In November last year, Ukraine’s largest production company Starlight Production announced that it has started a partnership with HOLYWATER to produce two new vertical drama series for the global market signaling a new stage in the strategic development of the company.

At the start of 2026, CEETV got in touch with Starlight Production’s CEO Vitalii Gusev to talk about the company’s transformation in wartime conditions, the realization of projects both at home and abroad, and the partnerships and strategies that will shape the future of the Ukrainian content production industry.



Vitalii, Starlight Media has successfully transformed into a "content-centric" business. What does this mean operationally? How are you managing the cultural shift from a traditional broadcaster to a multi-platform content factory?

From an operational perspective, a content-centric model means that our decisions start with the product’s commercial logic rather than with a specific platform. For every project, we first evaluate where and in what form it can deliver the strongest commercial results, and only then design the distribution strategy accordingly.

This is a fundamental shift in logic. It’s no longer “linear TV first, and then we see what happens,” but a deliberate decision about where content performs most effectively. Economics remain decisive: large, high-budget productions often still prioritize television, while digital-first products follow very different rules and cost structures.

The second major transformation is our move from standalone projects to building ecosystems around strong brands and IP. Every successful format has a core and multiple extensions: digital spin-offs, short-form formats, social platforms, and communities. Our ambition is not just to be present where content is discussed, but to lead those spaces with professional, high-quality formats that strengthen both the brand and its commercial potential.

Take The Bachelor as an example. The flagship show is the core brand, but around it, we develop products like Bachelor Backstage, which functions as an independent digital asset and can also be repurposed for linear television. In parallel, we produce short, highly shareable clips for Instagram, TikTok, YouTube Shorts, Facebook Reels, and Threads. These fragments drive reach, fuel virality, and have become extremely attractive for advertisers. The result is a brand with an intense center and multiple value-generating branches that reinforce that center.

Culturally, this shift requires platform-native thinking. Media consumption is increasingly fragmented and niche, so content must be designed with each platform's logic in mind. The most effective model is a single brand with a single DNA, expressed through different, platform-relevant formats on YouTube, TikTok, or linear television. Each serves its own audience, but together they strengthen the ecosystem as a whole.


Recent reports suggest that collaboration is key to survival for Ukrainian media giants. Are you actively seeking production or distribution partnerships with other major companies to pool resources and reduce costs on large-scale projects?

One model I strongly believe in is partnerships between media companies and media-technology players. For example, a collaboration that brings together a content producer, an OTT platform, and a telecom operator to build a joint platform. An additional major bank or a large, nationwide retail chain joining such alliances could give the entire ecosystem a strong customer-loyalty advantage. Flexible bundle offers that combine the partners’ unique capabilities will become the foundation of data-driven media in the new advertising economy.

Another area where we see strong potential is partnerships with media-technology companies for whom we produce content. A good example is our collaboration with HOLYWATER. We have deep expertise in producing a specific type of content – expertise that many players simply do not have. In these cases, we act not just as a supplier but as a creative and production partner, delivering content for international audiences and operating under very different rules than traditional television.

A third strategic direction is content production for streaming platforms. Here, I believe in an open model. Creators should be able to pitch an idea internally, but also take it to an external partner if it doesn’t move forward in-house and risks being left unrealized. From a long-term perspective, this kind of openness is more sustainable and economically sound than rigidly closed systems. It allows strong ideas to find the right home – and ultimately benefits the entire ecosystem.


What type of projects and genres are you focusing on right now?

Our priorities have remained consistent over the past few years. The core shift is not in genres, but in the capabilities we need to build internally.

First, there is a clear lack of experimentation in feature films – not simply in producing individual titles, but in developing in-house expertise in full-length filmmaking. Currently, this competence is largely lacking across the industry, and without it, we remain dependent on external decisions. Building that expertise internally is essential if we want greater creative and strategic autonomy.

Second, we are focused on developing expertise in original content production for streaming platforms. This is not an extension of television, but a separate discipline with its own creative, production, and commercial logic, requiring dedicated focus.

Another important direction is original content in film and series production, particularly in new formats. One area we find especially promising is vertical, multi-episode content. Specific formats are naturally suited to vertical viewing – for example, serial reality or observational series. A good example is a new project from Novy Channel that follows young people who move to Kyiv during the war in search of identity and opportunity. This type of storytelling can perform exceptionally well on vertical platforms, in some cases even more effectively than on YouTube. Given that marketing distribution today is primarily driven by TikTok and Instagram, platform logic increasingly dictates format rather than the other way around.

We also see commercial production as an essential experimental space. While it may not offer the most substantial direct financial upside, it provides a valuable environment for testing new tools – particularly AI-driven solutions. This allows us to reduce production costs and experiment with speed, form, and workflows in ways that are harder to do within large-scale content projects.

Finally, a critical principle across everything we develop is franchise potential. This applies to vertical content, series, and shows alike. The key question is not genre, but whether a project can scale, expand, and live beyond a single cycle. Long-term value comes from repeatability, adaptability, and the ability to monetize content over time.


What is your threshold for investment at Starlight Production in this high-risk environment? How do you balance creative ambition with the harsh commercial realities?

Starlight Production does not function as a traditional investor. We are primarily a production company working on commission, so it is more accurate to talk not about an “investment threshold,” but about the range of budgets we operate within. That range is deliberately broad.

At one end, we produce digital-first projects for platforms like YouTube, with budgets starting at around $5.000 per episode, where the decisive factors are the strength of the idea and consistency rather than scale. At the other end are large-format productions and backstage projects where budgets can cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars. Between these extremes, we produce classic studio shows. All of these projects coexist within the same production ecosystem.

I don’t see the balance between creative ambition and commercial reality as a trade-off where ideas must be reduced to fit the budget. In practice, the balance is achieved through proper format design. This includes how a season is structured, where cost-intensive moments are concentrated, how high- and lower-cost episodes alternate, and which elements can be moved outside the core production process. Very often, the issue is not that an idea is too ambitious, but that the production model behind it is poorly designed. Conversely, even complex and seemingly expensive ideas can be executed within a reasonable budget if the structure is carefully planned.

Distribution logic plays a critical role from the very beginning. If we understand early on that a project will live not only on linear television, but also in digital environments – on YouTube or in short-form formats – this directly influences both creative and production decisions. It also opens up multiple monetization windows, allowing parts of the investment to return over time.

To me, this balance is not about choosing between creativity and economics. It is an engineering task: designing a product that is both creatively strong and economically viable in a high-risk environment.


What are the top one or two regulatory changes you believe are critically needed from the government to help the Ukrainian production and media sector recover and thrive?

The first and most obvious priority is state support for film, but redesigned around transparency and accountability. Not every film backed by public funding was expected to be commercially successful, and that is understandable. In many cases, the objective was cultural rather than commercial. However, the scale of public investment was significant (sometimes $1 million or more per film), and yet those funds rarely returned into the system in any meaningful way.

As a result, we did not build a sustainable library of strong IP, nor a stable film market. The key issue here is that public money must be visible and traceable throughout the entire lifecycle of a project. There should be a clear understanding of who the film is made for, its audience, and its distribution potential. Accountability should not stop at production delivery; it should extend to what happens to the film afterward – distribution, reach, and long-term value.

I am not arguing that the state should finance only commercial hits. But the balance between socially significant projects and mainstream films has been seriously distorted. Without a viable mass-market segment, an industry as such simply does not emerge.

The second critical area is production rebates. Formally, this mechanism exists in Ukraine, but in practice it operates in a very limited way. In many countries, rebates are one of the most effective tools for attracting international productions and long-term partnerships, and Ukraine is no exception.

That said, even a perfectly functioning rebate system is not enough on its own. Ukraine is at war, and investors inevitably factor in additional risk. This is why I believe additional guarantee mechanisms are essential – insurance instruments or state-backed guarantees that reduce the risk of capital loss. Such tools could significantly accelerate market recovery and make Ukraine a far more competitive destination for both local and international production.


The industry has lost over a thousand jobs since 2021. How is Starlight Production navigating this talent drain? Are you focusing on upskilling existing staff for new content forms (like vertical video) or competing for a smaller pool of specialized digital talent?

We must acknowledge that we operate in a somewhat distorted in-house production environment. It does not always operate according to pure market rules, which creates real structural limitations.

In practical terms, most of the new formats we are developing today are created by people who are already inside the company. These are highly experienced professionals who have spent years working on large-scale formats and are now adapting that expertise to new forms – YouTube, short-form, and vertical content.

On one hand, this is a natural and necessary process. On the other hand, it is clear to me that we are lacking fresh talent. This is not a matter of preference; it is a matter of reality. We have lost a significant number of people – some left the country, some left the industry, some joined the military, and others transitioned into entirely different fields. This is simply the context in which we are operating.

What I fundamentally do not believe in is extreme specialization. When someone spends their entire career working in a single genre or format, they eventually begin to repeat themselves. Burnout follows, even if everything appears stable on the surface. I am much closer to a model where people work across multiple genres and formats. Today it might be YouTube, tomorrow a series, the day after a documentary, or a social-impact project.

Part 2.