Hollywood is paying a steep price for never really figuring out the streaming model
People carry signs as SAG-AFTRA members walk the picket line in solidarity with striking WGA workers outside Netflix offices in Los Angeles, July 11, 2023.
Mario Tama | Getty Images News | Getty Images
Picket signs have lined the gates of Hollywood’s studios for nearly five months, as the industry’s writers and actors rally for AI protections, better wages and a cut of streaming profits.
The problem is streaming isn’t yet profitable for many studios.
Sparked by the creation of Netflix’s direct-to-consumer platform in 2007, streaming has upended the economics of the media industry. Yet, it’s still unclear whether it’s a sustainable business model for the future.
“Without sounding hyperbolic, the change in the economics of the North American media industry in the last five years has been breathtaking,” said Steven Schiffman, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University.
Legacy media companies like Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount and NBCUniversal scrambled to compete with Netflix when it began creating original content in 2013 and slowly pulled market share over the next five years. The studios padded their platforms with massive content libraries and the promise of new original shows and films for consumers.
However, the subscription-based streaming model proves vastly different than the ad-revenue-fueled traditional TV bundle. High licensing costs and low revenues per subscriber quickly caught up with studios, which had previously placated shareholders with massive subscription growth.
Netflix was the first streamer to report a loss in subscribers in 2022, sending its stock and other media companies spiraling. Disney has followed suit. Since then, both have set subscription numbers aside in favor of advertising, a password-sharing crackdown and raising prices.
Media companies also have begun slashing content spending budgets. Disney CEO Bob Iger has promised the company will focus on quality over quantity when it comes to both its streaming and theatrical businesses, pointing to Marvel as an example of too much content.
Yet streaming remains the focus for all of these companies as consumers rapidly cut the cord and opt for streaming. To make up for the losses, media organizations are now relying on methods that once made the traditional bundle so successful.
“What’s the fundamental solution? In some way, shape or form, it’s everything brought together,” said CEO Ken Solomon of the Tennis Channel, owned by Sinclair, of the various business models in media. “It’s about understanding where to put a little more resources and how they all are glued together to satisfy the consumer.”
A broken model
Two strategies media companies long relied upon — windowing content to various platforms and creating more cable channels to reap higher fees from the bundle — proved lucrative and still reap profits.
“This gun has been cocking itself for decades,” said Solomon, noting that the pay TV bundle was a good value proposition until it became too expensive for consumers. That gave Netflix an opening to upend how the entertainment industry makes and spends money.
Legacy media companies scrambled to follow suit, unsure if the model actually worked. But they were desperate to keep up with changing consumer demand, and in the process they depleted other revenue streams.
Now turmoil rules the industry. Companies like Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery are in the midst of reorganizations — slashing jobs and content costs while trying various ways to piece together profits.
An image from Netflix’s “Stranger Things.”
Source: Netflix
“All of these companies spent more money than they likely should have,” said Marc DeBevoise, CEO and board director of Brightcove, a streaming technology company.
Netflix, with a considerable head start, is the only company to make a profit off of streaming. “For everyone else, it’s still dictated by linear TV,” said UBS analyst John Hodulik. “That’s a problem as the decline in customers accelerates and streaming is not a big enough opportunity to offset that.”
Although subscriber growth initially ramped up streaming subscriber growth and bolstered many media stocks, it was short-lived. Fears of a recession, inflation and rising interest rates led Wall Street to reassess these companies and focus on profitability as subscriber growth slowed.
A content arms race
Netflix’s entrance into media signaled the beginning of a content arms race that, ultimately, hasn’t paid off for any media company.
Content spending ballooned across the industry, with each company spending tens of billions of dollars for new shows and films in an effort to lure in new subscribers — and keep the ones they already had.
“The networks had aligned with their streaming services and taken all the elasticity out of it. They were throwing money at a problem and hoping that it was going to solve itself,” said Solomon. “There was no economics behind it.”
Race to launch
- Netflix — launched streaming service in January 2007, first original content launched February 2013
- Hulu — launched streaming service in March 2008
- Paramount+ — launched as CBS All Access in October 2014, rebranded as Paramount+ in March 2021
- Disney+ — launched streaming service in November 2019
- Peacock — launched streaming service in April 2020
- Max — launched as HBO Max in May 2020, rebranded as Max in May 2023
There were also massive one-off licensing deals for shows like “The Office,” “Friends” and “Seinfeld,” which viewers were actively watching on repeat.
Studios even struck exclusive contracts with some of Hollywood’s biggest writer-producers — Ryan Murphy, Shonda Rhimes, J.J. Abrams, Kenya Barris and the duo of David Benioff and D.B. Weiss — in the hope that they could create new projects that could capture the attention of audiences.
Show budgets draw a lot of attention these days. But Jonathan Miller, a former Hulu board member and current CEO of Integrated Media, doesn’t recall that being a focus when it was just the four major broadcast networks creating all of the content.
DeBevoise, a former ViacomCBS (now Paramount) executive, said he doesn’t remember greenlighting a show, including “Star Trek Discovery,” in the mid-2010s at CBS for more than $10 million an episode, noting many were “much, much less expensive.”
Meanwhile, Solomon, who once ran Universal Studios Television, recalled when his budgets for top TV shows like “Law & Order” were below $2 million an episode. “I thought budgets were out of control back then,” he said.
Shonda Rhimes attends 2018 Vanity Fair Oscar Party on March 4, 2018 in Beverly Hills, CA.
Presley Ann | Patrick McMullan | Getty Images
Disney sought to capitalize on the success of its Marvel Cinematic Universe by developing more than a dozen superhero shows for its Disney+ platform. Although the seasons were shortened, often only six to 10 episodes, each episode cost around $25 million. Similar production budgets were seen for the company’s foray into the new live-action Star Wars TV series.
Netflix has poured money into multiple seasons of political drama “The Crown,” science fiction darling “Stranger Things” and a series based on The Witcher video game franchise. Production costs per episode for these series ranged from $11 million to $30 million.
And Warner Bros. Discovery is adding more Game of Thrones series to its catalog of direct-to-consumer offerings with “House of the Dragon,” which cost around $20 million per episode, and the upcoming “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms: The Hedge Knight,” which has not begun filming.
Meanwhile, e-commerce giant Amazon shelled out a record $465 million on its first season of a Lord of the Rings prequel series, which was met with tepid responses from critics and fans alike.
“The price of content isn’t always determinant of success. ‘The Simpsons’ were crudely animated initially, right? So, it’s not necessarily that if you go spend a lot of money, it works,” Solomon said.
Bart Simpson plays esports in an episode of “The Simpsons” that aired on March 17, 2019.
Fox
At the same time the economics for actors, writers and the industry as a whole changed.
“The problem is that the cost increases don’t make sense given the revenue models. Something got broken in this part of the business if that kind of increase happened and actors and writers don’t feel like they got their fair share,” DeBevoise said.
A growing disconnect
While many of Hollywood’s biggest studios are publicly traded and must share quarterly financial reports, there are no rules about providing streaming-viewership data. This lack of transparency has made recent contract negotiations between studios and the industry’s writers and actors especially contentious.
“There’s a frustration about how these people can get together and share this information and come up with something that is reasonable for both sides,” said Schiffman, the Georgetown professor. “But until that happens, in my view, this thing goes on until next year.”
Streaming studios, in particular, have long been reluctant to share data around viewership and don’t want compensation to be tied to the popularity of shows, including those that have been licensed from other studios.
This is in stark contrast to how linear television has handled popular shows. Traditionally, studios pay residuals, long-term payments, to those who worked on film and television shows after their initial release. Actors and writers get paid every time an episode or film runs on broadcast or cable television or when someone buys a DVD or Blu-ray Disc.
When it comes to streaming, there are no residual payments. Studios that get a licensing fee pass on a small sum to actors and writers, but no additional compensation is given if the show performs well on the platform. Actors, in particular, are looking to change this.
“Why I think the streaming model has been a difficult model for the actors and writers, and I was part of helping that model, is that there was a fundamental shift of long-term versus short-term economics that likely wasn’t properly understood or explained,” said DeBevoise.
Back to the future
Media companies’ effort to make streaming profitable is drawing out many of the old business models that were successful in the past.
The subscription streaming model is being subsidized now by tried and true models like advertising, licensing content to other platforms, cracking down on password sharing, and windowing content to different platforms with longer stretches of time in between.
“Netflix understood finally, because of the Street, that subscriber numbers don’t mean jack, if the economics don’t pencil out,” said Peter Csathy, founder and chair of advisory firm Creative Media.
Even the pay TV bundle, despite rampant cord cutting by consumers, remains a reliable source of revenue.
The recent dispute between Charter Communications and Disney highlighted this fact, and led to Disney+ and ESPN+ being bundled with some pay TV subscriptions.
“We, the distributors, are funding the streaming experience. And it’s frankly a better content experience on streaming than what is provided to us on linear TV,” said Rob Thun, chief content officer at DirecTV. “These companies will cease to exist without the funding of distributors’ licensing fees. Perhaps this is a moment of awakening.”
Disney and even Netflix, which long resisted ads, are among the companies relying more on ad-supported offerings to boost subscriber growth and bring in another revenue stream, even as the ad market has been soft.
This is especially true as free, ad-supported streaming services like Fox Corp.’s Tubi and Paramount’s Pluto — which are likened to broadcast networks — have also exploded. Besides the parent companies leaning on the ad revenue from these platforms, other media companies, like Warner Bros. Discovery, are funneling content there for licensing fees.
“In terms of the business models, they all ‘work,'” said DeBevoise. He noted paid tiers for the more expensive, timely content will remain, while free and options with commercials will support the older library shows and movie. “There are going to be hybrid models that reincarnate the dual-revenue cable TV model with both a subscription fee and ads. It’s all going to be about price-to-value and time-to-value for the consumer.”
Disclosure: Comcast is the parent company of NBCUniversal and CNBC.
Formula One F1 – United States Grand Prix – Circuit of the Americas, Austin, Texas, U.S. – October 23, 2022 Tim Cook waves the chequered flag to the race winner Red Bull’s Max Verstappen
Mike Segar | Reuters
Apple had two major launches last month. They couldn’t have been more different.
First, Apple revealed some of the artificial intelligence advancements it had been working on in the past year when it released developer versions of its operating systems to muted applause at its annual developer’s conference, WWDC. Then, at the end of the month, Apple hit the red carpet as its first true blockbuster movie, “F1,” debuted to over $155 million — and glowing reviews — in its first weekend.
While “F1” was a victory lap for Apple, highlighting the strength of its long-term outlook, the growth of its services business and its ability to tap into culture, Wall Street’s reaction to the company’s AI announcements at WWDC suggest there’s some trouble underneath the hood.
“F1” showed Apple at its best — in particular, its ability to invest in new, long-term projects. When Apple TV+ launched in 2019, it had only a handful of original shows and one movie, a film festival darling called “Hala” that didn’t even share its box office revenue.
Despite Apple TV+ being written off as a costly side-project, Apple stuck with its plan over the years, expanding its staff and operation in Culver City, California. That allowed the company to build up Hollywood connections, especially for TV shows, and build an entertainment track record. Now, an Apple Original can lead the box office on a summer weekend, the prime season for blockbuster films.
The success of “F1” also highlights Apple’s significant marketing machine and ability to get big-name talent to appear with its leadership. Apple pulled out all the stops to market the movie, including using its Wallet app to send a push notification with a discount for tickets to the film. To promote “F1,” Cook appeared with movie star Brad Pitt at an Apple store in New York and posted a video with actual F1 racer Lewis Hamilton, who was one of the film’s producers.
(L-R) Brad Pitt, Lewis Hamilton, Tim Cook, and Damson Idris attend the World Premiere of “F1: The Movie” in Times Square on June 16, 2025 in New York City.
Jamie Mccarthy | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images
Although Apple services chief Eddy Cue said in a recent interview that Apple needs the its film business to be profitable to “continue to do great things,” “F1” isn’t just about the bottom line for the company.
Apple’s Hollywood productions are perhaps the most prominent face of the company’s services business, a profit engine that has been an investor favorite since the iPhone maker started highlighting the division in 2016.
Films will only ever be a small fraction of the services unit, which also includes payments, iCloud subscriptions, magazine bundles, Apple Music, game bundles, warranties, fees related to digital payments and ad sales. Plus, even the biggest box office smashes would be small on Apple’s scale — the company does over $1 billion in sales on average every day.
But movies are the only services component that can get celebrities like Pitt or George Clooney to appear next to an Apple logo — and the success of “F1” means that Apple could do more big popcorn films in the future.
“Nothing breeds success or inspires future investment like a current success,” said Comscore senior media analyst Paul Dergarabedian.
But if “F1” is a sign that Apple’s services business is in full throttle, the company’s AI struggles are a “check engine” light that won’t turn off.
Replacing Siri’s engine
At WWDC last month, Wall Street was eager to hear about the company’s plans for Apple Intelligence, its suite of AI features that it first revealed in 2024. Apple Intelligence, which is a key tenet of the company’s hardware products, had a rollout marred by delays and underwhelming features.
Apple spent most of WWDC going over smaller machine learning features, but did not reveal what investors and consumers increasingly want: A sophisticated Siri that can converse fluidly and get stuff done, like making a restaurant reservation. In the age of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude and Google’s Gemini, the expectation of AI assistants among consumers is growing beyond “Siri, how’s the weather?”
The company had previewed a significantly improved Siri in the summer of 2024, but earlier this year, those features were delayed to sometime in 2026. At WWDC, Apple didn’t offer any updates about the improved Siri beyond that the company was “continuing its work to deliver” the features in the “coming year.” Some observers reduced their expectations for Apple’s AI after the conference.
“Current expectations for Apple Intelligence to kickstart a super upgrade cycle are too high, in our view,” wrote Jefferies analysts this week.
Siri should be an example of how Apple’s ability to improve products and projects over the long-term makes it tough to compete with.
It beat nearly every other voice assistant to market when it first debuted on iPhones in 2011. Fourteen years later, Siri remains essentially the same one-off, rigid, question-and-answer system that struggles with open-ended questions and dates, even after the invention in recent years of sophisticated voice bots based on generative AI technology that can hold a conversation.
Apple’s strongest rivals, including Android parent Google, have done way more to integrate sophisticated AI assistants into their devices than Apple has. And Google doesn’t have the same reflex against collecting data and cloud processing as privacy-obsessed Apple.
Some analysts have said they believe Apple has a few years before the company’s lack of competitive AI features will start to show up in device sales, given the company’s large installed base and high customer loyalty. But Apple can’t get lapped before it re-enters the race, and its former design guru Jony Ive is now working on new hardware with OpenAI, ramping up the pressure in Cupertino.
“The three-year problem, which is within an investment time frame, is that Android is racing ahead,” Needham senior internet analyst Laura Martin said on CNBC this week.
Apple’s services success with projects like “F1” is an example of what the company can do when it sets clear goals in public and then executes them over extended time-frames.
Its AI strategy could use a similar long-term plan, as customers and investors wonder when Apple will fully embrace the technology that has captivated Silicon Valley.
Wall Street’s anxiety over Apple’s AI struggles was evident this week after Bloomberg reported that Apple was considering replacing Siri’s engine with Anthropic or OpenAI’s technology, as opposed to its own foundation models.
The move, if it were to happen, would contradict one of Apple’s most important strategies in the Cook era: Apple wants to own its core technologies, like the touchscreen, processor, modem and maps software, not buy them from suppliers.
Using external technology would be an admission that Apple Foundation Models aren’t good enough yet for what the company wants to do with Siri.
“They’ve fallen farther and farther behind, and they need to supercharge their generative AI efforts” Martin said. “They can’t do that internally.”
Apple might even pay billions for the use of Anthropic’s AI software, according to the Bloomberg report. If Apple were to pay for AI, it would be a reversal from current services deals, like the search deal with Alphabet where the Cupertino company gets paid $20 billion per year to push iPhone traffic to Google Search.
The company didn’t confirm the report and declined comment, but Wall Street welcomed the report and Apple shares rose.
In the world of AI in Silicon Valley, signing bonuses for the kinds of engineers that can develop new models can range up to $100 million, according to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.
“I can’t see Apple doing that,” Martin said.
Earlier this week, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg sent a memo bragging about hiring 11 AI experts from companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google’s DeepMind. That came after Zuckerberg hired Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang to lead a new AI division as part of a $14.3 billion deal.
Meta’s not the only company to spend hundreds of millions on AI celebrities to get them in the building. Google spent big to hire away the founders of Character.AI, Microsoft got its AI leader by striking a deal with Inflection and Amazon hired the executive team of Adept to bulk up its AI roster.
Apple, on the other hand, hasn’t announced any big AI hires in recent years. While Cook rubs shoulders with Pitt, the actual race may be passing Apple by.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk speaks alongside U.S. President Donald Trump to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images
Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who bombarded President Donald Trump‘s signature spending bill for weeks, on Friday made his first comments since the legislation passed.
Musk backed a post on X by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who said the bill’s budget “explodes the deficit” and continues a pattern of “short-term politicking over long-term sustainability.”
The House of Representatives narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on Thursday, sending it to Trump to sign into law.
Paul and Musk have been vocal opponents of Trump’s tax and spending bill, and repeatedly called out the potential for the spending package to increase the national debt.
On Monday, Musk called it the “DEBT SLAVERY bill.”
The independent Congressional Budget Office has said the bill could add $3.4 trillion to the $36.2 trillion of U.S. debt over the next decade. The White House has labeled the agency as “partisan” and continuously refuted the CBO’s estimates.
The bill includes trillions of dollars in tax cuts, increased spending for immigration enforcement and large cuts to funding for Medicaid and other programs.
It also cuts tax credits and support for solar and wind energy and electric vehicles, a particularly sore spot for Musk, who has several companies that benefit from the programs.
“I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!” Trump wrote in a social media post in early June as the pair traded insults and threats.
Shares of Tesla plummeted as the feud intensified, with the company losing $152 billion in market cap on June 5 and putting the company below $1 trillion in value. The stock has largely rebounded since, but is still below where it was trading before the ruckus with Trump.
Tesla one-month stock chart.
— CNBC’s Kevin Breuninger and Erin Doherty contributed to this article.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike