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.
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
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Umm...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Umm...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Umm...
[ 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. :)
[ 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?
[ 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.
[ 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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Big media on the internet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
...is great
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ...is great
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]