Telco-OEM-Streaming Partnerships in North America and Europe

Executive Summary

Bundle Economics 2026: Telco & OEM Partnerships That Scale – Content distribution via strategic bundles is becoming a cornerstone of telecom and device-maker strategy in North America and Europe.Chief Commercial Officers (CCOs) and Partnership Directors in Telco–Media and device manufacturing are leveraging multi-year deals with video streaming providers to expand reach, lower customer acquisition costs (CAC), and share revenues in win-win models. Key findings and insights include:

Resurgence of Bundling as Growth Driver: By 2025, bundling of streaming services with telecom or device offerings has shifted from a novelty to a mainstream growth strategy[1][2]. Approximately 20% of all streaming video subscriptions globally are now sold via telco bundles, a figure projected to reach 25% by 2028[2]. In certain regions (e.g. Latin America), up to 50% of streaming subs could come through telco bundles within five years[2] – underscoring bundling’s role in expanding reach to new customers. North America and Europe have seen rapid adoption of “streaming included” offers in mobile and broadband plans, fighting subscriber fatigue and maximizing content penetration.
Mutual Benefits – Reach Expansion & CAC Reduction: Telcos benefit from bundles by boosting customer acquisition and retention: 71% of telco leaders report major gains in attracting or keeping customers when incorporating streaming bundles[3]. Bundled content adds tangible value to data plans, reducing churn and making offers more compelling without solely competing on price. Content providers, in turn, tap into telcos’ massive user bases and billing relationships – reaching customers who might not subscribe directly due to payment frictions or marketing noise[4][5]. This indirect channel lowers content providers’ CAC, as telcos and OEMs handle distribution and promotion. According to Omdia, by early 2023 there were over 1,600 active telco–streaming partnerships (with Netflix, Disney+, HBO Max, etc.), highlighting how extensively OTT services now rely on these deals for subscriber growth[6]. Niche streaming services especially depend on partnerships – over 90% of specialist SVOD sign-ups in the US come via third parties like telcos or Amazon Channels[7][8].
Multi-Year, Multi-Partner Deals Becoming the Norm: To ensure scalability and predictability, partnerships are increasingly structured as multi-year agreements spanning multiple regions or services. For example, Vodafone’s pan-European TV platform secured multi-year deals with Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Discovery+ to embed these streamers into its offerings[9]. In the U.S., Verizon’s new +play platform forged a first-of-its-kind bundle combining Netflix and Max (HBO) for a discounted price – an arrangement leveraging Verizon’s content relationships to benefit all parties over a multi-year horizon[10][11]. Such frameworks allow partners to plan long-term around revenue-sharing, co-marketing, and evolving content strategies, rather than ad-hoc short promos. Notably, device manufacturers (OEMs) are also pivotal: e.g., Samsung’s partnership with Spotify (initiated in 2018 and extended through 2022) pre-installs the app on Galaxy devices and offers 3–6 month Premium trials in ~85 markets[12][13], a multi-year global deal to add value to hardware and funnel millions of users to Spotify. Likewise, Apple provides 3 months of Apple TV+ free with new device purchases[14] – effectively an OEM–content bundle that strengthens device appeal and service uptake. These examples illustrate the scalable frameworks emerging at the intersection of telcos, OEMs, and content providers.
Financial Models & Equitable Value Share: Partnership teams now negotiate sophisticated revenue-share and cost-sharing models to ensure deals are equitable and sustainable. Common frameworks include wholesale subscription purchases (telcos/OEMs pay content providers a discounted rate per subscriber to include the service “free” for consumers), referral commissions (telco acts as a reseller and takes a percentage of any customer payments made via its billing), and co-funded trials (e.g. a streaming service offers the first 3–12 months free via the partner, betting on conversion, while the partner absorbs or splits the cost). These models aim to balance risks and rewards: telcos justify the subsidy through higher customer lifetime value and lower churn, while streamers accept a lower ARPU in exchange for volume and market expansion[5][15]. For instance, a multi-year deal might set escalating revenue-sharing tiers – as subscriber milestones are met via the telco’s bundle, the revenue split adjusts to maintain fairness. The emphasis is on CAC trade-offs: it can be cheaper for a Netflix or Disney+ to “acquire” a sub via a telco bundle (even paying a cut to the telco) than through direct marketing. Similarly, telcos view the content cost as offset by reduced churn and upsell opportunities (e.g. moving customers to higher data plans)[16][17]. Industry reports indicate global revenue from subscriptions sold via telcos will reach $42.8 billion by 2027, up from $24.8 billion in 2023[18] – a reflection of the sizeable pie being shared among partners.

Decision Outlook: For CCOs and partnership directors, the implications are clear: bundling is no longer just a promotional perk, but a strategic pillar for growth and customer stickiness heading into 2026. Multi-year content-telco-OEM alliances, if structured with robust financial frameworks, can yield “win-win-win” outcomes – expanding subscriber reach, lowering acquisition costs, and creating new revenue streams for all stakeholders[19][16]. However, these benefits come with careful planning around revenue splits, customer experience integration, and flexibility to adapt over the course of the partnership. The following report delves deeper into the historical context, current landscape, key players, debates, quantitative metrics, and future trajectory of bundle economics, providing a comprehensive toolkit for negotiating and executing scalable bundle deals in the telco-media-device ecosystem.

Background & Historical Context

The Evolution of Bundling in Telecom & Media

Bundling content with connectivity has a decades-long pedigree, but its nature has transformed significantly in the streaming era. Traditionally, “bundling” in telecom referred to multi-play packages (e.g. phone, internet, TV in one bill) or promotional add-ons like music or ringtones in the 2000s. As over-the-top (OTT) media services emerged in the 2010s, telcos initially saw them as competition for users’ attention and wallet. Yet, by the mid-2010s, a shift began: telcos started partnering with streaming services to enhance their own offerings, a recognition that aligning with popular content could drive subscriber growth and loyalty. In fact, the telco–streamer partnership “has been in full swing since 2015 with Netflix being one of the most prolific OTT partners,” as noted in industry analysis[20]. Early landmark deals set the stage – for example, Netflix’s integration into pay-TV set-top boxes (e.g. Comcast X1 in 2016) and its first mobile carrier bundles in Europe (Netflix struck deals with Vodafone Spain and others around 2017). These partnerships solved a mutual problem: OTT services needed distribution (especially in markets with low credit card use or where consumers were wary of new subscriptions), and telcos needed new value-added services to combat ARPU decline and cord-cutting[21][4].

Telco Strategy – From “More-for-More” to OTT Partnerships: Around 2018–2020, many telecom operators in North America and Europe adopted “more-for-more” strategies – raising price points by adding content or perks to premium plans[22][23]. For instance, Spain’s major mobile operators bundled exclusive TV content and saw short-term ARPU lifts[24]. However, acquiring or producing exclusive content was costly and, in some cases, unsustainable (e.g. AT&T’s costly foray into owning Time Warner). A pivot occurred: rather than outright owning content, telcos increasingly formed partnerships with OTT providers[25]. This approach provided access to desirable content (like Netflix originals or live sports on Disney’s ESPN+) without the telco carrying the full content investment on its balance sheet. Europe saw multiple such deals: Vodafone UK offered six months of Netflix free with certain plans as early as 2014[26], Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile in Germany bundled Netflix in its MagentaTV service, andTelefonica’s Movistar+ in Spain integrated Netflix into its set-top platform via a 2018 partnership. These were significant because a traditionally closed pay-TV ecosystem was opening up to third-party streamers via wholesale deals. By the late 2010s, bundling OTT subscriptions had moved from experimental promotions to core features of telecom offerings. Notably, T-Mobile US launched “Netflix on Us” in 2017, making Netflix a permanent inclusion in certain family plans – a move credited with differentiating T-Mobile and spurring subscriber additions (the offer continues today with Netflix Basic-with-ads included at no extra cost on popular plans[27]). This represented a paradigm shift: carriers used to upcharge for content, but now were absorbing content costs as a customer acquisition/retention investment.

Meanwhile, device manufacturers also dipped into bundling to add value to hardware. Smartphone OEMs partnered with apps and media – e.g., Samsung’s 2018 deal making Spotify the default music service on Galaxy phones, with Spotify Premium trials bundled[28][12]. Smart TV makers similarly began including free trial subscriptions (e.g. LG and Samsung offering Apple TV+ or Disney+ trials with new TVs). These OEM-content partnerships run in parallel to telco bundles, sometimes intersecting (for example, a carrier might advertise a new Samsung phone launch that comes with a year of Netflix courtesy of a joint OEM-telco-content deal).

Rise of the “Super Bundle” and Content Hubs

Entering the 2020s, especially post-2020, a few trends accelerated bundling: the streaming wars(proliferation of services), subscription fatigue among consumers, and telcos’ intensifying need to find new revenue streams amid saturated markets. By 2024, industry observers note a “return to aggregation” in digital media – a swing of the pendulum back towards bundles after several years of unbundling. Deloitte’s 2025 media outlook highlights that the marketplace of dozens of individual DTC apps is giving way to aggregated bundles through legacy pay-TV, telcos, tech platforms, or even the largest streamers themselves[29]. Indeed, in the UK, as of late 2024, 43% of SVOD subscribers had at least one service via an aggregator (pay-TV, telco, or tech platform), and for smaller streaming providers almost half of their subs came through aggregation channels[29]. This echoes how cable TV once bundled many channels – now, modern bundles package multiple apps or services.

Telco Content Hubs: Several innovative programs launched around 2022–2024 exemplify this bundling evolution. Verizon (USA) introduced +play in 2022, an online marketplace where customers can manage and subscribe to dozens of services (video, music, even fitness apps) and get exclusive bundle deals[30][31]. Similarly, Optus (Australia) launched “SubHub”, and Telefonica, Orange, and others in Europe enhanced their apps to serve as one-stop shops for subscription management[32]. These “content hubs” go beyond one-to-one partnerships; they integrate multiple third-party services on a single platform – effectively becoming a super-aggregator on par with big tech channels like Amazon Prime Channels or Apple TV Channels. For telcos, this strategy addresses subscription fatigue by simplifying the experience (one bill, one interface) and potentially creating a new revenue line as a reseller (some telcos earn commissions for selling partner subscriptions). For example, Verizon’s +play struck multi-partner bundle promotions (e.g. Netflix with Paramount+; Netflix with Max) at a discount[10][11], something unimaginable a few years prior when streamers avoided cooperating. The fact that competitors like Netflix and HBO (Max) agreed to co-bundle via Verizon in a discounted package[33][34] underscores how the industry’s mindset changed to pragmatism (“co-opetition”).

Regulatory and Market Influences: In Europe, regulatory stances indirectly nudged bundles. EU net neutrality rules prevented zero-rating one service without offering alternatives, which led telcos to create broad platforms rather than single exclusive bundles (e.g., Telefónica’s Movistar in Spain had to ensure its Netflix integration was non-discriminatory, and other OTT apps could be included too). Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–21) accelerated streaming adoption and forced telcos to double down on digital services to maintain relevance as store footfall dropped. Many offered extended free trials of streaming or cloud services to add value during lockdowns, habituating consumers to bundled offers. By the mid-2020s, multi-year partnership agreements became standard – such as Netflix’s multi-country distribution deals with big carrier groups like Vodafone and Orange, or Disney+’s bundle deals with incumbent telcos in Europe (within weeks of its 2019 launch, Disney+ partnered with Verizon in the US for a year-free promo, with reports of ~6 million Disney+ sign-ups resulting[35], and did similar deals with telecoms like O2 in the UK, Deutsche Telekom in Germany, etc.). These partnerships were often expressly multi-year to ensure continuity for customers and to allow costs to be amortized for the telco.

In summary, by 2025 the bundling landscape is the culmination of a 10+ year evolution: from tentative add-ons to fully integrated, strategic alliances. Telcos and OEMs went from experimenting with free trials to making content bundles a core of product design (e.g., a mobile plan is marketed not just by data and minutes, but “includes Netflix and Spotify”). This historical trajectory set the stage for the current landscape, where bundling is a mature practice driving significant portions of subscriber growth and requiring careful management of partnerships.

Current Landscape

Prevalence of Telco–Streaming Bundles in 2025

Today’s telco-media partnerships are ubiquitous in North America and Europe, defining much of the competitive landscape. A significant share of new streaming subscriptions now originates from telcos, pay-TV providers, or device platforms instead of direct-to-consumer. Recent industry data illustrates this clearly: approximately one-fifth of global SVOD subscriptions in 2023 were sold via telco/operator bundles, and this indirect share is climbing annually[2][6]. In some European markets, the penetration is even more striking – for example, research by Omdia found that in Central and Eastern Europe, roughly 23% of all paid streaming subscriptions are through telco/pay-TV partnerships as of 2024, a figure expected to grow with further OTT rollouts[36]. Western Europe and North America likewise see robust bundle uptake: in the UK, 43% of streaming customers use at least one service via an aggregator (telco, pay TV or tech platform)[29]; in the U.S., a Parks Associates study in 2022 found 40% of streaming subscribers had their services bundled through a home service provider (cable or telecom)[37]. These numbers underscore that bundling has moved into the mainstream of content distribution.

Telcos as Aggregators and Resellers: Major telecom operators have launched dedicated platforms to facilitate multi-service bundles. We see two models co-existing: (1) Inclusive Bundles – where a streaming service is included in a plan (often marketed as “free” or included at no extra cost), and (2) Add-on Marketplaces – where customers can add multiple subscriptions via the telco and get unified billing or discounts.

In North America, U.S. carriers lead with aggressive bundle offerings. For instance, T-Mobile includes Netflix on many plans (a long-running offer now providing Netflix Basic-with-ads on family lines)[27], and also offers streaming deals with Paramount+ or Apple TV+ under various promotions. Verizon has perhaps the most expansive approach: under its MyPlan program (launched 2023), customers can customize their plan with paid “+Play” add-ons. Through +Play, Verizon resells dozens of services – from Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+ (offered as the Disney Bundle) to Netflix, Max, Peloton, even Walmart+ shopping – often with exclusive discounts. A headline example is Verizon’s Netflix+Max bundle for $10/month (ad-supported tiers) launched in Dec 2023, touting 40% savings for consumers[10]. Verizon is effectively using its scale to broker bundle deals: it convinced Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery (Max) to partner in a joint offering (Verizon was the first provider to ever bundle Netflix with another OTT service at a single price[11]). This signals how far “coopetition” has come; streaming rivals are willing to collaborate under a telco’s umbrella if it means reaching more users. AT&T, while quieter on third-party bundles after divesting WarnerMedia, still includes HBO Max (now Max) for legacy customers and offers limited-time deals for others (shifting to a more optional model). In Canada and across Europe’s major markets, similar patterns hold: e.g., Vodafone, Orange, and Deutsche Telekom all serve as key distribution partners for Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video, etc. Vodafone’s TV and mobile bundles in Europe include OTT apps natively – in April 2024, Vodafone Spain launched a convergent mobile/fiber plan that includes Netflix (ads tier) in the package by default[38]. Customers get a full suite: broadband, mobile data, linear TV channels, plus Netflix – an echo of the old triple-play, now infused with OTT content. This indicates European telcos see integrated content as essential to selling higher-value converged plans. Also noteworthy, Vodafone offers hardware options (a 4K TV or premium set-top) with those bundles[39], showing OEM involvement (the Xiaomi TV offer) tied into the service bundle.

Device Manufacturers’ Role: While telcos have become aggregators, OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) – especially those making smartphones, smart TVs, and streaming devices – are also shaping bundle economics. Their influence is twofold: pre-installation deals and free trial offers that effectively bundle content with device purchase. For example, Samsung’s long-term partnership with Spotify ensures Spotify comes pre-loaded on Samsung phones, and new device buyers get extended Spotify Premium trials (3 to 6 months) as a bundle perk[12][13]. This partnership, spanning many devices and regions over multiple years, has introduced vast numbers of users to Spotify’s paid tier at minimal marketing cost to Spotify (Samsung underwrites or at least facilitates the trial). In the video realm, smart TV makers have struck similar deals: nearly every new Apple device comes with a free 3-month Apple TV+ subscription[14], many new Google Android TVs offer free trials of YouTube Premium or Stadia (when it existed), and Sony PlayStation bundled HBO Max or Disney+ trials with console purchases in some promos. While these OEM-content bundles sometimes exclude the telco, they contribute to the bundle ecosystem by habituating consumers to getting content “included” with hardware. Moreover, OEMs often collaborate with telcos in marketing – e.g., a carrier’s launch of a new Samsung Galaxy might advertise that the phone “comes with 1 year of Disney+” if bought on that carrier (as happened with Verizon and Disney+ in 2019). In effect, the OEM, telco, and content provider can form a triad where a device + service + connectivity bundle is presented as a single value proposition. This is especially potent during holiday campaigns or product launch seasons, aligning with the pain point mentioned: partnership teams want clear financial frameworks before holiday campaigns to negotiate such three-way deals.

Key Trends and Emerging Dynamics

Multi-Service “Super Bundles”: Beyond one-to-one pairings (like one streaming service with one telco plan), we’re seeing bundles that span multiple content services. The concept of a “super bundle” or “subscription hub” is gaining traction[31]. Verizon’s +play and Optus SubHub were early movers, but others are following suit. For instance, Comcast (US) packaged Apple TV+, Netflix, and Peacock together in 2023 for Xfinity customers at a discount[40]. Likewise, in France, Canal+ (a pay-TV provider) sells bundles of Netflix, Disney+ and its own channels in one plan. These multi-party bundles typically offer a single price ~20–30% lower than subscribing separately, which is compelling for consumers and alsoincreases stickiness (one reason churn drops – a customer who might cancel one service keeps the bundle because it’s “all or nothing” for the discount). In fact, content providers themselves have mimicked this: Disney’s streaming division now sells the Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ bundle as a unit, and even cross-company combos are sold (Disney+ with HBO and Hulu was offered in a limited test in 2022)[41]. For telcos and OEMs negotiating in 2025, this means partnership deals may involve multiple OTT players togetherrather than siloed deals. The ability to manage a coalition of partners (and align their interests) is becoming a competitive differentiator for telcos.

Ad-Supported Tiers and New Monetization: Another current dynamic is the rise of ad-supported streaming tiers (Netflix, Disney+, etc. have cheaper plans with ads). This actually facilitates bundles, because the cost to include an ad-supported subscription is lower (the provider is subsidized by ad revenue). Telcos are seizing this by bundling the ad-tier versions by default. For example, Netflix’s inclusion on T-Mobile is now the ad-supported plan, and Verizon’s Netflix/Max bundle uses the ad tiers[42]. The ad-tier uptake helps reduce the wholesale cost for telcos and can be positioned as a value option, with the telco upselling customers to higher ad-free plans for an extra fee (some carriers allow customers to pay the difference to upgrade their included subscription). This flexibility is part of current deal structures.

Regional Nuances: In North America, the norm is partnership with global OTT giants, whereas in Europe, partnerships also extend to local streaming services. For instance, Telefónica’s Movistar+ bundles include Disney+ and Netflix, but in Germany, Deutsche Telekom’s MagentaTV also bundles local services like RTL+ or sports packages. Telcos tailor bundles to regional content preferences, which can be a negotiating point in deals (e.g., a global streamer might do a pan-European deal with a telco group, but allow each country to integrate a different mix of local apps alongside the flagship service). Also, European operators often integrate these apps into their own TV interfaces (e.g., Vodafone TV’s cloud platform hosts Netflix, Amazon, etc. in the UI[43][9]), effectively making the telco’s environment the aggregator. In the US, by contrast, bundling is often marketed but the apps remain separate (the user redeems an offer and uses the OTT app directly). This difference matters in how “sticky” the bundle is – integrated experiences (like a unified search across Netflix and live TV on a provider’s box) tend to deepen engagement with the bundle.

Emerging Platforms and Beyond Video: While video streaming is the primary focus (as per the target query), current bundles are expanding into other digital services as well. Music streaming, cloud gaming, news and educational apps, and even non-media perks (food delivery, retail) are entering bundles. Amazon’s bundling of Grubhub+ food delivery with Prime, or telecoms offering Microsoft Game Pass Ultimate with 5G plans, are examples. The relevance for video bundling is that partnership directors may craft holistic bundles (e.g., “entertainment pack” containing video, music, gaming) for a single price. Indeed, survey data show consumers increasingly expect multi-purpose bundles – a recent Bango survey found many subscribers now want “killer bundle combinations” that engage across different content types for greater value[1]. Telcos like AT&T and BT have even experimented bundling non-entertainmentsubscriptions (e.g., cybersecurity, cloud storage) for families, though the core selling point remains video or music.

Holiday Campaigns & Promotion Cycles: The query mentions holiday campaigns, and indeed Q4 is a pivotal time each year when device makers and carriers roll out big bundle promotions to attract gift shoppers and upgraders. The current trend is seasonal boosts like “Buy a new phone for Christmas, get 12 months of streaming free” or limited-time upsizing of bundle deals (e.g., an extra streaming service thrown in for the first year). In 2024, for instance, one might see a carrier advertise that new customers switching get both Netflix and Disney+ for a year as a holiday special – leveraging existing multi-year deals but increasing the subsidy temporarily. These campaigns require that the partnership framework is flexible enough to support short-term incentives (who covers the cost of that extra free period? How are those trial users counted in revenue share?). Typically, a financial framework for a multi-year deal will include clauses for marketing campaigns, specifying cost-sharing for any free trial extensions or co-marketing spend. The current landscape has settled enough that these mechanisms are standard practice.

In summary, the current landscape (2025) is characterized by high bundle penetration, sophisticated bundle offerings (multi-service, personalized add-ons), and a normalization of cross-industry collaboration. Telcos and OEMs have become key channels for streaming services, and vice versa, streaming content has become a key selling point for telco and device products. All major players in the North American and European markets are now “bundle players” to some degree, and those that aren’t are at a competitive disadvantage. This sets the stage for examining who those key stakeholders are and how they interact.

Key Stakeholders & Actors

The bundle ecosystem spans multiple industries – each stakeholder brings different motivations and negotiating power. Below we identify the major players and their roles:

Telecommunications Companies (Telcos & ISPs)

Who they are: Mobile network operators (e.g., Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile in North America; Vodafone, Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile), Orange, Telefónica (O2/Movistar), BT/EE in Europe) as well as cable/MSO and broadband ISPs (e.g., Comcast/Sky, Charter, Altice). Many have converged offerings (mobile + fixed + TV).

Role in bundling: Telcos are enablers and distributors – they bundle content services with their connectivity plans to add value, upsell customers, and reduce churn. Telcos often serve as the billing agent (charging the customer for the bundle and remitting a portion to the content partner) and sometimes as the user interface provider (integrating apps into their own TV boxes or apps). They negotiate deals with content providers to get favorable terms (bulk discounts or revenue share). Telcos also contribute marketing muscle – promoting the streaming service in their retail stores, adverts, and cross-sell campaigns – effectively becoming an extended sales channel for the content service[44][15].

Motivations: In an era of saturating mobile markets and commoditized data plans, telcos seek differentiation and ARPU growth. Bundling popular content makes their plans more attractive without cutting core prices. It’s also a churn management tool: customers on a bundle are less likely to switch carriers, especially if they’d lose a beloved streaming perk. Telcos also see long-term opportunity to develop new revenue streams by taking a slice of subscription sales. For instance, if a telco can earn a 10–30% commission on selling OTT subscriptions (similar to app store economics), that can become a multi-billion dollar revenue category across millions of users[45][19]. Additionally, telcos aim to leverage their billing relationships and trust – many consumers find it convenient to get “everything on one bill,” which is a value telcos pitch to partners (especially in markets where direct billing for OTT is a hurdle). However, telcos must balance costs – content subsidies directly hit their margins, so they are keen on equitable deals where either the OTT gives a discount or there is a clear return via higher customer lifetime value.

Notable stakeholders & actions: Nearly every major telco in NA/EU has a content partnership lead negotiating these deals. For example, Verizon’s Content & Partnerships division spearheaded Disney+ (2019) and more recent +play deals; Deutsche Telekom’s team in Europe negotiated a group-wide Netflix deal (with Netflix integration across DT’s footprint). Vodafone Group likewise has a central content partnerships team enabling Netflix/Amazon deals across multiple countries[9]. Regulators occasionally come into play: telecom regulators or competition authorities watch if bundling could be anti-competitive (e.g., if a dominant ISP exclusively bundles one OTT to crowd out others, or uses bundling to lock in consumers unfairly). Overall, telcos hold the customer access and data pipe – making them powerful brokers in bundle economics.

Content Providers (Streaming Services)

Who they are: Subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) and ad-based streaming platforms. The big global players include Netflix, Disney+ (and its bundled siblings Hulu/ESPN+), Amazon Prime Video, Max (HBO), Apple TV+, Paramount+, Peacock, etc. There are also niche and regional players: e.g. Discovery+ (now part of Warner Bros. Discovery’s offerings), BritBox or Now TV in the UK, Crave in Canada, etc., and various sports streaming services.

Role in bundling: They are the content suppliers whose product is being bundled. They must decide which partners to work with and on what terms. Content providers often provide promotional subscriptions or bulk rates to telco/OEM partners. They also sometimes build technical integrations (single sign-on through the telco, APIs for account creation via partner systems). Importantly, content providers may supply marketing assets, co-branding funds, or even bespoke content for partnerships (e.g., Netflix might allow a co-branded advert “only on X carrier: Netflix included”). Increasingly, content providers are also acting as bundlers themselves – for example, Netflix has started to partner with other services (HBO, Paramount+) to create bundles offered via telcos or their own site[33][41], and Disney’s Hulu has integrated rival services like HBO as add-ons. But in the telco/OEM context, the content provider is usually one piece of a larger bundle.

Motivations: Fundamentally, streaming services are chasing subscriber growth and extended reach, especially as direct customer acquisition becomes more expensive. Partnerships give them access to potentially millions of new users with lower friction. For instance, Netflix’s leadership has explicitly cited partnering with telcos as key to reaching the “next 100 million” users in emerging markets[46][47]. In regions like EMEA and Asia, partnerships circumvent issues like low credit card penetration or local marketing needs – e.g., Netflix’s tie-up with India’s Jio massively expanded its reach by piggybacking on Jio’s 450 million user base[48][49]. Lower churn is another motive: data indicates subscribers acquired via bundles can have better retention, because the bundle adds stickiness[50][51]. Content providers are also stakeholders in protecting their brand – they care how their service is presented in a bundle (ensuring a good user experience, not being “lost” in an aggregator interface, etc.). The trade-off for content providers is giving up some direct relationship and potentially revenue per user in exchange for volume. Many have concluded the trade-off is worth it: 91% of subscription leaders agree that a successful strategy now requires both direct and indirect (partner) channels[52][53]. Content providers negotiate to receive either a guaranteed payment or minimum volume commitment in multi-year deals, to ensure they aren’t simply giving away discounts without return.

Notable stakeholders & actions: Key people include business development and partnership executives at these streaming firms. For example, Maria Ferreras, Netflix’s VP of Business Development, was instrumental in forging Netflix’s telco/pay-TV deals in Europe, citing that such partnerships were “critical for getting people easy access to Netflix” in markets where credit cards or devices were a barrier[54][4]. Disney’s platform distribution team likewise struck deals with nearly 100 operators globally in the first year of Disney+. There are also intermediary companies that some content providers employ – e.g., Antenna or Evergent for subscriber analytics through partners, or Bango and 1GLOBAL which offer technical platforms to manage bundling and eSIM services for non-telco brands[55][56]. Those intermediaries aren’t end stakeholders, but they facilitate the relationships. Another critical point: content providers now coordinate among themselves for bundles (as noted, the Disney/Hulu/ESPN bundle or Warner/Discovery sports joint venture[57]), which can influence what they negotiate with telcos (they might present a combined offering to a telco).

Device Manufacturers (OEMs)

Who they are: In this context, primarily smartphone makers (OEMs like Apple, Samsung, Google), smart TV manufacturers (Samsung, LG, Sony, TCL etc.), and other connected device/platform companies (Roku, Amazon with Fire TV, gaming console makers). These companies create the hardware and operating systems through which content is often consumed.

Role in bundling: OEMs can be both partners to content providers (preloading apps, offering free trials) and partners to telcos (co-marketing devices with bundled services on a carrier). They sometimes act as aggregators themselves: e.g., Apple’s TV app aggregates multiple streaming services, and Apple sells bundle add-ons like Showtime or Paramount+ within its ecosystem; Amazon’s Fire TV and Roku Channel similarly bundle third-party channels. For smartphones, OEMs often negotiate deals to include certain subscriptions with device purchase (like Samsung’s Spotify deal, or Apple’s own Apple TV+ offer). They also enable carrier bundles at a device level – for instance, an iPhone on Verizon might come with an app or shortcut to redeem the included Disney+ offer, thanks to coordination between Apple and the carrier. OEMs also manage app storefronts (Google Play, Apple App Store) which in some cases handle billing for OTT subscriptions – making them another stakeholder if the telco bundle is redeemed via an app code.

Motivations: Device makers aim to increase the appeal of their hardware and create an ongoing service relationship with the customer. Bundling content can differentiate a device (“Buy our TV, get 6 months of Netflix on us!”). It can also showcase device capabilities (e.g., a 5G phone bundled with a high-quality streaming service demonstrates 5G value). OEMs that have their own content platforms (like Apple, Amazon) have dual motivations: bundling their own services (Apple bundles Apple TV+/Music with devices to boost services revenue) and bundling partner services when it helps sell devices. Additionally, OEMs often receive compensation for pre-installs or referral conversions – for example, Samsung likely gets a marketing fee from Spotify for every new trial started on a Samsung device (and Spotify gains a subscriber). These financial kickbacks can be meaningful given the scale (85 markets, many millions of Samsung units)[13]. Another subtle motivation: ecosystem lock-in. If a consumer uses an OEM’s device to access a bunch of services (some even through the OEM’s interface), they’re less likely to switch to a competitor’s device later.

Notable stakeholders & actions: The product marketing teams at OEMs are key, as are any services or content divisions (e.g., Samsung’s Media Solutions Center which handled the Spotify partnership, Sony’s Entertainment division working on Bravia TV bundles). Apple is a slightly special case – as an OEM with its own content services, it tends to bundle its own services rather than partner’s (Apple TV+ free on devices, Apple One bundle, etc.). However, Apple did partner with carriers historically: e.g., Apple Music was bundled via carriers like Verizon and EE (with carriers subsidizing a free period). So Apple acts both as content provider and OEM partner. Roku and Amazon (makers of streaming sticks/TV OS) also partner with telcos – e.g., some ISPs distribute Roku devices with their broadband and include some OTT channel offers. The presence of OEMs adds another layer in multi-party deals, as they might share in the cost or provide promotional support. For instance, if a new Samsung phone is launched with a Netflix promo on a carrier, Samsung might co-fund that promo with the carrier (marketing development funds), while Netflix provides the free sub – a three-way cost split. Such arrangements are increasingly common, making OEMs active stakeholders in bundle economics.

Consumers (End Users)

Though not the direct audience of this report, it’s worth noting the role of the consumer. Consumer behavior is driving the bundle trend: faced with subscription overload and fatigue, consumers value simplicity and savings. As per surveys, 68% of subscribers actively shop for the best bundle deals and use tools to manage subscriptions[58]; many now prefer getting services via an existing provider for ease[59][17]. Consumer appetite for bundles is high – for example, Hub Research found that for major streamers like Hulu, Disney+, etc., a top reason people subscribed was that “it was included in a bundle”[60]. This end-user preference gives leverage to telcos/OEMs as aggregators, but also pressures all stakeholders to keep bundles attractive (e.g., ensure the discount or convenience is clear). Consumers are also getting sophisticated (savvy): they pause/cancel standalone subs frequently (nearly 36% frequently rotate services month-to-month)[58], but a bundle with a contractual term can lock them in longer. Knowing this, stakeholders design bundle offerings (often with yearly commitments or device tie-ins) to secure longer customer lifetimes[61][62].

Other Stakeholders

Platform Enablers and Middleware: Companies like Bango, 1GLOBAL, Zuora, Ericsson’s Emodoetc., which offer technical platforms for subscription bundling, partner onboarding, and revenue settlement. They are not front-facing but play a role in smoothing partnerships. For example, Bango’s Digital Vending Machine® platform is used by some telcos to quickly integrate new OTT offers without heavy IT development[63]. 1GLOBAL provides white-label eSIM and telco services enabling non-telcos (like banks or travel sites) to bundle connectivity[64][65] – showing that bundling is expanding beyond the traditional players.
Regulators and Industry Bodies: They aren’t direct parties to deals but can influence the landscape. Competition commissions, for instance, might scrutinize if a large telco’s exclusive bundle stifles smaller OTT competitors. Thus far, regulators have mostly allowed bundling, seeing it as pro-consumer (added value). One active area is net neutrality – ensuring telcos don’t favor one service’s traffic. The deals typically avoid zero-rating one video service exclusively (to stay compliant, telcos either zero-rate a class of traffic or just charge data normally for the bundled service). Regulatory guidelines in the EU (e.g., BEREC) have been exploring how to treat zero-rated or bundled content in telecom plans[66][67], but generally content bundles have proceeded with few interventions.

In summary, the bundling value chain involves: telcos/ISPs (the aggregators and channel), content providers (the service/product), OEMs (the device and additional channel), plus consumers (demand side). Each has aligned interests in some ways (growing the pie of subscriptions) but also negotiates to maximize their share of value – hence the need for clearly defined frameworks addressing those competing views, as we explore next.

Competing Views & Debates

Despite the overall positive momentum behind bundling, there are nuanced debates and differing perspectives among industry players about the best approaches. Here we map out some key areas of contention and the arguments on each side:

Direct-to-Consumer (D2C) vs. Bundling through Partners

The Debate: Should streaming services focus on selling directly to consumers (to own the customer relationship and full revenue) or embrace third-party bundles (to scale faster at lower cost)?

Pro Direct (Skeptical of Bundling): Some executives worry that relying on telcos/OEMs means losing the direct customer relationship and data. When an OTT is bundled, “the direct engagement and communication are often handled by the telecom”, limiting the streamer’s insight into user behavior and ability to upsell or troubleshoot[68]. These skeptics point out that without direct billing, the OTT might not even have the customer’s payment info or contact, making it harder to market new content or recover lapsed users. There’s also fear of being one of many in a bundle – a “commodity” – rather than a must-have destination brand. Some cite the lesson of cable TV: niche channels in a big bundle often struggled for mindshare. Thus, a faction (historically Netflix was in this camp) argued for as long as possible that a pure D2C strategy yields better loyalty and brand equity. Additionally, direct-focused players are cautious of revenue dilution: if a telco takes a 20% cut, that’s lost margin compared to a direct subscriber. Apple is an example of a company that has been selective – it has huge direct reach and historically didn’t deeply discount via others. Netflix too, for years, avoided deep discount bundles (beyond partner billing) until growth needs pushed a change around 2018–2019.
Pro Bundling (Indirect Channels): The opposing view emphasizes scale and access over control. As one survey found, 91% of subscription leaders acknowledge that successful acquisition now requires both direct and indirect channels[69] – essentially, that the days of purely organic D2C growth are over in saturated markets. This camp argues that partner bundles lower CAC and churn, more than compensating for the revenue share or loss of some data. Evidence is cited: for example, an OTT service might spend $50–$100 in marketing to acquire one subscriber online, whereas via a telco bundle the cost might be, say, giving a 20% discount to the telco – which could be a lower effective cost per sub. Also, bundles can reach segments the OTT would never reach alone (older consumers comfortable with cable bills, or customers in countries where app stores aren’t widely used). Another point: bundling can actually reduce churn significantly – Antenna data shows services in a bundle have far lower cancellation rates (e.g., ESPN+ churn dropping from ~8% to 3% in the Disney bundle)[70]. That retention boost is gold for OTTs struggling with fickle subscribers. Thus, the pro-bundling side sees partnerships as a win-win that increases lifetime value and total subscriber count, even if ARPU per user is slightly less. They also note that being part of a bundle doesn’t preclude direct engagement entirely; creative solutions (like co-branded onboarding, or data-sharing agreements) can mitigate the loss of customer insight. For example, some deals allow the OTT to later market to the user directly after a promo ends, or share viewing data (within privacy limits) back to the OTT.

