Hello new creative era! – by Jo Redfern

15 year old YouTuber Kane Parsons (aka Kane Pixels) helped create the lore of Backrooms after learning Blender during COVID and posting to his channel. Now aged 20, the movie he directed has opened with a $118M worldwide box office.

Iron Lung, made by Markiplier, a YouTube gaming creator whose fan community followed every step from financing to shooting, even saw his fans phoning their local cinemas to request bookings. Both films were built on years of direct relationship between creator and fan, neither relied on traditional marketing but each mobilised young people back into cinemas in their droves, at a time when studios were struggling to do just that.

What this highlights is a new kind of creative era. One where internet lore, creators and crowdsourced characters can become actual movies, games and TV shows. That is not to say Hollywood, nor traditional producers will go extinct, but they are no longer the only ones that decide what gets made and what works. Fans do too.

Similar has happened in kids media, Danny Go! for example built an avid, active fanbase on YouTube and IN countless classrooms before Netflix wanted a piece of the fan-action, and Italian Brainrot – the most outlandish example of kids on the internet taking a cast of characters and running wild with them – has spawned hundreds of games on Roblox, Fortnite, animation on TikTok and is being turned into a movie. All because of the strength of their fandom.

What links them is not budget, genre, or platform. At its simplest, it’s TRUST. The kind earned by showing up consistently, whether they are going from 1 follower to 10, or from 100 to 1,000. They built trust by replying to comments. By being vulnerable. By letting their audience see successes and failures. And in building trust, it becomes fuel for fandom.

The other great thing about fandoms? They’re much easier to mobilise than an ‘audience’. Audience is measured by their presence only, rather than their willingness to buy a ticket, to invest in merch, or to wait by a stage door for a selfie.

When the fan community feel like participants in the IP, like Danny Go!, like Savannah Bananas, like Brainrot characters, like Backrooms, The Amazing Digital Circus and more, the fanbase becomes not just an engine of creativity but also an engine of monetisation.

So, here’s a suggested change in kids and teen media vernacular that I’m proposing, starting at MIPJUNIOR 2026: let’s stop talking about our consumers as ‘audience’ and let’s start serving them as fans – by financing, creating and distributing in a way that encourages active engagement and willingness to mobilise. And by mobilise, that could be to get up and dance, go to show, buy the dress up outfit or buy a cinema ticket.

The old assumption that influencers were only good for driving awareness for what movie theatres showed has been dispelled. Markiplier was not just ‘awareness’ for Iron Lung but rather proof of creator fandom functioning as demand. Markiplier’s community moved from YouTube to ticket purchasers because they trusted the creator first and the movie theatre second. They didn’t need to be ‘made aware’, they were already there, already invested, already mobilised.

Success isn’t a given however. Take MrBeast. 500 million subscribers should make him the ultimate test case for creator-to-Hollywood success but instead, Beast Games on Prime Video has become shorthand for ‘creators cannot do TV’. I think that’s creator-sceptic hyperbole but it does appear to be true that at MrBeast scale, the intimacy that helped build his channel is gone. The trust loop between creator and fan has diluted. The trick is to find the sweet spot where creators can still recognise their fans, learn from them, have fun with them, and convert the relationship into something when the time is right. Theatrical, TV, chocolate bars; anything. You need to be big enough to matter yet feel and act small enough to mean it.

MIPJUNIOR 2026 will put all these trends, questions and considerations front and centre.

Because if this piece proves anything, it’s that the next big kids franchise might not come from where we’re expecting. It could come from a creator, a game, a YouTube channel, a fan community or a piece of internet lore. As the lines between content, creators, gaming and platforms continue to blur, understanding fandom has become just as important as understanding distribution.

The conversation has broadened across the entire kids and family ecosystem, preschool through young adults, stories through franchises, broadcast to social video and gaming and more! The theme is that great IP can come from anywhere, that fans are what we need to make, and that a new era of creativity is flourishing.

If MIPCOM is where deals close, MIPJUNIOR is where they begin.

So, join us at The Palais des Festivals in Cannes on 10-11 October for conversation about what comes next, I will even be there moderating a panel on fandom. Come and find me!

Let’s make a promise not talk about audiences anymore. Instead let’s obsess about our young fans; how we make them, and how we mobilise them.

See you in Cannes.

As governments introduce stricter under‑16 social media rules, new data from The Insights Family reveals a different reality: kids don’t rely on social feeds to discover content. Their discovery journeys are driven by friends, gaming environments and online video, forming a fluid ecosystem that continues to thrive even when platforms are restricted.

The findings show that peer influence, immersive play spaces and video‑led behaviours shape what kids watch, play and share. Roblox acts as a social hub, YouTube remains a constant across markets, and in‑person conversations still rank among the top sharing channels — proving that discovery is distributed, social and resilient.

In this exclusive white paper produced by The Insights Family for MIPJUNIOR 2026, the data makes one thing clear: banning platforms doesn’t stop discovery — it simply redirects it. Brands that understand these pathways gain a strategic advantage.

Download the full white paper for cross‑market insights, behavioural data and strategic takeaways reshaping how 6‑15s discover entertainment today.

Behind Brand Entertainment is a series of interviews with producers, studios, distributors and brand leaders exploring how brands and the entertainment industry are collaborating to develop, fund and scale premium content.

————————————————————————————————————————————–

What happens when Branded Entertainment stops feeling like Marketing?

That question sits at the centre of BRABUS: One Second Wow, the reality-doc hybrid available on Prime Video, developed and produced by LEONINE Studios together with luxury automotive brand BRABUS – and it reflects how quickly the relationship between entertainment and brand strategy are moving closer together.

For Christian Meinberger, Chief Digital Officer at LEONINE & MD i&u Studios, this moment feels fundamentally different from earlier waves of brand-funded content. Having worked in Branded Entertainment since 2012, he argues the term itself no longer fully captures what projects like this are becoming.

In earlier phases, Branded Entertainment was often an extension of Marketing – tied to campaigns, product placement or short-term KPIs. Entertainment came second to commercial objectives.

Today, however, some brands are beginning to operate more like content players themselves, building audiences, ecosystems, and platform-native storytelling approaches. That shift is part of what made BRABUS an interesting creative partner in the first place.

