This issue is perplexing many of us who teach in business schools – are we going to have to change our classes as one of the firms in many of our key examples goes bankrupt?
We are not sure we have a good answer to our question so we will satisfy ourselves with a brain dump.
First, it may very well be true that, as CEO Reed Hastings is saying, Netflix does not want to end up like Borders or AOL in the garbage can of history when the next new technology comes along. After all, Blockbuster has never really recovered from missteps when Netflix DVDs arrived on the scene.
Therefore, Netflix wants to be ahead of the curve when DVD technology dies and everyone watches streaming movies. Here is one way to do this: keep the total price of 1 DVD at a time +streaming at $10 but price streaming alone at $6 and 1 DVD alone at $8. What they did instead, to maintain margins we assume, is raise prices by 60% so I DVD at a time + streaming is now $16. Of course this going to cause some serious fall in demand and also create a media frenzy.
There is a broader point: we gave one example of how Netflix might shuffle prices to create switching but we do not have the internal data on revenue and costs so the optimal pricing might be different. But whatever it is, the optimal pricing requires the DVD and streaming prices to be coordinated. If you split these two services into different (competing?) companies, you might create a price war and not only undermines your whole strategy but destroys your profits….
Even if completely separating the two businesses is the only way Netflix feels it can incentivize its streaming business to move ahead properly, there is absolutely no reason the company should expect consumers to care about its internal strategy issues – the strange angle taken by Hastings’ blog postings and emails to customers. It seems to us that it is the large price hike, far more than any other aspect, which has upset customers.
As a final comment, even if Netflix gets everything right operationally in its streaming business, it is hard to see how they plan to maintain margins and demand given that their suppliers (the content producers and owners) have a great deal of bargaining power and have every incentive to treat Netflix as only one outlet among many competing ones for their product. Other companies in the content delivery business, such as cable & satellite operators, face similar issues, but have the advantage of higher barriers to entry in terms of local franchise rights and physical infrastructure that gives them greater scope to raise prices……Our guess is that we will have more posts as more information arrives.
Sandeep Baliga and Peter Klibanoff

8 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 20, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Chris
They had to raise prices to pay for all the bandwidth and because they anticipate spending more to keep their streaming catalog. And I don’t think physical discs and streaming are as substitutable as you seem to assume. Your last paragraph is correct, though, and I don’t think many observers appreciate how difficult things will be for Netflix going forward.
September 20, 2011 at 5:02 pm
JettyBoy
I liked this analysis on Slate. I hate having using to go to one of the HBS “frameworks” but I think this might at least explain the rationale behind Reed Hastings’ moves.
http://www.slate.com/id/2304131/
September 21, 2011 at 1:09 am
Lones Smith
For a deep insight here:
September 21, 2011 at 11:16 am
Taggert J. Brooks
the only thing that makes any sense to me is that it was about reducing the content owners leverage over the DVD vs stream content decision. Netflix knows the future is streaming, and content owners resist and cling to DVD. The only way to increase their streaming catalog is to tell content providers…this is your only choice. I realize its a shit theory, but it is the only angle that makes any sense.
September 21, 2011 at 11:39 am
Zachary Mayer
I suspect the answer is that netflix is intentionally reducing their subscriber base, specifically for streaming content. For streaming content, they probably have to pay a per-subscriber fee, even if the subscriber NEVER watched streaming content. This isn’t the case with DVDs, which are covered by the first-sale doctrine.
A smaller, steaming-only subscriber base means cheaper licensing deals. Hopefully netflix will put this money (and the money from higher monthly fees) into licensing more content.
http://abovethecrowd.com/2011/09/18/understanding-why-netflix-changed-pricing/
September 21, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Judy Grant
We agree that Reed Hastings premise that people cared that HE didn’t communicate the change and that his explanation that its good for netflix was relevant to angry customers is bizarre. To paraphrase, “It’s the subscriber, stupid!. We wrote a 2-part blog on Mr. Hastings video apology – pt 1 focuses on the mistakes; Pt II on how to avoid them. We’re concerned he’s done irreparable damage to his leadership and costly damage to his brand. Every student should be encouraged to learn from his mistakes and I hope our post provides some food for thought.
September 21, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Sanchez on Netflix « Knowledge Problem
[...] Kellogg colleague Sandeep Baliga also comments on the decision from a more operational and strategy perspective. LD_AddCustomAttr("AdOpt", "1"); [...]
September 26, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Kevin Conroy
Netflix is (was) subject to the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act) This prevents them from sharing your video rental habits with others.
Enter streaming. And Facebook + Timeline. And the increasing need to go social to grow (see also: Spotify). Reed Hastings was at Facebook’s F8 conference this year and spoke on stage about how he’s hoping that the Facebook app they’re developing will help them grow their business from X this year to 2X. (He used X, not me.)
Once split into a separate company, Netflix not longer rents videos. They’re just a video streaming company. Something the 1988 privacy law doesn’t cover. So now they can write a fancy FB app that tells you what your friends are watching in real time and lets you chat about it. This would be illegal with the DVD rental business.
So, looks like it’s purely to grow the streaming business socially. Not a a bad idea, but I wish their branding folks had done a better job with the spin off.