BUS303: Strategic Information Technology

Netflix executives are quite frank that the technology and procedures that make up their model can be copied, but they also realize the challenges that any copycat rival faces. Says the firm's VP of Operations Andy Rendich, "Anyone can replicate the Netflix operations if they wish. It's not going to be easy. It's going to take a lot of time and a lot of money".

While we referred to Netflix as David to the goliaths of Wal-Mart and Blockbuster, within the DVD-by-mail segment Netflix is now the biggest player by far, and this size gives the firm significant scale advantages. The yearly cost to run a Netflix-comparable nationwide delivery infrastructure is about three hundred million dollars. Think about how this relates to economies of scale. We said that firms enjoy scale economies when they are able to leverage the cost of an investment across increasing units of production. Even if rivals have identical infrastructures, the more profitable firm will be the one with more customers (See Figure 3.7). And the firm with better scale economies is in a position to lower prices, as well as to spend more on customer acquisition, new features, or other efforts. Smaller rivals have an uphill fight, while established firms that try to challenge Netflix with a copycat effort are in a position where they're straddling markets, unable to gain full efficiencies from their efforts.

Figure 3.7

For Blockbuster, the arrival of Netflix plays out like a horror film where it is the victim. For several years now, the in-store rental business has been a money loser. Things got worse in 2005 when Netflix pressure forced Blockbuster to drop late fees, costing it about four hundred million dollars. The Blockbuster store network once had the advantage of scale, but eventually its many locations were seen as an inefficient and bloated liability. Between 2006 and 2007, the firm shuttered over 570 stores. By 2008, Blockbuster had been in the red for ten of the prior eleven years. During a three-year period that included the launch of its Total Access DVD-by-mail effort, Blockbuster lost over four billion dollars. The firm tried to outspend Netflix on advertising, even running Super Bowl ads for Total Access in 2007, but a money loser can't outspend its more profitable rival for long, and it has since significantly cut back on promotion. Blockbuster also couldn't sustain subscription rates below Netflix's, so it has given up its price advantage. In early 2008, Blockbuster even briefly pursued a merger with another struggling giant, Circuit City, a strategy that has left industry experts scratching their heads. A Viacom executive said about the firm, "Blockbuster will certainly not survive and it will not be missed". This assessment has to sting, given that Viacom was once Blockbuster's parent (the firm was spun off in 2004).

For Netflix, what delivered the triple scale advantage of the largest selection; the largest network of distribution centers; the largest customer base; and the firm's industry-leading strength in brand and data assets? Moving first. Timing and technology don't always yield sustainable competitive advantage, but in this case, Netflix leveraged both to craft what seems to be an extraordinarily valuable pool of assets that continue to grow and strengthen over time. To be certain, competing against a wounded giant like Blockbuster will remain difficult. The latter firm has few options and may spend itself into oblivion, harming Netflix in its collapsing gasp. And as we'll see in the next section, while technology shifts helped Netflix attack Blockbuster's once-dominant position, even newer technology shifts may threaten Netflix. As they like to say in the mutual fund industry "past results aren't a guarantee of future returns".