GradeDraftCase Study Example: A Full Business Case Analysis in APA 7
Composite sample written by GradeDraft for this page, analyzing a real public business event using only publicly reported facts. It is one of all writing samples GradeDraft publishes.
This case study example is a full business case analysis in APA 7: problem statement, background, a SWOT analysis, three alternatives evaluated against named criteria, a recommendation, and an implementation plan, built around Netflix's 2011 Qwikster split and reversal. Every part is drawn from public sources, listed in full below, and margin notes explain the reasoning behind each section as it appears.
On this page
- Level
- Undergraduate, business strategy
- Style guide
- APA 7
- Length
- about 1,050-word analysis plus a 6-source reference list (about 4 pages)
- Written by
- the GradeDraft business & law desk
The full case study analysis
A business case study example is most useful when it works from a real decision, because a real case has real consequences to weigh alternatives against. The sample below analyzes Netflix's September 2011 plan to split its streaming and DVD-by-mail businesses into two separately branded companies, Netflix and Qwikster, a plan the company reversed about three weeks later.
Case Study Analysis: Netflix's 2011 Qwikster Split
Problem statement
In September 2011, Netflix announced it would split its two core businesses, streaming video and DVD-by-mail, into separately branded companies, with DVD service renamed Qwikster and moved to its own website, login and billing. The announcement followed a July 2011 restructuring that had already unbundled combined DVD-and-streaming plans into two separately priced plans, a change that raised the combined price by roughly 60 percent for existing subscribers. The question this case addresses: given the underlying economic case for separating two businesses with different cost structures, was a full brand and website split the right way to execute that separation, and if not, what should Netflix have done instead.
- 1
The problem statement frames one answerable question, whether the execution fit the strategy, instead of "what went wrong at Netflix," so the alternatives can propose comparable answers.
Background
Reed Hastings announced the split in a company blog post on September 18, 2011: the DVD-by-mail service would be rebranded as Qwikster, with its own website, and the Netflix brand would be dedicated to streaming, on the reasoning that the two had become different businesses with different economics (Hastings, 2011). The reaction was immediate and negative: customers objected to managing two separate accounts and two separate queues for services they had used interchangeably, and press coverage focused on the abruptness of a second major change inside three months. The company then reported losing about 800,000 US subscribers in the third quarter, and its share price, which had traded near $300 in mid-July, fell to a fraction of that level by late October (CNNMoney, 2011b). On October 10, 2011, about three weeks after the announcement, Hastings reversed the plan and kept Netflix as one website, one account and one password for both services, while leaving the separated DVD and streaming pricing in place (CNNMoney, 2011a; Kafka, 2011). In its third-quarter shareholder letter, Netflix stated plainly: "We've hurt our hard-earned reputation, and stalled our domestic growth" (Netflix, Inc., 2011).
- 2
Every fact here traces to a citable source, the stock figures, the reversal date, the shareholder-letter quote. A background section establishes agreed facts before the analysis argues from them.
Analysis
Exhibit 1 separates the internal and external factors at play at the moment of the September announcement.
Table: Exhibit 1. SWOT analysis, Netflix, September 2011
| Category | Factors |
|---|---|
| Strengths | Established streaming brand and existing account base; content licensing relationships already scaled to a large subscriber footprint; billing and recommendation infrastructure built over a decade |
| Weaknesses | Streaming and DVD run genuinely different unit economics under one brand, unbundling logic was sound but under-explained to customers; two major changes (price, then brand split) announced within three months with no combined communication plan; new Qwikster site meant customers would need two accounts, two logins and two queues for services they had used as one |
| Opportunities | A streaming-first brand identity, freed from DVD logistics costs, better matches where subscriber growth was concentrated; a separately run DVD service could still serve a shrinking but loyal niche without dragging on the flagship brand's public narrative |
| Threats | Subscriber cancellations and negative press compounding in the same news cycle as the price change; competitors positioned to capture switching customers during the backlash; reputational damage to the "Netflix listens to customers" narrative the brand had built |
Scroll horizontally to see every column.
- 3
Each SWOT cell states a fact tied to the case, such as two accounts and two logins, not a template phrase like "faces competition."
Alternatives
Three alternatives were realistically available to Netflix leadership at the September announcement, evaluated against three criteria: customer friction, how much the change disrupted the existing user experience; economic fit, how well the option reflected the different cost structures of streaming and DVD; and reversibility, how costly a mistake would be to walk back.
Table: Alternatives evaluated against customer friction, economic fit and reversibility
| Alternative | Customer friction | Economic fit | Reversibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Proceed with the full Qwikster split as announced | High: two accounts, two logins, two billing relationships | High: pricing and operations for each business run independently | Low: unwinding a separate brand, site and login system after customers migrate is costly |
| B. Fully reverse the split and return to one unified plan and pricing structure | Low: restores the single account customers were used to | Low: re-hides the cost-structure difference the July pricing change had exposed | High: a full reversal is simple to execute but abandons the economic logic entirely |
| C. Reunify the account, login and website while keeping DVD and streaming priced and billed as separate plans | Low: one login, one site, one queue view for both services | Moderate to high: preserves separately tracked economics without a separate brand | Moderate: requires only a technical and communications reversal of the brand split, not the pricing logic |
Scroll horizontally to see every column.
