Thin ice: could the Greenland clash kill NATO?

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Economist Podcasts – "Thin ice: could the Greenland clash kill NATO?"

Host(s): Jason Palmer & Rosie Blore
Guest: Shashank Joshi, The Economist's defense editor
Release Date: January 19, 2026
Duration: ~27 minutes

Episode Overview

This episode of The Intelligence explores the escalating political crisis surrounding Donald Trump's renewed push for America to purchase Greenland, heightened tensions with European NATO allies, and the existential questions this drama poses for the transatlantic alliance. Defense editor Shashank Joshi analyzes the risks, the underlying motives, and the potential consequences for NATO’s future.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Greenland Crisis: A Modern Geopolitical Flashpoint

[01:56 – 03:18]

• Donald Trump has reiterated his desire for the "complete and total purchase of Greenland" and has announced 10% tariffs on imports from eight European NATO countries sending troops to Greenland.
• Denmark (which governs Greenland) and other European leaders have voiced staunch opposition, framing Trump's threats as blackmail and personal vendetta.
  • Danish MP Lars Christian Brask (quoted via BBC):

    "You cannot sell a population. It's modern slavery." (03:02)

Quote:

“A few weeks ago, many people would have struggled to locate Greenland on a map. Now the clash over this Arctic island risks tearing apart the global order.”
– Rosie Blore (03:08)

---

2. How Serious is the Threat to NATO?

[03:18 – 05:26]

• Shashank Joshi sees this as the most significant transatlantic crisis "in either of Donald Trump's two presidencies."
  • The language of European officials is "blackmail, intimidation, threats... I have never seen Europeans use in this way towards the United States...” (03:34)
• While outright war over Greenland is unlikely, Joshi is concerned that escalating diplomatic and economic pressure could lead to a unilateral U.S. annexation of Greenland by declaration.
• Trump's public reasons include:
  • Greenland’s strategic location for missile defense (true for 60 years, regardless of ownership)
  • Claim that Europe cannot defend Greenland against China/Russia (but U.S. could help without ownership)
  • Underlying interests: resource extraction and a personal legacy of American territorial expansion (Manifest Destiny, "seeing America expand on a map")

    • "A lot of analysts think that Donald Trump is also interested and attracted to the natural resources under Greenland... And I think more generally, there is a sense he wants to be a president who once again sees America expand on a map."
      – Shashank Joshi (04:35 – 05:26)

---

3. Is This Crisis Different from Past NATO Frictions?

[05:26 – 06:37]

• Previous disputes (Turkey/Cyprus in 1974, Cod Wars between Britain and Iceland) never threatened NATO’s core integrity.
• U.S. is the backbone of NATO—militarily, logistically, and in terms of deterrence.

  • “…American threats to Greenland are much, much more serious than any of those prior conflicts. And the fundamental reason for that, Rosie, is that America is the backbone of NATO... any dispute that threatens America's role in the alliance... is existential to the alliance in that really nothing else has been..."
    – Shashank Joshi (05:35 – 06:37)

---

4. Impact on the War in Ukraine

[06:37 – 08:01]

• European leaders find themselves in the paradox of seeking U.S. backing for security, while feeling “blackmailed” over Greenland.
• Erosion of trust in Article 5 (the mutual defense clause), further undermined under Trump’s leadership style.

  • “These are, I don’t want to say, nails in the coffin of NATO on Article 5. That would be far too strong... but this is profoundly eroding what diminished trust there was in Article 5, even prior to this latest assault...”
    – Shashank Joshi (07:21 – 08:01)

---

5. The Rational vs. Political Calculus for America

[08:01 – 09:22]

• Rational viewpoint: U.S. relies heavily on European bases and NATO partnerships for global power projection and operations (e.g., Ramstein Air Base in Germany, support by Denmark in intelligence and logistics).
• However, some White House advisors (not all) might see NATO’s fragmentation as a tolerable or even desirable outcome.

---

6. What If NATO Collapses?

[09:22 – 10:13]

• European defense is deeply intertwined with, and dependent on, American support (intelligence, refueling, logistics, senior command).
• Europe cannot simply “throw money” at the gaps; such transformation (to become self-sufficient) would take years.
• Despite this, Europe is responding forcefully and with surprising unity.

---

7. Is This the End for NATO?

[10:13 – 12:13]

• Joshi is adamant NATO isn’t over yet, noting opposition even among congressional Republicans to Trump’s Greenland gambit.
• The alliance is too large and complex to dissolve at the whim of a single leader—though lasting damage is possible if the U.S. walks away or escalates further.

  • “But to actually act on this, that would be lunacy, because we would face profound consequences on everything from trade retaliation to implications for tech companies to our access to bases in Europe. And I think that that is not quite where the United States is willing to go just yet. But Europe has to contemplate that world now.”
    – Shashank Joshi (11:22 – 12:13)

• One certain lesson: Europe will have to accelerate its efforts toward defense autonomy, with “much less America in it.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “I think this is the biggest crisis in the transatlantic relationship in either of Donald Trump's two presidencies, much more serious than anything we've had in the past.”
  – Shashank Joshi (03:18)

• “If America is really willing to dismember one ally, that is Denmark, why would anyone believe it will come to the aid of another ally if it is attacked by Russia as per its obligations under Article 5?”
  – Shashank Joshi (07:05)

• “It's just too big, complex, and important to dissolve at the whims of one man.”
  – Shashank Joshi on NATO (10:17 – 12:13)

• “Europeans realize even if this issue is resolved, they must move much, much more quickly, much more seriously, to a vision of European defense that can exist with much less America in it.”
  – Shashank Joshi (12:09)

---

Key Timestamps of the NATO/Greenland Segment

• 01:56 – Introduction to the Greenland crisis and Trump’s renewed push for purchase
• 03:18 – Shashank Joshi on the scale of the crisis
• 04:01 – Joshi on likelihood of war, annexation scenario
• 04:35 – Trump’s motives for Greenland
• 05:26 – Comparison to historical NATO disputes
• 06:37 – Fallout for Ukraine conflict and Article 5 trust
• 08:11 – Rational strategic interests for U.S.; possible White House perspectives
• 09:28 – What is at stake for Europe if NATO cracks
• 10:17 – Could this be the end of NATO?
• 12:13 – The case for European defense autonomy

---

Tone & Language

• Analytical and grave, underscoring the unprecedented seriousness of the controversy—but tempered with historical perspective and a focus on practical realities.
• Joshi’s commentary is candid, cautious, but unequivocal about the risks.
• The discussion is free of sensationalism but does not shy away from describing the crisis as "existential" for NATO.

---

Summary for New Listeners

This episode is essential listening for anyone seeking to understand the new, volatile nature of transatlantic politics. The Economist's team lays out the Greenland crisis as not merely a diplomatic spat but potentially the most severe test NATO has faced in its existence. The prospect of U.S.-led fragmentation, the erosion of trust in Article 5, and the necessity for European defense autonomy are all explored in depth. This is a must-listen for those following global security—and for those trying to grasp how the future of Western alliances could hinge on a remote Arctic island.

Transcript

[Ad Voice]

BetterHelp online therapy bought this 30 second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out. Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self care. Imagine what you could do with more. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax.

[Rebecca Jackson]

You open the fridge, there's nothing there. So what's it gonna be? Greasy pizza? Sad Drive Thru Burgers? Dish by Blue Apron is for nights like that. These are the pre made meals of your dreams. At least 20 grams of protein. No artificial flavors or colors. No chopping, no cleanup, no guilt. Keep the flavor, ditch the subscription. Get 20% off your first two orders with code APRON20. Terms and conditions apply. Visit blue apron.com terms for more.

[Jason Palmer]

The economist. Hello and welcome to the Intelligence from the Economist. I'm Jason Palmer.

[Rosie Blore]

And I'm Rosie Blore. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world.

[Jason Palmer]

For as long as megachurches have existed, America has done a pretty good line in them. But what they're offering is changing. Our correspondent finds that fire and brimstone is out. Crosses too sometimes, and a businesslike manner is in.

[Rosie Blore]

And remember, when you only listened to a podcast, how very monomedia these days. You can often watch them too. We ask why the cameras have been turned on to a classically audio medium. But first, It was another extraordinary weekend. Donald Trump reiterated his determination to reach a deal for America's complete and total purchase of Greenland. And he said he'd imposed 10% tariffs on imports from eight European countries, all of them his fellow NATO allies who'd sent troops to support the territory. European leaders vowed not to be bullied. Denmark currently runs the autonomous territory. Its prime minister said that Europe won't be blackmailed. Speaking to the BBC, Danish MP Lars Christian Brask described Trump's threats as a personal vendetta.

[Ad Voice]

You cannot sell a population. It's modern slavery.

[Rosie Blore]

A few weeks ago, many people would have struggled to locate Greenland on a map. Now the clash over this Arctic island risks tearing apart the global order.

[Shashank Joshi]

I think this is the biggest crisis in the transatlantic relationship in either of Donald Trump's two presidencies, much more serious than anything we've had in the past.

[Rosie Blore]

Shashank Joshi is the Economist's defense editor.

[Shashank Joshi]

What we've seen from the European response is language like blackmail, intimidation, threats of a kind. I have never seen Europeans use in this way towards the United States in recent years, and I Think that that tells you about the severity of the moment that we're in.

[Rosie Blore]

Shashank, this is the most extraordinary situation. Is anyone actually going to go to war over Greenland?

[Shashank Joshi]

I think that ongoing American economic, political, diplomatic pressure, a campaign of arm twisting, is much, much more likely than a use of force, than some sort of American assault on Greenland. But I do worry that we could see an American annexation of Greenland by declaration without forces being involved. I, and a lot of the people I talk to just don't rule anything out at this stage. What we would once have considered outlandish, I think is on the table in a way it previously was not.

[Rosie Blore]

Just remind us why Trump says he wants Greenland.

[Shashank Joshi]

There's been a shifting set of reasons. The most recent in his public remarks was that it's important to US Missile defense because of its location, and that's true, but it's been true for 60 years, and it's been true without American ownership. Another one is that the Danes and Europeans cannot defend it against China in Russia, particularly over the next 10 years, which doesn't really explain why America can't help to defend it, just as it does other bits of Europe. But I think underneath those stated reasons, there's also a couple of other things. A lot of analysts think that Donald Trump is also interested and attracted to the natural resources under Greenland, which are plentiful, but would require quite difficult mining. And I think more generally, there is a sense he wants to be a president who once again sees America expand on a map. That's why he raised McKinley in his inaugural address. That's why he raised Manifest Destiny. I think that does make sense, given everything we know about his psychology.

[Rosie Blore]

Shashank, you're talking about Trump potentially tearing up NATO, but there have been fights in NATO before, so just how different is it this time?

[Shashank Joshi]

You're right. There have been fights in NATO before. The most famous one is probably Turkey and its invasion of Cyprus in 1974. That brought it into direct conflict with Greek forces, and Greek Cypriot forces. And Greece pulled out of NATO's Integrated Military Command for several years after that conflict. There were also other conflicts in the Atlantic. The famous one is the Cod wars between Britain and Iceland, skirmishing over fishing rights. American threats to Greenland are much, much more serious than any of those prior conflicts. And the fundamental reason for that, Rosie, is that America is the backbone of NATO. American military officers are woven throughout every NATO command. And without American air power and intelligence, NATO forces would find it much, much more difficult to defeat Russia in any conflict. So any dispute that threatens America's role in the alliance. And European trust in America's role is existential to the alliance in that really nothing else has been in the entire history of this organization.

[Rosie Blore]

You're talking about existential threats that might happen in the future, but what about the current one? What about the war in Ukraine? How is that affected by this?

[Shashank Joshi]

You have this sort of odd situation, don't you, of Europeans deeply concerned over American blackmail. And that's not my word. That's the word of the Swedish Prime Minister, that's the word of the Danish Prime Minister by America. And at the same time, they are seeking backing from America for a coalition of the willing deployment to buttress any ceasefire deal that is agreed in Ukraine. That's a very odd situation to be in. It reflects the fact that America is indispensable to European security. And I think that's the point of this, isn't it? Which is that if America is really willing to Dismember1 Ally, that is Denmark, why would anyone believe that it will come to the aid of another ally if it is attacked by Russia as per its obligations under Article 5 of the NATO charter? And so I think faith in Article 5 had been ebbing anyway. Trump is not the sort of person who takes these alliances as sacred obligations in the way Joe Biden probably would have done. These are, I don't want to say, nails in the coffin of NATO on Article 5. That would be far too strong, I think, at this stage. But I think that this is profoundly eroding what diminished trust there was in Article 5, even prior to this latest assault on Greenland and on Europe.

