Screen entertainment and the ‘youth challenge’: Home advantage,audience preferences and industry responses

Introduction

Across many parts of the world, national media industries are challenged by the formidable share of global streaming services and social media networks, which further fragment national audiences, forcing many domestic media players to rethink their purposes and how to deliver content that fulfils these purposes and engages audiences (D’Arma et al., 2021; Lotz, 2025). Within this rapidly changing media environment, there is a lack of in-depth knowledge about how younger generations access and use screen content, and why they have turned into avid consumers of streaming services like Netflix and Disney+, video sharing platforms like YouTube, and a wide array of user-generated content on social media like TikTok and Instagram (Abidin, 2018; Cunningham and Craig, 2019; Lüders, 2025; Poell et al., 2022). For national industry players, including legacy broadcasters, irrelevance looms (Olsen et al., 2024), and the challenge lies in comprehending the rationale behind young people’s fervent appetite for short-form content on social media and long-form scripted drama, often from the US, on transnational streaming services with huge back catalogues (Sundet and Lüders, 2023). This is existential for domestic media players in many parts of the world because it suggests that audiences are now ignoring culturally and linguistically proximate domestic alternatives. It raises questions about the extent to which domestic players should compete with transnational players using their own platforms, and how much they should engage with young audiences on third-party platforms without damaging their own platform brands. While this challenge may be plainly evident in Europe, North America and other parts of the world, it is not universal or applicable in countries where distribution is more tightly controlled, and where the state has a larger say in what type of content is allowed.

However, there are still grounds for scholars to rethink previous ideas about the ‘home advantage’ of domestic media, as theorised by Ithiel De Sola Pool (1977), Richard Collins (1989) and Joseph Straubhaar (1991, 2007), considering the shift from mass to more fragmented audiences, accessing content from a multitude of sources, located in many different places. This shift is particularly noticeable among younger audiences who watch less linear television (EBU, 2022), a trend documented in all the articles gathered in this collection. Is there then a need for a new paradigm, or at least one that takes more account of national nuances? Can efforts by national legacy media truly win back young audiences, reverse consumption trends, and revalidate the home advantage paradigm? All the articles in this issue share a concern that young people are less attracted to domestic media, represented by homegrown film and television, and that this has social and political implications for national cohesiveness. Furthermore, all relate an underlying sense within industry and political circles that youth audiences need to be ‘won back’ to avoid the risk of national media decline and even risks to national identity. Yet, there is a clear divide between European responses, which mainly concentrate on actions by media institutions themselves and whose positions are challenged by political opponents, and the more interventionist policies of governments (China and Saudi Arabia), which use state power to reinforce national interests through the media they oversee.

Youthification

The recurring thread in this issue is the ‘youthification’ (Hagedoorn et al., 2021) of media as legacy media and new media platforms constantly adapt their strategic focus to create content and experiences that appeal to younger generations who use diverse screens, devices and platforms to enjoy a multitude of media forms and have deep connections with digital media. The term has a dual meaning, referring both to the strategic industry focus on youth content to address the ‘youth challenge’ and to the conceptual idea that television (or media more generally) need to ‘youthify’ themselves to stay relevant (Sundet, 2021: 146). In this issue, all the articles share a common goal of understanding the motivations of media organisations and policymakers as they seek to engage or secure the attention of younger audiences. Amidst rapid, continuous change, national broadcasters and legacy media are finding it more difficult to engage younger demographics – the ‘youth challenge’ – raising questions about their continued relevance. This has prompted a shift toward new forms of commissioning, storytelling, policy-making, and multi-platform strategies that integrate different social media platforms. From a national perspective, it is driven by concerns that young people are less attracted to domestic media and often by an underlying fear that overseas, primarily US content, is becoming too dominant culturally and linguistically. These concerns drive a broader trend towards ‘youthification’ involving efforts to better understand younger audiences, create authentic content and experiences that appeal to them and retain their attention.

This special issue of Critical Studies in Television, thus, explores how media industries, content creators and policymakers are responding to these changes in ways that embody ‘youthification’ as a strategic focus on younger audiences. This means examining different national contexts, reminding us that national contexts still matter significantly, as they shape both industry practices and audience experiences (Flew et al., 2016). The articles included examine Europe (Norway, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands), the Middle East (Saudi Arabia), and China, clearly illustrating different national approaches to youth. To varying degrees, they combine industry, policy, and audience approaches to document and analyse changing media consumption by young people, evolving production practices and the continuing role of screen content in young people’s lives as a crucial form of entertainment. We argue that those aiming to study these trends should explore new methods for examining screen entertainment content, including combinations of audience research, cross-platform approaches, production-focused methods, and policy considerations.

