The Rest Is Entertainment - David Walliams, Podcasts on Netflix & National Treasures

Episode Date: January 6, 2026

Why have successful children's author David Walliams and HarperCollins parted ways? Who is the UK's no1 National Treasure? Why is Netflix buying podcasts? Publisher HarperCollins has decided to stop publishing any new books written by David Walliams, who strongly denies any wrongdoing. Richard Osman and Marina Hyde examine the story. Who did the UK vote as their all-time National Treasure and how do voting habits affect who we think are worthy of the title? We've done the polling and have the numbers. Netflix is flexing its cheque book and buying exclusitivy to some enormous US podcasts, what is the thinking behind this big bet? WIN TICKETS TO 'THE TRAITORS LIVE EXPERIENCE': To celebrate the launch of the new series of The Traitors we’re giving you and a friend the chance to get a taste of the ultimate game of deception and tactics. Sign up to our free newsletter by visiting ⁠www.therestisentertainment.com⁠ and you’ll be automatically entered into our competition to win two tickets to The Traitors Live Experience in central London. T&Cs Apply. Join The Rest Is Entertainment Club: Unlock the full experience of the show – with exclusive bonus content, ad-free listening, early access to Q&A episodes, access to our newsletter archive, discounted book prices with our partners at Coles Books, early ticket access to live events, and access to our chat community. Sign up directly at therestisentertainment.com For more Goalhanger Podcasts, head to www.goalhanger.com Video Editor: Adam ThorntonAssistant Producer: Imee MarriottSenior Producer: Joey McCarthySocial Producer: Bex TyrrellExec Producer: Neil Fearn Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hello and welcome to this episode of The Resters Entertainment with me Marina Hyde and me Richard Osman. Hello Marina. Hello Richard and I'm so terribly sorry but I'm just going to have to say that congratulations are in order to you. First of all you are the biggest selling author of last year and you are also getting an OBE and also for services to podcasting and I was surprised because I thought I'm amazed I've got one, Marina hasn't, I guess, listen. Yeah.

I guess the king listens and he has a favourite. It's not for services to podcast. I don't think anyone's ever got any sort of gong for services to podcasting. It won't be long. No, it might be in moments. But I wish so many congratulations. And of course, you deserve everything that comes to you. I'm thrilled.

Oh, thank you. I always think you deserve everything that comes to you as a real double-edged sword. It's a really amazing thing to say to anyone. Do you know what? You deserve everything that comes to you. Yeah. You deserve. And I'm fixing you with an eye when I say that you deserve everything that is coming to you.

May you have the 2026 you deserve. So we're still a part. Which we hate. But what are we talking about today? Well, we are going to talk about David Wallions, who has been dropped by HarperCollins, hugely successful children, author. And we're going to talk about that particular story and how it's played out. and how it's sort of gone quiet, which I think is a very intriguing part of it too. We waited a couple of weeks just to see what the fallout was, and thus far there hasn't been any.

So we'll talk about what that might signify. We're also going to talk about national treasures, aren't we? Because we've had some polling done by our great friends at Moore in common. We will give you the absolute definitive list of who British people believe to be national treasures, and in what order and who would win certain elections if only fans

of certain national traces were allowed to vote Williams is not currently on that list but plenty of people are We are also going to talk about podcasts on TV and there's lots of interesting deals

in that space including one not too far from home It's a big thing for 2026 Yeah a very big thing So we'll begin with David Williams who is obviously the hugely successful, George's author and television presenter and actor before, as we knew, he has been dropped by Harper Collins

over alleged inappropriate behaviour with female staff members at Harper Collins. And the Telegraph ran a story about this. I should say, we have to say right at the very top of this, David Williams denies all knowledge of this. It says none of the allegations were even put him by Harper Collins in their investigation of this I think it's sort of interesting

because stories, lots of stories or perceived stories about David Williams have been chased for a very long time by all sorts of different outlets and there are certain stories or certain kind of areas where people just say in all sorts of areas of public life, oh this is an open secret

everybody knows about this person and their behaviour. Again, I will say, he would say well, where's the evidence? I've got masses of lawyers and all sorts of things. and I quite understand that because unless you can stand it up, it's difficult to run any of those stories. But by way of background, I would say that he is by Miles the biggest selling children's author in this country.

Well, I say in his age group, he is Julia Donaldson. Yes, exactly, in his age group, which is a big age group. And he sells countless millions of books and has done for a very long time. So he's been a golden goose for Harper Collins. Often laid two eggs a year because he would do two books. a year and I think in something like in 2018 I think he accounted for something like 44%

of Harper Collins's entire children's book sales Harper Collins were pushing his Santa and son book which is the book he's got at this Christmas the Instagram account was pushing it all and then suddenly the next day he was dropped

and there are so many questions about this to go back to the telegraph story which came out it's it suggested there was inappropriate behaviour with female employees that one had left Harper Collins

after a five-figure payout that women employees were advised to either work in pairs and also to not visit his home again he says none of these allegations were ever put to him and that is interesting in itself if true and that he denies it all

but to me that story is quite striking in lots of ways Richard first of all there aren't any anonymized accounts of those women, which I think is quite interesting. Often when you get a story like that, you know, the guardians run all sorts of things. I don't know. As an example, let's say the Noel Clark allegations, which I'm not saying are the same as these at all. But to give you an example, you have lots of anonymized voices of women. And people tend to not want to go on the record.

