Share

Subscribe now

Probably the hardest introduction to write is an introduction to a “farewell” piece.

(Though, as I’ll clarify, this is a partial farewell. Call it a semi-farewell.)

For those who don’t know, I’ve been writing guest pieces for Richard Rushfield going back to 2019. That’s right! Richard asked me wayyyyyyy back in the day (before Disney+ and Apple TV had even launched!) to attempt to value The Irishman’s streaming performance on Netflix as if that film had come out in theaters, using whatever data we could find. And I did! (Note: I don’t think it made money.) When The Ankler launched as a broader media platform, I wrote a weekly column, which eventually transitioned to a twice-a-month column I’ve been writing for four years now.

You may have noticed, though, that I haven’t published as much recently here, and that’s because I’m transitioning out of my regular columnist role to focus primarily on my own Substack newsletter/website.

You won’t be rid of me at The Ankler, though! You’ll still see me around these parts writing longer pieces and special series. I love The Ankler and its indispensable journalism, from Richard’s rightful calling to account of Hollywood’s power brokers, Sean McNulty’s daily in-depth news briefs to stay up to date on everything and Lesley Goldberg’s interviews with key decision makers, to Elaine Low’s terrific Ankler Agenda podcast and Matthew Frank’s dives into the film business, not to mention all the other terrific writers in the fold.

Before I step back here, allow me a quick journey through my Ankler archives to highlight a few of my favorite pieces, series, ideas and debunkings of the last few years. Scanning through my work here, I’m reminded how much I loved writing these columns and how much I appreciate The Ankler for amplifying my voice. Thank you, Richard and Janice.

Get 30% off a group subscription

My Favorite Articles

I. The American Viewer Series

This is probably the most cited series I’ve written for The Ankler, so I’ll just say most folks should reread it:

And an update here:

Is this series ripe for another update as our politics and culture appear to have undergone so many drastic shifts in recent years? Absolutely.

Share

Give a gift subscription

II. Let’s Pop Some Bubbles!

I hate hype, and I love trying to pop bubbles before they inflate. In 2022, in particular, I called out the streaming production bubble, and after the strikes of 2023, it definitely popped.

Based on that article’s success, I called out a few more bubbles in 2022 and watched them pop too. Most recently, for example, we saw the production stage gold rush disappear.

I was skeptical of esports, and sure enough, investors have mostly lost money.

As for NFTs, I’m still waiting for these digital tokens to transform Hollywood, and have a feeling I always will be. (Notably, most NFT boosters seamlessly moved onto AI…)

Share

Get 30% off a group subscription

III. Over-Hyped Genres, Formats and Producers

Another favorite target: hype cycles for overrated genres or formats. It’s tempting, based on the success of a given show or film, to think that it represents a brand new model for others to emulate. More often than not, though, it’s a one-off that’s not easily repeated.

Take one of the first formats I called out: the foreign-language TV show.

In 2021, Squid Game took America by storm, and many folks opined that this represented a new model for streaming that would change the game. At the time and after, I was much more skeptical… and that skepticism has been vindicated. We’re still waiting for the next Squid Game, meaning an overseas juggernaut.

That’s hardly the only genre or format or sports league or producer I’ve doubted over the years, mostly calling out the hype in real time: animation for adults, Formula 1, musicals, sports documentaries and docu-series, celebrity production companies and more.

Over at my newsletter, I plan to keep calling out overhyped bubbles and fads. Recently, I looked at MrBeast and anime.

Share

IV. My Box Office Takes

Going back to my analysis of The Irishman, I hopped on the “films make more money when they go to theaters” train, and that’s mostly been borne out. After their brief, Covid-inspired dabbling with straight-to-streaming models, most streamers are now sending their high-priority films to theaters — and with the latest news out of Universal, now even longer than before! The exceptions are Netflix (which has tried to buy a traditional studio and seems to just hate going to the movies) and Apple (which doesn’t need to make money). Even Amazon is getting back in the theatrical game.

As I calculated twice, if the streamers just put their biggest films in theaters, that could revive the big box office of the 2010s. I also noted twice how, while we excoriate theatrical misses, we mostly ignore streaming bombs. And I called out the industry’s lack of animated films and its original animated film struggles.

Give a gift subscription

V. IP Rules!

I love IP.

That feels like a big confession to say out loud in Hollywood.

But it’s true! Marvel? Star Wars? Dungeons & Dragons? Game of Thrones? DC? Hook it to my veins, and I’ll go see it in theaters. Heck, I love the Avatar films... how many working journalists would admit that?

So yeah, I help power all those massive box office numbers for franchises at the movies. And guess what? Every time I look at the data, I feel vindicated in that assumption, as the top film charts remain dominated by sequels, franchise reboots or films based on popular IP. (Though where that last category can come from is also changing over time.)

Get 30% off a group subscription

VI. The ‘K-Shaped’ Economy

The “K-Shaped” economy was such a hyped notion in 2025 that it had the hallmarks of a good debunking topic for me… but the data actually supported it!

That’s right, we live in a bifurcating economy, where the rich can spend more than everyone else, and that’s defining strategy in the 2020s. In particular, Disney seems to have embraced the rich over the rest. This also explains, though, why “free” is such a valuable proposition, a topic I explored with both Tubi and FAST channels.

Share

Honorable Mentions

Before I go, here are some other articles I enjoyed writing — and that sparked a lot of conversation!

What I Got Wrong

There are a couple of topics, of course, that I wish I had given more attention to or where I called it wrong.

I wish I had written more on piracy. This is still one of the biggest issues hurting Hollywood studios, streamer and workers, and I haven’t written about it enough. (Neither have other industry publications, of course.)

One of my other early pieces was a fairly deep data dive arguing the “Streaming Wars are getting more competitive,” and indeed they were… at first. One of the remarkable facts of the Streaming Wars is that basically the traditional studios struggled to gain ground on Netflix over the last few years, something I thought at least a couple could do.

Speaking of Netflix, did I get it wrong? On the one hand, I thought the stock price was overvalued, and it plummeted in 2022, proving me right. On the other hand, the stock price went right back up, lapping Disney, Comcast, Paramount and others. The streamer’s attempt to buy Warner Bros. studio and streaming assets sent the stock down again, but when it lost the bidding war to Paramount, up it went.

Looking back through these pieces, I’m reminded how much the industry has changed since that first Irishman experiment — and how many of the same debates are still raging today.

Hollywood still loves a hype cycle. Investors still chase the next big thing. And someone still needs to look at the data and ask whether the story everyone is telling actually holds up.

I plan to keep doing that.

You’ll see some of those deep dives on my own newsletter going forward — and, occasionally, right here at The Ankler.

So this isn’t quite goodbye. I’ll be seeing you soon.

Leave a comment

Share

Share

Subscribe now

I offer analysis for paid subscribers every other Thursday. I wrote about the overhyped valuations of A24 and Angel Studios; covered 7 sleeper hits of the Streaming Wars; and explored why animation continues to make bank and IP dominates the box office.

This year, Netflix had two of its biggest hits of all time with KPop Demon Hunters and Happy Gilmore 2.

That’s the good news.

The bad news? Everything else. I’d be surprised if anyone could answer these questions about some of the top streaming films in 2025:

• Can you name the top three Netflix original films after KPop and Gilmore?

• What’s the biggest non-F1 Apple original in 2025?

• Prime Video had a film starring Eddie Murphy and Pete Davidson come out in August. What was it called?

If you struggled with those, congratulations — you’re exactly like everyone else. And that’s the problem. In 2025, most streaming “hits” might as well be witness protection programs for movies.

Which is why the three headlines below from early November matter so much. They explain the real economics of where film is going — and why so many filmmakers are suddenly reconsidering their allegiances.

On Nov. 6, I saw this headline in The Wrap:

On the same day, The Hollywood Reporter gave us our first hint as to why Cregger might make such a choice:

For the most successful film in Netflix history Sony got… a $15 million bonus? That’s it? A couple of weeks later, The Wrap also provided a scoop that puts that number in context:

In other words, if you want to get paid, theatrical films still offer the biggest upside.

Of course, that’ll only be the case if theaters keep, you know, existing.

Box office watchers (myself included) have already turned toward 2026, asking the biggest question of all: Can the domestic box office ever climb back above $10 billion, as it routinely did in the Before Times (pre-Covid)?

Maybe in 2026. The line-up of films looks legitimately strong, with Amazon MGM Studios’ biggest flick, Project Hail Mary,1 potentially kicking things off in March, a Mario movie for April, a Star Wars film in May, a Toy Story film in June and the year finishing off with an Avengers movie, not to mention a number of other potential blockbusters like the Michael Jackson biopic and a new Minions film.

But we do have to get there. As optimistic as I was for the start of 2025, domestic results haven’t lived up to expectations. Even as theaters had two big, big films to anchor November, box office weekends last month were down compared to the same weekends in 2024. And those weekends come off the heels of a (very well covered) extremely underwhelming October.

But where’s all the handwringing over the state of straight-to-streaming films?

If you’re worried about the future of feature films — and you should be — then you should also worry about streaming. Streaming has had a better first 10 months than it had in 2024, but only just barely. Worse, the streamers launched very few new franchises, and most streaming films remain all but anonymous in the larger cultural conversation.

Worse, I think the streamers left $1.5 billion or more in box office on the table in 2025.

In today’s newsletter, I’ll cover:

• My chart that shows what 18 top straight-to-streaming movies would have made if they had a theatrical release this year

• Netflix’s two undeniable smashes — and the data that exposes how little the rest of the streamers’ slates mattered

• My look at how each October opening weekend would have looked if select streaming movies had opened theatrically

• The fan-favorite genre missing entirely from October’s calendar — and the Netflix titles that prove the point

• A chart that reveals why “hours watched” is a fake flex for valuing movies

• How all this leads to the punchline (or punch in the gut): $1.5 billion in theatrical upside the streamers effectively threw away

Paid subscribers click here to keep reading …

Paid members click here to read

🔓Unlock to keep reading

The rest of this column is for paid subscribers only. Interested in a group sub for your team or company? Click here.

Share

Subscribe now

I offer analysis for paid subscribers every other Thursday. I wrote about the overhyped valuations of A24 and Angel Studios; covered 7 sleeper hits of the Streaming Wars; and explored why animation continues to make bank and IP dominates the box office.

This year, Netflix had two of its biggest hits of all time with KPop Demon Hunters and Happy Gilmore 2.

That’s the good news.

The bad news? Everything else. I’d be surprised if anyone could answer these questions about some of the top streaming films in 2025:

• Can you name the top three Netflix original films after KPop and Gilmore?

• What’s the biggest non-F1 Apple original in 2025?

• Prime Video had a film starring Eddie Murphy and Pete Davidson come out in August. What was it called?

If you struggled with those, congratulations — you’re exactly like everyone else. And that’s the problem. In 2025, most streaming “hits” might as well be witness protection programs for movies.

Which is why the three headlines below from early November matter so much. They explain the real economics of where film is going — and why so many filmmakers are suddenly reconsidering their allegiances.

On Nov. 6, I saw this headline in The Wrap:

On the same day, The Hollywood Reporter gave us our first hint as to why Cregger might make such a choice:

For the most successful film in Netflix history Sony got… a $15 million bonus? That’s it? A couple of weeks later, The Wrap also provided a scoop that puts that number in context:

In other words, if you want to get paid, theatrical films still offer the biggest upside.

Of course, that’ll only be the case if theaters keep, you know, existing.

Box office watchers (myself included) have already turned toward 2026, asking the biggest question of all: Can the domestic box office ever climb back above $10 billion, as it routinely did in the Before Times (pre-Covid)?

Maybe in 2026. The line-up of films looks legitimately strong, with Amazon MGM Studios’ biggest flick, Project Hail Mary,1 potentially kicking things off in March, a Mario movie for April, a Star Wars film in May, a Toy Story film in June and the year finishing off with an Avengers movie, not to mention a number of other potential blockbusters like the Michael Jackson biopic and a new Minions film.

But we do have to get there. As optimistic as I was for the start of 2025, domestic results haven’t lived up to expectations. Even as theaters had two big, big films to anchor November, box office weekends last month were down compared to the same weekends in 2024. And those weekends come off the heels of a (very well covered) extremely underwhelming October.

But where’s all the handwringing over the state of straight-to-streaming films?

If you’re worried about the future of feature films — and you should be — then you should also worry about streaming. Streaming has had a better first 10 months than it had in 2024, but only just barely. Worse, the streamers launched very few new franchises, and most streaming films remain all but anonymous in the larger cultural conversation.

Worse, I think the streamers left $1.5 billion or more in box office on the table in 2025.

In today’s newsletter, I’ll cover:

• My chart that shows what 18 top straight-to-streaming movies would have made if they had a theatrical release this year

• Netflix’s two undeniable smashes — and the data that exposes how little the rest of the streamers’ slates mattered

• My look at how each October opening weekend would have looked if select streaming movies had opened theatrically

• The fan-favorite genre missing entirely from October’s calendar — and the Netflix titles that prove the point

• A chart that reveals why “hours watched” is a fake flex for valuing movies

• How all this leads to the punchline (or punch in the gut): $1.5 billion in theatrical upside the streamers effectively threw away

Share

Subscribe now

Read more

Share

Subscribe now

I offer analysis for paid subscribers every other Thursday. I wrote about the overhyped valuations of A24 and Angel Studios; covered 7 sleeper hits of the Streaming Wars; and explored why animation continues to make bank and IP dominates the box office.

Throughout the fall, as Zohran Mamdani surged to a lead he never relinquished in the mayoral race for America’s second-best city (Los Angeles being first, naturally), the public heard one word a lot: “affordability.” His winning race, among others in the Democratic electoral victory of last week, proved that affordability is the new (and winning) topic for Democrats.

I wrote about our diverging economy last March for The Ankler and have since seen more coverage of the “K-shaped” economy. That’s an economy which does well for the wealthy — who enjoy higher income, wealth and spending — but not for the bottom 80-95 percent who have been essentially left behind. This imbalance threatens many sectors of American life and could easily upend entertainment.

While all this electioneering was going on, I happened to take a trip to Orlando, Fla. and Walt Disney World. So let me tell you…

I get the “K-shaped” economy thing.

Going to Disney parks is really, really, really expensive. I mean, we paid more than $170 per person per day at the park. For a group of seven for two days, that ran to more than $2,500. (Yeah, some single-day tickets are as low as $104 per day… but good luck finding those on the calendar.) Toss in $100 meals, $30 “Lightning Lane” add-ons and the requisite merchandise, and it was a very pricey trip. (To see how much it used to cost, see below!)

As such, my family may not return to a Disney park anytime soon. And I say this as a SoCal native whose family typically treks to Disneyland at least once a year, if not more. In fact, we may not go back to Disneyland or Disney World until 2027. Sure, I’m just one person, but the price inflation at Disneyland has pushed our middle income family out of the annual visit group.

This got me wondering, has Disney really gone all-in on the rich over the poor? The bourgeoisie over the proletariat? The patricians over the plebes? And should the company and its market-defining theme parks be targeting all-in on the wealthiest Americans? Indeed, in Disney’s earnings call today the company reported more profitable numbers, thanks in no small part to a lot of price increases over the last year across theme parks and streaming.

Since I last warned about the bifurcation of the economy six months ago, the trends have gotten worse.

What does this imply about how companies should target their customers? Let’s use Disney as the case study.

In today’s newsletter, there’s plenty of shocking stats and also insight into Disney strategy. I’ll tell you:

• What Disney risks by chasing the top 10 percent of spenders — and why the next generation of fans may be the collateral damage

• The hard numbers behind America’s widening K-shaped economy

• How Disney raised prices, lowered attendance — and still hit record profits

• The math that explains why your last Disney trip felt packed even as the parks report fewer visitors.

• How soaring movie-ticket prices are pushing families out of theaters (and why studios aren’t motivated to fix it)

• Streaming price hikes are creating a two-tiered entertainment system and what that means for ratings

• Why Disney’s next decade hinges on one question: can a luxury brand still create mass-market fans?

Paid subscribers click here to keep reading …

Paid members click here to read

🔓Unlock to keep reading

The rest of this column is for paid subscribers only. Interested in a group sub for your team or company? Click here.

Share

Subscribe now

I offer analysis for paid subscribers every other Thursday. I wrote about the overhyped valuations of A24 and Angel Studios; covered 7 sleeper hits of the Streaming Wars; and explored why animation continues to make bank and IP dominates the box office.

Throughout the fall, as Zohran Mamdani surged to a lead he never relinquished in the mayoral race for America’s second-best city (Los Angeles being first, naturally), the public heard one word a lot: “affordability.” His winning race, among others in the Democratic electoral victory of last week, proved that affordability is the new (and winning) topic for Democrats.

I wrote about our diverging economy last March for The Ankler and have since seen more coverage of the “K-shaped” economy. That’s an economy which does well for the wealthy — who enjoy higher income, wealth and spending — but not for the bottom 80-95 percent who have been essentially left behind. This imbalance threatens many sectors of American life and could easily upend entertainment.

While all this electioneering was going on, I happened to take a trip to Orlando, Fla. and Walt Disney World. So let me tell you…

I get the “K-shaped” economy thing.

Going to Disney parks is really, really, really expensive. I mean, we paid more than $170 per person per day at the park. For a group of seven for two days, that ran to more than $2,500. (Yeah, some single-day tickets are as low as $104 per day… but good luck finding those on the calendar.) Toss in $100 meals, $30 “Lightning Lane” add-ons and the requisite merchandise, and it was a very pricey trip. (To see how much it used to cost, see below!)

As such, my family may not return to a Disney park anytime soon. And I say this as a SoCal native whose family typically treks to Disneyland at least once a year, if not more. In fact, we may not go back to Disneyland or Disney World until 2027. Sure, I’m just one person, but the price inflation at Disneyland has pushed our middle income family out of the annual visit group.

This got me wondering, has Disney really gone all-in on the rich over the poor? The bourgeoisie over the proletariat? The patricians over the plebes? And should the company and its market-defining theme parks be targeting all-in on the wealthiest Americans? Indeed, in Disney’s earnings call today the company reported more profitable numbers, thanks in no small part to a lot of price increases over the last year across theme parks and streaming.

Since I last warned about the bifurcation of the economy six months ago, the trends have gotten worse.

What does this imply about how companies should target their customers? Let’s use Disney as the case study.

In today’s newsletter, there’s plenty of shocking stats and also insight into Disney strategy. I’ll tell you:

• What Disney risks by chasing the top 10 percent of spenders — and why the next generation of fans may be the collateral damage

• The hard numbers behind America’s widening K-shaped economy

• How Disney raised prices, lowered attendance — and still hit record profits

• The math that explains why your last Disney trip felt packed even as the parks report fewer visitors.

• How soaring movie-ticket prices are pushing families out of theaters (and why studios aren’t motivated to fix it)

• Streaming price hikes are creating a two-tiered entertainment system and what that means for ratings

• Why Disney’s next decade hinges on one question: can a luxury brand still create mass-market fans?

Share

Subscribe now

Read more

Share

Subscribe now

I offer analysis for paid subscribers every other Thursday. I wrote about the overhyped valuations of A24 and Angel Studios; covered 7 sleeper hits of the Streaming Wars; and explored why animation continues to make bank and IP dominates the box office.

Hollywood has a profitability problem.

Oh, I don’t mean with the shift to streaming, though that is a real concern. No, I mean we can’t decide what “profitability” means.

No genre captures this confusion more than horror. It’s been heavily hyped in recent years, partially because when it hits, it hits big. Nabbing a 4,500 percent return on investment (as Terrifier 3 did) is majorly profitable, legit.

At the same time, as I’ve written before, horror isn’t as popular, nor as profitable, as big budget tentpole films. Very rarely do horror films “win” the year from a popularity standpoint, as in very few finish the year in the top 25 highest-grossing films in America.

What gives? How can a genre both be wildly profitable and not that profitable at the same time?

A few months back, Richard Rushfield wrote about the need to create a “new math” for evaluating feature films. I agree, and I focus on four tests of profitability:

• Total revenue

• Total profit

• Return on investment

• Hit rate (across a genre or other category of film)

I call these the “four factors” of film analysis, and I devised them in part to address this conundrum posed by horror films: a film (or genre) could succeed at any of the four factors above to be considered a “success.”

But success is subjective, depending on your stake in the game, since different folks in the feature film value chain care about different things. Theater owners, for example, don’t care about ROI; they need butts in seats (total revenue). The big studios care about ROI, but they care about total profit even more. Meanwhile, independent producers can thrive on return on investment, and everyone cares about the hit rate of various genres.

So let’s run that math for horror films. Bottom line: Horror excels by certain measures (hit rate and ROI) but has a much lower revenue ceiling than other genres. Plus, despite all the success in theaters, most horror films struggle on streaming.

In today’s newsletter, I’ll get into:

• How redefining profitability (across four factors) changes which genres actually win in Hollywood

• The ROI for horror vs. other genres

• Why horror is having its most profitable and least profitable moment — depending on how you count

• The math behind horror’s billion-dollar year

• The two data points that explain why theaters need horror more than horror needs theaters

• What streaming performance data reveals about horror’s biggest blind spot

• Why horror’s R rating keeps it from hitting the top — and what PG-13 titles are proving instead

• The surprising way horror outperforms “prestige” genres — and what that says about audience taste right now

• How horror will fare in the top 25 movies of 2025

Paid subscribers click here to keep reading …

Paid members click here to read

🔓Unlock to keep reading

The rest of this column is for paid subscribers only. Interested in a group sub for your team or company? Click here.

Share

Subscribe now

I offer analysis for paid subscribers every other Thursday. I wrote about the overhyped valuations of A24 and Angel Studios; covered 7 sleeper hits of the Streaming Wars; and explored why animation continues to make bank and IP dominates the box office.

Hollywood has a profitability problem.

Oh, I don’t mean with the shift to streaming, though that is a real concern. No, I mean we can’t decide what “profitability” means.

No genre captures this confusion more than horror. It’s been heavily hyped in recent years, partially because when it hits, it hits big. Nabbing a 4,500 percent return on investment (as Terrifier 3 did) is majorly profitable, legit.

At the same time, as I’ve written before, horror isn’t as popular, nor as profitable, as big budget tentpole films. Very rarely do horror films “win” the year from a popularity standpoint, as in very few finish the year in the top 25 highest-grossing films in America.

What gives? How can a genre both be wildly profitable and not that profitable at the same time?

A few months back, Richard Rushfield wrote about the need to create a “new math” for evaluating feature films. I agree, and I focus on four tests of profitability:

• Total revenue

• Total profit

• Return on investment

• Hit rate (across a genre or other category of film)

I call these the “four factors” of film analysis, and I devised them in part to address this conundrum posed by horror films: a film (or genre) could succeed at any of the four factors above to be considered a “success.”

But success is subjective, depending on your stake in the game, since different folks in the feature film value chain care about different things. Theater owners, for example, don’t care about ROI; they need butts in seats (total revenue). The big studios care about ROI, but they care about total profit even more. Meanwhile, independent producers can thrive on return on investment, and everyone cares about the hit rate of various genres.

So let’s run that math for horror films. Bottom line: Horror excels by certain measures (hit rate and ROI) but has a much lower revenue ceiling than other genres. Plus, despite all the success in theaters, most horror films struggle on streaming.

In today’s newsletter, I’ll get into:

• How redefining profitability (across four factors) changes which genres actually win in Hollywood

• The ROI for horror vs. other genres

• Why horror is having its most profitable and least profitable moment — depending on how you count

• The math behind horror’s billion-dollar year

• The two data points that explain why theaters need horror more than horror needs theaters

• What streaming performance data reveals about horror’s biggest blind spot

• Why horror’s R rating keeps it from hitting the top — and what PG-13 titles are proving instead

• The surprising way horror outperforms “prestige” genres — and what that says about audience taste right now

• How horror will fare in the top 25 movies of 2025

Share

Subscribe now

Read more

Share

Subscribe now

I offer analysis for paid subscribers every other Thursday. I wrote about why Paramount’s risky playbook could work, covered 7 sleeper hits of the Streaming Wars, and explored why animation continues to make bank and IP dominates the box office.

In my last article for The Ankler, I noted that a few new distribution companies (A24, Angel Studios and Mubi) had eye-popping higher valuations compared to traditional studios like Paramount, especially when looking at what David Ellison (and his father) paid to take control of all of Paramount Global.

Whenever I see valuations that high, I don’t trust them.

In layman’s terms, this bubble might be getting ready to pop. If there’s anything I love more than puncturing inflating bubbles, I don’t know what it is. Remember when I warned that studio lots were an inflating bubble? Take a gander at this Elaine Low headline from a few months back.

But also remember the hype machines of Esports, celebrity production companies and sports docs? Pop, pop, pop.

I bring these bubble questions up because two of very, very, very highly valued companies have been in the news recently. I speak of Angel (formerly known as Angel Studios, which was formerly VidAngel), which was valued at $1.6 billion when its SPAC deal closed just over a month ago, and A24, which nabbed a highly-publicized $3.5 billion valuation last year (when Josh Kushner’s Thrive Capital pumped in $75 million). Again, that A24 valuation is nearly half what Skydance and the Ellisons paid to gain control of all of Paramount Global — a company with some challenges, sure, but also a deep bench of significant assets. (Yes, Paramount Global as a whole is still worth over $30 billion, but considering Disney and Comcast said Hulu is worth over $27 billion, it still seems like a steal to me.)

So, how has 2025 gone for A24 and Angel Studios?

• Angel went public… and its stock has roughly dropped in half.

• Plus, Angel’s recent films (fantasy comedy Sketch and sports drama The Senior, which stars Michael Chiklis) both failed to break $10 million in total box office grosses.

• A24 had a glowing New Yorker profile (that referenced a previous Ankler article of mine!)

• But A24 also just had a string of box office misses, including a huge flop (The Smashing Machine), a disappointment (Eddington) and a miss (Ne Zha 2’s English-language dub)…

Given all that, it’s time to check back in on these buzzy companies. Frankly, now that we know exactly how much Angel is losing, it should make us question a lot of these other production company valuations. To be worth what they claim, A24 and Angel need to make lots of hit films, and I just don’t see the data that they do that.

In this article, I’ll get into…

• Angel’s grim (and worsening) financials — the devil’s in the details

• The film that drove Angel’s rise and why it was an anomaly

• What’s unique about Angel’s streamer, what’s really driving its rapid growth and whether its unusual model can ultimately pay off

• The good news for A24: Its growing share of the box office

• The bad news: The remarkable consistency — and unremarkable dollars — of the company’s box office outcomes

• Why it’s seeing higher-profile and ever-pricier flops (Smashing Machine)

• The projects in the pipeline that can put A24 in a much stronger position

• What both companies need to turn the tide

Paid subscribers click here to keep reading …

Paid members click here to read

🔓Unlock to keep reading

The rest of this column is for paid subscribers only. Interested in a group sub for your team or company? Click here.

Share

Subscribe now

I offer analysis for paid subscribers every other Thursday. I wrote about why Paramount’s risky playbook could work, covered 7 sleeper hits of the Streaming Wars; and explored why animation continues to make bank and IP dominates the box office.

In my last article for The Ankler, I noted that a few new distribution companies (A24, Angel Studios and Mubi) had eye-popping higher valuations compared to traditional studios like Paramount, especially when looking at what David Ellison (and his father) paid to take control of all of Paramount Global.

Whenever I see valuations that high, I don’t trust them.

In layman’s terms, this bubble might be getting ready to pop. If there’s anything I love more than puncturing inflating bubbles, I don’t know what it is. Remember when I warned that studio lots were an inflating bubble? Take a gander at this Elaine Low headline from a few months back.

But also remember the hype machines of Esports, celebrity production companies and sports docs? Pop, pop, pop.

I bring these bubble questions up because two of very, very, very highly valued companies have been in the news recently. I speak of Angel (formerly known as Angel Studios, which was formerly VidAngel), which was valued at $1.6 billion when its SPAC deal closed just over a month ago, and A24, which nabbed a highly-publicized $3.5 billion valuation last year (when Josh Kushner’s Thrive Capital pumped in $75 million). Again, that A24 valuation is nearly half what Skydance and the Ellisons paid to gain control of all of Paramount Global — a company with some challenges, sure, but also a deep bench of significant assets. (Yes, Paramount Global as a whole is still worth over $30 billion, but considering Disney and Comcast said Hulu is worth over $27 billion, it still seems like a steal to me.)

So, how has 2025 gone for A24 and Angel Studios?

• Angel went public… and its stock has roughly dropped in half.

• Plus, Angel’s recent films (fantasy comedy Sketch and sports drama The Senior, which stars Michael Chiklis) both failed to break $10 million in total box office grosses.

• A24 had a glowing New Yorker profile (that referenced a previous Ankler article of mine!)

• But A24 also just had a string of box office misses, including a huge flop (The Smashing Machine), a disappointment (Eddington) and a miss (Ne Zha 2’s English-language dub)…

Given all that, it’s time to check back in on these buzzy companies. Frankly, now that we know exactly how much Angel is losing, it should make us question a lot of these other production company valuations. To be worth what they claim, A24 and Angel need to make lots of hit films, and I just don’t see the data that they do that.

In this article, I’ll get into…

• Angel’s grim (and worsening) financials — the devil’s in the details

• The film that drove Angel’s rise and why it was an anomaly

• What’s unique about Angel’s streamer, what’s really driving its rapid growth and whether its unusual model can ultimately pay off

• The good news for A24: Its growing share of the box office

• The bad news: The remarkable consistency — and unremarkable dollars — of the company’s box office outcomes

• Why it’s seeing higher-profile and ever-pricier flops (Smashing Machine)

• The projects in the pipeline that can put A24 in a much stronger position

• What both companies need to turn the tide

Share

Subscribe now

Read more

Share

Subscribe now

I offer analysis for paid subscribers every other Thursday. I wrote about 7 sleeper hits of the Streaming Wars; why animation continues to make bank and IP dominates the box office; and the audience chart every exec should obsess over.

A few weeks back, Richard Rushfield published an excellent list of book recommendations to read to understand Hollywood. I’d add a few titles to his syllabus, mostly non-entertainment-industry-focused books to help this town run better. (I stand by my recommendation for A World Without Email, even more so in a time of AI slop.)

One critical book I’d recommend is The Goal by Eliyahu M. Goldratt. While it seems like it’s about manufacturing, it’s actually about operations management in general. In it, the all-knowing mentor asks a seemingly simple question I’ve seen bedevil business school students:

What is the purpose of a business?

Usually, students respond with some stammering about products and customers and matching and whatnot, but the point is that the goal of a firm — see the book’s title — is to make money. And how do you measure that? Eventually, Goldratt gets to three-ish items: the amount of money you bring in (cash flow), the profit you make from it , and the return on your investment (ROI).

I bring this up because, when it comes to evaluating companies in the Streaming Wars, we usually toss all that out for another metric entirely: stock price. Or “market capitalization,” the stock price multiplied by shares outstanding. In our current times, Netflix owns this metric absolutely. It’s currently valued at over $500 billion while Disney sits at a lowly $200 billion, and Warner Bros. Discovery is $45 billion. Not even the same ballpark!

But sometimes, these metrics get out of whack. See, stock price should roughly be the market price of a firm’s future cash flows, but when we start predicting the future — which is what current valuations do (to not go full technical, they’re the sum of future discounted cash flows) — well, we’re guessing at the future. Sometimes we’re right, and sometimes we’re wrong. Right now, the market looks particularly bubbly, with stock price valuations matching past peaks, like in 1929 and 1999. While markets are still efficient, the wisdom of the crowds this is not.

I’d add, the quest for “winner take all” firms has hit a frenzy, and everyone wants a part of the next firm that will monopolize1 its industry, like Apple with phones, Google with search, Facebook with social media, Nvidia with chips, and Amazon with e-commerce. The market has bet that Netflix will take that prize with TV. Indeed, the value of top firms as a share of the S&P 500 has also hit all-time highs.

It’s with that context that I still think Paramount (formerly Paramount Pictures, formerly Paramount Global, and now Paramount Skydance)2 is still the most undervalued asset in Hollywood. (Its market capitalization is only $10 billion; its total enterprise value, including debt, is around $30 billion.) When we focus on winners — meaning Netflix and YouTube in 2025 — we can’t forget that other companies are making money too. And now that Paramount Skydance is doubling down to win the Streaming Wars with its potential acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, I could see big things in its future.

In today’s article, I’ll lay out:

• How dominant CBS is in broadcast, and why that matters even as cord cutting grows

• Paramount+’s sneaky streaming success and recent hit-to-flop ratio

• The company’s theatrical wins, compelling projects in the pipeline and library strength — and they key genre where its movies aren’t winning

• Why I’m dubious about the industry consensus on Paramount’s planned cable sell-off

• Why its recent moves show a company ready to buy, not sell

• The chances of a WBD acquisition moving forward, and the major scale opportunity it represents

• What else Paramount Skydance should buy now

Paid subscribers click here to keep reading …

Paid members click here to read

The rest of this column is for paid subscribers only. Interested in a group sub for your team or company? Click here.

Share

Subscribe now

I offer analysis for paid subscribers every other Thursday. I wrote about 7 sleeper hits of the Streaming Wars; why animation continues to make bank and IP dominates the box office; and the audience chart every exec should obsess over.

A few weeks back, Richard Rushfield published an excellent list of book recommendations to read to understand Hollywood. I’d add a few titles to his syllabus, mostly non-entertainment-industry-focused books to help this town run better. (I stand by my recommendation for A World Without Email, even more so in a time of AI slop.)

One critical book I’d recommend is The Goal by Eliyahu M. Goldratt. While it seems like it’s about manufacturing, it’s actually about operations management in general. In it, the all-knowing mentor asks a seemingly simple question I’ve seen bedevil business school students:

What is the purpose of a business?

Usually, students respond with some stammering about products and customers and matching and whatnot, but the point is that the goal of a firm — see the book’s title — is to make money. And how do you measure that? Eventually, Goldratt gets to three-ish items: the amount of money you bring in (cash flow), the profit you make from it , and the return on your investment (ROI).

I bring this up because, when it comes to evaluating companies in the Streaming Wars, we usually toss all that out for another metric entirely: stock price. Or “market capitalization,” the stock price multiplied by shares outstanding. In our current times, Netflix owns this metric absolutely. It’s currently valued at over $500 billion while Disney sits at a lowly $200 billion, and Warner Bros. Discovery is $45 billion. Not even the same ballpark!