[Rosie Blore]

Is it possible that Trump will really risk eroding NATO in this way? America depends on Europe. It depends on NATO. It depends on that alliance, too.

[Shashank Joshi]

There's a rational way of looking at this, of course, which is that Europe is vital to the United States, not just economically, not just politically, but actually just militarily. Just take the example of an incident we discussed on this show, which was the American seizure of the Bellawan, a Venezuelan linked oil tanker in the waters off Iceland. How did America seize that tanker? It didn't teleport to the middle of the North Atlantic by magic. It flew a lot of its forces to bases and airfields in the United Kingdom. And by the way, do you know who else supported that operation? It was Denmark. Look at the bases in Europe that America depends on to project power throughout Africa, throughout the Middle East. Look at the immense importance of Ramstein Air Base in Germany, which is this gigantic logistical hub It's a medical hub for American services. That's a rational way of looking at this. Of course, if you're within the administration, what you might think is, well, Europeans are going to fold, they're going to cave. They depend on us. None of this is really at risk. And I think there's probably a subset of advisors in the administration, though not necessarily the most influential, who think if this does cause a crisis in NATO and it does cause the alliance to splinter or fragment, then some would say in the Trump administration, that's no bad thing.

[Rosie Blore]

And if that happens, if NATO crumbles, where does that leave the Europeans?

[Shashank Joshi]

We've been through this so many times, haven't we, over the last couple of years with every crisis? I won't repeat all the ways in which Europe depends on America. Listeners probably know them by now. Intelligence, air support, logistics, aerial refueling tankers, senior military officers in command posts, et cetera, et cetera. What I will say is that I think Europeans are really looking at this issue hard without America. Europe has a very, very serious problem. And it's not a problem you can just throw money at. It's a problem that would probably take years to completely fix and plug all those holes left by America. And I think that knowledge is going to Europeans to take a cautious approach. But cautious does not mean supine. And I think we are going to see them hit back. We are already seeing some pretty tough language from Europe here.

[Rosie Blore]

So where does this end, Shashank? Is NATO over?

[Shashank Joshi]

No, I firmly believe it's not over. Look, this is the biggest, the oldest, the most successful continuous alliance around anywhere today on the planet. It's just too big, complex, and important to dissolve at the whims of one man. In this way, of course, he could walk out. Of course that would do profound damage to it. But I think that actually this cause he is on, this isn't like Venezuela. This isn't like bombing Iran. The idea of extorting Europeans over Greenland, let alone the idea of invading and attacking it by force, that is extremely unpopular in the United States. It is opposed by a number of people in Congress, including Republicans, who have been pretty, let's be honest here, spineless on a great number of other issues where Trump has pushed the boundaries of the law or has pushed the boundaries of congressional opposition. And I think that there will be lots of advisors saying to him, by all means, Mr. President, use your leverage. Threaten the Europeans. But to actually act on this, that would be lunacy, because we would face profound consequences on everything from trade retaliation to implications for tech companies to our access to bases in Europe. And I think that that is not quite where the United States is willing to go just yet. But Europe has to contemplate that world now. This is the most serious crisis we've faced in a long, long time. It's more serious moment where JD Vance lectured Europeans at Munich last year. This, I think, feels very different. And that's why you're seeing European leaders stand up and speak out in a way that they haven't in the past. But look, whatever happens, I think that Trump's capricious approach to these issues, his continued attacks on Europe, mean that Europeans realize even if this issue is resolved, they must move much, much more quickly, much more seriously, to a vision of European defense that can exist with much less America in it.

[Rosie Blore]

Shashank, thank you very much.

[Shashank Joshi]

Thank you so much, Rosie. Hey, I'm Elise Hu, host of the podcast TED Talks Daily. Did you know Paylocity offers one platform for HR finance and it that means innovative solutions like on demand payment which offers employees access to wages prior to payday, flexible time tracking features which enables staff to clock in through their mobile device and numerous other cutting edge integrations are available to all your teams in one single place. Learn more about how Paylocity can help streamline work and bring teams [e-mail] 1.

