make her a known name in the mainstream. 

“Mudbound,” which received high acclaim at this year’s Sundance Film Festival before being snatched up by Netflix for $12.5 million (it will play in theaters and be available on the site Friday), is a gripping work that looks at life on a rural Mississippi farm in post-World War II America. But it also contains themes of race and class that are sadly still very relevant in today’s world.   

The movie is fueled by its perfect cast — which includes Carey Mulligan, Jason Mitchell, Jason Clarke, Garrett Hedlund, and Mary J. Blige — rich cinematography, and tender screenplay cowritten by Rees and Virgil Williams (adapted from the Hillary Jordan novel of the same name). It opens on a Mississippi farm with brothers Henry (Clarke) and Jamie (Hedlund) digging the grave for their recently departed father (Jonathan Banks) in the middle of a downpour. Jamie has cuts and bruises on his face, while Henry is conflicted about burying his father among the chains and bones of slaves they’ve uncovered while digging the deep grave.

We aren’t aware of the significance of any of these things, or why the black family in a carriage that Henry waves down to help with the burial looks so upset at him for asking. But in the next few hours it will all make sense.

“Mudbound” is a story about dreams that go unfulfilled, and how hatred that goes back generations can’t be mended by a single friendship. But mostly it’s about family: for one character it’s all he has, while for another it’s what he’s been trying to run from his whole life. 

The two families the movie centers on are the McAllans and Jacksons. Henry McAllan, his new wife Laura (Mulligan), and his father Pappy (Banks) have all packed up and moved from the city to Mississippi to become farmers. Just down the road, Hap Jackson (Rob Morgan), his wife Florence (Blige), and their kids try to build a life of their own with their cotton crop, working on land McAllan owns. 

This part of the movie is heightened by the work of character actor Rob Morgan, known best for his roles on Netflix shows “Luke Cage” and “Stranger Things." He plays Hap as a proud man struggling to make a better life for his family, though all he knows is back-breaking work on the farm. Preaching in a half-built church on Sundays, and then tending to his cotton the rest of the week, we feel his pain through his heartbreaking voiceovers. One touching voiceover on the worth of a deed — playing on the word's dual meaning as a "good deed" or a "deed" to land — is delivered in a way by Morgan that will leave you with goosebumps. 

The story then shifts abroad to the family's boys battling in World War II. Jamie McAllan (Hedlund) is a pilot and Ronsel Jackson (Jason Mitchell) is a tank commander. Both see a lot of awful things, and lose buddies, but Ronsel also realizes that on the field of battle, and to those he’s liberating, the color of his skin means nothing. 

Both come home to Mississippi and form an instant bond as they suffer from different forms of PTSD. But Ronsel also has to deal with racism as soon as he gets off the bus. Things get worse when Ronsel crosses paths with Pappy, leading to a riff between the families, and to Ronsel suddenly having a target on his back among the white supremacists in the area. 

However, Jamie and Ronsel’s bond grows even stronger. The two sneak away to have mid-day drinks and talk about the war. Ronsel even reveals to Jamie that he’s learned that he has a child back in Germany from the woman he fell for over there. 

But things turn bad when Pappy realizes Jamie and Ronsel have been hanging out, leading to the appearance of the Ku Klux Klan and some very tough scenes to watch. 

Rees captures this time in America with an unforgiving eye, which is essential to the story. 

And though the story is heavily an ensemble work, it’s Mitchell’s performance as Ronsel that shines through. He’s has already wowed us playing Easy-E in 2015’s “Straight Outta Compton,” but here Mitchell proves that he’s one of the best up-and-coming talents in Hollywood today. It honestly will be criminal if Mitchell doesn’t receive an Oscar nomination for his work in “Mudbound.”

Hopefully Netflix plays somewhat by the rules to give “Mudbound” a chance to be eligible for Oscar consideration because it is pound-for-pound the best movie Netflix has released so far in its existence.

SEE ALSO: In a first for Pixar, "Coco" was created with the help of people outside the company

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This South Korean boy band is taking over the music world

• The new Amazon Echo, which costs $99 normally, will be $80 on Black Friday.
• It's way better than the first Echo, with a slimmer profile, better sound, and an auxiliary jack in the back to plug in your own speakers. 
• However, if you already have any Echo, there's not a lot of reason to upgrade. All Amazon Echo devices have access to the best Alexa features as it is.
• While Google is also deep-discounting its competing Google Home, the Amazon Echo is a fine choice for anybody who wants a smarter speaker.

This Black Friday, Amazon is going to offer the newest version of its Amazon Echo smart speaker for $80, a 20% discount from its normal $99 price tag.

For those who've been on the fence about an Amazon Echo, this should be a no-brainer: I've been using the new-model Echo for about a week now, and it's an improvement from its predecessor in every single way. However, if you've already got one, you probably don't need to rush out to upgrade. 

So what's new in this newest version of the Echo?

