Streaming's Coup: How the screen was split into two
FRESH BREWS
Television used to be a singular box, broadcasting media in two colors: Black and White.
Now the very same light glows in different hues of color, from multiple screens at a time. Is it
the end of traditional media or the beginning of streaming platforms? No, perhaps the entire
agenda merely depended upon prioritization.
THE EROSION OF TRADITIONAL MEDIA
In 2010, cable TV commanded 105 million households. Today, fewer than 66 million remain,
a collapse of nearly 40% in just 15 years. Revenues have hemorrhaged; From $100 billion in
2017 down to $84 billion in 2024, with forecasts sinking further to $81 billion by 2027.
Advertising, once cable’s lifeblood, now gasps, spending is projected to plunge 23%, falling
to $61 billion if a recession hits.
Traditional advertising, once growing 5% annually. Now creeps forward at just 2-3%, while
home video and streaming grow by double digits annually. So... the main question which
comes to light in this so-called fractured black and white?
What keeps cable alive?
Sports. Yet even those holy grails have been looted. Amazon now owns Thursday Night
Football for $1 billion a year, Netflix streams NFL games and broadcasters are left clutching
reruns of reality shows no one watches.
How did streaming survive?
Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) captured this seismic shift in one brutal figure. A $9 billion
writedown in network value tied to plummeting cable subscribers, triggering a $10 billion
quarterly loss and a 12% stock drop. Even Disney, with over 200 million subscribers across
Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+, only reached profitability after absorbing $11 billion in prior
streaming losses.
Streaming has rewritten the rulebook and the revenue.
THE SURGE OF STREAMING PLATFORMS
2025 marked a tipping point. Streaming accounted for 44.8% of U.S. TV usage, surpassing broadcast and cable combined at 44.2%. Nielsen data shows that YouTube’s smart-TV app alone captured nearly 10% of total TV viewing time, closing in fast on legacy networks like Disney, which holds a commanding 11.5%. Netflix remains a titan with 269 million global subscribers, far ahead on streaming infrastructure. Simultaneously, DVD and Blu-ray rentals have collapsed, from over $20 billion at their 2010 prosperous year down to just $2.5 billion by 2021, with projections dipping further.
But the triumph isn’t just scale. It’s structure. Streaming flipped the old model on its head:-
SVOD (Subscription Video on Demand): Netflix, Disney+, Hulu.
AVOD (Ad-Supported): Freevee, Peacock tiers.
TVOD (Transactional): Apple’s pay-per-view rentals.
FAST (Free Ad-Supported Streaming TV): Pluto TV, Tubi.
Advertising didn’t vanish, it migrated. In 2024, streaming ad revenue grew 21 year-over-year,
as platforms rolled out cheaper ad-tiers to ease subscription fatigue. Churn is real. 18% of
households switched services in a single month. But the logic is ironclad, viewers now curate
their entertainment with services preferable to them rather than optimising themselves for
unknown channels.
By the Numbers:
Cable v/s Streaming, 2010-2025 (Households in Millions Scale):
Cable 2010: 105 M → 2025: 66 M
Streaming 2015: 50% of homes → 2023: 83%
Revenue Shifts, 2017-2027 (Currency in Billion Dollar Scale):
Cable: $100B (2017) → $84B (2024) → $81B (2027)
Streaming: +21% ad revenue growth in 2023
Ad Spending (Currency in Billion Dollar Scale, Projected Decline):
Traditional TV: -23% projected declined, down to $61B.
ECONOMICS OF STREAMING V/S TRADITIONAL MEDIA RECESSION
Elasticity of Demand: Streaming operates on a more flexible subscription model where users can subscribe to multiple services (SVOD) at lower combined cost than traditional cable bundles, leveraging price elasticity and consumer choice. However, cable connections remain concise and restricted without the provision of the buyer who wishes to invest in a certain serial. Although this can only be achieved by following through the entire pack payment.
Shift in Revenue Models: Subscription (SVOD), transactional (TVOD) and ad-based (AVOD) models dilute traditional advertising’s role. Studios now chase revenue through direct-to-consumer streams, reducing dependency on ad dollars.
Decline in Ad Revenue: Cable advertising cracks under viewer fragmentation. In contrast, streaming, especially ad-tier models, grows ad revenue by targeting engaged niches.
Content Distribution & Windowing: Theaters are adapting too. Premium VOD (PVOD) now recovers as much as 80% of revenue versus 50% during theatrical releases, further developing even cinema and streaming bonds leaving traditional media out of frame, only for those who can afford it.
Content Strategies & Fragmentation: Streaming platforms invest billions in original content quality, not quantity. Netflix, Disney+, Paramount+ and others now produce prestige series that drive subscriber growth. Legacy networks, meanwhile, are consolidating. Warner Bros. Discovery recently split into Global Networks (cable channels like CNN, TNT, and sports) and Streaming & Studios (HBO Max, studio production) to sharpen focus and appease investors amid a $9 billion writedown in legacy media value. Comcast is following suit, spinning off cable assets into a new entity (SpinCo) worth $7 billion in annual revenue.
HUMANISTIC DISRUPTION TO DEJA VU: IS STREAMING JUST CABLE IN DISGUISE?
This isn’t just about numbers, it’s about freedom. Streaming liberated viewers from rigid
schedules and stale offerings. Nostalgia once bottled in monthly broadcast slots now floods
screens anytime, anywhere. Yet, as the flame of traditional media fades, the static continues
to grow bigger than the silence, regret, doctrinal grip, a final gasp for control. Networks shed
billions, content vaults paywalls.
This is all the pros streaming has to offer: easy accessibility, consumer comfort, revenue stock, now what if I put forth the cons which are seemingly not so much so as coincidences...?
To explain it in better terms let’s take a prime example: Netflix.
There is a strange, almost Shakespearean irony in watching the disruptor become the very
thing it swore to destroy. Netflix, which now produces a catalogue that looks alarmingly
familiar: filler series, endless reality shows and cancellations are now punishing emotional
investors looking quality over quantity.
At the helm of this transformation stands Bela Bajaria, Netflix’s content chief, often
portrayed as the embodiment of the company’s new direction. Global expansion, high output,
algorithmic curation, uses quantity as a substitute for quality. The result? A streaming giant
chasing domination at the expense of distinction.
Where once Netflix sold the idea of bold artistic view, serialized storytelling, it is now
accused of offering a buffet of the forgettable. Critics argue that the “season one cliffhanger,
season two cancellation” cycle has trained viewers not in loyalty, but in distrust. Shorter
seasons, filler shows and generic formulas reek of the very broadcast television Netflix once
mocked. The company’s dream of replacing all television has come to feel less like visionary ambition
and more like hubris.
Netflix's desire to replace all television is misguided, as it overlooks the unique value proposition that initially set it apart. The bitter punchline? Streaming promised liberation. Instead, it has rebuilt the old prison with walls no longer in the form of cells. Netflix’s downfall, or at least, its end will never, not be inevitable. It is a choice, the choice to pursue growth over greatness, dominance over distinctiveness and algorithms over artistry.
Which leaves us with a paradox worth savoring: if streaming becomes cable, and cable
reinvents itself into prestige, what exactly did disruption disrupt? And in that question lies the
most uncomfortable truth. Perhaps disruption was never about art or freedom at all, merely
about changing the hands that collect the money.
So most of you must be wondering, is it possible for Traditional Media to make quite the homerun?
Theoretically.. the idea seems topnotch, no doubt. However, on paper, the answer is absurd.
Cord-cutting is irreversible. Households will not march back to $150 a month bundles. Yet,
history delights in cyclical irony. Consider this:
Appointment TV: Prestige cable (HBO’s Succession, AMC’s Better Call Saul) still
commands loyalty in ways binge-model streaming often fails to replicate.
Cultural Gravity: Live events- sports, award shows and even the communal finale still belong to linear TV. Streaming struggles to recreate the “everyone saw it last night” phenomenon.
Trust & Curation: Paradoxically, cable’s gatekeeping may regain value in a world drowning in algorithmic data. A channel that decides ‘for you’ might one day feel like a luxury for the old or memories for the newer generations.
Perhaps traditional media won’t return as it once was, but as a hybrid. Leaner bundles,
prestige-first programming and integrated digital platforms. After all, even as streaming eats
cable’s lunch, it has adopted its diet: filler, ads, cancellations and corporate control.
WHAT THE FUTURE BEHOLDS?
Television once dictated what we watched and when. Today, we dictate what television must become. The tragedy of cable is not that it failed, it clung to permanence in an age that
rewarded flux. Streaming, for all its glamour, is not salvation, it is appetite incarnate,
endlessly hungry, devouring time, money and attention.
Perhaps the question is not whether TV survives, but whether it shall adapt just as streaming
did, or shall it surpass the streaming services all together in the near future? The chances are
slim however the pursuit of greatness can never be tamed if the power lies in the right hands.