Is You Tube TV? And Does It Really Matter?
One of the most provocative sessions at last week's Future of TV Advertising Global (conference in London tackled a question that's been dividing the industry: Is YouTube TV, and how should television approach YouTube? Moderated by Gerry D'Angelo of McKinsey & Company, the panel brought together Nicola Westwood from UM, Kate Waters from ITV, Lindsey Clay from Thinkbox, Anna Lujanen from Screenforce Finland, and Jon Watts from the Project X Initiative.
Having spent my career building distribution businesses—first as part of ESPN EMEA's original management team where I led distribution and revenue opportunities across diverse markets, then as the first overseas based executive for AMC Global where I helped grow international distribution revenue from under $60 million to over $644 million—I've learned that definitional debates often miss the point. The real question isn't what we call YouTube. It's how we monetize it.
By all accounts, YouTube has become an essential part of the ecosystem for media brands, channels, and TV shows. In April 2025, YouTube achieved a milestone that would have seemed impossible just years ago—it surpassed traditional TV by becoming the number one media company in TV viewing time, reaching 12.4% of total U.S. TV viewership. This marked YouTube's third consecutive month leading Nielsen's Gauge, representing its largest share ever. Crucially, viewing on living room screens overtook mobile for the first time, fundamentally challenging YouTube's perception as primarily a mobile platform for short form content.
These numbers reflect a marked shift in how audiences consume video content. YouTube is no longer just a destination for short clips and user-generated content. It has evolved into a dominant platform for watching video—full episodes, long-form content, and professionally produced programming—on the biggest screen in the home.
For content creators and broadcasters, YouTube has become too significant to ignore. The panel discussed how YouTube doesn't cannibalize audiences from other distribution channels, whether linear or BVOD (Broadcast Video On Demand) for public broadcasters. Instead, it serves as an additional discovery mechanism and revenue stream. This mirrors lessons I learned at ESPN EMEA and AMC Global: successful distribution strategies embrace multiple platforms rather than fighting against audience migration.
The revenue opportunity is substantial. YouTube paid out more than $100 billion to creators, artists, and media companies over the past four years. Legacy TV shows have found YouTube to be an important source of incremental revenue. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment operates the Classic TV Rewind channel on YouTube, offering full episodes of shows like All in the Family, Bewitched, Charlie's Angels, and The Partridge Family. These classic sitcoms and dramas, some decades old, generate advertising revenue on YouTube that didn't exist before—monetizing catalog content that might otherwise sit unused. Shows like Friends and Seinfeld, which already earn billions through traditional syndication and streaming deals, have also leveraged YouTube for promotional clips, behind-the-scenes content, and selective episodes that drive awareness and nostalgia while generating additional revenue. Channels earning over $100,000 annually from TV screens on YouTube increased 45% year-over-year, demonstrating growing monetization opportunities.
However, the FTVA panel didn't shy away from YouTube's limitations, particularly for certain types of content and business models. Major broadcasters that rely heavily on long-established advertising relationships with CPG brands like Unilever or car manufacturers to fund high-quality scripted drama face a fundamental challenge. YouTube's advertising model and revenue splits don't allow them to produce the same kind of high production value content and fully recoup costs in the way traditional television can.
Premium scripted drama, not to mention live sporting events, requires substantial upfront investment—expensive writers, directors, actors, production crews, and post-production. Traditional television's advertising model, with its higher CPMs and direct brand relationships, has historically supported this investment. YouTube's creator-focused revenue model, while lucrative for many content types, doesn't yet provide the same economics for expensive long-form scripted content. This explains why Netflix, Amazon, and Apple have invested billions building their own platforms rather than relying on YouTube distribution.
Kate Waters from ITV articulated this tension well. For broadcasters investing millions in premium drama, YouTube represents a complementary platform rather than a primary distribution strategy. The economics simply don't work for their highest-cost content. ITV's recent partnership with YouTube, announced just before the conference, reflects this nuanced approach—leveraging YouTube for discovery and reach while maintaining control over premium inventory and advertiser relationships. Yet for most other content creators—unscripted programming, documentaries, educational content, news, sports highlights, lifestyle programming—YouTube represents an essential component of success. The platform's reach, discovery algorithms, and monetization capabilities make it indispensable for building audiences and generating revenue. During my time scaling AMC Global's distribution, I learned that different content types require different distribution strategies. The same principle applies to YouTube.
In my view, the panel discussion emphasized that the definitional question—Is YouTube TV?—seems increasingly beside the point. What matters is that YouTube has become an undeniable part of the video landscape. Nielsen measures it. Advertisers buy it. Audiences watch it on their large screen televisions. Whether we classify it as "TV" or something else doesn't change these fundamental realities. The numbers from April 2025 underscore YouTube's dominance. It's not just the number one platform by share at 12.4% —it's substantially ahead of second-place Disney at 10.7%. YouTube has effectively become the largest media company by TV viewership, and analysts project it will surpass Disney in total revenue by the end of 2025. This isn't a future trend to monitor; it's the present reality.
For broadcasters and content creators, the strategic question isn't whether to engage with YouTube but how to do so effectively. Some approaches discussed at the panel included using YouTube for promotional content that drives audiences to owned platforms, licensing select catalog content for monetization, creating YouTube-specific content tailored to the platform's strengths, and developing hybrid strategies that leverage YouTube's reach while protecting premium inventory. My experience building distribution businesses across ESPN and AMC taught me that resistance to new platforms rarely succeeds. When ESPN EMEA launched across diverse markets in the 2000s, we faced skepticism from traditional broadcasters who viewed us as a threat. The smart ones partnered with us. The resistant ones lost relevance. The same dynamic is playing out with YouTube. The panel concluded that YouTube's role in the television ecosystem will continue expanding regardless of how we categorize it. With over $100 billion paid to creators and media companies in four years, YouTube has proven it's not just a video platform—it's a legitimate revenue source and distribution channel. For most content creators, YouTube is one of several essential components of success rather than a threat to avoid.
Looking ahead, the question isn't "Is YouTube TV?" but rather "How can television and YouTube coexist productively?" Major broadcasters will continue investing in premium scripted content that YouTube's economics can't support, while leveraging YouTube for discovery, promotional content, and catalog monetization. Independent creators and producers of certain content types will build businesses primarily around YouTube. Hybrid approaches will proliferate as the lines between "TV" and "digital video" continue blurring.
The reality is that audiences don't care about our industry definitions. They simply want to watch compelling content on whatever screen is convenient. YouTube has succeeded by meeting this demand at massive scale. Rather than debating what to call it, the television industry would be better served figuring out how to profit from it. As someone who's spent a career monetizing content across evolving platforms, I can say with confidence: the money doesn't care what we call the distribution channel.
