International: The Googling of the marketing industry, and what we can learn from it

What made Google one of the world’s most valuable brands and in the process made 1,000 of its employees millionaires? It wasn’t advertising.

e4m by exchange4media Staff
Published: Jan 9, 2006 7:29 AM  | 8 min read
International: The Googling of the marketing industry, and what we can learn from it

The last time I checked, Google was worth $125 billion on the stock market. More than four times as much as General Motors and Ford combined. Not bad for two Stanford University graduate students, who started the company in 1998 (and never did get their PhDs).

Tiny ad spend

What made Google one of the world’s most valuable brands and in the process made 1,000 of its employees millionaires? It wasn’t advertising.

Last year, Google spent just $5 million on marketing. (General Motors and Ford spent $6.4 billion in the US alone.) What made Google worth $125 billion? Round up the usual suspect, the better mousetrap. Google designed the better search engine.

If you asked the average person, the average manager or the average CEO, what is the key criteria for success in business today, you always get the better mousetrap answer. It’s the better product or service than wins in the marketplace.

Role of marketing?

Every marketing professional should think through this issue very carefully. If the better product wins in the marketplace, then what is the role and function of marketing in the overall scheme of things? How can marketing create better products or services?

What is disturbing to me is that the marketing profession seems to be aligning itself with the “better mousetrap is the answer” to all marketing problems.

Recently, the American Marketing Association Foundation announced the recipients of its 2005 Berry-AMA Book Prize.

The winners: Patrick Barwise and Sean Meehan, authors of Simply Better.

But is that the answer?

Simply better? Is that the answer to your marketing problem? I think not. Which scenario seems more likely to you?

Scenario a): Company develops a better product or service that goes on to overtake the market leader.

Scenario b): Company is first to launch a brand in a new category and becomes the market leader, fending off dozens of competitors that try to take away its leadership by introducing better products or services.

Which scenario best describes brands like Starbucks, Red Bull, iPod and BlackBerry?

Or going back a few years: IBM, Hertz, Coca-Cola, Lipton, Nescafe, Intel, Jell-O, Kleenex, Xerox and dozens of other leader brands?

Scenario ‘b’ fits the facts better. The first brand in a new category goes on to dominate that category over an extended period of time.

Scenario ‘a’ fits the perceptions of the average person, the average manager and the average CEO better.

First brand advantage

CEOs even acknowledge that the first brand in a new category generally goes on to dominate that category. As a result, the brand is widely perceived to be the better product or service, proving Scenario ‘a’ right. The better product wins in the marketplace.

It’s the death-row dilemma. If you say you’re innocent, we execute you because you show no remorse for your terrible crimes. If you say you’re guilty, we execute you anyway, secure in the knowledge we didn’t send an innocent person to the hereafter.

The marketing dilemma operates the same way. If you’re first and become the market leader, you had the better product. If you’re not first and didn’t become the market leader, you didn’t have the better product. Touché.

Back to Google. This is the one of the most interesting case histories of all, because Google wasn’t first and did become the market leader, apparently overturning all of my marketing concepts and proving once again that the better product wins in the marketplace.

I say “apparently” because when you dig behind the facts it paints a different picture.

Not the first

The first search engine in the mind wasn’t Google. It was AltaVista. But “search” wasn’t good enough for AltaVista, so they added e-mail, directories, topic boards, comparison shopping and loads of advertising on the home page. They also spent more than a billion dollars to buy a portal services company, Shopping.com, a comparison shopping site, and Raging Bull, a financial site.

In essence, they turned AltaVista into a portal. The site was later sold to CMGI, an Internet holding company and eventually sold to Overture.

Overture was later sold to Yahoo, which restored AltaVista to its original vision as a search engine. But by then it was too late. Google had arrived.

The second search engine in the mind wasn’t Google, either. It was GoTo.com, which actually invented the pay-per-click model. Then greed entered the picture and GoTo.com decided to syndicate its search service to MSN.com, Netscape and AOL.

The syndication service was so much more profitable than the destination site that GoTo.com decided to change its name to Overture and focus on its syndication service.

