In 2012, Adobe Systems Incorporated (Adobe) announced that moving forward, its product releases would be available only through the cloud and a subscription model. In 2024, many software companies are pivoting to subscription models for several reasons, including faster time to customer value, seamless onboarding, and flexible pricing. But in 2012, the industry was quite skeptical of this model. This case describes the important decisions that Adobe made between 2012 and 2024. Adobe is now looking at the next step of incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) into its product offerings.

As of 2023, Netflix is the largest streaming-video provider. However, it faces increased competition, as well as slower growth in subscriptions, which have caused it to reconsider its past practices. This case describes the history of Netflix's business model and the antecedents that have led it to make some significant changes-the most important of which is an ad-supported subscription option. It is also engaged in cost-cutting measures, discouraging password sharing, and even making a small foray into video gaming. This case is suitable for a capstone strategy course or an advanced elective in competitive strategy at the MBA level. It has been used by MBAs and executives (both in the United States and in Europe) in classes covering strategic management.

In 2021, the US grocery industry had been undergoing several changes. The competitive landscape had changed significantly since the first decade of the twenty-first century. Walmart Inc. (Walmart) had emerged as the dominant retailer in all markets leading to bankruptcies and mergers with erstwhile market leaders. However, mistakes made by Walmart in that same period allowed ALDI SÜD Dienstleistungs-SE & Co. (Aldi) to make its presence felt with Walmart’s customers. Aldi was gaining its advantage through rapid expansion, with an increasingly broader assortment of products meant to attract upscale customers. Walmart initially tried to respond by opening small-format stores. Walmart had to decide whether this was the right approach to use to fight Aldi, or whether it was even a worthwhile fight. On the other hand, Aldi needed to be careful with how fast and far it should deviate from the core business model that had been instrumental in its success. Finally, the grocery business model had a growing online component that became more prominent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, Aldi and Walmart also had essential decisions to incorporate these online aspects into their respective business models.

In 2021, the US grocery industry had been undergoing several changes. The competitive landscape had changed significantly since the first decade of the twenty-first century. Walmart Inc. (Walmart) had emerged as the dominant retailer in all markets leading to bankruptcies and mergers with erstwhile market leaders. However, mistakes made by Walmart in that same period allowed ALDI SÃœD Dienstleistungs-SE & Co. (Aldi) to make its presence felt with Walmart's customers. Aldi was gaining its advantage through rapid expansion, with an increasingly broader assortment of products meant to attract upscale customers. Walmart initially tried to respond by opening small-format stores. Walmart had to decide whether this was the right approach to use to fight Aldi, or whether it was even a worthwhile fight. On the other hand, Aldi needed to be careful with how fast and far it should deviate from the core business model that had been instrumental in its success. Finally, the grocery business model had a growing online component that became more prominent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, Aldi and Walmart also had essential decisions to incorporate these online aspects into their respective business models.

Stitch Fix Inc. (Stich Fix), started by Katrina Lake in 2011, combined modern technology and online shopping with a retail clothing shopping experience. Customers subscribed to Stitch Fix and received boxes of clothing, shoes, and accessories based on individual style and preferences; a personal stylist was matched with each customer to personalize each box prior to shipping. A significant part of the company’s value came from its unique value chain elements, including sophisticated algorithms that permeated all aspects of the company’s value chain.<br><br>However, in early 2020, the company was facing a significant challenge, with both Amazon Prime Wardrobe and Nordstrom Trunk Club entering the industry. How should Stitch Fix modify its business model to stay ahead of the competition and possibly expand its boundaries to other customer segments?

Stitch Fix Inc. (Stich Fix), started by Katrina Lake in 2011, combined modern technology and online shopping with a retail clothing shopping experience. Customers subscribed to Stitch Fix and received boxes of clothing, shoes, and accessories based on individual style and preferences; a personal stylist was matched with each customer to personalize each box prior to shipping. A significant part of the company's value came from its unique value chain elements, including sophisticated algorithms that permeated all aspects of the company's value chain. However, in early 2020, the company was facing a significant challenge, with both Amazon Prime Wardrobe and Nordstrom Trunk Club entering the industry. How should Stitch Fix modify its business model to stay ahead of the competition and possibly expand its boundaries to other customer segments?

Bird Electric Vehicle Sharing (Bird)'s value proposition seems to be to offer inexpensive, on-demand transportation that can deliver riders directly to their destination in metropolitan areas. Electric scooters can be unlocked with a smartphone and left anywhere after use, minimizing the burden on consumers but also causing tremendous traffic problems for city administrators. The disruption created by Bird not only drew the attention of urban commuters but also resulted in its product being banned in cities like San Francisco and Denver. This case explores these issues in depth and sets up the challenge that Bird faces in extending its initial success. Bird must contemplate not only the individual components of its value chain but possibly also the business model itself, in evaluating the best course of action to ensure its future success.

Bird Electric Vehicle Sharing (Bird)’s value proposition seems to be to offer inexpensive, on-demand transportation that can deliver riders directly to their destination in metropolitan areas. Electric scooters can be unlocked with a smartphone and left anywhere after use, minimizing the burden on consumersbut also causing tremendous traffic problems for city administrators. The disruption created by Bird not only drew the attention of urban commuters but also resulted in its product being banned in cities like San Francisco and Denver.<br><br>This case explores these issues in depth and sets up the challenge that Bird faces in extending its initial success. Bird must contemplate not only the individual components of its value chain but possibly also the business model itself, in evaluating the best course of action to ensure its future success.

Business models that unlock efficiency across entire networks are becoming increasingly common in the so-called sharing economy. However, the principles underlying these models can also be used in B2B settings. This article proposes some simple rules that managers can use in a systematic process to build similar disruptive business models. It illustrates these rules by deconstructing the go-to-market strategy that resulted in Vizio becoming the dominant flat panel TV vendor in the United States.

Tesla Motors, Inc. (Tesla), the electric car company, unveiled its Model 3 in late July 2017 as its stock price continued to appreciate. The Model 3 was priced to sell to the mass market and to potentially compete with the mass-market leaders such as Toyota. The stock market had also responded favourably to Tesla's decision in 2016 to acquire SolarCity, a manufacturer of solar cells, and its decision to build the Gigafactory, the world's largest lithium battery plant. Could Tesla justify its sky-high stock price multiple by simply selling electric cars, or should Tesla become a battery company that could fundamentally change the energy storage industry-or for that matter, some other type of company?

Tesla Motors, Inc. (Tesla), the electric car company, unveiled its Model 3 in late July 2017 as its stock price continued to appreciate. The Model 3 was priced to sell to the mass market and to potentially compete with the mass-market leaders such as Toyota. The stock market had also responded favourably to Tesla’s decision in 2016 to acquire SolarCity, a manufacturer of solar cells, and its decision to build the Gigafactory, the world’s largest lithium battery plant. Could Tesla justify its sky-high stock price multiple by simply selling electric cars, or should Tesla become a battery company that could fundamentally change the energy storage industry—or for that matter, some other type of company?

In 2007, the founders of Airbnb were looking to solve a problem and ended up transforming their idea into a $10 billion company. What started as a quick website to advertise an overnight stay on their apartment airbeds along with breakfast in the morning eventually grew into an online accommodation booking business that spanned the world. Airbnb used its business model to carve out an extremely important space in an already crowded industry. However, along with success came challenges in terms of the scalability of its business model. In 2014, Airbnb was also facing legal challenges by state attorneys general that could make its business model suspect. The founders had to decide whether to defend their business model in a court of law and in the court of public opinion, or change it.

In 2007, the founders of Airbnb were looking to solve a problem and ended up transforming their idea into a $10 billion company. What started as a quick website to advertise an overnight stay on their apartment airbeds along with breakfast in the morning eventually grew into an online accommodation booking business that spanned the world. Airbnb used its business model to carve out an extremely important space in an already crowded industry. However, along with success came challenges in terms of the scalability of its business model. In 2014, Airbnb was also facing legal challenges by state attorneys general that could make its business model suspect. The founders had to decide whether to defend their business model in a court of law and in the court of public opinion, or change it.

In late 2011, Netflix was migrating from its highly successful business model of delivering DVDs by mail to streaming movies and other media content directly to subscribers' televisions. To be profitable, Netflix decided to charge more for receiving DVDs by mail-a service that its existing customers had come to expect as a minor add-on to their original subscription arrangement. This charge led to a huge backlash: subscribers defected and Netflix's stock price dropped. Netflix faced the dilemma of remaining profitable in the video streaming business while paying much more for content and dealing with competition that had been absent in its DVD-by-mail business model. The company was at a crossroads; the path it chose would affect its future. Should it return to combining the two services or continue with two separate services and live with the consequences?

Netflix, a subscription-based movie and television show rental service, offered content to subscribers either via DVDs delivered by mail, or through Internet-based streaming. After splitting the two services, the company lost subscribers, and its stock price plummeted. Most observers were skeptical that Netflix could maintain its profit margins, given the increased cost of acquiring streamable content. However, Netflix not only reduced its cost per user but also increased its subscriber growth both in the United States and internationally. Were these moves sufficient to deliver the growth needed to support its rising stock price? Netflix also faced increased streaming costs because it used disproportionately more bandwidth than other streaming companies. Would these costs mean that the Netflix business model was no longer viable? This is a follow-up case to "Netflix," which describes the company's innovative business model of delivering DVDs by mail, and "Netflix Inc.: The Second Act-Moving into Streaming," which describes the after-effects of the dual-subscription model.

Netflix, a subscription-based movie and television show rental service, offered content to subscribers either via DVDs delivered by mail, or through Internet-based streaming. After splitting the two services, the company lost subscribers, and its stock price plummeted. Most observers were skeptical that Netflix could maintain its profit margins, given the increased cost of acquiring streamable content. However, Netflix not only reduced its cost per user but also increased its subscriber growth both in the United States and internationally. Were these moves sufficient to deliver the growth needed to support its rising stock price? Netflix also faced increased streaming costs because it used disproportionately more bandwidth than other streaming companies. Would these costs mean that the Netflix business model was no longer viable?<br><br>This is a follow-up case to Netflix, 9B09M093, which describes the company’s innovative business model of delivering DVDs by mail, and Netflix Inc.: The Second Act—Moving into Streaming, 9B16M080, which describes the after-effects of the dual-subscription model.

In late 2011, Netflix was migrating from its highly successful business model of delivering DVDs by mail to streaming movies and other media content directly to subscribers' televisions. To be profitable, Netflix decided to charge more for receiving DVDs by mail—a service that its existing customers had come to expect as a minor add-on to their original subscription arrangement. This charge led to a huge backlash: subscribers defected and Netflix's stock price dropped. Netflix faced the dilemma of remaining profitable in the video streaming business while paying much more for content and dealing with competition that had been absent in its DVD-by-mail business model. The company was at a crossroads; the path it chose would affect its future. Should it return to combining the two services or continue with two separate services and live with the consequences?<br><br>This case is a follow-up to Netflix, 9B09M093, and precedes Netflix: Proving the Skeptics Wrong, 9B16M081.

Uber was a technology company that relied on its mobile app and word-of-mouth advertising to reach customers interested in its transportation services. It prided itself on being an on-time, stylish, unique, and modern transportation option. However, in 2014, Uber faced many challenges and questions as an industry incumbent. Could its business model succeed despite being heavily reliant on buyers’ willingness to pay a substantial premium in some situations? Could the model be sustained and expanded into cities worldwide? How could the regulations protecting the taxi industry be overcome in so many diverse markets? Finally, how could Uber position its business model in a way that would create entry barriers to keep rivals out of the market?

Uber was a technology company that relied on its mobile app and word-of-mouth advertising to reach customers interested in its transportation services. It prided itself on being an on-time, stylish, unique, and modern transportation option. However, in 2014, Uber faced many challenges and questions as an industry incumbent. Could its business model succeed despite being heavily reliant on buyers' willingness to pay a substantial premium in some situations? Could the model be sustained and expanded into cities worldwide? How could the regulations protecting the taxi industry be overcome in so many diverse markets? Finally, how could Uber position its business model in a way that would create entry barriers to keep rivals out of the market?