Content uploaded by Catalina Iordache
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Catalina Iordache on Aug 25, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Netflix Original documentary, explained:
Global investment patterns in documentary films and series
Catalina Iordache, Tim Raats & Sam Mombaerts
imec-SMIT-Vrije Universiteit Brussel
To cite this article:
Catalina Iordache, Tim Raats & Sam Mombaerts (2022) The Netflix Original
documentary, explained: global investment patterns in documentary films and series,
Studies in Documentary Film, DOI: 10.1080/17503280.2022.2109099
ABSTRACT
Subscription video-on-demand services have been increasingly moving away from licencing
content to producing their own content. The ‘original’ label is applied to different types of
productions for which streaming platforms own exclusive rights, usually worldwide and for
specific periods. This has also been part of Netflix’s global strategy to attract new and existing
subscribers. Research into the Netflix Original has become particularly relevant, due to its
impact on audiovisual markets and the label’s opacity. This article focuses on Netflix
investments in original documentaries, due to the genre’s growing popularity and the
platform’s notable interest in documentary films and series. The analysis focuses on the
company’s strategies and investment patterns in specific regions, languages and genres over
time by mapping all documentary titles produced between 2012–2021 labelled as ‘Netflix
Original’, resulting in a database of 479 titles. We found that investments in original
documentaries have been growing over the years, and the large majority of these are
commissions or exclusive titles. The transnational production and distribution of Netflix
Original documentaries reflect wider changes in cultural trade brought on by the streaming
model. However, the company’s investment strategy is also influenced by established market
dynamics and financing practices in documentary production.
Introduction
The rapid growth and global expansion of over-the-top audiovisual service providers has
been a central topic of analysis in television studies and media industry studies, in the
past decade. Subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) players such as Netflix are not
only changing the way we define television (Jenner 2018), but also the weight we
ascribe their circulation power (Hesmondhalgh and Lotz 2020), as they put pressure
on audiovisual financing and increase competition for distribution and content acqui-
sition and commissioning (Doyle 2018). Moreover, these services operate as platforms,
creating closed circuits that facilitate their control not only over their distribution and
network infrastructure, but also over financing, consumer relationships and program-
ming rights (Evens and Donders 2018).
2
As part of their strategy to attract new subscribers as well as keep existing users on the
platform, SVOD players have been increasingly involved in the production and acqui-
sition of content. European stakeholders have particularly voiced concerns about the
threat that large SVOD players pose to the sustainability of European audiovisual indus-
tries, especially for broadcasters who have been the main financiers of original content in
Europe (D’Arma, Raats, and Steemers 2021). Thus far, research on the European market
has mostly focused on Netflix, given its pioneering role in establishing subscription VOD
globally and the ways it has been reshaping audiovisual production and distribution,
audience behaviour and financing. To better assess the impact on audiovisual markets,
recent research has focused on defining the ‘Netflix Original’ (see Afilipoaie, Iordache,
and Raats 2021), an opaque label that does not offer much clarity over the type of invest-
ment made, nor the company’s actual involvement in the production process. However,
existing research primarily focuses on scripted content, although recent catalogue data
has also shown increased diversification and a rise in documentary offerings (Iordache
2021).
Netflix Original titles have been popular with audiences and critics. Documentaries
such as The Social Dilemma (2020), American Murder: The Family Next Door (2020)
and Tiger King (2020-) featured among the most viewed Netflix titles worldwide
(Moore 2021). Original documentaries have received consistent critical acclaim over
the years, having won several awards and gained numerous nominations. Documentary
was also the fastest-growing genre on global streaming platforms in 2020, a growth par-
ticularly driven by original productions (Fischer 2021). The genre was also the driver for
the European rebound of film production in 2019, with a growth of 13% in the number of
documentaries produced (EAO 2021, 14).
A large body of academic research on documentary focuses on the analysis of texts
(Haase 2016; Hogarth 2006) and the examination of the genre
’
s definition and essential
features that place it within a certain set of practices, forms and functions (Corner 2002,
266). This article aims to complement this body of work by adding a media industry
studies analysis on the role of streaming platforms in financing documentary pro-
ductions. It takes a ‘helicopter view’ of Netflix’s global investments in original documen-
taries, in order to identify patterns, production volumes and market-related strategies.
The transnational production and distribution of Netflix Original documentaries
reflect wider changes in cultural trade brought on by the streaming model. However,
the company’s strategy is also influenced by existing practices and structural constraints
in documentary production. The analysis focuses on the diversity of the works, based on
type of production, type of investment, country of origin, language and genre.
The article employs a comprehensive mapping and qualitative analysis of documen-
taries labelled as Netflix Originals. Although research into the company’s investments
is challenging due to the lack of available financial data, the analysis of volume and
investment patterns in documentary productions provides an excellent proxy. This
article analyses the company’s commissioning and licencing strategies, and investment
patterns in different types of production, specific regions and genres. It does this by col-
lecting information on all documentary titles produced from 2012 to the end of 2021
labelled as Netflix Originals, resulting in a database of 479 titles.
The following section will set the conceptual scene for the discussion of Netflix docu-
mentary originals, by focusing on the theoretical framing of the genre within the
3
audiovisual landscape in general, and the current ‘streaming era’ in particular. This is fol-
lowed by the methodological considerations. The subsequent analysis is structured on the
following indicators: (1) the volume of production over time; (2) the typology for original
documentaries and investment patterns; (3) diversity of country of origin and language;
and (4) genre diversity. The analysis and discussion will reflect on the platform’s strat-
egies and how the investment patterns in documentary differ from the investments in
fiction that previous studies have identified.
Documentary in the age of Netflix
A fragile genre in the audiovisual landscape
Documentary has been a historically difficult genre to define and clearly delineate, either
when discussing the essential features that distinguish fiction from non-fiction (Friend
2021), or ‘creative documentary’ from drama, journalism, or reality-TV (Fürsich 2003;
Goldson 2015; Terrone 2020). Scholars have thoroughly debated the characteristics of
the genre and the elements that shape it (Corner 2002; Nichols 2010; Plantinga 2005),
as well as how different types of documentary filmmaking and sub-genres are intercon-
nected (Bruzzi 2006; Nash, Hight, and Summerhayes 2014). As the genre has developed
throughout time, various documentary formats and styles have taken shape, not least due
to the advent of different media outlets, from cinema to television, and now digital ser-
vices (Beattie 2004; Kilborn and Izod 1997).
A key point of attention when discussing documentary is the genre’s historically pre-
carious financing. In Europe, documentaries have primarily been financed by and dis-
tributed through public institutions such as film funds and public service media
(Debrett 2007; Zoellner 2009). Documentaries are often co-produced or co-financed
by public broadcasters, and national film boards and councils in different countries,
which also support their wider distribution (Sørensen 2012).
The dependence on public support mechanisms causes tension between the documen-
tary’s public value and its commercial goals aimed at wide audience consumption (Livé-
mont, Donders, and Pauwels 2017). Documentary circulation is not only constrained by
financial backing, but also by the genre
’
s
‘
merit good
’
quality which lacks commercial
value in the free market (Doyle 2013). Documentaries have always been less popular
with audiences than other television genres, like drama or entertainment, which makes
them more expensive to air for commercial channels, due to loss of advertising revenues
(Sørensen 2012). Their limited cross-border appeal has also been attributed to highly
localised topics, as opposed to more universal themes such as science, nature, travel
and health (Fürsich 2003).
Existing funding patterns have been affected by the increasing commercialisation of
the media landscape and the growth and expansion of SVOD platforms (D’Arma,
Raats, and Steemers 2021). Deregulation in many European markets, political pressure
on public broadcasters, the convergence between public and commercial television,
and the decrease in public broadcasting licence fees are further threatening the sustain-
ability of documentary production and distribution (Armstrong and Weeds 2007;
Macnab 2015).
4
The promise of digitalisation
Digitalisation has undoubtedly brought a series of opportunities for the increased
exposure and sustainability of documentary. First of all, new technology has significantly
lowered the costs of filming equipment, editing and postproduction software, as well as
the need for large, specialised crews (Chapman and Allison 2009; Baker 2006). Moreover,
it has provided novel and alternative financing sources, from crowdsourcing to streaming
platforms (Sørensen 2012). Over-the-top distribution, and global SVOD platforms in
particular, have brought novel streams of financing for both documentary films and
series, including Netflix, HBO Max, Disney+ and Amazon Prime Video (Morfoot
2019). Secondly, digitalisation also leads to international distribution and wider
exposure. Historically, documentaries have been exhibited and traded through the festi-
val circuit or aired on television as rights were usually owned by national broadcasters
and producers rarely explored secondary markets (Doyle 2013). Online catalogues
make room for larger libraries and diversification and operate in a multi-national
environment which enables cross-border circulation.
Technological developments have also contributed to new media consumption patterns
and on-demand availability has enhanced the popularity of documentaries with global
audiences, from mainstream content to quality, creative documentaries (Goldson 2015;
Sharma 2016). An analysis of IMDb data shows the documentary genre significantly
growing in viewer preferences between 1990 and 2018 (McCready 2019). A recent
Moving Docs survey found that the mode of delivery is crucial for documentary consump-
tion in certain age groups, particularly young audiences who prefer on-demand services
(Jones 2020). Moreover, the popularity of certain genres, such as true crime and investiga-
tive documentaries, has turned them into SVOD staples in recent years (Bruzzi 2016;
McCabe 2022), and particularly through the 2020 Covid-19 lockdowns (Camarero 2021).
However, as previously discussed in relation to commercial television, digitalisation also
brings concerns over the enhanced commodification of documentary, even though,
throughout its history, the nature of documentary was inherently uncommercial
(Vicente 2009). This has (re-)shaped the genre in several ways, including form, topic and
positioning. The 1990s brought a shift towards programming that was more focused on
entertainment: the so-called ‘McDocumentary’ reality-TV hybrids (Hogarth 2006). These
continue to be popular with audiences and relatively cheap to produce (Zoellner 2009).
The debate over the ‘popularisation’ of documentary through television formats builds
on the European concerns over the marginalisation of the ‘creative documentary’, which
was associated with the tradition of cinematic and auteur documentary (Vinuela 2018). Dis-
cussions over the assessment of quality are in line with historical arguments over the aim of
documentary to go beyond entertainment or providing information. Fürsich claims that
commercialisation defines and constrains the range of critical and journalistic practice as
‘cultural and sociological critiques of contemporary consumer society are likely to collide
with advertisers’ interests’ (2003, 144) and are therefore somewhat toned down.
Investment strategies in the Netflix Original
Research on the influence of streaming and digitalisation of documentary remains
limited, both in terms of volume and content diversity, and actual investments in the
5
genre. Supply studies of documentary on demand (Iordache and Livémont 2018) have
pointed to increased diversity in terms of country of origin, language and genre, but
not sufficient to disregard the perpetuating imbalances in offerings. The historical appre-
hension over the domination of Western content has also been rejuvenated by the power
of global platforms such as Netflix (Lobato 2019), and their growing attention to docu-
mentary demands a closer investigation.
Netflix’s interest in documentary has been approached from several angles. Some
scholars discuss it as a claim to quality programming and critical acclaim (Sharma
2016) and distinctiveness from general television programming through its documentary
‘house style’ (Binns 2018). Others also point to the genre’s return-on-investment as a
potential selling point seeing as, with some exceptions, documentaries remain cheaper
to produce than fiction (Haase 2016). In December 2020, Netflix created the UK Docu-
mentary Talent Fund which supports young documentary filmmakers and also provides
the platforms with low-cost original documentary shorts produced from small grants
(Taylor 2022). Consumption patterns have also informed the preference for serialised
documentaries, which are more popular with audiences (Sørensen 2012). These are
also generally preferred by Netflix, particularly in the case of investigative documentary
series that lend themselves to watching marathons and audience involvement (Camarero
2021).
Attention to crime and documentary has also been discussed as a way to attract older
demographics, seen as streaming services have already ‘tapped out’ younger audiences
(Sweney 2021). On the platform’s fan website Tudum, an article featuring interviews
with documentary filmmakers and media professionals claims that Netflix is contributing
to a documentary renaissance, as ‘celebrities have made documentaries cool’ and ‘reality
TV and true crime shows are technically documentaries’ (Sherman 2022). As it grows in
popularity, ‘highbrow true crime’ has also been getting more attention from commenta-
tors who question its addictive nature, problematic ethics and effects on viewers (Bolin
2018; Lett 2021).
