You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


Home | Sign In | Contact Us | Careers | Site Map | Help


Advertisement

Blockbuster's Questionable Bid for Circuit City

The market reacted with surprise today when it emerged that Blockbuster has offered about $1 billion to purchase electronics retailer Circuit City. The potential deal threatens to distract both companies from the unenviable task of wrestling with disruptive forces affecting their respective core business models.

Over the past few years, online video rental pioneer Netflix has used its no-late-fees model to pummel Blockbuster. After dragging its heels for a few years, Blockbuster started fighting back in 2004. It now has a reasonable share of the online market but has never figured out how to be as profitable as Netflix. And Netflix is moving on to the next act—developing a strategy to win in the video on demand market.

Circuit City has had to contend with Best Buy, whose larger stores and lower prices have allowed it to dominate the electronics retailing market. Circuit City is also trying to play catch up in the emerging market for services to small businesses and individual consumers, where its Firedog service trails Best Buy’s Geek Squad service.

Behind Blockbuster’s bid is a bold plan to expand its retail footprint and transition its business from video retailing to become in the words of CEO James Keyes a “one-stop shop with solutions for the consumers.” Keyes said the combined entity could model itself after Apple’s popular stores. Consumers could rent videos from Circuit City locations, or buy hardware from Blockbuster locations.

Combining Blockbuster and Circuit City seems like a pretty bad idea to me (Circuit City doesn’t seem to be convinced either—the company is refusing to give Blockbuster access to its books). Each company has distinct strategic issues to address. A merger could very well distract them from the task at hand at the exact worst time.

When disruption strikes an industry, market incumbents can use acquisition as a strategic way to remove increasingly redundant capacity from a market. For example, Arcelor Mittal has become a powerhouse by acquiring integrated mills that struggled to respond to the disruption of steel minimills. Mittal has become a giant by acquiring assets cheaply and taking advantage of massive scale economies.

The combination of Blockbuster and Circuit City would be a different beast. A reasonable analogy could be the combination a couple of years ago of K-Mart and Sears. Like Circuit City, K-Mart had decisively lost the discount retailing battle to Wal-Mart and Target. Like Blockbuster, Sears was sagging under the pressure of disruptive attackers like Wal-Mart and Amazon.com.

Eddie Lampert, the investing wizard who fashioned the Sears/K-Mart deal and is the Chairman of the reconstituted Sears Holdings, has seen the business continue to spiral downwards over the past few years.

Unless there’s a non-obvious way to combine Blockbuster’s and Circuit City’s assets to create a new growth business, a merger could serve as a way to hasten the demise of two former high-flyers.

* * *
Sign up for the Harvard Business Publishing Weekly Hotlist, a new weekly email roundup featuring the top highlights from HarvardBusiness.org.

Comments

Whenever I read of two large concerns locked in bidding, I think of dinosaurs slogging it out in some primordial wasteland. It seems that the concept of bloating one's company with acquisitions or mergers is not the route to go - the answer lies in creating smaller dynamic concerns that can outflank, provide innovation and sazzy design - the route is too stockholder- driven and certainly not in the interest of stakeholders who are often de-motivated and alienated by the consequences, in addition the burdens of getting everyone on board is too costly. Smaller is indeed beautiful, more cost effective and most importantly helps with transparency and sustainability too. Time to rethink the culture of mergers in the light of the credit crunch!

- Posted by Stephen Pain
April 16, 2008 5:14 AM

Trackbacks

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1058

No trackbacks have been made to this entry.

Return to Scott Anthony

Join The Discussion

* Required Fields




Verification (needed to reduce spam):

Return to Scott Anthony


Posting Guidelines

We hope the conversations that take place on HarvardBusiness.org will be energetic, constructive, free-wheeling, and provocative. To make sure we all stay on-topic, all posts will be reviewed by our editors and may be edited for clarity, length, and relevance.

We ask that you adhere to the following guidelines.

  1. No selling of products or services. Let's keep this an ad-free zone.
  2. No ad hominem attacks. These are conversations in which we debate ideas. Criticize ideas, not the people behind them.
  3. No multimedia. If you want us to know about outside sources, please point to them, Don't paste them in.
We look forward to including your voices on the site - and learning from you in the process.

The editors



About this Author

Scott AnthonyScott D. Anthony is the president of Innosight, an innovation consulting and investing company with offices in Massachusetts, Singapore, and India. He has consulted to Fortune 500 and start-up companies in a wide range of industries. During 2005–2006 he spearheaded a yearlong project to help the newspaper industry grapple with industry transformation (Newspaper Next).

Anthony is the lead author on The Innovator’s Guide to Growth: Putting Disruptive Innovation to Work (Harvard Business School Press, 2008). He previously coauthored (with Harvard professor Clayton Christensen) Seeing What’s Next: Using the Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change (Harvard Business School Press, 2004).