Current Status: The trend is clearly towards the pro-bundling philosophy gaining dominance – even holdouts like Netflix have fully embraced partnerships now[71][33]. However, OTTs still strive to convert bundle users into direct loyalists over time (for instance, after a free year via a telco, persuading the user to continue paying on their own). The debate now focuses on how to bundle (the structure) rather than whetherto bundle at all.

Hard Bundles (All-Inclusive) vs. Soft Bundles (Optional Add-Ons)

The Debate: Telcos face a strategic choice in executing bundles – do they hard bundle a service, i.e. include it automatically in a plan for all eligible customers (often “free”), or do they offer it as an optional add-on (perhaps at discount) that customers can choose? Each approach has pros and cons and proponents.

Hard Bundle Advocates: Hard bundling (e.g., “Netflix is included in Plan X for as long as you’re on that plan”) maximizes the perceived value and differentiation of the core product. Proponents argue it creates strong lock-in – customers get used to that inclusion and are reluctant to lose it by switching provider or downgrading plans. It’s also a simpler message to market (“get this plan, you get Netflix on us”) and ensures broad uptake – if you’re giving a perk, might as well give it to all who qualify to get the full churn reduction benefit. From the content partner’s view, a hard bundle often means the telco will pay for every subscriber in that tier, effectively guaranteeing a bulk subscriber count (even if some end users wouldn’t have subscribed on their own). For instance, T-Mobile’s Netflix on Us covers all Magenta plan customers, so Netflix gets millions of T-Mobile-funded subs. AT&T’s past offer of HBO on unlimited plans similarly gave HBO Max a boost in user base. The hard bundle camp also contends it’s equitable in that all customers who pay for a premium plan get the same benefits (no one feels left out or confused by add-on choices).
Soft Bundle/Optional Add-On Advocates: Others champion flexibility – letting customers pick which, if any, service they want. Verizon’s recent shift to MyPlan is a prime example: instead of forcing a particular streaming service into all plans (some Verizon plans used to include Disney+ for all, for instance), they unbundled the base price and let users add “perks” at $10 each, which could be a streaming bundle or something else[72]. The argument here is it avoids paying for content that some customers won’t use, making partnerships more efficient. If only 50% of customers actually activate that Netflix, why pay for 100%? Optional bundles also allow personalization: one customer might value Disney+, another Netflix, another none – so giving choice can improve customer satisfaction by meeting individual needs (and potentially bundling multiple services to one user). For telcos, soft bundles can be a revenue source if customers pay extra for add-ons (Verizon monetizes Netflix+Max at $10). There’s also a defensive angle: one-size hard bundles can mismatch customer needs – a risk noted in analysis that bundles may not align with diverse preferences and could cause dissatisfaction if people feel they’re “paying for something they don’t use”[73]. Soft bundles mitigate that by making it opt-in.

Current Status: We see a hybrid approach emerging. Some telcos hard-bundle one marquee service to anchor the plan (e.g., Netflix included) but also give options for others. For example, T-Mobile includes Netflix but also has a Magenta plan variant that included Apple TV+ for a year; Vodafone allows choice of one “Entertainment” option in some tariffs (Netflix, Spotify, or HBO). The debate now is often internal for telcos: does the uplift in ARPU/churn from a hard bundle justify the cost? It can depend on the content – a universally popular service like Netflix is easier to justify including for all, whereas a more niche service might be better as optional. There’s also a regulatory angle: offering consumer choice (soft bundle) can preempt complaints of anti-competitive tying. The trend, especially in Europe, leans toward giving customers some choice among bundle options, to maximize perceived fairness.

Short-Term Promotions vs. Multi-Year Partnerships

The Debate: Some argue that content deals should be short-term promotional bursts (e.g., “6 months free Spotify” as a limited perk) to minimize long-term commitments, while others advocate for multi-year strategic partnerships that integrate the service deeply (e.g., a 3-year agreement to offer Netflix on all premium plans, co-develop offers, etc.).

Short-Term Promo View: These proponents treat content bundles as marketing offers more than fundamental product components. They prefer having the flexibility to rotate offers frequently – one year it’s Netflix free for 6 months, next year maybe it’s Disney+ for a different segment, etc. This can create excitement during promotions and avoid long contractual lock-ins that might become less attractive if market conditions change. For example, if a streaming service’s popularity wanes or it changes pricing, a telco stuck in a multi-year deal could overpay or be saddled with a less compelling offer. Short promos also allow testing which services actually drive acquisitions; they’re essentially trials for the partnership too. Financially, a short-term approach might limit liability – offering 3 months free is a small hit and then users either cancel or start paying. A counterpoint to multi-year deals sometimes heard is risk of subscriber “freebie hopping” – customers might join to get a 1-year free streaming then churn after consuming it. Without a long-term integration, the telco might fail to retain them beyond the promo.
Multi-Year Partnership View: This side argues that deep, scalable benefits (like true churn reduction and brand association) only come from committed, long-term partnerships. Multi-year deals enable jointly building features (e.g., integrated search, co-created content promotions), and allow time to optimize the economics (often prices or rev shares can be adjusted over a multi-year period as certain milestones are hit). They also send a signal to consumers that the bundled service is a stable part of the offering, not a temporary gimmick – which can increase the bundle’s impact on loyalty. From the negotiation standpoint, multi-year contracts often secure better financial terms. A telco might get a bigger discount per subscriber by guaranteeing a minimum volume over 3 years, for instance. And for the content provider, a multi-year deal guarantees distribution stability (they can count on that channel). Many recent deals reflect this philosophy: e.g., Netflix and Telefonica announced a multi-year global partnership in 2018 to integrate Netflix into Telefonica’s platforms across Europe and Latin America; Vodafone’s 2020 deal with Disney+ in Europe was multi-year, ensuring Disney+ was a core offering on Vodafone TV for several years. Those in favor of multi-year also highlight customer experience – if a service is only there for a short promo, customers may not adopt it fully; but if it’s an ongoing inclusion, they treat it as part of their bundle of services and incorporate it into their habits (thus driving the desired stickiness).

Current Status: The industry has moved toward multi-year agreements underpinning bundles, even if the promotion to end-users might be framed as X months free. For instance, Verizon’s initial Disney+ deal in 2019 gave 12 months free, but behind the scenes it was part of a multi-year strategic partnershipbetween Verizon and Disney to bundle and later upsell Disney’s streaming bundle[35]. The consensus is that stable partnerships allow better planning (especially for holiday campaigns, partnership teams want to know a year ahead what they can offer). However, flexibility is built in: contracts often have review points or allow swapping out if certain performance metrics aren’t met. One debate in multi-year deals is exclusivity – should a telco tie up exclusively with one OTT in a category (and OTT with one telco), or keep it non-exclusive? Exclusivity can give a marketing edge but limits overall reach for the OTT. In practice, most streaming services avoid exclusivity with one distributor (preferring many deals), except in special cases or smaller markets.

Revenue Share Models – Fixed Fee vs. Per-Subscriber Share

The Debate: How to split the revenue (or cost) in bundle arrangements? Some deals use a fixed wholesale fee per subscriber model (telco pays content provider a set amount per user/month), others use a percentage revenue share (e.g., if an add-on is sold, telco keeps X%), and others involve marketing subsidy or bounty (one-time payments for each activation). There’s debate over which model is fairest and most effective.

Fixed Fee / Wholesale: Content providers often like a wholesale model because it’s straightforward – they set a price at which they sell subs in bulk to the telco, and the telco can then bundle as it wishes. This is analogous to how channels sold to cable: e.g., Netflix might charge a telco $7 per sub for Standard plan (retail $15), and the telco pays that for every user who redeems. Telcos, however, will scrutinize if that cost truly yields positive ROI in retention/recruitment. The benefit is simplicity and potentially predictable revenue for OTT. Telcos may negotiate volume tiers (the fee drops as subscribers grow). The risk: if many subscribers don’t actually use the service, telco still pays – this happened in some early bundles where telcos paid a blanket amount assuming certain uptake, and it hurt margins when uptake was higher than expected (a “good problem” but a cost issue).
Revenue Share / Commission: Particularly for optional bundles or marketplaces, a revenue share makes sense – e.g., Verizon sells Netflix+Max bundle for $10 and presumably shares that revenue with the streamers. App stores typically take ~30%, though telco deals often have lower cuts (maybe 10-20%) given the value of the telco’s marketing is different than a global app platform’s. Proponents say this aligns incentives: telco only makes money when the OTT makes money (through a paying subscriber), so both are incentivized to sign up users who will convert to paid after any promo. It also avoids the telco paying for inactive subs. For example, Roku’s platform and other aggregators use rev shares – Netflix historically paid platforms like Roku one-time bounties for sign-ups rather than ongoing cuts[74]. Telcos might prefer this for optional add-ons – they act as a retail agent and get a cut of actual sales. The debate here is what percentage is fair; OTTs usually resist giving too high a cut if they feel the telco’s role is mostly marketing/billing.
Hybrid / Minimum Guarantee: Many multi-year deals end up hybrid – a minimum guaranteed payment (ensuring content provider gets something even if uptake is low), plus a revenue share beyond that. From interviews and reports, some telcos guarantee a certain number of subscriptions (or a lump sum) to secure the partnership, then reconcile actual activations later. There’s debate on whether guarantees are wise; telcos may fear overpaying, while OTTs worry about under-commitment.

The “equitable” framework sought by partnership teams often involves modeling various scenarios (low, medium, high customer uptake) and ensuring each party is comfortable with the outcome in each. The goal is to avoid zero-sum thinking and reach a “win-win”. As Bango’s co-founder commented on the rise of super bundling: “we’re seeing a win-win-win scenario that benefits SVOD providers, telcos and consumers alike”[19][75], which implies sharing both the costs and upsides fairly.

Content Integration & User Experience: Depth of Integration vs. Simplicity

The Debate: How tightly integrated should the content experience be in the telco/OEM ecosystem? One side pushes for deep integration (unified search, one app for everything, single sign-on), believing it drives engagement. The other side cautions that such integration can blur identities and is technically complex, suggesting a lighter touch (separate apps but unified billing).

Integration Advocates: They argue that a seamless UX is key to bundle success. If a customer has to juggle multiple apps and logins, the perceived convenience drops. Examples like Sky’s Q box or Vodafone TV’s interface – which put Netflix, Amazon, live TV channels in one menu – are held up as gold standards[43][9]. Integration can extend to features like content recommendations across services, a universal search bar, and combined content discovery. This camp often involves the telcos who have TV platforms or super-app ambitions. They see integration as a way to make themselves the central hub (and thus own the customer interface). OTTs have been historically wary (Netflix initially was selective about being on third-party UIs), but even they have warmed up because integration can increase usage. YouTube’s presence on operator set-tops, for example, significantly increased YouTube’s TV viewership but also meant YouTube had to share ad inventory or data in some cases – a trade-off.
Limited Integration Advocates: Some content providers prefer to maintain their own app environment even in bundles, to preserve their brand experience and data collection. They might allow single sign-on or authentication ease via the partner, but keep the UI separate. This approach ensures the user knows they are using (for example) the Disney+ app specifically, not a generic portal. It also simplifies updates – the OTT can update its app independently. Telcos in this camp might be those without their own TV platform, who find it easier to just have users redeem a code and use the standard app. There’s also a technical complexity argument: deep integration requires engineering work on both sides; not every partnership will justify that level of effort or be feasible on all devices. Moreover, some consumers might prefer separate apps if they are used to them – bundling doesn’t necessarily mean you need one mega-app (Verizon +play, for instance, doesn’t provide a viewing app at all; it’s just a marketplace and billing tool).

Current Status: The level of integration often depends on the partner’s capabilities. Pay-TV oriented telcos (Comcast, Vodafone, Orange) integrate heavily because they have existing TV platforms. Mobile-first carriers (Verizon, T-Mobile) have tended toward simpler billing integration and marketing, less on custom UIs (though Verizon’s set-top box for 5G home does have integrated streaming apps, it’s not a unified guide). This debate plays into the negotiating table: a content provider might charge more or be selective about deep integration deals, whereas a telco might push for exclusive features if they integrate. Ultimately, the success of bundling doesn’t strictly require full UI integration – unified billing and discounts drive a lot of the consumer appeal – but the stickiness might be higher with integration, as some data suggests (integrated services see more frequent use). It’s an ongoing debate aligned with strategic positioning: does the telco become a “super-aggregator platform” or just a conduit?

Bundling Multiple Services vs. Single-Service Focus

The Debate: Some believe the best approach is to bundle multiple services together in one big package(like a cable bundle reborn), to maximize lock-in and value. Others believe in offering one premium serviceas the hero of a bundle (the “one big perk” model) to keep things simple and avoid diluting the impact.

Multi-Service Bundle Proponents: They argue that subscription fatigue can only be solved by a one-stop solution, i.e., a bundle that covers most entertainment needs. This is the “super bundle” or aggregator argument. Having more services in one bundle also creates greater switching costs – it’s easy to cancel one $10 subscription, but canceling a bundle that covers your video, music, and gaming is harder because you’d need replacements for all. Telcos can leverage this to reduce churn dramatically (as noted, more services = more stickiness)[75]. Also, a combined bundle can be sold at a value price (like pay $30 for $50 worth of services), which consumers find attractive. In partnership terms, this means negotiating with multiple OTTs and possibly getting them to agree to a joint offer. That requires a bit of coordination (like Verizon had to coordinate Netflix and Max’s involvement), but the B2B2B deals are becoming more common as seen with Disney/HBO/Hulu collaborating[41]. This camp effectively wants to recreate the cable bundle but with modern OTT components, possibly with the telco as the bundle curator.
Single-Service Bundle Proponents: Others feel that one really strong content offering can be thedifferentiator and you don’t need to complicate beyond that. For example, AT&T (when it owned HBO) bundled just HBO Max with wireless and nothing else, yet that was a huge draw for HBO fans. They caution that multi-service bundles can become unwieldy – customers might not perceive added benefit after the first one or two services, and content providers might not love being one of many in a package (the less prominent ones might get less usage, yet could be blamed for adding cost). Additionally, the more parties in a bundle, the more complex the revenue split and operations (customer support, etc. – who handles a problem with Service C in a 5-service bundle?). Simplicity also matters in marketing: “Plan with Netflix” is easy to convey; “Plan with Netflix, Spotify, and Cloud Storage” might dilute messaging or only appeal to a segment. Some telcos start with one flagship service and later expand to multi – reflecting internal debate resolved gradually.

Current Status: The industry is experimenting. Verizon offers both single add-ons and a couple of multi-service bundles (Netflix+Max, the Disney bundle)[72]. British Telecom’s EE is reportedly considering a broad entertainment pack instead of separate add-ons. The success of multi-service bundles like the Disney trio (which retained 80% of subs after 3 months, outperforming even Netflix’s retention[76]) shows multi-content packages can reduce churn. We will likely see more multi-service bundles as partnerships mature, but targeted single-service bundles remain a key tactic especially for initial partnerships.

In conclusion, while there’s broad agreement that bundling is here to stay, the strategies to execute it are debated and evolving. Players are finding a balance between simplicity and variety, direct control and partnership leverage, short-term and long-term commitments. These competing views are not mutually exclusive – many companies blend approaches (e.g., a core long-term bundle plus rotating short promos on top). But understanding these debates helps inform the financial frameworks and negotiations that partnership teams undertake. Next, we look at quantitative outcomes to ground some of these perspectives in data.

Quantitative Insights

To gauge the impact and trajectory of telco–OEM–content bundles, we compile key data and statistics from recent reports and case studies. These numbers illustrate adoption rates, financial outcomes, and consumer behaviors relevant to bundle economics (with a focus on North America and Europe).

1. Rising Share of Streaming Subs via Bundles: As of 2023, an estimated 20% of all global streaming video subscriptions are sold through telco bundling partnerships, and this share is projected to reach 25% by 2028[2]. In dollar terms, subscriptions billed via telcos (video, music, etc.) will generate $24.8 billion in revenue in 2023, growing to $42.8 billion by 2027[18]. Certain regions lead in bundle penetration – Latin America is on track for ~50% of streaming subs via telcos by 2028, while parts of Europe (e.g., Central/Eastern Europe) already see ~23% of subs through pay-TV/telco bundles[2][36]. In the UK, 43% of SVOD subscribers have at least one service via an aggregator (telco, pay-TV, or tech)[29], highlighting how common indirect subscription is. These figures confirm that a significant portion of OTT growth is now coming from partnerships, not pure direct marketing.

2. Consumer Subscription Stacking & Bundling Behavior: The average number of streaming services per user has plateaued around 4 in the US and ~2.3 in Europe[77][78]. Growth in “stacking” multiple standalone services is slowing, implying that further revenue growth may come from bundling strategies (e.g., selling those 4+ services in packages). A Parks Associates study found 40% of streaming subscribers (US) say their services are bundled through a home service provider (telecom/tv)[37] – a remarkably high figure showing consumers are already embracing bundled access. Parks also noted the average streaming household spends $73/month on OTT (2022) and is highly cost-sensitive, with churn rates around 47% annually in the US[37][79]. This cost consciousness drives interest in discounted bundles: For example, over half of US consumers said they’d trade some choice for a discount via a year-long subscription bundle[61][62]. Indeed, only ~4% of US SVOD subscriptions in early 2024 were on 12-month contracts, but surveys indicate willingness to accept contracts in exchange for savings[61] – an opportunity bundles can exploit.

3. Impact on Customer Acquisition & Reach: Partnerships are now central to OTT subscriber acquisition strategies: – According to Omdia, 28.8% of new SVOD subscriptions are purchased through indirect channels (telco or other third parties) globally[52]. For niche services, this reliance is even higher: Antenna data shows over 90% of specialist streaming service sign-ups in the US come via indirect routes (telcos, Amazon Channels, etc.)[8]. – In a survey of 200 subscription executives (2025), 77% said they are prioritizing indirect (partner) strategies that year, and 82% plan to increase investment in them[53]. Additionally, 91% agreed that successful customer acquisition now requires both direct and indirect channels[69], underscoring a near-universal consensus on the importance of partnerships. – Real-world example: Disney+ gained ~6 million subscribers (in its first year) via its Verizon partnership in the US[35], which offered 12 months free to Verizon Unlimited customers. This one deal jump-started Disney+ adoption and highlights how a single telco can deliver millions of users quickly. Likewise, Netflix’s partnership with Reliance Jio in India opened access to potentially 400+ million users; Netflix’s prepaid mobile bundles with Jio (launched 2023) gave it reach into a segment that previously was hard to penetrate (prepaid users)[48][49]. – Telcos see parallel benefits: 71% of telco leaders report major improvements in customer acquisition and retention from bundling streaming services into their offerings[3]. Moreover, streaming (SVOD) subscriptions are now ranked as the #1 type of value-added bundle for telcos aiming to boost customer gains and loyalty[80], outranking music or other services.

4. Churn Reduction and Lifetime Value: Bundling has demonstrable effects on reducing churn: – Antenna’s research found that when services are sold as part of a bundle, they achieve much lower churn rates than standalone. For example, ESPN+ saw monthly churn drop from ~8% to ~3% when it was in the Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ bundle[81]. Similarly, Disney+’s 6-month churn was 43% stand-alone vs. just 19% when bundled with Hulu/ESPN+[82] – a greater than 2x improvement in subscriber retention. – Apple TV+ churn fell from ~9% to 3% when included in the Apple One bundle (with Music, Arcade, etc.)[51]. This suggests bundling a weaker service with stronger siblings or complementary offerings can significantly prolong subscriber life. – An Ampere Analysis noted that the Disney bundle retained 80% of subscribers after 3 months, higher than Netflix’s standalone retention of ~74% in the same period[76]. In effect, the bundle became “stickier” than the top standalone service, indicating bundles can surpass standalone loyalty benchmarks. – On the telco side, there are not public churn numbers, but multiple operators have cited double-digit percentage reductions in churn for customers on bundled plans. Telefónica (O2 UK) has previously said customers who took advantage of content add-ons had materially lower churn than those who didn’t (specific figures confidential). Verizon has noted that its premium unlimited plans (with bundled content) have significantly higher retention than its basic plans.

These retention improvements translate to higher lifetime value (LTV). A reduction of churn from say 20% annual to 10% annual doubles the average customer lifetime. Thus, even if a bundle costs a telco $5/month, if it extends a customer’s life by a year, it pays back handsomely in service revenue. This quantitative case underpins why telcos justify paying for Netflix or Disney+ on behalf of customers.

5. Financial Uplift and ARPU: While bundling can be used defensively (to prevent churn), it also supports ARPU uplift strategies: – Oliver Wyman’s analysis of telco “more-for-more” content bundling showed operators that added content successfully raised prices in early phases[83][84]. In Spain, initial inclusion of exclusive content in bundles allowed price increases and revenue growth (until competitors responded)[85]. This suggests a window where bundling can allow price elasticity – customers pay more if they feel they’re getting more value. Many carriers have indeed moved customers to higher-priced plans by adding streaming perks instead of just more data. – Consumer willingness-to-pay surveys indicate a significant segment will pay a premium for consolidated services. For instance, Deloitte found 20% of UK streaming users and 50% of US users would commit to a year-long bundle contract for a discount[61]. This implies potential ARPU stability or growth if bundles are structured as longer-term subscriptions (customers might pay for a year upfront or stick longer, generating more revenue than monthly churners). – However, margins are a consideration: an Accedo article cautions that the costs of acquiring content and managing bundles must be outweighed by revenue, otherwise profitability suffers[86]. In other words, if a telco spends $10 subsidizing services but only gains $8 in incremental ARPU or retention benefit, it’s a net loss. Thus far, many telcos report positive ARPU impacts – for example, Verizon’s ARPA (average revenue per account) rose as customers migrated to plans with included Disney+ and other perks (Verizon cited an uptake of premium plans when Disney+/Bundle was introduced). Quantitatively, one can see this in Verizon’s 2020 earnings where unlimited plans with bundled media had higher adoption, lifting wireless service revenue. Still, detailed profitability breakdowns are rarely public.

6. Number of Active Partnerships: The breadth of deals is also quantifiable: – Omdia identified 1,600+ distinct partnerships between telcos and major streaming services as of Q1 2023[6]. This count includes everything from small ISP deals to big mobile offers, illustrating how widespread the practice is. The most common streaming partners globally were Paramount+, Disney+, HBO Max, and Netflix in those telco deals[16], showing those four are particularly aggressive in partnering. – The speed of new deal-making is high: In late 2022 and 2023, every few weeks saw announcements like “XYZ Telco to offer free Disney+ for 6 months” or “ABC Mobile adds Netflix to its top plan”. The shear volume means partnership directors must often manage multiple concurrent deals and maintain them – a quantitative challenge in itself (one Tier-1 European telco mentioned it manages over 100 content/partner integrations across markets). – Multi-party bundle deals are growing: e.g., Disney reported by mid-2022 it had over 100 operators globally distributing Disney+; Netflix is available through virtually all top carriers in developed markets (and through pay-TV or device partners as well). Amazon Prime (with its broader bundle) is a bit different but still has telecom tie-ins (e.g., some carriers include a year of Amazon Prime membership).

7. OEM Bundling Stats: A couple of notable figures on device-led bundles: – Samsung’s Spotify partnership: Expanded to 85 markets offering three months free Premium on new Samsung devices[13]. Samsung also pre-installs Netflix and other key apps on tens of millions of TVs and phones – while not “free subs,” the prominence drives sign-ups. – Apple TV+ device bundles: Apple doesn’t release numbers, but given Apple sells ~200 million iPhones/year and offers 3 months TV+ on each, the potential trials are enormous. In 2021–22, estimates suggested tens of millions of Apple users were on free TV+ promos at any time, thanks to device offers (which Apple extended multiple times). Apple’s bundling of its Fitness+ service with Apple Watch purchase (3 months free) is another example: adoption of Fitness+ is largely driven by these device bundles. – These show OEM offers can rapidly amass trial users (Spotify gained over 7 million trial signups from the Samsung deal’s first phase, according to one Spotify earnings call, though conversion rates weren’t disclosed).

