Francis Ford Coppola’s experience with “The Godfather” offers a valuable lesson about the nature of business success and the fallacy of penalizing size. Coppola’s recollection of the studio’s initial resistance to his vision, followed by their enthusiastic embrace after the film’s unexpected triumph, underscores a crucial point: “bigness” in business is often the result of unforeseen success, not preordained advantage. The studio executives, initially skeptical of Coppola’s choices, were ultimately proven wrong by the market’s overwhelming response. This anecdote serves as a potent counter-argument to the notion that large corporations inherently possess an unfair advantage, a perspective that often underpins antitrust actions.
The analogy to Coca-Cola, as articulated by Coppola, further solidifies this argument. If the trajectory of Coca-Cola’s success had been predictable, established businesses would have undoubtedly replicated it. The very fact that Coca-Cola became a global phenomenon speaks to the element of surprise, the unanticipated market embrace of a product that defied conventional wisdom. Similarly, “The Godfather’s” success was not a foregone conclusion. Had the studio executives, or indeed any industry experts, foreseen its impact, the bidding war for the project would have been far more intense, and Coppola’s creative control less contested. This inherent unpredictability is a defining characteristic of market dynamics, and it highlights the limitations of attempting to preemptively regulate or control the growth of businesses.
The central flaw in penalizing “bigness,” as exemplified by Lina Khan’s approach at the FTC, is the misinterpretation of its origins. Size, in many instances, is not the product of nefarious tactics or monopolistic practices, but rather the consequence of fulfilling a previously unmet consumer need or desire. Companies that achieve significant scale often do so by innovating, by taking risks that established players avoid, and by ultimately delivering products or services that resonate with the market. These “disruptors,” often starting small and facing considerable skepticism, become large precisely because they successfully challenge the status quo. Their growth is a testament to their ability to anticipate and respond to consumer demand in ways that established businesses fail to do.
The examples of Nvidia, Netflix, and Microsoft further illustrate this point. Each of these companies faced significant challenges in their early stages, with their eventual success far from guaranteed. Nvidia teetered on the brink of bankruptcy, Netflix desperately sought acquisition by Blockbuster (which was twice rejected), and Microsoft emerged from humble beginnings, defying all expectations. These narratives underscore the unpredictable nature of market success and the folly of attempting to preemptively identify and constrain potential “winners.” The very act of penalizing size can stifle innovation and discourage the kind of risk-taking that ultimately benefits consumers.
Therefore, a more nuanced approach to antitrust regulation is required, one that recognizes the dynamic nature of markets and the potential for “bigness” to emerge from genuine innovation and consumer-driven growth. Rather than focusing solely on size as a proxy for anti-competitive behavior, regulators should prioritize examining the specific actions and practices of companies, regardless of their scale. This would entail scrutinizing potential abuses of market power, such as predatory pricing or anti-competitive mergers, while simultaneously allowing for the natural expansion of businesses that achieve success through legitimate means.
In conclusion, the narrative of “The Godfather,” and the trajectories of companies like Nvidia, Netflix, and Microsoft, offer a compelling counter-narrative to the simplistic equation of size with anti-competitive behavior. These stories highlight the crucial role of innovation, risk-taking, and consumer choice in shaping market dynamics. A robust and effective antitrust policy must account for these complexities, focusing on actual anti-competitive practices rather than simply penalizing size. This approach will foster a more dynamic and competitive marketplace, ultimately benefiting consumers through greater choice, innovation, and value. By understanding the true origins of “bigness” – often rooted in unforeseen success and market disruption – regulators can create a framework that encourages innovation and protects competition without stifling the growth of companies that legitimately serve consumer needs.
