Netflix is known for its cutthroat culture and willingness to pay top dollar for superstar talent.
The approach -- first outlined in a famous 2009 slide deck -- is about managing people in creative industries (eg. media, tech) while scaling fast.
These 7 slides explain it 🧵
1/ Netflix competes in media + tech (knowledge work that often requires creativity).
High-performers in these fields can be 10x better than the average.
In a "procedural" field (manufacturing), the best may only be 2x better (industries that deal w/ atoms are naturally capped).
2/ Most businesses get more complex as they grow.
To deal with this, companies introduce processes (and bureaucracy), which has the adverse effect of driving out creative talent.
3/ In "procedural" industries (e.g., manufacturing), good processes will often make up for a lack of "high-performing" creative talent.
4/ But during market shifts, process-driven companies are ill-prepared to change or adapt.
Netflix competes in fast-moving industries (tech, media) that require creativity, innovation and quick adaption. It needs the right talent to manage the market shifts.
5/ Netflix's ongoing challenge is to scale its business and deal with complexity WITHOUT bringing in more processes.
To do that, Netflix needed to staff with lots of A+ creative talent.
It does so by offering:
◻️ Top-of-market comp
◻️ Tons of freedom
6/ The flipside of the coin is that if an employee doesn't fit, they'll quickly be dropped...as famously highlighted in this slide:
7/ Netflix explicitly states that its culture is not for everyone:
8/ And the streaming giant has faced its fair share of criticism for how it operates.
9/ Whatever you think of the strategy, it produces results (and your prob a customer):
◻️ successful transition from DVD to streaming
◻️ creation of original IP
◻️ from 2k to ~10k employees
◻️ subscribers 20m --> 200m+
◻️ market cap $2B --> $200B+
10/ Here's a final stat of note: Netflix’s revenue per employee is $2.6m.
More than:
◻️ Apple ($2m)
◻️ Alphabet ($1.4m)
◻️ Microsoft ($877k)
(Apple obvi crushes profits and FCF, though)
11/ If you enjoyed that, I write threads breaking down tech and business 1-2x a week.
Def follow @TrungTPhan to catch them in your feed.
Since August 2018, Apple's market cap has grown from $1T to $3T. Despite delivering huge results, Tim Cook's product strategy is often misunderstood.
Users are going deeper into its ecosystem and Apple is positioned to win the next computing platform: AR.
Here's a breakdown 🧵
1/ The best way to highlight the success of Cook's product strategy is cash. Over the past 3 years, Apple's *free cash flow* has totalled an absurd $225B.
Apple has the world's most profitable:
◻️ smartphone
◻️tablet
◻️ laptop
◻️ desktop
◻️ smartwatch
◻️ wireless headphones
2/ Apple analyst Neil Cybart explains why the company's product line is unmatched:
"Computers small and light enough to be worn on the body are sold next to comps so large that built-in handles are required. All these products are designed to work seamlessly together."
When Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone in Jan 2007, the maker of BlackBerry — Research in Motion (RIM) — had a market cap near Apple's ($60B vs. $75B).
Now, it’s $5B vs. ~$3T.
While Jobs positioned iPhone perfectly, RIM made 5 decisions that led to its fall.
Here's a breakdown🧵
1/ The BlackBerry vs. iPhone story is not as clean as it seems in hindsight. When iPhone officially hit markets in June 2007, many thought it would fail.
Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer famously balked at the price ($500) and design ("no keyboard").
Tech media was skeptical:
2/ Blackberry sales actually grew for many years after iPhone's launch.
In 2007, RIM moved <10m BlackBerry units.
In 2011, RIM moved more than 5x the units, selling 50m+ handsets for the year.