Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Interviews with amazing people making things happen across the world of digital media.
New episodes every Thursday.
Mike (00:01.688)
Our guest today is someone who is a seasoned content leader. She has worked at magazines, social media platforms, and even tabloids. She played a formative role in Snapchat's content platform. Now she has founded her own company called Beginning, Middle and End and writes the incredibly useful, highly flammable newsletter. Here she is, a legend in her own right, Rachel Richardson.
How are you?
Rachel Richardson (00:28.219)
Hello, what a wonderful introduction. I should pay you money to be my publicist.
Mike (00:31.608)
Yeah.
You think like I maybe I could double as like a hype man someday, you know.
Rachel Richardson (00:38.906)
I would definitely give you money for those sort of like on stage introductions, like that you booked for the next physical gig I have.
Mike (00:47.768)
Yeah, no, I've actually written a few of these now and I like, there's so much that all of the people on this podcast are bringing to these conversations. So like, I want to make sure that the audience knows who you are and has like an understanding of your background, but also like, it's a great time to acknowledge your career. You've had an amazing career. and we'll get into all of that on this show. but right now, just really quick, just like tee up your new endeavor.
Rachel Richardson (01:08.538)
Aww.
Mike (01:16.44)
and highly flammable for us.
Rachel Richardson (01:19.194)
Sure, sure. I do three things. I create, I consult and I comment all the cs. So essentially, I have a weekly newsletter called Highly Flammable where I dig into trends, what's happening on the internet. I'm like extremely online and so I do that so you don't have to essentially. And I do some commentary. So I often sort of kind of get quoted as like an...
Mike (01:24.856)
Very nice.
Rachel Richardson (01:45.786)
in newspaper articles and magazine articles and on radio I do some punditry work. And then I also consult, which is a thing that actually makes me money. But I will go into brands and help them with their editorial strategies. And then latterly, I actually just went into a big snacks and beverages brand, who shall remain nameless. And we were helping them understand how they could.
Mike (01:57.368)
Yeah
Rachel Richardson (02:13.946)
be in culture, what that means for their brand, which is quite an interesting project to do. So yeah, that's what I do every day.
Mike (02:23.256)
So, okay, so if you're an expert, which I don't doubt that you are, after having worked with you for many years and watching the work that you've done since then, I wanna play a game, and admittedly, the game is somewhat inspired and or ripped off from your newsletter. But like, if you know anyone between the ages of 12 and 27, Rachel Richardson is the perfect person to talk to today.
Rachel Richardson (02:53.178)
You
Mike (02:53.272)
Rachel has studied gen Z, Gen Z, like very few others have, and the highly flammable newsletter is like phenomenal and gives her latest insights and all of these things. So today we're going to play a game. We're going to, it's, it's called Gen Z translator. because, and, and, and I'm listening, if you're listening to this, like maybe you're in Gen Z, maybe you use a couple of these expressions. I'm not recommending that you go out into the world and start using these, but like, if someone uses them around you.
Rachel Richardson (03:07.852)
Okay, I'm ready.
Rachel Richardson (03:20.538)
Please do not.
Mike (03:22.648)
you got a shot to at least have an understanding of what it is. Okay, so Rachel, I'm just gonna give you an expression. You give us a quick breakdown of like what it means and how it's used. And there's three of them. Okay, so first up, built like a cockroach.
Rachel Richardson (03:38.234)
Okay, this is a very common expression used by middle schoolers. So this is like tween category and you can be built like a lot of things, but it's never ever a compliment. It's always an insult. So built like a cockroach is that you are just extremely scrawny. You could probably do with a few more hours in the gym every week. You can also have built like a fridge, like a box. You do not want anyone to say any of these things to you.
That is a very common refrain for middle schoolers.
Mike (04:09.304)
Got it, okay, so that one like, you know, I feel like that one isn't so wild, right? Like I feel like describing something as built like a something, it's logical and also like is not necessarily new, but like just is recently kind of like gained prominence. Would you say that's true?
Rachel Richardson (04:19.258)
It's logical. It's logical.
Rachel Richardson (04:28.666)
Mm -hmm. Yeah, I'd say so. I'd say that that's true. Yeah. It's not exactly like, you know, plucked out of nowhere. It makes some actual sense. But there are a lot of parents that are still very confused by what these things say when their kids come home and tell them that they are built like a box.
Mike (04:45.144)
Yeah, well, OK, but yeah, that idea. I don't know how I would make that. Now I'm ready though. Now I know it. Now I know what to say back. OK, next next up 4 plus 4.
Rachel Richardson (04:54.266)
Exactly.
Rachel Richardson (04:59.866)
Okay, so 4 plus 4 equals what?
Mike (05:03.192)
Eight!
Rachel Richardson (05:04.506)
ate E -I -G -H -T, but also could be A -T -E, which is ate, as in she ate that, which means very good job, congratulations, you did very well. So used in a sentence, it could be something like, at the Met Gala, Rosalia ate that and left no crumbs. And that means Rosalia went to the Met Gala and she looked sensational.
Mike (05:32.024)
Wait, so that that I actually understand was how do you use four plus four in a sentence? Is it just like a reaction like someone does something and you're like four plus four? Yeah.
Rachel Richardson (05:40.826)
Yes, exactly, exactly. So it can be, it's really now like a shortening of a shortening, if that makes sense. And now it's just like, yeah, great, four plus four. Yeah. So basically it's a by word for fabulous, wonderful, great, four by four. Well, four plus four, not four by four. That's a car, four plus four.
Mike (05:59.928)
Four plus four, okay. And then one more, finally, Skibidi Ohio Rizz. Now, I think this is where we start to get into the, like a kid says this to their parents and they're just like, I'm out, I got no idea.
Rachel Richardson (06:07.834)
Okay.
Rachel Richardson (06:15.258)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, this one's a little bit complicated. So I'll start by breaking down what each word means and then we'll get to what it all means when you put it all together. So, Skibidi Toilet is an insanely popular YouTube animated series. Don't ask me too many questions about that. It's kind of weird and kind of freaky, but kids love it. And Skibidi has kind of become a byword for bad as a result of this.animated series. Then you have Ohio, and I'm very sorry to anyone listening, from the Ohio area. But that now means cringe. And rizz, it does. And rizz...
Mike (06:55.)
It does. Wait, wait, wait. Hold on, hold on. Why does Ohio mean cringe? When did that happen?
Rachel Richardson (07:00.89)
It's a very good question. I have no idea, but it does. And then there's also the alternative, which is Utah, which can actually mean cool. I don't know who made any of this up. I'm just reporting it from the trenches here. I'm just telling you what it means. So Ohio means cringe. And then rizz is short for charisma, which means that you've got game. And generally used in the context of whether someone's kind of good at flirting. So we have Skibidi, Ohio, rizz, and all put together it means bad, cringe,
Mike (07:08.952)
Yeah.
Rachel Richardson (07:30.81)
flirting or bad cringe game, which means you're just absolutely garbage at flirting or, you know, getting a significant others number or being able to chat someone up. You just you just haven't got it. You are doomed. You are trash. Your talk is trash.
Mike (07:48.472)
Interesting. OK, so thank you, Rachel. That was Gen Z translator. I do it. Something has just listening to this and something has come to mind is I think like every generation when they're in when they're that age, right? Different words sort of like enter the lexicon that becomes sort of like part of the character of that generation. You know, like for me, you know, it was like that's sick, you know, and things like that, right?
Rachel Richardson (08:12.314)
I think it's true and I think it's a much larger conversation about the fragmentation of media. So when I grew up,
Mike (08:17.592)
I do feel like there are now more of those. Like there's like this generation, there's like a new one all the time. Whereas like, I feel like when I was that age, like it wasn't quite like that, or maybe I just like, wasn't cool enough to know. But like, is that, is that true? And like, why do you think that is?
Rachel Richardson (08:41.722)
in the UK there were four TV channels and some radio stations and then any media you would buy. So even if I only watched one channel and my parents watched another they'd probably know what was on the other channel there just wasn't that much media for them to understand and it was also generally consumed in public like in a in a room with other people where people could see but now we have sort of
two different things happening at once. One is that people are device orientated so they can have their living in their own little bubbles. People aren't necessarily casually observing what content they're looking at unless you have like a really, you know, on it parent who's looking at view history and then actually watching this content with their kids. And there's also just an enormous wealth of content now. So, so much of this language often tends to come from
you know, particular groups like the gaming world, you get a lot of language that comes from Twitch streamers. You get a lot of language that come from like particular influences. It's like part of the reason why, you know, earlier this year, there were a ton of stories by Generation Alpha, like storming into Sephora and demanding different products because, you know, a certain set of beauty influences got really into a group of products and it sort of then disseminated into another group. So, and I think their parents were genuinely confused. Like, why does my kid want this likeDrunk Elephant drops. I don't have them in my beauty bag. Why would they even know about it? And it's because they're consuming media, you know, a high volume from many differentiated sources. None of these people are necessarily regulated or, you know, actually following any sort of rules. So there's a, they're exposed to like a lot of different concepts and a lot of different, different language. And a lot of these influencers are very influential, you know, funnily enough, that's why we call them influencers. So, you know, language tends to carry.
And then I think what happens after that is very much like what happened when we were kids. Like, cool kid says something, everyone thinks it's cool, and everyone starts saying it. That bit of human interaction, I think, is exactly the same. It's just the pool from which all this stuff comes from is now digital and online and very fragmented.
Mike (10:55.768)
It's it's that is so interesting because we talk. I've talked about this a lot on this podcast so far, which is the like evolution of where voices and talent comes from. Right. It's so much more vast. Right. You know, you have an almost infinite number of places that someone could emerge to become a big star or a voice or create or just like an operator, like a really skilled operator. So it's like.
Interesting to hear about how today's landscape and how many different sources of content and culture that there are results in this like real mishmash that's like way less like homogenous than than in the past, right?
Rachel Richardson (11:38.266)
Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's interesting because I sort of feel like we've got two levels now. You have this, as you say, this mishmash, this vast array of different content, but then you also still have Taylor Swift. And, you know, it's kind of interesting how these, we're sort of living in this dual world where like people can have the niches of niches of niches of interest. They could be on like a Discord group and literally talking about the most narrow thing.
Mike (11:52.056)
Yeah. Yeah.
Rachel Richardson (12:04.954)
and be incredibly involved in all of that, but then they could still go to a Taylor Swift concert and kind of enjoy this really big mass hysteria with millions of other teenagers. So it's kind of interesting. I feel like rather than something being replaced, we've just gotten like an added set of media. I think that's how I think about it.
Mike (12:24.152)
Yeah, so you mentioned we've talked a lot about Gen Z already. Everyone's always talking about Gen Z and you mentioned you're right to mention Gen Alpha who like I'll tell people that you know Gen Z is in the workforce, right? People are like what you know, like Gen Z is kind of formed in many respects, right? Like there's you know, like that most like what's the youngest? I think 12 or 13 is like the youngest of young Gen Z person now before we like.
Rachel Richardson (12:38.394)
Yeah, yeah.
Rachel Richardson (12:50.81)
Yeah, they're about, it's kind of, I wish someone would actually just decide what the years were because people tend to find it quite difficult. I kind of consider, yeah, anyone under about 12, 13, you're in Gen Alpha, anyone over that up to about 26, 27, you're Gen Z. But I think the way I like to think about it, which just helps me, is that Gen Z grew up with social media, like from the get -go.
Mike (12:55.64)
Yeah, I know.
Rachel Richardson (13:20.378)
The difference between them and Gen Alpha is that Gen Alpha grew up with like a phone in their hand. Like they weren't even like having eating solids and they had a device. And I think that's the difference between the two generations. But, and I think that, you know, I've had criticism actually of some of my writing that like I overstate how much Gen Z in particular is different like any other generation.
And I get that because every generation has their moment of revolution or kickback or whatever it is. And it's really hard to compare one to another. And actually, if you boil it all down, isn't it all just the same in a different format? But we have performed a social experiment on young people in terms of how much we've exposed them to social media, how much the devices that we've put in their hands, the way that they have got into these like, you know, cave holes of content.
That has not happened to any other generation before. And I would stand on a stage and argue with someone if they were going to say it's the same as TV. It's just not. TV is a box in a room that is often a group experience. It's very different to these sort of device -orientated experiences. So for that reason, I think they are very different to the generations that preceded them. And then you pile on top of that unprecedented
events that they've dealt with in terms of the pandemic at a really young formative age. There's an ongoing climate crisis. Like I never grew up thinking the planet would burn while I was alive. Like these kids have grown up with this. If you look at America, I think they're probably the most insecure generation in terms of their personal safety because of the skyrocketing school shootings.
And then you layer on top of that, because I'm getting very political, but then you layer on top of that the economic picture, and I'm very much talking about the West here, where the vast majority of Gen Z, what they can achieve will be less than their parents were able to achieve because of the economic factors at play. You know, incredibly high housing costs, low housing supply, wage stagnation, inflation, economic shock.
Rachel Richardson (15:35.002)
Like they are genuinely dealing with a set of circumstances that are entirely different to what I grew up with. So I think they are very different and they will be a very different group of people as a result.