The sound is better and louder, with deeper bass. Aesthetically, it's a total revamp. It's now short and stubby, only a little larger than a soda can, and available in either metallic or fabric-covered finishes. New is the ability to snap on multi-colored cases to give it a personal touch. And it has an auxilliary port in the back, such that you can plug in your own speakers with a standard headphone jack. 

Oh, and that retail price of $99 is a solid $80 cheaper than the original Amazon Echo.

Here's the important thing, though. So much of what makes the Echo more than just another speaker is the Alexa voice agent that powers it. And Amazon has been very aggressive about making sure that all upgrades to Alexa come to all Echo devices, simultaneously. 

So if you already own an Echo, you've been getting a steady drip of new features — including Echo-to-Echo calling, the ability to call landline phones, and even notifications when your Amazon order ships. All of those features will work with any Echo, whether you bought the old one on Day One, or the new one tomorrow. 

Which is to say, unless you're a total stickler for sound, or you just like to have the most current model, there's no great reason to get the new one. But if you don't have one at all, and you want in on Amazon's grand vision for voice computing, then this is probably the right place to start.

Okay, but what the heck is an Amazon Echo? What does it do?

In case you're not familiar, the Amazon Echo is a smart speaker, powered by Amazon's Alexa smart agent.

Think of it like a smarter, more useful version of Apple's Siri: Alexa can play music; set timers and alarms; answer simple questions; control internet-connected lightbulbs, thermostats, and the like; control an Amazon Fire TV; and even let you shop on Amazon.

It's really neat! We're big fans of the Amazon Echo product family at Business Insider. Our own Dave Smith keeps a master list of the best things Alexa can do for you, right this way. For many people, it should be noted, that smart home gear control is the killer app, letting the Echo act as a universal remote for a growing selection of gadgetry.

Amazon now makes a whole range of Echo speakers, including the $50 Echo Dot, the $150 Echo Plus for smart-home enthusiasts, and the $229 tablet-like Echo Show. This flagship Echo is a good starting point — the Echo Dot is smaller and cheaper, but with worse sound. The others are a little more niche, for specific uses. 

And what's the difference between this and Google Home?

Google has offered its competing Google Home line of speakers since 2016. And this Black Friday, Google is going to be offering the flagship Google Home speaker for $80, same as the Amazon Echo.

The Google Home operates on the same principle as the Amazon Echo. Only instead of getting access to Amazon Music, Amazon shopping, and the Amazon Fire TV, you can use Google Play Music, shop with Google partners like Target and Walmart, and control Google Chromecast streaming devices.

Personally, I prefer the Google Home over Amazon Echo—  not for hardware reasons, but because Google search is that much better. Still, lots of people feel differently, given that the Amazon Echo is leading the still-small smart speaker market. And the Amazon Echo is getting better, all the time. 

In a lot of ways, it's a matter of taste — though I will say that while the two speakers have comparable sound, the newest Amazon Echo has a slight sonic edge over the Google Home. Still, I'd say that true audiophiles probably won't be especially happy with either, and should perhaps consider a high-end device like a Sonos.

If you're considering both, it's worth noting that Amazon offers exclusive daily deals that are only accessible via Alexa. If you're a big shopper, that could be the edge. Also, Amazon Alexa currently supports a wider range of smart home gear, though Google is closing that gap fast. 

And, to bring it back around, if you're looking to see what all the fuss about the smart speaker movement is about, the new-model Amazon Echo is a great way to do it. 

SEE ALSO: REVIEW: Amazon's $150 Echo Plus speaker is the absolute quickest way to make your home smarter

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Turns out the Amazon Echo Dot makes an amazing car infotainment system

• Jeffrey Tambor has signalled he could leave Amazon show "Transparent."
• He has been accused of sexual harassment by co-star Trace Lysette and his former assistant.
• Tambor referenced the "politicized atmosphere" on set.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Actor Jeffrey Tambor says he doesn't see how he can return to the Amazon series "Transparent" following two allegations of sexual harassment against him.

In an ambiguous statement Sunday, Tambor referenced what he calls a "politicized atmosphere" that has afflicted the set. He also said that the idea that he would deliberately harass anyone is untrue.

Two women have come forward over the past few weeks to accuse Tambor of sexual harassment, including "Transparent" actress Trace Lysette and his former assistant.

Tambor told Deadline on Sunday:

"Playing Maura Pfefferman on 'Transparent' has been one of the greatest privileges and creative experiences of my life. What has become clear over the past weeks, however, is that this is no longer the job I signed up for four years ago.

"I’ve already made clear my deep regret if any action of mine was ever misinterpreted by anyone as being aggressive, but the idea that I would deliberately harass anyone is simply and utterly untrue. Given the politicized atmosphere that seems to have afflicted our set, I don’t see how I can return to Transparent."

Tambor has won two Emmys for portraying Maura Pfefferman in the highly regarded show, which is now in its fourth season. Many interpreted his words to mean that he was leaving the show, which has not been confirmed.

Representatives for Amazon did not immediately respond to requests seeking comment.

