YouTube is taking over TV viewership in the U.K. Legacy broadcasters are not happy about it.

Public broadcasters in the U.K. are facing stiff competition from YouTube both on TV and online, and as a result want regulators to force YouTube to give them more money and more prominence on its own platform.

Like it does in the U.S., YouTube has a massive TV presence in the U.K. It’s second only in living room TV watch time to the BBC, with viewers watching an average of 39 minutes per day of content in 2024. YouTube has seen some pushback against its dominance in the U.S., but mostly in verbal form, and from streaming competitors like Netflix, whose CEO Ted Sarandos has made no secret of his distaste.

The U.K., however, tends to be more regulation-happy with social media (as seen by the recent push for age verification that has U.S. digital rights groups concerned), so it’s no surprise broadcasters feeling financial pressure are asking organizations to make YouTube share its toys.

OK, we’re being a little facetious there, but we’ve been tracking for years how legacy entertainment industries are struggling to connect with audiences while creator-led platforms continue to grow. Creators are more in touch with their audiences, less strangleheld by decisions from studio executives, and have that magic quality going for them: relatability. They are a new age of entertainment, and legacy industries can learn from and embrace them.

It helps that their content tends to be free.

As The Guardian reports, viewers in the U.K. have to pay £174.50 for annual licenses to watch network TV; the BBC has seen a consistent fall in the number of licenses paid for per year, a pattern that matches general cord-cutting everywhere as TV gets more expensive, and cheaper options (aka YouTube and TikTok) become more available.

U.K. broadcasters are jostling for space on TVs and online. The BBC, S4C, STV, Alba, and other public broadcasters have come together in a complaint that centers around forcing YouTube to give their content increased visibility and revenue across viewership devices.

“We need our public service broadcasters to stand out in a crowded online world,” the broadcasters said in a joint statement. “That means action to ensure our content is prominent on devices and platforms where audiences spend their time—not just smart TVs but also video-sharing platforms like YouTube, and on fair commercial terms that don’t undermine our ability to deliver our remit.”

Dame Carolyn McCall, the chief exec at ITV, added in a conference speech that there is “no point us being told we have to go on [digital] platforms when actually the pay aways are so high that it makes it completely uneconomic. We all know there’s not infinite sources of ad revenue. So fair value […] is going to be critical.”

Channel 4‘s lead exec Jonathan Allan also chimed in, saying broadcasters are “very happy to work with YouTube on that without regulation, but in the end, we probably do need some regulation. […] It’s very different being a creator in your bedroom versus a big broadcaster like this.”

We think that statement significantly undersells modern creators. Yes, YouTube started with creators in their bedrooms, but these days it’s a $250 billion industry, with creators making multithousand- and multimillion-dollar investments into individual videos. They have production teams of dozens and partnerships with some of the biggest brands in the world. If broadcasters are thinking of YouTubers as their competition while simultaneously relegating them to all being “a creator in a bedroom,” well…we’ve got news for them.

One part of the broadcasters’ complaint echoes concerns from both creators and viewers: the amount of misinformation on social platforms.

Broadcasters said they want YouTube to give them more prominence because “we need trusted, independent journalism to thrive.”

“This includes promoting impartial news on the platforms young people use, and securing the right deals with social media companies that promote accurate reporting and combat misinformation,” they said.

Their capstone comment? “These [digital platforms] may be impressive businesses but they are driven by profit, not purpose. Most of their content is not subject to the same safeguards and regulatory standards as ours. They have no mandate to contribute to the shared social fabric of the U.K.”

Because they are contributing to “the shared social fabric,” these broadcasters deserve a bigger revenue cut from YouTube, they say. Right now, they’re getting the standard 55% cut of ad money generated by their uploads.

It’s possible YouTube might be willing to work with them. The platform has already put systems in place to prioritize news content (in search, recommended, Watch Next, etc) from trusted publishers around hot-button topics like elections, so it may view a new deal as an expansion of its efforts. (Then again, it’s also told moderators to ease up on removing videos with misinformation.)

The path forward from here likely involves Ofcom, the U.K.’s regulator for broadcasting, internet, telecommunications, and postal industries. The Guardian reports Ofcom has “signaled” acceptance of broadcasters’ desires to push back against the platform, which could result in an official investigation and mediating negotiations between YouTube and broadcasters.