AOL's Ad Swapping Games

from the revenue-from-nothing dept

Following on yesterday's excerpt, the NY Post is now running another short excerpt from Stealing Time, the new book about AOL. This one focuses on the famous ad swapping deals, where AOL would make some deal in exchange for someone agreeing to buy ads on the site - and then they knock out the difference and call it even - though AOL would still record the revenue. The story focuses on a deal with Sun. AOL agreed to buy machines from Sun in exchange for an ad buy. Then it appears Sun basically knocked the price of the ad buy off the price of the machines. I'm a bit confused as to what's wrong with this. The net result is the same. AOL received the equivalent amount in equipment, so it seems like a perfectly legitimate deal. Maybe it's not clear in the excerpt. If Sun wasn't actually delivering the equipment, that's a different story - but otherwise it sounds like a fair trade. The only thing they do say is that AOL didn't care about the equipment - they just wanted to record the increased revenues. If that's true, then this is incredibly stupid on the part of AOL - and not particularly misleading. The cost of the Sun equipment still would show up as well, so the net result evens out.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    slim, 3 Jul 2003 @ 7:21am

    Here's why it worked

    Ah,

    But you can book ALL the revenue today; and expense the cost of the equipment very, very slowly over many, many years. If your stock options are underwater, and you can surprise Wall Street analysts with a few cents more in "earnings" this quarter, you can then dump your stock on some poor sap in Toledo who thinks AOL might be the "up-and-coming" thing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mike, 3 Jul 2003 @ 12:09pm

    AOL and Revenue

    Yes, Slim is on the right track. AOL wanted to be able to book the revenue, regardless of the net profit. In addition, these "round-trip transactions" are not inherently illegal...unless you make these transactions with the intention of boosting the revenue of both companies. Slim is right about the equipment revenue, by the way, because that falls under the Properties and Equipment category...the costs of which can be spread over many years just as its value is depreciated over many years.

    I did a report on this just a few months ago. They didn't just engage in these revenue-boosting transactions with Sun, they are believed to have done so with over 30 corporations since 1998, when their 2-years-in-the-making broadband plans with excite@Home burned to the ground.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2003 @ 5:25pm

      Re: AOL and Revenue

      You have to remember than in the dot-com boom, nobody cared about profitability. I can remember the president of my company saying that if we did an IPO (which was the plan at the time) the share price would be based on our top line number (revenue) and a multiple. Expenses and the bottom line didn't matter.

      In that environment, it makes perfect sense to jack up your revenue even if it costs you more money off the bottom, because nobody cared about that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.