Blogs and Stories

Larry Kramer

Why the AOL-Time Warner Merger Was a Good Idea

BS Top - Kramer AOL Time Warner Spencer Platt / Getty Images Time Warner's decision last week to spin off AOL marks the end of a spectacularly failed merger. One that, Larry Kramer says, actually could have worked.

AOL will likely become its own company again shortly, ending one of world’s most spectacularly failed mergers. It didn’t have to end this way.

Despite how badly things went from the beginning of the AOL-Time Warner merger, it would be wrong to just assume it was a bad idea. In fact, I would argue it was a good idea that was never given a chance.

No one at the top of the company really tried to persuade the people in charge of their brands that they needed to try to make this deal work.

The promise seemed obvious. One of the world’s foremost content companies was merging with one of the largest distributors of online content. Content meets customers. Sounded perfect.

That is not to say there weren’t problems with the deal. Clearly, it was later learned, AOL had done some very improper things that inflated its revenue. So it wasn’t everything it was supposed to be.

But it was a leading Web portal with millions of users on their platform. The idea that you could put world-class content in front of a huge audience wasn’t a bad one.

But the execution was a disaster from the beginning.

Most of the key people at Time Warner resented AOL and thought of it as a waste of their money and time. Not very many people were involved in doing the deal, so almost no one felt they had a stake in making it work. And no one at the top of the company really tried to persuade the people in charge of their brands that they needed to try to make this deal work. Many feared that the AOL team would try to take over the entire company. So they froze out their new cousins and refused to work with them.

It became widely known in the content world that it would be easier to get a distribution deal with AOL if you were outside of Time Warner than if you were inside. The great brands of Time Warner, CNN, HBO, Fortune, and Sports Illustrated to name a few, put their content almost anywhere else on the Web rather than on AOL.

There is a troubling trend in the media world of companies throwing up their hands after deals and saying “Oops, it just didn’t work. We guessed wrong.” But in fact, the real villain may have been not the idea, but the failure to execute and bring people together. In all mergers, a key issue is trying to blend different cultures. It never happened at AOL-Time Warner.

AOL never behaved like a Time Warner company. At Time Warner, content is king. Editors have as much or more power than publishers. The editorial product was considered the primary asset of these products. At AOL, it was the equivalent of the “circulation” and “marketing” departments that ran the company. There were no strong editors at the top of AOL who worried about making sure they were serving their audience with the right editorial product. During most of AOL’s existence, their audience was forced to stay on the AOL platform by technology, so they just didn’t worry about losing them to the outside Web.

Instead, marketers dominated the business. Sending out billions of CDs to get people online, these marketers were selling connectivity to the Web, not an editorial product. If they connected to the Internet through AOL, it was just assumed that AOL owned them.

How Time Warner could make that kind of mistake is beyond me. Why didn’t they put a great content guru at the top of that division is one of the great mysteries of this deal.

And why no one forced the content brands of Time Warner to work with AOL is another such mystery.

They took their eye off the ball. Without strong editorial leadership, AOL did deals that worked for their business-development group but not necessarily for their users. So when they started to lose their dial-up customers, and when more and more people signed up for high-speed Internet connectivity, AOL could no longer keep them on the site because, well, the site just wasn’t that good. Others were doing much better work on the Internet and AOL’s viewers could reach them as easily as AOL content.

What happened to management at the two companies after the merger? Were they held in any way accountable for blowing billions of dollars of shareholders’ money by failing to execute the deal they made?

Not really. In fact, when they finally do roll AOL out of Time Warner, which appears imminent, they will essentially just say, “Never mind.”

Larry Kramer is senior adviser at Polaris Venture Partners, a venture-capital firm. He served as the first president of CBS Digital Media. Prior to joining CBS, Kramer was chairman, CEO, and founder of MarketWatch. Kramer spent more than 20 years as a reporter and editor at the San Francisco Examiner, The Washington Post, and the Times of Trenton.


Back to Top
May 4, 2009 | 6:50am
Comments ()
Banjo1

Cramer doesn't explain why or how Time, the flagship magazine, was transformed from a meat-and-potatoes dish filled with interesting stuff to something that reads like The Nation on better paper.

|
|
Reply
|
9:11 am, May 4, 2009
scough

Re: "Time". Let it go. Print is dead, and this site is coughing up blood.

|
|
Reply
7:20 pm, May 4, 2009
yorkstreet

For the life of me, what part of: "there is no marriage between low-bandwidth internet and the high-bandwidth content" don't you get?

There was never a marriage of any kind. How can movies and Hollywood content be distributed on 56K modems? and why did no one ever get that fact???

This whole merger was part of "facts are irrelevant" that arose in the dot.com era. Facts do matter. AOIL cannot now, cannot ever, and has never been able to distribute high bandwidth content. That fact has never changed.

So, there was never a marriage except in Wall Street's non-mind.

|
|
Reply
|
10:49 am, May 4, 2009
scough

Battlestar Galacti-nerd, let it go. No one cares.

|
|
Reply
7:05 pm, May 4, 2009
GREGORYABUTLER

Larry Kramer - didn't you used to run ACTUP?

And didn't some guy write a musical about the night he kissed you?

|
|
Reply
|
12:16 pm, May 4, 2009
lkramer

sorry, wrong Larry Kramer, though he writes for this site, too.

|
|
Reply
|
1:47 pm, May 4, 2009
scough

URRRRRRP!

|
7:11 pm, May 4, 2009
scough

Wow! That's what I thought, too. The "real" Larry Kramer is an super-old guy with the RBA (Really Bad AIDS). He recently had a really long, whiny article in this space about Yale returning a $10 check to him, or something. The "new" Larry Kramer would have to lose about 150 lbs. before anyone could think that he had a wasting disease. Live and learn.

|
|
Reply
|
7:04 pm, May 4, 2009
jglass54

Scough, I find your entry above highly offensive. I hope you never have a chronic illness to deal with and find yourself on the other side of your own comments.

|
11:02 pm, May 4, 2009
Banjo1

Don't get us mincing homosexuals started. Right, xbainx?

|
|
Reply
4:00 pm, May 4, 2009
Leave a Comment
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments
Leave a comment

Please log in to leave comments.

Why the AOL-Time Warner Merger Was a Good Idea

by Larry Kramer

Info
RSS
Larry Kramer
Emails
|
print
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |