Concrete decay has been detected: cord-cutting undermined the revenue model, and alternative programming from streamers did the rest.
123 million Americans watched the Super Bowl live on February 12th. This unbelievable number once again marks the power of live sports broadcasts on television, a dream marriage for every advertiser. Those who want to reach a broad mass audience gladly choose the Sports-TV combination. This year will be a fantastic year for broadcasters who are (partly) dependent on advertising for financing. The European Football Championship, the Olympic Games, and a series of other great events; TV advertising will break records this year. The old medium is not doing so bad after all.
It's no wonder that the value of sports rights keeps increasing. The English Premier League remains the unrivaled frontrunner in this regard. In December, the new deal for domestic rights was sealed for the unbelievable amount of nearly 8 billion euros, an increase of 30% compared to the previous 3-year deal. Several pay TV channels have become entirely dependent on top football, know that the streamers will enter the battle and have no option but to engage. Of course, this will lead to accidents if policies remain unchanged. An intelligent solution has been found in the Netherlands, where long-term, joint exploitation of football rights leads to a win-win situation.
At the beginning of this year, two notable new initiatives emerged elsewhere. First off, a very remarkable deal in the United States came about between players who were fierce competitors until recently. In the United States, sports on TV belonged to ESPN. In its heyday, as many as 100 million Americans subscribed to ESPN 1 and 2, and sports rights were long-term deals, ensuring no surprises on the cost side would emerge. Shareholder Disney was, of course, delighted with this simple but highly effective business model for years. However, in recent years, concrete decay has been detected: cord-cutting undermined the revenue model, and alternative programming from streamers did the rest. Disney's own streaming service ESPN+ couldn't fill the gap.
Under pressure, everything becomes fluid, as became evident again at the beginning of the year. The three sworn archenemies Fox, Disney, and Warner Bros. Discovery are joining forces to launch a sports streaming platform. This is not just a deal where a common front door is created, behind which all services are separately served. It seems to become truly one platform where all content is available at one common price. The name for the new platform has not yet been announced, but it is possible that old brands like ESPN will make way for a new one.
A more modest initiative emerges in Europe. The EBU (European Broadcasting Union) starts Eurovision Sport, making intelligent use of a well-known brand. Here too, it's about one platform, on which all swimming, athletics, and gymnastics should be visible. Of course, this initiative pales in comparison to what's happening in the US, but it's innovative nonetheless. The 'old media' are renewing themselves under pressure from consumer demand and the undoubtedly impending attack from the major streamers.
When we launched one of the first European MCN's 15 years ago, the narrative was simple: it was YouTube versus Linear TV. We were the disruptors, and broadcast TV became traditional media.
But looking at the industry today, that era feels like a lifetime ago. We've moved from a 'two-horse race' to a total fragmentation of attention. In the next few minutes I'll talk you through that evolution, and share why I believe the biggest disruption is actually yet to come.
The Battle for the Eyeballs (2016-2017)
Fast forward to 2016, we entered a new battle of attention; the Creator Economy. Suddenly, it wasn't just YouTube, but also Instagram, Snapchat, and a newcomer called Musical.ly (later TikTok) marked the start of platform cannibalization. TikTok and Instagram weren't just eating into the remaining linear TV time; they were fighting YouTube for every second of the youth's attention. YouTube’s monopoly on digital video was over, while older audiences were finally discovering YouTube, the kids were moving toward hyper-short-form.
This was the moment 'traditional' YouTube videos (the 10-to-20-minute formats) were suddenly seen as 'Long-form.' The definition of patience was definitely changing. And not just among the younger demographic.
Convergence
Today, we see a fascinating (and perhaps slightly alarming) trend: Platform Convergence. Every platform is starting to look exactly like its competitor. YouTube has Shorts, Instagram has Reels, TikTok is pushing into longform, Netflix is experimenting with short clips and Spotify is actively pushing video content. Everyone is fighting for the same 'scroll.'
Simultaneously, the high-end VOD market, with Netflix, HBO, Disney+, Prime Video and Apple TV exploded, alongside the renaissance of audio through podcasts and audiobooks. We are consuming more content than ever before in human history, but it is more fragmented than we could ever imagine just one decade ago.
This leads us to a question we frequently discuss at 3Rivers: (How) can traditional media companies keep up with this velocity?
If broadcasters and production houses are still struggling with a 'Streaming First' mindset, how will they survive this “attention Economy” reality? Take the BBC, for example. Just recently, they announced a landmark partnership with YouTube to produce bespoke, original programming specifically for the platform. Not just clips, but full shows designed for a YouTube-native audience.
When the world's leading public broadcaster admits they can no longer reach the next generation through their own front door, you know the gatekeeper era is officially over. They aren't just 'posting' on YouTube anymore; they are building for it. And it’s not just about content; it’s about infrastructure...
In the US, YouTube is effectively becoming the new 'Cable Company.' Through YouTube TV, they are bundling over 100 linear channels, and by poaching the NFL Sunday Ticket from traditional satellite TV, they’ve secured the ultimate 'must-have' content. They aren't just competing with broadcasters anymore; they are replacing the entire distribution chain.
