Who Will Control Hollywood’s Future? Netflix vs. Warner Bros

Who’s Really Writing the Stories That Shape Our World?

This week, we dive into the high-stakes power play unfolding in Hollywood as Netflix and Paramount battle to take over Warner Bros. What looks like a blockbuster business deal is, in fact, a global struggle over who gets to shape the stories that define how we think, feel, and remember.

Farzana explores the soft power implications of the deal, asking what happens when control of cultural narratives shifts to private or even foreign-backed hands. Doug examines the potential impact on creators, especially if Netflix, known for tight content licensing, wins control of vast historical archives. David brings in insider chatter from Hollywood, where some fear the deal could spell the end of cinema as we know it.

Also in this episode, we unpack why the UK is launching a legal PR offensive to keep English law as the gold standard for global deals and how Singapore is emerging as a serious contender.

Plus, is the US hurting its tourism brand with new visa requirements demanding access to social media history? And what can Australia’s ban on under-16s using social media teach us about digital policy and parental reality?

Listen For

3:53 How would this merger reshape global storytelling and soft power?

6:58 Why is the UK promoting English law as a global standard?

10:12 What makes Singapore law a serious competitor to English law?

15:39 Will new US visa rules scare away global travelers and harm tourism?

The Week Unspun is a weekly livestream every Friday at 10am ET/3pm BT. Check it out on our YouTube Channel or via this LinkedIn channel

Folgate Advisors

Curzon Public Relations Website

Stories and Strategies Website

Request a transcript of this livestream

Chapters

• 3:53 How would this merger reshape global storytelling and soft power?
• 6:58 Why is the UK promoting English law as a global standard?
• 10:12 What makes Singapore law a serious competitor to English law?
• 15:39 Will new US visa rules scare away global travelers and harm tourism?

Transcript

David Gallagher (00:09):

We got to go to Hollywood, Doug.

Doug Downs (00:11):

Shouldn't I be there for this? How come for you should need it. You have to go to Sri Lanka or for her report. I don't get to go to Hollywood. Okay. Netflix wants to buy Warner Brothers. If this happens. Netflix would control HBO Studios, DC Studios, Warner Brothers Pictures and Warner Brothers games. Look at all these brands that Netflix would control. It's one of the biggest deals Hollywood has ever seen, and it could reshape the entire industry. One company would hold many of the stories that shape the way you and I think, feel, and talk about the world. Paramount has jumped in now with a larger hostile bid. Now the fight is out in the open. Shareholders are split. Regulators are watching closely. Politicians are weighing in, of course, from both sides, of course, and the reaction inside Hollywood is sharp. Some fear Netflix would push everything toward tighter budgets and data-driven stories.

(01:05):

Others, fear Paramount would break up parts of the studio and cut. Deep creators feel the whole landscape is changing. A major part of the story here is Control. Warner Brothers holds some of the most valuable worlds ever made. Harry Potter, game of Thrones, DC Heroes, major animation libraries, and a deep bank of documentary and use archives. These are not just brands. They are cultural landmarks. Whomever owns them decides how they grow, change or fade. There's also a quiet worry running through the creative world. Warner has always licensed its material broadly. Filmmakers, podcasters, journalists, independent creators have long used Warner Archives footage and historical audio in their work. Netflix doesn't license things that way. It keeps things tight to the chest. If Netflix wins, access to that history may narrow. That means fewer chances for creators to build stories from old material and less room for the public to see familiar worlds through fresh voices.

(02:05):

This deal is also a test of public relations. Each side fighting to shape the narrative. Netflix speaks about steady ownership and leadership. Paramount speaks about protecting the studio's soul workers talk about jobs, fans talk about culture. Unions talk about power. Every message is a move in a larger struggle over who should guide a major piece of our shared imagination. In the end, the winner will not just buy a company, they will shape how future stories are told. Who gets to tell them and what the public believes those stories should mean. That's why this deal feels bigger than business. It reaches into culture itself. It decides not only who owns the past, but who gets to create the future.

David Gallagher (02:47):

Huge, huge story, and I'm glad you kind of brought at least my attention to it. When you first mentioned it, I was thinking of it as sort of another corporate merger deal and there'd be the usual sort of, is this a monopoly? Is it not? Is it good consumers, is it not? But when you zoom out like that, it really is a big story. I mentioned I was at a holiday party yesterday with some studio execs and pretty highly placed studio,

Doug Downs (03:12):

Which you do. This is just a typical, that's what you do.

David Gallagher (03:15):

It's just how I like to hang out on a Thursday night. But one of them said, this is after a few glasses of Prosecco said he thought this would be the end of cinema if Netflix takes over Warner Brothers, that it will destroy an already fragile economic reality for the cinematic industry. And I just hadn't thought of it that way. So that's just one part of the conversation. There are also some big news brands that are affected in this deal, CNN and CBS. So closer out of the bigger storytelling complex, but in the news media, there's some big news brands affected with this. So I do think it's a significant story.

Farzana Baduel (03:53):

Gosh. I mean, I think as Doug said, one has to be very mindful that the business of storytelling is really the business of influence. And you have news social media platforms with their algorithms and be it cinema storytelling, be it sort of Netflix that have film and sort of TV series. It shapes people, it shapes culture. And so it'll be really interesting to know who's going to buy it. And also there's a consortium put in place behind it. Who does that comprise of, are they foreign players involved as well? How will that then end up becoming a sort of foreign policy soft power play? So I think wait and see. But yes, I think you are absolutely right. I think from a PR perspective, they've got a multitude of stakeholders that they need to reassure with very different messaging. So the talent would require a different sort of messaging in terms of reassurance of jobs, the customers, the diehard film people, and of course the regulators. I mean, how do you think the regulators will look at it?

David Gallagher (05:04):

I don't know. I mean there's good arguments I guess either way from whether this is a monopoly or not, or so I've been told President Trump says he will be involved in the decision. So that makes it a political question already. There are reasons for Paramount maybe to believe that they've got a good relationship with the Trump administration, that Netflix may not. The fact that there is this coalition of non-American investors backing the Paramount counter bid.

Doug Downs (05:31):

This is the guardian story you're referring to, right?

David Gallagher (05:33):

Paramount. Yeah, exactly. Maybe you can spin this out from there. Doug, Louise Watson and Len is asking about a difference in valuation. I read something about that. I don't know enough about it to comment, but I just want to

Doug Downs (05:42):

Do a little on the numbers. It's evaluated at 72 billion, but the original bid, I believe is 82 billion, which that's normal. You always up bid. And then I think the Paramount hostile bid is up as high as 108 billion. So the numbers flying all over the place. Right, right. But that story in the Guardian was that the Paramount bid is backed in large part by a group from, I think it's Saudi Arabia, and that's brand new. And I don't see it. I'm over here on this side of the pond. I don't see that in any of my newsfeeds yet. I know it's in the Guardian, but it doesn't pop up in my aggregated newsfeed. So that hasn't splashed.

David Gallagher (06:19):

Yeah, it's a fund, I believe that is backed by sovereign money from Gold States and from Jared Kushner,

Doug Downs (06:25):

Jared

David Gallagher (06:25):

Kush president son-in-law. So this would be a great Netflix story by itself.

Doug Downs (06:32):

How that story gets called depends on who buys

David Gallagher (06:37):

Well. I think this is probably going to come up because this story isn't going to go away anytime soon. It's on a timeline that's not finite, but won't be resolved probably anytime immediately. Maybe Farzana, bring us back to some other work you're doing with the UK government and some work to promote the legal profession. I didn't know they needed help with promoting themselves, but apparently they do.

Farzana Baduel (06:58):

Everybody needs help. Everybody needs help. Even the prs need pr. Now. The English law promotion panel was set up and they held their first meeting, and I'm very honored to join the panel. It was myself, another PR person, and the rest were lawyers who I've always had had the greatest respect for lawyers because I think they actually own the similar spectrum to us prs. It's a spectrum of advocacy, but their advocacy is within the constraints of legal jurisdictions. Whereas prs, we swim out in the wild ocean with no parameters and no regulation, which Doug and I have a issue on now a little bit about the English law promotion panel. It's been formed as part of the UK's modern industrial strategy, which will drive economic growth. Apparently it will focus on how to reinforce the English law status as a leading choice for international business, future-proofing the UK legal services sector amid competition from other countries. And the panel is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and law Chancellor David Lamy, and this is what he had to say. He said, the UK's legal services sector is a hidden superpower of our economy generating more than 42.6 billion pounds a year and employing more than 364,000 pounds, 364 people across the country. And I must say lawyers get paid a great deal more than us prs.

(08:32):

The use of English law by international business is key to that success story and we want to stay ahead of the game. And then he goes on to say that he's bringing together legal and business leaders to make sure the UK remains a jurisdiction of choice and continues to champion the rule of law around the world. Now we all know that actually the UK is facing some stiff competition from Singapore and also Dubai as well. And so now, Doug, I wanted to bring you in to give us a bit of context for Americans who don't perhaps understand the concept of a national law like English law, because of course there is no such thing as American law, but you do have York law, Delaware law, so please share.

Doug Downs (09:15):

Yeah, and I had to research this. I was trying to wrap my head around the story. I'm so happy for you being on this board. This is fantastic. I just wanted to get that in. When we talk about international business, this is for international deals, and you have to decide on what's the rule of law, kind like if you're going to play poker, you got to decide what are the rules, right? You need to decide on which law is going to apply to the contract or contracts that you're signing. So when we talk about international businesses choosing English law, important to correct a common misconception. There is no single body of American law competing with it in the us. Companies choose amongst state laws. New York law, for example, is big and perhaps the leader for finance, California law for tech deals or for corporate Delaware for corporate governance and globally, businesses also sometimes opt for German law, which is often done for engineering or industrial mergers.

(10:12):

And French law is widely used in civil markets and in a surprising number of EO related disputes for reasons only French drivers can fully understand. But the real competitive pressure now is as Farzana mentions, the rise of Singapore law. Singapore is not waiting for the world to come to it. It's actively marketing its legal system as the modern neutral choice for international commerce. They're building institutions, promoting themselves abroad and positioning Singapore law as the natural jurisdiction for deals touching Asia, which is growing a lot. And that's why this move from the UK government matters. This new English law promotion panel is IMO fundamentally a reputation strategy, a branding exercise, not aimed necessarily at British citizens, but at multinational companies, global investors and cross-border deal makers. The message they want to send is choosing English law adds stability, predictability, and credibility to your deal, and is a way of staying on the gold standard. David?

Farzana Baduel (11:19):

Well, I think what's quite interesting is the UK government, they are beginning to really get soft power and understand strategic communications and reputation. And of course, this is just one example. So before they set up a soft power council, and there's a few friends of mine who are on the council who have got huge respect for, so they've really brought in the right sort of people. So I think long may that continue because having an industrial strategy is one thing, but actually to really bring it into reality, you need promotion, you need to go out there, you need messaging, you need sort of strategic comms.

Doug Downs (11:55):

Well, that leads me to this. There's only one farzana badge on the board. The rest are kind of lawyers. And I mean Bravo, they started with the best way to go. Don't let those lawyers overtalk you.

Farzana Baduel (12:08):

There is another comms person. But yes, we are in the minority and there's a lot more lawyers. But again, I pretty much love lawyers. I'm not complaining, but I do love PRS more. So I would like more PRS on a promotion panel. So I agreed. David, I wanted to bring you in with your thoughts.

David Gallagher (12:24):

Well, I love that you're on this board as well, and maybe we will focus more time on a future show, but really, I like the fact that they are including a comms perspective that says something. We do have a seat at the table and we have an important perspective to add, swing the light around and looking at pr, our comms or marketing or media. I would love to see the government focus a similar amount of energy on promoting the UK creative industry. I think they do in some areas. I didn't get a chance to look at this before the show, but I think they promote the fashion industry and a few others. But I was on a panel for the UK PRCA years ago trying to promote the UK PR scene as the go-to hub for international public relations because of the time zone, which is friendly to most parts of the world because of English language as the language of business, and in many respects the language of media and because of the collection of talent here. So it would be interesting to learn what we can from the lawyers and see what we can apply elsewhere. Now, every time I say this, I get notes on LinkedIn from people in New York who say, I'm crazy to say that London is the capital, or I get people from the north of England saying that I'm too London focused. So anyway, I'm just glad we're having this. I'm glad we're having the conversation.

Farzana Baduel (13:40):

Can I just ask you, David, where do you think the center of excellence is for pr?

David Gallagher (13:44):

I think it depends

Farzana Baduel (13:46):

That you also just like in

David Gallagher (13:47):

The mind. In the mind. Yeah, exactly. Know what I love about London though. It's the center of the financial services sector, at least for a big part of the world. It's the center for a big part of the English media landscape, including entertainment. And it's the center of the UK government and a big part of the world that still looks to the uk. So I think a lot of things happen here in London, whereas in the us, the centers of excellence are a little more distributed on the west coast for entertainment and New York for finance and DC for public affairs. But I do think globally, in my experience, clients are more comfortable with UK based agencies for that work than American. And I'm preparing myself for the backlash now that I will inevitably. So I couldn't land on a specific story, but I just want to touch really quickly on things that grabbed my attention this week. First, the US State Department reversed an earlier decision promoting CA as the font of choice and remoting times New Roman because it's less woke. And I guess the original benefit of calorie is that it was considered to be more readable and more inclusive.

