By Paul Quintaro
Netflix would split into a new version of Netflix, strictly providing streaming content, and Qwikster—built around shipping movies and video games through the mail.
While the split in pricing had be known for quite some time, the split in individual services was unexpected.
Back when the split in pricing was announced in July, consumers became relatively upset. It may have been the primary catalyst behind Netflix’s upward revision in expected cancellations of its service last week.
If consumers wanted to keep streaming and renting a single DVD at a time, it would cost them nearly $16 a month, rather than the previous $10.
Yet, Monday’s announcement may have added insult to injury.
Now, consumers hoping to continue receiving both services must not only pay more, but must also manage their services through two separate websites and two separate movie queues.
Clearly, Netflix is actively working to divide its business, but why?
Bloomberg published an article on Tuesday morning citing analysts who argued that Netflix would sell Qwikster, or spin the company off.
Is this likely?
Qwikster may continue to be a profitable endeavor for quite some time. Still, technological trends are moving against it.
Regardless of management competency or brand recognition, Qwikster’s business seems likely to shrink going forward. Netflix’s CEO himself forecasts a 10% decline in the business year-over-year into the future. As broadband access and affordability increase, the demand for physical media appears likely to diminish.
Thus, who would want to purchase Qwikster? Unless it can be acquired for a significant discount, why would investors or another company acquire a business that may become completely irrelevant in less than a decade?
Is it more likely that Netflix’s streaming service will be the target of a takeover bid?
Why would Netflix sell off the one portion of its company that is poised to grow? Perhaps it is because it cannot grow—at least not in its present state.
Last month, Starz broke off contract negotiations with Netflix. Despite the fact that Netflix purportedly offered Starz a new contract ten-times the size of its previous one, Starz refused to accept a deal.
The ideal end game for Netflix is to offer a service that can stream all movies at all times. Right now, Netflix is far from this goal, with a catalog primarily composed of older movies and television shows. The loss of the deal with Starz will only further reduce Netflix’s offerings.
To accomplish that goal, Netflix will presumably have to secure more content contracts. If it cannot even extend its deal with Starz, how can it be expected to secure broader deals with larger content providers?
It may be advantageous for Netflix to have a large parent company—a media company, or a company that already has broad dealings with movie studios.
A parent company with strong media connections may allow Netflix to better facilitate deals with new content providers. That may provide the most value overall—both to Netflix’s shareholders and its subscribers.
On Wednesday morning, Netflix hit a new 52-week low near $128 a share, down from a lofty $304 just over two months ago. Will the company mount a successful turnaround, or is it setting up to be an ideal takeover target?
Content, including research, tools and securities symbols, is for educational and informational purposes and should not be intended as a recommendation or solicitation to engage in any particular securities transaction or investment strategy. You alone are responsible for evaluating which securities and strategies better suit your financial situation and goals, risk profile, etc. The projections regarding the probability of investment outcomes are hypothetical and not guaranteed for accuracy or completeness. They do not reflect actual investment outcomes and are not guarantees of future results, and do not take into consideration commissions, margin interest and other costs that will impact investment outcomes. Content may be out of date or time-sensitive, and is subject to change or removal without notice. Supporting documentation for any claims made in this post will be supplied upon your email request to firstname.lastname@example.org.
At the time of distribution of the material contained herein, neither Zecco Trading nor Zecco Forex was a market maker or acted as the contra-party for customer transactions through the firm’s principal accounts for the securities discussed.
Zecco Holdings, Zecco Trading, Zecco Forex, and their officers/partners/employees may hold a nominal financial interest in any of the securities discussed herein, with the nature of the interest consisting of, but not limited to, any option, right, warrant, future, long, or short position.
Neither Zecco Trading nor Zecco Forex has participated as a manager or co-manager in public offerings of the securities mentioned herein within the last twelve months.