Is Archive the Most Wasted Asset in TV?
Why re-cre costs less than using the real thing and how to fix it.
Let me start with a truth that might surprise anyone outside the industry: recreating a moment in history - hiring actors, finding a looky-likey location, shooting footage - can be cheaper than licensing the original. I know this because I’ve done it. As a producer, I’ve turned down archive clips that would have made the story sing. Not because they didn’t exist. Not because they were low quality. But because the clearance costs were eye-watering. If you wanted ten seconds of a political rally or a pop star walking through Heathrow in the 80s, you could be looking at hundreds, if not thousands, per clip, depending on how long you need it for. Multiply that across a whole episode, and it quickly becomes a budget-breaker. Sometimes, the license period of the clip is limited, meaning you have to clear it multiple times.
The result? I turned to "recre". In television, that means the artful reconstruction of events. It can be beautiful, clever, even emotionally powerful. But let’s be real: the only reason I did it was because it was cheaper. And that’s mad, when you stop to think about it. The real footage exists. It just sits there, unused, gathering metaphorical dust on digital shelves, because the industry has priced itself out of relevance.
So here’s the question: if archive is so valuable, why is it becoming so irrelevant?
The Dumbbell Dilemma
We’ve talked before about the "dumbbell" structure of modern content: a glut of high-end premium productions at one end, a flood of low-budget, high-volume content at the other, and a vanishing middle. Archive, right now, is welded to the premium side of that dumbbell. It’s priced for prestige. For big-budget docs. For flagship commissions. But guess what? That side of the dumbbell is shrinking.
As the streamers slash costs and the commissioning slowdown bites, the premium pie is getting sliced thinner and thinner. Meanwhile, over on YouTube, TikTok, and every startup factual brand trying to make their name, there’s an enormous demand for compelling historical visuals. Why, because it’s easier for the one man band to use archive than go to the effort of recre.
So what happens? People skip it. Or worse, they grab it anyway and hope the copyright bots are feeling sleepy that day. But either way, the archive owner doesn’t see a penny.
The Broken Business Model
Let’s be fair: archive houses do have real costs. There’s digitisation, storage, indexing, staff, offices and rights management. These aren’t charities. But the pricing model they use, bespoke deals, minimum spends, aggressive licensing tiers - is a hangover from a different era. A time when everything was broadcast, everything had a budget, and clip use was relatively rare. That’s not the world we’re in anymore.
We are now in a content economy that demands flexibility, speed, and above all, volume. But the archive sector is still stuck on boutique pricing. It’s like trying to sell bottled water in a flood.
And the irony? Archive isn’t rare. In fact, it’s one of the most abundant raw materials in the industry. We have decades, centuries even, of footage sitting in vaults. Every minute of it is an asset. But only if it’s used.
From Gucci to Walmart
Here’s the shift I think we need: archive has to stop thinking like Gucci and start thinking like Walmart.
You don’t make money by licensing a few clips at a thousand quid a pop. You make money by licensing millions of clips at a tenner each. You do it through platform deals, subscription access, flat-fee bundles, and verified creator licences. You make it easy, accessible, and priced for the reality of modern production.
This doesn’t mean devaluing the content. It means unlocking its actual value. Because unused archive isn’t worth anything. It’s like rare vinyl in a record shop that’s only ever visited by the 10 people who own a turntable.
Look at YouTube (And Not Just the Piracy)
YouTube is the biggest unofficial archive client in the world. Just scroll for five minutes and you’ll see: old news segments, retro TV intros, political campaign reels, forgotten documentaries. Is any of it cleared? Probably not. But it’s proof of demand. And when there’s demand, there’s an opportunity.
So why hasn’t anyone built a "get-legal" button for archive? Something that lets YouTubers or indie producers grab a low-res clip and pay a micro-licence fee? Answer: because the archive sector is too busy chasing whales to see the shoals of fish swimming past. But the whales are fewer now. And the shoals are growing.
BBC: Lead or Lag
Here’s a bolder suggestion: I believe the BBC should open up its historical archive to British production companies and creators for a flat monthly or annual fee. Think of it like a Spotify for archive: use what you need, pay a predictable price, and keep the cultural record alive. I mean, there I an argument that says we did fund it’s creation in the first place, so how come we can’t use it?
This could be limited to non-fiction. Exclude drama and entertainment formats. That’s fine. But for factual producers, documentarians, and social-first brands, it would be revolutionary.
More importantly, it would align with the BBC’s public service mission. What good is all that archive if it sits behind a wall? Especially when UK creatives are struggling to compete globally. Give them the tools.
Commercial Houses: Adapt or Fade
Private archive owners should take note. If your business is built on rare deals and slow-moving contracts, you are primed for obsolescence. Because someone’s going to build the Walmart of archive access. It might be a new platform. It might be a co-op of producers. It might even be a tech company with AI search and a smart legal framework. But it’s coming.
If you’re not in that game, you’re already losing.
The Real Future? Contextual and Tiered Licensing
Imagine this: you’re editing a doc or YouTube essay. You search a central archive database. You find your clip. The platform shows you the cost: £5 for digital use with attribution. One click, and it’s licensed. Revenue is split between rights holders, platform, and a clearance fund.
Now add this: pricing adjusts based on recency and relevance. Want something from last week’s news cycle? Fine, you pay a premium. But need a clip from 1973? That should be cheap - even free for UK cultural use (excluding processing costs). The paparazzi already operate this way: fresh is expensive, old becomes affordable. Perhaps clips that are in higher demand require a bigger feee, those that don’t become cheaper. That’s something software can track easily.
This model encourages use, drives volume, and keeps the content ecosystem thriving. It rewards immediacy where it matters, but ensures older archive material doesn’t just gather dust.
Is that utopian? Maybe. But that’s what the market needs. And in a world where creators are your fastest-growing customer base, giving them access means survival. Keeping them out means irrelevance.
Checklist for Change
Archive owners must create tiered, scalable, self-service pricing models
Public service broadcasters should enable low-cost access to heritage material
Legal teams should develop fast, flat-rate clearance frameworks for digital use
Pricing should decrease with age and context to incentivise use
Platforms like YouTube should integrate licensing APIs and compliance tools
Because the real tragedy isn’t just the lost revenue. It’s the stories that don’t get told. The original footage that never finds its audience. The cultural memory that fades when we could have kept it alive. The alternatives to archive that become more compelling to use.
Let’s fix that.
Hit reply and tell me the clip you wish you’d been able to use but couldn’t afford. Or if you run an archive house: what would it take to open the gates?
Ha! That's a brilliant idea! It's exactly why archive needs to be released...