Industry leaders, government officials, and creators will meet to debate AI and content strategies.
The forum will address overseas expansion, copyright questions, and widening technical gaps at the same time.
"Global cooperation or accelerated competition?"
Overview
Stakeholders from the global OTT (over-the-top) industry will gather.
The 2025 International OTT Forum is hosted by the Korea Communications Commission and organized by KOBACO (Korea Broadcast Advertising Corporation), a national ad services agency that helps coordinate broadcast advertising and industry programs.
That makes the forum a bridge linking platforms, production companies, tech firms, and regulators.
Meanwhile, changes in media consumption and the roll-out of AI tools are likely to dominate the agenda.
The forum has a clear purpose. It seeks to expand international networks and partnerships while shaping a global strategy for K-content (Korean drama, film, music and short-form works).
However, international talks are a double-edged sword. Collaboration creates opportunities and can also sharpen competitive pressures.
This article explains the forum’s meaning, highlights key issues, and presents both supportive and critical perspectives in balance.
Background and history
The forum now meets annually.
Over time, the International OTT Forum has become a place to share the sector’s current status and to explore future cooperation.
At first, discussions focused on technical standards and ad-sales strategies between platforms. However, in recent years topics have broadened to include AI, data use, and copyright protection.
As a result, the forum has evolved beyond networking. It now serves as an exchange for policy recommendations and industry strategy.
Historically, the OTT sector expanded fast as platform competition and content wars reinforced each other.
On the other hand, regulation and copyright remain fragmented because laws differ by country and region. That makes consistent solutions hard to find.
Therefore the forum is often viewed as an attempt to close gaps between technology and policy.
However, the distortions and imbalances produced along the way must not be overlooked.
Pro: The power of cooperation
Cooperation often means growth.
Global cooperation can raise quality across the industry.
Advocates say the forum can improve interoperability between platforms, create a standardized ad market, and promote technical sharing.
Consequently, consumers get better search and recommendation experiences, and producers gain access to more distribution channels.
"Collaboration enables economies of scale and faster tech diffusion."
Moreover, discussing emerging tools like AI publicly speeds and improves adoption.
For example, when the forum tackles practical issues—fairness in recommendation algorithms, automated subtitling and translation, and standard metadata—industry-wide technical skill rises.
That benefits producers aiming to go global. Platforms offer multilingual support and region-specific interfaces to open new markets.
Also, shared guidelines can boost investor confidence, which often leads to more content funding and infrastructure investment.
From an investment standpoint, cooperation looks positive.
Joint tech research and shared infrastructure cut up-front costs and lower entry barriers for small studios and startups.
Therefore cooperation fosters entrepreneurship and ecosystem diversity. Platforms also learn from accumulated data, improving long-term content strategies.
Thus the forum’s cooperation agenda can underpin not only short-term gains but also mid- to long-term industry growth.
Con: Accelerated competition and inequality
Competition can be harsh.
Critics warn the forum may spread norms and standards that favor large companies and squeeze smaller operators.
In particular, the expansion of global platforms risks eroding the market share of local platforms and independent producers.
In turn, intensified competition can strengthen monopolistic positions, reduce diversity, and distort price and revenue structures.
Meanwhile, adopting advanced technologies risks widening technical divides.
AI-based recommendations and data analytics favor firms with large datasets, skilled teams, and deep pockets.
Conversely, small OTT services may struggle to deploy such technologies, leaving them vulnerable in user acquisition and retention.
Over time, this dynamic can reduce content diversity and weaken regional creative industries.
Cultural concerns also matter.
When globalization prioritizes universally successful formats, unique local storytelling and styles may fade.
Furthermore, if local content isn’t sufficiently protected or supported, standardization aimed at global demand can accelerate cultural homogenization.
Therefore forum policies should not push simple openness alone; they must balance access with protective measures.
Copyright and technical inequality
Protection and sharing must coexist.
Copyright is among the most sensitive issues in international cooperation.
At the forum, stakeholders need to debate the balance between freer content flows and robust rights protection.
Key questions include who owns rights to AI-generated derivative works, and whether automated rights-verification systems are reliable in disputes.
At the same time, technical inequality is not only about capital. It reflects gaps in institutional support.
For instance, regions with weak infrastructure may lack high-quality streaming or real-time features, which creates unequal consumer experiences.
Therefore these problems should be on the forum agenda, alongside concrete measures and budgetary commitments.
Tension from fans and viewers
Fans want better content.
Viewers expect diversity and quality, but structural industry changes may conflict with those expectations.
It is essential to test whether technical and policy debates at the forum will actually improve user experience.
For example, when large global platforms pour money into blockbuster series, short-term viewer satisfaction can rise.
However, in the long run, investments may center on a narrower set of commercially safe genres, reducing space for experimental work and varied voices.
Meanwhile, personalized recommendation systems give convenience but can create filter bubbles that limit exposure to diverse content.
Therefore forum outcomes must balance industry goals with viewer interests.
Case studies: foreign and domestic strategies
Success and failure are visible in examples.
Abroad, some partnerships between multinational platforms and local creators show how cooperation drives successful localization—improving market reach and profitability.
In contrast, other regions have seen local services collapse or become absorbed after major platforms entered their markets.
Domestically, K-content’s global popularity has become a growth engine.
If the forum promotes practical discussions on international distribution, translation, subtitling, and cultural adaptation, producers could gain real results.
However, overreliance on foreign demand could erode domestic diversity. Policymakers must carefully set the balance.
Policy proposals and practical tasks
Concrete action is needed.
First, develop international guidelines on copyright and the ethical use of data.
Second, create support programs and joint research funds to close the technology gap for small providers.
Third, expand incentives and public support for local content preservation and creation.
On the other hand, sharing regulatory tools for consumer protection and fair competition within an international cooperation framework is important.
Governments, industry, and civil society should maintain ongoing consultative bodies.
Without such institutional safeguards, the benefits of technological innovation may concentrate among a few players.
Conclusion
Balance is the essential point.
The 2025 International OTT Forum is an important venue for industry progress.
However, it must not lose sight of the balance between cooperation and competition, and between protection and openness.
When policy and practice move together, forum discussions can lead to real change.
In short, the forum is both opportunity and challenge. We can expect industry growth, investment attraction, and technological advances.
Conversely, risks such as intensified competition, technical inequality, and cultural homogenization are real.
Therefore specific follow-up policies and support mechanisms must be put in place after the forum.
Which side do you value more from this forum?