Netflix’s growth relies heavily on new content, particularly through rights acquisition
and commissions, while its global expansion relies on increased localisation and invest-
ment in content with transnationalisation appeal (Albornoz and Trinidad García Leiva
2021; Iordache, Raats, and Afilipoaie 2022). Recent studies on the nature of Netflix
investment in
‘
original
’
scripted series have identified four types of productions: (1)
licenced originals; (2) continuation originals; (3) co-production/co-financing originals;
and (4) full Netflix Originals (Afilipoaie, Iordache, and Raats 2021). While turning our
attention to documentary originals, it is not only important to determine the type of
investment made, but also how diverse the productions are and how the findings contrib-
ute to the media industries and cultural diversity debate.
Methodology
The article traces Netflix’s investment strategies in documentary films and series between
2012 and 2021. We chose to research patterns in Netflix Original investments as they
provide an effective proxy to the platform’s acquisition and production strategies. Tra-
ditional licence deals (for content that is not labelled as original) differ from territory
to territory or are negotiated as part of bulk deals with distributors and broadcasters.
6
Meanwhile, originals usually provide Netflix with exclusivity over the content for a
minimum number of years, generally in a large number of markets.
The research sets out from a quantitative mapping of Netflix Original documentaries,
followed by a qualitative analysis of the data. A first list of titles was collected between
March and December 2021 from the Unofficial Netflix Online Global Search (UNOGS.-
com) and the ‘What’s on Netflix’ websites (whats-on-netflix.com). This initial dataset was
complemented and cross-checked with several other online sources to determine which
documentaries involved Netflix investment, making this database the most complete
existing database on Netflix Original documentaries: the Netflix catalogue and the
Netflix Media Centre; the International Movie Database (IMDb); online databases:
Netflix Fandom, Wikipedia, Flixable, Finder, Reelgood, New on Netflix; and established
trade journals and magazines.
The data collection yielded a final dataset of 479 Netflix Original documentary titles,
corresponding to 94,419 min of content. Each title represents a single record in the
mapping, regardless of whether it is a short/feature-length film or a series. The addition
of new seasons was traced on a yearly basis, and the volume was based on the length and
number of episodes released in each season. The dataset comprises titles produced from
the beginning of 2012 to the end of 2021, which allows for analyses of volume, investment
strategies, and production patterns over time. The study excludes original content such as
stand-up comedy shows, entertainment formats with a fixed set-up, featuring interviews
or weekly guests (e.g. Comedian in Cars Getting Coffee, My Next Guest with David Letter-
man), concerts, docu-drama and docu-fiction, game shows and reality-TV formats (e.g.
Too Hot to Handle, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Win the Wild).
For determining the company
’
s investment patterns in original documentaries, we
made a classification of the different types of Netflix Originals, as each type points to a
different level of investment. This was based on Netflix communication and public infor-
mation on each production, mainly obtained from trade press and consultancy reports.
As our findings pointed to different investment practices for documentary films and
series, we often distinguish between the two types of productions. Documentary films
were categorised into Netflix exclusives, co-production/co-financing originals and
licenced originals. Documentary series were analysed based on the typology developed
by Afilipoaie, Iordache, and Raats (2021): full Netflix Originals, licenced originals, co-
production/co-financing originals and continuation originals. The framework was pre-
viously applied to researching original scripted series in European markets but has
never been applied to documentary. The qualitative analysis is based on the following
parameters: country of origin, original language, release date on Netflix, genre, type of
production (film/series), length in minutes, production company and awards. Data col-
lection, coding and cleaning were conducted manually by the authors, based on the
sources indicated in Table 1.
Documentaries are often crossovers of multiple themes and genres, as are titles in the
Netflix catalogues, labelled according to ‘microgenres’ developed through complex
textual analysis (Madrigal 2014). As a result, a classification of eight genres was
created by the authors for this study, based on existing labels applied by Netflix and con-
siderations from academic literature (Nichols 2010; Creeber 2015): politics, society and
culture; biography; crime; food and travel; sports; nature, science and body; music and
comedy; and spin-off. For increased accuracy, each production was manually added to
7
Table
1.
Sources
used
for
each
parameter
in
the
analytical
framework.
Parameter Sources
Type of Netflix Original
Netflix platform & Media Centre, IMDb, consultancy reports, trade journals & magazines
Country of origin Netflix platform, IMDb
Original
language
Netflix
platform,
IMDb
Release
date
Netflix
platform,
Netflix
Media
Centre,
IMDb
Genre
Netflix
platform,
IMDb
Film/series
UNOGS, What’s on Netflix, Netflix platform, IMDb
Length
(minutes)
Netflix
platform,
IMDb
Production company Netflix platform & Media Centre, IMDb, trade journals & magazines
Awards
IMDb, Netflix Media Centre, trade journals & magazines, award websites
one of the genre categories, based on an iterative system of labelling aimed at determin-
ing the primary theme of the documentary. Most documentaries proved to be more intri-
cate genre crossovers which led to the use of a coding tree that helped us determine the
correct label. For example, at a closer look, a film initially labelled as sports is, in fact,
more focused on issues such as doping, sexual misconduct, racism, or celebrity
biography.
The subsequent analysis is based on a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data
collected. The following categories will be discussed: volume of documentaries over time;
investment patterns, country and language diversity; and genre diversity.
Results
Volume over time
The data shows a substantial increase in investment in documentary productions by
Netflix over time, adding up to the 479 unique titles in our dataset. There is a consistent
release of new titles (Figure 1), culminating in 2021 with 124 new documentaries, equally
divided between films and series.
The analysis of minutes released (Figure 2) provides more interesting insights into the
evolution of investments made in original documentaries. In the single documentary cat-
egory, there are generally two formats according to length, namely long-format docu-
mentary films of over 50 min, and short and mid-length documentaries ranging
between 20 and 50 min. Although Netflix only started investing in original documentary
series in 2015, their volume has grown significantly in recent years. However, only
approximately 15% of series were extended for more than one season. We know that
Netflix relies on data analytics to commission full seasons of a series, trying out a
variety of titles and immediately cancelling the ones that prove unprofitable (Hurley
2020). This is different from investment patterns in scripted series, which benefit more
often from season extensions (see Iordache, Raats, and Afilipoaie 2022). The exceptions
for documentaries are generally full Netflix Originals: hit crime series such as Tiger King
(2020-) and Making a Murderer (2015-), or successful formats such as Chef’s Table (2015-
). Netflix also brands certain spin-offs as formats, as in the case of Explained, Untold, or
ReMastered.
The growing volume of documentary releases confirms both Netflix’s general business
strategy that has been focused on rights ownership for its content, and its particular inter-
est in documentary productions. The upward trend in volume is likely to continue in the
8
Figure 1. Netflix Original documentary titles released between 2012-2021, by type of production.
coming years and would probably have had an upward trajectory in 2021 had production
not been delayed by the Covid-19 restrictions.
Investment patterns
One of our first findings in this section was that Netflix’s investment practices in original
documentaries differs between film and series.
The investment in documentary films follows the investment patterns generally seen
in feature films. We labelled 238 out of the total 241 documentary films in our dataset as
Netflix exclusives. These are titles that involve different types of investment through
which Netflix secures worldwide distribution. Since we do not have access to the exact
financial data and budget composition, this category includes content that Netflix com-
missioned, developed, picked up during production or soon after. Contrary to documen-
tary series, where the majority consists of Netflix commissions, most of the documentary
films were picked up for international distribution before or soon after a festival release.
Many of the critically acclaimed documentaries at Tribeca and Sundance received a
worldwide premiere when Netflix picked up exclusive distribution rights. However, it
is important to note that, while Netflix secured exclusive streaming rights, usually for
worldwide distribution for the subscription-video-on-demand window on its platform,
some documentary films are still available in transactional VOD catalogues.
9
Figure 2. Volume in minutes released between 2012 and 2021 for Netflix Original documentary films
and series.
On the other hand, the analysis of documentary series is based on the typology devel-
oped be Afilipoaie, Iordache, and Raats (2021) and previously applied to researching
Netflix Original scripted series. On the basis of the analysis of scripted series, we ident-
ified four categories. Full Netflix Originals are documentary series commissioned by
Netflix, that are not available for viewing on any other service. Netflix is usually the
only investor, but parts of the budget can also be covered through financial incentives
for attracting investments (such as tax credit or tax shelter programmes), or public
support schemes for audiovisual production. Licenced originals are obtained through
various deals and apply to either older series that have already been broadcast or available
on other services or newer series where Netflix takes exclusive rights for all territories
except the domestic territory. Co-production/co-financing originals involve collabor-
ations with a broadcaster, who generally secures distribution rights for a large territory,
while Netflix secures international distribution rights through financing part of the pro-
duction. As in the case of scripted series, the broadcasters involved are usually established
organisations in larger media markets, such as the BBC, Sky, or Arte in Europe and Canal
13 in Latin America. For continuation originals, Netflix either acquires a licence for
global rights or specific territories, and contributes to the production budget, or takes
over the production entirely, after the release of the first season(s).
For film, there is a striking domination of Netflix exclusives (Figure 3) which
accounted for 99% of the documentary film titles in the dataset. Investment in Netflix
exclusive documentaries started in 2012 with Art of Conflict: The Murals of Northern
Ireland and The Zen of Bennett and has grown consistently over time. Only two films
were co-productions/co-financing originals: the British-US film Evelyn (2019) and the
10
spin-off Oprah Winfrey Presents: When They See Us Now (2019). My Beautiful Broken
Brain (2014) was the only licenced original.
For documentary series, full Netflix Originals also dominate, accounting for 91% of
total number of titles. The first investment in original documentary series was in 2015
with Making a Murderer (2015-) and Chef’s Table (2015-); both went on to receive critical
acclaim and high audience ratings. Nine series (3,8%) were co-production/co-financing
originals, including titles such as Murder Mountain (2018), I Am a Killer (2018-), and the
European co-production A Sinister Sect: Colonia Dignidad (2021-). There were also eight
licenced series (3,4%) released on Netflix between 2017 and 2021, including the Austra-
lian series Ask the Doctor (2017) and Tales by Light (2015-2018), the Chinese series Fla-
vourful Origins (2019-), the Canadian series Rust Valley Restorers (2018-), and the US
series The Lost Pirate Kingdom (2021).
There is minimal investment in continuation originals which only accounted for five
titles (2%). Hip-Hop Evolution (2016-) and Inside the World’s Toughest Prisons (2016-)
were both picked up by Netflix after their first seasons. MeatEater (2012-) was only
picked up by Netflix in 2018, starting with season 7 and already renewed for several
seasons. The Staircase (2004
–
2013, 2018) is a peculiar true crime continuation original
which initially aired as a mini-series on the French Canal+, after which it was picked
up by Netflix in 2018 for three follow-up episodes. The series was later released on the
platform as 13 episodes under one title. The 2020 continuation original, Unsolved Mys-
teries (1987–2010, 2020-), is a reboot of the long-running NBC and CBS crime television
Figure 3. Investment patterns in type of Netflix Original documentaries for series (above): full Netflix
Original, licenced original, co-production/co-financing original, continuation original. Investment pat-
terns in Netflix Original documentary films (below): Netflix exclusive, licenced original, co-production/
co-financing original.
11
series, popular in the 1980–1990s. Netflix released 12 new episodes in 2020, however it
changed the format and style, removing the host.
The findings are very different from investment patterns found by studies on original
scripted series in Europe, where licenced originals and full Netflix Originals yielded an
equal number of new titles between 2012 and 2020, as well as a relatively significant
number of co-productions (Iordache, Raats, and Afilipoaie 2022). Most documentaries
in the dataset are recent productions, which also limits the number of licenced and con-
tinuation originals, generally consisting of older productions. The findings confirm the
distinctive approach that Netflix takes to investment in documentary, and its aim to
increasingly define itself through exclusive content. The shift from licencing content in
favour of holding full programming rights is also due to the fierce global competition
in the SVOD market. In this context, players with extensive libraries such as Disney
and Warner Media have been consolidating their offerings by reclaiming content for
their own catalogues, and thus abandoning licencing models (Raats and Evens 2021).
The lower production cost of documentary, compared to fiction, allows Netflix to
prioritise full commissions, the highest level of investment in original content. Moreover,
the data shows how fast strategic decisions can lead to significant investments in a rela-
tively short time. These can be generated by the company’s decision to invest in: critically
acclaimed productions from the festival circuit, such as Virunga (2014), Icarus (2017), or
The Bleeding Edge (2018); emerging markets targeted for subscriber growth, such as India
and Latin America; or themes and genres in line with the company branding, such as true
crime or social activism. This points to a dual focus that combines strategic decisions
based on developing market dynamics and trade, as well as cultural diversification.
Country and language diversity
The analysis of countries of origin shows a clear domination of US and Western pro-
ductions. Our findings point to 31 first production countries (Figure 4), and 39 countries
in total, involved both as majority and minority production countries. The US is the first
country of origin for 68% of the titles, and 73% of all productions, including minority
productions. The second country of origin is the UK, with only 9% of documentaries
as majority producer (43 titles) and 11% of all titles, with an added 9 minority pro-
ductions. The top 10 of production countries remains the same for both categories,
however, Germany moves up in the ranking of all productions due to its additional 6 pro-
ductions as minority producer, alongside the 8 as majority producer.
Although limited, the diversification of countries of origin starts in 2016, as Netflix
investments in original documentaries expand primarily to Europe, South America,
and Asia. 2018–2021 saw the largest expansion to developing markets with a large sub-
scriber base, such as Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and India. The latter is a particularly
competitive market for Netflix, which will most probably determine the platform to con-
tinue investing in local content to attract new subscribers (Biswas 2022).
There are no significant differences between film and series for production countries.
Only 11% of the titles are multi-country productions, primarily films. As seen in Figure 5,
several world regions have benefitted from Netflix investments in documentary outside
the US, mainly Western Europe and South America. Mexico, Australia, and India have
been involved in less than ten productions, while Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East,
12
Figure
4.
First
country
of
production
in
479
documentaries.
and the rest of Asia have received very little to no investment in documentaries. This is
different from patterns in scripted content, where investments are more significant but
also more internationally diverse (Ampere Analysis 2020; Rodriguez 2021).
The wide regional gap can be explained by existing investment patterns in documen-
tary. The continued dominance of European public broadcasters in the production of
documentaries makes rights deals for worldwide ownership more difficult. Documen-
taries in Europe are often supported by regional and national film funds and screen
agencies, resources that Netflix cannot access at this point. At the same time, the
buyer’s market for documentaries in the US is smaller and producers will benefit more
from a global distribution deal with Netflix than selling their rights to a cable channel
or pay-tv operator. Meanwhile, Asia, Africa and Latin America have historically invested
limited resources in documentary production. Thus, the limited country diversity in
documentary investments is not only dictated by Netflix’s investment strategy, but also
by existing market dynamics and the previously discussed characteristics of the docu-
mentary industry and its support mechanisms.
A total of 30 languages are listed in at least one of the 479 productions, 27 of which as
first official language. English is listed as first original language in 80% of the productions
(Figure 6). Spanish comes in second, listed as first official language in only 7% of docu-
mentaries (35 titles), followed by French with 3% and Portuguese with 2,5%. Asian and
Middle Eastern languages are also mentioned, but with much lower representation, each
in 1% or less of the productions, and cumulatively present in less than 10% of titles.
13
Figure
5.
First
country
of
production
for
479
Netflix
Original
documentaries
on
world
map.
Genre
diversity
The genre labelling is based on a qualitative analysis of each production’s main theme,
which allowed us to identify several trends in Netflix’s labelling and the original docu-
mentaries. The majority of original films and series in the dataset are part of the politics,
society, and culture category (Figure 7) with almost 42% of films and 32% of series. A
Figure 6. Languages listed as first official language
in two or more
documentaries.
14
closer look at these productions shows Netflix using its documentary investment as a
strategy to join the most topical and relevant societal discussions, especially in the
Western world. Common themes in this category include drug abuse and (international)
drug trade; race, migration, and inclusion; pollution; sexuality, gender, and abuse; and
disability. Even documentaries that may, at first glance or according to Netflix’s labelling,
fall under broader, accessible genres, such as sports or crime, actually deal with more
societal and cultural themes, such as Last Chance U (2016-) or Icarus (2017).
The crime category primarily consists of documentary series with almost 29% of the
titles, but is less present in film, with 9,5%. True crime is the most common theme; it
is primarily used for series, which are usually heavily formatted. Most of them make
use of archival footage, reconstructions and cliff-hangers, building up to a serial narrative
that lends itself to binge-watching. In the sports category, a common focus falls on
famous athletes or specific teams. Recent data shows the global rise in popularity for
sports documentaries, both to engage younger audiences and attract existing fanbases
by pairing behind the scenes footage with exclusive access to sports personalities
(Modha 2022), as in the case of Formula 1: Drive to Survive (2019-). Along the same
lines, Netflix recently announced a collaboration with a sporting events organiser on a
documentary series about the 2022 Tour de France cycling race (Tartaglione 2022).
Interestingly, Netflix documentaries are often centred around specific personalities or
celebrities, focusing on one person’s story to approach broader issues, themes, or histori-
cal events. A story is often told from the perspective of a journalist, an investigator or
investigative team, a lawyer or legal team, or a protagonist, taking a more personal
approach and adhering to more traditional storytelling narratives (Bernard 2010). For
example, Who Killed Malcolm X (2020) is a mini-series that follows a historian and
tour guide in Washington in their 30-yearlong investigation of the assassination of
Malcolm X. Athlete A (2020) focuses on the investigative journalists from The Indiana-
polis Star as they broke the story of sexual abuse in the US gymnastics team.
Full Netflix Original series are generally genre-formatted and include primarily true
crime and sports themes. Netflix has also invested in a variety of spin-offs from existing
Figure
7.
Percentage
of
genres
for
Netflix
Original
documentary
series
(above)
and
films
(below).
15
successful titles or controversial shows. Often, these are ‘making of’ or ‘behind the scenes’
formats, that include backstage footage and interviews with the cast and crews of scripted
Netflix hits.
Many of the Netflix documentaries deal with very recent events, thus joining ongoing
public debates on political movements and conflicts, societal and medical crises, or
notorious true crime cases. Notable examples include Knock Down the House (2019)
which revolves around the 2018 congressional primary campaigns of four progressive
female Democratic candidates; Seaspiracy (2021), a controversial documentary about
the environmental impact of fishing; and The Social Dilemma (2020), which focuses
on the negative effects of social media. Winter on Fire – Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom, a
documentary about the Euromaidan protests in 2013–2014, was released in 2015 and
has been brought back into focus by the recent conflict in Ukraine (Smithers 2022). Simi-
larly, Coronavirus, Explained premiered in April 2020, just as the Covid-19 pandemic was
spreading globally and research on the virus was emerging.
Most of Netflix’s critically acclaimed original documentaries deal with current politi-
cal, social and environmental themes, aimed at raising awareness and joining larger
global debates. This is also achieved by enlisting familiar figures to spread the
message, such as Sir David Attenborough for Our Planet (2019), and various celebrity
voices for series such as Explained and Five Came Back (2017). This breaks from the his-
torical avoidance of cultural and sociological critiques that may have deterred advertisers
(see Fürsich 2003), and manages to both engage wider audiences and place the company
in an activist role for climate awareness, diversity and anti-discrimination. Netflix also
makes use of its marketing and social media channels to engage in ‘social listening’ (Bhar-
gava 2022), joining conversations, targeting audiences in real-time, and adjusting their
marketing strategy accordingly.
Discussion
The analysis of 479 documentary productions labelled as Netflix Originals confirms the
general shift towards rights ownership and exclusive content on VOD services, exacer-
bated in recent years by the growing competition in the streaming market. On the back-
drop of the growing popularity of documentary as a genre, both documentary films and
series have received increasing investment from platforms such as Netflix. Moreover,
based on the company’s investment strategy and market analysis, this trend is likely to
continue as long as it proves financially profitable.
The transnational production and distribution of Netflix Original documentaries
reflect wider changes in cultural trade brought on by the streaming model. The data
not only shows the rise in volume of original documentaries, but it also points to substan-
tial investments in exclusive content. The large majority of titles in the dataset consists of
exclusive films and full Netflix Originals, which involve the largest financial contribution.
This is different from patterns of investment in scripted series, which involved signifi-
cantly more licenced and co-production/co-financing originals (Iordache, Raats, and
Afilipoaie 2022), but can be explained by notable differences in volume, as scripted
titles account for over two thirds of all original content (Cook 2021), as well as the gen-
erally lower costs of documentary productions.
16
Although Netflix has been diversifying its content offerings and investments in
markets outside the US (Sato 2021; Roxborough 2022), documentary originals are still
overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon productions. This not only amplifies existing imbalances
between strong and underdeveloped markets, but it also reconfirms existing tensions
between economic sustainability and cultural diversity in the global media trade. More-
over, this could exacerbate the genre’s precarious financing in regions that are already
threatened by US companies, as broadcasters, independent producers, traditional distri-
butors and exhibitors are experiencing pressure on their financing models and increasing
competition in rights acquisition.
However, the results also point to elements of continuation, as certain strategies follow
existing industry practices in documentary production and trade. Netflix’s acquisition
strategy for documentary films differs from that of series, as the latter follows more
closely the investment patterns of scripted content. This is most likely due to the
genre’s established production and distribution patterns. In Europe, documentary
films have historically been produced by public broadcasters, often through pan-Euro-
pean co-production and co-financing deals, or through the financial support schemes
of public institutions and film funds. The few European co-productions present in the
dataset are indeed collaborations with broadcasters. This follows established patterns
in European production, as, without significant broadcaster and public investment, pro-
ducers are less likely to take the financial risk of investing in a documentary. In a large
market such as the US, (co-)producers are likely to invest ahead of securing global
licence deals, which puts SVOD platforms at the forefront of securing deals with
limited risk. Acquisitions and distribution deals for these documentaries were mainly
completed through the festival circuit. These practices can also explain the limited invest-
ment in areas of Asia, Africa and Latin America that are not established documentary
producers.
European documentary series remain limited in comparison to larger volumes of
European original fiction series. European public broadcasters continue to be the main
producers of documentaries, as the investments are part of their public remit, despite
the relatively small audience reach. This is in contrast with scripted content, where the
competition between SVOD platforms and traditional broadcasters is much higher.
Scripted series are more likely to attract large audiences and attract new subscribers,
thus resulting in higher return-on-investment and production budgets. Our data suggests
that the recent rise in documentary investments is more likely a strategy to position the
platform as a source of diverse and high-quality content, rather than grow its subscrip-
tion base.
Based on our analysis, Netflix does not employ a documentary co-production strategy,
as transnationalisation is achieved through content, specifically form, target audience and
theme. Netflix makes use of its investment in documentary titles not only to define itself
through quality content (Sharma 2016), but also to promote a specific documentary
‘house style’ (Binns 2018), based on high production values and adhering to the prin-
ciples of the Slow Media movement. Critically acclaimed documentaries are highlighted
on the platform with stamps for ‘Academy-Award Winner’ or ‘Sundance Film Festival
Winner’ on the thumbnail, as well as the search results for various categories of ‘Critically
acclaimed documentaries’, which overwhelmingly return Netflix Original content. As a
badge of quality and increased visibility, the company collaborates with established
17
production companies and creators and actively promotes its commitment to diversity
and inclusion through documentary commissions, pointing out collaborations with
talent from diverse backgrounds and
‘
underrepresented communities
’
(Sarandos
2021). However, the diversity does not extend to languages and country of origin, as
the majority of the winning and nominated documentaries were US productions.
The duality between quality and entertainment that has long characterised the docu-
mentary genre is also clearly present in Netflix’s original documentary offerings. A sig-
nificant share of the platform’s investment targets formatted series in genres and
themes that are popular with global audiences, from true crime to celebrity-centred
stories. However, this is nuanced by the platform’s notable investments in quality
content. Netflix also collaborates with established filmmakers and creators, and acquires
documentary films that receive critical acclaim at international festivals and tackle pol-
itical and societally relevant themes. This dual strategy allows it to target broad demo-
graphics, as well as brand itself as both the place for binge-worthy true crime and
quality critical reflections on society. Moreover, universal topics such as politics,
society, crime and nature are more likely to travel across borders and appeal to transna-
tional audiences. This comes in contrast to themes of local or regional appeal generally
preferred by broadcasters, or auteur documentaries that target niche audiences.
18
References
Afilipoaie, Adelaida, Catalina Iordache, and Tim Raats. 2021. “The “Netflix Original” and What It
Means for the Production of European Television Content.” Critical Studies in Television 16 (3):
304–325.
Albornoz, Luis A., and M. Trinidad García Leiva. 2021. “Netflix Originals in Spain: Challenging
Diversity.” European Journal of Communication 37 (1): 63–81. doi:10.1177/
02673231211012174.
Ampere Analysis. 2020. “30% of Netflix Original Content Spend in 2019 Went on International
Titles”. Ampere Analysis. https://www.ampereanalysis.com/insight/30-of-netflix-original-
content-spend-in-2019-went-on-international-titles.
Armstrong, M., and H. Weeds. 2007. “Public Service Broadcasting in the Digital World.” In The
Economic Regulation of Broadcasting Markets: Evolving Technology and Challenges for Policy,
edited by P. Seabright, and J. von Hagen, 81–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, Maxine. 2006. Documentary in the Digital Age. Amsterdam, Boston: Elsevier/Focal Press.
Beattie,
Keith.
2004.
Documentary
Screens:
Nonfiction
Film
and
Television.
Basingstoke:
Palgrave
Macmillan.
Bernard, Sheila. 2010. Documentary Storytelling: Making Stronger and More Dramatic Nonfiction
Films. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
Bhargava, Vanhishikha. 2022. “How Netflix Uses Social Listening to Stay on Top of Their Content
Game.” Radarr. February 22. https://www.radarr.com/blog/how-netflix-uses-social-listening/.
Binns, Daniel. 2018. “The Netflix Documentary House Style: Streaming TV and Slow Media.”
Fusion Journal 14 (December): 60–71.
Biswas, Soutik. 2022. “Netflix: Why the World’s Biggest Streaming Service Is Frustrated with
India.” BBC News, January 27. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-60108294.
Bolin, Alice. 2018. ‘The Ethical Dilemma of Highbrow True Crime.” Vulture. August 1. https://
www.vulture.com/2018/08/true-crime-ethics.html.
Bruzzi, Stella. 2006. New Documentary. 2nd ed. London, New York: Routledge.
Bruzzi, Stella. 2016. “Making a Genre: The Case of the Contemporary True Crime Documentary.”
Law and Humanities 10 (2): 249–280.
Camarero, Emma. 2021. “A Media Format on the Rise. The Journalistic Investigation
Documentary on Netflix and Prime Video.” Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie) 17 (3): 415–
425. doi:10.13187/me.2021.3.415.
Chapman, Jane, and Kate Allison. 2009. Issues in Contemporary Documentary. Cambridge, UK;
Malden, MA: Polity.
Cook, Sam. 2021. “50+ Netflix Statistics, Facts and Figures 2022.” Comparitech. December
9.
https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/netflix-statistics-facts-figures/.
Corner, John. 2002. “Performing the Real: Documentary Diversions.” Television & New Media 3
(3): 255–269.
Creeber, Glen. 2015. The Television Genre Book. 3rd ed. London: BFI.
D’Arma, Alessandro, Tim Raats, and Jeanette Steemers. 2021. “Public Service Media in the Age of
SVoDs: A Comparative Study of PSM Strategic Responses in Flanders, Italy and the UK.”
Media, Culture & Society 43 (4): 682–700. doi:10.1177/0163443720972909.
Debrett, Mary. 2007. “Professionalising Documentary Production.” International Journal of the
Arts in Society 1 (3): 93–99.
Doyle, Gillian. 2013. Understanding Media Economics. London: Sage.
Doyle, Gillian. 2018. “Television Production: Configuring for Sustainability in the Digital Era.”
Media, Culture & Society 40 (2): 285–295.
EAO. 2021. “Yearbook 2020/2021 Key Trends. Television, Video and On-Demand, Audiovisual
Services—The Pan-European Picture”. Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory.
https://rm.coe.int/yearbook-key-trends-2020-2021-en/1680a26056.
Evens, Tom, and Karen Donders. 2018. Platform Power and Policy in Transforming Television
Markets. Palgrave Global Media Policy and Business. New York, NY: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
19
Fischer, Sara. 2021. “Documentaries Become Fastest-Growing Genre as Streamers Chase Current
Events”. Axios. March 30. https://www.axios.com/streaming-netflix-hulu-amazon-
documentaries-2cf09280-35dd-46b1-827d-864a0993eea6.html.
Friend, Stacie. 2021. “Falsehoods in Film: Documentary vs Fiction.” Studies in Documentary Film
15 (2): 151–162.
Fürsich, Elfriede. 2003. “Between Credibility and Commodification: Nonfiction Entertainment as a
Global Media Genre.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 6 (2): 131–153.
Goldson, Annie. 2015. “Journalism Plus?: The Resurgence of Creative Documentary.” Pacific
Journalism Review 21 (2): 86–98.
Haase, Antti. 2016. “‘The Golden Era’ of Finnish Documentary Film Financing and Production.”
Studies in Documentary Film 10 (2): 106–129.
Hesmondhalgh, David, and Amanda D. Lotz. 2020. “Video Screen Interfaces as New Sites of Media
Circulation Power.” International Journal of Communication 14: 386–409.
Hogarth, David. 2006. Realer than Reel: Global Directions in Documentary. 1st ed. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Hurley, Laura. 2020. “Why Netflix Keeps Cancelling Popular Shows”. Cinemablend. October 30.
https://www.cinemablend.com/television/2558030/why-netflix-keeps-cancelling-popular-
shows.
Iordache, Catalina. 2021. “Netflix in Europe: Four Markets, Four Platforms? A Comparative
Analysis of Audio-Visual Offerings and Investment Strategies in Four EU States.” Television
& New Media 1–22. doi:10.1177/15274764211014580.
Iordache, Catalina, and Eline Livémont. 2018. “Imbalances in On-Demand Documentary
Offerings. The Case of a Small Media Market: Belgium.” International Journal of
Communication 12 (0): 4615–4640.
Iordache, Catalina, Tim Raats, and Adelaida Afilipoaie. 2022. “Transnationalisation Revisited
Through the Netflix Original: An Analysis of Investment Strategies in Europe.” Convergence:
The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies 28 (1): 236–254. doi:10.
1177/13548565211047344.
Jenner, Marieke. 2018. Netflix and the Re-Invention of Television. New York, NY: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Jones, Huw D. 2020. “Understanding Documentary Film Audiences in Europe”. Moving Docs.
https://www.filmfestival.gr/attachments/article/27317/Moving%20Docs%20Survey%20Report.
pdf.
Kilborn, Richard, and John Izod. 1997. An Introduction to Television Documentary: Confronting
Reality. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Lett, Phoebe. 2021. “Is Our True-Crime Obsession Doing More Harm Than Good?” The New York
Times, October 28. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/opinion/true-crime-petito.html.
Livémont, Eline, Karen Donders, and Caroline Pauwels. 2017. “De Documentaire Als “Merit
Good” Op de Publieke Omroep: Theorie, Beleid En Praktijk in Vlaanderen.” Tijdschrift Voor
Communicatiewetenschap 45 (4): 286–303.
Lobato, Ramon. 2019. Netflix Nations. The Geography of Digital Distribution. New York: New York
University Press.
Macnab, Geoffrey. 2015. “Mind the (Funding) Gap”. International Documentary Film Festival
Amsterdam. November. https://www.idfa.nl/industry/daily/2015/background/mind-the-
funding-gap.aspx.
Madrigal, Alexis. 2014. “Netflix Built Its Microgenres by Staring into The American Soul”. January
2. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/01/02/259128268/netflix-built-its-
microgenres-by-staring-into-the-american-soul?t = 1638811173441.
McCabe, Rachel. 2022. “Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes and Affective
Responses to the True Crime Documentary.” Studies in Documentary Film 16 (1): 38–54.
doi:10.1080/17503280.2021.1874236.
McCready, Bo. 2019. “Film Genre Popularity – 1910–2018 | Tableau Public”. October 8. https://
public.tableau.com/app/profile/bo.mccready8742/viz/FilmGenrePopularity-1910-2018/
GenreRelativePopularity.
20
Modha, Minal. 2022. “Netflix’s Drive to Survive Is Drawing Younger Fans to F1, so Will the PGA
Tour and Tennis See Similar Success?” SportsPro Media. February 23. https://www.
sportspromedia.com/insights/f1-netflix-drive-to-survive-sports-documentaries-pga-tour-
tennis-atp-wta/.
Moore, Kasey. 2021. “Every Viewing Statistic Netflix Has Released So Far (October 2021)”. What’s
on Netflix. October 25. https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/news/every-viewing-statistic-netflix-
has-released-so-far-october-2021/.
Morfoot, Addie. 2019. “Streamers Give the Documentary Field a Boost”. Variety. November
5. https://variety.com/2019/film/awards/streamers-give-the-documentary-field-a-boost-
1203393297/.
Nash, Kate, Craig Hight, and Catherine Summerhayes. 2014. New Documentary Ecologies:
Emerging Platforms, Practices and Discourses. Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Nichols, Bill. 2010. Introduction to Documentary. 2nd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Plantinga, Carl. 2005. “What a Documentary Is, After All.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
63 (2): 105–117.
Raats, Tim, and Tom Evens. 2021. ““If You Can’t Beat Them, Be Them”: A Critical Analysis of
Local Streaming Platform and Netflix Alternative Streamz’.” MedieKultur: Journal of Media
and Communication Research 37 (70): 050–065.
Rodriguez, Ashley. 2021. “Some of Netflix’s Biggest Hits Come from Outside the US. International
TV Producers Describe How Streaming Deals Are Structured and How the Market Is
Changing.” Business Insider. July 6. https://www.businessinsider.com/international-tv-
producers-describe-streaming-tv-deal-structure-pay-2021-7.
Roxborough, Scott. 2022. “Netflix to Invest $45M in French, European Films in Deal That Could
Pave Return to Cannes”. The Hollywood Reporter. February 22. https://www.hollywoodreporter.
com/business/business-news/netflix-french-european-movies-invest-cannes-festival-return-
1235097349/.
Sarandos, Ted. 2021. “Building a Legacy of Inclusion: Results From Our First Film and Series
Diversity Study”. About Netflix. February 26. https://about.netflix.com/en/news/building-a-
legacy-of-inclusion.
Sato, Hiromi. 2021. “Netflix Data Shows Asia Content Key for U.S. Streaming Services”. Nikkei
Asia. December 30. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Media-Entertainment/Netflix-data-
shows-Asia-content-key-for-U.S.-streaming-services.
Sharma, Sudeep. 2016. “Netflix and the Documentary Boom.” In The Netflix Effect: Technology and
Entertainment in the 21st Century, edited by Kevin McDonald, and Daniel Smith-Rowsey, 143–
154. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Sherman, Maria. 2022. “Welcome to the Documentary Renaissance”. Netflix Tudum. March
2. https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/netflix-documentary-renaissance-kanye-west.
Smithers, Dominic. 2022. “People Are Recommending Netflix Documentary to Better Understand
Ukraine’s History”. LAD Bible. February 25. https://www.ladbible.com/news/people-
recommend-netflix-documentary-to-understand-ukraine-history-20220225.
Sørensen, Inge Ejbye. 2012. “Crowdsourcing and Outsourcing: The Impact of Online Funding and
Distribution on the Documentary Film Industry in the UK.” Media, Culture & Society 34 (6):
726–743.
Sweney, Mark. 2021. “Netflix to Court Older Viewers as Flow of Young Fans Slows Down”. The
Guardian, July 18. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jul/18/netflix-to-court-older-
viewers-as-flow-of-young-fans-slows-down.
Tartaglione, Nancy. 2022. “Netflix Gears Up for Tour De France Documentary Series”. Deadline.
March 31. https://deadline.com/2022/03/netflix-tour-de-france-documentary-series-
1234991655/.
Taylor, Johnny. 2022. “Netflix UK Documentary Talent Fund Launches Ten Films in Its Inaugural
Year”. About Netflix. February 16. https://about.netflix.com/, https://about.netflix.com/en/
news/netflix-uk-documentary-talent-fund-launches-ten-films-in-its-inaugural-year.
21
Terrone, Enrico. 2020. “Documentaries, Docudramas, and Perceptual Beliefs.” The Journal of
Aesthetics and Art Criticism 78 (1): 43–56.
Vicente, A. 2009. “Documentary Viewing Platforms.” In Rethinking Documentary: New
Perspectives, New Practices, edited by Thomas Austin, and Wilma de Jong, 271–278.
Maidenhead, New York: Open University Press/McGraw Hill Education.
Vinuela, Ana. 2018. “Television Documentary Production in France: Policy Interventions and the
Assessment of Quality.” Critical Studies in Television 13 (2): 227–243.
Zoellner, Anna. 2009. “Professional Ideology and Program Conventions: Documentary
Development in Independent British Television Production.” Mass Communication and
Society 12 (4): 503–536.