Jio Studios’ ₹175 crore snub pays off as Dhurandhar 2 deal reshapes OTT economics

When Jio Studios declined a reported ₹175 crore bundled streaming deal for Dhurandhar sequels — before the first instalment had even reached theatres — the decision appeared at best bold and, at worst, risky.

But months later, that call is being viewed as one of the most astute plays in recent Indian entertainment finance.

Why did Jio Studios turn down a guaranteed ₹175 crore deal?

Part 2 of the franchise has now reportedly secured around ₹150 crore in streaming rights on its own, according to trade tracking platform Sacnilk, almost double the roughly ₹87.5 crore it would have been implicitly valued at under the original bundle. The math is stark. What looked like a gamble has translated into an estimated 70–75% upside—purely by waiting.

At the heart of this decision lies a shift in how content is being valued in the streaming era. When Netflix made its bundled offer, it was effectively pricing both films on expectation. The first part had not yet tested the box office, and the sequel’s value was, therefore, speculative. For platforms, such early deals hedge risk. For producers, they offer certainty.

Jio Studios chose a different route—one that prioritised information over immediacy.

By holding back, the studio allowed the theatrical performance of Part 1 to establish a clear demand signal. Once the film reportedly crossed ₹1,300 crore globally, according to Sacnilk data, the franchise moved from promise to proof. That shift fundamentally altered the negotiating table. What was earlier a bundled asset became two distinct, high-value products.

How are OTT platform economics reshaping content deals?

Industry experts say this reflects a broader transformation in OTT economics. As Professor Manish Gangwar of ISB notes, streaming platforms are increasingly valuing content based on the incremental subscribers and engagement it can deliver, rather than merely franchise continuity. In such a model, a successful first part doesn’t just justify a sequel—it amplifies its strategic importance.

That is where JioHotstar enters the picture. Despite Part 1 being available on Netflix, the sequel has reportedly migrated to a rival platform. The move may appear counterintuitive from a storytelling standpoint, but from a business lens, it reflects how platforms compete for high-impact content that can maximise reach and engagement.

JioHotstar, backed by a telecom distribution ecosystem, brings scale that few competitors can match. Its ability to bundle content with connectivity, penetrate deeper into regional markets, and cross-leverage live sports audiences enhances the monetisation potential of marquee titles. For a high-intent asset like Dhurandhar 2, that translates into higher bids and stronger long-term value extraction.

Executives tracking the space point out that OTT platforms today are less concerned with franchise continuity and more focused on return on investment. Licensing fees, revenue-sharing structures, and audience reach often outweigh the benefits of keeping a series on a single platform.

As Yasin Hamidani of Media Care Brand Solutions explains, producers are increasingly willing to switch platforms if it means maximising scale and monetisation. Umair Mohammed, CEO and co-founder at Nitro Commerce, echoes this, noting that marquee sequels are now evaluated on their ability to deliver higher lifetime value, with platforms willing to outbid competitors for assets that come with pre-validated demand and stronger engagement potential.

The economics of sequels further tilt the equation. Unlike fresh intellectual property, sequels come with pre-validated demand, lower discovery costs, and significantly higher engagement potential. Platforms recognise this and are willing to pay a premium, often triggering competitive bidding scenarios.

What does this mean for the future of OTT dealmaking?

Trade analyst Taran Adarsh describes such decisions as a “healthy practice,” arguing that treating each instalment as a standalone business unit allows producers to unlock full value across theatrical and digital windows. The Dhurandhar strategy, he suggests, reflects a clear understanding that each part can—and should—be monetised independently. Film business analyst Girish Johar adds that the makers were clear from the outset that the two parts were distinct products, which enabled them to “segregate the businesses of both” and optimise revenues across box office and non-theatrical streams, making the eventual platform split a commercially sound decision.

There is also a strategic layer unique to this case. With Jio Studios backing the franchise, the eventual move of Part 2 to JioHotstar consolidates value within the broader Jio ecosystem. In effect, the company is not just producing content but also controlling its distribution and digital monetisation, creating a closed-loop model that strengthens margins.

Yet, beyond platform strategies and bidding wars, the most compelling takeaway from the Dhurandhar deal is simpler—and more universal.

In business, speed is often celebrated. Deals are chased, closures are prioritised, and early monetisation is seen as prudent. Jio Studios’ decision flips that logic. By resisting the urge to lock in value early, it allowed the market to reveal what the asset was truly worth.

The result is a case study in patience as strategy.

In an industry increasingly driven by data, performance, and real-time valuation, the biggest advantage may not lie in predicting outcomes—but in waiting for them to unfold.