469. How ‘Swindled’ Turns Outrage Into Addictive Listening

0:04 Good morning podcasting Morning Chat. Today is Monday, March 9/20/26 and today is our obsession worthy podcast show. We're going to be listening to Swindled episode called The Formula, The boycott of Nestle, and Jonathan Howard is going to lead us in a great discussion about what makes this obsession worthy and what we can learn from it. So if you're listening on Clubhouse, hit the share button, bottom left hand side of the screen and share however Clubhouse LED you. If you want to join us live on the video, go to podcastingmorningchat.com/join us. And if you're catching this via podcast, YouTube, LinkedIn or one of those other platforms, do me a favor and share this episode with a fellow podcaster. Now give me about 30 seconds and we'll get things going. Thanks for being here today.

1:25 Well, good morning podcasting, morning chat. So glad to have you here today. Joining me today. We have producer Ashley, we have Jonathan Howard, BC Babbles and Junaid. So thank you so much for joining us today. So Jonathan, if you want to go ahead and start talking about obsession worthy today we're talking about swindled the formula. Yes, we are talking about swindled the formula. I'm not sure if you did the intro for us that we always do just obsession worthy podcast. The reason we do it is to learn a little bit about what other podcasts are doing. And I decided to take a look at some true crime because that is a hot category of podcasts and Swindled is a true crime podcast, so figured we would take a look at that one.

2:08 And that's where we're going. So Swindled turns corporate wrongdoing into like a bendable story engine. It's not like here's the scandal, it's more who profited, who got hurt, who knew about it, why it was covered up and how the system allowed it to be built. So it's a really interesting dive into true crime and the real magic swindles is that it never leaves the story at like, here's a bad thing that happened. It keeps pushing forward towards the motive, the pattern, the institutional failures that happened. And that's what makes it truly obsession worthy. It's true crime that goes deeper than the crime. So that is important. Now this episode pattern that's kind of used is there's moral outrage.

2:51 When you hear the topics, you're morally outraged. There's some pattern recognition that you'll notice as we go through this episode. It uses receipts as a way to obviously show what happened really happened. And then it ends with a belief flip, which is not only is it tragic, but why did it happen? And that belief flip is really important because it rewires how you interpret the world. After you listen to the episode, you're like, wait a minute, let me think about that again. And that's what makes it really truly obsession worthy. Any questions about that so far? I have some universal themes and then we'll jump into that first clip. You ready for the first clip, Jonathan? High up on the desolate plateau of northwestern China, 20 families live in this remote village in earthen caves. It's isolated but not insulated from the outside world. Liu Ling wanted the best for her first baby, a son, so she purchased the San Liu Milk Powder, a national brand, a fancy product for this poor household. It was all her son Xu Chen Chen ever drank for eight months until he died.

4:00 Doctors in China were perplexed as to why there was a sudden increase of sick infants during the winter months of late 2006. Early 2007 emergency rooms across the country were filled with worried mothers and fathers and their young children who were howling in pain. All of the children had similar kidney related ailments. Their stomachs were extremely bloated and many of them had developed kidney stones and were urinating blood that was thick and granulated like sand and water. And not only were their conditions painful, they were potentially fatal. And I forgot to tell you to pay attention to the narrier's voice in there because that was going to bring it be an important aspect of it. The episode officially talks about the 1977 Nestle's boycott, but it uses the Chinese baby milk scandal as its prelude. Now.

4:48 They're using it to really set the expectations for the episode. And you'll also notice, obviously, Swindle promised to expose greed. So you're going to get a little bit of that, obviously. So you have this knowledge of what you're going into with this episode. So we listened to that first clip and I did say it establishes an instant formula crisis in China and it sets the scene for the rest of the episode. And I mentioned also pay attention to voice and tone of the main narrator because that is important for the episode. Jonathan, I just wanted to make a comment here because I really enjoyed this this show. The thing that I noticed, though, I was out walking when I was listening to it, it took them about 14 minutes to get the front end of that set up. I don't know how you felt about that or whether you felt that was a little bit too long.

5:36 Well, so there was a reason that they did that and actually it uses about and I think with ads it was about 14 minutes, but it a prologue to set the scene for the main podcast. So it establishes the way the creator wants you to view the main story before you even get to the Nestle thing. So what it's doing is it's setting the pattern like so you recognize immediately in in the Nestle story, OK, these are the things that are going, this is something that's wrong. You know, there's something wrong with the way infant formula is handled and you start to see the pattern before it's even explained to you. So I think that is as a storytelling device. The prologue was really, really interesting and useful. And actually, I'll talk about at the end of this, but a lot of the podcast that we've used are used that same sort of format, just in a different way.

6:27 The prologue, it is long. It is long, but you have to look at it as priming the brain. And I threw this in here for a mark, you know, it's all a Blue's Clues. It's telling you, you need to look for patterns and giving you those clues for what you should be looking for in the main podcast. So it connects to the story in a bigger way. It creates a pattern recognition loop and you're subconsciously looking for repeated mistakes, similar incentives, and the same kind of cover ups. And the ads to me really didn't seem like they were difficult in this particular one, but I did like the on ramp that we got to. I thought that was really good. It's a doorway that they bring you into it. So I think it could have been shorter. And at first when I started listening, I was like, wait a minute, thought this was about Nestle. But after listening to it, I really I understood what they were doing and it really makes you lean into the investigation of the host.

7:19 Like you, you already trust the host by the time you get to the the main investigation. The one thing I was going to say about the host was the at first, his monotone delivery and seemingly disinterested tone was infuriating for me. Like I could not. I was like, I don't know if I'm going to make it to the end of this one. But then I realized that his deadpan delivery kind of made the story hit harder because it was really calm. It wasn't melodramatic, it wasn't getting excited when things were going crazy. So it let the story and the facts do the talking, which I thought was really interesting, but at first it was driving me nuts. I felt the exact Jonathan. I felt the exact same way.

8:01 I thought to myself. I looked down and I said, OK, this is 47 minutes, you know, how long is this going to go? Am I going to make it to the end? Yeah. And after really the prologue, I was used to it and I was, I was comfortable with the way that he was narrating. But at first it was really a little bit much. Yeah, because he starts to build a relationship with you, is what I found. And you're right. I felt the exact same set set of emotions, Jonathan. At first I was like, oh, I cannot handle this guy for an hour. But then he started, you know, it was kind of an endearing thing, as I said, OK, well, this is the way this guy's going to do it. And I thought they did a good job of leading me into being a supporter of that. Yeah. And I think if it had been a little bit more breathless or like, Oh my God, this is happening, it would have actually made the the show feel a little bit cheaper than it was.

8:49 I thought it really came off well done, even with his monotone delivery. I think if it was more dramatic it would have not actually helped the show. I tend to agree with you. I think that that was an intentionality that really worked out well because I think you're right. If it it had been sensational, we have been like, you know, what am I watching some sensational TV show? But it worked well for this one. Yeah. The one thing that I wanted to point out is like the prologue, it also makes you realize that you're not listening to 1 bad story, you're listening to a problem that's universal. And that is something that we will see in this second clip. The second clip is the transition from the Chinese prelude to the Nestle baby formula story and how marketing was the core problem.

9:34 And we are all doomed. So we are. All doomed, but the real question is why are so many children with healthy mothers capable of breastfeeding being bottle fed in the 1st place? The answer to that question is marketing. One company's marketing in particular? Nestle, the largest food and beverage company in the world, a company that critics and environmentalists have labeled the most evil company in the world. And this story is just one of the reasons why an international boycott ensues after a multinational corporation is accused of contributing to the deaths of millions of infants around the world on this episode of Swindled. What does everybody feel like when you heard that first? Like that intro?

10:22 What did that do for you? I got to tell you, I want to bring him to every dinner party because he is the most positive person I've ever heard. Seriously, he really knows how to set the stage. It's an uncomfortable topic. He's very. Monotone, but he gets his point across. But he's a special kind of spice if you're not used to it. Jonathan, we want to go to Nick. Nick and then BC had a comment. You want to go first, Nick? I think that it's it's pretty interesting the way that I don't know if it's how all of the episodes are, but how they start with the story of what happened in China to lead into the Nestle stuff. Because in my opinion, if they didn't do that, like them being able to make that bridge in that connection take something that's a lot, in my opinion, more hard hitting, grab your attention then if they were to just kind of kick everything off with the Nestle thing.

11:15 I I kind of think they'd lose people right away. So I think it's an interesting strategic move that they did by tying in a more dramatic story. Does that make sense? What I'm saying? Yeah, and you're 100% right. Go ahead, BCI, see you wanted to make a comment. Going back to a a recent point made here where this is an uncomfortable topic, you know, true crime in general is an uncomfortable topic and even corporate scandal, maybe even more so because it's a larger scale, arguably more insidious kind of discussion. But for me, and with this approach he took by establishing this socio economic pattern experienced by people in certain parts of the world to lead into how Boom Nestle fed into this and took advantage of it.

12:02 I get the strategic tactic behind it, but to listen to someone so melancholy tried to tried to deliver it when other true crime hosts tend to be more forward still kind of, you know, not downtrodden in tone, but melancholy. But I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm more experienced with true crime hosts who are melancholy but who have a certain pace or a certain force behind the delivery of the story. So that regardless of the technique they used to build up into the main meat of the episode, it's easier to stay engaged with them.

12:43 With this particular host I found it really difficult to follow through with the build up and stick with it until they got to the meat of the story. I see what you're saying there and yes, and I think one thing that they did to kind of keep you moving is there was multiple people in it was news clips and stuff like that. But I get what you're saying with that because it. Yeah, and that. Can help for sure. If you can't get used to his voice, you're going to struggle with this episode and probably all the episodes I found I was able to get used to it. But yeah, I get what you're saying because like I said, at first I was like, man, make this man like speed up or do something. But yeah, I see what you're saying. My question about the the build up was, though, was how did you feel about Nestle being considered one of the most evil companies in the world, contributing to deaths of millions of infants?

13:37 Like that was a dramatic moment and I believed it was true, but I think it was something that they needed to show the proof for after. But I saw Alex and then BC. I thought it was really. Interesting how he painted the picture where it wasn't just a quote UN quote AUS problem. And you think of Nestle at first you're like, what do you mean that they're the worst? And I like how he builds his case. I really do. I like how he builds his case. It was very calculated, but it kept it going. We've heard plenty of times before different reasons behind certain product recalls from certain companies because of some kind of mishap in the formulation or, you know, undisclosed information regarding what's actually inside certain products that harm people or animals. So I was, I hate to say that I was not inherently questioning the suggestion, which I suppose probably speaks to underlying culture of mega huge corporate entities in in today's world. There was a moment specifically at 8 1/2 minutes in where I forget the two individuals that the host was discussing, but they stated that the two individuals, the reason why they use the powder to dilute certain things in the formula that was harming all these infants in, in China. They were pressured to do it because they had to meet certain demands, certain pricing, I think in perhaps original materials or something like

15:10 that, which is why they chose to continue using this deadly ingredient in the formula product. And I'm like, you know what? Maybe it's not a crazy suggestion at all. Maybe this is a pretty fair assessment if if that's your reasoning behind purposefully continuing to use this incredibly harmful ingredient in baby formula just to maximize profits. I hate to say that I wasn't inherently questioning it. And then to hear that part, I'm like, Yep, Yep, that that tracks, unfortunately. I just want to jump in there because the thing I will say is I didn't have an opinion about this going into listening to this episode, but I thought they did a good job of providing evidence.

15:51 And I'm a skeptic at heart. So when I hear something, I always want to hear evidence. And I felt like they did a reasonably good job of providing evidence. So BCI would go along with what you said because it wasn't shocking. I have to be honest with you, it wasn't shocking to me, but the evidence really led me to wow, like this is really going on here. Agree. So the other thing that this intro does is it actually makes us look at it because we had the previous the, the in China and then we're listening to the what's going on with Nestle. We already are looking at this as not just corporations behaving badly, but a systemic problem. Like there's a problem with the way that we do things that's causing these additional problems. And because it's a systemic problem that kind of creates the binge worthiness of the podcast because it's bigger than you think it is.

16:41 So it gets people to automatically want to watch and listen and see what's happening and, and what can be done about it definitely creates that binge worthiness in that. And it's all because of the marketing. And that made me go, wait, is that possible? Which is a creating curiosity, which is a key element in binge worthiness as well. So it's building that curiosity and it's going to answer that in a second really. So we start to see how this is all due to marketing in this third. Clip. Jonathan Nikki wanted to make a comment before we go to the third clip. Go ahead Nikki, when it comes to the voice and the nature of the topic at hand.

17:22 When I know for me, when I am speaking about something that is serious or may have some level of incredulity to it, meaning that people might not believe, I always speak in a much more monotone lower register to build that credibility. Because as soon as someones voice starts to get high pitched or very animated, it's not that what they're saying is not necessarily true, but the masses tend to discredit people like that very quickly because of the way that they sound and they come across they they come across as alarmist.

18:04 I don't know if it's a United States thing or if it's just a, a people thing, but whenever somebody comes across as alarmist, it's immediately dismissed as it could be conspiratorial or or whatever. But I think that there's some layers of choice and calculation in his presentation with his voice because of speaking about something like this where people would have such a hard time believing it and they would have such visceral and emotional reactions to something like that. I mean, killing, you know, I mean that that's that's going to elicit a lot of emotional response in people. And I think that it just helps to build the credibility and neutralize some of that to have have that that voice that doesn't change its register.

18:50 It's not a roller coaster where it's up and down. The listener is having that up and down experience, but the host stays, you know, somewhat steady. And Nikki, I just wanted to go along with what you said because in Jonathan, I don't know if you're going to talk about this later or not, but it really made me think, OK, who are these folks going to get to be advertisers on their show because me and they are throwing some big names under the bus. And I thought to myself, wow. And then it would they kind of answered that later on, but that was one of the things that might take away. But Nikki, I agree with you 100% on what you just said because that that that tone just allowed it to not get sensational. Yes, the tone allowed the facts to do the talking, which I think it was is really important in this in this episode, so that you were able to actually listen to the facts that were there that they presented and it made it makes sense. Go ahead, Janine.

19:38 Yeah, the monotonous, it's, you're mimicking something that news reporters do all the time. They report, they might be reporting the worst news in the world and they are unaffected by it. It shows calm, it shows confidence in the content and I think that's what he's doing. There's been another obsession worthy podcasts. I've been listening to the Y Files and he's not as monotonous but he's has a very steady voice as he's reporting these. Crazy amazing. Ideas. Thank you. In this third clip, we start to see how the marketing is actually the cause of the problem. So you can hit that third one if we're ready to go in. 1974, a British non governmental organization called the War on Want published A damning report titled The Baby Killer. The report singled out Nestle's marketing tactics of infant formula in developing nations like Asia, Africa and Latin America as a major contributing factor in the widespread malnutrition, illness and death of infants and poverty stricken communities.

20:44 Although the report contends that Nestle was not the only company using these tactics, they were the largest and most egregious offender. Nestle's advertisements for baby milk in places like Nigeria and Jamaica and other impoverished nations insinuated that formula fed babies would grow up to be healthier, happier and stronger than their breast fed counterparts. The blatant falsehood. And unlike breast milk, the milk formula was not free. In fact, it was quite expensive and still is, especially for a family living on seven U.S. dollars a week, which is what the average Jamaican family earned at the time. Some families were reportedly spending half of their entire incomes on feeding their newborns.

21:27 So many of those families found a way to save a little money by making the formula stretch a little further by diluting it with water, just like the more thrifty among us sometimes do with hand soap or laundry detergent. And an article published by the New York Times, one Jamaican mother claimed that not only was she feeding 2 babies with the contents of 1 canister formula, she was watering it down so much that they could provide three times as many servings then recommended. And according to War on Want, this was a common and widespread practice in the Third World. When promoting the product, Nestle did not consider these families long term ability to afford the formula. That was hard for me. Actually.

22:08 I'm I'm glad I'm not on Riverside because my face says it all. Janae. Can we, can we like, scream and be like? Oh my God, would that. Like can we, can we be those people? Right. Well, and that's what I thought this is like when it was coming together to me that this the way he was narrating it was so spectacular because I can imagine what how I would narrate this. I would be screaming. I would be screaming, yelling and like, what in the heck is going on here? The other thing that it does is obviously it shows Nestle is, you know, being pretty evil in this situation. So the evil moniker that they were given earlier is fitting. And it's just amazing to me to see how a simple corporate decision affects the global.

22:57 And I think the listener realizes that it's not just the product, it's the way that things are running and the way that they're allowed to run that's causing the problem. I don't know if anybody else has other than Janae and I responses to this but. No, it definitely is outrageous. I mean, you sit there and you think about wow, like it's that pervasive. It's pretty clear to me that the, IT was a money decision. I'm a money guy. This is a bad money decision. It attacks you. Like, wait a second. I, I just remember thinking to myself that this is not possible. And you know, having two, my kids are now 24 and 29. But I thought back to like how I would have felt if I was one of the parents who was involved in this situation where I had a kid with kidney issues and they could talk very directly about the, the effects of this during the episodes.

