You share the list with Cristina Burzako, CEO of Movistar Plus+, and Esther García, director and producer who has won six Goya awards. What does it mean to you to be featured on this Forbes list?

It was a big surprise and I am still processing it. It is very unusual for someone in academia to appear on a list like this. It is true that I have two hats, my professional hat and my academic hat, which is the one I have been wearing more lately. I've been in the industry for quite a few years now and now I feel it’s time for a little more reflection and research. It is an honour to be featured on these lists, but above all I see them as the culmination of many years of hard work. I am happy, but it also feels like a huge responsibility to continue doing things well.

Among the 50 women chosen by Forbes there are some in very powerful positions, who have decisive roles in the industry and the audiovisual sector. Are we facing a change?

It is a very complicated field, because it is hard to find women in positions of leadership or responsibility. There has always been a strong female presence in the sector, but more in communication, press or marketing positions. What we lack are women in management positions, which have traditionally been reserved for men, and this is the part that is gradually changing.

We were in need of a change.

We really were, and I think it is extremely important to normalise the presence of female voices in positions that are traditionally held by men. I think it is only fair to recognise the work of female professionals in the audiovisual sector, at a time as important as now, with so many changes, whilst we’re undergoing the destruction of an old model and the reconversion to a new one. Lists like these also show future professionals, such as my students at UIC Barcelona, that women occupy very important positions in the industry, even though we are still at a point where we need to create separate lists. Hopefully we are moving towards a future that doesn’t distinguish between gender.

You are the only academic on the list.  Is it not a very common profile in the audiovisual industry?

It sometimes seems that the academic world sits on the side-lines, but this is not the case; there are researchers who are investigating very interesting and necessary topics, such as those related to diversity, cultural homogenisation or how the sector is being reconfigured. This is research that the professional side of the industry should also take into account, and recognise those of us in the academic world to try to promote analysis and reflection.

Talking about your research work on video on demand and Netflix, it is clear that the consumption model has changed, as has the speed of consumption. Does this change mean a drop in quality?

It’s a never-ending debate and we are undergoing a huge transformation. We’re coming from a time where the supply of audiovisual content was reasonably controlled, because there was a physical limitation. At a time when video on demand is gaining ground and allows you as a consumer to access an almost infinite repository, platforms are aware that the fuel for growth is content. This translates into an exponential increase in the amount of content produced which, at least in theory, makes it a little more difficult to meet this demand with quality-based production. Even so, the platforms have realised that they still need products that get people talking, programmes that are culturally relevant, and so there are many platforms that are investing in a carefully curated line-up of content.

Can you give us an example of such a platform?

Netflix is probably the one that is most in the spotlight, it has great, high-quality content and is even investing in programmes that would never have seen the light of day on a conventional television channel. Or, for example, Apple TV+, which is also investing in a carefully selected line of content with series such as Ted Lasso, Severance and Pachinko, which remind me of the golden age of HBO, with great series like The Sopranos and The Wire. And let's not forget that Apple TV+ won an Oscar for the film Coda.

So, this is a good time to be creating content?

Absolutely. We are in a very sweet moment because there is a lot of work and the platforms are looking for ideas, new voices. Luckily, at the other end, there’s a lot of talent and many people who want to tell stories in a different way. I see it every day with my students. They’re very creative and eager to learn, and they understand that they are facing a system that is changing very quickly. Before it was much more difficult, because we had to adhere to strict guidelines, but now the platforms want you to experiment.

At the moment the variety of platforms available is enormous and consumers have to subscribe to a large number to access the series and films they want to see. What does the future of the sector look like? Will we see further consolidation?

Platforms have shielded content and become islands. Very few share products and as a consumer you have no choice but to pay. That said, there is still a lot of market pressure and it is increasingly difficult to maintain customer loyalty throughout the year, which is why the first models of platform aggregation are beginning to be tested, a service that allows you to access content from other platforms for a single price. With many households facing such a delicate economic situation, the decision of which platform to subscribe to and how long to keep it has become a much more thought-out one, and that is why I believe that consolidation will come from in the form of aggregation.

Streaming makes piracy very easy, and it is possible to offer videos instantly and in very good quality. How is this problem currently being dealt with?

When Netflix appeared on the scene, many production companies did not believe that the internet could be a business opportunity. Piracy was booming, but consumers realised that it was faster, safer and above all more convenient to pay for a platform than to continue illegally downloading content from the internet. The 2019 European Observatory found that for the first time in a decade, piracy figures had fallen. But piracy has not completely disappeared, because pirated products are still offered in HD. We could even say that it is in the midst of a renaissance due to the isolation of content. If consumers who already pay for several platforms want to access specific content that is locked up on another platform, they may not be willing to pay and choose to find a pirated version.

Television as the sole medium of entertainment is now history. What do you think the future holds for conventional television? It is doomed to disappear little by little?

We have been trying to kill it for two decades, but I find it very sad to think of a future without television. We must remember that public television guarantees democratic access. We cannot sustain access to entertainment through subscription formulas, that would be unfair and impose a burden on people who can't afford to pay for a platform. I think that for structural reasons television plays a fundamental role, as well as informing and educating. It may no longer work for fiction formats, but television has a long way to go in terms of live content, because on-demand platforms cannot replace that experience. The best example has been the pandemic or what is happening now in Ukraine. In these, cases television is our window to the outside world, so I don't think it will disappear. It just needs to keep adapting.

What about cinema?

The exclusivity window system, which guaranteed that a film would have a period of commercial exclusivity in cinemas, was not optimal. Even before the pandemic, it was seen as a model that favoured blockbusters, but condemned smaller films that were left in the dark until they were allowed to move to digital rental. Then the pandemic hit and triggered many changes that would have eventually happened in the long run. With theatres closed, cinemas had to accept deals that they would not normally have accepted, and the major names, the big studios, sought new ways to continue making money with audiences confined to their homes. A gap opened up that can no longer be closed. Disney and Warner Bros. are experimenting the most, making simultaneous releases (in the cinema and on platforms) or directly bypassing the cinema, just as Pixar, the jewel in Disney's crown, is doing.

So, what’s the solution?

It is not so much the studios' responsibility to find new ways of distributing audiovisual products, but a need for cinemas to adapt to the change. They are the ones who need to rethink the way they programme, rethink the space and reclaim the last truly immersive experience we have left. They have to learn something that the streaming platforms have got down to a T, which is that you have to keep the customer coming back.

Finally, as one of the voices broadcasting the Oscars on Movistar+, what did you think of this year's awards ceremony? Was Coda a surprise winner with its Oscar for Best Picture?

I took it as a given. I think the main message the academy is sending to Hollywood with this award is that it is admitting the reality of streaming platforms. It is willing to award a film that has only been in cinemas for a short time and then moved to the internet, but it is not yet ready to award a Netflix film, as it follows a business model that does not release its films in cinemas. Netflix has been campaigning for an Oscar for Best Picture since 2017, when it pulled out all the stops with Roma. But it didn't win. Nor did The Irishman, nor did Mank, despite being a film made expressly for the Oscars. The academy award went to Coda, a film with a delightful message, but ultimately a very small film, over The Power of the Dog, which was a much more Oscar-worthy film. It is a statement of intent. The academy shows that it accepts streaming platforms, it lets them sit at the table, but it still does not recognise them as equals because their business model will ultimately destroy the cinemas we know and love today.