The Traitors Controversy & AI’s Revolution in TV

In this special two-part episode of TellyCast, we dive into two pivotal discussions shaping the TV industry in 2025.

In Part 1, veteran Scottish TV director and Directors UK board member Peter Strachan joins Justin Crosby to uncover the controversy surrounding BBC’s hit show The Traitors. Strachan raises serious concerns about whether the production truly delivers on Ofcom’s out-of-London rules, exploring issues of cultural bias, local talent opportunities, and Scotland’s role in the UK production ecosystem.

In Part 2, AI takes centre stage as Jason Mitchell (The Connected Set) and Katharina Gellein Viken, a TV director and AI expert, discuss how artificial intelligence is transforming the way content is created, distributed, and consumed. From video generators like Sora and VO2 to ethical challenges and new business models, we explore why 2025 is a make-or-break year for AI in the TV industry.

Sign up for The Drop newsletter

Transcript

But as someone who has worked unbelievably hard making observational documentaries, factual entertainment series, part of big teams, small teams, it's profoundly disappointing. 

The video engines will be huge. I also think things like personal assistants, chatbots being personal assistants, will be really big.

It's a really big help to small companies. 

So it's almost like a bit of regression has happened, while we're all panicking about, like, issues around copyright. We just need to, like, a bit. 

As a director, you know, AI doesn't follow directions necessarily. Certainly, 

although I also think I've got a theory and uh, I don't think anyone else is saying this, so I might be kind of going off piece slightly, but 

welcome to 

TellyCast, the podcast that brings you the stories and people shaping the future of TV and digital content.

Now, one of the biggest TV hits of the past few years has been the traitors filmed in a remote Scottish castle. It's captivated audiences across the UK and around the world, quickly becoming a global franchise for the BBC and Studio Lambert. But behind the success, serious questions are being raised about whether the show is truly delivering on its obligations to Scotland's production sector.

Peter Strachan is a veteran Scottish TV director and board member of Directors UK. He's been at the forefront of raising concerns that the Traytors, and other so called Scottish productions, might not be creating the job opportunities they're supposed to under Ofcom's out of London production rules.

His LinkedIn post calling out the BBC and Studio Lambert has sparked a major debate within the UK production community. Today, Peter joins me to dig deeper into the issue, and Discuss what the data shows and explore whether the current system is failing scotland's tv industry peter Welcome to TellyCast.

How are you? I'm 

really well. Thank you, justin Um, yes, as you as you pointed out this the issues that i've raised are gathering momentum, uh, and it's good to to see that because they're they're they're very real and they're You know, they're, they're impacting a lot of people, not just in Scotland, but I believe in the other nations and some of the English regions as well.

Right. Okay. Well, we're going to get into that a little bit. Um, just as an update now we're recording this on Monday. Yeah. Um, so, uh, give us an update on, uh, the LinkedIn, uh, uh, interactions that you've had. 

It goes back to last year, actually, when I first started looking at some BBC, uh, commissions, Scottish network commissions.

And we began looking at the credit lists and basically just finding out where people are based. Um, I was partly prompted to do this because of, uh, An event hosted by, excuse me, Screen Scotland at Ofcom at Edinburgh. And we began finding that a lot of these big shows, like The Traitors, we looked at over 20, um, big BBC Scottish network commissions.

And with one exception, um, none even came close to meeting the Ofcom criteria for a minimum of 50 percent, uh, Offscreen talent. Uh, and to be honest, 50 percent is a pretty low starting point. It has to be said, but as I say, the percentages that I've highlighted, say, on the traders, I mean, they're down at six and 7%.

And that's just scandalous. We're talking about license payer money that's basically be, should be used to, well, one of the reasons it should be used is to promote the careers, create jobs in Scotland and the other nations. Um, uh, and, and, and, and it's not being used in the right ways and it's certainly not being used in the spirit of the regulations.

So, um, can you tell us a little bit about the data that you reviewed, you know, and how did you verify those findings? You said you looked into the traders and lots of other productions as well, but tell us about the data and, uh, and how you verified it. 

Well, it's not rocket science, Justin. We literally, uh, take note of all the credits at the end of the programs.

And then we cross reference those with all social media outlets, industry platforms, uh, IMDB. And then we use where people are basically located or habitually work to record where they are. And we try to get as many sources as possible. And if we can't locate them, we put them down as you know, not located.

But those, the, the, the, the percentage of, of, of those that, you know, the people we can't find are, are tiny. I mean, absolutely tiny. So it's one or two. So it's all within the, you know, error of margin, so to speak. Um, but yeah, I mean, it's a, it's a straightforward, straightforward process. But if you think that the made out of London's title register published, uh, a year.

It's a year end by Ofcom has thousands of productions on it and all these productions are being used to Support the claims by the public service broadcasters About their spend in the nations and regions and the long and short of it is their claims don't stack up 

So the BBC insists that the traitors meets Ofcom's out of London criteria If the show technically complies with the regulations, what do you to believe that?

is missing then in terms of the spirit of those rules? 

Well, you're absolutely right. Technically, the Traders does, in theory, meet the Ofcom criteria. There are three, and productions need to meet two of those to qualify. Remember, the BBC is committed to spending 8 percent of its budget in Scotland. The first criteria is Does the company have a substantive base?

Well, at the time of writing my first post, Studio Lambert had one person on its website for Scotland. Uh, it now has two. Uh, they, they're claiming they have more people working in the office, but that still remains to be seen. There's no evidence of that. And the second criteria is that 70 percent of the production budget must be spent in the area.

Um, now, I have misgivings about both those criteria, especially, you know, a large, uh, production team, the salaries, uh, will be considerable, um, how they're outweighed or balanced in terms of the cost of putting them up on hotels and, uh, and feeding them. I don't know. Um, but I'm going to take that with a pinch of salt.

And obviously, the third criteria is the 50 percent minimum, uh, Uh, offscreen talent, and I'd just like to add at this point that that last year I met with Offpom in Scotland and they told me that they were investigating the traders, uh, in terms of it's, it's, it's the reporting of these, you know, on these criteria, and I received an email towards the end of last year saying that they'd found that the earlier series The traitors didn't in fact, uh, meet the 50 percent minimum quota for off screen talent as reported by Studio Lambert.

