forbes.com
Streaming Dominates TV in June 2025, Broadcast Viewership at Record Low
Streaming services accounted for nearly 50% of all TV usage in June 2025, pushing broadcast TV to its lowest-ever share (18.5%) despite the NBA Finals and top news broadcasts; "Love Island" on Peacock and an unnamed Netflix show were key drivers.
- What was the impact of record-breaking streaming viewership on traditional broadcast television in June 2025?
- In June 2025, streaming services captured nearly 50% of total TV viewership, a record high. This surge, driven by shows like "Love Island" on Peacock and a Netflix hit, pushed traditional broadcast TV to its lowest-ever share at 18.5%, despite events like the NBA Finals.
- How did different genres of television programming perform in June 2025, considering the success of streaming services?
- The rise of streaming is transforming television consumption. June's figures show a clear shift away from traditional broadcast, impacting even major events. While cable held steady, the dominance of streaming suggests a long-term trend.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of the dramatic shift in television viewership from broadcast to streaming platforms?
- The continued growth of streaming and decline of traditional broadcast viewing indicates a fundamental shift in audience behavior. This trend will likely accelerate, with implications for advertising revenue, programming strategies, and the future of television production.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and opening sentence emphasize the success of streaming services and the decline of broadcast television. The use of phrases like "record-breaking" and "lowest-ever share" strongly favor a narrative of streaming dominance. The article structure further reinforces this bias by prioritizing data about streaming viewership before delving into broadcast numbers. This framing could lead readers to overestimate the extent of streaming's impact and underestimate the continued relevance of broadcast and cable.
Language Bias
While the article largely uses neutral language, some word choices could be perceived as subtly biased. For example, describing broadcast viewing as reaching its "worst-ever month" carries a negative connotation. A more neutral alternative could be "lowest point in recorded history." Similarly, the phrase "Things weren't as dark for cable" carries a somewhat subjective tone. A more objective alternative might be "Cable viewership remained relatively stable.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on streaming services' success and broadcast television's decline, but omits discussion of other factors that could contribute to these trends, such as the increasing cost of cable subscriptions, the rise of other entertainment options (e.g., video games, podcasts), and changes in viewer demographics. While mentioning the NBA Finals and some cable news programming, it doesn't deeply analyze their impact or the broader programming landscape. The omission of alternative explanations limits the reader's ability to draw fully informed conclusions.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic eitheor narrative: streaming is winning, and broadcast is losing. It doesn't fully explore the potential for coexistence or the possibility of broadcast adapting to the changing media landscape. While acknowledging cable's relative stability, it still frames the situation as a binary opposition.
Sustainable Development Goals
The popularity of educational children's shows like "Bluey" on streaming platforms indicates increased access to educational content, contributing positively to quality education for children. The high viewership suggests a demand for and engagement with such programming.