Yesterday, I shared what I read in the Netflix biography That Will Never Work about how cofounders Marc Randolph and Reed Hastings divided equity and how the first financing round led to Reed owning 68% of the company to Marc’s 30%. I shared all the math in this post.

The interesting outcome of that scenario was the ownership, voting control, and control of the board. Marc was CEO, but he owned a minority 30% stake in the company and didn’t have voting control. He also didn’t control the board because he wasn’t the board's chairman. Reed wasn’t an employee of the company but owned a majority 68% stake in it, which meant he had voting control. He was also chairman of the board, so he effectively controlled the board, too.

Marc and Reed were friends and had worked together at another company. They spitballed ideas until they landed on the idea that became Netflix. So they were used to working together and being brutally honest with each other.

In the fall of 1998, about a year into the company’s life, Reed sat Marc down and told him that he’d done some good things. Then he added, “I don’t think you’re a complete CEO” and “A complete CEO wouldn’t have to rely on the guidance of the board as much as you do.” Reed proposed that he join the company full-time and become the CEO. He suggested Marc become the president and that they run the company together as a team.

Reed had voting and board control, so technically he could have forced this decision on Marc. Instead, he left it up to Marc. Marc thought about it and in the end decided that Reed was better suited to be CEO and that he himself was better suited to work alongside someone disciplined like Reed. They divvied up duties. Reed focused on what they called “back-end” functions such as finances, operations, and engineering. Marc handled customer-facing things like PR, web design, movie content, partnership relations, and customer service.

With the changes agreed to, there was one last issue: compensation. Reed surprised Marc by requesting that the two cofounders redivide their ownership. Reed wanted 2 million more shares—and he thought they should come from Marc.

Marc doesn’t share exact numbers in the book, but he does say, “In the end, I’d agreed that a third of the shares Reed wanted, if he was to come on as CEO, would come from me. The other two-thirds he was going to have to ask the board for. Which he did – and which he got.”

In the end, roughly one year after the birth of the company, Marc relinquished the CEO title to Reed and Reed received additional shares. By this point, they’d raised an additional $6 million from Institutional Venture Partners, a prominent VC firm in Silicon Valley at the time. I’m not sure what the exact ownership split between the cofounders was, but I’d assume Reed had a significant, majority ownership stake in the company.

That’s the story of how Reed Hastings became the CEO of Netflix, as told from Marc Randolph’s perspective.

I’m making my way through That Will Never Work, a biography about Netflix’s origin. I finally got to the part I’ve been curious about. Marc Randolph is the author and was the first CEO and cofounder of Netflix, along with Reed Hastings. I’ve always considered Reed the founding CEO, and this book is helping me understand why.

A little bit of background first. When they started the company in 1997, Marc and Reed each received 50% ownership. They valued the company—an idea and two guys—at $3 million (pre-money). They issued 6 million shares, with each share valued at $0.50. Here’s how the ownership looked at this point:

• Reed: 3m founder shares *$0.50 per share = $1.5m (50%) ownership stake
• Marc: 3m founder shares *$0.50 per share = $1.5m (50%) ownership stake

To capitalize the company, they raised $2 million from investors. The company was worth $3 million (pre-money) and raised $2 million from investors, so its post-money valuation was $5 million (pre-money plus cash raised). For their $2 million, investors were buying 40% of the company. Here’s the math:

• $3 million pre-money valuation + $2 million raised from investors = $5 million post-money valuation
• $2 million raised from investors / $5 million post-money valuation = 40% ownership

Six million founder shares already existed. To give investors 40% ownership, the company issued 4 million investor shares, increasing the total to 10 million: 6 million founder shares split between Reed and Marc and 4 million investor shares.

