Paramount Skydance plans to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery and align HBO Max with Paramount+. Executives there also plan to fold BET+ into Paramount+ this year to scale reach and streamline offerings. 

Meanwhile, Disney is deepening its Hulu integration by bringing its content into the Disney+ app. The company has signaled a move toward a single viewing destination with distinct brand hubs for Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN. 

Across the industry, streamers are scaling up ad-supported tiers and lean harder into live sports as they compete for audience attention and ad dollars. Yet, even as services pour billions into original programming, viewers struggle to explain what truly differentiates one streaming brand from another. 

That gap between investment and perception sets the stage for new research from Hub Entertainment. Its study, Evolution of Video Branding, examines how TV and streaming brands shape viewer decision-making in an increasingly crowded marketplace. The findings show strong brand recognition but weak brand clarity. Roughly two-thirds of viewers say they feel confident explaining how a streamer differs from competitors. That figure shows no improvement from last year, suggesting that confidence outpaces actual clarity. 

Exclusive originals no longer drive streaming differentiation 

Many services attempt to stand out through exclusive original programming, but that strategy no longer delivers the impact it once did. Original series now appear across nearly every major platform, turning exclusivity into an expectation rather than a true differentiator. 

Hub’s research highlights the limits of that approach. Viewers still cite exclusive originals as a key differentiator for leading services. However, they struggle to identify meaningful differences in value, usability, or content focus. As a result, scripted content feels increasingly interchangeable across platforms, making it harder for viewers to associate any one service with a distinct genre or identity. 

Viewers cannot remember where to watch programming 

Confusion also extends to where shows live. In a crowded streaming environment, viewers frequently forget which platform carries which title. Less than half of viewers correctly identify where to watch signature series such as Landman on Paramount+, The Pitt on HBO Max, or High Potential on Hulu within Disney+. Awareness drops even further for newer buzz-driven titles. Barely one in 10 viewers correctly identifies HBO Max as the home of Heated Rivalry. 

That confusion carries real consequences. If viewers cannot remember where a show lives, that show fails to reinforce the brand behind it. Original programming loses power as a brand signal when it does not anchor clearly to a service in viewers’ minds. 

For streamers, sports still breaks through the noise 

Sports programming shows a greater ability to cut through the interchangeable scripted landscape in Hub’s research. Peacock’s February coverage of the Super Bowl and Winter Olympics drives stronger differentiation around sports. It underscores that live, culturally significant events can deliver clear brand signals. 

YouTube moves closer to a TV identity 

While traditional streamers wrestle with differentiation, YouTube continues to move deeper into the television conversation. Long viewed primarily as a social and creator driven platform, YouTube increasingly functions like a TV network in the eyes of many viewers. 

Hub’s research shows a near split between viewers who see YouTube as a creator platform and those who see it as a TV or streaming service. Younger audiences lead that shift. Thirty-two percent of viewers under the age of 35 consider YouTube more of a TV or streaming service, compared with 24% of viewers age 35 and older. The growth of long form content and living room viewing pushes YouTube further into traditional television territory. 

As consolidation accelerates and platforms bundle more content under fewer destinations, scale alone does not solve the branding problem facing streamers. Hub’s research shows that brand clarity comes less from the volume of originals and more from the consistency of what a service represents to viewers. Services that send clear signals around value, quality, genre focus, or viewing experience stand out more, even as individual programs blur together in viewers’ minds. 

The post As streaming consolidates, content no longer differentiates appeared first on Digital Content Next.

That makes sense: the platform has grown over the last two decades into a service that’s  too big to ignore. Last year it reportedly generated $60bn in revenue, indicative of its might. Even the most reticent broadcaster has experimented with dropping short highlights onto the service. It has also proven to be an excellent place to host video podcasts, with the visual element acting as a multiplying factor in terms of views.

Most importantly, however, YouTube has been consistent in delivering views to its biggest channels.

That consistency will be a welcome respite for publishers. With AI-powered search results reportedly cutting traffic to news sites’ by up to 79%, it’s understandable that they would look to increase their presence on a platform that is, at least, reliable in at least one way. 

To that end we have seen a number of news sites recruiting for YouTube-specialist video producers, suggesting that the platform is climbing publishers’ priority lists in 2026. The Reuters Institute’s ‘Journalism, media, and technology trends and predictions 2026’ found that “in terms of off-platform strategies, YouTube will be the main focus for publishers this year with a net score of +74, up substantially on last year”.

In the UK, for example, Reach Plc’s CFO Darren Fisher noted that Facebook and YouTube “are increasingly rewarding, engaging content”, in the face of falling digital revenue elsewhere. 

Where before the platform might have been seen as a source of supplementary ad revenue, it is now being factored into audience acquisition strategies more directly, as legacy media seeks ways to turn off-platform engagement into a viable audience development strategy.

In the UK the platform is the second most-watched service in the UK, behind the BBC and ahead of the commercial-powered ITV. That provides media businesses with a reliable opportunity to scoop up new fans, who can either be monetized through ads on the platform or converted to paying subscribers on the business’ own site.

YouTube personalities

Typically, the channels that succeed on YouTube have a recurring team of creators and on-camera talent, which is consistent with video consumption trends and preferences. This format, aping the traditional television content alongside which YouTube increasingly competes on CTV, is increasingly personality-driven. There are YouTube news stars whose fame eclipses that of traditional television.

That presents a big shift for some media businesses who typically put the brand front and center over individual journalists.

Chris Gallipeau, director of video and audio strategy at Canada-based Postmedia notes that, indeed, the team has found personality-led content – or at least videos with consistent hosts – has worked especially well across its brands/ “We’ve also found that having a consistent host or voice makes a big impact on engagement, he said. “Videos with a familiar, regular personality often see viewership double compared to those without. 

“The best performing voices or faces are often well-known contributors and popular names from our opinion and commentary sections of the newspapers where audiences already have a strong connection to their perspectives.”

Similarly, The Sun’s Director of Video Jon Lloyd explains that works well on YouTube, with its reliance on thumbnails that prominently feature the hosts:

“We have found through hosts, shows are more likely to become appointment viewing  with viewers. Our viewers for Tactics Exposed love Dean Scoggins and Will Pugh’s football expertise – and let us know in the comments. They come back to it weekly as they know they’re going to have a clearer understanding of the game. They might stay through any dips if they recognize and trust the person speaking, which leads to longer listening sessions and higher completion rates.”

As an example, the group’s Vancouver Sun editor-in-chief Harold Munro is a frequent face on the paper’s channel, speaking with various members of the team in explainer style shortform videos. Some publications have a leg up on that approach, having monetized their personality-led podcasts on the platform for years. 

Chris Stone, executive producer of podcasts and video at the New Statesman, says: “That video extends our audience reach on YouTube but also on social platforms. The purpose of that is to grow the top of our funnel. Having video helps to expand your reach on socials, that’s certainly what’s happening with us… and the easiest way to produce that is from our podcasts.”

Consistency and growth

Gallipeau explains that, even if the form of the journalism has necessarily changed, the group’s editorial strategy is an extension of its coverage elsewhere: “Postmedia has found success in both long and short-form video content on YouTube especially for our major news brands. 

“What seems to really drive success is the topic. For brands like National Post and The Toronto Sun, there is a big appetite for federal and provincial political content. When we produce videos on those subjects, regardless of length, it generally outperforms the average video.”

That lines up with research about the news consumption habits of US adults. Per a Pew Research Center study, 35% of US adults self-report that they ‘regularly’ get news from YouTube channels.

The big question is the extent to which YouTube will remain consistent and prioritize that sort of news-led content within its algorithm. Writing for Nieman Lab, Joon Lee argues that, as it gets squeezed by Netflix, YouTube has recognized the need for legitimacy of the sort that legacy media can confer. 

As Lee puts it, “YouTube doesn’t need journalism to boost ad revenue. It needs journalism to anchor its reputational power in the same way newspapers once anchored civic life.”

Shorts and resources

While YouTube might want legacy content to increase its legitimacy, publishers do have to tailor their content to each platform if they want to succeed. 

Charlie Carmichael, Head of Audience at talkSPORT, states that the brand has seen some significant uptick in subscribers as a result of taking advantage of the subchannel option on YouTube. “This platform-first mindset helped us grow our YouTube revenue by 30% YoY in 2025,” he said. “In addition to diversifying our audience and reducing the talkSPORT main channel’s share of views from 81% to 67%. It’s also unlocked new partnership opportunities, and we’ve increasingly experimented with live-streaming non-traditional rights.”

However, despite a media brand’s popularity on shelves or screens, there is plenty more competition on the video site. As a result there are examples of best practice that even the biggest news brands have to adhere to, particularly with regards to recurring personalities and recognizable series.

Gallipeau explains: “On some of our larger brands, we work to apply YouTube best practices to help our video content stand out. We’ve also found great success in using formats like YouTube Shorts to raise awareness and drive traffic to our channels. This has a significant impact on subscriber and viewership growth.”

The benefit of committing to the Shorts format is that – while tweaking is still required – it allows media business’ YouTube efforts to bear fruit elsewhere. 

At the New York Times, for example, the video team is investing heavily in vertical video of the sort that can sit on YouTube Shorts in addition to TikTok and Instagram. The paper’s video director Solana Pyne told The Hollywood Reporter that “our videos live both on our own platform and on a whole range of social platforms, Instagram, TikTok, also YouTube. We don’t make video that would live only or thrive only on one platform.”

Unsurprisingly, many other newspapers are making their video content work harder on the platform. 

The Guardian, for example, repurposes sections of its longform explainers for the Shorts section. It acts as both a trailer for the ‘main’ video and an antennae that reaches the subsection of the YouTube audience that primarily consumes Shorts.

As YouTube climbs publisher and broadcasters’ priority lists in the face of uncertainty elsewhere, they are to some extent dancing to the platform’s tune in terms of video format Personality-led videos and the parasocial relationships they create with an audience are the order of the day, and Shorts are practically mandatory for discovery.

Alex Rothwell, Head of Video for The Times and The Sunday Times, notes that the team has identified that different forms of video on the platform work towards different ends. He said, “We have different approaches to our multiple YouTube channels to serve specific goals; revenue, audience growth, or a combination of the two.”

He does note, though, that maintaining a consistent identity across those channels is key: “Across all of our YouTube output, we maintain a consistent visual identity by using The Times thumbnail branding. We’ve also developed repeatable formats – such as Explains, Investigates, and Documentaries – which help build a loyal audience over time by establishing a clear and recognisable editorial identity.”

YouTube, then, presents legacy publishers with an opportunity to widen the top of the funnel when it comes to acquiring audiences. It is, though, still a platform over which publishers and broadcasters have next to no control; the trick is in gaming its ability to concentrate audiences around a news channel while increasing investment with the brand itself.

The post Publishers rethink YouTube strategy as search traffic erodes appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Despite progress, there remains cultural challenges that could stymie their growth outside of the Far East. As Tom Harrington, Head of TV at Enders Analysis points out, “People have been trying to make drama more snackable in the West for a long time and it has never really taken.” 

Jen Cooper, a vertical drama critic and journalist, sees a change though, with experimentation and interest growing. “America is beginning to tip … people are aware of them and willing to kind of talk about it now. I know from friends in New York that [say they] see people on the subway watching vertical dramas.” However, “America is nine to 12 months ahead of both Europe and the UK,” she says. 

The primary audience is “women aged about 25 to 65 who were looking for romance,” according to Cooper. Henry Soong, founder of US-based microdrama company, Watch Club, notes that many in this category have disposable income to be spent on those microtransactions. 

While several apps have sprung up, there are currently two major players in the field – China-backed Reel Short and Singapore-based Dramabox. According to Sensor Tower’s State of Mobile 2026 report, downloads of Reel Short increased 115% year-on-year in 2025, with the researchers finding there were 2.3 billion downloads of Short Drama apps over the 12-month period.  

Unsurprisingly, the global media industry has started to take notice.  

Making mega money from Microdramas 

Microdramas are generally monetized via microtransactions; viewers are lured in with free episodes before being asked to cough up cash. Big name brands such as Shein and Crocs are starting to take interest though and back projects, according to Cooper 

Research from Omdia back in October estimated that microdramas would bringing n $11billion globally last year. They said: “60% of global microdrama revenue comes from subscription or transactional payments, often following a free introductory model.” At that time, China accounted for 83% of total revenue. 

The basic monetization model involves making the first seven to 10 episodes of a show available for free. The companies producing the shows then ask for “about 50 cents per minute long episode, or they charge you a weekly subscription, which could bring in $17 USD per week,” explains Soong. Some also provide the option to purchase digital coins or watch an advert in-app.  

The audience hook 

The shows find their audience through heavy marketing on social media, drawing viewers back to the platform on which the show is based. That is how Cooper, a bookseller before becoming an expert in the medium, discovered them.  

Marketing spend is around nine times the production costs. “It’s all about really aggressive customer acquisition, working around the clock with social media ads, pushing them out, seeing what takes off, experimenting,” she says. 

“Spreading on social media is the key. “You want the show to go viral,” says Dan Lowenstein, a director on a many vertical dramas 

Crucial to turning people from casual viewers brought in by social media into paying customers is the hook – the episode at which people are required to pay. This is not just a responsibility of the business team, but the creatives too. Lowenstein says it is “part of…my job to make that hook a reality. So, you can play with that a lot. And that’s the that’s the kind of good part of this format is that there’s room to play and room to experiment.” 

Cooper outlines that a show has production costs of $100,000 to $200,000. That number is ridiculously low compared to traditional film budgets. 

Costs are kept down by very quick shoot times. “The whole thing is that you have these six, seven days to shoot basically a feature film,” explains Lowenstein. “The business plan is about smaller budgets, less risk… you’re shooting on average 12 to 13 pages a day.” That is considerably more than on traditional TVs or movies. The vertical nature of the output helps with this. “You’re not seeing as much you can shoot faster, says Lowenstein. 

Another key element of the revenue strategy is making a huge amount of content, possible due to those low shoot costs. “There’s been a race to just put out more and more,” says Cooper. There is an element of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Cooper believes that “it does feel with some of the apps it’s kind of quantity over quality.” 

Niche content ripe for growth

The truth is, many of these shows are schlocky and low grade, with an emphasis on romance. Some even veer towards the pornographic. (There is a BDSM tag on Reel Short, for instance.) The acting and story lines are basic and hammy. The range of subject matter and quality may need to mature for the format to gain wider traction.

“I would categorize all of these shows on Reel Short and Drama Box as romance” says Soong. “And the reason why people are willing to pay per episode is because it fills a similar emotional need as OnlyFans does.” I’m sure various show creators and actors would dispute this, but the comment is largely a fair one.  

Platforms like Reel Short and Drama Box have a huge amount of power and, to access their particular shows, you must have their app. Of course, these firms, which, as Cooper explained, are essentially media ventures back by massive tech companies, can further exploit the IP they create. At a smaller scale, Soong is hoping his firm can build a social network around the vertical dramas, again keeping viewers on the platform. 

The content is certainly addictive. I began watching one show when researching this piece and found myself increasingly intrigued as to what would happen next. I later realized I’d watch 26 episodes of a certain show over a couple of different sittings, including navigating adverts to keep going. It wasn’t exactly HBO-style prestige TV, but I had been reeled in.  

While the recent growth of microdrama’s is certainly exciting, one high-profile failure looms large in media memory: Quibi. The app, launched by Jeffrey Katzenberg and led by Meg Whitman, which garnered $1.75B and folded six months after launch, was meant to bring shortform streaming to the US.   

Maybe it was just bad timing, as we headed into the pandemic and people were at home on big TVs, not swiping on the go on their phones.  Maybe the West was not yet ready to consume content in this way, before audiences became acclimated to TikTok, Instagram Reels and YouTube shorts.  

Vertical dramas have been popular in China for a while now. Though it’s not yet clear whether their growth elsewhere will be a fad or a genuine shift in consumption habits, however the future plays out, there is currently enough interest in microdramas that the format is worth a look. There is a real sense that this is an area for creativity and a way to capitalize on the audience appeal of social vertical video.

The post How microdramas hook viewers and drive revenue appeared first on Digital Content Next.

These fundamental infrastructure realities are is already changing how Free Ad-Supported Streaming TV (FAST) operators think about programming, production, and discovery. Here are practical lessons this reality is forcing FAST operators to address:

Discovery is still driven by people, platforms, and the guide

One of the most consistent drivers of viewership we’ve seen is still the simplest: When athletes tell their social followers to tune in, viewership spikes. Across every sport Swerve has worked with — from boxing and MMA to volleyball, basketball, and football — athlete promotion reliably moves audiences. In a crowded FAST environment, social influence remains a key discovery engine. Leagues and rights holders that understand how to activate athletes have a meaningful advantage.

Platform promotion matters too, and it often favors live events. Swerve streams more than 300 live events per year on average, and there’s tremendous opportunity for expansion in live events on FAST. But one of the more important realities we’ve observed is that live isn’t always the top performer. Across many types of sports, replays often outperform live events. A major reason is straightforward: Viewers are discovering content by browsing the on-screen guide. That behavior underscores the importance of detailed, accurate, informative metadata and the UI decisions that determine whether content is findable in the first place. FAST may be delivered through streaming, but discovery often functions like linear television: What’s visible wins.

Libraries and replays are doing more work than we expected

Because guide browsing is such a powerful driver, FAST can create unexpected opportunities for content that already exists. For new and existing leagues benefiting from investment and momentum right now, FAST provides another shot at reaching a wider audience, especially for rights holders with video libraries of competitions they haven’t showcased because they’ve had other priorities. Replays and libraries don’t just fill hours; they create more entry points for discovery, and more chances for viewers to stumble into a sport or league they didn’t know they’d care about. The fundamentals are there, but channels and rights holders need to package that depth in a way that supports browsing behavior.

Audience appetite is broader than legacy assumptions

With two quarters of data, we’re seeing clear patterns in what performs, while we continue to test and refine programming. Some of the results have been surprising. STIHL Timbersports events, featuring competitive wood-chopping with chainsaws and axes, defy geographic boundaries, with competitions from Benelux countries performing as well as competitions from the U.S. and Canada. Other top-performing standouts include Women’s Football Alliance and Athletes Unlimited basketball and volleyball.

The range of competitions that can perform well — from trampoline to poker to pool — also reflects research Swerve conducted in 2025 showing younger audiences’ willingness and interest in following more than a handful of sports. We’ve leaned into that insight through our partnership with Rebel Girls, launching a weekly family program featuring outstanding women athletes in a Saturday-morning time slot. The point isn’t that every niche will break out. It’s that FAST audiences appear more open than many operators assume. Channels that program with curiosity, consistency, and clear packaging can unlock demand that looks invisible in other distribution environments.

Production investment is a key threshold for success

Another key lesson for new and evolving sports leagues is the importance of production. This is true for long-form live matches, but it’s also true (and increasingly urgent) for short-form video, particularly for anyone trying to capture attention among younger audiences. For newer and smaller leagues seeking to build fandom, production can make or break their ability to develop relationships with fans who are used to established norms.

Production investment also allows rights holders to control their IP, which matters for developing leagues where image and storytelling are inseparable from growth. Not every league has the financial capability to shoot with more than one camera, and some struggle to finance production for an entire season. But technology can help: from AI captioning to cloud production, newer, lower-cost tools have lowered the barrier to entry. What hasn’t changed is the underlying reality that production quality shapes trust and trust shapes retention.

Infrastructure is a barrier to FAST growth

FAST is in a convergence moment, with platform growth, live content appetite, and expanding libraries colliding with a persistent lack of standardization and robust infrastructure. Tracking analytics across different platforms remains challenging. The lack of third-party metrics is maddening. And the industry’s unwillingness to agree to and adhere to common standards creates friction for creators, platforms, and audiences alike.

The live events and libraries are there. The athletes are there. The audience appetite is there. What we’ve learned so far is that the constraint is less about supply and more about infrastructure: standardization, data sharing, and discoverability. FAST’s next phase of growth will depend on whether those systems evolve fast enough to match the pace of the market.

Putting Swerve’s FAST lessons Into practice

Swerve’s early experience on FAST has reinforced that growth alone isn’t the differentiator. Planning full seasons, pairing live events with replays, and making content easy to find has mattered as much as launching more programming. As FAST continues to scale, the operators who win will be those who understand that programming, production, and discovery function as one system and build accordingly.

The post FAST growth has an infrastructure gap appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Discovery and recommendations drive excitement 

Survey results show that audience interest in AI centers around a small number of practical use cases tied directly to discovery and viewing quality. Better recommendations emerge as the leading area of excitement, cited by more than one third of respondents. Improvements in production quality and tools that help viewers decide what to watch next follow closely, each attracting interest from roughly 30% of consumers. Personalization also ranks among the top areas of interest.  

By contrast, more experimental applications, such as appearing in content or fully interactive experiences, draw meaningfully less enthusiasm. The data shows that audiences respond most strongly to AI when it supports relevance, quality, and ease of navigation within the viewing experience.  

Industry investment follows applied use cases 

Industry activity increasingly aligns with these audience priorities. The research documents growing experimentation with AI in production workflows such as editing and visual effects, areas where efficiency gains remain largely invisible to viewers.  

Interest in applied AI also appears in rising participation at industry AI conferences, which more than doubled in attendance over a two-year period. At the same time, the study emphasizes that these investments only succeed if audiences value the resulting experiences, reinforcing the importance of consumer acceptance.  

AI adoption grows alongside consumer expectations 

Consumer adoption of AI continues to accelerate. Nearly 73% of respondents say they have used generative AI tools, up from 57% the year before. Familiarity also increases, with about 75% reporting that they understand AI and how it works.  

Audience expectations have risen alongside usage. Almost 90% believe AI will have a big impact on everyday life, and about one third expect it to change daily life for everyone. These findings suggest that AI already feels present and substantial to many consumers, even as opinions about its long-term effects continue to form.  

Audience concerns center on authenticity and trust 

Despite growing familiarity with AI among the average consumer, concerns remain pronounced. The most common worry involves losing the ability to distinguish what is real. More than 60% cite unauthorized use of personal likeness as a concern, while nearly as many worry about not knowing whether content is authentic.  

Job loss also ranks high among concerns, cited by more than half of respondents, followed closely by concerns about copyright infringement. These issues persist even among consumers who report high levels of comfort with AI. 

Comfort varies by who uses AI and for what

Acceptance also depends heavily on who uses AI and for what purpose. About 40% of respondents say they feel completely comfortable with regular people using AI for personal tasks. That figure drops to roughly 20% when influencers or companies use AI to build audiences or generate revenue. The data underscores that audiences apply stricter standards to commercial uses and expect greater responsibility and oversight from organizations.  

Knowledge continues to shape acceptance. Among respondents who describe themselves as most familiar with AI, about two-thirds express interest in generating content using well known entertainment IP. More than half of this group also considers that an ethical use of AI. As understanding increases, openness expands, particularly when audiences perceive clear boundaries and responsible application.  

Transparency around AI remains a baseline audience expectation 

Across all segments, transparency in the use of AI stands out as a requirement among audiences. Nearly 90% of respondents believe companies should disclose when AI plays a role in creating content. Disclosure does not register as a differentiator but as a baseline expectation. Audiences want clarity around when AI contributes and how it fits alongside human decision-making.  

Audiences show the strongest interest in AI that improves recommendations, enhances production quality, and simplifies discovery. They express greater caution around uses that affect authenticity, identity, or trust. For media companies, success depends less on how advanced these applications become and more on how closely the use of AI aligns with audience priorities. 

As AI becomes more embedded in media workflows, the opportunity lies in focus and execution. Viewers already signal what they value most: better ways to find content and better experiences once they start watching. The challenge now centers on delivering AI-based benefits clearly, responsibly, and in ways audiences recognize and trust. 

The post Audiences have clear expectations when it comes to AI appeared first on Digital Content Next.

YouTube rewards speed over polish, feedback over control, and consistency over campaigns. Results aren’t simply about reach, but something harder to manufacture later: audience trust and habitual viewing. For organizations accustomed to control and predictability, capitalizing on the true value of YouTube has been challenging to say the least.

These dynamics came into sharp focus during a panel I moderated at the Content London conference in December on the Secrets of YouTube Success. The panelists were Patrick Walker, Senior Advisor at Electrify Video Partner and founder of Nowherian, Luke Hyams, co-founder of Pangaea and former Head of Originals at YouTube, James Loveridge, Co-Managing Director of Little Dot Studios, and Sam Glynne, Head of EMEA, Entertainment and Culture Marketing at UTA. Between them, they represent some of the deepest institutional memory the platform has, people who were there before YouTube knew what it was going to become.

The topic of our discussion was straightforward: What lessons from YouTube’s evolution can be applied today to build audience loyalty, sustainable monetization, and long-term relevance in a rapidly shifting video landscape? For executives, it’s not just about understanding history; it’s about recognizing the behaviors, relationships, and creative choices that will determine who thrives on the platform in the next few years. Many media companies and brands still treat YouTube as a bolt-on distribution channel rather than what it actually is, a direct and ongoing relationship with audiences.

Media leaders have seen this movie before

I first encountered YouTube professionally in 2007, when I was Global Head of Digital at Fremantle. At the time, the idea that a user-generated platform could be a serious commercial partner was controversial, if not seditious. Despite that skepticism, we signed one of YouTube’s earliest global partnerships, which went on to generate tens of millions of dollars for the group. Not because the content was radically different from what we were already making, but because the relationship with the audience was.

Later, as Managing Director of ChannelFlip (one of the early YouTube creator studios), I saw the same pattern repeat. Creators who understood their audiences deeply, published consistently, and responded to feedback in real time routinely outperformed far better resourced traditional media brands. The lesson then, as now, was simple: YouTube rewards those who treat viewers as participants, not recipients.

From distribution to relationship

Early in our panel, it became clear that the industry took years to understand what YouTube truly was. For many companies, success was initially measured in uploads and views rather than in loyalty or trust. Creators, by contrast, quickly learned that the real value was in return visits. They read comments, adjusted formats, experimented publicly and often failed in full view of their audiences. That feedback loop made them faster, sharper, and more relevant than traditional media teams working behind layers of approval.

For executives used to broadcast scheduling, YouTube requires a rethink of what drives loyalty and revenue. While formats, devices, and business models have evolved, the principle of building habitual viewing and trust remains as true today as it was in 2007.

The algorithm is not the villain

YouTube is often described as unforgiving. That’s true. However, it is not arbitrary. Luke Hyams, former Head of Originals at YouTube, reminded the audience that many creators learned early to “post first and apologise later,” experimenting quickly and learning from audience feedback. Thumbnails, titles, and pacing are not optional marketing add-ons; they are part of the storytelling. Optimisation, as James Loveridge noted, is a creative act, not just a technical exercise. Patrick Walker framed the challenge another way, describing a “post-algorithm world” where sustainable businesses build audience ownership rather than relying solely on platform mechanics.

Over-reliance on algorithmic growth is a trap. Formats age, platform dynamics shift, and businesses built entirely on rented reach are fragile. Companies that succeed are those that use the algorithm to find audiences, then work deliberately to keep them. Audience ownership, not algorithmic dependence, is where long-term business value lies.

Why brands still struggle

Brand success on YouTube remains uneven, not because audiences reject brands, but because brands struggle with the loss of control. Content cannot be quietly taken down or endlessly revised. Comments accumulate. Audiences talk back. Trust, once broken, is visible.

Sam Glynne highlighted that brands often attempt to behave like creators but underestimate how quickly audiences notice inauthenticity. Our panel agreed that brands perform best when they treat YouTube as a studio, not a campaign channel. This means investing in talent relationships over time, respecting the audience’s expectations, and accepting that authenticity cannot be reverse-engineered. Creators have always understood this instinctively; organizations are still learning it.

Connected TV and the return of long-form

Another strategic opportunity is the growth of long-form viewing on YouTube via connected TV. Audiences may be leaning back, but they still expect creator-led storytelling, direct address, and a sense of intimacy. Companies that assume connected TV automatically validates old commissioning models will struggle. Those that design long-form formats specifically for creator ecosystems will find growth.

YouTube strategy now cuts across content, brand, product, and distribution. It cannot sit in a social media silo. This is an urgent operational and strategic issue for executives responsible for long-term growth and engagement.

Key takeaways for media executives

For media and advertising leaders, the lessons are practical and immediate:

• Stop treating YouTube as a distribution endpoint; treat it as a relationship platform.
• Optimization is part of creativity; packaging and format matter as much as content quality.
• Views without loyalty are not a business; retention and habitual engagement matter more than scale.
• Brands succeed when they behave like studios, not advertisers, investing in long-term talent relationships.
• Long-term value comes from audience ownership, not algorithmic favor.

YouTube is no longer the future of television. It is part of today’s media infrastructure. Leaders who invest in audience-first thinking, treat creators and talent as strategic partners, and prioritize trust and habitual engagement will find sustainable growth and loyalty. Those who cling to legacy approaches risk irrelevance.

About the author

Claire Tavernier is a media and technology adviser and board chair. She was previously Global Head of Digital at Fremantle and Managing Director of ChannelFlip.

The post From reach to relationship: unlocking value on YouTube appeared first on Digital Content Next.

New research from Kapwing, an online video editing platform, documents the global rise of what many creators and technologists refer to as AI slop. Rather than defining this content by topic or format, the report focuses on how it is produced and distributed. AI slop is created quickly, published at high volume, and optimized to trigger engagement metrics that recommendation systems use to rank and surface content.

Kapwing’s analysis places AI slop within the mechanics of platform distribution, helping clarify what drives visibility. Across YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook, algorithmic systems prioritize scalable engagement signals rather than editorial attributes. Understanding those incentives is essential for publishers to assess where they remain exposed to algorithmic churn and where alternative approaches to audience growth can still exert leverage.

Share of AI slop in recommended video feeds

Kapwing’s analysis of YouTube recommendations finds that a substantial portion of videos shown to new users qualifies as low-quality AI-generated content. In recommendation feeds generated for accounts with limited viewing history, AI slop appears repeatedly rather than as isolated suggestions.

The research identifies entire channels devoted exclusively to producing AI-generated videos at scale. These channels rely on automated workflows to generate visuals, narration, and scripts, often publishing multiple videos per day. Some achieve significant reach and generate revenue through standard platform advertising programs.

Kapwing’s findings suggest that this visibility reflects how recommendation systems function when personalization data is limited. For new accounts, platforms rely more heavily on generalized engagement signals to populate feeds. AI slop frequently meets these criteria, increasing the likelihood that it will be surfaced early and often.

The content itself commonly features recycled visuals, synthetic voiceovers, loosely assembled scripts, and broad or ambiguous topics. Kapwing emphasizes that AI slop is not defined by the use of artificial intelligence alone. Instead, it reflects a production approach designed to maximize engagement metrics such as watch time, posting frequency, and volume.

The earmarks of AI slop

The report distinguishes AI slop from other uses of AI in media production. Many publishers and creators use AI tools to support editing, translation, accessibility, or workflow efficiency. AI slop, by contrast, involves minimal editorial intervention and relies on automation to scale output rapidly.

The defining characteristic of slop is not automation itself, but the absence of editorial oversight. Content decisions are driven primarily by performance data rather than by subject expertise, reporting, or narrative intent. This distinction allows Kapwing to identify slop based on observable production and publishing behaviors.

Signals prioritized by recommendation systems

This research highlights the role of engagement signals in determining content distribution. Across algorithmically curated platforms, recommendation systems rely on metrics that are easy to measure and compare at scale. These include watch time, retention, posting frequency, and consistency.

Editorial attributes such as accuracy, sourcing, originality, and narrative structure do not directly factor into these systems. Their exclusion reflects platform design choices about which signals are incorporated into ranking models.

AI slop is produced to generate high watch time, frequent posting, and consistent engagement. These are the same signals recommendation systems to rank and surface content. High posting frequency increases the likelihood of repeated exposure, particularly in feed-based environments.

Global distribution patterns

Kapwing’s findings show that AI slop is not limited to a single market or language. The report identifies similar patterns across regions and content categories. Channels producing AI slop appear in multiple countries and serve audiences in diverse linguistic contexts.

This distribution reflects shared platform systems rather than localized editorial practices. Where algorithmic recommendation governs visibility, similar outcomes emerge regardless of geography.

From this perspective, AI slop is not an anomaly or a fringe category. It represents a production strategy that performs well within existing algorithmic distribution systems. The research clarifies the distribution dynamics that allow AI slop to scale. This content’s prevalence across platforms, regions, and formats reflects shared incentive structures rather than changes in audience demand.

For media executives, the spread of AI slop underscores a hard truth about today’s distribution economics: platform visibility is driven by scalable engagement signals, not by editorial judgment or quality. When scale and engagement signals drive distribution, automated content gains structural advantages. Publishers must continue to reduce reliance on feed-driven discovery by strengthening direct, first-party audience relationships and prioritizing formats that build habitual, intentional consumption.

The post Where AI slop fits into algorithmic visibility appeared first on Digital Content Next.

However, despite the undisputed appeal for audiences, it presents media businesses with a conundrum: produce video content cheaply to maximize ROI, or invest in quality video leveraging the brand, with the risk of a lower return. So how do media businesses choose which topics or subjects are right to build a video strategy around. And when do revenue opportunities like sponsors enter into those discussions?

Commercial viability

For most outlets, video has to pay its way. Documentary-style video is expensive to produce. Therefore, it is often simply not worth the investment for primarily text-based commodity news publishers. 

To offset that issue (i.e., the high cost of video production and the risk of spending money on content that doesn’t pay off), The Independent created Independent TV with a clear rule: No video series gets made unless it already has a sponsor or advertiser committed to funding it.

This commissioning bottleneck of sorts serves as a test of whether the subject was of worth to a potential sponsor in video form. The approach does present potential frustration lin that that advertising priorities dictate what gets made, meaning creative or editorially strong concepts could stall if they didn’t appeal to sponsors. However, this approach prevented the paper from spending a significant amount of money on a video project that might never have been commercially viable.

A similar approach is taken by The Sun, which has seen its video share of digital revenue increased to 18% in the latest reported results. Jon Lloyd, Director of Video for the newspaper says that, “Making video in isolation doesn’t make sense at The Sun; when commissioning Sun Originals the commercial considerations are right at the beginning. That was the genesis for Sun Originals: high quality shows which advertisers like to sponsor. 

“It must always be editorially driven and work for our audiences. But editorial teams will work with the commercial teams in order to launch the show and build the commercial aspect in, tailoring it to the client. It can’t just be their name on the show anymore.”

As a result of that strategy The Sun is working with clients who “have never used us in a digital capacity before, like M&S and Card Factory”. Recognizing the synergy between its consumer-focused news approach and the commercial opportunity, it has been focused on two specific content verticals for Originals commissioning: sports and Fabulous, which encompasses women’s fashion, beauty and lifestyle.

At the same time, commercial considerations do not factor into discussions around video creation for news organizations whose commercial proposition is more supporter-based.

The Guardian confirms that they do not create videos with sponsors in mind. Those discussions are not part of the overall decision about when and where to launch a video series. 

Nevertheless, the company is not ignoring the audience growth opportunities of digital video  and is set to invest further in using it for storytelling. As its editor-in-chief recently told Press Gazette, “I mean, at the moment, [when] we get a big story, it usually will have a podcast attached for example. It will usually have a video explainer attached. It will usually have all sorts of stuff attached already, but I think it’s the next stage of that.”

Cost vs return

Some major titles are increasingly looking to video as an audience growth opportunity first. The idea is that audiences attracted by video are likely to convert, even if that form of content does not exactly match the majority of the paper’s content.

Juliet Riddell is head of new formats at the Financial Times, which has been experimenting with news-led short films. Its latest, ‘Recall Me Maybe’, is a short fictional film that examines dementia, AI, and the unreliability of memory and artificial intelligence. That’s quite the departure for the title. However, its position in front of the paywall speaks to its belief that video of this sort is worth investing in as an audience acquisition tool.

Speaking to Media Voices, Riddell explained: “All the films are trying to connect an audience with something that’s happening now and that we feel we need to communicate now.”  

We also see a number of publications investing in digital video to diversify the audiences that are exposed to the brand, albeit with a far lower cost base. That is particularly true for those media businesses looking to convert more audiences by creating more touchpoints.

Chris Stone is executive producer of podcasts and video at the New Statesman. He explains: “We’re already producing podcasts, so adding video to that production workflow doubles up on the content that we’re making, so we’re getting more out of a single record. That video then extends our audience reach on YouTube, [and] also on social platforms. And the purpose of that is to grow the top of our funnel.”

He also notes that the ROI of a piece of content – in any form – is based on how widely it can be repurposed: “If I was starting something from scratch, I wouldn’t start with original video. I would start with multimedia content that can be repurposed on lots of different platforms.”

Beyond digital video

Given the scale of investment in video podcasts over the past few years – with a recently announced collaboration between Spotify and Netflix acting as the cherry on top – it is unsurprising that newsbrands recognize the value of delivering its star audio content in another broadly-accessible format. Vox, for instance, has just poached the NYT’s Astead Herndon, appointing him as a host and editorial director with a remit to launch and lead a new multiplatform video podcast. 

This approach bears fruit for publishers that have been investing in multimedia content for years: the podcasts have already proven to be commercially successful in audio, and the additional costs of filming and editing them are relatively small. In commissioning these relatively small, these media businesses take advantage of advertisers’ hunger for video content, and video’s ability to open up new audiences. 

Whether it is a high-quality audience play like that of the Financial Times, or the more commercial-led commissioning approach, video is increasingly seen as a must-have for news and magazine brands. Finding the sweet spot between commercial growth and audience development is paramount, but dependent on the wider commercial strategy of the title.

The post Publishers reveal their ROI equation for digital video appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Henry traces this revolution from the early days of streaming libraries filled with forgotten shows to the moment Netflix bet big on original programming. When House of Cards premiered, it was more than just a hit series. It marked the point when Silicon Valley investment and data-driven decision-making began to rewrite Hollywood’s rules. What followed was a full-scale transformation that saw the rise of direct-to-consumer platforms, the unbundling and re-bundling of services, and an industry racing to keep pace with changing viewer habits.

As Henry explains, the streaming boom has entered a new phase focused on business discipline. Subscriber growth alone no longer satisfies investors, and profitability and sustainability are now the top priorities.

The following excerpt from The Business of Streaming explores how those pressures are reshaping strategies, from ad-supported tiers and staggered release schedules to new debates over value, access, and creative control. It is a timely look at the realities behind the entertainment revolution we all helped create.

The business of streaming

As well as changes to the type of content being offered, there are changes on the business side of streaming too. Crucially, as time has gone on, investors and top executives have increasingly begun to demand a focus on revenue growth, not just the growing subscriber numbers, which was the original goal. Companies have had

to update their strategies accordingly. One of the key moves was the introduction of cheaper, ad-supported membership tiers from Netflix and Disney+ as they attempted to get more people to pay something, anything, instead of sharing an account with friends and family or passing up on the service altogether.

The challenge faced by all streaming providers is that as the number of services available increased, so did the frustration from viewers. Customers started to realize that the programming they wanted to watch was spread across a wide range of platforms, all of which required a separate annual or monthly payment. There is a limit to how many different providers people are willing to fork out for.  The later arrivals to the market struggled to make an impact. Indeed, some quickly became part of a bundle offered in conjunction with linear television providers such as Sky, who offered some Peacock programming with their packages in the UK. (The two broadcasters have the same parent company.)

Whereas originally a service would release whole seasons of a show at the same time, allowing viewers to binge-watch, they are now spreading things out and releasing episodes on a weekly basis.  For instance, Netflix split out the release of the fourth season of its hit series Stranger Things into two volumes – one in May 2022, the

second in July 2022. This meant that to watch it all as soon as it came out fans had to have a paid subscription for multiple months and in at least two financial quarters, a boost to the company’s results.

There is a distinct possibility that we could be returning to the kind of structure seen in the classic cable TV days, when the cost of a bundle was relatively high, but consumers got a lot of what they wanted from a few key gatekeepers. And you had to

wait a few days for the next episode of your favourite show! Maybe those water cooler moments have not completely disappeared after all.

While much of the attention is on visual content, the discussion around streaming should not forget the changes in music and other audio industries. When Steve Jobs finally managed to charm and bully the music industry into submission, artists were delighted with the arrival of the likes of iTunes. It seemed to solve the ongoing problem of piracy posed by Napster and other websites that offered free downloads of their music at varying quality. With iTunes (now Apple Music) and Spotify coming to prominence, it was easier to get high-quality music recordings legally than illegally. It has also never been simpler for musicians to publish music. However, even the biggest stars worry they are not being remunerated fairly for their work, an ongoing source of tension within the music industry.

Podcasts are historically associated with Apple and the iPod, but Spotify has, in recent years, invested considerable sums into the medium, launching originals and putting a paywall around some popular content. It had to rethink this approach amidst a dif!cult post-Covid pandemic market in 2023 and scaled back its efforts.

For some, streaming is another phenomenon altogether. It is not about big budget shows and movies but content produced live by online creators. This often revolves around video games, as people tune in to watch others play and pay money to support their favourites.

As ever, the story of streaming is not just about companies or content. There are key individuals behind these seismic shifts – the likes of Netflix co-founders Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph, Zack Van Amburg and Jamie Erlicht at Apple TV+, and Spotify’s Daniel Ek. They, and many others, have played key roles in how the public consumes media.

Streaming services of all kinds are, to a lesser or greater extent, the centre of most of our media diets. It’s time to really look at the fallout caused by the arrival of these services and explore the possibilities of what might come next.

Streaming Wars by Charlotte Henry (a frequent contributor to this site) was published by Kogan Page and is available to purchase now.

The post Inside streaming’s profitability pivot appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Sports is transforming faster than ever. HUB Entertainment Research’s latest study, “What’s the Score? The Evolution of Sports Fans and Sports Media – Wave 4,” reveals how streaming, social media, and shifting fan behavior reshape the sports experience. HUB’s findings show that while enthusiasm for sports remains strong, the ways fans discover, watch, and engage are changing rapidly.

HUB’s data confirms that streaming now anchors this transformation. Fans increasingly identify digital platforms rather than traditional broadcasters as their primary source for live games, highlights, and commentary. This marks a profound shift in where attention and media investment converge.

Streaming takes the lead

Sports continue to move full speed into streaming, expanding opportunities for rights holders and audiences. Viewers rely on ESPN+, Prime Video, and Netflix for live games and highlights. According to HUB, fans overwhelmingly believe ESPN+ provides the best sports coverage, while Prime Video and Netflix rate comparably to cable and broadcast networks.

This report reveals a new hierarchy in sports media. The value of live rights now depends on how well a service integrates sports into a broader digital experience. According to consumers, streaming offers flexibility and personalization, traits that align with younger, mobile-first audiences.

Streaming also strengthens brand perception. Two-thirds of avid sports fans and 40% of casual sports fans say they view a streaming service more favorably if it includes live sports. For companies like Disney, Amazon, and Netflix, sports is a differentiator and a retention tool, creating real-time engagement in an on-demand environment.

At the same time, more choices bring new challenges. Fans juggle multiple subscriptions to follow their favorite teams, and nearly half say finding the sports they want to watch is getting more confusing. Yet engagement remains strong. The passion for live sports continues to drive audiences to adapt, even as the media model evolves.

Social media becomes the stadium

As streaming changes where fans watch, social media redefines how they connect. HUB finds that 42% of teens aged 13–17 and 24% of adults aged 18–34 consume most of their sports content through social media, compared with just 12% of fans aged 55 and older.

This generational divide reveals a new form of engagement. For younger fans, social media isn’t just a companion to live sports; it is the experience. Platforms like YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and X deliver nonstop clips, commentary, and behind-the-scenes access. Fans scroll, post, and share in real time, creating a participatory environment that often replaces traditional broadcasts.

For leagues, rights holders, and brands, this shift demands a new strategy. Discovery now happens through short-form video rather than scheduled programming. Advertisers view social platforms as critical spaces to reach fans who may not watch full games but still connect deeply with teams and athletes.

HUB’s data makes it clear that this shift is permanent. Younger fans’ reliance on social media represents a lasting reordering of the sports media value chain, one where fans don’t just consume content—they shape it.

Confusion and competition

While streaming brings more choices, it also adds more complexity. HUB finds that fans increasingly struggle to navigate multiple platforms and shifting rights. Nearly half say it’s harder to find the sports they want to watch, and more than one in four call it a hassle to use multiple services during a season.

This fragmentation mirrors the early days of entertainment streaming. To counter this, former competitors are collaborating. HUB highlights the rise of “new bundles,” partnerships that unify sports rights across services to simplify access and improve scale.

New tools also aim to reduce friction. Some services help fans track games across platforms or buy short-term passes for key events. These efforts show the industry’s awareness of fan fatigue and its push to restore the convenience that once defined pay TV. Even with these challenges, enthusiasm keeps steady. Fans continue to adapt, proving that while fragmentation frustrates, it isn’t diminishing the passion for live sports.

The big picture

HUB’s research confirms that sports fandom is as strong as ever, but how fans watch is evolving fast. Nearly half of viewers are frustrated by fragmented access across platforms, even as overall engagement continues to climb. For networks, leagues, and streaming platforms, this shifting landscape is both a challenge and an opening. Those streamlining the viewing experience while staying agile across digital channels are driving the next wave of growth. By aligning affordability, accessibility, and authenticity, media players will shape the future of sports storytelling and keep fans connected to the game wherever and however they watch.

The post Experience is the game changer for sports streaming appeared first on Digital Content Next.