Inspired by various research projects focusing on younger media generations, the special issue was conceived during a joint research panel at the Media Industries Conference at King’s College London in 2023. The authors in this special issue address the youth challenge by focusing on different national contexts, combining industry, policy, and audience perspectives and by using a range of methods, including surveys, digital diaries, interviews, focus groups, and ethnographic studies with children and young people aged 9 to 34 years. The age range is approached to reflect conceptualisations of youth across different parts of the world, from the extended definition of youth in some countries, such as Saudi Arabia (see Sakr in this issue), down to children (see Han and Chau in this issue). However, it also covers the latter end of what are often labelled ‘Millennials’ (1981–1996) and the whole of ‘Generation Z’ (1997–2012), who have grown up with online digital media, and ‘Generation Alpha’ (2010–2024), for whom online media are a way of life. Like an earlier special issue in this journal (Hagedoorn et al., 2021), most of the articles reconfirm the importance of inviting young people into the research process to understand their complex needs, including the importance of relevance and authenticity in their lives.

Overview

This special issue aims to provide insights into the preferences of new generations for screen entertainment and how domestic legacy players are addressing their presumed interests and needs by bringing together findings from four distinct projects. Audience research is combined with industry interviews, including interviews with commissioners, programme makers, programme buyers, and teachers. Analysis of policy, market and industry data, including press kits, publicity folders and press accounts, was also undertaken, especially in those countries where openly accessible policy information is less readily available.

‘Global platforms, new media generations and Anglo-American hegemony: An exploration of young audience viewing and language preferences in four European countries’ by Andrea Esser and Jeanette Steemers, draws on the Screen Encounters with Britain: What do young Europeans make of Britain and its digital screen culture project (King’s College London, 2022–2024). The article builds on survey, digital diary and interview findings from the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy and Germany to explore preferences for British content among audiences aged 16 to 34. In doing so it reveals wider consumption patterns that suggest a growing inclination for viewing more content in English, even in larger territories like Germany and Italy, which have traditionally dubbed overseas content.

‘Reimagining “home advantage”: Youth entertainment in a world of abundance and the challenge to domestic media’ by Marika Lüders and Vilde Schanke Sundet, investigates the generational shift in media entertainment habits among adolescents aged 15 to 19 in Norway, and the strategies used by domestic entertainment industries to attract youth, using findings from the GLOBAL NATIVES? Serving young audiences on global media platforms project (University of Oslo, 2021–2025). This article adopts a broader approach to entertainment, encompassing both legacy media entertainment and social media entertainment.

‘Danish films and series in a no-win-situation? Analysing the preferences of young audiences and domestic industry responses’ by Jakob Freudendal, Christa Lykke Christensen and Pia Majbritt Jensen, builds on the Reaching Young Audiences: Serial fiction and cross-media storyworlds for children and young audiences project (University of Copenhagen, 2019–2024). It explores the reasons behind the fictional film and series preferences of children and teens aged 9 to 17 in Denmark, and how the Danish Film Institute and public broadcaster, DR, have responded to these preferences, taking account of what young audiences tell them.

Finally, ‘Young, wild, and free? Rai and its industrial challenges for contemporary Italian teen content’ by Luca Barra and Emiliano Rossi draws on findings from the F-ACTOR: Forms of contemporary Italian acting project (University of Bologna, 2020–2024), to consider how the Italian public broadcaster Rai, has responded to young audiences from a production and distribution standpoint. It does this by focusing on three Italian teen dramas (Mare Fuori, 2020-, Un Professore, 2021-, and Nudes, 2021-), distributed on Rai, but also on Netflix.

This special issue also features an article by Naomi Sakr, ‘Edgy in the “right” way: Meeting pent-up demand for youth-oriented local content on Saudi TV’, focusing on government initiatives to engage young Saudi audiences aged 15 to 30 with domestic content. It takes a different approach by showing how state power can be utilised to strengthen national identity, even in the face of swathes of overseas content on transnational platforms, albeit within limits.

