������Ƶ

As speculation swirls around Netflix’s potential acquisition of Warner Bros., reactions across the entertainment landscape have been unusually unified with online commentators, creators and fans from across different backgrounds expressing concern that the deal could mark the end of Hollywood.

For Fox Associate Professor of Marketing and Director of the Center for Consumer Research & Analytics (CRA) Jacob Hiler who not only is an expert in marketing and consumerism but also in the entertainment industry, he sees the deal as both concerning but also understandable from a consumer perspective and revenue generator.

“I don’t think it’s the end of Hollywood,” Hiler says. “It’s an evolution, a transition into something else.”

Still, he sees real risks in a merger of this magnitude, especially in a media climate already strained by consolidation, volatile box office returns and rising consumer frustration.

One of Hiler’s main concerns is competition. According to the , Hollywood’s early history included strict regulations designed to limit studio dominance, most notably United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. (1948), which forced major studios to divest their theater chains and banned practices like ‘block booking’ and ‘blind bidding.’ These measures aimed to protect creativity, support fair labor practices and ensure consumer choice, while also reshaping the business model of the film industry and opening the door for independent filmmakers. Today, Hiler says mergers like Netflix-Warner Bros. could threaten to reverse that stand.

“You take a competitive studio that would force Netflix to innovate and suddenly Netflix owns it,” he explains. “Competition is a force for good for consumers, for actors, for production crews and more working on films. The only people who don’t benefit really are the studio heads.”

With the acquisition of Warner Bros. comes a vault of high-value franchises such as “Harry Potter,” “DC Comics,” and “Game of Thrones,” to name a few – titles that could reshape Netflix’s identity.

For two decades, the company built its empire on original programming. According to Hiler, shows like “House of Cards” put the streaming service on the map and now we have original shows created by the platform like “Stranger Things” that have become a worldwide phenomenon and emerged because Netflix had to create original ideas since they didn’t have existing intellectual property (IP) to go off of.

“What happens when they don’t have to rely on creativity and creating new stuff?” Hiler asks. “Would ‘Stranger Things’ even exist if they already had a hundred famous properties to pull from?”

If Netflix acquires Warner Bros., Hiler fears it could repeat other entertainment conglomerate’s missteps of taking existing properties and shifting their tones, having inconsistent storytelling and adding extra mediums that would leave the casual fan behind.

“There is such a thing of asking too much of your consumer,” Hiler explains. “For example, Marvel is now creating films in which you must have seen the latest four movies, two TV series and more to truly understand what is going on. It requires the consumer to spend money and time at the movies and in these TV series to engage with their latest story. The average person shouldn’t need to do homework to watch a movie.”

With this, Netflix could choose to embrace its origins of creating its own content or lean into the library that Warner Bros. would provide that already have built-in audiences. Either could redefine expectations for consumers.

Hollywood’s risk tolerance has also collapsed, Hiler argues. With blockbuster budgets now pushing $400 million, before marketing, studios need near-billion-dollar returns to break even. That pressure convinces executives to return to familiar intellectual property, even if audiences grow bored with it.

Hiler adds that creating original hits is still possible, noting that movies like this year’s “Weapons” and “Sinners,” which were both new properties, dominated cultural conversations and box office charts this year.

“Those movies were amazing,” he says. “But do audiences want or need sequels to either of them? In my opinion, not really. They did their job, and we don’t need to overdo it by telling another story that isn’t necessary when the endings felt finalized. They were new and exciting, they worked and there’s no need for more.”

If Netflix becomes even more dominant, and more risk-averse, Hollywood could end up cycling the same stories indefinitely, he warns.

Despite broad concerns about consolidation, Hiler believes viewers could see some short-term benefits such as simpler bundles, larger libraries located in one spot and fewer platforms to juggle.

But the long-term economics worry him.

According to Hiler, Netflix has saturated the market and with little room for subscriber growth, price increases become a reliable revenue strategy, especially in a world where Netflix may be the last subscription many households refuse to cancel.

“Piracy is becoming a larger issue again too,” Hiler says. “You’re asking too much of people. Streaming used to be cheaper than cable, now it’s not so much anymore if you have multiple streaming channels.”

A consolidated streaming landscape may be simpler, but it likely won’t be cheaper. However, Hiler argues that in the end, consumers may be able to see a break on their wallets if they can get rid of multiple streaming services and keep only a few that have that larger library.

“The cost of Netflix may rise if they acquire these new properties but that could mean consumers getting rid of several other streaming services, ultimately saving them money but having them cancel or get rid of other streaming services,” he adds.

Hiler also sees big implications for the theatrical industry, not only because of this potential acquisition but overall from the rising cost of going to the movies.

“Even before the potential merger, movie theaters faced rising costs, shrinking attendance and a public increasingly satisfied with at-home viewing,” he explains. “For a family of four, going to the movies can easily hit $100 just for tickets, let alone adding the popcorn and drinks. In today’s economy, that’s unacceptable when the at-home experience is nearly comparable and the cost would be much cheaper.”

Even now, big-budget films with wide theatrical ambitions are arriving on Netflix just weeks after debuting on the big screen. Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein” opened in select theaters on Oct. 17, 2025, before receiving a global Netflix release on Nov. 7. According to , Oscar eligibility requires a film to have at least a one-week theatrical run in one of six qualifying cities. This raises the question of whether some theatrical releases are being pursued primarily to meet awards requirements rather than to sustain a traditional cinemas. Regardless, audiences only had to wait a week after its theatrical release to view it in the comfort of their home, through the streaming service they’re already paying for.

Hiler also notes that, beyond issues surrounding movie pricing, high-quality televisions are more affordable than ever. Combined with declining theater etiquette, the inconvenience of missing parts of a film for bathroom breaks and the overall challenge of getting to theaters, many viewers now find the at-home experience easier, cheaper and more enjoyable.

“Theaters could survive, but not as the default way America watches movies,” he says. “They’ll need to lean into special experiences, like sing-along screenings or cult-classic events. ‘KPop Demon Hunters’ was released on Netflix first and later received a sing-along theatrical screening, demonstrating demand while creating a unique, communal experience.”

Beyond creativity and consumer costs, Hiler sees a major financial concern as well with this deal – the lack of transparency.

According to Hiler, box office earnings are public record, whereas streaming data is not.

“Streaming can present whatever numbers they want,” he says. “There’s no public disclosure, no way for investors to understand the real picture.”

If Netflix absorbs Warner Bros., the industry loses another major source of measurable theatrical revenue which may be replaced by metrics tied to subscriber retention, not sales.

He believes stronger regulation will be needed to protect shareholders and ensure accurate reporting.

Overall, Hiler thinks the acquisition is driven less by subscriber growth and more by Netflix’s lack in merchandising, an area where Warner Bros. excels.

“Star Wars wasn’t built on ticket sales, it was built on merchandise,” Hiler notes. “Netflix has struggled to turn its originals into lasting, revenue-generating brands. Meanwhile, the Warner Bros. catalog generates billions in collectibles, toys, licensing and collaborations.”

“That’s where Netflix can expand, not in subscribers but in other revenue streams,” he said. “Buying established properties gives them that instantly.”

Ultimately, Hiler sees the Netflix–Warner Bros. deal as part of an unstoppable shift in entertainment.

“When I talk about AI, I say it’s like a tidal wave, you can’t stop it. You have to learn how to surf it,” he says. “The same is true here. We are going through a transition in the entertainment industry with streaming and we must adapt to it.”

Whether the Netflix–Warner Bros. deal goes through or makes Hollywood better or worse may depend less on market forces than on whether the industry finally chooses to listen to its consumers.