This BBC podcast is supported by the UK.
The imperative for businesses has never been clearer.
The age of experimentation is over.
We're talking transformation and winning at scale from AI that actually drives ROI.
We are going through that curve of understanding what the technology really can and cannot do to turning reams of data into real competitive advantage.
A lot of these successful companies, they treat data as a product.
I'm Chip Kleinexel, host of Resilient Edge the smart executive's guide to implementing and sustaining change.
Paid and presented by Deloitte.
Available now wherever you listen to podcasts.
Who drives the world forward?
The one with the answers or the one asking the right questions at Aramco.
We start every day by asking how, how can innovation help deliver reliable energy to the world?
How can technology help develop new materials to reshape cities?
How can collaboration help us overcome the biggest challenges to get to the answer?
We first need to ask the right question.
Search Aramco powered by how.
Aramco is an energy and chemicals company with oil and gas production as its primary business.
Plot twists in Hollywood as the battle for Warner Brothers heats up.
We're offering shareholders 176 billion more cash than the deal they currently have signed up with Netflix.
We think this deal with Warner Brothers is great for the entertainment industry as a whole because we're creating and protecting jobs and production.
Welcome to World Business Report from the BBC World Service.
I'm Sam Fenwick.
Paramount is back challenging Netflix in a takeover battle for Warner Brothers' discovery that could reshape the global streaming industry.
What could the bidding war mean for Hollywood?
We'll get reaction from an Oscar-winning producer.
And as Syria marks a year since the overthrow of Bashir al-Assad, we hear why its economy remains extremely fragile.
So the fight for Warner Brothers' Discovery is starting to resemble one of its own dramas.
On Friday, it looked as though one bidder had won Netflix, which appeared to have secured a deal that would have created a blockbuster pairing in the streaming world.
HBO Max and Netflix under one roof.
But in a late plot twist today, Monday, Paramount came back with an unexpected improved bid.
Here's David Ellison, the chairman and CEO of Paramount Skydance, speaking on CNBC on Monday morning.
Our offer is 30 a share, all cash.
41 billion in equity that's backstopped by the Ellison family and Redbird.
54 billion in debt with commitments from Citi, Bank of America and Apollo.
We have faster regulatory certainty to close, and our deal is pro-consumer.
It's pro-creative talent.
It's pro-competition.
But then came Netflix's CEO, Ted Sarandos, speaking at a conference on Monday night.
And he clearly feels his company is still in the driving seat.
We think this deal with Warner Brothers is good for shareholders.
We think it's good for consumers.
We think it's good for creators.
We think it's great for the entertainment industry as a whole because we're creating and protecting jobs in production.
And we're going to continue to grow the business.
So we look forward to the next phase of this and getting this deal approved and moving forward.
Very excited.
Let's talk to Lily Jamali now.
She's the BBC's North America technology correspondent.
She joins us from San Francisco.
Lily, let's start with the basics.
Talk us through what Paramount has actually put on the table today on Monday.
What is this bid and how big is it?
Yeah, Sam, let's start with they're offering a lot more money.
They're offering 108 billion, quite an increase from the 83 billion deal that Netflix put on the table last week, which was considered a done deal.
And officially, anyway, on Warner Brothers Discovery's part, remains the deal in place.
They haven't given any indications that they're changing their recommendation yet.
At this stage, but Paramount's offer is 30 percent more.
Paramount, of course, is controlled by the Ellison's close allies of President Donald Trump's.
And you heard in that quote that you just played from David Ellison.
I think he used the phrase that their offer would have faster regulatory approval to close.
And I think that's pretty much a direct reference to their relationship with with Donald Trump.
Now, how do these offers differ, as well as the price that shareholders will get?
Paramount's wanting to buy more, isn't it, than what Netflix put on the table?
Yeah, that's right.
The main difference, I think, in addition to the money, is Paramount is offering to buy all of Warner Brothers Discovery's assets, not just the studio, not just the streaming network, which
We should note on that streaming network is also a trove of valuable data for whoever ends up with that asset.
But Paramount's bid also includes taking over the cable network.
So that would include Discovery and CNN, the news channel, which are not considered big moneymakers.