Bad move

Bad move. When you have a choice between building a brand and building a business, it’s always better to focus on the brand first. The business can follow.

The third search engine in the mind was Google and the rest is history.

What gives me great confidence in the first law of marketing (“It’s better to be first than it is to be better”) is not from the study of those brands that clearly confirm the concept. It’s from the study of leader brands like Google that weren’t actually first and still became the market leader. You can learn more from the failures of AltaVista and GoTo.com than you can from the success of Google.

Thousands of marketing people literally let opportunities slip through their fingers because they don’t recognize the nuances of the law of leadership. It’s not enough to be first, you have to keep the brand focused or it might lose its leadership. It happened to AltaVista. It happened to GoTo.com. And it happened to hundreds of other brands that could have wound up winning the stock market lottery.

The Acura-Lexus lesson

Take Acura, the first Japanese luxury car to be imported into America. So why isn’t Acura the leading luxury car brand?

Like any profession, marketing is best understood by the study of history. Let’s look at the history of Japanese luxury cars brands in the U.S. market. The first Acura was sold in March 1986. The first Lexus wasn’t sold until September 1989, three-and-a-half years later. The first Infiniti wasn’t sold until December 1989.

Acura started like gangbusters. In its first full year (1987), Acura became the best-selling luxury import, outselling Volvo, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi and Jaguar. It was ranked No. 1 in customer satisfaction by J.D. Power & Associates.

So you might expect the sales order of Japanese luxury brand today to be: (1) Acura, (2) Lexus and (3) Infiniti. But it was Lexus, not Acura, that won this particular battle.

Courage of its convictions

What happened to Acura? Like AltaVista and GoTo.com, Acura didn’t have the courage of its convictions. It wasn’t a “pure” luxury car.

The year Lexus was introduced, Acura sold two models: The four-cylinder Integra with a list price of $11,950 to $15,950 and the six-cylinder Legend with a list price of $22,600 to $30,690.

Lexus also sold two models, but they were six- and eight-cylinder cars. The ES 250 with a list price of $21,050 and the LS 400 with a list price of $36,000.

On average, Lexus cars were more luxurious. They had bigger, more powerful engines and they cost 40 per cent more.

(Adding two cylinders to a four-cylinder car doesn’t make it a luxury model, of course. But automotive designers generally match the size of the engine to the car’s design. Six-cylinder cars are generally larger and more luxurious than four-cylinder cars.)

Cheap as enemy of chic

As Starbucks, Grey Goose, Häagen-Dazs, Rolex and a host of other high-end brands have demonstrated, you need a high price to build a luxury brand. Cheap is the enemy of chic.

Rome wasn’t ruined in a day, either. In spite of its flawed strategy, Acura held its high-end leadership for 12 straight years. It wasn’t until 1999 that Lexus passed Acura to become the leading Japanese luxury vehicle (185,890 to 118,006 units).

(During the 1990s, I wonder how many Lexus executives were saying to their Toyota management, "We need less-expensive four-cylinder cars in order to compete with Acura?")

Since 1999, Lexus' sales kept climbing. Today, Lexus is the biggest-selling luxury vehicle in America. Here are unit sales of the six leading brands for the first 11 months of 2005:

Lexus: 267,709

BMW: 239,736

Cadillac: 212,056

Mercedes-Benz: 192,877

Acura: 190,989

Infiniti: 123,545

Some commentators credit the SUV with the success of Lexus. And it’s true that Lexus has a much higher percentage of SUV sales (50 per cent) than does Acura (27 per cent).

SUV sales or high-end brand?

]But what’s more important, selling an SUV or having a high-end brand? There are a lot of low-end automobile brands with SUVs, which is the segment of the market many Acura models compete in.

But there are only a handful of high-end brands with SUVs, a fact which accounts for the recent sales spurts of both Cadillac and Porsche.

Marketing is psychology in practice. It can take a long time to change minds. (Witness the decades some people spend with their therapists.)

You need patience to succeed. And if you can’t be first, you can often reach the top of the leadership ladder by keeping your focus while others lose theirs.

(Al Ries)

Source: AdAge.com

Read more news about (internet advertising India, internet advertising, advertising India, digital advertising India, media advertising India)

For more updates, be socially connected with us on
Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook Youtube & Whatsapp

Uber appoints Lucinda Barlow as Senior Director of Marketing for Asia-Pacific

Prior to this, Barlow was Global Marketing Director at YouTube

e4m by exchange4media Staff
Published: Oct 9, 2019 12:29 PM  | 2 min read
Barlow

Uber has appointed Lucinda Barlow as Senior Director of Marketing for Asia-Pacific. Barlow will be based in Australia and will be responsible for the marketing of Uber products and businesses other than food delivery service Eats.

Prior to this, she was Global Marketing Director, YouTube. She worked for Google as head of corporate communications and public affairs and later as marketing director for Australia and New Zealand. She has also worked for Symbian, the company that created the operating system for Nokia’s range of smartphones.

‘Uber has had an extraordinary impact on the lives and livelihood of millions of people. I’m thrilled to join the Asia-Pacific team to help bring further mobility, freedom and opportunity in this exciting region,’ Barlow was quoted as saying.

‘She (Barlow) is uniquely positioned to lead Uber’s Asia Pacific brand, product marketing and reputation efforts, and support the continued growth of a stellar regional team,’ a press note from Uber said.

‘Lucinda brings over 20 years experience in internet, technology and mobile business across Asia, the United States and UK. From a former mission critical systems engineer at BHP, to leading YouTube marketing globally, to launching Symbian’s first office in China, to building marketing functions at two internet start-ups, Lucinda is an agile leader with an industry acclaimed track record of delivering impact at a staggering scale.’

Barlow wrote on twitter:

Read more news about (internet advertising India, internet advertising, advertising India, digital advertising India, media advertising India)

For more updates, be socially connected with us on
Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook Youtube & Whatsapp

WPP AUNZ's Switched On to join AKQA, Australia

The joint entity’s emphasis will be on rich, innovative brand storytelling throughout the entire customer journey

e4m by exchange4media Staff
Published: Jul 9, 2019 10:46 AM  | 3 min read
WPP AUNZ AKQA

WPP AUNZ has announced its Sydney-based digital marketing and media consultancy, Switched On, will join the Australian arm of global innovation and experience design agency AKQA.

This union is in direct response to client interest and demand for comprehensive digital solutions that help define, find, connect and inspire customers across all brand interactions, from acquisition through to retention. The joint entity’s emphasis will be on rich, innovative brand storytelling throughout the entire customer journey, bringing clients’ long-term brand purpose to life whilst maintaining a laser focus on short term performance.

John Steedman, interim CEO WPP AUNZ said: “This is two teams with momentum becoming one, and a bold move by them both. It’s driven by a burning desire to provide pioneering solutions from two highly experienced senior local teams.

“Joining Switched On and AKQA formalises the close working relationship both agencies already have. The partnership uniquely combines media, tech, data and design literally under one roof. The result is a stronger client offering and WPP AUNZ is proud to support them,” Steedman concluded.

By fusing their respective MarTech and AdTech capabilities, the driving principle will be to deliver on the unfulfilled promise of large technology platforms and connected transparent media investments.

“This initiative is a terrific example of our team’s growth mindset and a shared vision of the future. Both agencies are at the top of their game. It’s a powerful combination that offers a modern, post-broadcast perspective to the interface of customer and brand,” said Brian Vella, AKQA Managing Partner.

The new offering builds on the success of AKQA Media in San Francisco, an elite business that delivers a 360-degree view of brand experience for clients including GAP, Volvo and Uber through an integrated approach to media, technology, and data.

“AKQA Media is widely regarded as one of the world’s premier media and technology agencies, something we believe will resonate well with Australian marketers,” Vella continued.

“As the worlds of marketing, technology, and customer experience converge, it’s clear a strategic reprioritisation of brand building is essential. We feel what’s needed is a unified proposition that straddles the need to balance this long-term vision with the reality of short-term performance in today’s digital age. That’s why we’ve come together,” said Chris Hitchcock, Managing Director, Switched On.

