Thanks. That headline is malpractice, as it gives the impression of a near quote

I don't know what the streaming services have been paying for their content, so its hard to evaluate whether the content has been given away below FMV. However, I do know that the way things are moving now into everyone and their dog having their own streaming brand is also not going to work long term. Not for me, and not for anyone else either. No-one wants to subscribe to 101 different services. Either there will be some sort of reconsoliation, or we'll resort to buying shows a-la-carte, or people will switch services every week, or as a last resort back to piracy.

Imagine if someone came along and bundled all the streaming services into one.

or make all content available on demand from any service. the streaming brand isn't important beyond reliable delivery. each show has value to a limited set of viewers. The maximize revenue for piece of content, make it available to any streaming service and deliver it anyway they want, price per plate, monthly fee, with advertising.

Last resort? Nah, minor inconvenience and I’ll go back to sailing.

I agree with your main point.

FWIW, FMV is agnostic of cost.

The actual quote is valuable, but if the CFO had been caught on a hot mic saying the exact words in the headline, would that have been all that different? The intentions are the same, just without the PR department whitewashing things. ChatGPT can take the phrase

> "Warner Bros. CFO Thinks You Deadbeats Have Been on a Free Ride for Way Too Long"

and rewrite it as

> "It has come to our attention that a significant portion of our consumer base has been leveraging our content without contributing to its monetization. We believe it's time to reevaluate this unsustainable model to ensure long-term value creation for all stakeholders involved."

It can further rewrite that as

> "Enough freeloaders. Time to pay up if you want to keep enjoying our content."

It's almost as if the way you say things matter a lot.

Only in so far as the way you say it contributes to the content you're framing. What you mean is the message, however badly the map is drawn.

Agree, clickbait headline.

A more dispassionate (and informative) newsletter I like about the economics of Hollywood is https://entertainment.substack.com

That's on him though. And 'given away'? As if the consumers that pay for access are getting that for free. If the CFO of Warner Bros. can't be bothered to read the contracts before signing them that's really his problem, not the problem of either the counterparty (the streaming services) or the general public.

> I think it's valid to say that the streaming services have been focused on growth rather than profits for the past several years, and that's changing as the era of cheap money ends.

Or to put differently, now that a majority of the audience has been pulled into the streaming world by years of loss-leading pricing, it's time to let the trap snap shut.

Its not valid to talk about fair market value on any product given a monopoly government though. By definition the product will be priced above fair market value because of the monopoly