They're not the most attractive assets right now.
These are businesses that are considered to be in decline.
Yeah.
They may be much more interesting to someone like David Ellison than they are to Ted Sarandos at Netflix.
You might recall that the Ellisons recently took over Paramount, which owned CBS News, a partner of the BBC, as we should mention.
And there's already been some accusations from Democrats in Congress and others that news coverage there is being affected by the new boss of news that they've appointed.
Now, this bid by Paramount has been described as a hostile all-cash bid.
What does that actually mean, Lily?
Yeah, I mean.
I think it's considered hostile because the Netflix deal was agreed upon by both sides.
We knew Paramount was very interested in Warner Brothers' discovery.
And actually up until Netflix's deal was announced last week, it kind of seemed like they were a shoo-in to get it.
The Ellison family, as we've said, has close ties to President Trump, major supporters of his.
And it's unusual because what you see in this president is someone who, in that position, you wouldn't normally see someone having such a say in a private mergers and acquisitions deal wouldn't normally be publicly anyway putting his thumb on the scale.
That's the job of regulators, some of whom are appointed by the sitting president.
But we're seeing President Trump really try to throw his weight around in this context.
And interestingly, the Ellisons have even partnered with Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as part of their bid.
So you have Jared Kushner.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi are also part of the paramount bid here.
Lily, thank you very much.
Lily Jamali there, the BBC's tech correspondent, joining us today from San Francisco.
Let's head to L.A. now, because that was the business side of the takeover battle.
But what does it mean for Hollywood itself, the studios, the actors involved and the future of streaming?
Tom Noonan is the founder of Bullseye Entertainment and won an Oscar for Best Film in 2006 for Crash.
He joins us from LA.
Now, you've worked across studios and streaming platforms, haven't you, Tom?
What does this takeover mean for writers, directors and producers?
Hi, Sam.
I think either way, in any scenario, Hollywood is very, very anxious and afraid about further consolidation.
When the Walt Disney Company, for example, took over 20th Century Fox and many of its assets and labels, severe cutbacks occurred.
And I don't think anyone looks at the Disney lot and sees two different buyers anymore.
They see one buyer at Disney and Disney has subsumed one of its sister studios.
I think that's what we're looking at right now.
Who will win here?
Comcast seems to have stepped aside, Comcast Universal.
So it appears to be a battle royale between Paramount and Netflix.
And of the two there seems to be a lot more duplication, a lot more reason for cutbacks if you look at a Paramount takeover of Warner Brothers versus Netflix taking over.
So the Hollywood Screenwriters Union has been saying that they're worried about it, because deals like this could accelerate a decline in jobs and films.
But could it also mean that actually these studios have deeper pockets, that there's more money for production?
I'm not sure if one can make the assumption that because a studio like Warner Brothers is being acquired, that there's suddenly more money for Warner Brothers projects to go forward.
I think candidly that the opposite is true.
I think that in any scenario, whether Netflix is taking over Warner's or Paramount's taking over Warner's, Fewer films are likely going to be made.
Fewer TV series are likely going to be made just because of simple math.
One buyer is disappearing from the market.
So what's the attraction then for the likes of Paramount and Netflix to acquire Warner Brothers?
Is it just so that they can play back catalogs of Harry Potter movies?
That's one of the key reasons, actually.
Harry Potter is a key reason that both of these entertainment titans are going after Warner Brothers.
It's that new old phrase, intellectual property or IP.
And Warner Brothers has some of the most valuable IP in the entire industry.
It has the whole DC universe which, of course, is DC Comics, which controls Wonder Woman Superman, Batman and so many other superheroes that audiences seem to flock to, and other literary properties like Harry Potter.
We know that Harry Potter is being reimagined again and is airing where?
On HBO Max, one of Warner Brothers' sister companies that would be taken over in this era, in this acquisition relay race that's going on between Paramount and Netflix.
Let's just bring Peter Jankowskis into our conversation.
Peter is the Vice President of Research and Analysis at Arbor Financial Services.
Peter, from a shareholder's perspective, how attractive is Paramount's all-cash 30 a share bid compared to Netflix's 2775 a share bid?