And we haven't even seen the full storm yet. We are looking at:
These are not just experiments. The micro-drama industry alone is projected to reach $26 billion in annual revenue by 2030. We are seeing startups in this space valued at hundreds of millions of dollars before they even have a full library.
So If YouTube is the new cable company, Netflix is not slowing down, TikTok stars are the new Hollywood studios and drama is shortened to 1 minute vertical content... then where does that leave the traditional industry? That’s the question I’ll be tackling this year for us and our clients. A fascinating puzzle, and I’m enjoying every piece of it.
In December, the international creative community gathers in London to take the temperature of the industry: debating trends, forging partnerships, and hunting for the next big format. In recent years, a new fixture has joined the global circuit of media markets: Content London. C21, once primarily a publisher, now increasingly a heavyweight conference organizer, is steadily tightening its grip on streamers, producers, and broadcasters.
The British creative sector, meanwhile, has reason to celebrate. In 2003, a landmark change in legislation granted producers ownership of the IP they create. It transformed the industry. Since then, the UK’s creative economy has expanded at remarkable speed. This year alone, more than two billion £ worth of formats, finished program sales (these days more often counted as library sales), and consumer products will leave the country. For the UK, the United States has long been a natural export market (the absence of a language barrier helps) and nearly half of all international sales continue to flow across the Atlantic.
This success is anything but accidental. Investors are lining up to back creative talent, the government actively supports the production ecosystem, and the talent pool seems endlessly replenished. More than forty new production companies launch each year, even as the domestic market stagnates. The UK advertising market may be under pressure, but the country’s robust export pipeline more than compensates. I’ve worked in this sector for around fifteen years, and its consistent level of creative excellence never ceases to impress.
The framework may have been shaped by government policy, but it is creative entrepreneurs who continue to push the industry forward. Take Richard McKerrow, founder of Love Productions and the mind behind The Great British Bake Off. Or Stephen Lambert, creator of Gogglebox and Undercover Boss and founder of Studio Lambert. Lambert has built a powerhouse team capable of elevating even externally conceived IP, The Traitors being the most striking example, to extraordinary global success. Each year brings a new wave of talent with ideas that spark fresh energy across the industry.
Driving it all is the British audience itself: curious, loyal, and accustomed to high-quality homegrown programming. Every genre thrives; from soaps (yes, Coronation Street is still going strong) to prestige drama, from factual to entertainment. Anyone wanting to understand what true creative entrepreneurship looks like need only spend some time in the capital of the audiovisual world.
Skeptics might point to turbulence: the challenges at the BBC and Channel 4, Sky’s bid for ITV, or the looming saturation of the streaming market. The rules of the audiovisual landscape are indeed being rewritten. But the British creative engine shows little sign of slowing. It continues to do what it has always done best: turn ideas into global successes.
Do you remember that video from 2006 featuring YouTube founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen? The two young men addressed the 'YouTube Community' with promises of continued innovation and product development. But after just two and a half minutes, they could no longer keep a straight face. They had just sold their barely 18-month-old, loss-making company to Google for a staggering 1.65 billion dollars.
At the time, many thought Google had lost its mind for paying such an astronomical amount for a fledgling startup. But it quickly became clear that the tech giant had placed a calculated bet. The modest YouTube maintained its position as the market leader in online video, while Google's own platform never gained traction. The team at Google had already recognized that video would become the next killer application on the Internet. Instead of competing, they acquired the persistent rival that was standing in their way, regardless of the cost. The rest is history. According to social media expert Jonatan de Boer, YouTube now generates over 36 billion dollars in annual revenue.
Today, YouTube is unquestionably the largest video platform in the world. Monthly views are measured in the trillions, and the number of active channels approaches 5 million. What stands out is that, according to a recent report by Evan Shapiro, nearly 95 percent of all views come from just the top 10 channels. What began as a platform for short-form, user-generated content is now evolving into a wide-reaching video ecosystem. And increasingly, major media companies are embracing it.
Just a decade ago, traditional broadcasters were extremely hesitant to publish content on YouTube. The Dutch public broadcaster NPO offers a striking example. Acting under the leadership of then-chairman Henk Hagoort, the organization tightly controlled content distribution and explicitly forbade its affiliated broadcasters from using YouTube.
The situation today could not be more different. YouTube is now seen as an ideal platform to promote television programs. An additional reason has emerged as well. YouTube attracts a predominantly younger audience, which gives media companies a valuable opportunity to connect with a harder-to-reach demographic.
Channel 4 in the United Kingdom was among the first broadcasters to recognize the platform’s potential. After a test phase, they decided last year to start publishing long-form content on YouTube. They were also allowed to manage advertising on their Channel 4 YouTube page themselves, with a share of the revenue naturally going to Google.
This created a win-win situation. The broadcaster gained additional reach. YouTube gained more compelling content for its viewers. And both parties benefited from the resulting revenue. YouTube is now often watched on television screens, competes directly with Netflix, and even commands more viewing time in the United States, with 12 percent compared to Netflix’s 7.5 percent. ITV has already followed with a similar deal, and it seems inevitable that others will join. All of this continues to strengthen YouTube's already dominant position: in just 20 years, the once awkward underdog has grown into a mighty media giant.