by Adam Hartung | Feb 9, 2016 | Current Affairs, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Verizon tipped its hand that it would be interested to buy Yahoo back in December. In the last few days this possibility drew more attention as Verizon’s CFO confirmed interest on CNBC, and Bloomberg reported that AOL’s CEO Tim Armstrong is investigating a potential acquisition. There are some very good reasons this deal makes sense:
First, this acquisition has the opportunity to make Verizon distinctive. Think about all those ads you see for mobile phone service. Pretty much alike. All of them trying to say that their service is better than competitors, in a world where customers don’t see any real difference. 3G, 4G – pretty soon it feels like they’ll be talking about 10G – but users mostly don’t care. The service is usually good enough, and all competitors seem the same.
So, that leads to the second element they advertise – price. How many different price programs can anyone invent? And how many phone or tablet give-aways. What is clear is that the competition is about price. And that means the product has become generic. And when products are generic, and price is the #1 discussion, it leads to low margins and lousy investor returns.
But a Yahoo acquisition would make Verizon differentiated. Verizon could offer its own unique programming, at a meaningful level, and make it available only on their network. And this could offer price advantages. Like with Go90 streaming, Verizon customers could have free downloads of Verizon content, while having to pay data fees for downloads from other sites like YouTube, Facebook, Vine, Instagram, Amazon Prime, etc. The Verizon customer could have a unique experience, and this could allow Verizon to move away from generic selling and potentially capture higher margins as a differentiated competitor.
Second, Yahoo will never be a lead competitor and has more value as a supporting player. Yahoo has lost its lead in every major competitive market, and it will never catch up. Google is #1 in search, and always will be. Google is #1 in video, with Facebook #2, and Yahoo will never catch either. Ad sales are now dominated by adwords and social media ads – and Yahoo is increasingly an afterthought. Yahoo’s relevance in digital advertising is at risk, and as a weak competitor it could easily disappear.
But, Verizon doesn’t need the #1 player to put together a bundled solution where the #2 is a big improvement from nothing. By integrating Yahoo services and capabilities into its unique platform Verizon could take something that will never be #1 and make it important as part of a new bundle to users and advertisers. As supporting technology and products Yahoo is worth quite a bit more to Verizon than it will ever be as an independent competitor to investors – who likely cannot keep up the investment rates necessary to keep Yahoo alive.
Third, Yahoo is incredibly cheap. For about a year Yahoo investors have put no value on the independent Yahoo. The company’s value has been only its stake in Alibaba. So investors inherently have said they would take nothing for the traditional “core” Yahoo assets.
Additionally, Yahoo investors are stuck trying to capture the Alibaba value currently locked-up in Yahoo. If they try to spin out or sell the stake then a $10-12Billion tax bill likely kicks in. By getting rid of Yahoo’s outdated business what’s left is “YaBaba” as a tracking stock on the NASDAQ for the Chinese Alibaba shares. Or, possibly Alibaba buys the remaining “YaBaba” shares, putting cash into the shareholder pockets — or giving them Alibaba shares which they may prefer. Etiher way, the tax bill is avoided and the Alibaba value is unlocked. And that is worth considerably more than Yahoo’s “core” business.
So it is highly unlikely a deal is made for free. But lacking another likely buyer Verizon is in a good position to buy these assets for a pretty low value. And that gives them the opportunity to turn those assets into something worth quite a lot more without the overhang of huge goodwill charges left over from buying an overpriced asset – as usually happens in tech.
Fourth, Yahoo finally gets rid of an ineffectual Board and leadership team. The company’s Board has been trying to find a successful leader since the day it hired Carol Bartz. A string of CEOs have been unable to define a competitive positioning that works for Yahoo, leading to the current lack of investor enthusiasm.
The current CEO Mayer and her team, after months of accomplishing nothing to improve Yahoo’s competitiveness and growth prospects, is now out of ideas. Management consulting firm McKinsey & Company has been brought in to engineer yet another turnaround effort. Last week we learned there will be more layoffs and business closings as Yahoo again cannot find any growth prospects. This was the turnaround that didn’t, and now additional value destruction is brought on by weak leadership.
Most of the time when leaders fail the company fails. Yahoo is interesting because there is a way to capture value from what is currently a failing situation. Due to dramatic value declines over the last few years, most long-term investors have thrown in the towel. Now the remaining owners are very short-term, oriented on capturing the most they can from the Alibaba holdings. They are happy to be rid of what the company once was. Additionally, there is a possible buyer who is uniquely positioned to actually take those second-tier assets and create value out of them, and has the resources to acquire the assets and make something of them. A real “win/win” is now possible.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 22, 2013 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Television
Do you really think in 2020 you’ll watch television the way people did in the 1960s? I would doubt it.
In today’s world if you want entertainment you have a plethora of ways to download or live stream exactly what you want, when you want, from companies like Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Spotify, Streamhunter, Viewster and TVWeb. Why would you even want someone else to program you entertainment if you can get it yourself?
Additionally, we increasingly live in a world unaccepting of one-way communication. We want to not only receive what entertains us, but share it with others, comment on it and give real-time feedback. The days when we willingly accepted having information thrust at us are quickly dissipating as we demand interactivity with what comes across our screen – regardless of size.
These 2 big trends (what I want, when I want; and 2-way over 1-way) have already changed the way we accept entertaining. We use USB drives and smartphones to provide static information. DVDs are nearly obsolete. And we demand 24×7 mobile for everything dynamic.
Yet, the CEO of Charter Cable company wass surprised to learn that the growth in cable-only customers is greater than the growth of video customers. Really?
It was about 3 years ago when my college son said he needed broadband access to his apartment, but he didn’t want any TV. He commented that he and his 3 roommates didn’t have any televisions any more. They watched entertainment and gamed on screens around his apartment connected to various devices. He never watched live TV. Instead they downloaded their favorite programs to watch between (or along with) gaming sessions, picked up the news from live web sites (more current and accurate he said) and for sports they either bought live streams or went to a local bar.
To save money he contacted Comcast and said he wanted the premier internet broadband service. Even business-level service. But he didn’t want TV. Comcast told him it was impossible. If he wanted internet he had to buy TV. “That’s really, really stupid” was the way he explained it to me. “Why do I have to buy something I don’t want at all to get what I really, really want?”
Then, last year, I helped a friend move. As a favor I volunteered to return her cable box to Comcast, since there was a facility near my home. I dreaded my volunteerism when I arrived at Comcast, because there were about 30 people in line. But, I was committed, so I waited.
The next half-hour was amazingly instructive. One after another people walked up to the window and said they were having problems paying their bills, or that they had trouble with their devices, or wanted a change in service. And one after the other they said “I don’t really want TV, just internet, so how cheaply can I get it?”
These were not busy college students, or sophisticated managers. These were every day people, most of whom were having some sort of trouble coming up with the monthly money for their Comcast bill. They didn’t mind handing back the cable box with TV service, but they were loath to give up broadband internet access.
Again and again I listened as the patient Comcast people explained that internet-only service was not available in Chicagoland. People had to buy a TV package to obtain broad-band internet. It was force-feeding a product people really didn’t want. Sort of like making them buy an entree in order to buy desert.
As I retold this story my friends told me several stories about people who banned together in apartments to buy one Comcast service. They would buy a high-powered router, maybe with sub-routers, and spread that signal across several apartments. Sometimes this was done in dense housing divisions and condos. These folks cut the cost for internet to a fraction of what Comcast charged, and were happy to live without “TV.”
But that is just the beginning of the market shift which will likely gut cable companies. These customers will eventually hunt down internet service from an alternative supplier, like the old phone company or AT&T. Some will give up on old screens, and just use their mobile device, abandoning large monitors. Some will power entertainment to their larger screens (or speakers) by mobile bluetooth, or by turning their mobile device into a “hotspot.”
And, eventually, we will all have wireless for free – or nearly so. Google has started running fiber cable in cities including Austin, TX, Kansas City, MO and Provo, Utah. Anyone who doesn’t see this becoming city-wide wireless has their eyes very tightly closed. From Albuquerque, NM to Ponca City, OK to Mountain View, CA (courtesy of Google) cities already have free city-wide wireless broadband. And bigger cities like Los Angeles and Chicago are trying to set up free wireless infrastructure.
And if the USA ever invests in another big “public works infrastructure” program will it be to rebuild the old bridges and roads? Or is it inevitable that someone will push through a national bill to connect everyone wirelessly – like we did to build highways and the first broadcast TV.
So, what will Charter and Comcast sell customers then?
It is very, very easy today to end up with a $300/month bill from a major cable provider. Install 3 HD (high definition) sets in your home, buy into the premium movie packages, perhaps one sports network and high speed internet and before you know it you’ve agreed to spend more on cable service than you do on home insurance. Or your car payment. Once customers have the ability to bypass that “cable cost” the incentive is already intensive to “cut the cord” and set that supplier free.
Yet, the cable companies really don’t seem to see it. They remain unimpressed at how much customers dislike their service. And respond very slowly despite how much customers complain about slow internet speeds. And even worse, customer incredulous outcries when the cable company slows down access (or cuts it) to streaming entertainment or video downloads are left unheeded.
Cable companies say the problem is “content.” So they want better “programming.” And Comcast has gone so far as to buy NBC/Universal so they can spend a LOT more money on programming. Even as advertising dollars are dropping faster than the market share of old-fashioned broadcast channels.
Blaming content flies in the face of the major trends. There is no shortage of content today. We can find all the content we want globally, from millions of web sites. For entertainment we have thousands of options, from shows and movies we can buy to what is for free (don’t forget the hours of fun on YouTube!)
It’s not “quality programming” which cable needs. That just reflects industry deafness to the roar of a market shift. In short order, cable companies will lack a reason to exist. Like land-line phones, Philco radios and those old TV antennas outside, there simply won’t be a need for cable boxes in your home.
Too often business leaders become deaf to big trends. They are so busy executing on an old success formula, looking for reasons to defend & extend it, that they fail to evaluate its relevancy. Rather than listen to market shifts, and embrace the need for change, they turn a deaf ear and keep doing what they’ve always done – a little better, with a little more of the same product (do you really want 650 cable channels?,) perhaps a little faster and always seeking a way to do it cheaper – even if the monthly bill somehow keeps going up.
But execution makes no difference when you’re basic value proposition becomes obsolete. And that’s how companies end up like Kodak, Smith-Corona, Blackberry, Hostess, Continental Bus Lines and pretty soon Charter and Comcast.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 10, 2013 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Television
Tribune Corporation finally emerged from a 4 year bankruptcy on the last day of 2012. Before the ink hardly dried on the documents, leadership has decided to triple company debt to double up the number of TV stations. Oh my, some people just never learn.
The media industry is now over a decade into a significant shift. Since the 1990s internet access has changed expectations for how fast, easily and flexibly we acquire entertainment and news. The result has been a dramatic decline in printed magazine and newspaper reading, while on-line reading has skyrocketed. Simultaneously, we're now seeing that on-line streaming is making a change in how people acquire what they listen to (formerly radio based) and watch (formerly television-based.)
Unfortunately, Tribune – like most media industry companies – consistently missed these shifts and underestimated both the speed of the shift and its impact. And leadership still seems unable to understand future scenarios that will be far different from today.
In 2000 newspaper people thought they had "moats" around their markets. The big newspaper in most towns controlled the market for classified ads for things like job postings and used car sales. Classified ads represented about a third of newspaper revenues, and 40% of profits. Simultaneously display advertising for newspapers was considered a cash cow. Every theatre would advertise their movies, every car dealer their cars and every realtor their home listings. Tribune leadership felt like this was "untouchable" profitability for the LA Times and Chicago Tribune that had no competition and unending revenue growth.
So in 2000 Tribune spent $8B to buy Times-Mirror, owner of the Los
Angeles Times. Unfortunately, this huge investment (75% over market
price at the time, by the way) was made just as people were preparing to
shift away from newspapers. Craigslist, eBay and other user sites killed the market for classified ads. Simultaneously movie companies, auto companies and realtors all realized they could reach more people, with more information, cheaper on-line than by paying for newspaper ads.
These web sites all existed before the acquisition, but Tribune leadership ignored the trend. As one company executive said to me "CraigsList!! You think that's competition for a newspaper? Craigslist is for hookers! Nobody would ever put a job listing on Craigslist." Like his compadres running newspapers nationwide, the new competitors and trends toward on-line were dismissed with simplistic statements and broad generalizations that things would never change.
The floor fell out from under advertising revenues in newspapers in the 2000s. There was no way Times-Mirror would ever be worth a fraction of what Tribune paid. Debt used to help pay for the acquisition limited the options for Tribune as cost cutting gutted the organization.
Then, in 2007 Sam Zell bailed out management by putting together a leveraged buyout to acquire Tribune company. Saying that he read 3 newspapers every day, he believed people would never stop reading newspapers. Like a lot of leaders, Mr. Zell had more money than understanding of trends and shifting markets. He added a few billion dollars more debt to Tribune. By the end of 2008 Tribune was unable to meet its debt obligations, and filed for bankruptcy.
Now, new leadership has control of Tribune. They are splitting the company in two, seperating the print and broadcast businesses. The hope is to sell the newspapers, for which they believe there are 40 potential buyers. Even though profits continued falling, from $156M to $89M, in just the last year. Why anyone would buy newspaper companies, which are clearly buggy whip manufacturers, is wholly unclear. But hope springs eternal!
The new stand-alone Tribune Broadcasting company has decided to go all-in on a deal to borrow $2.7B and buy 19 additional local television stations raising total under their control to 42.
Let's see, what's the market trend in entertainment and news? Where once we were limited to local radio and television stations for most content, now we can acquire almost anything we want – from music to TV, movies, documentaries or news – via the internet. Rather than being subjected to what some programming executive decides to give us, we can select what we want, when we want it, and simply stream it to our laptop, tablet, smartphone, or even our large-screen TV.
A long time ago content was controlled by distribution. There was no reason to create news stories or radio programs or video unless you had access to distribution. Obviously, that made distribution – owning newspapers, radio and TV stations – valuable.
But today distribution is free, and everywhere. Almost every American has access to all the news and entertainment they want from the internet. Either free, or for bite-size prices that aren't too high. Today the value is in the content, not distribution.
In the last 2 years the number of homes without a classical TV connection (the cable) has doubled. Sure, it's only 5% of homes now. But the trend is pretty clear. Even homes that have cable are increasingly not watching it as they turn to more and more streaming video. Instead of watching a 30 minute program once per week, people are starting to watch 8 or 10 half hour episodes back to back. And when they want to watch those episodes, where they want to watch them.
While it might be easy for Tribune to ignore Hulu, Netflix and Amazon, the trend is very clear. The need for broadcast stations like NBC or WGN or Food Network to create content is declining as we access content more directly, from more sources. And the need to have content delivered to our home by a local affiliate station is becoming, well, an anachronism.
Yet, Tribune's new TV-oriented leadership is doubling down on its bet for local TV's future. Ignoring all the trends, they are borrowing more money to buy more assets that show all signs of becoming about as valuable whaling ships. It's a big, dumb bet. Similar to overpaying for Times-Mirror. Some leaders just seem destined to never learn.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 29, 2010 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness, Television, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Most leaders optimize their core business
- This does not prepare the business for market shifts
- Motorola was a leader with Razr, but was killed when competitors matched their features and the market shifted to smart phones
- Netflix's leader is moving Netflix to capture the next big market (video downloads)
- Reed Hastings is doing a great job, and should be emulated
- Netflix is a great growth story, and a stock worth adding to your portfolio
"Reed Hastings: Leader of the Pack" is how Fortune magazine headlined its article making the Netflix CEO its BusinessPerson of the Year for 2010. At least part of Fortune's exuberance is tied to Netflix's dramatic valuation increase, up 200% in just the last year. Not bad for a stock called a "worthless piece of crap" in 2005 by a Wedbush Securities stock analyst. At the time, popular wisdom was that Blockbuster, WalMart and Amazon would drive Netflix into obscurity. One of these is now gone (Blockbuster) the other stalled (WalMart revenues unmoved in 2010) and the other well into digital delivery of books for its proprietary Kindle eReader.
But is this an honor, or a curse? It was 2004 when Ed Zander was given the same notice as the head of Motorola. After launching the Razr he was lauded as Motorola's stock jumped in price. But it didn't take long for the bloom to fall off that rose. Razr profits went negative as prices were cut to drive share increases, and a lack of new products drove Motorola into competitive obscurity. A joint venture with Apple to create Rokr gave Motorola no new sales, but opened Apple's eyes to the future of smartphone technology and paved the way for iPhone. Mr. Zander soon ran out of Chicago and back to Silicon Valley, unemployed, with his tale between his legs.
Netflix is a far different story from Motorola, and although its valuation is high looks like a company you should have in your portfolio.
Ed Zander simply took Motorola further out the cell phone curve that Motorola had once pioneered. He brought out the next version of something that had long been "core" to Motorola. It was easy for competitors to match the "features and functions" of Razr, and led to a price war. Mr. Zander failed because he did not recognize that launching smartphones would change the game, and while it would cannibalize existing cell phone sales it would pave the way for a much more profitable, and longer term greater growth, marketplace.
Looking at classic "S Curve" theory, Mr. Zander and Motorola kept pushing the wave of cell phones, but growth was plateauing as the technology was doing less to bring in new users (in the developed world):
Meanwhile, Research in Motion (RIM) was pioneering a new market for smartphones, which was growing at a faster clip. Apple, and later Google (with Android) added fuel to that market, causing it to explode. The "old" market for cell phones fell into a price war as the growth, and profits, moved to the newer technology and product sets:
The Motorola story is remarkably common. Companies develop leaders who understand one market, and have the skills to continue optimizing and exploiting that market. But these leaders rarely understand, prepare for and implement change created by a market shift. Inability to see these changes brought down Silicon Graphics and Sun Microsystems in 2010, and are pressuring Microsoft today as users are rapidly moving from laptops to mobile devices and cloud computing. It explains how Sony lost the top spot in music, which it dominated as a CD recording company and consumer electronics giant with Walkman, to Apple when the market moved people from physical CDs to MP3 files and Apple's iPod.
Which brings us back to what makes Netflix a great company, and Mr. Hastings a remarkable leader. Netflix pioneered the "ship to your home" DVD rental business. This helped eliminate the need for brick-and-mortar stores (along with other market trends such as the very inexpensive "Red Box" video kiosk and low-cost purchase options from the web.) Market shifts doomed Blockbuster, which remained locked-in to its traditional retail model, made obsolete by competitors that were cheaper and easier with which to do business.
But Netflix did not remain fixated on competing for DVD rentals and sales – on "protecting its core" business. Looking into the future, the organization could see that digital movie rentals are destined to be dramatically greater than physical DVDs. Although Hulu was a small competitor, and YouTube could be scoffed at as a Gen Y plaything, Netflix studied these "fringe" competitors and developed a superb solution that was the best of all worlds. Without abandoning its traditional business, Netflix calmly moved forward with its digital download business — which is cheaper than the traditional business and will not only cannibalize historical sales but make the traditional business completely obsolete!
Although text books talk about "jumping the curve" from one product line to another, it rarely happens. Devotion to the core business, and managing the processes which once led to success, keeps few companies from making the move. When it happens, like when IBM moved from mainframes to services, or Apple's more recent shift from Mac-centric to iPod/iPhone/iPad, we are fascinated. Or Google's move from search/ad placement company to software supplier. While any company can do it, few do. So it's no wonder that MediaPost.com headlines the Netflix transition story "Netflix Streams Its Way to Success."
Is Netflix worth its premium? Was Apple worth its premium earlier this decade? Was Google worth its premium during the first 3 years after its Initial Public Offering? Most investors fear the high valuations, and shy away. Reality is that when a company pioneers a growth business, the value is far higher than analysts estimate. Today, many traditionalists would say to stay with Comcast and set-top TV box makers like TiVo. But Comcast is trying to buy NBC in order to move beyond its shrinking subscriber base, and "TiVo Widens Loss, Misses Street" is the Reuters' headline. Both are clearly fighting the problems of "technology A" (above.)
What we've long accepted as the traditional modes of delivering entertainment are well into the plateau, while Netflix is taking the lead with "technology B." Buying into the traditionalists story is, well, like buying General Motors. Hard to see any growth there, only an ongoing, slow demise.
On the other hand, we know that increasingly young people are abandoning traditional programing for 100% entertainment selection by download. Modern televisions are computer monitors, capable of immediately viewing downloaded movies from a tablet or USB drive – and soon a built-in wifi connection. The growth of movie (and other video) watching is going to keep exploding – just as the volume of videos on YouTube has exploded. But it will be via new distribution. And nobody today appears close to having the future scenarios, delivery capability and solutions of Netflix. 24×7 Wall Street says Netflix will be one of "The Next 7 American Monopolies." The last time somebody used that kind of language was talking about Microsoft in the 1980s! So, what do you think that makes Netflix worth in 2012, or 2015?
