Quickflix’s cautionary tale: how to lose $40m in just five years
With Quickflix facing a bleak future after calling in the administrators Nic Christensen chronicles where it all went wrong for the Australian streaming service.
I remember going to the launch event for Quickflix’s streaming service in 2011. It was clear the Aussie DVD rental business had spent a lot of money on the lavish party, held at the Ivy Hotel in Sydney, designed to show it as the Netflix of Australia.
Actor and DJ Ruby Rose was billed as the headline guest. However, she never showed (claiming to be sick). It would turn out to be an apt analogy for the fledgling operation.
Quickflix dedicated much of last week arguing that rival streaming service Stan has held it over a barrel regarding the redeemable preference shares the Fairfax/Nine joint-venture owns in it – which it claims is putting off potential new investors.
But rather than blaming Stan for its plight, Quickflix founder Stephen Langsford may instead want to ask: How Quickflix burned more than $40m of shareholder money in just over five years?
Chris Taylor should shoulder a good portion of the blame for the erroneous path the company was on. Langsford was an absentee landlord for many years.
First in, but never made it stick – the Galaxy tv of the streaming business.
And Langsford, and senior management’s salaries from 2011 to now?
Follow that money trail and you’ll see where the real problems were.
Continual efforts, since middle of last year, by a large shareholder to assist in marketing , at no cost , were continually declined until just a few weeks ago, after the VA would already have been decided by the board. This just shows the “I know everything” attitude of both the top tier management and the Marketing Manager.
In two weeks of finally being allowed to assist , there was interest from two, very large Multinationals, yet two days later , the VA was announced.
Management needs to shoulder all of the blame for this debacle and not blame others for being better at business deals. One person either thought they knew it all or were not experienced enough to run the business on a day-to-day basis.
So I guess it’s looking doubtful that anyone would pick up the slack of their disc mailing service if they go under. Streaming is hopeless if you’re looking for any kind of library depth, even if you’re subscribed to every available service. Makes me so mad that their crappy SD streaming that I never used is gonna end up depriving me of my still-hundreds-deep DVD/Blu-ray queue.
Not a surprise. The CD service was slack and I’m informed of questionable business practice. This philosophy was no doubt extended to the streaming service. Matt says it all. Dealing with the company as a consumer could be frustrating as what was offered and what one received were at variance. Angular positions in the post-horizontal aspect of life were common. Exec mgt not be missed however the real workers will be.
The streaming sector requires a lot of capital and Stan blocked QFX from accessing it.
The $40m losses are nothing compared to what Stan and Presto have racked up with more to come. Stan / Presto have blown shareholders money replicating what QFX had.
I remember being a subscriber of this service, and describing it as having “the movies you’d find at a holiday resort’s corner shop” when I phoned to cancel. Think Bird on a Wire. Never saw that HBO content, but with $40m lost it’s time to sunset this service in the face of Netflix, Prime etc.
I’m with closedmouth. I subscribed to the DVD mailing service because of the depth of the library. By comparison, the streaming library is quite shallow, as are the libraries of the two other streaming services I’ve tried – Stan and Netflix Oz.
@Colin Gwyther, curious as to which large shareholder you were referring to in you post?