Marina Collins - Entertainment Editor

The entertainment landscape is undergoing a dramatic shift, with streaming services rapidly gaining ground on traditional linear television. New data presented at MIP London this week reveals a clear trend: audiences are increasingly abandoning scheduled programming in favor of on-demand content, and broadcasters are scrambling to adapt through aggressive “hyper-distribution” strategies. This evolution isn’t just about where people watch, but how, with platforms like YouTube demonstrating surprising reach and engagement patterns.

Frédéric Vaulpré, Senior Vice-President of Glance, the television research and market-intelligence division of Médiamétrie, shared these insights during his presentation, “Cracking Audience Trends: Who is Watching What, How &amp. Why?” at MIP London on February 22nd. The findings highlight a fundamental change in viewing habits, driven by convenience, personalization, and a growing appetite for diverse content options. The rise of streaming is reshaping not only consumer behavior but as well the business models of media companies worldwide.

Decline of Linear TV and the Rise of Streaming

Across Europe, traditional television consumption remains significant, but is demonstrably declining. In Northern Europe, daily TV viewing averages around two hours, comparable to North America, even as Southern Europe sees higher engagement, with Italy reaching three hours and 27 minutes. However, the U.S. Market provides a stark illustration of the shift, with linear TV usage dropping from 60% to 44% in just four years. This decline is particularly impacting cable channels, many of which now hold less than a 1% audience share, including networks like AMC, HBO, and Lifetime.

As of November 2025, US networks accounted for 23% of viewership, cable for 21%, and streaming for 47%, according to Vaulpré’s presentation. Similar trends are emerging in other markets, with streaming gaining traction in the UK (34%), Mexico (24%), and Brazil (37%). This growth is fueled by strong competition, dynamic pay-TV markets, and the influence of powerful private broadcasters.

YouTube and Netflix: The Dominant Players

While numerous streaming services vie for attention, YouTube and Netflix are emerging as the clear frontrunners. Vaulpré noted that while Netflix maintains consistent viewership across countries, YouTube boasts significantly broader reach. “If we seem at the UK number, for example, it’s a crazy number: a unique reach of 80% of the population in one month,” he stated. This widespread appeal prompts a deeper look into YouTube’s audience dynamics.

Analysis reveals that 25% of YouTube viewers account for 75% of total consumption, a pattern mirrored by Netflix, where 25% of viewers generate 65% of total viewing. Interestingly, YouTube skews younger, with viewers aged 4 to 15 representing 28% of its audience, compared to 14% for Netflix. This demographic difference is significant for advertisers and content creators alike.

The platforms also differ in viewing environments. While TV screens account for 45% to 80% of consumption on Disney+, Netflix, and Amazon Prime Video, YouTube sees a more balanced distribution across PC, tablet, mobile, and TV. TikTok, unsurprisingly, remains dominant in mobile-first consumption.

Broadcasters Embrace Hyper-Distribution

Faced with the rise of streaming, broadcasters are increasingly adopting a “hyper-distribution” strategy, aiming to make their content available on as many platforms as possible. This includes partnerships with pay-TV aggregators like Sky in the UK and Canal+ in Europe. In France, 90% of Netflix users access the platform through the Canal+ interface, and an even higher percentage of Paramount+ viewing occurs via Canal+.

However, not all broadcasters are pursuing this strategy with the same zeal. Arte, a French cultural channel, distributes only 20% of its content directly, relying on other platforms for 80% of its reach. Conversely, M6 Group distributes 96% of its content in-house, though recently signed a distribution agreement with Amazon Prime Video, signaling a potential shift. The push for hyper-distribution is driven by a desire to maintain viewer loyalty, expand reach, particularly among younger audiences, and grow digital ad inventory.

This trend is also reflected in the strategies of streamers themselves, with a move towards incorporating live content. Disney+ introduced live-consumption playlists like ABC News Live and Disney+ Playtime in 2024, adding The Simpsons Live channel in November. Netflix and HBO Max have also begun exploring similar strategies over the past 18 months, blurring the lines between traditional broadcasting and on-demand streaming.

What’s Next for the Media Landscape?

The media landscape continues to evolve at a rapid pace, with the “streamification” of broadcasters and the “broadcastification” of streamers creating a complex and dynamic environment. The ongoing pursuit of hyper-distribution suggests that content accessibility will remain a key battleground for audience attention. As broadcasters and streamers adapt to changing viewing habits, the focus will likely remain on delivering compelling content and maximizing reach across multiple platforms.

What are your thoughts on the future of television? Share your predictions in the comments below, and don’t forget to share this article with your network!

In an era saturated with meticulously crafted narratives, it’s easy to blur the lines between fiction and reality. A recent observation circulating online serves as a potent reminder: an actor is performing, it’s a movie, and the story unfolding is, fundamentally, not real. This seemingly simple statement, shared on Threads, cuts to the core of our engagement with entertainment and the potential for emotional investment in fabricated worlds.

The message, posted by Roland Kupski (@oliphantcrafts), succinctly states, “He is an actor, it is a movie, the story is fictional: nothing is real, its literally a lie in every aspect.” While appearing straightforward, the sentiment resonates with a growing awareness of the constructed nature of media, particularly in an age of increasingly sophisticated visual effects and immersive storytelling. The core idea – that what we witness on screen is a deliberate fabrication – is a crucial distinction to maintain, especially as audiences grow more deeply involved in the lives and dramas of fictional characters.

This observation arrives amidst a landscape of intense fan engagement and parasocial relationships, where viewers often form strong emotional connections with performers and the characters they portray. The popularity of franchises like Andor, a series praised for its complex characters and compelling narrative, demonstrates this phenomenon. Tony Gilroy, the creator of Andor, even identified a specific scene – Syril’s motivation – as his favorite, highlighting the power of storytelling to captivate audiences. As noted in a Threads discussion, the creator’s preference underscores the impact of carefully constructed narratives.

The distinction between reality and performance is particularly relevant when considering the historical context of filmmaking. Discussions about the challenges faced by actors, even in seemingly simple scenarios, highlight the artifice involved. For example, a recent conversation on Threads explored the practicalities of bathroom breaks for medieval knights in full armor. This seemingly unrelated query, brought up by Roland Kupski, subtly reinforces the idea that even depictions of historical events are subject to creative license and logistical considerations.

the line between fact and fiction can become particularly blurred when discussing the origins of fame. A post on Threads incorrectly stated that Daniel Radcliffe first became famous for The Lord of the Rings. Roland Kupski quickly corrected this, pointing out that Radcliffe rose to prominence through the Harry Potter series, demonstrating the importance of accurate information even within casual online discussions about entertainment.

The reminder that actors are performers and movies are constructed narratives isn’t meant to diminish the enjoyment of entertainment. Rather, it encourages a more critical and informed engagement with media. Recognizing the inherent “lie” in every aspect of a fictional work allows viewers to appreciate the artistry and craftsmanship involved while maintaining a healthy distance from the illusion. It’s a call to remember that while stories can evoke powerful emotions, they are ultimately products of imagination and creative interpretation.

As the entertainment industry continues to evolve, with increasingly realistic special effects and immersive virtual experiences, the ability to discern between reality and fiction will become even more crucial. The conversation sparked by this simple statement serves as a timely reminder to approach all forms of media with a discerning eye and a healthy dose of skepticism. The future of storytelling will likely depend on our ability to appreciate the art of illusion without losing sight of the truth.

What are your thoughts on the increasing blurring of lines between reality and fiction in entertainment? Share your perspective in the comments below, and don’t forget to share this article with your friends!