Streaming giants must step up: Reinvestments in the German film industry

An interview with Martin Hagemann by Pablo Bücheler

The German government has announced a mandatory investment scheme for streaming services – a move the German film industry has been calling for for years. Martin Hagemann, film producer, managing director of zero fiction film and professor at the Film University Babelsberg, explains what this means, what it can achieve, and where the real challenges lie for documentary film. He has produced internationally acclaimed feature films and documentaries. As a board member of AG DOK, he plays a key role in shaping the industry’s film policy debates.

The German government has announced an investment commitment for streaming services. No specific legal provisions have been put in place as yet. How is this announcement being received within the industry – as a move to strengthen Germany’s position as a production hub, or primarily as a political gesture?

We certainly see this as a boost for Germany as a production hub. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have fought so hard for an Investment Commitment Act and opposed the voluntary agreement with streamers and broadcasters that was originally favoured.
The crucial factor now is how the law will be shaped in concrete terms: which costs can be counted towards the target, what revenue figures are expected, how will the so-called ‘indie quota’ be regulated, and how quickly will rights revert to the production companies? So far, a commitment of eight per cent of subscription revenue has been set – with the option to invest more and, in return, have certain requirements relaxed. As every company has its own business model, many details will have to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. The plan is for the law to come into force in early 2027, following notification to the EU.

What hopes or scepticism do you see, particularly in the field of documentary film?

It is important to make a clear distinction here between the film funding reform that has already been implemented and the investment obligation that is still in the planning stage. The amendments to the Film Funding Act (FFG) and the FFA’s funding structures came into force at the start of 2025 and have already provided tangible support for documentary cinema. The investment obligation, on the other hand, is likely to benefit larger companies and more market-oriented formats. This is because, whilst we can oblige platforms to invest, we cannot oblige them to produce specific content. If they continue to develop primarily serial documentary formats or true-crime material, this will continue to be reflected in their investment decisions in the future. Sentiment within the industry is therefore mixed. Some production companies expect additional commissions. Others, which work more in the field of smaller cinema documentary films, see their situation as having improved more as a result of the funding reforms already implemented than through the new law.

The Investment Act is also expected to strengthen the position of streaming services within the ecosystem. What impact will this have on the interplay between cinemas, festivals and online distribution?

The market has changed dramatically since the pandemic. Streaming platforms have grown significantly, whilst public broadcasters have been moving away from feature-length documentaries for years. As a result, many projects have shifted to the cinema funding system – the number of applications for documentary cinema projects has risen exponentially over the last fifteen years. The problem is that not all these films are really made for the cinema. In this new environment, the cinema needs to focus on what really works there – fewer films, but ones that are intended for and suited to the cinema. This also means that in future we will have to finance cinema films more heavily with cinema funding – without television or streaming platforms from the outset. Broadcasters understandably do not want to wait a year and a half before they can show a film. This contradiction can no longer be resolved. It would be better to finance a film initially using cinema funds alone and then, if it is successful, sell it to television or streaming services, rather than entering into a co-production from the outset, which causes problems with delivery deadlines and publication bans.

What role do festivals play in this changing landscape – and could that role become more important in the future?

I believe that festivals are likely to grow in importance. They serve as key points of reference for audiences and are increasingly becoming significant cinema venues in their own right. For producers and distributors, the strategic question is now much more pressing: festival premiere or straight to the cinema? At the same time, I think it makes sense for festivals to also screen films that have already had a cinema release. The run in cinemas is often short, and many people only discover films later on. Structurally, we have already strengthened the role of festivals in the reform: a film no longer has to prove it has attracted 25,000 cinema-goers to qualify for reference funding. It is sufficient if it has, for example, been screened in the international competition at DOK.fest Munich. In doing so, we have for the first time explicitly recognised festivals as gatekeepers of artistic quality. What I would also like to see is greater transparency. Juries and curators today make decisions with significant structural implications – this should not remain behind closed doors. There is no need for individual justifications for every film, but there should be an open discussion of why a particular year’s selection has taken a certain direction. Making oneself open to criticism in this way – that would be real progress.