The primary concern for creators regarding a Netflix-Warner Bros. merger isn't consumer price-gouging (monopoly). It's that Netflix would become the single dominant buyer of content (monopsony), giving it immense leverage to suppress creator pay and control.
Related Insights
An antitrust case against a Netflix-Warner Bros. merger is weak if the market is defined as all consumer 'eyeballs,' not just paid streaming. Including massive platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram, where most people spend their time, creates a landscape of intense competition, undermining monopoly claims.
The cynical take on the Netflix-WB deal is that Netflix's true goal is to eliminate movie theaters as a competitor for consumer leisure time. By pulling all WB films from theatrical release, it can strengthen its at-home streaming dominance and capture a larger share of audience attention.
The acquisition isn't a traditional consumer monopoly but a monopsony, concentrating buying power. This gives a combined 'Super Netflix' leverage to dictate terms and potentially lower wages for actors, writers, and directors, shifting power from talent to the studio.
Recent streaming price increases, which are vastly outpacing inflation, serve as the primary evidence that the market is already too consolidated. Further mergers would grant companies like Netflix unchecked pricing power, transferring wealth from consumers and labor directly to shareholders in an oligopolistic environment.
By launching a bid for Warner Bros., Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos has ingeniously stalled the market. This move forces all other potential suitors and targets into a holding pattern, as any significant M&A activity must now wait for the outcome of this lengthy regulatory battle, giving Netflix a strategic advantage.