Dr Patrick Hörl: Smart strategies in the tough documentary market

Hörl, you founded Autentic 17 years ago and have witnessed many changes in the documentary film market – most recently a major upswing with the market entry of streamers. What is the current state of the industry?

Patrick Hörl: Streaming services were good news for documentaries. Our genre is now on the home pages, on an equal footing with feature films. We no longer feel like the wallflowers of the industry; our stories are perceived as powerful and fascinating. Nevertheless, the industry is going through a very difficult time.

In what way?

Hörl: The number of productions has declined significantly. Broadcasters no longer have as much money, advertising revenue has migrated to social platforms, and the classic linear free-to-air TV broadcasters are being called into question with their model. Industry estimates suggest that the number of films produced has fallen by at least 20 percent, with some saying that in certain areas the decline is as much as 40 percent. Every day, we read about staff cuts at broadcasters, and unfortunately, our company has also had to cut some jobs in 2024. It is very sad to see how many smaller companies are not surviving. We hope that we are now through the valley of tears and can reposition ourselves well in the market with a leaner and more powerful structure.

Co-financed and partially financed productions dominate the industry

How do you manage to get through such low points?

Hörl: When I founded Autentic together with Jan Mojto from Beta Film, we always talked about a production company. When I look at Autentic today, our distribution division, through which we sell or license productions worldwide, is proving to be increasingly important for the stability of our company.

Why is that?

Hörl: The financing of documentary films has changed a lot. There are hardly any broadcasters left that pay for productions in full. Commissioned productions are practically non-existent in the documentary film sector. Our industry is dominated by co-productions and partially financed productions. When I agree on a project with an editor in Mainz, he tells me how much money he has for it. That's maybe half or at most two-thirds of the costs. The rest of the money is not provided by the broadcaster, but by us. Our distribution structure helps here, because we can go out into the market and look for partners. I believe this is an irreversible development.

You sound as if you have accepted this. Is there anything that would really help the industry?

Hörl: We would like to not have to spend so much time putting together financing. That's time lost in the development of new material. We have very good funding here in Bavaria. It can be used for very specific productions, for which we are very grateful. But it doesn't fundamentally change the situation in the industry.

What else would be needed?

Hörl: A tax incentive system. We are surrounded by countries that offer very strong tax incentives for productions. These are granted automatically and are calculable. There, you are not subject to committees that may or may not like the film. Predictability in the economic sphere is essential for us. As a result, we have outsourced a considerable part of our production volume to Canada in order to benefit from the tax incentives granted to our partners there. Furthermore, the globally active digital platforms in Germany are not obliged to locate part of their production here, i.e. to reinvest here. We are lagging behind in this area too, because this rule is already established in France, for example. Such investment obligations have advantages and disadvantages, but in the current economic situation, it is important to find a fair balance of interests.

The industry is also changing in terms of viewers' viewing habits. Which platforms are you currently focusing on?

Hörl: The entire market is undergoing a shift towards digital media. The market leader in Germany, if you look at the minutes watched by the total audience, is no longer a traditional broadcaster, but YouTube. We try to be where the people are. This is a very dynamic process, which we are succeeding in. We no longer make films just for linear television, but many that go to the media library first.

And you also use YouTube channels.

Hörl: Our company has been using its own channels for 17 years. In the past, these were pay-TV channels distributed via platforms such as Sky or Deutsche Telekom. This market is shrinking. Other channels have emerged to replace it, such as FAST channels, of which we operate six. On YouTube, for example, we have our own global documentary channel called ‘Autentic Documentary’. But our main business with YouTube is through our collaboration with aggregators who have been active in this field for many years.

Is TikTok a relevant platform for you?

Hörl: TikTok, Twitch and the like give us a better feel for what people are interested in thematically. But we tend to focus on longer narrative forms. Both longer and shorter narrative forms are popular with young target groups. Younger people in particular usually know intuitively where to find the best narrative forms. All target groups now know that more complex stories can only be told in longer forms.

Use of AI: From fundamental debate to normality

How do these new channels influence your format development?

Hörl: We have to think much earlier about exactly which audience we want to address. Our thinking has changed radically in this regard. And we no longer produce solely for a specific time slot. Perhaps the programme will first be available on Arte's YouTube channel for a week, then on linear television a week later, and then somewhere in Austria or Switzerland on a VOD platform. There is no longer ONE way to reach viewers. We enjoy getting to know our viewers better and better by analysing usage data. This also allows us to be much more in tune with the times.

What do you mean by that?

Hörl: There are a lot of viral topics at the moment. And a great deal of frustration about how complicated and complex everything has become. We documentary filmmakers can help by shining a spotlight on issues, explaining things or delving into topics through investigative reporting that the news doesn't have time to cover in such depth. This is a strong trend in documentary filmmaking.

Another trending topic is AI. How do you use it?

Hörl: Last year, we had many fundamental discussions about whether or not we wanted to work with AI. In the process, we noticed that we already use AI in a supportive role in many areas: in finding titles for productions, in creating language versions, in the final production of films, and in sound and image mixing. We use software that incorporates AI almost everywhere along the production process. This has become the norm, and that's not a bad thing, but it's important to be aware of it. The prompting is still done by us humans.

Is it acceptable for the industry to use artificially generated images in a documentary film?

Hörl: There are now many films that contain sequences generated entirely by AI. The re-enactments typical of documentaries, such as recreating battle scenes from the Middle Ages, have always had a certain artificiality. With the help of AI, such scenes can now be produced more elegantly and with greater historical accuracy. If we want to tell stories about a person of whom there are only a few images, AI can be used to bring history to life in a more impressive way. Complete transparency towards the viewer is always crucial. It must be disclosed beyond doubt when images are artificially generated with the help of AI, for example by adding corresponding text inserts in the image.

The impact of documentary films as an important motivating factor

What makes a successful factual format today?

Hörl: On many levels, the same things that make a good feature film. Every good story needs a fitting, strong dramaturgy. An original idea that is visually brilliant and coherently implemented. In the documentary field, there is another important aspect: access. We are good when we can find access to certain people and topics and then tell a story that otherwise might never be heard.

Do you have an example of what such exclusive access might look like?

Hörl: We are currently producing a documentary with primatologist Jane Goodall, a wonderful, inspiring person. She has written a book called ‘Hope’. We now have the opportunity to turn this topic into a feature-length documentary entitled ‘Science of Hope’. Inspired by Jane Goodall's positive outlook on life, we have the special opportunity to tell positive stories that can spread hope in a world too often dominated by doom and gloom.

Hope is a very important feeling in the current times. Do you hope that ‘Science of Hope’ will have a certain social impact?

Hörl: Definitely. Impact is an important motivation for us! I hope that this programme will counteract the negative mood that prevails regarding the future. It always comes down to finding characters who inspire and enthuse you. Of course, there are also plenty of topics in documentary films that are not so pleasant, but are nevertheless essential for our society and each and every one of us. Last year, we made a programme for 3Sat about governments in Europe that are currently tipping over into authoritarianism or no longer want to be democracies as we understand them. The portrayal of this development struck a nerve and viewers discussed it at length. As good journalists, we should not be concerned with achieving a particular political effect. We are the ones who draw attention to important developments and situations, make things understandable and provide space for dialogue between different voices. A functioning democracy should never restrict us in this role.