The future is different_Susan三叶草_免费在线阅读收听下载

Netflix,on the other hand,thought this market was fantastic. It didn't need to compare it to an existing and profitable business: its baseline was no profit and no business at all. Compared to that, Netflix was very happy with their relatively low margins and their “niche market.”
So, who was right?
By 2011, Netflix had almost 24 million customers. And Blockbuster? It had declared bankruptcy the year before.
Blockbuster followed a principle that is taught in every fundamental course in finance and economics: that in evaluating alternative investments,we should ignore sunk and fixed costs (costs that have already been incurred),and instead base decisions on the marginal costs and marginal revenues (the new costs and revenues) that each alternative entails.
But it's a dangerous way of thinking. Almost always, such analysis shows that the marginal costs are lower,and marginal profits are higher, than the full cost. This doctrine biases companies to leverage what they have put in place to succeed in the past,instead of guiding them to create the capabilities they'll need in the future. If we knew the future would be exactly the same as the past,that approach would be fine. But if the future's different-and it almost always is-then it's the wrong thing to do.
另一方面，网飞认为这个市场非常棒。它不需要与现有的盈利业务进行比较:它的起点就是没有利润，也根本没有业务。相比之下，网飞对他们相对较低的利润和“缝隙市场”非常满意。
那么，谁是对的？
截至2011年，网飞拥有近2400万客户。百视达呢？它在一年前已经宣布破产。
百视达遵循了一个在所有金融和经济学基础课程中都教授的原则:在评估另外的投资时，我们应该忽略沉没成本和固定成本(已经发生的成本)，而是根据替代投资带来的边际成本和边际收入(新的成本和收入)做出决策。
但这是一种危险的思维方式。永远都是，分析表明边际成本比全部成本低，边际利润又比较高。这种理论让公司倾向于利用他们现有的东西来取得成功，而不是引导他们创造拥抱未来的能力。如果未来和过去完全一样，这种方法可行。但是如果未来是不同的——总是不同的——那么这样做就错了。

The future is different

The future is different

用户评论