Doug Downs (15:00):

So it's a return to what Americans have seen habitually anyway, the original move was to be, for whatever reason, to switch to Collibra, and now it's just returned to how it was. They've decided that's their type.

David Gallagher (15:14):

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. I think an obvious big story with obvious PR implications, and again, probably not enough time to get to, is the Australia ban on social media for it's huge kids under the age of 16. What I've been able to read is that most of the coverage about it has been how kids have outsmarted the system and found their way back onto the platforms anyway. But I think there will be a lot of things to learn from that experiment, and maybe it'll be a conversation that comes

Doug Downs (15:39):

Up. Are they just getting adults to sign in for them, like hanging outside of the beer store? Hey buddy, can you buy me a six pack kind of

David Gallagher (15:45):

Deal? It does have a lot of comic potential, but I get the sentiment behind the move. And then in the middle of the week, what I think does have very obvious PR implications for the US tourism hospitality industry is a pretty dramatic upgrade in entry requirements for I think 42 countries where a visa wasn't required for tourists and visitors to visit the US now, a much bigger, more potentially onerous set of requirements including sharing your social media for the last five years names and contact information for family and employers. It's a pretty burdensome proposal. It's not yet in effect, although I do know the US embassy here in London has already issued guidance saying foreign visitors need to set their social media to public. I don't know what the real implications of that are, but it doesn't, in my view, sit well with potential.

Doug Downs (16:39):

But this is if you're staying for six months or something, right, that this isn't, Hey, I'm heading down to Disneyland with the kids for a week and we're going to have some fun. It doesn't apply. In that case,

David Gallagher (16:51):

I don't know. It sounds like you read more into that than I have, but

Doug Downs (16:55):

If you're staying for a while, they want just saying, we want to know a little more about you.

Farzana Baduel (16:59):

David, can I ask just quickly on that, I just think to myself, is it going to start harming the interests of these big tech social media platforms?

(17:09):

Because people are going to start thinking, do you know what? It's enjoyable. You're getting messaging coming in from Australia that it's harmful for, so harmful that they have it for under sixteens. That's going to start that whole narrative up about the harms in terms of mental health, attention deficit and so forth. But then you've got also then if you start traveling to the us, you may end up having to get called out for any sort of social media posts that you did. So is it going to become this sort of hindrance that we are going to start thinking, God, is it worth it?

David Gallagher (17:43):

I don't think anything that's happening in the US government is against the interest of big tech platforms right now. So is that a potential development? Maybe? But I think right now, anything that's happening is probably with the blessing, if not the actual encouragement of big tech. I wonder if someone's going to come up with an app that helps you kind of scrape or bypass or somehow aggregate your data in a way that's administration friendly. But we shall see. And I thought that was a good conversation. So thanks guys.

Doug Downs (18:12):

Excellent. Excellent. Thanks so much for spending a bit of your day with us. Farzana. How hot is it down near the equator?

Farzana Baduel (18:18):

Do you know what? It's not too bad. I mean, it is monsoon season and Sri Lanka is quite extraordinary because they've got different microclimates in the north compared to the south. And so it's monsoon season in the north, but not in the south. And so it's different. And I've been going all over the island, and so the weather's been a bit schizophrenic, but of course it was quite a tragedy what happened with Cyclone Di. What? And so in particular, because it's always been happening in this part of the world, but the frequency of natural disasters seems to be speeding up, and that seems to be a big issue for countries such as Sri Lanka, Maldives,

Doug Downs (18:59):

You're down near the equator today in a couple of weeks. You're joining me here in Canada's Rocky Mountains in January, so bring a light sweater, Sanna, you'll need to bundle up just a little bit. Thank you for spending a bit of your day with us this Friday. As always, thanks to superstar producers, Emily Page and Solomon ibe. The week on Spun is a co-production of F Gate advisors, K in public relations, and stories and strategies, podcasts. Hey, the recordings are on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube. You can give them a listen there. And one final thought today, remember that everyone you talk to today is tender somewhere, including you choose compassion over criticism and create that emotional safety that is the birthplace of real connection. Have a great Friday. Have a fantastic weekend.