Join the conversation about this story »

The release of Warner Bros.'s latest DC Comics title, "Justice League," was more than a decade in the making and the payoff for the years of releasing standalone movies — from "Man of Steel" to "Wonder Woman."

But the mixture of poor execution and bad luck has led to a major disappointment in the movie's opening weekend.

"Justice League" opened over the weekend with a domestic box-office total of $96 million. That's the lowest opening of any DC Comics Extended Universe release. The movie was projected to earn about $110 million in North America.

In today's world, where superhero blockbusters keep the lights on at all the studios in Hollywood, an anticipated release like "Justice League" — powered by iconic characters like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg — not cracking $100 million could lead to dramatic changes in the franchise.

So what the heck happened? Here are four reasons "Justice League" turned out to be a box-office dud.

SEE ALSO: 'Mudbound' is the best movie Netflix has released so far — and you can watch it today

1. The movie just wasn't good.

Yes, it's beating a dead horse, but it's the obvious reason. Sometimes a movie's marketing or release date can be blamed for a poor box office. "Justice League," however, didn't live up to the hype.

With a 39% score on Rotten Tomatoes, the movie didn't leave a good taste in the mouths of critics, and moviegoers who didn't like "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" were given more reasons to stay clear of this one.

2. The Rotten Tomatoes score-reveal backfired for Warner Bros.

Rotten Tomatoes' experiment of revealing the scores of select titles on its Facebook Watch show "See It/Skip It" isn't gaining many fans in Hollywood.

Though the show had revealed the scores of a few other movies in the weeks leading up to "Justice League" opening — to zero controversy — it was that the site wouldn't reveal the score of the DC movie until hours before preview screenings began on Thursday that became a story.

And that Warner Bros. is a stakeholder in Rotten Tomatoes added to a narrative that the studio was working behind the scenes to bury the score. (I think Rotten Tomatoes was just trying to build an audience for its show.)

If this story found its way into your news feed last week, you probably assumed the movie wasn't good. It will be interesting going forward if studios will plead Rotten Tomatoes not to do the same score reveal with their upcoming anticipated titles.

3. "Thor: Ragnarok" stole some of the movie's mojo.

Warner Bros. probably thought that releasing "Justice League" the week before Thanksgiving would be far enough out to not be hugely affected by the run of "Thor: Ragnarok" — but it turns out the Marvel movie still has legs.

Three weeks in, the movie is still playing on over 4,000 screens. That most likely took a chunk out of the gross for "Justice League," as it earned $21.7 million over the weekend.

It's a blow Warner Bros. likely was somewhat prepared for, but the movie that beat "Ragnarok" for second place was something that surprised almost everyone in Hollywood, including the studio.

The annual Victoria's Secret Fashion Show will be taking place in Shanghai, China, Monday evening, and broadcast on November 28. 

The fashion show is considered one of the most prestigious gigs a model can land. Gaining your "Angel wings" — intricately designed pairs of wings given to the most highly regarded models in the show — is a whole other privilege.

Jan Planit, who used to head up top modeling agency IMG and now runs Planit Model Management, once told the New York Post: "There are very few special things you can achieve as a model. Getting your Angel wings is the ultimate."

The iconic shows are famed for their dramatic, colorful, and skimpy outfits, as well as their impressive lineup of entertainment. This year's musical guests include Harry Styles, Miguel, and Leslie Odom Jr.

Last year, 51 top models made the final cut for the show, just 14 of whom were designated "Victoria's Secret Angels"— brand ambassadors who travel the world promoting Victoria's Secret year-round. Best friends Gigi Hadid and Kendall Jenner became the most recent models to earn their wings on stage at the 2016 show.

While being in the show or getting wings are honors in themselves, the money doesn't hurt either. Nine of the models who appeared in the 2016 show appeared on Forbes' list of the world’s 20 highest-paid models in 2016.

Scroll down to see the highest-paid Victoria's Secret models from last year's show, ranking in ascending order by their 2016 earnings, according to Forbes.

*The earnings are an estimate based on income from all modeling contracts, both from Victoria Secret as well as other companies.

9. Taylor Hill — $4 million.

Taylor Hill, the 21-year-old "girl next door from Colorado" and Vogue cover star, became the face of Topshop's AW16 campaign in July 2016. Since then her Instagram follower base has doubled — she now has 9.2 million followers of her @taylor_hill account.

Hill walked her first VS show in 2014 and became an Angel a year later.

8. Jasmines Tookes — $4 million.

Californian Jasmine Tookes is one of three women of color — out of all VS models — to make Forbes' highest-earning list in 2016.

The 26 year old gained her wings in 2015, after first walking a Victoria's Secret show in 2012.

7. Lily Aldridge — $4 million.

LA-born Lily Aldridge walked her first Victoria's Secret show in 2009, and became an Angel the following year. The 32 year old's favorite place in the world is her hometown of Nashville, Tennessee, according to her VS profile. Her Instagram has 5.1 million followers.