While the emergency of direct-to-consumer brands has been well—if not overly—chronicled, people have paid less attention to wholesale-driven businesses shifting to direct-to-consumer. These changes are occurring across many industries, but consumer products and entertainment offer some interesting paradoxes.

Nike has been a quintessential wholesale brand for much of its existence. It used running stores and sports gatherings more broadly to sell its products to athletes and onlookers alike. But in the past few years, direct-to-consumer has become a key tenant of Nike’s business model, growing by double digits to reach Nike’s stated goal of $50 billion in sales by 2020. As a result, Nike has significantly cut back its wholesale business, from 30,000 retailers to only 40. While the brand likely has contracts with many of these retailers, they are not particularly long-term—not to mention that Nike, as a global brand, exerts tremendous leverage.

The Nike of the entertainment world, Disney has also been pulling back its distribution as it gears up to launch a Netflix competitor, which would bring its entertainment directly to consumers. It has let licensing deals lapse with Netflix and other content companies, and is now trying to buy back other rights that it currently doesn’t have. Turner Broadcasting paid Disney $275 million in 2016 for eight years of TV rights to the Star Wars franchise, but only two years into the deal, Disney is trying to buy them back.

Entertainment, as a digital good, is ironically much less malleable than physical products when it comes to long-term economics. Entertainment deals often last many years, if not over a decade, which gives sellers long-term certainty from a cash perspective, but locks them in if their strategy needs to shift, as it has for Disney. Territorial rights further complicate this picture.

Eliminating cash-flush distribution is not easy. Nike’s move to eliminate 29,960 retailers or 99.86% of its distribution is a drastic measure, but it’s possible. Nike is not privy to any of the long-term agreements that entertainment companies are—especially since physical goods are often not exclusive to any distribution channel.

As a result, Nike has been able to adjust its strategy more quickly. If Nike had eight- or ten-year deals with its retailers, it would not be able to make its current shift, nor would it be incentivized to cannibalize billions of dollars in effectively guaranteed sales if it took on the same structure as entertainment deals. As industries shift beneath companies, optionality is essential, even if it means less short-term revenue certainty. The ability to move freely in the long-term is the most profitable solution of all.