While YouTube Thrives on Alcohol Streams and Paid Promotions, Broadcasters Struggle Under Outdated Regulations

Hampered by the 52-Hour Workweek, Failing to Attract Product Placement
Sponsorship Accounts for Less Than 10% of Drama Production Budgets
A Vicious Cycle: Broadcasters Squeeze Production Companies by Monopolizing IP

Drama filming site. Photo is unrelated to the article content.

Legacy media such as terrestrial broadcasters and general programming channels are at a disadvantage in the competition with global online video services (OTT). This is not just because of differences in capital scale. Outdated regulations are also holding them back. As advertising revenue dries up, broadcasters are squeezing outsourced production companies even harder, and production companies, in turn, are forced to give up their rights in order to survive, perpetuating a vicious cycle.

In the "2025 Survey on the Status of Outsourced Production Transactions in Broadcast Programming," published by the Korea Creative Content Agency on March 10, broadcasting officials unanimously pointed out the asymmetric regulations between OTT/new media and traditional broadcasting. YouTube or OTT content faces no restrictions when it comes to product placement (PPL), alcohol consumption, or smoking, freely accepting sponsorships. In particular, YouTubers can generate huge advertising revenue through commercial activities on their own channels.

In contrast, existing broadcasters are required to blur out even a single brand logo and must strictly comply with the thorough review standards of the Korea Communications Standards Commission. Broadcasting official A said, "Broadcasters have to consider the review process for even a single comment, whereas YouTube or OTT face no such constraints. Most regulations are stuck in the past, making fair competition impossible." Broadcasting official B also lamented, "The market is so tough that broadcasters have basically lost to OTT, but it feels like we're being told to wrestle with our hands and feet tied. Every aspect, from the size of PPL logos to audio disclosures, is regulated, so advertisers are all leaving."

The impact of these regulations is also evident in the statistics. Sponsorships and PPL account for only 4.7% (broadcaster response) to 8.5% (production company response) of the total production budget for terrestrial dramas. For general programming channel dramas, it is just 1.0% according to production companies. The low proportion of sponsorship is partly due to the 52-hour workweek system. Broadcasting official C explained, "With the 52-hour workweek, dramas must be pre-produced in order to be scheduled stably, but advertisers seeking immediate promotional effects are unwilling to spend on dramas that may not air until a year later."

Drama filming site. Photo unrelated to the article content.

With advertisers leaving en masse for new media, broadcasters' advertising revenue has effectively dried up. As their funding runs out, broadcasters are seeking survival by monopolizing intellectual property (IP) rights. According to the survey, regardless of whether they are terrestrial or general programming channels, most broadcasters responded that they monopolize 100% of all rights to dramas, including copyright, material usage rights, domestic and international broadcasting rights, and sales rights to OTT platforms. Underlying this is the logic that as revenues fall and production costs rise, the broadcaster, which invests all the funds and bears the deficit risk, cannot share rights with production companies that do not invest in equity.

For production companies, this is akin to the deprivation of the right to exist. In the past, even if broadcasters monopolized IP, production companies could survive with small profits and by utilizing alternative routes such as overseas broadcasting rights. However, as global platforms such as Netflix and Disney+ have taken over world distribution networks, local revenue streams have essentially closed off. The head of a production company, D, lamented, "The market, where we could once receive $150,000 per episode from overseas sales, has collapsed to the point where it's now difficult to get even $50,000."

Production companies under pressure are demanding at least minimal safeguards for their survival. Above all, there is a strong call to protect planning fees. By securing compensation for the costs of developing proposals, production companies aim to have a voice in future IP equity negotiations. There are also calls for the need to distribute rebroadcast usage fees. Just as writers and actors can secure rebroadcast royalties under special contracts with broadcasters, production companies emphasize that they too should receive rebroadcast fees to ensure their minimum right to survive.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.