[Momentous Sponsor Voice]

January is when we recommit to the habits that support our health and well being and naturally we start looking at what can support those goals, including supplements. The supplement industry is a low trust category. It's lightly regulated, products are easy to make, and companies don't even have to list everything on their label. That's exactly why I choose Momentous. They've become the high trust brand in a low trust category. They weren't satisfied with the industry standard, so they built the Momentus standard. Their commitment to doing things the right way, not the easy way. What truly sets Momentus apart is their testing and transparency. Every product is independently certified by NSF for sport, meaning it's tested for contaminants, heavy metals, banned substances, and verified for label accuracy. So you always know exactly what you're putting in your body. And if a product doesn't meet their standard, it never hits the shelves. In a space where trust is rare, Momentous is redefining what trust looks like and I've genuinely felt the difference using their protein and creatine every day. Right now, Momentous is offering our listeners up to 35% off your first order with promo code. Podcast head to livemomentous.com and use promo code podcast for up to 35% off your first Order. That's livemomentous.com promo code podcast.

[Ad Voice]

You guys all look fantastic.

[Shashank Joshi]

Look at your neighbor and say you look fantastic.

[Rebecca Jackson]

Tonight at a converted basketball stadium in Houston, 45,000 people come together each week.

[Jason Palmer]

Rebecca Jackson is our Southern correspondent.

[Rebecca Jackson]

When you walk through the hall, instead of concession stands like there would be at a sports game, there are donation boxes. As you get closer, you can hear a thumping bass from the music inside. These people are not turning up to watch their sporty heroes. They're actually coming to pray. Lakewood is America's biggest church, and during their Christmas Eve service, smoke machines cover the stage in a cozy fog, and a man sang a gospel rendition of Silent Night in Spanish. Thousands of people filled the bleachers, many standing, waving their arms, some crying. Researchers have found that services like this can leave people feeling like they're high on drugs. And while most American churches are struggling to fill pews, these megachurches are only getting bigger.

[Jason Palmer]

So as a Florida boy myself, I certainly remember the megachurch phenomenon. But why are they doing so well these days?

[Rebecca Jackson]

What makes these churches so different from an average American church is that they now more than ever have this sort of Hollywood style production. They have mesmerizing crowds. A megachurch now is defined by having 2,000 or more people, and the average megachurch has 4,000 people a week. So Lakewood is definitely on the larger side. These churches thrive throughout the south and have for many years. But during the pandemic, when people moved into the suburbs of the Sun Belt cities, they became even more successful. When small churches shut down during lockdowns, the big ones were able to absorb their congregants. They were already live streaming services and knew pretty well how to take online donations. The megachurch business model is all about growth. One researcher told me that at any given megachurch service, roughly a sixth of the people there are newcomers. Some churches are now franchising. Many of them are renting theaters or high school gyms that are empty on weekend mornings. And lots of them are buying new buildings. Some have 20, 30, or 40 campuses across a given city or across several states. The expansion has turned church into something much more than a Sunday service.

[Jason Palmer]

I think it's interesting that along the way there you used the phrase business model.

[Rebecca Jackson]

When I visited Lakewood in Houston and actually also other mega churches, mostly around the Atlanta area, I was struck by how much these places felt like a business. The main sermon on a Sunday morning is from the senior pastor who often feels like a CEO giving a TED talk. The Hartford Institute for Religious Research, which studies megachurches, found that the average megachurch in America, their annual revenue rose by 25% between 2020 and 2025. And nearly all of that came from congregant donations. How the churches spend their money is a little bit more mysterious. On this survey, Hartford found that they spent about half their cash on staff salaries, just over a third on building maintenance and programming, and only a tenth on charity. But beyond what they choose to disclo, their finances are really opaque. Federal tax law exempts these churches from filing annual returns and shields them from any kind of regular audit. Some pastors have unusually large mansions, accept gifts like private jets and cars from their congregants, and make millions off book deals. Interestingly, about a quarter of megachurch pastors preach something called the prosperity gospel. And this is a theology that asserts that God rewards faith with material wealth.

[Jason Palmer]

So I don't actually remember the prosperity gospel. Basically, it sounds as if a lot of these megachurches are not doing, I don't know, sort of straight down the line, say, Southern Baptist preaching.

[Rebecca Jackson]

I think that's right. I mean, Jason, one of the things that will have changed since you were a kid watching these guys on television is that they're increasingly becoming non denominational. That means that rather than tying themselves to denominations with rigid doctrines, they're building brands that are designed to be popular and flexible. And so the result is a Christianity that in some ways looks more like a crash course in self help than an age old faith anchored in scripture. Most mega church pastors for that reason do not preach politics. Rarely do they even talk about homosexuality or abortion from the pulpit. And the idea for this is that they need to appeal to an ever broader crowd and they don't want to isolate potential newcomers.

[Jason Palmer]

But at the mention there of age old faith anchored in scripture, as you say, this is sort of new territory. What does the old guards of the religious community make of these, let's call them, innovations?

[Rebecca Jackson]

I think broadly the old guard is not happy with this, but they are also reckoning with the fact that so many Americans are flocking to these types of churches. I spoke to the head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and he called the prosperity gospel a direct threat to biblical Christianity and a pseudo religion. He thinks that young people are actually going to be attracted to a much more serious Christianity and that megachurches are waning in their influence.

[Rosie Blore]

I want to talk to you for.

[Ad Voice]

A few moments about believing, about sitting.

[Rebecca Jackson]

In Lakewood on Christmas Eve, I was struck by the fact that the pastor's primary message was don't stop believing. It was about tackling depression and giving drug rehab one more try. And it wasn't necessarily so grounded in a deeply religious message. Looking around, I was surprised to see that there was actually no cross on display, but instead of at the back of the stadium, above the bleachers, there was a giant American flag glowing. It struck me in that moment that the biggest draw in a church like this is something much easier to follow than any of Jesus's teachings. It's the gospel of American capitalism.

[Jason Palmer]

Rebecca, thanks very much for your time.

[Rebecca Jackson]

Thanks for having me on. Jason.

[Jason Palmer]

Something is changing here in the podcast department at the Economist. In our studio, where there were once only mics and headphones, there's a phalanx of cameras. We, like just about everybody else, are moving into the video podcast era. Eric refuse to call them vodcasts.

[Ad Voice]

Podcasting, which began as an audio medium, is turning into something that looks a lot more like television.

[Jason Palmer]

Tom Wainwright is the Economist's media editor.

[Ad Voice]

And its listeners, or perhaps we should call them viewers who are leading this charge.

[Jason Palmer]

So let's wind back. This is a trend I have certainly noticed been a part of, even. Why is this pivot to video going on?

[Ad Voice]

I think it's all about chasing audiences in the States. Among people who consume podcasts, about 3 out of 10 now say that they do so mainly in video format. So if you want to reach these people, you need to have a video to go alongside your podcast. The other thing that I think podcasters like about video, they probably have mixed feelings about it. But one thing that attracts them to it is that on a platform like YouTube, it's a great discovery mechanism. It's a great way to find people who didn't previously listen to your show and perhaps people who didn't previously listen to podcasts at all. So it's a fantastic way to get access to the nearly 3 billion people who use YouTube, for example. Those clips can then be cut into shareable clips on social media. And so you can catch people that way on TikTok, on Instagram, whatever it might be. So I think the key thing behind the video trend really is podcasters trying to find new ways to catch new audiences who might otherwise not have come across their show.

[Jason Palmer]

Well, that's just finding different shops to sell your wares in. But how are the wares changing?

[Ad Voice]

If you think back a few years, to what people would have considered an absolutely archetypal podcast People were really thinking about long form narrative series, things like Serial, for example, maybe Slow Burn, that kind of thing. Now I think if you picture in your mind's eye the kind of typical podcast, I think a lot of people would imagine something more like the Joe Rogan show or maybe New Heights with Travis Kelce and his brother. In other words, famous people talking to other famous people on a sofa. It's become a lot more about interview shows and I think the main reason for this is that doing the video to go along with those shows is just so much easier and cheaper. If you're doing an interview program, switching on a camera to just watch the people chatting is very easy, very cheap. If you're doing a long form narrative investigative show, something like Serial, coming up with, with video backing for that whole series is a really big, expensive undertaking. You're basically making a high quality TV documentary. So I think the move to video really favors these kind of celebrity interview type podcasts. And it's interesting, we just had the first Golden Globe for best podcast and nearly all of the shortlisted entries were these interview shows. So I think video is really helping that kind of format more than any other.

