America vs. the U.K.: Who Makes Better TV Shows?

Summary of America vs. the U.K.: Who Makes Better TV Shows?

by The Ringer

46m•August 27, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of America vs. the U.K.: Who Makes Better TV Shows?

This live The Town panel from the Edinburgh TV Festival explores why the U.K. has long been unusually strong at producing hit TV formats, documentaries, and prestige dramas — and whether that advantage is being weakened or reshaped by global streamers. Matt Belloni is joined by Patrick Holland, Jane Root, and Dimitri Doganis to discuss public-service broadcasters, IP ownership, creator incentives, YouTube, and the future of TV business models in Britain and beyond.

Why the U.K. Keeps Punching Above Its Weight

A broadcaster ecosystem built for innovation

The panel argues that the U.K. has a uniquely strong TV ecosystem because public-service broadcasters like the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5 have historically made documentaries, unscripted shows, and experimental formats part of mainstream TV.

That created a deep talent pipeline:

  • Researchers
  • Assistant producers
  • Editors
  • Showrunners
  • Execs

In other words, the U.K. has spent decades training people in the craft of unscripted and documentary storytelling.

Audiences are trained to welcome novelty

A major theme is that British audiences are more tolerant of formats that feel strange, new, or unconventional. Unlike U.S. buyers who often want “our version” of a successful foreign show, U.K. audiences and commissioners are more likely to ask for something fresh rather than a copy.

Examples mentioned:

  • The Office
  • Peaky Blinders
  • MasterChef
  • Big Brother
  • Traitors

Ownership, IP, and the 2003 Media Act

The real business difference: who owns the show

One of the biggest structural advantages in the U.K. is that producers can own the IP for shows made for public-service broadcasters, thanks to reforms in the early 2000s.

That matters because it gives producers:

  • Upside if a show becomes a hit
  • Incentive to innovate
  • The ability to monetize globally
  • A reason to keep building new formats

Public-service broadcasters act as seed capital

The panel frames PSBs as a kind of “seed funding” system:

  • They pay enough to get a show off the ground
  • Producers retain rights
  • The show can then be expanded, licensed, or sold internationally

This model helped turn formats like MasterChef into global franchises.

The Streamer Effect: Opportunity and Damage

Streamers expanded the market

Everyone on the panel acknowledges that Netflix and other streamers have been hugely beneficial in one sense:

  • Bigger budgets
  • More buyers in the market
  • Global reach for niche or unconventional content
  • Massive audiences for documentaries and factual programming

They point to examples like:

  • Tinder Swindler
  • Don’t F**k with Cats
  • Baby Reindeer
  • Adolescence

But the tradeoff is work-for-hire

The downside is that streamers typically:

  • Buy all rights
  • Own the IP outright
  • Pay upfront
  • Leave producers with no back-end or long-term participation

That means producers often “start at zero” every year unless they have returning series.

A shift in power

The panel notes that streamers were once insurgents, but now they are the establishment. The question becomes: what comes next, and how do producers create leverage again?

New Strategies: YouTube, Stars, and Independent Financing

Building IP outside the streamer system

Jane Root discusses a strategy of developing shows directly with talent and launching them on YouTube or other digital platforms, where creators can retain ownership.

The logic:

  • Own the IP with the star
  • Build audience momentum
  • Use success to negotiate secondary deals later

Stars want skin in the game too

The panel emphasizes that talent increasingly wants:

  • Ownership
  • Participation in upside
  • More creative control

This is true for both celebrities and production companies.

Independent packaging as leverage

Dimitri Doganis compares this to film financing:

  • Develop a project independently
  • Package it with talent and financing
  • Then sell it with more leverage

The idea is to avoid relying entirely on streamer-commissioned work-for-hire deals.

What Content Still Works?

True crime remains strong — but not everything is true crime

Netflix reportedly still spends around $1.2–$1.5 million on true-crime docs, and that genre remains a reliable performer.

But the panel says there are still other promising categories:

  • Celebrity biographies
  • Sports docs
  • Pop-culture event series
  • Adventure/travel with a strong hook
  • Hybrid entertainment formats

Examples discussed:

  • Trainwreck / “Poop Cruise”
  • Stanley Tucci’s Searching for Italy
  • A planned HBO project about the whale from Free Willy
  • A live darts competition format featuring Luke Littler

Sports docs may be cooling

One notable point: sports documentaries are seen as less hot than they once were, with audiences and streamers showing signs of fatigue.

The Limits of Data

Data helps, but it can’t create the next surprise hit

The panel strongly cautions against overreliance on analytics:

  • Data only tells you what worked before
  • It cannot reliably predict the next breakout format
  • Great shows often defy existing audience models

They cite examples like:

  • Squid Game
  • Baby Reindeer
  • Adolescence

The takeaway: the best TV still requires instinct, risk-taking, and surprise.

Harry and Meghan, and the Problem of Product-Market Fit

The panel closes with a lighter but revealing discussion of celebrity-driven TV. Matt Belloni asks what Harry and Meghan should do next, and the group jokes that they need a format with real stakes.

Their conclusion:

  • Business and lifestyle shows don’t create enough tension
  • Audiences want jeopardy, transformation, or physical challenge
  • Harry might work better in a physically demanding adventure format

The subtext: even celebrity names need the right creative engine behind them.

Key Takeaways

  • The U.K.’s TV strength comes from a long-standing public-service broadcaster ecosystem that trains talent and rewards innovation.
  • IP ownership is the key economic driver behind producer entrepreneurship in Britain.
  • Streamers have expanded opportunity, but their work-for-hire model weakens long-term producer value.
  • The next phase may involve YouTube, creator-led formats, and independent financing models that preserve ownership.
  • Data is useful, but truly breakout TV still depends on instinct, risk, and originality.
  • The industry is searching for new leverage — and new formats — in a market where the old rules no longer fully apply.