Fox is poised to strengthen its position in the ad-supported streaming market. On Monday, the media company led by Lachlan Murdoch announced it would acquire smart TV firm Roku for $22 billion, or $160 a share (about 14 percent above Roku’s current market price) in a cash-and-stock deal. The transaction, expected to close next year, would combine Fox’s sports, news and entertainment programming and the Tubi platform with Roku’s connected TV ecosystem and the Roku Channel. The merger would create the third-largest streaming platform in the U.S., according to Market Chameleon, furthering Murdoch’s vision for Fox’s “next chapter” following the 2019 sale of its entertainment assets to Disney.

The acquisition would also give Fox access to Roku’s more than 100 million global streaming households. That reach complements Tubi’s more than 100 million monthly active users worldwide, a scale Fox has built since acquiring the platform in 2020.

In recent years, the entertainment industry has been shaped by a wave of mergers and acquisitions, from the Paramount-Skydance deal to the battle for Warner Bros. Discovery between Paramount and Netflix.

Against the backdrop of the streaming wars and the continued decline of traditional cable and pay-TV subscribers, Roku represents a strategic move for Fox to stay competitive. With direct access to first-party viewer data across more than 100 million households, Fox could deliver more personalized ads, particularly as live sports continue to grow in value. eMarketer projects that connected TV (CTV) ad spend will reach $47 billion by 2028, surpassing linear TV, while Nielsen has reported that both Roku and Tubi have surpassed services like Peacock and HBO Max in viewership.

According to both companies, Fox and Roku “are committed to continuing to operate Roku as an open, partner-friendly platform” and expect to maintain the “ubiquitous” distribution of Fox content.

“This is a defining moment for FOX, and a natural extension of the deliberate and focused strategy we have been executing for nearly a decade,” Lachlan Murdoch, CEO and executive chair of Fox Corp., said in a statement.

Murdoch noted that since 2019, Fox has reoriented its business around live news and sports, alongside its 2020 acquisition of Tubi, which has grown into one of the company’s most successful streaming businesses.

He added that the combination will “transform” the company’s scale into high-growth verticals and “yield a step change” in its overall growth profile. Fox reported $3.99 billion in revenue for the January–March quarter, down from $4.37 billion a year earlier, with net income of $175 million. Despite a decline in advertising revenue, Tubi’s revenue rose 23 percent, and total viewing time increased 19 percent, driven by its catalog of creator-led titles and Tubi originals. Meanwhile, Roku reported $1.25 billion in revenue for the March quarter, up from $1.02 billion a year earlier.

Roku founder, chairman and CEO Anthony Wood, who is expected to remain involved with the combined company and join Fox’s board following the deal’s close, said he was “incredibly proud” of what his team has built, adding that combining with Fox “is an extraordinary opportunity to accelerate our vision, scale faster and innovate more aggressively for viewers, partners and advertisers.”

Women founded nearly half of all new businesses in 2024, up from just 29 percent in 2019—a 69 percent jump that marks a five-year high, according to payroll platform Gusto. Over the past seven years, the Female Founders Collective has been working to meet this moment, with a mission to support, develop and elevate women-owned companies at every stage. Co-founded by fashion designer Rebecca Minkoff and Alison Wyatt, former Girlboss president and Goop’s chief revenue officer, the collective was built to offer what many women entrepreneurs say they lack: real community, practical education and access to capital.

Part-membership network and part-impact organization, the collective connects female founders to each other while also offering more structured support through two key initiatives: the 10th House, an expert-led advisory and education platform, and the North, a foundation that provides cash grants alongside resources, tools and programming to help members grow and scale their businesses. Today, the FFC counts roughly 25,000 members, nearly half of whom are women of color.

Last week, Minkoff and Wyatt brought that community together at Industry City in Brooklyn for their annual Female Founders Day summit. This year’s theme, “Metamorphosis,” focused on how female founders move through three stages—Build, Become and Breakthrough—as they grow their companies and their leadership. More than 500 women entrepreneurs, operators and investors spent the day in sessions on funding, leadership and sustainable growth.

Observer spoke with Wyatt and Minkoff about their paths as founders, the challenges women entrepreneurs face today, how the FFC has evolved, and what it will take to get more women-led businesses past the million-dollar mark.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Can you walk me through your journeys as founders and how those experiences have shaped how you build businesses today?

Wyatt: I grew up in the media world, working for Elle and InStyle magazines. When I went to Elle after InStyle, it was on the digital side—it’s like the age of A.I. for us now, where “digital” was this new thing and nobody knew quite what to do with it—so they gave it to me, this 24-year-old girl, to figure out how to monetize it. It ended up doing so well that it became a major revenue driver for the magazine. I kept getting elevated, which was exciting, but then we reached a point where we had no more inventory to sell, so I started building a network.

Long story short: I ended up at Refinery29 in that process, which was very much a startup. Working there introduced me to the startup world because when I got there, we had one phone line, were in a basement, had card-table desks, and had a lot of large cockroaches as our office mates. That was my foray into the startup world. It started at $200,000 [in annual revenue] and went all the way to $65 million when I left. I helped build out the revenue team, then went to Goop.

Minkoff: I never identified myself as a female founder. I was just going about it. But I realized around 2017 or 2018 that there weren’t many of us, and that for those who are here, it’s very lonely. Then, when you look at corporate America, there’s wage inequality. Some people would say. “There’s no difference in the founder of this, founder that,” but I was like, “Yeah, there is. I’m a female founder.” Defining that and realizing that this is a broken system we’re trying to navigate signals that we want to change it. But 2017 and 2018 were really when I realized we were a species going extinct.

How did the idea for the FFC first take shape, and what problem were you both most determined to solve with it?

Wyatt: Rebecca and I met at a panel in the early days. I saw her at Cannes Lions, sitting on the floor of the bathroom in the ladies’ lounge, pumping. I thought to myself, “That is so cool. You literally just came off my panel, and you’re sitting there on the ground pumping,” which in a corporate setting was so unheard of. It made me think this is what the world needs to look like—to have choices be that free, and have women feel that free, where they can determine their own path to success, whatever that looks like.

We met then, but it wasn’t until after I was at Girlboss [the media platform founded by Sophia Amoruso that provided community and resources for women’s businesses] and saw that female founders made up the largest portion of our audience. They would come to our events, and we had this place called Startup Studio [a collaboration between Girlboss and Uber that offered digital and real-life resources to support emerging women entrepreneurs], where we taught purely entrepreneurship-type courses. These women were so hungry for more, and I felt there needed to be something dedicated to education.

When Rebecca launched Female Founder Collective as this big campaign later, I reached out to her, and together we came up with this concept of community at the foundation, and then ultimately education. Community is great, but if you don’t know what you’re doing, you need clarity in your business and real transformation. The goal was to bring together this whole ecosystem.

Minkoff: At the beginning of 2018, I had my third baby. I went on maternity leave when I was outgoing, we hired a CMO [for her fashion brand], and for the first time, we hired a creative director. When I got back to the office, a lot of my functions were being absorbed by these two women, and I still had day-to-day involvement, but it wasn’t as granular as it should be, so I had some time on my hands. Maybe I should start speaking on panels, but I couldn’t measure the ROI from talking because did you go out and make more money because I said something? I don’t know. How do I sense that? How do I feel that? So I had a small event at our store with about 18 people, and I made everyone share something vulnerable about their business. That was cathartic, and I needed that, and I said there needs to be a community.

Like any designer who’s going to launch something, I’m like, “Campaign! Lights!” At the time, my PR assistant, Elisabeth [now the FCC’s head of operations], and I put together a campaign. We did research on female founders, which was impossible to find. It was hard to know who had a woman-owned business. We found 10 and put together a shoot. I pitched the idea to IMG, which puts on Fashion Week, and they had me host a panel with Bozoma Saint John and other women-owned businesses to launch it. We had a campaign to launch and a static web page built by my then-PR assistant. It was overwhelming. There were 3,000 emails and inquiries. Ali and I had met before, and a couple of months later, she reached out and said she wanted to build this with me. It was kismet.

What did the early days of FFC look like, from the first campaigns and events to realizing there was demand for something bigger? How has your annual summit evolved in terms of scale, focus and the kinds of support you’re able to offer?

Wyatt: The first year, it was in one venue, and there were like 100 people, and we had about 80 different workshop opportunities, but it wasn’t under key themes. Over time, Female Founders Day has evolved into a focus on how to implement the ideas [they learned from the summit] in their businesses. We wanted to make it an achievable set of actions that founders can implement immediately in their businesses.

We have four different stages now. One is leadership and development — everything from what their role is as a founder to where they’re going to spend most of their time as they start to build a team, answering questions like: How do I build a team? What do organizational structures look like? How do I hire and retain people? The second is around course marketing. If they have a product, they have to be able to bring it to market. Funding is another important one because there are so many different ways to fund. There’s the narrative that VCs are the only way to go, and that’s what a lot of people chase because you see it in the headlines. We wanted to make sure we were portraying all the different opportunities out there for founders to take on, because you don’t need VC investment to grow. The final one is around operations. How are they running their business on a day-to-day basis?

We created these categories so they could come and learn four key things in each business area, and we added general inspiration to bookend it so people are excited about the opportunities and can dream a little bit.

Minkoff: We have a for-profit and a non-profit component. This year’s event is an example of what our nonprofit puts on, but we also give grants as part of that. So for the LA fires, we raised about $250,000 to give out grants to women-owned businesses that had gone under due to the fire, and we did a women in tech grant in partnership with a big tech company. When we do have those funds, we deploy them, and we don’t just give them the money; we support them with advisors and a network, because you need all three. Our membership continues to grow, and we have this event as a retreat, we have a summit, we have a lot of things, and now it’s like all over the U.S. If you ask people at this event, some of them have flown in [to New York] from Australia, Singapore, everywhere.

Looking at the current landscape, has the environment for women entrepreneurs become tougher, and what specific challenges are you seeing female-led businesses grapple with most?

Wyatt: More women are starting businesses than ever. We have seen that a lot of times, women start businesses without a plan. They know they have the capability, they know they’re talented, they know they want to create their own destinies, but they’re not quite sure about the brass tracks for starting the things they need to know.

There’s also not necessarily a financial plan in place to set those goals or benchmarks for achieving profitability, so many of these businesses shutter, as only 4 to 5 percent of businesses founded by women reach $1 million in revenue. We’re aiming to change that.

Minkoff: The percentage of venture capital that goes to women founders has gone down from 2 percent to 1.3 percent. We fill that hole with alternative forms of capital. We’ve had workshops on purchase order financing, inventory financing, and IP financing. Their business will grow more slowly, but that’s not a bad thing. That’s what your margin has to be to grow slowly and to build a business that’s also far more stable for when there is a tariff or crisis. We’re trying to future-proof those ones that think they can’t get funding.

What concrete advice would you give to women building companies right now?

Wyatt: You need to pick the right partner in life. A lot of people talk about the partner that you have in your business, but the fact of the matter is, women and men should talk about this, too. For women, they might be married to somebody who’s making a lot more money than they are. So then their time becomes much less valuable, and their ability to commit fully to their business becomes challenging because their partner also needs their time at work. If they end up having kids, there needs to be that conversation around who’s taking care of things.

The other thing I would say is that more women need to ask for help. They need to ask for an introduction. They need to be willing to say what they need and not be shy about going to get it, because you cannot be shy and you can’t hold back. You absolutely need help in building a business and creating a plan.

Minkoff: Don’t get into this if you think it’s easy. Don’t be disillusioned. We’ve all been disillusioned. This is not going to be easy. This is going to be some of the hardest work, and at the end of the day, the busy stops with you. Just be aware of what you’re signing up for, and love what you do so much. Like Camille Moore said [during Female Founders Day], she doesn’t work a day in her life because she loves what she does.

After months of bidding that began in December, the contest between Netflix and Paramount Skydance for control of Warner Bros. Discovery came to a dramatic close on Feb. 26, when Netflix formally withdrew, clearing the way for David Ellison’s Paramount to acquire all of WBD for $111 billion. In interviews this week, Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters reflected on the loss, striking a notably unsentimental tone. Both suggested Paramount had overpaid and warned that the financial strain of the deal could reverberate across Hollywood.

Netflix had proposed an all-cash offer of $82.7 billion for WBD’s studios and HBO Max streaming platform, or $27.75 per share. Paramount had offered $30 per share for all of WBD, including its TV networks, and ultimately prevailed by raising its bid by just one dollar to $31. The speed of Netflix’s withdrawal surprised some industry observers, who believed the company could have matched or topped Paramount’s final bid.

Sarandos told Bloomberg on Sunday (March 1) that Netflix had modeled out multiple bidding scenarios, including Paramount increasing its offer, and felt comfortable walking away once the price exceeded its internal thresholds. “We definitely wanted this asset. We didn’t need it,” he said, adding, “The truth of it is, someone was going to lose it for a dollar. And the quicker you accept that, the better.”

Peters echoed that sentiment in an interview with the Financial Times on Monday. “They [Paramount] are bidding and winning these deals at prices that I can’t make sense of, that don’t seem economic,” he said. “And if [Netflix] can’t make it economically viable, I don’t know how they can. So I am quite frankly a little bit nervous for the industry.”

Sarandos also noted that Netflix co-founder and chairman Reed Hastings, while “not a big fan of M&A generally,” had supported the WBD deal.

The deal now faces regulatory review, though Sarandos said he was confident Netflix could have cleared global antitrust scrutiny had its bid succeeded. He noted that Netflix was already deeply engaging with regulatory bodies worldwide before exiting the process.

Both Sarandos and Peters expressed worries about the future of Ellison’s media empire and its impact on the broader entertainment industry. Paramount’s WBD acquisition follows its Skydance merger last summer and leaves the combined company carrying tens of billions of dollars in debt.

According to Sarandos, Netflix estimated that Ellison would need to cut $16 billion in costs from WBD within 18 months to make the economics work. Those cuts would likely affect studio production and staffing.

“It would be less production, less people working,” Sarandos said.

Peters was more blunt, warning that “a bunch of people are going to lose their jobs” under Paramount’s ownership.

A small win for Netflix is that, because it had previously signed an agreement with WBD before Paramount re-entered the picture, it will walk away with a $2.8 billion breakup fee, which will be paid by Paramount under its deal terms. Sarandos jokes that “there are easier ways to make $2.8 billion,” adding that he and Peters had spent a lot of time and energy on the deal, including meeting more than 200 WBD employees.

Peters described the payment as a “nice concession prize” that would allow Netflix “to deliver more value for our members,” pointing to potential investments in emerging formats such as video podcasts and interactive games.

Is social media the new TV? Cable and linear television have been in decline for years, especially as younger generations consume more entertainment on their phones. In response, traditional studios and streaming services have been experimenting with social platforms. Peacock tested the waters by uploading clips from its comedy Killing It to TikTok, while Paramount broke its 2006 film Mean Girls into several parts on the same platform.

At the same time, microdramas—short, bite-sized video series designed for mobile viewing—have surged in popularity. Networks like TelevisaUnivision and Telemundo have been launching original microdramas. Earlier this month at CES, Disney announced it would begin releasing “microcontent” on Disney+. But what happens when social media doesn’t just live on phones and starts moving into traditional TV screens and living rooms?

In December, Instagram announced it was testing an “Instagram for TV” app that allows users to watch Reels on their televisions. TikTok previously made a similar push with TV apps, before they were discontinued due to compliance with new laws.

On the advertiser side, Pinterest recently acquired connected TV (CTV) ad-buying platform tvScientific, signaling that the company believes advertising dollars may start shifting toward living room viewing for its platform.

That shift is already underway. Social video is now the second-most-watched video type on TVs, according to research from Parks Associates.

Jennifer Kent, SVP and principal analyst at Parks Associates, said this trend is blurring the lines between traditional video media and social video strategies, particularly as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok push for more TV-based viewing.

Kent added that this also correlates with the growth of the creator economy, as traditional media companies partner with creators or launch initiatives dedicated to creator content. Amazon MGM Studios, for example, has collaborated with popular creators like MrBeast on projects such as Beast Games to produce more premium programming. YouTube has also announced efforts to introduce more episodic formats for creator content.

“Lines are blurring all over,” Kent said. “Everybody on the big screen wants to mimic what’s happening on social media, and everyone on social media wants to be on the big screen.”

She added, “The important impact of all of these social video platforms coming to the big screen is the way that they are raising expectations for everybody else that’s on the big screen—to be more interactive, to be more creative with formats, to engage with new creators that can speak to audiences in different ways.”

The growing pains of social media platforms

The roughly $15 billion decline of the U.S. linear TV market has accelerated this experimentation, said Max Willens, a principal analyst at eMarketer. However, he noted that growing competition has also made social platforms more sensitive to slowing growth. For years, platforms could rely on two assumptions: that more users would join each year, and that those users would spend more time on their apps. That is no longer the case.

According to eMarketer, time spent on social media in the U.S. is flatlining and is expected to begin gently declining starting next year.

“Combine social media platforms realizing they don’t have the easy path toward incremental growth with the increasingly spread-out competition, and they face a lot of pressure to try to establish a beachhead on television screens as the budgets that used to go to linear advertisers come up for grabs,” Willens told Observer.

Still, moving into living rooms isn’t a new idea. Willens pointed to YouTube, which launched as a desktop platform, became mobile-first, and is now a major force in TV viewing.

YouTube has also said that more than 150 million Americans watch the platform on TV screens. Nielsen’s Media Distributor Gauge report found that YouTube captured 13.4 percent of TV viewing time, outpacing Disney’s 9.4 percent share. eMarketer research shows that Americans now spend roughly equal time watching YouTube on TV and on their phones.

“That balance is going to persist over the next couple of years,” Willens predicted. “When you add all those things together, it’s not hard to understand why the social platforms are trying to position themselves on the biggest screen in the house.”

Looking ahead, Willens said both media companies and social platforms will need to adjust their strategies as viewing habits continue to shift.

“They’re all just screens at the end of the day, but it’s not like television has gone away,” he said. “Televisions are not just these big dusty boxes that our grandparents are looking at. They are still central hubs of leisure time for consumers of every age. So, advertisers and media companies have to figure out what’s different about that consumption and adjust their strategies accordingly.”

Creators are evolving into entrepreneurs and disrupting the traditional Hollywood model. At CES 2026, executives from Lionsgate, Hello Sunshine, Amazon, Microsoft and T-Mobile made clear that the creator economy is reshaping how entertainment is made, distributed and monetized. For studios, that shift is forcing a rethink of where content lives and how success is measured. For tech companies, creators have become essential partners.

At Lionsgate, executives increasingly weigh whether a project belongs in theaters or platforms like YouTube. “At the end of the day, people always want to see their stuff on the big screen, or on Amazon Prime or on Netflix, or wherever it makes the most sense for them—for their ego,” said Brad Haugen, EVP of digital strategy and growth at Lionsgate and 3Arts, during a Monday (Jan. 5) panel on how creators are redefining Hollywood’s talent pipeline. “But that’s not always the best home for the content.”

Hello Sunshine has taken a slightly different approach by building its business around audience ownership and community. The women-focused media company co-founded by Reese Witherspoon has leaned heavily into digital-first initiatives such as Reese’s Book Club, which has become a powerful engine for turning novels into cultural hits and screen adaptations.

One of its most notable successes was Daisy Jones & the Six, adapted from Taylor Jenkins Reid’s novel into a Prime Video miniseries starring Riley Keough. When it debuted in 2023, it became one of Amazon’s most-watched series.

More recently, Hello Sunshine launched a program aimed at amplifying female-led creators across social platforms. The initiative currently includes about 40 creators, among them authors Laura Dave and Danielle Robey.

“The net-net of it is to change the narrative for women,” said Jennifer Wiener, EVP of brand partnerships and experimental at Hello Sunshine, on the same panel. “You have to be doing it across every platform. We are storytellers, and we want to be telling those stories everywhere.”

That multi-platform mindset plays directly into Amazon’s advantage as a company rooted in technology and media. Rather than forcing creators into a single format, Amazon has built an ecosystem that allows them to scale across audio, video, social and commerce.

On the same panel, Matt Sandler, general manager of creator services at Amazon, pointed to brands like Wondery, Studio126 and Prime Video as engines for creator growth, citing partnerships with LeBron James, Keke Palmer and MrBeast.

“Amazon can serve those customers in a really material way,” Sandler said. “What we’ve done is create this new creator services business to super-serve the content at the center—which is largely digital or social content.”

While media companies are adapting to creator-led models, tech giants are increasingly baking creators directly into their core business strategies. Over the past year, Microsoft has hired more producers, editors and scriptwriters with backgrounds in the creator economy, according to Marcus Frieske, the tech giant’s general manager of social and creative marketing.

“They come from YouTube and Snapchat,” Frieske said during a separate panel Monday on why creators have become brands’ most valuable media channel. “They’re used to, ‘Hey, we’ve got to make a video, and it needs to go live in the next couple of days.’ Having fast-paced individuals who understand that rhythm has been really critical to our success.”

T-Mobile, meanwhile, is leaning into creators as collaborators rather than spokespeople. Kimberley Hand, senior creator manager at the telecom company, said T-Mobile is developing an advisory board made up of creators to shape campaigns and ensure authenticity.

She also highlighted Club Magenta, the brand’s experiential activation that has appeared at music festivals and events such as Lollapalooza. The pop-up features charging stations, lounges, and social spaces—designed not just for fans, but also for creators to document and share their experiences in real-time.

Creator Jazmyn Smith, for example, helped bring the activation to life for her audience. “[Smith] is able to bring it alive in a way that we can’t through our own storytelling,” Hand said. “It fits very naturally into her content and her experience at Lolla.”

On Friday, Warner Bros. Discovery’s board agreed to sell its studio and streaming assets to Netflix in an $82.7 billion deal that many believed would reshape Hollywood. But just a weekend later, the plot shifted: Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison came out swinging with an even larger, all-cash proposal to buy all of WBD’s assets for $108.4 billion (or $30 per share). By going straight to WBD shareholders, the young media executive argued that Paramount would serve as a better home for WBD and help preserve Hollywood’s legacy.

Ellison’s bid notably includes WBD’s TV networks—CNN, TBS, TNT and others—which Netflix did not want. The proposal is reportedly partially backed by Ellison’s father, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, and RedBird Capital Partners, which also financed Skydance Media’s $8 billion acquisition of Paramount Global that closed in August.

In an interview with CNBC’s Squawk Box today (Dec. 8), Ellison called a Netflix acquisition a “horrible deal for Hollywood” and argued that Paramount’s offer would better serve customers and the industry. “As someone who spent the last 15 years of my life producing movies and television shows, this is an industry that I love, this is an existential moment for our business, and we believe that what we are offering is better for Hollywood. It’s better for the customers and it’s pro-competitive,” he said.

Before Paramount entered the fray, much of the weekend chatter centered on what a Netflix takeover might mean for the future of entertainment. Hollywood guilds—including SAG-AFTRA, the WGA and other groups—quickly began exploring ways to block the merger. Many of their concerns stem from fears that further consolidation would lead to job and wage losses, reduced competition and less creative freedom and content diversity. There are also anxieties about the theatrical business, given Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos’s long-held belief that watching movies in theaters is “outdated.”

Several politicians have also raised red flags. Senator Elizabeth Warren called the proposed Netflix–WBD combination a “nightmare” that could result in “higher subscription prices and fewer choices.” President Donald Trump has likewise voiced skepticism about the deal.

Ellison argues that Paramount’s deal would ease antitrust concerns and actually increase competition by pairing Paramount+ with WBD’s HBO Max to better rival Netflix and Disney. A combined Netflix and WBD streaming service would create one of the industry’s largest platforms and almost certainly trigger intense antitrust review. Netflix has more than 300 million subscribers, while WBD’s streaming services have around 128 million. In contrast, Paramount+ has only around 79 million. A merger with Paramount will likely face a smoother regulatory process due to its comparatively smaller scale.

Some analysts speculate that the Ellisons’ close ties to Trump could give Paramount an advantage with regulators. Since making the bid, Ellison has said he has had “great conversations” with the President, though he stressed that he does not “want to speak for the President.”

Meanwhile, despite Trump’s skepticism toward a Netflix–WBD merger due to concerns about market dominance, he referred to Netflix Co-CEO Sarandos as a “fantastic man” and “great person.”

As of Monday afternoon, WBD said it would review Paramount’s offer and issue a decision within 10 days. In a statement, the board emphasized that it “is not modifying its recommendation with respect to the agreement with Netflix.” Because WBD has already signed an agreement, it would owe a $2.8 billion breakup fee if it accepts Paramount’s bid instead. Netflix, for its part, would have to pay a $5.8 billion breakup fee if the transaction collapses or fails to secure regulatory approval.

It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s an orange Marty Supreme blimp. If you’re on social media, chances are you’ve seen Timothée Chalamet and the buzzy rollout for A24’s upcoming Josh Safdie–directed sports drama in which the 29-year-old actor plays a young man chasing fame in the world of competitive ping pong. The film also stars Gwyneth Paltrow, Tyler, The Creator, and Odessa A’zion. Since dropping its first trailer in August, A24 has steadily ramped up the marketing ahead of the film’s Christmas Day release.

Since its founding in 2012, A24 has grown from a niche indie label into a $3.5 billion company, beloved by young cinephiles for its arthouse slate and distinctive merch. At the center of its latest marketing campaign is Chalamet himself, who commands the same Gen Z demographic the studio is targeting. GQ editor Frazier Tharpe recently wrote that Chalamet is “redefining the rollout” and “making the movie-star promo cycle cool by making it weird.” (A24 hasn’t disclosed a specific budget for the Marty Supreme push.)

Chalamet has become a magnet for attention outside of his films as well. During last year’s NBA season, he went viral attending Knicks games, effectively becoming an unofficial team cheerleader during the playoffs as he sat courtside with girlfriend Kylie Jenner, director Spike Lee and a rotating cast of celebrities. His likeness also helped spark the wave of celebrity lookalike contests that swept through major cities, and he even has a dedicated social fan club dubbed “Club Chalamet.”

One of the most viral moments of the campaign came from an 18-minute video in which A24 and Chalamet staged a spoofed Zoom meeting. In it, the actor plays an egomaniac pitching increasingly absurd marketing ideas. The clip has since exploded across TikTok, Instagram Reels and X, with one moment—Chalamet shouting “Schwap!” into the camera—circulating widely.

But not all of it was just satire. A24 backed up the bit with actual orange blimps floating over Los Angeles. Disney pulled a similar stunt earlier this year, skywriting a giant “4” to promote Fantastic Four: The First Steps.

View this post on Instagram

Momentum really accelerated in October at the 63rd New York Film Festival, where Safdie and Chalamet surprised audiences with a screening. Soon after, Chalamet appeared in Times Square to show fans the first 30 minutes of the film, flanked by people in black tracksuits and oversized orange ping-pong-ball masks.

Then came the Marty Supreme jackets, which went viral almost immediately. Chalamet and celebrities like Kid Cudi and Frank Ocean were photographed wearing them in different colorways.

In a GQ piece, global fashion correspondent Samuel Hine wondered whether the Marty Supreme jacket might be “the definitive garment of 2025.” Fans certainly acted like it. During a recent four-hour pop-up in New York’s SoHo, A24 sold the $250 jackets to crowds who waited for hours. Chalamet even stopped by to greet fans and hand out merch.

The jackets aren’t available on A24’s online shop, and it’s unclear if they ever will be. But the frenzy echoes the urgency of Supreme’s in-person drop model—another reminder of how effectively A24 taps into hype culture. (It’s unclear whether the campaign is inspired by Supreme.)

With clever marketing stunts and Chalamet’s box office power (his turn as Bob Dylan in Searchlight’s A Complete Unknown brought in $140.5 million worldwide, and the Dune franchise has earned over $1.14 billion globally), Marty Supreme is expected to strike box-office gold this holiday season. It’s projected to earn between $7 million and $12 million domestically over the opening weekend, in line with previous Christmas releases. Some believe it could even become A24’s highest-grossing title, though others doubt a period sports drama will break out with modern audiences.

A24’s current top performer, Everything Everywhere All at Once, grossed $145 million globally, fueled by word of mouth and its Best Picture win at the 2023 Oscars. Many awards watchers say Chalamet could be a frontrunner for Best Actor next year—momentum that could give Marty Supreme an additional boost.

ESPN Bet will officially shut down on Dec. 1 after a two-year run. In its renewed push into sports wagering, ESPN has struck a multi-year partnership with DraftKings. With the sports betting market growing rapidly, the sudden shuttering of a venture backed by such a well-known brand has raised eyebrows.

ESPN Bet is operated by PENN Entertainment, a casino and entertainment company, through a licensing agreement. The app lets fans place wagers across a wide range of sports and teams, while integrating ESPN’s news, scores and analysis.

Nearly a quarter of Americans (22 percent) have an online sports betting account, with primary users being men ages 18 to 49, according to a Siena Poll survey. The U.S. sports betting industry generated $13.7 billion in revenue last year, up from $11 billion in 2023, according to the American Gaming Association. The nascent industry has continued to gain momentum since the Supreme Court legalized sports betting in 2018. Today, 38 states offer some form of legal sports betting.

What exactly went wrong with ESPN Bet?

Industry experts point to several factors behind ESPN Bet’s collapse. A leading argument is timing: the product simply arrived too late. With DraftKings and FanDuel firmly entrenched at the top of the sports betting market (commanding 44 percent and 34 percent of the market, respectively), breaking the duopoly has become increasingly difficult.

“If ESPN had started in 2018, there’s a better argument it could have won at the end of the day,” Dustin Gouker, a gambling industry consultant, told Observer. “But it would have depended on lots of other variables, including the sports betting product itself, which many would say was subpar with PENN until recently.”

Ross Benes, a senior analyst with eMarketer, said ESPN Bet was “a mess from the start.” 

ESPN Bet is the successor to PENN’s Barstool Sportsbook, launched in 2020 through a partnership between PENN and Barstool Sports and shut down in 2023 after PENN sold the brand back to its founder, Dave Portnoy. “There was the whole Barstool Sports thing and it was unclear where that was going,” Benes told Observer.

“Barstool wasn’t great at converting users in partnership with PENN. ESPN was bigger, but was arguably more ineffective as the top of the marketing funnel for the sportsbook,” Gouker said. ESPN chairman Jimmy Pitaro said the rebranding “drove over 2.9 million new users into the PENN ecosystem.” ESPN Bet reached 1.1 million users during its first week in November 2023. Before the rebrand, Barstool Sportsbook had just more than 72,000 registered users in Pennsylvania, the first state where it launched, in 2023.

ESPN maintains deep relationships with major sports leagues, including the NFL, NBA, MLB and NCAA, through broadcast and media rights agreements. While leagues have increasingly embraced sports betting, that momentum has been complicated by scandals. The NBA is currently under investigation for some of its talent allegedly getting illegally involved in gambling. Benes said it’s likely ESPN and its parent company, The Walt Disney Company, are being cautious, making it easier to outsource sports betting to an established operator like DraftKings. “They don’t want to have something called ESPN Bet while their top partners are being investigated.”

ESPN Bet had been intended to “compete for a podium position in the space,” PENN Entertainment CEO and president Jay Snowden said earlier this month, when announcing the termination of the partnership. Snowden added that PENN plans to rebrand its U.S. sports betting offering to theScore Bet, which currently operates in Canada, and will “refocus” its digital strategy on the company’s growing iCasino business.

Under their initial deal, PENN agreed to pay ESPN $150 million a year for use of the sports network’s name. The partnership had a 10-year term, but included a clause allowing either party to terminate the agreement after the third year if “specific market share performance thresholds were not met.”

Most observers agree the termination hurts PENN more than Disney financially, particularly since ESPN alone generates billions of dollars from sports rights deals. In 2024, Disney reported $91.4 billion in revenue, making a $150 million loss comparatively small.

“When you think about it, $150 million is way less than it costs to produce one Marvel movie,” Benes said.