{"id":96,"date":"2026-05-01T01:38:45","date_gmt":"2026-05-01T01:38:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/closedbid.com\/bid\/?p=96"},"modified":"2026-05-03T03:31:18","modified_gmt":"2026-05-03T03:31:18","slug":"5-acquisitions-that-looked-stupid","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/closedbid.com\/bid\/5-acquisitions-that-looked-stupid\/","title":{"rendered":"5 Acquisitions That Looked Stupid"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

5 acquisitions that looked stupid at the time and made everyone who passed look worse.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most consequential business deals in modern history share one thing: at the moment they were announced, a significant number of intelligent, well-informed people thought they were mistakes. The buyers saw something the critics didn’t. What they saw \u2014 and how they saw it \u2014 is the most useful education in acquisition intelligence available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a version of acquisition intelligence that is purely analytical \u2014 spreadsheets, multiples, EBITDA, comparable transactions. It is necessary and it is not sufficient. The five deals on this list were all supported by numbers at the time of purchase. They were also all publicly ridiculed, questioned, or dismissed by people who had access to the same numbers. The difference between the buyer and the critic was never the data. It was always the question being asked of the data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The buyer asked: what does this become? The critic asked: what is this worth right now? Those are not the same question. The five deals below are proof of the difference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Disney acquires Pixar \u2014 2006<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

$7.4 billion for a studio that had made six films. The board questioned it. The analysts questioned it. History did not.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Purchase price
$7.4 billion<\/strong><\/td>		Pixar films at time of deal
Six \u00b7 All profitable<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Frozen global box office
$1.28 billion<\/strong><\/td>		Pixar total box office since Toy Story
Over $14.7 billion<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

By 2005, Walt Disney Animation was in trouble. The studio that had produced The Lion King, Aladdin, and Beauty and the Beast had spent years struggling to repeat its own success. The films were expensive, the creative energy had drained away, and audiences had noticed. Meanwhile, Pixar \u2014 a studio Disney had co-produced films with since Toy Story in 1995 \u2014 was producing one masterpiece after another. When the distribution agreement between the two companies collapsed in 2004, Disney faced an uncomfortable reality: it needed Pixar more than Pixar needed Disney.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bob Iger had just become Disney’s CEO in October 2005. His first significant act was to call Steve Jobs and begin repairing a relationship his predecessor Michael Eisner had damaged. The two men met, visited Pixar’s Emeryville campus, and began exploring what an acquisition might look like. Jobs disclosed something that nearly ended the conversation before it began: he had been diagnosed with a recurrence of cancer, and his health was in serious jeopardy. Iger went ahead with the deal anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Disney announced the $7.4 billion acquisition of Pixar in January 2006. The reaction from analysts was skeptical \u2014 some felt Disney had overpaid significantly for a studio that had produced just six films. Even Disney’s own board and its former CEO questioned the price. John Lasseter was named chief creative officer of both Pixar and Disney Animation. Ed Catmull became president of both studios. Pixar’s culture \u2014 collaborative, filmmaker-driven, creatively autonomous \u2014 was imported into Disney rather than being absorbed and diluted by it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What followed was one of the most remarkable creative revivals in entertainment history. Under Pixar’s creative leadership, Disney Animation produced Tangled, Frozen, Zootopia, Moana, and Wreck-It Ralph. Frozen alone grossed $1.28 billion worldwide \u2014 the highest-grossing animated film at the time of its release. The Pixar deal also gave Iger the confidence and the template for his subsequent acquisitions: Marvel for $4 billion in 2009, Lucasfilm for $4.05 billion in 2012, and 20th Century Fox for $71.3 billion in 2019. Every one of those deals traces its blueprint back to the Pixar acquisition that analysts once called excessive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“Of all of them \u2014 Pixar, because it was the first. It put us on the path to achieving what I wanted to achieve, which is scale when it comes to storytelling. That was probably the best.<\/em>” \u2014 Bob Iger,<\/strong> CNBC interview, 2021.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Facebook acquires Instagram \u2014 2012<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

