Study on the practical implementation of the provisions of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive concerning the promotion of European works in audiovisual media services : final report.
Date: 2023-05-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology
Subjects: European audiovisual area, European television, audiovisual industry, audiovisual production, broadcasting, cloud computing, digital content, digital distribution, directive (EU), qualitative analysis, report, value chain

Study on the practical 
implementation of the provisions of 
the audiovisual media services 
directive concerning the promotion 
of European works in audiovisual 
media services 

Final Report 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Internal identification  

Contract number: LC-01553362    
SMART 2019/0037 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology 
Directorate I — Media Policy 
Unit I.1 — Audiovisual & Media Services Policy  

Contact: CNECT-I1@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Study on the practical 
implementation of the provisions 
of the audiovisual media services 
directive concerning the promotion 
of European works in audiovisual 
media services 

Final Report 

Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union 

Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you) 

Written by: 
Kantar Public: Marius MOSOREANU, Vlad PODOBEA, Daniela ULICNA, Madalina NUNU 
Spark Legal Network:  María DOMINGUEZ, Alexandros GIANNOULAS 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the European 
Commission  is  not  liable  for  any consequence stemming  from the reuse  of this  publication. The  Commission  does  not  guarantee  the 
accuracy of the data included in this study. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

PDF  

ISBN:  

doi: 

Catalogue number 

978-92-76-56792-9 

10.2759/211481 

KK-04-22-014-EN-N 

Manuscript completed on 30 November 2021 

1st edition 
The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.  
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023 

© European Union, 2023 

the  Commission  Decision  2011/833/EU  of  
The  reuse  policy  of  European  Commission  documents 
12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this 
document 
licence 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes 
are indicated. 

a  Creative  Commons  Attribution 

implemented  by 

International 

authorised 

(CC-BY 

under 

4.0) 

4.0 

is 

is 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly from the 
respective rightholders.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Contents 

Contents 

Executive summary 

Résumé 

1. 

Introduction 

1.1  European works provisions in the AVMS Directive as covered by this study 

1.2  Rationale for the AVMS Directive and for clauses regarding European works 

1.3  Objectives of this study 

2. 

Study methodology 

2.1  Task 1 – Legal research 

2.2  Task 1 – Member States’ reporting 

2.3  Task 2 – Desk research and interviews 

2.4  Task 3 – Analysis of electronic programming guides (linear services) 

2.5  Task 3 – Analysis of video-on-demand catalogues 

Volume 1 

3. 

Legislative changes affecting linear and non-linear services 

3.1 

Introduction 

3.2  Legislative changes in relation to television broadcasting (linear services) 

5 

7 

19 

32 

33 

34 

35 

37 

37 

38 

39 

40 

40 

41 

42 

42 

43 

3.3  Legislative changes in relation to on-demand audiovisual media services (non-linear services)  50 

4. 

Data reporting under Articles 13, 16 and 17 of the AVMSD 

4.1  Linear service providers (Articles 16 & 17) 

4.2  Non-linear service providers (Article 13 of AVMSD) 

4.3  Stakeholders’ views on Articles 13, 16 and 17 

5. 

Conclusions Task 1 

Volume 2 

6. 

Changes in the audiovisual market in the 2015 – 2019 period 

6.1  The size of European audiovisual sector and its evolution 

6.2  Businesses operating in the audiovisual sector and employment trends 

6.3  Employment in the audiovisual sector 

6.4  Market trends and value chains 

5 

59 

60 

75 

85 

87 

89 

90 

90 

100 

109 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

6.5  Value chain analysis 

6.6  Main trends in the audiovisual sector as highlighted by interviewees 

6.7  Conclusions task 2 

Volume 3 

7. 

Linear services content analysis 

7.1  Summary of the methodology 

7.2  Qualifying works covered by the study 

7.3  All European works 

7.4 

Independent European works 

7.5  Recent European works 

7.6  Share of prime time dedicated to European works 

7.7  Prominence of European works 

7.8  Domestic and non-domestic European works 

8. 

Non-linear service content analysis 

8.1  Summary of the methodology 

8.2  European works in VoD catalogues 

8.3  Countries of production and co-production in European works 

8.4  Recent European works 

8.5 

Independent productions 

8.6  European works by genre 

8.7  Qualitative analysis of prominence 

8.8  Observations regarding the comparison with data provided by Member States 

9. 

Conclusions Task 3 

Appendix 1 – Full list of video on demand services included in analysis in section 5 

133 

141 

145 

147 

148 

148 

156 

162 

170 

177 

180 

186 

189 

193 

193 

200 

208 

214 

215 

217 

221 

221 

223 

226 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary

This report analyses the implementation of Articles 13, 16 and 17 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 
(AVMSD). These articles concern the promotion of European works by broadcasters and video on demand 
service providers. The study is part of the regular monitoring which  is also requested by the Directive. The 
report covers the period of 2015-2019 and therefore the version of the legal provisions that were valid during 
that time. This means that the amendments of Articles 13, 16 and 17 introduced in the 2018 revision of the 
AVMSD, which entered into force in 2020, are not reflected in this research.  

The study had these three objectives: 

•  Map existing legislation and practices in Member States;  
•  Provide insights on the developments in the audiovisual market; and 
•  Analyse the content offer on both linear broadcasting and on-demand services.  

The study is based on the following main sources of information: 

• 

• 

legal analysis of the audiovisual legal framework and its evolution in the 27 EU Member States, UK, 
Norway and Iceland. This analysis was undertaken with the support of independent legal experts from 
all the covered countries;  
reporting about the share of European works in linear services and in VoD services based on the data 
provided by EU Member States. EU Member States’ data was accompanied by short reports providing 
additional  information,  explaining  the  national  monitoring  measures  as  well  as  explaining  any 
measures taken to tackle cases of non-compliance by service providers;  

•  data from Eurostat and Orbis dataset about the audiovisual sector and its sub-sectors;   
•  programming data of 467 linear service channels in 11 EU Member States. For these channels the 
Electronic  Programming  Guides  data  was  scraped  for  a  period  of  3  consecutive  months  and 
subsequently analysed to assess the content offer;  
catalogues of 751 video on demand (VoD) services in 21 EU Member States + Norway; 

• 
•  qualitative key informant interviews in 11 countries and at EU level.

7 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

Table below gives an overview of the sources of data in relation to the subsections of this executive summary.  

Table 1 – Overview of sources of data per sub-section 

Sub-section 

Source  

Country coverage 

Legislative changes in relation to linear 
services  

Independent legal analysis 

Legislative changes in relation to on-demand 
services  

Independent legal analysis 

EU27 + UK, NO and 
IS 

EU27 + UK, NO and 
IS 

Monitoring data on application of Articles 16 
and 17 

Member States’ reports 

Monitoring data on application of Article 13 

Member States’ reports  

EU27 

EU27 

Economic analysis of audio-visual market 

Desk research (Eurostat, Orbis) 
and interviews  

EU27 + UK  

Independent analysis of the share of 
European works in linear services 

Analysis of electronic 
programming guides for 467 
channels  

11 selected Member 
States 

Independent analysis of video of demand 
services  

Analysis of 751 VoD services 
catalogues 

21 selected Member 
States + NO  

Legislative changes in relation to linear services in EU27, UK, Norway and 
Iceland  

Over the period of 2015-2019, 17 countries (out of the 30 countries covered EU27, UK, Norway and Iceland) 
made  new  changes  in  relation  to  Articles  16  and  17  of  the  AVMSD  regarding  their  legal  framework, 
requirements on European works, definitions or the monitoring system. These countries are CY, BE (nl), DE, 
DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, HU, HR, LV, IS, IT, NL, PL, RO and SK. Substantive reforms have taken place in seven 
of  those  countries  (FR,  HR,  HU,  IT,  NL,  PL  and  RO).  Three  countries  (PL,  IT,  IS)  have  revised  provisions 
related to the share of European works. In Iceland this reform concerns specific quotas for works from Nordic 
countries;  in  Italy  it  sets  quotas  for  European  works  that  go  beyond  the  AVMSD  requirements  and  also 
introduces a specific quota for Italian works. Poland has allowed exceptions to the minimum share of European 
works in certain cases. Only Italy and Iceland have revised provisions related to independent works and recent 
works. Four countries (BE  (nl), NL, FR and IT) have revised the provisions related to  direct  and/or indirect 
contributions.  In  France  and  Netherlands  this  concerns  new  or  increased  requirements  for  financing 
productions in the language of these countries. In Belgium (nl) the changes concern investments in external 
productions.   

Figure 1 - Countries that have introduced changes in relation to Articles 16 and 17 of the AVMSD 

8 

 
 
 
Executive summary 

Nine countries (CY, DE, EE, FI, HR, HU, IT, NL and RO) have introduced legislative changes with regard to 
the  monitoring  system.  In  six  countries  (DE,  FI,  HU,  IT,  RO  and  NL)  new  or  more  detailed  monitoring 
requirements  have  been  introduced.  In  the  area  of  sanctions,  modifications  over  the  period  covered  were 
minimal. Only Italy has introduced provisions for fines in the event of infringement of the programming and 
investment requirements for European works and works of independent producers. 

Legislative changes in relation to on-demand audiovisual media services 
(non-linear services) in EU27, UK, Norway and Iceland  

Legislatives changes implementing Article 13 of the 2010 AVMSD have been identified in thirteen countries 
(BE (nl), CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, HR, HU, IS, IT, NL and SK) between 2015 and 2019. In four of these countries 
(BE (nl), HR, HU and IT) the changes have been substantive. Belgium ( nl) now has a quota system in place 
and has imposed  on  VoD  providers an  obligation to  either invest  in own productions or co-productions, or, 
alternatively, to pay a levy to the Flemish audiovisual fund. In Hungary, the required percentage of European 
works has been amended in order to meet the requirements of the 2010 AVMSD. Significant changes in the 
monitoring system have taken place in two countries (SK and NL), requiring providers to report on the share 
of European works.  

New or revised requirements for financial contributions to the production of European works have been found 
in three countries (BE (nl), DE, and IT).  Four countries (BE (nl), HR, HU and IT) have introduced amendments 
for quotas of European works. In Belgium (nl) and Italy, the share of European works in VoD catalogues has 
been increased to 30% and in Italy there is also a 20% requirement for independent producers. In Croatia the 
quota for European works is 20%. Four countries (BE (nl), HR, HU and IT) have introduced amendments with 
regard to the requirements for the prominence of European works. These changes introduce the requirements 
for prominence in BE (nl), HU and IT. In Croatia requirements for prominence apply to those providers who do 
not meet the 20% quota. Only Italy and Belgium (nl) have new requirements for the promotion of independent 
productions.  

Figure 2 - Countries that have introduced changes in relation to Article 13 of the AVMSD 

9 

 
 
 
Executive summary 

Summary of EU27 Member States’ monitoring data on application of Articles 
16 and 17 AVMSD 

Member States’ National Regulatory Authorities  provided monitoring reports, including data, on compliance 
with Articles 16 and 17 for linear services within their jurisdiction. The reporting data were broken down by 
year. The number of channels covered in Member States’ reports increased from 2 362 in  2015 to 2 377 in 
2019. Spain, Hungary and Germany reported on the highest numbers of channels.  

According to the data reported by Member States, at national level, the share of European works, independent 
productions and recent works is always above the AVMSD quota. Across all the channels reported, the share 
of European works in total qualifying time in 2019 was 72.6%. This was a slight increase from 70.3% in 2015.  

There were notable differences between the data reported by Member States. Hungary, the Netherlands and 
Malta reported that above 90% of total qualifying time was dedicated to European works across all channels 
within their respective Member States’ jurisdictions. However, there were also a significant minority of channels 
covered by the reporting that did not meet the 50% quota which linear services need to fulfil in accordance to 
Article 16 AVMSD. In total 9% of channels for which data was reported dedicated less than 50% of their total 
qualifying  time  to  European  works.  These  channels  are  particularly  concentrated  in  Czechia,  Lithuania, 
Finland, Portugal, Bulgaria and Italy.

Figure 3 - Share of European works in total qualifying time in 2019 per country

According  to  the  data  reported  by  Member  States,  the  10%  quota  for  independent  productions  included  in 
Article 17 of AVMSD was also largely exceeded. At EU level, the average share of independent productions 
in total qualifying time in 2019 was 40.8%. This represents a slight decline from 42.2% in 2015.  

For this indicator again, there are notable differences between Member States. While some Member States 
report  around 20%  of  independent productions  in  total  qualifying time (e.g. Italy and Greece)  others  report 
more  than  60%  (Latvia  and  Belgium  nl).  In  total  100  channels  (4%)  reported  a  share  of  independent 
productions below the 10% threshold. These channels are concentrated in Bulgaria, Portugal, Denmark and 
Czechia.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

Figure 4 - Share of independent productions in total qualifying time in 2019 per country 

According to Member States’ reports, more than 50% of total qualifying time dedicated to European works was 
allocated to recent independent productions in the period covered (54.6% in 2019). In 11 Member States (AT, 
BE (nl), HR, FR, DE, HU, LV, NL, PL, SI, SE) more than 60% of independent productions were recent.  

Figure 5 - Share of recent independent productions as part of European works in 2019 per country 
(qualifying time) 

11 

 
 
 
Executive summary 

The main reasons cited by Member States as to why some channels do not comply with the Article 16 and 17 
AVMSD requirements are: 

•  Small size of some channels in terms of audience;  
• 

Insufficient supply of European works in certain specialised areas in case of thematic channels such 
as sports, culture or children’s content; 

•  Difficulty of competing with the high volume of US productions; and 
•  Access to cheaper content from outside Europe.  

Many  Member  States  did  not  report  about  how  non-compliance  was  addressed.  Those  that  did  cover  this 
aspect refer to reminders and investigation procedures.  

Member States use different means as basis for the required monitoring and reporting: 

•  Self-declarations by broadcasters (in one case this has to be accompanied with an explanation of the 

exact technology used for monitoring); 

•  Detailed  reporting  at  programme  level  by  broadcasters,  processed  by  the  National  Regulatory 

Authority;  

•  External  monitoring  of  a  sample  of  weeks  carried  out  by  a  contractor  or  the  National  Regulatory 

Authority; 

•  Permanent ongoing monitoring. 

A number of Member States only gave a generic explanation of the monitoring approach used, so cannot be 
assigned to any of the above categories.  

Figure 6 - Monitoring measures used for Articles 16 and 17

Summary of EU27 Member States’ reports data on Article 13 of the AVMSD 

Member States reported  data on an  increasing number of VoD services between  2015 and 2019.  While in 
2015 their reporting covered 713 providers, this had risen to 1 030 in 2019. However, for an important number 
of VoD services Member States did not include any data in their reports, indicating that the data was missing. 
Actual  data  was  reported  for  560  VoD  services  in  2019.  The  vast  majority  of  the  services  covered  by  the 
reporting were located in six countries: Austria, Poland, Spain, Netherlands, Czechia and France. 

The share of European works in VoD catalogues varied from year to year in the period covered. The highest 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

share  was  reported  in  2016  (63.4%)  and  lowest  in  2017  (41.8%).  In  2019,  54.2%  of  productions  in  VoD 
catalogues were European works, according to the data provided by Member States. For more than half (332) 
of the services covered in the reporting, Member States report a share of European works that is above 90% 
in some cases even 100%.  

In 2019, according to the data reported, 60 VoD services used home page display as means to enhance the 
prominence of European works, 43 services used trailers or banners and 28 had European works in the search 
function. Note however that data on methods used to ensure prominence were only provided for a minority of 
services.  

Only nine Member States reported the share of financial contributions to production of European works made 
by  VoD  providers.  However,  even  in  the  case  of  those  Member  States  which  did  provide  this  information, 
questions can be about the basis for the data, as for. For a number of services, the values reported are 100%. 
However, the indicator that Member States should be reporting about concerns share of revenues that are 
reinvested into European works. 

Economic analysis of audiovisual market in EU27  

The turnover of companies operating in the production and dissemination of audiovisual works saw a steady 
growth  over  the  period  covered  by  this  study.  This  upward  trend  was  slightly  steeper  than  the  turnover 
expansion  in  the  total  business  economy.  As  a  consequence,  the  weight  of  the  audiovisual  sector  in  the 
business economy in EU27 increased from 0.68% to 0.72%. Most of this relative increase occurred from 2015 
to 2016, with the share of this sector remaining stable thereafter. The audiovisual sector also grew in the UK 
which was still an EU Member State during the reporting period. Audiovisual sector represents a much bigger 
share of the economy in the UK than in other EU27 countries (1.71% in 2018) and during the period covered 
share of this sector in the economy first grew (2015-2017) but afterwards declined (2017-2018).  

Over the period covered by this study, the revenues of the audiovisual market EU27have grown by a yearly 
average of 3.4% in the EU27. This is a stronger growth rate than in the previous period (2010-2014) when the 
CAGR was 0.9% (that data also included the UK). This growing trend is present in all EU27 Member States. 
Growth was strongest in Slovakia, Portugal and Bulgaria. In the UK however the revenues declined unlike in 
the rest of the countries analysed.   

The observed growth in revenues is mostly due to on-demand services. The revenues from these services in 
the EU27 more than tripled between 2015 and 2019. Pay TV revenues and TV advertising also continued to 
grow. Pay TV and TV advertising remain by far the largest source of revenues in the sector. The trends in 
public revenues differ by Member State. While some Member States saw an increase (PL, LT and EE) others 
experienced a stagnation of public funding (DE and FR). The UK saw a clear decline in public funding and TV 
advertisement revenues.  

After Brexit, the three largest countries in terms of audiovisual market (DE, FR and IT) account  together for 
more than half of the overall audiovisual revenues in the EU27 (53.1%).  

While in terms of revenues the audiovisual sector represented a greater share of business revenues in 2019 
than in 2015, this is not the case for the gross value added. The gross value added produced by the audiovisual 
sector did increase by 2.5% over the period covered. But this increase was smaller than that of other economic 
sectors. Consequently, audiovisual represents a smaller share of gross value added in 2019 than it did in 2015. 
The weight of the sector in overall business gross value added varies across EU27 economies. Audiovisual 
represents 1.15% of value added produced in France while it is less than 0.25% in Lithuania and Latvia.  

About 56% of the total gross value added comes from TV programming and broadcasting, 33% comes from 
production, and the rest from post-production and distribution. 

Profitability varies by sub-sectors. The gross operating surplus of  production showed  an annual compound 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

growth rate of 1.1% and post-production recorded 4.4% over the same period. Television programming and 
broadcasting had a negative annual growth rate of -0.4% and the rate for distribution appears to be negative 
too. 

The  number  of  production  companies  grew  substantially  over  the  period  covered  by  this  study,  while  the 
evolution in post-production was also positive but smaller, in distribution, programming and broadcasting, the 
number of companies declined slightly.  

Micro  and  small  companies  represent  a  significant  share  of  companies  in  production,  post-production  and 
distribution. They also account for a significant share of revenues and gross value added. Member States with 
a high annual “birth rate” for companies in production, post-production and distribution sector are Lithuania, 
Latvia,  Poland,  Hungary,  Denmark,  Portugal  and  Romania.  In  these  Member  States  a  high  number  of 
companies in this sector are established on annual basis. However, in Lithuania more companies are in fact 
dissolved than created.  

The  broadcasting  sector  has  a  higher  share  of  larger  companies  than  production,  post-production  and 
distribution. The broadcasting and programming sector is relatively stable with a rather low rate of company 
creation.  

In 2018, nearly 900,000 persons were employed in the audiovisual sector in EU27+UK. This covers all sub-
sectors. This is a notable increase since 2015. France, Germany, Italy and Spain have the highest numbers 
of  persons  working  in  this  sector.  Employment  in  the  sector  remains  skewed  towards  men,  particularly  in 
production.  

The study estimated that the overall investment in linear services by public and private broadcasters in the 
period 2014-2019 in EU27 has increased from 15.7 billion euro to 18.4 billion euro. This figure, however, does 
not include VoD players. When VoD services are included, investment is estimated at 27.2 million. Production 
budgets for films decreased in the period 2014-2015 but have climbed steadily since. Independent productions 
accounted for most titles and hours produced.  

In terms of the combined market share of the top three companies, the data generally show a high degree of 
market  fragmentation  in  the  production  sub-sector  except  in  a  small  number  of  countries  (Malta,  Spain, 
Slovenia and Romania). Market concentration is higher in the distribution sub-sector and in programming and 
broadcasting. The level of concentration decreased in the period analysed for all sub-sectors.  

In addition to the above key statistical market indicators, the following main trends shaping the market have 
been discussed by interviewees:  

•  Changes  in  consumption  of  VoD  and  the  fact  that  many  households  would  acquire  multiple  VoD 

• 

subscriptions over the period covered (compared to a maximum of one in the early 2010s);  
Increased  consumption  of  series,  notably  for  VoD  services.  This  is  also  blurring  the  traditional 
distinctions between types of producers, who used to specialise in cinema or TV content. Nowadays 
they all diversify into series production;  

•  Due  to  the  fast  growth  in  demand,  production  also  boomed  but  possibly  at  the  expense  of  quality, 

according to several interviewees;  

•  The fact that global intellectual property rights are held by large VoD services rather than production 
companies.  This  changes  the  dynamics  and  financing  in  the  sector,  to  the  detriment  of  production 
companies;  

•  Growth in co-productions due to a number of trends: lack of financing in some countries and the need 
to combine budgets from multiple sources in multiple countries, and a quest for original perspectives 
and new talents to stand out in a crowded market; 

•  Changing consumption trends, combined with increased competition and tight public funding create a 
complex financial equation for public service media. However commercial broadcasters are also hit by 
the  changing  market  because  of  significant  shifts  in  advertisement  spending,  which  is  increasingly 
digital. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

Independent analysis of the share of European works and independent 
productions in linear services in selected 11 Member States1  

To  complement  the  data  reported  by  Member  States  on  the  share  of  European  works  and  independent 
productions,  Kantar  Public  has  carried  out  an  independent  analysis  of  data  from  Electronic  Programming 
Guides (EPG). Kantar Public scraped EPG data for 586 linear services in 11 countries, of which  467 were 
eventually analysed. The remainder were discarded because of their thematic focus (e.g. sports or advertising) 
or  their  too-small  audience.  Three  months  of  electronic  programming  data  were  scraped  and  analysed 
(December 2020 – February 2021). Over 1.3 million entries were analysed, whereby one entry is equivalent 
to a production. For this analysis the per-country-level data concerns target markets (i.e. the channel targets 
the audience in a given country), rather than countries of jurisdiction.  

Firstly,  the  study  analysed  the  share  of  programming  time  that  is  defined  as  qualifying  time.  The  AVMSD 
defines qualifying time as time dedicated to all programmes excluding sport events, news, games, advertising, 
teletext services and teleshopping. To identify whether the entries were eligible as qualifying time the research 
team matched the titles with existing IMDb and TMDB datasets. On average over 50% of programming time 
in the dataset used was dedicated to qualifying works in line with the AVMSD definition. However, this varies 
greatly across channels. There are major channels in our dataset, in terms of audience, for which the share of 
qualifying time identified is below 50%. The qualifying time identified per channel was used as basis to calculate 
the other indicators discussed below.  

Across the 11 Member States, the share of European works in qualifying time was 39%. This is substantially 
below the share of European works that is reported on average by EU Member States in their own reports. 
That however covers all EU27 versus only a selection of 11 countries. Furthermore, there are certain definitions 
differences between the two strands of analysis. The 39% is also below the average reported in the previous 
two monitoring studies2 though both of these covered substantially smaller numbers of channels3. 

The  share  of  European  works  in  qualifying  time  was  above  50%  only  for  channels  targeting  the  German 
audience. For Poland, Spain and France it was between 40 and 50%. In the case of Italy, Austria and Czechia 
the share of European works was between 30% and 40% and for the remaining four countries it was between 
20% and 30% (HU, SE, NL and RO). There are 252 channels in total across the 11 Member States analysed 
with a market share above 0.5%. Of these 252 channels, only 77 broadcast 50% or more European works 
during total qualifying time. These 77 channels represent 30% of the channels that have more than 0.5% of 
audience share. On the other hand, 61 channels (representing 24% of the channels with 0.5% or higher market 
share) broadcast 20% or less European works during the qualifying time, according to the dataset. Just under 
half of these channels have a market share between 0.5-1%, meaning they are rather small.  

The presence of European works in prime time was analysed using two indicators: 

•  European works as share of all works in prime time; and 
•  Qualifying time dedicated to European works in prime time as share of all qualifying time.  

Czechia and Sweden had over 20% of prime-time works which were European. In the Netherlands, Romania, 
Poland and Hungary between 18% and 20% of works in prime time were European. These percentages are 

1 Note that there are several differences in definitions between the data reported by the Member States and the data analysed in this 
section. This concerns notably scope of country-level data (country of jurisdiction versus target market country) and operationalisation of 
the definition regarding independent works.  

2 VVA et al (2018) Study on the Promotion of European Works in Audiovisual Media Services and Attentional et al (2011) Study on the 
implementation of the provisions of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive concerning the promotion of European works in audiovisual 
media services 

3 55 channels were covered in the monitoring study covering the period 2011- 2015 and 54 in the study covering earlier period  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

even lower for the share of time allocated to European works during prime-time qualifying time. Here again 
there are major differences between countries and channels and the presence of European works in prime 
time depends heavily on the focus of the channels. The channels with highest share of prime time allocated to 
European works are: ARD (Austria  – 31.4%), SBS 6 (Netherlands – 25.6%), NPO2 (Netherlands - 24.6%), 
Kanal 5 Danmark (Sweden – 23%), SVT1 (Sweden – 23.4%) and National TV (Romania – 19.4%).  

The analysis of the share of independent works also relied on an automated matching procedure with a list of 
independent  European  production  companies.  The  study  team  used  different  definitions  of  independent 
productions: This study on the one hand used a “narrow definition” whereby to be considered as “independent 
production”  all  the  production  companies  involved  in  a  given  co-production  would  need  to  be  defined  as 
independent. When using the narrow definition, the share of European productions in the sample is very low 
(only 2.2%).  

The other definition is that of a “quasi-independent production” where at least one of the production companies 
(in case of co-productions) could be matched to lists of independent European production companies. When 
this quasi-independent production definition is applied, the share increases to nearly 10%. The vast majority 
of channels in the sample had a share of independent European works that was below 10% even when using 
the broader definition. However, significant variations between channels were noted. The large channels, in 
terms of audience, with the highest share of quasi-independent productions were TV Puls (Poland  – 39%), 
SVT2  (Sweden  –  31.6%),  Antena  1  (Romania  –  37.2%),  TV8  (Sweden  –  26.6%),  TV4  (Sweden  –  26.5%), 
PrimaFamily (Czechia – 21.7%), Mozi+ (Hungary – 23.7%), Veronica (Netherlands – 19.7%), M6 (France – 
19%) and ZDF (Austria – 18.8%).  

 The study also looked at the extent to which the European works broadcast are domestic, meaning at least 
one of the (co)-production countries was the same as the country where the production was being aired. The 
study found that in Germany and France a significant share of all broadcast qualifying works are produced or 
co-produced by at least one company from that country. In Germany 38.9% of qualifying works involve at least 
one German production company. In France 30.9% have at least one French production company. In other 
countries, however, the share of domestic productions is much lower.  

Independent analysis of VoD services in 21 EU Member States and Norway  

The study team also analysed the catalogues of 751 VoD services across 22 countries. The sample covered 
all major VoD services in these 22 countries and was provided by JustWatch. The sample included over 1.3 
million productions. The period for which the data were analysed was May 2021. The AVMSD definition was 
applied when counting series, whereby one season was considered as a single production.  

VoD catalogues were analysed by target market country and not by country of jurisdiction. The main reasons 
for this were: 

•  The same service provider has different catalogues by target market country. The catalogues differ 
greatly according to the characteristics of the market that is being targeted by the catalogue depending 
on the preferences of local audiences; and  

•  The dataset used was organised by target market country.  

European works represent 36% of the catalogues analysed across all the 751 services listed, according to this 
analysis. This ranges from 25% in Greece to 48% in France. There were no major differences between the 
share of European works in VoD catalogues that are transaction-based (TVoD) or subscription-based (SVoD). 
The VoD service provider  present in multiple countries with the greatest share of European works is Mubi. 
Disney Plus and Apple TV Plus, on the other hand, have the lowest share of European works in the dataset 
examined.  The  same  VoD  service  providers  can  have  rather  different  shares  of  European  works  in  their 
catalogues depending on the targeted market countries. For example, Netflix has 44% of European works in 
Czechia, but only 25% of European works in its catalogue for Ireland.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

Figure 7 - Share of European works in VoD catalogues

An analysis of the country of production or co-production showed that: 

•  Productions with US involvement are most frequent in all VoD catalogues for the countries covered. 
Depending  on  the  target  country,  between  42%  and  55%  of  productions  have  a  US  producer  or 
partner; 

•  UK, France and Germany are the other major countries of (co-)production present in VoD catalogues. 
However,  the  presence  of  (co-)productions  from  these  countries  varies  greatly  by  target  market 
country.  

The share of domestic works in all European works varies greatly. While these represent only 1% of European 
works in Bulgaria, they are close to 60% in France. Domestic European works were defined as having at least 
one (co-)production partner from the European country that the VoD service targets (for example a French co-
production in a catalogue targeting the French market).  

The  analysis  also  shows  that  a  large  share  of  European  works  in  VoD  catalogues  are  recent  productions 
(released in 2016 or later). For example, for Netflix catalogues, over 40% of European works are recent in 
Italy, Belgium, Austria and Bulgaria. The exact figure is likely to be even higher as a high share of productions 
in the sample were missing a date. The share of recent works is even higher in HBO catalogues.  

Prominence in VoD services was not analysed quantitatively because it would require a resource-intensive 
mode of data collection outside the scope of this assignment. Interviewees commented on: 

•  The difficulty of measuring prominence in VoD services;  
•  The fact that the extent to which VoD providers take measures to ensure prominence would need to 

be combined with consumption/ viewing data; and 

•  The differences in strategies adopted by VoD services, whereby some specialise in local/ European 

content, making prominence measures can be seen as redundant.  

Conclusions 

In the period covered by the study, the audiovisual market in the EU27 grew compared to the previous period. 
The  growth  was  fuelled  by  an  expansion  of  on-demand  services,  but  other  subsectors  also  grew.  Several 
Member  States  introduced  legislative  changes  to  align  with  AVMSD  provisions  for  Articles  13,  16  and  17. 
Member  States  also  reported  data  on  the  presence  of  European  works  in  linear  services  and  on-demand 
services. According to the data provided by Member States, the majority of broadcasters and channels are 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

compliant with the analysed AVMSD provisions. The independent analysis of content of linear services and 
VoD services done by the study, however, found in some cases different trends regarding the compliance data 
compared to those reported by the Member States. There are several reasons that can explain this. First, the 
independent analysis of content covered a different time-period compared to the one covered by the Member 
States reporting. Member States reported for years 2015-2019 while the independent analysis was based on 
2021  data.  Furthermore,  the  samples  of  linear  and  on  demand  services  covered  are  somewhat  different 
between  the  two  sources  of  data.  Finally  also  the  comparability  of  definitions  and  methods  used  for 
measurement is unclear, as there is limited evidence about the methodology used by Member States for the 
compliance monitoring

18 

 
 
Résumé

Le présent rapport analyse la mise en œuvre des articles 13, 16 et 17 de la directive « Services de médias 
audiovisuels » (SMA). Ces articles concernent la promotion des œuvres européennes par les organismes de 
radiodiffusion télévisuelle et les fournisseurs de services de vidéo à la demande. La présente étude s’inscrit 
dans le cadre du suivi régulier qui est également exigé par la directive. Le rapport porte sur la période 2015-
2019 et donc sur la version des dispositions légales qui étaient applicables à ce moment-là. Cela signifie que 
les révisions des articles 13, 16 et 17 introduites dans la révision de la directive SMA, entrées en vigueur en 
2020, ne sont pas prises en compte dans cette analyse.  

L’étude visait trois objectifs: 

- 
- 
- 

recenser la législation et les pratiques existantes dans les États membres;  
fournir un éclairage sur l’évolution du marché de l’audiovisuel; et 
analyser l’offre de contenu tant sur la radiodiffusion télévisuelle linéaire que sur les services à la 
demande.  

L’étude repose sur les principales sources d’information suivantes: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

analyse juridique des cadres juridiques de l’audiovisuel et de leur évolution dans 27 États membres 
de l’UE, au Royaume-Uni ainsi qu’en Norvège et en Islande. Cette analyse a été réalisée par des 
experts juridiques indépendants de tous les pays visés ;  

statistiques sur la part des œuvres européennes dans les services linéaires et les services de VoD, 
communiquées par les États membres de l’UE. Les données des États membres de l’UE étaient 
accompagnées de rapports succincts contenant des informations supplémentaires, expliquant les 
mesures de suivi ainsi que toute mesure prise pour remédier à la non-conformité ;  

données d’Eurostat et d’Orbis sur le secteur audiovisuel et ses sous-secteurs ;   

données de programmation de 467 chaînes de services linéaires dans 11 États membres de l’UE. 
Pour ces chaînes, les données des guides électroniques de programmation ont été extraites pour 
une période de 3 mois consécutifs puis analysées en vue d’évaluer l’offre de contenu ;  

catalogues de 751 services de vidéo à la demande (VoD) dans 21 États membres de l’UE + la 
Norvège ; 

- 

des entretiens qualitatifs avec des informateurs clés dans 11 pays et au niveau de l’UE.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Résumé 

Le  tableau  ci-dessous  présente  une  synthèse  des  sources  de  données  relatives  aux  sous-sections  de  ce 
résumé.  

Tableau 2 - Aperçu des sources de données par sous-section 

Sous-section 

Source  

Pays pris en compte 

Modifications législatives en matière de 
services linéaires  

Modifications législatives en matière de 
services à la demande  

Données de suivi sur l’application des 
articles 16 et 17 

Données de suivi sur l’application de 
l’article 13 

Analyse juridique indépendante 

UE27 + UK, NO et IS 

Analyse juridique indépendante 

UE27 + UK, NO et IS 

Rapports des États membres 

UE27 

Rapports des États membres  

UE27 

Analyse économique du marché de 
l’audiovisuel 

Recherche documentaire 
(Eurostat, Orbis) et entretiens  

UE27 + UK  

Analyse indépendante de la part des œuvres 
européennes dans les services linéaires 

Analyse des guides de 
programmation électroniques 
pour 467 chaînes  

11 États membres 
sélectionnés 

Analyse indépendante des services de vidéo 
à la demande  

Analyse de 751 catalogues de 
services de VoD 

21 États membres 
sélectionnés + NO  

Modifications législatives en matière de services linéaires dans l’UE27, au 
Royaume-Uni, en Norvège et en Islande  

Au cours de la période 2015-2019, 17 pays (UE, EEE et Royaume-Uni) ont apporté de nouvelles modifications 
aux articles 16 et 17 de la directive SMA concernant leur cadre juridique, les exigences en matière d’œuvres 
européennes, les définitions ou le système de suivi. Ces pays sont : CY, BE (nl), DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, HU, 
HR, LV, IS, IT, NL, PL, RO et SK. Des modifications majeures ont été apportées dans sept de ces pays (FR, 
HR, HU, IT, NL, PL et RO). Trois pays (PL, IT, IS) ont révisé les dispositions relatives à la part des œuvres 
européennes. En Islande, cette révision concerne un quota spécifique pour les œuvres provenant des pays 
nordiques. En Italie, elle porte sur la détermination d’un quota pour les œuvres européennes qui va au-delà 
des exigences de la directive SMA, ainsi que sur un quota spécifique pour les œuvres italiennes. La Pologne 
a autorisé des exceptions à la part minimale d’œuvres européennes dans certains cas spécifiques. Seules 
l’Italie  et  l’Islande  ont  révisé  les  dispositions  relatives  aux  œuvres  indépendantes  et  aux  œuvres  récentes. 
Quatre  pays  (BE  (nl),  NL,  FR  et  IT)  ont  révisé  les  dispositions  relatives  aux  contributions  directes  et/ou 
indirectes. En France et aux Pays-Bas, il s’agit d’exigences nouvelles ou accrues concernant le financement 
de productions dans la langue de ces pays. En Belgique (nl), les changements concernent les investissements 
dans les productions externes.  

Figure 8 Pays qui ont apporté des modifications aux articles 16 et 17 de la directive SMA 

20 

 
 
 
Résumé 

Neuf pays (CY, DE, EE, FI, HR, HU, IT, NL et RO)  ont  procédé à des modifications législatives en ce qui 
concerne le système de suivi. Dans six pays (DE, FI, HU, IT, RO et NL), des exigences de suivi nouvelles ou 
plus détaillées ont été introduites. En matière de sanctions, les modifications apportées au cours de la période 
couverte ont été minimes. Seule l’Italie a introduit des dispositions prévoyant des amendes en cas de violation 
des  exigences  de  programmation  et  d’investissement  pour  les  œuvres  européennes  et  les  œuvres  de 
producteurs indépendants. 

Modifications législatives en matière de services de médias audiovisuels à la 
demande (services non linéaires) dans l’UE27, au Royaume-Uni, en Norvège 
et en Islande  

Des modifications législatives portant sur la mise en œuvre de l’article 13 de la directive SMA 2010 ont été 
identifiées dans treize pays (BE (nl), CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, HR, HU, IS, IT, NL et SK) entre 2015 et 2019. 
Dans quatre de ces pays (BE (nl), HR, HU et IT), les changements ont été substantiels. La Belgique (nl) a mis 
en place un système de quotas et a imposé aux fournisseurs de services de vidéo à la demande l’obligation 
d’investir dans leurs propres productions ou co-productions, ou à défaut, de verser une redevance au fonds 
audiovisuel flamand. En Hongrie, le pourcentage requis d’œuvres européennes a été modifié afin de répondre 
aux exigences de la directive SMA 2010. Des changements significatifs ont été introduits quant au système 
de  suivi  dans  deux  pays  (SK  et  NL),  exigeant  des  fournisseurs  qu’ils  communiquent  la  part  d’œuvres 
européennes.  

Des  exigences  nouvelles  ou  révisées  concernant  les  contributions  financières  à  la  production  d’œuvres 
européennes ont été constatées dans trois pays (BE (nl), DE, et IT). En ce qui concerne les quotas d’œuvres 
européennes, quatre pays (BE (nl), HR, HU et IT) ont apporté des modifications. En Belgique (nl) et en Italie, 
la part des œuvres européennes dans les catalogues de VoD a été portée à 30%. En Italie, les producteurs 
indépendants  sont  également  tenus  de  respecter  une  proportion  de  20%.  En  Croatie,  le  quota  d’œuvres 
européennes est de 20%. Quatre pays (BE (nl), HR, HU et IT) ont révisé les exigences relatives à la mise en 
avant des œuvres européennes. Ces changements imposent des exigences quant à l’importance de la place 
réservée à ces œuvres en BE (nl), HU et IT. En Croatie, ces exigences s’appliquent aux fournisseurs qui ne 
respectent pas le quota de 20%. Seules l’Italie et la Belgique (nl) ont de nouvelles exigences en matière de 
promotion des productions indépendantes.  

Figure 9 Pays qui ont apporté des modifications à l’article 13 de la directive SMA 

21 

 
 
 
Résumé 

Synthèse des données de suivi des États membres de l’UE27 sur l’application 
des articles 16 et 17 de la directive SMA 

Les autorités de régulation nationales des États membres ont fourni des rapports de suivi, assortis de données, 
sur le respect des articles 16 et 17 pour les services linéaires relevant de leur compétence. Ces données ont 
été ventilées par année. Le nombre de chaînes prises en compte dans les rapports des États membres est 
passé de 2 362 en 2015 à 2 377 en 2019. L’Espagne, la Hongrie et l’Allemagne ont fourni des informations 
sur le plus grand nombre de chaînes.  

Selon  les  données  communiquées  par  les  États  membres,  au  niveau  national,  la  part  des  œuvres 
européennes, des productions indépendantes et des œuvres récentes est toujours supérieure au quota prévu 
par la directive SMA. Sur l’ensemble des chaînes pour lesquelles des chiffres ont été transmis, la part des 
œuvres  européennes  représentait  72,6%  du  temps  de  diffusion  total  en  2019.  Il  s’agit  d’une  légère 
augmentation par rapport aux 70,3% enregistrés en 2015.  

Des  différences  notables  ont  été  constatées  entre  les  données  communiquées  par  les  États  membres.  La 
Hongrie, les Pays-Bas et Malte ont déclaré que plus de 90% du temps de diffusion total était consacré aux 
œuvres européennes sur toutes les chaînes relevant de la compétence de ces États membres. Par ailleurs, 
une  minorité  importante  de  chaînes  incluses  dans  les  statistiques  n’a  pas  atteint  le  quota  de  50%  que  les 
services linéaires doivent respecter conformément à l’article 16 de la directive SMA. Au total, 9% des chaînes 
pour lesquelles des données ont été relevées ont consacré moins de 50% de leur temps de diffusion total à 
des œuvres européennes. Ces chaînes sont surtout concentrées en Tchéquie, en Lituanie, en Finlande, au 
Portugal, en Bulgarie et en Italie.  

Figure 10 Part des œuvres européennes sur le temps de diffusion total en 2019 par pays 

Selon les données communiquées par les États membres, le quota de 10% de productions indépendantes 
prévu  à  l’article 17  de  la  directive  SMA  a  également  été  largement  dépassé.  Au  niveau  de  l’UE,  la  part 
moyenne  des  productions  indépendantes  sur  le  temps  de  diffusion  total  en  2019  était  de  40,8%.  Cela 
représente un léger recul par rapport aux 42,2% enregistrés en 2015.  

Pour cet indicateur également, on relève des différences considérables entre les États membres. Alors que 
certains États membres déclarent environ 20% de productions indépendantes sur le temps de diffusion total 
(par exemple, l’Italie et la Grèce), d’autres en déclarent plus de 60% (Lettonie et Belgique nl). Au total, 100 
chaînes (4%) déclarent une part de productions indépendantes inférieure au seuil de 10%. Ces chaînes sont 
concentrées en Bulgarie, au Portugal, au Danemark et en Tchéquie.  

22 

 
 
 
Résumé 

Figure 11 Part des productions indépendantes sur le temps de diffusion total en 2019 par pays 

Selon  les  rapports  des  États  membres,  plus  de  50%  du  temps  de  diffusion  total  réservé  aux  œuvres 
européennes a été consacré aux productions indépendantes récentes au cours de la période de référence 
(54,6% en 2019). Dans 11 États membres (AT, BE (nl), HR, FR, DE, HU, LV, NL, PL, SI, SE), plus de 60% 
des productions indépendantes étaient des productions récentes.  

Figure 12 Part des productions indépendantes récentes dans les œuvres européennes en 2019 par 
pays (temps de diffusion) 

23 

 
 
 
 
Résumé 

Les principales raisons citées par les États membres pour justifier la non-conformité de certaines chaînes aux 
exigences des articles 16 et 17 de la directive SMA sont les suivantes : 

- 
- 

- 
- 

la faible audience de certaines chaînes ;  
l’offre insuffisante d’œuvres européennes dans certains domaines spécialisés dans le cas de chaînes 
thématiques tels que le sport, la culture ou les contenus pour enfants ; 
la difficulté à concurrencer le volume élevé de productions américaines ; et 
l’accès à des contenus moins chers en dehors de l’Europe.  

De nombreux États membres n’ont pas précisé comment les cas de non-conformité ont été traités. Ceux qui 
ont abordé cet aspect indiquent qu’ils ont eu recours à des rappels et à des procédures d’enquête.  

Les États membres effectuent le suivi et les rapports requis à l’aide de différents moyens: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

autodéclarations des organismes de radiodiffusion télévisuelle (dans un cas, cela doit être complété 
par une explication sur la technologie précise utilisée pour le suivi) ; 
rapports détaillés sur les programmes par les organismes de radiodiffusion télévisuelle qui sont traités 
par l’autorité de régulation nationale ;  
suivi  externe  sur  un  échantillon  de  semaines  effectué  par  un  prestataire  ou  l’autorité  de  régulation 
nationale ; 
suivi permanent et continu. 

Un certain nombre d’États membres n’ont donné qu’une explication générique de l’approche de suivi utilisée, 
ce qui ne permet pas de les classer dans l’une des catégories ci-dessus.  

Figure 13 Mesures de suivi utilisées pour les articles 16 et 17  

Synthèse des données des rapports des États membres de l’UE27 sur 
l’article 13 de la directive SMA 

Les États membres ont communiqué des données sur un nombre croissant de services de VoD entre 2015 et 
2019. Alors qu’en 2015 leur déclaration portait sur 713 services, elle en comptait 1 030 en 2019. Toutefois, 
pour un nombre important  de services de VoD,  les  États membres n’ont inclus  aucune donnée dans leurs 
rapports,  indiquant  qu’elles  étaient  manquantes.  Des  données  réelles  ont  été  communiquées  pour  560 
services de VoD en 2019. La grande majorité des services couverts par le rapport étaient situés dans six pays: 
Autriche, Pologne, Espagne, Pays-Bas, Tchéquie et France.  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Résumé 

La part des œuvres européennes dans les catalogues de VoD a connu des variations d’une année sur l’autre 
au cours de la période de référence. La part la plus élevée d’œuvres européennes a été signalée en 2016 
(63,4%) et la plus faible en 2017 (41,8%). En 2019, 54,2% des productions figurant dans les catalogues de 
VoD étaient des œuvres européennes, selon les données fournies par les États membres. Pour plus de la 
moitié (332) des services concernés par les rapports, les États membres déclarent que la part des œuvres 
européennes est supérieure à 90%, voire 100% dans certains cas.  

En 2019, selon les données communiquées, 60 services de VoD ont utilisé l’affichage de la page d’accueil 
comme moyen de renforcer la mise en avant des œuvres européennes, 43 services ont utilisé des bandes-
annonces ou des bannières et 28 avaient des œuvres européennes dans la fonction de recherche. Il convient 
toutefois de noter que les données relatives aux méthodes permettant d’assurer la mise en avant n’ont été 
fournies que pour une minorité de services.  

Seuls  neuf  États  membres  ont  communiqué  la  part  des  contributions  financières  à  la  production  d’œuvres 
européennes apportées par les fournisseurs de VoD. Toutefois, même dans le cas des États membres qui ont 
communiqué ces informations, on peut s’interroger sur le fondement de ces données. Pour un certain nombre 
de services, les valeurs rapportées sont de 100%. Cependant, l’indicateur que les États membres devraient 
communiquer concerne la part des recettes qui sont réinvesties dans les œuvres européennes.  

Analyse économique du marché de l’audiovisuel dans l’UE27  

Le chiffre d’affaires des sociétés opérant dans la production et la diffusion d’œuvres audiovisuelles a connu 
une croissance régulière au cours de la période concernée par cette étude. Cette tendance à la hausse a été 
légèrement plus marquée que la progression du chiffre d’affaires de l’ensemble de l’économie des entreprises. 
En conséquence, le poids du secteur audiovisuel dans l’économie des entreprises de l’UE27 est passé de 
0,68% à 0,72%. La majeure partie de cette augmentation relative s’est produite de 2015 à 2016, la part du 
secteur restant stable par la suite. Le secteur audiovisuel s’est également développé au Royaume-Uni, qui 
était encore un État membre de l’UE au cours de la période étudiée. Le secteur audiovisuel représente une 
part beaucoup plus importante de l’économie au Royaume-Uni que dans les autres pays de l’UE27 (1,71% en 
2018) et, au cours de la période de référence, sa part de l’économie a d’abord augmenté (2015-2017), puis 
diminué (2017-2018).  

Au  cours  de  la  période  examinée,  les  revenus  du  marché  de  l’audiovisuel  dans  l’UE27  ont  progressé  en 
moyenne de 3,4% par an. Il s’agit d’un taux de croissance plus important que celui de la période précédente 
(2010-2014), où le TCAC était de 0,9% (ces données incluaient également le Royaume-Uni). Cette tendance 
à la hausse se retrouve dans tous les États membres de l’UE27. La croissance a été la plus forte en Slovaquie, 
au Portugal et en Bulgarie. Au Royaume-Uni cependant, les recettes ont diminué, contrairement aux autres 
pays considérés par l’étude.   

La croissance constatée au niveau des recettes est principalement due à l’essor des services à la demande. 
Les recettes de ces services dans l’UE27 ont plus que triplé entre 2015 et 2019. Les recettes générées par la 
télévision  payante (« Pay TV ») et la publicité télévisée ont également continué à progresser. La télévision 
payante et la publicité télévisée restent de loin la principale source de revenus du secteur. L’évolution des 
recettes publiques diffère selon les États membres. Si certains États membres ont connu une augmentation 
(PL, LT et EE), d’autres ont vu le financement public stagner (DE et FR). Le Royaume-Uni a connu un net 
recul du financement public et des revenus de la publicité télévisée.  

Après  le  Brexit,  les  trois  plus  grands  pays  en  termes  de  marché  audiovisuel  (DE,  FR  et  IT)  représentent 
ensemble plus de la moitié (53,1%) de l’ensemble des recettes audiovisuelles de l’UE27.  

Si  en  termes  de  revenus  le  secteur  audiovisuel  représentait  une  part  plus  importante  des  revenus  des 
entreprises en 2019 qu’en 2015, ce n’est pas le cas lorsqu’on s’intéresse à la valeur ajoutée brute produite. 
La valeur ajoutée brute produite par le secteur audiovisuel a augmenté de 2,5% au cours de la période étudiée. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Résumé 

Mais  cette  augmentation  a  été  plus  faible  que  celle  des  autres  secteurs  économiques.  Par  conséquent, 
l’audiovisuel représente une part plus faible de la valeur ajoutée brute produite en 2019 qu’en 2015. Le poids 
du  secteur  dans  la  valeur  ajoutée  brute  globale  des  entreprises  varie  selon  les  économies  de  l’UE27. 
L’audiovisuel représente 1,15% de la valeur ajoutée produite en France alors qu’il est inférieur à 0,25% en 
Lituanie et en Lettonie.  

Environ 56% de la valeur ajoutée brute totale provient de la programmation et de la diffusion de programmes 
télévisés, 33% de la production, et le reste de la post-production et de la distribution. 

La rentabilité varie selon les sous-secteurs. L’excédent brut d’exploitation de la production a connu un taux de 
croissance  annuel  composé  de  1,1%  et  celui  de  la  post-production  de  4,4%  sur  la  même  période.  La 
programmation  et  la  diffusion  télévisuelles  ont  connu  un  taux  de  croissance  annuel  négatif  de  -0,4%,  une 
tendance que l’on retrouve également au niveau de la distribution. 

Le nombre de sociétés de production a considérablement augmenté au cours de la période examinée. Alors 
que l’évolution dans le domaine de la post-production a également été positive mais plus modeste, dans le 
domaine de la distribution, de la programmation et de la radiodiffusion, le nombre d’entreprises a légèrement 
diminué.  

Les  micro  et  petites  entreprises  représentent  une  part  importante  des  entreprises  de  production,  de  post-
production et de distribution. Elles représentent également une part importante des revenus et de la valeur 
ajoutée  brute  produite.  Les  États  membres  où  le  taux  de  naissance  des  entreprises  dans  le  secteur  de  la 
production,  de  la  post-production  et  de  la  distribution  est  élevé  sont  la  Lituanie,  la  Lettonie,  la  Pologne,  la 
Hongrie, le Danemark, le Portugal et la Roumanie. Dans ces États membres, un grand nombre d’entreprises 
de ce secteur voient le jour chaque année. Toutefois, en Lituanie, le taux de cessation d’activité des entreprises 
est en fait plus élevé que leur taux de création.  

Le  secteur  de  la  radiodiffusion  compte  une  part  plus  importante  de  grandes  entreprises  que  celui  de  la 
production, de la post-production et de la distribution. Le secteur de la radiodiffusion et de la programmation 
est relativement stable, avec un taux de naissance des entreprises plutôt faible.  

En 2018, près de 900 000 personnes étaient employées dans le secteur audiovisuel dans l’UE27+UK. Cela 
concerne tous les sous-secteurs. Il s’agit d’une augmentation notable par rapport à 2015. C’est en France, en 
Allemagne, en Italie et en Espagne que le secteur emploie le plus grand nombre de personnes. Le travail dans 
ce secteur reste orienté vers les hommes, en particulier dans la production.  

L’étude a estimé que l’investissement global des diffuseurs publics et privés de services linéaires au cours de 
la période 2014-2019 dans l’UE27 est passé d’un total de 15,7 milliards d’euros à 18,4 milliards d’euros. Ce 
chiffre ne comprend toutefois pas les acteurs de la VoD. En incluant les services VoD, l’investissement est 
estimé à 27,2 millions. Les budgets de production des films ont  diminué au cours de la période 2014-2015, 
mais  ont  enregistré  une  croissance  constante  depuis.  Les  productions  indépendantes  ont  représenté  la 
majorité des heures et des titres produits.  

En termes de part de marché combinée des trois premières entreprises, les données montrent généralement 
un degré élevé de fragmentation du marché dans le sous-secteur de la production, à l’exception d’un petit 
nombre de pays (Malte, Espagne, Slovénie et Roumanie). La concentration du marché est plus élevée dans 
le  sous-secteur  de  la  distribution  et  dans  celui  de  la  programmation  et  de  la  radiodiffusion  télévisuelle.  Le 
niveau ou la concentration a diminué au cours de la période analysée pour tous les sous-secteurs.  

Outre les indicateurs statistiques clés du marché mentionnés ci-dessus, les personnes interrogées ont évoqué 
certaines grandes tendances qui façonnent le marché :  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Résumé 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

l’évolution de la consommation de VoD et le fait que de nombreux ménages ont souscrit, au cours de 
la période examinée, plusieurs abonnements de VoD (contre un seul au début des années 2010);  
l’augmentation de la consommation de séries, notamment sur les services de VoD. Cette évolution 
estompe également les distinctions entre les catégories de producteurs qui se spécialisaient autrefois 
traditionnellement dans le contenu cinématographique ou télévisuel. Aujourd’hui, tous se diversifient 
dans la production de séries;  
la croissance rapide de la demande a également entraîné un essor de la production, mais peut-être 
au détriment de la qualité, selon plusieurs personnes interrogées;  
les défis sont liés au fait que les droits de propriété intellectuelle mondiaux sont détenus par les grands 
services de VoD et non plus par les sociétés de production. Cette situation bouleverse la dynamique 
et le financement du secteur au détriment des sociétés de production;  
l’essor des co-productions s’explique par de multiples tendances : le manque de financement dans 
certains pays et la nécessité de combiner des budgets provenant de plusieurs sources dans plusieurs 
pays, mais aussi la recherche de perspectives originales et de nouveaux talents pour se différencier 
sur un marché hautement concurrentiel; 
l’évolution des tendances de consommation, combinée à une concurrence accrue et à un financement 
public limité, crée une équation financière complexe pour les médias de service public. Toutefois, les 
radiodiffuseurs commerciaux sont également touchés par l’évolution du marché, notamment en raison 
des changements profonds en matière de dépenses publicitaires, qui sont de plus en plus orientées 
vers le numérique. 

Analyse indépendante de la part des œuvres européennes et des productions 
indépendantes dans les services linéaires dans une sélection de 11 États 
membres4  

Pour compléter les données communiquées par les États membres sur la part des œuvres européennes et 
des productions indépendantes, Kantar Public a réalisé une analyse indépendante des données des guides 
électroniques de programmation (EPG). Kantar Public a recueilli des données EPG pour 586 services linéaires 
dans 11 pays, dont 467 ont finalement été analysés. Les autres ont été écartés en raison de leur orientation 
thématique (par exemple, le sport ou la publicité) ou de leur audience trop faible. Trois mois de données de 
programmation électronique ont été recueillis et analysés (décembre 2020 - février 2021). Plus de 1,3 million 
d’entrées ont été analysées, une entrée étant équivalente à une production. Pour cette analyse, les données 
au niveau des pays concernent les marchés cibles (c’est-à-dire que le public d’un pays donné est visé par la 
chaîne), plutôt que les pays de la juridiction compétente.  

Tout d’abord, l’étude a analysé la part du temps de programmation qui est défini comme temps de diffusion. 
La directive SMA définit le temps de diffusion comme le temps consacré à tous les programmes, à l’exclusion 
des manifestations sportives, des informations et des jeux, ainsi que de la publicité, des services de télétexte 
et du téléachat. Pour déterminer si les entrées étaient éligibles en tant que temps de diffusion, l’équipe de 
recherche a comparé les titres avec les ensembles de données existants d’IMDb et de TMDB. En moyenne, 
plus de 50% du temps de programmation dans l’ensemble de données utilisé a été consacré à la diffusion des 
œuvres conformément à la définition de la directive SMA. Toutefois, la proportion varie fortement d’une chaîne 
à l’autre. Notre ensemble de données comporte des chaînes importantes, en termes d’audience, sur lesquelles 
la part du temps de diffusion identifié est inférieure à 50%. Le temps de diffusion identifié par chaîne a été 
utilisé comme base pour calculer les autres indicateurs examinés ci-dessous.  

4 Notez qu’il existe plusieurs différences dans les définitions entre les données communiquées par les États membres et les données 
analysées dans cette section. Il s’agit notamment de la portée des données au niveau national (pays de la juridiction compétente par 
rapport au pays du marché cible) et de l’opérationnalisation de la définition concernant les œuvres indépendantes.  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Résumé 

Dans les 11 États membres, la part des œuvres européennes en temps de diffusion était de 39%. Ce chiffre 
est nettement inférieur à la part d’œuvres européennes que les États membres de l’UE déclarent en moyenne 
dans leurs propres rapports. Il s’agit toutefois de l’ensemble de l’UE27 et non d’une sélection de 11 pays. En 
outre, il existe certaines différences de définition entre les deux approches d’analyse. Ce pourcentage de 39% 
est  également  inférieur  à  la  moyenne  rapportée  dans  les  deux  précédentes  études  de  suivi5,  qui  portaient 
toutefois toutes deux sur un nombre de chaînes nettement inférieur6. 

Ce n’est que pour les chaînes ciblant le public allemand que la part des œuvres européennes sur le temps de 
diffusion était supérieure à 50%. Pour la Pologne, l’Espagne et la France, elle se situait entre 40 et 50%. Dans 
le cas de l’Italie, de l’Autriche et de la Tchéquie, la part des œuvres européennes se situait entre 30 et 40% et 
dans  le  cas  des  quatre  autres  pays,  elle  oscillait  entre  20  et  30%  (HU,  SE,  NL  et  RO).  Dans  les  11  États 
membres  analysés,  252  chaînes  au  total  détiennent  une  part  de  marché  supérieure  à  0,5  %.  Sur  ces  252 
chaînes, seules 77 ont diffusé 50%  ou plus d’œuvres européennes sur le temps de diffusion total. Ces  77 
chaînes  représentent  30%  des  chaînes  qui  comptent  plus  de  0,5%  d’audience.  D’autre  part,  d’après 
l’ensemble des données, 61 chaînes (représentant 24% du nombre total de chaînes ayant une part de marché 
égale ou supérieure à 0,5%) ont réservé 20% ou moins de leur temps de diffusion aux œuvres européennes. 
Un peu moins de la moitié de ces chaînes ont une part de marché comprise entre 0,5 et 1 %, autrement dit, il 
s’agit de chaînes à faible audience.  

La présence d’œuvres européennes aux heures de grande écoute (« prime time ») a été analysée selon deux 
indicateurs: 

- 
- 

part des œuvres européennes par rapport à toutes les œuvres aux heures de grande écoute ; et 
part du temps de diffusion consacré aux œuvres européennes par rapport à l’ensemble du temps de 
diffusion aux heures de grande écoute.  

La Tchéquie et la Suède ont enregistré plus de 20% d’œuvres européennes aux heures de grande écoute. 
Aux Pays-Bas, en Roumanie, en Pologne et en Hongrie, entre 18% et 20% des œuvres diffusées aux heures 
de  grande  écoute  étaient  des  œuvres  européennes.  Ces  pourcentages  sont  encore  plus  faibles  si  l’on 
considère la part de temps allouée aux œuvres européennes en temps de diffusion aux heures de grande 
écoute.  Là  encore,  il  existe  de  grandes  différences  entre  les  pays  et  les  chaînes  et  la  présence  d’œuvres 
européennes aux heures de grande écoute dépend fortement de l’orientation des chaînes. Les chaînes dont 
la part de prime time allouée aux œuvres européennes est la plus élevée sont les suivantes : ARD (Autriche - 
31,4%),  SBS 6  (Pays-Bas  -  25,6%),  NPO2  (Pays-Bas  -  24,6%),  Kanal 5  Danmark  (Suède  -  23%),  SVT1 
(Suède - 23,4%) et National TV (Roumanie - 19,4%).  

L’analyse  de  la  part  des  œuvres  indépendantes  s’est  également  appuyée  sur  une  procédure  de 
rapprochement automatisée avec une liste de sociétés de production européennes indépendantes. L’équipe 
chargée de l’étude a utilisé deux définitions différentes pour les productions indépendantes. Nous avons utilisé 
d’une part une « définition étroite » selon laquelle, pour être considérées comme « production indépendante », 
toutes les sociétés de production impliquées dans une co-production donnée devraient être définies comme 
indépendantes. En utilisant la définition étroite, la part des productions européennes dans l’échantillon est très 
faible (seulement 2,2%).  

L’autre définition est celle d’une « production quasi indépendante » dans laquelle au moins une des sociétés 
de production (dans le cas de co-productions) pourrait être rattachée à des listes de sociétés de production 

5 VVA et al (2018) Study on the Promotion of European Works in Audiovisual Media Services and Attentional et al (2011) Study on 
the implementation of the provisions of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive concerning the promotion of European works in 
audiovisual media services 

6 55 chaînes étaient examinées dans l’étude de suivi portant sur la période 2011-2015 et 54 dans celle concernant la période 
antérieure.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Résumé 

indépendantes européennes. Si l’on utilise cette définition de la production quasi indépendante, la part passe 
à  près  de  10%.  La  grande  majorité  des  chaînes  de  l’échantillon  ont  une  part  d’œuvres  européennes 
indépendantes  inférieure  à  10%,  même  en  utilisant  la  définition  la  plus  large.  Toutefois,  d’importantes 
variations entre les chaînes ont été constatées. Les grandes chaînes, en termes d’audience, ayant la part la 
plus  élevée  de  productions  quasi  indépendantes  sont  TV  Puls  (Pologne  -  39%),  SVT2  (Suède  -  31,6%), 
Antena 1 (Roumanie - 37,2%), TV8 (Suède - 26,6%), TV4 (Suède - 26,5%), PrimaFamily (Tchéquie - 21,7%), 
Mozi+ (Hongrie - 23,7%), Veronica (Pays-Bas - 19,7%), M6 (France - 19%) et ZDF (Autriche - 18,8%).  

L’étude a également examiné dans quelle mesure les œuvres européennes diffusées peuvent être qualifiées 
de nationales, c’est-à-dire qu’au moins un des pays de (co)-production doit être le même que celui dans lequel 
la production est diffusée. L’étude a révélé qu’en Allemagne et en France, une part importante de toutes les 
œuvres éligibles diffusées est produite ou co-produite par au moins une société de ce pays. En Allemagne, 
38,9% des œuvres éligibles ont au moins une société de production allemande. En France, elles sont 30,9% 
à  compter  au  moins  une  société  de  production  française.  Dans  d’autres  pays,  cependant,  la  part  des 
productions nationales est beaucoup plus faible.  

Analyse indépendante des services de VoD dans 21 États membres de l’UE et 
en Norvège  

L’équipe de l’étude a également analysé les catalogues de 751 services de VoD dans 22 pays. L’échantillon, 
fourni par JustWatch, portait sur les principaux services de VoD dans ces 22 pays et comprenait plus de 1,3 
million  de  productions.  La  période  à  laquelle  les  données  ont  été  analysées  est  le  mois  de  mai  2021.  La 
définition de la directive SMA a été appliquée au comptage des séries, une saison étant considérée comme 
une seule production.  

L’analyse des catalogues de VoD a été réalisée par pays de marché cible et non par pays de la juridiction 
compétente. Ceci s’explique principalement par les raisons suivantes: 

- 

- 

un même fournisseur de services dispose de catalogues différents selon le pays du marché cible. Les 
catalogues  diffèrent  grandement  selon  les  caractéristiques  du  marché  visé  par  le  catalogue,  en 
fonction des préférences des publics locaux ; et  
l’ensemble de données utilisé a été organisé par pays du marché cible.  

Les  œuvres  européennes  représentent  36%  des  catalogues  analysés  sur  l’ensemble  des  751  services 
répertoriés, selon cette analyse. Cette proportion varie de 25% en Grèce à 48% en France. Il n’y a pas de 
différences majeures entre la part des œuvres européennes dans les catalogues de VoD en paiement à la 
video (TVoD) ou par abonnement (SVoD). Le fournisseur de services de VoD présent dans plusieurs pays et 
qui possède la plus grande part d’œuvres européennes est Mubi. Disney Plus et Apple TV Plus, en revanche, 
ont la plus faible part d’œuvres européennes dans l’ensemble de données examiné. Les mêmes fournisseurs 
de services de VoD peuvent avoir des parts d’œuvres européennes assez différentes dans leurs catalogues 
selon les pays du marché ciblé. Par exemple, Netflix compte 44% d’œuvres européennes en Tchéquie alors 
qu’il n’en a que 25% dans son catalogue pour l’Irlande.  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Résumé 

Figure 14 Part des œuvres européennes dans les catalogues de VoD  

Si l’on examine le pays de production ou de co-production, on constate ce qui suit : 

- 

- 

les productions avec une participation américaine sont les plus fréquentes dans tous les catalogues 
de VoD des pays examinés. Selon le pays cible, entre 42% et 55% des productions ont un producteur 
ou un partenaire américain; 
le Royaume-Uni, la France et l’Allemagne sont les autres grands pays de (co-)production présents 
dans les catalogues de VoD. Cependant, la présence de (co-)productions issues de ces pays varie 
fortement selon le pays du marché cible.  

La  part  des  œuvres  européennes  nationales  sur  l’ensemble  des  œuvres  européennes  est  extrêmement 
variable. Alors que celles-ci ne représentent que 1% des œuvres européennes en Bulgarie, elles atteignent 
près  de  60%  en  France.  Les  œuvres  européennes  nationales  ont  été  définies  comme  ayant  au  moins  un 
partenaire de (co-)production du pays européen ciblé par le service de VoD (par exemple une co-production 
française dans un catalogue ciblant le marché français).  

L’analyse montre également qu’une part importante des œuvres européennes présentes dans les catalogues 
de  VoD sont des productions européennes récentes (sorties en 2016  ou  plus tard). Par  exemple, pour les 
catalogues Netflix, plus de 40% des œuvres européennes sont récentes en Italie, en Belgique, en Autriche et 
en Bulgarie. Le chiffre exact est probablement encore plus élevé, car une grande partie des productions de 
l’échantillon  ne  comportaient  pas  de  date.  La  part  des  œuvres  récentes  est  encore  plus  grande  dans  les 
catalogues HBO.  

La place importante réservée aux œuvres européennes dans les services de VoD n’a pas fait l’objet d’une 
analyse quantitative car cela aurait nécessité un mode de collecte de données exigeant en ressources, ce qui 
ne relevait pas du champ de cette mission. Les personnes interrogées ont formulé des commentaires sur: 

- 

- 

la difficulté de mesurer l’importance de la place réservée aux œuvres européennes dans les services 
de VoD ;  
les  mesures  que  prennent  les  fournisseurs  de  VoD  pour  assurer  la  mise  en  avant  devraient  être 
combinées avec les données de consommation/visionnement ; et 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Résumé 

- 

les différences de stratégies entre les services de VoD, certains services de VoD se spécialisant dans 
le contenu local/européen et dans ce cas, les mesures pour assurer la mise en avant peuvent être 
considérées comme superflues.  

Conclusions 

Au cours de la période couverte par  l’étude,  le  marché de l’audiovisuel dans l’UE27 a connu  un essor par 
rapport à la période précédente. Cette croissance a été portée par l’expansion des services à la demande, 
mais d’autres sous-secteurs ont également progressé. Plusieurs États membres ont introduit des modifications 
législatives afin de se conformer aux dispositions de la directive SMA pour les articles 13, 16 et 17. Les États 
membres ont également communiqué des données sur la présence d’œuvres européennes dans les services 
linéaires et les services à la demande. Selon les données fournies par  les États membres,  la majorité des 
organismes de radiodiffusion télévisuelle et des chaînes sont en conformité avec les dispositions de la directive 
SMA analysées. L’analyse indépendante du contenu des services linéaires et des services de VoD a toutefois 
révélé  des  tendances  différentes  de  celles  communiquées  par  les  États  membres  dans  certains  cas. 
Différentes raisons peuvent expliquer cette situation. Premièrement, l’analyse indépendante du contenu portait 
sur  une  période  différente  de  celle  couverte  par  les  rapports  des  États  membres.  Les  États  membres  ont 
présenté des rapports pour les années 2015 à 2019, tandis que l’analyse indépendante s’est basée sur les 
données de 2021. En outre, les échantillons de services linéaires et à la demande examinés sont quelque peu 
différents entre les deux sources de données. Enfin, la comparabilité des définitions et des méthodes utilisées 
pour la mesure n’est pas claire, car on ne dispose que de peu d’éléments sur la méthodologie utilisée par les 
États membres pour le suivi de la conformité.  

31 

 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

1. 

Introduction  

In 1989, the "Television without frontiers" (TVWF) Directive was adopted, triggered by economic, technological, 
cultural  and  social  transformations  in  the  audiovisual  sector.  The  expansion  of  satellite  broadcasting,  the 
spread of private TV broadcasters and the economic crisis facing the European film industry were some of the 
factors that contributed to the adoption of this Directive7. The Directive was first amended in 1997 and revised 
in 2007 to include video on demand (VoD) services in its scope. It was further revised in 2010 and consolidated 
into the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD). Its scope and main objectives are summarised below.  

Short overview  

The AVMSD covers all the 27 EU Member States, 
as well as other ten countries8.  

It regulates all audiovisual 
media,  not  only 
linear 
(traditional  TV  broadcasts) 
but  also  non-linear  (on-demand  services)  with 
different  sources:  TV,  internet,  cable  and  mobile 
devices9.  

Main objectives of the revised Directive include: 

Ensure cultural diversity 

Preserve a pluralistic audiovisual media landscape and ensure media freedom 

Protect minors and citizens from harmful content 

Promote European audiovisual productions by applying quotas for European works  

The directive also includes a clear obligation to monitor the implementation of its provisions in particular when 
it comes to the articles related to promotion of European works.  

The present report is part of the regular monitoring of the implementation of measures  for the promotion of 
European works as part of the AVMSD. The report covers the period 2015-2019 and concerns the AVMSD 
provisions for European works as applicable prior to the revision of these articles in 2018 (see below).  

In  2014,  the  Directive  was  subjected  to  a  comprehensive  evaluation  under  the  Regulatory  Fitness  and 
Performance  Programme  (REFIT).  The  evaluation  concluded  that  the  objectives  of  the  Directive  were  still 
relevant but highlighted a number of areas for improvement10. One of these areas concerned the lack of a level 

7 Cairn, 2017: The review of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 

8 EU27, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey, Switzerland and the UK. 

9 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/audiovisual-media-services-directive-avmsd   

10 European Commission, 2016: SWD  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

playing field between TV broadcasting services and on-demand services. The rules set for linear services were 
judged stricter than those for non-linear services. This was particularly true of the provisions  for the promotion 
of European works. The evaluation raised a concern that stricter rules for television editorial policy might make 
it  difficult  for  TV  broadcasters  to  adapt  to  audience  demands,  giving  on-demand  services  a  competitive 
advantage. In light of the 2014 evaluation, changes to the AVMSD were proposed and adopted in 2018. The 
revisions include in particular stricter measures for the promotion of European works on non-linear services 
and the inclusion of video-sharing platforms. The deadline set for the transposition of the revised Directive was 
September 2020. This is why the present monitoring study only covers the provisions which were in force prior 
to the 2018 revision.   

1.1     European  works  provisions  in  the  AVMS  Directive  as 
covered by this study  

As noted above, this study covers the period 2015-2019 and therefore looks at the application of AVMSD rules 
on the promotion of European works as they stood prior to the 2018 review.  

The articles covered by this study are presented below.  

Article 13 (as valid during the period covered by this study 2015-2019):  

1. Member  States  shall  ensure  that  on-demand  audiovisual  media  services  provided  by  media  service 
providers under their jurisdiction promote, where practicable and by appropriate means, the production of 
and access to European works. Such promotion could relate, inter alia, to the financial contribution made 
by  such  services  to  the  production  and  rights  acquisition  of  European  works  or  to  the  share  and/or 
prominence  of  European  works  in  the  catalogue  of  programmes  offered  by  the  on-demand  audiovisual 
media service. 

Article 16:  

1. Member States shall ensure, where practicable and by appropriate means, that broadcasters reserve for 
European works a majority proportion of their transmission time, excluding the time allotted to news, sports 
events,  games,  advertising,  teletext  services  and  teleshopping.  This  proportion,  having  regard  to  the 
broadcaster’s  informational,  educational,  cultural  and  entertainment  responsibilities  to  its  viewing  public, 
should be achieved progressively, on the basis of suitable criteria. 

2. Where the proportion laid down in paragraph 1 cannot be attained, it must not be lower than the average 
for 1988 in the Member State concerned. 

However, in respect of Greece and Portugal, the year 1988 shall be replaced by the year 1990. 

Article 17:  

Member  States shall ensure, where practicable  and by appropriate  means, that  broadcasters reserve at 
least 10% of their transmission time, excluding the time allotted to news, sports events, games, advertising, 
teletext services and teleshopping, or alternately, at the discretion of the Member State, at least 10% of their 
programming budget, for European works created by producers who are independent of broadcasters. This 
proportion,  having  regard  to  the  broadcaster’s  informational,  educational,  cultural  and  entertainment 
responsibilities to its viewing public, should be achieved progressively, on the basis of suitable criteria. It 
must be achieved by earmarking an adequate proportion for recent works, that is to say works transmitted 
within 5 years of their production. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

1.2     Rationale 
regarding European works  

for 

the  AVMS  Directive  and 

for  clauses 

The rationale for covering European works in the Directive presents two main arguments:  

•  A cultural argument; and 

•  An economic argument. 

Firstly, the audiovisual sector is an important vehicle for cultural values, and the diversity of the audiovisual 
sector contributes to the preservation of cultural diversity. Furthermore, the circulation of audiovisual works 
from different European cultures is also expected to enhance the exposure of Europeans to other European 
cultures and thus contribute to the development of a European identity.  

Studies in the fields of media psychology, communication theory and sociology throughout the decades have 
discussed the impact of mass media in culture and society, especially the impact of TV broadcasting.  Much 
research  has  been  done  on  the  effects  of  television  on  the  adoption  of  certain  behaviours  (often  negative 
ones).  The  cultivation  theory,  developed  by  George  Gerbner  in  1967,  examines  the  long-term  effects  of 
television. The theory proposes that long exposure to television content is capable of influencing perceptions 
of social reality. Heavy viewers, argues Gerbner, tend to cultivate attitudes which are more consistent with the 
world of television programmes than with the real world11. The social learning theory of Albert Bandura explains 
how people can learn from observation alone and can perform behaviours through media modelling.  

There is empirical research that television viewing goes beyond just entertainment and has possibly significant 
effects on people and their perceptions of the world, as well as influencing the adoption of behaviours. Given 
this demonstrated influence of television on people - where these individuals make no conscious choices about 
their watching behaviours based on the influence these will have on them - content regulation is justified by 
the existence of behavioural biases and information asymmetries. This concerns areas of the AVMS Directive 
such as protection of minors but also cultural diversity.  

The Standard Eurobarometer published in spring 202112 shows that eight out of ten Europeans (82%) watch 
television every day or almost every day. This represents more than 360 million citizens who are impacted by 
television  daily.  The  audiovisual  sector  in  Europe  therefore  has  a  major  role  to  play  in  both  safeguarding 
cultural diversity in Europe and fostering a European cultural identity.  

Cultural diversity is considered by UNESCO as a defining characteristic of humanity. The Convention on the 
Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions13, held in 2005, established that one of the 
rights of parties at the national level is to “adopt measures aimed at protecting and promoting the diversity of 
cultural expressions within its territory”. The Directive therefore aims at safeguarding the cultural diversity that 
exists in Europe at a time of increasing globalisation in a sector heavily dominated by the US.  

From an economic perspective, the Directive aims to protect the European audiovisual sector as an industrial 
and commercial sector that creates added value in the EU, contributes to job creation and has multiple spin-
offs in other sectors. 

The  audiovisual  sector  has  also  a  very  important  role  in  the  European  economy.  The  sector  is  part  of  the 
cultural and creative industry (CCI), which includes all  those sectors whose activities are based on cultural 
values,  or  other  artistic  and  other  individual  or  collective  creative  expressions14.    Data  on  the  size  of  the 
European audiovisual sector in economic terms is discussed in detail in volume 2 of this report  

The VoD market is growing fast, as indicated later in this report, and this is mainly driven by the growth of 
subscription video on demand (SVoD) services. Data from the Flash Eurobarometer on “Assessing content 
online and cross-border portability of online content services”, conducted in February/March 2019, show that 
56% of Europeans have used the internet to stream or download audiovisual content such as films, series, 
and all TV content, excluding sports, regularly or occasionally in the last 12 months. In Denmark (55%), United 

11 Robinson, G: Mass Communication and Journalism 

12 Kantar (2021) Standard Eurobarometer - Media use in the European Union for European Commission  

13 https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000142919 

14 https://ec.europa.eu/culture/policy/cultural-creative-industries_en 

34 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Kingdom (52%) and Sweden (50%) at least half the respondents say they do so regularly15. The spring 2021 
Standard Eurobarometer study found that 33% of Europeans watch television via the internet. This represents 
a steady increase over the past decade as this proportion was only 16% in 2011. 

The 2010 version of the Directive encouraged the contribution of VoD services to the promotion of European 
works and cultural diversity but set no binding measures. Given the shift in audiences towards VoD services, 
these were addressed in a more binding manner in the revised text of the Directive in 2018 which is not part 
of the provisions analysed in this study.  

1.3     Objectives of this study  

Against  this  background,  the  objective  of  this  study  is  to  provide  the  European  Commission  with  updated 
information on:  

•  How the regulatory frameworks at national level evolved over the period 2015-2019, what provisions 

of the Directive D related to European works have been transposed and how;  

•  The state of play with regard to cultural diversity on television channels in the EU as well as in the 

catalogues of video-on-demand services;  

•  How the European  market for  audiovisual services  has  evolved  and what this  evolution  implies for 
cultural  diversity,  in  particular  when  these  data  are  combined  with  information  on  the  share  of 
European works aired and the related legal framework.  

The  purpose  of  this  study  is  to  provide  the  European  Commission  with  an  independent  study  on  the 
implementation of measures aimed at the promotion of European works under the AVMSD. Together with the 
independent  review,  the  study  also  summarises  the  reports  that  Member  States  submitted  as  part  of  their 
obligations to monitor the implementation of Articles 16 and 17 of the Directive.  According to the text of the 
Directive and the 2011 Guidelines16 Member States are expected to report every two years on the statistical 
achievement of the  quotas set in the  AVMSD  Articles 16  and 17 for the programmes falling  under a given 
country’s jurisdiction.  

Combined, these sources will be the basis for the Commission to prepare an evaluation report to the European 
Parliament, the Council and the EESC.   

The study covers all aspects of the intervention logic of the articles concerning promotion of European works 
under the Directive – from outputs to impacts – as presented in the chart below.  

15 European Commission, 2019: Flash Eurobarometer 477a 

16 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/audiovisual-and-media-services  

35 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Figure 15: Intervention logic of AVMSD clauses related to European works 
Source: authors (developed based on intervention logic presented in European Commission Impact Assessment 

accompanying the 2016 proposal for revising the AVMSD) 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

2.  Study methodology  

To respond to the objectives described in the introduction, this study was divided into three main tasks: 

•  Task 1 concerns the analysis of the evolution of national legal frameworks and, in parallel, the analysis 

of Member States’ reporting on the implementation of Articles 13, 16 and 17;  

•  Task 2 concerns a summary of main trends in the audiovisual market; and 

•  Task 3 concerns an independent assessment of the state of play regarding cultural diversity in linear 

service programming and non-linear service catalogues. 

Each of these tasks followed a separate methodology. Each task is also summarised in a separate chapter or 
chapters of this final report and these sections also contain more detailed information on the methodologies 
and sources used: 

•  Results of the task 1 analysis are presented in chapters 3, 4 and 5;  

•  Results of the task 2 analysis are presented in chapter 6; and 

•  Results of the task 3 analysis are presented in chapters 7 and 8. 

This section gives a high-level overview of the methodology followed for each task.  

2.1     Task 1 – Legal research  

The legal research was carried out through these steps:  

•  Step 1 – Development of a structured and standardised reporting template (see Annex III); 

•  Step  2  –  Pre-completion  of  the  template  by  a  central  team  based  on  literature  available  from  EU 

resources such as the European Audiovisual Observatory;  

•  Step 3 – Completion of the template by national legal researchers in each of the countries covered by 

this assignment; 

As part of this step national legal researchers reviewed national legislation implementing the AVMSD 
provisions for European works and related research at national level.  

•  Step 4 – Validation or feedback from Member States on the country reports;  

The draft fiches were sent for validation to Member State authorities together with the template for 
Member States’ reporting (see below).  

The  table  below  summarises  the  feedback  received  to  these  draft  fiches.  As  shown  in  the  table, 
substantial feedback was only received from Hungary. In all other cases no or marginal feedback was 
received.  

•  Step 5 – Finalisation of country fiches based on the comments received; and  

•  Step 6 – Summary focusing on changes made in the period 2015-2019 (see section 3).  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 3 - Summary of Member States responses to legal research country fiches 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium fr 

Belgium nl 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Responded to 
request for 
feedback  

Scale of 
comments/ 
corrections  

Country 

Responded to 
request for 
feedback  

Scale of 
comments/ 
corrections  

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Minor 
comments 

Ireland 

No comments 

Italy  

Minor 

Minor 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

No comments 

Luxembourg 

No comments  Malta 

minor 

minor 

minor 

minor 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal  

Romania 

Not received 

Slovakia 

minor 

Slovenia 

No comments 

Spain  

Substantial 
comments 

Sweden 

UK 

Norway 

Iceland  

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

No 

No 

No  

No comments  

Minor 

Minor 

No comments 

Minor 

Minor 

Minor 

Minor 

Minor 

Minor 

Minor 

Minor 

Minor  

Minor  

2.2     Task 1 – Member States’ reporting  

In parallel to the legal research carried out by a team of media law specialists, Member States were asked to 
provide their regular monitoring reports related to the promotion of European works under Articles 13, 16 and 
17.  

The template for Member States’ reporting comprised: 

•  A Word document in which Member States were asked to provide complementary information about 
monitoring methods they use; reasons why some quotas could not be achieved (if applicable) and any 
measures to address non-compliance (if applicable);  

•  An Excel table in which Member States were asked to give, for each television channel under their 

jurisdiction which is not exempt from the directive, data concerning: 

o  Share of time dedicated to European works as % of total qualifying time;  

o  Share of time dedicated to European works made by independent producers as a percentage 

of total qualifying time;  

o  Share of time dedicated to recent works made by independent producers as a percentage of 

total qualifying time;  

These data were to be provided for every year separately.  

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

•  An  Excel  table  in  which  Member  States  were  asked  to  give,  for  each  VoD  service  under  their 

jurisdiction, data on the following: 

o  Share of European works as % of all titles, whereby every season of a TV series is considered 

as one title;  

o  Measures to ensure prominence;  

o  Financial contribution made by VoD services. 

As above, these data were to be provided by year.  

Section 4 summarises the  information provided by Member States’ reports. It also shows the data gaps in 
them, notably in terms of reporting under Article 13 AVMSD, which was not mandatory for the period covered 
by this report.  

2.3     Task 2 – Desk research and interviews  

In order to analyse the evolution of the market as part of task 2 we primarily combined insights from: 

•  Desk research covering EU and international sources; and  

• 

Interviews with 23 stakeholders in the 11 selected countries.  

The  desk  research  for  this  section  mostly  reproduced  the  analysis  of  market  trends  presented  in  previous 
reports, updating and expanding the data where other datasets were available.  

Table 4 - Stakeholders interviewed 

Organisation 

German Films 

Stakeholder type 

Public production funds 

Association of Commercial Television in Europe (ACT) 

EU organisation 

Austrian Federal Chancellery 

National Regulatory Authority 

Country 

Germany 

EU 

Austria 

Spain 

EU 

EU 

Production company 

EU organisation 

EU organisation 

Public production funds 

Czechia 

National Regulatory Authority 

Spain 

Expert 

Denmark 

MediaPro 

EUROCINEMA 

Nordisk Film & TV Fond 

Institute of Documentary Film 

Audiovisual Council of Catalonia 

A Danish University 

Commissariaat voor de Media - Media Authority 

National Regulatory Authority 

Netherlands 

Centrul Național al Cinematografiei / Romanian Film Centre 

Public production funds 

Romania 

Consiliul National al Audiovizualului (CNA) - National 
Audiovisual Council 

National Regulatory Authority 

Romania 

BIM Produzione 

Canal Plus  

European Producers Club 

EuroVoD 

European Film Agency Directors association 

European Broadcasting Union 

Distributor 

Linear service provider 

EU organisation 

EU organisation 

EU organisation 

EU organisation 

Italy  

France  

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

The Swedish Press and Broadcasting Authority 

National Regulatory Authority 

Sweden 

Netflix 

ANICA 

CANAL+ Polska S.A. 

German Producers Alliance 

VoD service provider 

International 

Producers’ organisation 

Linear service provider 

Producers’ organisation 

Italy  

Poland 

Germany 

39 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

2.4     Task 3 – Analysis of electronic programming guides (linear 
services) 

In order to carry out an independent assessment of the share of European works in linear services we have 
web-scraped  electronic  programming  guides  in  11  selected  Member  States  over  a  three-month  period  (1 
December 2020 to 28 February 2021). In total, data for 586 eligible channels were analysed covering over 1 
million entries, where one entry represents an eligible production.  

The 11 Member States selected for this analysis were: Austria, Czechia, Germany, Spain, France, Hungary, 
Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Sweden. These Member States were selected as representing: 

•  The largest audiovisual markets in the EU while also covering diversity between medium-sized and 

large markets; 

•  Diversity in terms of regions of the EU; and  

•  Diversity in terms of market fragmentation. 

Section 7.1 provides a detailed summary of the methodology and the dataset analysed, as well as the way in 
which indicators were computed.  

2.5     Task 3 – Analysis of video-on-demand catalogues  

To carry out the analysis of video-on-demand catalogues, we have worked together with JustWatch.  

JustWatch is a video streaming aggregator which compiles data about the catalogues of over 130 VoD services 
combining Subscription Video on Demand (SVoD), Transactional Video on demand (TVoD) and some Free 
Video on Demand (FVoD). JustWatch is the aggregator with highest number of catalogues. In total, 751 VoD 
services across 22 target countries were included in this analysis, since these services were analysed by target 
country and not country of jurisdiction. Target country means the country the audience of which is targeted by 
the VoD service. This approach was agreed because ultimately audiences are exposed to European works in 
the target countries and not in the countries of jurisdiction. The target countries were therefore a relevant unit 
of analysis in understanding exposure of audiences to European works distributed through VoD.  

In the case of data concerning VoD services, we provide a cross-sectional analysis rather than a longitudinal 
analysis of the state of play of the catalogue references in JustWatch for the month of May 2020. This means 
that the catalogues were not analysed over a period of time but at one cut-off point, May 2021. VoD catalogues 
also evolve over time and change from one month to another, but such a longitudinal analysis would not have 
been feasible in the context of this assignment. Over 1.3 million entries were included in this analysis.  

Section 8.1 gives further information on the methodology and the sample of services and content analysed.  

40 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Volume 1  

This first volume of the study analyses the legislative changes affecting linear and non-linear service providers 
that have occurred during the reference period (2015-2019). The analysis (Chapter 33) is based on legal desk 
research  carried  out  by  the  study  team,  which  was  then  validated  by  the  National  Regulatory  Authorities 
(NRAs) in the relevant countries. In the second part (Chapter 4), we analyse the data reported by countries 
concerning the implementation of Articles 13, 16 and 17 of AVMSD.   

As  presented  in  more  detail  below,  Chapter  3  presents  all  the  legislative  changes  to  national  measures 
transposing the requirements for the promotion of European works by linear and non-linear service providers 
set out in Articles 13, 16 and 17 of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 
March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in 
Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services17 (hereafter “2010 AVMSD”) as applied 
in  the  period  2015-2019.  The  revised  rules  on  promotion  of  European  works  introduced  by  Directive 
2018/1808/EU (hereafter “2018 AVMSD”),)18 are not covered in the present analysis. 

In addition to the majority proportion of European works, share of independent productions and recent works, 
financial contributions and prominence, the analysis also investigates whether there are any other measures 
to encourage linear and non-linear providers to promote European work. Furthermore, the analysis looks into 
definitions and the interpretation of relevant concepts.  

In Chapter 44, we provide an analysis on the state of play of the implementation of Articles 13, 16 and 17 of 
the 2010 AVMSD, based on the data reported by the national regulatory authorities for that same period. The 
analysis  looks  into  different  monitoring  methods,  their  periodicity  and  types  of  systems  used,  as  well  as 
assessing exemptions and the most recurrent reasons for these, reasons for non-compliance and measures 
taken or planned by the countries to address these cases.  

These aspects are further detailed in the following sections.  

17 Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid 
down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual 
Media  Services  Directive) 
relevance).  Available  at:  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02010L0013-20100505#tocId2.  

(codified  version) 

(Text  with  EEA 

18 Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the 
coordination  of  certain  provisions  laid  down  by  law,  regulation  or  administrative  action  in  Member  States  concerning  the  provision  of 
audiovisual  media  services  (Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive)  in  view  of  changing  market  realities.  Available  at:  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/1808/oj  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

3.  Legislative  changes  affecting  linear  and  non-linear 
services 

3.1    

Introduction 

This chapter presents all the legislative changes in national legal frameworks transposing the requirements for 
promoting European works by linear and non-linear service providers set out in Articles 13, 16 and 17 of the 
2010 AVMSD, as applied in the period 2015-2019. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  2010  AVMSD  has  been  amended  by  the  2018  AVMSD,  which  strengthens  the 
promotion of European works. However, the new rules were not applicable in the period under evaluation. In 
this  sense,  it  is  appropriate  that  the  last  assessment  of  the  implementation  of  the  rules  on  promotion  of 
European  works  under  the  Directive  2010/13/EU  include  the  year  2019,  when  the  previous  provisions 
continued to be applicable. Therefore, the present analysis covers the legislative changes which took place in 
the  period  from  1  January  2015  to  31  December  2019  in  30  countries  (27  EU  Member  States,  the  United 
Kingdom, Iceland and Norway). 

To  this  end,  information  was  collected  through  desk  research  and  consultation  with  relevant  stakeholders. 
Specifically, the study team designed a template legal mapping sheet providing a comprehensive overview of 
the  national  measures  implementing  Articles  13,  16  and  17  of  the  2010  AVMSD.  The  template  was  pre-
populated based on available literature for each of the countries covered by the study. Furthermore, with the 
objective of finding out how national regulatory frameworks have evolved in recent years, these legal mapping 
sheets were further completed by national legal experts. This resulted in 31 legal mapping sheets (i.e. 27 EU 
Member States, Iceland, Norway and the United Kingdom). In addition, it should be noted that in Belgium, the 
French and Flemish Communities have adopted different measures transposing Articles 13, 16 and 17 of the 
2010 AVMSD. Therefore, two separate legal mapping sheets were drawn up. 

The legal mapping sheets were also sent to the NRAs of the EU Member States and the United Kingdom (the 
NRAs from Iceland and Norway were not included in the consultation). The NRAs were provided with a period 
of 60 days to provide their input.  Of the 29 NRAs contacted19, 27 provided their input and validated and/or 
amended the national legal mapping sheets (except for FR and the UK). Therefore, the national desk research 
and consultation with relevant stakeholders have resulted in 31 legal mapping sheets, which are the basis of 
the present legal analysis.  

This  chapter  contains  three  sections.  The  current  Section  3.1  presents  the  objectives  and  structure  of  this 
chapter. Section 3.2 presents and describes the legislative changes identified regarding Articles 16 and 17 of 
the 2010 AVMSD, while Section  3.3 presents and describes the legislative changes identified in relation to 
Article 13 of the 2010 AVMSD. 

The following annexes are relevant for the present chapter: 

•  Annex I which presents 31 legal mapping sheets; and 

•  Annex  II  which  includes  a  comparative  overview  of  the  relevant  national  measures  implementing 
Articles 13, 16 and 17 of the 2010 AVMSD and identifies the legislative changes that have taken place 
during the reference period.  

19 Please note that two national representatives were contacted in Belgium, since different measures are in place in the French and 
Flemish Communities. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

3.2     Legislative  changes  in  relation  to  television  broadcasting 
(linear services) 

Television broadcasting services (linear services) are covered by the AVMSD. Article 16 of the 2010 AVMSD 
requires that Member States shall  ensure “where practicable and by appropriate means” that  broadcasters 
reserve a majority of their transmission time for European works, excluding the time allocated to news, sports 
events, games, advertising, teletext services and teleshopping (i.e. the majority of the total qualifying time). 
This  proportion,  having  regard  to  the  broadcaster’s  informational,  educational,  cultural  and  entertainment 
responsibilities  to  its  viewing  public,  should  be  achieved  progressively,  on  the  basis  of  suitable  criteria. 
Furthermore, in Member States where it is not possible to reach a majority transmission proportion, the average 
should not be lower than the average in 1988 in those Member States, or in 1990 in the case of Greece and 
Portugal. In  this context,  it  should be noted  that the content of Article  16  of the  2010 AVMSD was already 
included in Article 4 of the Television Without Frontiers (TWF) Directive20, which is the first relevant regulatory 
expression of the European Union's audiovisual policy and for which the transposition deadline expired on 3 
October 1991. Lastly, it is worth nothing that the 2010 AVMSD does not impose specific measures that Member 
States should adopt to comply with Article 16 of the 2010 AVMSD. 

Article 17 of the 2010 AVMSD requires that Member States shall ensure, where practicable and by appropriate 
means,  that  broadcasters  reserve  at  least  10%  of  their  transmission  time,  excluding  the  time  appointed  to 
news, sports events, games, advertising, teletext services and teleshopping, or alternatively, at the discretion 
of the Member State, at least 10% of their programming budget, for European works created by  producers 
who  are  independent  of  broadcasters.  This  proportion,  having  regard  to  the  broadcaster’s  informational, 
educational, cultural and entertainment responsibilities to its viewing public, should be achieved progressively, 
on the basis of suitable criteria. It must be achieved by earmarking an adequate proportion for recent works, 
that is to say works transmitted within five years of their production. 

Article 17  does  not  distinguish  between public and private  media service  providers, but some countries do 
make  a  distinction  in  their  national  legislation.  Moreover,  Article  17  does  not  provide  a  definition  of 
“independent producers”. Nevertheless, when defining “producers who are independent of broadcasters” as 
referred to in Article 17, Member States should take appropriate account of criteria such as the ownership of 
the production company, the quantity of programmes supplied to the same broadcaster and the ownership of 
secondary rights21. 

In  addition,  both  Articles  16  and  17  affirm  that  Member  States  shall  ensure  the  requirements  of  the  2010 
AVMSD  “where  practicable  and  by  appropriate  means”.  This  expression  might  be  susceptible  of  different 
interpretations  and  may  give  Member  States  the  freedom  to  decide  whether  the  transposition  of  certain 
requirements  of  the  2010  AVMSD  in  their  national  legislation  is  mandatory  or  optional.  For  example, 
Luxembourg  has  adopted  the  “where  practicable’’  clause  for  Articles  16  and  17  via  national  legislation 
prescribing that certain requirements are applicable “each time it is feasible”, Sweden has adopted the “where 
practicable’’ clause as such, whereas Portugal has not adopted the ‘’where practicable’’ clause for Articles 16 
and 17 at all, leading to inflexibility.  

In order to allow monitoring of the application of the rules set out in Articles 16 and 17 of the 2010 AVMSD and 
the pursuit of their objectives, Member States should provide the Commission with a report on the application 
of  the  proportions  reserved  for  European  works  and  independent  productions  (see  Chapter  44  for  more 
information about data reporting under Articles 16 and 17). The Commission should inform the other Member 
States of these reports accompanied, where appropriate, by an opinion taking account of, in particular, the 
progress achieved in relation to previous years, the share of first broadcasts in the programming, the particular 
circumstances  of  new  television  broadcasters  and  the  specific  situation  of  countries  with  a  low  audiovisual 
production capacity or restricted language area22. 

This section focuses on the analysis of the legislative changes identified from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 
2019 in relation to Articles 16 and 17 of the 2010 AVMSD. The overall strategy has been to verify whether any 

20 Article 4 of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or 
administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities. Available at: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31989L0552. 

21 Recital 71 of the 2010 AVMSD. 

22 Recital 65 of the 2010 AVMSD. 

43 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

amendments  to  the  relevant  legislative  national  frameworks  have  been  carried  out  during  the  period  with 
respect to the requirements for the promotion of European works by linear providers laid down in the 2010 
AVMSD, by comparing and contrasting the information collected (see Annex II for further information).  

In this context, Table 33 lists all the countries covered by this analysis, specifying whether changes have been 
made to: 

1) The legislative framework (i.e., the national legal measures implementing Articles 16 and 17); 

2) The implementation of requirements established in Articles 16 and 17; 

3) The definitions and/or interpretation of relevant concepts laid down in Articles 16 and 17; 

4) The monitoring system for the application of the rules laid down in Articles 16 and 17. 

Table 5 - Overview of the legislative changes identified in relation to Articles 16 and 17 of 
the 2010 AVMSD 

Requirements 

Definitions 

Monitoring system 

Country 

AT 

BE (FR) 

BE(NL) 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IS 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

Legislative 
framework 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

Changes 

Changes 

Changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

Changes 

Changes 

Changes 

No changes 

Changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

Changes 

Changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

44 

Changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

Changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Country 

SK 

UK 

Legislative 
framework 

Changes 

No changes 

Requirements 

Definitions 

Monitoring system 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Source: Authors 

Overall, legislative changes in relation to the implementation of Articles 16 and 17 of the 2010 AVMSD  took 
place in 16 countries (CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, HU, HR, LV, IS, IT, NL, PL, RO and SK), between 2015 
and 2019. 

It should be noted that substantive reforms have taken place in seven of those countries (FR, HR, HU, IT, NL, 
PL  and  RO).  Firstly,  Italy  has  introduced  several  legal  acts  bringing  numerous  changes  in  relation  to  the 
applicable requirements, the definitions of relevant concepts and the monitoring system applicable with regard 
to Articles 16 and 17. France introduced a significant reform of the contribution regime for the production of 
audiovisual  works  by  television  services,  impacting  on  the  definition  of  “independent  producer”.  In  Croatia 
relevant  changes  have  been  introduced  regarding  the  increase  of  shares  for  audiovisual  media  service 
providers  and  reporting  obligations.  In  Hungary,  an  important  reform  of  the  monitoring  system  has  been 
identified,  introducing  different  monitoring  systems  for  linear  and  on-demand  media  service  providers.  The 
Netherlands  set  new  requirements  for  public  broadcasting  service  providers  in  relation  to  productions,  and 
broadened the reporting requirements. In Poland, a new regulation has been introduced bringing changes to 
the  requirements  for  the  majority  proportion  of  European  works.  Lastly,  in  Romania,  substantive  reforms 
introduced  certain  changes  in  the  monitoring  system,  in  particular  promoting  an  increase  in  monitoring.  In 
practice,  the  National  Broadcasting  Council  (CNA)  increased  monitoring  in  2019,  following  the  European 
Regulations  Bureau  report  for  the  period  from  1  January  2015  to  31  December  2018.  On  the  basis  of  this 
report, the CNA took action against a series of national and regional broadcasters for failing to submit the half-
yearly report on European and independent quotas to the CNA further23. 

Furthermore, the findings show that certain countries have also introduced relevant changes in the definitions 
of  certain  concepts  (for  instance  in  Greece,  where  a  new  definition  of  “independent  producer”  has  been 
introduced), and the system monitoring the application of the rules set out in Articles 16 and 17 (for example 
in  Finland,  where  a  new  monitoring  obligation  has  been  introduced).  In  addition,  although  not  substantive, 
minor changes have also been identified in the definition of certain concepts in Denmark and Finland, and the 
monitoring system in Cyprus, Germany and Estonia. 

Finally,  it  should  be  mentioned  that  changes  regarding  financing  obligations  have  taken  place  in  certain 
countries (DE, ES, PT, RO, SE). Although those changes do not relate to the direct transposition of Articles 
16 and 17 of the 2010 AVMSD, further information is provided in the present analysis with the aim of presenting 
other obligations applicable to television broadcasters. 

3.2.1     Requirements  

Articles 16 and 17 of the 2010 AVMSD laid down different requirements to be met regarding the promotion of 
European works: 

1)  Requirements regarding the majority proportion of European works (Article 16((1) AVMSD); 

2)  Requirements  regarding  the  share  of  transmission  time  or  programming  budget  for  independent 

production and recent work (Article 17 AVMSD); 

3)  Requirements regarding a direct financial contribution for European works (Article 17 AVMSD). 

Furthermore, this section also presents other relevant requirements identified at national level which do not 
derive from Articles 16 and 17 of the 2010 AVMSD, such as:  

•  Language requirements/original production language (see also recital 78 of 2010 AVMSD),  

•  Measures to encourage broadcasters to include an adequate share of co-produced European works 

or of European works of non-domestic origin (see also recital 70 of 2010 AVMSD),  

23 For instance, Decision of the CNA 664 of 25.06.2019 and Decision of the CNA 657 of 25.06.2019. 

45 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

• 

Indirect financial contributions, such as film funds to which broadcasters are required to contribute.   

3.2.2    

Majority proportion of European works 

In relation to the majority proportion of European works, four countries (FI, IS, IT and PL) introduced changes 
between 2015 and 2019. It should be noted that in Finland the wording of the national measure was amended 
slightly but no changes were made to the substance of such requirements. In Iceland, Italy and Poland relevant 
changes  have  been  observed.  Iceland  has  raised  the  proportion  of  TV  content  from  the  Nordic  countries, 
requiring  the  public  service  provider  to  increase  it  to  7.5%.  In  Poland,  exceptions  to  the  rule  setting  the 
proportion  of  European  works  were  introduced  under  certain  circumstances.  A  newly  introduced  article 
establishes  that,  upon  the  request  of  broadcasters  transmitting  exclusively  in  an  information  and 
communication  technology  system,  lower  percentages  may  be  determined  taking  into  consideration  the 
number  of  viewers  and  the  coverage  of  the  service,  as  well  as  the  broadcaster’s  ability  to  implement  the 
obligations imposed. Accordingly, under specific circumstances and for certain broadcasters, percentages can 
be lower than 50%.  

Lastly, in Italy, the requirements for the promotion of European works applicable to broadcasters have been 
completely reformed. In particular, under the 2017 Franceschini Decree, broadcasters shall reserve a majority 
proportion of their qualifying hours (the overall amount of broadcasting hours and hour fractions, excluding the 
time  allotted  to  news,  sports  events,  games,  advertising,  teletext  services  and  teleshopping)  for  European 
works.  The  quota  should  be  increased  progressively  to  53%  as  of  1  July  2019.  As  of  1  July  2019,  private 
broadcasters  shall  reserve  a  sub-quota  of  at  least  one  third  of  the  quota  for  European  works  for  works  of 
original Italian expression. The percentage shall be increased to 50% for the public broadcaster (RAI). During 
prime time (18.00-23.00), private broadcasters shall reserve a sub-quota of 6% for cinematographic works, 
fiction, animation, original documentaries or other works of high cultural or scientific content of Italian origin; 
for the public broadcaster this sub-quota shall amount to 12%, half of which is reserved to cinematographic 
works only.  

3.2.3    

Share for independent production and recent works 

With regard to the share of transmission time or programming budget  allocated to independent production, 
including requirements for recent works, only two countries (IS and IT) introduced amendments between 2015 
and 2019.  

In  Iceland,  new  obligations  were  introduced  with  regard  to  independent  producers.  The  public  broadcaster 
shall  buy  content  from  or  co-produce  content  with  independent  producers  of  TV  series,  movies  and 
documentaries for an amount corresponding to at least 8% of its total revenue in 2017, 9% in 2018 and 11% 
in 2019.  

In Italy, as previously mentioned, the requirements applicable to broadcasters for the promotion of European 
works have been completely revised and, therefore, the share of transmission time and the requirements for 
recent works have also been amended.  

The new provisions require private broadcasters to reserve at least 10% of their net annual revenues for the 
pre-purchase  and purchase of  independent European works. This percentage  shall be increased  to  12.5% 
(5/6  of  which  is  for  independent  producers)  as  of  2019.  Private  broadcasters  shall  also  reserve,  within  the 
quota above, a specific sub-quota of 3.2% of their net annual revenues for cinematographic works of original 
Italian expression. This percentage shall be increased to 3.5% as of 2019. The public broadcaster RAI shall 
allocate to the pre-purchase, purchase or production of European independent works a quota of not less than 
15%  of  the  overall  annual  revenues.  This  percentage  shall  be  increased  to  18.5%  (5/6  of  which  is  for 
independent producers) as of 2019. The public broadcaster shall also reserve, within the quota for European 
works, a specific sub-quota of 3.6% for cinematographic works of original Italian expression. This percentage 
shall be increased to 4% as of 2019.  

Moreover,  the  public  broadcaster  shall  reserve  not  less  than  5%  of  the  quota  for  European  works  to 
independent animation works intended for children’s education. Private broadcasters no longer have to comply 
with a specific quota obligation for European works, being simply required to “reserve the majority of time to 
European works”. In addition, during prime time (18.00-23.00), only public broadcasters are required to reserve 
a sub-quota of 12% for cinematographic works, fiction, animation, original documentaries or other works of 
high cultural or scientific content of Italian origin, with at least 1/4 of such quota allocated to cinematographic 
works.  

46 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Private broadcasters shall reserve a 10% quota of their net annual revenues to the pre-purchase, purchase or 
production of European works, to be allocated only to independent works. Half of this quota shall be reserved 
to  cinematographic  works  of  original  Italian  expression  produced  during  the  last  five  years.  Private 
broadcasters shall reserve, within the investment quota for European independent works, a specific sub-quota 
of 3.2% for Italian cinematographic works by independent producers. Moreover, 75% of this quota shall be 
reserved to works produced in the last five years. The public broadcaster shall reserve a 15% quota of net 
annual  revenues  to  the  pre-purchase,  purchase  or  production  of  European  works,  to  be  allocated  only  to 
independent works. Half of this quota shall be reserved to cinematographic works of original Italian expression 
produced in the last five years. The public broadcaster shall reserve, within the investment quota for European 
independent works, a specific sub-quota of 3.6% for Italian cinematographic works by independent producers. 
In addition, 85% of this quota shall be reserved to co-production or pre-purchase of Italian cinematographic 
works. The public broadcaster shall additionally reserve, within the quota for European independent works, a 
sub-quota of 7% to independent works specifically for children, 65% of which for animation works.  

3.2.4    

Direct and/or indirect financial contributions 

In  the  field  of  direct  and/or  indirect  financial  contributions,  four  countries  (BE24,  NL,  FR,  and  IT)  amended 
investment obligations during this period.  

In  Belgium  (nl),  the  2012–2016  management  contract  ((in  force  until  the  end  of  2015)  required  the  public 
broadcaster to subcontract at least 25% of its television budget to independent producers. Nonetheless, in the 
2016-2020 management contract, the previous obligation was replaced by an obligation to invest a minimum 
of 15% of its total income in external production. In the Netherlands, the new performance agreement for the 
period 2017-2020 between the government and the Dutch Public Broadcasting Foundation (NPO) states that 
the  NPO  shall  spend  EUR  16,600,000  yearly  on  high  quality  Dutch  drama,  documentaries  and  talent 
development.  In  France,  a  new  requirement  was  introduced  regarding  investment  in  the  development  of 
production  of  French-language  audiovisual  works.  Specifically,  since  2015,  original  French-language 
audiovisual works have to cover at least 85% of the share of the investment of 1) providers of services partly 
financed  by  payment  from  the  users;  22)  thematic  broadcasters  focused  on  cinema;  and  3)  providers  of 
services not distributed via DTT. Finally, in Italy the financial requirements applicable to broadcasters  were 
completely revised (see further information about those requirements in Annex II, Table 9). 

In  addition,  though  not  related  to  the  direct  transposition  of  Articles  16  and  17  of  the  2010  AVMSD,  other 
changes regarding the financial obligations applicable to broadcasters have also been identified across the 
countries. For instance, in Sweden, broadcasters were previously obliged to contribute to a film fund; however, 
film funding via this agreement was abolished in 2016, and film policy and funding have since been managed 
directly at governmental level. In Germany, the film levy applicable to broadcasters has been modified. For 
public television broadcasters, the film levy is calculated based on expenditure on the broadcasting of feature 
films, amounting to 3% of these costs. Private television broadcasters with free-to-air programmes pay a film 
levy  on  their  net  advertising  revenues.  The  film  levy  is  between  0.15%  and  0.95%  and  depends  on  the 
proportion of feature films in the total broadcasting time. Broadcasters/programme providers offering no or only 
a small proportion of  feature films or whose  total net  sales with these offers is  less than EUR 750,000 are 
exempt from payment of the film levy. In Portugal, the change relates to a new obligation for broadcasters to 
invest in the promotion and development of cinematographic art and the audiovisual sector, which may include 
the acquisition of rights for the broadcast, transmission and making available of European creative works. 

In Spain a new measure developing the legal regime  concerning the annual pre-financing obligation for the 
production of European audiovisual works was introduced in 2015. However, this measure does not affect any 
of  the  requirements  under  Articles  16  and  17  of  the  2010  AVMSD.  Finally,  in  Romania,  an  emergency 
government ordinance reforming the funds allocated from the Cinematographic Fund was introduced in 2016 
and  abolished  by  the  Parliament  in  2017.  However,  the  provisions  regarding  quotas  for  contributions  and 
categories remained similar even while the emergency ordinance was in force. 

24 Flemish Community. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

3.2.5    

Other requirements 

Seven countries (EL, IS, HR, IT, LV, PL and RO) have introduced changes with regard to other requirements:  

•  Language requirements: Greece and Iceland have introduced new language requirements. In Greece, 
Greek  shall  explicitly  be  the  basic  language  of  television  programmes  and  Greek  series  should  be 
broadcast for at least 10 hours a month; in Iceland the proportion of TV content in the English language 
shall be reduced to 5%. Slight amendments with no impact on the essence of the national measure 
for language requirements have also been presented in Romania.  

•  Requirements  for  the  increased  share  of  European  works:  in  Croatia,  new  measures  have  been 
introduced  setting  out  the  criteria  and  manner  for  increasing  the  share  of  European  works  by 
independent producers. In particular, there is a new specification for the required increase in share for 
audiovisual media service providers who have been granted a concession / permission for satellite, 
internet, and cable transmission on the basis of a programme in which the share of European works 
is more than 20% and less than 51%. They must increase their share in the next four years. The new 
specifications require that the increase is carried out in such a way that, over a four-year period, the 
provider must  achieve  a  majority share of European  works in  its  programme, thereby successively 
increasing  the share  each  year  by  at least  10%.  There  is also  a  new specification  for  the required 
increase  in  share  for  audiovisual  media  service  providers  who  have  been  granted  a  concession  / 
permission for satellite, internet and cable transmission under a programme scheme in which the share 
of  European  audiovisual  works  from  independent  producers  is  below  10%.  Such  providers  must 
achieve  this  share  in  the  next  four  years.  The  new  specification  states  that  the  audiovisual  media 
service  provider  shall  make  this  increase  in  such  a  way  that,  by  the  end  of  the  four-year  period,  it 
reaches  the  prescribed  share  of  European  audiovisual  works  by  independent  producers  in  its 
programme, successively increasing the share by at least 2.5% each year.  

•  Requirements  for  the  categorisation  of  television  broadcasts:  in  Latvia,  the  legislative  changes 
introduce  a  new  possibility  for  exceptions  regarding  the  categorisation  of  television  broadcasts. 
Specifically, the national measure now states that a television broadcast in a foreign language, if it is 
dubbed or has a voice-over in the official language, shall also be deemed to be a broadcast in the 
official language, unless otherwise provided for in external law. 

•  Requirements regarding lower share of transmission time: in Poland the legislative changes allow a 

reduction in the share of transmission time under certain circumstances.  

Lastly, as previously mentioned, Italy has completely reformed the requirements applicable to broadcasters in 
in relation to the promotion of EU works (see further information about those requirements in Annex II, Table 
9). 

3.2.6    

Other measures to encourage broadcasters 

In terms of other measures to encourage broadcasters to include an adequate share of co-produced European 
works  or  of  European  works  of  non-domestic  origin,25 only  one  country  (IS)  introduced  legislative  changes 
between 2015 and 2019. Iceland introduced a new requirement which establishes an obligation for the public 
broadcaster to buy content from or co-produce content with independent producers of TV series, movies and 
documentaries. More specifically, the public broadcaster RÚV shall buy content from or co-produce content 
with independent producers of TV series, movies and documentaries for an amount corresponding to at least 
8% of its total revenue in 2017, 9% in 2018 and 11% in 2019. 

25 For the purposes of this study, the domestic European works are defined as qualifying European works that are produced by the same 
country as that in which the work is scheduled for broadcasting in the EPG data or, depending on the availability of metadata, that has 
among its producers, companies originating from the same country as that in which it was scheduled for broadcasting. Conversely, non, 
non-domestic  European  works  are  those  European  productions  in  which  the  country  of  production  or  the  countries  of  origin  of  the 
production companies differ from the country in which the production has been scheduled for broadcasting. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

3.2.7    

Definitions and interpretation of relevant concepts 

The  following  concepts  are  essential  for  the  interpretation  and  implementation  of  the  obligations  set  out  in 
Articles 16 and 17 of the AVMSD: 

• 

Independent producer; 

•  Where practicable; 

•  Total qualifying hours. 

Independent producer 

The findings show that one country (EL) has introduced a new definition. In I Greece there was no definition 
of “independent producer” before 2017. After 2017, an independent producer of audiovisual works in Greece 
is a producer with the following characteristics: he or she does not have a 25% or higher participation in a 
television organisation, no television organisation has a 25% or  higher participation in their productions, the 
number of programmes provided by the independent producer in the same television organisation does not 
exceed 70% of the total annual programmes produced by that television organisation, and the producer retains 
the ownership of the secondary rights over the programmes provided to the television organisation.  

Three countries (FR, IT and SK) have amended the previous definition. Contrary to the situation before 2015, 
in France a producer can now be considered as independent even if the broadcaster directly or indirectly holds 
producer shares, and has financed at least 70% of the production estimate of the work annexed to the co-
production contract, when a number of conditions are fulfilled.  

In Italy and Slovakia, the definition of independent producer was replaced by a new definition. Specifically, 
independent  producers  in  Italy  are  now  defined  as  European  communication  operators,  carrying  out 
audiovisual production activities, that are neither subsidiaries nor related companies of broadcasters subject 
to Italian jurisdiction and, alternatively: 1) do not reserve, over a three-year timeframe, more than 90% of their 
production for the same broadcaster; or 2) hold secondary rights. Holding secondary rights is an addition to 
the  previous  definition,  which  was  based  only  on  the  criteria  of  ownership  and  programme  supply.  The 
definition shall also include all the production and co-production activities, including those carried out together 
with broadcasters, of audiovisual works or parts of audiovisual works, including those activities related to the 
Italian edition of these audiovisual works. The definition shall also include works produced on behalf of third 
parties (further details are laid down in Annex II, Table 9). 

In Slovakia, the previous definition of independent producer has been simplified. An independent producer is 
now defined as the producer of audiovisual works, registered in the list of independent producers, who meets 
the following conditions: a) he/she is not a broadcaster; b) he/she is not personally or materially connected 
with a broadcaster and c) the run-time of the audiovisual works originally produced by an independent producer 
for television broadcasting by a single television broadcaster does not represent more than 90% of the total 
run-time  of  the  audiovisual  works,  including  cinematographic  works  produced  by  him/her.  An  independent 
producer is also the producer of audiovisual works who is not personally or commercially connected with the 
broadcaster and is deemed to be an independent producer in one of the EU Member States or in one of the 
European States which is a contractual party to the European Convention on Transfrontier Television. 

Total qualifying hours 

The definition of “total qualifying hours” has been modified in three countries (DK, FI and IT). In Denmark, the 
word “adverts” has been added to the definition of total qualifying hours (i.e., more than half of the broadcast 
time, which does not consist of news, sporting events, competitions, adverts and teletext, must be devoted to 
European programmes). In Finland, minor wording differences were included in the definition, but the slightly 
different terminology does not appear to have a material impact and does not change the substance of the 
definition.  In  addition,  Italy  slightly  reformulated  the  definition  of  “total  qualifying  hours”,  adding  the  “hour 
fractions”. However, the different wording does not materially affect the definition as such. 

Where practicable 

Finally, it should be noted that no legislative changes with regard to the concept of “where practicable” were 
observed from 2015 to 2019 in any of these countries. 

49 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

3.2.8    

Monitoring system and sanctions 

Nine countries (CY, DE, EE, FI, HR, HU, IT, NL and RO) introduced legislative changes with regard to the 
monitoring system. In six countries (DE, FI, HU, IT, RO and NL) new or more detailed monitoring requirements 
were introduced.  

In the case  of Germany, slightly more  detailed requirements  were introduced for the content of the reports 
submitted by the public service broadcasters. The I annual reports produced by the public service broadcasting 
corporations combined in the ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio also need to show the scope of co-productions 
with companies dependent and independent of them under company law.  

Finland  introduced a new  monitoring obligation  to the effect that,  if a television  broadcaster’s programming 
does  not  achieve the required quota  for the promotion of European works, the television broadcaster shall 
submit a statement of the reasons to the Ministry of Transport and Communications and, upon request, an 
action plan for complying with the required quota.  

Before  2019,  Hungary  had  an  identical  monitoring  system  for  both  linear  and  on-demand  media  service 
providers.  However,  since  1  August  2019,  a  specific  system  has  been  applicable  to  linear  media  service 
providers. In particular, this change introduced a different reporting deadline for linear media service providers 
(i.e., data must be provided to the Media Council on a monthly basis, by the last day of the month following 
the month in question). 

The reporting requirements in the Netherlands have been broadened and now ensure that regional public and 
commercial media institutions are also captured by the reporting obligations.  

In  Romania,  monitoring  increased  in  practice  in  2019,  when  the  CNA’s  European  Regulations  Bureau  
presented a report for the period from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2018, based on which the CNA took 
action  against  a  series  of  national  and  regional  broadcasters  for  failing  to  submit  the  half-yearly  report  on 
European and independent quotas to the CNA, in breach of Article 88 of the Decision of the CNA 220/2011. 
The sanctions consisted mostly in obliging the broadcasters to broadcast a public message about the received 
warning. 

In two countries (EE and IT), the legislative changes relate to the monitoring authority. Estonia has established 
a new monitoring authority (Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority) through the merger of 
two authorities, while in Italy the competences of the relevant authority have been extended. More specifically, 
in Italy AGCOM shall monitor the respect of the obligations concerning European and independent works and 
shall establish its modalities with a regulation: when a broadcaster does not respect the quotas established in 
the  code,  a  maximum  of  15%  of  these  quotas  can  be  recovered  in  the  following  year,  together  with  the 
obligations  of  that  year.  Every  year,  the  authority  notifies  each  broadcaster  of  the  achievement  of  the 
mandatory quotas or the amount of the quotas to be recovered within the following year. 

In  Croatia  certain  exceptions  within  the  monitoring  system  have  been  introduced  for  specific  providers.  In 
particular, there is an exemption for audiovisual media service providers with a share of 0.3% or less in the 
previous year, and who request the Electronic Media Council to exempt them from the duty to submit data on 
European works and European works of independent producers.  

Changes identified in Cyprus aim to reflect amendments to other articles in the relevant national measure (i.e., 
there has been an update of the references to certain national provisions which have been amended). 

Finally, legislative changes in the measures establishing sanctions for non-compliance with the requirements 
of Articles 16 and 17 of the AVMSD were observed in two countries (CY and IT). In Cyprus, the changes are 
not substantive, since they relate to the updated references to provisions which have been amended. However, 
a substantive change has occurred in Italy, providing for fines in the event of infringement of the programming 
and investment requirements for European works and works of independent producers. 

3.3     Legislative changes in relation to on-demand audiovisual 
media services (non-linear services) 

Since 1989, when the Television Without Frontiers (TWF) Directive first defined a set of rules for television 
broadcasting in the EU, several changes have taken place. Audiovisual content is no longer transmitted on a 
one-to-many  basis  only,  but  also  on  demand  as  a  one-to-one  service.  The  digitisation  of  information,  the 
increase  in  transmission  bandwidth,  and  the  development  of  new  distribution  platforms  rendered  the  old 

50 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

technology-based  approach  to  identifying  media  services  obsolete.  In  this  context,  the  scope  of  the  AVMS 
Directive was extended to on-demand services in 2007.  Subsequently the Directive was further revised and 
consolidated into 2010 AVMSD.  

Article 13 of  the 2010  AVMSD requires Member States to ensure that on-demand media service providers 
under their jurisdiction promote “where practicable and by appropriate means”, the production of and access 
to European works. The 2010 AVMSD offers some suggestions as to how this promotion could be achieved, 
in  particular  through  financial  contribution  to  the  production  and  rights  acquisition  of  European  works,  a 
minimum share of European works in video-on-demand catalogues, or the attractive presentation of European 
works in electronic programme guides26. However, this is not an exhaustive list of measures, and on-demand 
service  providers  are  not  required  to  comply  with  any  predetermined  quotas.  Nor  does  the  2010  AVMSD 
specify the content of these works, or the minimum investment required for each production. Nor is any clear 
definition of “prominence” is provided by the 2010 AVMSD and therefore the term is open to several possible 
meanings or interpretations.  

Moreover, Article 13 states that Member States shall report to the Commission no later than 19 December 
2011 and every 4 years thereafter on the implementation of paragraph 1 of Article 13. It is important to regularly 
re-examine  the  application  of  the  provisions  for  the  promotion  of  European  works  by  audiovisual  media 
services. Within the framework of the reports provided for under this Directive, Member States should also 
take  into  account,  in  particular,  the  financial  contribution  by  such  services  to  the  production  and  rights 
acquisition of European works, the share of European works in the catalogue of audiovisual media services, 
and the actual consumption of European works offered by such services27. 

This section focuses on an analysis of the legislative changes identified from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 
2019  in  application  of  Article  13  of  the  2010  AVMSD.  The  overall  strategy  has  been  to  verify  whether  any 
amendments  to  the  relevant  national  legislative  frameworks  were  carried  out  during  the  period  in  terms  of 
requirements  for  the  promotion  of  European  works  by  non-linear  service  providers  laid  down  in  the  2010 
AVMSD, by comparing and contrasting the information collected (please see Annex II for further information).  

To this end, Table 44 lists all the countries, specifying whether changes have been made to:  

1) The legislative framework (i.e., the national legal measures implementing Article 13); 

2) The implementation of the requirements established in Article 13; 

3) The definitions and/or interpretation of relevant concepts laid down in Article 13; 

4) The monitoring system for the application of the rules laid down in Article 13. 

Table 6 - Overview of the legislative changes identified in relation to Article 13 of the 2010 
AVMSD 

Country 

AT 

BE (FR) 

BE(NL) 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

Legislative 
framework 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

Changes 

Changes 

Changes 

26 Recital 69 of 2010 AVMSD. 

27 Recital 69 of 2010 AVMSD. 

Requirements 

Definitions 

Monitoring system 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

51 

 
 
 
 
Country 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IS 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

Legislative 
framework 

Changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

Changes 

Changes 

No changes 

Changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Requirements 

Definitions 

Monitoring system 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

No changes 

Changes 

No changes 

Source: Authors 

Legislative  changes  affecting  the  implementation  of  Article  13  of  the  2010  AVMSD  have  been  identified  in 
thirteen countries (BE28, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, HR, HU, IS, IT, NL and SK) between 2015 and 2019. 

It  should  be  noted  that  substantive  reforms  have  taken  place  in  four  countries  (BE  (nl)29,  HR,  HU  and  IT). 
Belgium (nl) has changed the regime applicable to the promotion of European works from the initial obligation 
to give due prominence to European works to a quota system and has imposed on VoD providers an obligation 
to either invest in own productions or co-productions, or, alternatively, to pay a levy to the Flemish audiovisual 
fund. Moreover, due to changes in the implementing measures of Article 13 of the AVMSD,  since 2018 the 
legislation has no longer provided the “where practicable” flexibility. Moreover., the Flemish Media Regulator 
has been entrusted with competences to monitor compliance and impose sanctions in cases of breaches. In 
Croatia, a new measure setting out the criteria and manner for increasing the share of European works for 
VoD providers was introduced in 2015. This new measure has also changed the obligations under “promotion” 
and  “where  practicable”  and,  therefore,  the  interpretation  of  those  concepts  has  also  changed.  In  addition, 
certain  exceptions  for  specific  providers  have  been  introduced  with  regard  to  the  monitoring  system.  In 
Hungary, the required percentage of European works has been modified in order to meet the requirements of 
the 2010 AVMSD. Additionally, new flexibility exceptions were implemented in respect of a special category of 
on-demand media service providers (i.e. on-demand media service providers with low turnover or reaching a 
small  audience)  and  the  frequency  of  monitoring  has  been  reduced  to  annually,  after  a  period  of  monthly 
reporting. Lastly, in Italy, several legal acts have been introduced, bringing numerous changes to the applicable 

28 Flemish Community. 

29 Flemish Community. 

52 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

requirements,  as  well  as  to  the  definitions  of  relevant  concepts  and  the  monitoring  system  applicable  with 
regard to Article 13. 

The findings also reveal that certain countries have introduced relevant changes regarding the requirements 
applicable to on-demand audiovisual media services (DK and DE). In Denmark, new rules for video on demand 
have been introduced by the Ministry of Culture, stating that the promotion of European programmes can be 
achieved by offering a high or rising percentage of European programmes in the directory of services offered 
by the provider. This was followed by certain recommendations regarding the promotion of European works. 
In Germany, public service broadcasters are now allowed to provide licensed feature films and television series 
on demand in their online catalogues for thirty days, as long as they are European works. 

Significant changes in the monitoring system have taken place in two countries (SK and NL). In Slovakia a 
reporting  obligation  for  VoD  providers  has  been  added.  Specifically,  on-demand  audiovisual  media  service 
providers shall provide statistics on the share of European works. Similarly, the Netherlands has introduced 
an obligation for providers of on-demand commercial media services to report periodically to the Dutch Media 
Authority.  

Although not substantive, minor changes have also been identified in four countries (CY, EE, EL and FI). In 
Cyprus, further details of the reporting obligations were introduced, whilst in Estonia there is a new monitoring 
authority  created  from  the  merger  of  two  authorities.  In  Greece  and  Finland  there  have  been  slight  textual 
amendments to the relevant measures, but these do not amount to actual changes in the requirements for 
VoD providers, the relevant definitions, or the monitoring system. Iceland has introduced a new measure/public 
service contract, which again introduces no significant changes. 

Lastly, changes to financing obligations have taken place in certain countries. Although some changes do not 
relate to the direct transposition of Article 13 of the 2010 AVMSD, further information is provided in the present 
analysis with the aim of presenting other obligations applicable to VoD providers. 

3.3.1    

Requirements  

Article 13(1) of the 2010 AVMSD set different requirements to be met for the promotion of European works: 

1)  Requirements for a financial contribution to the production of European works;  

2)  Requirements for quotas of European works; 

3)  Requirements for the prominence of European works. 

This  section  also  presents  other  requirements  identified  at  national  level  (e.g., requirements  include  the 
promotion  of 
language 
requirements/original  production  language  applicable  to  the  share,  prominence,  financial  contributions  of 
VoDs, etc) and national measures to encourage VoDs to include an adequate share of co-produced European 
works or of European works of non-domestic origin.   

recent  European  works, 

independent  productions, 

the  promotion  of 

3.3.2    

Financial contributions to the production of European works 

With regard to financial contributions to the production of European works, three countries (BE30, DE, and IT) 
have  introduced  changes  introducing  new  requirements  or  changes  to  existing  requirements.  Belgium  (nl) 
introduced  a  new  requirement  on  VoD  providers  either  to  invest  in  production  or  co-productions  (direct 
contribution) or to pay a levy (indirect contribution). The level of the mandatory contribution was set by the 
implementing decision of 1 February 2019, corresponding to 2% of the turnover in the Flemish-speaking part 
of Belgium achieved during the second year before the year the contribution is due, or, alternatively, a lump 
sum of EUR 3,000,000 per year.  

Italy  has  also  introduced  new  requirements  on  VoD  providers.  The  most  important  of  these  include  an 
obligation to reserve a sub-quota of not less than 50% of the share and investment quotas to Italian original 
works,  wherever  produced,  by  independent  producers,  whereas  on-demand  audiovisual  media  services 
providers  are  bound  to  reserve  a  quota  of  12.5%  of  their  annual  revenues.  Moreover,  the  quota  can  be 
increased to a maximum of 20% for investment methods which are inconsistent with a balanced growth of the 

30 Flemish Community. 

53 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

audiovisual system, and on the basis of specific criteria31. In addition, as from 1 July 2019, on-demand media 
service providers shall reserve a quota of 20% of their net annual income for the production, purchase or pre-
purchase of rights to European works made by independent producers, within their catalogues, with particular 
attention to more recent works made in the last five years. A sub-quota of 50% shall be reserved to Italian 
original works, wherever produced. 

Finally, Germany has proceeded with changes regarding the levy rate, the basis  for measurements and the 
turnover  threshold  for  VoD  providers.  VoD  providers  who  distribute  feature  films  against  payment  are  now 
subject to a levy of 1.8% of their yearly turnover from the exploitation of feature films if that turnover exceeds 
EUR 500,000 per year (2.5% if that turnover exceeds EUR 20 million). The levy also applies to foreign VoD 
providers targeting the German public, as stated in the new German Film Law. 

There  are  also  a  number  of  changes  which  do  not  relate  to  the  transposition  of  Article  13  of  the  2010 
AVMSDAVMSD.  

In France, since  1 January 2018,  a 2% tax on the yearly turnover (increased to  10% when the transaction 
concerns pornographic or violent works) has been payable by VoD providers for making available services to 
the French public which give them access to audiovisual works, upon individual request and by means of an 
electronic communication process, whether or not the VoD provider is established in France (an abatement of 
66% or EUR 100,000 applies to free services). 

New  requirements  regarding  the  contribution  for  investment  in  national  cinematographic  works  have  been 
introduced  in  Portugal.  The  national  measure  specifies  the  revenues  that  are  excluded  from  the  1% 
contribution for investment in national cinematographic works paid by VoD providers. The excluded revenues 
relate to works or activities with essentially advertising, news or political propaganda content, as well as those 
relating to pornographic works or attacks on the dignity of the human person or those that convey messages 
or in any way intentionally promote racism, xenophobia, violence or political and religious intolerance, or other 
values manifestly contrary to the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Portuguese Constitution.  

Additionally,  new  requirements  for  contributions  to  the  audiovisual  fund  have  been  introduced  in  Slovakia, 
where VoD services are now subject to a levy of 0.5% of the revenues generated by the service in the previous 
calendar year, to be paid to the audiovisual fund.  

Lastly,  in  2015  Spain  introduced  a  new  measure  developing  the  legal  regime  concerning  the  annual  pre-
financing obligation for the production of European audiovisual works.  However, this measure does not amend 
any of the requirements in respect of Article 13 of the 2010 AVMSD. 

3.3.3    

European works quotas 

In respect of the requirements for quotas of European works, four Member States (BE (nl) 32, HR, HU and IT) 
introduced modifications between 2015 and 2019. Belgium (nl) introduced a new percentage, requiring VoD 
providers to reserve 30% of the catalogue for European works. VoD services with a low turnover or a small 
audience and small and micro enterprises are exempt. 

In Croatia, the catalogue of programmes of on-demand audiovisual media service providers must contain at 
least 20% European works. On-demand audiovisual media service providers that do not include at least 20% 
of European works in the programme catalogue must endeavour to promote the production of and access to 
European  works,  unless  they  use  other  ways  and  tools  for  promotion  (e.g.,  by  a  financial  contribution  to 
production and acquisition of rights over European works or the quotas and/or prominence of European works 
in the catalogue of programmes offering on-demand audiovisual media services).  

In Hungary at least 30% of the total length of the programmes made available in a given calendar year in the 
programme schedule of on-demand audiovisual media services shall be composed of European works, and 
at least 10% shall be composed of Hungarian works. The on-demand audiovisual media service provider shall 
ensure that European works are offered prominently in the programme.  

31 These criteria are: 

1) The on-demand service provider does not have a legal branch in Italy and employs less than 20 employees - increase up to 3%;  
2) The provider does not reserve the required investment quota to independent producers –– increase up to 4.5%. 

32 Flemish Community. 

54 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Lastly, in Italy the 2017 “Franceschini Decree” introduced numerous changes. In particular, on-demand media 
service providers shall promote the production of and access to European works by respecting: transmission 
time  requirements;  a  quota  of  30%  for  European  works  produced  in  the  last  five  years  in  their  catalogue; 
investment requirements; and a quota of 20% for European works made by independent producers in the last 
five years. 

3.3.4    

Prominence of European works 

Four  Member  States (BE (nl) 33, HR, HU and IT) have  introduced  amendments to the requirements  for the 
prominence of European works. In particular, all four of these countries have introduced new requirements per 
se regarding the prominence of European works.  

In Belgium (nl), VoD services have been required to ensure prominence of European works in their catalogue. 
In Croatia, on-demand audiovisual media service providers that do not include at least 20% of European works 
in the programme catalogue must endeavour to promote the production of and access to European works, 
unless they use other ways and tools of promotion (e.g., by a financial contribution to production and acquisition 
of  rights  to  European  works  or  the  quotas  and/or  prominence  of  European  works  in  the  catalogue  of 
programmes  offering  on-demand  audiovisual  media  services).  In  Hungary,  on-demand  audiovisual  media 
service providers shall ensure that European works are prominently offered. In Italy, on-demand media service 
providers are required to give prominence to European works in their catalogue. They are required to establish 
a dedicated section on the main access page to the catalogue, or a dedicated category, for European works, 
and they shall reserve a quota for European works in their advertisement campaigns. 

3.3.5    

Promotion of independent productions 

Only two countries have introduced new requirements for the promotion of independent productions (BE34 and 
IT). In Belgium (nl), the Flemish audiovisual fund must allocate the levy paid by VoD providers to independent, 
qualitative, Flemish co-produced series, whereas in Italy on-demand media service providers shall reserve a 
quota of 20% of their net annual income to the production, purchase or pre-purchase of rights to European 
works made by independent producers, within their catalogues, with particular attention to more recent works 
produced  in  the  last  five  years.  A  sub-quota  of  50%  shall  be  reserved  to  Italian  original  works,  wherever 
produced. 

3.3.6    

Promotion of recent European works 

Only Italy has introduced new requirements for the promotion of recent European works. In particular, Italy 
now imposes a 30% share requirement for European works of the last five years, and investment obligations 
of 20% for European works, “with particular attention to most recent works, meaning works from the last five 
years”. 

3.3.7    

Other requirements 

Legislative changes regarding other requirements have been identified in three countries (BE (nl)35-, DE and 
IT).  In  Belgium  (nl),  the  previous  requirements  relating  to  Dutch-language  European  productions  were 
abolished in 2018.  

In Germany, new requirements for licensed feature films and television series on demand were introduced. 
Public service broadcasters are now allowed to provide licensed feature films and television series on demand 
for 30 days, as long as they are European works. Therefore, almost all of the on-demand films and television 
series (commissioned works as well as licensed) they provide are European works. 

33 Flemish Community. 

34 Flemish Community. 

35 Flemish Community. 

55 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Lastly, in Italy new language requirements are in place (i.e., a sub-quota of not less than 50% of the share and 
investment quotas shall be reserved to Italian original works, wherever produced). 

3.3.8    
by VoDs 

Other measures to encourage promotion of European works 

Legislative changes  to measures encouraging VoD providers to include an adequate share of co-produced 
European works or of European works of non-domestic origin have only been identified in one country (DK). 
Denmark has introduced new measures allowing the promotion of European programmes by offering a high 
or rising percentage of European programmes in the service directory offered by the provider. Providers that 
mainly have movies and TV series in their offer may in this way focus on the proportion of newer or award-
winning European works, for example. Promotion through sub-headings for European programmes, search 
functions based on the country of origin of the programmes, the display of trailers, etc., is also recommended. 
Another  recommendation  is  that  European  programmes  can  also  be  promoted  through  providers’  financial 
contributions to European programme production, while the providers' costs in connection with the acquisition 
of rights to show European programmes can also be a contribution to promoting European programmes. 

3.3.9    

Definitions and interpretation of relevant concepts 

The  following  concepts  are  essential  for  the  interpretation  and  implementation  of  the  obligations  set  out  in 
Article 13 of the AVMSD: 

•  On-demand audiovisual media services; 

•  Where practicable; 

•  Prominence. 

Legislative changes regarding the definition of  these  concepts have been identified in four countries (BE36, 
HR, HU and IT). It is also worth noting that no regulatory framework in any country provides a general definition 
of what should be understood as “prominence”. 

On-demand audiovisual media services 

No  legislative  changes  with  regard  to  the  concept  of  “on-demand  audiovisual  media  services”  have  been 
observed from 2015 toto 2019 across the countries.  

Where practicable 

As  far  as  the  “where  practicable”  definition  is  concerned,  legislation  in  Belgium  (nl)  ceased  to  provide  the 
“where  practicable”  flexibility  in  2018,  when  the  clause  in  the  national  legislation  requiring  non-linear 
broadcasters  to  promote  European  works  “where  practicable  and  by  appropriate  means”  was  abolished. 
Furthermore, the  obligations under  “promotion” and “where practicable”  have  been modified  in Croatia  and 
Hungary. In particular, in Croatia the concepts of “promotion” and “where practicable” are interpreted in terms 
of prescribed duties under an ordinance on the criteria and manner for increasing the quota of European works. 
Thus, it can be argued that the new ordinance introduced in 2015 alleviates the previous duty of on-demand 
service providers under the 2010 ordinance. Specifically, the 2010 Ordinance sets a duty to increase the share 
from 20% to 40% and no alternatives are specified in terms of promotion, though the main provisions of the 
Electronic Media Act on promotion obligations also apply. The 2015 Ordinance, sets a minimum 20% share. 
In Hungary, new flexibility exemptions were implemented in 2019 in respect of a special category of on-demand 
media service providers, namely those with low turnover or reaching a small public. Finally, in Italy, the “where 
practicable” clause is no longer in place and the main new feature is that the definition of “non-linear audiovisual 
media service provider” provides for stricter requirements, since providers now must respect both share and 
investment obligations. 

36 Flemish Community. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Prominence 

As previously mentioned, no regulatory framework across the countries provides a definition of what should 
be  understood  as  “prominence”.  Nonetheless,  although  Italy  included  no  exact  definition  in  the  national 
legislation  between  2015  and  2019,  new  indications  of  how  “prominence”  should  be  achieved  have  been 
introduced. In addition, for  example, to the requirements  for shares and financial contributions, on-demand 
media  service  providers  are  now  required  to  establish  a  dedicated  section  in  the  main  access  page  to  the 
catalogue, or a dedicated category, for European works, and shall reserve a quota of European works in their 
advertisement campaigns.  

3.3.10     Monitoring system and sanctions 

Eight countries (BE37, CY, EE, HR, HU, IT, NL and SK) have introduced legislative changes with regard to the 
monitoring system in place to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down by Article 13 of the AVMSD. 

In particular, new requirements and sanctions were introduced in Belgium (nl). VoD providers are now required, 
before  31  March  of  each  year,  to  submit  a  report  to  the  Flemish  Media  Regulator  on  how  the  obligations 
regarding European works (quota of 30%) were met. Sanctions in the event of breaches include warnings and 
administrative  fines.  In  Cyprus,  further  details  of  the  reporting  obligation  were  provided.  In  particular,  the 
relevant authority shall now send a report to the Commission on audiovisual media service providers under its 
jurisdiction, including the Cyprus Radio Foundation.  

A  new  monitoring  authority  has  been  introduced  in  Estonia.  The  previous  surveillance  authority  was  the 
Technical Regulatory Authority. In 2019, it and the Consumer Protection Authority were merged to create the 
Consumer  Protection  and  Technical  Regulatory  Authority,  which  is  now  responsible  for  surveillance  and 
monitoring over the proper implementation of the rules on audiovisual media services.  

In Croatia, new exemptions for certain providers have been introduced. In particular, an exemption from the 
duty  to  submit  data  on  European  works  to  the  Electronic  Media  Council  is  available  to  audiovisual  media 
service providers: 1) who had a share of 0.3% or less in the previous year; and 2) who apply for the exemption 
to the Electronic Media Council.  

In Hungary, the frequency of monitoring has been downgraded to annually, after a period of monthly reporting.  

In  addition,  in  Italy,  the  relevant  monitoring  authority  was  granted  an  extension  of  its  competences,  and 
mandatory  reporting  was  also  introduced.  In  particular,  when  a  VoD  provider  does  not  respect  the  quotas 
established,  a  maximum  of  15%  of  these  quotas  can  be  recovered  in  the  following  year,  together  with  the 
obligations  of  that  year.  Every  year  the  authority  notifies  each  VoD  provider  of  the  achievement  of  the 
mandatory quotas or the amount of quota to be recovered within the following year. Sanctions remain  if the 
quota is not fulfilled within the following year. The authority presents an annual report to the Parliament on the 
performance of the promotion of European works by VoD providers. 

New  reporting  obligations  for  VoD  providers  have  also  been  introduced  in  the  Netherlands,  namely  an 
obligation  on  providers of  on-demand commercial  media services to report periodically  to the Dutch Media 
Authority on compliance with the 2019 policy rule for programme quotas, which  replicates the obligation on 
on-demand media services under the Media Act.  

In Slovakia, on-demand audiovisual media service providers explicitly have to provide documentation to the 
Council for Broadcasting and Retransmission regarding the share of European works in their provision of on-
demand audiovisual media services.  

Finally, new guidance documents in relation to monitoring were published in the United Kingdom. While these 
guidance documents do not constitute a change in the monitoring system, they guide VoD service providers 
in how to comply with the relevant rules during the period of transition of the regulatory powers from the TVoD 
to Ofcom as of 1 January 2016. Nevertheless, non substantial changes to the functioning of the monitoring 
system were made. With regards to sanctions, it is worth noting that in 2016 another document published by 
Ofcom also clarified the sanctions applicable, which were absent in the previous guidance documents. VoD 
service providers that contravened any of the relevant requirements may now be forced to cease providing, or 
restrict  access  to,  a  specified  programme,  or  to  programmes  of  a  specified  description,  provide  additional 

37 Flemish Community. 

57 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

information to users of the service prior to the selection of a specified programme  by the user for viewing, 
publish a correction in the form and place and at the time specified, and publish a statement of Ofcom’s findings 
in the form and place and at the time specified. Ofcom may consider breaches of the Rules for the imposition 
of sanctions, including financial penalties.  

58 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

4.  Data  reporting  under  Articles  13,  16  and  17  of  the 
AVMSD 

This  section  summarises  the  Member  States’  reports  prepared  and  submitted  by  the  National  Regulatory 
Authorities (NRAs). NRAs were also asked to report on the state of play of the implementation of the AVMS 
Directive (Articles 13, 16 and 17) during the reference period (2015-2019). More specifically, NRAs were asked 
to report on the following: 

•  Articles 16 and 17, providing data on compliance with the two articles as well as information on which 
channels are exempt from the AVMSD rules (because of their low audience share) and therefore not 
subject to reporting; 

•  Monitoring methods used to check compliance with Articles 13, 16 and 17; 

•  Reasons given by Member States for failing to reach the quotas set in Articles 13, 16 and 17; 

•  Measures adopted or planned by the Member States to address non-compliance; 

•  Compliance with Article 13 and methods used to promote European works (share and/or prominence 
and/or financial contributions) foreseen in the national legislation transposing Article 13(1) of Directive 
2010/13/EC for that period. 

As regards linear service providers, NRAs were asked to complete a pre-filled list of channels established on 
the basis of the data available in the MAVISE database of the European Audiovisual Observatory. NRAs were 
instructed  to  fill  two  sheets:  a  ‘TV  Channels’  sheet  and  an  ‘Exempted  Channels’  sheet  (for  the  latter, 
justifications for exemptions were also required). For the reference period, NRAs were asked to report on: 

•  TV Channels 

o  Name of the broadcaster/channel and type, with the possibility to choose between: generalist, 

fiction, cinema, children, documentaries, other; 

o  European works (EW) as a percentage of total qualifying time38; 

o  European  works  made  by  independent  producers  (IP)  as  a  percentage  of  total  qualifying 

time39;  

o  Recent European works (RW) as a percentage of total European works made by independent 

producers (IP)40. 

•  Exempted channels 

o  Name  and  type,  with  the  possibility  to  choose  between:  news,  sports,  games,  advertising, 

teleshopping, teletext, other (justification was requested in this case); 

o  Explanations and audience share (as % for channels exempted from the reporting obligation) 

and justification;  

NRAs could insert additional rows to complete the list of channels. 

For  non-linear  service  providers,  NRAs  were  asked  to  report  on  the  application  of  Article  13  and  more 
specifically on: 

•  VoD providers under the jurisdiction of the NRAs (a pre-filled list of VoD providers was provided to the 
NRAs on the basis of data available in the MAVISE database of European Audiovisual Observatory); 

38 NRAs were instructed to enter NO if the channel was non-operational, NC if no data is available or EX in the case of specific exemption 
for a given year, in accordance with the provisions of the Directive.  

39 NRAs were instructed to enter NO if the channel was non-operational, NC if no data is available or EX in the case of specific exemption 
for a given year.  

40 Idem  

59 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

•  Models: FVoD (free on demand), SVoD (subscription on demand), TVoD (transaction on demand), 

other; 

•  European works as a percentage of total titles for a given year. This captures the average proportion 

per ‘national catalogue where available41; 

•  Prominence methods used by VoDs; 

•  Financial contribution made by a given provider as a percentage of revenue or programme budget42. 

The following chapters provide an overview on how and what data are reported under Articles 13, 16 and 17, 
based  on  the  information  reported  by  the  Member  States’  NRAs,  including  exemptions,  cases  of  non-
compliance and measures taken to address these.  

4.1     Linear service providers (Articles 16 & 17) 

4.1.1    

Monitoring requirements for linear services 

All countries reported the presence of a monitoring system that ensures compliance with Articles 16 and 17. 
Most  countries  directly  request  broadcasters  to  report  on  the  quota  obligations.  In  Finland,  linear  service 
providers are required to report the data by completing a survey every two years (the questionnaire method is 
also used in Sweden). In Austria, broadcasters are required to report the data in writing on a yearly basis. In 
Croatia, linear service providers report data by completing the pre-defined Excel template circulated by the 
regulatory authority. For example,  for European works, linear service providers report data on transmission 
date,  programme  title,  country  of  origin  of  transmitted  work,  share  of  Croatian  or  European  production  in 
transmitted programme, and net transmission time of the work. A separate table is provided for reporting on 
Article 17 quota obligations, where service providers are required to report: transmission date, production date, 
title of the work, name of the independent producer of the transmitted work, country of origin of the transmitted 
work, and net transmission time of the work. 

Other countries rely on service providers’ self-declaration. This is the case in Hungary where the European 
quota is established through this method followed by a  check of data veracity by the authority. Similarly, in 
Estonia, service providers self-declare the data but a deadline for reporting is imposed by the authorities (e.g. 
15 February of every year).  

Other countries do not rely solely on the data reported by the  broadcasters, but run data checks in parallel. 
For instance, regulatory authorities in Cyprus randomly select two weeks in a year for verification purposes 
and compare their results with those reported by the providers.  

The table below provides a country-level overview of the data reporting process as reported by the Member 
States.  

Table 7 - Summary of the data reporting process in Member States 

Data reporting process under Art 16 & 17 

Austria 

Belgium - FR 

Television broadcasters shall report in writing to the regulatory authority on the implementation of 
Sections 50 and 51 before 30 May of every year. The Austrian Communications Authority 
(KommAustria), acting as the regulatory authority, sends out a request to all the broadcasters 
concerned to provide the relevant data on a yearly basis. 
Compliance with different European quota obligations is evaluated by the “Conseil Supérieur de 
l'Audiovisuel (CSA)” in the French Community of Belgium on the following basis: annual declaration 
by the publishers; communication of a one-week sample of programmes per quarter subsequently 
determined by the regulatory body, using a computerised spreadsheet and time-stamped and 
categorised data; control of the calculation methods; collation of the data with the published 
programme schedules and with the sample of picture programmes stored on a monitoring tool. 

41 NRAs were instructed to enter NO if the service was non-operational, enter NC if no data was available.  

42 Where this was the case, NRAs were asked to state whether the level imposed by national requirements was met 

60 

 
 
 
  
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Belgium - NL 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Data reporting process under Art 16 & 17 

The various television service providers use different methods to collect data. The television 
broadcasting organisation of the Flemish Community (VRT) works on the basis of exact figures that 
are obtained via  permanent measurement. The data registered in this way are checked internally and 
communicated to the Flemish Regulator for the Media.  
The Council for Electronic Media (CEM) draws up the reports for the share of European works and 
works by independent producers by annually requesting information from media service providers 
and summarising the data provided. 
Data reporting in Croatia is carried out by the Agency for Electronic Media, as follows: linear 
audiovisual media service broadcasters (television broadcasters) submit data on European works, 
European works of independent producers, and the cumulative annual transmission time by 
completing the templates in Excel files, shared by the regulator. The following data are reported by 
broadcasters on European works: transmission date, programme title, country of origin of transmitted 
work, share of Croatian or European production in transmitted programme, and net transmission time 
of the work. The broadcasters are required to enter the following data into the table of European 
works of independent producers: transmission date, production date, title of the work, name of the 
independent producer of the transmitted work, country of origin of the transmitted work, and net 
transmission time of the work.  
The regulatory authority had randomly selected two weeks per year. Hence, the sample analysed 
consists of 14 days per year. The regulator had subsequently verified the data submitted by 
audiovisual media service providers for each channel in order to ensure the validity of the data. 
The Council uses the monitoring method outlined in Revised Guidelines for Monitoring the Application 
of Art 16 and 17 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive  
The Agency for Culture and Palaces reaches out to all linear services, asking them to complete the 
Excel reporting sheet.  
Each year by the 15 February all audiovisual media service providers must submit a report on the 
previous calendar year which includes data on conformity with AVMSD’s Articles 16 and 17. There is 
also an obligation to describe the technical solution that is used inside the company to keep track of 
and calculate all the necessary data. In addition, ECTRA uses regular planned monitoring activities to 
verify that the submitted data is correct.  
Monitoring is via a survey which is sent to all channels every two years. The regulatory authority asks 
the broadcasters to provide the following data concerning each of the two years separately: annual 
transmission time, excluding the time allocated to advertising, teletext services and teleshopping; 
annual transmission time, excluding the time allocated to news, sports events, games, advertising, 
teletext services and teleshopping; annual transmission time of European works; annual transmission 
time of independent works; proportion of programmes produced by independent European producers 
that are produced within the past five years. 
The method for calculating the distribution quotas for European works (directive quotas): the basis of 
calculation includes all broadcasters except news programmes, sporting events, games, advertising 
screens, teleshopping programmes and teletext services. 
The state chancelleries of the Länder, coordinated by Rhineland-Palatinate, assess the fulfilment of 
the obligations. For the assessment, the state chancelleries request several reports from the public 
service broadcasters and from the Media Authorities for commercial broadcasters. 
The Secretariat General for Communication and Media collects data from national, pay TV and 
regional channels which are then assessed by the Greek independent regulatory authority. Regular 
interactions with providers are undertaken during the data collection process 
Monitoring of the European quota is established by self-declaration in Hungary. The authenticity of 
the documentation is checked randomly. Media service providers submit the documentation of their 
programmes weekly  
A sample of 16 weeks of programme output for each reporting year is identified by the BAI for the 
purposes of reporting (a total of 32 weeks over two years). The weeks are spread across each 
season and are chosen randomly by the BAI. Using TAM/Nielsen data generated from Arianna, a list 
of programmes broadcast across these dates is generated. The list is sent to each eligible 
broadcaster and they are asked to identify whether the programme is European or non-European and 
whether it is an independent or non-independent programme. In addition, broadcasters are asked to 

61 

 
 
 
  
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Data reporting process under Art 16 & 17 

identify the programme genre with a view to identifying programme content (like teleshopping) that 
must be excluded from the calculation of European and independent works. The BAI then calculates 
the percentages of European and independent works based on the total sample size and the report 
from the broadcaster.  
To monitor the actual application of Articles 16 and 17, AGCOM makes use of three monitoring 
methods: 1) firstly, data directly collected from the AVMS providers, who receive an annual request 
from AGCOM for information regarding the programming of European audiovisual works and the 
investments in European audiovisual works produced by independent producers. Broadcasters are 
requested to fill out a form to be returned every year by 30 September, so as to take account of the 
last balances. 2) In order to cross-check the fulfilment of programming obligations, AGCOM entrusts 
a specialised company, selected through a tender procedure, to monitor TV channels and to send it a 
monthly report. 3) Moreover, AGCOM cross-checks the information regarding the investment 
obligations received by broadcasters with the information AGCOM gathers internally in a database 
called the “Economic Information System”: every year all operators in the regulatory field are obliged 
to provide AGCOM with information regarding their budgets and balance sheets.  
Apart from this, AGCOM is entitled by law to send requests for information to whomsoever may hold 
relevant information and to conduct inspections, also with the support of the Finance Police. 
When issuing a broadcasting license to an electronic mass medium for a specific programme, the 
regulatory authority stipulates in the principal conditions of the broadcasting license that the quota of 
European audiovisual works in the programme must be at least 51% 
Each year one week was selected for monitoring the proportion of European works. Monitoring was 
conducted manually by re-watching recordings of the channels for the selected week. 
In order to compile the data and information necessary for reporting, the Luxembourg authorities ask 
audiovisual media services providers to deliver the requested data and information. In the event of 
doubt about the information provided, the authorities may request further details or explanations.  
The Broadcasting Authority requests media service providers to provide statistical data in relation to 
the implementation of Articles 16 & 17 (i.e. the promotion of European works). 
In general, the monitoring system applied by the CvdM can be described a self-declaratory system. 
This means that the CvdM primarily relies on the information and data submitted by the media service 
providers. When the information is incomplete or incorrect, the CvdM will refer back to the service 
providers. In addition, the CvdM can perform random checks on all information and data submitted. 
The CvdM requests all broadcasters, public service providers as well as private providers to submit 
all relevant annual data on the European, independent and recent programmes broadcast over the 
previous year. Private channels and public regional channels are requested to report ad random over 
1 week per 3 months, so 4 weeks in total.  
At the end of each quarter, television broadcasters shall provide the regulator with reports and 
extracts from the record of broadcasting times for European works, European works produced by 
independent producers and the latest European programmes produced by independent producers.  
AVMS providers submit quarterly reports to the Portuguese Regulatory Authority (ERC). In order to 
verify the European nature of the works considered, the ERC uses an internal document, the ERC 
Classification Manual, as well as the EC implementing Guidelines. When some issues are unclear, 
the ERC asks AVMSD providers for clarification, which can include the ERC requesting the AVMSD 
provider to make corrections.  
Monitoring the application of Articles 16 and 17 of the AVMSD is conducted by the NAC every 6 
months; in-house, an average of 2 staff members conduct the monitoring which uses the same 
system for public and private broadcasters. 
On request from the Council, broadcasters submit the information needed for checking up compliance 
with the duties related to their share of European works, which is: data on the percentage, number 
and duration of European works broadcast, their identification and identification of their producers; 
data on the percentage, number and duration of broadcast European works made by independent 
producers including identification of these works and their producers or documentation on spending 
from the programme budget for production or purchase of European works made by independent 
producers including identification of the producers; a list of broadcast European works made by 
independent producers, including the date of their creation. 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

62 

 
 
 
  
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Data reporting process under Art 16 & 17 

Broadcaster shall be obliged to provide the Council with the data within 15 calendar days of the 
Council's request.  
Each year by the end of February broadcasters of TV channels are required to provide the 
Communications Networks and Services Agency of the Republic of Slovenia (AKOS) with reports on 
the shares of European audiovisual works (EU works) achieved in the previous year. As a result of 
certain exceptions, this obligation does not apply to all TV channels. AKOS therefore publishes on its 
website an annual list of those broadcasters which are obliged to report on the shares achieved for 
each year. 
The monitoring method consist of an in-house evaluation carried out annually which is compared with 
the estimations carried out by a third company, specialised in audiovisual market study. 
Data reporting in Sweden is carried out by the Swedish Press and Broadcasting Authority through the 
use of questionnaires.  

Source: Member States, data reporting under Art 16 & 17 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

As illustrated in the table below, most countries collect data on a yearly basis while six countries provided no 
data on the periodicity of their reporting in either this or the previous monitoring exercise. In three countries 
data are reported every two years (Finland, Ireland and Netherlands) and in four countries data are reported 
every six or four months (Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Romania). For verification of the data provided by 
linear service providers, most NRAs carry out these activities in-house. In Spain and Italy, more effort is given 
to the verification process  as this  is done both  in-house and by  external providers.  In the former case, the 
monitoring method used by the National Commission of Markets and Competition consists of of an in-house 
evaluation  carried  out  annually  which  is  compared  with  external  data.  In  particular,  the  monitoring  system 
requires  audiovisual  media  service  providers  to  present  a  declaration  explaining  how  they  fulfilled  their 
obligations  under  Articles  16  and  17.  These  accounts  are  then  reviewed  by  independent  auditors  and 
eventually compared with the estimations carried out by a third company, specialised in audiovisual market 
studies. The monitoring process adopted by the Italian regulatory authority (AGCOM) consists of three steps: 

1.  Firstly,  following  a  yearly  request  from  AGCOM,  service  providers  must  report  data  about  the 
programming  of  European  audiovisual  works  and  the  investments  in  European  audiovisual  works 
produced by independent producers, following a specific form; 

2. 

In  order  to  cross-check  the  fulfilment  of  programming  obligations,  AGCOM  entrusts  a  specialised 
company, selected through a tender procedure, to monitor TV channels. For the period covered by 
this study, Geca Italia S.r.l., an independent media research company, has conducted the analysis; 

3.  Moreover,  AGCOM  cross-checks 

from 
information  on 
broadcasters with the information they gather internally in a database called the “Economic Information 
System”: every year all operators in the regulatory field are obliged to provide AGCOM with information 
regarding their budgets and balance sheets. 

investment  obligations  received 

the 

In addition, AGCOM is entitled by law to send requests for information to all who may hold relevant information 
and to conduct inspections, also with the support of the Finance Police department.  

63 

 
 
 
  
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 8 - Periodicity 

Periodicity 

Yearly 

Yearly 

Yearly 

Yearly 

Yearly 

Yearly 

Yearly 

Not specified 

Yearly 

Every two years 

Yearly 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Monthly/Yearly 

Every two years 

Yearly 

Yearly 

Yearly 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Every two years 

Every four months 

Every four months 

Every six months 

Every month 

Yearly 

Yearly 

Not specified 

Austria 

Belgium - FR 

Belgium - NL 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Source: Member States, data reporting under Art 16 & 17 

Note: Some countries did not report data on periodicity and in these cases, we used the data from the previous 
reporting exercise, assuming that the situation remained unchanged (this is the case for Latvia and France) 

4.1.2    

Data reporting under Articles 16 & 17 of AVMSD 

During the 2015-2019 reporting period, the total channels covered43 increased from 2,362 in 2015 to 2,377 in 
2019  (Figure  9  below  covered  channels,  period  2015-2019).  Spain  has  the  highest  number  of  covered 
channels in the 2015-2019 period (454 channels), followed by Hungary (413 channels period), Germany (275 
channels period) and Czechia (153 channels period). The lowest numbers of covered channels were found in 

43 Covered  channels:  total  number of  channels  identified minus  the number  of  non-operational  channels  and the  number  of  channels 
exempted from their reporting obligation (due to the nature of their programmes) or excluded channels (due to legal exceptions). 

64 

 
 
 
  
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Malta (3 channels over the 2015-2019 period), Ireland (7 channels over the 2015-2019 period), Croatia (11 
channels over the 2015-2019 period) and the French Community of Belgium (12 channels over the 2015-2019 
period). 

In most Member States, the number of TV channels has been stable in the five years under analysis, apart 
from Austria, where the number of covered channels has increased by 56% (from 27 in 2015 to 42 in 2019).  

Figure 16 - Covered channels, period 2015-2019 

Source: Member States, data reporting under Art 16 & 17 

The data reported by the Member States were aggregated at country level.  

65 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 9 presents the consolidated results (simple average of the data received) for each Member State. It may 
be observed that:  

•  According to the Member States’ reports, none had a share of European works below the quotas set. 
All  Member  States  report  that  at  least  50%  of  European  works  per  channel,  10%  of  Independent 
Productions and 10% Recent Works have been reached; 

•  On average over the 2015-2019 period, Hungary displays the highest percentage of European works 
as percentages of total qualifying time (94.4%), while Czechia, Lithuania and Finland report the lowest 
percentages (52.1%, 57.8% and 58.7% respectively, on average over the 2015-2019 period);  

•  On average over the 2015-2019 period, Belgium (NL) reports the highest percentages of works made 
by  independent  producers  (79.9%),  while  Greece  and  Italy  exhibit  the  lowest  (19.8%  and  20.9% 
respectively, on average over the 2015-2019 period);  

•  On  average  over  the  2015-2019  period,  Belgium  (NL)  reports  the  highest  percentages  of  recent 
European works as a percentage of total European works made by independent producers (87.5%), 
while  Cyprus  and  Portugal  report  the  lowest  (17.3%  and  19.3%  respectively,  on  average  over  the 
2015-2019 period). 

The detailed tables presenting the country data are provided in Annex III.  

66 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 9 - Summary table – data reporting under Art. 16 & 17 (simple average) 

Summary table - data reporting under Art. 16 & 17 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

Country 

EW (%TQT) 

IP (%TQT)  RW (%IP)  EW (%TQT) 

IP (%TQT)  RW (%IP)  EW (%TQT) 

IP (%TQT)  RW (%IP)  EW (%TQT) 

IP (%TQT)  RW (%IP)  EW (%TQT) 

IP (%TQT)  RW (%IP) 

Austria 

79.7% 

Belgium (FR) 

71.0% 

Belgium (NL) 

74.3% 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark  

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

57.9% 

65.6% 

73.3% 

53.8% 

84.4% 

63.9% 

53.5% 

71.2% 

67.3% 

75.8% 

94.8% 

72.1% 

62.5% 

NC 

Lithuania 

55.6% 

Luxembourg 

68% 

Malta 

88.1% 

Netherlands 

64.3% 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

76.5% 

65.5% 

75.8% 

73.0% 

69.9% 

65.7% 

74.2% 

47.0% 

27.7% 

78.3% 

23.9% 

33.6% 

23.1% 

32.2% 

44.9% 

40.8% 

30.7% 

43.0% 

42.4% 

19.3% 

46.4% 

30.8% 

17.3% 

NC 

NC 

44% 

54.0% 

29.9% 

42.5% 

28.3% 

26.5% 

35.7% 

22.3% 

42.5% 

50.5% 

50.4% 

29.4% 

90.6% 

32.6% 

64.0% 

17.6% 

62.0% 

50.2% 

NC 

NC 

62.9% 

70.8% 

46.7% 

80.2% 

39.3% 

15.8% 

NC 

NC 

48% 

69.1% 

83.6% 

68.5% 

17.9% 

62.9% 

31.6% 

56.2% 

71.6% 

74.5% 

80.9% 

74.1% 

68.3% 

65.5% 

67.0% 

64.8% 

54.0% 

85.5% 

69.1% 

57.1% 

70.4% 

68.2% 

75.6% 

93.8% 

72.6% 

64.2% 

61.5% 

56.7% 

66% 

87.5% 

64.1% 

76.5% 

65.0% 

75.6% 

77.1% 

71.5% 

65.4% 

74.9% 

44.1% 

26.6% 

80.7% 

37.3% 

37.3% 

24.9% 

32.6% 

44.1% 

46.8% 

34.1% 

39.5% 

44.6% 

18.6% 

25.4% 

33.6% 

21.0% 

47.5% 

NC 

44% 

46.3% 

25.5% 

41.7% 

27.2% 

38.3% 

37.7% 

26.8% 

42.7% 

49.6% 

50.3% 

27.0% 

85.3% 

30.4% 

59.9% 

15.1% 

57.8% 

50.3% 

NC 

NC 

59.3% 

66.5% 

46.5% 

75.2% 

39.6% 

20.8% 

64.5% 

NC 

45% 

63.7% 

85.3% 

67.2% 

16.1% 

61.7% 

33.6% 

59.3% 

63.6% 

74.6% 

81.9% 

73.5% 

70.0% 

65.9% 

59.8% 

72.6% 

50.0% 

86.8% 

71.1% 

60.1% 

69.5% 

66.9% 

74.0% 

93.4% 

76.3% 

65.1% 

61.5% 

71.0% 

69% 

89.6% 

62.9% 

74.5% 

67.6% 

75.5% 

76.1% 

77.6% 

65.2% 

71.8% 

47.2% 

27.5% 

80.4% 

30.3% 

34.0% 

31.9% 

29.0% 

47.4% 

40.4% 

38.9% 

39.8% 

44.1% 

19.9% 

29.8% 

35.4% 

21.9% 

52.0% 

NC 

46% 

45.8% 

32.7% 

39.5% 

29.0% 

40.4% 

38.9% 

33.1% 

39.8% 

43.0% 

64.3% 

25.4% 

89.4% 

30.5% 

60.9% 

22.0% 

60.1% 

53.9% 

NC 

NC 

64.4% 

65.8% 

49.5% 

77.8% 

26.5% 

21.1% 

51.8% 

NC 

43% 

55.5% 

90.4% 

67.1% 

17.5% 

61.6% 

33.2% 

57.5% 

83.5% 

69.9% 

82.7% 

70.0% 

69.1% 

61.1% 

65.3% 

67.9% 

50.9% 

87.2% 

70.9% 

60.3% 

70.3% 

67.6% 

70.3% 

95.2% 

76.8% 

64.0% 

64.1% 

51.5% 

69% 

90.8% 

66.8% 

74.9% 

70.9% 

75.4% 

76.0% 

77.1% 

68.5% 

72.0% 

Source: Member States, data reporting under Art 16 & 17 

67 

49.4% 

21.7% 

82.2% 

26.8% 

39.3% 

28.6% 

31.9% 

48.1% 

48.0% 

37.7% 

43.4% 

44.2% 

20.4% 

31.9% 

35.3% 

23.3% 

41.5% 

NC 

48% 

41.3% 

29.7% 

39.7% 

32.5% 

44.6% 

37.4% 

27.9% 

44.1% 

43.8% 

74.3% 

25.6% 

86.7% 

37.3% 

57.0% 

21.0% 

57.5% 

53.2% 

NC 

NC 

64.0% 

68.8% 

50.6% 

80.9% 

27.0% 

22.1% 

69.0% 

NC 

41% 

55.3% 

91.0% 

69.5% 

17.8% 

61.8% 

36.8% 

67.3% 

58.8% 

69.5% 

85.8% 

69.5% 

75.1% 

61.9% 

67.0% 

70.1% 

51.6% 

87.8% 

68.9% 

62.7% 

70.2% 

68.2% 

72.0% 

94.7% 

NC 

63.3% 

69.6% 

54.2% 

68% 

90.3% 

96.7% 

75.9% 

68.6% 

78.5% 

78.3% 

71.5% 

68.8% 

70.5% 

55.0% 

38.0% 

78.0% 

26.9% 

40.9% 

30.5% 

31.9% 

45.3% 

45.8% 

37.8% 

40.6% 

44.9% 

20.8% 

36.1% 

NC 

21.1% 

60.6% 

NC 

49% 

47.0% 

44.9% 

40.6% 

32.3% 

37.2% 

38.3% 

28.1% 

45.2% 

45.1% 

74.4% 

23.8% 

85.6% 

37.4% 

64.7% 

20.7% 

55.5% 

51.7% 

NC 

NC 

65.4% 

67.0% 

51.4% 

81.8% 

NC 

19.6% 

60.8% 

NC 

42% 

57.5% 

75.0% 

67.2% 

17.3% 

56.9% 

39.6% 

67.1% 

59.2% 

68.0% 

 
 
 
  
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

4.1.3    

Application of Article 16 of AVMSD 

This section provides an analysis of compliance with the obligation to broadcast, where practicable, a majority 
of European works as set out in Article 16 of the Directive.44 

According to the data reported by Member States, the EU average transmission time dedicated to European 
Works by all reported channels in the EU28 was 70.3% in 2015, 70.5% in 2016, 71.4% in 2017, 70.9% in 2018 
and 72.6% in 2019. This indicates a generally stable level of reported European works with a slight increase 
in 2019 compared with 2015. These figures had increased significantly during the years prior to this period. In 
fact, the average transmission time dedicated to European works was 64.25% in 2013 and 63.72% in 2014. 
Moreover, all Member States did meet, on average, the required proportion of European works over the 2015-
2019 reference period. 

Figure 17 - Trends in the transmission time reserved for European works over the period 2015-2019 

EU average compliance rates45 for European works were stable overall over the reporting period, with 50% in 
2015, 56%  in  2016, 58% in 2017, 59% in 2018,  and  57% in 2019.  Note  that these rates do not reflect the 
channels'  achievement  of  the  European  works  proportions  set  out  in  Article  16  because  many  countries 
reported channels with no data provided. For example, Spain has percentage data reported for only 10% of 
the channels reported.  

However, while at country level the average qualifying time dedicated to European works is above the Article 
16 quota, this does not apply to all channels individually. According to the data reported by Member States 
there  were  219  channels  that  did  not  reach  the  50%  quota  in  2015.  This  number  fell  to  210  in  2019.  That 
represents 9% of all channels covered in the reporting. While in most countries the number of channels that 
do not reach the quota is very low (5% or less)), in the following countries a substantial share of channels fail 

44 According to Article 16, broadcasters shall reserve for European works a majority proportion of their transmission time, excluding the 
time allotted to news, sports events, games, advertising, teletext services and teleshopping. 

45 The compliance rate is obtained by determining the number of channels achieving the required proportions under Articles 16 and 17 
and  comparing  these  figures  with  the  number  of  channels  covered  by  Articles  16  and  17.  The  channels  for  which  no  data  were 
communicated are considered non-compliant for the purpose of this indicator. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

to reach so: Czechia (40%), Lithuania (38%), Portugal (30%), Bulgaria (29%) and Italy (24%). This information 
is shown in the figure below.  

The number of channels that are not compliant with the 50% quota for European works in Czechia is primarily 
driven by several channels that are established in Czechia but target other EU countries out of the national 
context. These channels are AMC channels of different EU countries, Comedy central channels for different 
countries, HBO channels for different countries, MTV channels and Nickelodeon channels. In Lithuania on the 
other hand the high share of non-compliant channels is primarily due to channels for domestic audience.  In 
Bulgaria the non-compliance is mainly driven by linear service providers that broadcast movies (e.g. action) or 
cartoons  originating  from  the  US  or  other  non-EU  markets  (e.g.  bTC  Comedy,  bTVCinema,  Fox  Life).  In 
Portugal  the  non-compliance  of  several  TV  Cine  channels  means  that  the  overall  share  of  non-compliant 
channels is high. Finally, in Italy there is also a rather high number of non-compliant channels. This is due to 
different types of channels, several Premium channels do not meet the quota, several Sky Cinema channels 
are also in that situation.  

The table below gives an overview of the number of channels that did not meet the quota for European works 
per country.  

Table 10 - Number channels per country that did not meet the quota of 50% European works 

European works 

Austria 
Belgium (FR) 
Belgium (NL) 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czechia  
Denmark  
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 

2015 
4 
0 
11 
30 
3 
2 
45 
1 
2 
8 
2 
12 
2 
1 
1 
29 
0 
3 
6 
0 
18 
4 
12 
6 
2 
1 
12 
2 
219 

2018 
4 
0 
14 
26 
3 
2 
56 
1 
0 
3 
4 
12 
6 
2 
0 
33 
1 
3 
5 
0 
17 
1 
11 
6 
2 
0 
11 
3 
226 

2019 
4 
0 
10 
26 
2 
3 
61 
1 
0 
5 
5 
13 
6 
2 
0 
30 
0 
5 
5 
0 
0 
1 
13 
2 
2 
0 
11 
3 
210 

2016 
4 
0 
13 
18 
2 
3 
46 
1 
0 
6 
3 
12 
4 
2 
0 
30 
1 
3 
5 
0 
16 
1 
12 
5 
1 
2 
12 
2 
204 

2017 
4 
0 
11 
18 
4 
2 
51 
1 
0 
5 
4 
13 
5 
4 
0 
27 
2 
0 
5 
0 
20 
2 
12 
6 
1 
0 
12 
3 
212 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Source: Member State reports 

Figure 18 - Channels that do not meet the Article 16 quota as a share of total channels reported 

Source: Member State reports 

4.1.4    

Application of Article 17 of AVMSD 

This section presents the results achieved at European level as regards European works made by independent 
producers (i.e. "independent productions") as set out in Article 1746. 

The reported EU average transmission time dedicated to independent productions by all reported channels in 
the EU28 was 42.2% in 2015, 37.7% in 2016, 38.5% in 2017, 38.6% in 2018 and 40.8% in 2019. This indicates 
that transmission time decreased from 2015 to 2016, but then partially recovered the loss over the 2016-2019 
period. Overall, it is still lower in 2019 than it was in 2015, but the upward trend suggests an eventual future 
increase that would bring the levels back to 2015 levels. In addition, it has increased since the years prior to 
this period. In fact, the average transmission time dedicated to independent productions was 35.28% in 2013 
and  35.11%  in  2014.  Moreover,  all  Member  States  did  meet,  on  average,  the  required  proportion  of 
independent European works over the 2015-2019 reference period.  

EU-average compliance rates47 for independent productions have increased slightly over the reporting period 
with 53% in 2015, 56% in 2016, 58% in 2017, 60% in 2018, and 55% in 2019. Note that these rates do not 
reflect the channels' achievement of the  independent productions proportions set out in Article 16 because 
many countries reported channels with no data provided. For example, Spain has percentage data reported 
for only 10% of the channels reported.  

While  in  total  the  share  of  qualifying  time  dedicated  to  independent  productions,  according  to  the  Member 
States reports, is well above the 10% quota in each Member State, this is not the case at the level of specific 
channels. In 2015 there were 100 channels that did not meet the quota and there were 103 such channels in 
2019. This represents 4% of the channels on which Member States reported.  

The countries with the highest share of channels that do not meet the quota for independent productions are 
Bulgaria, Portugal, Denmark and Czechia.  

46 Article 17 establishes the obligation for broadcasters to reserve at least 10% of their transmission time, excluding the time allotted to 
news, sports events, games, advertising, teletext services and teleshopping, or alternately, at the discretion of the Member State, at least 
10 % of their programming budget, for European works created by producers who are independent of broadcasters. 

47 The compliance rate is obtained by determining the number of channels achieving the required proportions under Articles 16 and 17 
and  comparing  these  figures  with  the  number  of  channels  covered  by  Articles  16  and  17.  The  channels  for  which  no  data  were 
communicated are considered non-compliant for the purpose of this indicator. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 11 - Number of channels per country that did not meet the quota of 10% independent 
works 

European works 

Austria 
Belgium (FR) 
Belgium (NL) 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czechia  
Denmark  
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 

2015 
0 
0 
2 
22 
0 
0 
11 
3 
0 
0 
5 
4 
10 
13 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
5 
0 
7 
13 
0 
1 
4 
0 

2016 
0 
0 
0 
11 
0 
3 
17 
4 
0 
0 
4 
4 
13 
22 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
8 
0 
6 
13 
1 
1 
5 
0 

2017 
0 
0 
1 
14 
1 
3 
16 
5 
0 
1 
7 
7 
13 
16 
0 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
7 
9 
1 
0 
6 
0 

2018 
0 
0 
1 
22 
0 
1 
20 
4 
0 
0 
4 
6 
13 
17 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
7 
9 
1 
0 
5 
0 

2019 
0 
0 
2 
21 
0 
1 
19 
4 
0 
0 
12 
4 
10 
11 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
7 
3 
1 
0 
6 
0 

100 

114 

112 

113 

103 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Figure 19 - Channels that do not meet the Article 17 AVMSD quota for independent productions as a share of total 
channels reported 

The EU average transmission time dedicated to Recent  Independent Works by all reported channels in the 
EU-27 was 54.0% in 2015, 52.7% in 2016, 53.7% in 2017, 54.5% in 2018 and 54.6% in 2019. This indicates 
that it decreased from 2015 to 2016, but then recovered the loss incurred and exceeded the levels of 2015 
over the period 2016-2019. In addition, it has slightly increased from the years prior to this period. In fact, the 
average of transmission time dedicated to recent independent works was 55.22% in 2013 and 53.1% in 2014.  

Three Member States have failed to report on the percentages of independent works (Ireland in 2019, Latvia 
in  2015,  and  Lithuania  in  2015,  2016,  2017,  2018  and  2019).  Five  Member  States  did  not  report  on  the 
percentages of recent independent works during the period 2015-2019 (Estonia, Finland and Lithuania) and 
Ireland in 2019 and Latvia in 2015. 

4.1.5    

Exemption from the reporting obligation of channels 

The Guidelines for Monitoring the Application of Articles 16 and 17 of the AVMSD issued by the Commission 
allowed exemptions from reporting obligations for channels with a very low audience share (below 0.3%). As 
was also highlighted in the previous monitoring report 2011-2014, the reason behind these exemptions is the 
flexible wording of the Articles 16 and 17 (“where practicable”) and the emergence of new and small channels. 
To note that this exemption applies only to the reporting obligation, and not to the obligation to comply with the 
mandatory quotas set out in the Directive and it can be granted by the competent national authorities. For this 
monitoring exercise, Bulgaria was the only country that did not report the exempted channels.  

Several  national  authorities  reported  that  they  have  granted  such  exemptions  during  the  reference  period. 
Different justifications were given for these exemptions: local and regional channels (e.g. Austria, Belgium or 
Sweden), sports or news channels (e.g. Austria, Italy or Latvia), below 0.3% audience channels (e.g. Austria, 
Germany or Poland), erotic channels (e.g. Estonia), religious content channels (e.g. Estonia), channels where 
programme decisions are made abroad (e.g.  Finland), teleshopping channels (e.g.  France, Malta or Spain) 
and channels with international coverage for countries outside Europe (e.g. Portugal).  

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 12 - Number of exempted channels 

Number of exempted channels 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

Austria 

Belgium (FR) 

Belgium (NL) 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia  

Denmark  

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

46 

27 

0 

NC 

118 

13 

31 

66 

1 

46 

279 

475 

47 

23 

25 

358 

0 

27 

80 

27 

188 

78 

22 

177 

117 

77 

479 

60 

46 

27 

0 

NC 

118 

13 

30 

66 

1 

46 

279 

475 

47 

23 

25 

358 

0 

27 

80 

27 

188 

78 

22 

177 

117 

77 

479 

60 

34 

27 

0 

NC 

118 

13 

30 

66 

1 

46 

279 

475 

47 

23 

25 

358 

0 

27 

80 

27 

188 

78 

22 

177 

117 

77 

479 

60 

43 

27 

0 

NC 

118 

13 

30 

66 

1 

46 

279 

475 

47 

23 

25 

358 

0 

27 

80 

27 

188 

78 

22 

177 

117 

77 

479 

60 

55 

27 

0 

NC 

118 

13 

30 

66 

1 

46 

279 

475 

47 

23 

25 

358 

0 

27 

80 

27 

188 

78 

22 

177 

117 

77 

479 

60 

Source: Member States, data reporting under Articles 16 & 17 

4.1.6    

Reasons for non-compliance 

Member States have provided reasons for non-compliance with the proportions required under Articles 16 and 
17 of the Directive in their national reports.  

The majority of Member States have identified cases of non-compliance with the mandatory shares set by the 
European Directive. In particular, having analysed the individual Member States’ reports, it is roughly estimated 
that two-thirds of Member States have reported non-compliance with Article 16 for at least some channels, 
while over half of them reported such issues in respect of Article 17 (see below in Table 13) 

73 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

The following paragraphs summarise the most recurrent reasons for non-compliance raised by the Member 
States:  

•  Small channels 

A  very  common  reason  for  non-compliance  identified  across  different  national  reports  refers  to  the 
small size of some channels (e.g. regional channels), which encountered difficulties in reaching quotas 
because of marginal ratings and smaller target audiences.  

•  Thematic reasons  

Many national operators have reported a clear lack of European programming dedicated to audiences 
interested in specialised channels targeting culture, sport and children’s content. In this context, the 
example of France is quite explanatory. Indeed, the channels which do not respect the requirement 
for  a  majority  proportion  of  European  works  do  so  mainly  for  format  reasons:  this  is  the  case  of 
channels which mainly broadcast African or Afro-American music, for example, and which seem to 
have more difficulties in acquiring works produced or co-produced in Europe that are intended for an 
African audience or one from Africa. 

•  Competition with US products  

Several national broadcasters have encountered difficulties in competing with the huge volume of US 
programmes on the market, especially in terms of entertainment and music.  

•  Cheaper content outside the EU 

Various  Member  States  have  reported  difficulties  in  acquiring  European  produced  or  co-produced 
works because of their high prices, especially in comparison with non-European products.  

It is also worth mentioning the specific case of Slovenia, as it represents a new situation compared with the 
previous report. The national broadcaster TV 3 Medias failed to reach the majority proportion of EU works in 
2015 because the company was in a compulsory settlement. In 2016 the company was still in a compulsory 
settlement and in a poor financial position with limited autonomy for decision-making regarding costs, which 
made them unable to acquire EU works. 

Another reason invoked for non-compliance refers to the fact that some newly established channels were not 
aware of the requirements set by the AVMSD. Moreover, some other channels devoted to very niche topics 
(e.g. religion or Japanese manga cartoons) could not find enough European content to reach the quotas.  

Table 13 - Non-compliances identified during the reference period 

 Country 

Austria 
Belgium – FR 
Belgium – NL 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czechia 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 

Art 17 

Yes 
No 
No 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
No 
Not specified 

Art 16 

Yes 
No 
No 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
Not specified 

74 

 
 
 
 Country 

Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 

AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Art 16 

No 
Yes 
No 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
No 

Art 17 

No 
Not specified 
No 
No 
Not specified 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
No 

Source: Member States, data reporting under Articles 16 & 17 

4.1.7    
compliance 

Measures  adopted  or  planned  to  address  cases  of  non-

The data reported by the Member States shows that there are different approaches to addressing cases of 
non-compliance. 

The majority of Member States have monitoring procedures which differ slightly case by case, including the 
issue of reminders (for example, Finland and Estonia), investigation procedures which request explanations 
for non-compliance (as in the case of the Belgian francophone authority and Slovenia) and eventually, if the 
infraction is perpetrated, the application of economic sanctions.  

Portugal presents a different approach, which consists of providing constant guidance to operators, taking into 
consideration the difficulties in applying the rules. 

In contrast two Member States clearly state that they directly implement sanction procedures in the event of 
non-compliance: Italy and Romania.  

It is also worth mentioning the approach adopted by Greece, as it presents itself as an exception from Member 
States. In particular, Greek regional channels have been reported to have low revenues, which do not allow 
them to comply with European directives. 

4.2     Non-linear service providers (Article 13 of AVMSD) 

4.2.1    

Monitoring requirements for non-linear services 

Four Member States (Cyprus, Italy, Spain and Sweden) carry out in-house monitoring through their national 
regulatory  authorities.  The  remaining  Member  States  run  the  monitoring  process  solely  by  relying  on  the 
reports  provided  by  national  operators.  These  reports  shall  include  statistics  and  data  on  conformity  with 
AVMSD’s Article 13. In most cases, this exercise is conducted yearly or every two years.  

Two Member States (Denmark and Germany) have explicitly stated in their national reports that they do not 
monitor the fulfilment of obligations under Article 13 of the AVMS Directive by on-demand service providers. 
National  operators  under  Maltese  jurisdiction  are  exempted  from  the  obligations  of  promotion  of  European 
works  as  set  out  in  Article  13  of  Directive  2010/13  based  on  their  audience  share  and  market  relevance. 
Therefore, such obligations are deemed impracticable. 

Another case worth mentioning is the Belgian francophone community, where compliance with the obligations 
set out  in  Article 13 is overseen by the regional regulatory authority,  the Conseil supérieur de  l'audiovisuel 
(CSA) as follows:  

75 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

•  The financial contribution is set by the CSA through a calculation which applies a percentage – up to 
2.2% – on the declared turnover of the controlled year (article 41 of the Media Decree). The result of 
this calculation is transmitted to the French-speaking Community Film fund, which establishes the bill 
to be paid or to be invested in co-production schemes by the on-demand media service provider;  
•  As regards the prominence-related obligation, the CSA checks whether European works are effectively 
given prominence in the on-demand media service catalogue through combining several promotion 
techniques (see next section). 

The table below  provides  a country-by-country overview of how the  data reporting process was conducted 
during the reference period. Some countries reported that the same approach was used as for Art 16 & 17 
(Croatia, Cyprus, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden).  

Table 14 - Summary of the data reporting process in the Member States 

Austria 

Belgium - 
FR 

Belgium - 
NL 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 
Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Data reporting process under Art 13 

The Austrian Communications Authority (KommAustria) is the regulatory authority in charge of 
monitoring and a request is sent annually to all the media service providers of on-demand audiovisual 
media services to provide the relevant data. 
While Article 13 AVMS Directive does not impose any tool to promote EU works, as emphasised in 
the EC summary “Promotion of European works in Practice” (3 July 2014), compliance with these 
obligations is controlled by the CSA in terms of financial contribution and prominence-related 
obligations.  
Programming in the Flemish Community of Belgium is only linear and the non-linear offer consists of 
catch-up services which can be used by viewers to watch the programmes at any time. Therefore, the 
data reporting and monitoring rules presented for Articles 16 & 17 also apply to Article 13 obligations. 
The Flemish regulator inserted no obligations for the non-linear service providers in the applicable 
provision in Article 157 of the Flemish Act on radio and television broadcasting (hereinafter the “Media 
Act”). 
The Council for Electronic Media draws up the reports for the share of European works, by annually 
requesting information from media service providers and summarising the data provided 
Same approach as for Art 16 & 17 
Same approach as for Art 16 & 17 
The Council invites VoD service providers every calendar year to submit data on fulfilment of the 
obligation to promote European productions. The regulatory authority stated that verification of the 
submitted data is difficult. 
The Agency of Culture and Palaces does not monitor whether on-demand services fulfil the 
obligations established by Article 13 of the AVMS Directive.  
Each year by 15 February all audiovisual media service providers must submit a report on the 
previous calendar year which includes data on conformity with AVMSD’s Article 13. There is also an 
obligation to describe the technical solution that is used inside the company to keep track and 
calculate all the necessary data. ECTRA is also able to check all the files and documents related to 
the calculation if necessary. In addition, ECTRA uses regular planned monitoring activities to verify 
that submitted data is correct 
Video-on-demand audiovisual service providers provide information biannually on how they have 
fulfilled their obligation to promote the production and distribution of European works with the help of 
financial contributions to productions, programme acquisitions, enhanced visibility of European works 
or similar means. There is however no share or specific obligation for prominence or limit for the 
financial contribution - any means of promotion counts.  
For non-linear services, the figures in the table include those declared annually by these services in 
respect of compliance with the quotas of the Directive. They are calculated on the broadcasts of 
programmes from these services. 
The Regulatory Authority did not report whether there is a process or system to monitor whether on-
demand services are fulfilling the obligations set out by Article 13 of the AVMS Directive. 
The data provided by the Secretariat General for Communication and Media is collected from pay TV 
stations and is then assessed by the Greek independent regulatory authority, the National Council for 
Radio and Television (NCRTV).  

76 

 
 
 
  
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Data reporting process under Art 13 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 
Latvia 

Lithuania 

Same approach as for Art 16 & 17 
The Regulatory Authority did not report any process or system to monitor whether on-demand 
services fulfil the obligations set out by Article 13 of the AVMS Directive. 
Same approach as for Art 16 & 17 
Same approach as for Art 16 & 17 
During annual inspections each year VoD service providers were asked to provide relevant data. All 
VoD service providers, except Telia Lietuva and AB, have met the requirements. 

Luxembourg  Same approach as for Art 16 & 17 
Malta 

No obligations or data reporting requirements 
There is no minimum share of European works or financial contribution laid down by the 2008 Media 
Act. Every year the media service providers should measure and report to CvdM, which checks the 
data submitted.  
Same approach as for Art 16 & 17 
The data related to Article 13 is collected from service providers at the request of the ERC, based on 
the number of titles of European works present in their catalogues. Based on the indicators of the 
ERC reports, the data collected is considered sufficient for the present objective, due to the early 
stage of development of the market in question. 
VoD service providers submit an annual statistical report to the National Audiovisual Council (NAC). 
The method of calculation of the percentage of European works in catalogues is expressed in hours. 
The NAC does not foresee a verification mechanism for statistical reports submitted by on-demand 
service providers, mainly due to the high cost. For this reason, the Council relies solely on data 
submitted by VoD service providers without further control/systematic cross-checking and/or random 
controls. 
The provider of an on-demand audiovisual media service shall be obliged, on request, to provide the 
Council with: statistics on European works; a list of information on European works that are included 
in the on-demand audiovisual media service of the provider, including information on the number and 
time range of titles that are European works, their identification and the identification of their 
producers and information on other measures taken to promote European works. The provider of on-
demand audiovisual media service shall be obliged to provide the Council with the statistics and 
above-mentioned information within 15 days of the Council’s request.  
Same approach as for Art 16 & 17 
Same approach as for Art 16 & 17 
Same approach as for Art 16 & 17 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 

Source: Member States based on data reporting on Art 13 

Most Member States carry out the monitoring exercise on a yearly basis (15 countries). Eight Member States 
do  not  mention  any  periodicity  of  checks  and  this  could  be  due  to  the  fact  that  they  either  do  not  have  a 
monitoring system in place, or monitoring is carried out randomly. The table below offers a country-by-country 
overview  of  the  periodicity  of  reporting  in  place.  Regarding  verification,  most  countries  carry  out  checks 
internally,  while  only  Italy  and  Spain  both  conduct  in-house  checks  and  make  use  of  external  providers  to 
conduct parallel verifications. 

77 

 
 
 
  
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 15 - Periodicity and verification systems 

Austria 

Belgium - FR 

Belgium - NL 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Periodicity 

Yearly 

Monthly 

Yearly 

Yearly 

Yearly 

Yearly 

Yearly 

Not specified 

Yearly 

Every two years 

Yearly 

Not specified 

Not specified 

None 

Yearly 

Yearly 

None 

Yearly 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Yearly 

Not specified 

Yearly 

Not specified 

Yearly 

Yearly 

Every two years 

Source: Member States, data reporting under Art 13 

Note: Some countries did not report data on periodicity and in these cases, we used the data from the previous 
reporting exercise, assuming that the situation remained unchanged (this is the case for Belgium – FR, Croatia, 
France, Hungary, Ireland and Latvia). 

4.2.2    

Data reporting under Article 13 

Member  States  NRAs  were  asked  to  conduct  the  same  data  reporting  exercise  for  on-demand  service 
providers as they did for Art. 16 and 17 of the AVMSD. According to Art. 13 of the AVMS Directive, Member 
States shall report to the Commission every four years on its implementation, showcasing whether on-demand 
audiovisual  media  services  provided  by  media  service  providers  under  their  jurisdiction  promoted  the 
production of and access to European works (e.g. through financial contributions or share and/or prominence 
of European works in their catalogues).  

Not all data reported by NRAs provided information about the number of  on-demand services active in the 
2015-2019 period. For instance, Germany and Ireland reported no data in relation to Article 13 obligations.  

78 

 
 
 
  
  
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

According to the information available, the number of on-demand services was estimated at 713 in 2015 (data 
from 25 countries), 847 in 2016 (data from 26 countries), 945 in 2017 (data from 26 countries), 999 in 2018 
(data from 26 countries), and 1,030 in 2019 (data from 26 countries). Most countries reported the same number 
of  on-demand  services  available,  except  Austria  and  Poland.  Austria  reported  on  average  181  on-demand 
services over the 2016-2019 period. Poland reported on average 142 on-demand services over the 2015-2019 
period48. 

Austria  had  the  highest  number  of  on-demand  services  available  in  the  period  2015-2019  (162  services  in 
2016, 170 in 2017, 213 in 2018, and 258 in 2019), followed by Poland (134 in 2016, 143 in 2017, 154 in 2018, 
and 138 in 2019), Spain (133 per year), Netherlands (92 per year), Czechia (77 per year), and France (75 per 
year). 14 Member States (Sweden, Lithuania, Italy, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, 
Cyprus, Portugal, Estonia, Latvia, and Slovenia) stated that the number of on-demand services was above 10 
in 2019. The lowest numbers of on-demand services were found in Malta (2 services per year), Belgium (3 
services in the French Community), Greece (5 services per year), Slovakia (7 services per year), Belgium (7 
services in the Dutch Community), and Luxembourg (8 services per year). 

However, for a large proportion of these VoD services Member States provided no data. Data on the share of 
European works were only provided for 560 VoD services out of the 1030 in 2019 (56%). For example, Estonia 
covered 10 VoD providers in its report but only included current of them data on the share of European works 
for two providers. For France, out, data was only provided for 31 of the 75 VoD services.. In most countries 
there is a significant share of VoD providers for which no data are included.  

Number of Non-Linear Services Reported

250

200

150

100

50

0

201

142

133

92

75 77

32

2

3

5

7

7

8 10 10 10 11 11 12 16 17 18 18 18 20 21

Figure 20 - Number of non-linear service providers by country in the reference period 

Source: Member States, data reporting under Art 13 

*Note that for Austria and Poland, the number in the graph is the average number of non-linear services reported across 
2015-2019. 

Since the previous monitoring exercise, there have been changes in the number of non-linear services reported 
during the 2015-2019 period. The four biggest positive increments were Austria (135 in 2014 to 201 on average 
across 2015-2019), followed by Poland (35 in 2014 to 142 on average across 2015-2019), Spain (15 in 2014 
to 133  in 2019) and the Netherlands (22 in 2014 to  92 in 2019). On the other hand,  Czechia reported 167 
services in 2014, but only 77 in 2019. France followed the same path, with 114 in 2014 to 75 in 2019. 

48 Note that Belgium was counted twice since data was reported by the Flemish and the French communities separately.  

79 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Overall, 63% of VoD services reported included details about the type of VoD service (i.e. TVoD, SVoD, AVoD). 
By analysing the data available, it emerges that the most common type of service in the 2015-2019 period was 
SVoD (47%), followed by AVoD (27%) and TVoD (26%).  

Figure 21 shows the trend in the distribution of European works in VoD services over the 2015-2019 period. 
The  table  presents  an  average  across  all  countries  and  services  covered  in  the  reporting.  However, 
considering  the  low  number  of  non-linear  service  providers  for  which  data  was  reported,  the  sample  of 
countries and the methodology for data collection vary each year and the robustness of the data is limited. 

Figure 21 - Average share of European works over the period 2015-2019 in non-linear service providers – based on a 
sample of Member States that reported such data and assuming that the data collection methodology is homogeneous 

Source: Member States, data reporting under Art 13 AVMSD 

It is important to note that the averages above are only based on the data (in percentages) collected for the 
VoD channels reported. Many Member States did not report on quotas of European works on VoD services, 
as most countries filled the data was “Not Available”. Thus, some countries such as Estonia or France have 
supplied reports where for a majority of services covered no data for the share of European works is stated.  

Furthermore, for a high number of VoD services Member States reported that more than 90%of the catalogues 
were dedicated to European Works This is for example the case for all 137 VoD providers in Austria. These 
data  represent  a  very  significant  share  of  all  the  services  reported  and  therefore  strongly  skews  the  EU 
average. This is also because most Member States did not carry out monitoring activities during the reference 
period, thus data for many VoD service providers is not available. The figure below shows the distribution of 
the number of VoD services by percentage brackets for the share of European works in catalogues. It shows 
that, more than half of the sample of  VoD services  reported  by  Member  States have a share of  European 
works that is 90% or above. On the other hand, only 31 of the 560 services covered in the reports (5.5%) have 
a share of European works that is below 20%. This skewed distribution strongly affects the average at EU and 
national level, which cannot be considered as a representative figure.  

80 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Figure 22 - Distribution of the number of VoD services according to share of European works in catalogues 

Table 16 - Distribution of the number of VoD services according to share of European works 

0-20% 

20-30% 

30-50% 

50-70% 

70-90% 

above 90% 

TOTAL 

Austria 

Belgium (FR) 

Belgium (NL) 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia  

Denmark  

Estonia 

Finland 

France * 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

n/a 

0 

0 

n/a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

n/a 

25 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

3 

1 

0 

0 

0 

n/a 

2 

0 

n/a 

1 

0 

0 

2 

n/a 

11 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

6 

0 

18 

6 

1 

0 

1 

n/a 

3 

1 

n/a 

3 

1 

0 

2 

0 

1 

3 

3 

3 

0 

5 

2 

0 

0 

15 

n/a 

0 

1 

n/a 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

2 

1 

0 

8 

2 

0 

0 

11 

n/a 

0 

0 

n/a 

2 

0 

0 

0 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

4 

4 

0 

2 

2 

0 

3 

5 

9 

3 

0 

1 

2 

4 

3 

7 

0 

1 

1 

1 

2 

81 

137 

137 

0 

1 

2 

2 

0 

13 

2 

0 

0 

3 

n/a 

0 

12 

n/a 

0 

0 

4 

0 

n/a 

25 

106 

0 

3 

2 

0 

1 

3 

7 

8 

12 

1 

49 

13 

1 

0 

30 

0 

5 

14 

0 

7 

1 

5 

5 

0 

73 

127 

6 

7 

8 

4 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

0-20% 

20-30% 

30-50% 

50-70% 

70-90% 

above 90% 

TOTAL 

Sweden 

TOTAL 

1 

31 

3 

30 

1 

71 

1 

52 

2 

44 

19 

332 

27 

560 

4.2.3    

Prominence of European works  

Some Member States reported data on prominence methods used by VoDo services under their jurisdiction: 
Belgium (FR), Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, 
Romania, Sweden and Slovakia. However, three countries reported data only for some of the VoD services 
under their jurisdiction, which did not allow for a robust data analysis of the prominence methods used. Of the 
three prominence methods listed in the data reporting template, the display of European works on homepage 
was the most widespread method in 2018 and 2019. According to the data reported, on average 74% of works 
displayed on the homepage were European works in 2019 – however this is based on only a small sample of 
services.  The  use  of  trailers  and  banners  to  promote  European  works  was  the  second  most  common 
prominence tool used (45  VoD services used these methods in 2018, and only 43 in 2019). The display of 
European works in the search function was the least used option of the three displayed (only 28 VoD services 
used this option in 2019).  

Poland reported data  about prominence only for 2015. This explains a higher number of VoD services that 
reported  data  on  prominence  in  that  year.  Of  the  81  VoD  services  reported  in  total  by  Poland,  almost  half 
reported  data  on  prominence  method,  which  is  higher  than  in  other  countries  that  reported  some  data  on 
prominence.  

Number of platforms that reported use of prominence tools

81

83

67

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

41

33

21

44

36

22

53

45

30

60

43

28

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

European works on homepage (Y-axis)

European works in a search function (Y-axis)

Trailers/banners promoting European works (Y-axis)

Figure 23 - Number of services using prominence tools in the countries that reported data on prominence 

Source: authors, based on data reported by the Member States 

Note: Only 14 countries reported some data on prominence, and only for some of the services under their jurisdiction. For 
some services, countries indicate where the service does not use the listed prominence methods, but for most services no 
data is reported at all. Poland reported data only for 2015.  

There are also other ways to ensure prominence of European works besides those mentioned above. Finland 
reported other methods, such as highlighting domestic works, or placing these works at the top or displaying 
the country of origin in the programme guide. In Denmark, one reported VoD service also ensures prominence 
outside the platform itself. This is done through social media promotion, search engine optimisation (SEO) and 
search engine marketing (SEM). In Italy, VoD services also make use of social media channels to promote 
European content. Italy reports that services use a wide variety of methods to ensure prominence and some 
examples  include  trailers  or  visuals  promoting  European  works  in  the  “première”  section  of  the  catalogue, 
specific  events  promoting  exclusively  European  works  through  social  networks,  multi-platform  promotional 

82 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

campaigns,  featuring  European  works  themin  the  recommendations,  theme  operations  featuring  both 
European works and non-European works, highlighting the EU origin of European works, and European works 
displayed in marketing communications sent to users. The use of social media is, in fact, rather widespread 
among the countries that reported data on prominence tools. For instance, some services in the Netherlands 
and Slovakia also use social media, combined with search functions based on European film festivals and film 
awards or use of buttons for national productions (in the Netherlands) or promotion through text messages 
and online ads (in Slovakia).  

Of the countries that reported data, Belgium (FR) provides the only instance in which the NRA stated that it 
carries  out  checks  on  whether  European  works  are  effectively  given  prominence  in  the  on-demand  media 
service catalogue and whether the service follows the recommendations published by the authority in 2010. 
These  recommendations  suggest,  for  instance,  combining  several  promotion  techniques  which  include  the 
following:  

•  Advertising inserts on home page of the EPG or website;  

•  Specific  categories  dedicated  to  EU  works  or  other  thematic  categories  such  as  national  works, 
national  festivals  or  comedies;  prominence  under  different  headings  and  banners  (“new”,  “last 
chance”, “favourites” etc.);  

•  Prominence on barkerb channel49 (self-promotion);  

•  Mentions of EU works in newsletters, folders and magazines. 

Some  of  the  VoD  services  display  national  content  exclusively,  making  the  use  of  prominence  methods  or 
labelling of European works redundant.  

4.2.4    

Financial contributions for the production of European works 

As  in  the  case  of  prominence,  few  countries  reported  on  financial  contributions  made  by  the  VoD  service 
providers. This can be either due to lack of data or because countries do not require such financial contributions 
from  VoD  services.  Countries  that  reported  data  on  financial  contributions  are  Belgium  (FR),  Bulgaria, 
Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden.  

The figure below illustrates the average contribution share made by VoD services for financing productions, 
covering the countries that reported this data. The share varies across countries. In Belgium (FR), the average 
share  is  0.99%  and  all  providers  are  reported  in  the  country  report  to  have  met  the  national  regulation.  In 
Bulgaria,  the  average  share  was  29%  in  2019  which  is  an  increase  compared  with  2018  (18%).  Denmark 
reported an average contribution share of 82%, which was consistent over the reference period. Greece and 
Spain  also  report  consistent  figures,  with  the  average  share  remaining  2%  and  5%  respectively.  Lastly, 
Sweden reported an average financial contribution of 77% in 2019, which is slightly lower than in the previous 
years of the reporting period.  

Note, however, that there are important differences between VoD services and Member States and these may 
raise  questions  about  the  quality  of  the  data  reported.  Member  States  were  asked  to  report  financial 
contributions  made  as  a  share  of  VoD  service  revenue.  For  a  number  of  services,  the  data  on  financial 
contributions indicates 100%;, however, that would mean that the entire revenues are invested in production 

49 A form of digital signage, operating in the form of a television channel that is entirely composed of sales promotion and advertising, 
usually marketing various features of the service carrying the channel 

83 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

which is neither likely nor credible. It is therefore probable that the way in which this indicator is interpreted 
varies greatly across countries – even in the case of those countries that actually use it.  

Figure 24 - Average reported share of financial contributions for countries that reported data 

Source: authors based on the data reported by the Member States 

4.2.5    

Reasons for non-compliance 

The majority of Member States which provided data regarding the application of Article 13 declared they had 
identified no non-compliance, but this is mainly due to the fact that most countries imposed no obligations and 
carried  out  no  monitoring  activities.  Nevertheless,  the  Greek  National  Council  for  Radio  and  Television 
(NCRTV) is currently in the process of setting up a department that will deal further with the issue of monitoring 
and reporting compliance with obligations related to European works. 

In  this  regard,  it  is  worth  mentioning  the  case  of  Cyprus,  where  the  customer  base  and  the  corresponding 
market are both relatively small, while the audience is also limited. It is reported that is not financially profitable 
for any provider to spend significant amount of money to maintain an enriched catalogue of European works. 

The only Member State that explicitly reported instances of non-compliance is Romania, which specified that 
these only concern services which cannot meet the proportions due to their  nature or which have identified 
problems in the acquisition of rights to use European works. 

4.2.6    
compliance 

Measures  adopted  or  planned  to  address  cases  of  non-

In relation to the few cases of non-compliance identified, Member States did not report detailed information 
about measures adopted to address these breakdowns. This can also be explained by the fact that only a few 
countries impose obligations on non-linear services.  

An analysis of Member States’ reports shows that only three countries have reported measures to address 
cases of non-compliance: Czechia, Luxembourg and Romania.  

• 

In the case of Czechia, the national regulatory authority sets a time limit within which the media service 
provider can take corrective action. If measures are taken within the given timeframe no actions are 
taken; otherwise, the regulatory authority may impose a fine up to CZK 1,000,000 (40,000 EUR); 

84 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

•  The  Luxembourg  national  authorities  formally  ask  the  media  service  operators  to  provide  an 
explanation  and reasons for non-compliance, accompanied  by a demand to make further efforts in 
order to comply with the obligations; 

• 

In Romania, failure to comply with the provisions is subject to penalties in accordance with the national 
Audiovisual Law. 

4.3     Stakeholders’ views on Articles 13, 16 and 17 

This  chapter  summarises  the  views  of  the  stakeholders  interviewed  on  the  AVMSD  quotas  for  European, 
financing and independent work.  

4.3.1    

Article 13 

When asked about the impact of the Article 13 obligations, a national stakeholder pointed out that at national 
level private funding is missing completely, or the contributions are made directly to the state funds who can 
decide how to use the money. Therefore, financial contributions from streamers would benefit small markets. 
The lack of strong lobby organisations at national level which fight for the rights of producers (among others) 
is also problematic as there are no organisations who can defend their interests. An EU organisation expressed 
its support for quotas as these incentivise production, but the challenge has been to have these fulfilled by the 
VoD  players.  According  to  the  stakeholders,  better  monitoring  tools  /  databases  should  be  put  in  place  to 
assess the proportion of European works.  

Linked to the prominence obligation, one interviewee stated that generally, global VoD providers push their 
own  brand  or  label  productions  made  by  local  broadcasters  as  VoD  originals  just  because  the  rights  were 
given away. In these cases, the visibility of European brands is not ensured although it remains  necessary 
(more detailed stakeholder views on prominence can be found in Volume 3). On obligations more generally, 
one European stakeholder considers that global streamers do not have the same objectives as local ones, and 
in the absence of any regulation the global streamers will only work in their own interest.  

The revised AVMSD provides for two new rules: 1) 30% of European works for VoD services with a prominence 
obligation and 2) the possibility for a country to impose an obligation on services to finance a fund or contribute 
to the production of the European works in proportion to the turnover made in the territory. According to an EU 
association representing producers, the 30% of European works obligation could have an impact on diversity 
only if the VoD service providers have the budget to buy new films (not old catalogues) to fulfil their obligations 
and if the prominence is real, in which case a clear definition of prominence should be drafted.  

4.3.2    

Articles 16 and 17 

When asked whether the quota set out by Articles 16 and 17 of the AVMSD contributes to the cultural diversity 
of the content broadcast, a European stakeholder stated that the impact is not high, as some countries deliver 
more diversity in European works than required in the legislation (e.g. in France where the quota is higher than 
that  set  by  the  AVMSD).  Furthermore,  the  stakeholder  stated  that  most  broadcasters  were  broadcasting  a 
majority of European works even before the Directive came into force and that the Directive is only “putting 
pressure”  on  broadcasters  because  it  has  been  driving  up  the  cost  of  producing  European  works.  This 
argument is followed by another European stakeholder, which pointed out that many broadcasters produce 
European works and over-fulfil the quotas. Similarly, a stakeholder from one country claimed that producing 
European works is part of their business model and it is what their audience wants to see. 

On the other hand, another European stakeholder considers quotas to be a necessary driver of the success 
of the European audiovisual sector, especially nowadays when the market power of non-European works (in 
particular from the US) is so high. The quotas are also beneficial, according to a representative of a public 
production fund, in giving give facilitate that smaller markets / producers and giving visibility for their content.  

One interviewee highlighted that quotas have a different impact in big markets and smaller ones. For instance, 
in one large country it was mentioned that the quota could easily be filled with national content due to wide 
availability. In smaller countries, cultural diversity is better achieved because the quota incentivises national 
legislation which allows broadcasting of European public content. In general terms, the quota is beneficial in 
ensuring  that  there  is  sufficient  coverage  of  national  productions  but  not  so  much  in  diversifying  European 
content. This is partially confirmed by a national stakeholder who agreed that content from their country has 

85 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

always been limited and the possibilities of obtaining licences for attractive, premiere content are also limited 
if these are produced by other linear providers. To tackle this, broadcasters meet the requirements  by also 
producing their own programmes.  

For the representatives of ana NRA, the added value of the quota would be greater if it were easier to trace 
the European nationality of works (e.g. through a database at EU level). This becomes even more complicated 
when the IP rights to the audiovisual works are bought. Another issue brought up by a national stakeholder is 
linked to transmission time. The stakeholder argued that most European works are not available in prime time, 
hence linear providers carried out a “box ‘ticking” obligation, instead of it leading to production diversity. To 
tackle  this,  the  stakeholder  recommended  combining  this  obligation  with  more  clarity  on  the  timeslots  for 
European works.  

Regarding the enforcement of the AVMSD, one NRA pointed out that one of the main challenges for regulators 
is understanding what would fall under the same  brand / service when assessing prominence (e.g. app vs 
other channels). 

When it comes to the quota for independent works, one EU stakeholder pointed out that this quota should be 
higher and it should also apply to VoD services and their providers. The interviewee considered that the needs 
to  support  independent  productions  do  not  differ  between  broadcasters  and  VoD  service  providers.  Both 
should be incentivised to promote independent productions.   Another EU organisation stated that dedicated 
quotas for independent productions are essential to diversity as they guarantee the independent producers’ 
access to the market, along with obligations for investment in European works. However, the AVMSD does 
not define independent producers (except for the criteria set out in Recital 71), leaving it to the Member States 
to provide their own definition. The stakeholder stated that an independent producer should be independent 
from broadcasters in terms of company ownership and secondary rights. This independence from TV and VoD 
service providers would be needed to ensure freedom of creation, while the quota could also be higher (e.g. 
in France this can reach up to 75%).  

One expert highlighted that public service broadcasters tend to work extensively with independent producers, 
because  they  need  to  ensure  their  supply.  In  some  countries,  independent  producers  have  been  busy 
producing for VoD services, which left them little time to create content for their national broadcasting markets 
outside the VoD services. Regarding the quota itself, one national stakeholder considers that this does indeed 
have an impact on visibility, but that visibility has no value if the content is not being consumed. This idea is 
shared  by  a  European  stakeholder,  who  stated  that  such  quotas  cannot  ensure  that  quality  work  is  being 
delivered.  

Stakeholders were asked if there are any measures in place to support financing for the creation production 
of  European  works.  The  representative  of  a  national  stakeholder  stated  that  their  country  has  many  film 
production schemes, including a film law which is to be revised in short future. Co-productions remain one of 
the main trends in that country in terms of financial tools. In another large EU country, according to an EU 
organisation representing producers, co-productions are used by independent producers as a means to fund 
their work, with many bilateral co-production agreements being signed with other countries, allowing producers 
to qualify a film as European.  

Another  national  stakeholder  representing  producers  also  stated  that  the  audiovisual  sector  is  heavily 
subsidised, although this point is not only linked to the AVMSD.  

Regarding private funds, one EU stakeholder stated that during the reference period more investments were 
made in series and documentaries and that most broadcasters would have an in-house production business 
doing  European  work.  One  national  stakeholder  stated  that  their  investments  in  European  works  have  not 
evolved  very  much  during  the  reference  period.  One  of  the  main  developments  is  that  more  funding  was 
invested in the production of series, but given the high obligations, there is no point investing more than that. 
The stakeholder pointed out that the level of obligations in the country favour investments in European works 
in the language of the country primarily.  

86 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

5.  Conclusions Task 1  

During the reference period, more legislative changes occurred in relation to Articles 16 and 17 of AVMSD, 
while changes linked to Article 13 of AVMSD were not as numerous. As illustrated in the graph below,  with 
respect to Articles 16 and 17, 16 countries implemented changes to  the legislative framework, 11 countries 
implemented changes to requirements, six countries made changes to definitions and nine made changes to 
their monitoring systems. In relation to Article 13, most changes (in 13 countries) were linked to the legislative 
framework for monitoring systems (in eight countries). 

Figure 25 - Number of countries that implemented changes during the reference period 

Source: Authors 

Overall, legislative changes in relation to the implementation of Articles 16 and 17 of the 2010 AVMSD  took 
place in 17 countries (BE,50CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, HU, HR, LV, IS, IT, NL, PL, RO and SK)  between 
2015 and 2019. Substantive reforms have taken place in seven countries (FR, HR, HU, IT, NL, PL and RO). 
For example, in Italy several legal acts have been introduced,  making numerous changes to the applicable 
requirements, the definitions of relevant concepts and the monitoring system applicable with regard to Articles 
16 and 17. France has seen  a significant reform in relation to the contribution regime for the production of 
audiovisual  works  by  television  services,  affecting  the  definition  of  “independent  producer”.  Furthermore, 
findings  show  that  certain  countries  have  also  introduced  relevant  changes  to  the  definitions  of  certain 
concepts (DK, EL, FI, FR, IT, SK). 

In relation  to  Article 13 of  2010 AVMSD, changes were identified  in  13 countries between  2015 and  2019: 
BE51,  CY,  DE,  DK,  EE,  EL,  FI,  HR,  HU,  IS,  IT,  NL  and  SK.  Substantive  reforms  have  taken  place  in  four 
countries (BE52, HR, HU and IT). For instance, Belgium53 has changed the regime applicable to the promotion 
of European works from the initial obligation to give due prominence to European work, to a quota system, and 
has given VoD providers an obligation to either invest in own productions or co-productions, or, alternatively, 
to pay a levy to the Flemish audiovisual fund. Changes regarding financing obligations were identified in some 
countries. However, these changes do not relate directly to the transposition of the AVMSD.  

50 Flemish Community. 

51 Flemish Community. 

52 Flemish Community. 

53 Flemish Community. 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Regarding the data reporting exercise, all EU 27 Member States shared results of their monitoring exercises. 
In the case of Ireland and Germany, no data was reported on the implementation of Article 13. All countries 
reported the  existence of a  monitoring system which  helps them verify compliance with  Articles 16  and 17 
(various methods were identified), while obligations under Article 13 are not monitored by all countries (some 
rely on the reports provided by non-linear providers while others do not monitor at all).  

During the reporting period (2015-2019), the total number of channels increased slightly from 2,362 in 2015 to 
2,377 in 2019. Spain had the highest number of reported channels in the 2015-2019 period. A sharper increase 
was identified in the number of non-linear services during the reference period. The number of on-demand 
services was estimated at 713 in 2015, 847 in 2016, 945 in 2017, 999 in 2018, and 1,030 in 2019. All Member 
States reported stable number of on-demand services for the period between 2015 and 2019. Only Austria 
and Poland reported different number of VoD services per year during this reference period.  Austria had the 
highest number of on-demand services available in the period 2015-2019 (162 services in 2016, 170 in 2017, 
213 in 2018, and 258 in 2019), followed by Poland (134 in 2016, 143 in 2017, 154 in 2018, and 138 in 2019), 
Spain (133 every year – no change during period), Netherlands (92 every year – no change during period), 
Czechia (77 every year), and France (75 every year). 

Compared with the previous monitoring exercise, all the countries reported full compliance with the quotas set 
by Articles 16 and 17 AVMSD (with variations between Member States in terms of average shares of European 
works, independent producers or recent works). As some countries do not impose obligations under Article 13 
AVMSD and others have no monitoring systems in place, it was not possible to provide a robust analysis of 
the implementation of Article 13. Some data were reported on the prominence methods used by non-linear 
service providers  in  Belgium (FR), Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Spain,  Finland,  Italy, Luxembourg, 
Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden and Slovakia. The display of European works on the homepage was 
the  most  used  method,  followed  by  the  use  of  trailers  and  banners.  Other  means  to  promote  prominence 
include highlighting domestic works or placing these works at the top, displaying the country of origin in the 
programme  guide,  promotion  through  social  media,  trailers  or  visuals  promoting  European  works  in  the 
“première”  section  of  the  catalogue,  specific  events  promoting  exclusively  European  works  through  social 
networks,  multiplatform  promotional  campaigns,  featuring  European  works  in  the  recommendations,  theme 
operations featuring both European works and non-European works, highlighting the EU origin of European 
works, European works displayed in marketing communications sent to users, etc. The use of social media 
was mentioned by many Member States that reported data on prominence. Only Belgium (FR) reported that it 
carries out verifications on whether European works are effectively given prominence in the on-demand service 
media catalogue.  

As  mentioned  above,  the  completeness  of  the  data  reporting  exercise  under  Articles  16  and  17  AVMSD 
allowed for a more thorough analysis. All countries (except for Bulgaria) reported that they granted exemptions 
during the reference period and the reasons were various: local and regional channels with small budgets and 
audience, sports and  news channels, channels falling below 0.3% audience share, niche content channels 
(e.g. religion), teleshopping channels. The implementation of the monitoring mechanisms to verify compliance 
with  Articles  16  and  17  identified  cases  of  non-compliance  in  some  Member  States.  The  most  recurrent 
reasons for non-compliance with the quotas are the small size of some channels which encountered difficulties 
due to marginal ratings, channel themes (e.g., a focus on Latin American or African content), etc. 

Lastly,  countries  have  reported  different  measures  adopted  or  planned  to  address  these  cases  of  non-
compliance.  Some  countries  issue  reminders  while  others  launch  investigatory  procedures  which  request 
explanations for non-compliance. In the latter case,  the regulatory authorities apply economic sanctions if the 
non-compliance is not addressed. Other countries, such as Portugal, provide continuous guidance to operators 
to help them fulfil their obligations (acknowledging at the same time the difficulties they face in applying the 
rules).  

88 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Volume 2 

89 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

6.  Changes in  the audiovisual  market in the  2015  –  2019 
period 

This section presents a description and analysis of the European audiovisual market between the years 2015 
and 2019. It provides key market figures, their trends over time and country patterns, as well as an overview 
of the major technological developments occurring in this period. Departing from the scope of the AVMSD, 
‘audiovisual market’ in this analysis covers the production of audiovisual works and their dissemination, via 
television broadcasting as a linear audiovisual media service, or via on-demand services. 

Our data sources are (i) Eurostat, which collects data on enterprise structure, key economic variables such as 
turnover, gross added value and employment, broken down by economic sector; and (ii) EAO, which publishes 
a range of standard tables on key metrics of the European audiovisual market as part of its yearbooks, as well 
as supplementary data on an ad-hoc basis (e.g. an analysis of independent productions). EAO data, in turn, 
is collected by different organisations54. Eurostat data on the sector is available up to 2018, while the latest 
published EAO figures refer to 2019. 

Although the United Kingdom had not left the EU by the end of the reference period, the data tables and charts 
show, where feasible, EU-level aggregations with both 27 and 28 Member States. Given the large relative size 
of the UK’s audiovisual market and markedly different trends in certain economic indicators, any analysis not 
accounting for the UK’s impact on the figures would have resulted in findings that are not characteristic for the 
EU in its post-2020 composition. 

6.1     The size of European audiovisual sector and its evolution  

6.1.1    

Revenues in the audiovisual sector 

The  combined  turnover  of  companies  operating  in  the  production  and  dissemination  of  audiovisual  works, 
according to Eurostat, amounted to 214,976 million euro in 2018 (141,863 million euro for the EU27), marking 
steady growth over the four years since 2015. This upward trend was slightly steeper than turnover expansion 
in  the  total  business  economy.  As  a  consequence,  the  weight  of  the  audiovisual  sector  in  the  business 
economy increased from 0.68% to 0.72%. Most of this relative increase occurred from 2015 to 2016, with the 
share of the sector remaining stable thereafter.  

For comparison, the weight of the sector in the UK – a major audiovisual market – was significantly larger than 
the weight of the sector in the EU27, reaching 1.71% of the economy in 2018. This, however, marked a slight 
decline from the preceding two years’ values, producing a negative trend between 2016 and 2018. 

54 Data  providers  such  as:  European  Broadcasting  Union  Media  Intelligence  Service  (EBU/MIS),  company  reports,  WARC,  Ampere 
Analysis, LUMIERE 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Million euro 

As % of the business economy55 

Figure 26 - Total turnover in the audiovisual sector (2015-2018) 

Source: Eurostat Structural Business Statistics 

The table below provides the source data, together with the average annual change (‘compound annual rate 
of growth’, CAGR). 

The audiovisual sector’s average yearly growth rate was 5.95% in the EU27 in the period covered, and 4.89% 
in the EU28 (including the UK) – the growth rates were in both cases higher than the average growth in turnover 
in the business economy as a whole.  

Table 17 – Total turnover in the audiovisual sector, EU with and without the UK  
(2015-2018, € million) 

Sector 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

Average 
annual 
change 
(CAGR) 

Audiovisual sector 

EU27 

UK 

EU28 

Total business economy 

EU27 

UK 

EU28 

Audiovisual sector share (%) 

EU27 

UK 

EU28 

119,281 

127,789 

132,951 

141,862 

67,014 

69,789 

71,855 

73,105 

186,295 

197,578 

204,806 

214,967 

5.95% 

2.94% 

4.89% 

22,921,984 

23,370,358 

24,640,361 

25,644,826 

3.81% 

4,348,297 

3,976,193 

4,057,888 

4,281,773 

-0.51% 

27,270,281 

27,346,551 

28,698,249 

29,926,599 

3.15% 

0.52 

1.54 

0.68 

0.55 

1.76 

0.72 

0.54 

1.77 

0.71 

0.55 

1.71 

0.72 

: 

: 

: 

Source: Eurostat Structural Business Statistics 

55 NACE code B-N_S95_X_K. Includes repair of computers, personal and household goods; excludes financial and insurance activities. 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

On  a  methodological  note,  the  Eurostat  data  presented  in  this  section  cover  four  sub-sectors  of  Eurostat’s 
NACE classification, as presented in the table below. These, in combination, approximate the scope of the 
AVMSD  by  covering  the  value  chain  of  audiovisual  works  from  production  to  distribution,  and  all  TV 
broadcasting activities, including on-demand services. Notably, sound recording and radio broadcasting have 
not  been  included.  The  four  NACE  sectors  also  include  distribution  to  film  theatres  and  physical  video 
distribution (these could not be filtered out as no further disaggregation was possible), which is not covered by 
the Directive – however, these activities only account for a relatively small proportion of indicator values and 
do not bias the analysis. 

Table 18 - NACE sectors included in the figures and their coverage 

Code 

NACE sector 

Coverage 

Motion picture, video and television 
programme 

J5911  

- production activities  

Production of motion pictures, videos, television programmes 
(televisions series, documentaries etc.), or television 
advertisements 

J5912  

- post-production activities  

J5913  

- distribution activities  

J6020  

Television programming and 
broadcasting activities 

Editing, film/tape transfers, titling, subtitling, credits, closed 
captioning, computer-produced graphics, animation and special 
effects, developing and processing motion picture film 

Activities of motion picture film laboratories and activities of 
special laboratories for animated films 

Activities of stock footage film libraries etc. 

Distributing film, video tapes, DVDs and similar productions to 
motion picture theatres, television networks and stations, and 
exhibitors 

Acquiring film, video tape and DVD distribution rights 

Creation of a complete television channel programme: purchased 
programme components (e.g. movies, documentaries etc.), self-
produced programme components (e.g. local news, live reports) or 
a combination thereof 

Programming of video-on-demand channels 

Data broadcasting integrated with television broadcasting 

Source: Eurostat, NACE Rev. 2, Statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community 56 

EAO  data  on  total  revenues  in  the  audiovisual  sector  show  different  values,  explained  by  the  different 
methodologies employed, although the trends over time are similar. According to the standard data tables in 
the  2020  Yearbook,  total  revenues  in  the  audiovisual  market  were  81,975  million  euro  in  the  EU27,  and 
115,129 million euro in the EU28. This aggregation has been specifically prepared for this study and is distinct 
from the headline figure given in the EAO  dataset. While it includes public funding, TV advertising, pay-TV 
revenues and on-demand pay revenues, like the EAO headline figure, it does not include radio advertising, 
cinema box office and physical video revenues, as these are not within the scope of AVMSD. 

The aggregated figures for the audiovisual market, calculated on the basis of EAO data, are around 40% lower 
for the EU27 than the Eurostat data on company turnover in the four sectors concerned as presented above 
(note that those include box office and physical video revenues), and around 70% lower in the case of the UK. 

Over the period covered by this study (2015-2019), audiovisual market revenues in the EU have grown by a 
yearly average of 3.4% in the EU27, and 2.3% in the EU28. This is a stronger growth rate than in the previous 
period (2010-2014) when the CAGR was 0.9%, and according to the 2020 EAO forecast, this rising trend is 

56 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/5902521/KS-RA-07-015-EN.PDF  

92 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

expected to continue57. It is noteworthy that revenues, in fact, decreased in the UK by an annual average rate 
of 1.8%.  

Table 19 – Total audiovisual revenues, EU with and without the UK (2015-2019, € million) 

Sector 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

Average 
annual 
change 
(CAGR) 

EU27 

UK 

EU28 

71,737 

20,305 

92,041 

74,223 

76,884 

79,652 

81,975 

3.4% 

19,316 

18,783 

18,891 

18,851 

-1.8% 

93,539 

95,667 

98,543 

100,826 

2.3% 

The three largest remaining members of the EU (DE, FR and IT) account together for more than half (53.1%) 
of the overall audiovisual revenues in the EU27 (43.2% of the EU28, including the UK). They were followed by 
Spain, Portugal, Poland and the Netherlands.  

Source: EAO 2020 Yearbook 

Figure 27 - Share of audiovisual market revenues broken down by Member State (+ UK) (EU28; percentage of total) 

Source: own calculations based on EAO 2020 Yearbook 

The figure below shows the average annual growth rate (CAGR) in the audiovisual market per Member State 
and the UK over the reference period (2015-2019). All countries but the UK have had a positive growth rate 
over the period studied. The sector grew most in Slovakia with an annual average rate of 18.5%, followed by 
Portugal with 14.1%, and Bulgaria with 12.2%. The lowest growth rates were recorded in the UK with -1.8% 
(i.e. a decline), Belgium with 0.2%, and France with 0.9%.  

57 Fontaine, G. and Kanzler M. (2020). Modelling audiovisual sector revenue flows in the EU and test case on impact of COVID-19 on 
industry revenue. European Audiovisual Observatory Working Paper, Strasbourg, July 2020 - Downloadable: https://rm.coe.int/modelling-
audiovisual-sector-revenue-flows-in-the-eu-and-test-case-on-/16809fd5e7  

93 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Figure 28 - Member States (+ UK) according to CAGR in the audiovisual market between 2015 and 2019 

Source: own calculations based on EAO 2020 Yearbook 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 20 – Total audiovisual revenues by Member State + UK (2015-2019, € million) 

ISO 

Country 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

2,084 

2,733 

608 

87 

851 

2,200 

2,676 

661 

93 

899 

2,332 

2,702 

736 

98 

984 

2,407 

2,733 

846 

102 

2,515 

2,758 

964 

110 

1,090 

1,200 

18,689 

19,175 

19,987 

20,508 

21,054 

1,907 

1,929 

115 

956 

5,038 

1,489 

122 

995 

5,435 

1,526 

1,975 

123 

1,010 

5,656 

1,564 

2,001 

128 

1,032 

5,882 

1,621 

2,017 

140 

1,057 

5,963 

1,671 

12,918 

12,791 

13,005 

13,245 

13,416 

367 

783 

987 

8,237 

130 

68 

104 

42 

3,186 

3,240 

2,752 

884 

2,525 

376 

581 

376 

809 

1,013 

8,905 

142 

71 

106 

42 

3,265 

3,199 

3,159 

930 

2,594 

408 

700 

385 

866 

1,040 

8,961 

150 

75 

111 

49 

3,240 

3,335 

3,672 

976 

2,590 

437 

823 

397 

874 

1,060 

9,204 

158 

76 

116 

51 

3,409 

3,535 

4,085 

1,037 

2,583 

446 

1,025 

409 

911 

1,072 

9,065 

166 

78 

118 

55 

3,523 

3,712 

4,657 

1,072 

2,671 

454 

1,146 

81,975 

18,851 

Average 
annual 
change 
(CAGR) 

4.8% 

0.2% 

12.2% 

6.0% 

9.0% 

3.0% 

1.4% 

5.1% 

2.6% 

4.3% 

2.9% 

0.9% 

2.7% 

3.9% 

2.1% 

2.4% 

6.4% 

3.6% 

3.3% 

7.2% 

2.5% 

3.5% 

14.1% 

4.9% 

1.4% 

4.8% 

18.5% 

3.4% 

-1.8% 

EU27 

EU 27 Member States 

UK 

United Kingdom 

EU28 

EU 28 Member States 

71,737 

20,305 

92,041 

74,223 

19,316 

93,539 

76,884 

18,783 

95,667 

79,652 

18,891 

98,543 

Source: EAO 2020 Yearbook 

6.1.2    

Revenues by source 

100,826 

2.3% 

The observed growth in revenues is mostly due to the growth in on-demand services. The revenue from these 
services  in  the  EU27  more  than  tripled  between  2015  and  2019  (from  1,750  million  to  6,407  million  euro), 
growing at an average pace of 38.3% per year, and contributing about 45% of the total 10 billion euro increase 
over the four years. This should be compared with the overall weight of this revenue source, which was still 
below 8% in 2019. 

Pay-TV and TV advertising revenues also continued to grow. These still remain by far the largest source of 
revenues in the sector. Revenues from public funding, on the other hand, continued to decline in the EU27 + 

95 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

UK, as also noted in the previous period. However, this overall decrease in public funding is explained by a 
significant fall of public funding in the UK (see more below).  

Table 21 – Total audiovisual revenues by source, EU with and without the UK  
(2015-2019, € million) 

Source 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

Public funding 

EU27 

20,635 

20,955 

21,038 

21,167 

21,413 

United Kingdom 

5,474 

4,898 

4,792 

4,648 

4,405 

EU28 

TV advertising 

EU27 

26,109 

25,853 

25,831 

25,815 

25,819 

23,683 

24,758 

25,632 

26,496 

26,701 

United Kingdom 

7,009 

6,204 

5,489 

5,335 

5,062 

EU28 

Pay-TV revenues 

EU27 

30,693 

30,962 

31,121 

31,831 

31,763 

25,669 

26,015 

26,840 

27,325 

27,454 

United Kingdom 

6,901 

6,965 

6,976 

7,051 

7,087 

EU28 

32,570 

32,980 

33,815 

34,376 

34,541 

On-demand revenues 

EU27 

United Kingdom 

EU28 

Total revenues 

EU27 

United Kingdom 

EU28 

1,750 

920 

2,670 

71,737 

20,305 

92,041 

2,494 

1,249 

3,744 

74,223 

19,316 

93,539 

3,373 

1,526 

4,900 

76,884 

18,783 

95,667 

4,664 

1,857 

6,521 

79,652 

18,891 

98,543 

Source: EAO 2020 Yearbook 

6,407 

2,297 

8,703 

81,975 

18,851 

3.4% 

-1.8% 

100,826 

2.3% 

Average 
annual 
change 
(CAGR) 

0.9% 

-5.3% 

-0.3% 

3.0% 

-7.8% 

0.9% 

1.7% 

0.7% 

1.5% 

38.3% 

25.7% 

34.4% 

The Slovak audiovisual market doubled in revenue in the period covered (from 645 million EUR to 1,242 million 
EUR). In absolute terms, the main reason for this growth is increased revenue from TV advertising which rose 
by 155% over the 5-year period.  

In Portugal, growth over the past five years has also been  substantial. As in Slovakia, this is mostly due to 
rising TV advertising revenue, which nearly doubled in the period.  

In the UK, on the other hand, TV advertising revenues declined together with public funding. 

In terms of sources of revenue, as mentioned above, while public funding experienced an overall decline, this 
does not apply to all the countries on an individual basis. The EU figure is strongly influenced by public funding 
cuts in the UK, where, public revenues declined by 4% CAGR. Over the 5-year period, this revenue shrank by 
20%  overall  in  the  UK.  Certain  countries  in  fact  saw  a  significant  increase  in  public  funding:  Poland  (21% 
CAGR), Lithuania (13% CAGR), and Estonia and Iceland (both 6% CAGR). In Germany and France public 
revenues stagnated.  

Several countries saw a large increase in revenues from TV advertising: Slovakia (21% CAGR), Portugal (14% 
CAGR), Bulgaria (13% CAGR) and Czechia (11% CAGR), while the UK and Belgium saw a notable decline 
(6% and 5% CAGR respectively). Revenues from pay TV grew in most countries except Denmark, France and 
the UK. 

When the data on VoD revenues is disaggregated by type of business model, we observe that SVoD services 
represent  the  vast  majority  of  VoD  revenues.  While  this  was  already  the  case  in  2015,  at  the  start  of  this 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

monitoring period, the prevalence of SVoD as the business model with greatest revenues further increased 
over the next five years, while retail and rental of content by transaction declined.  

TVOD - retail
10%

TVOD - rental
9%

SVOD
81%

TVOD - retail

TVOD - rental

SVOD

Figure 29 - VoD Share of revenues broken down by type of business model  
(2019; percentage of total) 

The figure shows VoD revenues broken down by type of business model between 2015 and 2019. SVoD had 
the biggest share across the five years, with at least 60% of revenues. During this period, this share increased 
from 61% in 2015 to 81% in 2019, extending the gap between SVoD and TVoD year on year. TVoD had a 
balanced  distribution  between  retail  and  rental  during  these  five  years.  The  small  gap  between  the  two 
narrowed between 2015 and 2017, after which retail  overtook rental in terms of revenue share. As SVoD’s 
revenue share increased during this period, TVoD’s share consequently decreased evenly between rental and 
retail.  

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

61%

22%

17%

2015

69%

17%

14%

2016

73%

77%

81%

14%

13%

2017

11%

11%

2018

9%

10%

2019

TVOD - retail

TVOD - rental

SVOD

Figure 30 - VoD Share of revenues broken down by type of business model (2015-2019; percentage of total) 

Source: EAO 2020 Yearbook 

Table below shows the revenues from VoD and provides deeper insights into VoD services by type of business 
model. Within the EU27, CAGR for the period 2015-2019 was 18.3% for TVoD retail, 9.3% for TVoD rental 
and  50.7%  for  SVoD,  bringing  the  total  CAGR  to38.3%.All  these  figures  are  significantly  higher  than 

97 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

corresponding figures for the UK, resulting in somewhat lower average annual growth rates for the EU27 + UK 
average.  

Table 22 - Revenues from VoD services by type of service 

EU28 

SVoD 

EU27 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

CAGR 2015 - 2019 

1,007.6 

1,650.2 

2,405.8 

3,562.4 

5,190.3 

50.7% 

United Kingdom 

633.1 

936.2 

1,191.3 

1,474.4 

1,902.9 

31.7% 

EU28 

TVoD retail 

EU27 

1,640.7 

2,586.4 

3,597.1 

5,036.8 

7,093.2 

44.2% 

294.4 

343.5 

425.7 

499.3 

577.3 

18.3% 

United Kingdom 

149.7 

182.8 

199.5 

241.4 

252.3 

13.9% 

EU28 

TVoD rental 

EU27 

444.1 

526.3 

625.3 

740.7 

829.6 

16.9% 

447.9 

500.8 

541.8 

602.6 

639.1 

9.3% 

United Kingdom 

137.5 

130.3 

135.6 

140.8 

141.6 

0.7% 

EU28 

585.4 

631.1 

677.4 

743.4 

780.7 

7.5% 

Video-on-demand total 

EU27 

1,749.8 

2,494.5 

3,373.3 

4,664.2 

6,406.7 

38.3% 

United Kingdom 

920.3 

1,249.4 

1,526.4 

1,856.6 

2,296.8 

25.7% 

EU28 

2,670.1 

3,743.8 

4,899.8 

6,520.9 

8,703.5 

34.4% 

Source: EAO 2020 Yearbook 

6.1.3    

Gross value added by the audiovisual sector 

The economic significance of any given economic sector is arguably better represented by the gross value 
added (GVA) it can generate. As for the  EU27, 37,594 million euro GVA were produced in the  audiovisual 
sector, increasing over the years, but at a far lower pace than turnover (this was especially true when data 
from the UK was added, where the trend over time was in fact negative).  

The relative weight of the audiovisual sector in terms of added value generated actually decreased. It went 
from 0.62% in 2015 to only 0.57% in 2018.  

98 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Million 

As % of total business economy 

euro

Figure 31 - Value added of the audiovisual sector (2015-2018) 

Source: Eurostat Structural Business Statistics 

The table below presents the data underlying the graphs above. The average annual growth rate of GVA in 
the audiovisual sector between 2015 and 2018 was negative in the EU27 + UK. However, this was due to the 
sharp decline of the sector in the UK. In the EU27, in contrast, the growth rate was positive (2.4%). The GVA 
growth rate was noticeably lower than that of the total business economy, which amounted to 3.7% in EU27 + 
UK and 5.3% in EU27. Consequently, the audiovisual sector share in the economy declined. 

Table 23 – Value added of the audiovisual sector, EU with and without the UK  
(2015-2018, € million) 

Sector 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

Average annual 
change (CAGR) 

Audiovisual sector 

EU27 

UK 

EU28 

Total business economy 

EU27 

UK 

EU28 

Audiovisual sector share (%) 

35,020 

20,121 

55,141 

34,836 

16,491 

51,326 

35,322 

12,365 

47,687 

37,594 

13,218 

50,811 

2.4% 

-13.1% 

-2.7% 

5,618,869 

5,880,208 

6,203,109 

6,557,554 

5.3% 

1,407,750 

1,303,775 

1,250,652 

1,296,350 

-2.7% 

7,026,619 

7,183,983 

7,453,761 

7,853,904 

3.8% 

EU27 

UK 

EU28 

0.62 

1.43 

0.78 

0.59 

1.26 

0.71 

0.57 

0.99 

0.64 

0.57 

1.02 

0.65 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

As seen for revenues, there are large differences between individual Member States in  terms of the relative 
importance of the production and distribution of audiovisual works. The sector plays a considerably larger role 
in France (1.15% of GVA generated in the business economy), but also in Croatia, Spain and Greece, than in 
the  EU27  on  average.  At  the  other  end  of  the  scale,  the  weight  of  the  sector  is  relatively  small  in  Finland, 
Slovenia, Belgium, Latvia and Lithuania. 

Figure 32 - Audiovisual sector share of all GVA produced in the economy, by Member State + UK (2018) 

Note:  Only  countries  with  data  for  all  of  the  four  NACE  sectors  in  scope  have  been  included.  
Source: Eurostat Structural Business Statistics 

6.2     Businesses  operating  in  the  audiovisual  sector  and 
employment trends  

For  2018,  Eurostat  records  a  total  of  108,111enterprises  operating  in  the  four  sub-sectors  of  audiovisual 
production and dissemination. The lion’s share of these companies (86,865, or 80%) operated in production, 
and their number shows considerable growth over the four years between 2015 and 2018 with an increase of 
14,279 and an average annual growth rate of 6.1%. Consequently, this growth puts production in first position 
among  the  four  audiovisual  sub-sectors  in  terms  of  increase  in  the  number  of  companies.  The  number  of 
companies in distribution and in TV programming and broadcasting have in fact decreased over the reference 
period, according to Eurostat data. 

100 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Figure 33 - Number of enterprises in the audiovisual sector in the EU27 (20145-2018) 

Source: Eurostat 

Figure below breaks down the total number of enterprises in the  EU27 + UK audiovisual sector by country. 
Apart from the UK, which accounted for 17.8% of all companies, the countries hosting the largest numbers of 
companies  are  France  (14.6%),  the  Netherlands  (11.8%),  Germany  (6.9%),  Poland  (6.3%),  and  Sweden 
(6.0%).  The  sector  is  considerably  over-represented  in  the  Netherlands  and  Sweden  –  but  also  in  the  UK, 
Denmark and Hungary – in terms of its weight in all registered enterprises. 

Figure 34 - Share of enterprises in the audiovisual sector by Member State + UK, EU27 + UK (2018, percentage of total) 

Note: Includes projection activities (J59.14) for Czechia 

Source: Eurostat Structural Business Statistics 

The evolution of the number of enterprises active in the sector varied greatly across the countries: 

•  The  number  of  enterprises  in  audiovisual  production  services  grew  between  2015  and  2018  in  all 
countries  except  for  Greece  and  Slovakia.  The  largest  percentage  growth  occurred  in  Lithuania, 
Hungary and Cyprus.  

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

•  The  number  of  post-production  service  companies  grew  in  most  countries  but  declined  in  five 
(Belgium, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Austria). Lithuania, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia showed 
the highest growth rates. 

•  The  number  of  companies  in  distribution  services  declined  in  most  larger  markets  except  for  the 
Netherlands, where it grew by 60.2%. Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Romania, Poland and Ireland were 
also able to increase the number or registered companies in this sub-sector. 

•  The  decrease  in  the  number  of  companies  was  very  significant  in  Estonia,  France,  Slovenia  and 

Finland.  

• 

In television programming and broadcasting, the number of companies decreased in about half the 
countries from which data was available. The decrease was particularly significant in Estonia, France, 
Slovenia  and Finland. The highest rates of growth,  on the  other hand, were achieved  in  Lithuania, 
Germany, Slovakia and Cyprus. 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 24 – Change in the number of registered enterprises in the audiovisual sector, by 
Member State + UK and sub-sector (percentage change 2015/2018) 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus* 

Czechia* 

Denmark 

Estonia* 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia* 

Slovenia 

Spain* 

Sweden 

EU27 

United Kingdom 

EU28 

Change in the period 2015 – 2018  

Production  

Post-
production 

Distribution 

TV 
programming 
and 
broadcasting 

Audiovisual 
sector total 

16.0% 

26.2% 

14.8% 

15.5% 

54.8% 

: 

20.8% 

32.1% 

9.1% 

11.6% 

0.6% 

-3.9% 

58.5% 

: 

10.9% 

49.6% 

121.6% 

4.5% 

: 

27.2% 

31.9% 

33.1% 

37.4% 

-12.7% 

17.7% 

: 

10.2% 

19.7% 

13.8% 

18.5% 

-2.2% 

-19.5% 

25.4% 

21.4% 

: 

: 

3.4% 

2.0% 

13.1% 

-13.4% 

18.2% 

-7.2% 

74.2% 

: 

22.7% 

48.6% 

83.9% 

-6.5% 

: 

19.3% 

48.3% 

46.3% 

69.1% 

61.7% 

27.8% 

: 

16.2% 

15.0% 

6.1% 

13.6% 

-16.9% 

-1.5% 

-1.6% 

-9.1% 

: 

: 

0.0% 

-14.3% 

0.0% 

-21.2% 

-7.7% 

-17.5% 

-2.7% 

3.9% 

-8.8% 

35.3% 

28.6% 

-15.4% 

: 

60.2% 

6.8% 

-21.5% 

16.0% 

: 

16.7% 

: 

-16.5% 

-4.8% 

11.9% 

-2.1% 

-7.0% 

1.7% 

2.1% 

8.9% 

33.3% 

1.0% 

-20.5% 

-55.6% 

-24.0% 

-43.2% 

51.2% 

-2.9% 

-11.3% 

: 

-12.4% 

3.9% 

84.6% 

-13.3% 

: 

5.0% 

3.8% 

-7.5% 

-4.8% 

37.0% 

-28.1% 

-23.5% 

14.4% 

-7.2% 

5.0% 

-5.1% 

13.5% 

13.6% 

15.0% 

13.0% 

52.1% 

12.9% 

16.7% 

23.5% 

8.4% 

6.5% 

3.3% 

-5.2% 

49.8% 

12.0% 

8.7% 

39.8% 

109.7% 

-0.6% 

: 

25.2% 

32.2% 

31.3% 

33.2% 

31.8% 

10.4% 

10.5% 

10.2% 

16.9% 

12.3% 

16.0% 

* Includes motion picture projection activities  

Source: Eurostat Structural Business Statistics 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

6.2.1    
and distribution (J59) 

Breakdown  by  company  size-  production,  post-production 

This sub-section looks at the breakdown of enterprise statistics by size class, where delineation uses employee 
numbers according to the standard brackets in Eurostat as follows:58:  

•  Micro I: 0-1 employees 

•  Micro II: 2-9 employees 

•  Small I: 10-19 employees 

•  Small II 20-49 employees 

•  Medium: 50-249 employees 

•  Large: 250+ employees. 