Mike (15:49.592)
Yeah, I mean, there's there's too much data for anybody to like, say otherwise, right? Like, it's just it's always funny to me. And we weren't exactly planning on talking about this, but I just want to say it how every generation when they're young is like, I'm not going to be like the older generations, like when I'm older and fall into the trap of like othering the younger generations and like not understanding them.
Rachel Richardson (15:55.098)
Thank you.
Mike (16:19.224)
Like, but it is currently happening now. Like the children of the sixties are now hating on kids now. Right. And it's just like exactly the same thing they went through. I like, I, instead of like acknowledging that, like, I'm not going to be able to see it. I'm wondering like, what's going to be the thing, the moment where I am like, what is going on? And it's not going to be skivvy. The Ohio Riz like that's harmless, but it's going to be like.
Rachel Richardson (16:43.578)
Hahaha.
Mike (16:47.768)
when someone is like, we're gonna put a chip in your head. And the younger generations are like, yeah, I'm down with that. And I'm like, wait a minute, what? You know?
Rachel Richardson (16:50.842)
Right.
Rachel Richardson (16:55.162)
Right, right. Well, you say that, but I find sometimes that, well, not even sometimes, I think in the vast majority of cases, I would rather trust a Gen Z, Gen A child to make a better decision than a 60 year old on Facebook with an iPad. Like in terms of like savviness to scams, like actually thinking like, what are the consequences of this? Like they are so skeptical.
correctly so and they're really savvy. So like honestly, like, you know, I am a real observer of people. It's, you know, the reason I got into journalism and I am more concerned about my step dad's, I hope he doesn't watch this, my step dad's like addiction to his iPad and his use of his iPad and some of the things. He'll often like look up his iPad and be like, what is this? Like, should I click on this? And I'm like, absolutely no, do not click on that. You know, like whatever it might be. And he's a very smart man, but he, you know, is his, he's...
He's lived a life of responsible media, well, responsible -ish media and understanding whether something, not necessarily having to assume that everything is a scam, and now everything is kind of a scam, but kids are really wise to that.
Mike (18:08.888)
Yeah, it's like every generation is different. You know, like when your dad and my parents grew up, like something in media was just automatically credible, right? There was like a built in, you can trust this or at least like there's some level of responsibility behind it. And now like they spent 40 years like living like that.
Rachel Richardson (18:20.89)
Yes. Yes.
Rachel Richardson (18:31.226)
Yeah. Mm hmm. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Mike (18:36.76)
and now social media has been thrown at them and they're helpless. Like I totally get that. Every generation is just a little bit different, right? Like why can't we all just be okay with that? Why can't we all just be like millennials, Gen Z, Gen Alpha, all just a little bit different in their own ways and that's okay. Like why is that so controversial?
Rachel Richardson (18:47.226)
Hahaha.
Rachel Richardson (18:54.874)
Yeah, I don't know. It is really funny to me. I mean, I kind of ended up in this, this is not where I predicted my career would go, where this would become my sort of area of expertise. But when I was at Snap, and I'm sure you will relate to this, I absolutely had to understand what our audience wanted. And I guess that's the constant throughout my career. I used to edit women's magazines and that was just the absolute bubble I was in. I was just completely obsessed with what did women want.
And then when I was working for Snapchat, I was completely obsessed with what do Gen Z want? What do teens want? And through that experience and then obviously being on a platform side and having like the benefit of enormous amounts of data, not as much data as I would have liked, but enormous amounts of data, you start to learn really quickly what this generation looks like and what they're interested in. And that just, I was just obsessed with Gen Z. I'm like, these kids are great. Like I love what they love. I love how they, I love how they're interacting with content. I love that they like this and they don't like that.
Like I just had a huge, like I guess I grew to have this enormous respect for them as an audience. And that's what's led me to where I am now. But then I, you know, I'm now obviously really intrigued and interested in Gen A. So I think, you know, I am very much, I mean, I'm on the cusp of like millennial Gen X, I'm 45. But I feel like I relate to Gen Z and Gen A like more than I relate to my own generation, because I just like love living in their world. Like.
And it's not like I'm sitting watching, you know, tween influences all day long, although I do look at a lot of content that is definitely not designed for me. But, you know, I just I find them a really fascinating, interesting, interesting group. Way more interesting to me than people my age anyway.
Mike (20:36.44)
Yeah, I know. It's a definitely more complicated world. And I was talking about this a few episodes back for all of the regular listeners with with Peter Conforti, our our old colleague for both of us. And I and we started talking about like, you know, the media ecosystem and how much misinformation there is and like, you know, people ask me, like, how do we fix this? And my answer is take the money out. But that will never happen.
Rachel Richardson (20:51.546)
Yep.
Rachel Richardson (21:04.698)
Mm.
Mike (21:06.072)
So outside of that, it's okay.
Rachel Richardson (21:07.034)
I don't know. I don't know. Actually, I think in the next 10 years, we are going to end up and there's a bit of this is AI and there's a bit of it I think is disinformation. I think we're going to end up with these social classes of information on the internet and people like you and me will pay for a browser or some sort of experience, whether it's AI powered search or something like.
I could probably refine my language here. And we will pay to have great quality information from trusted sources. So, you know, ChatGPT is doing all these deals right now with all the big media companies. They're going to probably package that up all together. And then when you're going to be able to buy like the premium package, which means when you put in like, how do I cook a chicken? You get it from the New York Times cooking section, right? And then the people who cannot afford to or don't want to pay for that premium service.will have the dredges of the internet. Like they will just be dealing with like the worst possible types of information. And so, and that'll be ad funded. So I think, I think that's where we're headed. Like there will be, it's like the current media ecosystem. If you think about it now, like mainstream media, like news media, you have your subscription brands like the New York times, and then you have the daily beast. I mean, you can even go.
very, you know, a lot further down the food chain also to, you know, less reputable publications because the daily beast actually produces some great journalism, but the daily beast is a, is, is a media organization that wakes up every day and thinks, how do we get to the top of SEO search? How do we like, how are we great on social? How do we get people to click on all of these links? Because not many people are coming to the dailybeast.com like the actual homepage.
Mike (23:00.568)
Yeah.
Rachel Richardson (23:02.01)
Whereas the New York Times wakes up every day and has a completely different set of motivations because they're like, how do we make this all encompassing lifestyle package and essentially puzzles product more interesting and sticky and engaging to this audience? So you're completely right, I think, to focus on what's the incentive structure.
Mike (23:24.344)
Mm -hmm.
Rachel Richardson (23:24.506)
But I do think that there's gonna be a point where there'll be an ad free subscription model that is some sort of gateway to the internet and you get a superior version of the internet. If you can't afford it, you're gonna end up with just trash.
Mike (23:37.4)
Well, that's like almost worse, you know? Like, because we'll have...
Rachel Richardson (23:45.37)
Do you want me to tie it in a bow? Do you want me to stick it like, I don't know, put some sprinkles on top?
Mike (23:48.312)
No, no, I don't. No, I don't. I don't want you to do that at all. I want the I want the premium tier information from you is what I want. And yeah, I totally get what you're saying. And especially like sort of like with what you're doing on on on Substack a little bit, right? Like, you know, Jen, like creating a community of readers who are interested in high quality information that are willing to to pay a little bit for it. Like that, that does make a ton of sense. I just worry about the way that information is delivered in our society is like
Rachel Richardson (24:15.514)
Hmm.
Mike (24:18.392)
now not working. How many people do we think are actually going to be in the top tier of the information class? 10 % of the population? Not much more than that, if that.
Rachel Richardson (24:25.786)
you
Rachel Richardson (24:30.074)
Yeah, I mean if you add together, I don't know. I don't have these figures at my fingertips, but is it like New York Times have got like 10 million subscribers maybe? Wall Street Journal are probably a little bit behind that. The Washington Post a little bit behind that. So you're definitely talking about a minority of people. But maybe it becomes as ubiquitous as having the internet or maybe it's a charge that gets added to your internet. Like so you pay spectrum.
Mike (24:41.432)
something like that.
Rachel Richardson (24:59.226)
I think I pay spectrum 104 pounds, $104 .99 for my spectrum. But maybe I have to pay $10 extra to get like a really nice, really nice version of the internet that's accurate. But maybe I don't want to pay that. And then I'm just working with like ad funded models, which some of that information will be great. And some of that information will be absolutely terrible. And in amongst all of that will be some real bad actors and lots of misinformation.
Mike (25:28.344)
Okay, so speaking of misinformation, I'm gonna change gears slightly. You and I were colleagues at Snapchat. What a time that was. Obviously I loved every minute of it. You were there well before me.
Rachel Richardson (25:42.81)
You did? Every minute of it?
Mike (25:46.616)
I would say there were some seconds that were not ideal, but on the minute scale, on the minute level, I liked most of what I did there. I have like, you know, nothing but good memories about my time at Snap, except for maybe a time or two. But otherwise it was great to be there. I got to meet a lot of really cool people like you and like many others, which might've been like the best part of working there, from my perspective. But you were there really early.
Rachel Richardson (26:10.362)
I agree.
Mike (26:16.568)
in the, in as snap had content ambitions, right? So talk to me about that. You got in there at the ground as Snapchat is trying to build a content platform. What was it like to be there so early in that process? and then I guess, you know, how did it sort of evolve over time?
Rachel Richardson (26:18.522)
Mm -hmm.
Rachel Richardson (26:36.57)
Yeah, I mean, it was crazy. You know, I was there for six years and it felt like I had, you know, 20 different jobs and that I was there for like 20 years. And look, you and Peter Conforti are like way more professional than me because I was listening to his episode and you both made it sound like it was a utopia. I might be a little bit more real because I agree with you that it was an incredible experience. It was one of the most. One of the best one of the best experiences, I think.
I have had and probably will ever have in my career in terms of what I learned, the people that I met, like the opportunity to grow and learn, all of that stuff. But I also found it really, really difficult and like multi layers of challenges. Some of that is that as a British person going to a completely different country and it's very easy for British people to think that America is like very similar to Britain. And I'm sure Americans might think.
America is very similar to Britain. It's absolutely not. It's a very different way of working, very different types of people. Going from media to tech was a real like, I worked in like the toughest newsrooms in Britain and I thought I could handle anything. And then I turn up at this kind of like tech bro paradise in Venice Beach and I'm like, I don't know how to talk to anybody. Like, wow, I can't believe you just said that. Or like, how do I solve this problem? Like, how do I speak?
the Stanford lingo. And then, yeah, the startup of it all, because I joined, I think I was like employee 152. And it was really, really early days. But what I should say is that there were a lot of people doing content before I got there. But I arrived at a point with which they were launching, they basically launched Discover on, I think, the 27th of January.
2015 and I joined two weeks later and it was just wild, you know, because Snapchat had been this absolute rocket ship and then they were like way more professionally than they would have put a professional on about you, but like, shit, we need to monetize. We need to figure out how we monetize this platform. And...
Mike (28:53.639)
I feel like I wrote that is the slogan of Snapchat for the entire shit we need to monetize like that. I feel like there's some truth to that today, yeah.
Rachel Richardson (28:58.874)
Yeah, completely. Yeah, shit, we need to run ties.
I think that's completely, look, I have every sympathy. Like my job has never been to like monetize anything. So I say this with all the sympathy in the world for like the people who had to solve this problem. And it frankly was not my problem to solve. I was just, you know, me and other people in the content team job, which are like create the landscape that they could monetize, if that made sense, supply the content that they could then monetize. So, you know, the issue with Snap then and now is that,
Mike (29:24.568)
Mm -hmm.
Rachel Richardson (29:33.498)
It's fundamentally a messaging app and no one has quite figured out how to monetize messaging because isn't it creepy and weird if someone tries to sell you shoes when you're having like an intimate conversation with someone about how you just had a breakdown on the train. Like no one wants to have those conversations which are normally, you know, like the most fun I have on my phone is in WhatsApp. Like that's when I feel the happiest.
because all of my friends and family conversations happen in WhatsApp. Now, if I was Gen Z and living in the States, that would be Snapchat. It's where I have all my great conversations with my friends and my family. And no, I don't want anyone selling me something weird or like reading, you know, any sense that they might be reading what I'm saying to then sell me like, you know, something that I might be talking about. So until someone elegantly figures out a solution to that, Snapchat's issue and everyone else's issue who operate in this space is that you have to have...
something that people are more agreeable to having an advert served to them in. And that is essentially, that was essentially why Discover was launched. And I think initially, you know, the idea was completely spot on that, you know, Snapchat were working with like all the major big brands, you know, when we first launched CNN, Daily Mail, Cosmopolitan, Comedy Channel.
No, Comedy Central, sorry. And a few others. I can't remember any of them. I can't remember, but I mean, I should have remembered the nine circles. They were like burned on my brain, yeah. But there were nine to begin with. And my job initially, which honestly just makes me laugh so much. So my job initially was Snapchat was so full of hubris, I love them for this. They were like, we're gonna have these world -class media brands, and then we're also gonna have a channel. And my job was to run that channel. And they gave me like no resources.
Mike (31:04.536)
Yeah, there was like 20 of them or something. Yeah. Nine.
Rachel Richardson (31:26.458)
No money, no time, like no nothing. Like I was sharing designers with like the actual design. I mean, it was just nuts. And needless to say that did not go very well. And then I did like 10 other jobs after that. But like, I think within, I think within me being there for like three months, I had like three jobs and that just kept changing as the product kept changing. And that was kind of weird for me because I'd never been in a company where like they were just like, okay, we're just going to pull this now. Or we're doing this now and now you're doing this.
