Collaborative Streaming Infrastructures in Europe

Collaborative Streaming Infrastructures in Europe: Co-opetition Strategies for a Fragmented Media Landscape

Introduction and Background

The European media streaming landscape is highly fragmented, lacking a single pan-European service equivalent to Netflix. Unlike the United States – where a few platforms dominate – Europe’s market remains split along national and linguistic lines. This fragmentation stems from Europe being “a piecemeal of a continent, not a country”, with each nation historically developing its own broadcasters, regulations, and consumer preferences. Global streaming giants (Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, etc.) have capitalized on this fragmentation to rapidly gain market share across Europe, often outpacing local services. European streaming platforms consequently occupy a “subaltern status” compared to American “streaming behemoths” in a largely deregulated global market. U.S.-based platforms account for around 71% of all streaming subscriptions in Europe, highlighting the continent’s dependence on foreign tech and content providers.

This context poses a strategic challenge for Europe’s media industry: how can local and regional media companies compete with the scale and technological prowess of Big Tech while preserving Europe’s cultural sovereignty? One emerging solution is collaborative infrastructure – that is, companies pooling resources to build shared streaming platforms. Instead of each broadcaster or media firm investing tens of millions in its own streaming tech stack, they collaborate on a common backend while maintaining separate consumer brands. In a recent Media Odyssey podcast, industry experts discussed how a pan-European platform might be “the tech underneath” multiple national streaming services. Jonas Engwall, CEO of Bedrock (a European streaming technology venture), noted that his company spends “between 60–80 million [euros] every year on tech” and can distribute that cost across clients – an investment no single country’s service could easily justify alone. By sharing a platform, European media players achieve operational scale, improve stability and scalability, and reduce duplicate costs. Engwall described the prior norm of each broadcaster building its own platform as economically inefficient or “bonkers”, arguing that tapping into a product “we all use is going to benefit all of us”. Such “co-opetition” – collaboration among competitors – could enable European media companies to jointly compete with global giants while still offering distinct local content and experiences.

At the policy level, the European Union has signaled support for greater cooperation to strengthen the bloc’s media autonomy. The European Commission’s Media and Audiovisual Action Plan explicitly aims to “maintain European cultural and technological autonomy” in the digital era. European regulators have long enforced content quotas and diversity mandates (e.g. requiring 30% European works on VOD platforms) to protect local culture. However, such measures struggle to fully address structural disadvantages of scale and technology. Collaborative streaming infrastructures represent a complementary approach: by sharing technology, European firms might achieve the scale economies and data capabilities needed to better serve audiences and monetize content, all while adhering to European values and regulations. Early examples of this trend include Bedrock, a joint venture of France’s Groupe M6 and RTL Group, which powers multiple national streaming services on one platform (France’s 6play, the Netherlands’ Videoland, Hungary’s RTL+, and soon Germany’s RTL+). At the same time, past collaborations like France’s Salto or the UK’s BritBox have faced difficulties with governance, competition, and consumer uptake. This mixed track record invites deeper investigation.

This research proposal outlines a study of collaborative streaming infrastructures in Europe through the lens of co-opetition. The goal is to understand how sharing platforms can help overcome market fragmentation and what this means for the future of European media. The following sections present the research question, review relevant literature, describe the methodology, and discuss the study’s significance, expected outcomes, and scholarly contributions.

Research Question and Objectives

Research Question:
How can collaborative streaming infrastructures – wherein multiple European media companies share technology and platforms – address the fragmented European media landscape, and what are the implications of this co-opetition approach for industry competition, cultural diversity, and media policy in Europe?

Research Objectives: To answer this question, the study will pursue several specific objectives:

Map the Fragmentation Factors: Identify the key factors that have led to Europe’s fragmented streaming market (e.g. national regulations, language/cultural differences, segmented copyright regimes, market size disparities, etc.) and how these factors challenge standalone national streaming services.
Examine Co-opetition Models: Analyze how co-opetitive approaches (competitors cooperating) are being applied in the European streaming sector. This includes documenting case studies of shared streaming infrastructures (such as Bedrock and other similar collaborations) and understanding their operational models.
Assess Opportunities and Challenges: Evaluate the potential benefits of shared platforms – such as cost savings, scalability, enhanced user experience, and faster innovation – as well as the challenges and risks, including governance complexities, division of resources, data-sharing concerns, and compliance with competition law. Special attention will be given to past co-opetition efforts that failed or were blocked (e.g. Project Kangaroo in the UK, Salto in France) to learn what pitfalls to avoid.
Consider Policy and Cultural Impacts: Investigate how collaborative infrastructures align with or challenge European media policies. This involves examining whether co-opetition supports EU goals for cultural diversity (e.g. making local content more widely available) or raises new regulatory questions (such as antitrust considerations or the need for supportive policy frameworks).
Project Industry Implications: Explore the broader implications for the media industry, including how such collaborations might reshape competitive dynamics (turning former rivals into partners), influence content offerings (through shared catalogs or cross-border distribution), and affect audience behavior and satisfaction in different European markets.

By meeting these objectives, the research will provide a comprehensive picture of collaborative streaming infrastructures as a strategy to unify Europe’s media markets and bolster its competitive position.

Literature Review

Fragmentation of European Media Markets:
Scholars and industry analysts widely acknowledge that Europe’s audiovisual market is structurally fragmented by country. Unlike the U.S. single market, Europe consists of numerous national markets each with its own media ecosystem, language, and regulations. A European Commission study found that “no single home-grown VoD service provider covers the entire EU”, with most services confined to their home country or language region. This results in duplication of efforts and higher costs, as many countries’ broadcasters developed parallel streaming platforms that reach only modest user bases. Fragmentation is exacerbated by the continent’s nationally segmented copyright regime and cultural protection policies (like local film quotas and subsidies) which limit cross-border content availability. While these policies safeguard local culture, they also impede the emergence of pan-European platforms. Consequently, global streamers stepped into the gap – Netflix’s European expansion (now in all major markets) and Amazon’s Prime Video have effectively unified distribution across borders from the top-down, capturing a large share of viewers. The European Media Industry Outlook (2023) reports that the VoD sector in Europe is “particularly dominated by a few non-EU companies”, with the top three US-based platforms accounting for ~71% of subscriptions. The dominance of U.S. players not only raises economic concerns but also cultural ones, as European content struggles for visibility. Parvulescu and Georgescu (2024) describe European streaming services as occupying a subordinate role relative to American giants in a global market that has “minimal concern for sustainability issues”. This hints that the current competitive environment undermines local players’ long-term viability and the diversity of content.

Platform Economies and the Need for Scale:
The literature on platform economics emphasizes network effects and scale advantages as critical success factors for digital media ventures. Larger platforms can amortize technology investments over more users, gather more data to refine personalization, and attract more content partners. For instance, Loew et al. (2023) note that digital platform models allow companies to “gain significant network effects” and that smaller players face high risks and costs when trying to build platforms independently. In the context of streaming, this means a national broadcaster launching its own service might struggle with limited budgets, smaller engineering teams, and fewer subscribers to finance innovation. Multiple scholars argue that cooperation can be an effective response to these constraints. Loew et al. (2023) propose co-opetition (cooperative competition) as a promising strategy for smaller and mid-size firms to “pool their economic strength… in a joint platform”, thereby reducing market entry risks and sharing IT infrastructure costs. This approach theoretically enables participants to achieve a collective scale closer to that of a global player while each firm retains its brand and editorial independence. Industry experience echoes this: Engwall revealed that by serving many clients, Bedrock can invest €60–80M annually in its streaming tech, a figure “very difficult… to justify… in one country” if a single broadcaster had to bear it. Thus, sharing infrastructure is a way to punch above one’s weight in terms of technology. However, platform co-opetition is not without challenges – partners must align on technical standards, roadmaps, and business priorities. Engwall emphasizes that the shared platform must remain “hyper-flexible” to local needs (each country’s service can be customized ~10% to its market) while leveraging a common 90% core. Maintaining this balance requires careful governance.

Co-opetition Theory in Media Industries:
Co-opetition, a concept from strategic management, refers to competitors collaborating for mutual benefit even as they continue to compete in other domains. In media industries, co-opetition has precedent in ventures like Hulu – created in 2007 as a joint platform by NBC, Fox, and later Disney – and YouView in the UK – a partnership of broadcasters for set-top streaming. These collaborations were driven by the rise of online video challengers like YouTube and Netflix, which pressured traditional players to join forces. According to Evens (2014), “the emergence of online video platforms… is driving TV broadcasters to collaborate with their closest competitors to reduce costs and reach the necessary scale”. Co-opetitive projects can indeed yield high-quality services that none of the partners could build alone. However, literature and case history also highlight significant obstacles. A major concern is antitrust regulation: competition authorities often fear that cooperation among major competitors will “lessen rivalry and reduce consumer choice”. Evens (2014) documents how proposed joint streaming ventures like Project Kangaroo (a UK BBC-ITV-Ch4 initiative) and Germany’s Gold were blocked by regulators on such grounds. Broadcasters walking the fine line between collaboration and anti-competitive behavior must design ventures that clearly benefit consumers (e.g. through better service or more content) without creating unlawful market cartels. Another challenge is governance and commitment among partners. Co-opetition requires trust and a shared vision, which can be undermined if one partner prioritizes its own platform or if strategic goals diverge. The collapse of Salto – the French SVOD jointly launched by France Télévisions, TF1, and M6 – illustrates this risk. Salto was envisioned as “a combined fightback against the streaming giants,” pooling French content on one service. Yet, within two years the alliance unraveled due to what the founders called “complex and constrained governance” and shifting priorities amid a failed corporate merger. With insufficient exclusive content and only ~700,000 subscribers (versus Netflix’s 10+ million in France), Salto could not justify continued investment. Similar issues emerged in BritBox UK (a BBC-ITV JV) and Germany’s Joyn (ProSiebenSat.1 and Discovery) – partners pulled out to refocus on their own services. These cases underscore that co-opetition in media requires careful design: partners must commit to the joint platform’s success and avoid simply using it as a secondary outlet for content.

EU Policy and Cultural Considerations:
European media policy provides both impetus and framework conditions for collaborative streaming efforts. On one hand, EU initiatives like the Digital Single Market strategy seek to eliminate barriers to cross-border digital services. The EU updated its Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) in 2018 to impose a 30% European content quota on VOD catalogs and require “prominence” for local works. These policies aim to ensure that global platforms contribute to Europe’s cultural objectives. However, researchers note that such regulatory measures face limitations in the algorithm-driven, on-demand context. Idiz (2025) found that while Netflix and others do produce ‘local’ European originals to meet quota requirements, they often shape those productions for global appeal, potentially diluting local specificity. This reflects a broader tension: Europe wants to promote its creative diversity, yet its fragmented market makes it hard for purely local services to thrive against global competitors. Collaborative infrastructures might offer a solution aligned with European values – by empowering local players through shared tech, Europe can strengthen its own distribution channels for local content. Moreover, such co-owned platforms keep technological know-how within Europe, contributing to “technological autonomy”. Policymakers have shown interest in fostering collaboration; for example, the European Commission’s Media Action Plan (2020) explicitly encourages cooperation to help European media companies scale up and innovate. That said, competition law remains a gatekeeper. EU and national regulators will need to scrutinize any large-scale platform joint ventures for compliance with antitrust rules, balancing the need for competitive markets against the benefits of consolidation. If done right, co-opetition could enhance cultural sovereignty – European countries sharing infrastructure to amplify their content – without resorting to protectionism. Indeed, Europe has precedents for collective media endeavors in the public sector (e.g. ARTE, the Franco-German cultural channel, or the European Broadcasting Union’s content exchanges). Extending this spirit to the streaming era is a natural evolution.

Summary of Gaps:
From this literature review, it is clear that while co-opetition in media has been studied (Evens, 2014; etc.) and European streaming dynamics are increasingly analyzed (Parvulescu & Georgescu, 2024; Idiz, 2025), there is a gap in research on the infrastructure-sharing model now emerging in Europe. Most prior studies focus on content joint ventures or policy analysis; few examine the platform backend collaboration exemplified by Bedrock and similar initiatives. This research will fill that gap by focusing on collaborative streaming infrastructure as a distinct phenomenon – assessing its viability through case studies and contributing new insights at the intersection of media economics, technology, and policy.

Methodology

This study will employ a qualitative, comparative case study design to explore collaborative streaming infrastructures in Europe. A qualitative approach is appropriate because the research question centers on understanding strategic decisions, complex collaborations, and context-specific outcomes – areas best illuminated by in-depth inquiry rather than quantitative metrics. The comparative case study method (Yin, 2018) allows analysis of multiple instances of the phenomenon, helping to identify patterns and differences across contexts.

Case Selection:
Two to three case studies will be examined, chosen to provide complementary perspectives on collaborative streaming infrastructure:

Bedrock Streaming – A successful pan-European tech platform co-owned by major broadcasters (RTL Group and M6). Bedrock serves multiple countries and thus offers a prime example of co-opetition delivering scale. Studying Bedrock will shed light on how the partnership is structured and how it navigates technical and business challenges.
Salto (France) – A high-profile collaboration that ultimately failed. Analyzing Salto’s short-lived operation (2020–2023) provides a contrast, highlighting pitfalls in co-opetition (governance issues, competitive tensions, etc.) under a different model (direct-to-consumer service).
(Optional) Nordic Unified Platform (Hypothetical) – If applicable, a case of regional cooperation (for instance, a rumored Nordic streaming alliance or the European Broadcasting Union’s planned platform) could be included to broaden the scope. If no third case is suitable, the research will focus on the two above while incorporating additional interviews from other market players for breadth.

These cases were selected to capture both positive and negative outcomes of co-opetition. They also represent different scales (multi-country vs. single-country collaboration) and contexts (commercial broadcasters vs. mixed public/commercial venture), allowing for rich comparative analysis.

Data Collection:
Multiple qualitative data sources will be used to triangulate findings:

Industry Interviews: The core data will come from semi-structured interviews with stakeholders from each case. This will include executives and product managers at platform providers (e.g. Bedrock’s management), decision-makers at partner broadcasters (RTL, M6, France Télévisions, etc.), and independent experts or regulators familiar with the cases. Interview protocols will cover topics such as motivations for collaboration, technical integration experiences, business model considerations, user adoption, and perceived benefits and challenges. For example, questions will probe how costs and risks were shared, how content rights were handled, and what conflicts arose and how they were resolved. The interview format will be open-ended to allow stakeholders to offer candid reflections and bring up unforeseen issues. Approximately 10–15 interviews (5+ per case) are anticipated, each 45–60 minutes in length.
Document Analysis: A review of relevant documents will complement the interviews. These include corporate reports, press releases, strategic plans, and technical white papers from the case organizations (such as Bedrock’s service descriptions or RTL Group annual reports that discuss streaming strategy). Policy documents (EU reports, national regulator decisions) pertaining to these collaborations will also be analyzed, for instance any competition authority rulings or public statements about Salto or similar projects. Additionally, trade press and news articles (e.g. coverage by VideoWeek, Broadcast, Variety) will be reviewed to gather timelines, subscriber numbers, and external commentary. The earlier literature (academic studies) provides context and will inform certain analytical angles during coding (e.g. looking for evidence of network effects, references to audience behavior, etc.).
Observational Data: If feasible, the researcher will also gather observational data by using the platforms in question (where accessible) to understand the user experience and content offerings. For instance, testing the Bedrock-powered apps (6play, Videoland, etc.) may reveal how consistent or customized they are per country, which ties into the notion of a shared platform with local flexibility. This user-side perspective can be briefly noted, though the primary focus remains on industry strategy.

All interviews will be recorded (with consent) and transcribed for analysis. Notes will be kept for document sources and observations. Using multiple sources enables triangulation, increasing the reliability and depth of insights – for example, an executive’s claim about cost savings can be cross-checked against financial data or an engineer’s account of implementation challenges.

