TV used to be built around exclusivity.

Stars, studios, big budgets, broadcast slots, production crews and commissioning decisions. If you wanted to appear on screen, someone had to let you in. Now much of TV is reality-driven. People spend more time watching other people live, compete, react, explain, perform and document themselves in entertaining ways.

The technology changed how TV was made. It made production cheaper, access easier and distribution almost unlimited. It also made it possible for almost anyone to be visible. Which creates the paradox. When anyone can be a star, stardom means something different.

The same thing has happened to your learning strategy, design and offer.

What was once the preserve of a studio system, external vendors, learning providers, instructional designers and platform owners has been overtaken by people with a camera, access to information, a prompt box, and a way to broadcast. That changes the role of L&D. Not because content no longer has value – it does. But because content is no longer exclusive.

The scarce thing is judgement.

Knowing what matters, what is credible, what should be created, curated, challenged or ignored. It’s now about knowing where learning is actually needed and where the problem is work design, management, systems, incentives or unclear expectations. A learning strategy built around production will struggle in this environment.

It will keep trying to make better programmes while the organisation quietly learns from everywhere else: Teams calls, WhatsApp groups, LinkedIn posts, YouTube clips, vendor webinars, AI-generated summaries, peer advice, manager shortcuts and whatever someone found at 11pm before a meeting. That is not automatically bad, but it is unmanaged, so don’t pretend you’re in control. If your learning strategy does not account for how people really learn now, it is not a strategy but is simply a production schedule.

The question is no longer, “What learning can we provide?” The better question is, “What learning system are people already using, and where does it need better judgement, stronger standards and clearer connection to the work?”

That is where L&D has to move – from studio to system.