By the start of 2026, the long-predicted shift towards digital-first production no longer feels theoretical. On a recent anonymous edition of TellyCast, two senior figures working inside the creator-led economy argued that momentum, money and institutional attention are finally converging, but warned that the next phase will reward only those willing to rethink budgets, rights and business models from the ground up
For the first guest, the change is already tangible. After years of being viewed as the poor cousin to broadcast, digital studios are now fielding calls from traditional players looking for help navigating social platforms and audience-driven publishing. The arrival of major streamers such as Netflix and Disney in vertical video, alongside podcast acquisitions and broadcaster-led YouTube strategies, was cited as evidence that digital is no longer peripheral.
Where television has historically operated on a business-to-business model, delivering finite projects to a single buyer, the producer described digital as fundamentally consumer-led. Years can be spent building communities before meaningful profit arrives, but once scale is achieved, revenues become recurring and diversified. In contrast to hit-driven broadcast economics, digital studios are assembling portfolios of always-on brands that generate income month after month.
That distinction, they argued, is driving broadcasters back to the table. With linear revenues under pressure, organisations such as the BBC are exploring direct-to-platform strategies that hedge future risk by placing bets across multiple lower-cost brands rather than a handful of expensive shows.
Yet enthusiasm alone will not bridge the skills gap between sectors. The anonymous producer rejected the idea that digital companies lack craft, pointing out that many have learned to deliver high-impact storytelling on a fraction of television budgets. What is missing, they said, is a blended workforce. Traditional production management, compliance and editorial systems remain valuable, but digital-native staff who understand analytics, thumbnail testing and community engagement are now indispensable.
That shift is already reshaping hiring structures. Hierarchical crews built around narrow roles are harder to justify in online production, where multi-skilled teams are expected to shoot, edit, package and market content simultaneously. On platforms such as YouTube, even promotional assets mirror television processes, only accelerated and multiplied. Thumbnails replace posters, A/B tests replace marketing launches, and data feedback loops are continuous rather than episodic.
Rights, however, emerged as the most contentious issue. With budgets lower at the outset, digital studios are increasingly insistent on retaining long-term upside, whether through ownership of online exploitation, international versions of formats or geo-blocked spin-offs. The spread of licensed YouTube franchises was cited as proof that digital IP can travel just as effectively as broadcast hits, provided producers are allowed to benefit from downstream growth.
The second anonymous guest struck a more cautionary tone. While welcoming the swing of the pendulum, they warned that YouTube in particular is being romanticised by cash-strapped television indies hunting for replacement revenue streams. Advertising income alone, they argued, will not sustain high-budget programming without years of audience accumulation.
Pointing to mega-creators as misleading benchmarks, the producer stressed that even the most spectacular channels were built on long periods of experimentation, loss-leading flagship videos and vast quantities of low-cost output that quietly subsidise spectacle. Replicating broadcast-scale production values from day one, they said, risks driving companies into financial trouble rather than securing salvation.
Premium, in this new context, may need redefining. Instead of cinematic gloss, it could mean authority, access to compelling contributors or a distinctive editorial lens. For newcomers, the advice was blunt: strip ideas back to formats that can be made cheaply and repeatedly, prove audience demand, then scale once a community is secured.
Broadcasters’ renewed interest in digital publishing was nonetheless welcomed. UK players including Channel 4, ITV, Channel 5 and Sky are all signalling heavier investment in online distribution, a move the producer described as essential for nurturing new IP. Launching brands from scratch remains expensive and uncertain, and institutional backing can accelerate growth if deal structures are aligned correctly.
That alignment is precisely what remains unresolved. Current agreements, the guest suggested, still resemble traditional commissions, focusing on ownership of individual programmes rather than the communities that accrue around channels and brands. In a digital environment, they argued, audience relationships often hold more long-term value than the original videos that attracted them.
To prevent producers becoming mere suppliers rather than growth partners, both guests called for new industry norms around rights, holdbacks and secondary exploitation. Comparisons were drawn with the regulatory frameworks that govern television, and with advertising trade bodies that standardise rates. A digital-specific counterpart to organisations such as PACT was floated as a potential mechanism for negotiating fairer long-term arrangements and preventing a race to the bottom on pricing in branded work.
Without such intervention, the risk is threefold: companies absorbing unsustainable losses, crews seeing fees eroded, or quality declining as margins shrink. None, the producer argued, is compatible with building a robust digital-first production sector capable of standing alongside legacy television.
Looking ahead, both contributors viewed the BBC’s recent channel-running initiatives as a significant marker of intent, suggesting that longer-term partnerships and guaranteed cash flow could create genuine growth opportunities for independent studios, including those based outside London. Talent migration between platforms and television was also accelerating, but brought its own challenges as creators juggle broadcast exposure with the demands of servicing core online audiences.
If 2025 was about recognition, the pair concluded, 2026 will be about reconstruction. The formats and platforms may now be broadly agreed, but the harder task lies in rebuilding deal templates, rights frameworks and economic expectations around a digital-first reality rather than inherited television models.
For producers willing to adapt, the opportunity is substantial. For those clinging to old assumptions, the anonymous voices suggested, the coming year may prove far less forgiving.