I'm like, right, okay, this is like, it took a lot to like figure it out. But, you know, things did calm down and so content on Snap did become a lot more kind of logical and sane. And I hope we did some very good work there. And, you know, I hope, you know, I hope I, you know, left my mark and helped the company grow. But that's what other people decide.
Mike (32:23.384)
I would definitely say that you definitely left your mark. No, I mean, yeah, you had an impact on a ton of different people, both in and out of snap. But it's interesting to hear you talk about your transitioning from, you know, like a media company to a tech company, because I had a very similar experience, right? I came from Fox Sports. I had to completely readjust my editorial senses when I got there. And.
Rachel Richardson (32:26.786)
I'm not sure what that means.
Rachel Richardson (32:43.514)
Yeah. Yeah.
Mike (32:53.624)
Yeah, it's like, especially if you're sitting there and the thing you're working on is sitting next to the New York Times and, you know, the biggest glossiest media companies in the world. I can't imagine that being like a fun like comparison to have to look at every day.
Rachel Richardson (32:57.402)
Yeah, it was kind of crazy. But also it was so early on in like social media, like vertical swipeable media, none of these companies knew what to do either. So they were just oftentimes like transposing like.
web media into this format and it didn't work. So even the glossy brands, like their channels weren't that great to begin with. They got very good very quickly. But to begin with, it was not great. It was like, this is like smashing a square peg into a round hole. But yes, look, obviously, you know, content that's organic to a platform is always going to, you know, perform best. And I had a...
You know, my favorite time at Snap was when we were working on our stories. And that's obviously what you joined to do and obviously your role changed and so did mine. But that was when I think I was like happiest and when I feel like we were doing our best work because that was, you know, the product which we would be making stories out of user content. Users would send us, essentially send us content that they were happy for us to use. And we would turn that content into stories.
cover things like Coachella or the election or wild weather or Ramadan or whatever it might be. And I think that was actually like the best content that we produced. And it's such a shame that they're not well, they're sort of trying to bring it back, I think, but it's such a shame that that product got sunset in the end because it was like early TikTok. And I think they really missed a Snapchat kind of missed it, I think a moment where if they double down on that, they could have actually had something really special.
Mike (34:48.44)
Yeah, no, I mean, I agree that period. Well, I think for people like us who come from this background of like making content all the time, you know, like a lot of the scale platforms are really just not interested in that, right? So like for us as the, as snap evolved and became a little more about scale and about, you know, algorithmically distributed content versus, you know, in the past, I guess it was still an algorithm.
Back in the day, but like way less sophisticated than like a machine learning algorithm, which is what it is now. Like the like the needs of snap are different now than what they were back then. And so it was a more maybe I the way I've looked at it is like it was a more natural fit for my skill sets at the time to be making our stories and to be like leading that team. Then perhaps it was later on, although I loved like my role towards like later on as well. Again, because you just get to meet all these cool people, but so.
The content experience on Snap has evolved, right? You were talking about publisher stories, which is the web -like content that you mentioned there. Our stories, which is the UGC audience submitted kind of storytelling. And then we have what we have now, which is harder to define. I guess you would say it's creator -driven. I don't really know where else to go with that. I'm not sure that they do, honestly.
Rachel Richardson (36:05.722)
Hmm.
Rachel Richardson (36:13.122)
I mean
Mike (36:14.52)
But like, yeah, where are we now and where is Snap going? Where is the Snap content platform going?
Rachel Richardson (36:21.002)
God, I'm not sure I'm the best person to answer that question because I could have answered that question really easily in 2021 when I worked there, but I've been out of that company now for over three years and so much changes in that time, except the fact that they've still not changed the way content is served, which I'm quite shocked by because in 2021, that was something we were lobbying for very hard. But I think, I don't want to repeat a lot of the stuff that was said by Peter Conforti a couple of episodes ago.
I think Snap are maybe a little hamstrung by their success and they're quite concerned about making any material changes to what the content is and how it's served because they're just in a bit of a fragile state and can't necessarily take a hit on their advertising revenue. But essentially, my read of where they are right now is that they have a bunch of content from publishers and they have a bunch of content from
video content producers and a bunch of UGC. And that's kind of like separate at the moment. But I think they're trying to find more ways of like blending that together. But ultimately, you know, TikToks, if Snapchat's biggest legacy is the production of the story concept and the idea that, you know, you sort of go from snap to snap to snap to snap to snap in that sort of like book like way.
TikTok's legacy, so whether TikTok gets banned or falls apart or whatever happens to TikTok, its legacy will be like the TikTokification of all social media. And yeah, and even whether it should be called social media anymore is kind of an interesting question because it is essentially just content, like streams of content that are tailored for your very needs and interests and powerful algorithms that absolutely can sort that wheat from the chair and...
Mike (38:02.808)
It, yeah.
Rachel Richardson (38:16.826)
really powerful algorithms that can understand, you know, your interaction, what your interaction with that content means to the point that people are now getting different comments, which I find fascinating, you know, about this TikTok thing. So like me, so a good example would be like gender based content are really popular sort of strand on TikTok. So, you know, it's sort of like traditional gender wars of like, you know, that there's a brilliant stitch of a woman who says,
just tell, like for people who are married, just tell me like, why is it so hard? And I'm sure men do it too, but what I get served is women responding to this person's question, showing some madness in their home caused by their husband. And just a visual representation of why marriage is hard. Now, if you were to look at the comment, like the comments that I would get, that I would see at the very top of that video would probably be very in line with how I would think about it. Like,
Mike (38:50.392)
Yeah.
Rachel Richardson (39:14.586)
What the hell is he thinking? Like, you know, go girl. Whereas there's multiple examples of men and women looking at the same piece of content, opening up the comments and seeing incredibly different comments. So the guy might see something like, why is she moaning or whatever? Well, there's a very particular one about a woman who posed a sort of moral question. And it was, she basically said, my husband went golfing and he said he'd be back by this time, he's still not back. And I think there was some sort of childcare issue too. And...
Mike (39:27.064)
Really?
Rachel Richardson (39:42.298)
A woman looked at it and all the comments like, this is disgraceful. I can't believe he did this to you. And then she sent it to her partner who was a man. He looked at it and all the comments at the top were like, well, maybe he meant 4 am not 4 pm Like it was very like, you know, this kind of bizarre like battle of the sexes stuff, which, you know, I can understand why TikTok might want to do that because users, we all, you know, use these platforms and consume this content. Everyone just wants to be their view to be reinforced.
Mike (39:53.408)
Thanks.
Rachel Richardson (40:11.034)
But TikTok really do take that to like the next level. And I think that that really is gonna be, excuse me, like their legacy and it will affect everybody. So the quick answer to your question is, I think where Snapchat needs to head, like any other platform is to figure out what their version is of that recommendation algorithm.
Mike (40:31.672)
Yeah. And I mean, the comments thing is just, is this just more wind tunneling? You know, I, I, I'm talking about, I've talked about this a lot on this show already. And I think it's a, it's an under talked about thing, which is like the algorithmic content platform, right? Because you're, I don't think TikTok is really social media either. Although like, if you pull up the definition of social media, it's like,
Vertical video that could be shared or come and it's like yeah, I take talk has those things but I guess when I think of social media, I think of Instagram or Facebook, right? Where it's like my friends are on there. Like I don't follow really anyone on TikTok. I just let the algorithm just like spoon feed me whatever.
Rachel Richardson (41:08.122)
Mm -hmm.
Rachel Richardson (41:12.506)
Yeah. Yeah. It's like the friend, it's like the friend graph versus the interest graph. That's, I think, the best way of thinking about the two things. Yeah.
Mike (41:19.576)
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, yeah. And so, you know, like the advent of algorithmically distributed content. I agree with you. That is TikTok's like, you know, that's their masterpiece that they've created here. But like, is this good or bad for the world? Right. And I think there's like, it's an interesting question because there's like good stuff about it. And I'll give you a quickly as you ponder this big, huge, meaty question. Like the good things are, at least to me, like,
Rachel Richardson (41:33.498)
Mm -hmm.
Mike (41:50.968)
Like niches can have power, right? And that can be really fulfilling, right? Like my wife makes these like miniature craftable things and there's this whole community that's built around that and they all help each other and give each other ideas and inspire each other. That was not possible 20 years ago, right? That's really cool. But you also have like wind tunneling and radicalization, which is the same thing, but just with like a very negative and bad outcome. So like, like net net for you.
Are is algorithmically distributed content good or bad for the world? Pick a side.
Rachel Richardson (42:26.938)
Honestly, I can't. Like right now, I'm gonna say it like, it almost cancels. I think it cancels each other out. But then I wouldn't also agree with the statement that it's neutral. You know what I'm saying? It's like, as so many positives, you know, some of the things you've highlighted, I think there are tons of voices that we're hearing from that never had a platform before. I love the fact that there is this army of.
Mike (42:39.384)
-huh.
Rachel Richardson (42:53.018)
creators now, like this is literally their full-time job. And very non-typical type people either. If you go back to the 50s and the Hollywood system, it's like a certain type of person that could only make it through the Hollywood system. And now you have people who, and it's still hugely biased towards white, thin, pretty people, but there are...a myriad more voices that you can hear from now who look many different ways, have very different sensibilities and perspectives. And like, I feel that overall as someone who spends far too much time on these platforms, I do think I'm richer for it. I think it provokes thoughts. I think it makes me think about other people's perspectives more. I think I learn a lot of stuff, but also there is a sea of nonsense andbad stuff and misinformation and disinformation and just downright subversive stuff. And so, I don't know, to me, this sort of cancels each other out, but I think where we're headed with the sort of AI allowing for an easier path to producing massive amounts of content, I think the balance is gonna tip the other way, possibly.
Mike (44:20.6)
like in the sense that more negative.
Rachel Richardson (44:20.954)
so that'll be more negative than positive. Because I think, yes, because I think that the bad act, it's like with absolutely anything in life, it's like why we can't have nice things. Like the bad people, the bad actors, figure it out really quickly. Like bad people are really clever. They figure it out really quickly how to game the system.
Mike (44:36.056)
Yeah.
Rachel Richardson (44:45.306)
We're definitely going to see it somewhere between now and the election. Some event, some major event that might actually sway voters. I think that's going to happen between now and November in America. Might happen in Britain. We've got an election in five weeks. Something will happen. Some piece of content will put enough doubt in someone's mind that they're like, why? This guy's a bad guy. I can't believe they did this, or I can't believe they did that. Or I believe this policy. Or I don't know. I'm going to have my child taken away from me if I vote for this person, whatever it might be.
So yeah, I guess my point is that AI is going to allow bad people to produce so much content that like loads of it will be rubbish and people will discount it. But the odd thing will slip through and that'll be enough to like actually cause some damage. And I think it's really interesting. I'm sure you followed the All Eyes on Raffa AI generated image that was shared hundreds of millions of times on Instagram. And, you know, on the face of it, that's not a particularly harmful thing that happened.
at all, but it's fascinating that this, the thing that cut through and was deemed so shareable by so many people was a very clearly AI generated image. And a lot of that was to do with censorship. although I don't know how much I like that word, but I think in this case, it can be seen as a censorship of like, you know, meta platforms in particular, just absolutely, you know, clamping down, on content relating to conflict, politics,or whatever. And so the fact that this image was kind of like a weirdly sanitized AI image was, you know, bypassed all their filters and was able to spread, you know, way more quickly and way more easily than, you know, perhaps on the ground news report from, you know, the terrible situation in Gaza. But something like that will happen around the election and it might actually cause a lot of harm.
Mike (46:40.152)
Yeah, it's it kind of gets back to what we were talking about before about, you take the money out, all of a sudden people aren't as incentivized to break all these rules because the, at the end of the day, the bad actors or even like me, the eternal optimist, let's, let's not even call them bad actors, just like people without editorial training, right? Who can just make whatever they want at any time and don't realize or train. They were never taught.
Rachel Richardson (47:06.65)
and
Mike (47:08.473)
the repercussions of making a piece of content like that. Like perhaps there's some of that too, but like if there wasn't so much money involved and the winners are usually the people that really rush out to the front, there would probably be less of this, but that's just not a realistic solve. Like what is the scenario where the money gets taken out of media? That's just not, it's not going to happen.
Rachel Richardson (47:11.99)
and check.
Rachel Richardson (47:25.658)
Yeah.
Rachel Richardson (47:33.754)
Well, I think when it comes to politics and disinformation, I'm not sure money is the motivator. It's like power, right? They're trying to get an outcome or convince people to get it a certain way. But I think what you're maybe talking about when it comes to money is when people are minded to, you know, spread like things that maybe actually aren't that harmful, but they're just desperately trying to like game the system to make a ton of money off it, like make up a story or.
Mike (47:43.96)
Sure.
Rachel Richardson (47:59.194)
say something outrageous or, you know, so those things, they can have incredible real world harms. Like I actually need to check this. So I really want to make sure I'm not spreading misinformation, but you know, last week there was that very famous video of the guy in the car dialing into his court appearance where it claimed he had been banned from driving. I read something this morning. I need to double check this. Apparently he was not banned from driving. Like as it turns out in the wash,
Mike (48:17.112)
Yeah. Yeah.
Rachel Richardson (48:28.762)
there was some sort of clerical error and like the whole world, if that is true, the whole world has laughed at this man's stupidity, like stupidity for calling in, because it was kind of crazy. Like if you knew you were banned from driving, why would you call the judge? So like, I'm actually like, that might make a lot of sense that this guy actually wasn't banned and all of it anyway. So it's stuff like that, even just regular people. Like, I don't know who that guy is, but he just seemed like a regular guy to me. Like his life has probably been turned upside down by that video going viral.
Mike (48:57.272)
Absolutely.
Rachel Richardson (48:58.042)
And that was shared by tons of people. And I guess to your point, I think very carefully before I share something like that publicly, I'll share a lot of that stuff privately, in group chats and whatnot. But I definitely think, and I think it's definitely my editorial training of like, is this true? If I share this, is it actually true? Or am I jumping on this bandwagon?
Mike (49:14.392)
Right.
Rachel Richardson (49:26.65)
Because I think I've learned over the years that if something makes you feel a certain way that you want to share it, like there's a lot, oftentimes there's a lot of intention behind that, either from the creator or if, you know, often where you do feel like that is when they're genuinely candid moments. I think you can sometimes tell, but we've all been fooled before by people who are smarter than us producing these, you know, actually producing these things.
Mike (49:35.704)
Hmm.
Mike (49:51.64)
Yeah, I totally agree with you that the more realistic fix for this is that we all have to look in the mirror and make better choices when we're online. Like that is the thing that we can control and the thing that actually works. And like we are fortunate because we were trained. I also have a journalism background. We were sort of trained to like think about the sources and think more critically, perhaps you and conformity.
Rachel Richardson (49:59.546)
Mm -hmm. Yes, yes we do.
Mike (50:17.944)
are both optimistic about younger people and how them being born in this ecosystem makes them more skeptical and perhaps better at this. And I think that it makes a lot of sense and gives me hope where maybe I didn't have hope before. But like why we need to have a lot more mindful media literacy happening across our whole culture. And like there needs to be a big like when I was in school, like, you know, back in the day, like there were classes on this, right? It was like,
Rachel Richardson (50:24.474)
Yeah. Yeah.
Mike (50:46.616)
Media literacy 101 this is what you do when you're looking at a thing like always be like what happened to that it just got completely like when at a time when we need it most is when we're worth that.
Rachel Richardson (50:55.642)
I mean, I'm not aware that that's even a thing in Britain. Like I don't think kids get taught media literacy. I mean, we have media studies, like, and I did that, but we never really were taught about media literacy. Like I'd have to ask friends of mine with kids at high school, but I don't believe that happens in Britain. And yes, I'm sure there's some sort of, I'm sure some teachers probably are very good at it, and then there'll be some teachers who won't have a clue. So it'll be a real lottery.
But I do talk a lot to my, I don't have children, but I talk a lot to friends of mine who have children and I'm now so old, some of my friends' children are now like 16. And they often ask me questions about sort of social media and whatnot. And I think, you know, if you're a parent and you are gonna allow your kid access to a phone or, you know, access to internet, and I say, you've just gotta be, you know, in the best possible way without, you know, I think invading their...
privacy, be very, very aware of what they're doing, who they're talking to, what they're looking at, what they're influenced by, who they're interested in, and be interested in that. Because as a parent, how many parents go along to the baseball game and they don't care about the baseball game and they've got to sit there for two hours or whatever watching the baseball game they don't care about, but they feel they have to go along. That same feeling, the need to go along, doesn't seem to apply to online content. And I understand why a parent might not want to watch Kai Cennat.
or might not wanna watch a gamer talking about, a gamer doing commentary as they shoot things. I would find that mind-numbing. But I think having that curiosity and sharing your children's interests, the best possible way for you to really understand what they're looking at and then also be able to talk to them about it. Because I find a lot of my friends' parents have no clue, they don't even know, their kids say things and they're like, what even is that? And I'm like, well, I think you need to...
like you need to know, you need to keep talking to them about it because that's the only way you're going to be able to figure this out with them.
Mike (52:56.184)
Yeah, wow, that's, yeah, being a parent in this day and age is tricky. Although I think you're so right to compare it to a thing that everybody understands, you know?
Rachel Richardson (53:00.73)
Really difficult.
Rachel Richardson (53:06.426)
There's always a real life example. I find this very interesting when people try to make anything digital seem alien. There are very few digital things that don't have a real world example. And I actually just can't even think of any right now. Like, there's just always, like, even think about the naming convention. Like,
Mike (53:19.416)
100%.
Rachel Richardson (53:32.282)
shopping basket, checkout. It's just the same. It's just the digital version of that thing. And so figuring out what the analogy is in the real world, I think is really helpful. And someone far cleverer than me, to go back to the kids issue, I don't know who it was who said this, but it's been said so many times. I think they've lost a grip of the copyright of this. And again, I'm not a parent, so I'm sure I'm probably winding parents up left right and center by saying these things. But...
To me, I think as a society, we completely over protect children in the real world. Like kids aren't allowed to like grow up and play, like parents know exactly where they are. Like every minute, like I would do a lot of things, you know, during the day when my parents didn't know where I was. And like, I think that helped me grow up and, you know, get a sense of independence and freedom and understand who I was and kind of understand risks and whatnot. And thankfully nothing bad happened to me, but.
but they are very under protected digitally. And that if that balance could just be a little bit better, I think it would be probably helpful for everybody.
Mike (54:31.832)
Mmm, yeah.
Mike (54:38.68)
I think also, that is very well said. I also, it really resonates with me when you talk about how people are like sort of trying to other digital things. That is why the word digital is crossed out in our podcast, by the way, if you go to the cover art. So you're hitting on a thing there. But like, I also feel like a lot of the things that people say are wrong with social media or wrong with content nowadays,
are sort of not new, but more intense, right? Like clickbait, right? Like clickbait has always existed in some form, right? Like the local news, tabloid front pages, the local news, you know, is eating a hot dog going to kill you more at 11, right? It's like a, you know, that is, that is clickbait, right? It's just way more intense now. And I'm not sure if that like back then,
Rachel Richardson (55:13.498)
Hmm.
Rachel Richardson (55:18.842)
tabloid front pages.
Mike (55:34.424)
it was okay and the intensity has now made it not okay. Like that could be, but it's the same basic principle of like attracting eyeballs. It's just a lot more competitive and a lot more intense on these platforms of now.
Rachel Richardson (55:45.402)
Mm -hmm.
Rachel Richardson (55:50.778)
Yeah, I agree. I think, I mean, look, we could probably sit here for hours and maybe we'll find one example, but I think there's very few digital ills that there isn't a real life example for. But I think the thing to probably counter that is to talk about scale. So, you know, if we go back to like my childhood, was there disinformation? Yes. Was it easily accessible? No.
