If Big Media Wants To Be Cool, They Should Just Buy A Trampoline
from the let's-be-friendsters-in-fiscal-year-'06 dept
Big media's continuing quest to prove that it gets the internet continues apace as News Corp. is once again acquiring a web startup, though in true stealth-mode fashion they refused to say which company. Not to be left behind, Viacom has also announced that they plan to get into the social-networking area, probably via acquisition, as well. Not only do these acquisitions not prove that the companies get the internet, they're not a wise growth strategy. If either of these companies actually had a crystal ball that told them what sites would be popular with the kids, they could probably do a lot better just selling the crystal ball. The one company which did okay growing by acquisition is Cisco, but the strategy was different. Cisco had a dominant franchise, which they maintained by buying up small high-tech networking companies, essentially using acquisitions as a substitute for R&D. Not exactly the same thing as buying up the flavor-of-the-month as a way to put lipstick on a pig. Some will say that this isn't a problem because unlike Time Warner doing the same thing with AOL, the takeout prices aren't particularly large. But if these purchases are seen as a substitute for fixing ailing business models, the outcome could be just as bad.
16 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- DailyDirt: Coins Worth More Than Gold
- Surprise! AT&T Admits Defeat, Withdraws T-Mobile Takeover Attempt, Pays $4 Billion Breakup Fee
- DailyDirt: On The Way, The Paper Bag Was On My Knee...
- Hulu's Owners Unable To Find Idiots Willing To Overpay To Take Hulu Off Their Hands Before They Kill It
- Merger Of The Also Rans: Rhapsody Buys Napster





Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Umm...
Actually, I think the hard part is identifying a big media company that didn't grow in this fashion. The reality of the business (like it or not) is that it's much more profitable to buy established media properties than to try to build them or create "innovative" new ideas.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Umm...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Umm...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Umm...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Big media on the internet
I'd say "big media" is doing just fine. Is it cooler to be obscure and small, or to get millions of page views per day? I guess that's a matter of perspective.
And I had a trampoline last summer...14 footer...wasn't all that cool after awhile. :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Big media on the internet
Between the various blogging sites and myspace, who is left to populate the newly created or revampted social networking sites of tomorrow?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Big media on the internet
With the things these kids do today, chances are that the "who" you are speaking of, will be the kids of the kids of today.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Umm...
Joe described growth via acquisition in the media business as putting "lipstick on a pig", and "not a wise growth strategy". First, he clearly didn't understand that this is the basic M.O. of big media, and has been for the last fifty years. It's managed to be a fairly successful strategy, though there have been some high profile flops as well. Second, he didn't know what company was being acquired, making the statements speculative at best and likely negligent.
I think this lack of thought is worthy of being called out, and thought that borrowing from the manual of style would be appreciated by other TechDirt readers.
To the commenter that said my point wasn't backed up, it's hard to know how much data ws truly needed. All of the companies I listed grew from small companies via near-constant acquisition, so those with a reasonable familiarity with their businesses would understand my point. I expect that everyone else was still high-fiving about the lipstick-on-a-pig comment, so didn't bother to elucidate. Plus, listing what they've done is an exhausting task. Here's a News Corp chronology, for example:
http://www.ketupa.net/murdoch2.htm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Huh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Huh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Huh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Huh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Big media on the internet
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
...is great
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ...is great
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment