After years of using Alexa to answer questions, control smart homes, play music, and handle everyday tasks, Amazon has found a more obvious job for it. Alexa is becoming your personal shopper, meant to help you find what you need faster and get it into your cart with fewer second thoughts. Amazon is rolling out […]

It’s Day 1 of the annual cinematic marathon for the Cannes  jury weighing up the features in competition for the Palme d’Or, with 22 films to consider. Critic Emma Jones tells us more about the members of director Park Chan-wook’s jury, and we discuss the first two competition screenings: “Nagi Notes” and “A Woman’s Life”, as well as the hotly anticipated features from Asghar Farhadi, Pedro Almodovar and Cristian Mungiu.

In early 2000, with their company on the brink of failure, Netflix founders Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph flew to Dallas to meet with Blockbuster executives. As the story is told, they offered to sell their company for $50 million and got laughed out of the room. Humiliated, but determined, they built a business that toppled the industry giant. 

That version is almost certainly not true, but it remains popular with pundits who like to tell it at fancy conferences. It gets told and retold because it reinforces how we like to imagine things. Everybody loves a good “David vs. Goliath” story, and the idea of wily young entrepreneurs outsmarting big corporate fat cats fits the bill exactly.

Yet beyond the shaky facts, the underlying assumption of the fable—that Blockbuster’s fate rested solely, or even mostly, on a strategic decision made in a conference room in 2000, ten years before it went bankrupt in 2010—is absurd. A business’s fate rarely depends on a single decision made at the top, but rather on how stakeholders are aligned around change. 

What was Netflix really worth in 2000? 

Looking back now, with Netflix worth more than $400 billion, it seems incredible that Blockbuster had the opportunity to buy it for less than pennies on the dollar and passed up the chance. You can imagine them kicking themselves for having blown the opportunity. Yet Netflix in 2000 was not the business we know today.

First, the reason Hastings and Randolph had flown to Dallas in the first place was that the company was hemorrhaging money—more than $50 million that year. They still had not cracked the code on their subscription model, their algorithm to match customers with movies, or how to turn a profit. The only real asset they had was themselves, and given that they had just exited a startup recently, no one would expect them to stay on for long. 

Their original intention in going to Blockbuster wasn’t to sell the company, but to strike a deal to make Netflix Blockbuster’s Internet brand. The logic was that Netflix would get access to Blockbuster’s customer base and Blockbuster would be spared the trouble and expense of starting up their own online operation. To them, it seemed like a win-win proposition. 

Yet from Blockbuster’s perspective, the deal wasn’t at all attractive. Handing over the online business to Netflix would close off opportunities Blockbuster was already pursuing. In fact, that summer Blockbuster signed a deal with Enron to develop an online streaming service. Their fears were well-founded. When Toys-R-Us forged a similar partnership with Amazon, it proved to be a disaster for them. 

So when, out of desperation, Hastings offered to sell the company, the Blockbuster executives didn’t reject it because they didn’t see the potential, but because they judged that they could build their own operation much more cheaply than taking on huge losses for the foreseeable future and paying some Silicon Valley guys $50 million for the trouble. 

And, as it turned out, they were right. 

The road to total access—and dominance

In early 2004, Viacom announced it would spin off Blockbuster Video, leaving CEO John Antioco master of his own fate. He moved quickly to meet the threat posed by Netflix head-on, launching Blockbuster Online in 2004 and, after successfully testing the concept in a few markets, ending late fees in early 2005.

Still, not satisfied with playing catch-up, Antioco searched for a model that would return his company to dominance. He found it in 2006 with the Total Access program, a hybrid offering that combined the convenience of online rentals with Blockbuster’s enormous network of retail locations. Customers could rent in stores or online for one monthly price.

It was a masterstroke—an offer that Netflix couldn’t match.

As Gina Keating reported in her book, Netflixed, before Total Access, Netflix was winning 70% of new subscribers and Blockbuster 30%. Within weeks of the launch, that had flipped: Blockbuster was now winning 70% to the startup’s 30%. Now, Netflix was on the ropes. If it couldn’t maintain its growth rates, its stock price would drop and put its financing in jeopardy.

It seemed that Antioco, who had established an impressive track record for turning around retail operations, had done it again. It was strategic jujitsu, turning what was perceived as a weakness—its brick-and-mortar stores—into a sustainable competitive advantage. Blockbuster was heading into 2007 poised to regain dominance in the video rental industry. 

How it all unravelled

Despite the progress, not everybody was thrilled with the moves Antioco and his team made. Franchisees, many of whom had their life savings invested in their businesses, were suspicious of Blockbuster Online. They only owned 20% of the stores, but could still cause a stir. The moves were also expensive, costing roughly $400 million to implement, and investors balked.

So while Blockbuster was making progress against the Netflix threat, as earnings turned to losses, its stock took a beating. The low price attracted corporate raider Carl Icahn, whose heavy-handed style made managing the company difficult. Things came to a head in late 2006 when Icahn demanded that Antioco accept only half of the bonus he was owed.

“I was at a point, both personally and financially, that I had little desire to fight it out anymore,” Antioco told me. He negotiated his exit early the next year and left the company in July 2007. His successor, Jim Keyes, was determined to reverse Antioco’s strategy, cut investment in the subscription model, reinstate late fees, and shift the focus back to the retail stores.

When Blockbuster declared bankruptcy in 2010, the event was portrayed as corporate America’s inability to navigate digital disruption. Yet, as we have seen, nothing could be further from the truth. The management team came up with a viable strategy, executed it well, and proved they could compete, yet still were unable to survive that victory.

As it turns out, change from the top can fail just as easily as anything else.

Leveraging power for change

We like to think of the big guys at the top getting fat and lazy. The story of Netflix upending Blockbuster is so appealing because it plays to those biases. It’s reassuring to believe that people get disrupted by not paying attention and making poor decisions because that means that we can avoid their fate with a modicum of awareness and intelligence.

Yet the far more disturbing reality is that the Blockbuster leadership team was not stupid or lazy. In fact, they were innovative, made good strategic decisions, and executed them skillfully. If not for a seemingly minor compensation dispute, things could very easily have turned out differently. I think the key to understanding what happened is something Antioco told me about an earlier initiative when I interviewed him for my book, Cascades. 

“The experienced video executives were skeptical. In fact, they thought that the revenue-sharing agreement would kill the company. But throughout my career, I had learned that whenever you set out to do anything big, some people aren’t going to like it. I’d been successful by defying the status quo at important junctures and that’s what I thought had to be done in this case.”

In other words, over the years he had been put in positions of authority and was able to implement changes and deliver results fast enough that he was able to overpower any resistance. Yet in Blockbuster’s battle for survival with Netflix, key stakeholders—namely franchisees and shareholders—defected, and the floor fell out from under him. 

Antioco had all the formal authority he needed to deliver genuine transformation. But it was his inability to manage and align stakeholders that led to Blockbuster’s demise. The truth is that change isn’t top-down, nor is it bottom up. It propagates through networks.

Ten countries, including favourite Finland and controversial competitor Israel, secured places on Tuesday in the final of the Eurovision Song Contest. The contest’s 70th anniversary edition has been overshadowed by divisions, with five countries — Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Iceland — boycotting in protest against Israel’s war in Gaza, which has killed at least 75,000 Palestinians since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel. For more, FRANCE 24’s Nadia Massih is joined by renowned Israeli singer Noa, who previously represented Israel at Eurovision in 2009 alongside Mira Awad, a Palestinian citizen of Israel. Noa has frequently used her platform to speak out against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in both the occupied West Bank and Gaza.

WhatsApp now has a private incognito mode for Meta AI chats, where messages disappear and even Meta cannot read your conversations with the assistant.

Mapped: Where Young Americans Earn the Most

See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.

Young Americans earn far more in some states than others.

Using the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, this map shows the median household income for Americans ages 25–44 across all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

Massachusetts ranks first at $123.2K, followed closely by Washington, D.C. and New Jersey. At the other end, Mississippi ranks last at $66K, meaning young households in Massachusetts earn about 87% more.

But higher income does not always mean greater financial comfort. Many of the highest-earning states also have some of the country’s steepest housing and living costs.

Young Americans Earn the Most in Coastal States

The top 10 states show a clear pattern: young households tend to earn the most in places with large metro economies, high education levels, and concentrations of high-wage industries.

Rank	State	Median Household Income 2024 (Ages 25-44)
1	Massachusetts	$123,206
2	District of Columbia	$122,917
3	New Jersey	$118,481
4	New Hampshire	$114,924
5	Washington	$112,374
6	California	$110,732
7	Colorado	$109,174
8	Maryland	$108,041
9	Connecticut	$105,621
10	Utah	$101,756
11	New York	$101,393
12	Minnesota	$101,311
13	Virginia	$101,267
14	Alaska	$101,155
15	Hawaii	$101,085
16	Oregon	$98,287
17	Vermont	$97,695
18	Delaware	$96,154
19	Rhode Island	$95,063
20	Maine	$93,626
21	Illinois	$92,743
22	North Dakota	$92,180
23	Idaho	$92,066
24	Arizona	$91,212
25	Wisconsin	$91,202
26	Pennsylvania	$90,401
27	Nebraska	$88,672
28	Montana	$88,441
29	Nevada	$87,394
30	Kansas	$87,035
31	Georgia	$86,411
32	Florida	$85,890
33	Iowa	$85,436
34	Texas	$85,373
35	North Carolina	$84,527
36	Wyoming	$84,372
37	South Dakota	$84,351
38	Missouri	$82,996
39	Ohio	$82,241
40	Michigan	$82,236
41	South Carolina	$82,010
42	Tennessee	$81,377
43	Indiana	$80,602
44	Kentucky	$77,680
45	Alabama	$75,634
46	New Mexico	$75,190
47	Oklahoma	$74,976
48	West Virginia	$73,003
49	Arkansas	$71,747
50	Louisiana	$70,700
51	Mississippi	$65,978
—	U.S. State Average	$91,928

In Massachusetts, the median household income for Americans ages 25–44 is $123.2K, likely driven by its highly educated workforce. Washington, D.C. also ranks near the top at $122.9K, alongside Washington ($112.4K) and California ($110.7K).

Overall, eight of the top 10 states are located on either the East or West Coast. Mountain West states like Colorado ($109.2K) and Utah ($101.8K) also rank highly, reflecting the growth of tech, professional services, and other high-wage industries.

At the other end of the spectrum, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and West Virginia report the country’s lowest median incomes for young households, all below $72K. These states generally have lower concentrations of high-wage industries and lower rates of bachelor’s degree attainment.

High Salaries, High Living Costs

But higher incomes do not always translate into greater financial comfort.

Several of the top-ranked states, including Massachusetts, California, and New Jersey, also have some of America’s highest housing costs. In many large coastal metros, rising rents, childcare expenses, and home prices absorb a substantial share of household earnings.

While Massachusetts households earn the most, a median family of four retains just 16% of its paycheck after major expenses, compared to the U.S. average of 24.7%. By comparison, households in states such as Iowa and South Dakota keep roughly 35%.

That dynamic helps explain why many younger Americans continue relocating to lower-cost states in the South and Mountain West, even if salaries are lower on paper. Ultimately, the best-paying states are not always the easiest places to get ahead. For many young households, the question is whether higher salaries are enough to offset housing, childcare, and everyday costs.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on where wealth is moving in America.

Cinemark is giving customers a break at the box office this summer. The movie chain that operates over 300 theaters in the U.S. just announced it’s offering a major deal on tickets as part of its Summer Movie Clubhouse program.

The program, which kicks off on May 13, will bring a series of family-friendly films to 285 Cinemark theaters across the country. Showings will run from June 1 through August 6, but tickets are already available on Cinemark.com, in the app, and at participating box offices. 

The price for tickets? Just $1.75. 

“We continue to see that younger audiences treasure the shared, immersive experience of going to the movies, and Cinemark is thrilled to nurture that excitement with our annual Summer Movie Clubhouse,” Wanda Gierhart Fearing, Cinemark Chief Marketing and Content Officer, said in a press release. 

Gierhart Fearing continued, “This program gives families an affordable, easy way to enjoy beloved films together and build the kind of memories that turn today’s young movie fans into lifelong moviegoers.”

In order to catch one of the showings, you’ll have to check out the specific times at your local theater, but according to Cinemark, most will be shown on Wednesday mornings. Some of the films being offered are Dog Man, Paddington, Bad Guys 2, as well as other family favorites.

It’s not just the price of tickets that are being slashed, though. The chain is also offering deals on snacks and sodas, “including $1.00 off snack packs and $1.00 off popcorn-and-drink combos of any size.”

Going to the movies can be a pretty pricey venture. With tickets in some locations costing up to around $20, buying passes for an entire family is unaffordable for many. With that in mind, Cinemark’s offering makes the proposition a bit more affordable for families looking for a summer activity.

For more information on the Summer Movie Clubhouse and to purchase tickets, movie-goers can visit Cinemark.com/summer-movie-clubhouse or download the Cinemark app.