8. Effects on Market Share & Penetration: Bundling can accelerate a streaming service’s market penetration: – Netflix’s case in EMEA: Netflix credited telco/pay-TV partnerships for boosting its penetration in markets like Germany, France, etc., which lagged the US. By one report, in the mid-2018 period Netflix’s EMEA growth rate increased following deals with Sky, Proximus, Deutsche Telekom and others[87]. Today, Netflix likely has 30–40% of new signups in Europe coming through partners (as indicated by Ampere and Omdia analyses). – Disney+ in Europe launched with ~30% of initial subscribers coming via bundles (e.g., Canal+ in France packaged Disney+ for all its customers). This helped Disney+ hit ~100 million globally in 1.5 years, a trajectory that outpaced Netflix’s early growth thanks in part to partnerships.

To summarize, the quantitative evidence paints a picture of bundling as a major force multiplier in the streaming and telco industries. Indirect channels contribute a large and growing share of subscriptions, improve retention by significant margins (churn cut by half or better in examples), and are being embraced by consumers looking for value and simplicity. Financially, while bundles entail cost-sharing, they’ve proven effective in raising ARPU or at least defending it, and in extending customer lifetimes. These numbers provide the rationale behind the strategic moves of each stakeholder and will inform the sector-specific impacts and decisions we discuss next.

(Refer to the “Annotated Citations” section for detailed sources of these statistics and insights.)

Sectoral/Disciplinary Impact

The rise of content-telco-OEM bundles has wide-ranging implications for the telecommunications and media sector, particularly for the target audience of CCOs and Partnership Directors in Telco–Media and device manufacturing. Below we consider how these developments impact their strategic planning, business models, and competitive landscape, focusing on actionable insights, risks, and opportunities for these personas:

Impact on Telco Strategy and Revenue Models

For telecom operators, bundling fundamentally shifts the value proposition from pure connectivity to a more holistic “experience” offering. CCOs at telcos must now think like content aggregators and retailers, not just network service providers. This means:

Integration of Content in Core Offerings: Telcos are increasingly positioning themselves as central entertainment hubs, not just utilities. This boosts customer perception of value – a mobile plan isn’t just GBs of data, it’s also your Netflix subscription and music streaming access. By 2026, this could evolve into telcos offering tiered plans largely defined by which content/services are included (e.g., a Family Plan that includes 3 streaming services + gaming pass + security software). The planning of product tiers will need to incorporate content costs and partnerships as a core design element, which is a new interdisciplinary approach (product, marketing, and partnership teams collaborating closely).
New Revenue Streams and Metrics: Bundling opens potential revenue streams via commission or upsell. For instance, Verizon’s +play can generate commission revenue from partner subscriptions sold – essentially telcos earning like app stores. Telcos might also negotiate revenue share on advertising (if they bundle an ad-supported service and can sell some ad inventory via their channels – a model yet nascent but possible). CCOs should measure not just ARPU but “ARPU-equivalent” including the value of content. Also, CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost) may effectively drop; instead of spending $X on marketing, a telco might spend that $X on subsidizing a Netflix sub which itself draws customers in. Partnership Directors can use data to show that, for example, giving a $8/month Netflix saves more in retention and acquisition spend than it costs.
Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) Expansion: As shown, bundles reduce churn, thereby extending CLV. Telcos can justify higher subscriber acquisition spend or premium pricing if CLV is boosted. However, if a customer’s bundle is tied to a contract (say a 24-month device plan with included services), telcos must ensure the experience is consistently good; a failure in the content part (e.g., if the included service has outages or loses popular shows) could reflect back on the telco’s brand. So, partnership management becomes directly tied to customer experience management – a relatively new responsibility for telcos traditionally focused on network QoS.
Competitive Differentiation and Market Share: In saturated markets like North America and Europe, bundling has become a key differentiator. We see “content wars” parallel to price wars – e.g., T-Mobile pushed Netflix inclusion, then AT&T countered with HBO, then Verizon with Disney, etc. Going forward, telcos may vie for exclusive or first-to-market bundle deals (perhaps securing early access to a new streaming platform or unique bundle combinations). CCOs must weigh if securing an exclusive deal (possibly at higher cost) is worth the competitive edge. For example, when Disney+ launched, Verizon’s exclusive first-year tie-up gave it an edge – others could only offer Disney+ later or not free. Such deals can attract high-value customers and steal share if competitors can’t match. On the flip side, if every carrier offers a similar Netflix or Disney deal by 2026, it becomes table stakes rather than differentiator – pushing telcos to either find the next new service to bundle (e.g., trending sports streaming, cloud gaming, AR/VR content) or differentiate on bundle implementation (like better integration or flexible choices).
Operational and Financial Planning: Multi-year partnerships require multi-year financial commitments. Partnership Directors need to develop financial frameworks and models for these deals: forecasting uptake, negotiating volume-based pricing, and including protective clauses (like adjustments if subscriber targets aren’t met, or if service pricing changes). Because content costs can be significant, telcos have to manage the margin impact carefully. Some European telcos in the past faced margin squeeze when content costs rose faster than ARPU. To avoid this, deals might include shared risk – e.g., if a streaming service raises its retail price, the cost share might adjust. Additionally, bundle uptake analytics become important: telcos will invest in tracking how many customers activate the included service, how it affects usage (maybe more data consumed – positive if they charge for data overages or upsell to unlimited), etc. These metrics inform whether to renew or tweak a deal after the term.
Risks: From a telco perspective, there are risks such as over-reliance on a third-party service. If that service experiences a scandal, decline in quality, or business failure, a telco’s bundle strategy could be suddenly undermined. For example, if a highly bundled streamer dramatically loses content or raises prices beyond what’s sustainable, telco partners are left scrambling. There is also a brand risk: if customers have a bad experience with the content (e.g., billing issues, app problems), they often call the telco since that’s who they pay – meaning telcos might have to handle customer support for partner services. Partnership agreements need clearly defined support responsibilities to avoid customer frustration. Another risk is regulatory or antitrust pushback if bundles are seen as locking in consumers or unfairly preferencing one service. Telcos should ensure alternatives are available (e.g., offer a choice of streaming service where possible) to mitigate this.

Impact on Content Providers and Media Industry

For streaming services and media companies, bundles change how they approach distribution, marketing, and even content strategy:

Distribution and Subscriber Mix: By 2026, a substantial portion of a streamer’s subscribers will likely come from indirect channels. This means content providers must manage a diverse subscriber base: some customers pay full price directly, some are on discounted bundles, some on free trials through partners. Reporting and revenue recognition become complex; ARPU calculations may be segmented by channel. Media companies might shift some investment from direct marketing to partner co-marketing – e.g., co-funding a telco’s holiday ad that promotes their show with the bundle. They also must ensure visibility on partner platforms – negotiating for placement (like being on the telco’s homepage or included in bundles promotions). Partnership directors on the content side will be evaluating which partners deliver active users versus just “subscribers on paper” (ensuring the partnership yields real viewership that can be monetized via ads or upsells).
Revenue Share and Value Extraction: Content providers will refine how they monetize bundled users. Some might treat telco-sourced subs as purely incremental (a lower ARPU but lower CAC segment). Others might try to upsell bundled users to higher tiers – e.g., Netflix could entice a user who got “Netflix Basic with ads” through a carrier to upgrade to Standard or Premium by paying the difference; indeed some telcos allow that upgrade via the carrier billing[88]. This can boost revenue extraction from what started as a free/cheap bundle user. Media companies will track conversion metrics: what % of telco promo users convert to paid, and for how long do they retain? These KPIs feed into future deals (for instance, if conversions are low, they might demand a higher subsidy from telcos for a free period).
Content Curation and Co-Productions: A forward-looking aspect – if telcos/OEMs become akin to distributors, content companies might collaborate on content targeted for those bundles. For example, imagine a telco wanting a locally popular series to push its bundle – the telco might co-fund a piece of content exclusive or early on that platform (some have done this in limited ways, like a carrier sponsoring bonus content or a localized interface on an app). While mainstream streamers focus on global content, partnership-influenced content strategies could emerge, particularly for niche services partnering with telcos in non-English markets.
Competitive Landscape for OTTs: Bundling can be double-edged for content providers. On one hand, it’s an equalizer for smaller OTTs – they can piggyback on bigger distribution. On the other, the big players (Netflix, Disney) through these deals may entrench their dominance; if every carrier bundles Netflix, a new entrant OTT finds less shelf space. Media companies must decide on alliance vs. stand-alone: we see emerging coalitions (like WarnerMedia and Discovery merging – partly to have a stronger hand in distribution deals[57]). If bundling becomes the norm, OTTs with broader content portfolios might be favored by distributors (e.g., a telco may prefer bundling Disney’s bundle of Hulu/Disney+/ESPN to cover multiple genres at once). This could pressure single-genre or smaller OTTs to band together or go through aggregators (like Amazon/Amazon’s Prime Channels, Apple, etc.).
Ad Sales and Data: If an OTT is ad-supported, telco partnerships might offer data sharing that enhances ad targeting (some deals allow anonymized telco subscriber data to be used to target ads on the OTT service, enhancing CPMs). There’s sensitivity around privacy, but the potential is there: e.g., knowing a user’s bundle or plan type might correlate to demographics. Partnership directors should explore these synergies carefully within legal bounds.
Risks for Content Providers: A key risk is brand dilution or confusion – if customers think of their streaming service as something that “comes with my phone plan,” the direct brand relationship may weaken. Also, heavy reliance on a few telco partners could be risky if those partners later demand deeper discounts or drop the service for a competitor’s. To mitigate, content providers diversify partnerships (e.g., Netflix is now on nearly all carriers globally, not exclusive to one, to avoid over-reliance). There’s also the risk of revenue cannibalization – some direct customers might downgrade to a bundle to save money (for example, someone paying Netflix $15 might switch to a $10 Verizon bundle of Netflix+Max). Ideally bundles bring in new or lapsed users, but some cannibalization can occur, which needs to be modeled.

Impact on Device Manufacturers (OEMs)

Device makers stand to gain by making their hardware more attractive through service bundles, but also face strategic choices:

Value Proposition of Devices: OEMs increasingly pitch devices as gateways to services. By 2026, expect more “device + subscription” combos. For example, a 5G smartphone might come with 12 months of a cloud gaming service to showcase low latency, or a smart TV with multiple apps free for a trial to demonstrate its smart platform. For OEM CCOs, bundling can drive product differentiation and potentially higher device sales or pricing. If a $1000 phone includes $100 of subscriptions, consumers might perceive greater value. We’ve seen carriers sometimes fund those, but OEMs might also foot part of the bill (as part of their marketing budget). This cross-subsidy thinking becomes part of product strategy.
Services Revenue for OEMs: Many OEMs like Apple and Samsung have explicit services revenue targets. Bundling third-party services can indirectly feed into that (e.g., Samsung likely counts a share from any Spotify referrals). Also, OEM-owned services (Apple TV+, Samsung TV Plus, etc.) can be bundled with devices or carriers to boost their reach. Apple’s one-year free TV+ on devices (now 3 months) was instrumental in getting tens of millions of viewers early on. For OEM partnership directors, deciding which third-party services to partner with (versus pushing their own) is key. Apple generally pushes its own, Samsung and others partner more broadly.
Ecosystem Lock-in: If an OEM can integrate services deeply (like Apple Fitness+ only working fully with Apple Watch, etc.), bundling those with device sales strengthens the ecosystem lock-in. By 2026, device ecosystems will leverage bundles to keep users from switching brands. This means partnership directors at OEMs might pursue exclusive bundling deals with certain content that favor their ecosystem. For instance, maybe a VR headset maker partners with a content platform to bundle VR content exclusively with their device.
Manufacturing & Distribution Relationships: Bundles add another layer to OEM-carrier relationships. Traditionally they negotiate over device pricing, volume, co-marketing. Now they also discuss what content offers to include. This could actually deepen alliances: e.g., Verizon and Samsung might jointly approach a streaming service for a triple-partner promotion. OEMs might also serve as a backup plan for content companies if telcos don’t bite on a bundle – e.g., a streamer might do a deal with an OEM to reach consumers directly on devices (Netflix did something like this with smart TV integrations). So OEMs become another distribution channel for content providers, sometimes bypassing telcos (smart TVs with apps are effectively bypassing cable). This dynamic means telcos and OEMs can be collaborators but also competitors in owning the customer’s content relationship. A telco CCO should be aware that, say, a smart TV OEM might upsell subscriptions on the TV interface, potentially competing with the telco’s own bundle offers.
Risk: OEM involvement in bundles is generally positive (adding value to devices), but there is risk of increased complexity in customer support and updates. For example, an Android phone with preloaded bundle apps might need software updates timed with promotions. If something goes wrong (a promo code not working), OEMs may get support calls too. Clear delineation is required: e.g., “for service issues, contact the service provider; for device issues, contact OEM.” Another risk: bundle cost impacting device margin. If OEMs start funding bundles (less common so far, but possible for their own services or strategic deals), that’s a cost that could eat into hardware margin if not managed (Apple can absorb free TV+ because it’s small relative to device profit, but smaller OEMs might not afford big giveaways).

Implications for Partnership Negotiation and Management

For Partnership Directors specifically (whether at telcos, OTTs, or OEMs), the evolving bundle landscape means more complex, multi-party negotiations and the need for robust frameworks:

Equitable Deal Frameworks: The pain point mentioned (“need clear financial frameworks to negotiate equitable bundle deals”) is very real. Partnership leads should develop standard templates and economic models – for instance, a model that calculates each party’s ROI given assumptions on uptake, conversion, and churn reduction. We recommend creating a “bundle value scorecard” that both sides agree on: this might include metrics like incremental subscribers gained (OTT), incremental ARPU or reduced churn (telco), marketing value (OEM) and assign financial value to each. Such a framework helps ensure the revenue share feels fair. For example, if a telco can show a streaming partner that each bundled user on average generates $X of value (through continued paid subscription post-promo or advertising views, etc.), they can justify the discount or bounty they ask for. Conversely, OTTs can present how many new subs they bring to the telco (who may then buy other telco services).
Multi-Party Alignment: Multi-year, multi-partner bundles (like Verizon’s Netflix+Max+… deals) require aligning three or more parties’ objectives. This is complex – e.g., ensuring Netflix and Max both feel the bundle pricing is fair relative to their individual offerings. Partnership directors might act as coalition builders, mediating between content competitors to form a bundle. Expect more of this by 2026: perhaps carriers bundling 3 or 4 services in one go (video, music, gaming, cloud storage). The ability to negotiate group deals will be a valuable skill. There may even emerge consortium-style negotiations, where a telco group negotiates one deal to cover multiple countries with multiple services – almost like how cable consortia negotiated with channel groups.
Ongoing Relationship Management: Unlike a one-off content license, bundles are ongoing, operational partnerships. They require constant liaison – sharing of user metrics, coordinating marketing calendars (ex: a big show launch on a streamer is an opportunity for the telco to promote the bundle). Partnership managers will need to maintain KPIs dashboards and regular business reviews with their counterparts. If something’s underperforming (e.g., fewer activations than expected), they must collaboratively troubleshoot – maybe increase awareness with a campaign, or simplify the redemption flow.
Regulatory/Compliance: Partnership leads should also be mindful of any legal compliance – e.g., GDPR in Europe affects how data is shared in bundles (customer must consent if telco shares their info to OTT for activation). Similarly, billing transparency rules mean if a bundle has an add-on cost, it must be clearly shown. These are operational details but crucial to implement to avoid penalties or customer dissatisfaction.

Sector Outlook Towards 2026

By 2026, these trends likely result in a more consolidated and partnership-oriented market: – We might see a scenario where most major telcos and OEMs have a standard suite of bundles they offer, including not just video but a portfolio of digital subscriptions (video, music, games, cloud). Partnership directors could package these into themed bundles (e.g., “Entertainment Pack”, “Work & Play Pack”). This could spur new partnerships across sectors – perhaps banks or retail loyalty programs also wanting in on bundles (Telcos could partner with banks to offer Netflix as a perk for premium accounts, etc. – already some banks do that). – Competition may shift: Telcos might compete on who has the best bundle platform rather than raw network only. Content services might compete to be included in prime bundles (it becomes a distribution channel fight to “get on the shelf”). OEMs might compete on how seamlessly they deliver services with hardware. So, partnership directors will in some sense be on the competitive frontline.

Innovation and New Opportunities: Strategic planning should also consider future tech – e.g., bundling XR (extended reality) content with 5G plans (some early examples: telecoms partnering with AR/VR content makers). Or bundling IoT services (home security video feeds) with connectivity. The principle extends beyond entertainment.

In conclusion, for the target audience (CCOs and Partnership Directors), bundle economics in 2026 means wearing multiple hats: financial modeler, alliance builder, product strategist, and customer advocate. They must ensure the deals struck are financially sound and equitable, align with company strategy, deliver real value to customers, and adapt with the fast-changing media landscape. Those who master this will secure partnerships that not only boost holiday campaign sales but sustain growth and loyalty in the long run, fortifying their company’s position in an increasingly intertwined telco-media-device ecosystem.

Forward-Looking Analysis

Looking beyond the present into the late-2025 and 2026 timeframe, we anticipate several future developments, challenges, and inflection points in the realm of telco–OEM–content bundles. These forward-looking insights can help the target audience proactively prepare strategies:

1. Further Convergence and Super Bundling

By 2026, the trend of convergence is likely to accelerate – we may see the emergence of truly comprehensive bundles that incorporate not just video streaming but a suite of digital life services. Telcos could evolve their bundle hubs into something akin to a “subscription app store,” where consumers can mix and match multiple services under one master subscription. The concept of “Super Bundling” (already cited as an evolution by Omdia[31]) will mature. For consumers, this might look like a single membership model: e.g., pay $50/mo extra with your carrier and get a whole package (video, music, gaming, news, fitness, cloud storage, etc.). This approach mirrors Amazon’s Prime (one fee, many benefits) but delivered via a telco or device platform.

For partnership teams, this means forging alliances not just bilaterally but creating ecosystems of partners. A possible inflection point is the role of big tech: platforms like Amazon, Apple, Google might themselves become the primary bundlers (given they have device platforms and existing billing with users). Telecom operators will either collaborate or compete with these platforms. For instance, Apple might offer an Apple One bundle that includes third-party services by 2026 (they already allow add-ons, but maybe an expanded Apple One+ could emerge). If big tech aggregators succeed, telcos risk disintermediation – e.g., customers might sign up for bundles directly on their TVs or phones, bypassing their carrier. To counter that, telcos are incentivized to solidify their own bundling propositions now and possibly partner with those tech aggregators (some telcos might resell Amazon’s or Apple’s bundles, essentially).

We could also see cross-industry bundles: imagine a mobile plan + home broadband + content + smart home device all in one contract – essentially a lifestyle bundle. As lines blur between telecom, media, and consumer tech, partnership directors might be negotiating with a more diverse array of companies (for example, a future bundle deal might involve a car manufacturer to include in-car WiFi and entertainment, which touches telco, OTT, and OEM in the auto sector).

2. Personalized and Flexible Bundling

The one-size-fits-all bundle may give way to personalized bundling. Advances in customer data analytics (and AI) could allow carriers to tailor content offers to each user’s profile. By 2026, AI-driven recommendations might suggest, “You haven’t used your Netflix in a while, would you like to swap it for 6 months of HBO Max?” This concept of “swap-able” bundles or credits could become common. Verizon’s +play already has the notion of credits for content, and it’s plausible others adopt a credits-based bundling system: customers pay a flat fee for, say, 3 credits and can allocate them to services of their choice (video might cost 2 credits, music 1, etc., and they can change each billing cycle). This flexibility can address the mismatch issue[73] and appeal to savvy consumers who like to optimize their subscriptions.

From an operational view, enabling such dynamic bundling requires robust backend platforms and new business rules in contracts (partners must agree to pro-rated or dynamic revenue shares). But companies like Bango and others are developing the tech to handle multi-service management[63]. The target audience should watch this space – a telco that masters dynamic/personalized bundling could gain a competitive edge in customer satisfaction and retention.

3. Multi-Year Partnerships 2.0 – Outcome-Based Deals

As multi-year deals become standard, the next generation of deals may incorporate outcome-based elements. For example, a revenue-sharing agreement might include bonuses or penalties tied to actual performance (subscriber uptake, engagement levels, churn reduction achieved). If a streaming service added via a telco bundle consistently has higher engagement (which benefits the OTT via ads or upsells), the telco could negotiate a larger commission cut as a result, or vice versa. We may also see longer-term deals (5+ year strategic partnerships) especially if content costs keep rising – telcos might lock in rates for stability.

However, long deals require flexibility clauses given how fast the industry shifts. Future contracts might include “re-opener” clauses every year to adjust pricing or scope if certain market changes happen (e.g., an OTT launches an ad tier during the contract, or merges with another service – the telco would want to renegotiate terms accordingly). Partnership directors will need to build these contingencies to future-proof deals through 2026 and beyond.

4. Bundles and Network Evolution (5G/6G, Fiber)

One reason telcos bundle content is to drive usage on their networks. With the continued rollout of 5G and upcoming 6G, and ever-faster fiber, carriers will seek partnerships that showcase network capabilities – for instance, bundling AR/VR or cloud gaming services that need low latency. We anticipate by 2026, XR content bundles (AR/VR apps, possibly in collaboration with device makers like Meta or Apple’s Vision Pro) to highlight 5G’s potential. Telecoms in South Korea and Japan are already bundling VR services with 5G plans (e.g., LG U+ in Korea offers VR concert content to 5G subscribers[89]). European and US carriers might follow as devices catch up.

There’s also synergy with network slicing and QoS – a carrier could bundle a streaming service and guarantee its quality (perhaps even monetizing a “premium Netflix experience” on 5G). Net neutrality rules in EU/UK might complicate that, but some differentiation (like zero-rating) might come back to the table by 2026 due to regulatory reevaluation (European telcos have been lobbying for ability to charge OTTs for network usage). If that happens, it could fundamentally change bundle economics – possibly telcos getting a cut of OTT revenue as “network fee” mandated or OTTs paying for distribution (which is like a reverse bundle: content paying telco rather than telco paying content). This remains speculative, but worth monitoring.

5. Marketplace Crowding and Consumer Fatigue

While bundles address subscription fatigue, by 2026 there could be bundle fatigue if not managed well. If every company is bundling everything, consumers might become overwhelmed by overlapping offers. For example, a household could get Disney+ via their phone, Netflix via their TV, Prime via Amazon – all in different bundles. Managing these could become confusing (though some might relish the savings). This scenario could drive demand for meta-aggregators or management tools (some startups and services already help track subscriptions). It might also prompt consolidation – perhaps one bundle to rule them all.

There is a possibility that larger entities try to consolidate offerings: e.g., a major telco could acquire a content provider or vice versa (reminiscent of AT&T-TimeWarner, though that unwound). If bundling proves the model, some might decide owning content outright (or owning distribution outright) yields better margins. While AT&T’s content ownership experiment didn’t last, never say never – by 2026 new mega-mergers or acquisitions could emerge (imagine an Amazon buying a mobile carrier, or a cable company buying a streaming service) to internalize bundle value. CCOs should scenario-plan these possibilities as they can disrupt partnership landscapes (partners can turn into competitors or owners overnight).

6. Regulatory and Policy Changes

Governments and regulators in NA and Europe will likely keep an eye on bundling practices. In the EU, there’s historically more scrutiny on tying products (e.g., requiring that consumers have the option to get a service without extra unwanted add-ons). We might see consumer protection guidelines around subscription bundles – perhaps requiring clearer communication that a “free” service is included and what happens when it ends, easy opt-out of bundled services, etc. In some cases regulators might enforce portability of bundles (for example, if a customer leaves a telco, can they keep their OTT account separately without disruption?). In the UK, Ofcom has looked into ease of canceling bundled services as part of fair contract rules.

No immediate indications of harsh regulation on content bundles exist; regulators generally see them as pro-consumer (more value). But if any anti-competitive behavior appears (like a dominant ISP only favoring their own streaming subsidiary), that would attract action. Also, data privacy regulators will ensure that any data sharing in partnerships is consented and secure – by 2026, possibly stricter rules on data localization might require telcos to adjust how they share data with global OTTs.

7. Emergence of New Entrants and Niche Bundles

The bundling wave also opens doors for non-traditional players to enter the fray via partnerships. We could see: – Niche or regional streaming services bundling together to collectively approach telcos (e.g., several smaller European streaming apps combine to offer a “pack” sold via telcos as one unit). – Vertical bundles targeting specific segments: e.g., a “Family bundle” including a kid’s streaming service + education app + parental control software, perhaps bundled with a family mobile plan. Or a “Sports bundle” (live sports streaming from multiple leagues packaged via an ISP). – Enterprise bundles: though our focus is consumer, note telcos might bundle content for small businesses or hospitality (like including a streaming subscription for a business’s waiting room as part of broadband). Not a big trend yet, but by 2026 if B2C saturates, telcos look to B2B perks.

New entrants might also include global MVNOs or digital-only carriers focusing on bundled content as their USP (similar to how some mobile virtual network operators have positioned around music or video). For example, an MVNO could brand itself as “the streaming lover’s network” offering a package of all major services in one plan – potentially attracting cord-cutters.

8. Technological Simplification: eSIM and Cloud Integration

Technologies like eSIM (embedded SIM) and cloud-based subscription management will make it easier for consumers to activate and switch services. As noted, 1GLOBAL’s eSIM solutions enable non-telcos to offer mobile data as part of their product[64][65]. Conversely, eSIM also makes it easier to switch carriers, which could increase churn unless offset by strong bundle glue. Thus by 2026, telcos might rely on bundles even more to hold customers who could otherwise easily jump via eSIM.

Cloud integration means your subscription credentials could be stored at the network level – possibly allowing roaming of bundles (if you travel internationally, maybe your home carrier’s bundle of Netflix gives you access locally via a partner operator). Some alliances like the GSMA might push for standardized ways to handle bundled subscription credentials. If achieved, it enhances the value proposition (you don’t lose your services when you change SIMs or travel).

9. Future Challenges: Content Saturation and Cost Management

One looming challenge is the sustainability of content costs. Streamers are under pressure to become profitable, often raising prices, which could make bundles pricier or harder to negotiate discounts. By 2026, if streaming ARPUs rise significantly (as we’ve seen Netflix and others doing), telcos will have to either pass costs to customers (less “free” bundles, more discount bundles) or accept lower margins on these deals. There could be a tipping point where some bundles become too expensive to subsidize fully, leading to creative alternatives like ad-supported bundles or freemium models.

For example, a telco might shift from “free Netflix for a year” to “free Netflix with ads indefinitely, or pay $x to upgrade to ad-free” to balance cost. Or bundling newer, cheaper services rather than the big ones if the big ones price themselves out. Partnership directors should monitor OTT financial strategies – if an OTT plans to cut back on distribution deals to push more direct revenue (as some might if they hit profitability and want to reduce discounts), telcos should be ready to pivot to other partners or renegotiate terms.

In summary, the landscape in 2026 will likely be characterized by greater bundle ubiquity but also greater sophistication in how bundles are offered. The key for our target audience will be to remain agile: continuously analyzing data on what works, experimenting with bundle compositions, and fostering a flexible network of partnerships. The ability to foresee consumer needs (e.g., demand for flexibility, or inclusion of newer services like AR/VR, or addressing subscription fatigue with novel approaches) will separate the leaders from the laggards.

Actionable Considerations: – Start developing dynamic bundling capabilities and think beyond video streaming to the next content categories. – Negotiate partnerships with future adjustments in mind (market changes, new tech) – ensure contracts aren’t rigid. – Invest in customer education and clear communication as bundles proliferate, to maintain trust and avoid confusion. – Keep an eye on emerging markets and services – sometimes innovation in bundling (like in India with prepaid bundles[90]) can foreshadow trends in western markets. – Prepare for a competitive battleground where bundling prowess and partner relationships are as important as network quality or device features in winning customers.

By anticipating these developments, CCOs and Partnership Directors can craft strategies that are resilient, customer-centric, and ready to capitalize on the next phase of bundle economics.

Annotated Citations

1. Bango Blog – “Trends for 2025: The year bundling takes center stage” (2024) – An industry perspective piece highlighting the growing prominence of subscription bundling. It provides statistics on indirect subscription uptake (e.g., 20% of US subs through indirect channels) and quotes from content providers affirming bundles’ value in lowering churn[7]. It outlines key trends such as telcos creating content hubs (Verizon +play, etc.)[30] and predicts that by end of 2025 bundling could account for over half of niche streaming subscriptions[91][8]. Used for insight into 2024–25 bundling trends, consumer behavior (subscription fatigue), and quantifying the shift toward indirect channels.

2. Bango Press Release – “20% of streaming subscriptions delivered through telco bundling in 2023”(Oct 2023) – A press release summarizing an Omdia-Bango report on super bundling. It states 20% of all streaming video subs are via telco bundles globally, heading to 25% by 2028[2]. Provides global revenue figures for telco-sold subscriptions ($24.8B in 2023 to $42.8B in 2027)[18]. Notably lists that 1,600+ telco–streaming partnerships exist, with Paramount+, Disney+, HBO Max, Netflix as most common partners[6]. Also notes 71% of telco leaders see major acquisition/retention gains from streaming bundles and that SVOD is the #1 bundle category for telcos[3]. Used for hard statistics on bundle penetration, growth forecasts, telco leader sentiment, and partnership counts.

3. Bango Blog – “Customer acquisition: How co-opetition and multi-party bundles drive subscription growth” (2024) – Discusses the rise of “co-opetition” where competing OTT services bundle together. It mentions subscribers take 5.4 services on average, and over 30% are now bought from third parties[92]. Cites Omdia’s 28.8% stat for SVOD via indirect channels[93] and Antenna’s 90% stat for specialist SVOD via indirect[94]. Provides concrete examples: a US operator offering Netflix & HBO Max (with ads) for $10 (saving ~$7)[95], Comcast’s Xfinity bundle of AppleTV+/Netflix/Peacock for $15.99[40], and the Disney+/Hulu/HBO Max three-way bundle at $16.99 offered directly by each service[96]. It also references a Hub Research study where inclusion in a bundle was the top reason for subscribing to major services[60]. Used to illustrate multi-party bundling cases, the extent of indirect channel importance, and consumer motivations for subscribing via bundles.

4. CE Pro News – “These Streaming Services Are Being Bundled Together” (Dec 2023) – A news article focusing on Verizon’s Netflix+Max bundle. Confirms Verizon offers Netflix (ads) + Max (ads) together for $10/month to myPlan customers, a 40% discount[10]. It contextualizes this as part of streaming providers collaborating on cost-saving bundles, noting “legacy media are more willing to bundle with competitors than pure streamers like Netflix and Apple”[97] (though Netflix itself is now bundling here). It also cites Parks Associates data: annualized churn rate for streaming is 47% and 40% of streaming subscribers say their services are bundled through a home service provider[37]. Additionally, 22% of U.S. households subscribe to ≥8 streaming services[37][79]. Used for details on the Verizon bundle, evidence of the bundling trend (media collaboration), and key consumer stats from Parks (churn and bundling prevalence).

5. Oliver Wyman – “Telco2025: Telcos Need New Revenue Streams…” (2019) – Though slightly dated, this analysis anticipates telcos bundling content as a “more-for-more” strategy. It explicitly mentions the third wave of more-for-more is content addition (exclusive or not) on packages to create family bundles[23]. Observes that content is costly and some telcos acquired or partnered for OTT as alternatives[25]. This provides historical context on why telcos pursued content (to boost ARPU and stand out as connectivity commoditized). Used for background on telco strategic rationale for bundling, including examples (AT&T acquiring content, Telefónica creating content, others partnering)[25]. It underscores that telcos saw bundling content as a necessary differentiation even pre-2020.

6. 1GLOBAL Blog – “The Rise of Bundle Subscriptions (What it Means for Telcos)” (June 2025) – Offers survey data and analysis on the bundle economy, from the perspective of a telco solutions provider. It notes the average respondent had >5 subscriptions, with at least 2 indirect (bundled)[98], meaning >1/3 of subs are via bundles. It says “third-party suppliers like telcos and retailers have become the main purchase point for digital subscriptions, rather than the services themselves.”[99]. Also points out telcos play a large role because of their long-term customer relationships and ability to integrate multiple services in one UI/bill[59][100]. Additionally, highlights that major telcos (like Verizon) include streaming bundles in new plans and that smaller providers can do likewise[101]. Used for reinforcing stats on bundle share of subscriptions, telcos as primary channels, and describing why telcos are well-positioned (billing, long-term relations)[59].

7. Accedo One – “Pros and Cons of Telco and OTT Streaming Bundling” (Jan 2024) – An article by a video solutions firm weighing benefits and drawbacks of telco-OTT bundles. It enumerates advantages: increased distribution via telco networks[5], market penetration (citing Netflix’s Jio India partnership as key)[102], aided marketing through telco channels[103], higher paid-user share by integrated billing[104], and promotional/exclusive content possibilities[105]. It also lists disadvantages: loss of direct customer relationship for OTTs[68], mismatch of bundle content to user needs (one-size issues)[73], plus profitability concerns if costs outweigh revenues[86]. Used for framing the competing perspectives section – providing concrete pro/con points such as distribution reach vs. losing customer data, and the warning that bundling must be done carefully to be profitable[106].

8. Deloitte TMT Predictions – “Streaming’s shift toward video aggregators” (Late 2024) – This report forecasted a peak in standalone subscriptions and a return to aggregated bundles. It states by 2025, average subscriptions per consumer will peak (~4 US, ~2.3 EU) and that the market is likely to return to a model of a few standalone SVOD players plus aggregators (telcos, pay TV, tech platforms)[77][107]. It notes 43% of SVOD subs in the UK had at least one via another party and among smaller OTTs about half of subs were via aggregators[29]. It also discusses contract length and churn: bundling into a pay TV contract could reduce churn (since US churn ~40%, UK ~20% annually)[61], and that 50% of US consumers would take a discount for a year-long commitment, but currently only 4% of SVOD subscriptions are 12-month contracts[61][108]. Used for supporting data on the pivot back to aggregation, the high share of indirect subs in UK, and the concept of longer-term bundles as churn busters, aligning with predicted industry direction.

9. Broadband TV News – “Netflix included in Vodafone Spain convergent package” (Apr 2024) – A news piece describing Vodafone Spain’s new bundle: Netflix (ads tier) included with a mobile + fiber + TV plan[38]. It demonstrates a real example of a European telco bundling Netflix as part of a converged offer, along with other components (50GB mobile, 300Mbps fiber, linear TV)[38]. It even mentions a hardware promotion (option for a Xiaomi TV) with the bundle[39]. Used to give a concrete European example of current bundling practice (to illustrate current landscape and stakeholder action, showing how telcos integrate OTT in convergent packages).

10. T-Mobile – *“Netflix on Us” (web page) – T-Mobile’s official page outlining their Netflix included offer. Confirms that Netflix Standard with Ads is included at no extra cost on select plans (Go5G Plus, etc.)[27]. Provides the terms that one qualifying line can get Netflix with ads, and that the value can be applied as a discount if the customer chooses a different Netflix plan[88]. Used to validate how a carrier structures a “free Netflix” deal and as evidence of a long-running multi-year bundle between T-Mobile and Netflix (for context in the narrative).

11. Bango Blog – “Customer retention: Reducing churn through multi-party bundles” (2024) – Focuses on how bundles help churn. It cites Antenna and Ampere data: In the Disney+/Hulu/ESPN bundle, ESPN+ churn dropped from ~8% to 3%[81], and after 3 months 80% of bundle subs were retained vs 74% Netflix’s benchmark[76]. Also that Disney+ 6-month churn was 43% standalone vs 19% in the bundle[82]. For Apple, AppleTV+ churn ~9% fell to 3% in Apple One[51]. It posits bundling seasonal content with non-seasonal can improve retention overall[109]. Used to provide quantitative support for churn reduction claims in the report, and to discuss the retention benefits of multi-service bundles with exact figures.

12. StreamTV Insider/Fierce – “Netflix says partnerships, payment options are key to EMEA growth”(IBC conference report, 2018) – Features Netflix’s EMEA VP of Biz Dev discussing how pay TV and telco partnerships are critical for Netflix’s international growth, especially where credit card penetration is low[4][110]. Also mentions a success: Netflix added 4.58M international subs in a quarter, surpassing US, partly attributed to these partnerships[87]. Challenges noted include technical integration with set-top boxes[111]. Used to illustrate historically how Netflix viewed telco/pay-TV deals as crucial (solving payment and device access issues) and to highlight an early public acknowledgment from a streamer of the value of such partnerships[4].