The Illusion of Scale: does more content mean more value?

With the recent Howdy announcement, a joint venture from Roku, WB Discovery, and Fox, it is hard to escape when looking at major streaming platforms, that the dominant assumption is that catalogue size matters. The underlying assumption is seductive: more content equals more value.

However, I argue that in today’s fragmented attention economy, catalogue size is no longer a competitive moat, it can even be a potential liability. At best, volume offers choice. At worst, it bloats costs, diffuses audience focus, and clutters user experience.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

According to Parrot Analytics, more than 80% of viewer demand is captured by less than 20% of a streamer’s library. Meanwhile, Ampere Analysis shows that while major platforms like Netflix boast over 7,000 titles, churn remains high suggesting that breadth does not guarantee retention.

What we’re seeing is a content glut, not a content gap. This misalignment leads to increased content costs and diminishing ROI on unsurfaced titles. The illusion of strength from scale masks a deeper weakness: a lack of engagement and monetisation efficiency.

Another View

Even though we refresh CINDIE monthly, we reject the “just add more content” philosophy. In adding films and series we aim treat every right in our catalogue not as a static asset, but as a lever that can be dynamically activated across windows, regions and formats.

In short we look at:

1. Acquisition Discipline

We don’t chase rights for prestige or volume. We secure multi-window rights (SVOD, AVOD, FAST) that are priced for performance, prioritising flexibility over exclusivity, and strategic optionality over one-size-fits-all deals.

2. Curation with Intent

More isn’t better; relevance is. We use a blend of human editorial insight and behavioural data to identify titles that punch above their weight. Anchor titles pull audiences in; while we aim to keep them engaged and loyal through curated discovery.

3. Precision in Distribution

Some films thrive on FAST, others demand the intimacy of SVOD or the reach of AVOD. Modelling platform fit, adapting rollout strategies by region and revenue stream makes every right work harder.

What are you Building?

Many platforms, and we are not immune to this ourselves, continue to hoard titles under the guise of “building a library”. However, without clarity on engagement-to-revenue conversion, this equates to burning cash in disguise. Worse, most streamers operate in a black box offering creators, licensors, and even investors minimal insight into what content actually performs.

As I mentioned in a previous post and I will continue to repeat this: until platforms commit to granular performance transparency, many in the industry will remain stuck chasing vanity metrics.

The next “Black Swan” in streaming won’t be a content drought, rather it will be a business model implosion caused by over-reliance on underperforming libraries.

We, as an industry, must shift from scaling libraries to scaling value per title. That means fewer inputs, smarter bets, and relentless focus on engagement-weighted economics.

I suggest building for volatility, not against it. This is how we approach it:

• Rights as Levers: multi-platform, cross-territory, time-phased monetisation.

• Data-Informed, Human Curation: blending taste and tech to keep discovery alive.

• Multi-Window Strategy: monetising titles across FAST, AVOD, SVOD, and linear without cannibalisation.

Streaming doesn’t need more content. It needs more strategy.

If you’re chasing volume, consider you are already behind. If you’re building engagement per title, I think you are building the future.