Americans Pay to Stream Shows They’ll Never Watch

West African baffled by subscription hoarding behavior

When Entertainment Becomes Hypothetical Inventory

SEATTLE, WA – Yaa Mensah asked her American roommate what they were watching tonight. Her roommate listed options: Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, HBO Max, Prime Video, Apple TV+, Peacock. “How much does all this cost?” Mensah asked. “Around $100 monthly,” her roommate estimated. “How much do you watch?” “Maybe Netflix and HBO.” “So you pay $100 to use $30 of services?” “Well, I might want to watch something on the others,” her roommate defended. The 27-year-old from Ghana realized Americans pay for possibilities they never actualize—subscriptions to content they’ll never consume, maintained forever “just in case.”

In Accra, Mensah’s family paid for what they used. Cable subscription? Used daily. Streaming service? Only if actively watching shows on it. In Seattle, people accumulate subscriptions like trophies—proof they have access to content, not proof they watch it. “You’re paying for the option to watch, not watching,” Mensah observed. “That’s like buying gym memberships for exercise you’re not doing. Except gym memberships shame you. Streaming subscriptions don’t—they just quietly bill you while you watch the same three shows on Netflix.”

When Access Becomes More Important Than Usage

According to research, average American household has 4-5 streaming subscriptions costing $50-80 monthly but actively uses only 2-3. Mensah’s roommate pays for seven services: $97 monthly, $1,164 yearly. Usage analysis: Netflix (frequently), HBO Max (occasionally), the other five (rarely or never). “You’re spending $700 yearly on services you don’t use,” Mensah calculated. “You could cancel five subscriptions, save $700, and lose nothing because you’re not watching them anyway. But you won’t because you might watch them someday. Someday costs $700 yearly.”

Jerry Seinfeld said, “What’s the deal with paying for things you don’t use?” Mensah wants to know the same thing. Her roommate’s defense: “But what if I want to watch something on Apple TV+?” Mensah’s response: “Then subscribe for one month, watch what you want, cancel. Or wait until there’s enough content to justify subscribing. You’re maintaining year-round subscriptions for theoretical monthly usage. That’s backwards. You’re paying for potential, not actual. This is insurance for entertainment—you’re hedging against the possibility you might want to watch something someday. But entertainment isn’t emergencies. You can live without immediate access to every show ever made.”

The Subscription They Forgot They Had

Mensah discovered her roommate pays for Paramount+ ($6 monthly) and hasn’t used it in six months. “Why are you still subscribed?” she asked. “I forget to cancel,” her roommate admitted. “You forget to cancel for six months? That’s $36 for forgetting. You’ve paid $36 for nothing because canceling requires two minutes of effort you haven’t prioritized. Streaming services profit from your forgetfulness. They make canceling just difficult enough that you don’t bother. You’re being monetized by your own laziness.”

Dave Chappelle said, “Sometimes you have to protect yourself from yourself.” Americans need protection from streaming services that auto-renew forever, betting correctly that you’ll forget to cancel subscriptions you don’t use. Mensah’s roommate has been paying for Disney+ for 14 months. She watched two shows totaling maybe 10 hours of content. Cost: $140. That’s $14 per hour of entertainment—movie theater prices for home viewing. “If you’d subscribed for one month, binged those shows, and canceled, you’d have spent $10 instead of $140,” Mensah calculated. “But you subscribed and forgot. Disney thanks you for $130 of free money.”

When FOMO Becomes Monthly Expense

Mensah realized subscription hoarding is FOMO—fear of missing out on shows people discuss. “You subscribe because everyone’s watching something,” she told her roommate. “You need to access it immediately when it’s relevant. So you maintain subscriptions year-round for shows that trend occasionally. You’re paying $100 monthly to avoid FOMO. That’s $1,200 yearly for cultural relevance. Maybe it’s okay to miss out? Maybe you don’t need to watch everything everyone discusses? Maybe FOMO is expensive and you should let it go?”

Chris Rock said, “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy.” Mensah knows America is crazy when people pay $100 monthly for streaming services they barely use because they might want to watch something eventually. Her roommate hasn’t watched Apple TV+ in eight months but keeps it because “Ted Lasso might return.” “So you’re paying $6 monthly indefinitely for a show that might eventually release new seasons you may or may not watch?” Mensah asked. “That’s $72 yearly for hypothetical future content. Just subscribe when the show returns. You’re paying now for later. That’s not smart consumption—that’s subscriptions on credit.”

The Shows They Add to Watchlist and Never Watch

Mensah investigated her roommate’s streaming watchlists: 47 shows saved across services, most added months ago, none watched. “You’re curating content you’re not consuming,” Mensah observed. “You’re building libraries you’ll never visit. This is hoarding digital content. You can’t watch 47 shows. You don’t have time. Yet you keep adding more while maintaining subscriptions to access them. You’re paying for access to content you’re saving for later that later never comes. Your watchlist is fantasy—things you imagine yourself watching but never will. It’s aspirational TV viewing. You’re not a viewer—you’re a content curator paying monthly fees to curate things you don’t watch.”

Bill Burr said, “I’m not going to apologize for being right.” Mensah’s not apologizing for thinking Americans waste money on unused subscriptions. “You could rotate subscriptions,” she suggested. “Subscribe to one service, watch everything you want, cancel, subscribe to next service. Cycle through them. You’d watch the same amount of content for fraction of the cost. But you won’t because having access feels important. You’re not paying for entertainment—you’re paying for the feeling of having options. Options cost $100 monthly. Actual entertainment is free at libraries with DVDs, but you won’t do that because it’s not convenient. You’ve prioritized convenience over cost, paying $1,200 yearly for slight convenience of not having to manage subscriptions actively.”

When Streaming Replaced Cable With More Expense

Mensah’s roommate cancelled cable ($80 monthly) because it was “too expensive” and replaced it with seven streaming services ($97 monthly). “You’re paying more for streaming than cable cost,” Mensah noted. “You ‘cut the cord’ to save money and now spend more money. Streaming was supposed to be cheaper. Now it’s more expensive than cable because you subscribe to everything instead of choosing. You’ve recreated cable pricing through subscription accumulation. The streaming revolution ended with you paying more for less centralized content. Congratulations—you played yourself.”

Amy Schumer said, “I’m not saying I’m lazy, I’m saying I’m energy efficient.” Americans aren’t entertainment efficient—they’re entertainment hoarders with subscription budgets exceeding cable costs. Mensah’s roommate spends $1,164 yearly on streaming. Cable would cost $960. “You’re paying 20% more for streaming than cable would cost,” Mensah calculated. “You cut the cord for nothing. You saved zero dollars and gained the hassle of managing seven accounts, seven passwords, seven billing dates. You didn’t save money or time. You just distributed your cable payment across seven companies while telling yourself you’re saving money because each individual subscription seems cheap. $10 per service feels affordable. $100 total is expensive. But you focus on individual costs, not total costs. This is death by a thousand micro-subscriptions.”

The Subscription They’re Sharing But Still Paying For

Mensah discovered her roommate pays for Netflix but uses her parents’ login. Her parents pay for HBO Max but use her login. “You’re each paying for services while using each other’s logins,” Mensah said. “You’re both spending money unnecessarily. If you each canceled what you’re not using and just shared accounts, you’d each save money. But you don’t coordinate. You’re duplicate-paying for access you already have through sharing. This is inefficiency squared. You’re literally paying for nothing—you have free access through sharing but maintain your own subscriptions anyway. Why?” Her roommate shrugged. “I forget to cancel.” Again with the forgetting.

Kevin Hart said, “Everybody wants to be famous, but nobody wants to do the work.” Everybody wants to save money, but nobody wants to do the work of canceling unused subscriptions. Americans let streaming services auto-renew forever, paying indefinitely for services they forget they have. “You’re being farmed,” Mensah told her roommate. “Streaming services plant subscriptions, water them with content occasionally, and harvest your money monthly forever. You’re crop. Your forgetfulness is their business model. They’ve optimized for your laziness. And it works. You pay forever for things you don’t use because canceling requires effort you don’t prioritize.”

When asked if she subscribes to multiple streaming services, Mensah laughed while rotating through one service at a time, subscribing only when there’s content she wants to watch. “Never,” she said. “I’ll subscribe to one service, watch what I want, cancel, move to next service. Cycle through them strategically instead of maintaining all simultaneously. I’ll spend maybe $30 monthly on streaming—one active subscription—instead of $100 on seven subscriptions I barely use. Your approach is paying for access. My approach is paying for usage. You maintain subscriptions ‘just in case.’ I subscribe ‘just because I’m watching.’ The difference is $840 yearly. That’s real money you’re spending on hypothetical entertainment. Back home, we paid for what we used. Here, you pay for what you might use. You’ve conflated access with value. Having seven subscriptions doesn’t mean you watch seven times more content—it means you pay seven times more money. Cancel six services. You’ll lose nothing except monthly charges for content you’re not watching anyway. But you won’t. Because FOMO is expensive, and Americans would rather be poor than uninformed about trending shows they’ll add to watchlists and never watch.”

SOURCE: Bohiney Magazine (Aisha Muharrar)

DATE: 11/28/2025