3 ms·
This is a common headline but Blockbuster would only have delayed the inevitable by buying Netflix. Netflix was a money loser and Blockbuster could not have ca
by WheelsAtLarge 7y ago
This is a common headline but Blockbuster would only have delayed the inevitable by buying Netflix. Netflix was a money loser and Blockbuster could not have carried it for too long before it closed it. And eventually, another company would have succeeded with streaming. Profitable companies can't carry dead weight for too long. Either the board will replace the CEO or the shareholders will start to make noise and have the company change course. A common strategy of takeover raiders is to close all unprofitable units and goose the earning so the stock will rise. They never look at whether a unit is a good future investment.
Blockbuster even started its own Netflix competitor but they could not spend the money and time to make a go of it.
The only reason that Netflix is still alive is that investors believed that eventually, it would be profitable. It took many years. Blockbuster did not have the luxury of waiting until Netflix succeeded.
So no, the idea that Blockbuster missed an opportunity is not correct. It never had a chance.
- sjg007 7y agoBlockbuster had tons of cash.
- dwd 7y ago> Blockbuster even started its own Netflix competitor but they could not spend the money and time to make a go of it. From John Antioco's telling it would have but he lost control of the company to activist shareholders, who as you said: > ...never look at whether a unit is a good future investment. https://hbr.org/2011/04/how-i-did-it-blockbusters-former-ceo-on-sparring-with-an-activist-shareholder https://hbr.org/2011/04/how-i-did-it-blockbusters-former-ceo...