Impact of Streaming Services

Warner Bros. Discovery is officially splitting into two companies. And the move may reshape the entertainment landscape as we know it. Announced today, WBD will separate into: 🎬 WBD Streaming & Studios – Max, HBO, Warner Bros. Pictures, DC, and content production. 📺 WBD Global Networks – CNN, Discovery, TNT Sports, and other linear TV assets. David Zaslav will lead the Streaming & Studios entity, while CFO Gunnar Wiedenfels takes over Global Networks. This isn’t just operational restructuring—it’s a signal of strategic discipline. In a media world demanding agility and specialization, WBD is choosing focus over entanglement. For years, media conglomerates tried to be everything at once. Today’s move suggests the next era belongs to leaner, purpose-built organizations: one built for growth, another for value extraction. 🔍 Key implications: ⌙ Investor signaling: The market rewarded the move immediately. WBD stock jumped on the clarity and perceived unlock of future deal potential. ⌙ Deal logic accelerant: Each company now has clearer financials and objectives, making it easier to explore mergers, content alliances, or targeted asset sales. ⌙ Creative empowerment: The Streaming & Studios entity can now prioritize storytelling and platform scale without the drag of managing linear economics. Expect more risk-taking, franchise building, and talent-led bets. ⌙ Global strategy divergence: WBD Global Networks, still strong internationally, may double down on licensing and local partnerships, while Streaming leans further into global IP as a differentiator. This also raises bigger questions about how legacy assets are valued. Linear TV isn’t dead—but it’s no longer the center of the media equation. This move implicitly reframes cable and broadcast as supporting players in a world increasingly dominated by platforms, brands, and data-rich direct-to-consumer models. 📈 In short: WBD didn’t just split its balance sheet—it split its future. One side is now primed to scale storytelling in a streaming-first world. The other is free to optimize legacy economics without pretending it’s still the future. This may be WBD’s most forward-looking move since the merger. The media chessboard just changed.

Netflix is expanding its gaming offerings, aiming to become a major player in the industry. In an interview with The Verge, Alain Tascan, Netflix's vice president of game studios, discussed the company's evolving gaming strategy. Since entering the gaming market in 2021, Netflix has made several significant strategic shifts. Here's a brief overview of its journey and some key points about its current approach: Netflix's foray into gaming began in November 2021, marking a significant expansion beyond its traditional streaming services. Since then, the company has made at least four major strategic adjustments: 1. Initial Launch (2021): Netflix started offering games as part of its subscription service, focusing on mobile games to keep subscribers engaged between show seasons. 2. Studio Acquisitions and AAA Game Development (2021-2023): Netflix acquired several game studios and attempted to develop AAA games, setting up its own studios globally. However, it faced challenges in this area due to high development costs and uncertain returns. 3. Shift Away from AAA Games (2023-2024): Netflix closed its AAA game studio and canceled plans for several major titles, pivoting towards a more focused strategy. 4. New Four-Pillar Strategy (2025): Netflix announced a new strategy centered around four game categories: narrative games, multiplayer party games, games for kids, and mainstream releases. This move aims to streamline offerings and attract a clearer audience. Here are some key points about Netflix's current gaming strategy: 🎮 Diverse Game Portfolio: Netflix is focusing on developing a wide range of games across different genres to appeal to a broad audience. 📈 Growth Strategy: The company plans to grow its gaming division by acquiring studios and developing new titles. 📊 User Engagement: Netflix aims to increase user engagement through interactive content and mobile games. 🤝 Studio Partnerships: Netflix is partnering with various game studios to create exclusive content. 📱 Mobile Gaming Focus: The company is emphasizing mobile gaming as a key part of its strategy, given the accessibility and popularity of mobile devices. #Netflix #Gaming #GamingStrategy

As a fan of 1) Disney the brand 2) business strategy analysis 3) business model disruption and reinvention… Disney’s earnings call yesterday was 🔥. The numbers tell a masterclass story in how a legacy brand adapts and thrives in the ever-shifting entertainment industry. Some takeaways: 1. Fortitude for a Long-term Vision Disney+ is now driving profits, with $321M this quarter—a $700M improvement over last year. This was a cash burning MACHINE. But they stuck with their vision and have turned the corner. But sustaining profitability in this competitive market will require Disney to continuously balance subscriber growth, pricing strategies, and content investment. Which brings me to… 2. The Tentpole Effect: Blockbusters (Still) Fuel the Ecosystem "Inside Out 2" ($1.7B) and "Deadpool & Wolverine" ($1.3B) are much more than box office wins—they’re ecosystem drivers. These releases spark a chain reaction across streaming, parks, and merchandising. Few companies can leverage content this effectively across platforms (including other streamers). Disney’s strategy here is (still) brilliant: tentpole films & IP become not just entertainment but touchpoints across every facet of the brand (which extends for yeeears). I always think of Walt Disney’s napkin flywheel doodle, or “synergy map”, that he drew out 65+ years ago. At the center of it all are the theatrical blockbuster releases. And Bob Iger made it clear he carries that mantle forward. 3. Price Hikes + Ad Tiers: Smart Monetization Disney+ can raise prices on its ad-free tier, and it still has multiple paths to increased profits. The first, you can just pay the higher price. The second? You step down to the ad-supported tier (over half of new U.S. Disney+ subscribers are choosing the ad-supported tier). But here’s the rub: this ad-supported tier creates dual revenue streams, subscription fees PLUS ad dollars, allowing Disney to increase profitability without alienating cost-conscious audiences. And the ad revenue upside is likely higher than subscription revenue upside. To paraphrase Ben Thompson – the end-state of any large consumer base is advertising. It IS the end-state. It is not an interim step. 4. The Linear TV Conundrum TV networks, once Disney’s cash cow, are shrinking fast (Q4 income down 38%). With ESPN Flagship—a fully streaming version of ESPN—slated for 2025, Disney is positioning itself for a post-cable world. The integration of ESPN into Disney+ is a smart move, but streaming sports is still a tough financial nut to crack. Can it replicate the margins of traditional TV? That’s the billion-dollar question. Final Thoughts Disney’s Q4 earnings tell a story of resilience, reinvention, and relentless focus on the future. As a fan, I admire how the brand continues to bring joy to millions. As a business enthusiast, I’m fascinated by the strategic pivots that make it all possible (but, from the same underlying blueprint). This isn’t just a business—it’s Disney magic at scale.

Netflix and Disney+ will soon look a lot more like TikTok. The major streaming platforms are going all-in on short-form video as part of a broader shift that’s reshaping viewing habits. Rather than compete with TikTok on UGC, they’ll surface clips from longer-form content like live events, stand-up specials, and original series, designed to meet short-form cravings while driving users back into full-length viewing. 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴: → ESPN rolled out vertical videos to recap game highlights and offer commentator analysis. → ABC News launched a daily short-form show, What You Need to Know. Netflix has been testing a vertical video feed that serves up clips from its original titles to inspire users to start a movie or series. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁-𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗵𝗲𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗮 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: 𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘀. → The global microdrama industry is projected to reach $26bn in annual revenue by 2030. → Vertical mini-dramas have surged over the past few years. → Dedicated apps like DramaBox and ReelShort are seeing subscriber growth but still operate at a loss due to high customer acquisition costs. For Netflix and Disney+, that CAC pressure is far less acute. They already have hundreds of millions of subscribers to seed short-form discovery natively. The line between cinema, streaming, and social content continues to blur, and the competitive set is no longer just other streamers. It’s the entire entertainment ecosystem. → The Oscars and the NFL are on YouTube. → Apple is competing for Emmys and Oscars. In 2025, Netflix delivered $45.2bn in revenue, with ad revenue rising above $1.5bn. The company crossed 325m paid subscriptions in Q4, yet a barrage of price hikes, ads, mergers, and live sports rights battles has left streaming increasingly similar to the cable era it aimed to replace. That’s fueled subscription fatigue. Younger viewers in particular are shifting time and money toward free streaming services, physical media, and social platforms. 40% of US streaming subscribers plan to cancel at least one service in the next 12 months (eMarketer). 𝗠𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲: As an alum of both Disney and TikTok, I’m not sure this convergence is good in the longer term. As product differentiation decreases, Disney and Netflix are betting that their content will outshine TikTok. Otherwise, they risk falling into a trap. What’s your take?

The main streaming players collectively made $6B in profits in Q1'25, a marked turnaround from a year ago. Higher subs, more flexible pricing, higher ad sales, international launches, and cost containment are part of the story — but how did we get here? After Netflix kicked off the streaming earnings season last month, all companies in the space have reported significant increases in Operating Income or EBITDA compared to a year ago. Netflix still leads the pack with $3.3B in profits, but YouTube, Disney, WBD, and Spotify have collectively brought in $2.5B by my estimate (including YouTube, which doesn’t break out operating income or sub revenue). Peacock lost $0.2B in the quarter — a reduction from a year ago. Paramount will report their results this afternoon. I haven’t yet attempted to model Amazon Prime Video’s operating income, but industry sources suggest they’re also in the black this year. Overall, it’s a marked improvement from last year, when Netflix was making more than 100% of the profits. It wasn’t just increased subscribers that made the difference (through international launches, new events, and crackdowns on password sharing at Netflix and Disney). Companies introduced ad tiers, allowing them to offer lower-priced options to many consumers; bundles (especially Disney/WBD), which helped reduce churn; and improved ad sales. And throughout, they contained costs — and in some areas, reduced them. Amortization expenses for some of the most expensive shows from 2021–2022 are now coming off the schedule. After the close of Q3'24, I published a post calling that quarter an inflection point in streaming. When you're crossing the line from losses to profit in a largely fixed-cost business, improvements can come relatively fast. What do you think will be the biggest driver of streaming profitability for the rest of the year?

Not content with threatening to disrupt legacy CDNs & legions of streaming technology vendors with a radical vision of far more efficient ways to distribute video over the Internet, Eluvio is now throwing out a challenge to leading players in the much-hyped #FAST (Free Ad-supported Stream TV) market like Amagi Corporation, Frequency & the latter’s ad monetisation partner Wurl. One of the purported advantages of FAST over legacy linear TV is the potential to offer a more personalised selection of content in channels - channels tailored to your own tastes - and to combine this personalised content with equivalently targeted advertising. Achieving either of these at scale is challenging and successfully implementing both together is very difficult indeed, which explains why commercial deployments that combine both have yet to occur (unless anyone can correct me??). When it comes to content personalisation, most current FAST solutions inevitably involve a trade-off against latency, the need to ensure customer privacy, and the scalability required to reach big audiences. And when it comes to personalised advertising, server-side approaches will have a constrained number of different ad choices for a given viewer, whilst client-side solutions can offer more personalisation but require the client to load multiple streams concurrently, resulting in latency and load challenges. However, using its just-in-time Content Fabric architecture, Eluvio claims to be able to insert BOTH advertising and programming content on-demand to match an individual viewer profile. For streaming to large audiences, latency of 2 seconds is promised using standard HLS and fragmented MP4 packaging sent to standard adaptive bit-rate (ABR) players. The additional advantage of the Eluvio #blockchain-based system is that each viewer can have a Media Wallet app that enables them to be profiled whilst completely protecting their Personal Identifiable Information (PII). Of course, this Wallet also allows the viewer to respond directly to targeted ads with a direct purchase without leaving the streaming experience. At IBC - International Broadcasting Convention, Michelle Munson showed me the Eluvio approach to FAST in action using live Fox Corporation channels. Given that Fox Corporation was Eluvio’s lead investor, it would not be surprising to see leading FAST channel operator Tubi (acquired by Fox in 2020 for $440m) adopting the Content Fabric solution before too long. #streaming #fast #blockchain #fox

In my last post, I argued that efforts to build an African Netflix were doomed to fail, for basic economics reasons. Iyinoluwa Aboyeji countered: it’s actually because of Africa’s specific market inefficiencies that a local solution could succeed where Netflix wouldn’t go. 😏 That’s also what I thought when I built Buni.tv 13 years ago. For context, we were built for mobile from the get-go, had a freemium model with a couple million free users, various payment options, sharp curation, and super popular original IP (my own viral shows). I spent a lot of effort trying to get our app embedded on smartphones and negotiating telco deals, to no avail. My point is, we tried oo. In his comment, E then listed a few platforms that are doing well in Asia or LATAM as “counter-examples”. Turns out, rather than contradicting my original point, these examples actually come to reinforce it. Let’s examine why. 1️⃣ All the “winners” in Emerging Markets are not independent platforms. They are backed by incumbent broadcasters with strategic reasons to eat the losses. In that category we find Globoplay (from Brazil’s Globo), ViX (Spanish-language leader from Televisa-Univision), Vidio (from Indonesia’s Emtek), Viu (owned at 36% by Canal+) and… Showmax. Yes, Africa has a key player in this category, and despite well-known challenges, Showmax will in all likelihood survive to become Africa’s homegrown streaming success. 2️⃣ Others are more like “features” of a telco bundle - again, not independent platforms: Movistar+ (Spain), Flow (Argentina) or TrueID (Thailand). In Africa, the fact that no telco has managed to build a proper video service yet is honestly embarrassing. We still hope.   3️⃣ All winning platforms offer must-watch sports. That’s the ultimate way to create stickiness. Even Netflix and Amazon are getting on it. 4️⃣ In Emerging Markets, hybrid monetization is necessary. Successful EM platforms go get revenue wherever they can: advertising, telco data bundles, tiered products (mobile-only, sports-only, etc). Two important things to note here:  - hybrid monetization is ONE element of the overall puzzle, not THE solution to streaming in Africa. You still have to get everything else right. - Africa’s ad market is tiny ($11.5B) - similar to Italy’s ($11.7B) In conclusion, if you’re hoping to make it big by building an African streaming platform without must-have sports rights, a very deep, exclusive local IP catalogue, and a telco or broadcaster parent willing to underwrite losses for 5-10 years, you and your banker are in for a lot of disappointment 😭. In my next post, I’ll tell you what you should build instead. -- Hi, my name is Marie 👋🏽 I’ve been a strategic advisor, investor, and entrepreneur in the African Creative and Sports space for 20 years. For business insights you cannot get anywhere else, join the 10,000+ other professionals who subscribe to my monthly newsletter HUSTLE & FLOW: https://lnkd.in/drBY8jnz

Not sure how true this is at first glance, but a quick breakdown of the numbers suggests it may be spot on. Take Spotify payouts, for example. In the U.S. or Sweden, artists typically earn around $0.008 to $0.01 per stream, while in Nigeria, the rate is closer to $0.0002 to $0.0003. So 1 million streams from Nigeria at $0.0003 = $300 1 million streams from Sweden at $0.008 = $8,000 These rough estimates align with what Donawon is saying. But that’s just the surface. The reason why 1 million streams in Nigeria earns only around $300, while the same number of streams from Sweden or the U.S. can fetch up to $10,000, is largely about purchasing power and economic inequality. Music streaming platforms like Spotify, localize their pricing to match each country’s economy. In Nigeria, a typical subscription costs about 1k -2k per month, compared to around $10 in the U.S. or Europe. That means the revenue per user, and therefore the payout per stream is drastically lower. It is the same reason ads shown to Nigerian users generate far less revenue than those shown to users in wealthier countries. What this means is that even if an artist has 10 million fans in Nigeria, they could still earn less than someone with just 1 million fans in a high-income country. It is not because the music is inferior, it is because the audience’s economic reality limits their power to support creatives financially. This is why musicians, influencers, and entertainers must start seeing themselves as stakeholders in the broader push for economic justice and improved quality of life. The growth of the creative industry depends on people being able to afford subscriptions, buy data, attend shows, and support their favorite artists without breaking the bank. If we want the Nigerian music industry or any local creative economy to thrive, we must also fight for a country where the average person can afford to stream, subscribe, and participate fully. Better governance, a stronger economy, and greater financial inclusion directly translate into better earnings for artists. In short, if your fans stay broke, so do you. That is why speaking up, collaborating with civil society, supporting policies that improve access, and demanding a better system isn’t just activism, it is self-interest. Your next album’s success may depend less on PR and more on policy. The audience is ready. But the economy needs to catch up.

From The Guardian: The rapid consumer shift away from high-priced TV packages, coupled with the inexorable decline in advertising, has forced traditional TV companies to invest billions in low-cost streaming services to catch up with first movers such as Netflix. The question is now whether companies such as WBD – home to TV and film content including Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga, Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire, The Big Bang Theory, Succession, Friends and all Olympics events – can build the scale and make significant profits from their streaming operations before the death of linear television delivered by cable, satellite or aerial. “Traditional TV is dying, or at least in zombie mode,” says Alex DeGroote, CFA, a media analyst. “It is being replaced by a combination of services such as short-form video players like YouTube and TikTok, and the top streamers such as Netflix. WBD’s $9bn impairment is a real hammer blow and will reverberate across all traditional #media assets.” The market value of Warner Bros. Discovery, home to assets including the Warner Bros film studio, HBO and CNN, has plunged almost 70% in the two years since the group was formed in a $40bn (£31.5bn) merger between WarnerMedia and Discovery Inc intended to help both businesses survive the transition to a streaming future. “Unfortunately, the stock performance is a clear indication that investors see little optimism that the tides may soon start to turn,” says Robert Fishman, senior analyst at MoffettNathanson LLC. Earlier this week, The Walt Disney Company disclosed that its streaming operations – which include the global Disney+ service, Hulu and ESPN+ in the US and Hotstar in India – achieved profitability for the first time in the quarter to the end of June. However, the milestone of $447m (£352m) in operating profit, which was above management projections, has come at a huge cost, with its streaming services running up $11bn (£9.2bn) in losses since Disney+ was launched in 2019. While traditional TV companies struggle with managing the decline in their legacy businesses, with drastic rounds of cost-cutting after a decade of profligate spending on content in the first decade of the streaming wars, Netflix points to a viable future. The streaming giant, which once struggled with mounting losses running into tens of billions of dollars, has seen its market value surge by more than 50% over the past year after turning the profitability corner while continuing to see significant growth in subscribers. Richard Broughton, director at Ampere Analysis, said: “Legacy #TV businesses are in decline but the shift is not so rapid that it can’t be managed. There are still a lot of broadcast TV viewers, they have the time to pivot to profitability in the #streaming world.”

Recent years have seen legacy media companies take different approaches to launching subscription-based #streaming platforms and making them profitable. Fox Corporation is the latest broadcast behemoth to take on this task, and it’s charting a different path—one that is proving to be both savvy and sustainable.   Rather than pouring billions into the costly arms race of building a subscription streaming service, Fox made a strategic bet on Tubi, acquiring the free, ad-supported platform in 2020 for $440 million. At the time, it seemed like an experiment and a way to diversify revenue using Fox’s strength in traditional #advertising. Fast forward to today, and Tubi is quickly becoming a meaningful part of Fox’s business, outperforming expectations and even surpassing the advertising revenue of Fox Entertainment. The platform’s 97 million monthly active users and 10 billion hours streamed in 2024 highlight its rapid ascent.   Fox’s decision to stream the #SuperBowl on Tubi for the first time underscores just how integral the platform has become. Tubi allows Fox to gather valuable user intelligence, expand its audience, and strengthen its ad-supported ecosystem. Airing ‘the Big Game’ will no doubt attract a wave of new users who will hopefully stick around.   The real brilliance of Fox’s strategy here is that this is a strategic precursor to a new D2C streaming service that Fox intends to launch before the end of 2025 – a move prompted by the collapse of its aspirational Venu Sports joint venture. Fox’s solo offering will leverage existing rights and infrastructure to reach cord-cutters and “cord-nevers,” while endeavoring not to undercut Fox’s lucrative cable business.   Where this new service would leave Tubi is unclear, but having the successful and scalable platform in its portfolio could help Fox avoid the significant potential losses that come with building a streaming service from scratch.   This isn’t just a pivot—it’s a well-executed, multi-year plan that is proving its value in real time. When we look back in a few years, this may prove to be a case study for smart investment and futureproofing in the #mediaindustry.   https://lnkd.in/d3CQrcks   #sportsbusiness