Embedding Impact Production in Entertainment
- Written byFran Panetta
- Published date 06 January 2026
Share story
Following the OKRE Summit in October 2025, AKO Storytelling Institute Director Francesca Panetta reflects on the conversations that stayed with her from the day. In this blog, Fran shares what she learned from the panel discussions and roundtables highlighting key questions, tensions and moments of insight that continue to shape the Institute’s thinking about how impact production could be more widely embedded across the entertainment ecosystem.
Storytellers in film and television often like to believe that once a powerful piece of work is released into the world, the social change will simply follow. Sometimes it does—but probably not as fully as it could. How a film, series or game is positioned, who it reaches, how it reaches them, and what structures surround it can be the difference between a moving experience and a material shift in policy, behaviour or culture.
Richard Curtis has been thinking about this gap. In his Honorary Oscar speech, he challenged the entire industry to stop stopping just before the final lap of the race. When filmmakers create a piece with genuine social potential—think Barbie or Inside Out—why not set aside a fraction of the budget to pay for someone whose entire job is to turn that emotional momentum into action? An impact producer. Someone who gets the film in front of the right people at the right time, who builds partnerships with charities and policymakers, who designs interventions and campaigns that help the story do more than move people—it can actually change things.
Our session at the OKRE Summit, held on 31 October ‘25 at Google's London HQ, was built around exactly this question: what would it take to embed impact production in entertainment? Over 30 practitioners gathered—commissioners, campaigners, researchers, civil society leaders and educators as well as creatives. The message that emerged was promising: the divide between campaign and content is dissolving, but the barriers remain substantial: funding is unclear, language is inconsistent, professional pathways are fragile, and the frameworks needed to normalize this work across the industry are still being built.
What we mean by impact production
Before we start, it helps to be clear about terms. Impact production is not a new practice—it emerged from the documentary sector over 10 years ago, coined by BritDoc (now DocSociety) and formalized through resources like the Impact Producer Field Guide and the Global Impact Producers Alliance. But it has remained relatively invisible outside documentary circles, rarely appearing in drama, games or mainstream entertainment formats.
An impact producer does something specific: they create a strategic campaign around a creative work. Not a marketing campaign designed to increase reach, but a deliberate plan to meet clearly defined social, cultural or policy goals. That role includes identifying vision and impact goals, building partnerships with NGOs, educators, policymakers and community groups, designing interventions (which might be anything from policy screenings to board games, DIY kits or educational materials), raising campaign funding, and measuring what social or cultural or policy change actually resulted.
In other words: the impact producer is the person who thinks beyond the broadcast. They ask: what is this story trying to say and do? Who needs to hear/see it? What action might follow? And what interventions need to happen to maximise the chance that watching leads to real world change?
Impact producing outside documentaries
Over the past couple of years, the AKO Storytelling Institute has explored whether impact production can extend beyond documentaries into TV, immersive experiences, games, and podcasts.
During 2024/25 we ran a fellowship programme training artists across these disciplines. The practice proved valuable regardless of medium, though the ways it was applied varied depending on the stage of production. That project focused on equipping individual artists as impact producers—a grassroots, bottom-up approach.
The OKRE Summit session took a more top-down perspective: what would it take to convince broadcasters, and perhaps civil society organisations too, that impact production could be relevant and valuable to them as well?
The view from the panel
The panel discussion at OKRE included Louise Anderson (Senior Research Manager, BAFTA), Lucy Wilson (Impact Producer), Dr Sarah Rappaport (Campaign Manager, Jamie Oliver Group), Timothy Hancock (Commissioning Editor, Channel 4) and Husna Mortuza (Public Engagement, Joseph Rowntree Foundation) - five distinct perspectives that, taken together, reveal both opportunity and tension in this emerging field.
The Jamie Oliver model: build in at every stage
Sarah Rappaport, Campaign Manager at the Jamie Oliver Group, offered perhaps the clearest example of truly embedded impact production done from start to end. At Jamie Oliver, the campaigns don't start when a show airs. They start years before, often before a single scene is filmed. The Group asks what the change is they want to see, they analyse the problem and then think of the best way to tackle it. TV is just one part of an armory of tools at their disposal.
“How long that takes is as long as a piece of string.” The group started working on better meals in schools 20 years ago and they are still campaigning
Tim Hancock from Channel 4, and who was the recent commissioner Jamie's Dyslexia Revolution, agrees that “putting campaigns at the heart of TV makes them better” as long as the quality of the programme isn’t diminished.
Sky's experiment: embedding with a broadcaster
Lucy Wilson, an impact producer who has been brought into Sky, offered a different model they are trialing. She described being brought into the production of Dyers Caravan Park, an observational comedy about domestic British tourism, with a potentially strong climate message. Unlike the Jamie Oliver model, where impact is fully embedded, Lucy came in as an external impact producer, but early enough to draft the impact campaign before the show was finished.
"It’s incredibly different" Lucy said, when comparing working with Sky compared to the indie documentaries she usually supports as an impact producer. “Usually you’re a one-man band and trying to do everything. But with Sky you are working with so many teams and more funding”
But Lucy also highlighted the complications: with an observational show which is made to a large extent in the edit and may not have a clear social impact goal even at this stage of production.
Channel 4's hesitancy
Perhaps the most honest moment came when Tim Hancock, the Channel 4 Commissioning Editor, set out his position. He wasn't against impact; Channel 4 commissions programmes such as Jamie Oliver's Dyslexia Revolution and Joe Wicks' Licenced to Kill precisely because he cares about social change. But Tim was cautious about impact campaigns - particularly if they would divert funding from production.
"TV isn’t flushed with money” Tim said. “My job is to get bums on seats and that is really hard. And if everything that isn’t laser focused on that, then you’re screwed.
What Tim would like to see is Impact Production being funded and run outside the broadcasters. A rich philanthropist perhaps, or foundation.
When discussing the potential influence of impact campaigns on the actual content he was hesitant. “In that edit what’s happening? And at what point does the campaign team come in?”
Civil society stepping in
Husna Mortuza from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that trusts and foundations were changing. There is a growing appreciation of how entertainment and culture play a part in social change. JRF aren’t just looking to support projects that are about poverty or housing “because actually who listens to that? I don’t want to.” She is looking for beautiful stories.
Husna's challenge to the panel was to be more collaborative: “How do you work outside your own siloes?”, she asked. “This is very uncomfortable for me, by the way, to be in a place without policy campaigns and activists. I’m not used to being with TV people. Come into our world, and think about how we can collaborate”. Husna emphasised she didn’t mean just for the impact campaign, but, as Sarah had also mentioned, from the beginning.
What the broader discussion revealed
After the panel, participants broke into three facilitated conversations, each tackling a different piece of the puzzle.
Building value and recognition
The first group focused on how to build understanding and recognition of impact production's value. One clear message: content quality is non-negotiable. If audiences aren't interested in the stories being told, if they can't reach the target audiences who matter most, then no amount of campaign strategy will create impact. The storytelling has to land first.
But this group also emphasised something crucial: "worthiness" is often a stylistic problem, not an inherent feature of impact work. People respond to human, funny, beautiful stories. They want to feel empowered and have agency in the solutions being presented, not lectured or patronized. The work of impact production should help show people how they can get involved, not tell them they are wrong or failing.
A major theme was the lack of shared definitions. The words "impact," "impact campaign," and "impact producer" mean different things to different people across different sectors. BAFTA's Louise Anderson will be researching this, and the variation in understanding is substantial. The group called for formalized training, accreditation, and embedding of impact literacy into film and TV education, so that new practitioners entering the industry understand what impact production is and how it works.
There was also acknowledgment that impact doesn't necessarily require large budgets. "Small budgets can go a long way if strategically deployed and well-partnered," one participant noted. But it does require mandate and structure. It cannot be left to chance or individual initiative.
How to join forces
The second roundtable explored what it would take for civil society and the entertainment industry to truly partner on campaigns that drive real change. The recurring insight was around timing and intentionality: "Brainstorm before you pitch".
If civil society, commissioners and creatives could get in a room together early—before pitches, before scripts are locked, even before specific projects are formed—something different could happen. Shared ownership from day one aligns purpose, authenticity and audience reach. Everyone arrives with their own pressures and needs, but in that early space, there's room to find alignment.
One participant suggested that impact thinking could be embedded into production as a standard practice, not an optional extra. Imagine if every project included a simple prompt: "Have you thought about the potential impact of your content?" That wouldn't require elaborate frameworks or new departments. It could be as simple as adding a question to production paperwork, the way questions about health and safety, diversity or sustainability are already asked..
This group also highlighted the "unseen impact" of entertainment. Shows like The Big Bang Theory inspired young people to pursue science without any explicit educational agenda. Netflix's Adolescence had a real cultural impact. What could the impact campaigns around these have looked like? Building better case studies that connect cultural influence to behaviour and policy change could help unlock partnerships.
What does a good model actually look like?
The third roundtable focused on what an ideal impact campaign might look like in practice. They discussed examples from the BBC, where broadcasters have remained editorially impartial on-screen but partnered with organisations like the National Trust to run separate but aligned campaigns around major series like Wild Isles. This model avoids the tension between editorial independence and campaign objectives because the campaign runs alongside the content, not embedded within it.
Participants in this group noted that the industry often lacks the "bravery" to commission content with explicit impact hooks. Risk perception remains high: "Will this compromise our show?" But there's also evidence that audiences want to be engaged and empowered, not lectured. The word "campaign" itself can deter some broadcasters, even when the underlying concept would appeal.
Funding came up again here, with examples of campaigns powered by charities, foundations, high-net-worth individuals and service-based models. Rather than the entertainment industry reinventing approaches, participants urged learning from the charity sector's decades of campaign design experience. Training, accreditation and clearer quality standards could help define what "good" impact production looks like in entertainment specifically.
The core challenges
Beneath all these conversations, six core challenges emerged:
Challenge 1: terminology and literacy
The term "campaign" carries baggage in broadcasting. It suggests external pressure, loss of control, dilution of editorial independence. Meanwhile, "impact producer" is barely understood outside documentary circles. Better language and shared definitions are essential, and they also need to be actively taught.
Challenge 2: evidence in mainstream fiction
Impact production is relatively established in documentary. But does it work in drama, in games, in other entertainment formats? The evidence is limited, which creates a perception gap and makes broadcasters cautious about trying it.
Challenge 3: precarious work
Most impact producers work freelance. The work is often part-time. There's not enough demand to make it a sustainable full-time career for most people. Without clearer pathways and more stable funding, impact producers seek more secure work elsewhere, and there is little incentive for more to train.
Challenge 4: siloed sectors
Broadcasters, civil society, foundations and producers operate in different worlds with different pressures and vocabularies. Commissioners need audiences. Campaigners need action. Creatives need artistic freedom. Getting these voices in the same room at the same time—and early enough to shape decisions—rarely happens.
Challenge 5: funding mechanisms
There is no consensus about who should pay for impact campaigns. Should it come from the broadcasters? From civil society? From external funders? From the producers themselves? This ambiguity prevents long-term planning and makes it difficult for anyone to commit resources.
Challenge 6: drama vs. documentary
Documentary has frameworks and relationships that enable impact work. Drama does not. The perception gap is real: impact production feels "worthy" or "campaign-y" to drama practitioners in a way it does not in documentary. Fewer case studies exist. Risk perception is higher.
What next?
This panel is just one of many ongoing conversations about the role of impact production in the entertainment sector at the moment.
At UAL, we see an opportunity to support this work through research, training, and convening, and we are currently scoping a number of specific research areas to explore:
Establish clear definitions for impact
The industry needs shared language. What do we mean by "impact"? Reach is often used as a proxy, but how does it connect to awareness, behavior change, or policy influence? While our foundational report began to address this, it’s clear we’re still not all on the same page.
Refine language
Terms like “impact production” and “campaign” are often interpreted differently and can carry unintended baggage. When is a campaign marketing and when is it an impact campaign? Do we need alternative terminology that better captures the intent and scope and allows more people in?
Map existing work
What impact campaigns in entertainment already exist? When preparing for the OKRE Summit, no comprehensive list of TV or film campaigns was available. Understanding the current landscape is essential to know where we want to move to next.
Identify case studies
Inspiration is powerful. Which campaigns can we learn from, and what were the key ingredients of their success?
Understand decision makers
What do commissioners, producers, and funders need to adopt impact production? What barriers exist, and how can they be addressed to enable the practice?
Identify effective practices
There are many ways to design and implement an impact campaign. Which approaches consistently produce meaningful outcomes, and how can these be shared across the industry?
Evaluating impact production
To make the case for impact production, it is essential to evidence its effects. Evaluation helps demonstrate whether a campaign is achieving its intended outcomes and provides insight into what works best. Developing clear, practical methods for assessing impact campaigns will strengthen the practice and support its adoption across the industry.
About this session
Event: OKRE Summit - What would it take to embed impact production in entertainment?
Date: 31 October 2025
Location: Google, St Pancras, London
Organisers: OKRE & AKO Storytelling Institute (University of the Arts London)
Key Speakers:
Francesca Panetta (Director, AKO Storytelling Institute)
Louise Anderson (Senior Research Manager, BAFTA)
Lucy Wilson (Impact Producer, Sky)
Dr Sarah Rappaport (Campaign Manager, Jamie Oliver Group)
Timothy Hancock (Commissioning Editor, Channel 4)
Husna Mortuza (Public Engagement, Joseph Rowntree Foundation)
Roundtable Participants: Over 30 practitioners from broadcasting, civil society, foundations, production, and education