But in that story, people were described as well-placed sources. So they've obviously spoken to people at HarperCollins. but we don't know if those were the women or the executives. But if they were the women, they have said, you can't even run my story as an anonymous story. Yes. So the story is literally, there's one story which is Harper-Connor's has dropped him and these are the reasons it has dropped him.

There's no investigating beyond that. There's no talking to people who might have been at the heart of the allegations. So it's a huge story, but it is one story and one story only, which is Harper-Collins under its new managing director, which also I know we'll get on to you more has dropped him I assume he was at the end of a contract so I think what they've actually said is

we are not going to publish any more books by you and that's the only story we have so far which is why we've waited a couple of weeks just to see if there was more to come and thus far there hasn't been if something comes out just after we finished editing this book

then forgive us we will return with an update but it's interesting Interesting. There's lots of interesting questions here. First of all, how do you handle the back catalogue of someone who you are no longer saying, I'm not going to publish any new books by? But as we say, he sells huge amounts of books. So I'm sure someone else may well publish him. You may find that other people will publish him, but not any of, I don't think, any of the big ones. But how do you handle the back catalogue? And in children's publishing, back catalogue is incredibly lucrative, much more so than in adult. I mean, in adult publishing, if you've got, you know, a classic from, if you've got Agatha Christie or if you've got, you know, Jane Austen, then that's very valuable. But for children's authors, books published five years ago, 10 years ago, are almost as valuable now as they were five years or 10 years ago. There's constant repeat business. So actually, that's a question I haven't seen discussed anywhere, but it's a huge question because those books are immensely lucrative.

for them because everyone's already earned out every penny they're ever going to earn out from that stuff. So every single book they sell, every single book that David has written over a very, very long period is pure profit for everybody. And really, really, really good money. Publishers really are back catalogue houses and children's books are one of the key drivers of that back catalogue. So David Williams' work up to now is vastly more profitable than David Williams' next book. however profitable that might be. Agreed. And I think, you know, that was, as we say, there have been all sorts of different rumours in television,

in publishing in whatever for many years. And there's a certain sort of thing where people say, oh, something is an open secret. They often don't know what the open secret is in, but there's a sort of perception that there's an open secret about someone. And it's intriguing as to like why it hasn't been coloured. Well, I think that, first of all, as I would say as a journalist, these things are so-called open secrets are surprisingly difficult to stand up. They haven't got accounts from the women who are alleged to have been victims of difficult behavior of one type or another.

I would say that Harper Collins hasn't denied that story and you haven't seen them say no. But I have to say I have some sympathy with those women's rather depressing. alleged trade-off because what the telegraph story says is that as well as one five-figure pay-off, the internal solution to the alleged problems with David Williams was that women should see him in pairs and not go to his house. Now, if that is true in 2024, or 2025, that a corporation put those measures in place, then oh dear me, because I'm not quite sure who you're protecting there. It seems much more like you're protecting your very lucrative author than you are protecting your staff. There is a much, much, much easier way

protecting your staff, which is to remove the source of the issues. Which is what they've just done, finally. Exactly. But that's the quickest and easiest way to do that, which for many years they didn't do. Yes. And if that is true that they did that. And if it is true that what David William says is that not one of these women's allegations has ever been put to me, this is what he says for his lawyers, then in my view, you don't have an internal investigation, you have what many other people would class as an internal cover-up, because that is not the proper way to run an investigation of anything, to say, oh, you know, see each other in pairs, don't go to his house, and we're not going to put the allegations to you, okay? So, Harvard-Poconnes might

say that, that they didn't do that, but they haven't said that, have they? What they have said is, after careful consideration and under the leadership of its new CEO, Harper Collins UK has decided not to publish any more titles by David Wendez. That is very key, I think, that statement under its new CEO because Kate Elton is the new CEO of Harper Collins, but she came very unexpectedly in October to covering that position in an interim basis because the former CEO of Harper Collins, Charlie Redmayne, left very, very suddenly in October, no reason was given, no comment on, and the press release had no comment on his time or achievements there, what you'd normally say, you know, we thank him

for his service, etc. He's decided to see other opportunities. But there are also suggestions that, and I have from speaking to people inside publishing, that maybe at some point the telegraph had had to go to them with what they knew about this particular David William story, which as we say is very, very contained. But if they had to approach them at any point which they would have had to do in the writing of that story, then maybe that felt like,