So I think that's the difference. That is actually the difference. Because yes, of course, like I could probably find some like, I don't know, newspaper that, you know, was proffering conspiracy theories. I'm sure that existed, but I never found it and never came across it. I was, you know, grew up in the world of the BBC. So I had like a fairly sanitized, you know, sense of information. But now if I want to indulge in a conspiracy theory, then like, you know.
take your pick. I mean, it's like a bonanza right there, you know, which one do you want to indulge in today? So there's definitely something about scale. So I don't want to make it sound to be too flippant about where there are some real issues. But I still think that point stands. There's nearly always a real life example to a digital problem.
Mike (56:46.168)
Yeah.
Mike (57:07.447)
Yeah, so speaking of conspiracy theories, let's talk about the Royals. Yeah, yeah, so we're almost at.
Rachel Richardson (57:13.338)
wow. OK. You know, this is like actually not my area of expertise. It's just because I'm British and lived in America and therefore everyone thought that I was like an expert in the world. But I'm happy to own it because I am interested in them and I find them fascinating.
Mike (57:22.584)
Ha ha ha!
Mike (57:28.6)
Yeah, I don't know. I feel like every time I ask you, you're like so ready to like fire off like a really good like succinct summary of what's happening. So if like, yeah, so basically, as Rachel just said, and as you probably understood, she accidentally referred to pounds instead of dollars earlier, there's been a number of clues that Rachel is a British person. And I am not and a lot of the people listening to this are not. So just like, okay, quickly.
Rachel Richardson (57:37.562)
Hit me.
Mike (57:57.688)
What's the deal with this whole thing? The Royals. Like it's as a.
Rachel Richardson (58:01.69)
What, just in general? That's a big question.
Mike (58:03.864)
Yeah, yeah, like I think you have to start at the most basic level of this. Like we don't need to get into the whole, all this, the Kate Middleton conspiracies and all of this stuff that happened earlier this year. But just like, what is your big picture take about like, what is the, what is it about the roles and like, why do Americans struggle to understand?
Rachel Richardson (58:24.538)
Okay, I'm gonna answer, I'm gonna slightly answer a different question. I spend my time, spent my time between the US and the UK. I'm British, but I lived and worked in the US full time for about eight years. And in that time, there was like a lot of royal stuff that was happening. You know, there was William and Kate's wedding. no, actually, sorry, that was here. I was here for that. But I guess mainly it was the Harry, Meghan stuff, their wedding, and then the subsequent fallout.
the Queen's passing, all of the other stuff that's kind of gone on. And I am fascinated by them. I just think they're kind of like, you know, to me, they're just like a section of like showbiz that I'm interested in and celebrity. They're just like so weird and unique. Like they live a very strange life and you know, there's some glamour to it and all the rest of it. And there's also like a ton of gossip and I just love gossip. So when I was in the States, when all of this was going down,
I guess people knew that I was naturally interested, but people would often ask me, like in the same way that I had to explain Brexit to like 5,000 people, like, what is this weird thing like you British people do? Like, can you please explain this to me? And so I kind of weirdly became like a royal expert, which is very strange because it's not my area of expertise, but I guess it's like in the kingdom of the blind, the one man is king or whatever. But I'll tell you why. So what I was often asked was like, how do you know all this? And like, why do you know and why do you care? And I'm like,
Mike (59:30.584)
Yeah.
Mike (59:41.24)
you
Rachel Richardson (59:48.57)
It's because I'm British and I was brainwashed by Britain and the media and the royal family. Like it literally is the biggest brainwashing exercise in the history of mankind because the best way to look at it is from the first time I was able to like watch TV or like look at a newspaper or listen to a conversation, the royals are like a massive part of the news agenda. And there is this kind of like odd deal because...
Mike (59:52.76)
Yeah.
Rachel Richardson (01:00:17.21)
why do they exist? Like, it's very difficult to answer that question in 2024. Why does this family exist? Like, why are they like ruling over us? This makes no sense in like egalitarian 2024. So they've kind of occupied this very interesting sort of ceremonial role. And in order for us to not question like, what, what, why, why they are, why they are, they have this kind of pact with the media for like good coverage. So it's like, we'll give access to our glamorous, interesting lives and all the charitable work that we do. But like, you've kind of got to be nice to us.
I mean, I'm really, this is very high level. And also the media, it's very popular content for the media. Like people are really interested because it's just this like soap opera style family. So I am, as I say, I'm 45. So I, so wait, William, I think is now 40. So when I was five years old, William was born. Like I remember William being born and it's all over the TV. It's on every single newspaper. And then the day he first goes to school, it's literally on the news.
His birthday is on the news. He does this. It's on the news. And so to me, it's like this man is like part of my family. Like you literally know so much about them that they become this like extended family and you just become incredibly invested in them. And I mean, look, there are some people in Britain who like give zero concern, have zero time or have any concerns about this. But I was like, yes, this is fascinating. These glamorous people. So yes, that's why I would explain why British people are obsessed with the world. And I think that's why Americans are too.
Mike (01:01:23.352)
Yeah.
Rachel Richardson (01:01:44.378)
You know, there's a lot of Americans who are obsessed with the Royals.
Mike (01:01:46.84)
yeah, my God. Well, it checks a lot of the boxes, right? Like you kind of laid it out really, yeah, exactly. Glamorous, gossip, I mean, Americans love gossip.
Rachel Richardson (01:01:51.738)
It does. Glamorous. Yeah. Showbizzy. Yeah. Dysfunctional. Tick. I mean, like, they are, they, they were the Kardashians before the Kardashians. Let's just, let's just put it like that.
Mike (01:02:00.088)
This is dysfunctional.
Mike (01:02:06.424)
Yeah, like if if there if there was a world where the Kardashians were that much in the media when I was growing up. Like would I be like obsessed with the Kardashians? Maybe like maybe. OK, well Rachel, thank you for setting setting that straight. I really appreciate it. Also really appreciate you coming on. I'm going to let you go.
Rachel Richardson (01:02:18.906)
Yeah. Yeah.
Mike (01:02:35.224)
But that was really, really great. Yeah. OK. Well, that's great. That was not exactly one of the intended goals of this. But if you got that out of it, I'm really happy about that.
Rachel Richardson (01:02:36.122)
Thank you so much. So, so fun. Very therapeutic.
Rachel Richardson (01:02:48.154)
It's nice to be asked the questions. I'm normally the one asking them, so it's always very nice to be asked.
Mike (01:02:53.624)
Right on. Okay, thank you, Rachel. Really appreciate it.
Rachel Richardson (01:02:56.314)
Thank you so much.