The documentary veteran and Scorpion TV MD on his key takeaways from the start of 2026, including a squeezed middle, a complicated rights picture and the continued importance of brands.
David Cornwall
How would you assess the state of the independent documentary market at the start of 2026?
I’d say the market feels more selective than dead. There is still demand for documentaries, but buyers are commissioning and acquiring more cautiously, and far fewer projects feel like easy yeses. The broad middle has become much harder. Films that would sell in 2022 would not sell today. The films that move fastest tend to have either real editorial urgency, a very clear audience proposition, premium access or a subject that travels cleanly across territories. That seems to fit the wider market mood, where factual has held up better than some scripted categories but buyers are still being much more disciplined.
What are the key challenges facing an indie distributor like yourself in this space?
Going back to the ‘squeezed middle’ most documentaries made by independent producers tend to be human stories of the world around them, subjects they can access easily and over time. As a distributor, these types of films are easy to acquire but hard to sell without the aforementioned hooks. So we are all chasing premium titles, which in a way is a good thing – if you can get them! The other issue is that now it takes more work to close fewer obvious deals. Buyers want sharper positioning, rights conversations have become more complicated, and small issues around format, holdbacks, archive, clearances or delivery can now make the difference between a deal and no deal. For an indie distributor, that means you are not just selling content anymore, you are constantly packaging, repackaging and protecting value.
Where are the big opportunities?
The opportunity is still in films and series with a strong editorial hook and a clear route to audience. Public broadcasters remain important for serious factual, and I also think there is growing opportunity in building multi-lane strategies around the same title: traditional broadcast, streaming, educational, community or impact screenings, and in some cases ad-supported digital. The other big opportunity is being more realistic earlier: identifying which projects are premium broadcaster plays, which are digital plays and which need alternative financing from day one. The market is rewarding clarity much more than volume right now. Streaming’s growing share of viewing also makes those alternative routes harder to ignore than before.
Who is buying and who’s not? What markets are hot and which are not?
From my perspective, the most reliable documentary buyers remain public broadcasters and established factual brands rather than the broad streamer market. Streamers still buy, of course, but they are highly selective and tend to skew toward bigger hooks, bigger access or recognisable IP as well as being hyper local. On the flipside, European public broadcasters still matter enormously for specialist factual, current affairs, history, science and arts, even if they are also under pressure. The cooler part of the market is – you guessed it – the soggy middle: well-made films without a sharp editorial reason to exist right now. That lines up with the industry conversation this year, especially around unscripted caution in the US and the continuing importance of broadcaster-backed factual.
What do these buyers want in 2026?
They want clarity. They want a subject they can explain quickly to their audience, a strong reason to schedule it now and ideally a film that feels distinctive rather than simply worthy. I’d say buyers are responding best to obvious urgency, strong access, premium storytelling and categories that already have a proven audience, such as true crime, history, science, high-end wildlife, current affairs and certain celebrity or culture-led docs. Basically, how can your film stand out in an ocean of content.
A regular on the events circuit, what have your early trips to RealScreen, MipLondon etc told you? What trends have you spotted?
The biggest thing I’ve noticed is that everyone is talking about optionality. Traditional commissioning is tighter, so the conversation is no longer just, “Can this be commissioned?” but “How else can this be financed, windowed and found by an audience?” You could really feel that at RealScreen/NATPE this year; the mix of buyers, brands and creator-economy players told its own story. It feels like the industry is still looking for stability, but it is also being forced into more creative thinking around rights, financing and distribution. RealScreen/NATPE’s 2026 line-up itself reflected that shift, with buyers sitting alongside brands like P&G and PepsiCo and creator businesses such as Dhar Mann Studios and Dude Perfect.
Where does YouTube fit into your strategy, now it’s the world’s biggest media company?
YouTube has moved from being an afterthought to being part of the serious distribution conversation. It is not the answer for every film and it does not replace a premium broadcaster licence, but it is now too big to ignore, especially for library, niche audiences, impact campaigns, AVoD strategies and certain forms of audience building. Nielsen reported that streaming overtook broadcast and cable combined in May 2025, and YouTube has led US TV viewing among media distributors for months. YouTube itself says it has been number one in US streaming watch time for nearly three years. So the question now is less, “Should documentary people care about YouTube?” and more, “Which rights, windows and titles genuinely make sense there?”
Every event seems to come with a brand panel now. But that can be an uncomfortable balance in documentary, with editorial integrity to consider. What’s working in this area and what isn’t?
What’s old is new again. Brand-funded programming has been around for a while but now, in the attention economy, there’s a willingness for brands and producers to think more laterally. Brand partnerships can work when there is a real editorial fit and when everyone is honest about the boundaries from the outset. They work best when the brand is enabling access, reach or funding around a genuine subject, rather than trying to smuggle an advert into documentary form. Brands don’t even need to be in the doc. They can benefit from the perception of the issue or gain value from the social media assets.
What does not work is when the brand brief is stronger than the editorial idea, because audiences can feel that instantly and filmmakers usually resent it too. The fact brands had such a visible place on the RealScreen/NATPE 2026 agenda tells you this is no longer fringe thinking, but it still requires discipline if you want credibility.
What effect will the deaths of NATPE and RealScreen Summit have on your business and the business in general?
Shocked but not surprised, as the saying goes. The closure of NATPE and RealScreen is part of a broader shift across the industry. Festivals and markets are under pressure to justify themselves as efficient places to do business. Buyers are travelling more selectively, meetings are increasingly held online and fewer deals happen spontaneously on the floor. Ten or 15 years ago, RealScreen was the pilgrimage for European producers wanting to get their shows on US cable. That opportunity has dwindled.
For independents like me, though, these events still matter because of concentrated access to buyers, producers and commissioners from multiple territories. You can test market feeling quickly and understand what is moving editorially. I also attend events for the panels. It’s very useful to hear different perspectives about the future of the industry. For a small distributor, that kind of concentrated intel is hard to replace over Zoom or email, not to mention all the unplanned meetings in the corridor or at the coffee machine.
So while the business model around events is changing, there is still a need for places where the market can read itself.