- 4
Each alternative is a real, distinct option rather than a straw-man version of "do nothing" versus "do everything right." Alternative C is deliberately a middle path between A and B, which is what makes the comparison worth reading instead of a foregone conclusion.
Recommendation
Alternative C, reunifying the account and website while keeping DVD and streaming as separately priced plans, best serves Netflix's actual problem. The case for separating cost structures identified in the Strengths and Weaknesses of Exhibit 1 remains sound: streaming and DVD are genuinely different businesses, and pricing them separately is defensible. What was not sound, and what the Weaknesses and Threats rows in Exhibit 1 both point to directly, was forcing customers into two accounts to reflect an internal cost distinction they had no reason to care about. Alternative C keeps the economic separation Netflix needed while removing the specific friction, two logins and two queues, that Exhibit 1 identifies as the change customers actually reacted against.
- 5
The recommendation argues from the exhibit built earlier rather than restating a preference. It names the exact row in the SWOT table, the two-account friction point, that the choice is designed to fix, which is what separates a justified recommendation from a stated opinion.
Implementation plan
- Reunify the Netflix and Qwikster websites, logins and account systems within a single sprint cycle, communicated directly by the CEO rather than through a general customer-service notice, given how personally Hastings had framed the original announcement.
- Keep DVD and streaming as separately priced, separately billed plans on the unified account, preserving the economic separation without the brand split.
- Grandfather existing subscribers' prior pricing for a defined transition window to rebuild trust before the next pricing change.
- Track weekly cancellation rate and net subscriber additions for the following two quarters as the specific metric for whether trust is recovering, rather than relying on press sentiment alone.
Conclusion
The Qwikster episode is often summarized as a bad name or a bad week, but the analysis above points to a narrower failure. The strategic premise, that streaming and DVD had different economics and should be priced and managed separately, was sound, and Netflix kept that part after the reversal. What failed was the execution: a second disruptive change inside three months, delivered as an account split that asked customers to absorb an internal cost distinction. The lesson for any firm separating two business lines is to separate the economics behind the scenes before, or instead of, separating what the customer sees.
Reference list
CNNMoney. (2011a, October 10). Netflix kills plan to separate Qwikster, streaming services. https://money.cnn.com/2011/10/10/technology/netflix_qwikster/index.htm
CNNMoney. (2011b, October 24). Netflix earnings: 800,000 U.S. subscribers lost in Q3. https://money.cnn.com/2011/10/24/technology/netflix_earnings/index.htm
Hastings, R. (2011, September 18). An explanation and some reflections. The Netflix Blog. https://blog.netflix.com/2011/09/explanation-and-some-reflections.html
Kafka, P. (2011, October 10). Netflix kills Qwikster DVD-only business before launch. AllThingsD. https://allthingsd.com/20111010/qwikster-is-gonester-netflix-kills-its-dvd-only-business-before-launch/
Netflix, Inc. (2011). Third-quarter 2011 letter to shareholders [Form 8-K exhibit]. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, EDGAR. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065280/000119312511278716/d246709dex991.htm
| Part | Job | Share of words | Where it is in the sample |
|---|---|---|---|
| Problem statement | Frame the decision as one answerable question | 10% | "Problem statement" |
| Background and analysis | Establish agreed facts, then sort them into internal and external factors | 37% | "Background" and "Analysis," including Exhibit 1 |
| Alternatives | Compare real, distinct options against named criteria | 22% | "Alternatives" |
| Recommendation | Choose one option and justify it against the analysis, not just state a preference | 11% | "Recommendation" |
| Implementation plan and conclusion | Turn the recommendation into sequenced, measurable actions, then state the lesson | 20% | "Implementation plan" and "Conclusion" |
Scroll horizontally to compare all columns.
The Background and Analysis section carries the most weight because a recommendation is only as strong as the facts and the SWOT it is argued from; a case study analysis that rushes the analysis to reach a recommendation faster usually reads as an opinion with citations attached rather than an argument.
How to use this sample without copying it
Study the argument structure, not the sentences
Three moves are worth taking into your own analysis: stating the problem as one answerable question, comparing alternatives against named criteria, and writing a recommendation that cites a specific row of your own analysis. Not worth taking: any sentence as written, or the Netflix facts without their citations. This sample is published and indexed, so an instructor or a checker can find a matching paragraph in seconds. Never submit or paraphrase it.
Have one written to your own brief
See how an order works and the full price list before you send your case and rubric.
Questions about this sample
How long is a case study analysis?
Most undergraduate business case study analyses run 1,000 to 2,000 words, roughly 4 to 8 pages double-spaced, excluding exhibits and references. The sample above runs about 1,050 words. Graduate-level case analyses, especially ones built around a full course case rather than a single public event, often run longer to support a more detailed alternatives comparison.
What is the difference between a case study and a case study analysis?
A case study is the material itself, the facts, background and documents describing a company's situation. A case study analysis is what a student produces from that material: a structured argument that states the problem, weighs real alternatives against named criteria, and recommends one with a plan to carry it out. The sample above is an analysis built from one public case, not the case material alone.
Is this a real internal Netflix document?
No. GradeDraft wrote this sample case study analysis for this page from publicly available sources, listed in the reference list above. It was never produced by or for Netflix, is not an internal document, and is not a client's paper.