Marc had a young family and was working full-time in the business, while Reed was part-time and had ample liquidity from selling another company. Reed believed in the idea and invested $1.9 million of the money they needed, and angel investors contributed the other $100k. Marc didn’t invest any capital. Here’s how the 4 million shares issued to investors were split between Reed and the angel investors:

• Reed: 3.8m shares ($1.9m / $2m = 95%) * 4m investor shares
• Angels: 0.2m shares ($0.1m / $2m = 5%) * 4m investor shares

This is where the ownership between the two founders changed drastically. Reed was a cofounder and investor, while Marc was just a cofounder. Here’s how their ownership changed after this fundraise was completed:

• Reed: 68% = 6.8m total shares (3.8m investor shares + 3m founder shares) / 10m total shares
• Marc: 30% = 3m founder shares / 10m total shares
• Angels: 2% = 0.2m investors shares / 10m total shares

Even though they were cofounders and Marc was CEO, Reed had a majority 68% ownership position in the company and was also the Chairman of the Board. Marc was CEO but had only a 30% ownership.

In the next post, I’ll detail how the ownership and other dynamics led to changes in leadership titles.

I’m still reading That Will Never Work, a biography about Netflix’s origin. The author, Marc Randolph, shares his perspective on the early days as cofounder and the first CEO of Netflix.

Netflix is a household name worldwide. It’s the go-to streaming service for people to watch movies, shows, and other television content. The company is publicly traded and has a market capitalization (valuation) of over $410 billion.

But things didn’t start that way. The company was born in 1997. Users could buy or rent DVDs by placing an order on its website. The orders were all fulfilled via snail mail from its small office in Scotts Valley, California. The launch of Netflix was a big deal that included tons of press. It was so successful that on the first day, the company servers crashed multiple times and the team had difficulty keeping up with and fulfilling all the orders.

What surprised me was how many orders the company processed that day: 137, which seemed low to me. Given the amount of publicity they'd generated before launching, I expected them to have done hundreds or even thousands of orders. But it was only 137, and that exceeded their initial expectations. They thought 15 to 20 people would order DVDs that day.

When I read this section, I thought about where the company is today and that first launch day. My takeaway is that everything starts not just small but really small. It takes time to make people aware you exist, even if you have a great solution. It’s the discipline to get a little better and compound your learning and growth consistently every single day that leads to massive outcomes over a long period. Being a breakout success on day one is the exception, not the norm. Most companies we consider wildly successful started small and got better every single day, year after year.

For the last year, I’ve been enamored with media entrepreneurs and biographies about them. This week, I started reading That Will Never Work, a biography about Netflix’s origin story. It’s written by Marc Randolph, the cofounder and first CEO of Netflix. I always think of Reed Hastings as the first and only CEO—I had no clue Marc was the founding CEO.

I’m early in the book, but I’m enjoying Marc’s recounting of the early days and how he overcame early obstacles.

One thing that resonated with me was his approach to naming the company and the concept of a beta name. Fun fact: the company was originally named Kibble. The logic behind the name was based on an old advertising and marketing saying: “It doesn’t make a difference how good the ads are if the dogs don’t eat the food.”

Marc chose this name because he wanted to remind the team that if the product was lackluster, it wouldn’t matter how well they sold it. He picked “Kibble” as a placeholder to remind his team to focus on building an amazing product that people would love.

Marc realized that picking the right name can take months and that you must give yourself time for serendipity to kick in. Instead of forcing a name at founding, he chose a beta name—a working name you use to get the company up and running (email, bank accounts, website, etc.). The key to a beta name is that it must be something so bad that there’s zero chance you’ll keep it. If you pick something tolerable, he said, your exhaustion and familiarity six months down the road may lead to your just keeping it. But, if you pick something awful, you’ll be forced to rename the company.

Ultimately, his team wanted one word that combined movies and the internet: Net . . . flix.

Marc detailed how hard it is to pick a good name. Here’s what to think about:

• A good name rolls off the tongue. One- or two-syllable words are best; ideally, the emphasis is on the first syllable. His examples: Google and Facebook.
• Too many syllables, too many letters, and people might misspell your website. Too few and they might forget the name.
• A name isn’t great if someone else already owns the domain or the trademark. Double-check before settling on a name.

Even a good name might not be an immediate slam dunk. Marc’s team didn’t initially like “Netflix” because “flix” made some team members think of “porno” or “skin flicks.” When the team was down to the wire and had to decide, they slept on it for a night and agreed it was their best option.

Naming is hard, but it shouldn’t stop you from moving the company forward or building your product or solution. Beta names give you a placeholder and time to find the right name. Marc’s beta name approach is great, and I plan to use it.

Early this year, I read the updated version of Poor Charlie’s Almanack, a collection of Charlie Munger’s speeches on mental models and psychology. The book was a masterclass on decision-making. Since then, I’ve reread sections of the book and found recordings of the speeches. What Charlie Munger shares in those speeches is knowledge and insight that he spent decades acquiring. His wisdom feels like a cheat code, and I want to leverage it fully.

I wanted a cheat sheet of Munger’s wisdom to reference as I make decisions. During my research, I found something pretty helpful. It’s an animated video that condenses the most important lessons from Munger’s 1995 speech “The Psychology of Human Misjudgment,” which lasted about 75 minutes, into 14 minutes.

Tiny, a publicly traded Canadian holding company that acquires and owns businesses long-term, created the video. Here’s what its cofounder, Andrew Wilkinson, said this week in his newsletter about why they created the video:

In 1995, Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett’s longtime business partner, gave an incredible speech about why humans do stupid things.

In it, he breaks down all the key psychological effects that warp our thinking and cause bizarre behavior.

In 2014, I made it my mission to memorize this talk. I listened to it every single day on my drive to work and tattoo’d it into my brain.

It has been one of the most durable and important pieces of content I’ve ever consumed, and a few years ago, Chris and I decided to make it more accessible.

We took the original hour long scratchy audio recording and turned it into a shorter and more accessible animated video.

I’ll still create a cheat sheet, but I’m going to test Wilkinson’s approach and listen to this video daily to see if doing so accelerates my understanding of the concepts Munger discussed in this speech.

If you want to watch the 14 minute animated version of Munger's speech, you can find it here.

One of my favorite entrepreneurs is John H. Johnson. He was a publishing entrepreneur who created Ebony and Jet magazines. Both were iconic magazines in the Black community for several decades. Johnson bootstrapped his company, and by 1987 it was doing over $174 million in annual revenue—almost $481 million in 2024 dollars. Johnson’s autobiography was one of my favorite reads last year. I bought several copies and wrote a five-part deep dive on it (see here).

I wanted to learn more about Johnson and found Empire: The House That John H. Johnson Built, a biography of him. It was written by Margena A. Christian, who used to work at Johnson’s Johnson Publishing Company.

I’m still reading the book, but a few things have caught my attention:

• Start-up capital – Johnson “borrowed” the customer list (20,000 names) of the insurance company that employed him. He then wrote a letter to every customer asking them to prepay for a subscription to a magazine he hadn’t created yet. Three thousand people agreed to pay $2, giving him $2,000 in start-up capital—more than $100,000 in 2024 dollars. This biography highlighted Johnson’s copywriting in that letter. He worded the sales letter in a highly effective way and made people want to buy, sight unseen. Johnson noted that this letter was so unique that he could never replicate those results.
• Curation – Johnson’s first magazine, Negro Digest, didn’t include any original articles. He aggregated all its articles from various publications about Blacks. Making information readily available in a single place made his first magazine successful.
• Cloning – Johnson didn’t try to reinvent the wheel or create something new. He “borrowed” from successful magazine formats and used them to communicate to the Black community. Life magazine was a picture-based magazine that was wildly successful. Johnson used that format when he launched Ebony magazine.

Those are some of my early takeaways from the book. I’m looking forward to reading the rest of it.

