Up next in 10
It started with the weakest premieres in HBO history, but six years and four seasons later, Industry is one of the biggest things on TV.
In its first season, it was a tense, claustrophobic investment banking drama, following a cohort of grads trying to survive a brutal financial environment.
Now, Industry has morphed into a state of the nation romp around the City, Westminster and beyond – lampooning everything from ESG to fintech.
And its creators – Mickey Down and Konrad Kay – were both investment bankers earlier in their career. But, is the series actually realistic?
City AM's Matt Kenyon and Felix Armstrong dig into whether the hit series holds up.
Get more of City AM 👇
🌐 http://www.cityam.com
X(formerly Twitter): http://twitter.com/CityAM
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cityam
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/city_am
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/cityam
#Industry #TV #Business #Finance #Culture
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
It started with one of the weakest
0:01
premieres in HBO history. But six years
0:04
and four seasons later, industry is one
0:07
of the biggest things on TV. In its
0:09
first series, it was a tense,
0:10
claustrophobic investment banking drama
0:13
following a cohort of grads trying to
0:15
survive a brutal financial environment.
0:17
But now the series has morphed into a
0:20
state-of-the- romp around the city,
0:22
Westminster and beyond, lampooning
0:25
everything from ESG to UK fintech.
0:27
Industry, which counts Marissa Abella
0:29
and Kit Harrington among its stars,
0:30
captures the square mile in a
0:32
particularly seedy, sexy light, and its
0:34
creators Mickey Down and Conrad K were
0:37
both investment bankers earlier in their
0:39
career. But is the series actually
0:42
realistic? Well, I'm joined by CCM
0:44
reporter and avid industry viewer Felix
0:47
Armstrong to dig into whether the series
0:49
holds up. I would say absolutely massive
0:52
spoiler warning for anyone watching. I
0:54
think people have to accept they have
0:55
been warned that's series one to four.
0:58
So Felix, just to kick off,
1:00
>> I feel like the most City AM of the
1:03
story lines is at the beginning of
1:04
series 3, we get the Kit Harrington
1:07
fronted energy company, the clean energy
1:10
company, Lumi, and they kick off doing
1:12
their their IPO on the London Stock
1:14
Exchange, and that's how it opens the
1:16
season. What do you make of that
1:18
particular plotline?
1:19
>> In a way, I think that's for me when the
1:22
season got really good. I think when you
1:24
have this very charismatic front of this
1:26
business, I think that's very true to
1:28
life and I think especially in uh the
1:30
energy kind of start startup space but I
1:33
think the way it captured a kind of post
1:35
ESG pivot where sustainability and net
1:38
zero was all the rage and um there was
1:42
this idea that you know these companies
1:43
were really the future and they were
1:45
there was no limit to to how they could
1:47
scale and attract investment. But I
1:48
think the way um we've pivoted away from
1:51
that I think a lot due to more recently
1:53
in Trump's second term um where things
1:56
like sustainability requirements and
1:58
diversity quotas those have become far
2:00
less popular in the US and that's had a
2:02
knock on here as well. The way industry
2:03
has captured that pivot away is is I
2:06
think very true to life and um does kind
2:09
of capture what I think we're reporting
2:11
a lot of the time here. Definitely I
2:12
think there is something to be said for
2:13
having this really enigmatic CEO in the
2:16
Kit Harrington character. uh someone who
2:18
is having to do a huge amount of the
2:20
sales pitch for his own company. I think
2:22
you're right that there was this pivot
2:23
which probably started with the sort of
2:25
energy crisis in 2022 into three and
2:27
then the inflationary pressures from the
2:29
war in Ukraine and then crystallized I
2:31
suppose with the end of the Biden uh
2:34
presidency into Trump 2.0. What do you
2:36
make of the presentation of a of a
2:38
public listing? So obviously we I mean
2:40
part of it might feel a bit nostalgic
2:41
because it's quite exciting and nice to
2:43
see a listing. Obviously, it goes a bit
2:45
wrong for Lumi, but do you think they
2:46
nailed that?
2:47
>> It's all very grand and exciting. Um,
2:50
which I guess as business journalists,
2:52
it is for us, but I I did think there's
2:55
a bit of gray area over how big you're
2:57
meant to think this company is. I think
2:59
Kit Harrington's character is always on
3:01
the tabloid front pages. He attracts a
3:03
lot of attention. The day of the IPO is
3:04
this really big kind of exciting event.
3:06
And I don't know if many companies these
3:08
days um their floats attract that much
3:10
interest. But it does go wrong which I
3:12
think you know is is classic and speaks
3:15
to the way the London Stock Exchange I I
3:18
still think is you know lagging behind
3:19
Wall Street is obviously great for UK
3:21
business in London but they are um very
3:24
rare in recent years. There was a bit of
3:25
an uptick at the end of last year but
3:27
viewers of industry should not think
3:28
that that kind of thing is happening
3:30
every day.
3:31
>> Yes. And I think people also shouldn't
3:32
get it in their heads that somehow these
3:34
floats happen and then are automatically
3:36
followed by some kind of implosion. I
3:38
suppose the normal trajectory for an IPO
3:40
is you'd have a an initial surge, a dip,
3:43
and then a slow rise over the year
3:46
after.
3:47
>> I'm sort of intrigued by what you said
3:48
about the presentation of the media in
3:50
industry. And I think you're absolutely
3:52
spot on to say that there is this idea
3:54
in the series that everyone is following
3:56
capital markets and everyone's obsessed
3:58
with startup founders which well
4:00
obviously we are uh possibly the sort of
4:02
broader UK media environment doesn't
4:04
spend their whole time um thinking about
4:06
them but it is it does loom really large
4:09
in season 4 so you see Kit Harrington
4:12
become this routinely disgraced uh
4:14
individual by the end once he's landed
4:17
in his second uh failed company uh in
4:19
this case the uh the botched payments
4:22
processor or the dodgy payments
4:24
processor turned botched bank tender.
4:27
What what do you make of the
4:28
presentation of the media and
4:30
journalists in in the latest series?
4:33
>> Yeah, I think industry does this really
4:35
interesting thing where it often uses
4:37
real journalists. Um so Ammo Rajin
4:40
interviews Henry Muk in season 3 and
4:42
pops up again in season two season 4. So
4:45
yeah, Henry Mock being Kit Harrington's
4:46
character for the for the uninitiated,
4:48
but also for people who have now had it
4:50
spoiled.
4:50
>> And news agents host Lewis Goodall pops
4:52
up in season 4 hosting a kind of round
4:54
table discussion with some of the
4:55
business leaders and Patrick Braden
4:58
Keith um New Yorker journalist shows up
5:00
in I think one of the final scenes of
5:02
the last episode. And I think that kind
5:04
of stuff while maybe a bit
5:06
misrepresentative of how big these
5:09
companies would be in real life for
5:10
mainstream media, I think that is
5:11
exciting and it works well. Um it's nice
5:14
to see um real life journalistic figures
5:17
in these shows and of course City AM
5:19
gets a shout out in season three.
5:20
>> Well, there's also Yeah, I mean the CCM
5:22
shout out is is is brilliant and
5:24
obviously I mean it clearly reflects the
5:25
the huge huge scope of our
5:28
>> um of our impact which is which was
5:30
great and I'm glad I'm glad they thought
5:32
to do that. So thank you showrunners.
5:33
Interesting too how you get these
5:35
moments. So you have you have the point
5:36
in series 4 where you have the um both
5:40
the CFO and also the another financial
5:42
director of of tender and at this point
5:44
it's becoming clear that the whole thing
5:45
is a bit of a a bit of a sham. That sham
5:48
I'll sort of come on to as well because
5:49
that is also quite unrealistic
5:51
potentially but at that point they come
5:53
face to face with sort of CNN anchors
5:56
and kind of scrutiny and as you say with
5:58
people like Lewis Good. And it's
5:59
interesting how this sort of uh this
6:01
mythmaking then completely breaks apart
6:04
and and it does feel like there is some
6:06
sort of credence lended by having real
6:08
journalists. But there is also a a
6:10
fictional journalist who in this case in
6:12
and this introduced at the beginning of
6:14
the season four in quite glamorous club
6:16
scene is the um the fictional reporter
6:18
Jim Dyker who's played by Charlie Heaton
6:21
known for his role in Stranger Things
6:23
and he works for the fictional and very
6:25
glamorous for a trade publication
6:28
publication Finn Digest. What do you
6:30
think of him and the way that his
6:33
investigative reporting is presented?
6:35
Yeah, I think that's a good point that
6:37
it's very glamorous. When you go into
6:38
his office for the first time, I
6:39
couldn't believe how big it is and how
6:40
many reporters they have.
6:41
>> Bigger than our office.
6:42
>> Bigger than ours. Far far more reporters
6:44
than ours. But he's an interesting
6:46
character. Obviously, he's a very
6:50
poor journalist in an ethical sense. I I
6:52
mean, I think you're meant to believe
6:53
he's got quite good journalistic skills,
6:55
which I think is true. He knows that
6:57
Tender is dodgy and wants to prove it,
7:00
but there's doubt thrown over whether he
7:01
has any financial interest in proving
7:03
this. and he goes to very inappropriate
7:06
lengths to try to interview sources. Um,
7:10
which I can say is something we would
7:11
never do.
7:11
>> No,
7:12
>> there is something, you know, the way
7:14
Charlie Heaton's eyes kind of light up
7:15
when he gets he feels he's getting close
7:17
to this story. I think for for business
7:19
nerds like us, I do think that's
7:21
relatable. And, you know, it's it's nice
7:24
to see business journalists um get
7:27
exposure like that. Although he, you
7:29
know, he's a very very complicated
7:31
figure.
7:32
>> And it's very true. It's something which
7:34
you said business journalism is is
7:36
rarely presented on screen. I can't
7:37
think of many examples at least modern
7:39
examples in the last 20 years or so
7:41
where that has been the case. I think
7:43
what what what always strikes me about
7:45
industry and I think you're right to say
7:46
that it it gets the zeitgeist. It picks
7:50
up on these trends. But I think
7:51
sometimes it it does this at a bit of a
7:53
lag. I I I was really struck by the
7:55
presentation of tender as a fintech in
7:57
this latest series. how it it feels like
8:00
obviously it's kind of impossible
8:01
because it's a fintech which is becomes
8:03
this massive thing. It's already listed
8:05
but it's somehow American founders
8:07
listed in the UK which feels backwards a
8:10
little bit when we look at what's what's
8:11
happening with UK grown fintex going and
8:14
often uh considering listings in the US.
8:16
So that feels a bit unrealistic. It
8:18
feels unrealistic. The whole thing would
8:19
be a complete sham. But also just some
8:21
of the narrative around it and there's
8:23
this this idea that the government are
8:24
so invested in it feels a bit 2021. It
8:27
feels like it comes from this era like
8:29
four or five years ago where there was
8:31
just this infinite funding, a little bit
8:33
less direct scrutiny from investors on
8:36
is this business model actually going to
8:39
make money, liberal VC money and quite
8:43
an old economy uh pre-Trump, pre-
8:47
Ukraine uh approach. So I feel like that
8:50
felt kind of interesting. But this is
8:53
all I suppose in the latest series what
8:55
people know it for if they've just seen
8:57
like some of the first series because at
8:58
that point it felt like quite a
8:59
contained trading floor investment
9:02
banking drama. Was the atmosphere there?
9:05
I think probably disclaimer to anyone
9:07
watching this neither of us have been
9:09
investment bankers but I I know a fair
9:11
few people who have and I'm sure there
9:13
is and we've covered these companies
9:15
before. Were you were you impressed by
9:17
the the atmosphere they created the the
9:20
world they create around peer point the
9:22
original bank in the series?
9:24
>> It seems very compelling. Right. I think
9:26
um yeah as you said I I do have friends
9:29
who have gone towards investment banking
9:31
or are drawn towards it and I think it
9:33
does really get this sense of how
9:36
alluring these companies are and how
9:38
intoxicating they are. I think um as you
9:41
said, basically all of season 1 either
9:43
takes place in the confined space of the
9:45
trading floor or in nightclubs.
9:47
>> Um and in a lot of ways
9:49
>> sometimes they blur.
9:50
>> Yes. And those two settings are both
9:51
very claustrophobic, very intense. I
9:54
think what I liked about the first
9:55
season, you know, it doesn't really have
9:57
anything to do with journalism, the
9:58
first season, but what I liked about it
9:59
is how it feels like a student drama or
10:02
a student comedy in a way. Um you know,
10:04
of things that I used to watch before I
10:06
went to uni, like fresh me, things like
10:07
that. I thought it was Yeah, I think
10:09
maybe it was it was lighter in a way
10:11
back then, but it does it does show how
10:13
intense these those trading flaws are.
10:16
Um, and obviously, as you say, recently
10:19
it's decided to become this show that's
10:22
a lot more about journalism and
10:24
government and business. Yeah. Really
10:26
seeking to kind of reflect political and
10:29
social trends. But I do think you're
10:30
right. I do think in ways it does seem a
10:33
bit behind. I mean by necessity of being
10:35
written probably a year before it's
10:37
aired.
10:37
>> Yeah.
10:38
>> Um I agree with your point on tender
10:40
this banking app where there are
10:42
presentations like at the start of
10:44
season 4 where CEOs and the board
10:46
members are so excited about this idea
10:47
of having a bank in your pocket. I
10:49
couldn't quite understand what they were
10:51
offering that was anything different
10:53
from the the banking apps that we all
10:56
have and are all very used to and are
10:57
not as you say necessarily this thing
11:00
that would attract government and
11:02
journalists. um as avidly as it did.
11:05
Well, I think I think you're absolutely
11:06
right to point out that that broader
11:08
point around the sort of pivot away from
11:10
just doing straight finance into
11:12
something more sort of government
11:13
focused and I suppose that in a way does
11:15
reflect the way that we as a sort of
11:17
broader media environment focus on that
11:19
more now. It feels more politicized. It
11:21
feels more urgent. It it impacts the
11:23
cost of living more. So, I think
11:25
probably our conclusion there is we've
11:27
got this series which certainly captures
11:29
a zeitgeist. It's not maybe 100%
11:31
accurate because what fictional thing
11:33
ever could be, but it's opened up some
11:35
very interesting conversations about
11:37
yeah the the intersections of politics
11:39
and finance and startups and business.
11:43
We have more coverage uh about the
11:45
series. I know we've done a couple of
11:46
opinion pieces on industry. And of
11:49
course, if you want to read more about
11:50
the worlds of investment banking,
11:52
startups, fintech, and of course,
11:54
Westminster politics, you can head over
11:56
to cityam.com.
#News