5 ms·

Netflix vs Blockbuster, 2004-2010

17 points by stephenjudkins 15y ago

whyleyc 15y ago
So where did the other $3.8 billion in revenue go ?
- cryptoz 15y ago
  I would guess that consumers kept it. Watching 10 movies using Blockbuster could cost the consumer around $50 (in Canada, anyway, where Blockbuster is still thriving because Netflix took more than a decade to get here). Watching 10 movies on Netflix is included in your fixed monthly cost, which is considerably less than $50/month. Edit: Or maybe what gamble said.
  - nhangen 15y ago
    I pay $20/month to watch Blockbuster online (only supported by my DVD player I think), get unlimited DVD's in the mail, and unlimited trades in store. I really like it, and it's nice to go get what I want when I'm in the mood, rather than hope the movie that arrives is something I feel like watching.
gamble 15y ago
Uh, what? Blockbuster had revenue of approximately $4 billion in 2010.[1] Where did the data come from for this chart? No operating business has zero revenue. Blockbuster has plenty of revenue, they just can't pull in enough gross profit to service their debt. [1] http://investor.blockbuster.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=99383&p=irol-newsArticle&id=1426686 http://investor.blockbuster.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=99383&p=...
- kenjackson 15y ago
  It's in their annual report: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MzQ4MTIyfENoaWxkSUQ9MzM2Nzc2fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1 http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9M... See page 24(29) where they list annual revenue for past five years: 2004 - 6.0B 2003 - 5.9B 2002 - 5.6B 2001 - 5.2B 2000 - 5.0B EDIT: Your statement about no real business doing $0 in revenue kept on nagging me. So I went and looked up their 2010 10k. They actually did $3.2B in 2010. So this chart is NOT accurate. They did do $4.0B in 2009, but only dropped to $3.2B in 2010. Just because you file for bankruptcy doesn't mean you have zero revenue.
Kirchart123 15y ago
Usa vs china aconomy would be similar by 2015
kenjackson 15y ago
That is a GREAT chart. That is a classic example of the Innovator's Dilemma. What if you told BB in 2004 that if they moved into pushing mail order and streaming their 2010 revenue would be $2.2B -- what would they have done differently? Quite possibly nothing. This is why these disruptions are tough to deal with. Trying to actually disrupt yourself could result in the loss of a LOT of revenue, but it saves the business. But who could foresee that?
matthewlyle 15y ago
This chart was created by somebody with a fundamental misunderstanding of what bankruptcy is.
seanalltogether 15y ago
What about Redbox? Surely they put more of a dent into blockbusters business then netflix did? I always assumed netflix was competing against walmart/best buy dvd sales, and not blockbuster rentals.
psi_rockin 15y ago
This implies that Netflix one-for-one replaced Blockbuster. How can you ignore Redbox, iTunes, and the rise of On-Demand offerings from cable and satellite providers that all took place within the same time frame?

So where did the other $3.8 billion in revenue go ?

cryptoz 15y ago
I would guess that consumers kept it. Watching 10 movies using Blockbuster could cost the consumer around $50 (in Canada, anyway, where Blockbuster is still thriving because Netflix took more than a decade to get here). Watching 10 movies on Netflix is included in your fixed monthly cost, which is considerably less than $50/month. Edit: Or maybe what gamble said.
- nhangen 15y ago
  I pay $20/month to watch Blockbuster online (only supported by my DVD player I think), get unlimited DVD's in the mail, and unlimited trades in store. I really like it, and it's nice to go get what I want when I'm in the mood, rather than hope the movie that arrives is something I feel like watching.

Uh, what? Blockbuster had revenue of approximately $4 billion in 2010.[1] Where did the data come from for this chart? No operating business has zero revenue. Blockbuster has plenty of revenue, they just can't pull in enough gross profit to service their debt. [1] http://investor.blockbuster.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=99383&p=irol-newsArticle&id=1426686 http://investor.blockbuster.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=99383&p=...

kenjackson 15y ago
It's in their annual report: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MzQ4MTIyfENoaWxkSUQ9MzM2Nzc2fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1 http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9M... See page 24(29) where they list annual revenue for past five years: 2004 - 6.0B 2003 - 5.9B 2002 - 5.6B 2001 - 5.2B 2000 - 5.0B EDIT: Your statement about no real business doing $0 in revenue kept on nagging me. So I went and looked up their 2010 10k. They actually did $3.2B in 2010. So this chart is NOT accurate. They did do $4.0B in 2009, but only dropped to $3.2B in 2010. Just because you file for bankruptcy doesn't mean you have zero revenue.

Kirchart123 15y ago

Usa vs china aconomy would be similar by 2015

kenjackson 15y ago

That is a GREAT chart. That is a classic example of the Innovator's Dilemma. What if you told BB in 2004 that if they moved into pushing mail order and streaming their 2010 revenue would be $2.2B -- what would they have done differently? Quite possibly nothing. This is why these disruptions are tough to deal with. Trying to actually disrupt yourself could result in the loss of a LOT of revenue, but it saves the business. But who could foresee that?

matthewlyle 15y ago

This chart was created by somebody with a fundamental misunderstanding of what bankruptcy is.

seanalltogether 15y ago

What about Redbox? Surely they put more of a dent into blockbusters business then netflix did? I always assumed netflix was competing against walmart/best buy dvd sales, and not blockbuster rentals.

psi_rockin 15y ago

This implies that Netflix one-for-one replaced Blockbuster. How can you ignore Redbox, iTunes, and the rise of On-Demand offerings from cable and satellite providers that all took place within the same time frame?