Happy New Year! I hope you’ve worked off the overindulgence and are ready for the year ahead.
“Thrive in ‘25!” Right? Or is it more like “Exist to ’26?” Let’s hope not, but I fear the upswing everyone’s banking on for TV might never materialise.
Last month on LinkedIn, I wrote an article on one way to save TV. It sparked more conversation than I expected. In case you missed it, here’s the gist: TV is over-regulated, driving up production costs. Higher costs = higher risk, which leads to cautious commissioning strategies and smaller tariffs. The result? Fewer viewers.
Why? Audiences want premium content. If traditional TV doesn’t deliver, they’ll go elsewhere—streamers or deregulated platforms offering more specialised, often better programming. This has put TV channels into a doom loop: the less they spend, the worse their programming gets, and the more viewers desert them.
Why Stop Commissioning?
TV is a business. At its core, it’s about money, and right now, channels are haemorrhaging cash. Programming costs are high, ad revenue is dwindling, and brands are pouring their budgets into big-tech platforms. TV can’t compete. Quite simply, as they say in the US, “the math doesn’t add up.”
So what needs to happen? Channels need to save money and become more competitive. And producers—who rely on channels to grow IP—need those channels to survive. There are two ways forward:
1. Deregulate TV.
2. Regulate big-tech platforms.
Regulating platforms like YouTube or Facebook is nearly impossible. They don’t commission content—they’re just publishers. YouTube alone has nearly a million hours of content uploaded daily. How do you regulate that?
Ironically, curating content through commissioning has caused strict TV industry regulations.Governments have historically wanted to keep powerful media in check. But TV isn’t the most powerful platform anymore—it’s simply the most regulated.
Move to an Acquisition-Only Model
If channels stop commissioning content and focus solely on acquiring it, they can shed much of their regulatory burden. Public service obligations like news and sports might remain, but even those are increasingly handled by commercial entities. Netflix, for instance, is full of DEI-focused programming, proving that commercial platforms can cater to diverse audiences. What about local programming? People worry it would disappear. I disagree. My Amazing War Stories podcast is a good example—it’s British-first editorially, but most of my listeners are in the US. Local stories can thrive globally when they’re good enough. This model could even help British content reach wider audiences.
And anyway, isn’t that what the BBC is for? Other channels need to compete properly in the international market—with British-first productions, and less parochial content that will sell in other territories.Channels would then function more like YouTube or any other publisher-broadcaster. They’d cherry-pick content and wouldn’t need massive commissioning teams, budgets or legal departments. Instead, an independent regulator—like the British Board of Film Classification— would ensure editorial standards, taking the burden off channels. Channels could buy programs knowing they’re compliant and safe.
How Would Programming Get Funded?
Think of how the movie industry works. Studios don’t ask permission to make films. They fund them themselves or bring in external investors, then license the finished product to cinemas, streamers, or TV channels. TV could work wholly the same way. Producers would create shows independently, retain ownership of their work, and sell it to whoever offers the best deal. This gives producers more control and opens up new revenue streams.
What Needs to Happen for This to Work?
Several changes would make this model a reality:
• Government incentives: Tax breaks or grants, like those in Canada or Singapore, could attract investment into the media industry.
• Private equity and VC funding: With government support, venture capital would flow in, giving producers access to new sources of financing.
• Independent Broadcaster-backed funds: Channels could invest in funds for content production but wouldn’t control how content is made. Otherwise, that’s commissioning, and we’re back to square one.
• Terms of Trade for Producers: There would need to be minimum price guarantees set in place so producers are paid fairly for the their content. A free market will always means the best content will always attract the most money.
Why Would This Help?
This model could transform the industry almost immediately. Channels could save millions by shedding an outdated system. No commissioners, fewer lawyers, and cheaper acquisitions rather than expensive commissions. In short, channels survive—and we need them to.
Producers, meanwhile, would gain the freedom to create ideas they believe in. With private equity, brand partnerships, and other financing options, we’d see a content boom driven by producers who own their work and reap the rewards.
Most importantly, we’d see more original IP. Commissioners, understandably, play it safe to cater to narrow audiences. But this limits creativity. Producers, by contrast, could create content designed to resonate globally, not just domestically.
So, what do you think? Is it time to shake things up? Let’s make 2025 the year TV reinvents itself.
Ed Sayer is a senior media consultant and creator of Amazing War Stories.
