global company

Dear Ted Sarandos,

Congratulations on making the winning bid for Warner Bros. By directly contradicting your famous “build don’t buy” mantra, you have managed to throw the already beleaguered entertainment industry into an apoplectic meltdown, and just in time for the holidays!

On the plus side, the thought of Paramount’s David Ellison throwing a nepo-baby “but I want it” tantrum when he heard the news has provided a fair amount grim delight.

Just not enough, I’m afraid, to assuage the overwhelming outrage and fear, currently being voiced by many, that you will personally not be content until every movie theater is shuttered, every other network/streaming service consumed, forcing every person in the world to watch only Netflix via a crystal embedded in their hand like something out of “Logan’s Run.” (Which is not available on Netflix so perhaps you haven’t seen it.)

In other words, a lot of people, including thousands who actually make film and television, are not happy, not happy at all, Precious. (Including the stock market, where Netflix fell after the deal was announced.)

Indeed, there is a chance that your purchase of Warner Bros., which includes HBO and HBO Max, will not go through; it inarguably gives you a monopoly in streaming and since HBO, like Netflix, is a global company, the deal will be scrutinized by regulatory agencies at home and abroad. All of which will take some time, so Netflix subscribers shouldn’t cancel theirHBO Max subscriptions just yet.

On the other hand, there are far too many streaming platforms (as evidence, I give you my credit card bill) and everyone has been saying for years now that only a few can survive — Disney already owns Hulu (which it bundles with Disney+) while Amazon owns MGM.

If the sale does go through, here are a few thoughts from someone who, though prevented by ethics from owning stock in Netflix or any other entertainment company, still watches a lot of TV and movies.

Leave HBO and HBO Max the hell alone

I realize Netflix has spent a lot of money trying to prove, via the Emmys, that it is just as good at TV as HBO but do not make the mistake that Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav made by pretending it isn’t special. Rather than force it into mass production, let it continue to be the self-guided couture brand it is. And don’t make subscribers pay extra for access to it. (Bonus points if you get rid of the “Max.”)

Likewise, let Warner Bros. be Warner Bros.

You bought a movie studio and a successful one at that. Don’t start laying off a bunch of people with the misguided notion that the Netflix infrastructure can also handle running a movie studio. For one thing, you’ll just have to hire back all the WB lawyers and execs as consultants when you realize you don’t quite understand how things work, and that’s just embarrassing and expensive.

Do not contribute any more to the demise of movie theaters than you already have

Seriously, it’s time to consider your legacy. At the moment Netflix is an innovative and successful company that has transformed the entertainment industry in ways millions of people are willing to pay for. Is there a negative aspect to some of those changes? Sure. But being known as the head of the company that sparked the streaming revolution is very different from going down in history as the man who bought a movie studio for purposes of dealing a death blow to the theatrical experience.

A theatrical release gives a movie prestige and a better marketing opportunity; there is nothing wrong, or unprofitable, about acting as a secondary platform for films. Original content may draw new subscribers but it’s the library that keeps them. With little opportunity for subscriber growth, Netflix should concentrate on keeping the millions they have.

Remember the Bilbao effect

Instead, honor Frank Gehry, who died on the day this deal was announced, by remembering the Bilbao effect — providing one shining example of greatness can jumpstart global revitalization. Most people enjoy both the opportunity to go to the movies and to see them at home. I would have loved, for example, to have seen last year’s excellent holiday thriller “Carry-On” in a theater, only to watch it again this year on my flatscreen. As streamers continue to take over Hollywood, Netflix has an opportunity to provide a template that bolsters exhibitors and in-home offerings.

Don’t expect the consumer to pay for this

I understand that Netflix wants to be the only game in town, but it isn’t yet and if you precipitously jack up the rates, or create a maddening warren of add-ons, you will lose subscribers — there are only so many hours in a day one can spend watching television, after all. If you do so while laying off workers and depleting the offerings at the cinema, well, that Tudum sound can be a herald, or it can be an elegy.