Well, Warner Brothers Discovery was up $4 today, or rather 4%, I should say, in the market.
So I think it certainly is viewed as more attractive by Warner Brothers Discovery shareholders.
And I suppose it's those shareholders who will ultimately vote on this deal?
Yes, indeed.
So you'd imagine that they would, yeah, they'll go with that higher offer, you'd have thought?
Is that a fair assumption?
Well, you know, certainly the board of directors has a say as well, as they'll influence how the vote is put to the shareholders.
And I think some of the issues resolving around the ability for the deal to be completed will play an important role as well.
Tom Noonan, do you have a preference between Paramount and Netflix?
My preference is with Netflix.
They have a track record of innovation.
They understand the technological landscape better than any of the big media companies, with the exception perhaps, of Apple right now.
But Apple hasn't really flexed its muscles as boldly as Netflix has in entertainment.
But The reason I go with Netflix is they're not going to mess with CNN.
They're not going to mess with the cable networks.
And their offer is actually quite robust because it doesn't include the cable networks.
We have to remember, the Ellison's deal includes all the cable networks and it's valuing the cable networks at a very low per share price.
So I'm not sure the board's going to go along with just the flat offer that's higher by perception when you look at how much is being left to Warner Brothers Discovery to continue to exploit after the Netflix deals makes.
Also I just have to say I think that Ed Sarandos has a proven track record running a massive global media company.
It still remains to be seen whether or not David Ellison can compete.
Tom Noonan, thank you so much for your insight.
We will leave it there.
I'm sure that story is going to run and run across the week and we will follow it here on World Business Report.
Tom Noonan there, Oscar-winning producer, speaking to us today on World Business Report from the BBC World Service, with me, Sam Fennec.
Now, China's hit a big milestone.
Its goods surplus has gone over $1 trillion for the first time in a single year.
And that is despite President Donald Trump's tariffs slowing exports to the US.
China has simply sold more products to other markets to compensate.
Let's talk to Wendy Cutler, Vice President of Asia Society Policy Institute.
It's a think tank focused on economic and policy issues across Asia.
And she's also a former negotiator in the US trade and a US trade representative.
Wendy, hello.
Thank you for joining us on the programme.
What does this tell us then, about how successful President Trump's trade policy has been since January?
Well, I think the statistics today are less about Trump's trade policy and more about China's trade policy, which is export export, export.
And exports to the U.S. have gone down and the U.S. trade deficit with China is shrinking.
But guess what?
These exports are finding their home in other markets and we're seeing double digit increases of Chinese exports to Europe and to Southeast Asia, to Africa and all around the world.
Knowing what we know about the trade negotiations that have been going on between China and the US this year.
Is it reliable data, this data out of China?
Can we believe it?
I think overall, this is data we can believe.
There's other data coming out of China, which is becoming more sporadic and is being calculated in different ways.
But the trade data seems to be pretty reliable.
And again, as you said in the opening, exporting for the first 11 months of the year at these record levels and hitting a trade deficit of over a trillion dollars.
This is unprecedented in the international trade landscape.
Is it reasonable then, to assume that the new markets that China is finding for its products are buying at the same value that the US market was going to buy at?
Look, they're buying and China is cutting its prices across the board as well.
And this is creating a lot of problems, particularly for countries in Southeast Asia that are receiving a lot of these goods.
Some of them are being placed into as components into final goods coming to the United States.
And that is one of the targets of Trump's trade negotiations with the Southeast Asian countries.
So this is not good for Southeast Asia on a number of fronts.
Do you think China can maintain this surplus level or do you think a kind of momentary spike?
I think it can maintain it for a while, but I do think it's just a matter of time before other countries around the world start taking actions against Chinese imports again, given that these imports are impacting their own domestic economies, their domestic businesses and the livelihood, particularly of small and medium sized enterprises.
OK, Wendy Kotler, thank you very much for joining us today.
Vice President of the Asia Society Policy Institute.
And while China's exports are booming, many US farmers are feeling the strain, hit by low prices and years of disrupted sales to China.
Today,
Now President Trump has announced a $12 billion aid package to support them.
