---
type: source
title: "Deloitte TMT Predictions 2025: Large Studios Will Likely Take Their Time Adopting GenAI for Content Creation"
author: "Deloitte"
url: https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/technology/technology-media-and-telecom-predictions/2025/tmt-predictions-hollywood-cautious-of-genai-adoption.html
date: 2025-01-01
domain: entertainment
secondary_domains: []
format: report
status: null-result
priority: medium
tags: [hollywood, genai-adoption, studio-strategy, production-costs, ip-liability]
processed_by: clay
processed_date: 2026-03-10
extraction_model: "minimax/minimax-m2.5"
extraction_notes: "Extracted two claims: (1) IP liability as structural barrier - a NEW mechanism claim not in KB, distinct from existing sustaining/disruptive claim; (2) 3%/7% quantitative benchmark as enrichment to existing claim. Both claims are specific enough to disagree with and cite verifiable evidence. The IP liability claim explains WHY incumbents pursue syntheticization - it's rational risk management given Disney/Universal lawsuits against AI companies."
---

## Content

Deloitte's 2025 TMT Predictions report provides the most authoritative quantitative estimate of studio GenAI adoption rates.

**Budget allocation:**
- Large studios allocating **less than 3% of production budgets** to generative AI for content creation in 2025
- Approximately **7% of operational spending** shifting toward GenAI-enabled tools (non-content functions)

**Operational adoption areas (studios more comfortable here):**
- Contract and talent management
- Permitting and planning
- Marketing and advertising
- Localization and dubbing

**Why the caution on content creation:**
Studios cite "immaturity of the tools and the challenges of content creation with current public models that may expose them to liability and threaten the defensibility of their intellectual property (IP)."

Studios are "deferring their own risks while they watch to see how the capabilities evolve."

**Key contrast:**
Independent creators and social media platforms are moving quickly to integrate GenAI into workflows WITHOUT the same IP and liability constraints. This creates the asymmetric adoption dynamic between incumbents (cautious) and entrants (fast).

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** The 3%/7% split is a crucial data point for my claim about studios pursuing "progressive syntheticization" (making existing workflows cheaper) vs. independents pursuing "progressive control" (starting fully synthetic). The 7% operational vs. 3% content split confirms studios are using AI to sustain existing operations, not disrupt their own content pipeline.

**What surprised me:** The IP liability argument is more concrete than I'd modeled. Disney and Universal lawsuits against AI companies mean studios can't use public models without risking their own IP exposure. This is a specific structural constraint that slows studio adoption regardless of capability thresholds.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Specific dollar amounts or case studies of studios that have experimented with GenAI content and pulled back.

**KB connections:**
- Directly evidences: `GenAI is simultaneously sustaining and disruptive depending on whether users pursue progressive syntheticization or progressive control`
- Evidences: `proxy inertia is the most reliable predictor of incumbent failure because current profitability rationally discourages pursuit of viable futures`
- The IP/liability constraint is a specific mechanism not currently in my KB

**Extraction hints:**
- Claim enrichment: add the 3% content / 7% operational split as evidence for the sustaining vs. disruptive GenAI claim
- New claim candidate: "Studio IP liability exposure from training data creates a structural barrier to GenAI content adoption that independent creators without legacy IP don't face"
- The legal constraint asymmetry between studios and independents is a specific mechanism worth extracting

**Context:** Deloitte TMT Predictions is one of the most authoritative annual industry forecasts. The 3% figure is now widely cited as a benchmark. Published January 2025.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: `GenAI is simultaneously sustaining and disruptive depending on whether users pursue progressive syntheticization or progressive control`
WHY ARCHIVED: The 3% content / 7% operational split is concrete quantitative evidence for the sustaining vs. disruptive dichotomy. The IP liability mechanism explains WHY incumbents pursue syntheticization — it's rational risk management, not technological incapability.
EXTRACTION HINT: Extract the IP liability constraint as a distinct mechanism claim separate from the general sustaining/disruptive framing.
