Expert answer:Individual Case Study Assignment

Solved by verified expert:Individual Case Study Assignment (Netflix)Harvard Business School Case Study: NetflixBrief Description: Netflix is an example of a challenger who disrupted a strong incumbent through a superior business model. At the original time of the writing of the case, it was not at all apparent the company would deal such a crushing blow to Blockbuster, as its value proposition appeared to be inferior. However, its focus on tailoring its service to a job that its customers had and the tight integration with a sophisticated operational model that had vastly superior economics made it the winner in the DVD rental market. The emergence of video-on-demand poses a new questions and challenges for the company’s long-term survival: How can or should Netflix respond to a seemingly new disruptive challenge?Main learning objectives: Understand how disruptive innovations and sustaining innovations may be framed relative to the context in which they exist. Examine the concept of deliberate vs. emergent strategies and how Netflix has successfully created emergent strategies using experimentation and the collection of consumer data.Observe how Netflix management researched, hypothesized, and tested strategic theories and approaches to the marketplace.Preparation & AnalysisBefore reading the case, review the provided reading materials (folder below) and / or go online, research, and take down a few notes on the concept of disruptive vs. sustaining innovations.After completing your research, then I suggest reading the brief Fast Company article, ”Experimentation is the New Planning” found in the second reading materials folder below or use this link: http://www.fastcompany.com/3001275/experimentation… We will discuss these concepts in the context of deliberate and emergent marketing strategies as a focal point for the case study.Read the Netflix case and prepare for a class discussion of the case by answering the following questions in an overall 2-3 page brief essay format submitted through ULearn.Case QuestionsIn providing their services, did Netflix do the same jobs for consumers that Blockbuster did? How did this evolve over time?How many strategy revisions did Neflix have to make in order to become successful? What caused them to make each shift? Were Netflix’s strategic shifts driven from top management or from the bottom-up?Did Reed Hastings make the right move in trying to separate the DVD-by-mail business from the streaming business? How do you think he should proceed now?In your opinion, in the long run – will video streaming prove to be a disruptive or sustaining strategy for Netflix? Why or why not? Think about this question in relation to the above “Experimentation” article.Netflix Case Prep Questions – HYF’15.docx Hi, my course name is Strategic Marketing, and I just have a case study that need you to help me. I just posted the case study (Netflix) that you can read it and the requires about this case study. Please do not plagiarize, read the case and requirement carefully. Thank you for helping.
netflix_case_prep_questions___hyf_15.docx

netflix.pdf

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Expert answer:Individual Case Study Assignment
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Harvard Business School Case Study: Netflix
Brief Description: Netflix is an example of a challenger who disrupted a strong incumbent through a
superior business model. At the original time of the writing of the case, it was not at all apparent the
company would deal such a crushing blow to Blockbuster, as its value proposition appeared to be
inferior. However, its focus on tailoring its service to a job that its customers had and the tight
integration with a sophisticated operational model that had vastly superior economics made it the
winner in the DVD rental market. The emergence of video-on-demand poses a new questions and
challenges for the company’s long-term survival: How can or should Netflix respond to a seemingly
new disruptive challenge?
Main learning objectives:



Understand how disruptive innovations and sustaining innovations may be framed relative to
the context in which they exist.
Examine the concept of deliberate vs. emergent strategies and how Netflix has successfully
created emergent strategies using experimentation and the collection of consumer data.
Observe how Netflix management researched, hypothesized, and tested strategic theories and
approaches to the marketplace.
Preparation & Analysis
1. Before reading the case, first, go online, research, and take down a few notes on the concept of
disruptive vs. sustaining innovations.
2. After completing your research, then I suggest reading the brief Fast Company article,
”Experimentation is the New Planning” found in the ULearn site content area Reading File or
use this link: http://www.fastcompany.com/3001275/experimentation-new-planning We will
discuss these concepts in the context of deliberate and emergent marketing strategies as a focal point
for the case study.
3. Read the Netflix case and prepare for a class discussion of the case by answering the following
questions in an overall 2-3 page brief essay format submitted through ULearn.
Case Questions
1. In providing their services, did Netflix do the same jobs for consumers that Blockbuster did?
How did this evolve over time?
2. How many strategy revisions did Neflix have to make in order to become successful? What
caused them to make each shift? Were Netflix’s strategic shifts driven from top management or
from the bottom-up?
3. Did Reed Hastings make the right move in trying to separate the DVD-by-mail business from
the streaming business? How do you think he should proceed now?
4. In your opinion, in the long run – will video streaming prove to be a disruptive or sustaining
strategy for Netflix? Why or why not? Think about this question in relation to the above
“Experimentation” article.
