$3 billion is a lot to hire one person. They had to think the tech, relationships, or something there was valuable, it makes no sense as just an aquihire imo.
Jet.com had great technical execution and some interesting predictive capabilities: e.g., if a customer felt overserved and didn't want 2-day shipping or return option, then there were additional discounts that could be offered. If this could tool Walmart up to the point where it could be competitive online, then maybe it would be worth just under 1% of their almost $500BB annual revenues to buy this company.
The Resource-Process-Value framework could be a decent way to think about this[1]:
> Every time one company acquires another, it buys its resources, its
> processes and its values. Acquiring managers, therefore, need to begin by
> asking, “What is it that really made this company that I just bought so
> expensive? Did I justify the price because of its resources–its people,
> products, technology or market position? Or is a substantial portion of
> its worth created by its processes and values–its unique ways of working
> and decision making?”
3B is nothing when you are preventing competition.
But Jet can only help Walmart compete with Amazon if it has some virtues. And the point is, even if its people are great, they aren't worth $3B. If Jet's technology or brand or whatever are going to help Walmart compete with Amazon, then it's not an acquire-hire.