ioanmah yajanah schonn
Kristee Summerford
Netflix (NFLX) stock is notoriously volatile. And while some nimble traders have surely used NFLX's gut-wrenching swings to their advantage over the years, plenty of punters with less fortunate timing have just as assuredly had their faces ripped off.
On the plus side, Netflix is the king of on-demand streaming entertainment, serving TV series, films and games via 270 million paid memberships in more than 30 languages and 190 countries. It furthermore lays claim to arguably the best brand in the industry.
On the downside, Wall Street puts relentless pressure on the company to grow its subscriber base. As a consequence, Netflix must spend tens of billions of dollars on content to attract and retain viewers. Competition from the likes of Walt Disney (DIS), Apple (AAPL), Paramount (PARA), Amazon.com (AMZN) and others have forced Netflix to splurge on efforts to acquire, license and produce content over the past several years.
After all, nothing hurts NFLX stock like losing subscribers. Recall that in April 2022, shares plunged after Netflix reported its first loss of subscribers in more than a decade. The company shed in excess of $50 billion in market value overnight.
It's also worth recalling that Netflix stock was already in a steep decline at that point. Sluggish subscriber growth and rising costs had long knocked it off its perch. Indeed, shares hit an all-time closing high of $691.69 back in November 2021.
Of the 47 analysts issuing opinions on NFLX surveyed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, 23 rate it at Strong Buy, six say Buy and 16 call it a Hold. One analyst rates it at Sell, while one says it's a Strong Sell.
Dan Burrows is Kiplinger's senior investing writer, having joined the august publication full time in 2016.\n\nA long-time financial journalist, Dan is a veteran of SmartMoney, MarketWatch, CBS MoneyWatch, InvestorPlace and DailyFinance. He has written for The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Consumer Reports, Senior Executive and Boston magazine, and his stories have appeared in the New York Daily News, the San Jose Mercury News and Investor's Business Daily, among other publications. As a senior writer at AOL's DailyFinance, Dan reported market news from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange and hosted a weekly video segment on equities.\n\nOnce upon a time \u2013 before his days as a financial reporter and assistant financial editor at legendary fashion trade paper Women's Wear Daily \u2013 Dan worked for Spy magazine, scribbled away at Time Inc. and contributed to Maxim magazine back when lad mags were a thing. He's also written for Esquire magazine's Dubious Achievements Awards.\n\nIn his current role at Kiplinger, Dan writes about equities, fixed income, currencies, commodities, funds, macroeconomics, demographics, real estate, cost of living indexes and more.\n\nDan holds a bachelor's degree from Oberlin College and a master's degree from Columbia University.\n\nDisclosure: Dan does not trade stocks or other securities. Rather, he dollar-cost averages into cheap funds and index funds and holds them forever in tax-advantaged accounts. "}), " -0-11/js/authorBio.js"); } else console.error('%c FTE ','background: #9306F9; color: #ffffff','no lazy slice hydration function available'); Dan BurrowsSocial Links NavigationSenior Investing Writer, Kiplinger.comDan Burrows is Kiplinger's senior investing writer, having joined the august publication full time in 2016.
A long-time financial journalist, Dan is a veteran of SmartMoney, MarketWatch, CBS MoneyWatch, InvestorPlace and DailyFinance. He has written for The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Consumer Reports, Senior Executive and Boston magazine, and his stories have appeared in the New York Daily News, the San Jose Mercury News and Investor's Business Daily, among other publications. As a senior writer at AOL's DailyFinance, Dan reported market news from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange and hosted a weekly video segment on equities.
The reaction on Wall Street marks the latest indication of a profound shift in investor priorities away from subscriber growth and toward the bottom line, which holds implications for striking writers and actors as well as the shows and movies that end up on screen, experts told ABC News.
A password-sharing crackdown helped the streaming platform add 5.9 million subscribers over the three months ending June, which marked a staggering improvement from the same period a year ago when the company lost nearly 1 million subscribers, Netflix said.
In all, Netflix said it boasts about 232 million subscribers, far outpacing its nearest rival Disney+, which reported just shy of 158 million subscribers in May. (The Walt Disney Company is the parent company of ABC News).
Meanwhile, Netflix's free cash flow -- a measure of how much money is available to a company after it pays for operating expenses -- grew by $1.5 billion to a total of about $5 billion, the company said.
Despite the recent losses, Netflix stock has climbed roughly 44% this year -- a sign that the investor reaction this week suggests a judgment about an overvalued stock rather than an unhealthy company, Luis Cabral, a professor of economics and international business at New York University who focuses on the entertainment sector, told ABC News.
Still, the stock falloff is the latest sign of an industry-wide shift away from the breakneck subscriber growth that marked an early phase in the sector as companies jockeyed to accrue a large customer base that could shoulder out competitors, he said. Now, he added, companies like Netflix need to show that they're actually making money and delivering profits.
That means the companies are less likely to bankroll expensive shows or movies, she added. Some firms, including Netflix, have even imposed layoffs going back to last year as a means of cutting costs.
Viewers should expect a smaller selection of shows even after the calendar returns to normal following the strikes, she added. \"There was this rush to drive content over the last three to five years,\" she said. \"Everybody is going to pull back.\"
Jonathan Friedland, the new vice president of global corporate communications who had joined Netflix just a few months earlier, asked whether customers on tight incomes might object to the price hike, according to people at Hastings' meeting. Hastings argued that Netflix was a great bargain. He said he knew that some customers would complain but that the number would be small and the anger would quickly fade.
Hastings was wrong. The price hike and the later, aborted attempt to spin off the company's DVD operations enraged Netflix customers. The company lost 800,000 subscribers, its stock price dropped 77 percent in four months, and management's reputation was battered. Hastings went from Fortune magazine's Businessperson of the Year to the target of Saturday Night Live satire.
To Hastings' credit, what he wanted to do made sense. The DVD's best days are behind it. Video streamed via the Internet is slowly replacing the physical disc, and betting a business on a dying product is never a great idea. So Hastings wanted to get ahead of the curve and focus on streaming, to disrupt his own business before someone else did it for him. It was aggressive, far-sighted, and very much in character.
Hastings is someone who knows a thing or two about disrupting businesses. Netflix, after all, is the company that drove the giants of video rental out of the sector with a simple premise: A simple-to-use Web site that delivers DVDs right to your doorstep. Best of all: No late fees. He became one of those executives with the "visionary" label, who can predict where a market is going before it happens, and was asked to join the board of directors of two of the most important companies in tech, Microsoft and Facebook.
Leading up to the first anniversary of the Netflix meltdown, CNET interviewed former and current Netflix employees to find out how a series of missteps turned into a lost year, and whether it has rebounded from those self-inflicted wounds. Most asked to remain anonymous. Netflix declined to comment for this story.
So how did Hastings stumble? Just prior to the attempt to remake Netflix into a streaming-video distributor, there was turmoil in the company's executive offices. Several of Hastings' most trusted lieutenants were no longer as influential with the CEO. Others had left and their replacements did not yet have the clout to convince Hastings he was being too aggressive for a customer base that by 2011 could hardly have been considered on the bleeding edge of consumer tech.
When customers and the press pushed back, the Netflix response was haphazard, culminating with an amateurish, confusing YouTube video heralding the coming of Qwikster, the spinoff that was supposed to be a life raft for Netflix's DVD operations. The Qwikster plan was scuttled three weeks after it was announced.
"Whatever happened to Fortune's Businessperson of the Year?" asks Wedbush research analyst Michael Pachter, referring to one of the many honors Hastings received in 2010. "Whatever happened to the guy who was invited to the boards at Facebook and Microsoft? What happened to that guy? Do you think Facebook would have invited him to their board now?"
Hastings has an unwavering belief that streaming video represented the future of home entertainment. He argued that in times of technological advancement companies that had succeeded at one business often clung too tightly to tradition and to what had made them successful. And then they were toast. He didn't want that to happen to Netflix. While few people disagree with that assessment, some within Netflix doubted Hastings' assessment of how quickly Netflix needed to shift to streaming.
But Hastings pressed ahead. Around March 2011, he took his plan to his executive team and then to the company's vice presidents. Some of the execs who heard Hastings talk about spinning off Netflix's DVD operations into a new company, referred to internally as DVD Co. and later Qwikster, left the meeting thinking Hastings was only considering the idea.
90f70e40cf