In addition to the five original research articles, this special issue also includes two Perspective pieces. In the first, ‘The evolving ecosystem of Chinese children’s television in a regulated environment’, Xiaoying Han and Karin Ling-Fung Chau offer a different perspective on ‘home advantage’ by looking at children’s television in China and showing how stricter regulatory frameworks are designed to preserve the advantages of national content by restricting the importation and distribution of overseas content. Finally, ‘The articulation of Britishness on German Screens: From Barnaby to Bridgerton’ by Susanne Eichner investigates the appeal of British crime and historical drama among young people in Germany.

Home advantage and cultural proximity

A recurring theme throughout the issue is the changing nature of the ‘home advantage’ (De Sola Pool, 1977) of national players and domestic content, as well as the efficacy of domestic strategies for engaging younger audiences. This is set against the attractiveness of vast amounts of English-language content, usually from the United States, on global streaming platforms and social media, across Europe and the Middle East, where English is widely spoken. This raises the question of whether we need to ‘refine notions such as proximity’ (Lotz et al., 2022: 519), another common theme. In a combined industry-audience approach, youth and industry notions towards content are examined in Europe, helping us understand the concept of home advantage in comparison to notions in Saudi Arabia and China, where there is a stronger emphasis on state interventions.

With more choice on demand from various international streamers and platforms, several authors (Asmar et al., 2024; Iordache et al., 2021; Jensen and Jacobsen, 2020a; Lotz et al., 2022; Potter et al., 2024) suggest that a more nuanced interpretation of cultural proximity and the appeal and relevance of domestic content is needed. ‘Cultural proximity’ was a term coined by Straubhaar (1991) at a time when audiences’ access to overseas content was limited to what national providers bought in for scheduling on domestic linear channels. At this time, it was argued that audiences tended to prefer homegrown content in their own language, or culturally and linguistically proximate content, often from geographically close neighbours with a common language, values, experiences and a liking for similar themes and genres (Straubhaar, 1991: 39; Sinclair et al., 1996; Morley and Robbins, 1995). This gave domestic players and domestic content a home advantage over content that was regarded as too foreign or ‘culturally distant’ (Hoskins and Mirus, 1988: 500). However, even then, the English language was depicted as the ‘language of advantage’ (Collins, 1989), accounting for most of what was sold, mainly US drama, films and sitcoms, to broadcasters across Europe, Latin America, and parts of Asia (Mast et al., 2017; Steemers, 2004), except for China. English appears to remain the language of advantage, reinforced by social media and streaming platforms.

However, transnational streamers and video sharing sites are now available across borders. Streamers like Netflix are less focused on national than transnational niche audiences, promoting transnational diversity in shows like youth-oriented drama Sex Education (Asmar et al., 2024) to maximise interest, particularly among younger audiences. More and more of these shows are also watched in English with subtitles, suggesting that audiences do not always prefer watching in their native language (Bengesser et al., 2023; Mast et al., 2017; Straubhaar, 2007). Cultural proximity is undermined by audience fragmentation, which is caused by transnational streamers and growing youth familiarity with other cultures and languages through education, travel, and social media (see Sakr and Esser and Steemers in this issue).

In this special issue, the articles by Esser and Steemers, Lüders and Sundet, and Freudendahl, Christensen and Jensen, all examine European audiences and report a lower interest in domestic content among young audiences. A similar finding is also reported elsewhere (Jensen and Mitric, 2023; Potter et al., 2024). Fiction series and films continue to be important, and the preference and familiarity with Anglo-American productions on streaming services, which cater for mainstream and niche interests, is strong because they are so abundant in contrast to the more limited fiction offerings on domestic platforms. For younger generations, domestic content may seem less relevant as they have grown up with global platforms and use social media alongside streaming platforms as their primary source of entertainment. This strengthens arguments for a redefinition of proximity centred on national or proximate cultures, towards other types of affinity or identification with specific genres or types of content (for instance, youth drama, entertainment), or with different communities of interest, including those on social media, that transcend geographical boundaries and appeal to a broader array of individuals because of the themes, emotions or values they represent (Jensen and Jacobsen, 2020b; Straubhaar, 2007). This does not mean that notions of home advantage, cultural proximity and cultural discount are no longer valid. Instead, they may need to be adapted for younger audiences in some parts of the world, who, when given the choice – such as in Europe and the Middle East – are drawn to English-language fiction genres funded by transnational streamers. This preference may stem from the lack of comparable authentic entertainment content from domestic providers (see Esser and Steemers in this issue), reinforced by a predilection for Anglophone social media like TikTok and Instagram.

Cultural proximity for younger audiences is a core issue in the article by Lüders and Sundet, as they consider the role of entertainment on multiple platforms in the small Norwegian market. They argue for a more nuanced approach to the concepts of home advantage and cultural proximity, which should be operationalised by reflecting both youth cultures and how youth define ‘Norwegian stories’. They argue that while teenagers in Norway do value domestic content, including entertainment formats featuring local content creators and influencers, young people’s view of ‘home’ has become more complex and multi-faceted, cutting across national borders. They suggest that home is what ‘connects teens to their social world’, and while this may encompass some Norwegian stories, it is much broader, encompassing a world of content mostly from overseas on streaming and social media platforms. Eichner's piece on young German audiences’ preference for UK content also highlights that ideas of home or cultural proximity are more complex, involving an interaction of the local, national, and transnational that aims to meet changing audience expectations. Young people are presented with stereotypical images and constructed notions of Britishness, but these are also shaped by ‘transnational logics’ that mimic US approaches to pacing and visual aesthetics, including ahistorical approaches to authenticity, which complicate cultural proximity to meet shifting audience expectations.

Freudendal, Christensen, and Jensen’s article states that home advantage no longer benefits Danish children’s films and series, as they struggle to compete with the higher budgets and larger volume of US productions, because audiences perceive Danish content as being cheaper and less entertaining. Young Danish audiences express a clear preference for US content, not only because it is abundantly available but also because they find it more relatable, fascinating, and engaging than Danish films and series. They rarely mention Danish shows, but instead gravitate towards US shows, which are regarded as having higher quality in areas such as acting skills and production values. For the Danish children in this study, Danish shows feel ‘strange’, ‘inauthentic’ and ‘artificial’ in ways that undermine any notion of a home advantage. By contrast, ample US content is described as more familiar through its narratives, characters and actors, and children feel it satisfies their emotional needs for entertainment.

When examining preferences for long-form British content in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy, Esser and Steemers also suggest reconsidering content flow theories based on home advantage, culturally or linguistically proximate content, and cultural discount. They, however, suggest that this reconsideration should take into account the increasing preference for watching in English, driven by US streamers and rising English proficiency among the young, even in larger dubbing regions like Germany and Italy, where domestic productions lag behind. This research shows that younger viewers (aged 16 to 34) rank US fictional shows higher than homegrown productions or those from culturally or linguistically close neighbours, thereby entrenching the perception that English-language content is superior to homegrown content. For them, watching in English has become second nature for those who want to improve their English and/or watch ‘the real thing’. Like the article by Freudendahl and colleagues, this works against ‘home-grown’ fiction content, which is often compared unfavourably by young people with more plentiful US fiction offerings on streaming platforms.

Moving away from Europe, Sakr’s focus on Saudi Arabia highlights that cultural proximity aligns closely with national identity and the Saudi state’s eagerness to promote local production. This strategy aims to encourage young viewers to prefer relatable, authentic Saudi content on national platforms over English-language alternatives on global streaming services. Home advantage is here operationalised top-down in an attempt to reach a young audience through direct interventions. The initiative originates from Government ambitions and the sheer force of regulation to establish national screen production, through the forced acquisition of key networks like MBC and Rotana by the government, in an effort to compete with global streaming services. For young Saudis who rarely saw themselves on screen before, except on YouTube, Government initiatives to direct young people’s attention to ‘edgy’ content from Saudi Arabia, represents an attempt to engineer home advantage in a complex environment that not only spans the complexities of familiarity and identification, but also the linguistic and cultural diversity of Saudi Arabia and the limits of ‘edginess’ as it relates to the ruling elite.

Like Saudi Arabia, Han and Chau’s piece on China offers an alternative perspective on what home advantage means because Chinese regulatory frameworks and the Chinese Communist Party maintain domestic content advantages by limiting competition from overseas content to ensure both commercial and ideological objectives. Here, domestic competition is tightly controlled and regulated with limited amounts of overseas/transnational content. In the case of children’s content, this has been achieved through domestic animation quotas, a ban on animation in prime time, quotas on foreign content, and, crucially, no legal access to global streaming services, unlike all the other territories covered in this issue.

Importance of entertainment media

For young people and policymakers across all contributions in this special issue, entertainment – broadly defined but often involving humour – is central to engagement and a key part of industry responses. Long-form content, primarily available on streaming services, remains a vital component.

In the small market of Norway, Lüders and Sundet recount how domestic industry responses involve investment in ‘representative youth culture’ that reflects the lives of young people and reinforces ‘local familiarity’ and authenticity as ‘Norwegian stories’, which are distinctive and less likely to be replicated by transnational streamers. This represents a form of home advantage that is limited and distinctive. On the one hand, it encompasses developing ‘family-friendly’ global entertainment formats such as The Traitors and The Masked Singer, which appeal to all sections of the audience and match Norwegian youth’s continuing interest in Norwegian celebrity culture, including online influencers that young audiences know. On the other hand, it means developing popular niche content, often with Norwegian humour that creates a sense of community and fuels conversations through familiarity and relevance. While young Norwegians consume a significant amount of foreign content, they tend to have a more positive outlook on domestic content compared to audiences in many other countries. This might be because Norway’s legacy media are making tangible efforts, based on their confidence in understanding their audience, to produce content that they genuinely want to engage with – in other words, to operationalise their home advantage.

Like Norwegian legacy media, Barra and Rossi’s article demonstrates how the public broadcaster Rai in Italy is operationalising its home advantage by focusing on fiction that appeals to and attracts young viewers aged 14 to 24. As in Norway, there’s a distinction between mainstream and more niche content. More mainstream Italian dramas, such as Mare Fuori and Un Professore, attract the whole family across linear mainstream channels and on-demand platforms. In contrast, shorter, lower-budget coming-of-age series like Nudes target younger, more niche audiences on the digital-only platform, RaiPlay. As in Norway, domestic comedy and humour are seen as features that attract, retain, and build loyalty among younger audiences. Shows like Mare Fuori, set in a Naples prison, and Un Professore, set in a school, are seen to connect different generations and are suitable for both mainstream and online distribution. Shows like Nudes, based on a Norwegian format around revenge porn with shorter episodes and a more modest budget, are developed explicitly for younger digital native audiences.

Freudendal, Christensen and Jensen also describe how Danish public institutions like the public broadcaster DR and the Danish Film Institute are trying to operationalise their home advantage. This involves consulting with young audiences during the development phase and incorporating their insights to increase relevance and authenticity. They recount how children demand to be entertained ‘for its own sake’, with emotionally relevant content, but usually it is US content, which they prefer. In response, Danish producers have sought to simulate US genre conventions in some shows and films. However, as in Norway, they recognise that they can sometimes successfully differentiate Danish content through distinctive Danish humour, which cannot be replicated in US shows. Unfortunately, they do not produce enough of this content to consistently appeal to children.

Looking at four European territories (Denmark, Netherlands, Germany and Italy) comparatively, Esser and Steemers’ article also underlines the crucial importance of entertainment for engaging the young, and how legacy broadcasters who engage with young people more proactively are better ranked. For example, young Italians enjoy Italian drama (Mare Fuori) and entertainment shows, which they often watch with friends and family. Young Danes were drawn to factual entertainment and humour like their Norwegian counterparts. This contrasted with the poorer assessment of entertainment offerings by Dutch and German broadcasters. Yet, overall, the US still ranked top as a programming choice across surveys and in viewing diaries. Many respondents even expressed a dislike for homegrown drama, which was seen as inferior in terms of quality and lacking in emotional engagement, despite the fact that there is far more US content available. British content in English was appreciated for its ‘authenticity, coolness and humour’, humour being a top reason for watching British content, echoing Lüders and Sundet and Freudendal and colleagues’ findings on the importance of humour.

In Saudi Arabia, the article by Sakr also foregrounds the importance of entertainment for engaging young audiences. However, here responses to the influx of streaming platforms are much more top-down as part of the Government’s Vision 2030 initiative, inspired by Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, rather than media institutions. Here, the government’s operational drive is to invest in ‘bold’ and ‘edgy’ big-budget content that is both relatable and authentic, while also drawing young people away from global streaming platforms. The questions raised, however, are the extent to which any new ‘boldness in themes and storytelling’ serves to give ‘a deeper, inward-looking multidimensional examination of society’. For example, while there is evidence of ‘edginess’ in dealing with magic, crime, romance, and the portrayal of women in drama, there continue to be politically off-limits areas, including criticism of the ruling elite.

In China, Han and Chau show how children’s broadcasting, including animation, is used to promote and operationalise home advantage. Programme makers are encouraged to incorporate traditional Chinese culture and national values into their productions. At the same time, a limited number of overseas animation franchises like Spongebob Squarepants (1999-) and Peppa Pig (2004-) are carefully managed to satisfy broader entertainment needs.

Co-opting of social media and other platforms

Across several articles in this special issue, local responses include domestic players incorporating contributions and partnerships with local content creators to increase relevance. Initially, this involves legacy media reaching out to and securing the services of online influencers. In the second instance, it involves partnerships with commercial platforms to expand the reach of domestic shows.

In Norway, as Lüders and Sundet describe, domestic broadcasters and media organisations are eager to connect with the online youth and celebrity culture that young people have grown up with. This includes collaborating with Norwegian online content creators and influencers on mainstream entertainment shows, because they resonate with Norwegian youth through their authentic presentation styles. To capitalise on this familiarity and authenticity, broadcasters like TV 2 or NRK incorporate influencers and content creators to attract younger audiences.

In Saudi Arabia, Sakr also recalls how young audiences are being targeted by co-opting the input of young Saudis who have previously built a following on YouTube through comedy and drama. Sakr’s piece shows that there is demand for content that deals with issues like ‘gender relations’ and ‘family dynamics’, as well as comedy and satirical material, that is appreciated by younger elites who speak English and have been educated in the West. Nevertheless, in Saudi Arabia, interventions are less about securing the future of legacy media than ‘regime legitimation’, with popular Saudi YouTubers being co-opted as producers for Saudi platforms to enhance familiarity and authenticity through national output with Saudi faces and voices. However, as Sakr points out, this may occur in circumstances where ‘non-participation may not be an option’.

In China, as in Saudi Arabia, state interventions require collaboration between state broadcasters and the larger Chinese-owned commercial platforms, such as iQIYI, Youku and Tencent Video. Strategic responses by the commercial sector include investment in animation development, sometimes in partnership with overseas producers, but always in subordination to regulatory restrictions.

In Italy, the approach to rival platforms has been different. According to Barra and Rossi, Rai’s response has been to explore distribution partnerships, typically with Netflix, which draw audiences back to Rai, even if it involves relinquishing rights to the streamer. For example, in 2022, Netflix secured the exclusive distribution of top prison drama Mare Fuori. Rai expected it to drive audiences back to Rai’s linear channels and RaiPlay through the buzz generated by a strong social media presence. This is not seen as taking viewers away from linear television, but rather as a tool to drive traffic back to Rai’s own digital platforms, where the series can be viewed for free.

Conclusion

We began this introduction by questioning whether national legacy media can ‘win back’ young audiences in the increasingly competitive media landscape. We also considered whether a new paradigm is needed to understand cultural proximity and the home advantages in today’s globalised market. While this special issue certainly does not provide all the answers, it offers empirical evidence from various national contexts and a conceptual discussion to help reshape current understandings of transnational television and media flows. Three concluding remarks should be emphasised:

Firstly, this special issue highlights the importance of adopting nuanced empirical and audience perspectives from different markets, as they reveal diverse and sometimes conflicting tendencies and trends. Drawing on empirical studies from Europe, the Middle East, and China, the contributions in this study indicate a growing preference among younger audiences for English-language and global content, challenging established theories of home advantage and cultural proximity. The findings underline the need to revisit and refine these concepts, especially regarding how young people define ‘home’ and relate to content. In several national contexts, efforts to operationalise home advantage involve investments in authentic, relevant, and entertaining content – often featuring local humour and familiar influencers. However, the effectiveness of these strategies varies, and the competition from global content remains significant.

Secondly, this issue highlights the importance of methodological innovation and comparative approaches to better address and understand the complex needs and habits of new media generations. Future research should employ cross-method approaches that integrate audience studies, industry and production studies, and media policy studies to gain a more nuanced understanding of how domestic media are relevant and appealing to young audiences.

Finally, looking ahead – and acknowledging the historical influence of cultural imperialism (Lobato, 2019; Tunstall, 1977) – this special issue urges us to critically analyse the US’s dominant role and competitive edge in global screen entertainment, especially as the US government opposes what it considers unfair trade practices by other nations. Understanding media flows, cultural proximities, and home advantages are therefore more important than ever.