Despite poor performance, CEO David Zaslav skillfully navigated a bidding war between Netflix and Paramount. By positioning Warner Bros. as a must-have asset in the streaming wars, he drove the acquisition price from $8 to $30 per share, securing a billionaire outcome for himself regardless of the winner.
High-stakes bidding for legacy media assets like Warner Bros. is driven by status-seeking among the ultra-wealthy, not a sound bet on the future of media. They are acquiring prestigious "shiny objects" from the past, while the actual attention economy has shifted to platforms like TikTok and YouTube.
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.
In a competitive M&A process where the target is reluctant, a marginal price increase may not work. A winning strategy can be to 'overpay' significantly. This makes the offer financially indefensible for the board to reject and immediately ends the bidding process, guaranteeing the acquisition.
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 most lucrative exit for a startup is often not an IPO, but an M&A deal within an oligopolistic industry. When 3-4 major players exist, they can be forced into an irrational bidding war driven by the fear of a competitor acquiring the asset, leading to outcomes that are even better than going public.
Netflix's bid for Warner Bros. may be a brilliant game theory play. Even if the deal is blocked by regulators, it forces its primary rival into a multi-year acquisition limbo. This distraction freezes the competitor's strategy, allowing Netflix to extend its market lead. It's a win-win for Netflix.
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.
The intense bidding war for Warner Bros. Discovery is driven by unique strategic goals. Paramount seeks subscriber scale for survival, Netflix wants premium IP and sports rights, and Comcast primarily needs modern franchises like Harry Potter to fuel its profitable theme park business.
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.
In its hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros., Paramount's key pitch for regulatory approval stems from its financing. The deal is funded by Trump-allied figures like Larry Ellison, Jared Kushner, and Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds, creating a belief that a potential Trump administration would favor their acquisition over Netflix's.