But sometimes, these metrics get out of whack. See, stock price should roughly be the market price of a firm’s future cash flows, but when we start predicting the future — which is what current valuations do (to not go full technical, they’re the sum of future discounted cash flows) — well, we’re guessing at the future. Sometimes we’re right, and sometimes we’re wrong. Right now, the market looks particularly bubbly, with stock price valuations matching past peaks, like in 1929 and 1999. While markets are still efficient, the wisdom of the crowds this is not.

I’d add, the quest for “winner take all” firms has hit a frenzy, and everyone wants a part of the next firm that will monopolize1 its industry, like Apple with phones, Google with search, Facebook with social media, Nvidia with chips, and Amazon with e-commerce. The market has bet that Netflix will take that prize with TV. Indeed, the value of top firms as a share of the S&P 500 has also hit all-time highs.

It’s with that context that I still think Paramount (formerly Paramount Pictures, formerly Paramount Global, and now Paramount Skydance)2 is still the most undervalued asset in Hollywood. (Its market capitalization is only $10 billion; its total enterprise value, including debt, is around $30 billion.) When we focus on winners — meaning Netflix and YouTube in 2025 — we can’t forget that other companies are making money too. And now that Paramount Skydance is doubling down to win the Streaming Wars with its potential acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, I could see big things in its future.

In today’s article, I’ll lay out:

• How dominant CBS is in broadcast, and why that matters even as cord cutting grows

• Paramount+’s sneaky streaming success and recent hit-to-flop ratio

• The company’s theatrical wins, compelling projects in the pipeline and library strength — and they key genre where its movies aren’t winning

• Why I’m dubious about the industry consensus on Paramount’s planned cable sell-off

• Why its recent moves show a company ready to buy, not sell

• The chances of a WBD acquisition moving forward, and the major scale opportunity it represents

• What else Paramount Skydance should buy now

Share

Subscribe now

Undervalued Assets of Paramount Global

To really explain what I mean about the valuation mismatch in Hollywood, it’s worth considering some very buzzy recent deals:

Read more

Share

Subscribe now

I offer analysis for paid subscribers every other Thursday. I wrote about 7 sleeper hits of the Streaming Wars; why animation continues to make bank and IP dominates the box office; and the audience chart every exec should obsess over.

Any good romantic comedy (romcom from here on out) follows a fairly well-worn story arc. The two love interests usually bump into each other (the meet-cute) and begin a whirlwind romance (often with some hijinks). Midway through, protagonists encounter some obstacles (and more hijinks ensue!), but eventually the lovebirds overcome their challenges (usually with more hijinks) and live happily ever after. (No more hijinks at this point, unless there is a sequel.)

To be clear, that’s the rough outline for American films. Shakespeare’s romances had much more tragic endings.

Funnily, we see that same narrative play out in the “genre hype cycle,” a term I just coined (you’re welcome). In Hollywood’s quest for the “next big thing,” at first everyone falls in love with a new genre (or a new take on an old genre). Then everyone goes all in on it at the same time, leading to over-saturation and audience burnout. And everyone pulls back. Of course, no genre ever really dies, but unlike the romcom, they may not thrive after the fall. So perhaps the genre hype cycle is more akin to the Shakespearean tragedy than the American romcom.

Take sports docuseries. A few years back, based on the success of Netflix’s Formula 1 show Drive to Survive — and a fairly-well-debunked-but-oft-repeated narrative that it was largely responsible for Formula 1’s rise in viewership — the town fell in love with sports docuseries. Eventually, the industry realized what I’ve been telling them for years: Sports docuseries don’t do as well as their hype. As such, the industry has cut their orders by half this year! I’d put foreign TV shows into the same hype-overhype-correction bucket. One could tell the same story for superhero films, starting in 2008.

I’m wondering if romcoms are about to enter a similar hype cycle. As dissected in this discussion by The Ankler podcast crew last week, romcoms seem definitely back on the buying menu, both in film and TV, as we’ve seen an uptick in new orders from studios and streamers.

So let’s look at the data. What does it say about this timeless genre and its future? And how can Hollywood innovate to make this kind of storytelling reach more audiences and not spam fans with too much and become, as the kids would say, a try-hard?

In today’s newsletter, I’ve got charts that are very instructive about what is happening with the audience.

I also will…

• 💝 Identify four clear opportunities to keep the spark alive in romcoms

• 💓 Plot the genre’s success on streaming, and which platform dominates

• 💘 Reveal where romance and romcom are crushing it now and reaching huge audiences

• 🫶🏼 Share some top-performing romantic sleeper hits on streaming, and the kind of show streamers should be making more of

• ❤️‍🩹 Take a hard look at the box office performance of romcoms and whether the buying spree makes sense

• 💔 Pinpoint when romcoms’ fate turned and how it affected development

• 💖 Look at the star strategy behind upcoming romcom swings

• 💗 Highlight new creators and platforms making the genre their own

Paid subscribers click here to keep reading …

Paid members click here to read

🔓Unlock to keep reading

The rest of this column is for paid subscribers only. Interested in a group sub for your team or company? Click here.

Image credits: Materialists: A24; Crazy Rich: Warner Bros/courtesy Everett Collection; Proposal: Walt Disney Co./Courtesy Everett Collection; 10 Days: Paramount/Courtesy Everett Collection; Greek Wedding: IFC Films/Courtesy Everett Collection

Share

Subscribe now

I offer analysis for paid subscribers every other Thursday. I wrote about 7 sleeper hits of the Streaming Wars; why animation continues to make bank and IP dominates the box office; and the audience chart every exec should obsess over.

Any good romantic comedy (romcom from here on out) follows a fairly well-worn story arc. The two love interests usually bump into each other (the meet-cute) and begin a whirlwind romance (often with some hijinks). Midway through, protagonists encounter some obstacles (and more hijinks ensue!), but eventually the lovebirds overcome their challenges (usually with more hijinks) and live happily ever after. (No more hijinks at this point, unless there is a sequel.)

To be clear, that’s the rough outline for American films. Shakespeare’s romances had much more tragic endings.

Funnily, we see that same narrative play out in the “genre hype cycle,” a term I just coined (you’re welcome). In Hollywood’s quest for the “next big thing,” at first everyone falls in love with a new genre (or a new take on an old genre). Then everyone goes all in on it at the same time, leading to over-saturation and audience burnout. And everyone pulls back. Of course, no genre ever really dies, but unlike the romcom, they may not thrive after the fall. So perhaps the genre hype cycle is more akin to the Shakespearean tragedy than the American romcom.

Take sports docuseries. A few years back, based on the success of Netflix’s Formula 1 show Drive to Survive — and a fairly-well-debunked-but-oft-repeated narrative that it was largely responsible for Formula 1’s rise in viewership — the town fell in love with sports docuseries. Eventually, the industry realized what I’ve been telling them for years: Sports docuseries don’t do as well as their hype. As such, the industry has cut their orders by half this year! I’d put foreign TV shows into the same hype-overhype-correction bucket. One could tell the same story for superhero films, starting in 2008.

I’m wondering if romcoms are about to enter a similar hype cycle. As dissected in this discussion by The Ankler podcast crew last week, romcoms seem definitely back on the buying menu, both in film and TV, as we’ve seen an uptick in new orders from studios and streamers.

So let’s look at the data. What does it say about this timeless genre and its future? And how can Hollywood innovate to make this kind of storytelling reach more audiences and not spam fans with too much and become, as the kids would say, a try-hard?

In today’s newsletter, I’ve got charts that are very instructive about what is happening with the audience.

I also will…

• 💝 Identify four clear opportunities to keep the spark alive in romcoms

• 💓 Plot the genre’s success on streaming, and which platform dominates

• 💘 Reveal where romance and romcom are crushing it now and reaching huge audiences

• 🫶🏼 Share some top-performing romantic sleeper hits on streaming, and the kind of show streamers should be making more of

• ❤️‍🩹 Take a hard look at the box office performance of romcoms and whether the buying spree makes sense

• 💔 Pinpoint when romcoms’ fate turned and how it affected development

• 💖 Look at the star strategy behind upcoming romcom swings

• 💗 Highlight new creators and platforms making the genre their own

Share

Subscribe now

Read more

Share

Subscribe now

I offer analysis for paid subscribers every other Thursday. I wrote about Disney’s worst-case scenario, 7 sleeper hits of the Streaming Wars; the 60M cable subscribers still to be won in streaming; and the audience chart every exec should obsess over.

Right now might seem like a strange time to write up a “worst-case scenario” for America’s largest streamer, YouTube

What could go wrong for YouTube? Seriously? CEO Neal Mohan has been touting the company’s successes, including a newsy podcast from Cannes Lions with Janice Min, amid the company’s rosy narrative.

I’d argue, though, that when things are going well is exactly when companies need to plan for the worst. You don’t prepare for disaster after it strikes.

So amidst the deluge of articles about YouTube’s terrific year — and 2025 really has gone well for the company that now dominates screen time on TVs as well as mobile devices — I want to step back and revisit the worst-case scenario for YouTube that I mapped out one year ago, almost to the day.

Yes, things are going well, but the history of Hollywood is rife with episodes of seemingly unstoppable giants falling (Paramount in the 1970s, CBS in the 2000s, Disney in the 2010s…). What risks could topple YouTube’s ascent?

In today’s newsletter. I will:

• Revisit the two long-standing threats YouTube still hasn’t solved

• Break down how Google’s antitrust losses could ripple into YouTube

• Explain why the legislation Hollywood wants most could be lethal for YouTube

• Weigh the upside — and danger — of AI’s growing role in YouTube’s future, and game out which scenario is more likely

• Assess the real threat of TikTok and its AI-powered short-form rivals

• Reveal a major Google stumble — and why YouTube may pay the price

• Offer a counternarrative re: YouTube’s headline-making race with Netflix over audience, creators and more

Paid subscribers click here to keep reading …

Paid members click here to read

🔓Unlock to keep reading

The rest of this column is for paid subscribers only. Interested in a group sub for your team or company? Click here.

Share

Subscribe now

I offer analysis for paid subscribers every other Thursday. I wrote about Disney’s worst-case scenario, 7 sleeper hits of the Streaming Wars; the 60M cable subscribers still to be won in streaming; and the audience chart every exec should obsess over.

Right now might seem like a strange time to write up a “worst-case scenario” for America’s largest streamer, YouTube

What could go wrong for YouTube? Seriously? CEO Neal Mohan has been touting the company’s successes, including a newsy podcast from Cannes Lions with Janice Min, amid the company’s rosy narrative.

I’d argue, though, that when things are going well is exactly when companies need to plan for the worst. You don’t prepare for disaster after it strikes.

So amidst the deluge of articles about YouTube’s terrific year — and 2025 really has gone well for the company that now dominates screen time on TVs as well as mobile devices — I want to step back and revisit the worst-case scenario for YouTube that I mapped out one year ago, almost to the day.

Yes, things are going well, but the history of Hollywood is rife with episodes of seemingly unstoppable giants falling (Paramount in the 1970s, CBS in the 2000s, Disney in the 2010s…). What risks could topple YouTube’s ascent?

In today’s newsletter. I will:

• Revisit the two long-standing threats YouTube still hasn’t solved

• Break down how Google’s antitrust losses could ripple into YouTube

• Explain why the legislation Hollywood wants most could be lethal for YouTube

• Weigh the upside — and danger — of AI’s growing role in YouTube’s future, and game out which scenario is more likely

• Assess the real threat of TikTok and its AI-powered short-form rivals

• Reveal a major Google stumble — and why YouTube may pay the price

• Offer a counternarrative re: YouTube’s headline-making race with Netflix over audience, creators and more

Share

Subscribe now

Read more

Share

Subscribe now

I offer analysis for paid subscribers every other Thursday. I wrote about 7 sleeper hits of the Streaming Wars; the 60M cable subscribers still to be won in streaming; how to bring $50M-$100M movies back; and the audience chart every exec should obsess over.

If I had to define the major media narrative of 2025, it would be the rise of YouTube. Seriously, I feel like every other newsletter I read has a headline that YouTube has “won” the Streaming Wars. (Though, of course, I disagree, since I don’t think we should ever declare victory in an ongoing competition!) The company’s CEO Neal Mohan has been all over the news, including in a conversation with Janice Min at Cannes Lions.

Of course, if someone’s rising, others need to fall. And the other favorite topic of 2025 is worrying about Disney, which has meant lots of commentary on Disney’s theatrical misses like Snow White, Captain America: Brave New World, and most recently, Elio. If any company looks to be headed to the kind of “worst-case scenario” I outlined a few years ago for entertainment’s top players — from Apple to Warner Bros. Discovery — it’s Disney.

Indeed, Disney’s stock doesn’t reflect a company riding a rocket ship at the moment (and yes, I know the market is filled with ridiculous price-to-earnings ratios and bubbles, and you can slap AI into a name and take off):

But you might say — live experiences and theme parks are the future of growth and Disney is doing great! Well, we’re not even back to pre-Covid attendance yet (I’ll get into the revenue significance of raised prices below though):

“Worst-case scenario” thinking is a useful exercise to crystallize threats facing any company and illuminate potential weaknesses. More than three years on from my last Disney analysis, it felt time to check in on the Mouse House under Bob Iger’s second reign as CEO, and whether it has steered further away from or closer to the “doom” scenario I hypothesized.

Let me get my usual throat clearing out of the way before I dive in. As I wrote when I started this series in 2022, I am not making predictions. Instead, I am looking at the, say, 1-in-20 scenario where everything goes wrong. What does that look like?

Today, I’ll update the 1-in-20 scenario I outlined for Disney in January 2022, assess how the company is faring and look at new risks ahead.

And there’s plenty of good and bad news for the Happiest Place on Earth…

Share

Disney’s Worst-Case Scenario: Content

In a sign of how fast things can change…

Paid subscribers click here to keep reading …

Paid members click here to read

🔓 Unlock to keep reading

The rest of this column is for paid subscribers only. Interested in a group sub for your team or company? Click here.

Share

Subscribe now

I offer analysis for paid subscribers every other Thursday. I wrote about 7 sleeper hits of the Streaming Wars; the 60M cable subscribers still to be won in streaming; how to bring $50M-$100M movies back; and the audience chart every exec should obsess over.

If I had to define the major media narrative of 2025, it would be the rise of YouTube. Seriously, I feel like every other newsletter I read has a headline that YouTube has “won” the Streaming Wars. (Though, of course, I disagree, since I don’t think we should ever declare victory in an ongoing competition!) The company’s CEO Neal Mohan has been all over the news, including in a conversation with Janice Min at Cannes Lions.

Of course, if someone’s rising, others need to fall. And the other favorite topic of 2025 is worrying about Disney, which has meant lots of commentary on Disney’s theatrical misses like Snow White, Captain America: Brave New World, and most recently, Elio. If any company looks to be headed to the kind of “worst-case scenario” I outlined a few years ago for entertainment’s top players — from Apple to Warner Bros. Discovery — it’s Disney.

Indeed, Disney’s stock doesn’t reflect a company riding a rocket ship at the moment (and yes, I know the market is filled with ridiculous price-to-earnings ratios and bubbles, and you can slap AI into a name and take off):

But you might say — live experiences and theme parks are the future of growth and Disney is doing great! Well, we’re not even back to pre-Covid attendance yet (I’ll get into the revenue significance of raised prices below though):

“Worst-case scenario” thinking is a useful exercise to crystallize threats facing any company and illuminate potential weaknesses. More than three years on from my last Disney analysis, it felt time to check in on the Mouse House under Bob Iger’s second reign as CEO, and whether it has steered further away from or closer to the “doom” scenario I hypothesized.

Let me get my usual throat clearing out of the way before I dive in. As I wrote when I started this series in 2022, I am not making predictions. Instead, I am looking at the, say, 1-in-20 scenario where everything goes wrong. What does that look like?

Today, I’ll update the 1-in-20 scenario I outlined for Disney in January 2022, assess how the company is faring and look at new risks ahead.

And there’s plenty of good and bad news for the Happiest Place on Earth…

Share

Disney’s Worst-Case Scenario: Content

In a sign of how fast things can change…

Read more

Share

Subscribe now

As a guy who dives into data every week, I often get asked the question, “Hey, what’s doing well in streaming?” And when I respond with the same-old chart-topping titles everyone has heard of — Squid Game! Landman! Fallout! —They ask, No, but what’s the hidden gem that no one knows about? What great genre or format should the streamers and studios be developing next?

As much as I wish I possessed some sort of Masonic knowledge, I’m analyzing the same viewership data as everyone else. If some breakout show or disruptive genre had snuck up on us and was secretly incredibly, vastly popular, you probably would have heard of it, right?

As I often remind folks, entertainment is still a “winner takes all” endeavor. The most popular shows and films and YouTube channels and songs aren’t just a little bigger than everything else — they’re multiples more popular. As a reminder, Minecraft has made as much money at the U.S. box office as the 28th to 100th biggest films this year put together.)

But sometimes shows do fly under the radar, surprising even me at how popular they become (I attribute a lot of this to the tastes of people who work in media and the kind of shows they, for example, like to recap and not). Even in today’s shattered media ecosystem, some shows quietly become monster sleeper hits. Today, I’m focusing on shows that came out either in 2024 or 2025, using the three viewership charts that put out weekly top 10 lists publicly: Nielsen, Luminate and Samba TV.

Here are my seven sleepers, none of which had the “buzz” that gets press per se, and one that started out so slow that it didn’t seem to stand a chance. I’m providing the hard data that shows what worked and why and on what platform:

Paid subscribers click here to keep reading …

Paid members click here to read

🔒Unlock to keep reading

The rest of this column is for paid subscribers only. Interested in a group sub for your team or company? Click here.

Share

Subscribe now

As a guy who dives into data every week, I often get asked the question, “Hey, what’s doing well in streaming?” And when I respond with the same-old chart-topping titles everyone has heard of — Squid Game! Landman! Fallout! —They ask, No, but what’s the hidden gem that no one knows about? What great genre or format should the streamers and studios be developing next?

As much as I wish I possessed some sort of Masonic knowledge, I’m analyzing the same viewership data as everyone else. If some breakout show or disruptive genre had snuck up on us and was secretly incredibly, vastly popular, you probably would have heard of it, right?

As I often remind folks, entertainment is still a “winner takes all” endeavor. The most popular shows and films and YouTube channels and songs aren’t just a little bigger than everything else — they’re multiples more popular. As a reminder, Minecraft has made as much money at the U.S. box office as the 28th to 100th biggest films this year put together.)

But sometimes shows do fly under the radar, surprising even me at how popular they become (I attribute a lot of this to the tastes of people who work in media and the kind of shows they, for example, like to recap and not). Even in today’s shattered media ecosystem, some shows quietly become monster sleeper hits. Today, I’m focusing on shows that came out either in 2024 or 2025, using the three viewership charts that put out weekly top 10 lists publicly: Nielsen, Luminate and Samba TV.

Here are my seven sleepers, none of which had the “buzz” that gets press per se, and one that started out so slow that it didn’t seem to stand a chance. I’m providing the hard data that shows what worked and why and on what platform:

Read more

Share

Subscribe now

There’s a growth story in streaming that no one’s really telling — because it hasn’t happened yet.

Roughly 60 million people in the U.S. still watch cable or broadcast TV. As the subscription streaming market shows signs of saturation and even stagnation, this legacy audience represents the single biggest opportunity left — and the biggest question: Who will finally convert them?

This opportunity really stuck out to me as I analyzed one of my favorite data sets in the Streaming Wars:

Nielsen’s The Gauge, which measures total monthly viewing on TV sets in America, is the best independent snapshot of who’s watching what — and where the growth (or lack thereof) really is.

The Gauge provides not just a snapshot of streamer performance, but a rare window into the pace of transition from traditional TV to streaming — and right now, that transition is moving more slowly than many execs would like to admit.

So in this piece, I’m going to break down:

• How The Gauge works, and why it’s the best monthly view of the streaming market

• What it shows about who's actually growing, who's flatlining, and what that means

• The surprising stability of most major streamers

• Why FAST channels are rising, and why that matters

• And, most critically: what these numbers tell us about the 60 million cable holdouts — and who’s best positioned to win them

The numbers may look stable. But they point to a massive, still-open frontier: tens of millions of viewers who haven’t cut the cord — and aren’t subscribing to streaming yet either. That’s where the next real battle begins, and here is what data points to to inform how to win:

Paid subscribers click here to keep reading …

Paid members click here to read

🔒 Unlock to keep reading

The rest of this column is for paid subscribers only. Interested in a group sub for your team or company? Click here.

Image credits: sanapadh/Getty Images; Marat Musabirov/Getty Images; phanasitti/Getty Images; Surya Saputra Hutagalung/Getty Images; Chaidira/Getty Images