The Home-Alone Effect and the Reorganization of the Global Film Business: Streaming, Cultural Capital, and the New Political Economy of Screen Consumption

Authors: Huda Najjar¹ (ORCID ID: 0009-0007-0765-6001)

Affiliation: ¹ Swiss International University (SIU)

Abstract

The global film business is being reorganized by a long transition from collective theatrical attendance to routine home-based viewing. This article conceptualizes that transition as the Home-Alone Effect: the structural movement of film consumption away from the cinema as a dominant social institution and toward digitally mediated, private, on-demand, and algorithmically organized viewing. The argument is not that cinemas have disappeared, but that their function has changed. Cinema increasingly operates as a premium, event-based, selective site of consumption, while home viewing has become the normal infrastructure of everyday film culture. This article develops a critical sociology of that shift through three major theoretical lenses: Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of capital, field, distinction, and habitus; world-systems theory and the uneven geography of media power; and institutional isomorphism as a way of understanding why studios, platforms, exhibitors, and producers increasingly imitate one another’s organizational logic.

The article also engages recent developments in the film sector, especially the continuing post-pandemic weakness of habitual moviegoing, the shortening and renegotiation of theatrical windows, the growing reliance on family films and event cinema to pull audiences back into theaters, and the deepening integration between studios and streaming systems. In early 2026, reporting indicated that the share of people who frequently go to theaters had fallen sharply from pre-pandemic levels, that European admissions in 2025 were still below older baselines, and that major distributors were still actively revising release-window strategy. At the same time, some studios were lengthening theatrical exclusivity for key titles, while new licensing deals showed how theatrical and streaming were becoming less oppositional and more structurally intertwined.

Methodologically, the article adopts an interpretive, theory-led analysis grounded in recent trade reporting, industry commentary, and film-business scholarship. It argues that the Home-Alone Effect is not merely a consumer preference, nor simply the result of technological innovation. It is a wider transformation of cultural practice, institutional strategy, and capitalist accumulation in the screen industries. The result is a film business increasingly shaped by platform logics, data-driven production, global rights circulation, and new hierarchies of visibility. The article concludes that the future of film will not be defined by a simple victory of streaming over cinema. Rather, it will be defined by a new settlement in which theatrical exhibition survives through scarcity, spectacle, and social differentiation, while home viewing becomes the dominant habitus of modern screen life.

1. Introduction

For much of the twentieth century, the cinema occupied a central place in the cultural and economic life of film. It was not only a revenue channel. It was also a ritual, a public environment, a marker of taste, and an important site of shared attention. To go to the movies meant leaving the home, entering a public space, and participating in a temporally organized collective experience. Even when television expanded, cinema remained symbolically powerful because it offered scale, sociality, and eventfulness.

That arrangement has weakened. Over the last several years, and especially in the period after the pandemic, film consumption has become increasingly domestic, individualized, and digitally managed. Audiences now encounter films within a wider ecology of streaming platforms, smart televisions, mobile devices, short-form video competition, recommendation systems, and subscription bundles. The home has become not just an alternative exhibition space, but the everyday center of audiovisual consumption. The cinema still matters, but differently. It matters less as the automatic first destination for film, and more as a selective site reserved for spectacle, family outings, franchise experiences, prestige events, and premium social occasions.

This article calls that structural change the Home-Alone Effect. The term does not only describe solitary viewing in a literal sense. It names a broader shift in the social organization of film culture. Viewers may still watch with family or friends at home, but the dominant mode of film access is now private-space, user-controlled, platform-mediated, and integrated into domestic routines. Film becomes easier to pause, resume, fragment, multitask around, and personalize. This changes not only consumption patterns but also the commercial logic of the industry itself.

The question, then, is not simply whether streaming is “winning.” That is too narrow. The deeper question is how the movement from public theatrical regularity to home-based normality is reorganizing the field of film production, distribution, marketing, audience formation, and value extraction. Recent reporting underscores the scale of this transition. In a March 2026 discussion of moviegoing habits, Harvard Gazette summarized survey evidence showing a large fall in the proportion of people who frequently attend theaters, from 39 percent in 2019 to 17 percent in 2025. Around the same period, European industry reporting indicated that cinema admissions in Europe fell by 5.5 percent in 2025 to an estimated 796 million, demonstrating that recovery remains uneven and incomplete.

At the same time, the industry response has not been passive. In March 2026, Universal moved to extend theatrical exclusivity for major releases to at least five weekends, reversing shorter pandemic-era norms for many titles. In January 2026, Netflix and Sony announced a multi-year global arrangement that would bring Sony films to Netflix after theatrical and video-on-demand windows, highlighting the growing integration of theatrical circulation and platform licensing. These are not signs of a stable old model or a complete streaming takeover; they are signs of a sector searching for a new equilibrium.

This article argues that the Home-Alone Effect should be understood as a critical sociology of film-business transformation. It is about taste and distinction, but also about capital and infrastructure. It is about algorithms and windows, but also about status and social practice. It is about global media power, but also about ordinary habits inside the household. To make that argument, the article proceeds through theory, method, structural analysis, and implications for the future of the film business.

2. Conceptualizing the Home-Alone Effect

2.1 Defining the concept

The Home-Alone Effect refers to the cumulative process by which film consumption shifts from collective, place-based, scheduled, public attendance to domestic, on-demand, personalized, and platform-governed viewing. It has at least six dimensions:

First, it is spatial. Viewing moves from the theater to the home.

Second, it is temporal. Watching becomes less tied to schedules and more tied to personal convenience.

Third, it is economic. Payment shifts from one-ticket-per-occasion spending toward subscription, bundling, advertising, and data-driven monetization.

Fourth, it is cultural. Film competes more directly with other forms of attention, including series, gaming, social media, and short-form video.

Fifth, it is institutional. Studios, exhibitors, streamers, and producers reorganize around changing revenue windows and audience expectations.

Sixth, it is symbolic. The meaning of “going to the movies” becomes less ordinary and more exceptional.

The concept therefore captures both consumer behavior and industrial restructuring. It is not reducible to technology alone. Better home screens matter, but they do not explain everything. What matters equally is the reorganization of everyday life, the normalization of convenience, the subscription model of access, and the ability of platforms to absorb film into a wider ecology of content choice.

2.2 Why the term matters

Much of the public discussion of film-industry change is framed as a battle: cinema versus streaming. That framing is too simple. It misses the deeper point that the center of gravity of film culture has moved. Home viewing is no longer secondary. It is now primary in ordinary life. The cinema has not vanished, but it no longer defines the normal relationship between audience and film.

That distinction matters because businesses make different decisions depending on what they see as normal. If home viewing is normal, then films are financed, marketed, released, and evaluated differently. A film may no longer need a long theatrical run to have value. A short theatrical window may become a branding stage before platform release. A star vehicle may matter less than discoverability inside a recommendation interface. Mid-budget films may struggle theatrically but remain valuable as subscriber retention assets. Independent films may gain international visibility through digital circulation while losing local theatrical support.

The Home-Alone Effect is therefore useful because it captures not one trend but a cluster of linked reorganizations.

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1 Bourdieu: field, capital, habitus, and distinction

Pierre Bourdieu provides one of the richest frameworks for understanding the social meaning of film consumption. In Bourdieu’s sociology, cultural life is organized as a field: a structured space of positions and struggles in which agents compete over different forms of capital. Taste is not simply personal preference. It is socially formed, historically learned, and tied to distinction.

Applied to cinema, Bourdieu helps explain why theatrical attendance once carried more than entertainment value. Going to the cinema could signify education, urban participation, aesthetic seriousness, cosmopolitanism, or belonging to a modern middle-class lifestyle. Certain films offered symbolic profit. To have seen them in theaters, and to discuss them, was to possess forms of cultural capital.

The Home-Alone Effect alters this structure. It does not eliminate symbolic differentiation, but it relocates it. Cultural capital increasingly operates through curation, platform literacy, early access, niche discovery, and the ability to navigate abundance. The prestige once attached to the act of going out may now attach to the act of knowing what to watch, what matters, what is “hidden,” or what is globally significant before others notice it.

In Bourdieu’s terms, the habitus of film spectatorship also changes. Habitus refers to embodied dispositions formed through history and routine. The older habitus of moviegoing involved schedules, transport, public etiquette, screen discipline, and concentrated shared attention. The new habitus of home viewing includes interruption, pause culture, comfort, simultaneous device use, binge orientation, domestic informality, and algorithmic suggestion. Viewers become accustomed not only to convenience but to sovereign control over the viewing situation.