The combined entity’s capabilities offer an unrivalled depth and breadth of experience with more than 300 team members covering:

  • Digital Consulting
  • Performance Media
  • Creative Strategy & Storytelling
  • CX and Transformation Strategy
  • Experience Design
  • Communications Planning and CRM
  • Technology and Engineering
  • Commerce Data, Insights and Personalisation
  • Innovation and R&D
  • Social and Influencer Marketing

Switched On will continue to be led by Managing Director, Chris Hitchcock, responsible for the continued success of the Switched On team and its integration into AKQA. Hitchcock will join the AKQA Executive team, reporting into Brian Vella, Managing Partner of AKQA in Asia Pacific. Both agency brands will continue, with Switched On transitioning to become AKQA in the future.

AKQA operates in 28 markets globally, with over 2100 people worldwide. In APAC the studios who collaborate closely include Melbourne, Sydney, Auckland, Tokyo, and Shanghai. It most recently was awarded two Grand Prix Lions at the Cannes Lions Festival of Creativity.

AKQA and Switched On are part of WPP AUNZ, Australasia’s leading creative transformation company.

Read more news about (internet advertising India, internet advertising, advertising India, digital advertising India, media advertising India)

For more updates, be socially connected with us on
Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook Youtube & Whatsapp

Helena Snowdon is Publicis Media ANZ’s new business and marketing head

The former Mindshare MD, who has also been previously associated with top global media agencies like PHD, Maxus and iProspect, replaces Mandy Henry

e4m by exchange4media Staff
Published: Jun 26, 2019 11:14 AM  | 1 min read
Helenafinal

Helena Snowdon has been appointed Publicis Media’s head of business and marketing for Australia and New Zealand, as per media reports. The former Mindshare MD replaces Mandy Henry.

Snowdon has been previously associated with my global media agencies, including PHD, Maxus and iProspect. She was managing director Mindshare Melbourne from May 2017- September 2018.

“I feel privileged to be joining Publicis Media, working with the executive leadership team in ANZ, as well as the talented teams at Starcom, Spark Foundry, Zenith and Performics,” Snowdon was quoted as saying. “Publicis Media presents a progressive and transformative model which opens up huge opportunities for clients. I’m looking forward to playing my part in communicating this message and meaning across ANZ, and driving further impact and growth for the business overall.”

Read more news about (internet advertising India, internet advertising, advertising India, digital advertising India, media advertising India)

For more updates, be socially connected with us on
Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook Youtube & Whatsapp

CNN International Commercial appoints Phil Nelson as Chief Operating Officer

Previously, Nelson was Managing Director, Turner North Asia and South East Asia Pacific

e4m by exchange4media Staff
Published: Apr 30, 2019 3:14 PM  | 2 min read
PhilMain

CNN International Commercial (CNNIC) has appointed Phil Nelson as Chief Operating Officer (COO) to lead CNN’s operational and international growth initiatives outside of advertising sales.

 As COO, Nelson will oversee CNNIC’s Business Development and Strategy, Finance, Strategic Planning and International Sales Operations as well as its Content Sales and Licensing. This includes managing and growing CNN’s relationships with over 300 digital, broadcast and Out of Home content partners – from local CNN branded channels to airlines and hotels that carry CNN content live and on-demand.

Previously, Nelson was Managing Director, Turner North Asia and South East Asia Pacific. In this role, he has overseen all aspects of Turner’s business in these regions including distribution of CNN International and taking a key role in establishing local partners CNN Indonesia and CNN Philippines. Nelson has also held other business development and strategic planning roles at Turner since he joined in 2010 and has significant digital experience from his time at AOL, culminating in him being Managing Director for AOL Asia. In addition, Nelson holds an MBA from Harvard University and, prior to entering the corporate sector, was a commander in the US Navy.

Nelson will be part of the CNNIC Senior Management team, reporting directly into Rani Raad, President of CNNIC, and will work closely with a wide range of divisions across CNN and WarnerMedia. Nelson will continue to be based in Singapore in the near-term and his team is spread across the globe, particularly in key CNNIC hubs of Hong Kong, Singapore, London and Miami.

