Entertainment Silo

It’s easy to miss the entertainment silos most people now exist in. People no longer listen to the radio like they used to. Another example is broadcast TV—if you missed a show, you had to wait until it aired again. Missed it? No worries, just going to watch it tomorrow when I have time.

Now, streaming algorithms guide us toward content they think we want to watch. My YouTube feed, for example, has radically changed over the years—from gaming videos to animation to documentaries to whatever takes my fancy. What I have noticed is that subscriptions and viewing habits have changed over the last decade or more, becoming more of a silo.

We’re now in an age of entertainment silos, where shared cultural moments no longer glue us together. These moments still exist but are fewer and further between than in the past. I don’t want to date myself by giving an example here. That has gigantic consequences for the movie/TV industry.

The TV industry has already seen its revenues declining for a while. The result? Lower budgets on traditional networks. Programs that once provided stable income and audiences are no longer enough to cover the decline. News is a loss-maker, with a focus shifting more towards talking pundits over journalism. Local news has been gutted at the same time.

Elsewhere, TV production is moving in-house as stations try to sell the programs they make. Before, third-party studios would sell a program to a network, which would then sell it on to someone else. But now, with studios no longer earning the same levels of advertising revenue, they’re doing it themselves—killing off independent production companies in the process. We’re going to see fewer third-party productions, which risks fewer creative new ideas. In the past, small budgets still allowed for creative programming, but who knows what the future holds?

Lean budgets are becoming the norm for traditional productions, while streaming services have so far avoided them. The tide is changing—cheap debt and easy money are gone. But they, too, are now facing the growing problem of cost vs. income. No longer catering just to a domestic audience, they now aim for a global one. In practice, this means shows must have value both at home and abroad, filtering out potential gems that nobody really considered could be a success. The end result? Streaming is starting to look more like traditional TV—with advertising and content licensing deals becoming more common.

The big question is: will audiences put up with lower-quality shows that look and feel less impressive? So far, that hasn’t happened, but it could. If it does, movies could find themselves in a downward trend once more, with TV on the rise.

The movie industry could find itself becoming more niche again, no longer the dominant force in cultural thinking and society. Audiences are getting older, and a trip to the cinema is becoming more of an experience. You already see this when you visit a cinema—better food offerings, coffee available, fancy seats, and a more comfortable viewing environment.

Investment in high-quality screens and sound systems continues, but big-budget movies are no longer the main draw. Hollywood is already trying to reduce costs while keeping big budgets, when instead they could shift to smaller budgets and leaner production methods—keeping quality but sharpening focus.

Refusing to change, pushing cost-cutting down to virtual effects artists—taking lower pay for more work.

The same reasons as TV apply—budgets have ballooned, and revenue has dropped. Companies may still sell movies to streaming services later, but compared to traditional advertising revenue, it’s far less. Merchandise helps recover some costs, but the loss of DVD and Blu-ray sales really stings—a whole source of revenue that has simply disappeared.

For a while, it seemed like TV revenue wouldn’t go away. In the early days, the BBC had an idea—what if it launched its own streaming platform? It approached other UK production studios and channels, asking if they wanted to join the project. They refused, so iPlayer was created without them.

Years later, they followed the trend, creating their own platforms. But they were too late—Netflix and others had already eaten their lunch.

The BBC’s original plan was for the UK’s entire TV entertainment industry to come together to create a super platform to rival Netflix. Now, there are rumours that these companies are seriously considering a partnership. One already exists—BBC and ITV both have BritBox. The dream hasn’t disappeared yet, and we could still see a giant UK-focused streaming service emerge. The connection we once had isn’t completely dead—BBC still holds strong cultural power.

But it’s not just money that has disappeared—it’s the connection we once had. Everyone used to watch the same thing. Now, we exist in information silos, and the entertainment industry reflects that shift. My music tastes are shielded from yours. We no longer have access to the same movies or music as each other.

Entertainment, like other forms of media, has become personal silos. The product is no longer what companies produce—it’s us. We’re the product now, feeding massive industries that are clearly struggling. They haven’t fully adjusted to the idea that they need smaller budgets. They also haven’t settled on a sustainable business model.

The golden age of media is abundant, but the problem is—it’s not equal.

Not being equal is going to be a massive issue. There’s one clear winner from the first round of the streaming wars. Now, that winner is taking on an even bigger platform. Netflix is clearly aiming at YouTube—now an upstream media giant, feeding what was once the mainstream. Downstream is now traditional platforms, jumping on trends that started upstream. You see the same with news media—viral clips to draw people towards platforms. Now, everybody is trying to do the same thing.

YouTube was the first to embrace the idea that it needed to function like traditional media. Now, everyone else is catching up to the two biggest players in town. But they’re playing a different game—the original creators of the entertainment silo model that everybody else has been following.

What really worries me is the talent problem. With incomes becoming unstable, talent may find it hard to earn a living. Meaning only upper-class or middle-class voices can afford to take the risk. Many may not find success for a while to pay for food or rent.

YouTube’s most successful channels are traditional media companies—content factories able to mass-produce and reap the rewards.

The fight for the big screen is done, but the battle for the small screen is just getting started. Netflix might have reshaped entertainment, but can it survive YouTube’s grip on the market? Round four is here—and nobody is safe. Traditional media companies may have to make peace with Netflix to beat YouTube. Likely mergers are coming, with fewer streaming services to follow.