For the exclusive use of J. Yu, 2018.
9 -6 1 5 -0 0 7
AUGUST 19, 2014
WILLY SHIH
STEPHEN KAUFMAN
Netflix in 2011
Netflix used to be a perfectly good horror movie. Company management swings a chainsaw; investors
scream and are cut to bits; audience is titillated. Now it has become one of those avant-garde films your pseudointellectual friend recommends: no fun to watch, surreal and confusing . . . . The no-fun-to-watch part is the
damage that Netflix’s abrupt price increase has had on subscriber numbers. Subscriber growth ground to a halt
in the third quarter, after the increase was announced in July. In the current quarter, as the price increase is put
into effect, the company expects its physical DVD service to lose 3m—about a fifth—of its subscribers.
Streaming video subscribers are expected to be flat to down. Given that Netflix’s strategy is designed to
encourage growth in streaming, this is far worse news than the hit to DVDs.
— LEX Column: Netflix, Financial Times, October 25, 20111
Reed Hastings, founder and CEO of Netflix, was having a rough September. Only a few months
earlier, he was on top of the world. Named Fortune magazine’s businessperson of the year in 2010,2
Hastings had built the DVD-by-mail company into an enormously popular consumer service. (See
Exhibit 1 for a Netflix income statement.) In July 2011 Netflix announced that it would start charging
separately for its streaming video service and its DVD service—and that each service would cost
$7.99 a month. The streaming service was formerly a $2 add-on to the basic DVD monthly charge of
$7.99 for its entry-level one-DVD-at-a-time plan. Customers who wanted both would now have to
pay $15.98 a month. Although most new consumers who wanted only the streaming service would
actually see a price reduction, the public outcry over the 60% price increase for the combination
drowned out that fact.3
Things got worse when Hastings announced that the company would split the DVD-by-mail into
a separate business named Qwikster, and that the online streaming business would retain the Netflix
name. On September 18, 2011, he announced on his blog:
It is clear from the feedback over the past two months that many members felt we
lacked respect and humility in the way we announced the separation of DVD and
streaming, and the price changes. That was certainly not our intent, and I offer my
sincere apology. I’ll try to explain how this happened.
Professor Willy Shih, Senior Lecturer Stephen Kaufman, and David Spinola (MBA 2007) prepared the original version of this case, “Netflix,” HBS
No. 607-138, which was reviewed and approved by a company designate. This version was prepared by Professor Willy Shih and Senior Lecturer
Stephen Kaufman. This case was developed from published sources. Funding for the development of this case was provided by Harvard
Business School and not by the company. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as
endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management.
Copyright © 2014 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685,
write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to www.hbsp.harvard.edu. This publication may not be digitized,
photocopied, or otherwise reproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School.
This document is authorized for use only by Jialiang Yu in Strategic Marketing 2018_5500 taught by PETER BORTOLOTTI, Johnson & Wales University from March 2018 to September 2018.
For the exclusive use of J. Yu, 2018.
615-007
Netflix in 2011
For the past five years, my greatest fear at Netflix has been that we wouldn’t make
the leap from success in DVDs to success in streaming. Most companies that are great at
something—like AOL dialup or Borders bookstores—do not become great at new things
people want (streaming for us) because they are afraid to hurt their initial business.
Eventually these companies realize their error of not focusing enough on the new thing,
and then the company fights desperately and hopelessly to recover. Companies rarely
die from moving too fast, and they frequently die from moving too slowly. 4
Hastings went on to explain that streaming and DVD-by mail were becoming two quite different
businesses, with different cost structures and benefits that needed to be marketed differently. In
addition, each business needed to be able to grow and operate independently.
Thousands of consumers criticized the plan on Netflix’s website, and Netflix stock continued its
slide, from $300 earlier in the year to $77 in October.5 By mid-October, the company reversed course
again, abandoning the breakup plan. Asked in a television interview about how it felt to apologize
for business mistakes, Hastings was humble:
Going through marriage counseling 20 years ago was really how I moved to become
a better manager and leader . . . This marriage counselor was able to get me to see that I
was often lying to myself and my wife . . . and that the value of honesty is that people
can take honesty, even if it’s not necessarily what they want to hear, if it’s really sincere.6
The bigger challenge facing Hastings and his team was how to cope with the very different
business model for streaming in a company built on the higher margins of DVD-by-mail. How would
they manage that transition within a single business, and more importantly, with the company’s 20
million customer relationships? That was the question he now had to be honest about.
The U.S. Home Video Rental Market
In the 1990s, the U.S. home video market was a fragmented industry largely populated with
“mom-and-pop” retail outlets. Customers rented movies, primarily on VHS cassette, from a retail
location for a specified time period, usually between two days and one week, and paid a fee of $3 to
$4 for each movie rented.
Blockbuster Inc. became the market leader with the insight that movie rentals were largely
impulse decisions. To customers deciding at the last minute that a given night was “movie night,” the
ability to quickly obtain the newest release was a priority. Statistics showed that new releases
represented over 70% of total rentals. Blockbuster’s growth strategy revolved around opening new
locations, both to expand geographic coverage and to increase penetration and share in existing
markets. By 2006, Blockbuster had 5,194 U.S. locations, of which 4,255 were company owned and the
balance franchised. Locations were chosen based on customer concentration and proximity to
competition, focusing on high-visibility stores in heavily trafficked retail areas. Management often
proclaimed that “70% of the U.S. population lives within a 10-minute drive of a Blockbuster.”7 Stores
were staffed primarily with part-time employees, averaging 10 staff members per store plus one
manager. Occupancy and payroll represented a significant percentage of total costs.
Blockbuster outlets carried about 2,500 different titles per store. A substantial portion of the shelf
space in a store was dedicated to hit movies, with the newest releases receiving the most prominent
display. Locations typically acquired 100 copies of a new release, and they made up an estimated
75%–80% of demand compared to 20%–25% for catalog releases.8 Consumers liked to rent new
2
This document is authorized for use only by Jialiang Yu in Strategic Marketing 2018_5500 taught by PETER BORTOLOTTI, Johnson & Wales University from March 2018 to September 2018.
For the exclusive use of J. Yu, 2018.
Netflix in 2011
615-007
releases during the first three weeks of the studio distribution window.a After that, demand fell
sharply. The studios protected this window because of the increasing share of revenues that they
received from sales (see Exhibit 2). As rental demand for a particular title dropped, the stores
remarketed used copies to reduce their inventory and generate additional income.
Blockbuster’s business model depended on maximizing the days that a movie was out for rent.
Stores were reluctant to stock large numbers of lesser-known and independent films, since the
demand for these titles was inconsistent. With a relatively narrow selection of mostly familiar movies,
customers could generally select a title with a limited amount of advice from the sales staff. Movies
not returned to the renting location by the end of the specified rental period were subject to extended
viewing fees, or “late fees.” In 2004, these fees represented about 10% of revenues. Late fees also
improved asset utilization by encouraging a timely return of each rented film, allowing it to be rented
by another customer. Late returns led to increased levels of stockouts, costing Blockbuster
incremental rental opportunities as well as reduced customer satisfaction.
The unit economics of retail video rental were straightforward. Blockbuster acquired
approximately half of its rental inventory under a purchase model in which it would pay the studios
$15–$18, rent it 9–10 times for $4 per rental, and then resell the DVD for an average of $8 per unit.b
The other half was acquired under a revenue share model in which Blockbuster paid the studio about
$5 per copy, rented it 9 times, and resold it for an average of $8, sharing 30% of the revenue with the
studios.9 The mix shifted to 81.8% revenue share by 2006.10 One analyst estimated that Blockbuster
spent $837 million on rental library purchases in 2003. Retail stores cost approximately $300K to set
up, and it was estimated that they produced $900K sales per year with an operating profit of $162K.11
In 2002 Blockbuster enjoyed record levels of revenue and profitability, riding a wave of consumer
DVD-player adoption, which increased from 24% to 37% of U.S. households in just one year. (Exhibit
3 shows Blockbuster’s income statement through 2006.) As consumers sought content for their new
players, spending for in-home movie viewing reached $22.3 billion. 12 2002 represented Blockbuster’s
fifth consecutive year of same-store sales growth, and the Blockbuster brand achieved nearly 100%
recognition with active movie renters. That same year Netflix went public, and some would say that
is when Blockbuster’s troubles really started to get serious.
Netflix History
Hastings conceived of Netflix in 1997 after he discovered an overdue rental copy of Apollo 13 in
his closet. After paying the $40 late fee, Hastings, a successful entrepreneur who had already founded
and sold a software business, began to consider alternative ways to provide a better home movie
service. At the time, most movie rentals were VHS videocassettes, but Hastings had heard from a
friend about the new DVD technology. DVDs were small and light, enabling inexpensive postal
delivery. “I went out, bought a whole bunch of CDs and started mailing them to myself to see how
quickly they would come back and what condition they would be in,” he explained. “I waited for two
days—and they all arrived in perfect condition. All the pieces started to fall into place after that.”13,14
a Motion picture studios made movies available for exhibition at different times depending on the distribution channel.
Specific times were known as “release windows.” The first distribution channel after theatrical release was home video on
DVD and VHS. This window lasted 45 days, and excluded most other forms of non-theatrical movie distribution, such as payper-view, video-on-demand, premium television, basic cable, and network and syndicated television. Thereafter, movies were
made available sequentially to television distribution channels.
b The company amortized the cost of its in-store rental library over periods ranging from 3 to 12 months, to an estimated
residual value ranging from $2 to $5 per unit, depending on the product category.
3
This document is authorized for use only by Jialiang Yu in Strategic Marketing 2018_5500 taught by PETER BORTOLOTTI, Johnson & Wales University from March 2018 to September 2018.
For the exclusive use of J. Yu, 2018.
615-007
Netflix in 2011
Netflix’s Early Days
Hastings founded Netflix in 1997, and launched the company’s first website in early 1998. Netflix
targeted early technology adopters who had recently purchased DVD players, offering crosspromotional programs with the manufacturers and sellers of DVD players, thus providing a source of
content for customers. Hastings elaborated, “We were targeting people who just bought DVD
players. At the time our goal was just to get our coupon in the box. We didn’t have too much
competition. The market was underserved, and stores didn’t carry a wide selection of DVDs at the
time.”
Netflix’s website included a search engine that allowed its customers to sort through its selections
by title, actor, director, and genre. Using this search engine, customers built a list, called a “queue,” of
movies to be received from Netflix. Netflix sent movies to its subscribers based on the order of titles
in the queue, with subscribers receiving a new movie as soon as the previous one was returned. The
company initially used a pricing model similar to that offered by traditional video stores. Customers
chose their films using the company’s website, were charged $4 per movie rented plus a $2 shipping
and handling charge, and were expected to return films by a specific due date or be charged extended
rental fees.
Netflix’s early strategy went beyond DVD rentals. While marketing a 2000 IPO, management
described the company as the ultimate online destination for movie enthusiasts. Along with the
DVD-by-mail service, Netflix was offering its recommendation system to everyone, including
nonsubscribers, creating a Web portal rather than simply a subscription service. Hastings described
this early strategy: “Our 2000 prospectus was spun towards things that were hot . . . it reflected a
tension in our strategy. We would offer price comparisons, theater tickets. That strategic tension
didn’t resolve itself until the bubble crashed. That summer we realized we weren’t going to make it
unless we did it on rentals. . . . It was a cash-induced strategic focusing.”
This focus was pushed along by the rapid adoption rate of DVD players among U.S. households,
which followed the fastest technology adoption curve in history. U.S. household penetration, at 5% in
1999, leapt to 13% by 2000, 37% by 2002, and 65% by 2004, a pace that attracted the attention of
channels like Best Buy and Wal-Mart, which discounted them extensively to drive store traffic. DVDs
also began replacing VHS cassettes on the shelves of traditional video rental outlets. As DVDs
became more widely available both for purchase and for rental, Netflix’s value proposition to new
DVD-player owners diminished. The company shelved its plans for an IPO and struggled through a
large layoff as it began to adjust its business model in an effort to reach profitability. Chief among
Hastings’s concerns were the general customer dissatisfaction with Netflix’s value proposition and
the high cost of building a DVD library to support its growing subscriber base.
Feedback from early customers revealed a frustration with Netflix charging rental prices similar to
competing retail locations, while providing slower delivery. Neil Hunt, the company’s chief product
officer, described Netflix’s motivation for shifting to its popular no-late-fee subscription model in
1999:
Pricing had been a discussion point for a long time. Our original model didn’t
work—we needed to overcome the shipping delay. It just wasn’t a high-enough-value
product to overcome the delivery waiting time. We spent a lot of money to market to
and attract new customers, and they wouldn’t be repeat renters. We were spending $100
to $200 to bring in a customer, and they would make one $4 rental. There was no
residual value.
4
This document is authorized for use only by Jialiang Yu in Strategic Marketing 2018_5500 taught by PETER BORTOLOTTI, Johnson & Wales University from March 2018 to September 2018.
For the exclusive use of J. Yu, 2018.
Netflix in 2011
615-007
Moving to a Prepaid Subscription Service
Hastings believed that moving to a prepaid subscription service could provide better value to
Netflix’s customers and also turn its longer delivery times into an advantage. The first iteration of the
subscription model allowed customers to have four movies in their possession at once and receive up
to four new films each month. Hunt explained the effectiveness of the new pricing model: “We
turned the disadvantage of delivery time into having a movie at home all the time. The value to
Netflix of having our movies in the customers’ homes at all times was our key insight.”
Netflix soon changed its pricing system again, offering unlimited rentals for the first time.
Subscribers could now keep three movies at a time and exchange them as frequently as they liked.
Hunt explained the reasons behind this quick change:
We made the observation that this change would dramatically simplify the program
and make it easier to explain the service. …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYSHELP