ad

Netflix on Wednesday touted a surge in popularity for its low-cost streaming plan with ads, as it looks to tap into the lucrative the world of brands.

The streaming giant said it now has more than 190 million monthly active viewers watching ads through a plan that costs $7.99 a month. The lowest cost ad-free plan costs $17.99 a month.

In May, Netflix said it had 94 million monthly active users watching ads through the cheaper plan. That translated to roughly 170 million monthly active viewers, the company said at the time.

However, the Los Gatos, Calif.-based company is now using a different methodology to measure its audience watching ads, making exact comparison’s difficult.

Netflix now defines monthly active viewers as customers who watched at least 1 minute of ads on Netflix per month. It then multiplies that by the estimated average number of people in a household. Previously, Netflix had measured monthly active users based on the number of Netflix profiles watching content with ads.

The streamer said its previous measurement didn’t illustrate all the people who were in the room watching.

“Our move to viewers means we can give a more comprehensive count of how many people are actually on the couch, enjoying our can’t-miss series, films, games and live events with friends and family,”wrote Amy Reinhard, Netflix’s president of advertising in a post on the streamer’s website on Wednesday.

On Wednesday, Netflix executives said the growth in ad viewers was in line with their expectations.

“We are very satisfied with where we are at,” Reinhard, said in a press briefing. “We think there is a lot of opportunity to grow on this plan around the world, and we’re going to continue to make sure that we are offering our customers a great experience and a great buying experience on the advertising side.”

Netflix began its foray into ad-supported streaming in 2022, after it received pressure from investors to diversify how it makes revenue. Previously, Netflix mainly made money through subscriptions and for many years had been ad-adverse.

The company said last month it was on track to more than double its ad revenue in 2025, but did not cite specific figures. Netflix Co-CEO Greg Peters said in an earnings presentation in October that the ad revenue is still small relative to the size of the company’s subscription revenues, but advertisers are excited about Netflix’s growing scale.

“We see plenty of room for growth ahead,” Peters said.

On Wednesday, Netflix said it is expanding its options for advertisers, including demographic targeting in areas such as education, marital status and household income.

Netflix also said it has partnered with brands including brewing company Peroni Nastro Azzurro in ads for its romantic comedy series “Emily in Paris,” and tested dynamic ad insertion with programs including WWE Raw this quarter and will offer that feature in the U.S. and other countries for NFL Christmas Gameday.

Many streamers have been increasing the cost of their subscriptions in order to become more profitable. Earlier this year Netflix raised the prices on plans.

If the ads are any indication, Proposition 50 offers Californians a stark choice: “Stick it to Trump” or “throw away the constitution” in a Democratic power grab.

And like so many things in 2025, Trump appears to be the galvanizing issue.

Even by the incendiary campaigns California is used to, Proposition 50 has been notable for its sharp attacks to cut through the dense, esoteric issue of congressional redistricting. It comes down to a basic fact: this is a Democratic-led measure to reconfigure California’s congressional districts to help their party win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026 and stifle President Trump’s attempts to keep Republicans in power through similar means in other states.

Thus far, the anti-Trump message preached by Proposition 50 advocates, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other top Democrats, appears to be the most effective.

Supporters of the proposal have vastly outraised their rivals and Proposition 50, one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in state history, leads in the polls.

“Whenever you can take an issue and personalize it, you have the advantage. In this case, proponents of 50 can make it all about stopping Donald Trump,” said former legislative leader and state GOP Chair Jim Brulte.

Adding to the drama is the role of two political and cultural icons who have emerged as leaders of each side: former President Obama in favor and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger against, both arguing the very essence of democracy is at stake.

Schwarzenegger and the two main committees opposing Proposition 50 have focused on the ethical and moral imperative of preserving the independent redistricting commission. Californians in 2010 voted to create the panel to draw the state’s congressional district boundaries after every census in an effort to provide fair representation to all state residents.

That’s not a political ideal easily explained in a 30-section television ad, or an Instagram post.

Redistricting is a “complex issue,” Brulte said, but he noted that “the no side has the burden of trying to explain what the initiative really does and the yes side gets to use the crib notes [that] this is about stopping Trump — a much easier path.”

Partisans on both sides of the aisle agree.

“The yes side quickly leveraged anti-Trump messaging and has been closing with direct base appeals to lock in the lead,” said Jamie Fisfis, a political strategist who has worked on many GOP congressional campaigns in California. “The partisanship and high awareness behind the measure meant it was unlikely to sag under the weight of negative advertising like other initiatives often do. It’s been a turnout game.”

Obama, in ads that aired during the World Series and NFL games, warned that “Democracy is on the ballot Nov. 4” as he urged voters to support Proposition 50. Ads for the most well-funded committee opposing the proposition featured Schwarzenegger saying that opposing the ballot measure was critical to ensuring that citizens are not overrun by elected officials.

“The Constitution does not start with ‘We, the politicians.’ It starts with ‘We, the people,’” Schwarzenegger told USC students in mid-September — a speech excerpted in an anti-Proposition 50 ad. “Democracy — we’ve got to protect it, and we’ve got to go and fight for it.”

California’s Democratic-led Legislature voted in August to put the redistricting proposal that would likely boost their ranks in Congress on the November ballot. The measure, pushed by Newsom, was an effort to counter Trump’s efforts to increase the number of GOP members in the House from Texas and other GOP-led states.

The GOP holds a narrow edge in the House, and next year’s election will determine which party controls the body during Trump’s final two years in office — and whether he can further his agenda or is the focus of investigations and possible impeachment.

Noticeably absent for California’s Proposition 50 fight is the person who triggered it — Trump.

The proposition’s opponents’ decision not to highlight Trump is unsurprising given the president’s deep unpopularity among Californians. More than two-thirds of the state’s likely voters did not approve of his handling of the presidency in late October, according to a Public Policy Institute of California poll.

Trump did, however, urge California voter not to cast mail-in ballots or vote early, falsely arguing in a social media post that both voting methods were “dishonest.”

Some California GOP leaders feared that Trump’s pronouncement would suppress the Republican vote.

In recent days, the California Republican Party sent mailers to registered Republicans shaming them for not voting. “Your neighbors are watching,” the mailer says, featuring a picture of a woman peering through binoculars. “Don’t let your neighbors down. They’ll find out!”

Tuesday’s election will cost state taxpayers nearly $300 million. And it’s unclear if the result will make a difference in control of the House because of multiple redistricting efforts in other states.

But some Democrats are torn about the amount of money being spent on an effort that may not alter the partisan makeup of Congress.

Johanna Moska, who worked in the Obama administration, described Proposition 50 as “frustrating.”

“I just wish we were spending money to rectify the state’s problems, if we figured out a way the state could be affordable for people,” she said. “Gavin’s found what’s working for Gavin. And that’s resistance to Trump.”

Newsom’s efforts opposing Trump are viewed as a foundational argument if he runs for president in 2028, which he has acknowledged pondering.

Proposition 50 also became a platform for other politicians potentially eyeing a 2026 run for California governor, Sen. Alex Padilla and billionaires Rick Caruso and Tom Steyer.

The field is in flux, with no clear front-runner.

Padilla being thrown to the ground in Los Angeles as he tried to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about the Trump administration’s immigration policies is prominently featured in television ads promoting Proposition 50. Steyer, a longtime Democratic donor who briefly ran for president in 2020, raised eyebrows by being the only speaker in his second television ad. Caruso, who unsuccessfully ran against Karen Bass in the 2022 Los Angeles mayoral race and is reportedly considering another political campaign, recently sent voters glossy mailers supporting Proposition 50.

Steyer committed $12 million to support Proposition 50. His initial ad, which shows a Trump impersonator growing increasingly irate as news reports showing the ballot measure passing, first aired during “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Steyer’s second ad fully focused on him, raising speculation about a potential gubernatorial run next year.

Ads opposing the proposition aired less frequently before disappearing from television altogether in recent days.

“The yes side had the advantage of casting the question for voters as a referendum on Trump,” said Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist who worked for Schwarzenegger but is not involved with any of the Proposition 50 campaigns. “Asking people to rally to the polls to save a government commission — it’s not a rallying call.”

Last week, HBO Max announced it raised its standard subscription by $1.50 to $18.49 a month — up 23% from when the streaming service launched five years ago amid the pandemic.

Such announcements have become almost routine in the television business as inflation hits streaming platforms that are under growing pressure to turn a profit and pay for higher programming costs.

Once seen as a cheaper alternative to cable, the cost of a streaming subscription for the top platforms continues to rise, much like higher prices for groceries, gasoline and housing.

In fact, the average price for subscriptions to the top 10 paid subscription streaming services in the U.S. increased 12% this year, following double-digit percentage increases per year since 2022, according to Victoria, British Columbia-based Convergence Research Group.

The research firm included streamers such as Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, Peacock, Apple TV and others in its data set. It factors subscriptions that are with ads or ad-free and does not take into account bundling. All of the major streaming services in the U.S. raised their prices on plans this year, except for Paramount+ and Amazon Prime Video, which boosted rates last year.

The price hikes reflect the tough economic realities of media companies that need to replace dwindling revenue from legacy pay TV channels that have seen sharp declines in viewership.

“The rest of their businesses have effectively been under attack by streaming and so they need this area to be profitable in order to compensate for the decline in their own businesses,” said Brahm Eiley, president of the Convergence Research Group. “It’s been tremendous pressure on them.”

Streaming services have been running as loss leaders for some time, said Tim Hanlon, chief executive of Vertere Group LLC, a media consulting firm.

“There’s no question that streaming is now under the gun to be its own profit center,” Hanlon said.

If rates go much higher, consumers may balk, experts said.

“The industry is playing a dangerous game by continuing to raise prices,” said Andrew Hare, senior vice president for the media research consultancy Magid. “We’re nearing a boiling point of rising churn and overwhelming choice.”

Magid has also already seen an uptick in the percentage of consumers who intend to cancel at least one streaming service in the next six months. The figure was 24% in the second quarter of 2025, up from 19% a year earlier.

“Hard as it is to imagine, the cable bundle is starting to look like a better value all the time,” Hare said.

Here is a look at which major streamers have raised prices on their ad-free streaming plans this year.

HBO Max

HBO Max raised prices across all of its plans. Its lowest-cost, ad-free streaming plan went up by $1.50 to $18.49 a month, while the annual version of that plan also increased $15 to $184.99.

HBO Max’s parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery, had 125.7 million global streaming subscribers in the second quarter, up 22% from a year earlier.

Like other streamers, HBO cited the need to help pay for quality content. The platform offers big-budget shows including drama “The Gilded Age” and “House of the Dragon,” which takes place in the “Game of Thrones” universe.

Consumers should brace themselves for more price hikes. Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav said at a Goldman Sachs investors conference last month that he believes HBO Max is underpriced.

“We want a good deal for consumers, but I think over time there’s real opportunity, particularly for us in that quality area to raise prices,” Zaslav said.

Peacock

Big-time sports properties have been moving to streaming platforms and guess who is going to help foot the bill? Consumers, of course.

Ahead of becoming a major provider of NBA games this season, Peacock increased prices on its plans, including the premium plus ad-free streaming service, by $3 to $16.99 a month. That was the third price hike since Peacock launched in 2020, where its ad-free plan started at $9.99 a month.

The Comcast-owned streamer, which has 41 million paid subscribers, has weekly games on Mondays and Tuesdays and will have a Peacock exclusive NFL game on Dec. 27. Peacock next year will air the Milan Cortina Winter Olympics and continue to stream major sporting events such as NFL games.

In a July earnings call, Comcast Corp. President Mike Cavanagh touted how Peacock will have the most hours of live sports of any streamer next year.

Netflix

Netflix has also gotten into the sports business, with the addition of two NFL games on Christmas Day.

The streamer, which remains the industry juggernaut, is also expected to add Major League Baseball’s Home Run Derby and an opening night game when MLB finalizes a new media rights deal this year.

The company cited its entry into high-priced sports when it raised its prices on most of its plans, including on its cheapest ad-free monthly plan by $2.50 to $17.99 in the U.S. earlier this year.

“As we continue to invest in programming and deliver more value for our members, we will occasionally ask our members to pay a little more so that we can re-invest to further improve Netflix,” Netflix said in a letter to shareholders in January.

The slice of sports is coming at the expense of fans who need multiple subscriptions — if they want to keep up with every NFL game.

“A certain type of fan is starting to recognize they are being fleeced,” Hanlon said.

Higher prices on ad-free plans can help drive traffic to a streamer’s lowest-priced plans with ads. Netflix launched its subscription plan with ads in 2022 at $6.99 a month and it has only increased by a $1 to $7.99 a month since then in January 2025.

While many major streamers offer cheaper plans with ads, others offer free streaming services with ads such as the Roku Channel or Tubi.

A recent research study by Magid found that three-quarters of consumers are fine with watching commercials, if it saves them money.

Four in 10 said they’re “overwhelmed” by the number of services they use. The average number of streaming subscriptions per household in the third quarter is 4.6, up from 4.1 the previous year.

“Together, these trends point to a more value-driven streaming consumer seeking affordability and simplicity,” the study said.

Apple TV

Apple TV was once one of the lowest-priced subscription service plans, launching at $4.99 a month. Since then, prices for Apple’s video streaming service have increased to $12.99 a month, with its latest price jump of $3 in August.

The Cupertino-based company has been trying to make its streaming business more financially sound, but faces a formidable task as it has been a big spender in attracting name talent to its programs and movies.

When Apple TV first launched, it had just nine programs, but since then has expanded its library to include critically acclaimed shows and films including comedy “Ted Lasso,” drama “Severance” and “The Studio.”

Apple said in a statement that while it did raise its prices on its standard monthly ad-free plan, the cost of its annual subscription remains at $99 and Apple One bundled packages did not change.

Disney+

Last month, Disney+ announced it would increase the cost of its ad-free streaming plan by $3 to $18.99 a month. Hulu did not increase its price on its ad-free monthly streaming plan.

It was the fourth consecutive year the Burbank entertainment giant has boosted its streaming prices since launching Disney+ six years ago, when the service cost just $6.99 a month.

Despite the recent price hikes from Disney and others, Eiley from Convergence Research Group thinks there’s still room for customer growth.

At the end of last year, just 36% of U.S. households had a traditional TV subscription, compared with more than half of U.S. households in mid-2022, according to Convergence Research Group data. By the end of 2028, the research firm forecasts just 21% of households will have traditional TV subscriptions.

“There’s still a massive amount of cord cutting going on,” Eiley said.