While the dot-com bubble chased nascent internet delivery, Netflix's contrarian thesis was that the internet wasn't ready. They used DVDs-by-mail as a transitional distribution network to build a massive customer base and brand, creating a moat while waiting for streaming technology to mature.
The case of Netflix in 2016, with a P/E over 300, shows that high multiples can reflect a company strategically sacrificing short-term profits for global expansion. Instead of dismissing such stocks as expensive, investors should use second-order thinking to ask *why* the market is pricing in such high growth.
Future Standard's predecessor, Franklin Square, first built an incredible distribution engine selling third-party products to the wealth channel. Only after mastering distribution did it pivot to building its own "content"—in-house asset management capabilities—mirroring Netflix's evolution from DVDs to original programming.
The cynical take on the Netflix-WB deal is that Netflix's true goal is to eliminate movie theaters as a competitor for consumer leisure time. By pulling all WB films from theatrical release, it can strengthen its at-home streaming dominance and capture a larger share of audience attention.
Netflix's bid for Warner Bros. may be a brilliant game theory play. Even if the deal is blocked by regulators, it forces its primary rival into a multi-year acquisition limbo. This distraction freezes the competitor's strategy, allowing Netflix to extend its market lead. It's a win-win for Netflix.
Unlike the infamous AOL-Time Warner merger where an overvalued tech stock bought a solid media asset, Netflix, a genuinely valuable company, is considering buying a legacy media library at a potentially inflated price. This signals a strategic shift from bubble-currency acquisitions to potentially overpriced consolidation by established tech players.
The deal is less about consolidating media power and more about arming Netflix with a vast IP library to compete for attention against free, user-generated content platforms like TikTok and YouTube, which pose a greater existential threat.
For 20 years, Netflix's identity was built on 'no ads, no live sports, and no big acquisitions.' Its recent reversal on all these fronts to maintain market dominance shows that adapting to new realities is more critical for long-term success than rigidly adhering to foundational principles.
By launching a bid for Warner Bros., Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos has ingeniously stalled the market. This move forces all other potential suitors and targets into a holding pattern, as any significant M&A activity must now wait for the outcome of this lengthy regulatory battle, giving Netflix a strategic advantage.
The entertainment industry's resentment towards Netflix is misplaced. Swisher argues that studios are in decline because they failed to modernize, lean into technology, and listen to consumers. Netflix simply capitalized on the industry's inefficient and outdated business models by building a product people wanted.
Services like HBO Max rely on occasional "FOMO TV" hits (e.g., *White Lotus*), but their weakness is low daily engagement. Netflix's dominance stems from its daily-use nature, which generates vast data to train its powerful content discovery algorithm, creating a moat that competitors struggle to cross.