A few months ago, HBO content chief Casey Bloys and Warner Bros. Discovery streaming chief JB Perrette approached the company’s leadership, including CEO David Zaslav, with a suggestion.

They had been conducting research around the streaming service Max, trying to gauge what subscribers were watching and what they weren’t, which brands mattered to them and which didn’t.

The company also looked at how they were actually using the platform. As has since become clear, the results showed that quality mattered, which led the company to adjust its consumer proposition in favor of premium fare. Inside Warner Bros. Discovery, no brand exemplifies quality and premium TV more than HBO. So given the new positioning, they recommended a pivot: Take Max and turn back the clock, re-renaming the streaming service HBO Max, leaning into one of the oldest brands in linear TV outside of the broadcast networks.

“As we have articulated this new strategy publicly over the last few months we have received commentary for many of our fans and observers, who have suggested that the HBO brand should therefore return to the name of the service,” Casey Bloys told media buyers and advertisers about the decision at the Warner Bros. Discovery upfront presentation May 14. “Well, while they were grumbling, we were doing our own assessments. My team and I are well aware of what the HBO brand means to the industry and to consumers.”

And so later this summer, the HBO name once again will be elevated as WBD embraces the quality that it is known for.

“The HBO Max reversal isn’t just a branding U-turn; it’s a flashing neon sign pointing to a critical juncture in the streaming landscape that the ‘content is king’ mantra is dead; brand equity now reigns supreme,” says Sunaina Sharma, executive strategy director at Landor, the WPP-owned brand consultancy. Or, as one veteran executive frames it: In a media business undergoing immense change, “you can’t be afraid to course correct.”

In fact, the 2025 upfronts revealed a surprising turn of events in the latest iteration of the streaming wars: Linear TV brands matter. A lot. 

Later on in the WBD upfront, CNN CEO Mark Thompson unveiled plans for a new CNN streaming service to debut later this fall under the simple, straightforward CNN brand, no “+” required:

“It’ll be our first true new streaming service. One simple way to explore the very best of CNN journalism on your phone, your connected TV, or other digital device, first in the U.S., soon anywhere in the world, live channels and news feeds, exclusive programming and other content and all the storytellers our audiences know and trust, people like Audie [Cornish] and Anderson [Cooper], Kaitlan [Collins, Abby [Phillip] and the rest of the CNN global crew.”

A source says that multiple high-profile CNN journalists have been pitching Thompson and top deputy Alex MacCallum on show ideas, with a heavy emphasis on journalism-forward programs rather than ancillary concepts like parenting shows or book clubs, as CNN+ had. In other words, content most closely associated with the CNN brand. The streaming offering will be part of a larger CNN subscription, which will likely include access to content on its website and vertical lifestyle offerings, the first of which will be a weather app. 

A day before WBD’s branding pivot with HBO and CNN, The Walt Disney Co. made news of its own: ESPN’s long-anticipated streaming service, which had been operating internally under the code name “Flagship,” would launch this year under the understated but obvious name “ESPN.”

“As we explored options, we kept coming back to our four letters: ESPN,” ESPN chief Jimmy Pitaro told reporters in the glistening library of Disney’s Robert A. Iger building in Manhattan (Iger himself popped by that morning to say hello too). “There’s power in our name and there’s trust in our name, including, by the way, from the younger generation who love ESPN, and they see us as a digital first brand. ESPN is the place of record, and we represent the very best in sports. So that’s what we’re calling it. ESPN. Simple, straightforward, clear.”

“There’s unmatched power and clarity in our four letters, and we wanted to keep it simple,” added ESPN executive VP Rosalyn Durant.

At a moment when linear TV is in inescapable decline, suddenly the linear TV brands are making a comeback. It turns out, in a streaming world dominated by Pluses and Maxes and Pros, media companies are suddenly finding that brands do in fact matter to consumers. Disney and WBD may be executing on that now, but others are also moving in the same direction.

“This could trigger a wave of strategic re-evaluations across the streaming world with platforms doubling down on their unique strengths, consolidating to build brand power, or making unexpected alliances,” says Sharma.

Over cocktails at Netflix’s post-upfront reception in New York, one attendee wondered whether Skydance would pivot on the Paramount+ brand, assuming it is able to close its acquisition. While it’s an iconic film studio, Paramount doesn’t have the brand cachet of Disney, and its TV brand is defined solely by Yellowstone. Paramount has let its cable TV channels like MTV and VH1 wither with a lack of programming, though CBS remains relevant thanks to its sports and entertainment portfolio. Speaking to reporters last year, Jeff Shell, Skydance’s pick to become president of the combined company, said they would take a “fresh approach” to Paramount+ when they complete the deal but were committed to streaming.

Or consider NBCUniversal and its upcoming spinoff Versant. When Comcast decided to split off its cable TV channels, it strategically kept Bravo for itself. Why? Because the Bravo brand has become synonymous with a specific sort of highbrow-lowbrow reality program. Whatever happens to Bravo the cable channel, Bravo the brand is all but assured to survive. And once the spinoff is complete and Peacock goes all in on the NBA, the streaming platform will have a lot of NBC branding across its platform thanks to its heavy sports slate, while Bravo serves as the in-house brand for reality.

Similarly, Versant is meant to allow the previously ignored or underinvested cable brands like Syfy and E! to get a chance to shine. In a memo to staff, Versant CEO Mark Lazarus says that the company’s name is meant to serve as a “house for our incredible brands.”

“It speaks to our adaptability and embraces the opportunity to shape a new, modern media company,” he continued. To that end, CNBC has already launched a CNBC Pro streaming service, and MSNBC is said to be exploring its options in streaming and digital offerings as well, particularly with CNN and Fox News having already announced plans to do so.

Fox is an interesting case. The company also announced plans for a direct-to-consumer streaming service and used its upfront to tout the service, which will be called Fox One, with the Fox TV brand front and center. 

“We believe that Fox’s go-to-market strategy for Fox One is well aligned with the current landscape,” writes MoffettNathanson analyst Robert Fishman in a May 12 report. “Set to launch ahead of football season, Fox One will look to complement, rather than cannibalize, its linear portfolio. Fox stated that all existing traditional subscribers will have access to Fox One, ensuring the platform does not compete with distribution partners.”

Indeed, just as streaming brands are embracing their linear TV roots, streaming itself also seems to be moving in that direction. WBD and ESPN executives were eager to note that pay TV subscribers will get access to CNN and ESPN streaming (meaning no additional fees, at least for now), just as they will Fox One.

And with Charter Communications — which has aggressively sought to package streaming services inside its video bundles — seeking to acquire Cox Communications with intentions to expand that strategy, it looks like the new branded offerings will have a partner willing and able to help them with that plan.

It’s almost as if they still see value in the old-fashioned TV bundle, though as LightShed analyst Rich Greenfield wrote in a May 14 note, the media companies (or at the very least Disney) may very well have an ulterior motive. “If ESPN can drive MVPD and vMVPD subscribers to use the ESPN app instead of watching on Comcast, DirecTV, or YouTube TV, they will finally have a direct relationship with their viewers,” Greenfield wrote. “This would allow them to understand what viewers watch, target advertising in a far more compelling way and try to engage viewers beyond live games (whether that be highlights, merchandise, sports betting, fantasy, etc).”

Wall Street analysts suspect that the streaming version of ESPN could see mid-single-digit millions in subscribers, but if it works, particularly in the larger bundle, there is even more upside. “While there may be upside to our Sports segment estimates if Disney is successful reaching these kinds of subscriber levels, the more impactful lift to DIS shares likely comes from bundling ESPN streaming into Disney Plus and Hulu,” Morgan Stanley’s Ben Swinburne wrote May 12.

If the new world of streaming can keep the pay TV bundle alive, entertainment companies will gladly take it. But even if it doesn’t, if they can leverage their legacy linear brands to gain a digital foothold, it’s at least a step in the right direction.

This story first appeared in the May 21 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe.