A confidential debate reveals deep tensions between the traditional creative economy and the “Creator Economy.” Between unmissable opportunity and structural dependency, the French audiovisual sector questions its future.

Introduction: The Uncomfortable Question

“Should we work with YouTube?” The title of the debate organized in February 2026 by médiaClub and USPA (Union of Audiovisual Production Unions) sounds like a provocation. Yet, from the opening, Jérôme Chouraqui, President of médiaClub, nuanced the approach: “In reality, the question is probably no longer whether or not to work with YouTube. The real question is: how do we do it, how far do we go, and at what price for our industry?“

This exegesis of a behind-closed-doors conversation, bringing together figures as contrasting as Isabelle Degeorges (Gaumont Télévision, Vice-President of USPA), Lorenzo Benedetti (Studio Bagel, ScreenTube), and Samy Bouyssié (Studio Ascend, Inoxtag), reveals a tipping point. YouTube is no longer a peripheral channel. It has become central infrastructure — and the industry struggles to define its place in this new order.

I. The Implacable Reality: YouTube Has Changed Scale

The figures speak for themselves. Lorenzo Benedetti, positioned for years at the intersection of both worlds, delivers a reality often obscured by institutional discourse: “In many households, YouTube is today the most used application on televisions, ahead of linear channels and sometimes even ahead of SVOD platforms.“

This dominance of usage is not marginal. It comes with vertiginous acceleration. “Usage has changed faster than our ability to analyze it. And even faster than our ability to respond collectively,” Benedetti observes. The paradox? While YouTube captures consumption volumes comparable to major historical broadcasters, it escapes the vast majority of obligations weighing on the latter.

Jérôme Chouraqui summarizes the tension: “Are we facing a point of no return, or are we organizing, almost despite ourselves, a dependency whose consequences we haven’t yet measured?” Benedetti’s answer leaves no ambiguity: this dependency is maintained by the very structure of the platform, which simultaneously controls “measurement tools, audience data, recommendation algorithms, and monetization rules.” An unprecedented concentration of power.

II. Two Worlds Looking at Each Other Without Understanding

The debate directly opposes two economic logics, each carried by legitimate actors but with divergent perspectives.

Isabelle Degeorges defends a system before defending individual trajectories. Her vision is that of collective industry: “The issue isn’t whether some people succeed on YouTube. The issue is what happens to an industry when its financing and redistribution model is weakened.” She reminds us that the French audiovisual model rests on risk and value mutualization — a mechanism that enabled the emergence of talents and works that the pure market would never have supported. “What worries me isn’t YouTube itself. It’s the fact that it captures an increasing share of value without participating in financing the entire sector.“

Samy Bouyssié embodies the inverse logic, that of the “Creator Economy.” Producer of talents like Inoxtag, he starts from a radical inversion of the creative process: “We don’t begin by asking who will broadcast. We begin by asking who will watch, and why.” This “audience-first” approach privileges agility, test-and-learn, direct relationship with the public. But it has a downside that Bouyssié doesn’t hide: “We can move very fast, but we can’t finance everything this way.“

Between the two, Lorenzo Benedetti occupies a bridging position. His diagnosis is clear: “YouTube has become central in usage, particularly on connected television; but it remains marginal in the economic accounts of traditional audiovisual groups.” This dissociation between audience and value creates an “unstable, almost schizophrenic” situation.

III. The Heart of the Divide: Mutualization vs. Individualization

The debate reveals a deep structural fracture. On one side, the B2B (Business-to-Business) model of historical audiovisual: security, pre-financing, redistribution via the CNC. On the other, the B2C (Business-to-Consumer) model of the Creator Economy: speed, direct exposure, but economic solitude.

“When it works, it works very well for you. When it doesn’t work, you fall alone,” Benedetti summarizes. This individualization of value clashes head-on with the collective philosophy defended by Degeorges: “A cultural industry cannot rest solely on individual success logics. Otherwise, it transforms into a pure market.“

The idea of “hybridization” emerges as an exit strategy — but with caution. “The problem isn’t mixing models. The problem is believing this will magically solve structural imbalances,” Benedetti warns. Bouyssié adds: hybridization mainly works for projects carried by already identified talents. For others, the risk is finding themselves in a “gray zone,” without B2B protection or B2C power.

IV. Money, Value, and the Black Hole of Redistribution

This is perhaps the most inextricable knot. “The issue isn’t that YouTube makes money. The issue is that this money doesn’t circulate,” Isabelle Degeorges cuts straight. She describes a shift “from a redistributive system to an extractive system.”

Comparison with other platforms is illuminating. Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+ were integrated — with difficulty — into the French regulatory system. They contribute, to varying degrees, to financing creation. YouTube, meanwhile, “checks all the boxes of cultural influence, but none of industrial responsibility.”

Samy Bouyssié brings an operational nuance: in the Creator Economy, monetization doesn’t rest on AdSense (platform advertising revenue), but on brands. “AdSense is marginal. What really finances projects are brands.” Yet, as Degeorges points out, “brands finance what resembles them. Not what serves the general interest.” Investigative documentary, ambitious fiction, heritage animation: so many genres the model leaves by the wayside.

Jérôme Chouraqui formulates the emerging consensus: “A cultural industry that no longer redistributes is an industry that weakens itself.“

V. Data: Power Without Counter-Power

Beyond money, it’s information control that raises questions. YouTube controls measurement tools, recommendation algorithms, visibility rules. “YouTube doesn’t just show figures. It decides what these figures mean,” Benedetti analyzes.

This concentration creates an “illusion of transparency.” Dashboards reassure, but entrap. “We think we understand what’s happening, but we only ever see what the platform agrees to show us,” he continues. Worse: the relationship with the public is confiscated. “The public is never really yours. It belongs to YouTube, which lends it to you,” Chouraqui summarizes.

Algorithms, finally, structure editorial choices. Samy Bouyssié recognizes this: “We always end up adapting to what works. Even when we don’t want to.” A normalization of content occurs, difficult to reconcile with cultural diversity ambitions.

Isabelle Degeorges elevates the debate: “When we control neither distribution, nor measurement, nor the relationship with the public, we no longer control much.” European cultural and industrial sovereignty is at stake.

VI. Regulation: An Urgency, Not an Option

Faced with these imbalances, the question of regulation imposes itself. “We cannot accept that actors occupying a central place in usage escape the rules structuring our industry,” Degeorges insists.

The asymmetry is flagrant. Channels and SVOD platforms are subject to investment obligations, CNC contributions, quotas, public protection. YouTube, de facto broadcaster, continues to be legally perceived as a technical platform.

But regulate what, and how? The debate calls for a coherent approach: financial contribution, editorial responsibility, public protection, transparency of rules. “Regulation isn’t punishment. It’s a condition for a balanced system’s existence,” Degeorges reminds.

Jérôme Chouraqui insists on the role of unions and public authorities: “This debate cannot be carried solely by isolated producers. It must become a sectoral issue.“

VII. Information and Democracy: The Risk of Disintermediation

The debate addresses sensitive terrain: YouTube as an information space. For an increasing part of the public, particularly youth, the platform has become a major entry point to current events. “We may regret or worry about it, but that’s where many people get informed today,” Benedetti observes.

But this apparent freedom hides an algorithmic reality. “Just because there’s no visible editor-in-chief doesn’t mean there’s no editorial line. It’s simply coded elsewhere,” Degeorges warns. Information hierarchy is no longer built by journalists, but by algorithms optimized for engagement — favoring divisive, emotional, radical content.

Information on YouTube “often lives on a thread,” according to Bouyssié. Without public financing, without protection mechanisms, investigative formats struggle to survive. “Editorial independence has a cost. And this cost cannot be borne by the market alone,” Degeorges concludes.

A Revealer, Not a Culprit

The debate doesn’t decide. It doesn’t deliver a miracle recipe. But it reveals with new clarity the fragilities of a model under tension.

YouTube is neither savior nor enemy. It is “revealer of existing model fragilities, limits of traditional financing, and tensions between innovation, regulation, and general interest,” Chouraqui synthesizes.

The issue exceeds the platform. It touches the very definition of cultural policy for the 21st century. “An industry founded solely on individual performance and immediate audience cannot guarantee diversity, independence, and risk-taking,” the report warns. Conversely, “a system ignoring usage, data, and new forms of public relationship condemns itself to obsolescence.”

The middle way — hybridization — exists, but won’t alone solve structural imbalances. Only collective mobilization, carried by organizations like USPA and reflection spaces like médiaClub, can invent tools for a new industrial pact.

“The risk would be everyone leaving with their certainties, without anything really changing,” Chouraqui concludes. The time for concrete proposals has come. For the YouTube train is already launched — and the industry has no choice: learn to drive it, or suffer the drift.