QUIBI: THE FAILURE OF HOLLYWOOD’S “NEXT BIG THING”
CASE STUDY SOLUTION
e
pl
m
SYNOPSIS
Sa
Following its official launch on April 6, 2020, Quibi, a mobile-only short-form video streaming platform
that had raised over $1.7 billion had failed to gain the traction it was expecting and fell well short of its
first-year growth projections.2 The company ultimately announced that it was shutting down after just six
months in October 2020. Exactly where had Quibi gone wrong, and what lessons could investors learn from
n
their failed investment in the company?
tio
lu
So
The Case Solution Starts From page 3
, ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS
1. What problem was Quibi trying to solve? How important was a solution to this problem?
2. Did Quibi have the right target market? Why (or why not)?
3. What differentiated Quibi from its competitors? Was it enough to justify its premium pricing?
4. What could Quibi have done differently?
5. Was Quibi’s failure due to an execution problem, a strategic problem, or both?
e
pl
m
Sa
n
tio
ANALYSIS
1. What problem was Quibi trying to solve? How important was a solution to this problem?
lu
So
As mentioned in the case, Quibi believed that there were brief periods of time throughout the day when
people were bored and wished they had something with which to occupy themselves. The company thought
that its potential customers felt that during such times, it was not optimal to scroll through Instagram or
TikTok or watch a 20-minute YouTube video or Netflix episode.
However, there is no real evidence to suggest that this was a problem that required solving. People already
had an abundance of options available to them if they were bored for 5-, 10-, or 20-minute periods. At the
time, most of these options were free and seemed to meet the needs of their customers. Quibi believed that
YouTube videos lacked the quality people desired and that, generally speaking, YouTube content was not
designed to be consumed “on the go.” This assumption is questionable at best. If Quibi’s target customers
were willing to pay for a high-quality YouTube alternative, why were 77 per cent of them active YouTube
users? Furthermore, 70 per cent of YouTube watch time is attributable to mobile devices, and the average
YouTube video is just under 12 minutes long, which is only marginally longer than Quibi’s episodes and
The Case Solution Starts From page 3
CASE STUDY SOLUTION
e
pl
m
SYNOPSIS
Sa
Following its official launch on April 6, 2020, Quibi, a mobile-only short-form video streaming platform
that had raised over $1.7 billion had failed to gain the traction it was expecting and fell well short of its
first-year growth projections.2 The company ultimately announced that it was shutting down after just six
months in October 2020. Exactly where had Quibi gone wrong, and what lessons could investors learn from
n
their failed investment in the company?
tio
lu
So
The Case Solution Starts From page 3
, ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS
1. What problem was Quibi trying to solve? How important was a solution to this problem?
2. Did Quibi have the right target market? Why (or why not)?
3. What differentiated Quibi from its competitors? Was it enough to justify its premium pricing?
4. What could Quibi have done differently?
5. Was Quibi’s failure due to an execution problem, a strategic problem, or both?
e
pl
m
Sa
n
tio
ANALYSIS
1. What problem was Quibi trying to solve? How important was a solution to this problem?
lu
So
As mentioned in the case, Quibi believed that there were brief periods of time throughout the day when
people were bored and wished they had something with which to occupy themselves. The company thought
that its potential customers felt that during such times, it was not optimal to scroll through Instagram or
TikTok or watch a 20-minute YouTube video or Netflix episode.
However, there is no real evidence to suggest that this was a problem that required solving. People already
had an abundance of options available to them if they were bored for 5-, 10-, or 20-minute periods. At the
time, most of these options were free and seemed to meet the needs of their customers. Quibi believed that
YouTube videos lacked the quality people desired and that, generally speaking, YouTube content was not
designed to be consumed “on the go.” This assumption is questionable at best. If Quibi’s target customers
were willing to pay for a high-quality YouTube alternative, why were 77 per cent of them active YouTube
users? Furthermore, 70 per cent of YouTube watch time is attributable to mobile devices, and the average
YouTube video is just under 12 minutes long, which is only marginally longer than Quibi’s episodes and
The Case Solution Starts From page 3
