<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>The Gist: the latest Gists</title>
    <link>https://www.thegist.media/gists/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://www.thegist.media/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <description>Sharp takes, deeper dives. Huw Allen on the everyday things, and what is really going on with them. The newest Gists in full.</description>
    <language>en-gb</language>
    <copyright>The Gist</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2026 09:16:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <managingEditor>info@thegist.media (Huw Allen)</managingEditor>
    
    <item>
      <title>Rice Krispies. Never running out has a price.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/rice-krispies/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/rice-krispies/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2026 09:16:55 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Food and drink</category><category>Rice Krispies</category><category>Snap, Crackle, Stop</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>A quieter bowl of Rice Krispies opens a bigger question: what gets lost when a product can be made from anywhere? Huw traces the trade between a dependable supply and the particular thing you grew up with.</strong></p><h2>What changed in the bowl?</h2><p>Huw describes Kellogg’s moving from grains of rice to a blend of rice and corn flour after poor harvests in Spain. The change reaches beyond the ingredients: the familiar snap, crackle and pop can change too.</p><h2>Why does a blend change the supply?</h2><p>A grain is a particular thing grown in a particular place. Huw contrasts that with flour that can be milled from rice sourced in different countries and blended with other ingredients. The aim is a product that can keep reaching the shelf when a particular harvest cannot.</p><h2>What is the price of never running out?</h2><p>The brand can remain familiar while the thing inside becomes less particular. Huw’s question is whether reliable availability quietly trades away the qualities that made a product recognisable in the first place.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What changed in the bowl?</strong> Huw describes Kellogg’s moving from grains of rice to a blend of rice and corn flour after poor harvests in Spain. The change reaches beyond the ingredients: the familiar snap, crackle and pop can change too.</p><p><strong>Why does a blend change the supply?</strong> A grain is a particular thing grown in a particular place. Huw contrasts that with flour that can be milled from rice sourced in different countries and blended with other ingredients. The aim is a product that can keep reaching the shelf when a particular harvest cannot.</p><p>Watch "Snap, Crackle, Stop" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dfb1lo2IEUu/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/rice-krispies-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="54546" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Concorde, Part 2. Ask what it is worth.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/concorde-part-2/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/concorde-part-2/</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2026 11:05:26 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Money</category><category>Concorde, Part 2</category><category>Part 2: The Price</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>A questionnaire helped turn Concorde into a profitable business. Huw returns to the difference between what a machine costs to build and what people value once it exists.</strong></p><h2>What did British Airways ask?</h2><p>Passengers were asked what they thought their tickets cost. Many had not paid for the booking themselves and guessed more than the actual fare. British Airways raised prices towards what its customers already believed the experience was worth.</p><h2>Why did the ownership change matter?</h2><p>The aircraft became profitable before British Airways bought out the government&#x27;s interest in 1984. Huw contrasts an undertaking judged by its construction cost with an operator asking what each seat could earn. The same aircraft answered different questions.</p><h2>Why did Concorde stop flying?</h2><p>The 2000 crash, the collapse in business travel after 9/11 and the withdrawal of parts support changed the economics again. Huw&#x27;s closing question is what gets missed when the costs of building something become the only measure of whether it should exist.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What did British Airways ask?</strong> Passengers were asked what they thought their tickets cost. Many had not paid for the booking themselves and guessed more than the actual fare. British Airways raised prices towards what its customers already believed the experience was worth.</p><p><strong>Why did the ownership change matter?</strong> The aircraft became profitable before British Airways bought out the government&#x27;s interest in 1984. Huw contrasts an undertaking judged by its construction cost with an operator asking what each seat could earn. The same aircraft answered different questions.</p><p>Watch "Part 2: The Price" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfW4Rk3IH_T/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/concorde-part-2-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="33642" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Triple lock. Something to lose.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/triple-lock/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/triple-lock/</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2026 11:06:14 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Money</category><category>Triple lock</category><category>Something to Lose</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>The state pension rises by the highest of inflation, earnings growth or 2.5%. Huw asks what that durable promise reveals about voters, ownership and political power.</strong></p><h2>What does the triple lock promise?</h2><p>It gives the state pension three possible routes to an annual increase, with the largest determining the rise. Successive parties have committed to preserving it. Huw treats that continuity as a clue about the incentives shared across politics.</p><h2>Why does turnout matter?</h2><p>People who vote reliably give politicians a strong reason to protect their interests. Huw connects the difference between older and younger turnout with the difference between generations that own assets and those still trying to acquire them.</p><h2>What is the argument about ownership?</h2><p>A vote can protect something already possessed. For somebody with less to protect, political participation can feel less rewarding, weakening their influence further. The question is how a system responds when the people still building a stake participate less.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What does the triple lock promise?</strong> It gives the state pension three possible routes to an annual increase, with the largest determining the rise. Successive parties have committed to preserving it. Huw treats that continuity as a clue about the incentives shared across politics.</p><p><strong>Why does turnout matter?</strong> People who vote reliably give politicians a strong reason to protect their interests. Huw connects the difference between older and younger turnout with the difference between generations that own assets and those still trying to acquire them.</p><p>Watch "Something to Lose" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfRu_waI_RF/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/triple-lock-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="36196" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Minimum wage. The pay rise raises tax.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/minimum-wage-2026/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/minimum-wage-2026/</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 10:56:05 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Money</category><category>Minimum wage</category><category>The Rise</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>A higher minimum wage sounds like a straightforward win for the worker. Huw asks how a frozen tax allowance changes the division of that pay rise between the employee, employer and Treasury.</strong></p><h2>Why does a pay rise also raise tax?</h2><p>When the tax-free allowance stays fixed, a larger wage moves more earnings above it. The headline increase and the amount somebody takes home are different numbers. Employer contributions add another cost on the other side of the payslip.</p><h2>What does the employer have to decide?</h2><p>A higher hourly wage increases the cost of each shift. Businesses can respond through prices, margins, staffing or hours. Huw&#x27;s concern is that the people meant to benefit can face a trade-off between a higher rate and the amount of work available.</p><h2>Why is the presentation so effective?</h2><p>An explicit tax rise attracts attention immediately. A pay rise is celebrated, even when a frozen threshold increases the government&#x27;s share. Huw asks readers to look past the headline and consider who receives the full increase.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Why does a pay rise also raise tax?</strong> When the tax-free allowance stays fixed, a larger wage moves more earnings above it. The headline increase and the amount somebody takes home are different numbers. Employer contributions add another cost on the other side of the payslip.</p><p><strong>What does the employer have to decide?</strong> A higher hourly wage increases the cost of each shift. Businesses can respond through prices, margins, staffing or hours. Huw&#x27;s concern is that the people meant to benefit can face a trade-off between a higher rate and the amount of work available.</p><p>Watch "The Rise" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfPJDbtIVv4/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/minimum-wage-2026-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="51410" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Halloween. No strings attached.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/halloween/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/halloween/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2026 11:56:56 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Culture</category><category>Halloween</category><category>No Strings</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>The pumpkin is bought, carved, photographed and thrown away. Huw looks at a ritual whose obligations have faded while its annual shopping list has flourished.</strong></p><h2>What does the supermarket sell?</h2><p>A pumpkin, a candle and a few decorations turn into a recognisable celebration. The product is more than the vegetable: it is the short-lived experience of taking part, repeated in homes and photographs every year.</p><h2>What happened to the meaning?</h2><p>Huw traces a contrast between older customs of remembrance, prayers and cakes, and the modern retail ritual. Stripped of those obligations, the celebration is easier to join and easier to sell. No deeper commitment is required at the checkout.</p><h2>Why does the purchase have to happen again?</h2><p>The pumpkin rots, the decorations come down and the next October creates another occasion to buy. Huw&#x27;s argument is that a tradition passed between generations and a product sold every year reward very different things.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What does the supermarket sell?</strong> A pumpkin, a candle and a few decorations turn into a recognisable celebration. The product is more than the vegetable: it is the short-lived experience of taking part, repeated in homes and photographs every year.</p><p><strong>What happened to the meaning?</strong> Huw traces a contrast between older customs of remembrance, prayers and cakes, and the modern retail ritual. Stripped of those obligations, the celebration is easier to join and easier to sell. No deeper commitment is required at the checkout.</p><p>Watch "No Strings" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfKGTgvoLzj/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/halloween-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="54928" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Concorde, Part 1. The treaty made the plane.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/concorde-part-1/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/concorde-part-1/</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2026 12:05:34 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Ideas</category><category>Concorde, Part 1</category><category>Part 1: The Treaty</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Britain repeatedly wanted to cancel Concorde. The agreement with France made walking away costly. Huw asks whether the achievement would ever have existed if stopping had been easy.</strong></p><h2>Why was Concorde so difficult to cancel?</h2><p>The 1962 agreement committed Britain and France to developing a supersonic airliner together. Rising costs did not provide a simple way out. Britain&#x27;s attempts to reconsider the project ran into the obligations it had already accepted.</p><h2>How did an expensive commitment become a national achievement?</h2><p>The project survived years in which its costs and the country&#x27;s other problems made it an obvious target. Huw&#x27;s distinction is between what an undertaking looks like while it is being built and what people value after it exists.</p><h2>What happened when the state handed it over?</h2><p>In 1979, the government handed the aircraft to British Airways while retaining a share of possible profits. The next part of the story asks how an operation expected to lose money became profitable, after somebody finally asked what a seat was worth.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Why was Concorde so difficult to cancel?</strong> The 1962 agreement committed Britain and France to developing a supersonic airliner together. Rising costs did not provide a simple way out. Britain&#x27;s attempts to reconsider the project ran into the obligations it had already accepted.</p><p><strong>How did an expensive commitment become a national achievement?</strong> The project survived years in which its costs and the country&#x27;s other problems made it an obvious target. Huw&#x27;s distinction is between what an undertaking looks like while it is being built and what people value after it exists.</p><p>Watch "Part 1: The Treaty" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfE9zijIFd0/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/concorde-part-1-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="33564" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>National Express. The bad parts make the good cheap.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/national-express/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/national-express/</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2026 12:01:29 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Brands</category><category>national express</category><category>alsa</category><category>cosmen family</category><category>acquisitions</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>The family that sold Alsa to National Express wants to buy the group. A valuable Spanish coach business sits inside a heavily indebted company, and the struggling parts help set the price.</strong></p><h2>What is keeping the group valuable?</h2><p>National Express bought the Spanish coach company Alsa about 20 years ago. Alsa now makes more profit than anything else in the business. At the same time, the group has accumulated £1.1 billion of debt and has been selling assets, including its American school-bus business.</p><p>The Spanish family that sold Alsa now wants to buy the group. The attraction is getting the good company back from inside the troubled one.</p><h2>How can a seller end up buying the buyer?</h2><p>You pay the seller in yourself. National Express did not simply hand over cash for Alsa. The deal gave the family shares and a seat on the board. As the British side struggled and the shares became cheaper, the family could buy more.</p><p>That creates a peculiar position: the people who know the profitable business can build their stake in its owner while the less successful parts drag the overall price down.</p><h2>Where does the discount come from?</h2><p>The British coaches lose money and the debt sits on top. Together, they reduce what a buyer must pay to reach the valuable Spanish operation. The worse parts make the best part cheaper to acquire.</p><p>The company&#x27;s price is set by its worst parts and its value by its best. Owning a good company inside a struggling one can be an excellent position, provided the bad company fails slowly enough for you to buy the whole thing.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What is Alsa?</strong> The Spanish coach company National Express bought about 20 years earlier, now the most profitable part of the group in Huw&#x27;s account.</p><p><strong>Why might the former owners want the whole group?</strong> Buying the indebted group offers a way to regain the profitable Alsa business at a price reduced by the struggling operations around it.</p><p>Watch "The Discount" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfCYkFeIzms/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/national-express-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="39568" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Oxford Street. Which people get the street back?</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/oxford-street/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/oxford-street/</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:41:40 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Places and property</category><category>oxford street</category><category>pedestrianisation</category><category>london</category><category>tourism</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Oxford Street&#x27;s pedestrianisation is sold as giving the street back to the people. The question is which people: the Londoners who live around it, or the visitors who come to spend?</strong></p><h2>Why did the street need to work for Londoners?</h2><p>For as long as Oxford Street had everyday utility for local people, it had to function as a street. The shops needed bus routes that brought their customers to them. Taking those routes away meant taking away a way of doing ordinary errands.</p><p>Then those errands went online. A Londoner giving you advice about Oxford Street is increasingly likely to tell you to avoid it. That changes the incentives of the place.</p><h2>Who does the centre now serve?</h2><p>The customers left are increasingly visitors. They are there to do one thing: spend. The people who live in London commute in to run a centre that caters to somebody else.</p><p>Pedestrianisation is sold as giving the street back to the people. But the question is, which people? A street can become more pleasant for a visitor while becoming less useful to the person who once relied on it.</p><h2>What happens when a city is built around visitors?</h2><p>Look at the relationship between London&#x27;s ability to accommodate its residents and the people it caters to. As tourism becomes the focus, living in the city becomes harder for the Londoners who make it work.</p><p>A vibrant living city is what people come to see. When you build a city for the visitor, the thing they come to visit starts to die. You cannot drive through Disneyland either, but you only go there every few years. A city has to do another job for the people who are there every day.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What is Huw questioning about pedestrianisation?</strong> Who it is designed to serve, and whether making the area more attractive to visitors makes it less useful to residents.</p><p><strong>Why do online errands matter to the argument?</strong> They reduce the everyday reasons local people need Oxford Street&#x27;s shops and transport connections, changing whose spending the area depends on.</p><p>Watch "No Through City" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/De_xfupoame/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/oxford-street-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="43414" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Amy Winehouse. Can the songs stand without her?</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/amy-winehouse/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/amy-winehouse/</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2026 11:40:43 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Culture</category><category>amy winehouse</category><category>west end</category><category>music rights</category><category>jukebox musicals</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>An Amy Winehouse musical would test a familiar claim in the opposite direction: can you separate the art from the artist when the artist&#x27;s life is what the songs are about?</strong></p><h2>What are the rights holders betting on?</h2><p>Amy Winehouse&#x27;s songs are being turned into a West End musical. The people who own them are betting they will sell without her in them. Her father is rumoured to be involved, which matters because he runs her estate.</p><p>Three things disappear when she is taken out: her extraordinary voice, the trouble off stage and the risk of an unreliable performance. Those things were also inseparable from her allure as a human being and an artist.</p><h2>Why is this different from another jukebox musical?</h2><p>The MJ musical has been successful on Broadway since 2022. But Michael Jackson&#x27;s songs are not principally accounts of his own collapse. With Amy, the songs were about her, and we watched that story happen.</p><p>There was nothing between the art and the artist to cut. Everything she wrote and sang was true when she sang it. Hearing somebody else perform it changes the relationship between the song and the person whose name brings the audience in.</p><h2>What does the musical really test?</h2><p>We have spent years asking whether separating the art from the artist lets us keep enjoying the work. This asks the reverse question: whether removing the artist takes away what made the work compelling.</p><p>The test is whether separating the art from the artist kills or saves the art. When the only thing left from Amy&#x27;s music is the music, will the same desire to go and hear it remain?</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What is proposed for Amy Winehouse&#x27;s songs?</strong> A West End musical, with her father rumoured to be involved.</p><p><strong>Why does Huw think it is an unusual test?</strong> Her songs drew directly on her life. Removing her from their performance tests whether the music keeps the same appeal without that relationship.</p><p>Watch "Love Is a Losing Game" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/De9MlAsoPi9/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/amy-winehouse-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="39970" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The pint. Shrunk.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/the-pint/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/the-pint/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2026 10:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Food and drink</category><category>The pint</category><category>Shrunk</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>A pint is a fixed measure, but the business around it can still change. As customers drink less, Huw looks at halves, alcohol-free beer and the economics of a shorter night out.</strong></p><h2>What changes when customers drink less?</h2><p>The rent, staffing and other costs of running a pub do not shrink with the customer&#x27;s appetite. Huw connects the growing use of weight-loss medication with a business looking for ways to earn more from a smaller amount of drinking.</p><h2>How does the pub adapt?</h2><p>Smaller servings, alcohol-free options and food offer different ways to earn a margin. A half can cost more per millilitre, while a smaller order need not mean a proportionately smaller bill. The measure remains fixed; the occasion around it changes.</p><h2>What might disappear with the pint?</h2><p>Huw&#x27;s concern extends beyond the glass. Less drinking can mean a shorter evening and a different kind of venue. A pub is both a business and somewhere people spend time together; changes to one alter the other.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What changes when customers drink less?</strong> The rent, staffing and other costs of running a pub do not shrink with the customer&#x27;s appetite. Huw connects the growing use of weight-loss medication with a business looking for ways to earn more from a smaller amount of drinking.</p><p><strong>How does the pub adapt?</strong> Smaller servings, alcohol-free options and food offer different ways to earn a margin. A half can cost more per millilitre, while a smaller order need not mean a proportionately smaller bill. The measure remains fixed; the occasion around it changes.</p><p>Watch "Shrunk" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/De35-bMo9aY/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/the-pint-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="37608" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Millennium Dome. We sold for a promise.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/millennium-dome-part-2/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/millennium-dome-part-2/</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2026 10:41:27 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Places and property</category><category>millennium dome</category><category>public land</category><category>the o2</category><category>development profit</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>The Dome was handed over for no money up front. Others sold their interests for agreed prices. The public&#x27;s return depended on a profit calculated at the end.</strong></p><h2>What did the public agree to?</h2><p>In 2002, the Dome and the land around it were transferred with no money paid up front. The public had already paid to clean the ground, connect it to the Tube and build the tent. Its return would be a share of what the development made later.</p><p>That is a different position from selling an asset for a price. A price is settled when the deal happens. A promise depends on what the agreement calls profit, which costs come first and who does the calculation.</p><h2>Who got paid first?</h2><p>The operator, leaseholder and landowner held separate interests. Each could sell an interest at a price agreed with a buyer. In the longer newsletter, I trace a lease that turned £24 million into £90 million, and land sold for £666 million without a payment to the public.</p><p>The distinction is the order in which the money gets divided. The developer&#x27;s return comes before the public&#x27;s share, and the party paid first also does the sums. A sale can produce a substantial price for its owner without producing the profit the public was promised.</p><h2>Does this need a villain?</h2><p>A version with a villain would be more satisfying. It would also miss the arrangement. Developers can negotiate hard and keep their agreements. Other owners can make shrewd purchases. The structure still leaves the public waiting.</p><p>Everyone else sold for a price. We sold for a promise. The question is what that promise was worth once everybody ahead of us had been paid.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Why was there no public payment when other interests were sold?</strong> The public&#x27;s return was tied to the agreement&#x27;s definition of future profit, rather than a share of every sale price.</p><p><strong>What is Huw&#x27;s central distinction?</strong> Other parties could sell their interests for agreed prices. The public accepted a promise of profit after other claims had been met.</p><p>Watch "Part 2: The Promise" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Deyyhb1IXEv/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/millennium-dome-part-2-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="60158" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Lindt. Literally luxury.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/lindt/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/lindt/</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2026 10:39:46 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Luxury</category><category>Lindt</category><category>Literally Luxury</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Lindt&#x27;s price cuts expose an awkward distinction: a product can be more expensive than its neighbours without making price itself the reason people want it.</strong></p><h2>What is the luxury promise?</h2><p>Gold foil, the chocolatier and the gift box signal that somebody chose something nicer. Huw distinguishes that premium position from luxury whose high price is part of the appeal. The two depend on different relationships with the customer.</p><h2>Why do price cuts matter?</h2><p>When customers buy a product because it is a little better than the cheaper alternative, a widening price gap can send them elsewhere. A price cut may bring them back, but it also tests what the word luxury was doing in the first place.</p><h2>Who gets squeezed in the middle?</h2><p>The cheapest alternative can compete on the product&#x27;s price. At the other extreme, an exclusive luxury brand can make price part of the product. Huw places Lindt between those positions, where inflation makes the distinction harder to sustain.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What is the luxury promise?</strong> Gold foil, the chocolatier and the gift box signal that somebody chose something nicer. Huw distinguishes that premium position from luxury whose high price is part of the appeal. The two depend on different relationships with the customer.</p><p><strong>Why do price cuts matter?</strong> When customers buy a product because it is a little better than the cheaper alternative, a widening price gap can send them elsewhere. A price cut may bring them back, but it also tests what the word luxury was doing in the first place.</p><p>Watch "Literally Luxury" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DewNo7Wo12_/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/lindt-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="52756" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Millennials. Accidental feudalism.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/millennials/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/millennials/</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2026 09:26:05 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Money</category><category>Millennials</category><category>Accidental Feudalism</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>A generation can earn more on paper and still struggle to own a home. Huw asks what changes when the route to wealth runs through inheritance rather than wages.</strong></p><h2>Why does future wealth feel so distant?</h2><p>The money many millennials expect to inherit is tied up in their parents&#x27; property. It cannot pay today&#x27;s rent or provide a deposit while somebody else still owns it. The timing of wealth matters as much as its eventual amount.</p><h2>What happens when the inheritance finally arrives?</h2><p>It may arrive after the years when it would have made the greatest difference. By then, the recipient&#x27;s own children may need help with housing. Instead of enjoying the wealth themselves, one generation can become the route through which it passes to the next.</p><h2>Why call it accidental feudalism?</h2><p>Two people with the same work and wages can have very different lives because of what their families own. Huw&#x27;s argument is that wealth becomes less about earning and more about waiting, making the circumstances of birth increasingly important.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Why does future wealth feel so distant?</strong> The money many millennials expect to inherit is tied up in their parents&#x27; property. It cannot pay today&#x27;s rent or provide a deposit while somebody else still owns it. The timing of wealth matters as much as its eventual amount.</p><p><strong>What happens when the inheritance finally arrives?</strong> It may arrive after the years when it would have made the greatest difference. By then, the recipient&#x27;s own children may need help with housing. Instead of enjoying the wealth themselves, one generation can become the route through which it passes to the next.</p><p>Watch "Accidental Feudalism" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Detgao8IVN_/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/millennials-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="51390" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Poundland. The Freddo of shops.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/poundland/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/poundland/</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2026 10:07:32 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Brands</category><category>Poundland</category><category>The Freddo of Shops</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Most shops can change their prices without changing their identity. Poundland put the price in its name. Inflation turned that memorable promise into a problem.</strong></p><h2>Why is the name a constraint?</h2><p>Most retailers choose a product and adjust its price. Poundland built the promise the other way round: the price stayed fixed and products were made to fit it. Smaller packs and different quantities helped keep that promise recognisable.</p><h2>What happens when a pound buys less?</h2><p>When costs rise, the fixed price becomes harder to sustain. Moving to higher price points solves one problem but creates another: a shop called Poundland begins to look like any other discount shop, while customers remember exactly what its prices used to be.</p><h2>What does the Freddo comparison reveal?</h2><p>A familiar price becomes an anchor. Huw compares Poundland with the chocolate bar whose old price nobody forgets. Promising value relative to other shops leaves room to adapt; promising a particular number makes every change conspicuous.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Why is the name a constraint?</strong> Most retailers choose a product and adjust its price. Poundland built the promise the other way round: the price stayed fixed and products were made to fit it. Smaller packs and different quantities helped keep that promise recognisable.</p><p><strong>What happens when a pound buys less?</strong> When costs rise, the fixed price becomes harder to sustain. Moving to higher price points solves one problem but creates another: a shop called Poundland begins to look like any other discount shop, while customers remember exactly what its prices used to be.</p><p>Watch "The Freddo of Shops" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DerAUFkoTHr/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/poundland-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="56712" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Animal cafes. Who holds the bag?</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/animal-cafes/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/animal-cafes/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 08:57:14 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Ideas</category><category>Animal cafes</category><category>Who Holds the Bag</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>An hour with a dog gives you the affection without the years of bills, walks and responsibility. Huw visits CuppaPug to ask what animal cafés are really selling.</strong></p><h2>Why pay to spend time with a dog?</h2><p>At CuppaPug, the attraction is an hour of company. Huw connects its popularity to the difference between enjoying a pet and being responsible for one. The companionship is immediate; the costs of ownership continue long after the visit ends.</p><h2>What has been unbundled?</h2><p>Renting, household rules, veterinary bills and daily care can put pet ownership out of reach. The café separates a brief encounter with an animal from that continuing commitment. Huw calls it ownership cosplay: the experience of being wanted, bought by the hour.</p><h2>Who carries the responsibility?</h2><p>The responsibility still exists when the visitor leaves. Somebody feeds the dogs, arranges care and pays the bills. The question behind the experience is who carries the part that cannot be packaged into an enjoyable hour.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Why pay to spend time with a dog?</strong> At CuppaPug, the attraction is an hour of company. Huw connects its popularity to the difference between enjoying a pet and being responsible for one. The companionship is immediate; the costs of ownership continue long after the visit ends.</p><p><strong>What has been unbundled?</strong> Renting, household rules, veterinary bills and daily care can put pet ownership out of reach. The café separates a brief encounter with an animal from that continuing commitment. Huw calls it ownership cosplay: the experience of being wanted, bought by the hour.</p><p>Watch "Who Holds the Bag" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Deluo1vIObp/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/animal-cafes-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="60268" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Millennium Dome. The tent was the show home.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/millennium-dome-part-1/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/millennium-dome-part-1/</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2026 10:42:41 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Places and property</category><category>millennium dome</category><category>greenwich</category><category>public land</category><category>the o2</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>The Millennium Dome became a national joke. The land underneath it became some of London&#x27;s most valuable property. We spent a year arguing about the wrong thing.</strong></p><h2>What actually failed?</h2><p>The Millennium Dome was the giant white tent the government built in Greenwich to celebrate the millennium. Today, it is the O2. It cost £789 million and needed 12 million visitors to break even. About six million came. It closed on New Year&#x27;s Eve and became a national joke.</p><p>But two things occupied that site: the tent and the ground it stood on. The exhibition could fail while the property underneath became more valuable.</p><h2>How did the land become valuable?</h2><p>The Greenwich Peninsula was a dead gasworks. The ground was so polluted that nobody wanted to build there. The public paid to make it safe, extended the Jubilee line to it and put the most talked-about building in the country on it for a year.</p><p>When the exhibition closed, the contents belonged to the sponsors. In 2002, the Dome and 170 acres around it went to a developer backed by an American billionaire, with no money up front. The public was promised a share of future development profits.</p><h2>What was the Dome really selling?</h2><p>The Dome was a show home. You build one to bring people to somewhere they would otherwise ignore and help them imagine what could be there. The public built the show home, got a year of looking at the James Bond boat, me included, and handed it over.</p><p>We are brilliant at knowing what things cost, but hopeless at knowing what they are worth. We argued about the bill for the tent while the ground underneath it became some of the most valuable in London. Where that value went is the story of part two.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What is the Millennium Dome now?</strong> It is now the O2, on the Greenwich Peninsula.</p><p><strong>Why does Huw call it a land deal?</strong> Public spending cleaned up and connected the site. The Dome and surrounding land were then transferred for a promised share of future profits rather than money up front.</p><p>Watch "Part 1: The Deal" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DegxGHFIx_O/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/millennium-dome-part-1-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="46800" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HMV. Nostalgia does not pay the rent.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/hmv/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/hmv/</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 10:24:28 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Brands</category><category>HMV</category><category>The Flagship</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>HMV&#x27;s sales are growing, but its historic Oxford Street shop is leaving again. A flagship can be valuable to a brand without earning enough at the till to pay for its address.</strong></p><h2>Why can a growing business leave its flagship?</h2><p>Revenue is not the same as the money left after costs. Huw looks at a shop whose historic importance makes it valuable to HMV, while the landlord can charge for that importance. Growth elsewhere does not automatically make the flagship affordable.</p><h2>What does the famous address actually sell?</h2><p>The Oxford Street store is also a billboard: it keeps the brand visible and connects it to its history. The very reason HMV wants the address can strengthen the landlord&#x27;s position in setting the rent.</p><h2>When is leaving the better decision?</h2><p>A business can sell nostalgia without paying any price to remain in its original home. Huw&#x27;s distinction is between the story a famous location gives the brand and the continuing bill for keeping that story attached to one shop.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Why can a growing business leave its flagship?</strong> Revenue is not the same as the money left after costs. Huw looks at a shop whose historic importance makes it valuable to HMV, while the landlord can charge for that importance. Growth elsewhere does not automatically make the flagship affordable.</p><p><strong>What does the famous address actually sell?</strong> The Oxford Street store is also a billboard: it keeps the brand visible and connects it to its history. The very reason HMV wants the address can strengthen the landlord&#x27;s position in setting the rent.</p><p>Watch "The Flagship" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DeeKRe4oppS/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/hmv-instagram-cover-480.webp" length="38588" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Morris Dancing. Nobody can be embarrassed in a dragon's head.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/morris-dancing/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/morris-dancing/</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 10:05:30 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Culture</category><category>morris dancing</category><category>morris dancers</category><category>cringe</category><category>disguise</category><category>embarrassed</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Everyone at the party would rather die than do that, and yet none of them can look away. It&#x27;s more than a dance, it&#x27;s a disguise.</strong></p><h2>Why is Morris dancing cringe?</h2><p>Because cringe is a strange emotion: you feel it for other people. Watch someone embarrass themselves and your brain fires the same bit it uses for pain. It enforces the cardinal rule the English live under: don&#x27;t stand out.</p><h2>How do the dancers get away with it?</h2><p>They worked out something very clever. You can&#x27;t embarrass somebody who isn&#x27;t there. Take 12 people, dress them the same and move them as one, and there&#x27;s no such thing as one dancer, there&#x27;s only the troop.</p><h2>Who feels the embarrassment, then?</h2><p>Not the dancers. Put a bunch of you in bells, harnesses and hankies and you become them, so the embarrassment at the party is all yours. They have, basically, diplomatic immunity in a dragon&#x27;s head.</p><p>Everyone at that party is waiting for enough booze to get up and dance. All they need is a bunch of hankies and a dragon&#x27;s head.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Why do Morris dancers not feel embarrassed?</strong> Dress 12 people the same and move them as one and there&#x27;s no individual dancer, only the troop.</p><p><strong>What is cringe, according to Huw?</strong> A strange emotion you feel for other people, using the same part of the brain as pain.</p><p>Watch "Diplomatic immunity" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DebjatQoIND/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/morris-dancing-480.webp" length="63320" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Audemars Piguet. Polishing the glass.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/audemars-piguet/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/audemars-piguet/</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 10:50:54 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Luxury</category><category>luxury</category><category>royal oak</category><category>swatch</category><category>steel</category><category>waiting list</category><category>customers</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Luxury brands have lost 60 million customers in three years, and Audemars Piguet has found a way to get them back for 300 quid. Look closer and you are not being let in.</strong></p><h2>What did Audemars Piguet just do?</h2><p>The Royal Oak is the watch that invented expensive steel. In 1972, Audemars Piguet put a steel sports watch on sale for more than the cost of their gold one. A ballsy move, and it worked.</p><p>Every luxury steel watch since is copying it. Today it starts at around 30 grand, with a waiting list. But in May, they put that design on a plastic Swatch and sold it for 300 pounds. People slept outside shops in Tokyo to get one. It sold out in hours, and AP had one of their best months ever.</p><h2>Why would a luxury brand with a waiting list sell a 300 quid watch?</h2><p>Because the watch isn&#x27;t worth 30 grand for what it&#x27;s made from. It&#x27;s worth it because everyone who sees it knows what it is, and knows they can&#x27;t have one.</p><p>Luxury needs two sets of customers: the thousands that buy, and the millions that don&#x27;t. When the millions go, what&#x27;s the value anymore?</p><h2>Where have the customers gone?</h2><p>The consultancy Bain reckoned the luxury industry had about 400 million customers four years ago. Now it&#x27;s down to 340 million, because they priced out an entire generation. That&#x27;s you and me.</p><p>Swiss watch exports are down, and the only bracket that&#x27;s growing is, you guessed it, the 300 pound mark. The Swatch is AP going after the lost 60 million.</p><h2>So what did you actually buy?</h2><p>If you queued for it, you may have got a watch. But what they got was worth much more. Every single one in someone&#x27;s pocket made the real one more valuable, and you paid the price of the promotion.</p><p>So when a luxury brand sells you a cheap version, you&#x27;re not being let in. You&#x27;re just polishing the glass on the shop window.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What is the Royal Oak?</strong> The watch that invented expensive steel. In 1972 Audemars Piguet priced a steel sports watch above their gold one, and every luxury steel watch since has copied it.</p><p><strong>Why did Audemars Piguet sell a 300 pound watch?</strong> Luxury needs the millions who never buy as well as the thousands who do. Bain reckoned the industry fell from about 400 million customers to 340 million, so AP is going after the lost 60 million.</p><p><strong>What does the cheap Swatch do for the real one?</strong> Every Swatch out in the world makes the real watch more valuable, because everyone knows what it is and knows they can&#x27;t have one.</p><p>Watch "Polishing the Glass" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DeZD0YLoH9t/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/audemars-piguet-480.webp" length="29892" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Patriotic Millionaires. Would they really stay?</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/patriotic-millionaires/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/patriotic-millionaires/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 10 Oct 2026 09:57:46 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Money</category><category>wealth tax</category><category>tax</category><category>millionaires</category><category>norway</category><category>football match</category><category>budget</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>A group of rich people wants to pay more tax, and they staged a rigged football match to say so. The catch with a wealth tax is the one thing rich people can do: leave.</strong></p><h2>What is the super rich tax match?</h2><p>The Patriotic Millionaires put on a football match: Team Wealth against Team Work. The first half is rigged on purpose. Team Wealth gets free goals, extra players and a biased referee.</p><p>At half time, they bring in a wealth tax, and the second half is a level playing field. The people who organised it are the ones who&#x27;d pay.</p><h2>What do the Patriotic Millionaires actually want?</h2><p>They&#x27;re rich, and they want to pay more tax. Specifically, 2% a year on everything over £10 million, which they reckon will raise £24 billion. And they want the chance to put it in the budget this month.</p><h2>Do wealth taxes work?</h2><p>A wealth tax only works if the rich stick around. Twelve countries have tried it, and nine have given it up. A fortune is hard to value, easy to hide and, crucially, easy to move.</p><p>Norway put its rates up in 2022 and 300 of its richest went off to Switzerland. Except Norway&#x27;s take went up anyway, by 26%.</p><h2>Is this a protest or a promise?</h2><p>The rich left and the money still came in, which makes this a promise, not a protest. Rich people on a pitch saying publicly: we&#x27;d stay. And pretending they&#x27;re good at football.</p><p>The pitch tilts towards whoever can walk off it, which is why your salary is the easiest thing to tax. It only changes when the people who can leave say they won&#x27;t, the chancellor believes them, and they stay.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What are the Patriotic Millionaires proposing?</strong> A tax of 2% a year on everything over £10 million, which they reckon would raise £24 billion.</p><p><strong>Do wealth taxes work?</strong> Only if the rich stick around. Twelve countries have tried one and nine have given it up, because a fortune is hard to value, easy to hide and easy to move.</p><p><strong>What happened in Norway?</strong> Norway raised its rates in 2022 and 300 of its richest moved to Switzerland, but its tax take still went up by 26%.</p><p>Watch "Patriotic Millionaires" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DeT0JcAozmT/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/patriotic-millionaires-480.webp" length="25300" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Gordon Ramsay. He sells Gordon.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/gordon-ramsay/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/gordon-ramsay/</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2026 10:37:39 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Food and drink</category><category>restaurants</category><category>licensing</category><category>hell's kitchen</category><category>operating loss</category><category>hospitality</category><category>franchising</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Gordon Ramsay&#x27;s UK restaurants sold £100 million of food and made a loss. That is the best argument for how he runs the business.</strong></p><h2>How do you take £100 million and lose money?</h2><p>Gordon Ramsay has 34 UK restaurants, including Petrus, Lucky Cat and The Savoy. This year he had record sales of over £100 million, up 3%, with an operating loss of £5.4 million.</p><p>Worldwide, he has 103 restaurants, made £152 million and a £14.4 million profit, up 12% on the year before.</p><h2>Why is a British restaurant so hard to make money from?</h2><p>You open it in Britain. The insane figure is that hospitality pays 82 pence in tax on every pound that comes in: rent, rates, wages, VAT on every plate. That&#x27;s before you&#x27;ve even bought a chicken.</p><p>It&#x27;s not exclusive to Ramsay. Hospitality lost 93,000 jobs in the last two years.</p><h2>How does he make money without owning the restaurant?</h2><p>If you&#x27;re a famous chef, there are two ways to open one. You build it yourself with your own money and your own risk. Or someone else builds it.</p><p>A casino in Las Vegas wants a Hell&#x27;s Kitchen. They build the building and pay the wages of all the staff. He supplies the name, the training, the menu and the shouting, and takes a cut. The deal with Caesars was 5% of every sale.</p><h2>What is Ramsay really selling?</h2><p>His company said this week that licensing and franchising is where the growth is. 24 series of Hell&#x27;s Kitchen and a Netflix documentary are the marketing. The restaurant is where you pay for it.</p><p>The man who famously made the idiot sandwich has worked out that the restaurant is the expensive bit, but the name is the profitable bit. Next time you&#x27;re in one of his restaurants, have a look around. He&#x27;s probably not there, but he&#x27;s definitely getting paid.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Did Gordon Ramsay&#x27;s UK restaurants make a profit?</strong> No. With 34 UK restaurants he had record sales of over £100 million, up 3%, but an operating loss of £5.4 million.</p><p><strong>How does Ramsay make money from restaurants he doesn&#x27;t own?</strong> Partners such as a Las Vegas casino build the restaurant and pay the staff. He supplies the name, training and menu, and takes a cut. The Caesars deal was 5% of every sale.</p><p><strong>How many restaurants does Ramsay have worldwide?</strong> 103, which made £152 million and a £14.4 million profit, up 12% on the year before.</p><p>Watch "Gordon Ramsay" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DeOvHz7ongE/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/gordon-ramsay-480.webp" length="34160" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Rent. The shortage is the investment.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/rent/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/rent/</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2026 09:20:43 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Places and property</category><category>rent</category><category>landlords</category><category>blackstone</category><category>council flats</category><category>shortage</category><category>spain</category><category>homes</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Average rents in Britain just hit £1,400 a month, and the biggest landlords in Europe are hoping that doesn&#x27;t change. Spain has just found out what that looks like.