Unicorns Are A Fantasy Business Model

Cart Horses Are the Real Winners in TV

Not everything needs to be a unicorn.

Cart horses are what channels, and producers, really need to think about.

Because while we all love the idea of a dazzling breakout hit, the truth is, most broadcasters are kept afloat by the shows that quietly plough the fields in the background, day after day. The ones that deliver loyal audiences, repeatable formats, and predictable returns.

We’re in a moment now where everyone wants more for less - more talent, more ambition, more locations. But producers? They’re getting less time, smaller budgets, fewer episodes, and shrinking production fees.

Here’s the thing: I still believe it is possible to make brilliant content in this climate. But it takes a different mindset - one that values long-term thinking over short-term sparkle. It was Sam Barcroft who said the other week, “Build a boring business”, and he’s right.

What he meant by that, I think, was you need to build a company which produces reliable products - not one that means you need to pull a rabbit, or a mythical creature, out of a hat constantly to survive.

What really keeps broadcasters afloat

Some of the smartest moves in this industry come from not chasing unicorns.

Everyone wants the next Blue Planet or Squid Game or Bake Off. That’s natural. But if you zoom out, what actually keeps most broadcasters running isn’t the headline shows. It’s the repeatable ones. The ones that quietly deliver, year after year.

Think Come Dine With Me. A modest idea. Simple format. Shot on a budget. But it’s generated tens of millions in revenue, travelled globally, and become a cultural reference point.

And it’s not alone. A Place in the Sun, Wheeler Dealers, The Science of Stupid, Britain’s Best Dish - none of them are flashy, but they’ve built entire schedule identities for channels. In cable they stack such shows up, running weekend marathons - this was the original YouTube where the libraries where on air instead. These shows performed so well that the revenue they earned paid for more ambitious commissions. Not only that, they built a reliable audience who stuck around for more.

Whats amazing is that these are comparatively small budget hits. This is the opposite end of the content dumb-bell I often talk about. Lean, low-cost shows ordered in volume. They’re not prestige titles and they’re exactly what I’d want in my slate if I were trying to make channel fit for a digital world. This is the type of content I am developing for my prodco - and so should you too.

But before we get to the programme - let’s talk development effort

We often assume the flashier the project, the more worthwhile it is. But a high-end, three-part drama often demands just as much creative investment as a returnable 10-parter that can run for five seasons.

Only one of those has a shot at backend revenue, international sales, or a spin-off. Remember, the more expensive you make something to a buyer, the less of it you’re likely to own.

That’s why I keep coming back to this: what’s the absolute cheapest version of the show you could make?

It’s not about cutting corners. It’s about clarity. About understanding what really matters. From there, the next question is simple: how do we make money from it? Stop thinking production fee’s and margins - because on a lean budget, they’re gone.

If fees are minimal and margins tight, then rights become your margin. Your growth. Your future.

That’s why we have to stop defaulting to “yes” when commissioner’s ‘extras’ get thrown in to the conversation. Sometimes the smartest thing you can do is say “no”, no matter how scary that is to do so, because then you’re thinking like a business.

Broadcasters need to reassess what they’re asking for

So if you’re going to change - then commissioners need a different outlook too. Channels can’t expect brilliant content for nothing. If they want to survive on cheaper programming, they have to compromise as well. After all, we’re all in this together.

That might mean accepting fewer commissions but having longer runs. The show will have fewer bells and whistles and they will have to give up some of the rights they used to hoard. Yes, they’d love to own everything. But remember, when they acquire content, rather than commission it, they don’t own that either - they just get the rights to air it, and they still make enough money to commission new content.

Broadcastwers need to Mae their content work harder - well this is how you do it. Longer runs, lower costs, money from advertising that will actually, for once payback your investment. It’s all about the AMORT stupid.

Of course commissioners will want the extras that they’re so used to getting - it’s hard not to blame them for trying. However, we’re not down at a traders market, haggling over a pound of beef. TV can’t be made at the producer’s expense. Not anymore.

So instead of trying to get the best ‘deal’ and trying to squeeze as much content out for nothing, there is an even bigger question they should be asking themselves. What do they actually need their shows to do?

Too many times have I seen channel execs agonise over scripting, shots and visuals. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: no-one really cares. Content does a job. And that job, most of the time, is to entertain.

We don’t need to obsess in the edit. Not every show is Adolescence. Not every project needs to win awards.

If you want proof, just look at YouTube, podcasts, TikTok - platforms packed with niche formats, lo-fi production, and deeply loyal followings. Content just needs to be good - not perfect - because perfect costs money - and if you cant afford to pay for it then you’re going to get a product thats made in Primark not John Lewis.

And really, is that a problem?

TV people are still sniffy about digital. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard: “Our viewers want more action and less talking.”

But do they?

Because the biggest, most consistent YouTube hits are more talking and less action.

Niche channels. Deep dives. Long interviews. Lo-fi formats that build massive loyalty.

I know: “That’s not TV.” But maybe we need to ask - if TV is so much better, why are viewing numbers continuing to plummet?

We need to rethink what we mean by quality. Stop defending legacy structures and learn from what’s working elsewhere on other platforms and figure out how to bring it into our world.

Not blindly stagger on, telling everyone our content is best when the next generation isn’t even watching it.

Still not convinced? Evan Shapiro’s excellent substack Media’s War & Peace lays out the stats better than I ever could.

What’s next?

So where does that leave us? We need to stop thinking of smaller budget shows as second-best. Stop seeing returnability as the opposite of creativity.

Because what these shows offer is something every business wants: loyal audiences, predictable growth, and long-term value.

Not everything has to be a unicorn. In fact, most of the best things in TV aren’t.

And if you’re wondering who the next big commissioning names will be, don’t look at the traditional linear ladder.

Look at the digital commissioners who already get it people like Hearst’s Sam Pearson and Channel 4’s Evie Buckley. They understand how digital-first content builds brand equity, audience data, and long-tail IP.

They see YouTube as a funnel, not a threat. They know content doesn't have to be expensive to be valuable. And they’re the ones who will reshape what commissioning looks like in the next five years.

And commissioners, next time you’re in a pitch meeting?
Don’t ask for a unicorn, buy a Shire horse instead. You’ll thank me for it, trust me.