« January 2008 | Main | March 2008 »

Posts from February 2008

ABC thinks you're an idiot

Feb 25, 2008 TrackBacks (1)

From well-regarded television industry journalist and future blogger Bill Carter:

Looking to strike a blow against the proliferation of digital video recorders, the ABC network, its affiliated broadcast stations, and Cox Communications’ cable systems are establishing an on-demand video service that would allow viewers to watch ABC shows like “Lost†and “Desperate Housewives†any time they choose.

The catch: It uses a new technology that disables the viewers’ ability to fast-forward through commercials...

Several executives involved in the project, which ABC plans to offer to other cable systems around the country, said the move was an overt attempt to staunch the use of DVRs like TiVo, which viewers often use to avoid commercials. That activity is increasingly seen as threat to broadcast television, which depends on ad revenue to pay for programs.

“This does counter the DVR,†said Anne Sweeney, the president of the Disney-ABC television group. “You don’t need TiVo if you have fast-forward-disabled video on demand..."

Ray Cole, president of Citadel Communications, which owns three local ABC stations, who is also the chairman of the board of affiliated ABC stations, was even more direct about the goal of the new service.

“As network and affiliates, we both have an interest in slowing down the explosive growth of DVRs,†Mr. Cole said. “This is about combating DVRs. As we developed this at every stage, there was an agreement that however we put this together, disabling the fast-forward function was key.â€

A pictorial representation of ABC's view of you, the viewer:

[image]

Link: What an ABC executive visualizes when she thinks of you.

Blogging break cont'd

Feb 25, 2008 TrackBacks (0)

I've been knocked squarely off the blogging saddle; back in a bit...

Irony is dead, last gasp of newspaper industry edition

Feb 17, 2008 TrackBacks (0)

February 2008:

Four large newspaper companies are joining forces to sell advertisements on the Internet, hoping that the combined heft of their Web sites will encourage large advertisers to spend more money.

Each of the four companies — the Tribune Company, the Gannett Company, the Hearst Corporation and The New York Times Company — is transferring a portion of its online ad space to quadrantONE, a new company that will be announced Friday.

The purpose of the joint venture, which will be based in Chicago and will hire 17 people [commitment!], is to let national advertisers place ads on local Web sites with a single phone call [phone call!].

The sites belong to papers like The Los Angeles Times (which is a Tribune property), The Des Moines Register (Gannett), The Houston Chronicle (Hearst) and The Boston Globe (The New York Times Company).

Some of the companies’ flagship sites, however, will not be included, because they are not considered local. These include the sites of USA Today, a Gannett paper, and of The New York Times and The International Herald Tribune, which are owned by the Times Company. [These are also known as the ones that actually have reasonable numbers of readers.]

Executives involved said the newspaper companies understand [by which they mean, "used to have a local monopoly but don't anymore"] the local market better than Google, Yahoo and Microsoft...

The companies were also all part of the New Century Network in the late 1990s...

Source: New York Times.

March 1998:

[W]hen New Century Network was kicked off last April by nine [newspaper] giants teaming up to conquer electronic competition, even the launch party bombed...

In a ballroom at the Newspaper Association of America convention in Chicago, a thousand bottles of champagne emblazoned with ''New Century Network: The Collective Intelligence of America's Newspapers'' awaited the hordes expected to come to toast the watershed new-media joint venture. When fewer than 100 people showed up, Chief Executive Lee de Boer made an abbreviated speech before retreating...

The reception was the first public humiliation for New Century Network, but only one in a series of blunders that culminated in the company's abrupt shutdown on Mar. 10. Created in 1995 to unite newspapers against Microsoft Corp. and other competitors girding to woo electronically advertisers and readers, New Century Network came to embody everything that could go wrong when old-line newspapers converge with new media...

Started with $1 million each from Knight-Ridder, Tribune, Times Mirror, Advance Publications, Cox Enterprises, Gannett, Hearst, Washington Post, and New York Times, New Century seemed an entrepreneurial dream. The Internet had just opened to the world, creating vast new competition for readers--and for the advertisers that pump $40 billion into newspapers. But it also gave newspapers a chance to capture national accounts that favored the one-stop-shopping convenience of TV and national magazines...

[T]he [newspaper] companies had wildly diverging philosophies about how newspapers should make the electronic leap and what role the new venture should play. ''You had private companies and public companies and companies that were risk-averse and those that were risk-tolerant,'' says Harry Chandler, head of new media for Los Angeles Times. ''You had big-city papers and small chains. We shared a need. But it was frustrating trying to come together.''

While the wired world moved at warp speed, New Century spent 18 months hiring a permanent ceo and two years creating an electronic doorway to 140 newspapers... ''This [Internet] thing is really racing,'' says Al Sikes, the former Federal Communications Commissioner who is president of Hearst New Media. ''Organizations of a number of co-equals can't turn on a dime.''...

The partners ultimately invested more than $25 million in the virtual venture... The board decided... to pull the plug, coming to a remarkably quick agreement--for the first and final time...

Source: Business Week.

Andy Kaufman lives!

Feb 16, 2008 TrackBacks (0)

It's not me, I swear...

Some big companies have had a surprise during their earnings conference calls this quarter...

At least seven times just the past three weeks, a mystery caller has cleverly insinuated himself into the normally well-manicured ritual of the quarterly calls...

"Congratulations on the solid numbers -- you always seem to come through in challenging times," he said to Leo Kiely, president and chief executive officer of Molson Coors Brewing Co., on Feb. 12, convincingly parroting the obsequious banter common to the calls. "Can you provide some more color as to what you are doing for your supply chain initiatives to reduce manufacturing costs per hectoliter, as you originally promised $150 million in synergy or savings to decrease working capital?"

...[M]any CEO's have had... trouble telling the difference. Most have gamely tried to answer the questions. Mr. Kiely and two other Molson executives stuck politely with the caller through three detailed follow-ups. Timothy Wolf, the company's global chief financial officer, closed by telling him, "We think we will have some more positive encouraging things to share with you next month in New York," according to a transcript of the call...

Executives at PepsiCo Inc., Dean Foods Co., Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and others have had similar experiences since around mid-January...

[A]nnoyed executives and analysts are wondering why someone would want to play a game with dry business calls that normally follow a tightly controlled formula -- unless the game is the whole point. They can't figure out how the caller is getting any benefit from so closely mimicking them. "If he was spoofing I would hope he'd be funnier," says Bill Schmitz, an analyst at Deutsche Bank Securities.

[Mr. Schmitz has perhaps not been listening to the usual questions on such calls all that carefully.]

"Our quarterly earnings calls are key opportunities to [sic] us to interact with the investment community and to explain our results," says a Newell Rubbermaid spokesman, David Doolittle. "Anyone who would come on the call and use some of that time unproductively is disruptive."

[Mr. Doolittle then threatened to spank the mystery caller with a Newell Rubbermaid spatula.]

Source: Wall Street Journal.

Temporary blogging break

Feb 14, 2008 TrackBacks (0)

Buried up to my upper extremities at work; back in a bit...

Winning friends and influencing US legislators, Huawei edition

Feb 11, 2008 TrackBacks (0)

The Chinese company participating in the planned buy-out of a US telecoms equipment maker has angrily rounded on US politicians who claim the deal could endanger US national security.

Xu Zhijun, chief marketing officer at Huawei Technologies, told the Financial Times that the concerns expressed by some US lawmakers were "bullshit".

Source: Financial Times.

Deutsche Bank CEO: We're screwed, but we're just fine

Feb 7, 2008 TrackBacks (0)

Deutsche Bank Chief Executive Officer Josef Ackermann said rating downgrades for bond insurers [and the presumed resulting collapse in prices of bonds insured by those insurers] pose risks that could match the U.S. subprime market collapse.

"It could be a tsunami-like event comparable to subprime," Ackermann said in a Bloomberg Television interview in Frankfurt today.

Deutsche Bank, Germany's biggest bank, is "well positioned" on its risk from bond insurers, he said.

Mmmm hmmmmmmm.

Source: Bloomberg.

The Titanic reports on the iceberg

Feb 7, 2008 TrackBacks (0)

New York Times:

In just the last few weeks, The San Diego Union-Tribune eliminated more than 100 jobs, one-tenth of its work force. The Chicago Sun-Times began a major round of newsroom layoffs, then put itself up for sale, and publishers in Minneapolis and Philadelphia warned that tough economics could force cuts there.

Not long ago, news like that would have drawn much commentary and hand-wringing in the newspaper business, but in the last few months, reductions have become so routine that they barely make a ripple outside each paper’s hometown. Since mid-2007, major downsizing — often coupled with grim financial reports — has been imposed at The San Francisco Chronicle, The Seattle Times, The San Jose Mercury News, USA Today and many others.

The talk of newspapers’ demise is older than some of the reporters who write about it, but what is happening now is something new, something more serious than anyone has experienced in generations. Last year started badly and ended worse, with shrinking profits and tumbling stock prices, and 2008 is shaping up as more of the same, prompting louder talk about a dark turning point.

“I’m an optimist, but it is very hard to be positive about what’s going on,†said Brian P. Tierney, publisher of The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Philadelphia Daily News. “The next few years are transitional, and I think some papers aren’t going to make it.â€

Advertising, the source of more than 80 percent of newspaper revenue, traditionally rose and fell with the overall economy. But in the last 12 to 18 months, that link has been broken, and executives do not expect to be able to repair it completely anytime soon.

In 2007, combined print and online ad revenue fell about 7 percent. In the last six decades, only one other year — 2001, when there was a recession — had a steeper decline, according to the Newspaper Association of America. Adjusted for inflation, 2007 ad revenue was more than 20 percent below its peak in 2000.

Circulation revenue has declined steadily since 2003, and the number of copies sold has been slipping about 2 percent a year. Some of the largest papers — including The San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Globe and The Los Angeles Times — have lost 30 to 40 percent of their circulation in just a few years.

The long-term shift of advertising to the Internet — especially classified ads for things like jobs, cars and houses — accelerated last year. The real estate downturn hit the newspaper business hard, especially in California and Florida, where real estate ads fell more than 20 percent at some newspapers...

Critics of the industry — including many executives within it [and the occasional blogger] — say that newspapers have done a poor job adapting to the Internet and working creatively and aggressively to sell ads.

Mr. Tierney agrees, “but you could change that and still be sliding,†he said. “When everyone’s taking on water, you can’t expect to stay dry — only less wet.â€

That is in sharp contrast to his tone in 2006, when he led a group of investors who paid $515 million for the two Philadelphia papers. Back then, Mr. Tierney dismissed the industry’s gloomy talk, expressing confidence that it could win back paying readers and advertisers...

Falling stock prices made newspapers look like tempting targets to some buyers in 2006 and early 2007, but even then, the prices of the transactions that did take place were seen as inflated, and there was little interest from other potential bidders. McClatchy bought the Knight Ridder chain, and the News Corporation bought Dow Jones & Company, publisher of The Wall Street Journal. Many papers were sold in smaller deals, including the Philadelphia dailies, The San Jose Mercury News and The Star Tribune of Minneapolis.

Share prices have continued to fall since then, and analysts think they will go lower still. But since last spring, the supply of buyers seems to have dried up...

I mean, really, who needs fiction?

Feb 7, 2008

All you need to do is read the latest Societe Generale headlines!

Société Générale says it lost 4.9 billion Euros ($7.17 billion) at the hands of 31-year-old trader Jérôme Kerviel. Now, the embattled French bank could face another financial hit -- this time from the tax man.

As they pore over the trades, financial books and mobile-phone records of Mr. Kerviel, Société Générale officials have discovered that the trader booked a real gain for the bank of €1.4 billion by the end of last year...

That profit now "is subject to corporate tax," according to one person close to the bank. "We will argue against it, but fiscal authorities will want their share," this person said...

When it announced the world's biggest trading loss on Jan. 24, Société Générale said that Mr. Kerviel for several months had engaged in risky and fraudulent trading that at one point had left the bank exposed by 50 billion Euros. The bank at that time said that Mr. Kerviel's trading positions had fluctuated and that as of late last year, his portfolio showed a "virtual" gain of 1.4 billion Euros.

The bank said it hadn't noticed the gain because the trader had hidden it by creating a set of fake positions that generated a 1.4 billion Euros loss.

Now, however, officials have discovered that as of the end of last year, Mr. Kerviel had unwound almost all of his trading positions -- and in fact had locked in a real gain of 1.4 billion Euros for the bank...

Source: Wall Street Journal.

Department of split-second golden ages, Henry Kravis edition

Feb 6, 2008

Bloomberg, July 2 2007:

In April [2007], [buyout mogul Henry Kravis] stood in a ballroom of the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in New York, telling [people] that the private equity industry he had helped invent was hotter than ever.

"We're in, right now, the golden age," Kravis, 63, told a gathering of prominent... executives.

In May, Kravis was in Halifax, Nova Scotia, saying, again, that the takeover arena had never looked better.

"The private equity world is in its golden era right now," Kravis told a conference of bankers and investors. "The stars are aligned."

Wall Street Journal, February 6 2008:

A new problem is rippling through credit markets: Many of the corporate loans used to finance giant buyouts in the past few years are reeling in secondary market trading...

The loans of First Data Corp., which was taken private in September by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. for about $28 billion, were sold into the market this past fall at a 4% discount to their par value; they now trade in the market at a steep 11.5% discount to par value...

Loans of Freescale Semiconductor Inc., taken private by a consortium of private-equity firms in December 2006 for about $28 billion, are trading at a 15.5% discount to their original value; Tribune Co., which was taken private in April by investor Sam Zell for $8.2 billion, issued loans now trading a 26% discount...

The loans are known by investors as "leveraged loans," used by companies often with low credit ratings to raise money, often for buyouts...

Double-digit declines in the market value of these loans are very unusual, and a big problem for many banks, which sit on a pipeline of $152 billion in loans that they have promised to make but have yet to sell to investors.

With the prices of existing loans tumbling, investors have little incentive to buy new loans unless they are sold at steep discounts, something banks are reluctant to do...

The crisis started last summer, when investors turned up their noses at billions of dollars in buyout debt, just after many buyout firms and their bankers made commitments to history-making megadeals. Many investors say January was the worst performance for this market since those summer months...

The saga of Harrah's Entertainment Inc.'s loan sale is a sign of the distress in the market. Credit Suisse broke from a group of banks lined up to sell $7.25 billion in loans tied to Harrah's buyout. It offloaded its commitment of about $1 billion through derivatives transactions in December, says a person briefed on the transaction. The move sent other banks scrambling to sell some of their own Harrah's loan commitments in January...

Last week a Lehman Brothers-led group abandoned its three-week effort to sell CDW Corp.'s $2.2 billion loan to buyers. The deal failed to generate interest even though they were offering to sell the loans in the low 90s. In October, Madison Dearborn Partners LLC and Providence Equity Partners acquired CDW, one of the country's largest technology-equipment resellers, for $7.3 billion.

Silicon Valley after a Microsoft/Yahoo merger: a contrarian view

Feb 4, 2008

This post is not about the potential Microsoft/Yahoo merger.

Instead, let's just assume for the moment that Microsoft succeeds in its bid for Yahoo.

What would a Microsoft/Yahoo merger mean for startups in Silicon Valley?

Some smart people whom I respect a great deal believe that a Microsoft/Yahoo merger would be bad for Silicon Valley startups.

Says Bill Burnham, for example: "By swallowing up Yahoo, Microsoft will be removing one of the biggest and most active acquirors of start-ups in Silicon Valley... [making] M&A less competitive in general and [reducing] the # of potential exits... [which is] bad news for Internet [startups] and their VC backers anyway you look at it."

I respectfully disagree; I think that a Microsoft/Yahoo merger would have practically no impact on any high-quality Silicon Valley startup.

And here's why:

First, Yahoo has simply not been all that active in buying Silicon Valley Internet startups -- nor, for that matter, has Microsoft and Google -- contrary to popular perception.

Since Terry Semel's arrival as CEO, and continuing since his departure, Yahoo has become quite conservative when it comes to buying startups.

Yahoo only bought a relative handful of companies in 2007. The big ones were Right Media and Blue Lithium in the advertising space -- where Yahoo was highly motivated to make progress -- and Zimbra in the email space. The small number of other acquisitions (three in the US, I believe -- Mybloglog, Rivals, and Buzztracker) were tiny enough that Yahoo didn't even have to disclose the purchase prices.

Similarly, Microsoft bought surprisingly few companies in 2007. aQuantive was the big dog, and Microsoft was similarly motivated by a high degree of urgency to get on the advertising bus. Apart from that, you're looking at a very small number of very small deals, such as Screentronic and Jellyfish -- fine companies, I am sure, but tiny deals.

And even Google, which did more deals than Microsoft and Yahoo combined in 2007, only did a coule of sizeable ones -- Doubleclick (again that advertising thing), and Postini in email. And, Feedburner got a fine exit from Google given that it hadn't raised much equity funding. But most of the other companies Google bought largely to acquire engineers, and perhaps nascent products that hadn't yet shipped -- not doubles or triples or even necessarily singles from the perspective of venture-funded Valley startups.

Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google are only buying a relatively small number of smaller companies at all today -- so given that, taking Yahoo, or even Microsoft for that matter, out of the M&A races isn't going to reduce the number of deals going down each year by very much.

Second, the spectrum of companies that are doing Internet M&A is surprisingly broad, and, drawing from lists of deals from just 2005-2007, includes names like:

Akamai Amazon American Greetings AOL CBS Cisco CNet Comcast Digital River Disney eBay Expedia HP IAC Jupiter Media Liberty Media Marchex MercadoLibre Monster Motricity NBC Universal New York Times News Corp Omniture Priceline Publicis Real Sabre Scripps Shutterfly Sony Valueclick Viacom WPP

So the base of buyers for Internet startups is considerably more diversified than you might think.

Third, consider what's likely to happen next.

Many of the traditional media companies -- in the US and overseas -- are looking at their core businesses today and seeing either rapid or imminent deterioration. This is certainly true for television, radio, music, newspapers, and magazines, and quite possibly also true for movies (given the decline in ticket sales and the recent apparent stalling out of the DVD market). And this is also true -- or will be true -- for a pretty broad range of various other businesses that are getting touched by the Internet.

For historical reasons -- skepticism about the potential of the Internet, combined with the false hope presented to many traditional businesses by the dot com crash of 2000-2002 -- many of these traditional companies are not yet appropriately positioned for an Internet-dominated future.

And now, if the Microsoft/Yahoo deal does go through, those same companies in many cases will be looking down a very scary double-barreled shotgun of an ascendant Google and an armored-up Microsoft, aimed right at their lunch, if you know what I mean.

I'm pretty confident guessing that the level of concern and even panic among many traditional companies -- particularly media companies -- is only going to escalate from here, as traditional non-Internet businesses in various sectors deteriorate and consumers continue moving en masse to the Internet.

And from there, it's not hard to guess that Internet M&A is likely to heat up considerably over the next several years, compared to the last several years, across a very interesting and surprisingly diverse cross-section of buyers.

Fourth, new buyers appear on a regular basis.

It wasn't that long ago that Google would not have gone on anyone's list as a significant buyer of other companies.

In the meantime, Facebook has emerged as a company with considerable financial firepower and is already starting to do M&A.

If past is prologue, several new buyers of one form or another will pop up over the next five years, and one or two of them will probably be on the "top buyers" list in 2010 or 2012 -- when you'd be selling a company you start today -- even though we probably haven't even heard their names yet.

Think also about the telecom companies, the mobile carriers, the Japanese consumer electronics companies, the Korean conglomerates, the mobile handset makers -- Nokia is ramping up their Internet M&A efforts right now, European media companies... not to mention the Chinese Internet companies. Any of these could emerge as meaningful buyers of Silicon Valley Internet companies of various forms in the years ahead.

After all, in a world where Cisco is buying social networking startups, anything is possible.

Fifth, building your startup with a goal of getting acquired is foolishness anyway, in my opinion. Smart people disagree with me on this, but I'll make my case in two points:

Big companies don't want to buy startups that want to get bought. Instead, big companies buy startups that have built something of value that they decide is important to them. You can't possibly guess what things of value big companies are going to want to own in one or two or three years. The world is changing too fast -- witness the Microsoft hostile bid for Yahoo itself! -- and besides, big companies are Moby Dick and you can't understand the reasoning behind their decisions anyway.

Combine those two points with the fact that no big company buys that many startups each year anyway, and it's easy to see that the odds of you successfully anticipating something that a big company is going to want in the future and then actually selling your company to them -- as your strategy -- is a very risky proposition that is highly prone to failure.

And in fact, in my experience, most startups that start with the goal of getting bought, fail.

The formula for success in startups is the same today as it's always been, and it will be the same post-Microsoft/Yahoo:

Build something of value -- something that people want, and something that will be profitable at the appropriate point -- and the world is yours.

Successful companies -- companies that have built something of value -- have many options. They can stay private and throw off dividends. They can go public. They can get acquired by big companies who suddenly decide, hey, that looks really valuable, let's buy that. They can sell minority stakes to big investors or strategic partners at very high valuations. All options that are typically not open to the startup that started with the goal of getting bought and didn't build something of independent value.

Or, reduced to a phrase: the best way to get bought is to not be for sale.

Because of this, even if Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google stopped doing M&A completely, the strategy of any high-quality startup in the valley would not change one bit.

Sixth, I believe that a Microsoft/Yahoo merger would actually be a net positive for many high-quality Silicon Valley Internet startups, for a completely different reason.

Again, suppose the takeover bid succeeds. You're looking at probably a year of government approvals, followed by at least a year of integration.

You can't speed up the first part, because that's up to the government, and they don't react well when you scream "hurry up!" at them. And you don't want to speed up the second part, because integrating two companies of the scale and scope of Microsoft and Yahoo is an absolutely enormous undertaking and you want to make sure you do it right, or you're not going to get any of the benefits.

In practice, that will be two years in which both Microsoft and Yahoo will most likely be considerably less aggressive on rolling out new products and new initiatives -- because the key people at both companies will be consumed with the merger.

And, just think, if they are buying fewer companies as a consequence, that also means they're less likely to buy one of your competitors and come after you while you are building your thing of value.

I think this merger, if it happens, will help clear the field for a whole new generation of Silicon Valley Internet startups to create and scale the next set of killer consumer services that will go mainstream and be used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

Where does that leave us?

The Microsoft/Yahoo deal, if it happens, means very little for the entrepreneurial climate in Silicon Valley, or the opportunities available to you and your startup.

Your job is exactly the same as before: build something people want, scale it up, make sure it's defensible, and make sure you can make money with it.

Build a company you are proud of.

If you do those things, you'll do just fine; if you don't, neither Microsoft nor Yahoo nor any other big company were going to rescue you anyway.

Nobody ever said this was easy, but in a world moving this fast and this much in flux, it certainly is fun!

Inaugurating the New York Times Deathwatch

Feb 2, 2008

[With apologies in advance to Martin Nisenholtz, who I believe is genuinely fighting the good fight, and who will no doubt end up with a great job at some fine Internet company.]

The hiring of Bill Kristol was the last straw.

I can't take it anymore.

I hereby inaugurate my New York Times Deathwatch, which will continue until the last Sulzberger has left the building.

Recent dispatches that are fit to print:

Leading the way [in terrible end-of-year news from the newspaper industry] was The New York Times Company, where total [quarterly] revenues fell 1.7% to $865.8 million, due mostly to a 4.1% drop in ad revenues... Advertising revenues at the news media group in particular fell 5.6%.

Source: Media Daily News.

Actually, that's being perhaps overly fair, since it takes into account an extra week last year. The straight year over year performance was:

[F]ourth-quarter revenue totaled $865.8 million, down 7.1% from $931.5 million a year earlier. The decline included a 9.1% drop in advertising revenue and a 4% fall in circulation revenue... [T]he company had an extra week in the final quarter of 2006, which boosted the year-earlier quarter's revenue by $50.8 million and its pretax income by $14.3 million.

Yes, we are dealing with a business where missing a single week means the difference between revenue falling 1.7% and 7.1%, and advertising revenue falling 4.1% and 9.1%. Go figure.

Source: Forbes.

Now, normally, beating up on someone like this isn't very much fun. But we are talking about a profession that specializes in passing judgment, often snide, on everyone else. And so, onward...

Turns out that December 2007 was particularly bad, and things may be getting even worse:

Separately, the [New York Times] reported that December ad revenue dropped 25.2%. Excluding an additional week in December 2006, ad revenue declined 12% for the month.

...[W]eakness across several national [advertising] categories including health care, books, technology products and transportation hampered results in the month. Classified ads, the traditional lifeblood of newspapers, saw steep declines in help-wanted, real estate and automotive sales. [Craig, you bad bad boy...]

"To date in January, the percentage decline in advertising revenue is trending similar to that of December..." said Janet Robinson, chief executive of New York Times...

As they say, sometimes it's darkest right before it goes pitch black.

Source: Marketwatch.

How are the company's other papers doing?

The [New York Times-owned] Boston Globe will soon announce cutbacks at the newspaper, including hundreds of layoffs, and an increase in the per copy price of the paper to 75 cents as of Feb. 1...

The Globe saw a nearly 7 percent decrease — from 386,417 to 360,695 — in its daily circulation between Sept. 2006 and Sept. 2007, according to numbers released in November by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. That report showed the paper’s Sunday circulation down about 6.5 percent...

When you have an obsolete, inconvenient physical product that nobody wants in an era of universal online access, the appropriate strategy is clearly to raise the price.

Source: Metro Boston, which amusingly itself is 49 percent owned by the Boston Globe, which is owned by the New York Times.

How about revenue at the Globe?

At the New England Media Group, which includes the Boston Globe, ad revenue fell nearly 16%. Circulation revenue fell 7%.

Source: Marketwatch.

How about the company's smaller newspapers?

The company's regional-media group, including papers in medium-sized markets such as Wilmington, N.C., and Santa Rosa, Calif., saw ad revenue decline almost 17%, while circulation fell 7.4%.

Source: Marketwatch.

Meanwhile, the Times faces its second assault from a major hedge fund in the last two years:

A hedge fund manager who acquired a stake in the New York Times Company and is pushing to gain seats on its board sent a letter to the company on Sunday in which he criticised directors as "ineffective" and called for it to shed more non-core assets.

Scott Galloway, founder of Firebrand Capital, who sent the letter, has joined with another hedge fund, Harbinger, to try to put forward their own nominees for the four independent seats on the media company's 13-member board at its meeting in April. The funds have amassed a combined 4.9 per cent stake in Times' shares.

Source: Financial Times.

An ineffective board? What could they be talking about?

[image]

Hmmmmm. That's not the direction you want to see those things go.

Well, given that the Internet is the central force dismantling the company's business, I'm sure that by now they've stocked their board with noted Internet experts. Let's see:

Brenda C. Barnes -- CEO of Sara Lee; noted snack cake expert Raul E. Cesan -- former CEO of Schering-Plough; noted Levitra expert Daniel H. Cohen -- president of DeepSee LLC, "an oceanic exploration and submarine leasing company"; noted Jacques Cousteau expert Lynn G. Dolnick -- former head of exhibits for the National Zoologic Park in Washington DC; noted marsupial expert Michael Golden -- current publisher of the International Herald Tribune; former head of the company's Women's Publishing Division; noted sundress expert William E. Kennard -- former head of the FCC; noted "seven dirty words" expert James M. Kilts -- former CEO of Gillette; noted smooth, smooth shave expert; prior to that, unindicted coconspirator at Philip Morris; noted expert on your grandfather's hacking cough David E. Liddle -- here I have to take a pause as I actually know this one; based on what's happening at the company, it could be reasonably asked whether he's actually attending the board meetings. Ellen R. Marram -- former CEO of Nabisco; noted Oreo expert. Oh, wait, she actually ran an Internet company: "From 1999 until 2000, Ms. Marram was president and chief executive officer of efdex Inc. (the Electronic Food & Drink Exchange), an Internet-based commodities exchange for the food and beverage industry." Ooh. I wonder if that ended well. Thomas Middelhoff -- former CEO of Bertelsmann; noted expert on complicated family politics -- well, that's probably coming in handy... Janet L. Robinson -- current CEO of the New York Times Company; noted expert on horrific business implosions Doreen A. Toben -- CFO of Verizon; noted 30-year debenture expert And finally, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. -- the Big Kahuna -- the Man -- the Guy In Charge -- the chairman and scion -- the dude with the cojones to actually defend Judy Miller. Not noted Internet expert.

So, if you want to issue bonds to pay for FCC-approved snack cake manufacturing in a submarine on display at a national park by a sundress-wearing cigarette-puffing Levitra-popping Judy Miller, you're pretty much set.

Go team!

Now the SEC is just plain screwing with the magic

Feb 1, 2008

No, no, don't dig into this, you'll take down all of Wall Street...

Federal criminal prosecutors in New York are investigating whether UBS AG misled investors by booking inflated prices of mortgage bonds it held despite knowledge that the valuations had dropped...

The SEC, deepening its own set of investigations into whether Wall Street firms improperly mispriced mortgage securities, recently upgraded probes of UBS and Merrill Lynch & Co. into formal investigations, people familiar with the matter say. This step, which requires approval of the full commission, gives the SEC broad subpoena power, or the authority to require firms and individuals to produce information...

The investigations could raise the stakes for Wall Street in the multiple probes examining whether financial firms deliberately misvalued, or "mismarked," massive holdings of mortgage securities. Most of the current investigations into mortgage matters involve civil authorities; the U.S. attorney launches criminal investigations and has a history of prosecuting Wall Street-related matters. Last summer, federal criminal prosecutors began investigating the collapse of two internal hedge funds at Wall Street firm Bear Stearns Cos...

To bring fraud charges, "prosecutors need proof to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the banks made materially misleading statements about securities, and proof that they did it with the intent to deceive," says Christopher J. Clark, a New York white-collar lawyer and former assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan in the securities and commodities fraud unit. [Now what possible motive could anyone have had to do that?]

...In its investigations, the SEC also is delving into whether Wall Street firms placed higher values on securities they own than those they placed in customer holdings...

Source: Wall Street Journal.

About This Blog

My name is Marc Andreessen. This is my blog.
You can send me email at pmarcablog (at) gmail (dot) com. Due to volume and other responsibilities I probably won't respond but I will try to at least read all messages.

Subscribe

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog:

Top Posts

The Psychology of Entrepreneurial Misjudgment, part 1: Biases 1-6 Ning passes 200,000 social networks An hour and a half with Barack Obama Silicon Valley after a Microsoft/Yahoo merger: a contrarian view Inaugurating the New York Times Deathwatch Applied lessons in unpredictability, 2008 primary season edition Blogging agenda for 2008 The trouble with stock buybacks as indicators of low stock prices Rebuilding Hollywood in Silicon Valley's image Building a state-of-the-art Emergency Room for Silicon Valley Suicide by strike Ning is now live with Open Social Report from the front: Tonight's launch of Open Social Open Social: screencast and screenshots Open Social: a new universe of social applications all over the web Serial entrepreneurs and today's Silicon Valley OK, you're right, it IS a bubble The web and mainstream consumer behavior in 2007 Social networking and the Geocities fallacy The Pmarca Guide to Career Planning, part 3: Where to go and why The Pmarca Guide to Career Planning, part 2: Skills and education The Pmarca Guide to Career Planning, part 1: Opportunity Ning passes 100,000 social networks Counterpoint: Ben Horowitz on micromanagement The three kinds of platforms you meet on the Internet The Pmarca Guide to Startups, part 9: How to hire a professional CEO The Pmarca Guide to Startups, part 8: Hiring, managing, promoting, and firing executives Luck and the entrepreneur, part 1: The four kinds of luck Age and the entrepreneur, part 1: Some data The Pmarca Guide to Startups, part 7: Why a startup's initial business plan doesn't matter that much HP buys my company Opsware for more than $1.6 billion in cash Eleven lessons learned about blogging, so far The Pmarca Guide to Big Companies, part 2: Retaining great people The Pmarca Guide to Startups, part 6: How much funding is too little? Too much? Why Ning? Now playing: Silicon Valley short attention span theater CEO Crime & Punishment The Pmarca Guide to Startups, part 5: The Moby Dick theory of big companies The Pmarca Guide to Startups, part 4: The only thing that matters The Pmarca Guide to Startups, part 3: "But I don't know any VCs!" So you think you want to invest in a private equity fund The Pmarca Guide to Big Companies, part 1: Turnaround! The Pmarca Guide to Startups, part 2: When the VCs say "no" The Pmarca Guide to Startups, part 1: Why not to do a startup How to effortlessly inject your content into Facebook, using Ning Top 10 science fiction novelists of the '00s -- so far Analyzing the Facebook Platform, three weeks in The truth about venture capitalists, Part 3 The truth about venture capitalists, Part 2 The truth about venture capitalists, Part 1 How to hire the best people you've ever worked with Why there's no such thing as Web 2.0 The Pmarca Guide to Personal Productivity Bubbles on the brain

Ask Pmarca!

New blog feature -- email me a question, and if I like it, I'll answer it on this blog.
Email me questions at pmarcablog (at) gmail (dot) com. Thank you!

Pmarca Is...

Follow me on Twitter!

Ning Social Network Count

285,794 social networks have been created on Ning to date.


You are viewing a mobilized version of this site...
View original page here

Mobilized by Mowser Mowser