As major streaming companies consolidate, smaller independent platforms face a very different future. With audiences spread thinly, advertising revenue increasingly concentrated among the biggest players and subscription models requiring significant investment, is the independent streaming market becoming unsustainable?
The streaming industry is changing. Major media companies are pursuing combinations of businesses, catalogues and audiences to compete more effectively in a crowded market. The Paramount and Skydance combination and the proposed integration of Warner Bros. Discovery illustrate the wider pressure to achieve scale.
But while mainstream companies can pursue mergers and acquisitions, independent streaming faces a different challenge: oversaturation. There are more films competing for attention, more services seeking the same audiences and only so much money to support them. Many small platforms may be more likely to close than merge.
More films, more platforms, but not necessarily more audiences
Technology has made it easier to produce independent films and launch streaming services. That has opened opportunities for filmmakers historically overlooked by mainstream distributors, but it has also created an oversaturated market. More places to upload films do not automatically create more viewers or more money.
The fundamental problem is discoverability. A film might be available on several platforms yet struggle to find an audience. A streaming platform can have an excellent catalogue but lack the marketing budget to reach enough paying customers. Both need people to know they exist and choose to spend money.
Related reading: Your Film Is on a Streaming Platform. But Can Anyone Find It?
AVOD is not the easy solution many believe it to be
Advertising-supported video on demand (AVOD) appeals to independent start-ups because it removes the subscription barrier. But generating some advertising income is not the same as generating enough to sustain technology, marketing, administration and filmmaker royalties.
Advertising requires scale, consistent viewing and advertisers willing to pay. Large platforms have extensive audience data and advertising infrastructure. Smaller specialist services rarely enjoy the same advantages. Economic uncertainty can also change advertiser budgets, while increased advertising inventory puts pressure on the rates platforms receive.
Deloitte’s 2025 media and entertainment outlook identifies the challenge of growing advertising inventory and competition from major technology platforms. Even where AVOD generates revenue, the amount remaining after costs may be negligible for smaller services.
Related reading: Deloitte: 2025 Media and Entertainment Outlook
Filmmakers should be cautious about revenue-share licences without guaranteed minimum payments. A high royalty percentage is of little value when the underlying revenue is tiny. Free to watch does not mean free to operate.
Related reading: Netflix’s Advertising Strategy Does Not Prove AVOD Is Sustainable
The creator economy is experiencing the same problem
The wider creator economy offers a useful comparison. CreatorIQ reported that the top 10% of creators received 62% of payments in its analysed 2025 dataset, up from 53% in 2023. The top 1% received 21%, up from 15%. Median payment per campaign was $3,000, against an average of $11,400.
That does not mean every influencer is earning less. Overall spending has increased, but income is becoming more concentrated. A separate 2026 CreatorIQ survey found that 67% of respondents earned less than $10,000 annually from content creation.
Related reading: CreatorIQ: State of Creator Compensation 2026
Related reading: CreatorIQ: State of Creators 2026
The parallel with independent film is clear. More content and more creators do not guarantee more income. Established audiences, discoverability and marketing resources influence who benefits. If this is happening on major social platforms, it is reasonable to question the viability of tiny advertising-funded film services.
Subscriptions face a different challenge
Subscriptions can provide more predictable revenue, but only if customers have enough reasons to join and remain. That means a substantial catalogue and frequent new releases. Licensing content takes time and money, as do rights checks, delivery, artwork, metadata, subtitles and promotion.
As one example, Lesflicks is an established, separately operated specialist streaming business with a catalogue of hundreds of sapphic films and series and a weekly release schedule. Building that library and maintaining those relationships has required years of work and investment. It is not something a new subscription platform can reproduce overnight.
A small catalogue can attract initial curiosity but makes retention difficult. Without sufficient content it is hard to retain subscribers, while without subscriber revenue it is difficult to acquire more content. Charging very low prices simply increases the number of customers needed to cover costs. Long free trials and lifetime memberships also deserve scrutiny when the business has no clear route to recurring income.
Related reading: SapphicIFF: Netflix's Advertising Srategy Does Not Prove AVOD is Sustainable
Related reading: SapphicIFF: Your Film is on a Streaming Platform. But can anyone find it?
Why smaller platforms may close rather than consolidate
Consolidation could reduce duplicated technology, administration and marketing expenditure. Yet many independent platforms have been launched without substantial investment or a proven commercial model. Some depend on founder subsidies, volunteers or unrelated income to keep operating.
A merger needs something commercially valuable to combine. A catalogue may not be transferable if the platform does not own the films or cannot assign the licences. Social media followers are not equivalent to paying subscribers, and combining two loss-making businesses does not automatically create a profitable one.
Closure may therefore be more realistic than acquisition for some smaller services. That can leave filmmakers with unpaid royalties, interrupted distribution and questions about how rights revert. Sustainability and workable exit provisions should be considered before signing, not after a platform runs into trouble.
The money is being spread too thinly
A niche audience has limited disposable income and limited time. Ten services competing for substantially the same viewers each need their own marketing, technology and administration. The more duplicated overhead there is, the less money may remain to license films and pay creators.
Collaboration need not mean one brand swallowing another. Shared campaigns, joint subscriptions, technology partnerships or complementary distribution roles could make better use of limited resources. But collaboration works best when participants have viable models and something meaningful to contribute.
What does this mean for filmmakers?
More platforms can create an illusion of opportunity. Being available on six services does not necessarily mean reaching six different audiences, particularly when those services market to the same niche. Filmmakers need to assess actual audience reach, payment history, release activity, revenue model and financial resilience.
Distribution windows matter too. An immediate release across numerous free services may undermine opportunities to build awareness and earn revenue in higher-value windows. Agreements should also explain reporting, termination, insolvency and the return of rights.
Related reading: 10 Questions to Ask Before Choosing a Streaming Platform
Related reading: Red Flags and Green Flags in Film Distribution Agreements
We need sustainable businesses, not just more platforms
Independent streaming services remain important because they can serve audiences and films that mainstream businesses overlook. But a valuable mission does not, by itself, establish a viable business.
AVOD needs meaningful viewing scale and advertising demand. SVOD needs a compelling catalogue, regular releases and subscriber retention. Both need marketing, commercial expertise and a realistic understanding of their audience.
Some independent businesses may collaborate or consolidate. Others may adapt their distribution models. Some may close because they never reached financial sustainability. The question is whether the industry can strengthen the businesses that already exist rather than continually adding more places for films to sit undiscovered.
For filmmakers, the goal is not maximum platform listings. It is reaching audiences, earning revenue and building a sustainable future for their work. For platforms, success should be measured by their ability to sustain operations, grow an engaged audience and consistently pay the filmmakers whose content makes the business possible.
We do not need more places for films to sit undiscovered. We need stronger businesses that help films find audiences and earn money.
