Opinion
Guest Essay
Netflix’s
Swallowing of Warner Bros. Will Be the End of Hollywood
Dec. 6,
2025
By Roy
Price
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/06/opinion/netflix-warner-bros-hollywood.html
Mr. Price
is the chief executive of International Art Machine, an entertainment studio,
and was previously the head of Amazon Studios.
For a
century, people have been predicting the death of Hollywood. Television would
kill it, then home video, then the internet, then streaming, then artificial
intelligence. The predictions were always premature. Hollywood always
reinvented itself and kept going.
But if
Netflix acquires Warner Bros., this long-prophesied death may finally arrive,
not in the sense that filmmaking will cease but in the sense that Hollywood
will become a system that circles a single sun, materially changing its
cultural output. All orbits — every deal, every creative decision, every
creative career — will increasingly revolve around the gravitational mass and
imprimatur of one entity.
The
danger here is not annihilation but centralization. Netflix is the No. 1
premium streaming service. Warner Bros. is one of the most successful of the
legacy film studios, and HBO has long been the premier brand in prestige
television. These are not middling players; they are two of the main pillars of
the modern entertainment industry.
The scale
in itself should give regulators pause. Netflix will spend roughly $18 billion
this year on content, and Warner Bros. will spend around $20 billion. In a very
inclusive analysis that counts sports rights and similar categories, KPMG
estimated that the top 12 U.S. media and entertainment companies together spent
$210 billion in 2024, so this merger would roughly double Netflix’s share of
industry spending, to 18 percent from 9 percent.
Defenders
of the deal could argue that consumer prices won’t rise. But antitrust law is
not limited to mergers’ effect on prices. Regulators can object to mergers that
reduce consumer choice even when prices remain flat, as we saw in the proposed
merger, since blocked, of JetBlue and Spirit Airlines.
The
consideration of consumer choice is particularly relevant in a
culture-producing industry. When two of the most important sources of premium
programming are combined, the marketplace loses an entire programming
philosophy: a unique sensibility; a separate development culture; an
independent set of tastes, relationships and risk thresholds.
Having
fewer bidders generally means that fewer shows get made. Fewer visions means a
narrower range of storytelling. Consolidation aligns decision making around one
organization’s or one individual’s point of view. If the merger proceeds, the
feature-film development ecosystem, already imperiled, will be further
constrained, leading to fewer and less interesting movies. And will this new
entity nurture the kind of risky sensibility that brought us premium television
like “The Sopranos” and “The White Lotus”?
But
nowhere will the effects be more consequential than in the business of
theatrical film. Warner Bros. is a cornerstone of the movie theater
distribution system, reliably accounting for more than 15 percent of the
major-studio theatrical box office. Netflix, by contrast, has been explicitly
hostile to theatrical releases. Ted Sarandos, a chief executive of Netflix, has
suggested he would preserve Warner Bros.’ strategy, but assurances made
premerger have a habit of melting away postmerger, when cost pressures and
quarterly incentives take over. If Netflix chooses to shrink or eliminate
Warner’s theatrical slate, theatergoers across America will feel the impact
immediately.
In making
a case for approval, Netflix may argue that the market in which it operates is
not limited to premium film and television but rather encompasses the entire
universe of human amusement — TikTok, YouTube, sports, games, books and even
taking a walk. This is a standard tactic: Define the market so broadly that
dominance becomes mathematically impossible.
But
producers can’t sell a television show to taking a walk. A Netflix merger with
Warner Bros. would create a monopsony problem: too few buyers with too much
bargaining power. Writers, directors, actors, showrunners, puppeteers, visual
effects artists — all are suppliers. The fewer buyers competing to hire them,
the lower their compensation and the narrower their opportunities. This
reasoning essentially spurred the Department of Justice to block the proposed
Penguin Random House merger with Simon & Schuster in 2022. In that case,
the issue was not consumer prices; it was the diminished bargaining power of
authors. The analogy to Hollywood is nearly perfect.
Hollywood
has survived many predicted deaths. But it has never tested what happens when
the number of major creative buyers collapses toward one dominant center of
gravity. A merger between Netflix and Warner Bros. wouldn’t destroy Hollywood,
but it would flatten its creative diversity, weaken its theatrical channel and
bring a huge cultural category under the near-total control of a single
company.
Roy Price
is the chief executive of International Art Machine, an entertainment studio,
and was previously the head of Amazon Studios.
Source
photograph by AaronP/Bauer-Griffin/Getty Images


Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário