Duke Cunningham Can't Have Gun
Don Bauder 9:47 p.m., May 25
Platinum Equity, the Beverly Hills buyout firm that owns the Union-Tribune, is one of three bidders for the Boston Globe and related assets, according to a story in the Globe. The New York Times owns the Globe and would like to dump it. Platinum is said to be offering $35 million plus the assumption of $59 million in pension liabilities. Two local groups are also bidding. Platinum is also said to be interested in Business Week Magazine, which McGraw-Hill has put up for sale. The magazine lost $75 million last year and could be sold for $1, according to the rumor mill. In other media news, entrepreneur Neil Senturia has apparently raised $707,000 for development of San Diego News Network, an online operation.
HUMBLE NOTE: I have been in the job market since 1960 (not including college, of course). That's 49 years. I spent 9 of those years with Business Week as a reporter/writer and bureau chief. I spent 30 of those years as a columnist for the Union and Union-Tribune, and was business/financial editor for most of that time. Business Week may be sold for a dollar. The Union-Tribune paid Platinum to take the paper off its hands by selling real estate worth about $110 million for $52 million. When it comes to value added, I can hardly boast.
Comments
SurfPuppy619 Aug. 7, 1:59 p.m.
The New York Times owns the Globe and would like to dump it. Platinum is said to be offering $35 million plus the assumption of $59 million in pension liabilities.
If I was their Senior Editor I would simply get all the employees together and buy the paper themselves. It doesn't make sense to let the paper get sold for $35 million when there is twice that in pension debt obligations.
Then the paper would be employee owned, and at least in control of their own destiny.
dbauder Aug. 7, 2:08 p.m.
Response to post #1: Empoyee-owned firms sometimes work, sometimes don't. Journalists tend to be prima donnas. There are three questions: 1. Is the price too high? 2. Would employee ownership work in the case of a newspaper? 3. Could employees absorb the huge losses the Globe has been throwing off? Best, Don Bauder
Visduh Aug. 7, 4:14 p.m.
Employee ownership is great when the company is growing, successful, and increasingly profitable. Think SAIC. If I'm not mistaken, UPS was employee owned until it went public about a decade ago. Yet, prior to that time, it had strikes. Did that mean the employees were striking against themselves?
At one time, the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad was "employee owned"--the logo said so. Yet that didn't immunize it from the general malaise that afflicted railroads in the 50's, 60's and 70's. And finally, it didn't prevent C&NW from being absorbed by Union Pacific.
Some papers should try it--what do they have to lose?
SurfPuppy619 Aug. 7, 4:41 p.m.
Wow, I didn't know UPS was a employee owned company. Had to pull their info up and they are! Most of the stock was limited to upper and middle managers though.
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/United-Parcel-Service-of-America-Inc-Company-History.html
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:UPS
dbauder Aug. 7, 4:43 p.m.
Response to post #3: Yes, there have been troubles in the past when employees were striking against themselves. Some of these employee ownership deals have been smelly. The United Airlines deal a couple of decades ago was a farce. What about the Zell takeover of the Chicago Tribune? Those poor Tribune people supposedly owned the newspaper. I don't know if the Tribune is still purportedly employee-owned. It's in BK. How much is Zell and how much supposedly belongs to employees I don't know. Best, Don Bauder
dbauder Aug. 7, 4:46 p.m.
Response to post #5: I didn't know it either. All bet a lot of MBA and DBA candidates do papers comparing the ownership of UPS and competitor FedEx. Best, Don Bauder
Burwell Aug. 8, 8:53 a.m.
Most of the articles in Business Week appear to have been written by public relations firms hired by subjects of the articles. Business Week's favorable coverage of Jack Welch as he ran GE into the ground was truly disgusting. If Business Week is to survive it must stop publishing fluff pieces and start reaming corporations that hire corrupt business executives.
Visduh Aug. 8, 9:08 a.m.
Wasn't it interesting that while Welch was in charge at GE there was little of a negative nature reported about him? Oh, he came across as ruthless in pursuit of profit, but that was a sort of "nice" face of ruthlessness. As he was leaving GE, the world at large seemed concerned that nobody could fill his shoes. Good thing! He had been cooking the books and respostioning the company from an industrial corporation into a financial operation. With people like him taking care of my investment in GE, I didn't need enemies.
The business press used to try to maintain some independence. Readership is down and there is likely no getting it back. A few years ago, FW (formerly Financial World) folded. Forbes is entertaining, but of little real value as a source of unbiased reporting. Business Week is probably the next one of that genre to go.
Ponzi Aug. 8, 9:57 a.m.
As an internet property, Business Week is valuable if someone could monetize it better. The future is in the web and not newsprint. So one needs to look for their web presence to see future value.
For example:
Business Week presently ranks 853 in global web traffic, compared to these rankings;
BBC - 44 CNN - 53 Reuters - 264 Wall Street Journal - 357 Forbes - 489 Time Magazine - 588 Boston Globe - 597 * Business Week - 853 Associated Press - 2,698 San Diego Union Tribune - 3,749 Barrons - 8,239 Investors Business Daily - 13,979 North County Times - 39,543 San Diego Reader - 61,578 San Diego News Network (sdnn.com) - 62,653 Fortune - 2,318,439
I feel in the present and future, the web traffic (eye balls) that a site can attract and retain are going to be the metrics that publications are valuated upon.
I’m no media expert, but my prediction would be that Fortune Magazine bites the dust very soon.
dbauder Aug. 8, 11:43 a.m.
Response to post #7: When I joined Business Week in 1964, it was written and edited for the advertisers. Period. Almost all fluff. It improved in 1970, but not sufficiently for me. Then a new editor took over some time in the 1980s and made it into a very good magazine. I seldom see it anymore, but I am shocked to see the space it gives Jack Welch and his wife, along with Maria Bartiromo. There was a great story by Floyd Norris in Friday's New York Times. You can't help but wonder if Welch belongs in jail. Still, he is considered a guru. All he did was cook the books at GE, greatly through the finance subsidiary. BW's ink edition seems to be self-destructing now -- going back to the old days, which are no longer relevant. Best, Don Bauder
dbauder Aug. 8, 11:49 a.m.
Response to post #8: It was the late Jim Michaels, editor of Forbes for many years, who forced business magazines (BW, Fortune) to go straight. Forbes began doing tough reporting in the 1960s under Michaels. The others were forced to reform. (The Wall Street Journal had always been relatively straight.) Now they all seem to be going back to puffery, although Fortune has done some very good stuff. The Journal under Murdoch is not as interesting, but seems to be doing well financially. Best, Don Bauder
dbauder Aug. 8, 11:53 a.m.
Response to pot #9: Some good information on that list. We're all fighting for those clicks. Best, Don Bauder
WhatGoesAround Aug. 8, 3 p.m.
Here's a link to a related story on Boston.com, the Globe's online site.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/08/08/globe_suitor_investment_firm_platinum_equity_known_for_cost_cutting/?page=1
Some interesting tidbits of new information, at least to me.
dbauder Aug. 8, 8:48 p.m.
Response to post #13: Yes, I saw that story and passed it on to some Reader staffers. Thanks for posting it. Best, Don Bauder
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID