The Real Reason TV Commissioning is Broken..

We need a new financial model—one that works in today’s digital-first, fragmented media world. I have a solution—one that can support indies, pivot them to a digital universe, and give broadcasters premium content at a sustainable cost. Sound too good to be true? It’s not. But first, let’s look at why the current system is failing.

Last week, I joined Justin Crosby TellyCast - the content industry news podcast to debate whether commissioning is still fit for purpose in 2025. The answer? It’s in urgent need of change. You can watch the full discussion on here.

TV has long relied on financial forecasting and amortisation to determine what gets made and how broadcasters make their money. But with audience behaviour shifting and ad revenue in decline, that model is crumbling. The result? Less risk-taking, fewer commissions, and more production companies struggling to survive.

The Fundamentals of AMORT in TV

Amortisation in TV works like a mortgage. Before commissioning a show, broadcasters calculate how long it will take to make their money back through advertising, syndication, international sales, and other revenue streams.

Different genres have different amortisation periods. Live sports amortise instantly, bringing in premium ad revenue in real time. High-end dramas like Game of Thrones can take years to become profitable but generate long-term revenue through licensing and international sales. Most general programming used to be amortised over two to three years—broadcasters knew they could recoup their investment within that period.

But now, that assumption no longer holds.

Why Broadcasters Are Shortening Amortisation Windows

With declining ad revenue and increasing financial uncertainty, broadcasters want to recoup investment faster and reduce risk. The result?

1. Lower budgets and fewer commissions.
2. A focus on high-value genres (crime, drama, sports docs) that have strong international appeal and resale value.

This shift is why UK-centric, locally focused content is in crisis. A fly-on-the-wall docuseries about a British high street chain may resonate with domestic audiences, but if it lacks international resale value, broadcasters can’t justify the spend. And without international sales to extend amortisation, budgets shrink even further.

How Netflix and Streamers Changed the Game

Streaming services disrupted traditional TV economics—not just with programming but with a radical new financial model.

Unlike broadcasters, they don’t rely on immediate ad revenue or overnight ratings. Instead, they focus on long-term subscription growth, allowing them to amortise content over a much longer period.

Early on, Netflix amortised content over double the length of traditional TV, sometimes even longer. Their logic? Content never disappears from their library, meaning it can generate value for years. UK broadcasters, by contrast, relied on limited "windowing" opportunities—once a show aired, it was hard to re-monetise it.

However, as streaming has matured, even Netflix has shortened amortisation periods. Now, they prioritise:

• High-repeatability content (procedural dramas, evergreen docuseries).
• International appeal (crime, live sports, franchiseable reality formats).
• Lower production costs relative to expected return.

Meanwhile, UK broadcasters are playing catch-up. They are fighting to hold onto digital rights, but their financing models aren’t set up for the long-tail economics of digital-first content.

Why YouTube and Digital-First Content Have Even Longer AMORT Periods

For digital-first creators, amortisation periods are even longer than in traditional TV. YouTube monetisation works differently:

• Revenue builds gradually over time.
• Older content still generates income through long-tail audience growth.
• Lower CPMs mean earnings per view are lower than TV advertising.

Crucially, YouTube doesn’t cannibalise TV audiences. My mum watches TV, my kids watch YouTube, and I watch both. They serve different viewing habits and should complement—not compete with—each other.

A New Business Model: Simultaneous YouTube and TV Content Release

So how do we fix this? The answer is clear:

Broadcasters should co-finance digital-first content, but instead of testing it on YouTube first, they should release it simultaneously on both platforms—produced for YouTube first, then reformatted with exclusive elements for TV.

Here’s how it could work:

1. Broadcasters fund digital-first content but allow indies to retain monetisation rights.
2. Indies release content on YouTube and digital platforms, while broadcasters air a reversioned format with added exclusive elements.
3. This ensures content is monetised effectively on both platforms while maintaining unique value for different audiences.

This model benefits everyone:

• Indies gain financial sustainability beyond one-off commissions.
• Broadcasters get proven content with an existing audience at a lower cost.
• Audiences get fresh, authentic programming tailored to different viewing habits.

The Industry Needs to Wake Up

The traditional TV funding model no longer works. Broadcasters cannot expect premium content at lower risk without offering something in return.

The solution isn’t to squeeze producers harder or commission less—it’s to embrace a business model that works for both broadcasters and indies in the digital-first age.

The industry must evolve—or risk becoming irrelevant.

To see my other articles please consider signing up to my Substack here.