Netflix is a great story. And likely a great investment as it takes on the market leadership for entertainment distribution. But the bigger story is how this could be applied to your company. Don't fear revenue cannibalization, or market shift. Instead, learn from, and behave like, Mr. Hastings. Develop scenarios of the future to which you can lead your company. Study fringe competitors for ways to offer new solutions. Be proactive about delivering what the market wants, and as the shift leader you can be remarkably well positioned to capture extremely high value.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 16, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Businesses usually try defending an old solution in the face of an emerging new solution
- Status Quo Police use “cannibalization” concerns to stop the organization from moving to new solutions and new markets
- If you don’t move early, you end up with a dying business – like newspapers – as new competitors take over the customer relationship – like Apple is doing with news subscriptions
- You can adapt to shifting markets, profitably growing
- You must disrupt your lock-ins to the old success formula, including stopping the Status Quo Police from using the cannibalization threat
- You should set up White Space teams early to embrace the new solutions and figure out how to profitably grow in the new market space
When Sony saw MP3 technology emerging it worked hard to defend sales of CDs and CD Players. It didn’t want to see a decline in the pricing, or revenue, for its existing business. As a result, it was really late to MP3 technology, and Apple took the lead. This is the classic “Innovator’s Dilemma” as described by Professor Clayton Christenson of Harvard. Existing market leaders get so hung up on defending and extending the current business, they fear new solutions, until they become obsolete.
In the 1980s Pizza Hut could see the emergence of Domino’s Pizza. But Pizza Hut felt that delivered pizza would cannibalize the eat-in pizza market management sought to dominate. As a result Pizza Hut barely participated in what became a multi-biliion dollar market for Domino’s and other delivery chains.
The Status Quo Police drag out their favorite word to fight any move into new markets. Cannibalization. They say over and over that if the company moves to the new market solution it will cannibalize existing sales – usually at a lower margin. Sure, there may someday be a future time to compete, but today (and this goes on forever) management should keep close to the existing business model, and protect it.
That’s what the newspapers did. All of them could see the internet emerging as a route to disseminate news. They could see Monster.com, Vehix.com, eBay, CraigsList.com and other sites stealing away their classified ad customers. They could see Google not only moving their content to other sites, but placing ads with that content. Yet, all energy was expended trying to maintain very expensive print advertising, for fear that lower priced internet advertising would cannibalize existing revenues.
Now, bankrupt or nearly so, the newspapers are petrified. The San Jose Mercury News headlines “Apple to Announce Subscription Plan for Newspapers.” As months have passed the newspapers have watched subscriptions fall, and not built a viable internet distribution system. So Apple is taking over the subscription role – and will take a cool third of the subscription revenue to link readers to the iPad on-line newspaper. Absolute fear of cannibalization, and strong internal Status Quo Police, kept the newspapers from embracing the emerging solution. Now they will find themselves beholden to the device providers – Apple’s iPad, Amazon’s Kindle, or a Google Android device.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. Netflix built a profitable growth business delivering DVDs to subscribers. Streaming video clearly would cannibalize revenues, because the price is lower than DVDs. But Netflix chose to embrace streaming – to its great betterment! The Wrap headlines “Why Hollywood should be Afraid of Netfilx – Very Afraid.” As reported, Netflix is now growing even FASTER with its streaming video – and at a good margin. The price per item may be lower – but the volume is sooooo much higher!
Had Netflix defended its old model it was at risk of obsolescence by Hulu.com, Google, YouTube or any of several other video providers. It could have tried to slow switching to streaming by working to defend its DVD “core.” But by embracing the market shift Netflix is now in a leading position as a distributor of streaming content. This makes Netfilx a very powerful company when negotiating distribution rights with producers of movie or television content (thus the Hollywood fear.) By embracing the market shift, and the future solution, Netflix is expanding its business opportunity AND growing revenue profitably.
Don’t let fear of cannibalization, pushed by the Status Quo Police, stop your business from moving with market shifts. Such fear will make you like the proverbial deer, stuck on the road, staring at the headlights of an oncoming auto — and eventually dead. Embrace the market shift, Disrupt your Locked-in thoughts (like “we distribute DVDs”) and set up White Space teams to figure out how you can profitably grow in the new market!
