[Column] Chris Cochrane: Netflix decision on WBD shapes CTV future

Had Netflix absorbed WBD, we could well be looking at a genuine content superpower. A deeper catalogue. Stronger global franchises. HBO sitting alongside Netflix Originals under one roof. That consolidation would have reshaped the streaming landscape almost overnight.

Netflix will inevitably continue scaling its originals and its ad-supported tier, which now reportedly reaches over 40 million monthly active users globally. Paramount, assuming regulatory approval, will double down on studio consolidation. Disney will continue leaning into its IP engine. And Amazon, Apple and YouTube will continue to invest heavily in streaming, but crucially, alongside much larger businesses.

For advertisers and audiences, that means continued choice and competition. No single mega-streamer suddenly controlling a disproportionate share of premium inventory.

Connected TV is no longer a niche line on a media plan. In the US alone, CTV ad spend is forecast to exceed $40bn in 2026. In the UK, streaming now accounts for well over half of total TV viewing in many demographics. This is no longer a side market. It is the market.

But the bigger story doesn’t feel like it’s whether consolidation is slowing. Paramount’s willingness to spend close to $100bn makes clear that scale is still seen as strategically vital.

The more interesting question is - who actually needs to consolidate to compete?

Paramount is effectively betting that owning more content is the defensive, right, move. In a world where subscriber growth has plateaued and content costs remain eye-watering, control the franchises and you control your fate.

Netflix appears to have taken a different view - at least at this valuation. The economics didn’t justify the leap. And that’s telling. This is the same Netflix that once pursued growth at almost any cost. Walking away suggests a new phase of discipline.

Meanwhile, the most structurally insulated players weren’t in this bidding war at all. Amazon. Apple. Google.

And this is where it gets interesting, as for them, streaming isn’t a standalone bet.

Apple turns over close to $400bn a year. Amazon north of $500bn. Google over $300bn. Against that backdrop, even multi-billion dollar content budgets sit inside far larger machines.

Prime Video supports retail, Prime loyalty and a broader advertising ambition. Apple TV+ reinforces hardware and services revenue. YouTube sits inside the most powerful advertising ecosystem in the world, and on many connected TVs it now commands more viewing time than any individual streaming service.

This changes the risk profile considerably.

Amazon. Apple. Google. Aren’t just distributors of television. They operate broader platforms and can treat content as a strategic lever rather than a pure profit centre. They monetise audiences across commerce, devices, subscriptions and advertising.

That doesn’t mean Paramount’s strategy is wrong. It just means the playing field isn’t necessarily level.

The long-term battle in connected TV may not simply be about who owns the largest library. It may be about who controls the infrastructure around the viewer: the device, the operating system, the app ecosystem, the commercial pipes that sit behind the screen.

In the short term, Netflix stepping back keeps the market competitive. For advertisers, that likely means leverage, experimentation and a continued push toward programmatic CTV buying as fragmentation persists.

But over the next decade, perhaps less, the question won’t just be who won the latest bidding war. It will be which business models are structurally strongest when growth slows, content costs rise again, and attention becomes even harder to capture.