$1 billion for 13 employees and zero revenue. Jon Stewart mocked it on national television. It became the most profitable tech acquisition in history.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Purchase price<\/strong>
$1 billion \u00b7 Closed at $715M<\/td>		Instagram revenue today<\/strong>
Over $50 billion annually<\/td><\/tr>
Instagram employees at acquisition<\/strong>
13<\/td>		Estimated standalone value<\/strong>
$100\u2013200 billion<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Instagram had been live for eighteen months. It had thirty million users, thirteen employees, and no revenue model whatsoever when Mark Zuckerberg invited its co-founder Kevin Systrom to his home in Menlo Park in April 2012 and offered him a billion dollars in cash and stock. The two men shook hands on the deal that weekend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tech world erupted. Business analysts declared it the most reckless acquisition in tech history. Investors panicked. Jon Stewart’s Daily Show captured the prevailing sentiment with a segment that asked, sarcastically, whether the only Instagram worth a billion dollars would be one that instantly delivered a gram of cocaine. The math, as the critics saw it, was straightforward: if Flickr \u2014 the leading photo-sharing platform of its era \u2014 had sold for $35 million, how could Instagram possibly justify being worth nearly thirty times more?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the critics had missed was that mobile photography was not a slightly better version of desktop photo sharing. It was an entirely different behaviour \u2014 faster, more personal, more addictive, with a growth trajectory that made Flickr’s numbers look like a rounding error. Instagram had thirty million users at acquisition. It had two billion monthly active users a decade later and was generating over fifty billion dollars in annual revenue. The $715 million final purchase price \u2014 Facebook’s stock had declined slightly between announcement and close \u2014 produced the greatest return on an acquisition investment in the history of consumer technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“At $1 billion, Instagram was a steal and one of the smartest acquisitions ever in consumer tech.<\/em>” \u2014 TIME Magazine<\/strong>, 2016. Four years after the acquisition that Jon Stewart mocked on national television.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Google acquires YouTube \u2014 2006<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

$1.65 billion for a video platform with no profit and significant legal exposure. The price was called absurd. The alternative would have been catastrophic.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Purchase price<\/strong>
$1.65 billion in stock<\/td>		YouTube age at acquisition<\/strong>
18 months old<\/td><\/tr>
YouTube annual revenue today<\/strong>
Over $31 billion<\/td>		Monthly YouTube users today<\/strong>
Over 2.7 billion<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

YouTube was eighteen months old when Google announced it would acquire the video platform for $1.65 billion in stock in October 2006. The platform had no meaningful revenue. It had significant copyright infringement exposure \u2014 major content owners were already threatening legal action over user-uploaded material. The price was called absurd by commentators who noted that Google was paying more than a billion dollars for a company that was, at the time, primarily a repository for cat videos and home recordings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Google understood was that online video was not a niche entertainment format. It was the future of how information, entertainment, education, and advertising would be consumed \u2014 and YouTube had already won the consumer behaviour battle before the commercial model had been built. The platform had 72 hours of video being uploaded every minute by the time Google had finished integrating it. Today YouTube has over 2.7 billion monthly active users and generates over $31 billion in annual advertising revenue. The copyright exposure that terrified observers in 2006 was resolved through licensing agreements that turned content owners from litigants into partners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every competing video platform that passed on acquiring or building an equivalent in 2006 spent the following decade watching YouTube establish a dominance so complete that no well-funded challenger has meaningfully eroded it since.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Disney acquires Marvel \u2014 2009<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

$4 billion for a comic book company in the middle of a global financial crisis. The timing looked terrible. The thesis was flawless.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Purchase price<\/strong>
$4 billion<\/td>		Year of acquisition<\/strong>
2009 \u00b7 Global financial crisis<\/td><\/tr>
MCU total box office<\/strong>
Over $29 billion<\/td>		Steve Jobs’ role<\/strong>
Vouched for Disney to Marvel<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In August 2009, in the middle of the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression, Bob Iger announced that Disney would acquire Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion. The response from Wall Street was deeply uncomfortable. Paying four billion dollars for a comic book company whose characters had historically performed inconsistently on screen \u2014 and doing so while the global economy was in freefall \u2014 looked, to many observers, like precisely the wrong move at precisely the wrong time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Iger had seen \u2014 and what the Pixar acquisition had trained him to see \u2014 was not the comic books. It was the characters. Marvel owned over five thousand of them, each with decades of established mythology, passionate fan bases, and global name recognition. The Marvel Cinematic Universe, which had just launched with Iron Man in 2008, was beginning to demonstrate that these characters could be connected into something unprecedented in film: a shared narrative universe that could sustain an indefinite series of interconnected blockbusters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has since generated over $29 billion at the global box office \u2014 making it the highest-grossing film franchise in history. The $4 billion acquisition price, paid at the bottom of a financial crisis when every instinct said wait, has been described by analysts as one of the greatest bargains in entertainment history. Steve Jobs \u2014 now Disney’s largest individual shareholder following the Pixar deal \u2014 vouched for Disney when Iger approached Marvel, helping persuade the company that its characters would be treated with creative respect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Microsoft acquires LinkedIn \u2014 2016<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

