There may be some hints of cynicism following...
For possibly the most extreme opposites,
Watch one of those daytime TV sensationalist documentaries, the ones where half the show is spent telling you what's going to be in the other half... with sirens & bits shot on a phone.
Then watch Blue Planet.
Then decide what your intended audience is & whether you have narrative & footage that would support the Blue Planet style, or whether you're going to have to keep yelling at your audience to try stop them switching channels.
Your example, though I only watched the first 3 or 4 minutes, is firmly in the 'sirens' camp, even though its subject matter should have been more deserving of the 'blue' treatment. The makers couldn't quite bring themselves to soften the approach, leaving the look & feel all a bit unstructured. Not enough action for the 'sirens' treatment, in too much of a rush to give it the 'blue' treatment.
Not enough connection to the subject.
It's all shot & also presented in rather a 'distant' & disconnected manner, keeping the audience separated, almost pushed away, from the subject rather than included in it.
[cutaways inside boxes to explain to us what Karate is... made me cry a bit inside.]
Their use of the sensationalist push-zoom + music hit is ... ermm... poor.
In fact, the more I watch of it, the better it becomes as a lesson in 'how not to do it'. They do a dubbed interview, with rampant over-orchestration way out in the background - not loud enough to listen to, too loud to ignore - before eventually introducing the presenter, who doesn't make an appearance until 3 minutes in, immediately turns her back on the camera & they cut away to some dull wide of the archery butts again... fail.
I dug out an example of one show I think does it 'well' for a given definition of 'well'.
Grand Designs - an episode picked at random - They follow a similar pattern each week.
Start with an opening by the presenter on what is going to be the 'special point' of this week's show, all with their trademark library music style - a tad hokey but not too dominant.
Then cut to opening credits with 'known' theme.
Then some more 'expensive' shots, fields, flowers, wide apertures, lots of out of focus - accompanied by some sweeping waffly music to go with it. This continues as they set the scene for what is to be this week's show; introducing the subject couple & what they are going to build.
By the time we're 3 minutes in, the music has gone.
We're into the actual meat of the show.
That approach takes you from the 'known' presenter, through some broad introduction of 'new characters' & then to the main structure of the show in a way that draws you in rather than pushes you away.
They will repeat this functionality several times through the show - pull away to do a recap, get in some more 'arty' shots, then quickly drop back to the 'meat' again.
This is not 'genius' program-making, but it is very functional, & survives repetition. They're currently broadcasting Season 19.