</strong></p><h2>What happened to Spain&#x27;s council flats?</h2><p>Picture 2013. Spain is broke. A Madrid council sells 1,860 council flats to Blackstone, a New York investment firm, for €69,000 apiece.</p><p>By 2020, they are the biggest landlords in Spain. This March, Blackstone sold 5,200 of the flats to a Canadian investment firm for €200,000 each. On Saturday, tens of thousands of people were protesting in the streets.</p><h2>How do you triple your money without building anything?</h2><p>You buy when the seller&#x27;s desperate and jack the rents up. Some have just gone up by 43%. And then, big brain time: you do nothing.</p><p>Spain built 83,000 homes last year. It needed 226,000. Supply barely moves and demand just racks up, and that imbalance does all the work. You just hang on, watch the value go up and flog it to a greater fool for a profit.</p><h2>What does that look like for the people living there?</h2><p>Two weeks ago, one of these investment firms kicked an 87 year old out of her flat in Madrid, a flat her father had rented since 1956. They jacked the rent up above her pension, and 10,000 people went into the street in protest.</p><p>In Parliament on Friday, they voted down the bill to stop funds buying more, by six votes.</p><h2>Could that happen in Britain?</h2><p>We have exactly the same problem here. And the same firm, through a company called Sage, is now Britain&#x27;s biggest new builder of affordable homes.</p><p>So the next time your rent goes up and the name at the bottom of the letter is a company, not a person, that&#x27;s what they&#x27;re betting on: that Britain&#x27;s not building enough homes. Up until now, it&#x27;s been a pretty safe bet.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What did Blackstone buy in Madrid?</strong> 1,860 council flats, bought in 2013 for €69,000 apiece from a Madrid council. By 2020 they were the biggest landlords in Spain.</p><p><strong>Why does a housing shortage help big landlords?</strong> Supply barely moves while demand rises, so the imbalance does the work. You buy cheap, raise rents, hang on and sell to a greater fool.</p><p><strong>How many homes did Spain build against what it needed?</strong> Spain built 83,000 homes last year. It needed 226,000.</p><p>Watch "Housing and Rent in Spain" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DeMBhgHoWpi/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/rent-480.webp" length="37782" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>One year. Now it begins.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/one-year-of-the-gist/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/one-year-of-the-gist/</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2026 10:33:21 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Culture</category><category>the gist</category><category>year two</category><category>new businesses</category><category>10 million views</category><category>thank you</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>One year ago today, we started The Gist. Huw says thank you, and promises the second year goes up a gear.</strong></p><h2>What did the first year add up to?</h2><p>One year ago today, we started The Gist. Since then, there have been 365 of them. There are 70,000 of you across the platforms, and we&#x27;ve amassed over 10 million views.</p><p>That was the easy part.</p><h2>Why is year two the real test?</h2><p>93% of all new businesses reach year one, but only half of those get to year five. This is where it really begins.</p><p>The first year of every business runs on things that aren&#x27;t really the business at all: favours, savings, your mate&#x27;s encouragement, and mainly just a determined determination not to quit. Ask me how I know.</p><h2>What kept it going?</h2><p>For me, it was mainly all of you. Your curiosity, your engagement, you sending it to someone and wondering why this man is confidently talking about anything.</p><p>And honestly, being stopped in the street by someone I didn&#x27;t know, saying they watch me every morning on the internet, was not on my bingo card for 2026.</p><h2>What has Huw learned?</h2><p>The Gist has been hands down the best thing I&#x27;ve ever done. It proves to me that everything around us that we interact with is worth looking at, and that we care about it much more than we&#x27;re led to believe. It&#x27;s all there in everything, and all we need to do is look. That&#x27;s the job.</p><p>So as the first year ends and the second begins, thank you for your time, for your support, and for being the reason I&#x27;m putting all of mine into this. The first year, you carried it. The second year, it&#x27;s time to take it up a gear. Let&#x27;s do this.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>How big was The Gist in its first year?</strong> There were 365 Gists, 70,000 people across the platforms and over 10 million views.</p><p><strong>Why does Huw say year two is where it begins?</strong> He says 93% of new businesses reach year one but only half of those get to year five.</p><p><strong>What has Huw learned from The Gist?</strong> That everything around us is worth looking at, and that we care about it much more than we&#x27;re led to believe.</p><p>Watch "One Year of The Gist" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DeHAPrdIy_n/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/one-year-of-the-gist-480.webp" length="3606" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Ticket touts. The line above the venue.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/ticket-touts/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/ticket-touts/</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2026 10:18:30 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Brands</category><category>ticket touts</category><category>touting</category><category>venue</category><category>box office</category><category>markup</category><category>face value</category><category>google</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Three people in Germany, Latvia and North America are selling over three quarters of all the tickets touted across 300 Manchester gigs, and none of them owns a single one. Whoever&#x27;s above the venue is the venue.</strong></p><h2>How does the touting game work?</h2><p>You pay Google, so when someone types in the venue&#x27;s name, you appear above them in the search. They buy from you thinking you&#x27;re the box office. Then you go and get a real ticket at face value and pocket the difference.</p><p>You never hold anything and you never take any risk. You just cream off the top.</p><h2>Why does the tout not care if the show sells out?</h2><p>Touting is meant to apply to sold out shows, or things so in demand that people will pay over the odds. These aren&#x27;t. But when it costs you nothing, you can scatter listings far and wide. Whether somebody wants a ticket or not doesn&#x27;t matter, because you&#x27;ve got no risk anyway.</p><h2>How does a £30 ticket become £5,899?</h2><p>That&#x27;s how a 30 pound ticket gets listed, and I&#x27;m not joking, for £5,899. A markup of nearly 20,000%. It will never sell, and it doesn&#x27;t matter, because it doesn&#x27;t really exist anyway.</p><h2>Is it just tickets?</h2><p>You see it everywhere. A passport renewal site charges you £40 to fill in a document the government gives you for free. It&#x27;s the same business. They jump the queue, taking advantage of the fact that you haven&#x27;t checked and you&#x27;re buying without knowing.</p><p>The venue makes the music. The tout owns the line above. Guess which one of those is the better business?</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>How do ticket touts get ahead of the venue?</strong> They pay Google so they appear above the venue&#x27;s name in search. Buyers think they are the box office, and the tout then buys a real ticket at face value and pockets the difference.</p><p><strong>How big is the markup?</strong> Huw cites a 30 pound ticket listed for £5,899, a markup of nearly 20,000%. It will never sell and it doesn&#x27;t matter.</p><p><strong>Is it only tickets?</strong> No. He says a passport renewal site charging £40 for a form the government gives out free is the same business.</p><p>Watch "Ticket Touts" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dd8rXgkIc07/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/ticket-touts-480.webp" length="49508" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>London buses. The only way to know the price.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/london-buses/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/london-buses/</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2026 09:36:09 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Places and property</category><category>london buses</category><category>tfl</category><category>bus company</category><category>deregulated</category><category>routes</category><category>bids</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>TfL decides every bus route in London: the fare, the timetable and every stop. Now it is setting up its own bus company, because the only way to find out what something costs is to do it yourself.</strong></p><h2>How do London&#x27;s buses work?</h2><p>TfL plans everything, and eight private companies bid for the right to actually drive the routes. The number 6 is run by Metroline.</p><p>That split is exactly why London buses largely work and the rest of the country&#x27;s largely don&#x27;t. Everywhere else got deregulated in the 80s, and the operators just picked the routes that made the most money.</p><h2>What did TfL just announce?</h2><p>Last week, TfL announced it was setting up its own bus company, to compete with the other bus companies it pays to run the routes. It is starting with one route out of nearly 700. Buses for London, as they&#x27;ve imaginatively called it, is more a dipping of the toe than a full dive.</p><h2>Why does TfL need to run buses itself?</h2><p>Every bid is a company&#x27;s cost, a little bit for profit and some for risk, all rolled up into one. You can see the final figure, but you can&#x27;t see the true cost. TfL has been contracting out 700 routes for three decades, and only ever been shown what someone was willing to charge.</p><p>Once you do the running, you know exactly what it costs. Every bid after that has something that&#x27;s been crucially missing: context.</p><h2>Is this just how everything is priced now?</h2><p>Somebody quotes for a job and we don&#x27;t know whether it&#x27;s fair. So we find another two and pick the one in the middle. It&#x27;s not an informed decision. It&#x27;s the same thing you do with a wine list.</p><p>Plumber, the roof, the school fees, the funeral. You don&#x27;t know what any of it costs unless you do it yourself, and you never will, because the only ones who know are the ones selling it to you.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>How does TfL run London&#x27;s buses?</strong> TfL plans the routes, fares, timetables and stops, and eight private companies bid for the right to drive them.</p><p><strong>Why is TfL setting up its own bus company?</strong> Bids only show what a company is willing to charge, never the true cost. Running routes itself gives TfL a figure to judge bids against.</p><p><strong>Why did regulation work in London but not elsewhere?</strong> Huw says everywhere else was deregulated in the 80s and operators just picked the most profitable routes.</p><p>Watch "London Buses" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dd6BucUoPkk/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/london-buses-480.webp" length="32802" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AO. Same camera, three payments.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/ao-jessops/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/ao-jessops/</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 09:22:30 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Brands</category><category>jessops</category><category>second hand</category><category>camera</category><category>washing machines</category><category>administration</category><category>white goods</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Peter Jones rescued Jessops for £5 million. Last week he sold what was left to a company that sells washing machines, because the best thing you can sell somebody is something they already own.</strong></p><h2>What happened to Jessops?</h2><p>Peter Jones from Dragon&#x27;s Den rescued Jessops in 2013 for £5 million and reopened 28 shops. It went into administration twice more under him, and last week he sold what was left of it: seven shops and a million pound loss, to a company that sells washing machines.</p><h2>Why would a washing machine company want it?</h2><p>AO started in Bolton in the year 2000, selling white goods online: sexy stuff like fridges and tumble dryers. It&#x27;s now doing £1.2 billion a year. Two years ago it bought Music Magpie for £10 million, the company that buys your old phone off you.</p><p>Jessops has a second hand arm called Camera Jungle, and that is what AO was buying.</p><h2>What is the infinite money hack?</h2><p>They sell you a camera, and years later they buy it back off you. Then they sell it again to someone else, at a better margin than they had when they sold it to you. Same object, three payments, infinite money hack. And the cost of finding a new customer is zero, because they already know who you are.</p><h2>Why are cameras perfect for this?</h2><p>Phones lose their value in about 18 months, and laptops are the same. But a decent camera body and a lens from 10 years ago still has real value. The stuff coming back through the door is really worth having, which is quite rare in the gadget world.</p><p>So there&#x27;s now a race for the contents of your drawers: old phones, cameras, games consoles, the lot. You&#x27;re sitting on it for free, storing someone else&#x27;s inventory in your spare room, until one day you sell it to them for £30. And they&#x27;ll probably sell it back to you for £80.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What happened to Jessops under Peter Jones?</strong> He rescued it in 2013 for £5 million and reopened 28 shops. It went into administration twice more, and last week he sold the remaining seven shops at a million pound loss.</p><p><strong>What was AO actually buying?</strong> Jessops&#x27; second hand arm, Camera Jungle, following its £10 million purchase of Music Magpie two years ago.</p><p><strong>Why are used cameras valuable?</strong> Phones lose value in about 18 months, and laptops are the same, but a decent camera body and a lens from 10 years ago still has real value.</p><p>Watch "Jessops and AO" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dd3bXgNoR4H/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/ao-jessops-480.webp" length="31030" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Beckham. The football was the research.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/beckham/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/beckham/</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 10:39:59 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Brands</category><category>beckham</category><category>brand partnerships</category><category>licensing</category><category>dividend</category><category>world cup</category><category>retired</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>David Beckham hasn&#x27;t kicked a ball professionally since 2013. Last year his company turned over $110.5 million and paid him a £39 million dividend. Football was the part holding him back.</strong></p><h2>How does a retired footballer make $65.7 million?</h2><p>Last year, Beckham&#x27;s company turned over $110.5 million, made $65.7 million in profit, and paid him a £39 million dividend. 13 years after he&#x27;d stopped playing.</p><p>The company is called DRJB Holdings, and it does three things: brand partnerships, licensing deals with pretty much everyone you&#x27;ve ever heard of, and a production company called Studio 99. Around this summer&#x27;s World Cup he was in about 12 campaigns: McDonald&#x27;s, Lenovo, Bank of America, Verizon, Stella Artois. In a tournament he obviously wasn&#x27;t playing in.</p><h2>What was holding him back?</h2><p>Think about what a footballer is, commercially. You belong to a club. You do one boot deal, because you have two feet. Your value goes up and down with your form, your fitness, your age, and whether you get sent off playing against Argentina.</p><p>Every single one of those limitations vanished the day he retired.</p><h2>What did he sell in 2022?</h2><p>In 2022 he sold 55% of himself, which apparently you can do, for £200 million to Authentic Brands, the company that owns Reebok, Ted Baker, and the estates of Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley. David Beckham now owns 45% of himself.</p><p>His production company, Studio 99, made the Netflix documentary about him, which makes the brand more valuable, which he then sells.</p><h2>So what was the football for?</h2><p>Twenty years of football weren&#x27;t really the business. They were the research and development, and the very expensive, painful way to build one thing: a name that people trust internationally.</p><p>Everyone has a version of this. What you&#x27;re actually worth is what people say about you when you&#x27;re not there. Most of us spend our whole lives building it somewhere that owns our time, and never get to sell anything.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What does Beckham&#x27;s company DRJB Holdings do?</strong> Three things: brand partnerships, licensing deals, and a production company called Studio 99.</p><p><strong>What did Beckham sell in 2022?</strong> 55% of himself, for £200 million, to Authentic Brands, which owns Reebok, Ted Baker and the estates of Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley. He now owns 45%.</p><p><strong>Why was football holding him back?</strong> A footballer belongs to a club, does one boot deal, and has a value tied to form, fitness, age and red cards. Every one of those limits vanished when he retired.</p><p>Watch "David Beckham" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dd0_cJxoaxA/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/beckham-480.webp" length="29362" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>English Whisky. The farmers stopped selling it.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/english-whisky/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/english-whisky/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2026 11:35:35 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Food and drink</category><category>english whisky</category><category>barley</category><category>single malt</category><category>distilleries</category><category>scotch</category><category>farmers</category><category>gin craze</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>A field of barley is worth about 155 quid a tonne. Leave it in a barrel for ten years and it is worth 50 grand of single malt. English farmers have just noticed.</strong></p><h2>What is a field of barley worth?</h2><p>A field of barley is worth about £155 a tonne. Bang it in a barrel for 10 years and it&#x27;s worth £50,000 of single malt. That is the most profitable thing in English farming, and for 200 years they&#x27;ve been selling the barley to other people.</p><p>Now they&#x27;ve stopped selling it and started drinking it.</p><h2>Who started English whisky?</h2><p>A Norfolk farmer in 2006, with spare barley that would normally have gone up to Scotland. A Hereford potato farmer who filled a load of barrels and left them in a shed for a decade.</p><p>There are now 70 distilleries. Three years ago, there were 46.</p><h2>Why did nobody do this before?</h2><p>Because it was illegal. In 1751, Parliament panicked about the gin craze and ruled that no still could be smaller than 1,800 litres. That is massive, and no farm could manage it. It made sure the only people who could turn barley into spirit were distillers.</p><p>It finally changed in 2009, when two blokes spent two years arguing with the tax man about making gin in London. That is the entire reason the English whisky industry exists.</p><h2>What does the new protection change?</h2><p>This month, English whisky got the same legal protection as champagne and Scotch, with a rule Scotch doesn&#x27;t have: every grain has to be homegrown. Scotch can source its grain from anywhere on earth.</p><p>That suits the English, who have been growing barley and sending it north for 250 years, paid like farmers for something that sells like a luxury. Now it&#x27;s vertically integrated.</p><p>Scotland is watching an industry move back across the border, one field at a time, while its own whisky sales fall. Nobody fights hard over a 1% market share unless they&#x27;re terrified of what that 1% becomes.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Why was English whisky hard to make?</strong> In 1751, after the gin craze, Parliament ruled that no still could be smaller than 1,800 litres. No farm could manage that, so only distillers could turn barley into spirit.</p><p><strong>How many English distilleries are there?</strong> There are now 70. Three years ago there were 46.</p><p><strong>What is different about the new English protection?</strong> It has the same legal protection as champagne and Scotch, but every grain has to be homegrown. Scotch can use grain from anywhere on earth.</p><p>Watch "English Whisky" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Ddv8No4o6Z8/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/english-whisky-480.webp" length="47784" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Iceland. Doing the unthinkable.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/iceland-banks/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/iceland-banks/</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2026 10:40:09 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Money</category><category>iceland</category><category>banks</category><category>bankers</category><category>bailout</category><category>tourism</category><category>capital controls</category><category>currency</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Iceland let its three biggest banks collapse in 2008 and 29 bankers went to prison. Everyone asks why other countries didn&#x27;t. Iceland never had a choice.</strong></p><h2>Why did Iceland let its banks fail?</h2><p>In 2008, all three of Iceland&#x27;s biggest banks collapsed within one week and the government let them go. 29 bankers ended up in prison, and ever since people have asked why other countries didn&#x27;t do the same. The answer is that Iceland didn&#x27;t have a choice.</p><p>Iceland has a population of about 320,000 people, basically Coventry. In about seven years, the three biggest banks grew until their assets were about 10 times the size of the nation&#x27;s economy. It was the biggest banking system relative to its own country anywhere in the world.</p><p>Switzerland took three centuries to get to eight times. So bailing them out was literally not an option, because the bill was 10 times everything Iceland produced in a year.</p><h2>What did Ireland do differently?</h2><p>Ireland had exactly the same crisis at exactly the same time, but its banks were big, not that big. Ireland could afford to guarantee them, so of course it did.</p><p>It cost about 64 billion euros and turned a banking crisis into a national crisis.</p><h2>What did it cost Iceland?</h2><p>It still knackered them. The currency was slashed in half, inflation hit 19%, unemployment went up to 10% and capital controls stayed on for nearly nine years.</p><p>But a cheap currency makes a cheap holiday. Tourism went from a sideline to about 40% of the economy, and today Iceland is the seventh richest country in the world per person.</p><h2>What was the choice, really?</h2><p>Iceland had what&#x27;s known as a Hobson&#x27;s choice: one option, no alternative. Everyone else had a real choice, and every government said letting the banks go would be unthinkable.</p><p>Iceland is the only country to find out that doing the unthinkable is survivable. It worked, and nobody else copied it.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Why did Iceland let its banks collapse?</strong> The three biggest banks had grown to about 10 times the size of the economy, so a bailout would have cost 10 times everything the country produced in a year.</p><p><strong>What did Ireland do instead?</strong> Ireland guaranteed its banks, because it could afford to. It cost about 64 billion euros and turned a banking crisis into a national crisis.</p><p><strong>How did Iceland recover?</strong> A cheap currency made for a cheap holiday. Tourism grew to about 40% of the economy, and Iceland is now the seventh richest country in the world per person.</p><p>Watch "Iceland and the Bank Collapse" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdtREyDIRPp/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/iceland-banks-480.webp" length="29986" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Vinyl. The best proof is the counterfeiter.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/fake-vinyl/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/fake-vinyl/</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 08:21:37 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Culture</category><category>vinyl</category><category>counterfeit</category><category>beatles</category><category>streaming</category><category>record labels</category><category>police raids</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>A bloke in West London ran a fake Beatles record factory through the night for seven years. He made 2.7 million quid and got three and a half years. It may be the best evidence that vinyl is back.</strong></p><h2>What did the vinyl counterfeiter do?</h2><p>For seven years, a bloke in West London ran a record factory through the night, knocking out fake Beatles records on machines older than the Beatles themselves. He made £2.7 million, and last week he was banged up for three and a half years.</p><p>He started nine years ago and was immediately given a cease and desist order, which he ignored. He sold on eBay, Discogs and even in record shops, until industry investigators bought one and went to the police.</p><h2>How big was the raid?</h2><p>They raided him in 2024 and took 18 tons of evidence, the largest seizure of counterfeit vinyl ever in the UK.</p><h2>Why fake a record when you can stream it free?</h2><p>Streaming made music so cheap that copying it became moot. So the value moved back to the physical, and he followed it there.</p><p>The records he faked were current pop: Adele, Taylor Swift, Drake, Beyonce. And he&#x27;s one of many. In the past two years the industry has helped with 43 police raids and seized around 600,000 counterfeit vinyls and CDs.</p><h2>Is vinyl really coming back?</h2><p>There&#x27;s been a huge argument over whether vinyl is coming back. You can&#x27;t really trust the record labels&#x27; numbers. But a counterfeiter has no reason to exaggerate. He&#x27;s just meeting market demand.</p><p>That puts records on the list of handbags, watches, trainers and concert tickets: valuable enough for someone to fake.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>How much did the vinyl counterfeiter make?</strong> £2.7 million over seven years, and he was jailed for three and a half years.</p><p><strong>How much was seized?</strong> 18 tons of evidence in 2024, the largest seizure of counterfeit vinyl ever in the UK.</p><p><strong>Why does counterfeiting prove vinyl is back?</strong> Labels&#x27; sales numbers can&#x27;t be fully trusted, but a counterfeiter has no reason to exaggerate. He only makes what the market demands.</p><p>Watch "Fake Vinyl Records" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdqcbUEohQh/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/fake-vinyl-480.webp" length="27388" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AI at Work. The secret subscription.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/ai-at-work/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/ai-at-work/</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 08:46:49 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Work and school</category><category>ai</category><category>workers</category><category>boss</category><category>secret</category><category>calculator</category><category>thinking</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>British workers spend nearly a billion pounds a year on AI for their own jobs, and almost a third are hiding it. The better it works, the less you look needed.</strong></p><h2>Who is paying for AI at work?</h2><p>British workers are spending nearly a billion pounds a year on AI for their own jobs. That&#x27;s already a bit odd, because the job is what their boss is paying them to do.</p><p>What&#x27;s odder is that almost a third of them are keeping it a secret. The better it works, the better it looks like you&#x27;re not needed.</p><h2>Why the secrecy?</h2><p>It saves about 70 minutes a week, and you&#x27;d think people would be shouting about it. But over 60% are worried their boss will find out. They&#x27;ll think, hang on, if a computer&#x27;s doing half your job, what am I paying you for?</p><p>So they pay for it themselves, use it and keep stumm. Which is a really weird way to treat a tool.</p><h2>Why is AI different from a calculator?</h2><p>No one was ever embarrassed about using a calculator, or felt guilty about spell check. Everybody knew it was a tool doing the boring bit while you did the thinking.</p><p>The problem with AI is that it also does a bit of the thinking. Once it&#x27;s doing some of the thinking, who&#x27;s to say who did or thought what?</p><h2>So who did the work?</h2><p>A third of the country is buying it, using it and hiding it to hang on to the credit. We&#x27;re all getting more done than ever. We just can&#x27;t quite tell who&#x27;s doing it.</p><p>Can you honestly say your boss definitely can&#x27;t?</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>How much are British workers spending on AI?</strong> Nearly a billion pounds a year, on AI for their own jobs.</p><p><strong>How many hide it from their boss?</strong> Almost a third keep it a secret, and over 60% are worried their boss will find out.</p><p><strong>Why is AI different from a calculator?</strong> A calculator does the boring bit while you do the thinking. AI also does a bit of the thinking, so it&#x27;s harder to say who did the work.</p><p>Watch "Workers Paying for AI" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Ddn6hACI9dy/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/ai-at-work-480.webp" length="33024" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Our House. Paying for the village.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/our-house-family-club/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/our-house-family-club/</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:36:38 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Brands</category><category>members club</category><category>creche</category><category>village</category><category>families</category><category>working parents</category><category>childcare</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>A London members club for families sold out in minutes at 135 quid a month. What the parents are really buying is the village their careers cost them.</strong></p><h2>What is Our House?</h2><p>There&#x27;s a private members club in London with two pools, a soft play, a creche and a desk you can work at. It&#x27;s for families with young kids: £135 a month for the adults and £75 a month for the children. It sold out in minutes, because it&#x27;s selling you back what your career has cost you.</p><p>It&#x27;s called Our House, in Parsons Green and Kensal Rise, with three more on the way: Clapham, Chiswick and East Sheen. Blackstone, one of the biggest investment firms in the world, has put £100 million into the business.</p><h2>What are parents really paying for?</h2><p>Let&#x27;s be honest, what they&#x27;re paying for is the creche. Someone to take your kid so you can eat lunch, and a desk so you can work while someone else does the childcare. Their own website says, &quot;Think of us as the village you&#x27;ve been missing.&quot;</p><p>And it&#x27;s missing for a reason, because it takes a village.</p><h2>Where did the village go?</h2><p>The village used to be your mum ten minutes away, your sister round the corner, the neighbours you grew up with. Then you went where the work was, London, probably hundreds of miles from home. The village is exactly where you left it. You&#x27;re not.</p><p>The village was always a swap between generations. The old had time to give the young, and eventually the young looked after the old.</p><h2>What happens next?</h2><p>A room full of working parents can&#x27;t do that, because everyone in it is the same thing at once. So it hires staff to become the grandmother.</p><p>Meanwhile those kids will grow up and move somewhere else, probably. In 30 years, the parents paying for this will be 200 miles away with all the time in the world and no one to give it to.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What is Our House?</strong> A private members club for families in London, with pools, soft play and desks. It is £135 a month for adults and £75 for children.</p><p><strong>Who is investing in it?</strong> Blackstone, one of the biggest investment firms in the world, has put £100 million into the business.</p><p><strong>Why is the village missing?</strong> People moved where the work was, often hundreds of miles from family. The village was a swap between generations, which a room of working parents can&#x27;t recreate.</p><p>Watch "Childcare and Private Equity" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdliSXsom_C/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/our-house-family-club-480.webp" length="31300" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Ferrari. Drawn for a future nobody could see.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/ferrari-colombo-engine/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/ferrari-colombo-engine/</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2026 10:42:15 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Luxury</category><category>ferrari</category><category>engine</category><category>colombo</category><category>le mans</category><category>cylinders</category><category>testarossa</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>In 1945 an out-of-work engineer drew an engine in two weeks that stayed in production for more than 40 years. It was built for the Italy that came next.</strong></p><h2>Who drew the Ferrari engine?</h2><p>In the summer of 1945, a 42-year-old engineer had been suspended from Alfa Romeo. Italy was in ruins, and he sat down at home and drew an engine in two weeks that stayed in production for more than 40 years.</p><p>A man with nothing drew it for a future no one else could see.</p><h2>What was odd about the design?</h2><p>When Colombo designed it, he spaced the cylinders further apart than they needed to be, with useless metal around them. That made it heavier, for seemingly no reason.</p><p>Except it meant every cylinder could be made bigger later, making it more powerful without needing to redesign it.</p><h2>What did Ferrari do with it?</h2><p>Exactly that, for four decades. It started at 1.5 litres and ended up at 4.9. It won Le Mans. It went into the 250 GTO, the Testarossa, the Daytona and almost every other Ferrari people picture, including the high, screaming note you think of as the sound of a Ferrari.</p><h2>What did he really draw?</h2><p>Fundamentally, what he drew in 1945 was Italy&#x27;s comeback, 15 years before it happened. In a defeated country, a man out of work drew room for more power than anyone around him could pay for.</p><p>Then the Italy he&#x27;d drawn it for turned up: rich, confident and famous for making beautiful things. Most things are made for the world they&#x27;re built in. This was built for the one that came next.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Who designed the original Ferrari engine?</strong> Colombo, a 42-year-old engineer suspended from Alfa Romeo, drew it at home in two weeks in the summer of 1945.</p><p><strong>Why did he space the cylinders so far apart?</strong> So every cylinder could be made bigger later, giving more power without a redesign. It grew from 1.5 litres to 4.9 over four decades.</p><p><strong>Which cars used it?</strong> The 250 GTO, the Testarossa, the Daytona and almost every other Ferrari people picture.</p><p>Watch "Ferrari" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Ddi-IqGIddk/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/ferrari-colombo-engine-480.webp" length="32248" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>MBAs. Everything went to the owners.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/mba-bosses/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/mba-bosses/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2026 09:14:33 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Work and school</category><category>mba</category><category>wages</category><category>boss</category><category>business degree</category><category>management</category><category>boeing</category><category>owners</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Put a boss with a business degree in charge and, five years later, the workforce is on 6% less. Sales, productivity and investment haven&#x27;t moved. Just the wages.</strong></p><h2>What does a boss with an MBA do to wages?</h2><p>Put a boss with a business degree in charge of a company and five years later the workforce is on 6% less. Sales haven&#x27;t moved, productivity hasn&#x27;t moved, investment hasn&#x27;t moved. Just the wages.</p><p>Because someone decided that the owners were the only ones that mattered.</p><h2>Where did the idea come from?</h2><p>Harvard invented the MBA in 1908 to make management a proper profession, like law or medicine. Then in 1970, Milton Friedman wrote that a company had one responsibility: to make money for the owners. By 1979 it was in standard textbooks as the definition of its purpose.</p><h2>What did it do to Boeing?</h2><p>The best example is Boeing. In 2005 they hired an outsider to run it for the first time: Jim McNerney, Harvard Business School, then McKinsey, then General Electric. Not an engineer, a manager.</p><p>Their competitor Airbus brought out a new plane, and a new aircraft is the most expensive thing for an aerospace company. So he had them put bigger engines on the 737, designed in the 60s. Cheaper to build, cheaper to certify, and no retraining for pilots, which is what the airlines cared about. Win-win, right?</p><p>Then it crashed twice and 346 people died. Congress found a pattern of technical miscalculations and troubling management misjudgments. And every one of the decisions was the right one, if cost is the only thing you care about.</p><h2>What happened to everyone else?</h2><p>A company used to answer to three things at once: the people who owned it, the people who worked there, and where it lived. When the first became the only one that mattered, the other two turned into costs. And what is a cost? Something you try to reduce.</p><p>So most of the country works somewhere that is professionally and deliberately trying to spend less on them. That is known as good management. Is it?</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>When was the MBA invented?</strong> Harvard invented it in 1908 to make management a proper profession, like law or medicine.</p><p><strong>What did Friedman argue?</strong> In 1970 Milton Friedman wrote that a company had one responsibility: to make money for the owners. By 1979 it was in standard textbooks.</p><p><strong>What did Boeing do with the 737?</strong> Rather than design a new plane to answer Airbus, it put bigger engines on a 1960s 737, which was cheaper to build and certify. It then crashed twice, killing 346 people.</p><p>Watch "Business Degree Bosses" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DddqgkFoBmh/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/mba-bosses-480.webp" length="33928" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The National Grid. We built the wind and forgot the wires.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/national-grid/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/national-grid/</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2026 10:02:44 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Places and property</category><category>national grid</category><category>wind farms</category><category>wires</category><category>gas</category><category>electricity</category><category>pylon</category><category>bill</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Last year Britain paid wind farms to switch off and gas stations to switch on instead. It cost 1.9 billion quid, all on your bill, and it could be 8 billion by 2030.</strong></p><h2>Why did Britain pay wind farms to switch off?</h2><p>Last year, Britain paid wind farms to switch off, and paid natural gas stations to switch on instead. That cost about £1.9 billion, all of it on your bill, and by 2030 it could be £8 billion a year. Because the electricity exists, but the wires don&#x27;t.</p><p>Wind is now the biggest source of energy in this country. Most of it gets made in Scotland, unsurprisingly, but most of the people who need it are in England, and the cable running south is awful.</p><h2>What happens when the wind blows hard?</h2><p>There&#x27;s more electricity than the wires can carry, and something has to give. It&#x27;s the wind farm. It&#x27;s told to stop, and it gets compensated for a connection it isn&#x27;t getting.</p><p>Then a gas station somewhere near London gets paid to make the same electricity again. Just more expensive and dirtier.</p><p>Turning the wind down cost about £350 million last year. The gas that replaced it cost over a billion.</p><h2>Are we building the wires?</h2><p>Now we&#x27;re building wires. The National Audit Office looked at it last week. Of the 80 projects that need doing by 2030, 16 have been done. They flagged 11 as urgently needing speeding up, and of course none of them have.</p><p>Some are now set to finish after 2030, which is a real surprise given our track record.</p><h2>Why isn&#x27;t it getting built?</h2><p>We built the renewable wind farms and they work. The power got cheap and none of it reaches us.</p><p>Because a wind farm pays. Somebody builds it, somebody profits, and there&#x27;s a queue for them. A pylon doesn&#x27;t pay anybody. It just drags someone else&#x27;s electricity across your field. So we built all the things that make money and none of them join up, which is the same reason we&#x27;ve got apps and no trains.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>How much did wind and gas switching cost?</strong> About £1.9 billion last year, all on the bill, and it could be £8 billion a year by 2030.</p><p><strong>Why is wind switched off?</strong> Most wind is made in Scotland and most demand is in England. When it blows hard there is more electricity than the wires can carry, so wind farms are paid to stop and gas stations are paid to cover.</p><p><strong>How many grid projects are done?</strong> Of the 80 projects needed by 2030, 16 have been done, according to the National Audit Office.</p><p>Watch "Wind Farms and Gas" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdYmbtSowJB/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/national-grid-480.webp" length="23802" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Olive Oil. Prices rise for a reason, fall for a decision.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/olive-oil-prices/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/olive-oil-prices/</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2026 08:32:50 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Food and drink</category><category>olive oil</category><category>supermarkets</category><category>harvest</category><category>drought</category><category>wholesale</category><category>prices</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>In 2022 a bottle of Filippo Berio cost 3.75. By last year it was 10.50. The drought is over and it is still 7.50.</strong></p><h2>What happened to the price of olive oil?</h2><p>In 2022, a bottle of Filippo Berio olive oil cost £3.75. By the start of last year it was £10.50. The drought is over and Spain&#x27;s harvest has recovered, and it&#x27;s still £7.50.</p><p>Because prices go up for a reason, but they come down for a decision.</p><h2>Why did it go up in the first place?</h2><p>Spain grows most of the world&#x27;s olive oil, and in 2022 and 2023 the harvest failed. Production dropped from 1.5 million tonnes to 666,000, and shelf prices in the UK went up by 47%.</p><p>Then it fixed itself. The yield went back up to 1.37 million tonnes and raw prices fell to their lowest since 2022.</p><h2>Who kept the difference?</h2><p>Filippo Berio cut its price, while charging the supermarkets twice. The UK CEO went on Sky News to say the supermarkets had kept the difference and, to put it plainly, taken us for mugs.</p><p>The official numbers back him up. Retail olive oil prices fell by 17%, but wholesale prices fell a lot more than that.</p><h2>What did the supermarkets learn?</h2><p>Supermarkets were surprised by how much we would put up with. The price ratcheted up and we still bought it, so they decided the price was fine and they&#x27;d keep the rest.</p><p>It&#x27;s essentially an experiment in how much we&#x27;ll pay, run by accident. No board on earth would sign off doubling the price of something to see what happens. But a bad harvest does it for you for free, and no supermarket is going to forget that. That&#x27;s why nothing ever goes back to what it was.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Why did olive oil prices rise?</strong> In 2022 and 2023 Spain&#x27;s harvest failed, with production dropping from 1.5 million tonnes to 666,000. Shelf prices in the UK rose 47%.</p><p><strong>Why haven&#x27;t prices fallen back?</strong> Raw prices fell to their lowest since 2022, but retail prices fell only 17%. Filippo Berio&#x27;s UK CEO said the supermarkets kept the difference.</p><p><strong>What is Huw&#x27;s take?</strong> The bad harvest tested how much shoppers will pay, and no supermarket will forget it. Every crisis tests what you&#x27;ll put up with.</p><p>Watch "Olive Oil Prices" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdV3Wc-I5b_/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/olive-oil-prices-480.webp" length="32464" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Valve. Spotting other people's work.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/valve/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/valve/</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 10:20:28 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Tech and AI</category><category>valve</category><category>steam</category><category>mods</category><category>counter-strike</category><category>dota</category><category>portal</category><category>team fortress</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, Dota and Portal are four of the biggest games ever made. Valve invented none of them.</strong></p><h2>Did Valve make its biggest games?</h2><p>Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, Dota, Portal. Four of the biggest games ever made, all published by Valve, and they invented none of them. Every single one was built by someone else, for free.</p><p>They were mods: people in their bedrooms building on top of someone else&#x27;s game and giving it away.</p><h2>Where did they come from?</h2><p>Counter-Strike was two blokes messing around with Half-Life in 1999. Dota was a custom map for Warcraft. Portal was a free student project called Narbacular Drop. Team Fortress was a bunch of Australians modding Quake.</p><p>Here&#x27;s what Valve did every single time: it went after the people, not just the game.</p><h2>How did Valve get them?</h2><p>It hired the Australians in 1997. It bought Counter-Strike and the two guys who built it. It emailed the guy running Dota and gave him a tour of the office. And when Gabe Newell, who runs Valve, saw the student project that became Portal at a careers fair, he offered the entire team a job on the spot. Almost no one else can do that.</p><p>At a normal company, it&#x27;s someone&#x27;s job to have the idea. There&#x27;s a road map and a person whose promotion depends on it. Valve has no managers and no road map either. So a better idea from a stranger doesn&#x27;t threaten anyone&#x27;s career.</p><h2>Then they industrialised it.</h2><p>They built Steam, where you download and buy games on your computer. It doesn&#x27;t make any of them, it just sells other people&#x27;s: around 13,000 a year, run by just 79 people, taking a cut of every single one.</p><p>The most valuable company in PC gaming has barely invented any. It has just got very good at spotting what other people have done. The hardest thing in any business is looking at a stranger&#x27;s work and admitting it&#x27;s better than your own.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Who made Valve&#x27;s biggest games?</strong> Outsiders. Counter-Strike was two blokes modding Half-Life, Dota was a Warcraft map, Portal a student project, and Team Fortress a group of Australians modding Quake.</p><p><strong>How did Valve get the creators?</strong> It hired or bought them. It bought Counter-Strike and its makers, toured the Dota creator round the office, and offered the Portal team jobs on the spot.</p><p><strong>What does Steam do?</strong> It sells other people&#x27;s games, around 13,000 a year, with a cut of every one, run by just 79 people.</p><p>Watch "Valve and Video Games" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdQ6E8wIbSW/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/valve-480.webp" length="26998" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Monopolies. The race nobody has run.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/monopolies/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/monopolies/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2026 10:26:56 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Tech and AI</category><category>monopolies</category><category>big tech</category><category>transistor</category><category>patents</category><category>break up</category><category>chip industry</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>America can&#x27;t break up its monopolies because China won&#x27;t break up theirs. It is the same argument used against banking rules and child labour laws.</strong></p><h2>What is the argument?</h2><p>Big tech says America can&#x27;t break up its monopolies because China won&#x27;t break up theirs. It&#x27;s the same argument that got used against banking rules, emissions limits and child labour laws: you can&#x27;t have rules because they don&#x27;t.</p><p>It&#x27;s the perfect argument. It&#x27;s unfalsifiable. No one can see an alternative future where we acted differently, so you can never be proved wrong about a race you haven&#x27;t run.</p><h2>What does the precedent say?</h2><p>In the 50s, the biggest company in America was AT&amp;T, a phone company. Its R&amp;D lab developed the transistor. AT&amp;T used it to improve phone calls and sold the rights for 25 grand, because a phone company has no use for a computer.</p><p>Then the government sued it for running a monopoly, and the settlement forced it to hand over 7,820 patents to anybody who wanted them.</p><h2>What did the break-up lead to?</h2><p>That same year, one of the men who invented the transistor set up on his own in California. His company became Fairchild. Fairchild became Intel. And Intel&#x27;s founder said that settlement was the reason America had a chip industry to start with.</p><p>So the argument that breaking up a giant would cost a country the lead is undermined by the fact that breaking up a giant is what gave the country its lead.</p><h2>Where do new things come from?</h2><p>The argument only works if you believe big things are where new things come from. They aren&#x27;t. A monopoly protects what it already sells, which is exactly what AT&amp;T did.</p><p>Somewhere in one of these digital behemoths right now, there&#x27;s something like a transistor being used to make the existing business slightly better, or being wasted by people who can&#x27;t see what else it&#x27;s for.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What is the argument against breaking up monopolies?</strong> That America can&#x27;t break up its giants because China won&#x27;t break up theirs. It&#x27;s unfalsifiable, because you can&#x27;t test an alternative future.</p><p><strong>What happened when AT&amp;T was broken up?</strong> Its settlement forced it to hand over 7,820 patents. One of the transistor&#x27;s inventors set up on his own, his company became Fairchild, Fairchild became Intel, and Intel&#x27;s founder credited the settlement for America&#x27;s chip industry.</p><p><strong>Do big companies produce new things?</strong> Not usually. A monopoly protects what it already sells, which is exactly what AT&amp;T did with the transistor.</p><p>Watch "Monopolies and China" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdOWBihIqrH/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/monopolies-480.webp" length="26288" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Nike. Growth was the whole point.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/nike/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/nike/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2026 09:11:15 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Sport</category><category>nike</category><category>valuation</category><category>share price</category><category>trainers</category><category>s&amp;p 100</category><category>growth</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Nike&#x27;s sales fell 2% and 200 billion dollars came off its valuation. The business is roughly where it was. The belief in it is gone.</strong></p><h2>What happened to Nike?</h2><p>Last year Nike&#x27;s sales dropped by 2%. Over the same stretch, $200 billion got wiped off its valuation. And in 11 days it&#x27;s getting dropped from the S&amp;P 100, America&#x27;s list of the top 100 firms, for the first time in 18 years.</p><p>Because Nike had one job: get bigger. And it didn&#x27;t.</p><h2>What is a share price?</h2><p>A share price is a bet on what the company will earn later. In 2021, Nike was worth $264 billion, because everyone believed it would keep growing forever. Today it&#x27;s worth $57 billion.</p><p>It sold $46 billion worth of trainers last year and made $3 billion in profit. The business is roughly where it was, but the belief in it is gone.</p><h2>What caused it?</h2><p>Nike decided to sell direct. Growth was the reason it was worth a quarter of a trillion dollars in the first place.</p><p>What has replaced it on the list is four tech firms, and the one directly replacing Nike is Palo Alto Networks, who sell cybersecurity software.</p><h2>What is the lesson?</h2><p>Nike has lost three quarters of its value, but the S&amp;P 100 has gone up by 84%. So the money has never been in doing well. It&#x27;s in doing better than everyone expected you to.</p><p>We&#x27;ve all experienced this somewhere: the kid who was meant to be something in school, the difficult second album, the second series. Do well when everyone expects brilliant and it goes down as failure. And it just cost one of the most valuable sports brands in the world $200 billion.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Why is Nike leaving the S&amp;P 100?</strong> Its sales fell 2% and $200 billion was wiped off its valuation. It is dropped for the first time in 18 years.</p><p><strong>What was Nike worth?</strong> $264 billion in 2021 and $57 billion today, even though it sold $46 billion of trainers last year and made $3 billion in profit.</p><p><strong>What does this show about share prices?</strong> They are a bet on what a company will earn later. Doing well is not enough, you have to do better than everyone expected.</p><p>Watch "Nike" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdLokWRo-co/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/nike-480.webp" length="20672" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Folding iPhone. Pioneers get the arrows.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/folding-iphone/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/folding-iphone/</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 09:47:01 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Tech and AI</category><category>folding phone</category><category>galaxy fold</category><category>apple</category><category>screens</category><category>mp3 player</category><category>recalled</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Samsung launched the first folding phone seven years ago and it fell apart in reviewers&#x27; hands. Apple has just perfected it. Pioneers get the arrows and settlers get the land.</strong></p><h2>What happened to the first folding phone?</h2><p>In 2019, Samsung sent out 50 review units of the Galaxy Fold. The screens started dying within two days. Hinges tearing, bulges under the display, journalists peeling off what they thought was a screen protector but was actually the screen itself.</p><p>Samsung cancelled its launch three days before it happened and recalled all the units. Even the Wall Street Journal said in its review, &quot;We are not your beta testers.&quot;</p><h2>Who made Apple&#x27;s screen?</h2><p>After seven years of fixing it, Samsung Display is the only company that makes a folding screen Apple will accept. And Samsung Display is owned by Samsung. One half of the company has just armed the phone that will compete with the other.</p><h2>Is this how Apple always works?</h2><p>Apple has always worked this way. They didn&#x27;t make the first MP3 player, smartphone, smartwatch or tablet. It only turns up when somebody has proved people want the thing and found out what breaks. And makes it look sexy and easy to use, of course.</p><h2>What does it cost the pioneer?</h2><p>Ask anybody who invented the smartphone and they&#x27;ll probably say Apple. Same for the tablet and the MP3 player. Being first doesn&#x27;t just cost you money and a kicking in public. It costs you the story.</p><p>Someone else turns up with a version that works, and history gives them the inventing of it too. No one remembers who tried, only who finished. Which is why you should thank the person who fails in public. They&#x27;ve usually done more for the rest of us than the person they make the statue of.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What went wrong with the Galaxy Fold?</strong> Screens died within two days of the 50 review units going out, with hinge damage and bulges. Samsung cancelled its launch and recalled all units.</p><p><strong>Who makes the screen for Apple&#x27;s folding phone?</strong> Samsung Display, the only company Apple will accept for a folding screen, which is owned by Samsung.</p><p><strong>Is Apple ever first?</strong> No. It didn&#x27;t make the first MP3 player, smartphone, smartwatch or tablet. It arrives once someone has proved people want the thing and found out what breaks.</p><p>Watch "Folding iPhone" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdJH3ZcIvLH/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/folding-iphone-480.webp" length="22376" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Eton. Being offline is the new posh.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/eton-smartphones/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/eton-smartphones/</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2026 07:01:04 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Work and school</category><category>eton</category><category>smartphone</category><category>screen time</category><category>nokia</category><category>digital divide</category><category>status</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Prince George has started at Eton for 65 grand a year, and every new boy has his smartphone swapped for a Nokia brick. The privilege used to be having one. Now it&#x27;s not needing one.</strong></p><h2>What does Eton do with smartphones?</h2><p>This month, Prince George started at Eton for £65,000 a year. Every new boy has his smartphone taken off him and replaced with a Nokia brick. You can call and you can text, and that is it.</p><p>It isn&#x27;t just Eton. Brighton College and others have followed suit.</p><h2>What is the government doing?</h2><p>Since the pandemic, the government has given out 1.35 million laptops and tablets specifically to disadvantaged children. One system is paid to take the screens away, and another is giving them out for free, because status runs on scarcity.</p><h2>Has this happened before?</h2><p>It&#x27;s happened before. Television used to be a luxury, and an aerial on your roof was a status symbol. Then everyone got one and owning it stopped proving anything. So you hear it in Waitrose: &quot;We don&#x27;t actually own a television.&quot;</p><p>Children in households where the parents went to university do about a quarter less screen time than those where they didn&#x27;t, and the gap is there by the age of six, before they can properly read.</p><h2>What is the new divide?</h2><p>Twenty years ago, the worry was that poor kids couldn&#x27;t get online. It was called the digital divide and it meant being left out. Now it means the opposite. Being offline is the new thin.</p><p>When food was hard to get, eating loads of it showed you were affluent. Once it was cheap and everywhere, gorging stopped meaning anything and refusing it became valuable. Screens have run that course in the last decade.</p><p>The only way to take a screen away is to put a person there instead. So what&#x27;s really being bought is someone&#x27;s time, which is the most valuable thing money can buy anyway.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What does Eton do about smartphones?</strong> Every new boy has his smartphone taken away and replaced with a Nokia brick that can call and text.</p><p><strong>How many devices has the government given out?</strong> 1.35 million laptops and tablets since the pandemic, specifically to disadvantaged children.</p><p><strong>What is the new status symbol?</strong> Being offline. Once screens were everywhere, going without one became the valuable thing, as with television and food before it.</p><p>Watch "Eton and Smartphones" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdGQFCLI5vW/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/eton-smartphones-480.webp" length="21878" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Air Traffic Control. No margin for a bad afternoon.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/air-traffic-control/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/air-traffic-control/</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2026 10:20:45 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Places and property</category><category>flights</category><category>heathrow</category><category>air traffic control</category><category>runways</category><category>cancelled</category><category>airspace</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Britain more or less stopped taking off yesterday. About 1,300 flights were cancelled, and there was nothing wrong with a single aeroplane, runway or sky.</strong></p><h2>What happened?</h2><p>Yesterday afternoon, Britain more or less stopped taking off. Planes sat on taxiways at Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester and Edinburgh. Around 1,300 flights were cancelled and another 177 today. There was nothing wrong with a single aeroplane, runway or the sky.</p><p>At 12:48, a system went down at NATS, the company that runs British airspace. It&#x27;s the flight processing system that takes flight plans and turns them into something a controller can work from. The airspace stayed open the whole time, but without the computer doing that automatically, controllers can only safely handle so many flights at once.</p><h2>Why is Heathrow so exposed?</h2><p>Heathrow has two runways. Schiphol has six, Paris has four and so does Frankfurt. Heathrow carries more than all of them and runs at almost full capacity. There is simply no margin for error and no room to reschedule. Every minute is spoken for.</p><h2>Has this happened before?</h2><p>As we know, this is a regular occurrence. Three years ago, the flight plan system failed and cost the airlines £100 million. Last year another fault stopped everything for four hours. The chief executive was on Sky last night saying he still didn&#x27;t know what went wrong.</p><h2>Why is there no slack?</h2><p>The spare capacity always looks like waste. The empty runway, the spare bed, the hour in your diary with nothing booked in. So you crank it up to 11, because no one&#x27;s been thanked for a disaster that didn&#x27;t happen.</p><p>Then a surprise turns up. That&#x27;s what Heathrow is: what a system looks like when it&#x27;s been run at full capacity for 30 years. It works fantastically, right up until a computer has a bad afternoon.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What went wrong at NATS?</strong> At 12:48 the flight processing system, which turns flight plans into something controllers can work from, went down. Airspace stayed open but controllers could only safely handle so many flights.</p><p><strong>Why is Heathrow so vulnerable?</strong> It has two runways against Schiphol&#x27;s six and Paris&#x27;s and Frankfurt&#x27;s four, yet carries more than all of them, so there is no margin to reschedule.</p><p><strong>Has it happened before?</strong> Three years ago a flight plan system failure cost airlines £100 million, and last year another fault stopped everything for four hours.</p><p>Watch "Flights Grounded in Britain" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdECIv7oSC2/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/air-traffic-control-480.webp" length="26436" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Dunning-Kruger. Lemon juice and a polaroid.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/dunning-kruger/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/dunning-kruger/</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 09:05:36 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Ideas</category><category>dunning-kruger</category><category>lemon juice</category><category>invisible</category><category>psychologist</category><category>judge</category><category>skill</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>In 1995 a man robbed two banks in Pittsburgh with no mask and a smile for the cameras. He thought lemon juice made him invisible.</strong></p><h2>Who was the invisible bank robber?</h2><p>In 1995, a man robbed two banks in Pittsburgh in the middle of the afternoon. No mask, no disguise, and he smiled at the security cameras. When the police arrested him, he was astonished. &quot;But I wore the juice,&quot; he said. He&#x27;d rubbed lemon juice on his face and thought he was invisible.</p><p>Lemon juice gets used as invisible ink. So McArthur Wheeler reasoned that if he put lemon juice on his face, he&#x27;d be invisible. And he checked: he rubbed it on, took a Polaroid of himself, and there was no face in the picture. He got 24 years in prison.</p><h2>What did Dunning and Kruger find?</h2><p>A psychologist called David Dunning read about the story and, with Justin Kruger, ran the study everyone now knows. What they found was much less ridiculous. They tested people on grammar, logic and telling jokes, and the worst performers thought they were slightly above average.</p><p>It got turned into the graph you&#x27;ve probably seen on the internet, with a mountain of stupid and a valley of despair.</p><h2>Why can&#x27;t we see our own mistakes?</h2><p>The skill you need to do something well is the same skill you need to judge whether you did it well. Wheeler couldn&#x27;t see what was wrong with his photograph, because seeing it required him to not be a total moron and realise he&#x27;d pointed the camera at the ceiling.</p><p>To give him his credit, he had a theory and he tested it, which is more than most of us do.</p><h2>So who marks the homework?</h2><p>The problem is, he marked his own homework. There&#x27;s no other way to find out whether you&#x27;re a good driver, good at your job or a good flatmate. You sit the test and you mark it yourself.</p><p>So when someone asks, why am I surrounded by idiots? Now you know why.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Who was McArthur Wheeler?</strong> A man who robbed two Pittsburgh banks in 1995 with no disguise, having rubbed lemon juice on his face because he thought it made him invisible. He got 24 years.</p><p><strong>What did Dunning and Kruger test?</strong> Grammar, logic and telling jokes. The worst performers thought they were slightly above average.</p><p><strong>Why can&#x27;t we judge our own skill?</strong> The skill needed to do something well is the same skill needed to judge whether you did it well.</p><p>Watch "The Invisible Bank Robber" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdBUvalINcR/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/dunning-kruger-480.webp" length="24184" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Prince. Twenty years for two.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/prince/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/prince/</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 07:08:36 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Culture</category><category>prince</category><category>masters</category><category>warner brothers</category><category>slave</category><category>trademark</category><category>purple rain</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>In the 90s, one of the biggest musicians alive turned up to award ceremonies with the word slave written across his face. He had just signed a deal worth 100 million dollars.</strong></p><h2>Why did Prince write slave on his face?</h2><p>In the 90s, one of the biggest musicians alive turned up to award ceremonies with &quot;slave&quot; written across his face. He&#x27;d just signed a deal worth $100 million. It was Prince. Because that deal handed over everything he&#x27;d made, including his name.</p><h2>What did he sign?</h2><p>He signed to Warner Brothers as a teenager, on the standard deal of the day, which handed the label every master he made. &quot;Sign o&#x27; the Times&quot; and &quot;Purple Rain&quot; were all theirs.</p><p>Then in 1992 he signed again: $100 million with six more albums, including his own name as a registered trademark owned by the company. Everyone thought the symbol was a joke for a decade, but Warner owned the word &quot;Prince&quot;. Turning his name into a symbol was the only way to put out music that wasn&#x27;t theirs.</p><h2>How did he fight back?</h2><p>He went to war. Warner sat on one of his best records for years. In &#x27;96 he handed them an album called &quot;Chaos and Disorder&quot; with a line on the sleeve saying it was for private use only.</p><p>On the cover, his own copy of &quot;1999&quot; crushed underfoot.</p><h2>What did the fight cost?</h2><p>It was just a matter of time. Purple Rain came out in &#x27;84, Warner did the maths and came to the table, and he got his masters back in 2014. He tragically died in 2016: 20 years of fighting for two years of ownership.</p><p>The law was always going to hand him back the music. No one was going to hand him back those 20 years. Every fight you win, you pay for, in the only currency you can&#x27;t go out and get more of.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Why did Prince write slave on his face?</strong> His deals with Warner Brothers handed the label his masters and, in 1992, even his name as a trademark. He was fighting for the rights to his own music.</p><p><strong>Why did he become a symbol?</strong> Warner owned the word Prince, so turning his name into a symbol was the only way to release music that wasn&#x27;t theirs.</p><p><strong>When did he get his masters back?</strong> In 2014. He died in 2016, so it was 20 years of fighting for two years of ownership.</p><p>Watch "Prince and Music Rights" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dc-ijlKoFsl/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/prince-480.webp" length="35244" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The National Lottery. Nobody looks at the odds.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/national-lottery/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/national-lottery/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 06 Sep 2026 08:55:08 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Money</category><category>national lottery</category><category>jackpot</category><category>odds</category><category>rollover</category><category>powerball</category><category>tickets</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>In 2015 the lottery made the jackpot three times harder to win. Three months later, twice as many people were buying a ticket.</strong></p><h2>What did the lottery change?</h2><p>In 2015, the National Lottery made it three times harder to win the jackpot. The odds went from one in 14 million to one in 45 million. They called it an enhancement. Three months later, twice as many people as usual were buying a ticket.</p><p>Because nobody looks at the odds. They look at the number.</p><h2>How did it work?</h2><p>The change was simple. They put ten more balls in the machine, from 49 to 59, and took the rollover limit off so it doesn&#x27;t stop until someone wins.</p><p>The irony is that both of these make the odds worse, but they make the jackpot on the screen look much bigger, because the jackpot is made of losing tickets. In January 2016, after 14 draws with no winner, it hit £66 million, the biggest ever. About 14 million people bought a ticket, double a normal week, and the website crashed.</p><h2>Did America copy it?</h2><p>In a strange turn of events, America copied us. Powerball jackpots went from one in 175 million to one in 292 million. But your chance of winning something small got better, from one in 32 to one in 25. So you win more often, but the big win moves further away.</p><h2>Why do long odds sell?</h2><p>We have the long odds backwards. We assume that the worse the chance, the fewer people bother. It&#x27;s the inverse. Rare winners are enormous winners, and enormous winners are the advert.</p><p>Which is why the hardest things to succeed at have the longest queues: acting, football, music, social media. Nobody&#x27;s hiding the odds. The odds are why you&#x27;re interested.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What did the lottery change in 2015?</strong> It added ten balls, from 49 to 59, and removed the rollover limit. Jackpot odds went from one in 14 million to one in 45 million.</p><p><strong>What happened to ticket sales?</strong> In January 2016 a £66 million jackpot, the biggest ever, led about 14 million people to buy a ticket, twice a normal week, and the website crashed.</p><p><strong>Why do long odds attract people?</strong> Rare winners are enormous winners, and enormous winners are the advert.</p><p>Watch "National Lottery Odds" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dc8J9A3Iavi/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/national-lottery-480.webp" length="33872" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Halfords. Handing credit to the weather.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/halfords/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/halfords/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 06:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Brands</category><category>halfords</category><category>hot summer</category><category>weather</category><category>profit</category><category>shares</category><category>results</category><category>like-for-like</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Halfords told the City a hot summer had handed it an extra 5 million in profit. Shares jumped more than 10%, because almost no company separates out the part that was luck.</strong></p><h2>What did Halfords admit?</h2><p>Last week, Halfords told the City the hot summer had handed it an extra £5 million in profit. It volunteered it, put a number on it, and then its shares jumped more than 10% to a four-year high. Almost no company separates out the part that was luck.</p><p>We&#x27;ve had a hysterically hot summer, and Halfords sells bikes, camping gear, cool boxes and aircon, so it had a very good few months. Its update said its performance reflected momentum in the business and, in part, the unusually warm weather.</p><h2>What&#x27;s a set of results made of?</h2><p>Profits are now forecast at between £55 million and £65 million, which is more than the City had predicted. Think about what a set of results actually is. Some of it is what the company did, some of it is what happened to it, and you can spin it perfectly.</p><p>A good year is a strategy working. A bad year is environmental factors.</p><h2>Was it all weather?</h2><p>Halfords has plenty to shout about. It started electric vehicle servicing, and like-for-like sales were up 4.8%. But it handed that £5 million back to the weather anyway.</p><p>If we&#x27;d had a crap summer, every pound spent on a cool box could have been in a cinema, or a pub with no garden, or a waterproof. Somewhere else in Britain, a company had a really bad summer for the same reasons Halfords had a good one.</p><h2>What does that mean for us?</h2><p>Every scoreboard has the weather in it. Yours does. The year you smashed your target, the market was rising. The quarter you missed, something arrived that nobody saw coming.</p><p>We hand out credit and blame as if results are made of decisions, but they&#x27;re half chance. Most of what we call talent is just standing in the right place when the sun comes out. Halfords just told you exactly where they were standing.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What did Halfords say about the weather?</strong> That the hot summer gave it an extra £5 million in profit, and its shares jumped more than 10% to a four-year high.</p><p><strong>What are Halfords&#x27; profits forecast at?</strong> Between £55 million and £65 million, more than the City had predicted.</p><p><strong>What is Huw&#x27;s point?</strong> Results are half chance. We credit decisions for good years and blame environmental factors for bad ones, and most talent is standing in the right place when the sun comes out.</p><p>Watch "Halfords and the Heatwave" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dc5XwMqoMg2/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/halfords-480.webp" length="35102" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Chocolate. The price tells them to look elsewhere.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/chocolate/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/chocolate/</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2026 06:28:09 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Food and drink</category><category>chocolate</category><category>cocoa</category><category>sunflower seeds</category><category>farmers</category><category>west africa</category><category>substitute</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Nestle now sells chocolate with no cocoa in it, made from fermented sunflower seeds. Cocoa prices have already collapsed, and the substitute does not go away when they do.</strong></p><h2>What is cocoa-free chocolate?</h2><p>Nestle now sells chocolate with no cocoa in it. It&#x27;s made from fermented sunflower seeds, and it&#x27;s a permanent product, not a trial. Mars is testing its own, and cocoa prices have already collapsed, because the substitute doesn&#x27;t disappear when the price comes back down.</p><h2>Why did cocoa prices spike?</h2><p>In 2022, cocoa was about $2,000 a tonne. By the end of 2024, it had hit $13,000, six times the price. The reason had been brewing for decades.</p><p>West Africa grows roughly two thirds of the world&#x27;s cocoa on roughly 2.5 million small farms. Those farmers have been paid so little for so long that they were never able to replant. The trees that exist are 25 to 40 years old, diseased, and yields have fallen away.</p><h2>How does sunflower chocolate work?</h2><p>Raw cocoa is revolting: bitter and astringent. Everything you love about it comes afterwards, from fermenting the beans for a week and roasting them. A German company does the same process with sunflower seeds, and the product is so close to chocolate that Nestle is rolling it out in Germany and Mars is trialling another.</p><h2>Who lost out?</h2><p>The shortage did benefit the farmers. Ghana and the Ivory Coast set the price their farmers are paid, and during the spike it went up by 50%, so they were finally well compensated. Then the factories started buying less, demand dropped and the price crashed to $2,000.</p><p>And surprise, surprise, the farmers are getting screwed again. The one time they get paid close to what the crop is worth is the same time their customers go in search of an alternative. That is what a high price really does: it tells whoever&#x27;s buying to go and find another way.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>What is Nestle&#x27;s cocoa-free chocolate?</strong> Chocolate made from fermented sunflower seeds, a permanent product rather than a trial. Mars is trialling its own.</p><p><strong>Why did cocoa prices rise?</strong> Farmers in West Africa, who grow about two thirds of the world&#x27;s cocoa, were paid so little they could not replant, so trees aged, got diseased and yields fell. Prices went from $2,000 a tonne in 2022 to $13,000 by the end of 2024.</p><p><strong>What happened to farmers?</strong> Ghana and the Ivory Coast raised farmer prices by 50% during the spike. Then demand dropped and prices crashed to $2,000 again.</p><p>Watch "Chocolate Without Cocoa" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dc2vitPoCXI/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/chocolate-480.webp" length="35698" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Railway Time. Who sets the clock decides when you're late.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/railway-time/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/railway-time/</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2026 11:03:06 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Places and property</category><category>railway time</category><category>great western railway</category><category>london time</category><category>mills</category><category>timetable</category><category>clock</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Until 1840, Britain did not have one time. A railway company decided which one was correct, and nobody minded. In the mills, it was a different story.</strong></p><h2>What time was it before the railways?</h2><p>Until 1840, Britain did not have one time. Every town kept its own, set by the sun. Bristol ran 11 minutes behind London, and Bridgwater 14.</p><p>A railway company decided which one was correct, because whoever sets the clock decides when you&#x27;re late.</p><h2>Why did it work?</h2><p>It worked because the alternative was people dying. Two trains on one line, each driver going by a different town&#x27;s clock, is a crash. So in November 1840, the Great Western Railway ordered all of its trains to run on London time, and the rest of the country copied within 15 years. It wasn&#x27;t made law until 1880.</p><p>That&#x27;s 40 years of a private company dictating what time was, and nobody minded.</p><h2>What was different in the mills?</h2><p>In the mills, the clock belonged to the owner. Clocks were put forward in the morning and back at night, so people worked extra hours. In one mill, nobody but the master and his son had a watch. A worker who got hold of one had it confiscated, because he was telling the other workers what the actual time was.</p><p>Same act in both places: someone decides what time it is and everyone else lives by it.</p><h2>So what&#x27;s the real difference?</h2><p>The railway&#x27;s clock was public, printed in the timetable, set by telegraph from Greenwich, checkable by anybody who wanted to. In the mill, the only person who could check it was the person who benefited from it being wrong. They confiscated his watch because it let him check.</p><p>A rule everyone lives by that only one person can read isn&#x27;t a rule. It&#x27;s a dial only he can turn. And the score, the rating, the algorithm, the thing that decides your shift is the same move again. Somebody has to set the clock. The real question is whether you&#x27;re allowed to see it.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Why did Britain adopt a single time?</strong> Because two trains on one line, each going by a different town&#x27;s clock, is a crash. The Great Western Railway moved to London time in November 1840.</p><p><strong>When did railway time become law?</strong> 1880, after about 40 years of a private company dictating the time.</p><p><strong>What is the point about mills?</strong> Mill owners controlled the clock, and workers who had watches had them confiscated. The railway clock was public and checkable. The mill clock was not.</p><p>Watch "Railway Time" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dc0qNnFIvrU/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/railway-time-480.webp" length="37642" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Nuisance Calls. The best sales list in the country.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/nuisance-calls/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/nuisance-calls/</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2026 10:52:41 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Brands</category><category>nuisance calls</category><category>cold calls</category><category>telephone preference service</category><category>call blockers</category><category>fined</category><category>sales list</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>A company selling nuisance call blockers made 758,000 nuisance calls to find customers. It has just been fined 190 grand.</strong></p><h2>What did the company do?</h2><p>A company was selling gadgets to block nuisance calls. To find people to sell them to, it made 758,000 nuisance calls, and it&#x27;s just been fined £190,000. Because the people who hate cold calls the most are the easiest people to cold call.</p><p>The company was called Elderly Aids, and unsurprisingly it deliberately went after old people. Nearly 3,000 calls a day, every day, for nine months. The regulators said they were aggressive, misleading and often wouldn&#x27;t give a name. One man reported that his elderly father gave up £139 upfront and then signed up to £6.99 a month.</p><h2>What is the Telephone Preference Service?</h2><p>There&#x27;s a free register with a very sexy name: the Telephone Preference Service. You put your number on it, say you don&#x27;t want sales calls, and after that if anyone calls you selling something, they&#x27;re committing an offence.</p><p>Every one of those calls went to someone on that register. And that&#x27;s the point.</p><h2>Why were they the perfect customers?</h2><p>Think about who ends up on a list like that: someone who is annoyed enough by cold calls to sign up. If you&#x27;re selling a call blocker, they&#x27;re your perfect customer. The list designed to protect people from cold calls was the best sales list in the country.</p><h2>What does it tell us?</h2><p>Asking to be left alone sends up a beacon saying what you care about, and someone is always looking out for it. Unsubscribing proves someone&#x27;s reading your email. Complaining proves you&#x27;re listening.</p><p>Every time you ask to be protected from something, you&#x27;ve told the salesman what you&#x27;d pay to avoid.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>Who made the nuisance calls?</strong> A company called Elderly Aids, which sold call-blocking gadgets. It made 758,000 calls, nearly 3,000 a day for nine months, and was fined £190,000.</p><p><strong>What is the Telephone Preference Service?</strong> A free register. Once you are on it, anyone who calls to sell you something is committing an offence.</p><p><strong>Why were the calls so effective?</strong> The register lists people annoyed enough by cold calls to sign up, which makes them perfect customers for a call blocker.</p><p>Watch "Nuisance Calls" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcyEOfFoTIE/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/nuisance-calls-480.webp" length="36880" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Specsavers. Half goes to whoever could walk out.</title>
      <link>https://www.thegist.media/explainers/specsavers/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.thegist.media/explainers/specsavers/</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 09:27:27 +0000</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Huw Allen</dc:creator>
      <category>Brands</category><category>specsavers</category><category>joint venture</category><category>optometrist</category><category>eye test</category><category>stores</category><category>owners</category>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Specsavers paid 258 million quid to the people running its shops and 12 million to the family that owns it. That is the model working as designed.</strong></p><h2>Who gets paid at Specsavers?</h2><p>Last year, Specsavers paid £258 million to the people running its shops. It paid the family that owns the company £12 million. More than 20 times as much went to the shop floor as to the owners. And that&#x27;s the model working exactly as designed, because the person running the eye test can always go down the road.</p><p>It&#x27;s a £4.3 billion business. Profits were up nearly a quarter last year to half a billion. It has 1,200 stores across the UK and does more than half of the NHS eye tests in the country.</p><h2>How is each store owned?</h2><p>Every single store is a 50/50 joint venture, half owned by the optometrist or audiologist who runs it. They&#x27;re shareholders in the shop with their name on it.</p><h2>Why does it have to work that way?</h2><p>Because the eye test must be carried out by someone on the professional register. The qualification takes years and it belongs to the individual, not the company. You can&#x27;t replace the staff in a fortnight. They can leave, take the legal ability to run the business with them and set up down the road.</p><p>So Specsavers don&#x27;t really franchise. They just give them half.</p><h2>What&#x27;s the lesson?</h2><p>Compare that with any other shop on the high street. The person running it gets a salary and, if they&#x27;re lucky, a bonus, because the job can be taught to the next person in a month. No one&#x27;s deciding to be generous or mean. They&#x27;re pricing the same thing: what it would cost them if you left.</p><p>Your share of anything was never set by how hard you worked or how loyal you were. It&#x27;s set by what walks out of the door with you. Most of us spend our careers making ourselves more useful to one company and less useful to everyone else. That feels like security, but it&#x27;s the opposite.</p><h2>Quick answers</h2><p><strong>How is Specsavers structured?</strong> Every store is a 50/50 joint venture with the optometrist or audiologist who runs it.</p><p><strong>Why does Specsavers give half away?</strong> Because the eye test must be done by someone on the professional register, and the qualification belongs to the individual. They can leave and set up down the road.</p><p><strong>What is the wider point?</strong> Your share is set by what walks out of the door with you, not by how hard you worked or how loyal you were.</p><p>Watch "Specsavers" on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcvVrRoI3FQ/</p>]]></description>
      <enclosure url="https://www.thegist.media/assets/img/gists/specsavers-480.webp" length="31942" type="image/webp"/>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>