23:45 I, I encourage everybody, if you haven't listened to it, go back and listen to it because it is definitely a, an obsession worthy podcast because it really does paint a picture of corporate greed at its best. Yeah, and it was amazing to me and the the marketing included falsehoods in it, but it was also marketed to people who were illiterate, may not have clean water, and may not have the ability to pay for the formula long term. Many of the families in third world countries were spending a large portion, sometimes 3/4 of their salary on feeding their newborns, which leads to the obvious thing that they're going to try to make the formula stretch. And when they did that, then the babies weren't getting the right amount of nutrients, and that's why they were malnourished, and that's why many of them died.

24:33 And that's just a whole. When you think through that, how Nestle didn't realize that would be a problem is amazing to me. But it was just about the profits. And Jonathan, I want to pivot a little bit because I agree with you 100%. But now let's talk about how this was effectively used by this Swindled podcast, because I think that there's some real key things in here that I know you want to talk about. I want to talk about it, but I want to talk about it after this next clip because this next clip kind of wraps the whole, not the whole story for us. But you know, like, we're shocked by this, right? And some of us may not think it's real. The most may think, OK, this podcast is overblowing a situation. There's no way that this is real. So in the next clip we get the proof, the receipts of this happening.

25:22 I will talk about it. I just want to get the receipts so we can kind of draw it in a full. Kennedy questioned Nestle spokesperson Oswald Ballerine about whether the formula should be used in places with low rates of literacy and limited access to clean water. The Nestle representative confirmed that it should not be used in those locations, but that ultimately, literacy and access to clean water weren't the company's problem nor concern. Take a listen. Would you agree with me that your product should not be used where there is impure water? Yes or no? We give all the instructions. Just just answer what would.

26:02 You of course not, but we cannot cope with that. Do you think that your product ought to be used in areas where there's illiteracy, fast illiteracy, Where there is illiteracy, people can't? Read. But that is very difficult to control, Senator, because you go in a region and they are not all illiterate, they are somewhere. How can you control that the product goes to one rather than to the other? Well, as I understand what you say is where there's impure water it should not be used. Yes. Where the people are so poor that they're not going to realistically be able to continue to purchase that, and which is going to mean that they're going to dilute it to a point which is going to endanger the health that it should not be used.

26:48 Yes, I believe. Now then, then my final question is, is what do you do or what do you feel is your corporate responsibility to find out the extent of the the use of your product in those circumstances in the developing part of the world? Do you feel that you have any responsibility? We can't have that responsibility, Sir, may I make a reference to? You can't have that responsibility. We get the proof, we get the receipts, and we hear Senator Kennedy, who personally had an impact on my life. He's actually the senator that worked on the hates crime bill with, you know, he questions very strongly about whether the formula should be used. But Nestle and the spokesperson there refuses to take responsibility for the misuse of the product. They can't have responsibility, he said. Which was to me a very powerful moment. Like, OK, this is a real claim as the podcast could have used sensational claims.

27:45 They could have used the previous prologue to actually make it feel more dramatic. Because this was not, this wasn't necessarily babies dying that you could identify. It wasn't a baby that was parents. It was babies over the course of time, but wasn't as specific. And specificity, oh, that word was hard. Today, specificity creates connection. So the Nestle story didn't have as much specificity. It didn't have as much bang for your buck as the prologue did. But because they did use that as the prologue, it actually lends itself to this one where we have the specific baby that was harmed in our minds when we're hearing this evidence, This proof, you know, shows the bad acts and the lack of caring, but it also highlights major issues in the system.

28:39 But does anybody have anything they want to add on that or any questions? I would just add this, Jonathan. I mean, it definitely puts you in a mindset of, well, this got to the point of Congress having discussions about it. So I think you're right in a lot of ways, I think this was the the proof of it. And I think this was the moment that I was like, wow, like, OK, so great. Now this is at the Congress level. So they're going to fix this problem. We're never going to hear about this again. But I was kind of let down. I was like, wait a minute. But did they really fix it? I'm not sure if you're going to talk about that, Jonathan, but it definitely was a check box for the proof has been delivered. And it really made the podcast land with a pretty heavy FUD, I thought. And yes, I am going to talk about what happens later and actually what happens even after this podcast because I did some research on it and I was shocked, but we'll get there. The listeners really like it with the fact that this isn't a bogus claim.

29:36 And that really sucks. I mean, it's good for the podcast because it really does deliver, but for the world it kind of sucks though. That was definitely that. Now I just wanted to share a lesson from the proof. So a creator, anybody, any of us can have a hot take all day long, but you have to be able to support it. Otherwise, your whole story is off whack. So Swindled feels solid because it's evidence 1st and they're proving the claims. And if you actually look at their show notes, it includes detailed descriptions and sources that are framing what's happening in the episode. The show notes actually add to the documentary feel and add to the evidence first kind of podcast that they're doing.

30:22 And we can all do that with our podcast in making sure that any claims that we make, any hot takes we have, are supported by evidence. I agree with you, Jonathan, because my take away from this was as I was listening and I'm thinking, no, this isn't true. Now, there's no way this is happening. No, Nestle's too big of a company to let this happen. No, no, this can't be possible. And they brought the receipts, man. And like when they brought the receipts, the other side of that is you listen to sometimes stuff and you're like, yeah, let me hear some receipts. It's just somebody pontificating. So, Jonathan, I mean, I think you make a very good point. And that is evidence first, because then the, the whole episode lands because you've heard the evidence, you, you've got a visceral reaction, you've got an emotion built into this that you.

31:08 And that's where, as I think about it now, I go back to, I thought the, the front end of this was a little long. But looking back at it now, I think it had to be that long in order to get me in this mental place where I would say, you know what, these things do add up. Yeah, that prologue added to the drama of this section because again, there wasn't that one story in this section, it was a more multiple stories. So I agree, I think that prologue, it was long, but it really had a purpose. So just before we get to clip 5-1, would think because they did pass the milk code, it was passed in 1982, I believe, and it was a worldwide passage. And it's 1988, and the practices of formula milk companies are still violating that code.

31:53 And the boycott was relaunched in 1988. But when this episode aired in 2018-2019, it had to be better, right? Let's hit that next clip. By 1988, the boycott was relaunched when it was discovered that Nestle and other formula companies were continuing to flood health facilities in the developing world with free samples and supplies. The boycott continues to this day because the practices that were globally condemned in 1984 are still as evident as ever. They're the kind of allegations formula milk companies have faced before. 6 companies spend almost $7 billion a year on marketing which deliberately undermines breastfeeding.

32:33 About a joint investigation this week by the Guardian newspaper and international charity Save the Children revealed major players in the industry are actually violating laws in the Philippines, offering free trips to doctors and. Midwives handing out pamphlets in hospitals that look like medical advice In 2018, a report by the charity Saved the Children, which was published by The Guardian, accused formula companies of, quote, systematically violating the milk code. The report claimed that formula companies were spending £36 on marketing for every baby born worldwide, with one of the main targets being East Asia.

33:15 Save the Children found that in the Philippines, Nestle and other companies were still offering free trips, meals, movie tickets, and even gambling chips to doctors and other health workers in exchange for product loyalty and recommendations. Companies are still running commercials on television claiming that has been clinically proven that formula fed infants develop higher IQ's. Every mother wants the best for their child, so you can hardly blame them for spending a reported 75% of their incomes on a formula that will supposedly benefit their families in the long run and potentially lift them out of poverty. All of these marketing techniques are clear violations of Philippine law, and with the advent of targeted social media ads and paid mommy bloggers, regulating formula industry marketing is more difficult than ever, while formula industry marketing remains more effective than ever.

34:08 It wasn't better in 2018, so is 2026. First of all I was born in 1980 and I was a formula baby so that explains a lot about me. I'm just saying, but I asked ChatGPT is this is going on right now in 2026, and the answer was pretty shocking. The World Health Organization and UNICEF are still treating this as an active problem. World Health Organization said Formula companies, digital marketing has been blatantly breaching the international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes. And in 2025, the World Health Assembly adopted a new resolution specifically aimed at restricting digital marketing of breast milk substitutes. And yes, Nestle is still one of the main violators in 2025 and 2026.

34:51 They're still marketing to people that can't afford it and that are watering it down and it's leading to malnutrition, nutrition, new nourished babies in the third world country in 2026. That was a little shocking for me. That's what's going on. Yeah, Jonathan, I wish I could tell you that I was, I was shocked, but I wasn't shocked because I think, again, they think you follow the money in this. And unfortunately, we live in a world where the money is what dictates what happens. And I hate to say it that way, but it's a true statement. Yeah, it was. Janine's not happy. I'm not happy. No, no, sorry. And it's it's unfortunate, right? These companies are already seeing the results. So they keep funneling their money because they are making money off of it, even though it's harming hundreds and thousands of people and kids.

35:44 Jonathan, I just wanted to say one other thing. So I think that in this particular episode, it's very easy to be aggravated. It's very easy to be angry, and I think that's a legitimate place to be. I think the next step for us in why it's obsession Worthy is to understand why this works so well. And I'm going to say right now, personally, it made me want to go back and listen to other episodes because I said, man, they did a really good job. The monotone voice drove me crazy like it did for you, Jonathan and I, you know, I don't love the ads. The ads I think weren't great in what I listened to. They were kind of awkward. It sounds like at the end, I think they're really pitching A Patreon membership that they have. I get it. And especially if you're going to be attacking big business, it's going to be tough to find ad placements if you're attacking big business.

36:31 But Jonathan, what were do you think are the main components of why this worked and how they really did a fantastic job of doing such a great show? A couple things, one is the listener journey. You are brought on a journey from the moment that you start listening and it starts with this is awful. And then you start to question how could this happen? Now every time we start to question something, that makes us listen to a little bit further. So when we question how could this happen, we're waiting to live to find out how it happened. And then we're given wait, it's just not one case. There are multiple cases from the prologue to whatever it is that they're discussing.

37:12 There is multiple cases. So you're then drawn in by the multiple cases and then you want to know who benefited from this? In this case, it's Nestle. And in the end, we're kind of left with a WTF, especially on this one, and a realization that the system that we live in rewards the wrong things. It's rewarded for profit, not the lives of the babies. And that is infuriating for some. It's an emotion and it drags us through listening to this podcast. And when you can connect people with those emotions, that's going to be that's going to be a win for all of us, you know, So that whole emotional arc, that's the whole game, you know, whether it starts with sympathy or shock or whatever, we feel that in all the episodes and then they end with the analysis. So it's moving from the emotion to something that we can discuss in the end, something that we can have a thought on in the end and and a rational thought because it does lead with the emotion that pulls us in and drags us along. But then we get valuable information that we can discuss in the end, which brings which is an obsession worthy type of format.

38:27 And Jonathan, when you also say that they need to do a good job of balancing all of those things. And I felt like they did a great job of balancing that because it could have been all emotion and I think you would people would have checked out. But I thought it was a good balance of all the different components. Yeah, well, and you know, stories and emotion really bring people in, but the data is what sells it. And when you have that data, that's what's going to connect. It doesn't story sell data tells. But when you can't connect the two of them, it really does a strong job of of yes, this is here's what happened, here's the evidence and here's the emotional connection again. And here's the evidence. And they did do a good, really good job balancing that. But when I was doing this, I actually found an interesting structure that a lot of the podcasts that we have listened to follow.

39:19 I have a few examples of it. So blindled structure is they do the prelude and the main scandal and then the system reveal Radiolab. I'm not sure if you guys remember Radiolab. It was the one on Colors. It does. It leads its podcast with a curiosity experiment and then a scientific story and a philosophical shift. Same three kind of parts as Swindled Strong Exploder does emotional state to drag you in right at the beginning and it talks the creative process and then it has a meaningful shift at the end. And then how I built this, I'm just using these four as an example, has a familiar hook and origin story and then a transformation lesson. Now this may not all look the same, but when it comes down to it, what it's doing is providing A doorway, which is the thing that grabs people and drags them into your story. The doorway here was the prelude. There's the doorway in Radiolab was that first story about the color.

40:22 Then they go into the main story, a pattern, meaning reveal, so something that's connecting it, and then a belief flip. And that structure is the same for all of them. You can match up for all of them. The only difference is what they use as the doorway. What's the thing that gets you into the episode? So there's different doorways, but it's the same structure. And that is something that we can use or our podcast in one way or another. Now Swindled use the prelude Scandal. Radiolab uses the destabilizing question, the thing that you like. How is this not possibly true? Song Exploder uses the emotional stake of that song and How I Built This uses that familiar success anchor.

41:08 So any of those you could use for your own podcast? And Jonathan, I just wanted to, to, to talk about that for a second, because if you're looking for a way to enhance the structure of your show, what Jonathan just said is brilliant. Because if you take you, you see you, you gave the evidence, Jonathan, you did exactly what they did here. You said, look at the different ones that we've talked about week after week. They all have some common things. So if you're a new podcaster, or if you're a podcaster looking to kind of kick it up a notch, that structure is great because you can go back and look at your episode plan and say, does it fit into what Jonathan just talked about? Because those things connect with you. We've been doing that every week, this this show today, connected with people.

41:51 If you can replicate that with your content, I think you're going to be a step ahead of the game. Yeah. So don't start your episode with today we're talking about because that's not going to drag people in. They're going to click off. They don't care what you're talking about today. Which is, Jonathan. Let me just interject something there because that's interesting because when you go and look at YouTube, YouTube kind of does that. O this is the difference, I think, or, or the the difference between an audio and a video thing, because in YouTube they want that quick hook. But I, I think that you make a brilliant observation when you say don't start like that, because when I hear podcast start like that, I'm like, oh, great, this is going to be an hour long lecture.

42:31 I'm not looking for a lecture. I'm looking to be moved. I'm looking to be entertained. I'm looking to be, I'm learning to learn something. But when you start off with here's what you're going to do, it just seems like a lecture to me. Right. And I think so. And this is one of the things that even when we evaluate podcasts, I find your hook needs to be something that truly drags people in. And with a story that's parallel to what you're going to be talking about or a surprising question or that emotional stake, like something that is going to make people feel something right away. And that's what's going to get people to lean in before you even start your podcast. And sharing your story today we're talking about isn't a good hook. A better hook is something that Can you believe that this is the case?

43:17 Can you believe that in 2026 baby formula is still a problem? That's a way to start your podcast if you want. Doesn't have to be this one, but you know that's something that's going to grab people's attention or the story about it or whatever. You want to drag them in with something that means something to them or is going to get them to feel something. And Jonathan, I agree with you and and I think if you think about, here's another idea, Jonathan, I don't know if you're going to agree with me or not, but think about the emotion that you feel before you hit record. How do you paint that picture for the person that's going to listen to get them to react the same way you did? I think that's what you're saying. Maybe I'm seeing it in a different way.

43:57 Is what are the pain points? What are the emotions? What are the feelings? Because when you get them on board to that feeling, when they're feeling that same listen on on this particular show, man, if you don't feel that, you know, you, you're something wrong. Like you, you got to feel this. And I think as you're doing your content, if you can get that parallel story like you talked about some surprising question, an emotional tie in, I think it's just going to launch your episode. I want to add a little bit to that in the sense that if you know your audience and we talked about this last week, I think you'll know what's going to get them, what's going to hook them and think about creating a curiosity gap. And a curiosity gap is the difference between where they are and what they need to know next.

44:38 So creating a gap like calling them out for where they are and then showing them where they can be is another great way to start a podcast because they go, wait, that's me, what do I have to do next? So that's just another way to kind of format a great start to a podcast. I have a few more things great episodes on stop at tips. They expose the deeper mechanism, you know, in business, branding, coaching, creators, anything. You use this storytelling structure that not only has the tips but goes deeper than the tips gives them. You know, the mechanism behind it, the reason why something is happening, the purpose that behind why you do something.

45:19 Going deeper is going to connect with people. And then one more. I think I had quickly, let's see, maybe not Nope, I'm good. I think that was the last one. Jonathan, I just want to say you did a fantastic job with this episode because as I was listening to this, I thought, man, this could get into a really interesting discussion here in the chat. And I felt like you did a fantastic job, Jonathan, of picking out the things that we could learn from it, the things that are key takeaways. And I just want to trumpet what you did today, my friend. Great job today. And like I said at the beginning or a couple times, Ernest, if you haven't listened to this episode, do yourself a favor and go listen to it.

46:01 Not necessarily. Well, I think because of the content, yes, but understanding your own emotional journey throughout it because if you can replicate that with your content, you are going to be remarkable in your content. So, Jonathan, I just want to say great job today. Well thank you, glad I was able to deliver some obsession worthy content at least. Excellent. I want to encourage everybody to join us tomorrow. We're going to have a very interesting show tomorrow. We're going to talk about pre interviewing. We're actually going to do some role-playing. So don't forget to join us tomorrow, 7:00 AM And I wish everybody a great day today. Thanks for joining us today.