I don’t see how you can draw that conclusion. If ⅔ of people replaced a subscription by 2 other, more expensive ones and the other ⅓ took their first subscription, the market grew by 150%.

I’m more than fairly sure that didn’t happen, but the data they provide doesn’t exclude it (even knowing that Netflix lost subscribers doesn’t rule out that scenario)

> they worked to keep costs flat, rather than allocate more budget.

If they did, I wouldn’t call that “subscription fatigue”.