“The CNNIC business has continually evolved since it was created back in 2013 to optimise the revenue, brand and commercial partnerships across our dynamic offering of CNN content and products,” said Rani Raad. “I am delighted that Phil joins us as we enter the next chapter of our business in a role that brings together all the operational, strategic and non-advertising sales revenue under one leadership. Phil has a first-rate track record at Turner and will bring a unique skillset of business acumen, creative thinking and forensic focus.”

“After many successful and exciting years at Turner Asia, I am very pleased that my next move is within the WarnerMedia family to a brand as remarkable as CNN,” said Phil Nelson.  “CNNIC has done a great job in innovating and adapting its business to stay ahead of the competition during a period of unprecedented change in the news and media industry. I am looking forward to contributing to this success in the years to come.”

Read more news about (internet advertising India, internet advertising, advertising India, digital advertising India, media advertising India)

For more updates, be socially connected with us on
Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook Youtube & Whatsapp

Giorgio Presca named Clarks CEO

Presca to join in March, will manage operational, financial and commercial aspects of the business and lead the Clarks strategy with the Executive Committee

e4m by exchange4media Staff
Published: Feb 27, 2019 2:00 PM  | 2 min read
giorgio

Clarks, the global casual footwear brand, has announced the appointment of Giorgio Presca as Chief Executive Officer. 

Presca will be responsible for all operational, financial and commercial aspects of the business and will lead the Clarks strategy with the Executive Committee. He will join the company in March.

Presca, born in Trieste, Italy, has more than 20 years of experience in managing and developing global premium brands, particularly in the footwear and apparel industries, working across listed, private-equity-owned, family-run, and founder-led businesses. 

His most recent position was CEO at Golden Goose Deluxe Brand, where he led the operating transformation, rapid growth and global expansion of the business.

Between 2012 and 2016, he was CEO at Geox where he executed a brand and company turnaround and returned the business to profitable growth. Giorgio has built his track record in senior leadership positions in Diesel, VF Corporation Jeanswear International division, Citizens of Humanity, Levi Strauss & Co. and Lotto. 

Commenting on the appointment, Tom O’Neill, Chairman, said: “I am pleased to welcome Giorgio to Clarks as our new CEO. He brings a wealth of experience, including a deep understanding of the footwear market. He will work together with interim CEO Stella David to ensure a smooth transition over the coming weeks, after which Stella will return to her previous role as non-executive director. I would like to thank Stella for stepping in as interim CEO at a challenging time for Clarks and for her tireless and engaging leadership in the role.”  

Presca said, “I cannot wait to join an iconic and historic brand like Clarks and work closely with the Board, the Executive Committee, its 13,000 people and operating partners across the world. Clarks faces the challenges of today’s competitive markets, changing distribution channels and the need to adapt to a rapidly evolving consumer environment but has the competences and assets to return to sustainable growth and profitability in the course of the next few years.” 

Read more news about (internet advertising India, internet advertising, advertising India, digital advertising India, media advertising India)

For more updates, be socially connected with us on
Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook Youtube & Whatsapp

Tupperware appoints ex-PepsiCo exec, Chris O'Leary, to its board of directors

O'Leary has more than 37 years of operational and leadership experience, having served in several strategically important executive positions at companies like General Mills & PepsiCo

e4m by exchange4media Staff
Published: Jan 28, 2019 4:01 PM  | 2 min read
Tupperware

Tupperware Brands has appointed Chris O'Leary to its board of directors, according to media reports.

O'Leary joins the US-based kitchen and households product company renowned for its model of direct sales as it looks to ramp up global growth. He takes up the new role immediately.

Rick Goings, Executive Chairman, Tupperware Brands said, "We are pleased to have Chris join our board. He brings more than 37 years of operational and leadership experience to Tupperware, having served in several strategically important executive positions at major global consumer product companies including General Mills and PepsiCo. We believe the combination of his deep industry knowledge, broad international experience and strong, proven leadership skills will be invaluable to the Company as we continue to execute our global growth strategy."

O’Leary previously spent 16 years at PepsiCo, Inc., where he held numerous roles, culminating in serving as Chief Executive Officer and President of Hostess, Frito-Lay, Inc. before moving to General Mills. In almost 20 years there, he became head of international business before leaving the company in 2016. He holds a Bachelor of Business Administration in marketing from Pace University and a Master of Business Administration from New York University.

Commenting on the appointment, O'Leary said, "I look forward to working closely with board members and the management team to provide new insights and perspectives as Tupperware continues to take aggressive steps to advance its performance and drive enhanced value for shareholders."

Read more news about (internet advertising India, internet advertising, advertising India, digital advertising India, media advertising India)

For more updates, be socially connected with us on
Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook Youtube & Whatsapp

International: Hottest media property that's not for sale? Time Inc.But skeptics question top execs' real long-term intentions

Time Inc. consistently makes impressive double-digit profit margins and is considered by many a good media business, a still-growing company with as-yet-unlocked potential synergy with the rest of the Time Warner operation. Yet everyone from the Time & Life Building to Wall Street and Nebraska keeps on wondering when the property is going to be dealt.

e4m by exchange4media Staff
Published: Apr 2, 2007 9:58 AM  | 8 min read

Time Warner chief Dick Parsons recently told a "town hall" meeting of 400 employees about a conversation he'd had with Omaha investment wizard Warren Buffett on the subject of selling Time Inc. "As your friend, don't do that, it's a good business," said Mr. Buffett, according to people who heard Mr. Parsons recount the story. "But," he added, "if you do sell it, sell it to me."

And there's the rub. Time Inc. consistently makes impressive double-digit profit margins and is considered by many a good media business, a still-growing company with as-yet-unlocked potential synergy with the rest of the Time Warner operation. That fact, along with Mr. Parsons' persistent denials that there are any plans to sell, ought—one might think—to kill this story. Yet everyone from the Time & Life Building to Wall Street and Nebraska keeps on wondering when the property is going to be dealt.

It's also been noted that Mr. Parsons, whose contract is up in May 2008, is not Jeffrey L. Bewkes, Time Warner's president-chief operating officer and the company's heir apparent. And Mr. Bewkes has repeatedly said that nothing is off the table. "It is constantly looked at," Mr. Bewkes said at a Goldman Sachs media conference last September. "What should we not have? Or what should we get?" Many people believe Mr. Bewkes would sell Time Inc. for the right price.

A note to skeptics: Time Inc. could probably fetch bids above $16 billion. Try finding a CEO who wouldn't at least slow down for a look.

Anyone following the ongoing upheavals in media—not to mention the jangled nerves following round after round of layoffs at Time Inc., where McKinsey & Co. is now examining areas like information technology and finance—won't be surprised to hear that questions over Time Inc.'s place at Time Warner aren't going away.

The Monday after Mr. Parsons' "town hall," as it happens, a Bear Stearns analyst raised his rating on Time Warner to "outperform" partly because he believes the company, particularly once Mr. Bewkes takes over, will get more aggressive about restructuring its portfolio. To wit: It could merge AOL with another leading web property—or perhaps could spin off Time Inc.

"We think that the publishing division is the least attractive strategic fit with Time Warner's other video-centric businesses such as cable networks, cable systems and filmed entertainment," said the analyst, Spencer Wang, in his note. Combined with challenges in the magazine business such as slow growth due to online cannibalization, he said, there could be several benefits of divesting publishing.

A year ago, Reed Phillips—managing partner at the media-investment bank DeSilva & Phillips—would have given a Time Inc. sale or spinoff no chance. "Today I would no longer say 'never,' because Time Warner has continued to change and evolve," Mr. Phillips said. "I get the clear impression that the company is focused on operating performance and measures how each division is doing and how each division contributes to the overall company. And if there's a sense that part of the company is no longer contributing in the way that top management expects, I don't think anything's sacred."

Top management at Time Warner, like that at any public company, is under pressure to improve revenue and earnings year after year, no matter the market conditions. Although Time Inc. Chairman-CEO Ann S. Moore is expanding quickly online, moving the needle with print has proved much harder. That has forced strikingly difficult decisions, most recently last week's death sentence for the Life newspaper supplement.