As in the previous report, size class analysis is undertaken at the 2-digit level (J59, J60) as more granular data 
is not available for the EU, or indeed for most Member States, at Eurostat.  

As  in  all  economic  sectors,  micro-enterprises  represent  the  vast  majority  of  companies  in  the  audiovisual 
sector. The share of micro-enterprises has in fact grown since the previous reporting period from 96% to 97%. 
The increase of micro-enterprises occurs at the expense of companies with 10 to 19 employees and those 
with 20 to 49 employees. While these companies accounted for 3.37% in 2014, they now represent 2.71% of 
companies.  

In terms of the combined turnover and GVA achieved in the “Motion picture, video and television programme 
production, sound recording and music publishing activities” sector, the economic significance of SMEs is still 
considerable: in 2018, they accounted for a total of 73% of all turnover and 72% of all GVA generated in the 
EU27. Medium-sized enterprises are remarkably strong overall, almost reaching the same market share as 
large companies. However, the weight of large enterprises was much greater in the UK, reducing the weight 
of SMEs in the EU27 + UK significantly, to only 66% and 65% for combined turnover and GVA, respectively. 

Turnover 

Gross Value Added 

Figure 35 - Breakdown of turnover and GVA by company size in sector J59, EU with and without the UK (2018, 
percentage of total) 

Note:  the  weight  for  large  enterprises  in  the  EU27  has  been  imputed  based  on  EU27  and  UK  figures. 
Source: Eurostat Structural Business Statistics 

58 This is understood as the best available proxy in Eurostat datasets for the identification of SMEs, although it does not take into account 
turnover and balance sheet figures, public ownership, or linked enterprises. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

As shown in the graphs below, there were three Member States where no large enterprise was recorded at all 
by Eurostat in the sector “‘Motion picture, video and television programme production, sound recording and 
music  publishing  activities”.  Countries  with  no  large  companies  in  this  sector  are  Czechia,  Romania  and 
Croatia. In the remaining seven countries, the weight of SMEs was relatively high in terms of total turnover in 
Italy,  Poland  and  Greece,  at  around  the  EU  average  in  France,  and  lower  than  the  average  in  Sweden, 
Germany and Spain. In terms of GVA generated, SMEs in France and Sweden performed significantly better, 
while the weight of SMEs in Poland, Greece fell below the EU average. 

Turnover 

Gross Value Added 

Figure 36 - Breakdown of turnover and GVA by company size in sector J59, by Member State (2018, percentage of total) 

Source: Eurostat Structural Business Statistics 

The top 10 countries in terms of enterprise birth rates in this sector have changed only slightly by comparison 
with  the  top  10  in  2014.  Bulgaria  and  UK  are  no  longer  in  the  top  10  and  were  replaced  by  Lithuania  and 
Hungary. The order of countries and the actual birth rates in the top 10 have, however, changed substantially. 
Slovenia had a birth rate of 18% in 2014 and led on this indicator, but now has a 13% rate and is in 10th place. 
The leading country in these terms, Lithuania, did not appear in the top 10 in 2014.  

However, Lithuania is also the only country which has an enterprise death rate in this sector higher than the 
birth rate, meaning that more companies were closed than created in 2018. Portugal, on the other hand, which 
had a death rate higher than the birth rate in the previous reporting exercise (16%), now sees more companies 
being created than closed.  

The  country  with  the  highest  survival  rate  of  companies  after  five    years  in  this  dataset  is  Slovakia  (68%) 
followed by Slovenia (60%). Estonia and Romania also have a survival rate after five years that is above 50%.  

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

24%

20%

19% 18% 18% 17% 17%

15%

12%

7%

8%

16% 15% 14% 13%

11% 10%

10% 10%

7%

Birth rate

Death rate

Figure 37 - comparison of launch rate and termination rate in top 10 EU27 + UK - 2018 

Source: SBS, Eurostat 

85%

80%

88%

75%

88% 91%

77%

79%

72%

89%

84%

70%

49%

54%

43%

65%

66%

53%

42%

48%

56%

47%

42%

30%

66%

56%

68%

67% 63%

56% 60%

62%

49%

Survival rate t-1

Survival rate t-3

Survival rate t-5

* Estonian figures for 2017

Figure 38 - One-, three- to five-year survival rates top 10 EU27 + UK 2018 

Source: SBS, Eurostat 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

6.2.2    
programming (J60) 

Breakdown  by  company  size  –  broadcasting  and 

As  in  the  case  of  the  J59  sector  presented  above,  micro-enterprises  dominate  in  the  “‘Programming  and 
broadcasting activities” sector, although larger companies represent a somewhat higher share in this sector. 
The share of micro-enterprises has grown slightly since the last reporting (from 85% to 86.5%). The decline is 
most marked in the share of companies with between 20 and 49 employees (from 4.5% to 3.4%).  

However,  analysis  of  combined  turnover  and  GVA  by  company  size  shows  that  the  programming  and 
broadcasting sector is overwhelmingly dominated by large enterprises. In 2018 they accounted for 85% of both 
the  total  turnover  and  the  GVA  in  the  sector  in  the  EU27  (note  again  that  companies  with  less  than  250 
employees  may  still  be  large  enterprises  as  per  the  Commission’s  definition,  taking  into  account  turnover, 
balance sheet figures and linked enterprises). While SMEs registered in the UK  also show a smaller overall 
weight in this sector; the pattern is the opposite for GVA generation. 

Turnover 

Gross Value Added 

Figure 39 - Breakdown of turnover and GVA by company size in sector J60, EU with and without the UK (2018, 
percentage of total) 

Note:  the  weight  of  large  enterprises  in  the  EU27  has  been  imputed  based  on  EU27  and  UK  figures. 
Source: Eurostat Structural Business Statistics 

The breakdown by country of the data for the nine Member States for which we have sufficiently granular data 
shows  that  Slovenia  had  no  large  or  even  medium-sized  companies  in  this  sector.  SMEs  generated  a 
somewhat  higher  share  of  total  sectoral  turnover  than  the  EU  average  in  Romania,  Spain,  Germany  and 
Croatia, but a lower share in Italy, Poland and France. In terms of GVA, the relative performance of SMEs in 
Romania and Spain remained above average, joined by Bulgaria and Italy. 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

 Turnover 

Gross Value Added 

Figure 40 - Breakdown of total and GVA by company size in sector J59, by Member State (2018, percentage of total) 

Source: Eurostat Structural Business Statistics 

The birth as well as death rates in this sector are lower than in the production sector. The company birth rate 
for the top 10 countries ranges between 7% and 10% which is a relatively narrow bracket (narrower than in 
2014 when it ranged from 6% to 12%).  

Three of the countries in the top 10 for birth rate in fact had a higher death rate, meaning negative growth in 
company  numbers  (Bulgaria,  Sweden  and  Romania).  In  Bulgaria,  the  negative  difference  between  the  two 
indicators is particularly high. In two other countries (Lithuania and Spain), the two indicators were of the same 
value.  

Most  of  the  countries  have  a  strong  survival  rate  in  this  sector,  with  more  than  50%  of  companies  still  in 
existence five years after launch. This is particularly striking in Austria, where the survival rate after five years 
is 80%.  

21%

10% 10% 10% 9%

8%

2%

6%

9%

9%

11%

8%

8%

8%

10%

8%

8%

6%

7%

5%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Birth rate

Death rate

Figure 41 - Comparison birth rate vs death rate in top10 EU27 + UK – 2018 

Source: SBS, Eurostat 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

86% 83%

89% 100% 100%

93%

73%

75% 69%

71%

59%

50%

77%

80%

68%

62%

53%

57%

50%

50%

33%

25%

83%

66%

80%

61%

80%

75%

50%

25%

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Survival rate t-1

Survival rate t-3

Survival rate t-5

Figure 42 - One-, three- to five-year survival rates top10 EU27 + UK – 2018 

Source: SBS, Eurostat 

6.3     Employment in the audiovisual sector 

In 2018, nearly 900,000 persons were employed in the audiovisual sector overall – covering all sub-sectors. 
This is a notable increase since 2015.  

In  particular,  the  number  of  persons  working  in  production  increased  by  80,000,  from  460,100  in  2015  to 
540,800  in  2018.  This  increase  is  in  contrast  with  the  evolution  in  the  previous  reporting  period,  when  the 
number of employees stagnated at around 450,000 between 2011 and 2015.  

In comparison, distribution has seen a decline in employees from 366,800 in 2015 to 338,700 in 2018. This 
decline occurred primarily in the period 2015-2017.  

600

500

460.1

488.9

499.5

528.5

540.8

366.8

359.8

336.1

328.1

338.7

400

300

200

100

0

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Production

Distribution

Figure 43 - Number of workers in the AV sector (J59 and J60) in the EU27 + UK (thousands) – 2018 

Source: LFS, Eurostat 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

The countries with the highest share of employees in production are also the countries with the highest share 
of revenue – UK, France and Germany followed by Italy and Spain.  

25%

16.1%15.3%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

7.8% 7.2%

4.5% 4.1% 3.4%

2.3% 2.1%

Figure 44 - Percentage of EU27 + UK workers in the audiovisual production top 10 EU27 + UK – 2019 

Source: LFS, Eurostat 

In the distribution sector, the situation  is overall similar: the  UK  is well  ahead  of the remaining countries in 
terms of workforce. However, Spain, with around 8% of revenues, represents 12% of the workforce. Poland 
also has a relatively high workforce share compared with its share of revenues in this sub-sector.  

19.6%

12.2%

11.8%11.7%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

5.8% 5.6%

3.1% 2.6% 2.3% 2.2%

Figure 45 - Percentage of EU27 + UK workers in the AV distribution top10 EU27 + UK – 2019 

Source: LFS, Eurostat 

The data on workforce evolution in the production sub-sector at country level shows interesting trends: 

•  A significant part of the positive evolution in the period 2015-2018 is due to the workforce in the UK, 

which increased by over 30,000;  
In France the workforce was relatively stable between 2015 and 2018 but increased rapidly in 2019;  
In Germany, on the other hand, there was growth in 2017-2018 but a decline between 2018 and 2019;  

• 
• 
•  Spain saw a large increase in workforce between 2015 and 2017, which then declined until 2019; 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

•  Poland and Italy saw their workforce in this sector decline;  
•  Smaller markets like the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium but also Hungary and Czechia saw relatively 

high growth in staff numbers..  

Table 25 - Number of workers in the audiovisual production (J59) in top 10 EU27 + UK (in 
thousands) 

In the distribution sub-sector, the national trends are quite different:  

Source: LFS, Eurostat 

•  Most countries saw a decline in staff numbers in the period 2015-2018 (UK, DE, FR, PL, IT, SE);  
•  However, a few countries saw an increase from 2018 to 2019 (UK, FR, IT) 
•  Austria has seen growth in employment throughout this period.  

Table 26 - Number of workers in the audiovisual distribution (J60) in top10 EU27 + UK (in 
thousands) 

Source: LFS, Eurostat 

As in the previous monitoring report, the audiovisual sector  is still a relatively youthful sector. The share of 
young people (below the age of 40) in this sector is substantially higher than their share in the total economy 
(53% compared with 41% in 2019). This is particularly the case in production (where 58% of employees are 
aged below 40) and less so in distribution (with 44% staff below 40). The share of young people in this sector 
has been relatively stable.   

111 

20152016201720182019United Kingdom103.30        120.60      118.90      131.20      135.30      France70.40          72.30        69.40        72.90        87.00        Germany81.00          77.90        82.30        88.80        82.60        Italy46.50          43.30        41.90        40.80        42.10        Spain31.10          38.70        46.90        40.60        38.80        Netherlands18.10          22.60        25.70        25.40        24.50        Sweden15.50          15.00        14.50        16.80        22.00        Poland24.10          20.50        17.40        21.80        18.40        Belgium10.50          13.00        13.30        17.50        12.30        Hungary4.50            7.20          5.40          7.60          11.50        Czechia6.70            9.10          9.40          9.40          9.60          20152016201720182019United Kingdom78.00          73.30        65.10        62.70        66.30        Spain44.30          43.90        41.40        44.20        41.20        Germany46.30          41.30        41.40        44.80        40.00        France35.00          33.30        33.40        30.00        39.70        Poland23.50          20.90        21.70        20.00        19.70        Italy17.90          17.00        13.60        13.40        19.00        Greece8.80            9.50          10.50        8.40          10.50        Austria5.70            7.40          7.40          6.40          8.90          Croatia7.00            7.30          5.10          7.50          7.80          Czechia10.00          9.40          9.40          10.10        7.50          Sweden8.70            8.80          9.20          7.30          7.50           
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

As shown below, the vast majority of staff in this sector are aged from 25 to 49. The share of young staff (below 
the age of 25) has increased slightly in the past five years, and so has the share of employees aged over 50. 

60%

55%

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

56%

52%

46%

43%

55%

51%

45%

42%

57%

52%

45%

42%

55%

50%

41%

42%

2015

2016

2017

Total economy EU 28
Distribution

2018

Production
Total AV

58%

53%

44%

41%

2019

Figure 46 - Trends in share of young people (15-39 years) working in the AV sector (J59 and J60) and the whole 
economy, EU27 + UK 

Source: LFS, Eurostat 

2019

9.6%

68.2%

20.7%

1.6%

2015

8.3%

71.0%

19.2%

1.5%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

From 15 to 24 years

From 25 to 49 years

From 50 to 64 years

65 years or over

Figure 47 - Composition of the workforce by age groups in the AV sector (J59 and J60) years 2019 and 2015 

Source: LFS, Eurostat 

The participation of women in the audiovisual sector is  lower than in the overall economy in the EU. While 
women represented on average 46% of employees in the economy as a whole in 2019, they were only 38% 
in  the  audiovisual  sector.  There  is  an  important  difference  in  women’s  participation  in  the  production  and 
distribution sub-sectors. The share of women in distribution is slightly lower than in the overall economy (43% 
compared with 46%). However, only 35% of employees in the production sector are women. The participation 
of women in the production sector has actually been declining over time. There were 39% of women in 2012 
and since then the trend has been downward. The share of women in distribution, on the other hand, grew 
from 39% in 2013 to 46% in 2017 but has declined again in the past two years (2018 and 2019).  

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

46%

41%

40%

38%

46%

43%

38%

35%

46%

46%

40%

36%

46%

44%

38%

34%

46%

43%

38%

35%

48%

46%

44%

42%

40%

38%

36%

34%

32%

30%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Total economy EU 28
Distribution

Production
Total AV

Figure 48 - Trends in share of women working in the AV sector (J59 and J60) and the whole economy, EU27 + UK 

Source: LFS, Eurostat 

The  evolution  of  women’s  participation  in  the  audiovisual  sector  has  seen  a  particularly  negative  trend  in 
Czechia, where it fell from 50% in 2015 to 30% in 2018, though it rose again to 40% in 2019. In Denmark too 
the trend was downward, from 42% to 33%. Belgium and Spain saw an increase of women’s employment in 
the years from 2015 to 2017, followed by a decline in 2018 and 2019.  

Table 27 - Share of women in the workforce of the AV sector (J59 and J60) in selected 
Member States + UK and in the EU27 + UK (2015 and 2019) 

Source: LFS, Eurostat 

113 

20152016201720182019EU 2840%38%40%38%38%Belgium34%42%44%43%34%Czechia50%43%37%33%40%Denmark42%31%38%34%33%Germany46%45%45%42%44%Spain38%41%45%41%39%France36%38%37%37%38%Italy35%32%36%34%40%Netherlands33%34%39%32%37%Poland41%36%40%39%42%Sweden36%42%35%31%34%United Kingdom38%34%41%35%35%*Selection is based on availability of data 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

6.4     Market trends and value chains  

This section presents the preliminary analysis of market trends.  It replicates the analysis made in the previous 
monitoring report.  

6.4.1    

Investment in original programming 

Traditionally public and private broadcasters were the main sources of investment in audiovisual productions. 
However,  as  already  noted  in  the  previous  monitoring  report,  the  investment  of  VoD  providers  in  original 
content has been growing and this trend has accelerated in the past five years.  

Subscription-  based  video  on  demand  (SVoD)  has  become  the  business  model  which  results  in  greatest 
revenues in this sector.   

The  previous  monitoring  report  used  a  one-off  EAO  study  analysing  IHS  data  to  analyse  the  evolution  of 
investment in original programming, focusing on the investments of linear services providers. That report found 
that 15.7 billion euro were invested in original production by public and private broadcasters in 2013. In 2020, 
EAO conducted another detailed analysis of investments, also including SVoD services59. Extrapolating the 
data from this 2020 study, we can estimate that the overall investment of linear services providers in the period 
2014-2019 increased from a total of 15.7 billion euro to 18.4 billion euro.  

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0
2008

15.4

15.5

15.7

15.9

15.7

8.3

8.4

8.3

8.3

8.3

7.1

7.1

7.4

7.6

7.4

18.4

9.7

8.7

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Public broadcasters

Private broadcasters (Free)

Total

Figure 49 - Investment in original programming: total, public and private broadcasters (2014-2019) – in EUR billion 

Source (EAO, 2015), (EAO, 2020b) 

However, this figure (and the figure in the previous monitoring report) appears incomplete as it only includes 
public broadcasters and (free-to-air) private broadcasters. The recent study60 by the EAO models investments 
in  European  original  content,  providing  estimated  figures  for  2019  and  some  forecasts  for  2020  and  2021, 
assessing the impact of COVID-19 and also capturing the contribution of pay private broadcasters as well as 
SVoD and cinema distributors. The EAO report estimates that the  total investment in 2019 was 30.3 billion 
euro, falling to 27.2 billion euro by 2020. This excludes investments made in the UK and thus covers EU27.  

59 EAO (2020). Modelling audiovisual sector revenue flows in the EU and test case on impact of COVID-19 on industry revenue. See at: 
https://rm.coe.int/modelling-audiovisual-sector-revenue-flows-in-the-eu-and-test-case-on-/16809fd5e7  

60 EAO (2020) Modelling audiovisual sector revenue flows in the EU and test case on impact of COVID-19 on industry revenues 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 28 - European original content financing revenue (excluding news) (EU27, billion 
euro) 

Financing of 
original European 
content (excluding 
acquisition and 
news) 

Public funds 

Public broadcasters 

Public broadcasters 
(free) 

Public broadcasters 
(pay) 

SVoD services 

Cinema distributors  

2019 

2020 

2020 vs 
2019 

2021 

2021 vs 
2019 

Cumulated 
loss of 
revenues  

1.3 

9.7 

8.7 

9.7 

0.4 

0.5 

1.2 

9.1 

7 

9.2 

0.5 

0.1 

-0.1 

-0.6 

-1.7 

-0.5 

0.1 

-0.3 

-3.1 

1.2 

8.8 

8 

9 

0.7 

0.2 

27.9 

-0.1 

-0.9 

-0.7 

-0.7 

0.2 

-0.1 

-2.3 

-0.2 

-1.5 

-2.4 

-1.2 

0.4 

-0.5 

-5.4 

Source: (EAO, 2020b) 

Total 

30.3 

27.2 

It is estimated that worldwide, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Hulu invested 19.5 billion dollars in original 
productions in 2018 (equivalent to 16.25 billion euro). This includes investments in major worldwide markets 
including  the  US  and  therefore  the  EU  is  likely  to  represent  only  a  fraction  of  this  value.  However,  what  is 
interesting is the shape of the curve, which shows a clear upward trend in original content production notably 
by Netflix, with a strong acceleration in the period 2017-2018.  

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

3

1.5

1

3.5

2

1.5

5

3

2

2014

2015

2016

2.5

1

1

2013

6

4.5

2.5

2017

Hulu

Amazon Prime Video

Netflix

12

5

2.5

2018

Figure 50 - Content investment of major subscription-video-on-demand (SVoD) services from 2013 to 2018 (in billion 
U.S. dollars) 

Source: Parrot Analytics - Global Television Demand Report 2018, page 6 – From Statista 

The  figure  below  shows  a  comparison  between  the  number  of  European  SVoD  titles  produced  and  the 
revenues from VoD services, notably SVoD services. In the absence of exact data on SVoD investments, it 
shows that there is a positive relationship between the growth in SVoD revenues and the increase in original 
SVoD productions.  

115 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

CAGR 35%

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
2013

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
2020

s
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
p
D
O
V
S
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

f
o

r

N

n
o

i
l
l
i

M
€

SVOD revenues

Total VOD revenues

TVOD revenues

Nr of European SVOD titles produced

Figure 51 -Total VoD revenues, SVoD revenues, and investment in exclusive online content in top 10 EU countries 2014-
2020 – million Euro 

Source: (EAO, 2019a; EAO, 2021) 

6.4.2    

Production budgets  

In  the  figure  below,  we  replicated  the  analysis  made  by  EAO  in  2015  and  cited  in  the  previous  monitoring 
report, which shows the evolution of average film production budgets.  

The average production budget in the EU27 + UK dropped markedly in 2015 to 87% of its 2014 value  but it 
regained ground in the subsequent years.  

However, at country level the trends are different. In Germany, the average budget dropped drastically from 
2014 to 2015 and while it rose again later, it returned to the 2014 value. France on the other hand saw a peak 
in average budgets in 2016 after which the values dropped again, falling below 2014 values. In Italy and the 
Netherlands, the average budget remained relatively stable. It increased slightly in Spain, Sweden and the UK.  

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Figure 52 - Average feature film production budgets in selected Member States (+ UK) (2014-2018) in EUR million (EAO, 
2019a; EAO, 2020a) 

Figure 53 - Median feature film budget in the United Kingdom (UK) from 2014 to 2018, by production type (in million 
EUR) 

117 

(1) Fiction films only.(2) Minority co-productions included.(3) French initiative films only.(4) Median (instead of average) UK domestic production budget(5) excluding inward investment productions ranging from € 8.4 million in 2015 to € 14.7 million in 2018Source: EAO, 2019a; EAO, 202a0.310.390.350.340.780.8500.51201420152016201720182019€ MillionYearUK: average film production budgets (4) (5) 1.821.681.841.732.07024201420152016201720182019€ MillionYearNL: average film production budgets (1)1.92.042.081.812.42.4024201420152016201720182019€ MillionYearIT: average film production budgets (1)2.3323.182.662.692.76024201420152016201720182019€ MillionYearSE: average film production budgets (1)2.92.832.973.082.793.41024201420152016201720182019€ MillionYearES: average film production budgets (2)6.93.13.93.1340510201420152016201720182019€ MillionYearDE: average film production budgets (1) (2)3.944.385.474.94.043.760510201420152016201720182019€ MillionYearFR: average film production budgets (2) (3)10.870.980.991.050.98012201420152016201720182019€ MillionYearEU Average: film production budgets 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Source: EAO, 2019a; EAO, 2020a 

6.4.3    

Independent producers 

The table below gives a breakdown of fiction productions – including both films and TV series - by title and by 
total hours for 2018 for dependent and independent productions. Independent productions are those which 
are  produced  by  a  production  company  not  under  the  control  of  the  broadcaster  commissioning  the 
programme61.  The  underlying  data  used  has  been  provided  by  the  European  Metadata  Group,  from  their 
analysis of the programming schedules of 176 TV channels and on-demand services (the respective TV and 
SVoD audience leaders in the European countries tracked). The figures are only a proxy for the EU27 + UK, 
as  the  countries  EMG  tracks  is  a  broader  group  including  Norway,  Switzerland,  countries  of  the  Western 
Balkans, as well as Russia, Belarus, the Ukraine and Turkey. 

The analysis shows that independent  productions accounted for most titles and hours produced in Europe. 
They accounted for 77% of all fiction titles and 81% of TV titles with 2-13 episodes in 2018.  

Figure 54 - Breakdown of dependent and independent fiction productions (by title and by hour) for 2018 (percentage of 
total) 

Source: European Audiovisual Observatory analysis of the European Metadata Group data 

61 Note that a more restrictive  

118 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

6.4.4    

Distribution  

Access to digital TV reception has not changed dramatically since the previous monitoring report. The lowest 
rate is still around 63% and Sweden and Romania remain the countries with the lowest rate of access to digital 
TV. 

Figure 55 - Digital TV reception in Europe 2020 - Total digital TV households / Total TV households 
Source: EAO, 2019a 

Table  below  shows  that  since  2014  access  to  television  has  increased  through  both  cable  (from  15%  of 
households to 21%) and internet (from 13% to 19%). The share of households with analogue-only access has 
declined from 11% to 4%.  

 Cable

 Satellite

 DTT

 IPTV

21%

19%

15%

19%

18%

13%

29%

29%

33%

28%
28%
29%

 Analogue only

4%

5%

11%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2019

2018

2014

Figure 56 - Methods of receiving television 

Source: EAO, 2019a; EAO, 2020a 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

In the period between 2015 and 2019, the number of television channels declined substantially. For example, 
while in 2015 there were close to 1000 channels established in Italy, in 2019 there were only 247. The biggest 
decreases in TV channels from 2015 to 2019 were found in Italy, the UK, Hungary, and France.  

The United Kingdom had the highest number of TV channels  in 2015 with 1,640 and in 2019 with 1,028. In 
2019, the countries with the highest number of TV channels after the UK were the Netherlands (476), Germany 
(383) and Spain (334).  

120 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

47
0

3

1

1,640

861

778

653

1,028

622

555

476

472

554

263

107

60 49

57 39
13 27 27 28 30 34 36

38

20

29 144

47 47

69

57 58 62

80

113 122

69 79

342

269

134 173 238

116 123 129 149 157 166 186 220 247 287

143

132

302

334 383

2019

2015

Figure 57 - TV channels established by Member State + UK (2015 and 2019) 

EAO 2020 and 2015 Yearbook 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

The decline in the supply of television channels is also apparent from a breakdown of TV channels by genre. 
With  the  increased  use  of  the  internet  and  possibilities  for  content  creation  and  sharing,  the  supply  of 
specialised TV channels has dropped radically. TV music channels, for example, declined by two-thirds from 
849 to 277.  

Parliamentary/ Government/ Administration

Religious

Cultural/ educational

Adult

Home shopping

News/ Business

Other/ not identified

Music

Documentary

Lifestyle/ leisure/ health/ travel

Children

Entertainment

Film and TV fiction

Sport

Generalist

38

18

87

92

96

275

241

501

184

106

166

138

215

277

277

282

406

585

950

849

333

326

499

707

790

675

691

1108

985

822

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2015

2019

Figure 58 - TV channels by genre – evolution 2015-2019 

Source EAO 2020 and 2015 Yearbook 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

96%

85%

78%

75%
74%

68%

63%

60%
60%
59%

57%

55%
54%
52%

50%

48%
48%

39%
38%

33%

28%
28%

24%

18%

16%
15%

10%

8%
6%

4%

BE (DGB)
LT
BE (CFB)
IE
HU
EE
LU
SI
SE
LV
DK
FI
BE (VLG)
SK
CY
PL
PT
CZ
HR
RO
AT
BG
FR
NL
GR
MT
DE
ES
IT
GB

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Share of foreign channels by country

Figure 59 - Foreign channels as share of total channels available by Member State + UK 

Source: EAO, 2020a 

6.4.5    

TV revenues 

As in the previous report, we differentiate between public funding, advertising revenues and pay TV revenues. 
As shown below, public funding revenues remained relatively stable between 2015 and 2019, while revenues 
from both advertising and subscriptions increased markedly.  

123 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

€ million 

2015 = 100 

Figure 60 - Evolution of the linear audiovisual market in the EU27 (2015-2019) 

Source: EAO, 2019a; EAO, 2020a 

Germany, the UK and France had the highest linear television revenues in absolute terms. However, in terms 
of  revenues  by  household,  Portugal  is  significantly  ahead  of  all  other  EU  countries  and  the  UK.  As  shown 
below this is largely due to the growth of advertising revenues.  

Table 29 - Revenues from the linear television market in the EU by Member State + UK, by 
household and in total  

Portugal has seen a particularly strong increase in revenues. Figure below shows the evolution of linear TV 
revenues in Portugal between 2015 and 2019. Across the years, TV advertising has always been the major 

124 

Country€ per hh€ million revenuesCountry€ per hh€ million revenuesPT959              4,593          CY304              106              IE630              1,012          BG299              944              UK609              16,554        ES276              5,412          SK595              1,127          HR269              397              AT593              2,371          MT265              53                DK576              1,644          PL255              3,467          FI545              1,487          LU253              71                SI514              441              GR237              1,014          BE492              2,585          CZ233              1,155          DE438              19,105        HU208              881              FR392              12,540        EE174              135              NL389              3,059          RO123              1,023          SE373              2,289          LT117              152              IT338              8,395          LV99                112               
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

source of revenue,  increasing  each year. Overall,  linear TV revenues in  Portugal have  increased, by more 
than 50% between 2015 and 2019.  

Development of linear TV revenues in Portugal

n
o

i
l
l
i

m
€

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

794.8

3,070.8

757.5

2,711.6

834.7

3,578.7

722.1

2,252.2

681.2

1,895.7

168.3

2015

168.6

2016

176.4

2017

179.2

2018

179.2

2019

Public funding

Advertising TV

Pay-TV revenues

Figure 61 – Evolution of linear TV revenues in Portugal 

Advertising represents  a major source of revenues for linear services.  As shown below, overall advertising 
expenditure  increased  in  the  period  2015  –  2019.  However,  the  increase  has  been  most  notable  in  digital 
advertising,  which  grew  by  13%  on  annual  basis  (CAGR).  Television  advertising  growth  has  been  slow  – 
accounting for 1% annual growth (CAGR). It was slower than in the outdoor or radio sectors.   

 120,000

 100,000

n
o

i
l
l
i

m
€

 80,000

 60,000

 40,000

 20,000

CAGR 13%

CAGR 3%

CAGR 2%

CAGR

1%

CAGR -8%
CAGR -7%

 -

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Newspapers

Magazines

 Television

 Radio

 Cinema

 Outdoor

 Internet

Figure 62 - Advertising expenditures by media in the European Union - EUR million 

Source: EAO, 2020a 

As noted above, the revenues from subscriptions to pay TV have also grown in the past five years and this 
reflects the growth in the number of subscribers to pay TV. The number of subscribers grew by 7% between 
2015 and 2019.  

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

202 

201 

198 

194 

189 

 180

 185

 190

 195

 200

 205

€ million

Figure 63 - Number of subscribers to pay TV in EU 28 - Number of subscribers (in millions) 

Source: EAO, 2020a 

There are 10 Member States of the EU where 75% of more households have access to pay TV. These are: 
Romania, Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Malta, Portugal, Sweden, Poland, Hungary and France. In absolute 
numbers France and Germany have the highest number of subscribers to pay TV. Given the relatively low 
penetration rate of pay-TV in the UK, the absolute number of UK subscribers is much lower than in these two 
countries. Nevertheless, the UK has highest revenues from pay subscriptions – likely due to the pay channels 
established in the UK but available in other countries.  

95%

93%

89%
89%

86%
85%
85%
85%
84%

82%

RO
NL
BE
FI
MT
PT
SE
PL
HU
FR
SI
SK
DK
IE
EE
BG
GB
HR
DE
AT
LU
LV
LT
CY
CZ
ES
GR
IT

44%

38%

34%

25%

21%

75%

73%
73%

71%

69%

67%

60%
59%
58%

56%

55%

52%
52%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 64 - Countries with the highest pay-TV penetration rate in Europe in 2019       

Source: EAO, 2020a 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 30,000

 25,000

 20,000

0
0
0
x

 15,000

 10,000

 5,000

 -

AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

3
2
2
,
6
2

1
8
4
,
5
2

0
9
1
,
6
1

4
0
5
,
1
1

7
3
9
,
7

9
7
2
,
7

1
4
6
,
6

7
1
2
,
5

8
7
2
,
5

7
6
6
,
4

7
7
0
,
4

2
7
5
,
3

2
5
1

3
5
1

3
7
1

3
3
5

0
9
5

4
4
6

7
7
6

7
7
8

9
6
8
,
1

5
8
0
,
2

8
0
1
,
2

1
5
2
,
2

2
2
4
,
2

7
6
0
,
1

7
3
1
,
1

2
9
3
,
1

LU CY MT EE LV SI LT HRGR IE SK CZDKBG AT FI HU PT BE SE IT ES NL RO PL GBDE FR

Figure 65 - Number of subscribers to pay TV in Europe as of 2019 

Source: EAO, 2020a 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

7
8
0
,
7

0
2
0
,
1 6
0
0
,
5

4
6
9
,
8 2
3
0
,
2

0
1
6
,
1

3
1
6
,
1

7
7
2
,
1

4
3

4
3

2
5

4
5

9
5

7
6

6
2
1

3
6
1

5
9
1

1
0
2

2
2
2

9
5
2

4
2
5

4
6
5

6
6
5

2
0
4

9
5
7

5
3
8

3
8
8

0
3
9

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

n
o

i
l
l
i

m
€

T
M

Y
C

U
L

V
L

T
L

E
E

R
H

I
S

G
B

K
S

R
G

Z
C

U
H

E
I

T
A

I

O F
R

T
P

K
D

E
S

E
B

L
N

S
E

L
P

T
I

R
F

E
D

B
G

Figure 66 - Pay TV revenues in EU27 + UK in 2019 

Source: EAO, 2020a 

As shown below, the evolution of pay TV subscriptions is largely due to the increase of  VoD subscriptions. 
While  in  2015  subscriptions  to  VoD  accounted  for  5%  of  pay  TV  revenues,  they  represent  17%  of  pay  TV 
revenues in 2019. Revenues from satellite have on the other hand been declining (from 43% to 35%) and the 
same applies to cable subscriptions (from 30% to 26%).  

n
o

i
l
l
i

m
€

 45,000

 40,000

 35,000

 30,000

 25,000

 20,000

 15,000

 10,000

 5,000

 -

5%

43%

30%

18%

4%

2015

7%

41%

29%

19%

4%

2016

10%

39%

28%

19%

3%

2017

13%

17%

37%

35%

27%

26%

20%

3%

2018

20%

2%
2019

VOD

Satelite

Cable

IPTV

DTT

Figure 67 - Pay-TV revenue in Europe between 2014 and 2018 in billion USD – breakdown by distribution method 

Source: EAO, 2020a 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  number  of  satellite  pay-TV  subscribers  is  declining,  satellite  pay  TV  still 
represents an important source of subscription revenues. The numbers of subscribers to satellite pay TV are 
highest in the UK, Poland and Germany. While in certain countries this revenue has been stable over time 
(UK, PL, RO, BG), it has declined in Spain, Hungary and the Netherlands. However, it has risen in Slovakia, 
Netherlands and Germany.  

n
o

i
l
l
i

m
€

 10,000

 9,000

 8,000

 7,000

 6,000

 5,000

 4,000

 3,000

 2,000

 1,000

 -

9
9
4
,
9

4
1
2
,
6

9
5
7
,
5

0
6
6
,
4

5
4
4
,
4

3
6
3
,
  2
6
3
0
,
1

2
3

3
3

4
3

7
3

4
5

2
1
1

2
9
1

8
9
1

4
6
4

4
2
5

4
5
5

7
8
5

3
2
6

2
4
6

5
2
7

8
6
7

2
8
7

9
5
8

FI EE SI LV LT DK HR BE PT SE ES AT CZ NL HU SK IE GR BG RO FR IT DE PL GB

Figure 68 - Revenue coming from satellite pay-tv subscribers in Europe (in thousands) 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

The  revenues  from  internet  protocol  television  are  by  far  the  highest  in  France,  followed  by  Spain  and 
Germany. Indeed, France has highly developed IPTV provision with very high penetration of this service62.  

n
o

i
l
l
i

m
€

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

8
7
8
,
2

9
5
0
,
1

5
8
0
,
1

2
9 1

3
1

3
1

5
1

5
1

1
2

2
2

2
2

5
2

8
2

1
3

4
3

4
4

3
5

6
6

9
8

3
9

6
2
4

5
3
4

0
7
4

8
1
8 4
3
2

9
0
2

3
3
2

0
6
6 1
9

O
R

T
I

S
I

T
M

R
G

E
I

U
L

E
E

Y
C

V
L

T
L

G
B

T
A

K
S

Z
C

R
H

I
S

L
P

I

U F
H

O
N

K
D

E
S

E
B

T
P

L
N

B
G

E
D

S
E

R
F

Figure 69 - IPTV revenues in Europe – million EUR (EAO, 2020a) 

6.4.6    

Video-on-demand  

There are relatively few data on the use (penetration) of transaction-based VoD (TVoD). However, as shown 
earlier, this model represents a smaller share of services in terms of revenues. Subscription-based VoD has 
grown sharply since the previous monitoring report. As shown below, SVoD is dominated by two main players 
in terms of subscriber numbers: Netflix and Amazon  Prime.  However, there is a relatively large number of 
other players.  

62 https://videoweek.com/2019/12/12/is-frances-iptv-market-holding-back-ott-innovation/  

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

1
9
0
,
4
3

60,000

50,000

2
0
5
,
8
4

s
r
e
b
i
r
c
s
b
u
s
0
0
0

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

8
8
7
,
6

9
2
2
,
3

0
0
2
,
3

6
6
4
,
2

2
7
2
,
2

6
0
1
,
2

5
6
8
,
1

0
5
7
,
1

1
2
5
,
1

9
8
4
,
1

6
1
3
,
1

9
4
0
,
1

7
3
9

0
2
9

2
7
7

8
0
7

9
6
6

3
5
6

1
0
6

1
0
6

0
0
6

5
8
4

0
2
4

0
7
2

7
6
2

0
6
2

1
4
2

4
3
2

1
3
2

2
5
1

8
2
1

5
2
1

4
2
1

1
9

9
4

)
a
(

)
b
(

O
B
H

l

y
a
P
a
V

i

i

u
b
v
T

i

)
b
(

l
l

e
c
k
r
u
T

N
Z
A
D

)
a
(

)
a
(

)
a
(

x

i
l
f
t
e
N

n
o
z
a
m
A

+
V
T

l

e
p
p
A

V
T
w
o
N
/
e
n

i
l

n
O
y
k
S

)
b
(

)
c
(

i

v
I

V
T
u
B

l

)
a
(

l

y
a
p
D

w
o
N
V
T

A
L
P
I

t
e
s
a
d
e
M

i

e
m
o
d
x
a
M

)
c
(

i

a
k
e
t
a
d
e
m
A

n
o
i
s
i
V
m
T

i

l

d
n
a
o
e
d
V

i

o
y
o
V

e
r
o
m
C

l

p
.
r
e
y
a
P

l

y
a
P

l

2
V
T

o
m
u
S

2
V
T

+
b
u
H
V
T
I

)
d
(

o
g
o
g
e
M

o
k
c
O

+
u
t
u
u
R

l

p
.
a
d
c

)
c
(

)
f
(

n
e
t
u
k
a
R

s
u
P

l

V
T
N

)
a
(

)
e
(

e
f
i

L

y
e
n
s
i
D

t
c
e
n
n
o
C
N
I
e
b

i

m
u
m
e
r
P

l

r
e
y
a
p
s
e
r
t
A

s
u
P

l

l

e
e
t
i

M

3
o
G

s
t
r
o
p
S

n
e
v
e
E

l

Figure 70 - Number of subscribers to the main international and European OTT SVoD players 

Source: EAO, 2020a 

As shown below, the growth of consumer revenues from VoD services (both TVoD and SVoD) has been steep 
in the past five years – every year the sector has seen around 30% year-on-year growth. The UK, Germany 
and France are the countries, which account for highest share of these revenues and all three have seen  a 
strong upward trend. These are followed by Italy, Spain, Netherlands and the Nordic countries.  

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

N
O
I
L
L
I
M
€

 10,000

 9,000

 8,000

 7,000

 6,000

 5,000

 4,000

 3,000

 2,000

 1,000

 -

6,811 

402 
391 

627 

1,492 

1,857 

5,131 

274 
240 
471 

1,115 

1,526 

3,922 

381 

783 

1,249 

2,810 

309 
535 

920 

9,055 

551 

670 

876 

1,949 

2,297 

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

GB

DE

FR

IT

ES

NL

SE

DK

NO

PL

YoY change

Figure 71 - Total on-demand Consumer Revenues – € million by year and Member State + UK – 2015-2019, year-on-
year change shown in trend line (axis on the right) 

Source: EAO, 2020a 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

As shown below Germany, France and the UK have the highest number of available VoD services (all business 
models combined). However, other smaller markets such as Austria, the Nordic countries or Belgium also have 
a high number of VoD services. Catch,-up TV represents the highest number of  such services, followed by 
SVoD services.  

Note: FOD = Free on demand 

Figure 72 - Available VoD services in European Member States (2019) 

Source: EAO, 2020a 

6.5     Value chain analysis 

This  section  is  based  on  Eurostat  data  on  the  Gross  Value  Added  generated  in  motion  picture,  video  and 
television  programme  production  and  distribution  activities (excluding movie projection activities) and in TV 
programming and broadcasting activities.  

The approach to the value chain analysis comprises the following four stages: 

The development stage at which the producer acquires the rights of an original screenplay, searches for artistic 
and financial partners and estimates the budget for the film or TV production; 

The production stage, covering pre-production during which the producer will gather all the human (production 
crew,  casting),  technical  (shooting  schedules,  selections  of  locations)  and  financial  (budget)  resources 
necessary for the film or  TV production, the shooting  of the  film and the post-production, which covers the 
editing of the film, the introduction of the soundtrack, special effects, etc.;  

The distribution stage at which the film is promoted and sold to exhibitors by the distribution company, or the 
TV programme is packaged and transmitted to the viewers by various delivery technologies; 

133 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

The exhibition and broadcasting stage at which the film or TV programme is shown on TV screens (cinema is 
excluded from this analysis). 

6.5.1    

Gross Value Added along the AV value chain 

Figure 68 shows the Gross Value Added along the audiovisual value chain in the EU27 in 2018. About 56% 
of the total GVA comes from TV programming and broadcasting, 33% comes from production, and the rest 
from post-production and distribution.  

Figure 73 - Gross Value Added along the audiovisual value chain in the EU27 (2018; € million) 

Source: Eurostat Structural Business Statistics 

Tables 29 and 30 show the average Gross Value Added along the audiovisual value chain in the EU27 between 
2015 and 2018. The CAGR in GVA for production was 2.5%, -1.1% for distribution, -3.4% for distribution and 
3.4% for television programming and broadcasting. The audiovisual sector share decreased every year, falling 
from 62% in 2015 to 57% in 2018.  

Table 30 – Gross Value Added along the audiovisual value chain in the EU27 (2015-2018) 

Sector 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

GVA in € million 

-  Production 
-  Post-production 
-  Distribution 
- 

Television programming and 
broadcasting 
Audiovisual sector total 

11,607 

11,776 

11,926 

12,515 

1,853 

2,650 

1,949 

2,709 

1,790 

2,347 

1,794 

2,388 

18,911 

18,401 

19,258 

20,897 

35,020 

34,836 

35,322 

37,594 

Total business economy 

5,618,869 

5,880,208 

6,203,109 

6,557,554 

Average 
annual 
change 
(CAGR) 

2.5% 

-1.1% 

-3.4% 

3.4% 

2.4% 

5.3% 

Audiovisual sector share (%) 

-  Production 
-  Post-production 
-  Distribution 
- 

Television programming and 
broadcasting 

0.21 

0.03 

0.05 

0.34 

0.19 

0.03 

0.04 

0.31 

0.19 

0.03 

0.04 

0.32 

0.20 

0.03 

0.05 

0.31 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Sector 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

Audiovisual sector total 

Total business economy 

0.62 

100.00 

0.59 

100.00 

0.57 

100.00 

0.57 

100.00 

Source: Eurostat Structural Business Statistics 

Average 
annual 
change 
(CAGR) 

Table 31 – Gross Value Added along the audiovisual value chain by Member State + UK 
(2015 vs. 2018) 

Country 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

EU27 

United Kingdom 

EU28 

Production 

Post-
production 

Distribution 

2015 

2018 

2015 

2018 

2015 

2018 

Television 
programming 
and 
broadcasting 
2018 
2015 

65.0 

23.2 

12.6 

: 

55.8 

49.7 

46.5 

23.6 

16.9 

10.2 

22.2 

26.3 

22.8 

9.2 

23.6 

13.1 

100.7 

: 

48.5 

33.1 

11.8 

25.4 

66.6 

19.7 

15.4 

24.0 

56.9 

58.2 

33.4 

27.8 

28.6 

20.1 

29.8 

39.0 

38.6 

10.0 

24.7 

: 

84.8 

34.5 

: 

33.3 

48.3 

37.2 

9.3 

21.6 

0.1 

: 

2.6 

3.0 

8.7 

2.4 

1.6 

3.4 

2.1 

3.5 

3.4 

1.9 

1.3 

1.6 

8.8 

: 

5.5 

5.3 

5.9 

5.5 

11.1 

18.4 

0.2 

0.7 

2.7 

3.7 

4.8 

2.7 

1.9 

6.2 

3.1 

5.3 

3.6 

2.6 

1.9 

: 

5.7 

8.2 

: 

4.8 

7.3 

5.4 

4.0 

6.2 

8.7 

: 

6.1 

4.2 

5.5 

8.2 

3.9 

47.5 

12.1 

2.0 

6.7 

10.8 

11.5 

1.7 

3.1 

: 

6.0 

7.6 

15.7 

10.5 

7.3 

0.5 

11.8 

31.9 

5.4 

2.6 

3.7 

5.3 

1.5 

29.0 

14.9 

4.4 

3.8 

5.3 

9.3 

: 

1.9 

5.9 

: 

6.4 

34.7 

13.7 

21.7 

49.0 

78.6 

: 

35.5 

43.1 

39.2 

65.8 

77.6 

38.9 

63.5 

68.2 

67.1 

78.1 

63.6 

83.6 

-12.6 

: 

40.0 

54.0 

66.6 

58.6 

15.0 

61.4 

72.6 

43.5 

35.0 

35.5 

58.1 

64.3 

68.0 

44.7 

52.1 

51.3 

54.0 

82.1 

64.1 

: 

7.7 

51.4 

: 

55.6 

9.6 

43.6 

Source: Eurostat Structural Business Statistics 

6.5.2    

Profitability along the AV value chain 

Table  31  analyses,  gross  operating  surplus  and  gross  profit  rates  along  the  audiovisual  value  chain  in  the 
EU27 (2015-2018).) The gross operating surplus of production had a CAGR of 1.1% and post-production had 
4.4%  over  the  same  period.  Television  programming  and  broadcasting  had  a  CAGR  of  -0.4%  and  that  of 
distribution  also  appears  to  be  negative.  Analysis  of  gross  profit  rate  shows  that  production  had  a  CAGR 
of -5.9%, post-production of 2.6% and television programming and broadcasting of -9.2%. For distribution, the 
data are  unavailable, but it appears  the rate must have been positive given the values for 2016, 2017  and 
2018.  

135 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

136 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 32 – Gross operating surplus and gross profit rates along the audiovisual value chain 
in the EU27 (2015-2018) 

Sector 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

Average 
annual 
change 
(CAGR) 

Gross operating surplus in € million 

-  Production 
-  Post-production 
-  Distribution 
- 

Television  programming  and 
broadcasting 
Audiovisual sector total 

rate  

Gross 
= GOS/turnover (%) 
Production 
- 

profit 

- 

Post-production 

-  Distribution 

- 

Television  programming  and 
broadcasting 
Audiovisual sector total 

5,338.0 

5,243.0 

5,227.0 

5,521.0 

568.0 

: 

9,078.0 

648.0 

1,900.0 

9,351.0 

661.0 

1,631.0 

9,320.0 

646.0 

1,627.0 

8,970.0 

1.1% 

4.4% 

: 

-0.4% 

: 

17,142.0 

16,839.0 

16,764.0 

: 

22.3 

11.9 

: 

20.7 

: 

19.1 

13.3 

19.5 

21.4 

20.0 

18.2 

13.9 

20.8 

18.5 

18.4 

18.6 

12.9 

22.1 

15.5 

16.8 

-5.9% 

2.6% 

: 

-9.2% 

: 

Source: Eurostat Structural Business Statistics 

Table 32 analyses gross profit rates along the audiovisual value chain by Member States including UK (2015 
vs. 2018).) In 2015, the country with the biggest gross profit rate from production was France with 35.5%, in 
2017 it was Romania with 36.9%. For post-production, the gross profit rate in Croatia rose from 25% in 2015 
to 40% in 2018, while in Luxembourg it decreased from 87.5% in 2015 to 46.4% in 2018, though Luxembourg 
remained among the countries with the highest rate. For distribution, the gross profit rate in Cyprus rose from 
56.3% in 2014 to 61.9% in 2018, while Greece and Bulgaria finished 2018 with negative rates (-8.4% and -
3.8%,  respectively).  Germany  experienced  a  considerable  decrease  in  television  programming  and 
broadcasting gross profit rates, falling from 48.6% to 24.8% over the period 2015-2018. In the UK the rate 
decreased from 62% to -9.8% over the same period. Overall, Romania reported the highest gross profit rates 
in  2018  for  the  audiovisual  sector  with  31.3%,  followed  by  Portugal  with  26.2%  and  Germany  with  23.8%. 
Spain,  Hungary,  and  Greece  reported  the  lowest  gross  profit  rates  in  2018  with  13.8%,  9.1%  and  9.2% 
respectively.  

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 33 – Gross profit rates (in percentage) along the audiovisual value chain by Member 
State + UK (2015 vs. 2018) 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

EU27 

United Kingdom 

EU28 

15.7 

17.7 

Production 

Post-
production 

Distribution 

2015 

2018 

2015 

2018 

2015 

2018 

Television 
programming 
and 
broadcasting 
2018 
2015 

Audiovisual 
sector total 

2015 

2018 

4.5 

16.0 

: 

24.2 

34.9 

13.2 

20.5 

24.5 

: 

14.5 

23.4 

14.9 

22.5 

17.6 

: 

9.0* 

37.2 

31.5 

25.0 

: 

: 

9.5 

33.4 

29.5 

40.0 

25.0 

: 

24.3 

26.7 

12.2 

19.1 

13.8** 

: 

: 

7.8 

3.7 

20.8 

17.6 

22.4 

: 

15.2 

7.4 

17.8 

87.5 

16.6 

15.2 

30.0 

20.0 

12.0 

2.6 

0.7 

20.4 

19.9 

17.2 

46.2 

8.2 

14.3 

7.9 

36.9° 

18.3 

25.3 

20.7 

28.8 

39.1 

: 

12.8 

3.8 

17.4 

15.8 

27.6 

17.3 

18.6 

1.9 

20.3 

46.4 

10.3 

15.2 

22.5 

11.6 

46.8 

8.4 

35.5 

19.9 

17.1 

-0.8 

: 

23.7 

11.2 

12.5 

15.2 

13.0 

13.4 

13.0 

22.8 

15.8 

: 

7.4 

26.7 

25.6 

56.3* 

: 

8.8 

3.4 

6.3 

11.5 

37.7 

5.8 

19.0 

-10.4 

47.2 

4.3 

: 

13.4 

-3.8 

32.7 

61.9 

: 

10.3 

23.0 

3.6 

12.5 

41.5 

-8.4 

11.7 

13.3 

38.5 

19.7 

17.8 

5.4 

: 

16.0 

40.2 

-1.3 

: 

4.3 

39.7 

11.7 

40.2 

4.7 

: 

1.6 

13.1 

0.8 

7.7 

18.5 

17.6 

25.6 

9.4 

-2.2 

13.6 

14.2 

48.6 

21.2 

16.6 

1.6 

12.1 

13.9 

27.4 

: 

33.9 

26.7 

43.6 

7.6 

24.3 

20.1 

7.8 

30.0 

10.4 

: 

24.6 

11.5 

24.8 

10.4 

13.4 

: 

11.5 

16.1 

24.6 

: 

30.9 

31.3 

33.3 

18.3 

-25.5 

0.9 

26.4 

13.0 

19.6 

21.7 

: 

: 

11.2 

19.1 

37.4 

19.1 

11.7 

: 

16.9 

12.1 

20.9 

: 

26.5 

23.6 

30.6 

: 

7.2 

19.0** 

21.1 

9.6** 

9.9 

15.7** 

13.2 

4.7 

22.3 

-11.1 

9.7 

9.5 

18.6 

24.1 

20.6 

15.8 

11.9 

33.9 

18.2 

14.7 

12.9 

31.2 

17.3 

1.1 

23.6* 

34.1 

31.8* 

4.3 

22.1 

37.3 

31.2 

7.7 

2.2 

20.7 

62.0 

33.1 

11.8 

11.8 

: 

15.5 

-9.8 

10.2 

3.8 

20.9 

31.0 

23.9 

Notes: * 2014; ** 2016; ° 2017. Source: Eurostat Structural Business Statistics 

: 

19.8 

20.9 

22.2 

23.5 

: 

: 

17.6 

14.6 

23.8 

9.2 

9.1 

: 

15.8 

16.8 

19.6 

: 

23.3 

26.2 

31.3 

: 

19.2 

13.8 

: 

16.6 

15.9 

17.2 

6.5.3    

Market concentration 

The  patterns  of  the  value  chain  and  their  evolution  over  time  may  correlate  with  developments  in  market 
concentration through various channels. For instance, increasing concentration  - i.e. reduced competition – 
may  lead  to  oligopolistic  pricing  in  a  given  sub-sector,  strengthening  revenues,  GVA  and  profitability. 
Nevertheless, this may work in the opposite direction as well: squeezed margins in a section of the value chain 
may force companies to leave the market, thus increasing concentration.  

For an exploration of market concentration patterns in the European audiovisual sector, we extracted data on 
all  companies  registered  in  the  EU27  under  the  four  relevant  NACE  codes  59.11,  59.12,  59.13  and  60.20 
available  in  the  company  database  Orbis.  As  the  market  concentration  analysis  required  estimates  on  the 
market share of individual companies, we were interested in the annual revenue data. For reasons of data 

138 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

availability, the analysis did not cover the 2015-2019 period precisely. Instead, we looked at the last financial 
year for which Orbis recorded data (Y-1), which should normally be the financial year ending in 2019 or 2020); 
and at the data from four financial years back (Y-4: financial year ending in 2016 or 2017 in most cases). The 
latter was chosen as Orbis had significantly more data in this column than for Y-5, which is the most distant 
past covered.  

A total  of  178,091 companies were  included  in the  database for these  NACE codes.  However, for most of 
these companies there is no annual revenue data available in the database. Such data were recorded for only 
53,726 companies in the database for the financial year ending in 2019 or 2020 (30% of all companies) – note 
that 63 enterprises with negative revenue data were omitted from further analysis. For the financial year ending 
in 2016 or 2017, there were 34,351 companies with non-negative revenue data (19%). 

Table 34 - Number of companies in the Orbis database and companies with revenue data 
available, by NACE code 

Code 

NACE sector 

Total 

Revenue 
data for 
2019/2020 

Revenue 
data for 
2016/2017 

J59.11  

J59.12  

Motion picture, video and television programme 
- production activities 
- post-production activities 

J59.13  

- distribution activities 

J60.20  

Television programming and broadcasting activities 

Total 

134,873 

40,756 

25,823 

28,011 

6,918 

8,289 

6,300 

3,023 

3,647 

3,769 

2,088 

2,671 

178,091 

53,726 

34,351 

Two measures had been calculated separately for each Member State and each NACE subgroup, for both the 
periods 2019/2020 and 2016/2017, to observe the evolution of concentration over time: 

•  The combined  annual turnover of the top three companies for any  given  Member State in  the four 

different NACE subgroups. 

•  The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), which is often used in market concentration analyses. This is 
calculated by summing the squares of the individual market shares of all the firms in the market. DG 
COMP uses it in its anti-trust efforts. 

From the 27 MS, data coverage was too small, below 20%, for 9 countries (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, 
Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Poland). Concentration figures were not calculated for 
these Member States for the above two indicators, for any of the four sub-sectors. In general, missing data 
imposes certain limitations on the analysis: companies with  missing values are  likely to  be  overwhelmingly 
small  companies,  not  influencing  the  market  share  of  the  largest  enterprises  significantly.  Nevertheless, 
calculated concentration figures could be slightly overstated. The extent of this bias is unclear, as there is no 
estimate  of  the  extent  to  which  companies  with  missing  revenue  data  are  smaller  than  those  with 
corresponding  figures.  Patterns  across  countries  and  NACE  sub-sectors  are  probably  valid  even  with  this 
limitation.  

In terms of the combined market share of the top three companies, the data generally show a large degree of 
market fragmentation in the production sub-sector. The indicator can be as low as 5%, in the case of France, 
and  it  remained  below  25%  in  ten  Member  States  (of  the  18  analysed)  in  2020.  Markets  with  the  highest 
concentration in this area are Malta (98% share for the top 3), and Spain, Slovenia and Romania (each around 
50%). The level of concentration decreased from 2016/17 to the financial years ending in 2019/20 in almost 
all of the Member States, according to the data – although a part of this apparent decrease may be attributable 
to  a  higher  data  coverage  for  the  last  available  year  in  the  Orbis  dataset.  One  notable  exception  from  the 
decreasing market concentration trend was Lithuania. 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 35 - Share of top 3 companies of the four audiovisual sub-sectors in terms of 
combined turnover, by Member State (2017 and 2018, percentage) 

Member 
State 

Production 

Post-
production 

Distribution 

TV 
programming 
and 
broadcasting 

2016/17 

2019/20 

2016/17 

2019/20 

2016/17 

2019/20 

2016/17 

BG 

CZ 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

EL 

HR 

HU 

IT 

LT 

LV 

MT 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

14 

31 

17 

52 

12 

7 

35 

21 

17 

15 

18 

14 

100 

29 

52 

35 

54 

21 

14 

27 

15 

51 

11 

5 

24 

17 

13 

13 

41 

12 

98 

20 

48 

33 

50 

12 

33 

42 

59 

20 

34 

14 

54 

70 

39 

16 

76 

80 

.. 

32 

41 

57 

59 

76 

34 

46 

33 

24 

34 

13 

35 

68 

27 

13 

81 

71 

.. 

42 

23 

36 

46 

46 

85 

67 

55 

43 

74 

28 

100 

71 

66 

43 

73 

87 

0 

68 

70 

43 

74 

73 

73 

55 

60 

37 

80 

29 

98 

69 

68 

38 

82 

77 

67 

81 

95 

46 

89 

64 

55 

91 

53 

86 

85 

62 

100 

100 

68 

70 

50 

75 

48 

87 

52 

84 

51 

89 

2019/
20 
74 

76 

81 

38 

68 

57 

45 

87 

65 

75 

89 

59 

100 

80 

52 

68 

54 

94 

The calculated Herfindahl-Hirschman Index shows very similar patterns over time and across countries. 

140 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 36 - Estimated Herfindahl-Hirschman Index in the four audiovisual sub-sectors in 
terms of turnover, by Member State (2017 and 2018)63  

TV 
programming 
and 
broadcasting 
2016/17 
1764 

2019/20 
2036 

Member 
State 

Production 

Post-
production 

Distribution 

BG 

CZ 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HR 

HU 

IT 

LT 

LV 

MT 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

2016/17 
201 

2019/20  2016/17 
198 

507 

454 

194 

1225 

126 

42 

652 

290 

177 

146 

351 

188 

10000 

363 

2065 

525 

2265 

275 

378 

155 

1176 

114 

31 

425 

208 

121 

109 

740 

159 

4995 

249 

1950 

531 

1674 

103 

827 

2199 

203 

537 

153 

1469 

2000 

839 

243 

2558 

2587 

.. 

562 

841 

1300 

2583 

5349 

2019/20 
549 

1020 

488 

291 

532 

137 

816 

2409 

443 

144 

4232 

2349 

.. 

961 

305 

647 

1263 

1847 

2016/17 
5441 

2019/20 
4181 

1756 

1349 

1165 

2678 

415 

9116 

1806 

2145 

839 

2410 

4016 

.. 

2231 

1897 

854 

2147 

2136 

1431 

1408 

985 

3368 

482 

5884 

2235 

2501 

663 

2629 

3424 

3047 

7316 

1139 

4850 

1618 

1349 

4213 

1258 

2544 

2440 

1636 

10000 

10000 

3201 

2649 

994 

2978 

1230 

4935 

1382 

3675 

1082 

5634 

2432 

2887 

864 

2282 

1310 

1081 

3658 

1534 

1973 

2773 

1400 

4740 

4146 

1393 

1821 

1207 

4678 

6.6     Main  trends  in  the  audiovisual  sector  as  highlighted  by 
interviewees 

The main recurrent trend shaping the audiovisual market during the reference period of this study, and which 
was mentioned by most stakeholders interviewed, is that customer preferences have changed sharply from 
linear programmes to online VoD content. Interviewees referred to the rising “serialisation” of content (meaning 
an  increasing  focus  on  series)  due  to  international  companies  such  as  Netflix  and  Amazon  entering  the 
European market. Another trend mentioned by a European stakeholder is linked to the fact that users tend to 
have a higher number of subscriptions to VOD services per person than in previous periods, when they would 
have at most one subscription.   

Another trend observed during the reference period and emphasised by an EU-level organisation is that more 
and more users/public were shifting from TV and transactional VoD to catch up, streaming, and SVOD, but 
often through bundle offers through their suppliers of linear services who include in their offer also VoD. When 
VOD  was  provided  through  the  TVoD  and  catch-up  means  the  consumption  of  VoD  services  was  at  its 
beginning. However, the popularity of international SVOD companies started only around 2017-2018, first in 
the Nordic countries and then expanding to other countries like Spain or Germany and further abroad.    

In terms of supply and demand, a national stakeholder stated that overall, the market is growing very fast and 
there are not enough European productions available. Therefore, there is not enough supply, and the quality 
does  not  always  meet  the  requirements.  Linking  to  diversity  of  content,  an  EU  organisation  representing 
European VoD companies mentioned the challenges that its members face in providing content diversity. This 

63 HHI can range from 0 to a maximum 10000 (which means one company accounting for 100% of the combined revenues of the NACE 
sub-sector in a given country). HHI values below 2500 are generally not seen as a concern by competition authorities. Values above 4000 
denote significant levels of concentration. 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

is due to the fact that small VoD companies need marketing resources and technological skills to develop their 
platforms.   

Regarding  the  production  industry,  the  output  (number  of  productions)  has  increased  due  to  the  rise  of 
international VoD companies and the large viewer demand. With the rising popularity and profile of TV series, 
producers  that  were  specialised  in  cinema  have  also  started  diversifying  their  activities.  Moreover,  co-
productions have become more frequent nowadays as a way for independent producers to amortise the costs.  

As  pointed  out  by  an  EU-level  organisation,  producers  traditionally  financed  by  TV  broadcasters,  public 
funding, cinema distributors and sometimes sales agents are more and more dependent on co-productions 
and  the  pre-financing  of  public  TV  broadcasters  (since  private  broadcasters  tend  to  concentrate  their 
investments into high budget TV series in order to face the streamer’s competition). Financing a risky project 
tends to be more and more difficult, this trend being a threat to diversity. The same situation can be observed 
for the theatrical release of long feature films (as in many countries the number of cinemas is dropping). 

When we zoom in at regional and national level, we can see some different trends linked to the different market 
conditions. For instance, one national stakeholder mentioned over-reliance of public broadcasters on financing 
through public sources in Central Europe.. They noted that this can represent an issue due to limited sources 
of funding (together with the lack of infrastructure). Public funding is also low, and this is problematic for most 
countries in Central Europe, as the interviewee observed. In this region many countries lack a political lobby 
that  could  amplify  the  voice  of  cinema  owners  (or  other  players  from  the  audiovisual  market).  This  lack  of 
political salience of the audiovisual sector was even more visible during the pandemic, when the interviewee 
believed that these activities had been completely disregarded. The stakeholder also pointed out that in terms 
of documentaries, few production companies focus solely on this production type. Therefore, co-production is 
the main avenue for generating more daring and successful films. In this sense, the stakeholder could observe 
a rise in co-productions with neighbouring countries.  

A  national  stakeholder  mentioned  that  for  the  reference  period  of  this  study  it  was  possible  to  observe  an 
increased  number  of  production  actors  which  resulted  in  huge  competition,  even  describing  it  as  “over-
production”. As a result of this large volume of productions, major investments were increasingly also required 
for the distribution and promotion of these works. 

Another national stakeholder noted that, theatrical productions (films) aside,), there was a drastic decline in 
interest  from  broadcasters  in  creating  fictional  content  or  documentaries.  Broadcasters  have  oriented  their 
content  production  more  towards  reality  and  entertainment  shows  or  news  outlets.  According  to  the 
stakeholder, this is not due to a loss of consumer appetite for this kind of content, but rather due to quality 
issues or changes in the ownership of broadcasting companies which led to changes in editorial policies. Also, 
the stakeholders consider that there is no long-term vision for the country’s audiovisual market, and that there 
is only one OTT broadcaster active in that country, both in terms of consumer demand and investment in local 
content.  

One  of  the  main  trends  observed  in  the  production  industry  is,  according  to  a  national  stakeholder,  the 
increasingly blurred distinction between cinema producers and TV series producers. Overall, producers have 
oriented their investments more into series, and those who traditionally specialised in cinema content have 
started  diversifying  and  investing  in  this  direction.  During  the  reference  period,  the  stakeholder  could  also 
observe an increased market concentration, with more producers merging and absorbing smaller production 
companies  (a  similar  trend  is  observed  in  Italy,  as  pointed  out  by  an  Italian  organisation  representing 
producers).  

Another national stakeholder stated that, due to discrepancies between production capabilities and activities 
across  European  countries  (i.e.  some  EU  Member  States  are  big  producers,  while  others  are  more 
consumers), smaller production countries are less interested in defending producers’ rights.  

When  it  comes  to  trends  among  independent  producers  and  co-productions,  views  vary  across  different 
categories of stakeholders. An international  stakeholder considered that there had been an increase in the 
negotiating power of independent producers due to the increased competition between VoD services. On the 
other hand, a national stakeholder acknowledged that the arrival of VoD services led to a boom in activity for 
the production industry, which then found it hard to recruit screen writers, directors or actors to deliver all the 
work. Despite this, there is a loss of national value in the countries where content is produced, in their view, 
as the international VoD companies do not give credit to the production companies or tend to keep all the IP 
rights,  turning  producers  into  sole  content  commissioners.  While  in  the  past  there  used  to  be  more  co-
productions  in  which  the  IP  rights  were  shared,  now  there  is  more  commissioning  of  work,  which  leads  to 
market imbalances, making the role of the producer less relevant.  

142 

 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

This situation was also acknowledged by a European stakeholder who believes a Code of Fair Practices should 
be  put  in  place.  This  should  establish  basic  parameters  to  be  applied  to  VoD  service  contracts  when 
commissioning feature films, TV series and other audiovisual works (“originals”) from independent production 
companies.  

A European stakeholder stated  that independent producers have flexibility (can remain  independent) when 
working  with  broadcasters.    As  stated  by  an  audiovisual  expert,  independent  producers  face  difficulties 
upfronting the costs (e.g. subtitling, dubbing) and the fact that large VoD providers want global IP rights makes 
it difficult for them to obtain this funding stream. The change in licenses and in the demands is a challenge for 
independent producers. A national stakeholder stated that the loss of IP rights started for them in 2018 and 
that since then, they never managed to maintain the totality of IP rights, especially since broadcasters have 
slowly started adopting ana IP rights model similar to that used by VoD service providers. 

According to an EU stakeholder, VoD companies and (more recently) linear service providers want more and 
more IP rights and territories to be covered by the licences when they finance a film, since they are investing 
more and more in large-scale budgets. This puts independent producers in an executive producer, where: i) 
they have no catalogue exploitation policy that guarantees their independence, notably for the development of 
new projects; ii) they cannot take risks (artistically speaking) since they have only one purchaser with a specific 
production specification; iii) they cannot co-produce since there are no exclusive territories available; iv) they 
cannot find private investment from the market since it is shrinking and their margin comes more and more 
from the budget of production budget.. 

When  it  comes  to  co-productions,  an  audiovisual  expert  stated  that  co-production  is  both  increasing  and 
diversifying. Public service broadcasters are increasingly co-producing, and the network of co-productions is 
expanding, extending beyond cultural or language affinities (e.g. Icelandic-French co-production). This brings 
new trends and opportunities, such as  discovering new talents, tapping into new funding streams, etc. The 
main drivers of the expansion of international cooperation are funding and access to talent: the more talent 
you have the more finance sources you have (e.g. European, regional funding).  

In some countries it was noted that production would not survive outside a co-production framework. This is 
due to the fact that the available money (both public and private) is not enough to finance the production of 
films. More recently, more co-production cooperation was established with neighbouring countries in central 
and  eastern  Europe  rather  than  with  other  big  audio-visual  markers,  due  to  competition  but  also  to  lower 
production costs.  

In  one  of  the  countries  it  was  noted,  according  to  an  interviewee,  independent  films  are  produced  by 
independent companies under the umbrella of bigger production companies. These companies are also called 
‘backpack  companies’  -  companies  which  would  usually  not  grow  because  they  would  not  fit  into  a  bigger 
structure, and which have cooperation agreements with other companies (without legally merging). The mid-
sized companies are in a difficult position economically because in this competitive situation they need to invest 
more money, and most country’s production companies would not survive without public funds.  

Lastly, a stakeholder stated that the level of co-productions has increased dramatically in the last ten years. 
This  is  due  to  increased  consumer  demand  for  content  but  also  due  to  the  competitive  pressure  from  big 
streamers. Overall, according to the stakeholder, the trends favour co-productions.  

Several trends were also highlighted concerning consumer taste and content consumption during the reference 
period (2015-2019). According to an audiovisual expert, during the reference period a broadening of consumer 
taste could be observed. Having more audiovisual players increased the diversity of foreign content and this 
exposure led to a change in taste for some consumer segments. In terms of forms and formats, we could see 
a rise of the “serialisation” of content, with a shorter format for European productions (6-8 episodes compared 
with  several  seasons).  According  to  the  expert,  this  development  has  come  at  the  expense  of  movies  and 
documentary markets.  Another national stakeholder observed that consumers tend to choose local content 
more eagerly.  

Furthermore, the audiovisual expert noted that algorithms played a big role in shaping consumer preferences, 
though the role of word of mouth was not negligible either. Nostalgia is a big trend among audiences. The 
return of older materials comes from the fact that catalogues make them available, showing series from the 
70-80s because they do not cost much. The backup catalogue can also have a lot of prestige content. Younger 
audiences are also into sitcoms because they are relatable content. For instance, local users are into American 
sitcoms because they are long and easy to consume while doing something else. 

An international stakeholder noticed a growing appetite for European content during the reference period. The 
company considers that this was not the case 10 years ago and that VoD services helped remove the stigma 
associated with subtitles and dubbing and increased the consumption of European content.  An interviewee 

143 

 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

noticed a shift in consumer preferences from linear to non-linear (online) services, from traditional TV to mobile, 
or from traditional TV content to series. Furthermore, the time spent watching TV is decreasing, mostly among 
young viewers. It was stated that for example in Central and Eastern Europe, VoD providers were overlooked 
during  the  reference  period  and  there  was  not  so  much  trust  in  producers  of  VoD  providers  (consumption 
trends changed during the pandemic). In one country from the region, there was increasing fluctuation in the 
number of productions supported, but decreasing audience interest local and European films. This is linked to 
the fact that in many areas there is no access to cinemas. However, there is interest from abroad in the content 
from that country (as stated by another interviewee).  

6.6.1    

Impacts of the trends 

According  to  a  European  stakeholder,  changing  consumption  trends,  combined  with  increased  competition 
and tight public funding creates a complex financial equation for public service media (PSM). Despite limited 
resources,  PSM  have  remained  heavily  committed  to  the  European  creative  sector.  PSM  programming 
expenditure grew faster than overall PSM operating revenue. However, despite all the efforts, PSM cannot 
keep up with the global content spending race and have been overtaken by several streaming giants in terms 
of global investment in content. In terms of the overall market, commercial broadcasters are struggling even 
more than public broadcasters because they are hit by the changed advertising market, and it is now more 
difficult  to  monetise  streaming.  In  response  to  this,  some  Member  States  tried  to  and  other  countries  are 
investing in domestic series productions, with differing levels of success according to the interviewee. Public 
broadcasters  in  some  countries  have  struggled  in  different  ways:  legitimacy  problems  have  been  rising 
because of oversupply of content, and people are becoming more used to a transactional model, so it is more 
difficult  to  justify  the  public  broadcasting  model.  Moreover,  this  is  strictly  linked  to  the  overall  evolution  of 
audiovisual  markets  and  changing  consumption  patterns:  a  large  portion  of  people  watch  only  streamed 
content. The trend is well advanced in the Nordic markets with more than 20% of people mentioning they are 
pure streamers. 

As far as catalogues are concerned, one European stakeholder claims that streamers want to access content 
with longer-shelf life. This is an important question for public service media, as the availability period of original 
content in their online offer is typically shorter and hence a key factor for relevance and success, which also 
influences their distribution strategies.  

One national stakeholder claimed that the shift from linear to non-linear services led production and distribution 
sectors to shift to a new business and selling model, where stakeholders had to find new channels and new 
ways  of  engaging  with  clients,  partners  and  consumers.  Moreover,  producers  had  also  partnered  with 
international  VoD  service  providers,  and  this  is  a  trend  that  can  be  observed  in  most  European  countries, 
something that was brought up by several stakeholders.   

6.6.2     Future trends 

Concerning the main trends in the audiovisual sector in the next 3-5 years, many stakeholders interviewed 
agree that we will witness an acceleration of the main trends  seen in the reference period (e.g. a shift from 
linear  to  non-linear  services).  The  consequences  are  mainly  two:  firstly,  there  will  be  a  continuous 
strengthening  of  VoD  service  providers  which  will  likely  monopolise  the  market,  jeopardising  local  and 
independent  producers;  secondly,  there  will  be  a  robust  development  of  smart  TVs  –  linear  TV  and  online 
content  video  in  one  place  with  OTT  services  as  the  counterweight  for  TV.  As  a  result,  ,the  main  content 
transmitted  on  TV  will  be  sport,  news  and  big  entertainment,  while  all  the  rest  will  be  streamed  online, 
regardless of the device.  

The growth of non-linear services will force linear providers to reinvent themselves, according to a Spanish 
regulatory authority. The stakeholder also anticipates a ‘platformisation’ of content. The global players have 
budgets that the traditional television cannot compete with. Furthermore, other players are likely to tap into this 
sector, thus increasing competition even more (e.g. YouTube and Google). As pointed out by an audiovisual 
expert, in addition to the competition and need to reinvent themselves, commercial broadcasters need to worry 
about how they will get their advertising income.  

At  country/regional  level,  different  trends  are  anticipated.  According  to  a  national  stakeholder,  the 
fragmentation of the market might cause some Member States to face a monopoly created by foreign players 
in  the  country.  This  could  create  a  gatekeeper  controlling  what  is  and  is  not  produced,  thus  limiting  the 
opportunities of independent producers. In addition, there will be a decrease in the funding  sources that will 

144 

 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

be available through public funds. As far as cinemas are concerned, the people flow is expected to significantly 
decrease, meaning lower revenues and lower income to theatrical production. 

One interviewee emphasised the crucial role played by the geo-blocking tool (a practice that prevents online 
users from accessing and purchasing products or services from a website based in another Member State). If 
geo-blocking was to be removed, the interviewee claims that national distributors would be unable to sustain 
themselves in future as productions would be available in any given country without  the payment of any IP 
rights. 

Compared  with  the  reference  period,  another  interviewee  considers  that  there  will  be  more  emphasis  on 
collaboration as market players are more open to exchange ideas, training, travel to different markets, etc. 
Lack of funding in certain regions also forces producers to seek these collaborations.  

Turning to production, a European stakeholder considers that two production models will arise in the future. 
On the one hand, there will be producers that develop, finance, produce and distribute audiovisual works for 
the investors. They guarantee the completion of the film and they will build up a catalogue that will serve as a 
financial instrument for their future developments (they keep their IP rights in the works). On the other hand, 
other producers will work in the name and on behalf of the broadcasters, remunerated on the production budget 
(but do not keep the IP rights in the works they produce). The stakeholder considers that both systems can 
coexist (and already do) and the European industry has an opportunity to seize, since independent production 
system is necessary to safeguard diversity (diversity of financing through co-production for instance) and to 
propose an alternative story telling. 

6.7     Conclusions task 2  

The following main trends appear from the analysis of data on economic trends: 

•  While the revenues of the audiovisual sector have expanded over the period 2015-2019, the same 
cannot be said of the gross value added generated by the sector. Revenues expanded in both absolute 
and  relative  terms  in  comparison  with  the  overall  business  economy.  However,  while  gross  added 
value expanded in absolute terms it actually shrunk in relative terms as the other economic sectors 
grew even faster;  

•  France  is  the  country  where  audiovisual  represents  the  highest  share  of  gross  added  value  of  all 

business sectors’ added value – 1.15%;  

•  The growth in revenues is largely due to the expansion of VoD service revenues. However, in absolute 
terms, revenues from VoD remain the smallest source of revenue compared with advertising, pay-TV 
and public funding,  

•  Germany and France represent a third of the revenues of the sector across EU27. Together with the 
other three largest countries in terms of audiovisual revenues (Italy, Spain and Portugal) these five 
Member States represent over 50% of all revenues.  

•  Employment trends and trends regarding business size remain the same as in previous reports: 

o  There is a steady growth of production companies but mostly very small ones;  

o  Production, post-production and distribution represent a high number of SMEs. Broadcasting 

and programming have a higher number of large companies; 

o  Nearly 900,000 persons were employed in the sector in 2019, an increase since 2015. The 

majority of these employees are men, particularly in production.  

o 

In  the  period  covered  by  the  study,  total  investment  in  the  sector  by  public  and  private 
broadcasters has increased looking(18.4 billion euro). When the investments of VoD providers 
and cinema distributions are included, the overall level of investment is much higher (30 billion 
euro).  

o  The value chain analysis shows that most value comes from programming and broadcasting, 

followed by production.  

o  Profitability trends differ by Member State but also by sector. It is quite common for overall 

profitability to have increased in some sectors but decreased in others.  

145 

 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

o  Finally, market concentration, is low in the production sub-sector but higher in broadcasting, , 
programming  and  distribution.  The  overall  market  concentration  across  the  countries  has 
declined.  

146 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Volume 3  

147 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

7.  Linear services content analysis  

The main objective of this task is to generate insights on the characteristics of the content offer available on 
the audiovisual market in the case of a representative sample of broadcasters in 11 Member States selected 
for this detailed research. 

The main questions driving this research endeavour are:  

•  What is the share of European works in linear programming (based on qualifying time)? 

•  This includes further breakdowns according to prime time (or other) and according to works that are 

recent (i.e. five years old or fewer) 

•  What is the share of independent works in linear programming? and  
•  What is the prominence of European works in linear programming? 

Furthermore, we assessed the impact of market trends on current cultural diversity by analysing the share of 
non-domestic European works in all European works.  

As  shown  in  the  following  sections,  the  values  we  obtained  for  the  indicators  of  interest  sometimes  differ 
significantly compared to those reported by the Member States or reported by previous studies64. We consider 
that there are two main potential explanatory factors for these differences: 

a)  The amount of data and complexity of the process 

To address the scope of this task, through a quasi-automatic process, we collected a very large amount of 
data.  To  achieve  the  values  of  the  required  indicators,  we  had  to  extensively  process,  filter  and  append 
additional information from secondary sources to the collected data. Given the complexity of the process and 
the amount of information, it is to be expected that, for example, not 100% of qualifying works have been fully 
and properly identified, this being the reason for which, for example, despite the high amount of computer-
based  processing,  after  visually  inspecting  the  results,  we  included  in  the  calculation  information  already 
present in the EPG raw data (i.e., country or countries of origin) for those works that have not been identified 
within the TMDB database but, given their title, appeared to be qualifying.  

This  approach  contrasts  very  strongly  with  alternative  ones  based,  for  example,  on  manual  collection  and 
coding of information: a manual approached would have been impossible to perform given the amount of data. 

b)  The scope and operationalisation of study-specific definitions  

In  comparison  with  the  previous  studies,  the  data  from  this  study  covers  substantially  more  channels  per 
country.  For  example,  this  study  analysed  1,293,437  EPG  schedule  entries  for  467  channels  across  11 
countries  while  in  previous  studies  around  55  channels  were  added  to  the  analysis.  In  addition  to  this 
contrasting difference, for some indicators, the operationalisation of their definition (for example, independent 
works) slightly differs as compared to that used by Member States. 

7.1     Summary of the methodology 

The  eleven  Member  States  selected  for  this  analysis  were:  Austria,  Czechia,  Germany,  Spain,  France, 
Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Sweden. The selection was in line with the study Terms of 
Reference which required detailed content analysis in 11 Member  States. The selection was done so as to 
represent Member States with different audio-visual markets as well as different geographies. These Member 
States were selected to represent: 

•  The largest audiovisual markets in the EU while also  covering diversity between medium-sized and 

large markets; 

•  Diversity in terms of regions of the EU; and  

•  Diversity in terms of market fragmentation.  

64 VVA et al (2018) Study on the Promotion of European Works in Audiovisual Media Services and Attentional et al (2011) Study on the 
implementation of the provisions of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive concerning the promotion of European works in audiovisual 
media services 

148 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Figure 74 - Country coverage of this task 

As the main source of data, this task uses the Electronic Program Guides of each linear service considered, 
as explained in the following subsections detailing the main steps of the implementation of this task 

a.  Collection of raw data  

As a first step, between 02 December 2020 and 26 February 2021, we collected the  available daily  online 
information  for  the  Electronic  Program  Guides  (EPG)  of  more  than  3500  channels  across  the  11  Member 
States within the scope of this assignment.  

Due to the technical characteristics of the publicly available online data sources65 and of the software66 used 
to access the EPG streams, we performed an initial selection of the channels collected from each source by 
removing channels directly outside the scope of this assignment (e.g., teleshopping channels) from those for 
which the EPG information was available. 

b.  Pre-processing and analysis  

Once the data were captured, to reduce the number and refine the selection of channels covered by the EPG 
analysis on a country-by-country basis, we used the list of channels identified in the European Audiovisual 
Observatory 2019 TV Audience Market Share country reports. Thus, we filtered out those channels for which 
the  EPG  data  has  been  captured  but  which  are  not  included  in  the  Audiovisual  Observatory  country-level 
audience data.  

To  account  for  potential  spelling  differences  between  channel  names  in  the  EPG  and  the  Audiovisual 
Observatory data, instead of individually matching the channels, we performed a “fuzzy matching” procedure. 
The  matching  allowed  for  spelling  variations,  thus  including,  for  example,  not  just  cases  where  the  same 
channels  had  differently  spelled  names  but  also  channels  that  were  the  High-Definition  versions  of  those 
identified in the Observatory audience data.  

Once the EPG data were collected and the channels had been filtered as described, we enriched the data with 
additional information on topics such as the identity of the production companies or their countries of origin 
through a three-step process: 

65 While the available sources allowed the download of bulk data, due to potential technical problems with each individual source, in order 
to ensure the coverage of as many as possible channels in each country, we also identified and used multiple sources of EPG data. Thus, 
the bulk data contained duplicated channels which were filtered out post- collection.   

66 The  data  were  collected  using  Webgrab++  (http://www.webgrabplus.com/)  with  bespoke  configurations  for  each  of  the  11  Member 
States. 

149 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

1.  On a country-by-country basis, all the titles present in the raw EPG scheduling data were matched 
against ~ 25 million titles present in the publicly available IMDb database67. This enabled us to append 
a unique IMDb identifier to each EPG title found in the IMDb data. The IMDb data links each production 
with  a  unique  identifier  and  the  production’s  official  title  versions  across  several  countries  and 
languages. This enabled us to map the EPG raw information against the IMDb data and append the 
IMDb identifiers without any translations of the EPG content.  

A typical, basic, example of the role and functionality of the IMDb identifier relates to the structure of 
the hyperlinks to the content of the IMDb portal. The weblink to any of the titles covered by the IMDb 
portal is comprised of the general web address (www.imdb.com), followed by the category of content 
(“/title/”), and by the unique identifier for each production (“ttxxxxxxx”). For example, the IMDb page 
for the movie “Independence Day” is: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116629/, where “tt0116629” is the 
unique identifier for the production.  

2.  Once the unique IMDb identifiers have been appended to the EPG data, we temporarily removed any 
duplicate  identifiers  from  the  raw  data.  The  remaining  unique  identifiers  were  then  used  to  submit 
queries to the access point interface (API) of The Movie Database (TMDB).  

While using its own identification system, TMDB also allows the use of IMDb identifiers to map the 
productions against TMDB’s own identifiers. Therefore, each query to the API had a dual purpose: a) 
first, to map the IMDb identifiers against those in the TMDB, and b) once mapped, to use the matched 
TMDB identifiers to retrieve information on each production with regard to the production companies, 
the countries of production and/or countries of production companies, the genre(s) of the production 
and any additional potentially relevant production metadata.  

On a country-by-country basis, the output of this operation consisted  in  a data  set of  unique IMDb 
identifiers  with  mapped  TMDB  identifiers  and  the  available  TMDB  metadata  for  each  one  of  them. 
Once obtained, the metadata were appended to the initial EPG data by matching with the help of the 
IMDb identifiers. 

3.  Once the TMDB metadata were appended to the EPG data, the enriched data were further processed 
to generate the variables required for the indicators of interest within the scope of this assignment. 
Such processing included: 

a.  Conditional  re-coding  of  variables:  e.g.,  defining  the  prime-time  intervals  for  each  country  and 

identifying whether each entry on the EPG schedule is within the prime-time interval or not),  

b.  Computing  production-focused  additional  variables:  e.g.,  counting  the  number  of  production 
companies for each production, mapping the country of origin for each company as European or not 
and classifying the production as European, European co-production, or other relevant categories. 

c.  Computing  the  time-related  variables  required  for  generating  the  indicators  of  interest:  e.g.,  total 
number of minutes covered by the EPG data per channel per day, total number of minutes allocated 
to eligible works per channel per day, total number of minutes allocated to European and other relevant 
categories of productions per channel per day. 

d.  After performing these steps and assessing the amount of information appended to the data through 
external sources (TMDB), we further refined the classification of the works captured in the EPG data 
by including in the calculation, the information already present in the programme guides (i.e., country 
or countries  of origin) for those  works that  have  not  been  identified within the  TMDB database  but 
which,  following  a  manual  inspection,  appeared  to  qualify  (e.g.  channel/network-specific  series 
produced in the country of broadcasting for which the TMDB metadata was either insufficient to allow 
proper identification or was absent). 

Given the nature of productions covered by IMDb and TMDB, in principle, we can safely assume that, in line 
with the scope of this assignment, the eligible productions are those belonging to the genres covered by the 
IMDb and TMDB metadata.  

The achieved values for the target indicators (numbers and percentages) are presented in the subsequent 

sections, together with the technical details regarding the calculation procedure for each indicator. 

67 The data is available at https://datasets.imdbws.com/  

150 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

7.1.1     Channels covered per Member State  

As mentioned in the methodological overview, once EPG data were collected, on a country-by-country basis, 
the  names  of  the  channels  were  compared  against  those  appearing  in  the  latest  Audiovisual  Observatory 
Yearbook - Country Audience data and those appearing in the annual Member State reports on the share of 
EU broadcasted works. In line with the scope of this study, to increase the level of comprehensiveness of the 
analysis of channels per Member State, we considered ‘eligible’ the channels appearing in at least one of the 
two sources of information mentioned (the Yearbook’s Country Audience data and the Member State reports). 

This approach allowed us to calculate the relevant indicators for this study for two groups of channels: firstly, 
for those that appeared either in the Audiovisual Observatory Yearbook or in the annual Member State reports 
and  secondly,  for  those  that  were  only  present  in  the  latter  source  of  information.  Since  the  first  group  of 
channels encompasses both those reported by the Member States and also a few additional ones falling within 
the scope of the study, the results presented throughout the report pertain to this set of eligible channels. The 
results describing the second set of channels is presented at the finest level of granularity in the annexes. The 
table  below  presents,  on  a  country-by-country  basis,  the  total  number  of  channels  covered  by  the  EPG 
analysed data: 

Figure 75 - Number of channels by Member State: eligible channels and channels matching Members States reporting 
data 

As shown in this figure, across all Member States – except for Czechia – the number of channels considered 
eligible  is  higher  than  the  number  of  channels  strictly  identified  from  the  Member  State  data.  As  explained 
above, this first group of eligible channels consists of both those contained in the Member State reports and 
those we could identify as in line with the scope of the study in the Audiovisual Observatory Yearbook. The 
impact of this difference consists overall in lower values for the indicators aggregated at the level of the Member 
State channels, as presented in the annex.  

The list of the names of the covered channels for each country is presented in the archive constituting Appendix 
D: within each country-specific folder, the two Excel files contain the two versions of the indicator (all channels 
and  Member  State-reported  channels)  and,  within  each  file,  a  dedicated  sheet  presents  the  results  within 
channels and between days, within channels and aggregated at the country level. 

7.1.2     Period covered by the data  

In line with the specifications set forth in the inception report, the collection of EPG data began on 1 December 
2020 and continued until 28 February 2021. The current report uses the data collected during the entire period. 

151 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

The  only  significant  gaps  within  the  country-level  data  coverage  across  the  data  collection  period  relate  to 
Romania for the period between 1- 15 December 2020, when it was not possible to collect the EPG data due 
to technical issues affecting the online EPG data sources and the configuration of the Webgrab++ software. A 
detailed overview showing the number of EPG entries by channel and by country is presented in Annex D. 
Despite this gap, as shown in the figure below, across all eleven Member States the amount of collected data 
is large enough to allow the analysis to be performed, if required, not just across the entire period (>80 calendar 
days) but also on a monthly basis. 

Figure 76 - Number of EPG entries by Member State, by month 

In addition, as shown in the below figure, the average daily number of EPG entries by Member State tends to 
be overall correlated with the number of channels covered in each Member State which indicates a high quality 
and readability of the data capture process:  

Figure 77 - Average number of EPG entries per day per Member State 

152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

7.1.3     Categories used in this chapter  

In line with the scope of the assignment, once the pre-processing of the data was completed, indicators were 
generated to estimate the key indicators of interest, as follows: 

a.  Qualifying time and qualifying works 

A  key  distinct  feature  of  the  project  consists  in  the  high  volume  of  data  collected  across  Member  States, 
channels, and time. Nevertheless, in addition to the implicit benefits of such data richness, the quantity of data 
also posed significant challenges in terms of its management and processing.  

Therefore, the identification of qualifying programmes - beyond the definition emerging from the works to which 
Articles 16 and 17 apply: all programmes excluding “news, sports events, games, advertising, teletext services 
and teleshopping” – needs to rely as much as possible on information either present in the collected EPG data 
or  appended  through  post-processing:  attempting  to  manually  check  or  code  more  than  two  million  entries 
across eleven languages would prove to be an impossible research feat. Thus, for the current analysis, we 
relied  on  the  information  implicitly  obtained  by  the  mapping  against  the  IMDb  title  identifiers.  The  rationale 
behind this approach is the following:  

•  At the first stage, we considered the IMDb identifiers. IMDb uses two main criteria to classify most of 

the content covered: 

a)  The  “type  of  titles”,  with  the  following  categories:  Feature  film,  TV  Movie,  TV  Series  and  TV 
Episode, TV Special, Mini-Series, Documentary, Video Game, Short Film, Video, TV Short.  

b)  The “genres” of content, with the following categories: Action, Adventure, Animation, Biography, 
Comedy, Crime, Documentary, Drama, Family, Fantasy, Film-Noir, Game - Show, History, Horror, 
Music,  Musical,  Mystery,  News,  Reality,  Romance,  Sci-fi,  Sport,  Talk-Show,  Thriller,  War, 
Western. 

•  Since  IMDb  allocates  a  maximum  of  three  genre  categories  to  each  title  covered,  implicitly,  any 
scheduled entry from the EPG data identified as having a valid IMDb title code belongs to one of the 
“type of titles categories” and to  a  maximum  of three  genre categories. Thus, we performed  a  first 
stage of filtering out potentially non-qualifying works, by ‘removing’ the EPG entries for which an IMDb 
title code had not been identified.  

•  At the second stage, once the entries without an IMDb code had been filtered out, we matched the 
appended IMDb identifiers against the TMDB dataset and, if the works were identified within the TMDB 
coverage, we appended additional information, including up to seven genre categories. The TMDB 
data use a list of 27 unique genres, comprised of categories presented in the table below.  

•  Once the information had been appended, we concatenated the text present in all the additional genre 
variables from TMDB (up to 7 potential genres per entry) and filtered out all the entries that contained 
the word “News” in the concatenated genre variable. The remaining entries with an identified IMDb 
identifier, a TMDB one and belonging to any of the remaining 26 genres - or, in the majority of cases, 
their various combinations - were classified as “qualifying”. 

153 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 37 – TMDB Genre categories 

No. 

Genre 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Documentary 

Action & Adventure 

Comedy 

Sci-Fi & Fantasy 

Reality 

Animation 

Drama 

Family 

Mystery 

Talk 

Crime 

Adventure 

Romance 

News 

History 

Action 

TV Movie 

Fantasy 

Soap 

Thriller 

Horror 

Western 

Music 

Kids 

Science Fiction 

War & Politics 

War 

Since, throughout the report, the shares presented for each indicator are expressed as percentage of the time 
of total eligible works, the share of identified works in the total number of captured entries can be considered 
a proxy indicator for the robustness of the results: the higher the share, the greater the robustness.  

As a methodological caveat, given that we have considered as qualifying time all works identified in the TMDB 
database except for those falling under the “News” category, we could not retrieve the information required for 
the  classification  and  analysis  (e.g.,  name  and  country  of  origin  of  production  companies,  etc.)  for  all  the 
qualifying works. This was the case because some of this information was not available in the TMDB database 
at  the  time  of  analysis.  To  mitigate  this  issue,  where  possible,  such  as  in  the  case  of  the  classification  of 
qualifying works into the European or non-European category, we have used information related to the country 
of production of the qualifying works already present in the EPG data collected. The existence of such cases 
explains, for example, apparent indicator inconsistencies such as the fact that when summing up the amount 
of time pertaining to European and Non-European qualifying productions and co-productions within Member 
States, the amount of time is lower than the calculated and declared qualifying time, even though in principle, 
the qualifying time should be comprised of the time covered by these two categories of works (European and 
non-European).  

Of  course,  if  we  were  to  redefine  qualifying  time  as  the  sum  of  the  time  allocated  to  works  within  the  two 
categories  rather  than  the  amount  of  time  pertaining  to  what  have  been  defined  as  qualifying  works  (see 
previous  section),  the  reported  share  of  eligible  time  within  each  Member  State  pertaining  to,  for  example, 
European works would potentially increase. An example of the potential magnitude of this change, as shown 
below, is the case of Austria, where the share of eligible European works (productions and co-productions) is 
36.6% according to the ‘standard’ approach but would reach 43.4%. using the modified approach. However, 

154 

 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

the  effect  would  not  be  consistent  across  all  the  Member  States,  depending  very  much  on  the  amount  of 
missing classification information for the eligible works: in the case of Sweden, it would rise from 28.1% to 
39%.  

Following this approach, throughout the report, in line with the content of the AVMS Directive and the guidance 
received  as  part  of  the  review  of  the  interim  report,  the  indicators  are  calculated  based  on  the  amount  of 
qualifying time, defined as the amount of broadcasting time assigned to qualifying works. 

b.  European productions and co-productions within qualifying time, countries, and schedules 

To  distinguish  the  European  productions  and  co-productions  from  non-European  qualifying  works,  we 
operationalised the AVMS Directive definition of European works68 by analysing either the declared countries 
of origin (where available) or the country of origin of the production companies. Thus, we categorised the works 
as follows: 

•  European productions: those productions made by a single European production company/producer. 

•  European co-productions: productions where at least two production companies are involved and the 

majority of them are European. 

c.  European productions and co-productions within prime time 

To classify the works as scheduled within or outside the prime-time interval, on a country-by-country basis, we 
identified the prime intervals and, depending on the scheduled start time and the country of scheduling, we 
classified each of the works accordingly.  

The table below shows the time intervals considered as prime time in each of the 11 Member States, in line 
with the audience market share data of the European Audiovisual Observatory – 2020 Yearbook data.  

Table 38 – Prime Time intervals by Member State 

Member States 

Prime Time Interval 

Austria 

Czechia 

Germany 

France 

Hungary 

Italy 

20:00 – 23:00 

19:00 – 23:00 

20:00 – 23:00 

20:00 – 23:00 

20:00 – 23:00 

20:30 – 22:30 

Netherlands 

19:30 – 23:00 

Poland 

Romania 

Spain 

Sweden 

19:30 – 23:00 

19:00 – 23:00 

22:00 – 24:00 

19:00 – 23:00 

Within  the  report,  this  indicator  is  operationalised  as  the  amount  of  time  ascribed  to  works  classified  as 
European and scheduled to be broadcast within the prime-time intervals.  

Source: EAO 2020 Yearbook for subscribers 

68 In line with the Article 1 of the Directive, European works are those originating from: a) one of the 27 EU Members States, b) European 
third states which have ratified the European Convention on TransfrontierTransfontier Television of the Council of Europe and c) European 
third states which have concluded co-production agreements with the EU. 

155 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

d.  Domestic and non-domestic European works within qualifying time and countries 

Domestic European works are defined as qualifying European works which are produced by the same country 
as that in which the work is scheduled for broadcasting in the EPG data or, depending on the availability of 
metadata, which have among their producers companies originating in the same country as that in which the 
work is scheduled for broadcasting. 

Conversely, non-domestic European works are those European productions in which the country of production 
or the countries of origin of the production companies differ from the country in which the production has been 
scheduled for broadcasting. 

Following this functional definition, throughout this report the values for these indicators are operationalised 
and  expressed  as  the  share  of  time  allocated  to  the  above-defined  domestic  and  non-domestic  European 
works in the total amount of qualifying time.  

e. 

Independent productions and co-productions within qualifying time, countries, and schedules 

In  our  current  approach,  to  assess  whether  a  production  is  independent  or  not,  we  used  publicly  available 
information69,70,71 to compile  a  list of  940 producers and production companies across Europe classified as 
independent.  Thus,  if  a  qualifying  European  work  was  produced  by  a  single  production  company  matched 
against the list, it is classified as an independent production.  

If all the production companies  are  identified  as  independent, the work is classified as  an independent co-
production. 

Where a qualifying work has at least two production companies, at least one of which has been identified as 
independent while the rest have not been identified as such, the work is considered as a co-production between 
independent  and  non-independent  production  companies.  This  indicator  is  labelled  as  “quasi-independent 
European works”.  

Consequently,  by  applying  this  classification  approach,  the  indicators  throughout  this  report  on  these 
categories of works are expressed as the time ascribed to these categories as a share of the time ascribed to 
qualifying works (i.e., qualifying time). 

f.  Recent European productions and co-productions within qualifying time  

In line with the AVMS Directive, a qualifying work is classified as recent if the year of production is within five 
years of the year of scheduling. 

Following a similar approach as in the case of the previous categories of works, the indicator values reported 
in this study reflect the percentage of time covered by this category of productions in the total  time ascribed 
to qualifying works. 

7.2     Qualifying works covered by the study  

By applying the described operationalisation of the functional definitions detailed in the previous section, this 
section presents an overview of the achieved outputs from the key classification process, the categorisation 
of the qualifying works and, implicitly, the intervals classified as qualifying time. 

As  a  first  step,  after  implementing  the  classification  approach  to  identify  qualifying  works,  we  obtained  the 
results as shown in the chart below.  

69 Sources: https://www.cepi-producers.eu/our-members; https://www.eurovod.org/members; 
https://www.europeanproducersclub.org/members 

70 https://www.eurovod.org/members 

71 https://www.europeanproducersclub.org/members 

156 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Figure 78 - Qualifying works - number of entries by stage of classification 

As shown above, overall, the number of works removed or added from the pool of potentially qualifying works 
between stage one (appending the IMDb identifier) and stage two (appending TMDB metadata) varies across 
the 11 Member States, given the multi-stage approach implemented to maximise the likelihood of identifying 
all possible eligible works. Figure below shows the shares of identified works by country out of total captured 
entries.  

Figure 79 - Qualifying works – share of identified works out of total entries by stage of classification  

Given the results above, it appears that the performance of the identification process varies by Member State, 
the language of the title potentially playing a significant role in its success: from a maximum of 88% identified 
productions out of the total number of entries in the case of Sweden and Poland, to 52% and 47% in the cases 
of the Netherlands and Czechia.  

The classification process itself and the number of classified productions resulting from it has a direct impact 
on  the  amount  of  time  covered  by  qualified  works,  the  value  against  which  we  report  all  the  indicators 
throughout the report, namely the qualifying time. Thus, after the classification of works, we calculated the key 

157 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

information required for deriving the required indicators, i.e. the amount of qualifying time. This is presented 
below.  

Figure 80 -Time covered by the EPG entries and qualifying time by Member State across the collected data (in  minutes) 

Given the level of granularity of the collected data, we could investigate the distribution of the qualifying time 
at the level of channels within Member States. The table below shows the proportion of qualifying time - as the 
amount of time covered by qualifying works out of the total amount of time covered by the EPG data - for the 
top five or 10 channels per Member State with the largest market share (audience).  

Across most Member States, the proportion of qualifying programmes as share of time represents over 50% 
of the total programmes. Thus, viewers are mostly exposed to qualifying genres, and this is most noticeable 
for the following Member States and channels: 

• 

• 

In Austria, Vox broadcast around 96% of qualifying programmes, and ARD around 89% 

In Hungary, the TV channels Film+ and Cool registered a proportion of qualifying programmes of 99% 
and 100%, respectively 

• 

In Italy, over 95% of the programmes broadcast on Rete 5 are classified as qualifying 

•  The channels TV Puls and TVN7 in Poland broadcast over 99% of qualifying programmes 

• 

• 

In Germany too, some channels registered high proportions of qualifying programmes. For example, 
zdf_neo had over 98% qualifying programmes 

In  Sweden,  there  are  four  channels  on  which  qualifying  programmes  represent  over  99%:  Kanal  5 
Danmark, TV3, Sjuan and TV8. 

However fewer qualifying programmes are broadcast by some channels: 

•  On Rai 1 in Italy, only around 20% of the programmes could be classified as qualifying. Rai 2 follows 

closely with only around 25% 

• 

In Romania, National TV registered 19%  of qualifying programmes while Antena 3 HD had around 
27% 

• 

In the Netherlands, the qualifying programmes for NPO 2 HD stand at around 8% 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 39 - Share of qualifying time within the collected data and channel market share 
(audience) by Member State 

Member States 

Channels 

Qualifying time  

Market Share  

Austria 

Hungary 

France 

Italy 

Romania 

Czechia 

ORF 2 

ORF 1 

ZDF 

RTL 

Vox 

ATV 

Pro Sieben 

Puls 4 

Sat.1 

ARD 

TV2 

RTL Klub 

DUNA Televízió 

ATV 

SuperTV2 

Film+ 

m1 

Mozi+ 

Cool 

RTL II 

TF1 

France 2 

France 3 

M6 

France 5 

TMC 

Rai 1 

Canale 5 

Rai 3 

Rai 2 

Italia 1 

Rete 4 

La7 

PRO TV 

Antena 1 

Kanal D HD 

Antena 3 HD 

National TV 

Prima TV HD 

Nova 

CT 1 HD 

PrimaFamily 

CT 2 HD 

62.36% 

67.26% 

73.93% 

71.79% 

95.95% 

78.47% 

81.86% 

65.40% 

74.76% 

88.96% 

81.45% 

82.94% 

66.23% 

33.95% 

93.03% 

98.87% 

70.35% 

99.00% 

100.00% 

88.04% 

68.71% 

61.42% 

64.58% 

58.76% 

76.89% 

61.30% 

19.88% 

86.77% 

45.60% 

24.68% 

88.56% 

94.94% 

37.46% 

47.47% 

35.76% 

32.29% 

26.80% 

18.68% 

33.43% 

43.72% 

64.45% 

75.82% 

57.22% 

159 

19.4% 

9.1% 

4.1% 

4% 

3.5% 

3.4% 

3.4% 

3.4% 

3.3% 

3% 

10.3% 

9.6% 

3.5% 

3.4% 

3% 

2.9% 

2.9% 

2.7% 

2.3% 

2.3% 

19.5% 

13.9% 

9.3% 

8.9% 

3.6% 

3.1% 

16.3% 

15.4% 

6.8% 

5.6% 

4.8% 

3.9% 

3.7% 

16.8% 

11.3% 

9.7% 

4.9% 

2.2% 

2.1% 

20.2% 

16% 

12.1% 

4% 

 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Member States 

Channels 

Qualifying time  

Market Share  

3.9% 

9.9% 

9.7% 

8.5% 

8.3% 

3.7% 

3.6% 

3.5% 

3.2% 

23.1% 

12.4% 

7.4% 

6.5% 

4.9% 

4.3% 

4% 

3.5% 

3.5% 

2.4% 

13% 

11.3% 

8.4% 

6.0% 

4.8% 

4.3% 

3.6% 

3.1% 

11.6% 

9.4% 

5.3% 

2.7% 

2.7% 

2.4% 

2.2% 

2% 

25.6% 

23.7% 

23.7% 

6.4% 

4.9% 

4% 

3.8% 

Poland 

Netherlands 

Germany 

Spain 

Nova Cinema HD 

POLSAT 

TVP 1 

TVN HD 

TVP 2 HD 

TV 4 

TVP 3 

TV Puls 

TVN 7 

NPO 1 HD 

RTL 4 

SBS6 

NPO 2 HD 

NPO 3 HD 

Veronica 

Net5 

RTL 5 

RTL 7 

RTL 8 

ZDF HD 

Das Erste HD 

RTL HD 

SAT.1 HD 

VOX HD 

Pro Sieben 

Kabel 1 

zdf_neo 

Antena 3 HD 

LA 1 

Cuatro HD 

FDF 

La 2 HD 

Energy 

TV3 

13 TV 

SVT1 HD 

TV4 

SVT2 HD 

Sweden 

Kanal 5 Danmark 

TV3 

Sjuan 

TV8 

89.16% 

95.42% 

77.67% 

95.39% 

94.77% 

98.95% 

59.13% 

99.01% 

99.23% 

11.43% 

68.73% 

27.68% 

7.71% 

25.29% 

83.37% 

47.21% 

15.53% 

41.89% 

45.89% 

71.66% 

77.43% 

58.98% 

78.55% 

89.86% 

88.53% 

82.32% 

98.57% 

70.33% 

72.13% 

78.22% 

84.87% 

75.35% 

94.71% 

62.32% 

65.16% 

45.13% 

89.11% 

36.39% 

98.72% 

99.22% 

99.21% 

99.15% 

160 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Interestingly, channels with higher market shares do not necessarily broadcast higher proportions of qualifying 
works as shown below.  

Figure 81 - Correlation between market share (audience) and qualifying time 

161 

0%20%40%60%80%100%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%Qualifying works (%)Market Share (%)Correlation= -0,25 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

7.3     All European works  

Following  the  procedure  classifying  European  qualifying  productions  and  co-productions,  the  total  share  of 
European  works  across  the  11  Member  States,  and  across  all  the  channels  analysed,  is  39%  of  the  total 
amount of eligible (qualifying) time.  

On a country-by-country basis, the time share of European qualifying works scheduled for broadcasting in the 
total time of qualifying works ranges from 50.7% in the case of Germany to 26.3% in the case of Romania. 

Figure 82 - Share of Qualifying European Productions and Co-productions per Member State 

European  works  represent  the  total  share  of  productions  classified  as  either  European  productions  or 
European  co-productions.  Firstly,  in  the  figure  above,  the  definition  of  European  co-productions  was 
operationalised based on the AVMS Directive to encompass all the identified  broadcast programmes where 
there are at least two production companies involved and the majority of them are European.  

Secondly, European co-productions were defined slightly different too, namely as those works where there are 
at least two production companies and at least one of them is European. When using this broader classification 
criteria,  across  all  Member  States  the  percentages  representing  European  co-productions  of  the  qualifying 
time increase slightly. The graph below shows the aggregated results of European productions and European 
co-productions (European works) when using the less restrictive definition of European co-productions.  

162 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Figure 83 - Share of qualifying European productions and co-productions (using the less restrictive definition where 
European co-productions have at least one European company) 

There  are  252  channels  in  total  across  the  11  Member  States  which  have  a  market  share  above  0.5%, 
according to EAO data72. Of these 252 channels, only 77 broadcast 50% or more European works in the total 
qualifying time. These 77 channels represent 30% of the channels that have more than 0.5% of the audience 
in their corresponding Member State. On the other hand, there are 61 channels (representing 24% of the total 
number of channels that have 0.5% or higher market share) that broadcast 20% or less European works in 
qualifying time, according to our dataset. A bit less than half of these channels have a market share between 
0.5-1%, meaning they are rather small channels. However, there are also channels with large audiences in 
this group with very low shares of European works in qualifying time, for instance: 

•  PRO TV Romania has 17% of European  works as a share of qualifying time in our dataset (16.8% 

market share);  

•  RTL Club Hungary has 13.6% European works (9.6% market share); 

•  Antena 3 Romania – 19.3% European works (4.9% of market share); 

•  Kanal 5 Danmark in Sweden – 17.4% European works (4.9% of market share);  

•  Veronica Netherland – 8.9% European works (4% of market share).  

72 EAO 2020 Yearbook for subscribers 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Figure 84 – Number of channels according to share of qualifying European works– distribution across intervals 
(groupings) 

From  the  perspective  of  channels,  within  each  of  the  11  Member  States,  the  table  below  highlights  those 
identified  as  having  the  lowest  and  highest  scheduled  qualifying  European  works  time  during  the  period 
covered by the EPG data collected.  

Table 40 – Channels with lowest and highest number of identified European works 

Member 
State 

AT 

CZ 

FR 

DE 

HU 

IT 

NL 

PL 

RO 

ES 

SE 

Highest amount of time 
allotted to European works  
(in minutes) 
60,824 

55,450 

65,558 

68,155 

55,750 

91,268 

90,935 

84,202 

39,750 

94,807 

64,889 

Channel 

ZDF 
Prima 
Krimi HD 
Polar+ 
Das Erste 
HD 
RTL+ 
Mediaset 
Extra  

Lowest amount of time 
allotted to European works  
(in minutes) 
685 

180 

1,570 

470 

905 

4,052 

BBC First 

265 

TVN 
Turbo 
Cartoon 
Network 
Be Mad 
TV 
BBC Brit 

5,466 

150 

990 

1,115 

Channel 

ARD 

VH1 

Téva 
ProSieben 
MAXX HD 
Gotthárd TV 
Premium 
Stories 
TV 
Gelderland 

History 

Etno TV 

Tele Elx 

History HD 

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

The table  below presents the proportion of  European  works per Member State for those  channels with the 
highest market share in terms of audience. There are significant variations within those Member States, as 
follows: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

In Austria, four channels offer over 50% of European works (ORF 2, ZDF, RTL). In fact, for ARD, all 
programmes  broadcast  have  been  either  European  productions  or  European  co-productions. 
However, there are also channels for which the proportion of European works is fairly low and therefore 
the 50% requirement of Article 16 is not met. This gap is most prominent for ATV (12%), Puls 4 (24%) 
and Pro Sieben (25%). 

In Hungary, there are four channels with over 50% or, at least, very close to 50% of European works: 
DUNA Televízió, SuperTV2, M1 and Cool. On the other hand, RTL Klub offers only 14% of European 
works.  

In France, the channel France 5 reaches around 74% of European works. France 2 offers around 65% 
of European works and is closely followed by France 3 with 59%. Although below 50%, M6 also has 
a  significant  proportion  of  European  works  (48%).  Most  of  the  top  6  channels  in  France  based  on 
market share meet the 50% requirement. TMC channel registers the lowest proportion of European 
works, standing at 31%. 

In Italy, there are two main channels with a proportion of European works over 50%: Canale 5 and 
Rete 4. La7 follows with 44%. However, two channels have less than a quarter of European works: 
Italia 1 (21%) and Rai 2 (24%). 

In Romania, channels are not very successful at offering a high proportion of European works. Antena 
1 broadcast the most time allotted to European works: 41%. However, Antena 3 only reaches 19%. 
Overall, most channels do not meet the threshold requirement of Article 16. 

In Czechia, there are three channels where European works make up around 50%: CT 1 HD (49%), 
PrimaFamily (49%)  and CT 2  HD (51%).  However, the  proportion of  European works on the  Nova 
channel stands at 17%. 

In Poland, only three of the eight channels with the largest market share have a proportion of European 
works exceeding 50%: TVP1, TV4 and TV Puls. However, there are also four channels with nearly 
50% of European works: POLSAT (43%), TVP 2 HD (48%), TVP 3 (46%) and TVN7 (47%). None of 
the selected channels have a proportion of European works below 35% 

In  the  Netherlands,  four  of  the  10  selected  channels  registered  over  50%  or  very  close  to  50%  of 
European works: RTL4, SBS6, NPO 2 HD and NPO 3 HD. Most striking is NPO2 HD, with 82% of 
European works. The Veronica and Net5 channels offer less than 15% of European works.  

In Germany, half of the selected channels exceed 50% of European works while half are below 50%. 
The figures are highest for ZDF HD and Das Erste HD (82% and 87%, respectively). There is only one 
channels with less than a quarter of European works, namely Kabel 1 (18%).  

In  Spain,  the  majority  of  the  selected  channels  broadcast  over  50%  of  European  works  (six  out  of 
eight). The lowest proportion is registered in the case of Energy channel. The next lowest proportion 
is for 13 TV which stands at 40%. Cuatro HD has the highest proportion (85%), followed by La 2 HD 
(72%), Antena 3 HD (71%) and La 1 (70%). 

• 

In  Sweden,  SVT1  HD  offered  67%  of  European  works  while  Kanal  5  Danmark  showed  61%.  The 
remaining channels did not reach the 50% requirement.  

In 10 of the 11 Member States studied, there are more European productions than European co-productions 
making  up  the  total  time  allotted  to  European  works.  Czechia  is  the  only  exception  as  the  proportion  of 
European co-productions is higher overall than that of European productions. 

165 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 41 - Share of European productions and European co-productions in qualifying time 
by Member State and top channels (audience) 

Member States  Channels 

European  
productions 

European  
co-productions 

European productions 
& European co-
productions 

Austria 

Hungary 

France 

Italy 

Romania 

Czechia 

ORF 2 

ORF 1 

ZDF 

RTL 

Vox 

ATV 

Pro Sieben 

Puls 4 

Sat.1 

TV2 

RTL Klub 

DUNA Televízió 

ATV 

SuperTV2 

Film+ 

m1 

Mozi+ 

Cool 

RTL II 

TF1 

France 2 

France 3 

M6 

France 5 

TMC 

Rai 1 

Canale 5 

Rai 3 

Rai 2 

Italia 1 

Rete 4 

La7 

PRO TV 

Antena 1 

Kanal D HD 

Antena 3 HD 

National TV 

Prima TV HD 

Nova 

CT 1 HD 

PrimaFamily 

66.4% 

20.4% 

60.3% 

65.6% 

29.1% 

9.9% 

10.6% 

17.1% 

27.8% 

26.4% 

9.8% 

32.7% 

7.2% 

43.1% 

8.3% 

43.7% 

4% 

17.2% 

41% 

16.8% 

31.8% 

40% 

36.5% 

51.7% 

10.8% 

16.4% 

54.4% 

11% 

15.3% 

17.1% 

49.6% 

12.4% 

10.0% 

30.3% 

26.3% 

19.3% 

18.2% 

19.5% 

11% 

23.7% 

39.4% 

16.5% 

15% 

22.7% 

1.7% 

2.7% 

2.3% 

14.1% 

6.6% 

7.7% 

3.7% 

3.8% 

22.9% 

7.8% 

6.6% 

14.3% 

12.6% 

13% 

30.9% 

1% 

16.5% 

33.6% 

19.1% 

11.3% 

21.9% 

20.4% 

8.7% 

10.4% 

23.4% 

8.4% 

3.8% 

8.3% 

31.6% 

6.9% 

10.2% 

5% 

0.0% 

17.5% 

6.7% 

20.8% 

25.4% 

9.7% 

166 

82.9% 

35.4% 

83% 

67.2% 

31.7% 

12.2% 

24.7% 

23.6% 

35.5% 

30.2% 

13.6% 

55.6% 

15.0% 

49.7% 

22.6% 

56.3% 

17% 

48.1% 

42% 

33.3% 

65.4% 

59.1% 

47.8% 

73.6% 

31.2% 

25.1% 

64.7% 

34.5% 

23.7% 

20.9% 

58.0% 

44.1% 

16.9% 

40.5% 

31.3% 

19.3% 

35.6% 

26.1% 

31.8% 

49% 

49.1% 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Member States  Channels 

European  
productions 

European  
co-productions 

European productions 
& European co-
productions 

30% 

11.6% 

8.7% 

9.9% 

14.1% 

9.2% 

25.1% 

11.7% 

17.4% 

22.4% 

3.2% 

6.1% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

12.6% 

2.6% 

1.1% 

0.0% 

5.6% 

6.4% 

20.3% 

4.9% 

2.4% 

14.4% 

4.6% 

29.8% 

18.9% 

4.6% 

12.7% 

57.7% 

8.6% 

3.8% 

2.9% 

7.5% 

20.3% 

8.0% 

7.7% 

17.7% 

3.0% 

1.6% 

16.0% 

CT 2 HD 

20.6% 

Nova Cinema HD 

5.3% 

Poland 

Netherlands 

Germany 

Spain 

POLSAT 

TVP 1 

TVN HD 

TVP 2 HD 

TV 4 

TVP 3 

TV Puls 

TVN 7 

NPO 1 HD 

RTL 4 

SBS6 

NPO 2 HD 

NPO 3 HD 

Veronica 

Net5 

RTL 5 

RTL 7 

RTL 8 

ZDF HD 

SAT.1 HD 

VOX HD 

Pro Sieben 

Kabel 1 

zdf_neo 

Antena 3 HD 

LA 1 

Cuatro HD 

FDF 

La 2 HD 

Energy 

TV3 

13 TV 

SVT1 HD 

TV4 

SVT2 HD 

Sweden 

Kanal 5 Danmark 

TV3 

Sjuan 

TV8 

34.1% 

46.2% 

24.9% 

38.8% 

32.5% 

34.6% 

48.3% 

24.9% 

26.9% 

55.7% 

68.1% 

81.8% 

36.4% 

6.3% 

12.9% 

22.6% 

22.5% 

10.3% 

75.2% 

61.9% 

72.8% 

70.9% 

36.6% 

27.0% 

52.4% 

65.5% 

47.3% 

26.9% 

63.8% 

3.6% 

73.1% 

32.8% 

46.6% 

22.7% 

19.5% 

42.8% 

14.4% 

14.2% 

21.3% 

167 

50.5% 

16.8% 

42.8% 

56.1% 

39% 

48% 

57.6% 

46.3% 

65.7% 

47.3% 

30.1% 

61.7% 

68.1% 

81.8% 

49.1% 

8.9% 

14.1% 

22.6% 

28% 

16.7% 

95.50% 

66.80% 

75.20% 

85.30% 

41.20% 

56.80% 

71.3% 

70.1% 

60% 

84.5% 

72.4% 

7.4% 

76% 

40.3% 

66.8% 

30.7% 

27.2% 

60.5% 

17.4% 

15.8% 

37.3% 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

The figure below shows that there is no clear association between channel market share and the proportion 
of  European  works.  Channels  with  higher  market  shares  do  not  systematically  offer  higher  proportions  of 
European works than smaller channels. 

Figure 85 - Correlation between market share (audience) and share of European works in qualifying time 

7.3.1     Comparison with previous monitoring reports  

The  monitoring  reports  for  the  periods  2011-2015  and  2006-2010  used  somewhat  different  methodologies 
than those described in this section. They relied on a substantially smaller number of channels and covered 
data collected over two non-consecutive weeks rather than three months as in the present study. At the same 
time  the  methodologies  for  encoding  productions  by  origin  and  genre  as  well  as  independent  productions 
differed between the studies. While this 2021 study relied on an automated process of matching with existing 
databases, the previous studies appear to have relied on manual matching73. Manual matching would not have 
been possible for the volume of data used in this assignment.  

The table below shows the shares of European works reported for those channels that were covered in at least 
two of the monitoring studies. It shows that there were major differences in the periods 2010-2016 as well as 
2016-2021. Despite the magnitude of the differences, the body of empirical evidence underlaying them does 
not allow causality to be attributed with certainty to differences in the broadcasting practices of the channels. 
Nevertheless, given the methodological approach presented in this report, we considered that the obtained 
values for the indicators of interest are reflective of the data-based evidence collected.  

73 Note that this is an assumption as the encoding methods are not explained in the reports.  

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 42 - Share of European works per channel as reported in 2020, 2016 and 2021 

Member State 

Channel 

France 

France 

France 

France 

Germany 

Germany 

Germany 

Germany 

Hungary 

Hungary 

Hungary 

Hungary 

Hungary 

Italy 

Italy 

Italy 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Netherlands 

Netherlands 

Netherlands 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Poland 

Poland 

Poland 

Poland 

Romania 

Romania 

Romania 

Romania 

Spain 

Spain 

Spain 

France 2 

France 3 

M6 

TF1 

PRO 7 

RTL 

SAT.1 

ZDF 

Cool 

DUNA TV 

Film + 

RTL KLUB 

TV2 

Canale 5 

Italia 1 

Rai 2 

Rai 3 

NPO1 

NPO2 

NPO3 

RTL4 

SBS6 

Polsat 

TV4 

TVN 

TVP1 

TVP2 

Antena 1 

Kanal D 

National TV 

Pro TV 

Antena 3 

CUATRO 

La 1 

2016 

94.46% 

90.96% 

56.43% 

54.15% 

15.43% 

89.42% 

76.23% 

91.72% 

13.77% 

69.64% 

6.74% 

40.53% 

32.80% 

78.40% 

12.15% 

63.76% 

94.22% 

100.00% 

96.57% 

88.78% 

89.67% 

86.07% 

58.48% 

47.22% 

78.32% 

73.68% 

83.69% 

78.04% 

97.39% 

43.79% 

67.53% 

67.65% 

59.79% 

93.88% 

2021 

65.40% 

59.10% 

47.80% 

33.30% 

85.30% 

n/a 

66.80% 

95.50% 

48.10% 

55.60% 

22.60% 

13.60% 

30.20% 

64.70% 

20.90% 

23.70% 

34.50% 

30.10% 

81.80% 

49.10% 

61.70% 

68.10% 

42.80% 

57.60% 

39% 

56.10% 

48% 

40.50% 

31.30% 

35.60% 

16.90% 

71.30% 

60% 

70.10% 

2010 

90.30% 

84.90% 

62.40% 

54.90% 

43.10% 

87% 

91.30% 

86.90% 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

90.60% 

30.30% 

71.80% 

n/a 

100% 

97.20% 

n/a 

70% 

63.70% 

54.10% 

43% 

74.70% 

67.90% 

74.90% 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

55.50% 

55.80% 

n/a 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

7.4    

Independent European works  

Following the operational definition of the fully independent works as those in which all the production and co-
production companies have been identified as independent, the overall share of such productions in the total 
eligible time amounts to 2.24% across all the 11 Member States.  

However, this result is influenced by several potential shortcomings in the classification procedure,  such as 
the limited number of identified independent production or co-production companies or the fact that the list is 
limited only to European companies. The first step of the process that aimed to identify the number of European 
independent works was to  build a comprehensive  list  of independent  production  companies and producers 
from Europe. Since this was based on desk research and manually searching the web for relevant results, the 
final list might not include all possible names of independent production companies or producers and therefore 
could have led to a decreased percentage for this indicator. The second step was to match the names of the 
production/ co-production companies or producers from our data covering the 11 Member States with those 
from the newly compiled list. The matching was successful in most cases but since the names could, in some 
instances, be differently written across the two sources of information, some matches might not have been 
found.  

Furthermore,  to  mitigate  these  shortcomings  to  the  extent  possible,  we  also  constructed  the  “quasi- 
independent European works” indicator using a less restrictive definition of an independent production, namely 
a European production where at least one production company is independent. In this situation, the percentage 
rises – on average by 7%  

Nevertheless, these values are in stark contrast with the findings of the  previous studies (27.85%  in  2016, 
29.4% in 2010 and 31% in 2007). These differences are most likely due to a different operationalisation of 
what  constitutes,  data-wise,  an  independent  production.  Unfortunately,  the  opacity  of  the  methodological 
approach  of  previous  studies  does  not  allow  a  proper  assessment  of  the  methodological  differences  or  an 
estimation of the potential impact of these methodological differences.  

The figure below highlights the share of identified qualifying fully independent works in total qualifying time on 
a country-by-country basis. 

Figure 86 - Share of qualifying independent works by Member State 

To put things into perspective, as shown in the figure below, despite the overall extremely low percentages of 
qualifying independent European works per Member State, generally there appears to be a slight tendency for 
Members States with a lower estimated percentage of qualifying European works to have higher estimated 
percentages of qualifying European independent works.  

170 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Figure 87 - Shares of qualifying time allocated to European qualifying and fully independent productions 

Considering the 252 channels which have a market share of 0.5% or above, and taking into account the less 
restrictive definition of independent productions (i.e. “quasi-independent European works”), we see that: 

•  The vast majority of these channels – 192 (76%) have 10% of independent productions or less;  

• 

In fact, 128 (51%) have below 5% of independent productions.  

Figure 88 – Number of channels according to share of quasi-independent European works – distribution across intervals 
(groupings) 

At channel level, the proportion of qualifying time allocated to independent works varies across markets. The 
table  below  presents  five  key  indicators  for  the  selected  top  5/10  channels  based  on  the  market  share 
(audience).  Two  of  those  indicators  are  of  particular  importance  for  two  reasons.  Firstly,  the  proportion  of 
qualifying time allocated to ‘fully independent European works’, namely those programmes for which all the 
production or co-production companies are European and independent. Secondly, the proportion of qualifying 
time allocated to the ‘quasi-independent European works’, which offers insight into the proportion of qualifying 

171 

51%47%43%42%37%37%36%29%28%27%26%3%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%4%3%5%GermanyPolandSpainFranceItalyAustriaCzechiaHungarySwedenNetherlandsRomaniaShare QualifyingEuropean WorksShareQualifying European Independent Works 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

time  covered  by  programmes  where  at  least  one  production  company  is  European  and  independent.  The 
following are the main results in terms of the 10% requirement under Article 17: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

In Austria, ZDF is the only channel on which more than 5% of identified qualifying time is allocated to 
fully independent works. The rest of the channels have, on average, around 2%. However, the ‘quasi-
independent European works’ indicator shows that four of the 10 channels selected in Austria have 
over  10%  of  programmes  produced  by  at  least  one  independent  company:  ORF  1  (14.6%),  ZDF 
(11.5%), ATV (12,3%) and Puls 4 (11.6%). Two further channels are also close to 10%: Pro Sieben 
(9.5%) and ORF 2 (7.2%). However, two channels have less than 5% of European works produced 
by at least one independent company: Vox and RTL 

In Hungary, DUNA Televízió and M1 are the only channels on which more than 5% of qualifying time 
is allocated to ‘fully independent European works’. In contrast, the remaining channels have less than 
5%  of  programmes  produced  entirely  by  European  and  independent  companies.  The  ‘quasi-
independent European works’ indicator shows that most channels have over 10% of European works 
where at least one production company is independent: DUNA Televízió, Film+, Mozi+, Cool and RTL 
II. In fact, the proportion of European works with at least one independent production company is as 
high as 24% in the case of Mozi+ and 18% for Cool. Two channels only just missed the 10% threshold: 
TV2 (8.3%) and SuperTV2 (9.4%). RTL Klub (1.9%) and ATV (3.6%) register the lowest proportions 
based on the ‘quasi-independent European works’ indicator. Interestingly, the M1 channel, although 
presenting  one  of  the  highest  proportions  of  ‘fully  independent  European  works’,  simultaneously 
registers one of the lowest proportions of ‘quasi- independent European works’. This could mean that 
most of the programmes broadcast on this channel are produced entirely by either all independent 
companies or all companies that are not independent.  

In France, channels seem not to rely too much on fully independent productions as the proportions 
are fairly low; on average, around 2%. Moreover, except for channel M6 which registers a proportion 
of  19%  for  the  ‘quasi-independent  European  works’  indicator,  the  proportion  for  the  other  selected 
channels ranges from 4.2% for TMC to 9.2% for France 2.  

In Italy, the situation of European independent works is fairly similar to that in France. More specifically, 
channels register a fairly low proportion of qualifying time covered by programmes produced entirely 
by independent production companies (less than 3%). However,  an analysis  of ‘quasi-independent 
European works’ reveals that two channels reach over 10%: La7 (15.8%) and Rete 4 (10.4%). Two 
channels are very close to 10%: Rai 3 (8.7%) and Rai 1 (8%). The channels with the lowest proportion 
of programmes with at least one European and independent production company are Canale 5 (3.5%) 
and Italia 1 (3.8%). 

In Romania, one channel stands out: Antena 1, where around 23% of qualifying time is taken up by 
programmes produced entirely by European and independent companies. PRO TV comes next with 
6.3%.  However,  the  proportion  of  ‘fully  independent  European  works’  on  the  rest  of  the  channels 
ranges from 0% for Kanal D HD, Antena 3 HD and National TV to 2.1% for Prima TV HD. In terms of 
‘quasi-independent  European  works’,  three  channels  have  10%  or  close  to  10%  of  qualifying  time 
taken up by programmes produced  by at  least  one  European and  independent  company:  PRO TV 
(13.4%), Antena 1 (37.2%) and National TV (9%).  

In  Czechia,  low  proportions  of  qualifying  time  are  occupied  by  ‘fully  independent  European  works’. 
However, the proportions of the qualifying time for programmes produced by least one European and 
independent company is relatively higher for some channels: PrimaFamily (19.5%), CT 1 HD (15.4%), 
Nova Cinema HD (8.2%) and CT 2 HD (7.4%). 

In  Poland,  similar  to  Czechia,  low  proportions  of  qualifying  time  are  devoted  to  ‘fully  independent 
European  works’.  However,  one  channel  stands  out  in  terms  of  the  ‘quasi-independent  European 
works’  indicator:  TV  Puls  which  reaches  39%.  Other  channels  worth  mentioning  are:  TV  4  (9.3%), 
POLSAT (7.8%) and TVP 2 HD (7.7%). TVN HD (3.1%), TVP 1 (5.2%) and TVP 3 (6.1%) have the 
lowest proportions. 

In Netherlands, except for the Veronica channel which has a proportion of 19.7% of qualifying time 
allocated to programmes where at least one production company is European and independent, the 
remaining channels have proportions below 8% across both indicators. 

In Germany, two channels allocate around 5% of qualifying time to ‘fully independent European works’ 
– Das Erste HD and ZDF HD – while the remaining channels do not go beyond 4%. There are, however 
three  channels  on  which  over  10%  of  qualifying  time  allocated  to  programmes  with  at  least  one 

172 

 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

• 

• 

European and independent production company: Das Erste HD (10.6%), ZDF Neo (14.7%) and Kabel 
1 (17.9%). ZDF HD is fairly close to 10% too. Two channels register proportions of less than 3%: VOX 
HD and RLT HD. 

In Spain, the proportion of qualifying time for ‘fully independent European works’ ranges from 0% for 
FDF to 2.8% for TV3. Only one channel has more than 10% of ‘quasi-independent European works’: 
13 TV (11.3%). TV3 reaches 8.2% while the remaining channels have proportions of less than 6%. 

In  Sweden,  TV4  and  SVT2  HD  respectively  allocate  9.7%  and  9.9%  of  qualifying  time  to  ‘fully 
independent European works’. Moreover, the majority of channels devote over 10% of qualifying time 
to  ‘quasi-independent  European  works’:  SVT2  HD  (31.6%),  TV8  (26.6%),  TV4  (26.5%),  SVT1  HD 
(13.1%), and Kanal 5 Danmark (12.1%). The two channels with less than 10% of such programmes 
are Sjuan (7.3%) and TV3 (4.2%). 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 43 - Share of qualifying time for various types of Independent productions by Member 
State and channels 

Member States  Channels 

Qualifying 
time for fully 
independent  
European 
works 

Qualifying 
time for works 
where  
European ind. 
companies  
represent over 
50% 

Qualifying 
time for 
works 
where 
European 
ind. 
companies 
represent 
less than 
50% 

ORF 2 

ORF 1 

ZDF 

RTL 

Vox 

ATV 

Pro Sieben 

Puls 4 

Sat.1 

ARD 

TV2 

RTL Klub 

2% 

2.6% 

7.2% 

0.0% 

0.4% 

2.7% 

3.1% 

1.1% 

1.0% 

0.0% 

0.5% 

0.0% 

DUNA Televízió 

5.4% 

ATV 

SuperTV2 

Film+ 

m1 

Mozi+ 

Cool 

RTL II 

TF1 

France 2 

France 3 

M6 

France 5 

TMC 

Rai 1 

Canale 5 

Rai 3 

Rai 2 

Italia 1 

Rete 4 

0.0% 

0.0% 

1.8% 

6.1% 

2.5% 

0.6% 

0.2% 

0.5% 

1.3% 

0.5% 

1.2% 

1.9% 

0.5% 

1.5% 

0.4% 

0.6% 

0.9% 

0.3% 

1.8% 

Austria 

Hungary 

France 

Italy 

2.6% 

4.7% 

3.6% 

1.6% 

2.5% 

5.8% 

4.1% 

6.2% 

2.7% 

0.0% 

6.9% 

1.1% 

3.7% 

3.6% 

8.2% 

8.4% 

0.0% 

17.2% 

17.3% 

9.7% 

3.0% 

7.6% 

4.1% 

9.6% 

1.1% 

2.9% 

2.7% 

2.1% 

4% 

4.2% 

2.7% 

6.4% 

0.2% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.6% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.2% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.5% 

0.0% 

0.4% 

0.0% 

0.2% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

2.3% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.5% 

0.3% 

0.0% 

0.4% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

174 

Qualifying 
time for 
works 
where 
European 
ind. 
companies 
are less 
than or 
equal to 
the total 
prod. 
companies 
5% 

14.6% 

11.5% 

4.1% 

2.7% 

9.5% 

6.3% 

9.9% 

4.1% 

0.0% 

7.8% 

1.9% 

Qualifying 
time for 
quasi- 
independent  
European 
works 

7.2% 

17.4% 

18.8% 

4.1% 

3.1% 

12.3% 

9.5% 

11.6% 

5.1% 

0.0% 

8.3% 

1.9% 

10.6% 

16.2% 

3.6% 

9.4% 

13.1% 

0.0% 

20.8% 

17.4% 

10.8% 

4.8% 

7.9% 

5.1% 

3.6% 

9.4% 

15.4% 

6.1% 

23.7% 

18.0% 

11.2% 

5.3% 

9.2% 

5.6% 

15.6% 

19.1% 

2.8% 

3.7% 

6% 

2.8% 

8.1% 

5.3% 

3.5% 

8.6% 

4.7% 

4.2% 

8% 

3.5% 

8.7% 

6.6% 

3.8% 

10.4% 

 
 
Member States  Channels 

AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Qualifying 
time for fully 
independent  
European 
works 

Qualifying 
time for works 
where  
European ind. 
companies  
represent over 
50% 

Qualifying 
time for 
works 
where 
European 
ind. 
companies 
represent 
less than 
50% 

Qualifying 
time for 
works 
where 
European 
ind. 
companies 
are less 
than or 
equal to 
the total 
prod. 
companies 

Qualifying 
time for 
quasi- 
independent  
European 
works 

Romania 

La7 

PRO TV 

Antena 1 

Kanal D HD 

Antena 3 HD 

National TV 

Prima TV HD 

Nova 

CT 1 HD 

Czechia 

PrimaFamily 

CT 2 HD 

3.5% 

6.3% 

23.4% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

2.1% 

0.0% 

0.2% 

1.7% 

1.1% 

Nova Cinema HD  0.0% 

Poland 

Netherlands 

POLSAT 

TVP 1 

TVN HD 

TVP 2 HD 

TV 4 

TVP 3 

TV Puls 

TVN 7 

NPO 1 HD 

RTL 4 

SBS6 

NPO 2 HD 

NPO 3 HD 

Veronica 

Net5 

RTL 5 

RTL 7 

RTL 8 

ZDF HD 

Das Erste HD 

Germany 

RTL HD 

SAT.1 HD 

VOX HD 

1.4% 

0.5% 

0.0% 

0.8% 

1.2% 

0.0% 

0.5% 

0.0% 

0.8% 

0.5% 

3.5% 

0.0% 

0.9% 

2.6% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.8% 

0.6% 

4.9% 

5.8% 

0.0% 

0.7% 

0.3% 

0.0% 

0.4% 

1.4% 

3.9% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.5% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.3% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.2% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.5% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.2% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

175 

9.4% 

5.3% 

10.2% 

1.1% 

0.0% 

8.1% 

2.0% 

2.2% 

2.5% 

11.8% 

6.1% 

7.0% 

5.3% 

3.1% 

2.6% 

5.9% 

7.5% 

4.6% 

3.5% 

2.8% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

1.9% 

12.3% 

6.7% 

12.4% 

5% 

0.0% 

9% 

4.2% 

2.9% 

15.4% 

19.5% 

7.4% 

8.2% 

6.1% 

4.7% 

3.1% 

6.9% 

8.1% 

5.9% 

38.5% 

3.3% 

0.8% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

3.9% 

15.8% 

13.4% 

37.2% 

8.9% 

0.0% 

9% 

6.3% 

2.9% 

15.6% 

21.7% 

8.5% 

8.2% 

7.8% 

5.2% 

3.1% 

7.7% 

9.3% 

6.1% 

39% 

3.3% 

1.6% 

0.5% 

3.5% 

0.0% 

5.3% 

17.1% 

17.1% 

19.7% 

6.3% 

0.0% 

5.3% 

5.8% 

2.8% 

2.2% 

1.7% 

5.7% 

2.4% 

6.5% 

1.8% 

6.9% 

6.7% 

3.5% 

4.8% 

2.3% 

6% 

2.7% 

6.5% 

1.8% 

7.7% 

7.5% 

8.4% 

10.6% 

2.3% 

6.7% 

3.0% 

 
 
Qualifying 
time for 
works 
where 
European 
ind. 
companies 
represent 
less than 
50% 

Qualifying 
time for 
works 
where 
European 
ind. 
companies 
are less 
than or 
equal to 
the total 
prod. 
companies 

Qualifying 
time for 
quasi- 
independent  
European 
works 

3.1% 

14.0% 

6.6% 

0.4% 

3.9% 

4.3% 

1.2% 

2.3% 

2.2% 

4.2% 

2.5% 

6.9% 

5.7% 

6% 

2.9% 

3.3% 

2.3% 

14% 

4.8% 

15.2% 

11.5% 

0.7% 

4.9% 

5.3% 

1.6% 

2.7% 

2.2% 

5.4% 

9% 

8% 

16.6% 

21.4% 

9.4% 

4.2% 

2.9% 

5.8% 

17.9% 

14.7% 

3.4% 

5.4% 

5.4% 

1.6% 

4.5% 

2.2% 

8.2% 

11.3% 

13.1% 

26.5% 

31.6% 

12.1% 

4.2% 

7.3% 

24.5% 

26.6% 

AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Qualifying 
time for fully 
independent  
European 
works 

Qualifying 
time for works 
where  
European ind. 
companies  
represent over 
50% 

Member States  Channels 

Spain 

Pro Sieben 

Kabel 1 

zdf_neo 

Antena 3 HD 

LA 1 

Cuatro HD 

FDF 

La 2 HD 

Energy 

TV3 

13 TV 

SVT1 HD 

TV4 

SVT2 HD 

1.0% 

2.7% 

3.2% 

2.7% 

0.5% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

1.8% 

0.0% 

2.8% 

2% 

4.8% 

9.7% 

9.9% 

Sweden 

Kanal 5 Danmark  2.7% 

TV3 

Sjuan 

TV8 

0.0% 

4.4% 

1.9% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.3% 

0.3% 

0.2% 

0.3% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.2% 

176 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

7.5     Recent European works  

The  share  of  qualifying  time  scheduled  for  broadcasting  recent  European  works,  following  the  definition 
detailed  in  the  methodological  overview,  and  on  a  country-by-country  basis,  ranges  from  0.9%  in  the 
Netherlands and 2.2% in Hungary to 29.1% and 28.2% in Germany and Poland.  

Figure 89 - Share of qualifying time allocated to qualifying recent works by Member State 

The share of recent European works in total qualifying time shows significant variations both by Member State 
and by channel. The most important findings for the selected top 5/10 channels per Member State based on 
the market share are: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

In Austria, three channels are very successful in allocating higher percentages of qualifying time to 
recent  European  works:  ZDF  (70,7%),  RTL  (65.7%)  and  ORF  2  (54.7%).  The  channels  where  the 
lowest proportions of qualifying time are allocated to recent European works are: ARD (close to 0%), 
ATV (7.9%) and Puls 4 (8.2%) 
In Hungary, the proportion of total qualifying time covered by recent European works ranges from 0% 
for ATV to 10.1% for DUNA Televízió 
In France, the channel France 5 registers the highest proportion of qualifying time allocated to recent 
European works (13.2%), and TMC the lowest (3.9%) 
In Italy, Canale 5 allocates over 50% of qualifying time to works classified as recent European works. 
Rete 4 comes second with 35.6%. However, Rai 2 and Rai 3 have almost no qualifying time allocated 
to recent European works 
In Romania, most channels have a proportion of qualifying time for recent European works of around 
5%. 
In Czechia, most channels allocate over 10% of qualifying time to recent European works: PrimaFamily 
(15.2%), CT 2 HD (17%) and CT 1 HD (22.2%). Nova Cinema HD and Nova are the channels with the 
lowest proportions for this indicator (2.4% and 4.2%, respectively) 
In Poland, all channels have a proportion of qualifying time for recent European works of more than 
20%. The channels that stand out are: TVP 1 (31.5%), TVP 2 HD (33.5%), TV 4 (34%), TVP 3 (35%), 
TVN 7 (37.4%) and TV Puls (41.5%) 
In the Netherlands, the qualifying time share of recent European works is low across all the selected 
channels: on average, around 1-2%. 

177 

 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

• 

• 

• 

In Germany, the proportion of qualifying time for recent European works is over 10% for all channels. 
In fact, it ranges from 10.5% for Kabel 1 to 73.4% for RTL HD. Two channels have a proportion of over 
50%, namely ZDF HD (53.3%) and RTL HD (73.4%) 
In  Spain,  except  for  Energy  (3.3%)  and  13  TV  (11.7%),  all  other  channels  register  proportions  of 
qualifying time of over 30% for recent European works. LA 2 HD reaches 52.4%, Antena 3 HD 60.5% 
while LA 1 goes up to 64.4% and TV3 to 74.3%. 
In Sweden, the proportion of qualifying time allocated to recent European works ranges from 14% for 
TV8 to 38.1% for SVT1 HD. 

Table 44 - Share of recent European works in qualifying time by Member State and channel 
for top audience channels 

Member State 

Channels 

Austria 

Hungary 

France 

Italy 

ORF 2 

ORF 1 

ZDF 

RTL 

Vox 

ATV 

Pro Sieben 

Puls 4 

Sat.1 

ARD 

TV2 

RTL Klub 

DUNA Televízió 

ATV 

SuperTV2 

Film+ 

m1 

Mozi+ 

Cool 

RTL II 

TF1 

France 2 

France 3 

M6 

France 5 

TMC 

Rai 1 

Canale 5 

Rai 3 

Rai 2 

Italia 1 

Rete 4 

La7 

Share of recent European works in 
qualifying time 
54.7% 

21.6% 

70.7% 

65.7% 

28.4% 

7.9% 

20% 

8.2% 

25.7% 

0.0% 

2.2% 

0.9% 

10.1% 

0.0% 

3.4% 

8.3% 

0.0% 

2.4% 

3% 

2.3% 

7.1% 

6.9% 

9.4% 

4.6% 

13.2% 

3.9% 

0.0% 

56.9% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

14.1% 

35.6% 

2.5% 

178 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Member State 

Channels 

Romania 

Czechia 

Poland 

Netherlands 

Germany 

Spain 

PRO TV 

Antena 1 

Kanal D HD 

Antena 3 HD 

National TV 

Prima TV HD 

Nova 

CT 1 HD 

PrimaFamily 

CT 2 HD 

Nova Cinema HD 

POLSAT 

TVP 1 

TVN HD 

TVP 2 HD 

TV 4 

TVP 3 

TV Puls 

TVN 7 

NPO 1 HD 

RTL 4 

SBS6 

NPO 2 HD 

NPO 3 HD 

Veronica 

Net5 

RTL 5 

RTL 7 

RTL 8 

ZDF HD 

Das Erste HD 

RTL HD 

SAT.1 HD 

VOX HD 

Pro Sieben 

Kabel 1 

zdf_neo 

Antena 3 HD 

LA 1 

Cuatro HD 

FDF 

La 2 HD 

Energy 

TV3 

13 TV 

Share of recent European works in 
qualifying time 
3.6% 

5.1% 

1.1% 

0.0% 

1.6% 

4.4% 

4.2% 

22.2% 

15.2% 

17% 

2.4% 

22.3% 

31.5% 

29.5% 

33.5% 

34% 

35% 

41.5% 

37.4% 

0.0% 

2.8% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

1% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

1.3% 

1.5% 

53.3% 

35.7% 

73.4% 

31.6% 

27% 

22.3% 

10.5% 

26.3% 

60.5% 

64.4% 

34.9% 

44.1% 

52.4% 

3.3% 

74.3% 

11.7% 

179 

 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Member State 

Channels 

SVT1 HD 

TV4 

SVT2 HD 

Sweden 

Kanal 5 Danmark 

TV3 

Sjuan 

TV8 

Share of recent European works in 
qualifying time 
38.1% 

23% 

34.3% 

9.4% 

12.8% 

17.2% 

14% 

7.6     Share of prime time dedicated to European works  

In terms of the prime-time classification of works, in line with the described procedure and on a country-by-
country basis, we present two sets of results. Firstly, we show the results of the qualifying works in prime-time 
which consist of both European and non-European works. Secondly, we present the results of the European 
qualifying works only that were broadcast in prime-time. 

As shown in the below figure, the percentage of time allocated to qualifying works scheduled in prime-time 
ranges from 21.3% in Sweden to 8.4% in Italy. 

Figure 90 - Share of qualifying works in prime time 

180 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Qualifying European works scheduled for prime-time broadcasting take up 5.5% of total qualifying time, across 
all 11 Member States:  

Figure 91 - Share of total qualifying time allocated to qualifying European works in prime time 

The vast majority of channels (203 out of 252, meaning 80%) with more than 0.5% market share dedicate 10% 
or less of prime time to European productions. However, 10 channels dedicate 20% or more of their prime 
time to European works. These are: 

•  SVT24 Sweden – 52.4% of prime time is dedicated to European works; 

•  Teledeporte Spain – 32.2%  

•  Kunskapskanalen Sweden – 29% 

•  SBS6 Netherlands - 25.6%  

•  SVT1 and SVT2 Sweden – 23.4% and 23% respectively 

•  NPO 2HD - 24.6% 

•  Barnkanalen Sweden – 21.7% 

•  Cherie 25 France – 20.6%  

•  Polo TV Poland – 20.5% 

181 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Figure 92 – Number of channels according to share of European works in prime time – distribution across intervals 

(groupings) 

The table below shows the proportion of qualifying time allocated to European works in prime time: 

• 

In Austria, the highest proportion of qualifying time for European works in prime time is registered by 
ZDF (11.7%) and ORF 2 (10.3%). The lowest proportion can be observed for Puls 4 (2.7%) and ATV 
(2.8%) 

• 

• 

• 

•  As  in  Austria,  Hungary  has  two  channels  that  stand  out  for  this  indicator,  namely  DUNA  Televízió 
(13.9%)  and  SuperTV2  (11.1%).  Film+  and  M1  have  the  lowest  proportions  of  qualifying  time  for 
European works in prime time (1% and 2.6%, respectively) 
In France, three channels allocate around 10% of qualifying time to European works in prime time: 
France 5, France 3 and France 2. TF1 and TMC are the least successful in broadcasting European 
works during prime time. 
In Italy, the proportion of qualifying time devoted to European works during prime time ranges from 
around 1% for Rete 4 to 8.5% for Rai 1. 
In Romania, one channel stands out, namely National TV which allocated 19.4% of qualifying time to 
European works during prime time. PRO TV has the lowest proportion, standing at 3.2%. 
In Czechia, most channels have a proportion of over 10% of qualifying time for European works during 
prime time: PrimaFamily (11.5%), CT 1 HD (16.7%) and CT 2 HD (17.6%). 
In Poland, half of the channels allocated over 9% of qualifying time to European works in prime time: 
TVP 1 (9%), TV Puls (9.3%), TVP 2 HD (11.3%) and TV 4 (11.4%). The remaining channels range 
from 3.5% for POLSAT to 7.6% for TVN 7. 
In the Netherlands, four channels allocated over 10% of qualifying time to European works in prime 
time: RTL 5 (14%), RTL 4 (16.6%), NPO 2 HD (24.6%) and SBS6 (25.6%). However, some channels 
record very low proportions of European works in prime time; for example, Net5 (1.2%) and Veronica 
(3.6%). 

• 

• 

• 

•  The  proportion  of  qualifying  time  given  to  European  works  in  prime  time  for  channels  in  Germany 

• 

ranges from 12.4% for ZDF HD to 1.9% for SAT 1 HD. 
In Spain, two channels stand out regarding the proportion of qualifying time for European Works in 
Prime Time, namely TV3 (13.1%) and 13 TV (9.8%). The Energy channel has the lowest proportion – 
around 1%. 

182 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

• 

In Sweden, most channels allocated more than 10% of prime-time qualifying time to European works: 
SVT 2 HD (10.4%), TV8 (11.9%), TV4 (13.3%) and SVT1 HD (23.4%). 

Overall, on 31% of all channels, at least 10% of total qualifying time was allocated to European works in prime 
time.  

Table 45 - European works shown in prime time as a share of total qualifying time by 
channels and Member State 

Member States 

Channels 

ORF 2 

ORF 1 

ZDF 

RTL 

Vox 

ATV 

Pro Sieben 

Puls 4 

Sat.1 

ARD 

TV2 

RTL Klub 

DUNA Televízió 

ATV 

SuperTV2 

Film+ 

m1 

Mozi+ 

Cool 

RTL II 

TF1 

France 2 

France 3 

M6 

France 5 

TMC 

Rai 1 

Canale 5 

Rai 3 

Rai 2 

Italia 1 

Rete 4 

La7 

PRO TV 

Antena 1 

Austria 

Hungary 

France 

Italy 

Romania 

European works in prime time as a share 
of qualifying time 
10.3% 

5.3% 

11.7% 

6.1% 

2.9% 

2.8% 

4.0% 

2.7% 

3.3% 

31.4% 

3.7% 

3.3% 

13.9% 

4.7% 

11.1% 

1.0% 

2.6% 

2.9% 

5.6% 

5.4% 

6.3% 

10.9% 

10.1% 

10% 

10.1% 

7.4% 

8.5% 

6.5% 

2.5% 

3.4% 

2.2% 

0.8% 

1.9% 

3.2% 

7% 

183 

 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Member States 

Channels 

Kanal D HD 

Antena 3 HD 

National TV 

Prima TV HD 

Nova 

CT 1 HD 

PrimaFamily 

CT 2 HD 

Nova Cinema HD 

POLSAT 

TVP 1 

TVN HD 

TVP 2 HD 

TV 4 

TVP 3 

TV Puls 

TVN 7 

NPO 1 HD 

RTL 4 

SBS6 

NPO 2 HD 

NPO 3 HD 

Veronica 

Net5 

RTL 5 

RTL 7 

RTL 8 

ZDF HD 

Das Erste HD 

RTL HD 

SAT.1 HD 

VOX HD 

Pro Sieben 

Kabel 1 

zdf_neo 

Antena 3 HD 

LA 1 

Cuatro HD 

FDF 

La 2 HD 

Energy 

TV3 

Czechia 

Poland 

Netherlands 

Germany 

Spain 

European works in prime time as a share 
of qualifying time 
9% 

9.4% 

19.4% 

4.2% 

7% 

16.7% 

11.5% 

17.6% 

4.4% 

3.5% 

9% 

7.4% 

11.3% 

11.4% 

5.7% 

9.3% 

7.6% 

8.7% 

16.6% 

25.6% 

24.6% 

6% 

3.6% 

1.2% 

14% 

7.7% 

2.9% 

12.4% 

10.8% 

6.7% 

1.9% 

2.2% 

6.4% 

4.1% 

6.2% 

5.7% 

6.6% 

3.7% 

7.5% 

5.3% 

0.8% 

13.1% 

184 

 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Member States 

Channels 

13 TV 

SVT1 HD 

TV4 

SVT2 HD 

Sweden 

Kanal 5 Danmark 

TV3 

Sjuan 

TV8 

European works in prime time as a share 
of qualifying time 
9.8% 

23.4% 

13.3% 

10.4% 

23% 

4.7% 

4.8% 

11.9% 

The  graph  below  suggests  some  degree  of  association  between  market  share  and  the  share  of  European 
works in prime time. However, given the low correlation coefficient, the relationship does not seem very strong. 
It could be that the larger a broadcaster’s market share, the more European works it broadcasts in prime time 
but this effect is quite limited. 

Figure 93 - Correlation between market share (audience) and European works in prime time as a share of qualifying time 

185 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

7.7     Prominence of European works 

In the table below, we present the results obtained for the indicator regarding the prominence of European 
works. This indicator offers insight into the approximate number of households which are exposed to European 
works by channel and Member State, given the market share of each channel and the proportion of European 
works broadcast. More specifically, we used the overall number of households with TV sets in a given country 
to compute the total households that would be watching programmes on a specific channel as the fraction of 
market share of the total TV-owning households in that Member State. Subsequently, having calculated how 
many households would be exposed to each channel, the prominence of European works was extracted as 
the fraction of European works in the total for TV-owning households exposed to a specific channel. 

Overall,  the  higher  the  channel’s  market  share  and  the  more  European  works  it  broadcasts,  the  more 
households  are  exposed  to  European  works.  Thus,  both  these  variables  are  important  in  determining  the 
channel’s reach of households when it comes to European works::  

• 

In Austria, there are 3,998,000 households with TV in total. Since ORF2 has the highest market share, 
and given the proportion of European works broadcast, they are most successful in exposing viewers 
to  European  productions  and  co-productions.  In  total,  the  estimations  show  that  around  642,982 
households would see the European works broadcast by ORF2.  

However, although ORF 1 has a comparatively larger market share than ZDF, ORF 1 broadcasts fewer 
European works and therefore more households watch European works broadcast by ZDF (136,052 
vs. 128,792). The same situation happens in the case of ARD, the selected channel with the lowest 
market share but one of the highest proportions of European works, and therefore the channel reaches 
many households. 

In Hungary, there are 4,246,000 TV-owning households in total. Similar to Austria, the channel with 
the highest market share (TV2) also registers the highest number of households that are exposed to 
European works (132,076). However, RTL Klub (the channel with the second largest market share), 
although it has a comparatively larger market share than DUNA Televizio (9.6% vs 3.5%), reaches 
fewer households with the European works it broadcasts (55,436 vs. 82,627). This difference is again 
attributed to the difference in the overall proportion of European works broadcast.  

In France, there are 32,029,000 TV-owning households in total. The second channel in terms of market 
share  (France  2)  is  significantly  more  successful  at  reaching  households  with  its  European  works. 
Although  its  market  share  is  6  percentage  points  below  that  of  the  leading  channel  (TF  1),  it 
broadcasts, overall, substantially more European works (65.4% vs. 33.3%). 

In  Italy,  there  are  24,843,000  TV-owning  households  in  total.  As  in  France,  the  second  channel  in 
terms of market share (Canale 5) reaches more households with European works (2,475,307) since 
the top two channels are quite close in terms of market share but farther apart in terms of the European 
works broadcast (64.7% vs 25.1%). 

In Romania, there are 831,800 TV-owning households in total. The first channel in terms of market 
share is PRO TV, yet it only ranks 3rd based on the total number of households it reaches with its 
European  works  (236,165).  Antena  1  (second  channel)  and  Kanal  D  HD  (third  channel)  are  more 
successful in broadcasting European works into viewers’ households although they have lower market 
shares than PRO TV; in total they reach 633,216 households.  

In Czechia, there are 4,957,000 TV-owning households in total. CT1 HD is the channel with the second 
largest market share, yet it reaches substantially more households with European works than the other 
channels  (388,629).  It  is  closely  followed  by  Nova,  which  ranks  first  in  terms  of  market  share,  and 
Prima Family, which ranks third.  

In Poland, there are 13,610,000 TV-owning households in total. POLSAT ranks first in terms of market 
share but second in terms of the number of households reached with European works (576,683). The 
channel that reaches most households is TVP 1 (second highest market share).  

In Netherlands, there are 7,866,000 TV-owning households in total. RLT 4 (second largest in terms of 
market share) and NPO 1 HD (the highest) succeed in exposing the most households to the European 
works they broadcast (1,148,743). 

In  Germany,  there  are  43,620,000  TV-owning  households  in  total.  The  largest  channel  in  terms  of 
market  share  is  also  the  channel  that  manages  to  reach  the  most  households  with  its  broadcast 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

186 

 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

European works (ZDF HD – 4,655,563). It is followed very closely by Das Erste HD which captures 
around 4,268,566 households.  

• 

• 

In Spain, there are 19,637,000 TV-owning households in total. Similar to Germany, the channel with 
the  largest  market  share  is  the  most  successful  in  broadcasting  European  works  to  viewers’ 
households (Antena 3 HD – 1,624,137). It is closely followed by La 1 with 1,293,960 households. 

In Sweden, there are 1,454,232 TV-owning households in total. SVT1 HD has the largest market share 
and  also  the  greatest  reach  in  terms  of  the  households  exposed  to  European  works  (1,049,305). 
Although TV4 comes second, it lags far behind SVT 1 HD, reaching 446,449 households. 

Table 46 - Prominence of European works indicators by channel and Member State 

Member State  Channels 

European  
productions 
&  
European  
co-
productions 
(%) 
82.9% 

35.4% 

83% 

67.2% 

31.7% 

12.2% 

24.7% 

23.6% 

35.5% 

100% 

30.2% 

13.6% 

ORF 2 

ORF 1 

ZDF 

RTL 

Vox 

ATV 

Pro Sieben 

Puls 4 

Sat.1 

ARD 

TV2 

RTL Klub 

DUNA Televízió 

55.6% 

ATV 

SuperTV2 

Film+ 

m1 

Mozi+ 

Cool 

RTL II 

TF1 

France 2 

France 3 

M6 

France 5 

TMC 

Rai 1 

Canale 5 

Rai 3 

Rai 2 

Italia 1 

Rete 4 

La7 

15% 

49.7% 

22.6% 

56.3% 

17% 

48.1% 

42% 

33.3% 

65.4% 

59.1% 

47.8% 

73.6% 

31.2% 

25.1% 

64.7% 

34.5% 

23.7% 

20.9% 

58.0% 

44.1% 

Market share 
(%) 

Total TV-
owning  
household
s  
per 
country 

Total TV-
owning  
households  
per channel 

Prominence 
of 
European  
works 
(number of 
households) 

19.4% 

3,998,000 

775,612 

9.1% 

4.1% 

4% 

3.5% 

3.4% 

3.4% 

3.4% 

3.3% 

3% 

3,998,000 

363,818 

3,998,000 

163,918 

3,998,000 

159,920 

3,998,000 

139,930 

3,998,000 

135,932 

3,998,000 

135,932 

3,998,000 

135,932 

3,998,000 

131,934 

3,998,000 

119,940 

10.3% 

4,246,000 

437,338 

4,246,000 

407,616 

4,246,000 

148,610 

4,246,000 

144,364 

4,246,000 

127,380 

4,246,000 

123,134 

4,246,000 

123,134 

4,246,000 

114,642 

4,246,000 

97,658 

4,246,000 

97,658 

642,982 

128,792 

136,052 

107,466 

44,358 

16,584 

33,575 

32,080 

46,837 

119,940 

132,076 

55,436 

82,627 

21,655 

63,308 

27,828 

69,324 

19,489 

46,973 

41,016 

32,029,000  6,245,655 

2,079,803 

32,029,000  4,452,031 

2,911,628 

32,029,000  2,978,697 

1,760,410 

32,029,000  2,850,581 

1,362,578 

32,029,000  1,153,044 

848,640 

32,029,000  992,899 

309,784 

24,843,000  4,049,409 

1,016,402 

24,843,000  3,825,822 

2,475,307 

24,843,000  1,689,324 

582,817 

24,843,000  1,391,208 

329,716 

24,843,000  1,192,464 

249,225 

24,843,000  968,877 

24,843,000  919,191 

561,949 

405,363 

9.6% 

3.5% 

3.4% 

3% 

2.9% 

2.9% 

2.7% 

2.3% 

2.3% 

19.5% 

13.9% 

9.3% 

8.9% 

3.6% 

3.1% 

16.3% 

15.4% 

6.8% 

5.6% 

4.8% 

3.9% 

3.7% 

187 

Austria 

Hungary 

France 

Italy 

 
 
Member State  Channels 

Romania 

Czechia 

Poland 

Netherlands 

Germany 

PRO TV 

Antena 1 

Kanal D HD 

Antena 3 HD 

National TV 

Prima TV HD 

Nova 

CT 1 HD 

PrimaFamily 

CT 2 HD 
Nova Cinema 
HD 
POLSAT 

TVP 1 

TVN HD 

TVP 2 HD 

TV 4 

TVP 3 

TV Puls 

TVN 7 

NPO 1 HD 

RTL 4 

SBS6 

NPO 2 HD 

NPO 3 HD 

Veronica 

Net5 

RTL 5 

RTL 7 

RTL 8 

ZDF HD 

Das Erste HD 

RTL HD 

SAT.1 HD 

VOX HD 

Pro Sieben 

Kabel 1 

zdf_neo 

Antena 3 HD 

LA 1 

Spain 

Cuatro HD 

FDF 

La 2 HD 

AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

European  
productions 
&  
European  
co-
productions 
(%) 
16.9% 

40.5% 

31.3% 

19.3% 

35.6% 

26.1% 

31.8% 

49% 

49.1% 

50.5% 

16.8% 

42.8% 

56.1% 

39% 

48% 

57.6% 

46.3% 

65.7% 

47.3% 

30.1% 

61.7% 

68.1% 

81.8% 

49.1% 

8.9% 

14.1% 

22.6% 

28% 

16.7% 

82.1% 

86.6% 

73.8% 

41.5% 

29.4% 

26.6% 

18.2% 

57.7% 

71.3% 

70.1% 

60.0% 

84.5% 

72.4% 

Market share 
(%) 

16.8% 

11.3% 

9.7% 

4.9% 

2.2% 

2.1% 

20.2% 

16% 

12.1% 

4% 

3.9% 

9.9% 

9.7% 

8.5% 

8.3% 

3.7% 

3.6% 

3.5% 

3.2% 

23.1% 

12.4% 

7.4% 

6.5% 

4.9% 

4.3% 

4% 

3.5% 

3.5% 

2.4% 

13% 

Total TV-
owning  
household
s  
per 
country 

Total TV-
owning  
households  
per channel 

Prominence 
of 
European  
works 
(number of 
households) 

8,318,000 

1,397,424 

236,165 

8,318,000 

939,934 

8,318,000 

806,846 

8,318,000 

407,582 

8,318,000 

182,996 

8,318,000 

174,678 

380,673 

252,543 

78,663 

65,147 

45,591 

4,957,000 

1,001,314 

318,418 

4,957,000 

793,120 

4,957,000 

599,797 

4,957,000 

198,280 

388,629 

294,500 

100,131 

4,957,000 

193,323 

32,478 

13,610,000  1,347,390 

576,683 

13,610,000  1,320,170 

740,615 

13,610,000  1,156,850 

451,172 

13,610,000  1,129,630 

542,222 

13,610,000  503,570 

13,610,000  489,960 

13,610,000  476,350 

13,610,000  435,520 

290,056 

226,851 

312,962 

206,001 

7,866,000 

1,817,046 

546,931 

7,866,000 

975,384 

7,866,000 

582,084 

7,866,000 

511,290 

7,866,000 

385,434 

7,866,000 

338,238 

7,866,000 

314,640 

7,866,000 

275,310 

7,866,000 

275,310 

7,866,000 

188,784 

601,812 

396,399 

418,235 

189,248 

30,103 

44,364 

62,220 

77,087 

31,527 

43,620,000  5,670,600 

4,655,563 

11.3% 

43,620,000  4,929,060 

4,268,566 

8.4% 

6% 

4.8% 

4.3% 

3.6% 

3.1% 

43,620,000  3,664,080 

2,704,091 

43,620,000  2,617,200 

1,086,138 

43,620,000  2,093,760 

615,565 

43,620,000  1,875,660 

498,926 

43,620,000  1,570,320 

285,798 

43,620,000  1,352,220 

780,231 

11.6% 

19,637,000  2,277,892 

1,624,137 

19,637,000  1,845,878 

1,293,960 

19,637,000  1,040,761 

624,457 

19,637,000  530,199 

19,637,000  530,199 

448,018 

383,864 

9.4% 

5.3% 

2.7% 

2.7% 

188 

 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Member State  Channels 

Energy 

TV3 

13 TV 

SVT1 HD 

TV4 

SVT2 HD 

European  
productions 
&  
European  
co-
productions 
(%) 
7.4% 

76% 

40.3% 

66.8% 

30.7% 

27.2% 

Sweden 

Kanal 5 Danmark  60.5% 

TV3 

Sjuan 

TV8 

17.4% 

15.8% 

37.3% 

Market share 
(%) 

Total TV-
owning  
household
s  
per 
country 

Total TV-
owning  
households  
per channel 

Prominence 
of 
European  
works 
(number of 
households) 

2.4% 

2.2% 

2% 

25.6% 

23.7% 

23.7% 

6.4% 

4.9% 

4% 

3.8% 

19,637,000  471,288 

19,637,000  432,014 

19,637,000  392,740 

34,875 

328,331 

158,274 

6,136,000 

1,570,816 

1,049,305 

6,136,000 

1,454,232 

446,449 

6,136,000 

1,454,232 

395,551 

6,136,000 

392,704 

237,586 

6,136,000 

300,664 

6,136,000 

245,440 

6,136,000 

233,168 

52,316 

38,780 

86,972 

7.8     Domestic and non-domestic European works  

Another  aspect  of  interest  consists  in  identifying  the  share  of  qualifying  works  which  are  broadcast  in  the 
Member States for which at least one of the production companies originates in the country in which the work 
is broadcast (home country). 

Based on information on the origin of identified production companies for each qualifying production, the figure 
below shows that overall, the largest share of qualifying time allocated to works within this category is found 
in Germany (38.9% of qualifying time within the country), followed by France (30.9%) while the Member States 
with the lowest shares of qualifying time allocated to productions in this category are Romania (6%), Austria 
(5.6%) and Hungary (3.3%). This may indicate that the quota has contributed unevenly, or very little, to cultural 
diversity among European Member States, especially when it comes to broadcasting domestic works. A high 
share of domestic works can be seen only in Member States like Germany and France, which have traditionally 
had very strong local production industries.  

189 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Figure 94 - Share of qualifying works where the analysed Member State is the home country of at least one production 
company 

The table below delves deeper into the results at a channel level. The main points worth noticing are: 

•  For  most  channels  in  Austria,  less  than  10%  of  qualifying  time  is  allocated  to  programmes  whose 
production  companies  partly  originate  in  the  analysed  country  (in  this  case  Austria).  The  lowest 
proportion  is  registered  for  RTL  (close  to  0%)  and  Pro  Sieben  (close  to  1%).  However,  for  ORF2, 
around  44%  of  programmes  broadcast  in  qualifying  time  were  produced  by  companies  partly 
originating in the analysed country. Moreover, ORF 1 reached around 11%. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

In Hungary, only RTL II has a proportion of over 20% of qualifying time devoted to programmes whose 
production companies partly originate in the analysed country (in this case Hungary). The proportion 
for the remaining channels ranges from 0% for M1 to 8.7% for DUNA Televízió. 

In France, however, all channels registered a proportion of over 20% for this indicator. The highest 
proportion can be observed for France 5 (57.2%), France 2 (54.1%) and M6 (41.4%). 

In Italy, the majority of channels broadcast programmes whose production companies partly originate 
in the analysed country (in this case, Italy). More specifically, the highest proportion of qualifying time 
allocated for domestic productions was registered for Rete 4 (40.2%), LA7 (25.1%), Canale 5 (24.8%) 
and Rai 1 (23.6%). 

In Romania, except for PRO TV (6.9%) and Kanal D HD (0.5%), all the other channels filled over 15% 
of  qualifying  time  with  programmes  whose  production  companies  partly  originate  in  the  analysed 
country (in this case, Romania). Antena 1 (33.6%) and Antena 3 HD (19.3%) stand out. 

In Czechia, the only channel with less than 10% of programmes falling under this indicator is Nova 
Cinema  HD  (7.7%).  The  rest  of  the  channels  were  significantly  more  successful  in  broadcasting 
programmes  whose  production  companies  partly  originate  in  the  analysed  country  (in  this  case, 
Czechia). For example, the proportion for PrimaFamily stands at 27.3% and for CT 1 HD at 25.9%. 

In Poland, six of the top eight channels selected based on market share have a proportion of over 15% 
for this indicator with TV Puls (28.5%) and TV 4 (27.7%) leading. TVP 3 and TVN HD allocated less 
than  10%  of  qualifying  time  to  programmes  whose  production  companies  partly  originate  in  the 
analysed country (Poland). 

In the Netherlands, three channels broadcast over 50% of programmes whose production companies 
partly originate  in the analysed country (the Netherlands): NPO 2 HD (81.8%),  RTL 4 (54.9%) and 
SBS6  (52.5%).  4  other  channels  had  proportions  of  over  10%:  Net5  (11.6%),  RTL5  (14%),  RTL7 
(19.9%), NPO 3 HD (24.1%) and NPO 1 HD (28.6%). 

In  Germany,  at  least  10%  of  qualifying  time  across  all  channels  is  allocated  to  productions  whose 
production companies partly originate in the analysed country (Germany). Three channels registered 
proportions of over 50%: RTL HD (69.1%), ZDF HD (72.6%) and Das Erste HD (82%). The lowest 
proportion is for Pro Sieben (11.2%). 

In  Spain,  except  for  the  Energy  channel  (1.2%)  and  TV3  (11%),  the  proportion  for  the  rest  of  the 
channels ranges from 34.7% for Cuatro HD to 69% for FDF. 

In Sweden, most channels devoted at least 10% of qualifying time to programmes whose production 
companies partly originate in the analysed country (Sweden). The channels that particularly stand out 
are SVT1 HD (36.9%) and Kanal 5 Danmark (30.1%). The lowest proportions are for TV3 (around 1%) 
and TV8 (around 2%). 

Table 47 - Share of qualifying time for works whose production companies partly originate 
in the analysed country  

Member States 

Channels 

Austria 

ORF 2 

ORF 1 

ZDF 

Share of qualifying time for works whose 
production companies partly originate in the 
analysed country  
44.2% 

10.8% 

5.4% 

190 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Member States 

Channels 

RTL 

Vox 

ATV 

Pro Sieben 

Puls 4 

Sat.1 

ARD 

TV2 

RTL Klub 

DUNA Televízió 

ATV 

SuperTV2 

Film+ 

m1 

Mozi+ 

Cool 

RTL II 

TF1 

France 2 

France 3 

M6 

France 5 

TMC 

Rai 1 

Canale 5 

Rai 3 

Rai 2 

Italia 1 

Rete 4 

La7 

PRO TV 

Antena 1 

Kanal D HD 

Antena 3 HD 

National TV 

Prima TV HD 

Nova 

CT 1 HD 

PrimaFamily 

CT 2 HD 

Nova Cinema HD 

Hungary 

France 

Italy 

Romania 

Czechia 

Share of qualifying time for works whose 
production companies partly originate in the 
analysed country  
0.0% 

4.3% 

0.7% 

0.3% 

5.9% 

0.6% 

0.0% 

7.4% 

4.8% 

8.7% 

3.1% 

5.4% 

3.8% 

0.0% 

1.7% 

6.3% 

23.8% 

27% 

54.1% 

36.3% 

41.4% 

57.2% 

27.5% 

23.6% 

24.8% 

7.1% 

8.6% 

17.9% 

40.2% 

25.1% 

6.9% 

33.6% 

0.5% 

19.3% 

15.3% 

14.8% 

21% 

25.9% 

27.3% 

16.9% 

7.7% 

191 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Share of qualifying time for works whose 
production companies partly originate in the 
analysed country  
24.3% 

Member States 

Channels 

Poland 

Netherlands 

Germany 

Spain 

POLSAT 

TVP 1 

TVN HD 

TVP 2 HD 

TV 4 

TVP 3 

TV Puls 

TVN 7 

NPO 1 HD 

RTL 4 

SBS6 

NPO 2 HD 

NPO 3 HD 

Veronica 

Net5 

RTL 5 

RTL 7 

RTL 8 

ZDF HD 

Das Erste HD 

RTL HD 

SAT.1 HD 

VOX HD 

Pro Sieben 

Kabel 1 

zdf_neo 

Antena 3 HD 

LA 1 

Cuatro HD 

FDF 

La 2 HD 

Energy 

TV3 

13 TV 

SVT1 HD 

TV4 

SVT2 HD 

Sweden 

Kanal 5 Danmark 

TV3 

Sjuan 

TV8 

21.2% 

9.4% 

19.2% 

27.7% 

6.5% 

28.5% 

17.6% 

28.6% 

54.9% 

52.5% 

81.8% 

24.1% 

3.8% 

11.6% 

14% 

19.9% 

8.2% 

72.6% 

82% 

69.1% 

39.3% 

20.3% 

11.2% 

14.6% 

41.3% 

52.6% 

37.3% 

34.7% 

69.0% 

43.6% 

1.2% 

11% 

23% 

36.9% 

16% 

15.9% 

30.1% 

0.5% 

12.1% 

2.2% 

192 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

8.  Non-linear service content analysis  

The  purpose  of  this  task  is  to  analyse  the  content  provided  by  VoD  services.  This  analysis  distinguishes 
between catalogue composition and the methods used to ensure prominence of European works, which was 
based primarily on interviews. The analysis of VoD catalogues is based on a sample of 130 services  (which 
resulted in over 750 catalogues)  and covers: 

• 

• 

the  number  of  titles  offered  and  their  genre,  distinguished  into  European  works  and  non-European 
works, 

further  identification  and  exploration  of  the  number  of  European  works  produced  by  independent 
producers;  

• 

coverage of recent works; and  

•  domestics or quasi-domestic European Works versus European Works produced in other countries. 
In other words, these are the Europeans works which were produced or co-produced by the target 
(analysed) country versus those from other countries.   

In a qualitative manner, the analysis also considers information about the means used to ensure prominence 
by VoD services.  

8.1     Summary of the methodology  

For this task, we explored multiple sources of data. However, eventually we purchased an extract from the 
dataset from JustWatch.  

JustWatch is a video-streaming aggregator which compiles data about catalogues of VoD services combining 
SVoD, TVoD and some FVoD. JustWatch is the aggregator with largest number of catalogues.  

JustWatch was briefed and instructed to carry out the following data extractions from their database:  

•  Per service and per target country, provide:  

o  The total number of productions – disaggregated by movies and series whereby each season 

of a series is treated as a unique production;  

o  The  total  number  of  European  and  non-European  productions  in  each  category  (series/ 
movies).  JustWatch  was  instructed  to  consider  as  “European”  all  productions  or  co-
productions  featuring  at  least  one  of  the  European  countries  as  per  AVMSD  scope  of 
application;  

o  Disaggregate  the  data  by  genre:  the  genres  provided  are  those  available  in  the  JustWach 

database;  

o  Disaggregate the data by recent works (less than five years) and non-recent works; 

o  Disaggregate the data by independent productions. For this analysis a work was considered 

as independent if at least one of its production companies was independent. 

However,  the  feasibility  of  identifying  independent  productions  in  JustWatch  catalogues  is 
limited  to  series.  For  movies,  the  database  of  JustWatch  does  not  list  the  name  of  the 
production companies. It was not possible to match this data with a list of major or independent 
production companies. Such matching was possible for series. However, series represent only 
a  minor  share  of  the  catalogues  given  the  fact  that  one  season  is  only  counted  as  one 
production.  

o  Disaggregate the data  by  domestic and non-domestic European works. Whereby domestic 
European works are works which are made available in the targeted (analysed) country and 
for which at least one of the co-production companies originates in that country too (home 
country). Non-domestic European works do not include the  targeted country as part  of the 
production companies.   

•  Per target country provide:  

193 

 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

o  The top 10 countries that feature in all the (co)productions across all catalogues targeting a 

given country; 

o  The number of productions which involve a given top 10 country  

The extractions were made first in February 2021 and then redone in May 2021. Therefore, the data presented 
in this analysis captures the situation of VoD catalogues as of May 2021.  

8.1.1     Services covered per country  

Caveat: The data presented in this section is analysed by the target market country and not by country of 
jurisdiction unless otherwise specified. By target market country (or targeted country) we mean the country/ 
market where the catalogue is being made available. As an example, the content of the Netflix catalogues 
is analysed on the basis of the countries were they are made available, and not considering the country of 
jurisdiction for the service. So Netflix Germany is analysed under Germany and Netflix France under France.  

There are important differences in the share of European works by VoD service provider in case of multi-
country  providers.  This  is  due  to  the  market  specificities  and  the  demand  and  not  due  to  the  country  of 
jurisdiction. 

In total, 751 VoD services across 22 targeted countries (21 Member States and Norway) are included in this 
analysis. The 22 countries are those that are available in the JustWatch dataset therefore no criteria other than 
the availability of data were used for the selection. The number of catalogues per country is shown below. This 
analysis includes all the major VoD providers in each of the countries and many other smaller services. 

The full list is provided in Appendix A.  

Country  

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czechia 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Greece 

Table 48 - Number of services covered in this analysis  

No of services   Country 

No of services  

50 

31 

22 

22 

80 

36 

24 

38 

37 

50 

20 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

Netherlands 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Source: JustWatch 

24 

36 

38 

25 

24 

40 

38 

28 

28 

19 

41 

In total over 1,300,000 productions were included in the analysis across all the catalogues (1,315,520). This 
does not represent the number of unique productions as many productions are in multiple catalogues. The 
vast majority of these productions are movies (90%) while series represent 10% of the sample. This is due to 
the  guidelines  for  the  calculation  of  European  works  on  VoD  services 74,  according  to  which  every  series’ 
season is counted as one production.  

As shown below, the countries with the biggest catalogues, in terms of number of productions, are Germany, 
Austria and France.  

74 Communication from the Commission Guidelines pursuant to Article 13(7) of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive on the calculation 
of the share of European works in on-demand catalogues and on the definition of low audience and low turnover 2020/C 223/03 EUR-Lex 
- 52020XC0707(03) - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 

194 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 49 - Number of productions included in the analysis – per country  

Country 

No of 
productions 

Share of total  

Country 

No of 
productions 

Share of total  

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

139,700 

11% 

47,460 

24,664 

27,534 

60,519 

28,437 

61,345 

120,156 

190,890 

24,614 

30,378 

4% 

2% 

2% 

5% 

2% 

5% 

9% 

15% 

2% 

2% 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

ES 

SE 

93,542 

70,572 

27,237 

28,203 

45,242 

72,504 

44,723 

37,230 

13,325 

58,989 

68,256 

7% 

5% 

2% 

2% 

3% 

6% 

3% 

3% 

1% 

4% 

5% 

TOTAL 

1,315,520 

Source: JustWatch 

The table below shows the top 5-7 services per country in terms of number of productions in the catalogue. 
The number of productions is calculated as the sum of: 

•  Movies/ films, and  

•  Season series, whereby each season is counted as one production.  

195 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 50 - Top five to seven75 services included in the analysis by number of productions 
in the catalogue (by target country) (May 2021) 

Country  

Services 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Amazon Video 

Apple iTunes 

maxdome Store 

Google Play Movies 

Chili 

Rakuten TV 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Netflix 

Amazon Prime Video 

Rakuten TV 

Apple iTunes 

Netflix 

Zee5 

DocAlliance Films 

HBO Go 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Czechia 

Netflix 

O2 TV 

Germany 

DocAlliance Films 

Amazon Video 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

YouTube 

maxdome Store 

EntertainTV 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Denmark 

Blockbuster 

Amazon Prime Video 

Netflix 

Apple iTunes 

Netflix 

Google Play Movies 

DocAlliance Films 

Mubi 

GuideDoc 

Estonia 

No* 

24,911 

18,136 

14,294 

14,283 

7,647 

6,525 

15,755 

9,924 

4,419 

3,276 

3,265 

8,513 

6,015 

2,369 

1,323 

1,048 

11,444 

4,828 

3,220 

1,171 

1,170 

29,233 

19,670 

16,589 

15,376 

14,297 

13,527 

13,179 

10,024 

8,457 

4,654 

4,126 

10,734 

5,720 

4,218 

1,275 

942 

783 

Country 

Services 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Apple iTunes 

YouTube 

Google Play Movies 

Netflix 

Horizon 

HBO Go 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Amazon Prime Video 

Sky Store 

Netflix 

Rakuten TV 

Chili 

Apple iTunes 

Italy 

Google Play Movies 

Amazon Prime Video 

Rakuten TV 

Netflix 

Apple iTunes 

Netflix 

Lithuania 

Google Play Movies 

Latvia 

DocAlliance Films 

Telia Play 

Apple iTunes 

Netflix 

Google Play Movies 

DocAlliance Films 

Mubi 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Netherlands 

Netflix 

KPN 

Rakuten TV 

Apple iTunes 

Strim 

Google Play Movies 

Blockbuster 

Amazon Prime Video 

Norway 

No* 

9,830 

4,348 

4,304 

2,910 

1,760 

1,232 

21,208 

18,640 

10,563 

9,274 

6,351 

6,224 

10,653 

9,363 

8,430 

5,689 

5,390 

4,629 

9,562 

5,723 

4,004 

1,253 

1,176 

9,629 

5,715 

4,178 

1,225 

947 

9,529 

8,148 

4,536 

3,141 

3,027 

13,059 

10,853 

9,846 

7,656 

4,626 

75 The table includes those services with the highest number of productions. When the number of productions between 5th and 6th service 
was similar, both were included  

196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Country  

Spain 

Services 

Filmin 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Rakuten TV 

Amazon Prime Video 

Netflix 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Finland 

Blockbuster 

France 

Amazon Prime Video 

Netflix 

Apple iTunes 

Orange VoD 

Google Play Movies 

YouTube 

Canal VoD 

Universcine 

Microsoft Store 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Greece 

Netflix 

DocAlliance Films 

Mubi 

No* 

8,414 

8,158 

6,215 

5,840 

4,694 

4,499 

13,549 

9,453 

7,385 

4,526 

4,100 

15,764 

11,971 

11,096 

10,784 

9,794 

7,837 

5,681 

10,386 

4,351 

3,873 

1,204 

990 

Country 

Services 

Poland 

Apple iTunes 

Netflix 

YouTube 

Google Play Movies 

Chili 

Apple iTunes 

Netflix 

Portugal 

YouTube 

Google Play Movies 

Meo 

Netflix 

Horizon 

DocAlliance Films 

Romania 

Mubi 

HBO Go 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Sweden 

Blockbuster 

Amazon Prime Video 

Netflix 

No* 

10,825 

4,579 

4,121 

4,078 

4,068 

9,120 

4,163 

4,122 

4,077 

3,784 

4,445 

2,150 

1,325 

1,005 

864 

14,465 

9,931 

7,816 

4,673 

4,125 

*Number of productions in the catalogue analysed 

Source: JustWatch  

The  table  below  shows  the  number  of  productions  in  the  analysis  for  the  main  SVoD  services.  The  SVoD 
services are those listed in EAO 2020 Yearbook.  

197 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 51 - Catalogues included in the analysis per main SVoD service and per country (SVoD subscribers are an estimate for 2019 - 
thousands) 

AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Netflix 

Amazon 
Prime 

Apple 
TV+ 

ViaPlay  HBO 

TimVision  Mediaset  Maxdome 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

EL 

HU 

IE 

Subscribers* 

771 

820 

titles 

5,259 

5,011 

36 

63 

Subscribers* 

1,327 

320 

173 

titles 

4,419 

3,276 

Subscribers* 

130 

titles 

6,015 

Subscribers* 

355 

titles 

3,220 

72 

697 

128 

684 

64 

63 

64 

114 

64 

Subscribers* 

8,269 

12,146 

547 

titles 

5,279 

5,929 

63 

1,048 

1,119 

Subscribers* 

769 

107 

181 

750 

321 

titles 

4,126 

4,654 

Subscribers* 

42 

23 

titles 

5,720 

628 

Subscribers* 

3,616 

2,140 

titles 

4,499 

4,694 

63 

31 

64 

471 

64 

1,747 

1,252 

356 

785 

1,349 

Subscribers* 

758 

102 

180 

282 

255 

titles 

4,100 

4,526 

Subscribers* 

6,700 

3,235 

titles 

4,909 

3,906 

Subscribers* 

414 

titles 

3,873 

Subscribers* 

264 

titles 

2,910 

Subscribers* 

446 

109 

663 

109 

770 

219 

titles 

6,351 

10,563 

63 

886 

64 

110 

64 

106 

64 

53 

67 

2,183 

1,251 

1,232 

2,897 

1,049 

Not included 

T
V 
N
o
w 

7
7
2 
9
5
0 

Videoland  Cmore 

Player.pl  Ruutu+  Rakuten 

Mitele 
Plus 

Go3 

Disney 
Plus 

6,525 

3,265 

6,760 

3,136 

9 

616 

128 

5,840 

124 

61 

267 

600 

3,130 

5,241 

1,567 

1,366 

1,567 

1,563 

1,458 

1,552 

1,445 

77 

716 

87 

543 

198 

6,224 

1,611 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Netflix 

Amazon 
Prime 

Apple 
TV+ 

ViaPlay  HBO 

TimVision  Mediaset  Maxdome 

1,750 

4,335 

1,489 

292 

Subscribers* 

2,261 

1,853 

476 

titles 

4,629 

5,689 

Subscribers* 

110 

32 

titles 

5,723 

643 

Subscribers* 

46 

titles 

5,715 

Subscribers* 

2,318 

30 

636 

630 

titles 

4,536 

1,355 

64 

31 

64 

31 

64 

294 

64 

346 

342 

Subscribers* 

748 

100 

167 

488 

257 

1,772 

1,252 

titles 

4,104 

4,626 

Subscribers* 

1,328 

352 

titles 

4,579 

1,004 

Subscribers* 

554 

titles 

4,163 

Subscribers* 

365 

titles 

4,445 

Subscribers* 

1,433 

127 

973 

165 

680 

192 

62 

184 

64 

180 

64 

318 

752 

1,322 

1,178 

864 

488 

IT 

LT 

LV 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

titles 

4125 

4,673 

63 

1,751 

1,252 

subscribers  

33,024 

23,011 

4,632 

2,272 

2,106 

1,750 

1,489 

1,049 

Total 

Titles in the 
analysis 

102,699 

66,280 

1,340 

8,497 

13,119 

4,335 

292 

2,897 

T
V 
N
o
w 

7
7
2 
9
5
0 

Videoland  Cmore 

Player.pl  Ruutu+  Rakuten 

Mitele 
Plus 

Go3 

Disney 
Plus 

5,390 

1,539 

22 

718 

18 

675 

3,027 

3,155 

1,481 

1,563 

2,513 

1,390 

3,221 

1,565 

669 

1,513 

601 

2,707 

69 

728 

420 

765 

669 

653 

601 

267 

128 

124 

49 

*** 

1,513 

2,752 

2,707 

600 

57,427 

61 

2,009 

19,667 

*Subscriber numbers are estimates 

*** No estimation available 

Source: EAO 2020 Yearbook for subscribers (in thousands) and Justwatch for titles 

199 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

8.2     European works in VoD catalogues  

As said above, the JustWatch database analysed contained 1,315,526 productions across 751 services in 21 
EU countries and Norway, in May 2021. Note that these are not unique productions but the total count of all 
productions across all the services analysed. This means that a given production featured in 10 services is 
counted 10 times.  

European works represent 36% of the catalogues analysed across all the services listed. This ranges from 
25% in Greece to 48% in France.  

Table 52 – European works as share of total productions – per country (covering all 751 
services in the database)  

Country  All productions 

All European 
movies 

All European 
series 

Share of European 
productions 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

139,700 

47,460 

24,664 

27,534 

190,895 

60,519 

28,437 

58,989 

61,345 

120,156 

24,614 

30,378 

93,542 

70,573 

28,203 

27,237 

45,242 

72,504 

44,723 

37,230 

13,325 

68,256 

TOTAL 

1,315,526 

42% 

37% 

26% 

28% 

43% 

34% 

25% 

38% 

31% 

48% 

25% 

26% 

29% 

39% 

27% 

26% 

34% 

33% 

31% 

26% 

36% 

34% 

36% 

54,902 

16,681 

5,787 

7,273 

74,372 

19,258 

6,629 

20,928 

17,517 

55,168 

5,841 

7,307 

24,047 

26,122 

6,965 

6,538 

13,692 

22,274 

13,039 

9,164 

4,146 

4,210 

958 

606 

563 

7,279 

1,419 

589 

1,568 

1,367 

2,874 

434 

661 

2,666 

1,344 

634 

582 

1,797 

2,002 

1,034 

634 

593 

21,335 

438,985 

1,798 

35,612 

Source: JustWatch 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

The difference between the share of European works in TVoD and SVoD services is minor, as shown below.  

Table 53 – European works as share of total productions – per country (covering all 751 
services in the database)  

Country 

TVoD 

SVoD 

Both TVoD and SVoD* 

n/a** 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

TOTAL 

42% 

36% 

22% 

22% 

42% 

33% 

20% 

32% 

29% 

49% 

20% 

20% 

28% 

41% 

21% 

21% 

33% 

31% 

21% 

20% 

21% 

30% 

35% 

40% 

33% 

31% 

37% 

42% 

30% 

30% 

40% 

28% 

36% 

33% 

34% 

27% 

37% 

30% 

30% 

33% 

29% 

38% 

30% 

35% 

33% 

34% 

53% 

52% 

53% 

43% 

40% 

53% 

46% 

46% 

41% 

47% 

52% 

52% 

55% 

30% 

46% 

46% 

58% 

45% 

43% 

49% 

54% 

44% 

45% 

54% 

72% 

3% 

49% 

61% 

34% 

37% 

63% 

74% 

36% 

69% 

40% 

39% 

33% 

33% 

42% 

56% 

11% 

34% 

68% 

48% 

*The number of services which combine TVoD and SVoD business models for the same catalogue is small 

**These are services that do not feature in the Mavise database76 but are included in the JustWatch database  

Source: JustWatch 

The  table  below  shows  the  share  of  European  works  in  the  catalogues  of  those  services  with  the  highest 
number of titles in the catalogue. The differences noted at country level when the data is aggregated are also 
evident in this table. In France and Germany, most of the large catalogues, except Microsoft Store, contain 
more than 40% of European works. Italy, Austria and Belgium contain more than 30% of European works in 
the largest catalogues. On the other hand, all the largest catalogues in the following  countries contain less 
than 30% of European works: Finland, Czechia, Ireland, Portugal, and Poland.  

76 The MAVISE database makes available information on audiovisual media services from the EU27 countries, together with other 15 
countries too. It analyses both TV channels and on-demand services and is maintained by the European Audiovisual Observatory and 
European Commission as part of the ‘Creative Europe Programme’. More information can be found here:  https://mavise.obs.coe.int/  

201 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

It is also clear from the table below that some services have a much stronger focus on European works than 
others: DocAlliance catalogues have around 60% of European works in all countries where they are present 
and Mubi catalogues have also around 55%.  

Table 54 -Top five to seven services included in the analysis by number of productions – 
share of European works 

Country  

Service 

% of EW   Country 

Service 

% of EW 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Amazon Video 

Apple iTunes 

maxdome Store 

Google Play Movies 

Chili 

Amazon Prime Video 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Netflix 

Amazon Prime Video 

Rakuten TV 

Sooner 

Apple iTunes 

Netflix 

Zee5 

DocAlliance Films 

HBO Go 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Czechia 

Netflix 

O2 TV 

Germany 

DocAlliance Films 

Amazon Video 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

YouTube 

maxdome Store 

EntertainTV 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Denmark 

Blockbuster 

Amazon Prime Video 

Netflix 

Apple iTunes 

Netflix 

Estonia 

Google Play Movies 

DocAlliance Films 

Mubi 

GuideDoc 

32% 

31% 

39% 

37% 

24% 

33% 

35% 

39% 

34% 

39% 

33% 

72% 

22% 

26% 

2% 

60% 

36% 

23% 

21% 

44% 

34% 

58% 

40% 

42% 

45% 

45% 

46% 

45% 

30% 

32% 

40% 

21% 

32% 

21% 

26% 

17% 

59% 

54% 

49% 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Apple iTunes 

YouTube 

Google Play Movies 

Netflix 

Horizon 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Amazon Prime Video 

Sky Store 

Netflix 

Rakuten TV 

Chili 

Apple iTunes 

Italy 

Google Play Movies 

Amazon Prime Video 

Rakuten TV 

Netflix 

Apple iTunes 

Netflix 

Lithuania 

Google Play Movies 

Latvia 

DocAlliance Films 

Telia Play 

Apple iTunes 

Netflix 

Google Play Movies 

DocAlliance Films 

Mubi 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Netherlands 

Netflix 

KPN 

Rakuten TV 

Apple iTunes 

Strim 

Google Play Movies 

Blockbuster 

Amazon Prime Video 

Norway 

202 

22% 

18% 

18% 

39% 

36% 

28% 

27% 

22% 

32% 

25% 

33% 

46% 

36% 

40% 

47% 

43% 

32% 

22% 

26% 

17% 

59% 

41% 

22% 

26% 

17% 

60% 

55% 

34% 

34% 

34% 

42% 

29% 

29% 

39% 

31% 

36% 

21% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Country  

Service 

% of EW   Country 

Service 

% of EW 

Spain 

Filmin 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Rakuten TV 

Amazon Prime Video 

Netflix 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Finland 

Blockbuster 

Amazon Prime Video 

Netflix 

Apple iTunes 

Orange VoD 

Google Play Movies 

France 

YouTube 

Canal VoD 

Universcine 

Microsoft Store 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Greece 

Netflix 

DocAlliance Films 

Mubi 

60% 

30% 

33% 

37% 

42% 

31% 

26% 

29% 

35% 

21% 

32% 

43% 

66% 

43% 

43% 

56% 

74% 

33% 

21% 

17% 

33% 

60% 

54% 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Apple iTunes 

Netflix 

YouTube 

Google Play Movies 

Chili 

Apple iTunes 

Netflix 

YouTube 

Google Play Movies 

Meo 

Netflix 

Horizon 

DocAlliance Films 

Mubi 

HBO Go 

Apple iTunes 

Google Play Movies 

Sweden 

Blockbuster 

Amazon Prime Video 

Netflix 

21% 

37% 

18% 

18% 

29% 

19% 

31% 

18% 

18% 

47% 

35% 

34% 

60% 

55% 

34% 

27% 

31% 

35% 

21% 

32% 

*Number of productions in the catalogue analysed, EW – European works  

Source: JustWatch 

The table below shows the share of European works in the catalogues of major VoD services. In this table, the 
productions  in  all their catalogues  across the sample of catalogues  were summed. This means that  all the 
Amazon  catalogues  in  those  of  the  22  countries  where  they  are  present  were  summed.  The  third  column 
indicates  the  number  of  countries  (meaning  number  of  catalogues)  in  the  sample.  For  example,  five  HBO 
catalogues were summed, as HBO is present in five of the countries covered. The service provider with the 
greatest share of European works is Mubi. Disney Plus and Apple TV Plus, on the other hand, have the lowest 
share of European works in the dataset examined.  

Table 55 - Total share of European works across all catalogues of major transnational 
services (all titles across catalogues are accumulated) 

No of 
catalogues 
per service  

Total 
productions 

European 
movies 

European 
series 

% of 
European 
works in all 
catalogues  

Amazon Prime Video  SVoD 

Apple iTunes 

Blockbuster 

Chili 

Disney Plus 

TVoD 

TVoD 

TVoD 

SVoD 

Google Play Movies 

TVoD 

22 

21 

4 

4 

13 

20 

66,280 

261,878 

31,314 

30,101 

19,667 

17,549 

74,959 

11,193 

10,989 

1,682 

3,137 

1,933 

208 

26 

465 

166,617 

52,946 

1,036 

31% 

29% 

36% 

37% 

11% 

32% 

203 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

No of 
catalogues 
per service  

Total 
productions 

European 
movies 

European 
series 

% of 
European 
works in all 
catalogues  

HBO 

Microsoft Store 

Mubi 

Netflix and Netflix 
kids 

Rakuten TV 

SVoD 

TVoD 

TVoD 
and 
SVoD 

SVoD 

TVoD 

5 

11 

22 

32 

13 

6,356 

36,160 

1,669 

10,026 

544 

87 

21,536 

11,911 

0 

106,535 

25,272 

8,066 

57,427 

21,315 

49 

35% 

28% 

55% 

31% 

37% 

Source: JustWatch 

The tables that follow show the share of European works per country catalogue for the largest four VoD service 
providers. There are notable differences in the share of European works in the catalogues of the same service 
depending on the target country, for example:  

•  The  Netflix  catalogue  has  the  highest  share  in  Czechia  with  44%,  followed  by  Hungary  (39%)  and 

Poland (37%) 

•  The  Amazon  Prime  catalogue  has  the  highest  percentage  in  Italy  with  47%,  followed  by  Germany 

(43%) and Austria (43%) 

•  The Apple iTunes catalogues has the highest percentage in France with 43%, followed by Germany 

(42%) and Austria (38%) 

All the Mubi catalogues analysed contain well above 50% of European works. 

204 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 56 – Share of European works in the catalogues of Netflix per target country  

Name of VoD Provider 

Targeted Country 

% of 
European 
works  

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Netflix 

Total across the target countries 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

34% 

34% 

26% 

44% 

34% 

32% 

26% 

31% 

32% 

31% 

33% 

39% 

25% 

32% 

26% 

26% 

34% 

32% 

37% 

31% 

35% 

32% 

31% 

205 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 57 – Share of European works in the catalogues of Amazon Prime per target country  

Name of VoD Provider 

Targeted Country 

% of 
European 
works  

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video 

Total across the target countries 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

43% 

39% 

27% 

24% 

43% 

21% 

23% 

42% 

21% 

37% 

23% 

23% 

22% 

47% 

23% 

21% 

35% 

21% 

30% 

32% 

24% 

21% 

31% 

206 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 58 – Share of European works in the catalogues of Apple iTunes per target country  

Name of VoD Provider 

Targeted Country 

 % of 
European 
works  

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Apple iTunes 

Total across the target countries 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

SE 

38% 

35% 

22% 

23% 

42% 

30% 

21% 

30% 

26% 

43% 

21% 

22% 

28% 

36% 

22% 

22% 

34% 

29% 

21% 

19% 

27% 

29% 

207 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 59 – Share of European works in the catalogues of Mubi per target country  

Name of VoD Provider 

Targeted Country 

% of 
European 
works  

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi Amazon Channel 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Mubi 

Total across the target countries 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

57% 

54% 

54% 

53% 

63% 

70% 

57% 

54% 

52% 

57% 

53% 

54% 

54% 

57% 

52% 

54% 

55% 

56% 

57% 

53% 

53% 

55% 

58% 

55% 

8.3     Countries  of  production  and  co-production  in  European 
works  

We also analysed the JustWatch data by looking at the main countries of (co-)production in all the catalogues 
of a given targeted country. In other words, we took all the catalogues of a country A and identified the top  
(co-)production countries across all the catalogues. The table below shows the top 10 (co-)production countries 
per target country as well as the number of productions in the target country with participation of the top 10 
countries across all the catalogues and the share of total productions.  

The US is systematically the leading country of (co-)production in all the catalogues of the 22 targeted countries 
analysed. Depending on the target country, between 42% and 55% of productions in all catalogues have a US 
participation in the production. The share of US (co-)productions is always substantially higher than that of the 

208 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

second country of (co-)production. When summing up all the productions in all the catalogues analysed, the 
US participated in 45% of them as a production or (co-)production country.  

Other European countries with an important share of (co)productions are: 

•  UK: the UK is in the top (co-)production countries across all the 22 target country catalogues. The UK 

(co-)productions account for approximately 9% of all the productions analysed;  

•  France: France is also systematically in the top 10 (co-)production countries across all the 22 target 
country  catalogues.  French  (co-)productions  account  for  approximately  7%  of  all  the  productions 
analysed;  

•  Germany: also one of the top 10 (co-)production countries across all the catalogues in the 22 target 
countries, though its ranking differs greatly across these countries. German (co-)productions account 
for 5.5% of the productions analysed.  

The other two countries that frequently feature in the top 10 (co-)production countries are Spain (in the top 10 
in 16 countries) and Italy (in the top 10 in 12 countries). As we analysed the data only for the top 10 countries, 
and  these  countries  are  not  always  in  the  top  10,  their  share  of  all  (co-)productions  cannot  be  analysed 
precisely but is likely around 2%.  

Other prominent non-European countries of (co)production are: 

• 

India – in the top 10 in all the 22 target country catalogues, participating in 4.5% of all the productions 
analysed;  

•  Canada – in the top 10 in all the 22 target country catalogues, participating in 4% of all the productions 

analysed; 

• 

Japan - in the top 10 in all the 22 target country catalogues, participating in 3% of all the productions 
analysed. 

Table 60 – Top production and co-production countries per target country according to 
number of productions and their share in total productions (Data from February 2021) 

Target 
country  

Country  
of 
(co)production 

No of 
producti
ons  

% of all 
productio
ns 

Target 
country 

Country  
of 
(co)produ
ction 

No of 
produc
tions  

% of all 
productions 

US 
Germany 
UK 
France 
Canada 
Japan 
Italy 
Austria 
India 
Spain 
US 
France 
UK 
Germany 
Canada 
India 
Belgium 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Japan 
US 
India 
UK 
Franca 
Japan 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

20,340 
7,139 
4,014 
3,213 
1,950 
1,551 
1,341 
1,297 
1,092 
900 
13,032 
3,422 
2,431 
17,40 
1,311 
1,098 
811 
720 
702 
557 
9,036 
1,750 
1,441 
831 
774 

44% 
15% 
9% 
7% 
4% 
3% 
3% 
3% 
2% 
2% 
47% 
12% 
9% 
6% 
5% 
4% 
3% 
3% 
3% 
2% 
50% 
10% 
8% 
5% 
4% 

US 
UK 
India 
France 
Germany 
Canada 
Italy 
Australia 
Spain 
Japan 
US 
UK 
India 
France 
Canada 
Germany 
Japan 
Italy 
Australia 
Spain 
US 
Italy 
France 
UK 
Germany 

9,549 
1,598 
910 
892 
630 
617 
264 
259 
254 
246 
22,325 
6,311 
3,907 
2,367 
2,327 
1,549 
1,081 
1,002 
946 
743 
13,055 
4,414 
2,564 
2,519 
1,380 

57% 
10% 
5% 
5% 
4% 
4% 
2% 
2% 
2% 
1% 
47% 
13% 
8% 
5% 
5% 
3% 
2% 
2% 
2% 
2% 
47% 
16% 
9% 
9% 
5% 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

209 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Target 
country  

Country  
of 
(co)production 

No of 
producti
ons  

% of all 
productio
ns 

Target 
country 

Country  
of 
(co)produ
ction 

No of 
produc
tions  

% of all 
productions 

Canada 
Germany 
Spain 
South Korea 
China 
US 
UK 
India 
France 
Canada 
Germany 
Czechia 
China 

Australia 

Japan 
US 
Germany 
UK 
Franca 
Canada 
Japan 
Italy 
Austria 

Spain 

India 
US 
UK 
Franca 

India 

Denmark 
Canada 
Japan 
Germany 
Sweden 
Australia 
US 
UK 
India 
Franca 
Canada 
Germany 
Japan 
Spain 
China 
South Korea 
US 
Spain 
UK 
France 
Germany 
Italy 
Canada 
Japan 
India 
Mexico 

Czechia 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Spain 

573 
547 
307 
305 
270 
9,712 
1,568 
992 
908 
639 
615 
481 
264 

257 

252 
20,709 
7,837 
4,239 
3,354 
2,006 
1,823 
1,389 
1,119 

896 

787 
15,756 
3,032 
1,891 

1,888 

1,665 
1,426 
1,300 
1,253 
925 
585 
9,711 
1,634 
1,375 
937 
681 
628 
348 
347 
303 
295 
13,924 
4,035 
2,998 
2,948 
1,540 
1,303 
1,219 
1,146 
883 
801 

3% 
3% 
2% 
2% 
1% 
57% 
9% 
6% 
5% 
4% 
4% 
3% 
2% 

1% 

1% 
42% 
16% 
9% 
7% 
4% 
4% 
3% 
2% 

2% 

2% 
50% 
10% 
6% 

6% 

5% 
5% 
4% 
4% 
3% 
2% 
51% 
9% 
7% 
5% 
4% 
3% 
2% 
2% 
2% 
2% 
45% 
13% 
10% 
9% 
5% 
4% 
4% 
4% 
3% 
3% 

Canada 
Japan 
India 
Spain 
Australia 
US 
UK 
India 
France 
Canada 
Germany 
Japan 
Spain 
South 
Korea 
Australia 
US 
UK 
India 
France 
Canada 
Germany 
Spain 
Japan 
South 
Korea 
Russia 
US 
UK 
France 
Netherlan
ds 
Japan 
Germany 
Canada 
Belgium 
India 
Spain 
US 
UK 
India 
France 
Canada 
Japan 
Germany 
Sweden 
Norway 
Denmark 
US 
UK 
France 
India 
Poland 
Germany 
Canada 
Italy 
Spain 
Japan 

1,280 
1,208 
931 
750 
390 
9,283 
1,579 
1,353 
956 
725 
636 
342 
335 

297 

277 
9,263 
1,592 
1,326 
941 
717 
638 
341 
338 

296 

292 
11,882 
2,168 
1,520 

5% 
4% 
3% 
3% 
1% 
51% 
9% 
7% 
5% 
4% 
3% 
2% 
2% 

2% 

2% 
50% 
9% 
7% 
5% 
4% 
3% 
2% 
2% 

2% 

2% 
53% 
10% 
7% 

1,122 

5% 

1,025 
956 
938 
594 
543 
431 
15,421 
2,978 
1,887 
1,684 
1,381 
1,258 
1,142 
919 
835 
590 
11,499 
2,028 
1,614 
1,035 
1,022 
994 
883 
500 
492 
385 

5% 
4% 
4% 
3% 
2% 
2% 
50% 
10% 
6% 
5% 
4% 
4% 
4% 
3% 
3% 
2% 
51% 
9% 
7% 
5% 
5% 
4% 
4% 
2% 
2% 
2% 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

Netherlands 

Norway 

Poland 

210 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Target 
country  

Country  
of 
(co)production 

No of 
producti
ons  

% of all 
productio
ns 

Target 
country 

Country  
of 
(co)produ
ction 

No of 
produc
tions  

% of all 
productions 

Finland 

France 

Greece 

US 
UK 
India 
France 
Canada 
Japan 
Germany 
Finland 
Sweden 
Australia 
US 
France 
UK 
Germany 
Canada 
Japan 
Italy 
India 
Spain 
Belgium 
US 
UK 
India 
Japan 
France 
Canada 
Germany 
Spain 
China 
Italy 

15,727 
2,948 
1,867 
1,631 
1,385 
1,240 
1,119 
833 
781 
565 
14,988 
8,158 
3,257 
1,977 
1,703 
1,493 
1,438 
1,077 
830 
794 
9,120 
1,389 
982 
761 
750 
558 
515 
279 
268 
227 

51% 
10% 
6% 
5% 
5% 
4% 
4% 
3% 
3% 
2% 
42% 
23% 
9% 
6% 
5% 
4% 
4% 
3% 
2% 
2% 
55% 
8% 
6% 
5% 
5% 
3% 
3% 
2% 
2% 
1% 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

US 
UK 
France 
India 
Japan 
Canada 
Germany 
Spain 
Mexico 
Italy 
US 
UK 
France 
Japan 
India 
Germany 
Canada 
Spain 
Romania 
Italy 
US 
UK 
France 
India 
Sweden 
Canada 
Japan 
Germany 
Australia 
Denmark 

11,507 
1,959 
1,475 
959 
864 
802 
772 
501 
400 
395 
4,436 
852 
814 
732 
478 
428 
366 
275 
202 
192 
16,655 
3,286 
1,966 
1,919 
1,832 
1,471 
1,302 
1,264 
616 
611 

55% 
9% 
7% 
5% 
4% 
4% 
4% 
2% 
2% 
2% 
47% 
9% 
9% 
8% 
5% 
5% 
4% 
3% 
2% 
2% 
50% 
10% 
6% 
6% 
5% 
4% 
4% 
4% 
2% 
2% 

8.3.1    

Domestic and non-domestic European works  

In addition, we assessed the share of domestic European works among the targeted countries and channels. 
We considered as domestic European works all works that are made available for watching in the targeted 
(analysed) country and also has at least one of the co-production companies originating in that country.  

The share of domestic European works in all European works varies greatly. While these represent only 1% 
of European works in Bulgaria, they are close to 60% in France.  

For each country, the number of  European  movies  is significantly  higher than the number  of  European TV 
series. In fact, European movies count for 93% of European productions. This trend is also seen in domestic 
works, as European domestic movies represent 93% of total European domestic productions.  

•  France is the country with the biggest share of domestic works, with 59%. It is followed by Germany 

(43%) and Italy (33%). 

•  The countries with the lowest percentage of domestic European works include Bulgaria (1%), Greece 

(1%), Lithuania (2%) and Latvia (3%). 

•  11 of the 22 countries have less than 10% of domestic European works (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, 

Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Portugal and Romania).  

•  The highest shares can be observed in countries where the local industry is very strong.  

211 

 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 61 - Share of domestic European works per target country 

Country 

Total no of 
European 
works 

No of domestic 
European works 
(movies) 

No of domestic 
European works (TV 
series) 

% of European 
domestic works 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

61,874 

18,020 

6,809 

8,051 

82,976 

20,294 

9,138 

21,599 

19,764 

56,777 

6,462 

10,801 

26,849 

27,628 

7,798 

5,511 

16,251 

26,246 

13,744 

8,054 

5,616 

22,334 

3,259 

1,403 

61 

940 

32,400 

3,669 

516 

5,162 

1,988 

32,150 

44 

305 

2,076 

8,753 

124 

167 

2,127 

2,241 

1,596 

383 

278 

4,075 

183 

106 

7 

19 

3,262 

278 

113 

466 

297 

1,184 

0 

26 

50 

379 

10 

8 

541 

337 

160 

18 

6 

411 

Total 

482,596 

103,717 

7,861 

Source: JustWatch 

6% 

8% 

1% 

12% 

43% 

19% 

7% 

26% 

12% 

59% 

1% 

3% 

8% 

33% 

2% 

3% 

16% 

10% 

13% 

5% 

5% 

20% 

23% 

The next table shows the share of European Domestic Works for the VoD Providers with the biggest share of 
European  works  per  target  country.  We  took  the  top  5  VoD  providers  for  each  country  from  Table  54  and 
analysed how many of the European works provided were domestic.  

The table shows important differences between services in the same country, for example: 

• 

• 

• 

In Lithuania while Telia Play has 15% of domestic works, Apple iTunes has 0% of domestic works;  

In Sweden, Google Play Movies has 18% domestic works while only 1% on Amazon Prime Video; or 

In the Netherlands KPN has 34% of European Domestic works while for Netflix it is only 6%. 

212 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Table 62 Share of domestic European works for the VoD providers with the largest share of 
European works per target country 

Target 
country 

VoD provider 

Domestic 
as % of 
European 

Target 
country 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

Amazon Video 
Apple iTunes 
Google Play Movies 
maxdome Store 
Chili 
Apple iTunes 
Google Play Movies 
Netflix 
Amazon Prime Video 
Rakuten TV 
Apple iTunes 
Netflix 
Zee5 
DocAlliance Films 
HBO Go 
Apple iTunes 
Google Play Movies 
Netflix 
O2 TV 
DocAlliance Films 
Amazon Video 
Apple iTunes 
Google Play Movies 
YouTube 
maxdome Store 
Apple iTunes 
Google Play Movies 
Blockbuster 
Amazon Prime Video 
Netflix 
Apple iTunes 
Netflix 
Google Play Movies 
DocAlliance Films 
Mubi 
Filmin 
Apple iTunes 
Google Play Movies 
Rakuten TV 
Amazon Prime Video 
Apple iTunes 
Google Play Movies 
Blockbuster 
Amazon Prime Video 
Netflix 
Apple iTunes 
Orange VoD 
Google Play Movies 
YouTube 
Canal VoD 
Apple iTunes 
Google Play Movies 
Netflix 
DocAlliance Films 
Mubi 

4% 
5% 
3% 
4% 
3% 
8% 
11% 
3% 
5% 
8% 
1% 
0% 
2% 
1% 

9% 
11% 
20% 
18% 
18% 
43% 
38% 
46% 
47% 
46% 
21% 
24% 
24% 
2% 
8% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
31% 
12% 
28% 
20% 
31% 
6% 
7% 
3% 
1% 
1% 
54% 
69% 
53% 
53% 
65% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

213 

VoD provider 

Apple iTunes 
YouTube 
Google Play Movies 
Netflix 
Horizon 
Apple iTunes 
Google Play Movies 
Amazon Prime Video 
Sky Store 
Netflix 
Chili 
Apple iTunes 
Google Play Movies 
Amazon Prime Video 
Rakuten TV 
Apple iTunes 
Netflix 
Google Play Movies 
DocAlliance Films 
Telia Play 
Apple iTunes 
Netflix 
Google Play Movies 
DocAlliance Films 
Mubi 
Apple iTunes 
Google Play Movies 
Netflix 
KPN 
Rakuten TV 
Apple iTunes 
Strim 
Google Play Movies 
Blockbuster 
Amazon Prime Video 
Apple iTunes 
Netflix 
YouTube 
Google Play Movies 
Chili 
Apple iTunes 
Netflix 
YouTube 
Google Play Movies 
Meo 
Netflix 
Horizon 
DocAlliance Films 
Mubi 
HBO Go 
Apple iTunes 
Google Play Movies 
Blockbuster 
Amazon Prime Video 
Netflix 

Domestic 
as % of 
European 

1% 
2% 
2% 
6% 
9% 
4% 
4% 
3% 
5% 
2% 
45% 
32% 
34% 
43% 
38% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
15% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
14% 
15% 
6% 
34% 
11% 
10% 
11% 
11% 
8% 
1% 
1% 
13% 
0% 
0% 
14% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
14% 
8% 
12% 
2% 
0% 
12% 
15% 
18% 
14% 
1% 
6% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

8.4     Recent European works  

In this section, we defined as recent all European works produced in 2016 or later, meaning these productions 
were maximum five years old at the moment when the analysis was conducted.  

The analysis of the share of recent European works as part of catalogues was complicated by the fact that, for 
many  entries,  JustWatch  did  not  provide  data  about  their  production  date.  This  created  a  high  share  of 
productions, which  did not  have  a year for certain catalogues. We  first  included  in  the below  analysis only 
those catalogues for which the share of productions without a date was below 15% of the overall catalogue. 
That, however, reduced the sample of services substantially (to only 82 services). Therefore, we also report in 
the second part of this section about the major services even where the share of productions with no date is 
missing. 

Across the 82 catalogues with a small share of missing information regarding the production dates, there were 
in total 92,291 European productions of which 32,115 (35%) were recent. 

As for other indicators, there is a great diversity of situations when looking at the level of the VoD service. The 
VoD service with highest share of recent works is BE TV go, with 62% of recent European productions (out of 
all European productions), HBO Bulgaria with 55% recent European productions and SkyStore Austria with 
50%.  

Except for a few very specialised services (Amazone Arthouse) which had a 10% share of recent works, all 
other services included in the analysis had a share of recent European works that was above 23%.  

As shown below, 37 of the 82 services included in this analysis had between 23% and 43% of recent European 
works in their catalogues.  

Figure 95 - Recent European works as a share of all European works – distribution of services according to intervals 
(groupings) 

Source: JustWatch 

When looking specifically at Netflix, on average across the Netflix services from all countries included in the 
analysis, 24% of European works were recent. However, in light of this finding, it is worth considering that a 
very large share of the works did not have a date in the JustWatch database (55%). For example, for Netflix 
France, 85% of the entries analysed did not have a production date available. Therefore, the accurate figure 
is likely to be much higher. For those Netflix services where the number of missing variables for dates was 
lower, we see a share of recent works that is around or above 40%: 

•  Netflix Italy – 45% of European works are recent (15% are missing a date);  

•  Netflix Belgium – 46% of European works are recent (22% are missing a date); 

214 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

•  Netflix Austria – 41% of European works are recent (19% missing a date) 

•  Netflix Bulgaria – 42% of European works are recent (26% are missing a date); 

•  Netflix Czechia – 39% of European works are recent (28% are missing a date)  

There are fewer recent European works in the Amazon Prime services across all countries analysed, even if 
the same caveat about high number of missing data applies. On average, across the Amazon prime services, 
there were 15% of recent European works but 57% were missing a date. Examples of country data are: 

•  Amazon Prime Belgium – 35% of European works are recent (16% are missing a date); 

•  Amazon Prime Germany – 32% of European works are recent (7% are missing a date); 

•  Amazon Prime Austria – 32% of European works are recent (22% are missing a date); 

•  Amazon Prime Spain – 32% of European works are recent (32% are missing a date); 

•  Amazon Prime Italy – 27% of European works are recent (38% are missing a date); 

•  Amazon Prime Ireland – 42% of European works are recent (64% are missing a date); 

For Apple iTunes, the data was rather complete in terms of dates. Overall, 34% of European works on this 
service were recent (and only 2% were missing data). For example: 

•  Apple iTunes Czechia – 43% of European works are recent (2% are missing a date); 

•  Apple iTunes Bulgaria – 40% of European works are recent (13% are missing a date); 

•  Apple iTunes Belgium – 36% of European works are recent (1% are missing a date); 

•  Apple iTunes Germany – 32% of European works are recent (2% are missing a date); 

For Disney Plus the number of missing variables was too high to conduct this analysis (88% of entries were 
missing a date).  

Mubi services seem to have a somewhat lower share of recent European works than other services – but as 
above, the share of missing variables makes it hard to establish a clear conclusion. In total, 8% of European 
productions were recent, though for 56% the data was missing. For those services where around 40% or less 
of  the  data  was  missing  information  about  date  (AT,  BE,  BG,  CZ,  ES,  IT),  the  share  of  recent  works  was 
between 11% and 13%.  

Considering a comparable share of missing variables, HBO appears to  have a very similar share of recent 
works as Netflix: across the services 25% of European works were recent (50% of works lacked a date). When 
looking at specific services: 

•  HBO Bulgaria – 55% of European works were recent (14% missing a date);  

•  HBO Czechia – 51% of European works were recent (20% missing a date);  

•  HBO Poland – 58% of European works were recent (38% missing a date); 

•  HBO Hungary – 55% of European works were recent (46% missing a date);  

•  HBO Norway – 35% of European works were recent (46% missing a date);  

8.5    

Independent productions 

To identify European independent productions, we used the members of the following associations:: 

•  European Coordination of Independent Producers77 

•  EuroVoD78 

77 https://www.cepi-producers.eu/our-members 

78 https://www.eurovod.org/members 

215 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

•  European Producers Club (EPC)79 

We considered as a European independent production any production which had at least one of the companies 
as  members  of  these  associations..  The  identification  of  independent  production  therefore  only  covers 
European independent production companies for the purposes of this section of the study.  

There is an important gap in the data which allows us to only present this analysis for a fraction of the VoD 
services. JustWatch does not have data on production companies for films, but only TV series. As explained 
earlier, series represent only a small share of the catalogues, considering that one season is counted as one 
production.  

Therefore,  the  data  below  only  concerns  TV  series  and  we  cannot  extrapolate  the  findings  to  the  entire  
catalogues (films + TV series).  

In total, there were 130,717 series productions in 749 catalogues included in this report that came from the 
JustWatch  database.  27%  (35,770  )  of  the  series  productions  were  European  works.  Only  4%  of  these 
European series were tagged as independent productions (1422).  

When excluding those VOD services that had 10 or fewer European series on their catalogues, we retained 
257 services for the additional analysis presented below.  

The  figure  below  shows  that  most  of  the  services  had  between  0%  and  2%  of  European  series  that  were 
produced by European independent companies.  

There are some outlier services in the sample which had a relatively high share of series with participation of 
independent producers, these are: 

•  RTPPlay (PT) – of the 20 European series, 6 had a participation from independent producers (30%);  

•  Anime  Digital  Network  (FR)  –  3  out  of  the  12  European  series  had  participation  from  independent 

producers (30%) 

•  Starz  Play  (ES,  IT  and  NL)  –  where  between  15%  and  19%  of  series  were  European  series  with 

independent participation of full funding 

•  Rakuten ES – 8 out of the 47 European series had participation from independent producers (17%) 

•  Blockbuster  (SE)  -  6  out  of  the  37  European  series  had  participation  from  independent  producers 

(16%) 

Figure 96 European independent series as share of total European series – distribution of services according to intervals 
(groupings) 

Source: JustWatch 

79 https://www.europeanproducersclub.org/members 

216 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

8.6     European works by genre 

The analysis of productions in VoD catalogues by genre  follows the classification of JustWatch into genres 
which differentiates between quite granular categories.  

217 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Figure 97 – Share of European works in all catalogues analysed by genre (movies and series combined) 

218 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Figure 98 – Share of European works in all catalogues analysed by genre (movies only) 

219 

 
 
 
 
 
  
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Figure 99 - Share of European works as part of only films by country 

220 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

8.7     Qualitative analysis of prominence  

It was not possible as part of this study to ensure a quantitative analysis of prominence. Such research would 
require observations / mystery shopping to systematically verify whether and how prominence is being ensured 
by having observers go to the different VoD services and note down how European works are displayed. Such 
approach was outside the scope of this research.  

Instead, we present here the synthesis of findings from the stakeholder interviews.  

The stakeholders interviewed highlighted several methods used by non-linear platforms to ensure prominence 
of European Works in their catalogues. The most recurrent prominence methods are the display in the search 
results, the use of artificial intelligence, marketing campaigns (also outside of the platforms themselves through 
ads or social media), newsletters, weekly events focusing on specific countries or directors, film festivals, etc.  

Prominence is very difficult to track, especially on large VOD platforms like Netflix and Amazon, which use 
algorithms to personalise the homepage and search results. Furthermore, as emphasised by  one European 
organisation  and  a  Romanian  stakeholder  interviewed,  it  is  unclear  if  prominence  tools  work  in  practice 
because the platforms do not share any data on consumption which could help assess the effectiveness of 
prominence  tools.  Such  consumption  viewing  data  would  not  only  help  understanding  the  effectiveness  of 
prominence, but it would also help producers to understand whether their content is being consumed and by 
whom. Similar views were shared by a Dutch stakeholder, who pointed out that tracking prominence on Netflix 
is a difficult task since all users experience the platform in a different manner due to personalisation techniques. 
Aside from the use of algorithms, an identifiable prominence method is the use of country-oriented catalogues 
which are presented to the users.  

One Danish expert mentioned that global VOD platforms promote European works on their platforms mostly 
because  they  are  their  own  productions  and  not  necessarily  because  it  is  European.  Public  service 
broadcasters face some difficulties compared to global VOD platforms as they fall under the national legislation 
and there are important differences between the national legislation of Member States. For instance, German 
broadcasters  were  not  allowed  to  show  European  content  that  they  have  not  co-produced  (the  legislation 
changed since May 2019). Unlike in Germany, in Denmark the legislation allows the content to be displayed 
for  30  days  if  it  is  not  co-produced.  Furthermore,  the  prominence  of  Nordic  content  is  part  of  the  national 
legislation in Denmark.  

Local platforms (streaming mostly local content) and big players ( e.g. HBO, Netflix) ensure prominence in a 
different manner. In the case of local platforms, most of them include only local or European content in their 
catalogues.  Therefore,  in  those  cases  where  content  is  100%  or  largely  European  or  local,  prominence 
techniques  become  redundant.  For  e.g.,  HBO  Europe,  the  prominence  of  European  works  is  obvious  from 
their landing page, especially since acquiring and co-producing European works is part of their business model 
(according to the Romanian stakeholder interviewed). Similar opinions were shared also by the Danish expert, 
who stated that HBO Europe is the only global streaming service that pushes the European content because 
it is European. As mentioned previously, this has to do with the fact that they are present predominantly in 
Europe and showing this regional approach (e.g. HBO Nordic) fits with what they are as a service provider. As 
interviewees noted, for platforms like Netflix, on the other hand, Europe is just one of their markets, making it 
thus  easier  and  more  beneficial  for  streaming  services  with  narrower  geographical  coverage  to  signal 
Europeanness or make European content more prominent.  

8.8     Observations regarding the comparison with data provided 
by Member States  

We also carried out a comparison of the data provided by Member States about the share of European works 
on VoD services as part of their reporting obligations with the data analysed in our independent analysis.  

This comparison, however, needs to be read with the following caveats: 

•  Member States reporting covers the year 2019 while the data in this section is from 2021. There can 

be important year on year fluctuations as well as fluctuations within a year; 

•  The  Member  States  data  covers  a  substantially  smaller  subset  of  services.  There  were  only  52 
services which were covered by Member States’ data and which are also present in our analysis of 

221 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

over 700 services. As explained in the Volume I of this report, the vast majority of services covered in 
Member States’ reports did not actually provide data on the share of European works; and  

•  The definition of European works in this section considers as European any production where at least 

one of the (co-)production countries is European.      

We see notable differences between the data reported by the Member States and the data reported in this 
section. These differences could be due to many factors: 

•  The fact that the data do not refer to the same period (2019 vs 2021);  

•  Possible  differences  used  in  the  definition  of  European  works  in  Member  States  reporting  and  this 

report;  

•  The  fact  that  our  data  reflects  a  one-off  observation,  but  Member  States  data  may  reflect  a  more 

longitudinal approach – average over a certain period (this aspect is not clear from their reporting).   

For only 15 out of the 52 services, the data provided by Member States and the data based on JustWatch 
dataset is more or less comparable. We considered as comparable any differences that were 8 percentage 
points apart. These services are: HBO Go (BG and RO, PL), Blockbuster (DK, FI, NO, SE), O2TV (CZ), FlixOle 
(ES), Rakuten (ES), Netflix (IE), Videoland (NL), Ziggo TV (NL), Player (PL), VOD Poland, C More (SE). In 
these cases the Member State reporting and the independent analysis show converging trends.  

For 22 services (42% of the services included in both datasets), we found a higher share of European works 
based on the JustWatch data than that reported by Member States. It is difficult to speculate whether this is a 
positive trend whereby the share of European works increased from 2019 to 2021 or whether this is due to 
monitoring and definition discrepancies.  

In  the  case  of  remaining  14  catalogues,  the  share  of  European  works  reported  by  Member  States  is 
substantially higher than that found when analysing JustWatch data.  

222 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

9.  Conclusions Task 3 

From a bird’s eye view, across the selected channels in all of the 11 Members States, the share of qualifying 
time dedicated to the broadcasting of European works is only 39% across all the countries covered in this task. 
However, there is a significant level of variation across the Member States analysed, as the share of European 
works as part of qualifying time ranges from 50,7% in the case of Germany to 26,3% in the case of Romania. 
Furthermore, our analysis shows that in ten out of the 11 Member States examined, there are more European 
productions than European Co-Productions. As a result, the largest part of the total time allotted to European 
Works is comprised of European productions, with the exception of Czechia where the proportion of European 
Co-productions are, overall, higher than that of European productions. 

Sweden,  Netherlands  and  France  had  the  highest  shares  of  qualifying  works  out  of  the  total  number  of 
analysed works per country (with 88%, 88% and 74%, respectively).  

It is worth mentioning that the channel-level analysis showed that it is not only the small channels (in terms of 
market size) that can have low shares of European works, but also big channels. Several large channels in 
the sample analysed had a share of European works that was below the 50% of qualifying time requirements. 
This is in line with observations of previous monitoring studies.  

The classification of European works into independent productions using an automated matching process on 
a large volume of data as used in this assignment resulted in tagging only 2.24% of European works as fully 
independent. These were works entirely produced by companies labelled as independent.  Of the 252 channels 
which  have  a  market  share  of  or  above  0.5%,  and  taking  the  low  threshold  definition  of  independent 
productions  (i.e.  whereby  productions  with  at  least  some  independent  producers  are  considered  as 
independent),  we  found  that  the  vast  majority  of  these  channels  –  192  (76%)  have  less  than  10%  of 
independent productions and, in fact, 128 (51%) have below 5% share of independent productions.  

The share of independent productions is higher (but still below 10%) when applying a less narrow definition of 
independent companies – whereby at least one production company is independent.  

There are several shortcomings of the classification procedure of the independent productions that influenced 
these results, such as the limited number of identified independent production companies and the fact that the 
list  is  limited  only  to  European  companies.  Despite  the  overall  low  percentages  of  qualifying  independent 
European works per country, generally there appears to be a slight inverse correlation between the share of 
European works broadcasted and that of fully Independent ones within the qualifying time. 

The content analysis looked also into the data on recent European works. On a country-by-country basis, the 
share of time for recent works scheduled for broadcasting out of the total qualifying time ranges from 0,9% in 
the case of Netherlands and 2,2% in the case of Hungary to 29,1% and 28,2% in the case of Germany and 
Poland. 

In terms of the prime-time classification of works, in line with the described procedure, on a country-by-country 
basis, the percentage of time allocated to qualifying works scheduled for the prime-time, ranges from 21,3% 
in Sweden to 8,4% in Italy. On the one hand, our results show that the majority of the channels (203 out of 
252, meaning 80%) that have above 0.5% market share are channels that dedicate 10% or less of their prime 
time to European productions. On the other hand, there are 10 channels that dedicate 20% or more of their 
prime time to European works. Furthermore, there seems to be a slight association between the market share 
and  the  share  of  European  Works  in  Prime  Time.  However,  given  the  low  correlation  coefficient,  the 
relationship does not seem too strong. 

Prominence applied to non-linear services is understood as the approximate number of households which are 
exposed  to  European  Works  by  channel  and  country,  given  the  market  share  of  each  channel  and  the 
proportion of European Works broadcasted. Overall, the number of households that are exposed to European 
Works is a function of both the channels’ market share and the proportion of European Works broadcasted. 
For all the Member States analysed, the results show that it is usually the channels with the highest market 
share (those in the top three) that expose their viewers the most to European works. For instance, in France, 
there  are  32,029,000  TV  households  and  the  second  channel  in  terms  of  market  share  (France  2)  is 
significantly more successful in reaching households with the European Works it broadcasts than the rest of 
the channels with lower market shares. As in France, the second channel in Italy in terms of market share 

223 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

(Canale 5) reaches more households with the European Works it broadcasts (2,475,307) than the ones with 
lower market shares. 

Lastly,  the  analysis  of  linear  services  content  investigated  the  proportions  of  domestic  and  non-domestic 
European  works.  Domestic  works  can  be  understood  as  works  for  which  at  least  one  of  the  production 
companies originates in the country in which the work is being broadcasted. Our results show that the largest 
share of the qualifying time allocated to works within this category appears in Germany (38.9% of the qualifying 
time  within  the  country),  followed  by  France  (30.9%),  while  the  Member  States  with  the  lowest  shares  of 
qualifying time allocated to productions within this category are Romania (6%), Austria (5.6%) and Hungary 
(3.3%).. A high share of domestic works can be seen only in Member States like Germany and France, which 
have traditionally very strong local production industries. In the other Member States, the share of domestic 
works is rather low, ranging between 12% (Italy) to 3.3% (Hungary). 

The  non-linear  services  content  analysis  included  in  total  751  VoD  services  across  22  target  countries, 
capturing  both  major  and  smaller  VoD  service  providers.  For  the  analysis,  JustWatch  data  was  used, 
containing 1,315,526 productions80 across 751 services in 21 EU (+Norway) countries in May 2021. 

When  it  comes  to  the  presence  of  European  works  in  the  VoD  catalogues,  our  analysis  shows  that  this 
represents overall 36%, ranging from 25% in Greece to 48% in France. Moreover, the difference between the 
share of European works in TVOD and SVOD services is minor. There are noticeable differences between 
countries when it comes to the share of European works in catalogues of those services with highest numbers 
of titles in the catalogue. For instance, in France and Germany, most of the large catalogues, except Microsoft 
Store,  have  above  40%  of  European  works.  Italy,  Austria  and  Belgium  have  above  30%  for  the  largest 
catalogues, while all the largest catalogues in the following countries have less than 30% of European works: 
Finland,  Czechia,  Ireland,  Portugal,  and  Poland.  There  are  VoD  services  which  have  a  stronger  focus  on 
European works, with shares reaching up to 60%. This is the case of platforms like DocAlliance or Mubi.  

We also analysed the JustWatch data by looking at the main countries of (co-)production in all the catalogues 
of a given target country. The results show that the US is systematically the number one top country of (co-
)production  in  all  the  catalogues  of  the  22  European  target  countries  analysed.  Depending  on  the  target 
country,  between  42%  and  55%  of  productions  in  all  catalogues  have  a  US  participation  in  production. 
European countries with important (co-)production shares are the UK (9%), France (7%) and Germany (5.5%). 
The other two countries that frequently feature in the top 10 (co-)production countries are Spain (in the top 10 
in 16 countries) and Italy (in the top 10 in 12 countries). 

The share of domestic European works among the target countries and channels was also analysed and the 
results show great differences among European Member States. While these represent only 1% of European 
works in Bulgaria, they are close to 60% in France. France, Germany and Italy show the highest shares of 
domestic works while 11 countries out of the 22 analysed have less than 10% of European domestic works. 
The  highest  shares  can  be  observed  in  countries  where  the  local  industry  is  very  strong,  thus  we  cannot 
attribute the success to the European quotas.  

The analysis of recent European works among the VoD services’ catalogues has some limitations due to the 
fact that many JustWatch data entries do not include the production date. Across the 82 catalogues which had 
a small share of missing items regarding production dates, there were in total 92,291 European productions 
of which 32,115 (meaning  35%) were recent.  As for other indicators, there  is a great diversity of situations 
when looking at the level of the service. The service with the highest share of recent works is BE TV go with 
62% recent European productions (on all European productions), HBO Bulgaria with 55% recent European 
productions and SkyStore Austria with 50%. When looking specifically at Netflix services, on average across 
the services in the analysis, 24% of European works were recent – however, a very large share of the works 
did not have a date in JustWatch database (55%). Considering a comparable share of missing variables, HBO 
appears to have a very similar share of recent works as Netflix: across the services, 25% of European works 
were recent (50% of works lacked a date). 

We also analysed independent productions within the non-linear services’ catalogues. As JustWatch does not 
have data on independent production for movies, the results present some shortcomings as it allows only for 
the analysis of a small fraction of the VoD services, focusing only on series. In total, there were 130,717 series 

80 Note that these are not unique productions but the total count of all productions across all the services analysed. This means that a 
given production featured in 10 services is counted 10 times. 

224 

 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

productions in 749 catalogues included in this analysis. 27% (35,770) were European works. Only 4% of these 
European  series  were  tagged  as  independent  productions  (1,422).  There  are  some  outlier  services  in  the 
sample  which  had  a  relatively  high  share  of  series  with  participation  of  independent  producers,  ranging 
between  15%  and  30%  (e.g.  RTPPlay  in  Portugal,  Anime  Digital  Network  in  France,  Starz  Play  in  Spain, 
Netherlands and Italy). 

Lastly,  as  a  quantitative  assessment  of  the  prominence  of  European  works  (including  methods)  was  not 
possible due to lack of data, we have assessed this qualitatively (based on the stakeholder interviews). The 
stakeholders interviewed highlighted several methods used by non-linear platforms to ensure prominence of 
European Works in their catalogue. The most recurrent prominence methods are the  display in the search 
results, the use of artificial intelligence, marketing campaigns (also outside of the platforms themselves through 
ads or social media), newsletters, weekly events focusing on specific countries or directors, film festivals, etc. 
Prominence is very difficult to track, especially on large  VOD platforms like Netflix and Amazon, which use 
algorithms to personalise the homepage and search results. Furthermore, it is unclear if the prominence tools 
work  in  practice  because  the  platforms  do  not  share  data  on  consumption  which  could  help  assess  the 
effectiveness of prominence tools or verify compliance.  

225 

 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Appendix 1 – Full list of video on demand services included 
in analysis in section 5  

Name of VoD 
provider 

Acorn TV 

All 4 

Alleskino 

Type of 
services 
according to 
Mavise 

Target country 

SVoD 

DK NL NO SE 

IE 

TVoD 

AT CH DE 

Amazon DVD / Blu-ray 

n/a 

Amazon Prime Video 

SVoD 

Animax Plus Amazon 
Channel 
Anime Digital Networks 

SVoD 

SVoD 

DE 
AT BE BG CH CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LV NL NO PL 
PT RO SE TR AT DE 

DE 

FR 

Anime On Demand 

TVoD and SVoD  DE 

Apple iTunes 

Arte 

TVoD 

TVoD 

ArthouseCNMA 

n/a 

Atres Player 
BBC Player Amazon 
Channel 
Bbox VoD 

Be TV Go 

Blockbuster 

blutv 

blutv 

C More 

Canal VoD 

Canal+ 

Canal+ Séries 

CGood TV 

Chili 

Cineasterna 

n/a 

TVoD 

SVoD 

TVoD 

SVoD 

SVoD 

SVoD 

TVoD 

SVoD 

SVoD 

SVoD 

TVoD 

n/a 

Cinemas a la Demande 

TVoD 

AT BE BG CH CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LV NL NO PL 
PT SE TR  
AT BE BG CH CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LV NL NO PL 
PT SE 
DE 

FR 

DE 

ES 

DE 

FR 

BE 

DK FI NO SE 

DE 

TR 

DK FI NO SE 

FR 

FR 

FR 
AT BE CH CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LV NL NO PL PT 
RO SE TR 
AT DE IT PL 

SE 

FR 

Comhem Play 

TVoD and SVoD  SE 

CONtv 

Crunchyroll 

Curiosity Stream 

Das Erste Mediathek 

n/a 

SVoD 

SVoD 

TVoD 

DE NL 

AT BG CH DE DK ES FI FR GR IT NL NO PT RO SE TR 
ATBE BG CH CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LV NL NO PL 
PT RO SE TR 
DE 

226 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Type of 
services 
according to 
Mavise 

Target country 

IT 

SVoD 

SVoD 

n/a 

AT BE CH DE DK ES FI FR IE IT NL NO PT SE 
AT BE CH CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LV NL NO PL PT 
RO SE TR 
SE 

DE 

NL 

TVoD and SVoD  ES 

TVoD and SVoD  ES 

TVoD and SVoD  FR 

TVoD 

n/a 

n/a 

DK 

DE 

DE 

TVoD and SVoD  AT CH DE 

SVoD 

SVoD 

TVoD 

SVoD 

SVoD 

SVoD 

SVoD 

n/a 

n/a 

SVoD 

FVoD 

SVoD 

n/a 

SVoD 

SVoD 

ES 

FR 

ES 

EE LT LV 
AT BE CH CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LV NL NO PL PT 
SE TR 
AT CH DE DK EE ES FI IE IT LT LV NL NO PL SE 

BE DK FI IE NL NO SE 

DK ES FI NO SE BG CZ HU PL RO PT 

IE 

CH 

DE 

HU PL RO 

NL 

IT 

DE FR 

DE 

DE 

CH DE 

FI SE 

AT CH DE 

Name of VoD 
provider 

Discovery Plus 

Disney Plus 

DOCSVILLE 

Draken Films 

EntertainTV 

Film1 

Filmin 

Filmin Plus 

Filmo TV 

Filmstriben 

Filmtastic 
Filmtastic Amazon 
Channel 
Flimmit 

FlixOlé 

France TV 

fuboTV 

Go3 

Google Play Movies 

GuideDoc 

hayu 

HBO 

HiDive 

Hollystar 

Home of Horror 

Horizon 

Horrify 

Infinity 

Joyn 

Joyn Plus 

Kino on Demand 

Kirjastokino 

Kividoo 

La Cinetek 

La Toile 

Maxdome 

maxdome Store 

Mediaset Play 

Meo 

International Showtimes 

n/a 

TVoD and SVoD  AT BE DE FR 

SVoD 

TVoD 

FR 

AT 

AT DE 

IT 

TVoD and SVoD  PT 

Microsoft Store 

TVoD 

AT CH DE DK ES FI FR IE IT NL NO SE 

227 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Name of VoD 
provider 

Mitele  

Movietickets 

Type of 
services 
according to 
Mavise 

SVoD 

n/a 

n/a 

Target country 

ES 

ES 

IE 

Movistar Plus 

TVoD and SVoD  ES 

Mubi 

TVoD and SVoD 

AT BE BG CH CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LV NL NO PL 
PT RO SE TR 

Mubi Amazon Channel 

TVoD and SVoD  DE 

Netflix 

Netflix Kids 

Netzkino 

NLZIET 

Now TV 

NPO Start 

NRK TV 

O2 TV 

OCS Go 

Orange VoD 

Pantaflix 

Pathé Thuis 

Picl 

Player 

Popcorntimes 

puhutv 

Rai Play 

Rakuten TV 

realeyz 

RTBF 

RTPplay 

Ruutu 

SVoD 

SVoD 

FVoD 

n/a 

TVoD 

TVoD 

TVoD 

TVoD 

SVoD 

n/a 

FVoD 

TVoD 

SVoD 

FVoD 

AT BE BG CH CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LV NL NO PL 
PT RO SE TR 
AT CH DE DK EE IE LT LV NL NO SE 

AT CH DE 

NL 

IE IT 

NL 

NO 

CZ 

FR 

FR 

AT CH DE FR 

NL 

NL 

PL 

AT CH DE 

TR 

IT 

AT BE CH DE DK ES FI FR IE IT NL NO PT SE DE 

DE 

BE 

PT 

FI 

SF Anytime 

TVoD 

DK FI NO SE 

SFR Play 

Shadowz 

Shudder 

Sixplay 

Sky 

Sky Go 

Sky Store 

Sky Ticket 

Sky X 

Sooner 

South Park 

FR 

FR 

SVoD 

AT DE IE DE 

TVoD 

SVoD 

TVoD 

SVoD 

SVoD 

n/a 

n/a 

FR 

CH 

AT DE IE IT 

AT CH DE IE 

DE 

AT 

AT BE CH DE 

DE NL 

228 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

Type of 
services 
according to 
Mavise 

Target country 

TVoD 

SVoD 

SVoD 

n/a 

SVoD 

AT BE CH CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LV NL NO PL PT 
RO SE TR 

DE ES FR IT NL 

NO 

SE 

CH 

IT 

SE 

Name of VoD 
provider 

Spamflix 

Starz Play Amazon 
Channel 
SumoTV 

SVT 

SwissCom 

Timvision 

TriArt Play 

Turk on Video 

n/a 

AT CH DE 

TV 2 

TV Now 

UCIcinemas 

Universcine 

Viafree 

Viaplay 

Videobuster 

Videoland 

VIX  

VoD Club 

VoD Poland 

Volta 

VRT nu 

VVVVID 

WAKANIM 

Watch4 

Watchbox 

Yelo Play 

Yle Areena 

YouTube 

YouTube Premium 
ZDF Herzkino Amazon 
Channel 
Ziggo TV 

n/a 

DK 

DE 

IT 

DE 

SE 

TVoD and SVoD  DK EE FI LT LV NO SE 

TVoD 

SVoD 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

FVoD 

AT CH DE 

NL 

CH ES PT 

AT 

PL 

IE 

BE 

IT 

TVoD and SVoD  DE DK FI FR NO SE 

n/a 

n/a 

TVoD 

TVoD 

SVoD 

AT CH DE 

AT CH 

BE 

FI 

DE FR HU PL PT 

AT BE CH DE DK ES FI FR HU IE IT NO PT SE TR 

DE 

NL 

229 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AVMSD FINAL REPORT 

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this 
service: 

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or  

– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information 
centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data 
can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.