oh, hang on, this thing that everyone claims is an open secret. And I'm not saying that it's a true one or not, but it's certainly an alleged open secret. Maybe that's coming out and maybe we have to now do something because it's finally about to break cover. As you say, it's not really an murder

because genuinely, as I say, Charlie Rehber, may left just before the Frankfurt Book Fair, which is the gossipiest week in all of publishing. And so nobody came back from Frankfurt any closer to the truth of why he's gone. He's made no comment. Harper Collins have made no comment. It seems to be that rarest of things, which is a secret, well kept. And so it may just be coincidental that they've moved from a male CEO to a female CEO, and this story has surfaced at roughly the same time.

and a different decision has been made about David Williams' future. It might just have been that he'd reached the end of his contract, which meant that they could say, we're not publishing further books by him, and there's no law suit or anything like that to be got through because, you know, you're allowed to let someone go at the end of their contract. So there's all sorts of things that it could be, and it's very unusual to come across a story

where no one can quite tell you what it is. Even as you say this open secret, There are certain people we've talked about on this podcast before where there are open secrets about and you're desperate for it to come out and it does come out. Anything great. Finally, the law can take its course. This one, I'm not absolutely certain what the open secret is.

There's a sort of quality street of open secrets, all sorts of different things. And across, you know, in television as well, to some degree, he has sort of been semi-canceled from television, I would say, because in the, Britain's got, talent thing he was recorded on mic but obviously off air during the recording of it making disparaging remarks about contestants I think one pensioner got called the C word three times there was sort of sexually suggestive things about a female contestant obviously not the kind

of thing you hear on a family show yeah the C word was not codger no he actually successfully sued Fremantle who make Britain's got talent for breach of his privacy and whatever, saying, you know, he had a reason expectation that those comments wouldn't be made public. But anyway, whatever reason, he successfully brought them to a settlement with him when they, where they apologised for the, you know, misuse of his moments, which he might reasonably regarded to be private or not to be aired at all. But after that, he, I noticed he was on the wood I like to you, Christmas special. Yeah, on Boxing Day.

Yeah, and they were a bit stuck there because, as we know, they filmed those things six months ago. In fact, there was a whole joke, little riff about that. But I wonder, and he had very little airtime or things to do on that episode. And as we know, obviously, they record much more than they need. And he was sort of, I mean, he was edited out of it, would you say? Well, well, there was the accusation by people who were at that recording, It's a completely separate accusation that he made two Nazi salutes in the course of a piece. And there's a piece in that with Helen George from Call the Midwife about,

I won't say if it's true or a lie, in case you haven't watched it, no spoilers, about she sprained her arm on strictly by waving too much. So a lot of people were waving, and you can imagine at some point some Nazi salutes were made, which is not the greatest taste in the world, but those shows, you know, you record for two hours. But like in exactly the same way with the recording from Britain's Got Talent, someone in the audience, let this be known, talk to the papers. I think the papers are very, very keen to, or two things happening. The papers are very, very keen to pounce on any David Williams stuff that they can stand up, stuff that did actually happen that they can write. I realize I've called David Williams a number of times here.

That's what he started out as. and then there was another David Williams at Equity and so he came back from the equity thing and said I've changed my name to David Walliams. He clearly did this in the Woodard IT Special and he clearly said the things he said on Britain's got talent. So that happens but there's also a thing

of a lot of people will have a lot of defenders in those situations and if those things happen and lots of people immediately spring to their defence you know it was fairly simple and innocent and was nothing to do with any other behavior they've ever done, nobody seemed to spring to his defense in either of those cases, which I always think is interesting, because

lots of people make mistakes or misjudge things in a studio, and usually a production team will sort of gather around and look after them, but not if they feel that maybe this person is fair game. Can I say, by the way, if this is frustrating for people listening, this is the problem with all of these. It's an open secret. It's this. It's that. It's that. you cannot say something that is against, if we said, oh, I heard this, I heard that, I had this, that's against the law. If you can't prove anything,

you immediately be taken to court, and that's the story. And we should say that he famously has very, very litigious lawyers. That's absolutely what lawyers are for. But you rely, and we talked about them before, on brilliant investigative journalists, finding stuff that does stand up. You cannot go on a podcast, you cannot go on television and say, I heard this.

This is something I heard. If over a series of years, you've heard the same things, and 20 other people in different parts of the industry have heard the same things, that's when journalists start stiffing around. And that's when they look for something. They can stand up like Harper Collins dropping you this. And they go, okay, is this the one that opens the floodgates? Is this the one where we can start putting out feelers and discover stuff that people, for a million very good reasons, have not wanted to go public with? or is there nothing? So it's hard for us to discuss.

It's hard for the culture to discuss. Well, let's talk about those floodgates. Yeah. I think that's interesting that you say, okay, clearly that telegraph story was written and I would have thought they would have gone several times during the writing of that to Harper Collins. And as I say, none of it's been denied by Harper Collins.

What you're hoping when you're a journalist in that situation is that's the first story you get out there. and then it's broken cover and because of that you get ringings you get people saying okay I want to talk I want to be anonymous I would and by the way there will be across all the newsrooms except maybe less so the times because they they're both owned by Rupert Murdoch but they will now be trying to get a hold of further they want to bring the story on people forget that all stories start like that from the most famous one ever like Watergate what can we get a over the line. What's the first thing? And then you can end up running multiples of scores of stories on the same subject as more and more things happen. People will be continuing to dig on this and they will be right now. I should say David Williams denies all knowledge of this. It says none of the allegations were even put him by Harper Collins in their investigation

of this. Now, shall we go to a break and we'll be on many lighter notes when we come back? National treasures and so on. Welcome back, everybody. Now, we are talking about national treasures. It's a term often bandied about as often as open secrets, national treasures, but more fun. So we asked our good friends that more in common, if done lots of polling for us before, to definitively find out who in British entertainment is a national treasure.

So we have the full results here. Now, I'm just going to, you know, me, if I do a list, what do I always do? I go from 10 to 1 or 5 to 1 or 3 to 1. This is the one list where there's absolutely no need to do it because... I don't even understand the rules anymore, but okay. Listen, we ask a series of things about national choices. People have different political persuasions, people of different ages, the whole country. Every single way we cut this, every single way we cut this, the same name is number one on every single single.

list every age, every region, every political persuasion. Number one on every list of people's national treasures is David Attenborough. David Attenborough. So I'm not worrying about number one. Number two is surprising to me, in a wonderful way, in a happy way. But here's the issue now. And this is, come on. So number two is where the interests start. So we don't go to number two now. Now I still don't understand the rules, do I do I do. So number two sort of becomes number one now, if that makes sense. Yes. Okay. There are only seven people who got more than half the country saying they're a national

treasure. There's only seven people on that list and not a single one of them is under 75 years old. So I think that's quite nice. There is something, there is definitely in, obviously in national treasured and national treasuredhood, you need the longevity to it. You have to feel that I think that's part of we have to feel they're kind of morally reliable and they have been over a period of time because otherwise it doesn't really count and you need all of those

and lots of different generations need to buy into them so we'll talk about political party breakdown and age breakdown and stuff in a moment but I'm just going to do this top seven or seven to two anyway because this is the Attenborough list number seven Mary Berry

in her 90s absolutely fair enough National Treasure. Number six, Sir Trevor McDonald. Number five, Joanna Lumley. Number four, Paul McCartney. Number three, the youngest man in this top seven, the youngest man to have over 50% of the nation to think he's a national treasure, Elton John. And number two, so behind Attenborough, who we know is unassailable and unimpeachable, number two, National Treasure Again, we go into the 90s Dame Judy Dench

Which I think is brilliant To me that shows you The value of doing a few really big commercial films In her case I don't think she'd be on that list Without Bond Because however much I absolutely adore

and revere Judy Dench She is almost above all A theatre actress But she would do various films But I have to say That being M in those films and being also, I think there is something significant about the role, that kind of benign but steely representation of the British state.

There is something about that that it's elided with her real personality and helped her kick her up right to number two in National Treasuredum, which I think is quite interesting. I don't think you'd expect it. Yes, because I think the state of being a National Treasure is that thing of everybody individually likes and respects that person. And then there has to be a lightning rod where everyone starts to recognize that everybody else likes and respects that person.

As you say with Judy Dench, everyone already liked and respected her. And when she's M, then everyone suddenly sort of has the license to talk about her. And they all go, oh, no, I love her too. And so something that already existed coalesces. And we all kind of go, okay, are we agreed? Yep, national treasure. Okay, there we go. That's a national treasure.

And that feels to me what that is. but also that national treasures have to represent in our version of it because it's different culturally it's different in all sorts of countries in in japan it's all about sort of national preservation and france it's all cultural prestige it there's lots of different ways of looking this but i definitely think in the uk a national treasure needs to represent something about our idealized sense of ourselves and they they either reflect british values or british humor or they're part of shared national memory in some case. I think that with someone like Trevor McDonald,

they've kind of been there at those moments, quote, unquote. And they're associated with those kind of key moments in public life. And good works is important, but it's interesting. I think with someone like Elton John, I mean, he has obviously done lots of good works, but you need to do both. But there is something peculiar about ours, which is particular, I think, to the UK, which is they've got to be still one of us, not showy. Yes, exactly.

100%. And actually, weirdly, I mean, do you remember when David Beckham, who was angling for a knighthood for a long time, and speaking of leaked comments in which people get called the C-word, I think he actually called the honours committee unappreciative C-words and said it was a disgrace he'd been snubbed. Wow. I think that was back then to do with kind of rumours about his tax affairs. But he has now been knighted, and I think people have a slightly different view.

And I would say that a big part of what made people have that different view about David Beckham is one single incident, one thing he did was very one of us. He queued with all the ordinary people to see the late Queen Elizabeth II's lying in state. And he stood in that queue for nine or ten hours with all the ordinary people. Do you remember the famous cue? And that was very much like, okay, from someone, that was really a big part of his one-of-us thing again. Because once you've kind of spun out into the echelons of being the Beckham's, you're not, to some degree, you're not one of us. But he was able to become one of us again by, but with that one sort of gesture. So Judy, Judy Dench gets on the list because she was M and David Beckham gets on because of Q.

Yeah. Now, talking of Beckham, so we've had that. top seven because they're the ones that more than half of the British people think of national treasures. But the rest of our top ten is made up of David Beckham at number 10, Stephen Frye at number nine, and Michael Palin at number eight. So that entire top 10, the entire top 10, I'm going to give you a quiz question in a minute. Every single one of them is a knight or a dame. Every single one of the top ten has been either knighted or damed. What do they say for damed? That does show that they're quite on the past.

the honours committee. I think that's very interesting. They reflect people's feelings rather than have led them by giving them these honours. They've reflected actually very accurately how people feel about these people. Who do you think, David Beckham, by the way, is 50, so there's no one under 50 in that top 10, but he's only just 50. Who do you think as a first person on the National Treasurer's list who is not a Sir or a Dame? J.K. Rowling? J.K. Rowling, absolutely right. The first person on the list at number 11, who is and neither a knight or a dame closely followed by

in fact the same score but they just they score lower on various different things followed by Martin Lewis money saving expert and Dawn French so they're just bubbling under outside the top 10 dawn French 43% of people think Dawn French is the national treasure same as JK Rowling and Martin Lewis

Dawn French not only beats Jennifer Saunders but she beats her ex-husband Lenny Henry they both got 39 the rest of the top 20 you get some slightly younger people. You've got Emma Thompson and Olivia Coleman. Hugh Grant is there. Anton Deck we put in together because

how can you not? They have to exist together. Exactly. And at the bottom of that top 20 was Peter K. And then just outside, Adela, Ed Shear and Amiria Margulies. A couple of little matchups. We put Clarkson on the list. We asked people if they thought Clarkson was a national treasure.

And we also put Gary Linneker on that list and asked if people thought he was a national treasure. Who do you think one out of those two? with which voters or with overall Clarkson it was Clarkson 134% of people think Clarkson is a national treasure 29% of people think Gary Linneker's a national treasure

which is pretty good going I would say Oh you'll take it yeah But those two people bring us on to politics So if only people who think that certain people are national treasures were allowed to vote Who would win the election See what you think about these two lists

So conservatives, there's no scenario in which they win. Conservatives, Lib Dems Green, there's no scenario in which they win. But Labor and Reform are sort of, they divvy up most of the rest of these national treasures. So Labor wins the election with fans of Gary Lennox, Gareth Southgate, Ade Shearan, Claire Balding. Claire Balding is a very interesting bellwether because she's an almost exact three-way tie between Labor, Reform and Conservative. she's the only person

she's within 1% all three of those parties Labour still wins with Nigella Lawson with Jamie Oliver with Stormzy Labour wins with Simon Cowell by quite a lot

he's quite a heavy indicator of Labour voting Is he now Simon Calving a national treasure yeah Alison Hammond Claudia Wincomen and Bob Mortimer

we end strong there Reform reform would win the election with fans of Anton Deck J.K. Roald Mary Berry, Judy Densch, David Beckham by one point, by one point from Labour, Paul McCartney, Elton John, David Attenborough, all the big ones, Stephen Frye, and then you've got Jeremy Clarkson, Martin Lewis, Joan Alumby and Michael Palin, so a lot of the top ten there. A lot of the younger ones are Labour skewing, almost all of the top ten are reform skewing. The person who gives the biggest swing to Green would be Alison Hammond. I know not why. And the person with the biggest skew to the conservatives would be Jamie Oliver.

The biggest reform skew is Clarkson and J.K. Rowling. They're the two biggest indicators of whether you would be a reform voter or not would be a desire for Jeremy Clarkson and J.K. Rowling to have national treasure status. That's so interesting. We also did, because you're allowed to say anyone on this list who's a national treasure. So the final thing we asked is you're only allowed to choose one. you can only choose one national treasure. Okay, if everybody in Britain, there's just one. We're all going to agree there's one national treasure. And that list is quite different.

Number five on that list is David Beckham. Number four on that list of Joanna Lumley. Number three on that list, if you're only allowed to choose one national treasure, everyone in Britain. Martin Lewis, money-saving expert. Number two on the list, Dame Judy Dench. number one on the list if we're only allowed one national treasure I think we know

we go out where we came in Sir David Attenborough 44% of people said if we only have one national treasure almost half of the people in Britain agree on the same person and that is Sir David Attenborough what a place to have

yeah the only thing half of the people in this country agree isn't that absolutely extraordinary but thank you so much for more in common and you can see they're going to put full results and all the kind of details of all the voting on that, you can, if you go on X or Instagram and follow more in common, you can see a lot more information about all of that. And we will link to all of that in our newsletter as well, all the facts and figures.

It's very important research. Yeah. Now, for our final item today, do you remember when we, the first day we ever recorded this podcast? And I think that you and I thought we were, you know, you think you're in an audio medium. And Tony Pasta, one of Goldhanger's co-founders who was in the studio with us, said, yeah, just to let you know, we're going to do something, we're going to actually film this because we sort of think that people are starting to

watch podcasts, and I'm thinking, oh my God, well, I'd have worn something different, you know, etc. Okay, that now is only a little bit over two years ago. The phenomenon of people watching podcasts is so extreme now that I don't think we should really even call this a podcast

any longer. And you have sort of call it a show for want of a better term and that you almost can't really call people listeners because something like seven the most one recent survey found that um 72% of podcast listeners prefer to watch it on video and over much more than half of ours watch it rather than listen to it um and there's you you can so you can basically watch podcasts in three different on three different platforms youtube which is by far the most mature and popular Spotify, which is obviously a big investor and player and podcasting.

But most recently and most splashily, Netflix, it's all coming soon because podcasts are coming to Netflix. Now, they recently took a whole load of podcasts from The Ringer, Spotify Studios in The Ringer, who are American, they do Bill Simmons podcast, a sporting podcast, lots of big sport ones, the rewatchables, good hang with Amy Polar, serial killers. but they're partnering with Netflix to bring podcasts to Netflix starting early in 2026.

And now the rest of football will be going to Netflix for the period of the World Cup next summer and they'll have a studio in New York and they'll broadcast daily. I must say to all those armchair media analysts who always thought they understood talent pay and that the BBC had spent years overpaying Gary Lineca. I wonder, do they think he's getting paid less by Netflix than he was paid in a year by the BBC? the answer might shock you if you're an idiot but Netflix are really doing this so behind the scenes they're really going for this they're making big offers for slates they want to make originals they want to break the dominance of YouTube

and they can do all of this because primarily because podcasts have become video and a lot most of these popular podcasts are essentially chat shows talk shows They're a talking format and people will, since the pandemic, since the rise of YouTube, people just simply will accept much, much lower production values. In fact, they prefer it because that's what they want from a podcast. I mean, there's levels and limits, but anything you watch on TV comes with certain expectations. And if you watch a Saturday night TV show, your brain expects it to be a certain thing and look a certain way. and if you want to see Joe Rogan chatting for three hours you expect that to look a completely different way

and for years and years quiz shows were like this magic bullet for terrestrial television because they were this thing that was cheap to make that you could do in volume and that people loved and you're thinking, oh my God, it doesn't get any better than this we can't, you know, there's no way of making TV more popular and cheaper than this and podcasts come along and because they weren't supposed to be a visual medium they were saying oh no this is just us talking in a room so that's what people are used to the first few come along and appear on screen and people watch them and they want to watch them they want to watch three people talking in a room because it feels real and it is real and most importantly it is what they expect it's what their brain expects and as soon as you start to watch them you think oh we now have a thing that is usually twice three times four times the length of a quiz show can be made for a tenth of the price of the quiz show and that has an enormously

loyal fan base and everything that for years the reason I loved making quiz shows was bang for buck was amazing value for money was amazing and you could do something that you cared about and loved and give to people who enjoyed it and loved it at a price point that seemed to me a bit more reasonable for making television now podcasts are doing that, but it's ramped up, you know, I was going to say times 10, but divided by 10. It's an extraordinary insight into human nature psychology, why we watch, what we watch, when we watch it, and what we want from it. And it's come completely organically. Yeah, Netflix's need to get into it. It's emblematic of lots of stories we often discuss.

Netflix need to grow. And last year, they repeatedly had these situations where they would have earnings calls and they, you know, they're widely perceived to have won the streaming wars, although they will have YouTube really, and they seem to be the emperors of all they survey, and then suddenly, you know, they have these wonderful earnings calls, they tell you all the great things they've done, and their share price drops at 5% the next day, even after saying we're going to buy warners. And the reasons for that are sort of various, but investors now expect a huge amount from Netflix. It's because it has been so successful. successful. So there's always the question, has it run out of steam? You know, where are its opportunities for growth? And once you've matured in lots of different markets, subscriber growth is much more of a challenge. But particularly, I think what they're interested in is consumption growth per user. So some, you know, some analysts say, oh, people spend an hour a day with Netflix. Netflix say people spend two hours a day with us. But that is absolutely nothing, as we know, compared to what people used to spend with,

what we used to call, you know, with linear TV. And actually what Netflix, having said, you know, you can have anything you want and you can have it at the moment you want it, this is what streaming promised that you could, it was on demand and it was exactly when you wanted it. Actually, what they've realized is pretty beneficial is TV that you can sort of leave on, companion, that companion thing that people used to have with linear TV, people do have that with podcasts. They might have it in the background where they're doing something else. They might be fully engaged with it. But you can keep people on the platform longer if you have this type of content. Like, you know, sort of friendly faces that they like, that they have these so-called parisocial relationships.

Ted Sarandos said, he's the co-CEO of Netflix, said the lines between podcasts and talk shows are getting very blurry. This is back in April. And as the popularity of video podcast grows, I suspect you'll see fun. Some of them find their way to Netflix. Well, that is exactly what you're seeing. And the reason, part of the reason I think is very interesting is Netflix really want to be relevant to their audiences. They like that.

They want immediacy. They want that creative vibe. And how many times have you and I said, what's fun about doing a podcast is immediacy. Like you can say, oh, I can just get this thing out there right now. The rest of television, as we know, takes a very long time to make. and it's very interesting I think podcasts Netflix have really shied away from the news business but in the same way that they don't do sport until they do they've shied away from the news business but they love topicality

and podcasts give you that sort of news adjacent thing you can be talking about things in the culture and in the news and whatever but you're not sort of delivering news you're not you're not having journalists you're not kind of having to cover every story in the same way as with sport, what Netflix have done is, you know, if you're CBS or one of those people in the States who are paying, I mean, tens of billions for the rights to various different sports, you don't have to buy the game's rights. Maybe you could just have the cool after game podcast or you could have the thing that, so you get that sense of sport or topicality or whatever it is or news adjacent thing, but you're not having to buy the sort of rights to this or run a massive news organization. and I think that that is particularly appealing to Netflix who want to be in the culture but not in those particular ways necessarily. And also it's time spent on the platform.

So one of the key things about most podcasts is they're like radio shows and they're on all year round and that's the point of it. There's always in any endeavour like this a contract you make with viewers or listeners which is I will do this. And the contract you make us on podcasts is we will always be here so if it becomes part of your routine like if you're doing a quiz show

it will always be there we will we will put in the work that this stuff is always there and if you do that if netflix want to do eight more episodes of the diplomat right they're going to spend 70 80 100 million on that and it will be absolutely brilliant and it will be eight hours long if they buy a podcast they got eight hours a month for the the next 10 years. It just, it's nonstop and it stays on their, uh, in their library. If you've got, if Netflix had six hit podcasts, let's say, and let's say those podcasts were doing two hours a week each, which is sort of normal for a lot of podcasts, then suddenly you've got 12 hours a week every single week of engagement with something, which apart from the upfront money

you're paying, is quite cheap to produce, uh, has an awful lot of viewer loyalty, has a topic which means you can talk about other Netflix shows and you can talk about, you know, there's all sorts of other things you can do with it. And it's an enormous library that constantly keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger. If you think of how much the Friends Library is worth to Netflix, you think, well, if you had a podcast that was enormous, your library just keeps growing and growing and growing and never stops growing. So you have the loyalty of people watching it every week. And then you have this enormous library. of content that people love and that constantly keeps people on your platform. Yes, I mean, I think it's interesting. This remains an experiment for them. And if it doesn't work for whatever reason, then they will pull out of it. So what they will have done is that they will have, what some people would say, they've overpaid, although not in their eyes and maybe by other standards to get these

slates. But they'll see it as good business. And I agree, because they are buying into. the experiment at least. Remember, they did that to acquire scale in other areas, to attract filmmakers or writers or actors or whatever who didn't feel they wanted, who weren't sure about this new entity, Netflix. They paid huge amounts of money and they gave masses of control and creatives did come to them in the end. It's interesting that, and it's essential really, that the deal with the ring up and Spotify and with Restus Football is that you take your shows

off YouTube in exchange for this. That's what the money is for, right? Yeah, that's what it is. Whether that will worry YouTube, to be honest, of course you're worried to some degree about losing your highest profile podcasters to Netflix because they've got very deep pockets, but I think that they probably don't need to care that much about it

because, first of all, we don't know if it all work. And Netflix needs hundreds, maybe thousands of hours of high-quality video podcasts to compete with YouTube. And so having said that, it is interesting that they're going for it and I do think that there's a big part of this idea as we talk about, like consumption growth

of just trying to have something that, again, mirrors the old world of linear TV where it's a form of companionship or radio where it's on and you leave it on and it's with you in the background or in the foreground, whatever it is, but you have it on a lot more than you do now.

On a philosophical point, I have lots of, whenever I have meetings now with TV companies about new ideas and things. It's constantly that thing of, does this need to be in a studio with a host talking to camera up front? Can it just be, boom, we're in a studio, someone's talking, there's a, you know, everyone is starting to think, how do you take the podcast aesthetic and put that into regular linear TV as well? From my perspective doing podcasts,

It's lovely that people watch it. I get it. I absolutely understand it because you have to use things however you choose to use them. It's never how I've ever approached it. I don't think of a visual medium in any way whatsoever. For me, every single thing is the words. It's immediacy, it's intimacy, and that's all it is. And you watch it, listen to it.

Yeah. I genuinely couldn't care less because I don't think it makes any difference to how a podcast is put together. Although people say they like the expressions, and they like to see and I know people who say oh I actually the first time I ever

you know watched Restis football on video I was like oh I'm hooked because I want to or smart lists or one of those big US ones they like to see the interaction but you mustn't think about it because that's when people start not doing

podcasts properly because they start pretending to do banter and they're pretending to do their reactions and putting pranks on each other and then it just becomes what television turned into which is forced banter and you know that's the thing that must be left aside. But everything's going to look different.

But yeah, the joy of this is just talking about stuff we find interesting and trying to do it intimately and immediately. And that's the real benefit is that you get to be news adjacent in the same way you get to be sports adjacent, but you don't have to buy the rights and you don't have to run a newsroom. And actually it's quite, I mean, so many people now are, coming to their news via the filtration medium of podcasts, which I think is sort of fascinating. And it can only be good for democracy.

Well, yes, as if it even needed a shot in the arm, Richard. Yeah, exactly. It's already healthy. And it's, but, but it's interesting within many, many news organizations now, everything is perceived as you're suddenly thinking, we're just going to, how can we be a print online print i'm talking about how can we be a words organization we have to be a video organization we have to almost go video first and newsrooms of news what was once newspapers news outlets across the world and now thinking to what extent can we sublimate our news stories into something that looks a bit more like a podcast or short form video or anything because that is

where everything is going and if we just carry on writing this as just words or whatever it we can't do this anymore so essentially we're delivering the same thing but we're just doing it in a completely in a different format and that that is the shift that's happening right across those kind of genres isn't he the genre I don't know but that's definitely the the shift that's happening there as well so everything is going towards this you know relatively low production value I mean very not even relative I mean hugely low production values I mean look at us form of video I mean look at exactly look at us. I mean, we're not together, which we're very sad about. But I think the most

expensive hour of podcasting we have ever done, it was less than £5,000 of raw costs. And that was because when Joey came to Greece, which I loved. And I, you know, every time, yes, please. But when you think of how much an hour of, you know, old-fashioned television or even stuff that you see on Netflix now that isn't sort of drama or whatever costs. You can see why this is appealing. Yeah, and saves money for huge movies and huge high-scale TV as well. So listen, it's it is what it is on that. I'm not going to take a, I'm not going to take a view on it.

Now, Richard, have you got any recommendations? Yes, I finally, or we finally saw Marty Supreme, which I just absolutely adored. And it's one of those things that you think, oh, it's been so high. And we talk a lot about that Hollywood hype machine and, you know, Timothy Chalameh going on, everything. And you're like, oh, God, it's so obvious. All this stuff. God, just make good films. You don't have to worry about this.

And all of the hype is worth it. It's so terrific. And it's so unusual. And it's the sort of film that they don't make these anymore. But they do absolutely loved it. It was in a full cinema as well. And I wasn't a huge fan of uncut gems, which is cut from a very similar cloth. I found that too stressful.

but this it has the same stress levels but with a performance of such originality and charm by Timothy Salome I absolutely loved it I'm away but I'm seeing it the minute I get back and I'm very excited about it he is a proper he is a proper movie star A list or not

Oh A list of course look at how it is By the way it's open brilliantly for the type of film it is I mean absolutely brilliantly and he has this extraordinary way of promoting things that is different to other people and yeah I mean he is a movie star and he is a movie star that makes young people go and watch movies so he's a good thing in my book he's the last movie star on Thursday we will see you for a Q&A look forward to that very much and on Friday for our members we're talking about

it's the second part of our story about the KLF who burned a million pounds and we'll find out why and if they really did do it and the answer is yes they did See you on Thursday, everyone. See you on Thursday. So what's really going on between Donald Trump and Venezuela right now? I'm Gordon Carrera National Security Journalist. And I'm David McCloskey, author and former CIA analyst. And we, together are the same.

The hosts of The Rest is Classified in our latest emergency episodes. We go deep into the inside track of what's really going on in the spy war in Venezuela. And we're looking at how, with the help of the CIA, Donald Trump has managed to oust Venezuela's leader. So get the full insider scoop by listening to The Rest is Classified wherever you get your podcasts.