Quibi Throws In The Towel

Note: This article has been updated with reactions from Quibi's founders.

The streaming wars — or perhaps the COVID-19 pandemic, or both — have claimed another high-profile business victim.

Quibi --  the six-month-old, short-form video streaming platform founded by Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman with $1.75 billion in backing from the likes of Google, The Walt Disney Company, NBCUniversal, WarnerMedia, Alibaba and Madrone Capital Partners -- is shutting down, according to The Information and a subsequent confirmation by The Wall Street Journal.  

The closure, which the founders essentially admit was a decision not to throw good money after bad, is "a stunning end to Katzenberg’s hopes of creating a new category of video entertainment, short programs of a few minutes in length that could be watched on the go," sums up The Information, which reports that Quibi scheduled calls with investors and employees on Wednesday afternoon to deliver the news.

Far from its ambitious goal of attracting 7.4 million subscribers between its April launch and the end of this year, the streaming service reportedly has just 400,000 to 500,000.

Soon after the launch, Katzenberg blamed the low consumer uptake entirely on the COVID-19 pandemic's effect of keeping people in their homes, instead of out and about, when short videos would be likely to be consumed. 

"Quibi will shut down with about $850 million of cash still in its coffers, although it also owes several hundred millions," according to The Information. "It could not be learned how much money would be left for shareholders. The investors will lose money, although those in the two early rounds, the A and the B — which includes Alibaba, Goldman, Google, Katzenberg’s holding company WndrCo and several media companies — will lose less than those in the C round."

Katzenberg and Whitman also personally invested $5.5 million and $10.5 million, respectively, in the A round.

In a followup article, The Informationreported that on Wednesday afternoon, Quibi told investors that after paying its outstanding bills, it would have only about $350 million left to return to shareholders.

"There was no question that keeping us going was not going to have a different outcome, it was just going to spend a whole lot more money without any value to show for it,” Katzenberg told Deadline on Wednesday in his first interview after the decision to shut down Quibi. “So, out of respect for these people that put up this extraordinary amount of capital to do it, that’s irresponsible and we both felt we shouldn’t do it.” 

Added Whitman: "We tried a lot of different things over the summer, whether it was payment-less free trial, 90-day free trial, 14-day free trial. We changed marketing around entirely to be more title marketing than platform marketing, which we made a lot of changes and we also you know, tried a completely different business model in Australia. And ultimately none of it really changed the fundamental answer, that we needed more capital and we needed more capital relatively soon. And so I would say it’s just been a journey for Jeffrey and I as we’ve looked very clear-eyed at the data and said what’s the right thing to do"...  

As reported last month in Digital News DailyQuibi in August tried rolling out a free, ad-supported tier in Australia and New Zealand. In addition, it reduced the price of its ad-free subscription tier in those markets, from $12.99 AUD to $6.99 AUD (or about $9 to $5 U.S.). At the time, the company said it was assessing the viability of various business models on a market-by-market basis.

In the U.S., Quibi was charging $4.99 per month for its ad-supported version and $7.99 for its ad-free version. But many of its initial subscribers were generated through free-trial offers, which tend to have high falloff rates at expiration.

In recent weeks, Katzenberg had been shopping the entire startup -- and sometimes just its programming -- to major tech and entertainment companies, but obstacles including Quibi's lack of ownership of programming rights proved insurmountable.

Major advertisers including PepsiCo, Yum Brands, Taco Bell, Anheuser-Busch and Walmart committed a combined $150 million to Quibi’s launch. But according to reports, post-launch, some advertisers asked to defer payments due to pandemic-related ad budget reductions and concerns about Quibi’s viewership performance.

In addition, Quibi is enmeshed in a patent lawsuit brought by tech company Eko, with backing from activist investor activist hedge fund Elliott Management Corp., over the Turnstyle technology that enabled a video's viewing mode to shift to horizontal or vertical, depending on how a mobile device is held.

7 comments about "Quibi Throws In The Towel".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, October 22, 2020 at 10:57 a.m.

    Karlene, why is this closing "stunning"? A better term might be "embarrassing".

  2. Michael Lynn from ECD Consulting, October 22, 2020 at 11:05 a.m.

    Ed, as always, right on the nose. 

  3. Dan Ciccone from STACKED Entertainment, October 22, 2020 at 11:32 a.m.

    "Embarassing" or predictable?


  4. Karlene Lukovitz from MediaPost, October 22, 2020 at 12:18 p.m.

    Ed: Since it was The Information that used the word "stunning," which is why it's in quotes, I can't be sure what they meant by that. Still, I'd say that it's indeed stunning that Quibi's founders and backers have blown most of $1.75 billion in a few short months with virtually nothing to show for it... while millions in our own country are unemployed, hungry and homeless (which was also true before the pandemic, though to a somewhat lesser extent). Katzenberg has been a major philanthropist, and I'm all for innovation and new-business creation. But it's still (yes) stunning that those at the top can afford to toss around such sums and move on to the next ego-driven, ill-advised "gamble" while most of the country hasn't seen a real (after inflation) increase in income in decades. How about investing billions in sustainable energy innovations/businesses, or infrastructure, or other ventures that could create long-term jobs at scale? Did the world need another streaming service? Not this one, clearly. As a side point, with the greatest respect for your industry expertise, a constructive idea: If your desire is to control content down to the word, why not start (or restart) your own publication/site/blog? I'm being sincere when I say I'm sure I'd be among many who would enthusiastically follow it. 

  5. Bill Shane from Eastlan Ratings replied, October 22, 2020 at 2:12 p.m.


  6. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, October 22, 2020 at 2:18 p.m.

    Karlene, I have no wish to quibble about every word nor do I plan to start my own blog or website in the near future---I merely feel obliged to comment on what I see here and elsewhere in an attempt to provide another view when this seems called for and, perhaps, to tighten the discussions somewhat. My comment in this case was not intended to be taken personally but rather, to add some emphasis on the demise of a hoplessly flawed concept.

  7. Charles Pierce from Private replied, October 22, 2020 at 5:43 p.m.

    I think "stunning" ending is true given the large sums of money. I do credit Jeffrey and Meg for shutting it down with some money still available for investors. And I'm sure their Cap Table ranking and terms is probably not going to return any of their money to them, most likely.





Next story loading loading..