Analytical Framework:
Data analysis will follow a qualitative thematic analysis approach, combined with elements of comparative case analysis. First, interview transcripts and documents will be coded inductively to identify recurring themes and concepts. Expected themes (from literature and initial readings) include: cost-sharing benefits, technical scalability, governance structure, competitive tension, regulatory influence, user adoption, cultural positioning, and future outlook. The coding process will also remain open to emergent themes that participants introduce. A codebook will be developed and refined iteratively. Software like NVivo or Atlas.ti may be used to organize the qualitative data.

Within-case analysis will be performed to construct a narrative for each case: detailing its background, how the collaboration came about, how it functioned, and its outcomes. Then, cross-case analysis will compare these narratives. Yin’s pattern-matching technique will be employed: the researcher will look for patterns across cases regarding what factors lead to success vs. failure, and whether the experiences align with theories of co-opetition and platform economics. For instance, does the Bedrock case corroborate the idea that sharing infrastructure yields innovation and scale that none could achieve alone? Does the Salto case illustrate specific conditions under which co-opetition breaks down (e.g. lack of a unified strategy, or external pressures like mergers)? The analytical framework will also consider the role of external variables such as regulation (e.g. Did competition law affect the case? Did EU content rules influence it?), and audience behavior (e.g. Were younger audiences more likely to adopt the co-operative service, or did they stick with global platforms?).

Throughout the analysis, co-opetition theory will serve as a guiding lens. This means examining how the balance of cooperation and competition is managed. For example, Bengtsson and Kock’s framework (which distinguishes areas of cooperation vs. competition among co-opetitors) can be applied: partners might cooperate on technology and infrastructure (non-differentiating factors) but still compete in content and marketing (differentiating factors). Evidence of this division (or lack thereof) will be sought in the data.

Ethical Considerations:
Given the involvement of human subjects (interviews with industry professionals), the study will adhere to ethical research standards:

Prior to interviews, informed consent will be obtained in writing, explaining the study’s purpose, the voluntary nature of participation, and measures to protect confidentiality. Participants will have the option to remain anonymous or be identified by role (e.g. “Senior Product Manager at Bedrock”) in the research outputs.
Because some information discussed might be commercially sensitive (e.g. internal cost figures or strategic deliberations), the researcher will be careful to agree on what can be cited or if any portions are off-record. Data will be reported in aggregate or with anonymized quotes where necessary to protect sensitive details.
The researcher will avoid conflicts of interest. If the research is sponsored or if the researcher has past professional ties to any case organization, this will be disclosed and measures taken (such as independent peer review of the analysis) to mitigate bias. Ensuring a neutral, scholarly perspective is crucial given the industry implications.
All data (recordings, transcripts) will be securely stored and only used for research purposes. After the project, data will be retained or destroyed in line with university guidelines and any relevant data protection laws (e.g. GDPR for EU participants).
The study will undergo approval by the university’s ethics review board before data collection begins, to ensure that these protocols meet the required standards.

By carefully addressing these methodological and ethical aspects, the research will produce credible, well-substantiated insights into collaborative streaming infrastructures, providing value to both academia and industry.

Significance and Relevance

This research is significant on multiple levels – theoretical, educational, and practical – especially for media students and industry practitioners grappling with the rapidly changing streaming landscape in Europe.

Academic Significance: The study will contribute to media studies and communication research by deepening our understanding of co-opetition in the platform era. Media economics and platform studies scholars have examined competition between global vs. local media, but there is comparatively less scholarly work on collaborative competitionstrategies in this sector. By analyzing real-world cases, the research will enrich co-opetition theory with empirical evidence from the media domain, illustrating how sharing infrastructure can alter power dynamics. It also intersects with political economy of media – shedding light on how ownership and cooperation arrangements can influence market outcomes and media pluralism. Furthermore, this study addresses questions of cultural imperialism and autonomy: can European players collectively offer a counterweight to U.S. tech corporations? In doing so, it builds on and extends literature about globalization vs. localization of media, offering a nuanced model beyond the binary of either purely local resistance or outright capitulation to global platforms.

Educational Relevance: For second- and third-year media studies undergraduates, the topic offers a rich case of theory meeting practice. Students will see how concepts like platform economics, network effects, and regulatory frameworks come alive in the decisions European media companies are making today. It demonstrates the concept of “co-opetition” in an accessible way through tangible examples. This proposal itself is structured as a model research plan, which can guide students in developing their own research projects. By exploring issues of content diversity, tech scalability, and audience behavior within a European context, students gain insight into the unique challenges of working in a multilingual, culturally diverse market. It reinforces the importance of considering policy (like EU directives) alongside business strategy in media – a holistic perspective crucial for well-rounded media professionals. In essence, the research will serve as a detailed case study that can be discussed in class, illustrating the balancing act between collaboration and competition.

Industry and Policy Relevance: Practitioners in the media and entertainment industry stand to gain actionable insights from this research. European broadcasters and streaming services are actively seeking pathways to sustainability as they face intense competition and pressure on margins. This study addresses a central strategic question for them: does joining forces on technology make sense, and under what conditions? The findings could guide executives considering partnerships by highlighting best practices (what has worked in successful collaborations) and cautionary lessons (what pitfalls to avoid). For example, if the research finds that a unified tech platform significantly improved user experience and time-to-market for new features, more companies might be inclined to adopt such models. On the other hand, if governance issues are identified as the Achilles’ heel, firms can proactively design clearer partnership agreements. The study also informs policy makers and regulators. As Europe debates how to foster its creative industries in the face of U.S. and Chinese tech dominance, understanding the impact of cooperative models is vital. The research could suggest whether regulatory adjustments are needed – for instance, perhaps competition authorities might relax certain rules or provide exemptions to encourage collaborative innovation that benefits European consumers (similar to how EU allows some collaborative projects under specific conditions). Moreover, the topic resonates with EU’s cultural policy goals: ensuring that European audiences have access to rich local content and that local creators have platforms that treat them fairly. By investigating collaborative infrastructure, the study highlights one route to achieve a more level playing field. In a recent podcast discussion, it was suggested that Europe’s streaming future may lie in “radical cooperation over direct competition”. This research directly engages that proposition, assessing its validity and offering guidance on how such radical cooperation can be effectively realized.

In summary, the project is timely and relevant. It matters to media students as a learning opportunity and to media companies as a potential blueprint for the future. At a broader societal level, it speaks to Europe’s ongoing quest to uphold its cultural sovereignty and economic sustainability in media – a challenge with implications for diversity of information, national identities, and the consumer experience of hundreds of millions of Europeans.

Expected Outcomes

While the research is exploratory, we can anticipate several insights and findings based on existing trends and the guiding literature:

Demonstration of Economies of Scale: It is expected that the study will find strong evidence that collaborative streaming infrastructures yield significant economies of scale. By pooling tech development and operations, participating companies likely achieve cost efficiencies (e.g. shared R&D costs, bulk cloud service rates) and can invest in more advanced features than if they worked alone. For instance, a unified platform might support cutting-edge personalization algorithms or multi-language user interfaces that small national services could not easily develop independently. This supports the hypothesis that co-opetition improves the competitive stance of local players by enhancing their technological capabilities. A probable outcome is a detailed quantification or qualitative description of these efficiencies, drawn from case data (e.g. “Company X saved Y% on streaming infrastructure costs by joining the alliance”).
Improved Competitive Position: The cases will likely show that co-operative platforms help European services better compete with global rivals on user experience. By sharing knowledge and tech, they can roll out updates faster and support a wider array of devices and features. For example, Bedrock’s platform covers “60 devices” and various content types (VOD, live, podcasts) across its clients, meaning even a medium-sized broadcaster can offer a Netflix-like sophistication to its audience. The research might reveal outcomes such as increased user engagement or subscriber growth for services after migrating to a shared platform. However, it may also find that ultimate success still depends on compelling content; the tech can be world-class, but each service must have attractive programming to draw users. In other words, co-opetition on infrastructure is not a panacea, but it can level the playing field so that content and curation – not just tech advantage – become the deciding factors.
Identification of Key Challenges: The study is expected to identify the primary obstacles and failure points in collaborative ventures. Governance structure will likely emerge as crucial – e.g. whether there is a clear decision-making hierarchy or a neutral joint company (as Bedrock is) to avoid stalemates between partners. We anticipate finding that partnerships benefit from having an independent venture or dedicated team that all owners trust, rather than trying to split responsibilities too granularly among rival teams. In the failed case (Salto), we expect to document issues like partners withholding their best content, mismatched strategic goals, or external corporate changes (mergers, acquisitions) that disrupted the alliance. Recognizing these factors will contribute practical knowledge on how to design robust collaborations. Additionally, data governance might be highlighted – sharing a platform means potentially sharing user data and insights, which could be sensitive. The research may find that successful models establish clear rules on data access to prevent competitive misuse and to comply with privacy laws.
Regulatory and Policy Implications: It is anticipated that the findings will include an analysis of how current regulations impacted the cases and recommendations for policy. For instance, if the Bedrock case flourished partly because it was an internal group venture (RTL and M6 under one corporate umbrella) and did not trigger antitrust issues, that suggests truly multi-company collaborations might need regulatory flexibility. The study might thus conclude that European competition policy should adapt to allow pro-consumer collaborations in media, as long as they don’t eliminate meaningful content competition. Conversely, if evidence shows that consumers benefit through greater choice (e.g. one app aggregating multiple channels’ content), regulators might be encouraged to view co-opetition more favorably. We also expect to see how EU content quota rules play out on shared platforms – perhaps easier compliance when multiple broadcasters’ catalogs combine, leading to a rich European content library. The outcome could include a recommendation that EU policy actively support infrastructure sharing as a way to strengthen the Digital Single Market for media.
Model for Sustainable Media Ecosystem: On a higher level, the research will likely conclude that collaborative infrastructures are a viable strategy for fostering a more sustainable and diverse European media ecosystem. Instead of dozens of siloed small platforms with subscale audiences, a network of platforms running on a few interoperable backends could emerge. Such a model can preserve local branding and editorial control (thus maintaining cultural specificities) while achieving enough scale to survive economically. Expected findings might articulate a vision where European media companies practice “co-opetition” routinely: cooperating on technology and distribution infrastructure, co-producing certain content, but still competing in terms of creative output and curation. This hybrid approach could be a key to reconciling the ideals of cultural sovereignty with the realities of platform economics.

In sum, the study should produce actionable insights: a set of conditions for success in media co-opetition, a list of common pitfalls, and an informed perspective on the future of European streaming. These outcomes will contribute valuable knowledge to the field and offer guidance to stakeholders looking to implement or support collaborative strategies.

References

Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-opetition. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday. (Original concept of co-opetition theory).

Evens, T. (2014). Co-opetition of TV broadcasters in online video markets: A winning strategy? International Journal of Digital Television, 5(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1386/jdtv.5.1.61_1

European Commission. (2016). Fragmentation of the Single Market for on-line video-on-demand services. (SMART 2012/0027 Study Report). Brussels: EU Commission.

European Commission. (2023). European Media Industry Outlook (Audiovisual sector excerpt). Brussels: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology.

Idiz, D. R. (2025). Streaming Giants and European Screen Production: Cultural Diversity, Creativity, and Dependence(Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam). (Referenced via UvA News release)

Loew, L., Fischer, T., & Neuhüttler, J. (2023). Co-opetition through multisided platforms: Managing cooperation in the platform economy. In Proceedings of the 14th Int. Conf. on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2023). (Discusses co-opetition model for platform entry)

Parvulescu, C., & Georgescu, L. (2024). Narrating entertainment streaming in Europe (Introduction to Special Issue). Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 15(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp_00152_2

Shapiro, E. & Ranchet, M. (Hosts). (2025, April 17). Streaming Europe [Audio podcast episode]. In The Media Odyssey. Transistor.fm. (Interview with Jonas Engwall, CEO of Bedrock Streaming)

VideoWeek. (2022, November 24). Salto’s struggles highlight difficulties for streaming joint ventures. (Tim Cross-Kovoor). Retrieved from https://videoweek.com/ (Insights on Salto and other European joint streaming efforts)