Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 05:26:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: Verizon's Buyer's remorse has gone too far
In article <email@example.com>,
Scott Dorsey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Contrast this with Yahoo which basically has no value. They don't
> have a large or dedicated customer base.
Well, except for Flickr and Tumblr. And an email service that's still
used by millions of customers. And a news service that still has some
small brand recognition, particularly in business and technology news.
|Garrett A. Wollman
Opinions not shared by
|What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft|
repeated, than the story of a large research program
that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:41:52 -0800 (PST)
From: HAncock4 <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Verizon's Buyer's remorse has gone too far
On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 9:38:06 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> HAncock4 <withheld@> wrote:
> >As an aside, when Paramount bought Desilu studio, they were upset to
> >discover that Star Trek and Mission Impossible were losing serious money
> >on each episode. (Desilu claimed all data was presented to Paramount
> >in advance). Anyway, Star Trek turned out to be a very valuable
> >property, and even Mission Impossible generated a few future movies.
> >Ironically, Paramount was mainly interested in Desilu for its real
> These are almost opposite examples.
> In the case of Desilu, Lucy had been putting a huge amount of money into
> producing episodic programs, knowing that she wouldn't get that money back
> from the networks airing them, but in the hopes that the syndication later
> on would more than make up for it. Star Trek was especially expensive, but
> she viewed it as a long-term investment.
Often times corporations are quiet about the real reasons they
want to buy out another company. If they suspect a hidden gem, they
don't want potential other buyers to know about it, lest others drive
the price up. Often they see potential growth in certain undervalued
assets that merely need a fresh approach toward managing them. But
it could equally mean dumping certain assets that are seen as having
little future growth. (more below...)
As an aside, after WW II, many large companies began to look around
for another company to buy or to branch out into a new service. Bell
and IBM both had some thoughts but the consent decree blocked any
more efforts, and kept each from competing with each other at that
> If she'd been able to hold on to the company for another six to nine months
> when the first season syndication money started coming in on Star Trek, her
> monthly books would have been in the black again. But she wasn't able to.
I obviously can't speak for the players, but at the time, Star Trek
had dismal ratings from its television airings. Television was very
much a mass medium back then, and the fact that a small group of fans
were very passionate doesn't translate into sales for the sponsors
who usually wanted large audiences. Accordingly, I can't help but
suspect Star Trek was not viewed as a worthwhile asset back then,
that is, it wasn't expected to do well in syndication. (In lectures
years ago, I've heard principals from the old show say that.)
> Paramount knew exactly what they were buying... they were surprised to see
> the exact numbers and how far out on a limb Lucy was willing to go, but
> they sure understood they were buying a long-term cash cow.
Given certain circumstances, I can't help but suspect Lucille had tons of
money to work with: First, Desilu didn't originate very many TV shows.
However, its facilities were heavily used on a rental basis by other
TV shows, and that brought in money. Secondly, Lucille was making great
money from her Lucy Show, CBS paid her a great deal for it, so that was
another good revenue source.
> Being able to knock that wall down between the two studios sure did make
> them happy though.
For what it's worth, the sources I read said that Paramount was basically
interest in the real estate, either to use it for its own purposes or
sell it off at a profit. As mentioned, given Star Trek's poor ratings,
I don't think Paramount gave it much thought.
> Contrast this with Yahoo which basically has no value. They don't have
> a large or dedicated customer base. They don't have much in the way of
> infrastructure. Even their IP space is poisoned and not worth much.
> By that I mean that so much of their space is blocked downstream because
> it has been a source of hacking attempts and spamming.
> The name has bad associations with potential customers. There is absolutely
> nothing anybody would want because Yahoo has made no attempts to build
> real value for the future. You might as well just flush your money down
> the toilet and save some time.
I don't know the details of what Verizon sees in Yahoo.
But recall when IBM bought Lotus. It didn't care about the spreadsheet,
but rather wanted Lotus Notes. Today, IBM unloaded a lot of stuff,
like its PCs and disk drives. (Personally, I'm not sure that was
a good idea.)
Returning to Telecom, let's look at what AT&T hoped to get out of
Divestiture: At the time, they felt the future was in long distance,
networking, equipment, and networking. So they made very sure they
kept their long distance network, kept Western Electric, and went out
and bought NCR for its computers. They dumped what they expected to
be losers--local service--on the divested companies. Well, as we all
know, they guessed wrong, and one operating company ended up buying
AT&T. Western Electric, which was perceived to be a crown jewel,
withered away to Lucent.
One last thing--government policy changes over time. In the 1950s
through the 1970s, both AT&T and IBM was under tight scrutiny and
federal attack. But today, we had what once was illegal and unheard
of--the Baby Bells merging and even acquiring an independent (GTE).
A century ago Standard Oil was broken up, yet today two large parts,
Exxon and Mobile, merged back together. Years ago, movie studios
and exhibitors had to be separate, yet today Comcast owns both (NBC,
Universal, and Comcast Cable.)
End of telecom Digest Sat, 24 Dec 2016