MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Posted Monday, April 27th, 2009 - 14 Comments »

Who Should Buy Whom? – Episode One

On the sad, but inevitable occasion of the official end of Conde Nast

14 Comments »

14 Responses to “Who Should Buy Whom? – Episode One”

  1. Wrecktum says:
    April 27, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    Who should buy whom.

  2. Jeff Reichert says:
    April 27, 2009 at 2:47 pm

    David -
    Thanks for the kind words about Reverse Shot! We also feel the site is idiotic, but smartly conceived. However, I should correct you on one point: Reverse Shot is an independently owned company and not a subsidiary of the media conglomerate that is indieWIRE.
    For those out there looking for a whippersnapper critic farm team, we will, of course, consider any offers.
    Best!
    Jeff Reichert
    Editor
    Reverse Shot

  3. Kristopher Tapley says:
    April 27, 2009 at 3:53 pm

    I’m surprised you see any value at all in the new Moveline.

  4. David Poland says:
    April 27, 2009 at 4:00 pm

    Thanks, Wreck… corrected.
    Interesting, Jeff… all the more reason for someone to buy you guys.
    And Kris, the talent at Movieline 2.0 is more worthwhile than the work they did at Defamer and often, than they are doing now. This is true of many outlets. There are all kinds of writers who are working below their highest intelligence these days… and really, forever. Old Media was not the best at getting the most out of the best very often either.
    You should be getting a call from Sharon Waxman within hours, by the way. She’s going to be stuck chasing Oscar dollars this fall and needs a draw… and has already been turned down by at least one known name. Sadly, the Brave New World is stuck going after the Same Old Dollars.

  5. Martin S says:
    April 27, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    I thought Finke was HuffPo bound? Or would that make Huffy’s tabloidism too blatant?
    You’re right about USA Today. Needs a major overhaul.
    NYT isn’t going to do anything except suck wind and hope some uber-sucker comes along and dumps a boatload off at the front door.
    The major question for any of the listed mergers, is money. Can Variety afford to take the chance on buying a Hitfixx? What exactly is the value? I can see THR and MCN merging because they need the adaptation and MCN needs the the growth step. It would have to be partnership, limited upfront capital by THR with incentives based on performance. This way MCN keeps control and ownership and THR limits risk.
    FWIW, I think we’re going to see Variety, LAT, NYT, etc…wait and go for the low hanging fruit. And don’t count Slate out. They’ve got to do something or WaPo will have a decision to make.

  6. Scott Mendelson says:
    April 27, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    I think one of these majors should buy Mendelson’s Memos, but that’s just me.

  7. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:
    April 27, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    DP great post. Would also appreciate some value estimates of these possible purchases as there seems to be many variables to consider.
    I like the fact that MOVIELINE is back and especially that they’re making old content available again. What are the overheads for these blogger type sites anyway?
    You say purchase HITFIX for Variety but major sites like to keep a uniform to their appearance and interface. I’m not sure how it could be integrated without existing as a standalone site with them.
    Since traffic is debatable on so many fronts. Can we see a list of you about these possible pickups in order of influence and value?

  8. David Poland says:
    April 27, 2009 at 4:48 pm

    If some of these outlets wait for low-hanging fruit – which they have chosen to do before, to no success – then they may well become low hanging fruit.
    Certainly, the future of both trades – whether they will be publishing as dailies at this time next year – will be determined before September is over.

  9. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:
    April 27, 2009 at 5:39 pm

    DP you couldn’t go one thread without bagging Friedman could you.. “low hanging fruit”… sheesh give the guy a break !

  10. mysteryperfecta says:
    April 27, 2009 at 6:06 pm

    I’m not sure the NY Times is in a position to buy jack squat. Ditto for USA Today. And the LA Times. These companies are hemmoraging readers, and revenue. I’m not sure how anxious they’d be to invest in and expand their online component, while their primary revenue generator is in such dire straights.

  11. David Poland says:
    April 27, 2009 at 7:42 pm

    JBD… I don’t think values of these sites are easily quantifiable, which is why all these sites are buyable.
    Almost every major buy of a content site has been based on revenues. None of these sites have enough revenue to make them terribly expensive. But like the NFL draft, the value of the talent involved and what they do – not necessarily the traffic they now get or the buzz they generate – is what is important in any pick-up at this level.
    For instance, Nikki’s vanity is much bigger than her revenue stream… but she is worth more than a traditional multiple of her revenue generation if you want to generate the kind of attention she creates. On the other hand, buying a business with a decent revenue stream already established can be dangerous because the merge of two entities in a similar niche can create smaller buys than the two separate buys. None of this is as simple as counting eyeballs… because it is a specialized business, whether we like it or not.
    And Mystery, the papers in question, like studios in trouble that still spend on marketing their movies because there is no choice, have money and spend money. None of these companies – except the NYT, to some extent – has shown the ability to build viable web entities from scratch. So while that would be better, if it isn’t viable, then spending a little more to get what they need to have in place to survive the next wave is cheap by comparison.
    In other words, if it costs you $10 million a year to keep things going and the revenues to cover that cost keep getting closer to that number and then become less than that number is bad business.
    If you have to cut $2 million in current costs to spend $1 million to buy a web breakfront, you are better off doing that. The alternative is fighting to keep the status quo and eventually being wheedled down to a $5 million a year business… or, perhaps, no business at all.

  12. LYT says:
    April 27, 2009 at 11:43 pm

    Someone should buy me. I come cheap.
    LexG too.

  13. mysteryperfecta says:
    April 28, 2009 at 6:05 am

    I’m not arguing with your suggestions. Each may have the result of strengthening online presence. But to a considerable degree? Enough to make a real difference?
    Circulation is down. Ad revenue is down. Web traffic has trended up, but online ad revenue STILL FELL. According to alexa.com, only 1.7% of nytimes.com web traffic visits movies.nytimes.com. Assuming the successful implementation of your suggestions, what can they bump that up to?
    Cutting $2 million in costs to spend $1 million to buy a web breakfront may pay off, relatively speaking, but we are talking about The New York Times, who is a BILLION DOLLARS in the red. Perhaps your NY Times section should have included a small preface stating: “Step 1: Unprecedented overhaul. Now, The Paper of Record is doing pretty well in…” :)
    Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-newspaper-circulation-sees-apf-15039695.html?.v=6

  14. David Poland says:
    April 28, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    I am put in mind of Citizen Kane 2009… “And if I lost $1 billion a year, every year, I’ll be out of business in… 6 years.”

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Comments Most Recent Archives

Quote Unquotesee all »

“I don’t really think, Sean, that you need to know about my various sexual liaisons. Or that anyone else needs to. I did write about them. I filled a hundred pages of Moleskine notebooks with my one-night stands, my affairs. But I decided they didn’t belong in a professional memoir. First of all, these are real people we’re talking about. Many of them were enjoyable. Some were abject failures. My wife said to me when she read the pages, ‘Of what purpose is this in a memoir? Of what purpose is this other than to titillate?’ The point is, I never see them. It’s because I have nothing in common with them, frankly. And probably didn’t at the time. I could not provide a sensible reason why I married these women. The thing is, in the case of my marriages, it takes two people to fuck up a marriage. It wasn’t simply the fault of these women that I lost interest in them and realised they were insignificant relationships. Which is how I look at them right now–as being insignificant. I see them as blips.”
~ William Friedkin On Cutting Interviewers Off At The Sass

“I have to imagine from Mr. Spielberg’s point of view, the paradigm shift in the 1970s was just the new “normal,” a “halcyon era” from which we are straying in the 21st century–because theatrical exhibition is tenuous (as it has been since the 1940s), the home video market has dried up and people are watching pirated movies on their phone. Spielberg’s coming-of-age era was for him the halcyon period that the 21st century “implosion” will cause to go “crashing into the ground.” But he is wrong. The market for movies is actually diverse and highly segmented–although from the top-down movie industry vantage point and media punditry you would not think this to be true.  Would we really mourn for Mr. Spielberg or ourselves if Lincoln would have been made for cable or had played on public television?  Is it bad for humanity that cable television is creating wonderful, resonant stories in long-form series that people want to watch at home on TV (or streamed onto their computer)? I don’t think so, but it is a paradigm shift and it might affect people’s theatrical moviegoing habits. Televisions in people’s homes have had that effect for seven decades–it is not a new phenomenon. As Art House cinema impresarios we need to focus on what WE can do at our theaters and in our communities. It is not productive for us to fret over what pundits say or about what well-meaning filmmakers like the Stevens–Spielberg and Soderbergh–say. We should fret about what we can do in our communities. What we can do to support filmmakers.”
~ From A Response By Russ Collins, CEO, Michigan Theater–Ann Arbor And Director, Art House Convergence, To Mr. Spielberg