Stock prices for Gannett (blue) and Tribune Publishing (orange) suggest advantage Gannett now
that its offer to buy the Tribune company is public. Prices April 2015-April 2016, from MSN Money.
Gannett says it's a cash deal, implying Gannett
won't take on debt. That reduces Gannett's risk if the merger doesn’t generate
substantial profits. Gannett and Tribune Publishing are old-line newspaper
companies that have been transformed by digital competition. Gannett is probably
well aware that other once-profitable newspaper companies failed after taking
on enormous debt to finance mergers in the early years of this century.
Gannett, and some analysts, claim the merger
will generate millions of dollars in “synergies,” which means reduced
production costs. That is easy to say, but hard to do.
Focus instead on the value of the Tribune
company assets. Are those assets undervalued at the Tribune’s current stock
price? Is Gannett’s offer price still below the book value of the assets?
If undervalued assets are a factor that may
explain why, according to Gannett, the Tribune has been reluctant to negotiate a sale. Changes in the Tribune's ownership and board of directors may be influencing the company's response to Gannett's offer. But we should also ask if Tribune
executives have evidence that Gannett’s 63% premium is still less than
the underlying value of their company.
Sixty-three percent surely sounds good to
Tribune stockholders, which is why Gannett went public. But Gannett’s offer might not be the best available deal.
Focus also on the local markets where a
merger might consolidate the ownership of local media that currently compete
with each other. Consolidation would reduce the elasticity of audience demand.
If local audiences have multiple media choices that are all owned by Gannett,
that will make it easier for Gannett to sell advertising in those markets.
In a classic economic model, consolidation
creates the possibility of increased power to raise prices for the owner that
dominates the market. But Google, Facebook and other new media also sell local
ads in local markets. One possibility is that Gannett only hopes to gain enough
pricing power to become profitable in these markets.
In any case, a post-merger Gannett will
have to manage audience demand. Audiences increasingly consume news only on social media sites like Facebook.
The fraction of the audience that leaves social media to visit news
company sites doesn’t stay long or visit often.
It’s true, and often overlooked, that about
half of newspaper readers still only read the print edition. But the trends are clear,
more and more people are consuming news online or on social media.
Gannett will face the tricky problem of (a)
trying to stop the migration of audiences away from its traditional or digital
media platforms while (b) trying to persuade social media audiences to engage
with those platforms.
So, the financials of the proposed deal may
favor Gannett. But managing the merger to produce anticipated cost reductions,
pricing power, or profits is likely to be challenging.
(A version of this post first appeared on
my Twitter account @HughJMartinPhd)
|
Monday, April 25, 2016
How to evaluate Gannett's offer to buy Tribune Publishing
Gannett
revealed today that it wants to buy the Tribune Publishing company for about $815
million. The offer is about 63% higher than the Tribune company's closing stock
price last Friday, April 22.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Glimpse of Tumblr is reminder new media business model isn't generating many jobs
There
is still a lot we don’t know about the new media business model, so even a
glimpse of the model’s inner workings can be valuable. A New York Times article about Tumblr offers such a glimpse, which
shows the company is unlikely to generate a significant number of media jobs.
There
is a great deal of fascination about companies like Tumblr, a popular blogging
platform that Yahoo purchased last year for a reported
$1.1 billion, mostly cash. Tumblr wasn’t profitable, but Yahoo did acquire millions
of Tumblr bloggers to add to Yahoo’s user base. Yahoo is developing ways to
distribute advertising aimed at Tumblr users.
Tumblr,
like other new media companies, has some superficial similarities to traditional
media companies. Both new and traditional media publish content that attracts
an audience, then sell advertisers access to that audience. But the similarities
end there.
New
media companies like Tumblr don’t pay for the content - blog posts (including
pornography) – they need to exist. Traditional media companies do pay for
content, which increases their production costs.
New
media companies like Tumblr also rely on automation -- computers and computer
software --to provide a platform for the production and distribution of the
content they use. Traditional media companies cannot easily develop similar
platforms because millions of potential users have already selected new media
platforms for blogging and other Internet activities.
The
new media business model relies on free content and automation to keep costs
low, otherwise these companies would go out of business. That is because new
media companies generate very small per-unit revenue from Internet advertising.
These companies must keep their per-unit costs low if they want to generate enough
money to survive.
The
Times article reports that Tumblr doubled
its staff, but still employs only 220 people. As of today, Tumblr
claims it has 185 million blogs. That is about 841,000 blogs for each
employee. If Tumblr expands to 500 employees, it will have 370,000 blogs for
each employee. Even if activity on the
blogs varies, these numbers show the kind of astonishing productivity that new media
companies enjoy because of their reliance on automation.
The
low per-unit revenue at new media companies means they must also attract a very
large number of users before they can generate enough profit to justify the
high values that new media companies receive from financial markets. Traditional media
companies have much lower values in financial markets, but traditional media still generate high enough revenue-per-unit to survive without an audience in the hundreds of millions.
For
example, Tumblr’s enormous number of blogs means it has to generate average
revenue-per-blog of just $5.95 to match its $1.1 billion purchase price.
However,
Tumblr still isn’t generating enough revenue to develop “a working business model” according to The
Times. (Yahoo hasn’t broken out figures for Tumblr in Yahoo’s most recent financial
reports).
Yahoo
is still trying to develop advertising that won’t disturb the Tumblr ethos,
which rejects advertising. I suspect Yahoo is also developing ways to generate
revenue from data about Tumblr users even though Yahoo only
requires an e-mail address to identify each Tumblr user.
This
suggests one more thing the glimpse tell us about the new media business model. Small per-unit revenue means these companies require
enormous numbers of users to generate enough revenue to become profitable. But
sometimes, even a large number of users and a very small number of employees
won’t be enough for a new media company to become profitable.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Newspaper industry revenue declines have slowed, but revenue hasn’t stabilized
Click to open full size |
As readers of this blog know, the business model for Internet-based news organizations is unlikely to replace the thousands of journalism jobs that are vanishing at traditional media organizations. Newspapers have always been the major source of jobs for journalists who produce local news across the U.S.. Stabilizing newspaper revenue is critical for preserving some of the jobs that are left.
The chart above shows inflation-adjusted advertising and circulation revenues since 1991. Print advertising revenues peaked in 2000 at about $38 billion, followed by a brief decline.
In 2003 the industry added digital advertising revenue generated by newspaper websites to its advertising figures. Revenue increased slightly that year, and stabilized until 2006.
In 2007 the last recession began, and advertising revenue began a steep decline that devastated the newspaper industry. The recession exacerbated an underlying trend caused by the shift of advertising to websites and search engines. In 2010 the decline slowed, but digital advertising only accounted for 13% of the industry’s total ad revenue that year.
The
steep decline in print ad revenue and the small gains from digital ad revenue forced
the industry to reconsider its revenue strategies. In 2011, the industry added
to its advertising base revenue from niche publications, direct marketing, and non-daily publications. Total ad revenue increased slightly that year, but declined
again in 2012 and 2013.
The
industry generated about $13.7 billion in inflation-adjusted ad revenue last
year, or less than half of its peak revenue in 2000.
The
chart above shows inflation-adjusted circulation revenue has been less
volatile. In 1991 newspapers generated $8.6 billion from print subscriptions
and single-copy sales. In 2013 newspapers generated an inflation-adjusted $6.3
billion from print and digital subscriptions and single-copy sales.
I’ve
written before about the importance of charging subscriptions
for access to newspaper websites and mobile applications. Digital
subscriptions can slow the loss of print subscribers who will otherwise switch
to free access on the Internet. Preserving print circulation is critical
because print advertising still accounts for the largest portion of industry
revenue.
Some newspapers now offer discounts to encourage subscribers to select bundled digital and print subscriptions. These bundled subscriptions are designed to slow or stabilize declines in print circulation.
Digital subscriptions can also generate new revenue to offset some of the losses from print advertising revenue. And the first chart does show that subscription revenue has stabilized, which may be partly due to double-digit growth in digital subscriptions.1
The first chart also provides perspective on the second chart, which shows the ratio of circulation revenue to advertising revenue since 1991.
Click to open full size |
A naïve reading of this chart would suggest that circulation is on track to replace the advertising revenue that newspapers are losing. But the first chart shows the increase in the circulation/advertising ratio is mostly the result of steep declines in ad revenue. This increases the industry's reliance on circulation, but circulation revenue is not yet increasing enough to replace the ad revenue that is being lost.
So I’m not ready to agree that newspapers revenues have stabilized.