What we're doing is we're taking a relatively small portion of that and we're going to be giving and providing it to the farmers in economic assistance.
And we love our farmers.
And, as you know, the farmers like me because, you know, based on voting trends, you could call it voting trends or anything else, but They're great people.
They're the backbone of our country.
So we're going to use that money to provide $12 billion in economic assistance to American farmers.
That was Donald Trump there speaking in the Oval Office.
But how far will that actually go in helping farmers on the ground?
Bob Wirth joins us now from his soybean farm in southwest Minnesota.
Bob, how tough has it been for soybean farmers like you recently?
It's been very tough for us in agriculture not only soybeans, but all of us for the last three years.
It's just getting tougher and tougher.
We're not making any money.
We're losing anywhere from $100 to $200 per acre per year.
That's really tough to survive in this occupation.
And why is that?
Why are you losing so much money?
Is that because of cheap imports?
Uh, our inputs, what we buy for, like seed fertilizer chemicals, interest rates for us is very high.
All these things are getting higher and higher every year, and you know our, our commodity prices have gone down every year for the last three years.
So i mean the two of them together make a really ugly for us in agriculture.
And so this 12 billion farm aid package announced by Donald Trump in the last few hours, how will it help you?
Well, it'll help us some.
It's probably not enough, but it'll help us get so we can talk to our lender and that we can maybe work out a deal that we can continue to farm for next year.
It's not so much.
I've been farming for 55 years, so I've been around for a long time.
But we have a lot of young people trying to get into agriculture.
And this is what's going to really hurt our young farmers, because they can't absorb losing 100 to 200 per acre.
So this is really going to help them to survive.
We're probably going to need a little more Before this thing all turns around and we can show a profit again.
And just very briefly, President Trump did warn on Monday that he might impose tariffs on fertilizer from Canada if he seems it, if he deems it necessary.
I mean, that's you talked about your inputs going up.
That's one of your largest inputs.
That's going to be a bit of a blow, isn't it?
Oh, it is.
It's not going to help us any.
It certainly is not going to help us any.
And you know I'm doing my cash flow for next year and our inputs have gone up like 30000 just in one year.
That's how much more we're paying for our seed fertilizer and chemicals.
And if we do this on top of it, it's going to be even worse.
So, no, we can't have that.
Okay.
Bob Worth, thank you very much.
Soybean Farmer there joining us from Minnesota.
We're going to move on now to Syria, which is marking the first anniversary of the overthrow of its longtime autocratic ruler, Bashir al-Assad.
There's been a military parade around the main square in Damascus, watched by flag-waving crowds.
So what do young people in Syria think today?
Mohamed is a youth worker in Dairaya near Damascus and Celine is a translator near Idlib.
Many aspects need to be fixed economically.
What we can see from Ahmed al-Sharra and the the new government.
They are doing their best, honestly.
I'm 26 years old and this is totally something new to me and I'm so happy.
I've been like going out with my friends, celebrating outside.
Basically I'm worried about the sanctions because you know there are some things left here like we can't still do.
So despite the political change, the economy remains extremely fragile.
The International NGA Mercy Corps has been working on the ground in Syria throughout the past 12 months, tracking how markets, livelihoods and basic services are evolving.
Their Syria country director, Mathieu Rouquet, is in Aleppo and told me how the country's changed.
Well, there is a sense of hope.
We saw it on the streets this weekend.
We saw it even more today on Liberation Day.
There is definitely a sense of hope, of optimism, a country that finally breathes again.
But the needs are still very much staggering.
Tens of millions are still in need of humanitarian assistance.
Ninety percent of the country lives under the poverty line.
The toll of 14 years of war and five decades of brutal rule are not going to be overcome in one year.
And you've said that actually living standards for many Syrians have declined over the past year.
What's behind that?
Well, there are very few opportunities and there is a lot to rebuild.
Some investment is coming.
Energy access has improved, for example.
There is more electricity, more power to support businesses, to support schools and hospitals.
But the fact of the matter is that investment is time to be translated on the ground, and the needs are so massive.
It's hard sometimes to figure out where to start.
One of the first things that we try to focus on is demining.
