Television & Media Intelligence
TV.com.gp is a monitoring and analysis practice for the audiovisual industry, following programmes, formats, technology, business models, distribution, advertising, audiences and the new video usages that keep redrawing television markets.
We work for channels, broadcast groups, producers, distributors, streaming platforms, advertisers, agencies and public institutions. Every assignment is built to order: we define the perimeter to be watched, select the sources that matter for that particular question, and deliver alerts, syntheses or reports at the rhythm your decisions require.
From information to strategic decisions.
Television has not been replaced, it has been reorganised. Linear grids, catch-up windows, subscription catalogues and free ad-supported channels now coexist on the same screens, and decisions that used to rely on one set of indicators now depend on several.
Programming teams still build grids while audiences move between live channels, catch-up windows and subscription catalogues. Understanding where a title actually performs now means watching several distribution environments at the same time.
Global services, national platforms, free ad-supported streaming channels and broadcaster players share the same interfaces. Positioning, subscription tiers and catalogue rotation change several times a year, and announcements rarely arrive through a single channel.
A format can be commissioned in one territory, adapted in three others and quietly dropped in a fifth within eighteen months. Spotting that trajectory early changes what a development or acquisition team decides to option.
Windowing rules, exclusivity terms, output deals and sports rights cycles shape what can be scheduled and when. Teams need visibility on expiring agreements and likely renewals long before a negotiation actually opens.
Addressable television, programmatic buying and connected-TV inventory pull budgets in new directions. Advertisers and sales houses need to know which formats, targeting capabilities and measurement standards are genuinely live in each market.
Panel methodologies, cross-media currencies and platform reporting evolve constantly, and they do not measure the same thing. Comparing figures without knowing what sits behind them produces decisions built on false equivalence.
Each service answers a different question asked inside an audiovisual organisation, from a scheduling arbitration to a regulatory deadline or a board discussion on monetisation. They can be commissioned separately or combined into a single monitoring set-up covering one market, one genre or one group of competitors.
Continuous monitoring of channels and broadcast groups: strategy, schedules, leadership, investments, distribution agreements and structural moves, observed on a common grid and read comparatively across the markets that concern you.
For: Strategy and development departments of channels and broadcast groups · Programming and acquisitions teams following competing schedules · Distribution and affiliate relations teams
Detection of emerging television formats and their international trajectory: country of origin, adaptations, local versions, production mechanics that travel and the territories where they have already stalled.
For: Acquisitions and format teams at broadcasters and platforms · Development departments in production companies · Distributors assessing the competitive field for their catalogue
Monitoring of streaming services and free ad-supported channels: catalogue movements and rotation, subscription tiers, territory launches, interface and prominence changes, and distribution partnerships with operators and device manufacturers.
For: Distribution and rights departments · Strategy teams at broadcasters and platforms · Producers assessing where their catalogue is exposed
Monitoring of television and video advertising: addressable and connected-TV inventory, formats, sales house offers, targeting capabilities, measurement standards and observed campaign activity in the markets you follow.
For: Advertisers and their in-house media teams · Media agencies and trading desks · Sales houses and broadcaster commercial departments
Analysis of audience evolution across linear, catch-up and streaming: published measurement, methodological and currency changes, shifts in viewing behaviour, and what the figures genuinely compare across territories.
For: Programming and scheduling departments · Research and insight teams · Advertising sales and media planning teams
Identification of content, producers, distributors and co-production partners matching a defined editorial, territorial and financial brief, with documented profiles, track records and rights situations established from public sources.
For: Acquisitions and commissioning departments · Co-production and international development teams · Distributors building or extending a catalogue
Our value is not volume. It is the ability to tell you what has actually changed in your competitive environment, why it matters for the decision in front of you, and what deserves no attention at all.
Before anything is collected, we agree in writing on the territories, the channels, the genres and the questions in scope. A monitoring set-up without a clear boundary generates noise rather than clarity.
Press releases, trade coverage and platform communication follow their own agenda. We qualify what is confirmed, what is a stated intention and what remains an unverified report, and we say which is which.
A commissioning decision only means something once placed against the grid it serves, the catalogue it feeds and the deal structure behind it. Our deliverables explain that context rather than listing sources.
The same criteria are applied from one edition to the next, so a slate, a schedule or a positioning can be followed over several seasons without rebuilding the analysis each time.
Grid planning, market seasons, rights renewals and budget arbitrations do not run on the same calendar. Frequency and delivery channel are chosen to land before your decisions, not after them.
Your subjects of interest, your acquisition intentions and your internal questions stay inside the assignment. Nothing about a client engagement is reused, published or shown as a reference.
The same seven stages apply to every subject, whether we are following one broadcast group across three markets or one technical migration inside a single playout chain.
We start from the decision you have to take, not from a list of keywords, so the monitoring is built around a question that actually matters.
Territories, channels, platforms, genres, players and time horizon are written down and validated. Nothing is collected before that boundary is agreed.
Sources are chosen case by case for their reliability and their relevance to your subject, then documented so results can be traced back.
Signals are gathered continuously, then filtered, cross-checked and dated. Duplicates, recycled announcements and unverified reports are treated as such.
Digital tools accelerate collection and classification. The interpretation of what a scheduling move or a deal actually implies remains human work.
Alerts, bulletins, benchmarks or reports are written for the people who will use them, in a format that supports an arbitration rather than a reading exercise.
Scope, frequency and sources are reviewed regularly. A monitoring arrangement that is never adjusted stops matching the market it is supposed to follow.
The delivery format is part of the specification. A rights renewal calendar, a competitive alert and an annual sector review call for different objects, and we agree on that during scoping.
There is no standard package. Two organisations watching the same market rarely need the same set-up: an acquisitions team and a regulatory affairs department do not read the same signals, do not work on the same horizon and do not need the same level of detail. We therefore study each request individually, propose a scope in writing, and start only once that scope has been validated.
The questions organisations ask us most often before starting an assignment.
No. The perimeter is defined by your question, not by the size of the players involved. An assignment can cover a single thematic channel in one language area, a regional broadcaster, an independent producer, a niche streaming service or a group operating across a dozen markets. What matters is that the boundary is explicit.
Yes. Sources are selected in the languages where the information actually appears, then analysed and restituted in English or French. When a term has no stable equivalent, we keep the original wording and explain it, rather than forcing a translation that would distort what was announced.
They are reported when they are relevant, but never presented as facts. Each item carries its status: confirmed by the party concerned, reported by a recognised trade outlet, or circulating without attribution. In a sector where deals are often signalled before they are signed, that distinction is essential.
We do not measure audiences. We work with published measurement, explain the methodology behind it and flag what it does and does not capture. When two sources disagree because they count different things, we say so rather than choosing the more convenient number.
That is a common and sensible approach. Many assignments begin with one market, one genre or one group of competitors, then extend once the first deliverables have shown which signals are genuinely useful. Scope, frequency and format are reviewed together at agreed intervals.
The subject of an assignment is treated as sensitive information in itself. What you ask us to watch often reveals what you are preparing. Requests, scopes and deliverables remain private, and no engagement is ever displayed, quoted or used to illustrate our work elsewhere.
Tell us what you need to follow: a competing group, a genre, a technology migration, a regulatory file or a market you are considering entering. We review every request individually and propose a scope of work before anything begins.
Every request is reviewed confidentially. No commitment is required to discuss a scope of work.