Advertising is still the industry’s primary source of revenue. Ad revenue declines have slowed, but they have not ended. Circulation revenue appears stable, but it still cannot replace the ad revenues that continue to disappear.
Even if inflation-adjusted revenue was steady from year to year, the industry would still be falling behind. An industry has to grow faster than inflation to be considered truly healthy.
I do expect that if enough newspapers adopt economically sensible digital subscriptions, those subscriptions will help stabilize industry revenues. But it’s going to take a couple more years of data before we can tell if that is happening.
1 The amount of revenue from digital subscriptions has not been released. The report only includes percentage changes in revenue. Without the base numbers, it's impossible to know how much real growth has occurred.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Twitter's purchase of data firm an example of a new kind of media competition
I’ve
been expecting Twitter
to assert more control over the enormous volume of data generated by its users
because the data can be sold to businesses, government agencies and academics. Yesterday,
Twitter took a notable step to assert that control when it announced the
purchase of Gnip,
a company that packages and sells data generated from more than 500 million
Tweets that are posted each day.
Twitter was losing money when it began selling stock last November, so Twitter has to show investors that it’s doing everything possible to make a profit. Twitter vice-president Jana Messerschmidt explained why Gnip will help Twitter generate new revenue:
But I suspect investors paid those high prices because they believe Twitter is likely to be one of three companies –Google and Facebook are the other two - that will dominate Western Internet markets for information and advertising. When a small number of companies dominate a market, those companies may have pricing power – they can increase prices far above production costs to generate high profits.[1]
One way for Twitter to reassure investors is to take steps that rapidly increase revenue, which is why I expected the company to assert more control over the valuable data on its network. Investors apparently viewed yesterday’s announcement the same way – Twitter’s stock price increased over 11 percent, which Reuters called the largest stock price increase since the company went public.
Gnip is not the only company that purchased access to Tweets and then re-sold them to its clients. Twitter’s statement did not specify how its relationship with other Twitter data providers might change.
However, it’s unlikely that independent Twitter data providers will be allowed to compete away a significant share of the revenue that Twitter gains from purchasing Gnip. At the same time, it will be interesting to see if Gnip continues to offer data from Tumblr, which is owned by Yahoo.
Twitter was losing money when it began selling stock last November, so Twitter has to show investors that it’s doing everything possible to make a profit. Twitter vice-president Jana Messerschmidt explained why Gnip will help Twitter generate new revenue:
“Every day
Twitter users share and discuss their interests and what’s happening in the
world. These public Tweets can reveal a wide variety of insights — so much so
that academic institutions, journalists, marketers, brands, politicians and
developers regularly use aggregated Twitter data to spot trends, analyze
sentiment, find breaking news, connect with customers and much more.”
Twitter
also generates revenue by selling advertising. But Twitter knows that we are at
the beginning of a data analysis revolution that already generates valuable insights
for “hundreds
of clients” in business, government, the media,
and academe. Those clients will now be paying Twitter for access to Tweets and the
analytical tools developed by Gnip.
Twitter
is under particular pressure from investors to generate revenue because the
initial price of its stock rose to levels that some analysts
considered too high for a company that was losing money.
But I suspect investors paid those high prices because they believe Twitter is likely to be one of three companies –Google and Facebook are the other two - that will dominate Western Internet markets for information and advertising. When a small number of companies dominate a market, those companies may have pricing power – they can increase prices far above production costs to generate high profits.[1]
One way for Twitter to reassure investors is to take steps that rapidly increase revenue, which is why I expected the company to assert more control over the valuable data on its network. Investors apparently viewed yesterday’s announcement the same way – Twitter’s stock price increased over 11 percent, which Reuters called the largest stock price increase since the company went public.
Gnip is not the only company that purchased access to Tweets and then re-sold them to its clients. Twitter’s statement did not specify how its relationship with other Twitter data providers might change.
However, it’s unlikely that independent Twitter data providers will be allowed to compete away a significant share of the revenue that Twitter gains from purchasing Gnip. At the same time, it will be interesting to see if Gnip continues to offer data from Tumblr, which is owned by Yahoo.
Media
companies have always competed for audiences and advertising. Twitter’s purchase of Gnip is an example of a
new kind of media competition. The new prize is an endless stream of raw
information detailing the characteristics, behavior and preferences of millions
of people who use the company’s products.
[1] An oligopoly exists if a company can set a price above its costs, but must then account for the reaction of rival companies in the same market. This makes it possible for companies to earn economic rents, which are profits above the level of returns that could be earned from comparable investments elsewhere. However, economic rents are not assured. A rival firm might offer advertising and information at lower prices, triggering a price competition that ends when prices are just high enough to cover production costs.
[1] An oligopoly exists if a company can set a price above its costs, but must then account for the reaction of rival companies in the same market. This makes it possible for companies to earn economic rents, which are profits above the level of returns that could be earned from comparable investments elsewhere. However, economic rents are not assured. A rival firm might offer advertising and information at lower prices, triggering a price competition that ends when prices are just high enough to cover production costs.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Pulitzer Prizes an occasion to consider relationship of newspaper quality to economic success
The
Pulitzer Prizes announced today offer a
chance to consider three studies of the links between journalistic
quality and economic success. The Pulitzers,
newspaper journalism’s most prestigious awards for excellence, go to a
small number of newspapers and websites each year.
Brian
Logan and Daniel Sutter found newspapers
that had won Pulitzer Prizes also had “significantly higher circulation [than
newspapers without Pulitzers], even when controlling for the economic and
demographic characteristics and media competition of the metropolitan area” where the newspaper circulated.
Publishers
will only spend money to produce prize-winning journalism if the journalism pays
for itself by increasing circulation and generating extra revenue. Increases in
circulation at Pulitzer winning papers were probably large enough to generate
that extra revenue, the study concluded.
Logan and Sutter argued that
Pulitzer Prizes are an important “signal of quality”
for consumers. News is what economists call a credence good. Consumers cannot
evaluate the true quality of a credence good even after they have consumed the
good. For example, consumers have no way to tell if the information in a news
article is accurate. This forces consumers to evaluate quality based on a
newspaper’s reputation, including the prizes it has won.
This was a careful study, but it used circulation data from 1997. We need newer studies that account for the shift of audiences to the Internet before we can be sure the Pulitzers are still associated with significantly larger audiences. The second and third studies are from a line of research that examines the overall quality of news instead of focusing on Pulitzer Prizes.
This was a careful study, but it used circulation data from 1997. We need newer studies that account for the shift of audiences to the Internet before we can be sure the Pulitzers are still associated with significantly larger audiences. The second and third studies are from a line of research that examines the overall quality of news instead of focusing on Pulitzer Prizes.
These
studies use the financial commitment model.
This model states newspapers facing competition will increase their
newsroom spending, or financial commitment to news. Increased spending results
in a larger newspaper staff and/or an increase in the variety and depth of news
that is published. As the quality of news increases, consumers receive more
utility from reading the newspaper. This in turn leads to increases in the
newspaper’s circulation and/or advertising revenues.
In
the second study Stephen
Lacy and I reviewed decades of research that supports the financial
commitment model. We focused
on newspaper reactions to declines in circulation as readers and advertisers shifted
to news published on the Internet.
Papers
might use any of three strategies to maintain profits when circulation declines. First, newspapers might try to offset circulation declines by increasing
advertising prices. Second, newspapers might leave ad prices unchanged, which amounts to an increase
since advertisers are paying to reach fewer readers. Third, newspapers might cut their newsroom
costs and reduce the quality of their news.
We concluded newspapers that raised ad prices or reduced quality would probably accelerate the loss of circulation. However, newspapers that published quality content might stabilize or slow declines in circulation.
The third study had unusual access to 12 years of internal revenue and circulation data from an individual newspaper. The study looked at newsroom spending, subscription revenue, and advertising revenue from the print and online editions of the newspaper.
We concluded newspapers that raised ad prices or reduced quality would probably accelerate the loss of circulation. However, newspapers that published quality content might stabilize or slow declines in circulation.
The third study had unusual access to 12 years of internal revenue and circulation data from an individual newspaper. The study looked at newsroom spending, subscription revenue, and advertising revenue from the print and online editions of the newspaper.
The study used subscription
revenue instead of circulation because advertisers value subscribers more
than they value readers who don’t pay for the paper. Subscribers are more likely to read
the paper carefully and register advertising messages, argued authors Yihui Tang, Shrihari Sridhar, Esther Thorson and Murali K. Mantrala.
Results
showed increased newsroom spending resulted in increased subscriptions to
the newspaper. The subscription
increases then resulted in increased print and online advertising revenues. A
simulation showed opposite effects – reductions in newsroom spending could lead
to reductions in subscriptions, resulting in reductions in both online and print
advertising revenues.
These last two studies accounted
for the Internet. However, the three studies are just a
beginning.
Many newspapers still rely on print editions to generate the bulk of their advertising
and subscription revenues. Online revenue is a distant second when it comes to generating profits. More empirical research is needed to produce additional recommendations
that can help newspaper managers who are trying to survive in this difficult environment.
Friday, April 11, 2014
Cortez the Killer (Neil Young interpreted by Warren Haynes/Dave Matthews Band)
The power of virtuosi in live performance. Nothing to discuss, just a nice example of what the Internet is for.
Late night TV replacement hosts were selected to avoid declines in audience ratings
Creating
a network television schedule is similar to assembling a portfolio of financial
investments, according to a
useful paper by the late Barry R. Litman and Seema Shrikhande and Hoekyun
Ann. Like investors who try to balance financial returns from different
investments, network programmers try to balance the audience size for different
programs.
The goal
is to build an audience that attracts local and national advertisers
throughout an entire evening of television programs.
Network
programmers assemble a portfolio of programs that is designed
to minimize risk, the study concludes. Risk can be measured by the variation in audience size from one program to
the next. Programmers try to minimize risk by minimizing the variation in audience size.1
Efforts to minimize risk are particularly apparent
when new programs are created. Programmers try to select new programs that will attract
audiences that are similar in size to the audiences for the network's existing programs, the study says.
This
desire to avoid failure can be seen in the selection of replacements for late night hosts Jay
Leno at NBC and David Letterman at CBS. Leno has been replaced by comedian Jimmy Fallon. Letterman, who will
retire in 2015, will be replaced by comedian and satirist Stephen Colbert.
These
replacements represent the continuation of a decades-long strategy featuring late-night hosts who are white, male, and offer a reliable mix of
stand-up comedy and interviews. This strategy still draws a combined late-night audience for NBC and CBS of more than
6
million viewers.It’s not surprising that neither network wants to experiment with a host who doesn’t fit the established conventions for the 11.30 p.m. timeslot. Programmers at both networks surely recall how audience ratings at NBC declined in 2010 when it briefly replaced Jay Leno with Conan O’Brien.
Audiences
for local television newscasts are influenced by the late night shows that follow those newscasts. So programmers must also try to
avoid changes that could cause declines in the audience for local news, which
is a critical source of advertising revenue at television stations throughout the U.S.
Jimmy Fallon and Stephen Colbert seem like safe choices that will help the
networks avoid a loss of audience. Both replacements combine an appeal to younger
audiences with a sensibility that seems unlikely to alienate older viewers. (Objections
to Colbert made by politically conservative commentators will fade into
irrelevance if, as expected, Colbert drops his persona as a political satirist
when he arrives at CBS.)
But I
wonder how long these safe programming choices will continue to work for late
night television. This has nothing to do
with reaching audiences who would rather watch these programs on the Internet. Both replacement hosts and both networks are
adept at producing material for the Internet.
Meanwhile, the
demographics of the country are rapidly and inevitably changing. States like
California, where the combined
minority population outnumbers the white population, represent the future. Will
Fallon and Colbert have the same long-term audience appeal that their
predecessors enjoyed? Or will changing
audience preferences undermine the safe choices made by network programmers?
1 A portfolio is used to balance risks. A program with large variations in audience size has a large risk. If the programs has an unusually large audience, the risk is rewarded with increased advertising revenue. But if the program has an unusually small audience, ad revenues will also be small. Programmers could use programs that consistently attract larger audiences to balance the risk of adding programs that might result in smaller audiences. But the study found programmers are reluctant to include risky programs in their portfolios. Programmers create portfolios to minimize the variation in audience size, which minimizes any instability in their ability to generate ad revenues.
1 A portfolio is used to balance risks. A program with large variations in audience size has a large risk. If the programs has an unusually large audience, the risk is rewarded with increased advertising revenue. But if the program has an unusually small audience, ad revenues will also be small. Programmers could use programs that consistently attract larger audiences to balance the risk of adding programs that might result in smaller audiences. But the study found programmers are reluctant to include risky programs in their portfolios. Programmers create portfolios to minimize the variation in audience size, which minimizes any instability in their ability to generate ad revenues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)