When TV turned upside down
Opinion
Is the US-owned Comcast a ‘white knight’ riding in to save British commercial TV? Medialab’s director of Advanced TV looks at the potential sale of ITV’s studio arm to Sky.
It has been a whiplash couple of weeks in TV, with attention veering from one breaking story to another. As the dust starts to settle, there is finally room to digest one of the biggest surprises. And no, it isn’t the unexpected viewing triumph of The Celebrity Traitors over the Lionesses’ Euro win.
News that ITV is in preliminary talks with Sky is the biggest bombshell to hit the sector for some time.
Understandably, opinion about the potential £1.6bn deal is divided. While LinkedIn feeds light up with hot takes, the best way to understand how the proposal might shake out, and what it would mean for the industry, is to step back and look at what’s actually possible. Or to be more specific: we must recognise two inconvenient truths.
This deal might break anti-competition rules
The combination of ITV and Sky would represent around 70% of the commercial broadcast market. By any typical definition, this would be considered a monopolistic and anti-competitive position, given that a persistent share of 40% or more is usually the threshold.
Exemptions can and do happen. We only need to look at the cinema market, where DCM represents around 80% of the market, to recognise that such concentration can exist in the media space.
However, the TV market is far larger than the cinema market, and if we’re looking for precedents, we have a couple that point to very different conclusions about TV.
The first, and one I’ve seen mentioned repeatedly, is Project Kangaroo. The bold, ahead-of-its-time ambition to bring together the BBC, ITV and Channel 4’s video on demand propositions into a joint venture was blocked in 2009 because it posed too significant a threat to competition in the budding VOD market, with the potential to restrict opportunities for current and future rival channels.
Based on this example, the outlook doesn’t look great. However, we can’t forget that before the formation of ITV as we know it today, “Independent Television” was a disparate cluster of regional broadcasters.
When Granada and Carlton merged in 2003, the Competition Commission stepped in: not to block the merger, but to protect advertisers from what would otherwise have been a monopolistic position through the introduction of Contract Rights Renewal (CRR), which was designed to prevent any possible misuse of ITV’s market power by enabling advertisers to roll over contracts with terms agreed before the merger.
Could we see a CRR-style measure put in place to allow this deal to happen? Possibly, but we need to see the wood for the trees when evaluating the market.
This alliance wouldn’t actually mean 70% dominance of “TV”, because TV now extends far beyond the traditional purview of linear broadcasting, as emphasised by ITV itself at its recent Palooza.
The market is far bigger than the broadcasters: it includes the growing scale of subscription and video-on-demand (SVOD and AVOD), and, of course, YouTube.
When viewed through a wider AV lens, that 70% becomes a much more palatable number. And it’s through this lens that the rationale for the tie-up becomes clearer.
It would protect independent British broadcasting, something we cannot afford to lose.
Homegrown content shapes our experiences, beliefs, morals, judgements and national conversation. It’s often cited as a cliché, but the Mr Bates vs The Post Office effect is real. The collective experience of watching together at the same time, sparking debate and pushing forward the issues we deem important, is non-negotiable.
Meanwhile, the growing streaming market is primarily (if not exclusively) owned and operated from the US. These platforms are not set up to produce content that reflects the day-to-day reality of British life.
Despite perceptions of Netflix’s dominance, the top 100 programmes of 2025 are all British-made. That’s not to say the streamers can’t deliver impact in the UK. Adolescence clearly shows that they can, and do, but those moments are few and far between compared to the output of ITV and Sky.
Comcast’s involvement could cast a long news shadow
Sky is owned by Comcast, an American company that is also reportedly eyeing acquisitions of Warner Bros. and Paramount.
The motivation for this spree has so far remained unclear, and what it means for the UK market even less so. Some have posited that it is a defensive strategy against YouTube’s continued march, particularly given the platform’s dominance in the US. But there is also a more insidious interpretation.
While some frame Comcast as the “white knight” riding in to save British TV, if it were to acquire the studio arm of ITV, this would include ownership of ITN, the producer of ITV and Channel 4’s news programming.
Since Comcast already owns Sky News, this would leave only BBC News and GB News as major news broadcasters not under its control. The issue? American majority control of British news broadcasting, and the implied transfer of soft power to a foreign entity whose priorities may not always align with national policy and interests. The risk to news plurality should not be underestimated.
So where does that leave us?
For what my opinion is worth, I think Sky has a good chance of pushing ahead with its acquisition of ITV. Still, there is likely to be a protracted regulatory process before anything significant changes, as well as protections akin to CRR to safeguard advertisers and Channel 4.
If that does happen, we should also expect clear mandates for news plurality and firm commitments to invest in domestic programming.
Something I’ve not seen mentioned much is the implications for trading. Who knows what it might mean if things continue as they are today, but surely this is the ideal moment to reset how we trade entirely?
There has long been discussion in the industry about moving to a single currency, and perhaps this is the perfect segue to make that move finally.
A shift towards true programmatic linear TV that monetises every impact, increases revenue, and democratises the buy could entice the long tail of SMEs that Google Search has hoovered up for years.
While this may sound pie-in-the-sky, it is becoming increasingly plausible, especially after ITV announced Live Addressable+ at its Palooza last week. While we don’t yet know the full details, if addressability at scale is coming, then it may be sooner than we think.
Add to that the rise of generative AI, which will democratise TV copy creation and allow SMEs to produce high-quality ads for prime-time “linear” TV and we may be moving into a very different world: one that could create opportunities for all.
In my view, strong regulation and a realistic understanding of the risks facing British TV are the best arguments against blocking the deal. But only time will tell whether these are enough.
Jonathan Manning is the director of Advanced TV at Medialab