A lot of the work that we do targets farmers.
If we incentivise farmers to access their field to plough and grow crops again, we must ensure these fields are safe.
How quickly can agriculture realistically revive them if you've got to demine all the fields before you even start planting anything?
Well, some areas are safer than others.
Where we work is across former front lines, which are the most at risk.
And we want to ensure these areas are prioritised.
But there are other areas of Syria where we have been supporting farmers and agricultural production.
What we need to do there is focus on value chains, on access to markets, on building better roads.
It's very important to kickstart agriculture again.
And how long do you think that that might take?
This depends also on the level of investments that we can mobilize for Syria.
Humanitarian aid is dwindling and is a short-term fix.
What we need to see are those longer-term investments coming to Syria.
And we're trying to bring in more private sector actors to fill the gap left by traditional donors that are retreating.
We're trying to bring new models of aid to introduce more sustainable ways of financing the recovery of Syria's economy.
That is starting to happen, isn't it?
More private investors are starting to come into the country.
Private sector actors are coming, but they're scoping, they're exploring.
It will take time for those investments to materialise on the ground.
And we are trying to convince private investors through blended finance models that there is an investment to be made in Syria and there is a future return on investment there.
And alongside that need for more investment, we've also seen mass layoffs of government workers and cuts to subsidies.
So people are really feeling the brunt of all of this, aren't they?
Absolutely.
And look, what the new government has uncovered are decades of mismanagement.
So, in a way, they had to undergo a pretty brutal and radical transformation in order to be able to provide governance and good public service delivery.
But that has created, obviously, a short-term shock for many families in Syria.
How would you sort of describe the progress or the lack of progress in Syria over the past 12 months?
Are you surprised that there hasn't been faster progress?
No, I don't think we could have expected faster progress.
The level of destruction means that there's so much to be done that we can't expect the country to recover in one year.
It didn't take us a year to come out of the Second World War.
It took us decades.
That was Mathieu Rouquet from Mercy Corps.
Peter Jankowskis is still with us.
He's vice president of research and analysis at Arbor Financial Services in Chicago.
As an investor then, Peter, at what point would you advise anyone to start investing in Syria?
Well, I think for infrastructure projects it's probably a worthwhile option uh situation right now to to be at least considering some of those investments.
A lot would depend, of course, on on what sort of funding was available.
Uh security, guarantees for the workforce.
Um, but Syria has a lot going for it uh, in terms of uh having a well-educated workforce.
Um, and you know people that obviously are are very uh invested in, in bringing their country back.
So we might start from that perspective, it's important so we might start seeing shovels in the ground.
Uh, maybe in the next 12 months or so.
Um, looking ahead to later in the week peter, the federal reserve, the us central bank, will decide on rates on wednesday.
Everyone's been looking at this.
What's the market pricing in?
What are investors expecting to happen on wednesday?
Well, right now they're looking at a very high probability of there being another cut in December.
I think.
Whatever we'll be looking at though, is how the various governors position themselves, how many dissenting opinions there are.
Which way are they dissenting?
Because there's probably going to be people on both sides.
There are going to be people that don't want this cut.
There will be people that want larger cuts.
And what does all that mean for 2026?
And sometimes that's more important, isn't it, when you get in these results?
It's kind of what they are indicating for what might happen next.
Indeed, the stock market is always looking at least six months ahead.
So, you know, it's not what happens today.
It's more what does it... pretend for 2026.
Looking ahead to 2026.
Thank you so much, Peter Jankowskis, for joining us today on World Business Report.
Vice President of Research and Analysis at Arbor Financial Services in Chicago.
Well, that's it for this edition of the programme.
From me, Sam Fenwick, and the team here, thank you very much for listening.
Yeah.
Who drives the world forward?
The one with the answers or the one asking the right questions at Aramco.
We start every day by asking how, how can innovation help deliver reliable energy to the world?
How can technology help develop new materials to reshape cities?
How can collaboration help us overcome the biggest challenges to get to the answer?
We first need to ask the right question.
Search Aramco powered by how.
Aramco is an energy and chemicals company with oil and gas production as its primary business.