$26.2 billion for a professional network that had never turned a meaningful profit. Every analyst called it overpriced. It became Microsoft’s most valuable acquisition.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Purchase price<\/strong>
$26.2 billion<\/td>		LinkedIn users at acquisition<\/strong>
433 million<\/td><\/tr>
LinkedIn annual revenue today<\/strong>
Over $16 billion<\/td>		Premium paid over market price<\/strong>
50%<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

When Microsoft announced the $26.2 billion acquisition of LinkedIn in June 2016, paying a fifty percent premium over LinkedIn’s market price, the reaction from analysts was almost uniformly sceptical. LinkedIn had never produced profits commensurate with its valuation. Its revenue growth, while respectable, did not obviously justify the price being paid. Microsoft, critics noted, had a poor track record with major acquisitions \u2014 the Nokia deal three years earlier had resulted in a $7.6 billion write-down and the elimination of eighteen thousand jobs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella understood was that LinkedIn was not primarily a social network. It was a data asset \u2014 433 million professional profiles with employment histories, skill sets, industry connections, and behavioural patterns that no other company in the world possessed at that scale. Integrated with Microsoft’s enterprise software suite \u2014 Outlook, Office, Teams, Azure \u2014 LinkedIn’s data became the connective tissue between every professional interaction Microsoft’s tools facilitated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LinkedIn today generates over $16 billion in annual revenue and is growing faster than almost any other Microsoft division. Its data infrastructure underpins Microsoft’s AI products in ways that were not fully visible at the time of acquisition. The $26.2 billion price, called excessive in 2016, now looks like the last moment LinkedIn could have been acquired before its data became truly irreplaceable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“The best acquisitions are the ones that look overpriced at the time and obvious in retrospect<\/em>.” The five deals on this list were all obvious in retrospect. None of them were obvious at the time. That gap \u2014 between what something is and what it will become \u2014 is where acquisition intelligence lives.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The pattern across all five is the same. The buyer asked a different question than the critic. The critic evaluated what the asset was worth at the moment of purchase \u2014 its current revenue, its current users, its current profitability. The buyer evaluated what the asset made possible: what behaviors it had already won, what infrastructure it had already built, what it would become when the right resources and the right strategy were applied to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most important lesson from every deal on this list is not that the buyer was smarter than the critic. It is that the buyer was asking a better question. And in acquisition intelligence, as in most things worth doing well, the quality of the question determines the quality of the outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

About The Miccoli Group<\/strong>
Maria Miccoli is also the CEO and Editor-In-Chief of\u00a0TheMiccoliGroup.com<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0and the company behind\u00a0closedbid.com\/bid<\/strong><\/a>\u2014 a sealed bid deal intelligence platform for business sales, premium domains, and specialized directories. The sealed bid auction platform\u00a0bid.closedbid.com<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>is a dedicated vertical for enterprise transactions and premium domains. For media inquiries and broker or buyer registration visit Closedbid.com\/bid\/Contact<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

5 acquisitions that looked stupid at the time and made everyone who passed look worse. The most consequential<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":97,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[34],"tags":[35,17,37,30,38,42,40,41,36,39],"class_list":["post-96","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-aquisition","tag-aquisition","tag-disney","tag-facebook","tag-google","tag-instagram","tag-linkedin","tag-marvel","tag-microsoft","tag-pixar","tag-youtube"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/closedbid.com\/bid\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/closedbid.com\/bid\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/closedbid.com\/bid\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/closedbid.com\/bid\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/closedbid.com\/bid\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=96"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/closedbid.com\/bid\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":117,"href":"https:\/\/closedbid.com\/bid\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96\/revisions\/117"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/closedbid.com\/bid\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/97"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/closedbid.com\/bid\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/closedbid.com\/bid\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/closedbid.com\/bid\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}