insights & news > Insights
When streaming emerged as a more flexible alternative to expensive and bloated cable TV bundles, it provided viewers with greater choice and convenience. (CNBC, 2024; Statista, 2024). However, many people are now feeling overwhelmed by the number of streaming options available. Instead of simplifying viewing choices, streaming has become just as fragmented and, if not more expensive than cable (Kantar, 2024).
It is not surprising that many people are experiencing subscription fatigue when each account is tied to its own billing and login credentials. As of 2024, according to a Kantar report, the average U.S. household subscribes to 3.9 paid services - an increase from the initial days of streaming attributed to the cut-throat competition of the present market (Kantar, 2024).
This exorbitant amount of paid services has created financial fatigue, as reflected in statistics. A recent survey by Forbes (2024) concluded that 90% of Americans with subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) services plan to cancel due to rising costs. This is similar to a 2024 study by Statista, which showed that 40% of global respondents had already cancelled their video-on-demand services for the same reason (Statista, 2024).
The competition between streaming platforms is referred to as the ‘streaming wars’ due to its fight for viewers’ attention and subscription revenue (Matthew Ball, 2024). Netflix first led this transition, challenging conventional television. But Disney+, Apple TV+, and Amazon Prime have since joined the party, and the market has become overcrowded, with each platform trying to get a share of the market through unique content, special features, and competitive pricing (Forbes, 2024).
If nearly half of all streaming subscribers have either cancelled their services or are considering doing so due to rising costs and an overwhelming number of options, it’s clear something isn’t working (Bluelabel, 2024). A lot of people have ditched cable to make their media choices easier, but now the fierce battle for subscribers in the “streaming wars” has turned into a confusing mess. With so many options out there, it’s tough for consumers to figure out what to watch in this constantly changing streaming landscape.
Many streaming platforms have begun to branch away from the age-old subscription model, adding ad-supported tiers to keep viewers entertained without topping up on their monthly bills (Mountain Research, 2024).
Industry expert Matthew Ball (2024) challenges the idea that the streaming wars are just a battle between industry giants. Instead, it presents an open market where small niche services can still flourish. He cites the success of ad-supported players like Pluto TV, Tubi, and Roku. These have successfully appealed to budget-conscious viewers with free content in exchange for a few commercials; such services are likely to surpass subscription services as their prices continue to rise.
The numbers speak for themselves, with ad-supported streaming in Australia soaring from 10% in 2023 to 28% in 2024 and premium ad-free subscriptions falling to 68% (The Australian, 2024). In the US, more viewers are opting for ad-supported tiers: by 2025, it is estimated that 65% of Hulu subscribers will choose an ad-supported plan (Mountain Research, 2024). It is clear that more people are willing to deal with a few advertisements to cut their costs while watching their favourite offerings.
Bluelabel (2024) surveyed 1000 people about their video streaming habits and realized that 2 out of every 3 consumers had cancelled at least one service in the last year. On top of this, they surveyed North Americans aged 15 to 67, asking about the streaming services they subscribe to, how much they spend, and, more importantly, which ones they’ve cancelled and why.
The findings showed that most subscribers (37.42%) reported cancelling due to a service going unused, followed by the second most common reason (25.88%) being that a service was too expensive.
A report from Reviews.org (2024) reveals that the average U.S. consumer now spends $42.38 USD a month on streaming services, down 23% from last year’s $55.04 USD. This change highlights a growing trend of budget-conscious viewers who are reassessing their entertainment budgets, with many choosing cheaper ad-supported plans or cutting back on the number of subscriptions they maintain.
If we then look at Statista’s (2024) report on the combined monthly costs of the leading six subscription video streaming services in the United States, which covers the period from August 2022 to January 2024, the total for the top six ad-free subscriptions in 2024 is $87.44 USD. This represents an increase of nearly $20 USD since 2022, making it unaffordable for the average consumer’s budget. In contrast, the total for the top six ad-supported subscriptions is $44.94 USD, approximately half the price of their ad-free counterparts.
While increases in cost are justified by the expenses of creating content, licensing, and infrastructure, they are problematic for the average consumer, especially in a time of inflation affecting almost every sphere of everyday life around the world. Studies by Mountain Research indicate that consumers are cutting back costs across the board by as much as 61%. Many people are having to cut back on things like entertainment to focus on what really matters, like paying for utilities and buying food. Because of this, ad-supported streaming has become the go-to choice. It’s no surprise that big streaming services are seeing a big jump in ad-supported subscriptions.
As a part of Gen Z myself, I’ve noticed a clear trend in how my peers engage with the video streaming industry. With platforms like Letterboxd and the expanding online communities of film enthusiasts, it has become common practice to search for a specific piece of content rather than just browsing through available options on our paid subscriptions. If a subscribed service doesn’t offer the content Gen Z is looking for, the next step is to seek out other options that are seen as illegal to find the content they want which is a problem.
This behaviour has significant financial implications for the streaming and film industries. According to a report from Statista, video piracy remains one of the most common forms of piracy, with more than a third of people in Spain and Canada saying they’ve watched pirated videos. This is a big challenge for streaming services trying to make money.
Another report from Sandvine points out that BitTorrent file-sharing is still going strong, making up 22% of upstream traffic worldwide. In places like Europe and APAC, the BitTorrent protocol uses more upstream bandwidth than anything else. Major live sporting events, like the World Cup, only make things worse, with up to 40% of all streams being pirated. Many tech-savvy viewers prioritize accessibility over paying for content from big corporations, which unfortunately takes money away from streaming services and the creators who rely on subscription revenue.
This challenge contributes to a broader creative and strategic crisis, pushing industry professionals to rethink strategies for winning back lost audiences and adapting to new ways of delivering content for businesses in each market.
Younger viewers, raised on microtransactions while gaming, are more receptive to such models. They resonate with this style of engaging with digital content, which involves small, one-time payments for value rather than long-term financial commitments.
This understanding could prove beneficial for streaming services seeking to capitalize on this behaviour. This method is already being utilized in pay-per-view models on platforms like Amazon Video and Apple TV which offer rentable content. Instead of subscribing, renting could serve as a solution to our pervasive piracy problem.
Companies might consider implementing affordable short-term campaigns to entice viewers to invest in a deal before it expires. For example, offering a small fee for access to a particular show that can be watched over one weekend, reminiscent of older models like Blockbuster, tapping into the concept of “instant gratification” that younger consumers often seek, with a touch of nostalgia. Users are more likely to spend impulsively if they feel they’re getting a good deal.
If you have the catalogue for it, cyclical weekend discounts on particular rentable content could be a good opportunity to explore this. Fortnite is a great example of this, with its catalogue of skins and other DLCs cycling in and out of its online storefront. Users have to act fast and spend impulsively to get the content they desire, creating a sense of urgency that could translate well to video streaming.
CEO of Lightswitch, Monica Villar, notes in a panel interview that streaming subscription churn rates have reached levels that were unanticipated 10 to 15 years ago, and bundling has been on the ascent as a corrective measure (Streaming Media, 2025). Initially, streaming was viewed as a way to escape cable bundles, where customers had to pay for channels they didn’t want just to access their preferred ones.
However, companies now face the challenge of making realistic and difficult decisions to reduce churn rates and remain viable as individual businesses. Prime Video, for example, has taken Lionsgate as a new notch on its belt. This comes just in time for the new Hunger Games: Sunrise on the Reaping, coming out in late 2026. Disney+ has also introduced bundling in collaboration with Hulu, Max and ESPN+, bringing an entirely new audience of fans to their platform. Some have coined this change in the market as ‘Cable 2.0’.
It seems like the streaming world is reshaping itself, and everyone’s curious about what’s coming next. Some people might say it’s a step back, but we have to remember how much has changed since the cable days. We now have better content selection, more flexible bundle options, the absence of long-term contracts, and the ability to access content across multiple devices. These improvements provide subscribers with greater control during a time when things can feel more restrictive.
Instead of viewing this as a regression, consider reframing it as progress for consumers. This is a way to help budget and simultaneously customise their own experience. Instead of rigid pre-set bundles, your platforms could allow users to customise their own. For example, Disney+ currently allows users to swap out Max for ESPN+, to cater to their more sports-oriented customers. Customers tend to maintain their subscriptions when they believe they are receiving a diverse range of content (including sports, entertainment, and family-oriented programs) at a price they deem fair.
Bundling is more beneficial for platforms with high churn and a smaller base of committed subscribers. It’s a great opportunity for companies with a smaller catalogue to collaborate with other streaming services to offer a wider amount of content for its users. However, services like Netflix, would need to be more cautious. This is because there is a greater risk that existing loyal users may choose to “trade down” to a cheaper bundled option instead of continuing to pay the full price. As a result, this could lead to a reduction in overall revenue rather than an increase in new sign-ups.
That being said, if your product has a quick turnover of subscribers, bundling could be a great solution to turn those curious, one-time users into loyal, long-term customers.
Another possible solution is for Pay TV providers to collaborate with streaming services to create subscription bundles. Despite the apparent conflict, such collaborations could benefit both players. By combining live cable channels with on-demand streaming content, they can create an appealing package that will cater to additional consumers with various viewing habits. Sky TV for example has collaborated with numerous players like Netflix and Discovery+ in order to bring their customers better deals. This bundle approach could help reduce subscription cancellations and expand the entertainment options available to consumers.
Furthermore, these partnerships can create shared revenue models that provide financial incentives for both streaming services and Pay TV providers. For example, NBCUniversal’s recent NBA deal showcases the benefits of combining traditional TV and streaming. By broadcasting games on NBC, Peacock, and cable, NBCU broadens its audience reach. For instance, cable companies could integrate streaming services into their offerings, allowing customers to access both traditional and streaming content under one subscription.
There are some exciting new ideas popping up in the streaming world beyond the usual ad-supported and subscription models. One of the exciting developments is blockchain streaming, which let decentralized platforms use cryptocurrency for micropayments. This means you can pay just for the stuff you watch instead of committing to an entire subscription (Finance Magnates). Then there’s Bundling 2.0, which combines a bunch of streaming services into one discounted package, making it easier to manage multiple subscriptions. Some platforms might even let you pay per episode or movie instead of needing a full subscription. These fresh methods are catching on, especially in places like Asia, where flexible payment systems are key for attracting consumers. To keep up, it’s really important to adopt these innovative pricing options that match what viewers want.
The streaming industry seems to be approaching a pivotal moment. As the initial promise of convenience and affordability begins to wane, a lot of viewers are getting frustrated with the increasing number of options and higher prices. With subscription fatigue on the rise and financial pressures building, we may soon notice a change in audience behaviour, which could potentially result in growing frustration, financial constraints, and subscription fatigue. Viewers may choose to cancel their services, opt for ad-supported options, or find alternative ways to access content.
To keep up, streaming platforms will have to rethink their game plans. We could see new ideas like better bundling, pay-per-view setups, or even using blockchain tech so folks only pay for what they actually watch. With Gen Z leading the charge in how we consume digital content, services that focus on affordability, personalisation, and easy access could come out on top in this changing scene. The next wave of streaming seems to be all about platforms that get these trends and adapt, setting themselves up for success in this fast-evolving market.
tags
Share this article
Let's collaborate to define what is next for your OTT streaming service.
Contact us