I’m finishing up the second biography of Albert Lasker, The Man Who Sold America. The story is set in the early twentieth century, but it’s still a remarkable one for learning about the history of the advertising industry and one of the figures who heavily influenced it and American consumption habits.

Lasker was a complex person who struggled with bouts of severe depression and anxiety. Even with those ailments, he managed to understand consumers and how to communicate to them in an unrivaled way. It took decades, but his skills and his agency’s success eventually shaped American consumer behavior and politics. Lasker’s ability to communicate messages that resonated with everyone led to him heavily influencing American politics all the way to a presidential election.

I’m glad I decided to read these books about Lasker; they’ve made me aware of a period in the advertising industry that I might not otherwise have known about. They also helped explain the strategy behind some of the advertising methods still in use today.

I’m looking forward to reading more about Lasker and others who helped birth modern advertising.

I’ve been working on a project to share more about the books I’m reading. It all started with my frustration around how painful it was to share the books I’d read in 2024 (see my post here). Two days ago, I shared a list of the 52 books I read in 2024, sorted by month (see my post here). Yesterday, I shared My Learning Library, a searchable list of all the books I’ve read, and I’ll update it weekly (see my post here).

Those were all lists of books, but I built something else, too. Today, I’m sharing the third part of this project: Book Profile Pages. Each book I’ve read has a dedicated page on my blog that includes a description, my notes, and other information about the book. The stories of entrepreneurs often overlap. It’s common for entrepreneurial biographies to describe deals or battles with other entrepreneurs. They also mention other books (I find most books I read this way). But it wasn’t easy for me to see those connections visually, so I built Book Profile Pages to solve this problem. It’s something I hope other people find helpful because it makes it easier for them to discover books and other information about people they’re interested in learning more about.

To see examples of book profile pages, check out the page for The Gambler, a biography about Kirk Kerkorian. This biography helped me discover another entrepreneur, Billy Wilkerson, and I read two biographies about him. Another example is A Passion to Win, the autobiography by Sumner Redstone. See the profile page for A Passion to Win here.

This is the third part of this project that I’ve shared this week, but the project isn’t done yet. I need to do more work on other parts before sharing them, which I hope will be in a few weeks. In the meantime, I hope the book profile pages and other pages I launched this week are useful!

In yesterday’s post, I shared that my 2024 reading list is live and that creating that list led to a much bigger project. I realized I don’t just want to share my reading list at the end of each year; I want to share it in real-time. I want people to know what I’m reading every week, not once a year. I want people to be able to see the personal library I’m building to help me learn.

So, today I’m sharing the second part of this project: My Learning Library. This is a searchable list of all the books I’ve read, and I’ll be updating it weekly. It includes a description of each book, my notes about it, and when I read it (some I’ve read multiple times).

If you want to see a list of the books I’ve read in 2024 and 2025, check out my learning library here!

This is the second part of a bigger project, but there’s still more that I’ll share in the coming days.

On January 3, I shared my reading stats for 2024 (see here). After I wrote that post, I realized I wanted to share a list of the individual books—and how hard it is to do that (see here). I tried creating lists in GoodReads and played with creating something in Airtable, but I didn’t like those options. I wanted something that didn’t require updating another platform and that would look good visually on my blog. So, I ended up building something, which turned into a bigger project than I’d planned for.

To create this reading list, I had to create a database with lots of details on each book. Some of that I shared here. But the thing I underestimated most was creating descriptions for each book (see here). Most of that tedious work is now done (I still have a few descriptions I need to clean up).

I’m sharing the first part of this project today: my much-promised 2024 reading list. This is a list of every book I read; it includes a description of each book, my notes on each book, and the month I read it.

So, if you’re interested in seeing the 52 books I read in 2024 and what they’re about, take a look here!

Like I said, this is just the first part of a bigger project. I’ll share the rest of it in the coming days, but hopefully this 2024 reading list will be helpful.