And therefore the register was being amended. Of course, it doesn't change anything because Studio Lambert and the BBC claim it meets the other two criteria. Um, so it's not just me that found out, you know, found some, you know, an anomaly with the, with, with the reporting of these criteria, Ofcom did too, uh.

Pick me up on your next part of your question, if you don't mind. 

Well, I was actually going to ask you, do you think, um, is this just a loophole, you think, in the regulations? Or do you think it's a deliberate failure by broadcasters, and in this case the BBC, to support local talent? 

Well, there's multiple elements to the answer to that question.

The first one is that the traders is not an anomaly. They are, there are many, many productions on the made out of London's titles register that do not meet the 50 percent minimum quota. The other thing is against, I've stated the 50 percent quote is already quite a low benchmark. It's a low starting point.

So that's not great, but it's, again, it's, this is, this is, this is, License payer money that should be used to promote growth and jobs and stimulate careers. Uh, and it's, and it's, and it's just not happening. I mean, for example, the BBC and Studio Lambert could have introduced a training program like Outlander did.

I mean, the training program for new entrants on Outlander ran for about seven series and I think they trained up about 170 people. It was run with Screen Scotland. Well, Studio Lembert hasn't done that. It didn't do it on Series 1, it didn't do it on Series 2, and it hasn't done it on Series 3. Um, now, last week, Hayley Valentine, the new director of BFC Scotland, stood in front of the Scottish Affairs Commissity at, uh, uh, at Westminster, and claimed that these types of productions, over time, more local people are, uh, hired.

Well, we've looked at all the first episodes of all three series of The Traitors, and in fact, the numbers of Scottish based talent being hired is going down. It's not a lot, but it's like a percentage point. But the direction of travel is less people in Scotland, not more. So what's going 

on? Well, you've accused the BBC of de facto cultural bias when it comes to Scottish productions.

How would you define that bias, and how widespread do you believe it is, uh, in the UK production sector? 

Well, look, talent, you know, the, the, the talent, no one's questioning the, the, the, the popularity of the quality of the trade. This is great show. Um, but the talent that's working on it, which is over 80 percent on series three is based in London.

These people are not. naturally blessed with more talent. They're not born with more talent. They're working on this show because they have received opportunity, opportunity to work on these kinds of shows. That's allowed them to progress up to a level where they get, they get hired. Now remember, if we take out the one BBC Scotland commissioning editor from series three, zero, not one above the line, senior creative or editorial role.

would be based in Scotland. And, and, and so these people have had an opportunity, and that's all I and others are asking for. With the people, the freelancers, the off screen talent in Scotland and the other parts of the nations and regions are given the same level of opportunity. And they're just not doing that.

And that's why I say it's a cultural bias because these people are not just, they're not just more naturally gifted. talented, you know, is to do with the fact that they've been given an Given opportunities and the BBC and Studio Lambert are most certainly not doing that 

Well, you mentioned Screen Scotland earlier and David Smith from Screen Scotland has suggested that the Traitors is on a journey to increase opportunities for Scottish freelancers.

Do you believe that this progress is real or is that more about managing the narrative, do you think? 

Together with Screen Scotland, we want the traders here. You know, it's undoubtedly a huge economic boost to the local area of Ross and Cromarty in Venetia, you know, I know the area well, and that's great and that's to be commended.

But what the BBC and Studio Lambert need to understand is, because this is a Scottish commission, because it was awarded to the Scottish office of Studio Lambert, which is headquartered in London, then it has to come with a responsibility to, you know, help develop the careers of people who actually make the pro make programmes in Scotland, and it's not doing that.

Um, so yes, it's on a journey, but the data that I've just published today shows that the It's, you know, in terms of the percentage of Scottish offscreen talent being hired to work on successive series is going down, not up. Draw your own conclusions. 

Well, Studio Lambert Scotland has a Glasgow office, you mentioned that earlier on.

And they claim to be developing new shows and training opportunities. In your view then, Are initiatives like these enough to meet the needs of Scotland's TV workforce? Well, first 

of all, we've seen no evidence from Studio Lambert to support that, not not one shred of evidence. The next thing is, and I've been talking about this for the last, you know, best part of a year, um, the only solution to this, and I really want to work with the BBC, I'm a huge champion of the BBC.

Most of my careers been spent working as a freelance for the BBCI. I love the BBC and, and without the BBC, the cultural landscape of the United Kingdom would be far, far poorer. Um, it's really important that they understand that they have to do more to, you know, provide a greater or a fair level of opportunity for off screen talent around the UK.

And it's just not, as I say, it's just not doing that. Now there's lots of positive steps they could take like the Outlander training program, but new entrant schemes and emerging director schemes are not enough. There need to be, they've got to introduce career pipelines at every level so that Scotland's talent and talent in Wales and Northern Ireland and other some of the English region and the English region, sorry.

And, you know, so they're no longer denied. So we're no longer denied the opportunity to reach the top positions. I mean, another, another good example, for example, would be, uh, certainly for the unscripted, um, offscreen talent would be to get the top level commissioners to come to Scotland and meet us. So they're more familiar with us and our work.

That almost never happens. And so it's very easy for them to say, you know, you know, pass the jobs to people they know. Um, but they, they make very little effort to do, to do that. Um, there was one, one, one more opportunity towards the end of the last year, but that's pretty much the only one I can remember.

Um, so more familiarity with the, with the talent in Scotland and other places would be another good move, but they've got to provide opportunity at all the levels. Um, a lot of the. PR from the BBC is about, oh, we, you know, we do a lot of new entrance schemes. It's not good enough, you know, that they're welcome, but there's no jobs for people to go to after that.

How systematic is this issue, do you think? And do you see a pattern across genres or production? 

Absolutely. It is systematic. You know, we're regularly passed over. 75 percent of Scotland's directors, for example, aren't working at the moment. And I don't know a single one of the group that we regularly, you know, we have informal meetups.

Not a single person got a call. You know, to, you know, about their availability or to work on the traitors. And there, and there are some, some supremely, equally talented people. We're as good as, if not better. And so, um, you know, they're not picking up the phone. And, and I think that, that's to say it's volume.

But look at the BBC's response to my post. It's initial response. It's first, it's first, course of action was to dismiss my claims, my findings, and the next thing was they drew attention to the money they're spending in the local inter Russian comity. Well, that's great, but they've completely not acknowledged, they've completely disregarded the fact that there's no Scottish based talent, hardly any Scottish based talent, working on the series.

And that's, that's Well, that feels callous, to be honest, Justin, you know, really callous. 

Do you think there's a disconnect between how the BBC measures success, then, and how the Scottish production community measures it? 

Uh, no, I'd say there's a disconnect between, uh, in the way that, uh, the Ofcom rules are designed.

So the Ofcom rules about say the, the, the three criteria, the one that's about off, off, off, uh, off screen talent is designed to promote careers, you know, create jobs. Um, but the way it's worded, the way it's designed will almost never deliver to the extent. that it ought to. So they base their, their, you know, the, this criteria is calculated by cost and not by where people are actually based.

And in my opinion, Ofcom, the Ofcom regional production criteria are simply not fit for purpose. And the other thing is that the Indies don't have to show their workings. So I doubt very much, although here's an invitation to Studio Lambert, show us the books, show us your accounts. Prove that 70 percent of the production was actually spent in Scotland.

Um, it's, it's, you know, or even outside the M25. But I doubt they're going to do that. You know, they'll probably claim it's commercially sensitive. It doesn't really matter about that. Let's take it back to the 50 percent quota. You know, we're talking about one of three criteria, a criteria with 50%, again, very low starting point.

And it's just really poor that the British broadcasting company are not doing more to ensure that Scotland's very talented. Uh, production people are not getting a fair crack. And I just want to add one more thing on this. Justin. Last week, Haley Valentine stood in front of the Scottish val, the Scottish Affairs Committee, and then in response to Patricia Ferguson, labor mp, who's the chair of the committee, uh, about the traitors.

I mean, she said that Scotland, Scott, she, the Scotland's got the talent. The Scotland has the skills. So the question is, are we being hired? Well, my data, uh, and with help from a few other people suggest that we're not. And so there's the disconnect. You've got the director, the new director of BBC Scotland, claiming that Scotland's production people have got the skills, and yet we're not being hired to work on Scottish commissions.

Again, draw your 

own conclusions. So in terms of these Ofcom regulations then, uh, what changes would you like to see to these regulations? these regulations to prevent these sort of issues happening in the future? 

Well, first of all, like some of the diversity and inclusive strategies, I'd like the BBC and other public service broadcasters to keep a record of who they're actually employing or who's being employed on their productions.

They, the BBC, and I've made this point to them, they should be keeping a record. They should be, they should be asking us as the, as the contractor to the Indies, they should be requiring the Indies to keep a record of. who they've engaged with and who they've tried to hire. Nobody's saying it should be 100%.

Nobody's saying, you know, we understand that it's difficult to hire people because, you know, freelancers are available, you know, at different times. They might not, it might not fit into the shoot dates, et cetera. We know there's a bit of a juggling act goes on there and that's all fine. But right now, the percentages, what, 6%, 7 percent tops.

It's, it's unacceptable, um, so it has to be more than just a kind of, Oh, sorry, we just couldn't get enough Scottish people to work on this. You know, there has to be more than that. I mean, the figures, the data speaks a truth. And yeah, so, 

so do you think this is anything to do with, You know, the BBC focusing more on the global appeal and the amazing success that this show has had all around the world.

Um, do you think it's at odds with its responsibility then to, to invest in local talent and it's really focusing on that international success? Well, 

I'm almost tempted to leave that for others to judge. Um, If, if, if Scottish offscreen talent isn't being given a fair level of job opportunity, if we're not being hired to work on these kinds of shows, then how can we develop, how can we forge sustainable careers, you know, how can we break that tartan ceiling if you want. 

Um, but right now, Scotland, in terms of, you know, the traitors, we've become a shooting estate of a different kind. And, and it, and it's quite frankly really not cool. But as someone who has worked unbelievably hard making observational documentaries, factual entertainment series, part of big teams, small teams, you BBC, it's profoundly disappointing.

And I feel really let down by the BBC on this, and I can promise you that from the hundreds of messages of support I've received, that many people in Scotland, Wales, the Midlands and other parts of the, of the UK feel the same. And 

so, uh, well, where do we go from here then? You know, is there, is this, this, this issue still developing?

Are you still having further conversations with the parties involved? Tell us, bring us up to date with, uh, with where we are and where you're hoping it's going to go. 

Well, ultimately I want. The B, B, C and Indies, uh, ofcom to sit down with people and myself, organizations like Directors, uk, BEC two, and others.

Uh, we need a collegiate. Uh, we need a collegiate response here. We need to work together to sit down with us and, um, work towards positive solutions so that this bias, so these commissioning and hiring practices, uh, result in, in, in a, in a, in a fair level of job opportunity across the uk. It's as simple, it's simple as that.

And there are lots of positive steps I've mentioned too, uh, in this interview. And, um, but Justin, I just don't get the feeling they're trying. And ultimately it's because of the way the Ofcom rules are worded, you know, they don't feel they have to do any different. Um, the Ofcom, Ofcom says it's, it's regional production criteria are based on flexibility.

Well, it's not on flexibility for Scotland's off screen talent. You know, people, people, people can't pay the mortgage. You know, careers are being. thwarted, you know, you reach a certain point and, you know, across, across the broadcasting sector, of course, these are, these are hard times. Um, and there are lots of factors, no one's denied that.

But if my, my, my line on this is the cake may be getting smaller, but it still has to be shared out fairly and it's not at the moment. 

Yeah. Okay. Peter, thank you so much. Really fascinating. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. Yeah, and I, and I really hope, uh, you know, you can have more and more discussions and this can be driven forward to the benefit of the Scottish TV production community.

Well, we're being completely transparent about everything. I'm being completely transparent about everything and the door is open, uh, and I am talking to the BBC. I have been talking to the BBC about this, uh, Studio Lambert, if you want to call, I'm here. Uh, and, um, and I am talking to Ofcom as well, but also other organisations like Screen Scotland, Media Kimroo, Northern Ireland Screen, Screen Northern Ireland, sorry, apologies, Northern Ireland, and, uh, and Bechtu and others.

You know, we, you know, this needs to be, this, you know, as I say, we all need to work together on this. 

Peter Strachan, thank you so much for joining us. 

You're very welcome. Thank you, Justin. Bye. 

We reached out to the BBC and Studio Lamba for their reaction to Peter's claims. It's The BBC sent us this statement as per Ofcom's regional production definition the Traitors qualifies as a Scotland production and is clearly made in the Scottish Highlands as viewers will know.

We didn't hear back from Studio Lambert.

This is TellyCast where we tackle the biggest issues facing the TV and content industries. We've just been talking about regional production rules and how the industry is adapting to new demands, but another huge challenge and opportunity For TV producers in 2025 is the rapid rise of artificial intelligence.

AI is transforming the way content is created, distributed, and even consumed. It's helping to streamline workflows, generate creative ideas and power new business models. But it's also raising big questions about the future of work, ethics, and creativity in TV production. And just this week, the UK government has announced the AI Opportunities Action Plan, with 14 billion investment to make Britain a world leader.

Whether that's enough to make Britain a world leader or not, then that's another question. Joining me now to unpack what AI will mean for the TV industry this year and beyond are Jason Mitchell from The Connected Set, A company leading the charge in digital first production and Katharina Galeen Vikan, a TV director and sought after AI speaker who's been exploring how AI tools are reshaping storytelling.

Jason, Katharina, how are you doing? Nice to see you. 

See you. see you again, 

Justin. Great to have you back as ever, Jason. So this year we've seen mid journey. Uh, chat GPT and a lot of the really big, uh, uh, tools that people are starting to use on a daily basis, really sort of making ways. Um, as we move into 2025, what do you think, uh, are the tools and the trends that you're going to see really impacting the TV industry specifically this year?

Great question. Um, I mean, I think the obvious place to start for me is the video generators, you know, we were waiting all of last year for Sora and we got to see it at the end of last year. And then I think last week Google released VO2, um, which is their video generator, which looks absolutely incredible, even though, again, that's kind of behind, uh, uh, a walled garden at the moment and you have to be on a waiting list to use it.

But I think this will be the year really where. Those video generation tools kind of get into all of our hands and we can really see what they're capable of. Um, and I think, you know, that will have implications for our industry, particularly in things like animation, um, where now you'll be able to create such great quality animations in unscripted, not so sure, but, um, That's probably the year after, um, but I think that's the thing to kind of keep an eye on for this year.

And Sora, is, so is Sora available in the UK yet? Or is it just in the US? As far as I know. I got a VPN it is, I suppose, but yeah. Yes, 

a lot of people are using the VPNs. And, uh, and Jason and I got to see a Sora demonstration just a few weeks ago. Um, and, you know, they're, they're struggling with some of the software.

Same things that the other AI engines have struggled with all year, which is consistency and control. Um, as a filmmaker, you don't really have an enormous amount of control over things yet. Uh, but I agree with Jason that the video engines will be huge. I also think things like personal assistants, chatbots being personal assistants will be really big.

That's a really big thing. Big help to small companies and to individual creators. Um, obviously designing decks, things like that, designing websites. I think the ad space is set to be pretty revolutionized. Things that were previously extremely expensive to produce. Um, ITV just won an award for their first AI produced ad.

You know, that's, that's definitely those opportunities are going to be used to make things for less money. 

And it's, it's really, it's really exciting. I think for the smaller creator, isn't it? I mean, it's completely democratizing, uh, the ability to create. Hollywood looking content, essentially, or well, you might disagree with that, but, um, but essentially amazing looking content that could work particularly well for short form for adverts, as you say, for social media, and that's what I think is exciting and surely that's something that's really going to boost creativity.

Because of it is it is a leveler, right? It's it's it's a complete level playing field now 

Yeah, I think the you know that the the really exciting opportunities are probably for the creator economy This year because like you say these tools that once you know were economically prohibitive to for example be a creator of animation or games or even certain types of music.

Now it is at your fingertips. Um, so that's, that's really exciting. You know, we're going to see new categories and kind of verticals of content, I think emerging, although I also think I've got a theory and, uh, I don't think anyone else is saying this, so I might be kind of going off piece slightly, but you know, we are creating all this content and probably training the models up.

YouTube and I just wonder if they will enter this space themselves kind of almost white label So, you know a bit like amazon, you know have their kind of um amazon items that are kind of inspired by what's selling Well, whether google will start to create its own ai content trained on our data And you know therefore not have to share so much ad revenue So I think there's opportunities for the creator economy, but I also think there's threats coming down the line because of ai 

Well, we oh What we always know is that these biggest, biggest tech companies in the world all want a bigger slice of the pie, don't they?

And, uh, and it's amazing that the, uh, the, the, the tools have been developed, but there's always a bit of a cost to that, a wider cost. And, you 

know, YouTube, what is nearly 3 billion users, the kind of the room for growth in terms of users may be as limited. So. How do you increase your revenues? Well, probably not giving away 55 percent of the revenues to creators is one way to do that.

So 

that's always dangerous to base your business model off of someone else's software. Really? 

That's right. Yeah. And if you're a, I guess if you're a basing that on tick tock and you're in the States at the moment, you're a little bit worried, right? I think 

they're in despair. In fact, a lot of the creators who've made a lot of money that way for sure.

Jason, the connected set. Now you've. Uh, over the last year, you've been to lots of conferences and you've been lots of speaking and, uh, and, and sharing lots of these tools and information, which has been fantastic. Tell me about the AI tools. Connected set has really sort of adopted and you is you're using on a daily basis 

Well, it kind of splits into two areas because you know about half of our work is for traditional broadcaster clients And in that area, it's really hard to use anything because essentially they won't let you So You know, it's really limited to post production tools where, um, you know, we've been using AI in those for years, maybe a little bit in development, but you have to be careful when you're using in development in terms of like direct to consumer stuff.

You know, if you're publishing on Snapchat, YouTube, et cetera, like we are, we have a big YouTube channel of nearly 5 million subscribers. You know, there we can be a lot more experimental. Um, with tools like, uh, storyboarding tools, like using ChatGPT to help us analyze data. Um, you know, we're looking at some of the video generators we haven't quite, um, Said let's go for it.

Yeah, um things like opus pro, which I know you use for like reversioning content um, so You know, it's a real suite of tools. I think what i'm looking forward to actually is the day where a lot of these tools come under one banner because I feel like There's so many disparate tools. We're having to use at the moment and multiple subscriptions And 

there's a lot of 25 quid a month subscriptions going on out there at the moment 

Or or even worse, you know the sora You For the kind of top model is 200 a month per user.

Um, you know, Adobe with Firefly, you know, is, you get a certain number of credits, but then you inevitably run out of credits. So, all of these tech players are finding ways to kind of, you know, Charge us hundreds of dollars a month where they used to pay it like charge us tens of dollars. So But that said if it can if it can bring everything into one tool I'm down for it.

I I guess um, because at the moment it's just quite hard tracking everything 

Yeah, one ai tool to rule them all. Yeah, it's gonna be uh, maybe we'll see that in uh in 2025 Um, just picking up on a point that you made before Uh, about, um, TV companies, broadcasters essentially pushing back about, uh, in terms of how AI is being used in, you know, pitches.

What, is there a hard and fast rule being developed yet? I mean, or is there each broadcaster has got a different position? I mean, is that, what are you seeing that, Kat? Are you, are you seeing any consistency across broadcasters? 

I think everyone's still finding their feet because, and so are the lawyers, and as long as the distributors and the lawyers, um, are still, and the insurers, more to the point, uh, are figuring it out, then, uh, the rest will follow suit, um, because the, but once those people find a way to, you The way forward, then I think we'll see some more consistency, but we're still working on old copyright rules.

We're still going by the old rules, trying to be applied to a completely new tool set. So some people are being necessarily careful and others are kind of wading into the territory and striking deals with the engines. So they're saying, okay, we're only going to use, say, runway and they're safe or Adobe, which is a walled garden again, and they've trained on their own content.

Um, And some of them haven't, but yeah, everyone is kind of forging their own way, aren't they? 

Yeah. And we should, we should have more clarity February of this year when the government kind of finishes its consultation around whether these models opt in or opt out in terms of kind of the origins of the data they're trained on.

But I find there's a certain like, um, yeah, there's definitely inconsistency and there's also almost like a kind of Some production companies and broadcasters, I think, have taken a very extreme position. So, I have heard of one very big production group that is saying, you know, no use of AI in development whatsoever.

This very same production company, like most production companies, produces sizzles using found footage, you know, from Google and YouTube or whatever. So, I, I, you know, I don't really see how they can be worried about chain of title and copyright if they're creating sizzles using found footage, you know, so It's just all very inconsistent broadcasters I'm finding asking you to declare every type of ai you're using in connection with production Well does that mean auto complete in my business?

Google email, you know, which I've been using for, you know, five, six years. So it's almost like a bit of regression has happened while we're all panicking about like, you know, the, the issues around copyright. And, um, I think we just need to like calm down a bit and let people kind of make their own judgment calls on it.

And also just upskilling and gaining the knowledge and knowing what you're talking about. I think there's a little danger in, you know, some executives being scared and saying nothing, none of this at all. And others, you know, jumping on the train of let's have no guardrails whatsoever. And both of those positions I find are lazy.

We should. very much. Good. We should know enough and net by now have enough experts to bring in and media people, trained media people who have used AI and know, okay, you know, here's where the ethical lines sort of lie. And it's possible. It's, it's perfectly possible to do. You don't have to sit and go nothing, which as Jason says, it's, it's impossible because I think BBC had a moment of this, of everyone being very upset about a doctor who email that went out that was written with AI.

And responding with saying, we're not going to use any AI at all. But of course it's, it's in the production suite already. So where does, where do you draw that line? Do you mean generative AI? Do you mean in video? Do you mean, uh, this is going to get hard. 

The national broadcaster in Sweden, SVT, have said no AI whatsoever in, I think it's documentary, which to me feels like an arbitrary rule because, you know, we've seen fantastic documentaries using AI.

BBC two had inside alcoholics anonymous, you know, they could only get access because they could change people's faces using AI. So if you say no AI, you're limiting your, the creative possibilities as well. So, um, Absolutely. 

And as a documentary maker, there's, um, there's so many opportunities there that would help you say, if you have a limited budget and you needed some B roll, well, okay, we don't have 12 grand to go and shoot another day, but I just need his hand reaching for this.

Can of Coke over here, or I need, you know, some bookshelf stuff behind him. Now that doesn't cross any ethical lines to me. Of course, if I were to start altering what he said in the footage, that's a completely different thing. So that, but that's, again, those are the gray areas that we need AI using media people to come and set, to go, here's the documentary maker.

We're going to bring them in and they can, you know, if they've, if they know Ofcom rules, if they know the rules of the country, we can actually set proper 

Is there any common, there's no common conversations that are happening as far as we know, are there? I mean, is there, is there a, it feels like there needs to be a working group.

It needs to be almost like, because there's no point setting up a working group to meet every month or whatever, because you know, SORA will come in or Google will launch a new tool and that will blow things up. It feels like there needs to be a consistent conversation by, number of, you know, high ups. 

I think a lot of the high ups are talking and I think PACT has a working group.

My problem is they don't seem to be reaching any decisions. Um, so I feel like we've been having this conversation for a year and yet I've not really seen any guidance. I think we might have had 

a similar conversation exactly about a year ago, Jason, when you first came on the show. 

And you're right, setting hard and fast rules, you know, The, then the platforms change.

So this is why I think we, we should just approach things with some pragmatism and, you know, take calculated risks like we do in, you know, many aspects of production and the tools we use. So I think like producers are smarter than maybe sometimes broadcasters give us credit for and like let us take some risks and try some of these things and rather than restricting it.

Yeah. 

I just heard a, uh, a wildlife documentarian talk about. Uh, he had used AI where he'd shot a polar bear, and then trained the, the AI on the polar bear footage. And so he could make the polar bear technically do, you know, normal things or wrong things. But he said, isn't it more ethical of me to, rather than invade the polar bear's space for longer amounts of time, I can make it go from, from that to that.

little ice shelf to this bit of ground, um, with AI. And I have most of the footage, but why shouldn't I be able to do that? Because it's actually less invasive and more ethical to leave the bear alone. 

Yeah. 

Well, yeah, 

there's, and there's, there's all sorts of, you know, uh, travel, there are all sorts of issues around this, aren't there?

And actually, I think we probably know that natural history documentaries, many of those have been, Possibly been found guilty in the past of not being the most ethical The way that they're produced and maybe things are certain things are staged and not letting nature take its course. Anyway, that's another conversation already, but uh talking about um Um, uh, AI in storytelling, uh, essentially, I mean, how do you see over the next year AI affecting storytelling as such?

Because I know it's something that's very close to your heart and you've made a lot of AI films yourself. 

Yeah. So, you know, first and foremost, as a writer, it's a revolution because I can bring my script to screen faster and I can bring the concept or a trailer or something so that, that for me as a storyteller is a gift because I'm, I, I can show you something much quicker if you don't have time to read my script, and most people don't, right?

It's democratized the field, so there's a lot of non storytellers in the space. And in one way, that's great, you'll have some new voices that you wouldn't have otherwise seen, and we will also get things like slop. Content. Um, so there is a danger there of flooding the market with content and how do real stories rise to the top.

Now I hear a lot of people say, you know, quality will rise to the top. I'm not entirely sure when we're dominated by algorithms that just feed what's fed to you and what you keep watching, whether that's entirely true. So I, I worry about that economy part of it. Um, as a director, you know, AI doesn't follow directions necessarily.

Uh, there's a, there's a beauty in that. I've heard. Chad Nelson from OpenAI speak about this, that, you know, one day we won't have the randomness that it gives you now and we'll almost miss it because it sometimes gives you great stuff you hadn't thought of. Um, but you can't direct it. So again, as a storyteller, I find myself frustrated a lot of the time because you sit and you can re roll a million times and it will not do, it will not, it's bad at doors, for example.

So you can't make somebody just walk through a door or unlock a door. And so these are not. Things that we're used to as storytellers to have to deal with. It's like, well, I, You know, I would direct an actor to walk through a door. It's, this would take a moment on the other hand, it's taking so much other stuff out of it that gives me more time to think of more stories and give more space.

So, you know, it will, it will transform certain things and I think it will get better at followed following directions. Um, but for me, it's been a lot about, you know, bending my head around this tool is it's coming and we have to learn it. Um, and early on, uh, me and Charles, my filmmaking partner, just saw that this is a thing that we have to embrace and adopt to roll with the times.

Basically, 

I read a comment on LinkedIn the other day where, um, uh, and, and, uh, you see the, the, the, the improvements almost. Every week of clips that have been posted on socials Um, I read a comment where somebody actually said that that is the only film that I've been able to watch AI film watch from beginning to end because there's something about AI films up to this point even though they are AI and once you once you look at that, okay You know, you're watching 10 seconds 15 20 seconds.

There's something about it. That doesn't feel You Organic in a way and they're very difficult to watch even though they're technically Incredible. Um, and, and, and you can, you know, the, the quality is undeniable, but there's something about that, isn't there's something that, you know, it's not 

real. I mean, it's definitely got an aesthetic, its own aesthetic, a like video generated by AI, so you can spot it a mile off, but that is.

with Google VO to you're now seeing stuff that is indistinguishable from real humans. Um, but yeah, you know, there's so many subtle cues obviously in the way our faces move. Um, that, yeah, you, you, you, you, you know, you, there is that you don't get that emotional connection with AI footage at the moment. But again, I think like, just like I can probably connect with B roll.

Cause I know it's real. I will eventually be able to kind of emotionally connect with AI video. It's hard. 

I mean, we've seen that kind of dead eyed look in the AI actors as it were. That's, that's for me as a director and an actor as well. It's like, you know, it doesn't have the emotion, but we're starting, starting to get there.

I, I have had a hard time, I have to say, watching. Cause realism is the territory we're normally in that most makers are. I I've made a lot of more animated stuff, um, and only just ventured into realism because honestly I've hated it up until now, because, because of that, because of the uncanny valley look and because of the way that the actors don't.

Look engaged necessarily, but it's, it's starting to edge into the territory now of getting more emotion from it. Um, I would still choose to use voice actors rather than use the AI tool voices because it just doesn't have the human tones to it yet. So I don't feel like we're there yet with it. 

Do you think the tools that are like, for example, the Google tool you talked about, Vio, um, I mean, is that better because it's been trained on more.

I mean, VO is trained on everything on YouTube, essentially. So that's why it's so much better than Sora, which is not trained on. I mean, that's just so much data to train it on. So yes, you know, the, I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if, you know, I know Getty and, um, Shutterstock. 

Shutterstock 

emerging. Yeah. I mean, surely that's a great acquisition target for an AI company if they want a big training data set, you know, so I mean, even Hollywood studios could be acquisition targets.

So, you know, I think it's all about, can they get as much data as possible to train their models? And this is why this regulation, um, UK is really important because it's the difference between, do they need to get your permission to train on your data? Or do you need to tell them actively not to train on?

You know your data that's what we're kind of debating. 

Yeah. 

Um, 

I mean do you do you think? Um, there may be an economy starting to develop where If you have an amazing catalog 40 000 hours of content that Has maybe got a limited value on the market. It might be worth more It's an AI training tool. I mean, do you think, can you see that sort of developing as well?

That's already happened. Uh, and it's already happening. Whether it has big value, I'm not sure. I'm, I'm, I think several companies are now making extra money on the side going, here's the library of content that you can train on. And I mean, this is, this is tricky because the initial contracts they've written with creators, It doesn't contain any permissions for that.

So there, there, there's a whole, there's a whole nest of worms in that area. 

I mean, does YouTube have any opt in? I don't think it probably does. I mean, who reads it, right? When you're, when you're signing up. I 

suspect at the point where you signed up to those terms and conditions, there was probably something in there.

Probably didn't use the word AI, but it probably, they're using that as a, as a clause to protect them. 

I keep saying to people that, you know, if we're going to be upset about this now, we should have gotten upset. Uh, I mean, I made two documentaries on this, but, um, it's, they already trained on all of our data and, you know, Silicon Valley moves fast.

They break things. It's what they do. And they were very smart and they moved very quickly and they realized that our information was a gold mine and they already did it. It's the, this is the icing on the cake. The, these are billion dollar companies that are emerging with a very pretty tool that can be fun for us, but it's, they're already making that money.

They already trained, so we, we should have gotten upset a little bit before. 

But there might, there might be, you know, I wonder if there will be a big lawsuit this year. I know we've got lots of little individual ones going on at the moment, but you know, there is a lot of merit to a lot of the big studios getting together and doing a big action against.

Microsoft, Google, et cetera. Um, they might make a lot of money. Um, rather than lawyers 

are going to make a lot of money, you know, 

rather than fighting each other and fighting the unions and the guilds. And like, actually, if we all kind of work collectively, we could potentially get a decent paycheck out of some of these, um, AI, you know, companies that are worth so much now, you know, you might make more money suing AI companies and you actually make, um, Producing programs and films in the future.

So, . 

Yeah. Okay. Well this a new business model there. A business model, . Yeah. In the, in the short 

term at least. 

So, uh, so let's talk about jobs, uh, in the, in the, uh, TV industry. Um, what jobs do we think are the ones most at risk in 2025 that we might not see? Being a job title at all by the end of the year, what do you think those that we're sadly going to be saying goodbye to?

It's a hard question because of being in the industry. I do think that writer director roles will be more important than ever because you will always need somebody sitting at the top. Directing. Um, that's the 

most important human. Yes, I 

think so. Um, I do think that, you know, even though AI will be able to put your editor on a timeline rather quickly, you'll still need an editor to sit above it and go, no, actually, and no, that's a bad choice and move it around.

So you will, I think, you know, the, the HODs will sort of move up and the AI will take over the lower end jobs. But the thing about those low end jobs, and I have a very good example of this, So, I'm a Dancing with the Stars format showrunner, and on that show, the first tool I used was Sonix AI, which is a logging tool, a transcribing tool, which is very good.

And that was, I started that in 2021, to use that tool. And you could say that that would have taken a logger's job. But the company running, you know, big TV company running Dancing with the Stars, they, uh, had already cut those jobs. So that was already on the editors to do twice the hours that the, they would normally do.

So that's, people keep saying that AI breaking the industry. I think the industry was already kind of broken. All the money already was floating to the top. We already went to subscription based TV. We already were cutting jobs at the bottom line. Um, 

All that money's gone from TV into social media, into Google.

So, 

so this, the business model was already broken. I don't think AI broke it. I think. And so, you know, the logging tool has been great for, it was actually brilliant for the editors to, to be able to log faster, to get the show on the road faster. Um, because the company had already gone, no, you're just not having a log or you can do it and sit there for six more hours because they have to save money.

I think I agree that it's the industry in terms of jobs is broken by things that are not related to AI. I think AI has absolutely no role in kind of what's going on in the UK TV market anyway at the moment. But I think much like programs, you're seeing high end and low end kind of doing well. I kind of feel like it's the same with jobs.

You're going to kind of see those great kind of top. Creative roles do absolutely fine and then at the lower end you're going to see, and I think this is a real opportunity for new entrants, people coming in with those kind of prompting skills who use these tools that will come in and do brilliant jobs in development and editing and things like that because they can use these tools.

So the people that should be worried really. The people in the middle who are refusing to I've got 

no skills 

I'm using till they've got conventional skills 

skills, but no way I skills and they're not 

you know It's like, you know, we used to edit films using a razor blade You know, and I don't think anyone edits that way anymore so you've just I feel like It's job displacement.

I don't necessarily think we'll lose jobs net in terms of net jobs, but there's just going to be a shuffle Well, I think like a lot of AI helps you like let's take an example of development if I wanted to create the same number of like pitches that I did last year, this year, I could do it with less people using AI, but I don't want to do that.

What I actually want to do is create the same number of pitches at a much, much higher quality. And so that's where I'm going to use the same number of people, but using AI tools to create amazing, you know, floor plans and decks and things like that. So it's more about, AI is about improving the quality of, of the work.

I think for editors, again, it's like giving them tools to create what, you know, that daytime series, make it look like a primetime series, you know, so, um, that's why I think it's not going to cut jobs. It's just going to increase quality for the people that are happy to use it. 

And it creates new jobs as well.

And I mean, I, my example is, you know, Now I can give my film poster designer somewhere to start from. I can go, look, I knocked this up in mid journey and I put it here. Can you now please go make it a real poster? Cause you're a real designer and I'm not. Um, so, you know, we still need that. I do think that there's a lot of, yes, on people not in the media industry are more at risk.

I think, I think, you know, you, you don't create these tools. Uh, to charge people 9. 99 a month. I think you do it to half the staff at Deloitte's, you know, uh, and, and accountants jobs. I mean, things like that, that's definitely at risk because you will be able to do those things yourself, but things that require a creative head to sit above it, I think are still a little safer.

We 

were talking just before we came. On air and we're talking about the there's perhaps a uh, uh, there are different schools of thought in the tv industry about ai and Uh, there's still a lot of uh cynicism and there's a lot of fear and there's a lot of people who are kind of Refusing to engage with it.

What do you think is the most misunderstood aspect of AI in the TV industry right now? I mean, and, and, and are you just saying that people should just get on board with it and just actually accept that it's a, that it's, uh, that it's here? It's only going to become more and more It's not prevalent and dominant in the industry and people just need to get on board.

Well, um, I think one of the things that's misunderstood and I think Jason will agree with me is it, it can't, it's not going to take your job in terms of it. You can't put a prompt in and make a movie. It is absolutely not capable of doing that. You have to wrestle. It's like a bucking wild horse of a tool.

You have to wrestle it into submission to even make a five minute short. So it's not maybe as fast as some people think. But yes, I do think. That we're a little bit in the territory of 1990 and it's the internet. And if you say, I'm absolutely not going to use it, that's a lovely moral stance. And I think you're going to be in trouble really fast.

Yeah. I also think one of the big misunderstandings is not all AIs are the same. And, um, some are trained on copyrighted material. Some are not. Some are generative. Some are not. Some have, uh, have been in existence for 30 years. So don't kind of see AI as one homogenous thing. Like you need to understand there are different types of AI and that's not just producers.

That's the broadcasters as well. So kind of, we need to get a bit more sophisticated with our understanding of what AI is. 

And also sort of exist in the world that we are in. So as I was saying before, it's great that we're upset about it. I'm upset about it as a writer. Uh, that they've scraped a lot of our content, but it, it happened.

Um, and we're trying to sort of come in after the fact and go, Oh, well, okay, let's put some guardrails up and let's do this. And we should absolutely do that, but we, it's not going to go away. So if you take a stance of not using it at all, it's going to be really hard. Uh, and you will be more at risk of, you know, losing work because of it.

So let's come back to, back to ethics, uh, quickly. Um, Uh, and in content creation, what, what do you think the main ethical challenges the TV industry has to, uh, tackle immediately? 

Putting some guardrails in place. I mean, kind of back to what We were saying before that I don't think it's useful to stand in either camp of being a yes man for Silicon Valley because they're going to take care of themselves and their shareholders just fine and then being in the camp of we're not going to use any AI whatsoever because it's just not feasible.

So you have to, I think the most important thing for them to do right now is to engage with creators who know AI tools and to be able to. put in place some grey area legislation and rules and, and guardrails to go, we have to move with the times, we have to be flexible, we might have to change the rules next year, but here is a set of rules that we can follow and a set of ethics by somebody who knows what they're talking about, uh, not someone who's either blanket denial or, you know, It's risk, 

isn't it?

It's like having a slight tolerance for risk, which is what a lot of broadcasters tell us they're all about, particularly channel four is always talking about, you know, born risky. So let's take a bit of risk and, and experiment with some of these things and yeah, not be so kind of anti. 

So, um, so obviously, um, it's creating lots of opportunities for, uh, new formats.

New ways to engage with with content. Um, what new business models do you see in the industry that AI is is offering and we might might we start to see in 2025. Do you think 

there's a lot out there? I mean, I'll use my own business as an example where Metrotone media were run by two people, me and my filmmaking partner, Charles Creel and We're a traditional film and TV company.

We've started to iterate IP faster with AI. So we are now able to take our scripts, uh, make them into trailers, make them into shorts, demonstrate that the characters in the worlds are viable. Um, and we're seeing new partnerships because of that. We're also seeing the creator and the traditional TV and film industry merge the creator economy and.

And the old ways as it were, and that's going to happen more and more as well. And taking that and AI and be able to go, where are we 10 years from here, 20 years from here? That's what we're trying to think about. So that, you know, mini film studios, essentially. So I think whilst maybe Disney will cut a lot of staff, there's an opportunity there for Four or five excellent creators to get together and create their own studio.

So you'll see more of that. You'll also see things like AI agents, uh, not just, uh, AI created agents that do things for you online, but also people representing AI talent. So there's a whole new, just like they represented influencers and represented actors back in the day. Um, I mean, there's a million. I'm sure you can rattle off a few more.

You know, I 

think if you're, if you're only interested in making money, there is a whole world in kind of algorithmically driven slot, as it's called, of like just creating content at a huge scale, very targeted, you know, whether it's interior design content or whatever, like you could run a studio. Using AI that just creates millions of pieces of content and flood the market a bit like, you know BuzzFeed back in the day created lists of you know, so there's a financial opportunity if that's the route you want to go down It's not one.

I want to go down personally I'm quite interested in just and I have been interested for a while in like kind of integrating AI into TV formats in interesting ways that, you know, will kind of engage audiences, you know. And I don't think anyone's cracked it yet. I think we've seen lots of attempts that haven't worked whether it's you know, interview formats where people interview dead celebrities.

They had one of those on French TV last year. They've had like a kind of version of Temptation Island where you're watching footage of your partner and trying to work out if it's your AI If it's AI generated or your real partner, uh, in that was in Spain on Netflix, we've got virtually Parkinson launching this week, you know, made by deep fusion films here in the UK, but I don't, I haven't seen an AI format yet.

That's like really kind of worked. And. So I think there's an opportunity there, and that's something I'm definitely trying to crack. 

There's AI influencers, of course, as well. Yes. That's a, that's an emerging economy, for sure. Yeah. 

Uh, we, we, actually at South by Southwest last year, I, uh, I, I met a number of South Korean companies who are really, seem to be quite far advanced with AI.

AI, uh, influencers that are pop stars. They've got film careers that is extraordinary. Um, from your perspective, will you make any direct to, uh, consumer completely AI driven content? Is that, is that on your list to do this year? Do you think? 

Possibly. So our, the first piece of content that we made is, um, Rainmaker.

And that's, that's a pilot for a show that kind of works on its own online and it has an AI. K pop star and influencer in it, but in my ideal universe, it would be a live action series, but the AI component would be that she has an avatar. The lead character has an AI avatar that she's famous with online.

So you'd have a whole AI component to the show, but it's a traditional live action show. So that's what I, how I'd want to make it, but it can also exist as a purely AI created show as well. So you, we, I'm trying to think in both worlds at the same time. 

So let's. Let's imagine we're in January, 2026. Um, looking back at the TV industry in 2025, um, what do you think will have changed and what?

Still has stayed the same. 

Do we think the hype will have started to die down? This is what I'm asking myself. I think more people will have caught up, for sure. And there will be more AI generated content, more slop, as you mentioned, for sure. Um, we'll have, you know, maybe some, more people will have made an AI generated feature film.

Um, more people will start to use the chatbots as assistants, things like that. But I think we, I think it might be at its peak probably by next year. 

What I hope by January, 2026 is that we've at least agreed three or four platforms that we as producers and broadcasters are all comfortable using, you know, Adobe chat, GPT, whatever it is, and that we're all comfortable with the risks and you know, the copyright issues around it and that we can actually use it and integrate it into our programs.

Cause I think until a broadcaster kind of says, Yes, we're happy with this. No one's really going to be able to use it, or they're going to use it in secret. Um, so that's where I hope we're in 2026. I also think it's a bit of a kind of make or break year for the broadcasters in terms of personalized advertising.

I think at the beginning, Kat, what you were talking about with advertising and how AI is going to be allow us to create so many versions, formats of advertising that are hyper personalized to you, Justin or to you cat. Um, and I'm just worried that broadcasters, you know, already have an issue with how addressable their ads are and how targeted their ads are.

Are they going to let the big platforms kind of move into that area and dominate that? Or can they create hyper personalized AI advertising themselves? If they can, it could be a really good time for them because they've got, You know, people trust them and particularly with what's going on in the U. S.

with Meta, like people will probably trust broadcasters even more, but they've got to, um, they've got to improve their advertising products in the next year, I think, to survive. 

And there's also people talking about personalized movies. I've heard a lot of people say this, that that might be one of the next steps.

I personally think that of course somebody will, it's like when you ask a question, it's like, yes, somebody will try that model for sure. Uh, it's going to be out there, but whether it's going to survive, I think we as humans like watching things together. We like having a common experience. So if my film version of the film has a slightly different protagonist to the one you watched, I don't think that's going to, it doesn't create water cooler talk.

So I think. We, we want a common experience, uh, in general. 

Well, it's certainly going to be fascinating, uh, over the next few months. Um, Kat, Jason, thank you so much for joining me on TellyCast again. Um, best of luck for 2025 and, uh, maybe we'll do this again in a year's time and we can have a look back and see, uh, See what came, uh, what came true and, uh, and where we are in a year's time.

Thanks so much. Well, that's about it for the first show of 2025. TellyCast was produced by Spirit Studios and recorded in London. We'll be back next week for another show. Until then, stay safe.