It's a symbolic milestone, that's it. If a company's stock keeps plunging eventually you have to decide that it's time to talk about it, having it cross the $1 threshold seems like a decent time.
It gives an excuse to make an article and recap the events that lead to this situation. As someone who didn't follow this story closely it's useful to have this bit of context.
I'm not sure what your argument is here, it seems like you don't think reverse splits have any implications or consequences for the company. You can't casually do a reverse split just to avoid being delisted. You're telling investors "we have no idea how to change direction so we're just gonna kick the can down the road for a bit". It's a really big deal, and if Blue Apron survives into 2020 it's very unlikely it will look anything like it does today.
Passing below the $1/share marker is a forcing function (i.e. it's not arbitrary at all) for the company to make significant adjustments, as opposed to the plethora of companies that trade in the $1-$10 range who can continue plodding along. BI's audience is one that's mostly aware of this fact, so that's why the article is about that "arbitrary" price marker - it's a sign of major changes incoming rapidly.
So, I guess I'm not really sure what your point is. "Just do a reverse split" is like saying "just declare bankruptcy" or "just charge more money" in that it glosses over the consequences of those actions greatly.
> You can't casually do a reverse split just to avoid being delisted.
Narrator: You can.
The point that it is a valid option and your point is that it has consequences. Not mutually exclusive.
Being punted to the Bulletin Boards or Pink Sheets has worse consequences for some of the investors who literally can't hold it anymore, thats a greater consequence than their opinion on a reverse split.