This shift has consequences for distinction. In the older model, distinction was often tied to public participation in cinema culture. In the newer model, distinction may be tied to access technologies, subscription stacks, home-screen quality, or the aesthetic curation of one’s media life. In affluent contexts, a high-end home audiovisual setup can itself function as a form of objectified cultural and economic capital. At the same time, premium theatrical experiences also become markers of distinction precisely because they are less routine. The theater survives, but more often as a selective experience rather than as everyday practice.

3.2 World-systems theory and global audiovisual hierarchy

World-systems theory draws attention to unequal power across the global economy. The screen industries have long reflected core-periphery relations, with dominant production centers controlling finance, rights, circulation, marketing, and narrative visibility. Hollywood historically occupied a privileged position in this structure.

The rise of streaming complicates but does not erase this hierarchy. On one hand, platforms widen circulation opportunities. A film from India, Korea, Spain, Turkey, or Nigeria can reach audiences far beyond national theaters. Digital distribution lowers some barriers of geography. It can increase the international discoverability of non-US content and diversify the visible map of screen culture.

On the other hand, world-systems theory reminds us that infrastructure itself is a source of dominance. The power may shift from theatrical distribution chains to platform ownership, cloud infrastructure, recommendation architecture, subscription bundling, and rights aggregation. In other words, content may look more global while control remains concentrated.

The Home-Alone Effect thus has a dual geopolitical meaning. It can create broader access to transnational screen culture, but it can also deepen dependency on a small number of large distribution systems that mediate visibility. Films travel more easily, yet the conditions under which they travel are increasingly shaped by platform-centered capital.

3.3 Institutional isomorphism and the convergence of business models

Institutional isomorphism, particularly as developed by DiMaggio and Powell, helps explain why organizations facing similar pressures begin to resemble one another. In the film business, this is visible across studios, streamers, exhibitors, and producers.

Under competitive, technological, and legitimacy pressures, firms imitate successful forms. Studios become more data-oriented. Streaming companies become more theatrical when awards, prestige, or event status require it. Exhibitors adopt premiumization strategies. Producers design films with cross-window value in mind. Distributors refine release patterns to balance box office, premium video-on-demand, subscription value, and long-tail rights.

This convergence is visible in the current period. The shortening of windows after the pandemic weakened the older ninety-day theatrical norm. Yet by 2026 some players were moving back toward longer windows for selected titles, while others were still keeping fast routes to digital release. Universal’s extension of theatrical exclusivity for major films and the ongoing debate around 45-day windows reveal not a settled rule, but an isomorphic field in which firms constantly adapt by watching each other.

What emerges is not one model replacing another, but a field of strategic imitation and selective differentiation.

4. Method and Analytical Approach

This article uses a qualitative, theory-led interpretive method. It is not a statistical model, nor a narrow case study of one distributor or one market. Instead, it synthesizes sociological theory with recent industry reporting and sectoral developments to produce a conceptual explanation of ongoing changes in the film business.

The approach has three purposes.

First, it identifies recent empirical tendencies relevant to the Home-Alone Effect, such as shifts in moviegoing frequency, admissions patterns, window strategies, and studio-platform integration.

Second, it interprets those tendencies through critical social theory rather than treating them as merely technical market adjustments.

Third, it draws managerial and institutional implications for universities, researchers, and practitioners interested in media industries, cultural management, and the sociology of technology.

The article relies on public reporting from reputable outlets and recognized industry organizations, especially where those sources illuminate current developments in 2025–2026. This is complemented by longer-standing academic theory and book-based scholarship in sociology, media studies, and organizational analysis.

5. Historical Background: From Collective Screen Culture to Domestic Platform Culture

5.1 The cinema as public institution

Cinema was historically more than a building. It was a public cultural institution. In many societies, it offered a regular rhythm of urban life, an affordable outing, and an accessible form of cultural participation. It turned films into events because attendance required coordination, movement, and shared time.

This publicness shaped value. A film was not only consumed; it was witnessed. Reviews, word of mouth, premieres, queues, and opening weekends all depended on the theatrical environment. The theater concentrated attention. It made scarcity visible.

5.2 Home entertainment before streaming

Home viewing is not new. Television, VHS, DVD, and cable long allowed films to be watched outside cinemas. But these formats usually followed cinema rather than displacing it as the primary first run. Even when home entertainment was important commercially, the cinema retained symbolic primacy.

What changes under platform conditions is not just access to films at home, but the full reorganization of the value chain around home-centric immediacy. The household becomes the default location of film. The theatrical release becomes one strategic option among several.

5.3 Pandemic acceleration and the normalization of the home

The pandemic did not create the Home-Alone Effect, but it accelerated and normalized it. During lockdowns, consumers deepened their attachment to home-based screen life. Habits changed, device ecosystems improved, and the domestic setting gained legitimacy as the normal site of major releases.

Post-pandemic recovery has been partial, uneven, and segmented. Some categories, especially major blockbusters and family-oriented titles, continue to pull audiences into theaters. Yet everyday moviegoing remains weaker than before. Recent coverage in 2026 highlighted that habitual attendance has dropped significantly relative to 2019, while European admissions also remained below older norms in 2025.

This is why it is misleading to describe the present as a simple “return.” The market has not returned to the old balance. It has entered a new one.

6. The Political Economy of the Home-Alone Effect

6.1 Subscription logic and the decoupling of individual films from individual payments

A key economic feature of the Home-Alone Effect is the shift from unit purchase to subscription access. In the cinema model, a single film was directly linked to a single payment occasion. In the subscription model, the value of a film is often indirect. A title may attract new subscribers, reduce churn, deepen engagement, strengthen brand identity, or raise the perceived quality of a platform’s library.

This changes how film value is measured. A movie that might seem commercially modest in theatrical terms could still be highly valuable in subscription terms. It might keep users inside a platform ecosystem, support cross-promotion, or increase the overall attractiveness of a service. The business logic therefore becomes less transparent from the outside.

6.2 Data extraction and algorithmic governance

Streaming platforms do not just distribute content; they collect behavioral data. This creates a form of informational capital unavailable to traditional box-office models in the same way. Platforms can observe completion rates, drop-off points, rewatch patterns, genre affinities, and time-of-day habits. Such data can influence commissioning, acquisition, marketing, and interface design.

The Home-Alone Effect therefore includes a shift from audience measurement after consumption to audience management during consumption. The viewer is not just a buyer. The viewer is also a data source.

From a sociological perspective, this changes power relations. In the cinema model, audience response was mediated through ticket sales, critical reception, and broader public discourse. In the platform model, response is partially privatized inside proprietary systems. The platform sees more than the public sees. That asymmetry matters.

6.3 Rights circulation and post-theatrical integration

The current industry structure shows that theatrical and streaming no longer operate as neatly separate worlds. Instead, rights move through layered windows in which theatrical release, digital rental, transactional purchase, subscription availability, and territorial licensing are strategically sequenced. The 2026 Sony-Netflix global deal is one recent example of how major studio film libraries and first-run slates are being integrated into platform strategies after theatrical and video-on-demand circulation.

This supports the article’s core claim: the Home-Alone Effect does not destroy theatrical film economics, but reorganizes them around a larger home-centered system.

7. The Reorganization of Production

7.1 From theatrical universality to audience segmentation

In the old theatrical ideal, many films were designed to appeal across broad audiences because cinema release required scale. Under platform conditions, segmentation becomes easier and often more rational. Platforms can support niche genres, region-specific stories, and micro-publics because value can come from cumulative subscriber satisfaction rather than from one opening weekend.

This does not eliminate blockbuster logic. In fact, blockbuster logic remains powerful. But the industry now operates with dual pressures: event-level scale for some titles and library-value segmentation for others.

7.2 Mid-budget uncertainty and the squeezed center

One of the most discussed consequences of platformization has been the weakening of the traditional mid-budget theatrical film. Extremely large films can still justify theater-first release because they promise spectacle and event attention. Small films may survive through festivals, awards, targeted digital release, or low-cost production structures. But many films in the middle struggle to justify theatrical risk while also competing for visibility in overcrowded platforms.

The Home-Alone Effect sharpens this squeeze. If audiences increasingly reserve theaters for major occasions, then the middle becomes vulnerable. Theatrical culture polarizes.

7.3 Family films, event cinema, and the social justification of attendance

Recent 2026 reporting has emphasized the growing centrality of family films to theatrical recovery, arguing that children and family audiences have become especially important for keeping cinemas active. Industry commentary also points to renewed emphasis on immersive outings and distinctive concessions for younger audiences. This is significant because it shows that the cinema’s survival is increasingly tied to content categories that justify leaving home as a social occasion.

In sociological terms, the theater now has to produce a stronger reason for attendance than it once did. It must offer not just a film, but an experience that can defeat convenience.

8. Distribution Windows and Institutional Adaptation

8.1 The shrinking window and its consequences

Theatrical windows once served as a central organizing principle of the film business. A long exclusive run protected the cinema as first site of revenue extraction and maintained the symbolic hierarchy of release. In recent years, those windows have been repeatedly shortened, contested, and re-engineered.

The result has been a major institutional struggle over timing. Exhibitors argue that very short windows undermine the social urgency of moviegoing. Platforms and some studios benefit from faster home availability. Reuters reported in 2025 that theater owners were pushing for movies to remain in cinemas longer, with 45-day exclusivity seen as important for box-office support.

8.2 Why some studios are extending windows again

Yet the trend is not linear. In 2026, Universal extended theatrical exclusivity for major titles to five weekends, moving away from shorter pandemic-era norms for many releases. This matters because it shows that some studios still see theatrical scarcity as strategically valuable, especially for event-scale films.

The point is not that the old order has returned. The point is that theatrical exclusivity itself has become a flexible strategic variable. Firms now treat windowing as portfolio management.

8.3 Institutional isomorphism in release strategy

This is where institutional isomorphism becomes especially useful. No one firm acts in isolation. If one major studio demonstrates that a longer window can strengthen box-office performance for premium titles, others watch. If fast home release improves total ecosystem value for certain genres, others watch that too. Window strategy becomes a field of imitation under uncertainty.

That uncertainty is a defining feature of the Home-Alone Effect. The industry knows the center of gravity has moved toward the home, but it is still testing how much exclusivity the theatrical stage needs in order to remain profitable and meaningful.

9. Audience Behavior, Social Practice, and the New Habitus of Viewing

9.1 Convenience as structure, not preference

Convenience is often described as if it were just a consumer taste. Sociologically, it is more than that. Convenience becomes a structure when infrastructures are designed around it. Streaming succeeds not only because audiences prefer comfort, but because the entire system of access, payment, discovery, and repetition is organized to make home viewing frictionless.

Once viewers become habituated to on-demand access, asking them to travel, coordinate schedules, pay per person, and submit to public etiquette becomes harder. The issue is not merely price. It is the comparative burden of the trip.

9.2 The decline of routine moviegoing

This helps explain why recent measures of frequent moviegoing remain weak. The 2026 Harvard discussion of attendance patterns highlighted a steep drop in frequent theater attendance between 2019 and 2025. That does not mean no one goes to theaters. It means the theater is losing status as a routine habit.

This distinction is crucial. A market can still have successful opening weekends and strong tentpoles while losing its everyday audience base. That appears to be one of the central contradictions of the current film economy.

9.3 Fragmented attention and platform competition

Home viewing also places film into harsher competition. In the theater, a film competes mainly before the audience enters the room. At home, it competes during the act of viewing itself. Messages arrive, other apps tempt, series autoplay, clips circulate, and the viewer can abandon a title at almost no cost.

This has consequences for storytelling, pacing, and marketing. Films may increasingly be judged not only by artistic coherence but by retention power inside a distracted environment.

10. World-Systems, Uneven Development, and Global Film Flows

10.1 Global reach and unequal control

Streaming can widen global visibility for films from many regions. Yet world-systems theory warns against confusing circulation with equality. If a small set of firms controls distribution infrastructure, recommendation logic, and financial extraction, then unequal power persists even as the map of content appears more diverse.

10.2 National industries under platform pressure

For national film industries, the Home-Alone Effect creates opportunity and vulnerability at once. Opportunity, because films can travel beyond domestic box-office limits. Vulnerability, because local theatrical ecosystems may weaken while platform dependence rises.

In Europe, the continued gap between production activity and lower-than-pre-pandemic admissions illustrates this tension. Recent Council of Europe reporting indicated that theatrical film production remains active even while admissions are still well below pre-COVID levels, with public support playing a major role in financing.

This suggests a film economy increasingly decoupled from theatrical performance in some regions. That decoupling may sustain production, but it may also transform what cinema means within national cultural life.

10.3 Core-periphery restructuring, not disappearance

Thus, the Home-Alone Effect should be understood as a restructuring of world-system relations, not their disappearance. The center may shift from Hollywood theatrical supremacy to platform-based global control, but hierarchy remains.

11. Management Implications for the Film Business

11.1 For studios

Studios must manage films across multiple value horizons: theatrical box office, premium video-on-demand, platform licensing, franchise extension, and catalog longevity. Success increasingly depends on rights choreography, not one release moment alone.

11.2 For exhibitors

Exhibitors can no longer rely on habit. They must create reasons for attendance. Premium formats, family experiences, event screenings, memberships, food-service upgrades, and local community programming become central. The cinema must become more than a room with a large screen.

11.3 For streamers

Platforms benefit from home-centered consumption, but they also need event legitimacy, prestige, and social conversation. That is why some streaming players still pursue theatrical runs, even if selectively. Cultural prestige still matters as symbolic capital.

11.4 For producers and film schools

Producers and educators must train for a hybrid industry. Students need to understand not only directing and screenwriting, but also windows, metadata, platform discovery, transnational rights, audience analytics, and the sociology of media consumption.

12. Discussion

The Home-Alone Effect should not be framed as cultural decline or technological progress alone. It is both gain and loss.

What is gained? Greater access, wider global circulation, lower friction, more flexible viewing, and new opportunities for niche audiences and transnational content.

What is lost? The ordinary collective habit of moviegoing, the public temporality of shared release culture, and some of the civic character of cinema as a common space.

What changes? Everything in between: funding models, marketing logic, genre priorities, family strategies, window design, and audience measurement.

The present period is therefore best understood not as the end of cinema, but as the end of cinema’s unquestioned centrality. The theater now survives by becoming more selective, more premium, more symbolic, and more event-based. The home, meanwhile, becomes the dominant social technology of film access.

This is why recent industry developments are so revealing. The weakness in frequent attendance, the continued admissions gap in Europe, the push and pull over theatrical windows, the growing importance of family films, and the integration of studio slates into platform deals all point in the same direction: the film business is reorganizing around the household, even while preserving theatrical exhibition where it can still generate social urgency and premium value.

13. Conclusion

The Home-Alone Effect is a useful concept because it captures a structural change larger than streaming alone. It names the movement of film from a primarily public, theatrical, collective experience to a predominantly domestic, on-demand, platform-mediated one. This movement is reshaping the global film business at every level.

Through Bourdieu, we can see how the symbolic order of spectatorship is changing, with distinction shifting from public attendance to curated, personalized, and technologically enhanced forms of media practice. Through world-systems theory, we can see how global circulation expands even as platform-centered control reproduces hierarchy. Through institutional isomorphism, we can see why studios, streamers, and exhibitors increasingly converge around similar adaptive strategies.

The future of the film business is therefore not a binary future of cinemas or platforms. It is a layered system in which theatrical exhibition remains important, but no longer ordinary; in which home viewing becomes routine, but not culturally neutral; and in which film value is produced across windows, interfaces, data systems, and symbolic struggles over attention.

The cinema will endure where it can still produce eventfulness, scarcity, and collective intensity. But the dominant habitus of film consumption now lives elsewhere: in the home, on the platform, inside the logic of convenience. That is the core meaning of the Home-Alone Effect, and it is likely to define the screen industries for years to come.

Hashtags

#HomeAloneEffect #FilmBusiness #StreamingEconomy #CinemaStudies #MediaManagement #DigitalCulture #FilmIndustryTransformation

References

• Abdelnour, S. and Hasselbladh, H., 2017. Agency and institutions in organization studies. Organization Studies, 38(12), pp.1775–1792. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617708007

• Adorno, T.W. and Horkheimer, M., 1997. Dialectic of Enlightenment. London: Verso.

• Aguiar, L., Reimers, I. and Waldfogel, J., 2024. Platforms and the transformation of the content industries. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 33(2), pp.317–326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12519

• Albornoz, L.A. and García Leiva, M.T., 2022. Netflix Originals in Spain: Challenging diversity. European Journal of Communication, 37(1), pp.63–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231211012174

• Anderson, C., 2006. The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More. New York: Hyperion.

• Anand, N. and Peterson, R.A., 2000. When market information constitutes fields: Sensemaking of markets in the commercial music industry. Organization Science, 11(3), pp.270–284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.3.270.12502

• Balio, T., 2013. Hollywood in the New Millennium. London: British Film Institute.

• Barker, M., Egan, K., Jones, E. and Mathijs, E., 2008. Watching The Lord of the Rings: Tolkien’s World Audiences. New York: Peter Lang.

• Bennett, T., Savage, M., Silva, E., Warde, A., Gayo-Cal, M. and Wright, D., 2009. Culture, Class, Distinction. London: Routledge.

• Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

• Bourdieu, P., 1986. The forms of capital. In: J.G. Richardson, ed. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood, pp.241–258.

• Bourdieu, P., 1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

• Bourdieu, P., 1993. The Field of Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity Press.

• Bourdieu, P., 1996. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

• Brennan, M., 2018. Making Sense of Netflix. London: Routledge.

• Caves, R.E., 2000. Creative Industries: Contracts Between Art and Commerce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

• Couldry, N. and Hepp, A., 2017. The Mediated Construction of Reality. Cambridge: Polity Press.

• Cuelenaere, E., 2026. Recycling as ‘IP extractivism’ in the age of platformization: A comparative analysis of Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Disney+. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 0(0), pp.1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565261422038

• Cunningham, S. and Craig, D., 2019. Social Media Entertainment: The New Intersection of Hollywood and Silicon Valley. New York: NYU Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479890286.001.0001

• Curtin, M., Holt, J. and Sanson, K., eds., 2014. Distribution Revolution: Conversations about the Digital Future of Film and Television. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

• Datta, S., 2025. Streaming quality unveiled: A grounded theory approach to video-on-demand service quality. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2498626

• Davis, G., Dickinson, K., Patti, L. and Villar, B., eds., 2015. Cinema and Experience: Siegfried Kracauer, Walter Benjamin, and Theodor W. Adorno. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

• De Vany, A., 2004. Hollywood Economics: How Extreme Uncertainty Shapes the Film Industry. London: Routledge.

• DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp.147–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

• Doyle, G., 2013. Understanding Media Economics. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

• Eliashberg, J., Elberse, A. and Leenders, M.A.A.M., eds., 2006. The Motion Picture Mega-Industry: Critical Issues in Practice, Current Research, and New Research Directions. New York: Springer.

• Epstein, E.J., 2005. The Big Picture: The New Logic of Money and Power in Hollywood. New York: Random House.

• Evans, P. and McKee, K., 2010. The Industrialization of Cultural Production. London: Routledge.

• Garnham, N., 1990. Capitalism and Communication: Global Culture and the Economics of Information. London: Sage.

• Gómez, R. and Larroa, G., 2022. Netflix in Mexico: An example of the tech giant’s transnational business strategies. Television & New Media. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15274764221082107

• Harbord, J., 2002. Film Cultures. London: Sage.

• Hesmondhalgh, D., 2019. The Cultural Industries. 4th ed. London: Sage.

• Holt, J. and Sanson, K., eds., 2013. Connected Viewing: Selling, Streaming, and Sharing Media in the Digital Era. New York: Routledge.

• Idiz, D.R., 2024. Local production for global streamers: How Netflix shapes European production cultures. International Journal of Communication, 18, pp.2129–2148.

• Idiz, D.R. and Poell, T., 2025. Dependence in the online screen industry. Media, Culture & Society, 47(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437241286725

• Idiz, D.R., Noordegraaf, J. and Vliegenthart, R., 2025. Culture as window dressing? A threefold methodological framework for researching the locality of Netflix series. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 20(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17496020241235579

• Idiz, D.R. and Rasmussen, N., 2025. Streaming production cultures: A research roadmap. Media Industries, 12(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/mij.7624

• Johnson, D., 2019. Online TV. New York: Routledge.

• Lobato, R., 2019. Netflix Nations: The Geography of Digital Distribution. New York: New York University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479882281.001.0001

• Lotz, A.D., 2017. Portals: A Treatise on Internet-Distributed Television. Ann Arbor, MI: Maize Books. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9699689

• Lotz, A.D., 2021. Media Disrupted: Surviving Pirates, Cannibals, and Streaming Wars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

• McDonald, K. and Smith-Rowsey, D., eds., 2016. The Netflix Effect: Technology and Entertainment in the 21st Century. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

• Meir, C., 2019. Mass Producing European Cinema: Studiocanal and its Works. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

• Meir, C., 2025. Two kinds of streamers, two kinds of strategies: Franchises and SVOD platforms. Théorème, 38, pp.175–182.

• Meir, C. and Mitric, P., 2025. Intellectual Property and the Contemporary European Audiovisual Industries. Brussels: European Audiovisual Production Association.

• Mikos, L., 2016. Digital media platforms and the use of television content: Binge watching and video-on-demand in Germany. Media and Communication, 4(3), pp.154–161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v4i3.542

• Miranda, M., 2024. Cinema exhibition on a cultural basis in Europe. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2024.2347391

• Napoli, P.M., 2011. Audience Evolution: New Technologies and the Transformation of Media Audiences. New York: Columbia University Press.

• Neira, E., 2023. The Netflix glocal strategy for popularising non-English-language content. Profesional de la Información, 32(2).

• Nieborg, D.B. and Poell, T., 2018. The platformization of cultural production: Theorizing the contingent cultural commodity. New Media & Society, 20(11), pp.4275–4292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818769694

• Nieborg, D.B. and Poell, T., 2020. The platformization of cultural production. In: J. Burgess, A. Marwick and T. Poell, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Social Media. London: Sage, pp.301–315.

• Noh, S., 2024. Global media streams: Netflix and the changing ecosystem of anime production. Television & New Media, 25(3), pp.234–250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15274764231206540

• Ortiz-Ospino, L., González-Sarmiento, E. and Roa-Perez, J., 2025. Technology trends in the creative and cultural industries sector: A systematic literature review. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 14, Article 39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-025-00497-6

• Poell, T., Nieborg, D. and Duffy, B.E., 2021. Platforms and Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity Press.

• Prindle, D.F., 2012. Risky Business: The Political Economy of Hollywood. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

• Schatz, T., 1993. The new Hollywood. In: J. Collins, H. Radner and A.P. Preacher, eds. Film Theory Goes to the Movies. New York: Routledge, pp.8–36.

• Schatz, T., 2009. Film industry studies and Hollywood history. In: J. Wasko and M. Curtin, eds. The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.181–199.

• Scott, A.J., 2005. On Hollywood: The Place, the Industry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

• Scott, W.R., 2014. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Slavík, L. and Smejkal, K., 2024. Negotiating organizational cultures: The evolution of the VOD platform implementation in Czech public service television. Iluminace, 36(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.58193/ilu.1775

• Srnicek, N., 2017. Platform Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

• Staiger, J., 2000. Perverse Spectators: The Practices of Film Reception. New York: New York University Press.

• Thompson, K. and Bordwell, D., 2019. Film History: An Introduction. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

• Tryon, C., 2013. On-Demand Culture: Digital Delivery and the Future of Movies. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36019/9780813561110

• Tryon, C., 2015. TV got better: Netflix’s original programming strategies and binge viewing. Media Industries Journal, 2(2), pp.104–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/mij.15031809.0002.206

• Ulin, J.C., 2019. The Business of Media Distribution: Monetizing Film, TV and Video Content in an Online World. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.

• van Dijck, J., Poell, T. and de Waal, M., 2018. The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190889760.001.0001

• Vonderau, P., 2019. The Spotify Effect: Digital Distribution and Financial Growth. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

• Wallerstein, I., 2004. World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

• Wasko, J., 2003. How Hollywood Works. London: Sage.

• Wasko, J., 2020. Understanding Disney: The Manufacture of Fantasy. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.

• Wayne, M.L., 2021. Netflix, Amazon, and Branded Television Content in Subscription Video On-Demand Portals. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

• Wright, A.L. and Zammuto, R.F., 2013. Wielding the willow: Processes of institutional change in English county cricket. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), pp.308–330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0653

• Wyatt, J., 1994. High Concept: Movies and Marketing in Hollywood. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

• Zhu, K., 2023. Understanding consumer adoption of OTT services through the UTAUT framework. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2283917