BRABUS: ONE SECOND NOW |Offizieller Trailer | Prime Video

A Project Built Around Story, Not Sales

Interestingly, the series did not originate with BRABUS approaching LEONINE. Meinberger himself became fascinated by the company’s story – particularly the generational shift following the death of founder Bodo Buschmann and the rise of his son Constantin Buschmann as a young CEO transforming BRABUS into a more content-driven lifestyle brand.

After meeting during an industry event in Munich, conversations quickly evolved from a documentary concept into something much larger: an international premium reality-doc hybrid designed specifically for streaming audiences. “The most important thing,” Meinberger explains, “was that it had to be good content people genuinely want to watch – not a 90-minute commercial.”

That audience-first philosophy shaped the entire production. Unlike traditional branded campaigns, the project was not driven by short-term performance KPIs or conversion targets. According to Meinberger, the focus was always on building a series with genuine entertainment value, trusting that audience engagement and long-term brand relevance would follow naturally.

Why Authenticity Became the Real Strategy

One of the biggest creative challenges was balancing brand interests with authentic storytelling. According to Meinberger, BRABUS initially approached the production with a more traditional brand mindset, wanting to present the company in a polished and controlled way. But Meinberger actively pushed for openness, arguing that audiences connect far more deeply with imperfections, tensions and emotionally honest moments. “The interesting moments are the imperfect ones,” Meinberger says. “That’s what audiences connect with.”

Over time, that trust developed and became one of the project’s defining strengths. The series ultimately followed not only the luxury lifestyle associated with BRABUS, but also internal pressures, relationship dynamics and moments of failure that most brands would typically avoid showing publicly.

During filming in Dubai, one moment perfectly captured that philosophy. One of BRABUS’ luxury off-road vehicles became stuck in deep desert sand due to user error. Instead of cutting the scene, the team kept it in the series. For Meinberger, moments like that were essential because audiences no longer respond to overly controlled brand messaging disguised as entertainment.

The Audience Stayed For the People

The series ultimately reached Amazon’s Top 10 and climbed to number one in the documentary category. But perhaps the most revealing insight came from audience reactions. According to Meinberger, viewers became far more invested in the personalities, tensions and relationships behind the company than in the cars themselves. “The brand became the entry point,” he explains, “but the human stories became the reason people kept watching.”

That insight may also explain why producers are increasingly paying attention to Branded Entertainment again.

Why the Industry is Watching Closely

As traditional commissioning slows and financing models become more difficult across the television industry, producers are increasingly exploring alternative partnerships and development structures.

For Meinberger, projects like BRABUS: One Second Wow demonstrate how brands can evolve beyond sponsors and become genuine long-term partners in financing, development and audience building – provided the storytelling itself remains strong enough to stand independently as entertainment.

For producers, this creates entirely new creative and commercial possibilities. But he also warns that success in this space requires a very different mindset from traditional advertising-led content. “Good content will always work,” Meinberger says. “But producers need to rethink everything around it.” They need to think beyond campaign logic and start considering platform strategy, audience behaviour, long-term brand value and entertainment quality simultaneously.

For the television industry, BRABUS: One Second Wow is less a branded series success story than a sign of where things are heading: brands, platforms and premium entertainment increasingly converging.

Behind Brand Entertainment is a series of interviews with producers, studios, distributors and brand leaders exploring how brands and the entertainment industry are collaborating to develop, fund and scale premium content.

————————————————————————————————————————————–

“Creators are the idea, the talent and the distribution.”

It’s a simple line – but it explains why so much Branded Entertainment still struggles to deliver real impact. In my conversation with Gautham Narayanan, Managing Director of VIRTUE Europe – VICE’s creative agency – and Brad Reilly, Chief Creative Officer, what stood out was how fundamentally different their approach is.

While much of the industry still thinks in campaigns or one-off formats, VICE is building systems – where brands, creators and platforms are designed to work together from the start. The result is entertainment that audiences actively choose to engage with, while carrying the brand within it.

From Content to Culture

For VICE, the shift starts with a new take on Branded Entertainment, rooted in a simple truth: entertainment is culture. “Music, podcasts, shows – that’s how people engage with culture today,” Reilly explained. “That’s the fabric of it.”

“It’s less about telling stories about a brand,” he continued, “and more about letting the brand be part of a story, part of a community.” That distinction matters. Instead of interrupting culture, brands are embedded within it – often through collaborations with artists and creators who already have credibility and reach.

F1 and the Rise of Entertainment Ecosystems

A strong example is Formula 1. No longer just a sport, it has evolved into a full-scale entertainment franchise – spanning film, music and live experiences. VICE tapped into that through music, collaborating with artists like Ed Sheeran, Burna Boy and Doja Cat to create content tied to Apple’s F1 film – extending the story beyond the screen.

But the real shift is how far that storytelling extends. “If you went to the Miami Grand Prix, you would see a fictitious team show up,” Reily explained – blurring the line between fiction and reality. Content becomes a world, not a deliverable.

For Narayanan, this “entertainment mindset” drives very tangible business outcomes. It starts by “broadening the church” – moving beyond a core fanbase to reach more casual audiences. From there, brands can cross-pollinate into new categories, attracting different types of sponsors and partners.

The impact goes further. As audiences expand, so does the value of distribution. “Your ability to charge for broadcast rights massively changes,” he noted.

The end goal is clear: build IP that generates value in its own right. “The ambition is to create something that becomes a revenue driver, not a cost centre.”

YouTube and the Creator Advantage

The same thinking applies on YouTube, where VICE is developing original formats built around creators rather than traditional talent.

In Shanked, a scripted comedy set in a golf club, creators didn’t just appear on screen – they helped shape the format and brought built-in distribution. “They came in with 60–70 million followers,” Reilly noted. Creators are no longer just talent; they are part of the development process and the distribution model from day one.

This is where many traditional players fall short. “They think about the content,” Narayanan said, “but not the ecosystem around it.”

Worst Country Club In America | S1 trailer

The Framework, Not the Format

Rather than building ideas around a single piece of IP or a specific creator, VICE focuses on frameworks – flexible branded structures that can evolve over time.

“Create the frame, and let creators play within it,” Reilly said. This allows talent to bring their voice and audience, while the brand remains central and consistent.

The advantage is both creative and commercial: it reduces dependency on individual talent. “If your idea depends on one creator, it’s very risky,” Narayanan said. Instead, frameworks enable multiple collaborations over time, compounding brand equity rather than fragmenting it.

A Different Way of Thinking About Value

Underpinning all of this is a mindset shift that feels almost blunt: “The consumer doesn’t care”, Narayanan said. Which means attention has to be earned – through entertainment that people would actively choose to watch. “If people wouldn’t pay to engage with it,” Reilly continues, “it’s not entertainment.”

And the commercial upside is significant. By thinking like entertainment companies, brands can expand beyond core audiences, attract new partners, and unlock additional revenue streams. For Narayanan, the formula is simple: reach drives fame, and fame drives sales. But before that, every idea must pass three tests: Is the brand essential to the story? Would people choose to watch – or even pay for it? And will it deliver reach at scale? Only then does Branded Entertainment start to work.

Which brings it back to the shift VICE is building around: creators are no longer just talent. They are part of a system where story, talent and distribution are designed together from the start.

A conversation with Greg Dray of Animaj – by Jo Redfern

Kids content is YouTube’s second biggest category, yet it earns less than 2% of the platform’s ad revenue. That gap is hurting the business, it is a structural failure and is pushing premium children’s media towards collapse.

Greg Dray has experienced that tension more than most. As co-founder of Animaj, the Paris and London-based next-generation kids media company, he has spent the past three years building a digital-first franchise model that spans YouTube, TikTok, Spotify and Roblox. Animaj channels have accumulated 85 billion views and 150 million followers. The company raised $85 million in 2025 and is profitable. In early 2026, Google’s AI Futures Fund invested in the business and Disney took them into its 2025 Accelerator.

But none of that fixes the underlying problem the industry faces.

« If we continue like this, we won’t have money to invest into content creation, » Greg told me. « As a community and as an industry, we’re doomed. »

He is not being dramatic. Kids content accounts for around 15% of all YouTube viewership, comparable to music but it only generates around 2% of YouTube’s $40 billion in annual ad revenue. That is not a gap that closes on its own. That gap between consumption and monetisation is pushing premium creators and producers out of the industry and leaving the world’s youngest audiences at risk of being surrounded by sub-par content with no incentive nor business model to fund anything better.

Reaching profitability at Animaj doesn’t represent a fix to the industry issue. In our conversation, Greg was blunt about the scale of the crisis. Less than 20% of kids content views on YouTube are currently monetised, compared to higher rates in other categories. The word « kids » has almost become a toxic label in the creator economy, synonymous with a broken business model, I too have heard it said in other quarters. Being associated with making kids content means the odds are stacked against you in terms of making money. Anecdotally, creators are avoiding tagging content as « Made for Kids » to preserve their ability to earn. Investment is drying up. Premium storytelling is on the verge of disappearing.

The reality is that the funding structures that built the modern kids media economy are no longer able to sustain it. So, what replaces them? Animaj is actively looking at how.

The root cause is both regulatory and technical. COPPA compliance requires contextual-only advertising against kids content, meaning no user data can be used for targeting. YouTube’s auction model depends on data-driven targeting to generate high CPMs. Without that capability, the platform’s pricing mechanism undervalues kids inventory by default – and when the rest of media is increasingly ad driven, data and the ability to value audiences at scale is what the media system functions on.

YouTube’s response has been muted according to Greg, and I see why. When their hands are tied by law and the rest of their platform is making billions in revenue there is little incentive to fix things. I’m not saying it’s right, but I can see why it is the case. As a result, the platform has no kids advertising sales team and although the total global kids advertising market is worth around $4 billion – split roughly evenly between the US and international markets – when compared to YouTube’s $40 billion annual ad revenue, the figure isn’t a sufficient motivator to platform leadership.

Greg described YouTube’s position on the health of the kids content business in blunt terms: « It’s not our problem to resolve. »

Indeed, as advertising and media analyst Ian Whittaker has said, if YouTube persuades TV companies and advertisers that YouTube is the future then the former start to panic and seek to compromise, and YouTube gets to secure their new definition as TV. And advertisers follow, they are switching budgets to the platform. Ian contends that the scariest part is not the speed of change, but how reluctant the industry still is to look it in the eye.

Meanwhile, YouTube continues to benefit from a steady supply of premium children’s content uploaded to its platform for free. The BBC has entered a partnership with YouTube, but in the UK has no commercial expectations from its content presence due to its public service funding. Other traditional media and premium content owners are also adding to the platform, to reach social-first audiences and add to their coffers, but in turn they are aiding the platform’s growth and retention and, in a sense, making the “YouTube is TV” argument self-fulfilling.

ANIMAJ AND HASBRO’S LUMEE

Animaj’s solve for the kids monetisation problem is Lumee, a joint venture with Hasbro that aggregates combined annual YouTube views across a portfolio spanning preschool (Peppa Pig, PJ Masks, Pocoyo, Maya the Bee) through to the harder-to-reach 6-12 demographic (Power Rangers, Transformers, Dungeons and Dragons, Rabbids) and family co-viewing content.

The model breaks with YouTube’s standard approach. Lumee sells ‘reservation media’ only, with no auction-based buying. Advertisers get video-by-video transparency, meaning they know exactly where their ads will run. Contextual targeting allows brands to place ads against specific content types, Nike against sports episodes for example, and the environment provides brand safety guarantees.

But Greg is clear that Lumee alone cannot solve the problem. The ambition is bigger than one company’s commercial success. Partnerships, collaboration, innovation and openness will all be key to kids media’s survival.

Another key to survival is better measurement. There is currently no standardised way to prove co-viewing, despite it being the primary consumption pattern for kids content. A parent watching Peppa Pig with a three-year-old represents a household with purchasing power, but no measurement system captures that value for advertisers. The under-13 audience remains a black box for media buyers. Without measurement, advertisers cannot compare kids content performance against other categories, and without that comparison, budget allocation will continue to flow elsewhere.

« I’m not fighting for the success of my organisation, » Greg said. « I’m fighting for the survival of kids media. » As a result, he wants to build a coalition across Moonbug, Pocket.watch and other major players to create collective pressure for change.

INSIDE THE AI STUDIO

Google’s investment in Animaj through its AI Futures Fund signals that the YouTube’s parent company does see value in AI-accelerated kids content production. Although Greg was keen to point out that doesn’t mean slop. Not from them.

We discussed what the investment means and what’s happening on the studio floor with regards to AI. He describes Google’s engineers coming into the creative process not to dictate, but to listen, to understand what it means to create original, high-quality content and how technology can support that endeavour. “One of our missions is to try to create a symbiotic relationship between the engineer and the artist”, he said. The tools being built and applied to storyboarding, in-betweening and the production pipeline are designed to eliminate administrative and repetitive tasks, not creative ones. He was keen to point out that the front-end creative work remains entirely human-led. The goal is not to replace the spark of creation, but to ensure that artists spend their time on art, not on processes that machines can handle faster.

But with all that, it doesn’t fully solve the kids problem. If a platform doesn’t allow for effective monetisation of kids content, does cheaper production really help? Only partially. For companies like Animaj lower costs do improve margin, but they do not move the CPM. They do not change YouTube’s auction model, nor the regulations that are designed to protect kids, but which also strangle business models. They do not persuade advertisers that the under-13 audience is worth paying to reach. In a market where the core problem is revenue, AI efficiency is not a magic bullet.

So, the argument is not that AI solves the monetisation gap directly but that it buys time and optionality. If you can maintain content quality at a reduced cost, you stay in the game long enough for the commercial infrastructure, coalition-building and measurement standards, to catch up – and it means you don’t go bust waiting for the industry to fix itself. AI-accelerated production works as a survival strategy but only if we fix the revenue side of things. If it does not, cheaper content is still unprofitable content. The clock runs slower, but it still runs.

AND THE CLOCK IS TICKING

The ambition Greg has set is to narrow the gap between kids content’s share of YouTube viewership (15%) and its share of ad revenue (under 2%). Even reaching 10% of ad revenue would represent a transformation for the kids media business.

But the timeline is compressed. Regulatory solutions move slowly and the industry cannot wait seven years for legislative fixes to work through the system. The alternative, if premium content continues to decline, is a kids media ecosystem defined by the cheapest content that algorithms will promote.

Whether Animaj addresses the monetisation crisis or simply accelerates the volume of content on a still-broken model is the question the issue the industry needs to get moving on. What Animaj is betting is that enough people inside the system now care enough to fix it. Kids media cannot afford for that bet to be wrong. The stakes are high, so I hope they succeed.

Designed for mobile-first consumption and delivered in ultra-short episodes, micro-dramas have rapidly moved beyond niche status. Once seen as experimental, they are now emerging as a high-potential content format, capturing highly engaged audiences and opening up new monetisation and commissioning opportunities.

In this exclusive whitepaper produced by Ampere Analysis for MIPCOM, the data tells a compelling story. Adoption levels are already strong in key territories, micro-drama viewers are proven super-consumers of video content, and clear patterns are emerging around audience age, genre preferences and platform usage

 Download the full white paper to access in-depth market insights, audience data and strategic takeaways shaping the future of micro-dramas.

Behind Brand Entertainment is a series of interviews with producers, studios, distributors and brand leaders exploring how brands and the entertainment industry are collaborating to develop, fund and scale premium content.

This week, we feature Adam Puchalsky, President of the Brand Studio at Blink49 Studios.

“Entertainment can solve business challenges in ways traditional advertising often can’t.”

For Adam Puchalsky, President of the Brand Studio at Blink49 Studios, that’s where much of the industry still gets Branded Entertainment wrong.

As producers, broadcasters and streamers increasingly turn to brands as potential funding partners, the conversation often centres on integration – where a product fits within a show, or how visible a brand can be on screen. But according to Puchalsky, that approach misses the point.

“What I’ve often seen is that brand integrations increase awareness but don’t necessarily address the brand’s underlying business challenge,” he says. “People think about adjacency rather than asking what message needs to be communicated and what outcome they are trying to achieve.”

From Visibility to Value

While Branded Entertainment is often framed as a new opportunity, Puchalsky argues it is better understood as an evolution.

“Brands have been funding entertainment since the beginning of entertainment itself,” he says. “The difference today is that brands are looking for ways to communicate in a fragmented media landscape where audiences have more choice than ever.”

In that environment, visibility alone is no longer enough. Instead, brands are looking for content that can shift perception, change behaviour or address a specific communication challenge.

For producers, that requires a fundamental shift in thinking – from pitching formats to solving problems.

The Difference a Strategy Makes

Puchalsky points to a project developed during his agency years to illustrate the gap between traditional campaigns and strategic storytelling.

At the height of the pandemic, research suggested a significant rise in mental health issues. The challenge was not simply to raise awareness, but to encourage people to talk more openly.

“The communication problem was that people understand how long it takes to heal a physical injury,” he explains. “But when it comes to your brain, people don’t know how long recovery might take, so they often stay silent.”

Instead of launching a conventional campaign, the team created a comedy documentary called Group Therapy featuring comedians sharing their experiences in a group therapy setting.

The result was both critically and commercially successful, winning two Gold Lions and a Silver Lion at the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity.

“The film moved the conversation forward,” Puchalsky says. “And because it was real entertainment, it could also live across marketing and social channels.”

A Gap between Producers and Brands

Despite the growing interest in brand-funded content, Puchalsky believes there is still a disconnect between how producers approach projects and how brands think.

“Producers often call brands, but they don’t necessarily understand how those organisations operate,” he says. “You need people who understand both the language of marketing and the language of entertainment.”

That gap can lead to missed opportunities – particularly in a market where traditional commissioning is under pressure and alternative funding models are becoming more important.

For producers, the implication is clear: Success in Branded Entertainment depends less on the format itself and more on understanding the strategic objectives behind it.

Rethinking the Role of Brands

At Blink49 Studios, this thinking shapes how projects are developed. Some originate from the studio’s slate, while others begin with a brand challenge – but in both cases, the goal is the same.

“We start by creating entertainment that audiences want to seek out,” Puchalsky says. “If a brand’s objective fits naturally within that, then we explore how it can add value.”

As the role of brands in the industry continues to evolve, Puchalsky believes the ambition should go far beyond funding.

“I want the work we do to win the biggest awards in entertainment,” he says. “Oscars, Emmys, Grammys, Tonys – and for the brand involved to be proud to stand behind them.”

Behind Brand Entertainment is a series of interviews with producers, studios, distributors and brand leaders exploring how brands and the entertainment industry are collaborating to develop, fund and scale premium content.

This week, we feature Carlotta Rossi-Spencer, Global Head of Branded Entertainment Business Development at Banijay Entertainment.

“If it looks like a long ad, it won’t travel.”

That’s how Carlotta Rossi Spencer, Global Head of Branded Entertainment Business Development at Banijay Entertainment, describes the biggest challenge facing brand-funded shows with international ambitions.

In a market where tightening commissioning budgets are pushing producers and broadcasters toward alternative financing models, the real question is no longer whether brands can fund content, but whether that content can become genuine, travelable IP. For Rossi Spencer, the answer is yes. But only if Branded Entertainment is developed with the same format discipline as any other global franchise.

Travel Starts with Format DNA

At Banijay Entertainment, branded projects are assessed through the same lens as any other non-scripted format. “We are entertainers, we’re not in the advertising business,” Rossi Spencer says. “Regardless of the fact it’s in collaboration with a brand; the format still needs to work.”

One example is Hairstyle – The Talent Show with Alfaparf – a hairstyling competition originating in Spain that expanded into five territories. Its scalability had less to do with sponsorship and everything to do with clear competition beats and repeatable structure.

The same logic applies to branded extensions of established IP. In Germany, a Twitch-streamed, creator edition of Big Brother – Big Brother Knossi Edition – worked because the underlying format mechanics were already globally proven.

In Italy, Maître Chocolatier, a chocolate-creation competition developed with Lindt follows familiar talent show rhythms, as does Mistura Beirão – a mixology competition format created in partnership with premium Portuguese liqueur Licor Beirão.

And in the UK, the revival of Secret Life of 5 Year Olds demonstrated how a catalogue format can re-emerge with brand-backing without losing its format integrity.

“These are the ones that work best,” Rossi Spencer explains, pointing to factual entertainment, cooking competitions, and transformation formats. Universal skills. Clear jeopardy. Repeatable beats. Her advice is simple: “Stick to the format. Stick to very recognisable beats.”

What Stops a Branded Format from Travelling?

If scalability starts with format DNA, it can just as easily be undermined by integration choices. “If it’s too much brand, too much product placement, if it looks like a long ad, then it won’t travel,” Rossi Spencer says. International buyers need flexibility. If a format cannot be reversioned without a specific sponsor, its export value drops dramatically.

Over-localisation presents another barrier. “If it’s a documentary about a very local story, then you can’t really push it to other territories.” Travelable IP requires modularity – the ability to adapt casting, tone and cultural nuance while preserving core mechanics. “This is something we have unrivalled success in, with 30 formats produced in 3+ territories – from MasterChef to Big Brother”, Rossi Spencer adds. In short, the show must survive without the original brand attached. If removing the sponsor breaks the format, it was never true IP.

Rights and Catalogue Strategy

From a protection standpoint, branded formats are treated like any other format within Banijay Entertainment’s ecosystem. “For us, it’s the same as the protection of a format,” Rossi Spencer notes. Once aired, the show enters the IP and catalogue structure.

While brands may negotiate certain rights, Banijay Entertainment does not relinquish 100% of the IP. Retaining catalogue inclusion strengthens long-term value, especially when looking at secondary territories and windowing strategies.

For distributors, that alignment is key: a branded show that sits comfortably within a broader format portfolio is far easier to position internationally.

The Strategic Shift

Perhaps the most significant evolution is strategic rather than creative. Brands increasingly understand that long-form entertainment functions differently from a 30-second campaign.

“The complete impact will be visible after a year”, Rossi Spencer says, describing the long-tail impact of series-based collaborations. That longevity makes repeatable formats more attractive than one-off branded specials.

For the industry, the implication is clear: Branded Entertainment becomes travelable IP when it is developed with format logic first, sponsor logic second. As Rossi Spencer puts it: “It’s always about the format at the end of the day.” And in a global market built on adaptable ideas, that principle remains unchanged – regardless of who is funding the show.

At MIPCOM, Jasmine Dawson, Senior Vice President, Digital at BBC Studios, highlighted during the YouTube keynote that they now have social-first sales teams. That may sound operational. In reality, it signals a structural shift: social distribution is no longer just marketing. It is becoming a revenue stream.

And companies operating in this space are already adjusting to that reality. “The boundaries between TV and digital no longer exist,” says Yiğit Doğan Çelik, CEO of Merzigo, which manages and monetises TV IP on YouTube and AVOD platforms.

He argues that platforms such as YouTube and Facebook now dominate the global media ecosystem, particularly on the TV screen, creating new distribution opportunities for premium content owners.

For producers and distributors, that is not a philosophical statement. It is a commercial one. If audiences are consuming premium content on connected TVs via YouTube, then AVOD becomes part of the formal windowing conversation.

Discoverability Is the New Battleground

The scale of competition is unprecedented, though. “The biggest challenge today is discoverability with millions of videos uploaded every hour,” Çelik notes. “In order to be successful in building reach, awareness and ultimately revenue, a smart optimisation and monetisation strategy is required.”

In other words, just uploading your content is no longer enough.

Historically, many broadcasters treated YouTube as a promotional outlet – clips, short-form highlights, occasional catch-up episodes. But managing full libraries at scale requires something closer to broadcast discipline.

Merzigo describes its approach as treating YouTube “as a true broadcaster.” That means planning weekly programming schedules, optimising for watch time and adapting formats across multiple languages.

“We upload over 6000 unique videos a day from our library of partner content totalling over 400,000 hours,” Çelik says. “We want to make the complex simple and predictable for our partners.”, pointing to a combination of proprietary technology and a 24/7 global team managing over 5,000 channels across territories.

For broadcasters and distributors, the relevance lies less in the volume itself and more in what that scale enables: consistent programming, data-led optimisation and structured monetisation. If AVOD is now a defined revenue window, it requires editorial, commercial and technical specialisation.

Originals Signal a Primary Window

That logic is no longer limited to library exploitation. Increasingly, premium content is being developed with YouTube as the primary distribution environment rather than a secondary outlet.

Merzigo’s report on Qesma W Naseeb – a popular Arabic Reality TV show and social experiment focused on dating, produced exclusively for YouTube – illustrates how premium episodic content is being commissioned specifically for YouTube, with roll-out strategy and monetisation designed for the platform from day one.

For producers and Branded Entertainment teams, that shift affects how projects are commissioned, financed and integrated with sponsors. Structured publishing models, audience data and built-in monetisation allow brand integrations to sit within long-form series rather than as one-off activations.

The Market Is Moving

Recent developments across the industry reinforce this trend. For example, ITV has expanded its YouTube sales roster with Banijay Rights and Banijay UK, adding titles including Peaky Blinders, MasterChef and Would I Lie to You? to its commercial offering.

Meanwhile, Amazon made the first season of Fallout available for free on YouTube ahead of its next instalment, using AVOD as a sampling window to expand audience reach. These are structured commercial decisions, not experiments.

Çelik argues that rights holders who embrace a structured approach can unlock additional value from their libraries. “Our end-to-end service ecosystem, from channel management and content production to localisation, and rights protection gives a full service to broadcasters and distributors wanting to embrace AVOD,” he says. “We optimise every piece of content to unlock its full revenue potential delivering measurable results for our partners as the fight for attention increases.”

The Strategic Question for the Market

As broadcasters formalise social-first sales teams and integrate YouTube inventory into premium advertising conversations, AVOD is becoming embedded in the revenue infrastructure of TV IP.

For producers, distributors and Branded Entertainment teams, the question is no longer whether YouTube matters. It is whether AVOD is being treated with the same strategic discipline as linear and streaming – and whether the capability to operate it at scale exists internally or needs to be built through specialist partners.

The regulatory wave is coming, and it’s picking up speed. Australia has banned social media for under-16s. France is eyeing September 2026 for enforcement. Denmark is watching closely. The US state of Virginia proposed a one-hour social media limit for minors. And last month, Disney was slapped with fines for violating children’s privacy laws on YouTube in the US.

If you make or manage kids content, you’d be forgiven for reading that list and feeling the walls close in.

It’s difficult to argue against regulation when discussing kids’ safety online. Many will imply that your motivation is somehow nefarious, too commercial or that you simply don’t care enough about children. But in regulating bad content and access to it out of the way of kids, we’re creating conditions that could drive producers, creators and investors out of the kids market altogether. And when that happens, we won’t get a safer internet for children. We get a content void. Market failure.

It’s not just governmental policy bringing disincentives to the industry. Platform pressure, however overdue, carries its own risks. YouTube’s recent test illustrates a tension. They rolled out AI moderation software that is intended for child protection, but it can morph into creator punishment.

YouTube’s AI determines whether users are under 18 based on their activity. Sounds reasonable, right? Protect kids even if they lie about their age?  Except there’s a problem: if YouTube’s AI decides your audience skews young (even if you never tagged your content as Made for Kids) your revenue gets throttled automatically. Non-personalised ads. Algorithmic restriction. The MFK treatment, whether you opted in or not.

For creators already navigating the world’s most opaque algorithm, this is existential. You can’t strategise against criteria you can’t see and you’re essentially playing roulette with your livelihood, and creators will increasingly avoid making anything that could even unintentionally appeal to kids. When creators can’t understand the rules, they can’t adapt. And making a living on YouTube was already hard before AI started making revenue decisions for them.

The Economics are breaking further.

Let’s be crystal clear about the business reality. Kids content on YouTube operates under COPPA restrictions that slash ad revenue by up to 95%. CPMs are so low as to be largely immaterial unless at significant scale. Now layer on platform bans. Add AI systems that can effectively recategorise your content and the question is obvious, why would anyone rational still be making kids content?

The unintended consequence is that independent creators decide kids content is too high-risk for too little reward.

We saw this with COPPA’s initial impact. The creators who could pivot did. The ones who couldn’t either accepted poverty-level returns or quit. What remained were the scaled operations like Moonbug, who could weather low CPMs through sheer volume, and even then investors get twitchy.

So who’s left? The legacy players who are already in defensive mode. Paramount, laying off Nickelodeon staff. Sky Kids, which ceased commissioning originals in 2025. They aren’t positioned to fill the gap; they’re already trying to survive their own structural challenges.

Same goes for public broadcasters: The BBC, the ABC, PBS are commissioning less kids content whilst arguing their own value proposition with their respective governments. Most of them are broke, and the idea that regulation will naturally create opportunities for legacy or public media assumes resources and mandates that largely no longer exist.

A Market Failure scenario – we must consider it.

Regulation tightens. Platforms de-risk by restricting kids content. Independent creators exit because the economics don’t work. Legacy players are cutting budgets. Public broadcasters aren’t able to scale to meet demand.

What fills the void?

The best case is a handful of well-funded producers make content that satisfies the regulatory checkboxes but at the cost of creative. We get content that nobody loves but nobody gets sued over.

If we’re more realistic: a fragmented landscape of VPN’s, age-verification workarounds, kids hiding in internet corners, content sharing on closed social platforms. The exact opposite of what regulation intended to achieve.

None of this is an argument against protecting children online. The exploitative content, the attention-hacking tricks, the data harvesting – all of it needs addressing. But there’s a difference between smart regulation that creates guardrails and blunt regulation that burns down the ecosystem.

Right now I believe that we’re heading toward the latter. We’re creating a regulatory environment where the safest business decision is simply not to make kids content at all. The low barriers to entry that had democratised content creation will be rebuilt, higher than ever.

What happens next?

We’re at an inflection point. The permissive era of YouTube-first strategies and low-barrier content creation is ending. That’s probably inevitable and not entirely bad. But if we’re not careful, we’ll regulate ourselves into a market failure where kids content becomes economically unviable for everyone except the organisations least equipped to innovate.

The regulatory reckoning is here and there’s no doubt we need it. But are we protecting children by improving content, or protecting them by ensuring there’s barely any content left to consume?

Welcome to 2026, where the challenge isn’t creating great kids media. It’s whether anyone will still find it worth creating at all.

FAST (Free Ad-Supported Streaming TV) is rapidly becoming a core part of Europe’s streaming landscape, reshaping content distribution, monetisation models and audience reach. As platforms scale and strategies evolve, understanding the FAST ecosystem is now essential for content owners, buyers and distributors.

Produced by the FAST4EU consortium, the FAST in Europe white paper provides a clear overview of the European FAST market, exploring growth drivers, platform strategies, monetisation approaches and territory-specific dynamics. Designed as a practical industry resource, it offers data-led insights to support decision-making in an increasingly competitive ad-supported environment.

 Download the white paper to explore the FAST opportunity in Europe.

Designed for mobile-first consumption and delivered in ultra-short episodes, micro-dramas have rapidly moved beyond niche status. Once seen as experimental, they are now emerging as a high-potential content format, capturing highly engaged audiences and opening up new monetisation and commissioning opportunities.

In this exclusive whitepaper produced by Ampere Analysis for MIP LONDON, the data tells a compelling story. Adoption levels are already strong in key territories, micro-drama viewers are proven super-consumers of video content, and clear patterns are emerging around audience age, genre preferences and platform usage

 Download the full white paper to access in-depth market insights, audience data and strategic takeaways shaping the future of micro-dramas.

MIPCOM’s director Lucy Smith called 2025’s event “the biggest shift in a generation” and she wasn’t wrong. At MIPCOM and MIPJUNIOR you could feel it, the air had changed. YouTube wasn’t just on the Croisette, it WAS the Croisette and the name was heard in almost every panel, keynote and conversation.

Media markets have entered their Creator Economy era

Those of us who’ve spent much of our careers in kids media quietly savoured our ‘we’ve-been-living-this-for-years’ moment with our salads at Caffe Roma, and we sipped our rosé with wry smiles that the rest of the media industry is acknowledging creator-led content. Something that the kids audience has been embracing for over a decade.

You see kids (as hard to predict and monetise as they are), give us HUGE clues as to where media is heading. I’ve said it on too many podcasts to count; that kids are a bellwether. A bellwether for fandom, for distribution and for how content will be produced and commercialised. If you can figure out what they want, where they want it, how they want it and how much they value it – then you have a blueprint for your future business.

And that blueprint is becoming increasingly pressing, because the numbers tell a sad story. Commissioning continues to slide and broadcasters are scrambling for relevance with social-first audiences – the very ones on which their businesses will depend within a few years. And yet, here’s YouTube celebrating its 20th birthday with its FIRST major presence at MIPCOM, announcing partnerships with Banijay (an initiative called “Creators Lab”) and a celebration alongside BBC Studios of their partnership on BBC Earth.

Meanwhile, delegates at MIPJUNIOR saw the debut of a show written by Kevin Tran, a creator with six million YouTube subscribers who published his first manga in 2017, sold a million books, and only then landed a commission for ‘Ki & Hi in the Panda Kingdom’ from Canal Plus in France and RTBF in Belgium.

If MIPCOM typified general entertainment embracing out how to ‘think like a creator’, kids media has been building around them for years. OG disruptors like Jay Jeon showed the way with what eventually became CoComelon. In 2006 he set up a YouTube channel to entertain his kids, and by 2020 it was generating $120 million annually in revenue for Moonbug. They saw what traditional media missed, YouTube was more than distribution, it was data-powered R&D. Moonbug took creator IP and scaled them; they were figuring this stuff out in kids media while legacy media was debating whether YouTube mattered.

And Ms. Rachel? She filmed Songs for Littles in her apartment in 2019 without fancy animation. She had almost no budget, just research-backed speech and language techniques and genuine care for kids’ development – a creator driven by purpose and passion. Today she has 17+ million subscribers, a Netflix deal and has disintermediated TV’s relationship with parents. She doesn’t need a commissioner, she speaks directly to families, and many trust her more than they trust broadcasters.

Kids media was forced to adapt, because they have been hit hardest by ever-trickier economics. The shift towards ad-supported platforms highlighted a lack of incentive to invest in kids content because kids and their habits cannot easily be tracked – which is a problem when your advertisers demand data. COPPA restrictions cratered revenue for those that were publishing on YouTube to the point where some question whether the regulation does more harm than good.

The MIPJUNIOR sessions also made the foresight in the kids space clear (we like to think in the future in kids media). Greg Dray from Animaj stated that he is convinced that the next big children’s IP will come from a platform like Roblox. That is something I too have predicted for years and about which I have spoken many times. It won’t be Netflix, nor Disney, it will be Roblox.

Why?

Because we see where kids are spending increasing amounts of time (millions of years’ worth per quarter) and creators on Roblox are as famous, as powerful as Miss Rachel or MrBeast. As Chris M. Williams from pocket.watch also reminded; kids creators have long been incubators for IP and their ecosystem has produced hits that traditional commissioning would never dream of.

There’s no doubt the creator economy is an opportunity, as kids sector shows. Creators of IP like Claynosaurz and Silly Crocodile carved a hybrid model of free content for reach and then derived revenue elsewhere. They watched where kids watch, they learned and built multi-platform businesses that monetise without reliance on a single platform. It’s not easy, but if creators are disrupting general entertainment now, kids creators are on version 2.0 of the playbook.

In short, if you want to know where media transformation is heading go and talk to someone creating in the kids sector. Or better still, join us at the Kids Summit at MIPLONDON on Tuesday 24 February 2026 at the IET LONDON. You may hear from attendees about squeezed CPMs, fractured attention, platform dependence and audience relationships – and that’s fine, we need to have the tough conversations – but you will DEFINITELY hear about how to build cohesive IP across YouTube, Roblox, streaming, merchandise and more, as well as hear practical strategies on how control costs and monetise content using insight, flexible distribution and innovative production – which is pretty transformative in itself.

For more information visit the MIP LONDON website here.

Why Latin America’s Streamers Are Turning to Existing IP

In streaming’s early boom, originality was the holy grail. Platforms competed to deliver the next Squid Game, Money Heist, or The Queen’s Gambit – series that could define their brands and fuel subscriber growth. But as competition has intensified and budgets have tightened, the industry’s mindset is shifting. Today, revisiting and reimagining proven IP is emerging as one of the most effective strategies for sustainable growth.

Few understand this better than Edward Allen, the former Chief Operating Officer of Pantelion Films – the joint venture between Lionsgate and Televisa – and one of the key figures behind Pantaya, the first U.S. streaming service dedicated to Spanish-language audiences. Pantaya, later acquired by TelevisaUnivision and folded into its global platform ViX, became a blueprint for how strong IP foundations can drive both audience engagement and acquisition strategy.

“It’s not necessarily smarter to acquire existing IP,” Allen explains, “it just has many benefits, including a quicker path to production, it’s been tested with an audience, it’s cost-effective, and it’s a more flexible model if you need to pivot to find stories or genres that the market suddenly wants.”

Faster Paths, Lower Risk

 For producers and streamers alike, that logic resonates. Working with existing IP means shorter development cycles, less creative uncertainty, and an audience that already knows the world being built.

“Proven IP has a built-in audience,” he continues. “From a marketing point of view, things today are very competitive and noisy. Having known IP allows you to cut through some of that noise because you don’t have to educate the audience on the brand, characters or world. With strong IP, there’s an existing fan base that already wants more of that content.”

In a marketplace where customer acquisition costs continue to rise, that familiarity isn’t just creative convenience – it’s a commercial advantage.

Reinventing Local Stories

 Latin America’s long tradition of telenovelas and local drama gives streamers a vast landscape of recognizable titles and characters to work with.

“Local IP in LatAm is being well exploited by the streamers today,” Allen notes. “The local media companies have an advantage because they’ve spent decades creating IP and building fan bases. The key for any success going forward is creating a fresh take on old IP.”

At Pantaya, that principle guided programming decisions. Remakes such as Overboard, No Manches Frida 1 & 2, Mi Tío, Montecristo, and Volver a Caer combined familiarity with new creative energy – illustrating how audiences respond to stories they already love, updated for today’s tone and sensibility.

Creative Renewal, Not Limitation

 Refreshing known properties doesn’t mean playing it safe, though. “Attaching writers, showrunners or directors who are themselves fans of the IP but who also have a fresh creative voice – that’s how you modernize without losing the DNA of the original,” he says.

He points to Barbie as a global case in point: “It did a great job of honoring the IP while modernizing the characters and story in a way that appealed to today’s audiences.”

The Balanced Slate

 For producers, the message is clear. Proven IP offers efficiency and recognition, while originals bring discovery and innovation. As Allen puts it, both are essential parts of a healthy content slate.

In an era defined by consolidation and competition, Latin America’s greatest streaming advantage may lie in its storytelling legacy – familiar worlds made new for the next generation of viewers.

A hundred years in television is an eternity – and a masterclass in reinvention. Globo has lived through it all: radio, broadcast, streaming, and now the attention economy. But what’s remarkable isn’t just its survival, it’s how the Brazilian network has managed to keep its storytelling relevant, emotional, and exportable.

As Angela Colla, Globo’s Head of International Business & Co-Productions, puts it: “The essence of Globo is grounded in the pursuit of quality, innovation, appreciation of talent, passion for communication, and an unwavering commitment to ethics and Brazilianess.”

That last word – Brazilianess – might just be the key. In a world of global formats and algorithmic sameness, Globo’s strength lies in the specificity of its culture and the universality of its emotions. It’s not nostalgia that keeps its stories alive; it’s adaptability built on identity.

Authenticity Travels Further Than Format

When asked what makes Brazilian storytelling distinctive, Colla doesn’t hesitate: “Authenticity, diversity, and a strong emotional connection with the audience.” Globo’s stories – from decades of telenovelas to today’s streaming dramas – tap into universal themes like family, optimism, and resilience, but always through a Brazilian lens. And that’s exactly what makes them resonate.

It’s a good reminder for producers and broadcasters everywhere: cultural truth beats trend-chasing. The content that lasts isn’t designed for an algorithm – it’s designed for connection. And the deeper the emotional link, the easier it becomes to travel across borders.

Reinventing, Not Repeating

Telenovelas built Globo’s empire, but they’re not relics of the past – they’re evolving IP. “The telenovela was the product that projected Globo onto the international stage,” Colla says. “For 50 years, we’ve been licensing our content, reinforcing the potential of the telenovela as a global IP that can be adapted into different formats and languages.”

Now, the next wave comes in Microdramas. With one launch planned in Brazil later this year (Cinderela e o Segredo do Pobre Milionário), Globo is expanding the telenovela format into short, vertical, and multiplatform content designed for different audience profiles. “Microdramas maintain the narrative excellence that has made us a benchmark, now with a language tailored for digital platforms,” she explains.

In other words, the format changes, the emotion doesn’t. Globo’s approach is a blueprint for modern IP owners: take what works emotionally and reframe it structurally. That’s how you protect legacy without getting stuck in it.

“In addition to expanding touchpoints with the audience, Microdramas open up new commercial opportunities, including licensing, co-productions, and brand integration in native, highly shareable formats.”, Colla continues.

Think Ecosystem, Not Episode

She describes today’s Globo as “an integrated media ecosystem” – a network that connects broadcast TV, streaming (Globoplay), and the largest out-of-home media network (Eletromídia). This allows Globo to create multiplatform experiences for both audiences and advertisers, offering a complete journey inside and outside the home. But this isn’t just about distribution; it’s about designing stories to live beyond one screen.

Globo is increasingly investing in building an ecosystem to expand its narratives. A recent example is the telenovela “Anything Goes”, in which Globo, through a new commercial model that integrates fiction and reality, brought the character Maria de Fátima into the influencer marketing market to carry out advertising campaigns with real brands. This kind of commercial initiative reaffirms how the telenovela remains present in people’s lives, with the power to generate business opportunities and spark conversations.

“Expanding our narrative universes into new formats strengthens the emotional bond with our stories and extends the lifecycle of our IPs,” she says. That could mean podcasts, live events, or interactive social spin-offs – all ways of turning passive viewers into active participants.

For producers, the takeaway is clear: think in worlds, not windows. The future of IP lies in building ecosystems that audiences want to live inside, not just watch.

Local Stories, Global Reach

For Colla, the international success of K-dramas proves a universal point: authenticity travels. “Local narratives, when told with authenticity and produced to global standards, have enormous potential to connect internationally,” she says.

Globo’s century-long story is a testament to that belief. The network has evolved from national storyteller to global IP factory – not by chasing trends, but by trusting its roots and continuously reinventing how those roots grow.

As Colla sums it up: “Our vision is to continue telling relevant stories that move and connect people, anywhere in the world. Celebrating 100 years is a recognition of our capacity for continuous reinvention. We are committed to innovation, to actively listening to society, and to the boldness of exploring new paths.”

And perhaps that’s the real takeaway for the next hundred years of content:
The future of global IP begins with stories that stay true to where they come from – and brave enough to imagine where they can go.