[Jason Palmer]

So insofar as podcasts are starting to look a lot more like tv, then the TV industry must be either shaking its boots or taking an interest.

[Ad Voice]

I think the TV industry began probably slightly looking down its nose at these cheap TV shows, but they actually increasingly are interested in snapping some of them up. Content budgets have been reined in in recent years in Hollywood and at the same time, streaming companies are keen to maximize what they call engagement, which basically means time spent on their platform. And so podcasts, which are really cheap to make and incredibly long in some cases are the ideal solution to this. And it's interesting we've got. Netflix has just started showing podcasts recently, at least in the U.S. fox has been buying up podcasts to show on Tubi, which is its streaming service. The transformation of the podcast into the TV show is nearly complete.

[Jason Palmer]

I'm interested to know what longtime podcast listeners make of this, the ones who were into it when it was an audio only medium. For my part, I listen, I don't watch. You listen to podcasts while cooking or going on a walk or what have you.

[Ad Voice]

A lot of these people who watch an inverted commas podcasts on a platform like YouTube or perhaps even Netflix aren't necessarily watching the screen the whole time. So we got to be a bit skeptical about this. I think some people also feel that video in some cases can compromise audio Podcast makers are keen to say that you can do both, and there are plenty of shows that do both. Audio and a video version as the same thing. But I think you probably need to optimize for one or the other. And when it comes to editing, for example, it's much easier to do a tighter edit with audio because if you're chopping every other and earn, you know, on video, you can't really do that so easily because the video becomes too choppy. The big difference, though, I think, is that to come up with a show which pleases the YouTube algorithm and maybe the Netflix algorithm going forward as well, you really need to make sure that all the exciting stuff is upfront in the first minute. That's how people like Mr. Beast have been so successful on YouTube, and it seems to be how podcasters are finding success in some cases on YouTube. And that really goes against the style of some of these longer form, slow burn narrative podcasts, where shoving all the best stuff up in the first 30 seconds ruins the pace of the whole thing. So I think there are pros and cons. But, Jason, I want to hear what you think. You're the king of podcasting around here. So what do you make of this move to video?

[Jason Palmer]

Well, look, it directly affects my working life. We do tape some of our podcast segments. They go out on YouTube just the same. Some irony that this segment isn't being taped. We do some, we don't do them all. Some lend themselves more. I have a little concern, I suppose, about how much the medium might be shaping the message and the degree to which I'm worried about video things. When I used to only have to think about audio things. And that will have some effect on what comes out, I suppose. But the real point for me is I'm just much better listened to than looked at.

[Ad Voice]

You're much too hard on yourself, Jason. But thanks for having me on the show.

[Jason Palmer]

It's a pleasure, Tom. Take care.

[Rosie Blore]

That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. We'll see you back here tomorrow.

[Shashank Joshi]

AI is transforming customer service. It's real and it works. And with fin, we've built the number one AI agent for customer service. We're seeing lots of cases where it's solving up to 90% of real queries for real businesses. This includes the real world, complex stuff like issuing a refund or canceling. Cancelling an order. And we also see it when FIN goes up against competitors. It's top of all the performance benchmarks, top of the G2 leaderboard. And if you're not happy, we'll refund you up to a million dollars, which I think says it all. Check it out for yourself at FIN AI.

[Rebecca Jackson]

We interrupt this program to bring you an important Wayfair message. Wayfair's got style tips for every home. This is Styles MacKenzie helping you make those rooms sing. Today's style tip when it comes to making a statement, treat bold patterns like neutrals. Go wild like an untamed animal. Print area rug under a rustic farmhouse table from Wayfair. Com Fierce. This has been your Wayfair style tip to keep those interiors superior.

[Ad Voice]

Wayfair Every style, every home.