"Wall Street wants to see growth," said Robert Safian, the Fast Company editor and Mansueto Ventures managing director who worked for Time Inc. titles Money, Fortune and Time during the last decade. "The bigger your base, the more you need in raw terms to show it. But if you back Time Inc. out of Time Warner and there's more growth in other divisions, then the overall growth might look bigger."

Plenty of people still consider the idea—first pushed to the front burner during Carl Icahn's 2006 drive to break up Time Warner—to be unlikely, impossible or ridiculous. For one thing, "Time" is the name on Time Warner's door, said Andrew Swinand, president-chief client officer at media agency Starcom USA. "I would be shocked if they sold it," he said. "For me, the biggest thing is that Time Warner as a company needs to be dynamically flexible. I still believe that the initial vision of integrated media was correct. I just believe that they haven't activated it."

The tax hit on any outright sale would be painful too, if less so in a spinoff to shareholders (which could lead in turn to a takeover). Time Inc. also owns huge stores of content that should prove valuable in a Long Tail world. And the company has been securing better position for showing growth by cutting costs, redirecting investment to digital projects, selling 19 magazines and closing two others.

"Corporate has worked closely with Time Inc. in developing its new online strategy, which is showing success," a Time Warner spokesman said. "We don't have any plans to spin off Time Inc." A Time Inc. spokeswoman referred inquiries about the company's relationship with Time Warner to the parent company.

Finally, there's the issue of price, but that could cut either way. Two media bankers said a premium property like Time Inc.—which really has no equal in its business—would command a sky-high multiple of perhaps 15 times earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Last week's client note from Bear Stearns estimated that Time Warner's publishing division will have 2007 EBITDA of nearly $1.1 billion, which could put a bid close to $16.5 billion.

That is not a figure anyone would take lightly—neither a potential bidder nor the potential seller.

But the money is out there. "Private-equity firms have become so much bigger in the past year that now that kind of bite size is attainable," Mr. Reed said. "A private-equity firm could do that transaction today. It would have been much harder to do a year ago, but they've raised so much money, and you see all the time that they're looking at big media opportunities."

Time Warner shareholders wouldn't let management ignore a $16 billion offer either. "Companies can't just stiff-arm shareholders," Mr. Reed said. "They really have to listen today, more and more."

Meanwhile, the thousands of Time Inc. employees who survived the cuts of 2005, 2006 and 2007 walk the corridors occasionally wondering what Ms. Moore, Mr. Parsons and Mr. Bewkes really think of them.

"I don't think anyone is confident that Time Inc. will stay part of Time Warner," said one former Time Inc. executive, who predicts the conglomerate will eventually split up. "From the CEO down, everyone questions whether or not Time Inc. will be spun off."

There certainly could be advantages for an independent Time Inc., such as a better ability to focus on long-term strategy. Mr. Swinand, the sale skeptic, said Time Inc. would have fewer resources on its own but would be speedier and more flexible.

Mr. Reed, the agnostic, said Time Inc. wouldn't lose much if separated from Time Warner and would retain enormous clout. "They would also be able to invest much more aggressively in taking the brands into the digital realm," he said. "They're doing a pretty good job already; it's just that they're hamstrung by having to deliver earnings to the parent company."

All the talk of speed and aggression, as a matter of fact, reflects the reality of the magazine business today. It's in transformation. The business will survive, but those publishers that adapt best will thrive the most. Others will keep having to make difficult choice after difficult choice, pinned between the need to prepare for the future and the state of the field today. Even though Time Inc. owns some incredibly powerful brands, really changing the business model might take a "reset" year—which Wall Street rarely allows public companies.

As things stand, the need to make short-term numbers all the time is breeding resentment.

"Basically the dollars are going into digital at that company," the former Time Inc. executive said. "If you're not one of the four weeklies, people are very frustrated. They are not putting money behind transforming the women's lifestyle publications. Those are the ones that have had constant growth, and yet they're not getting the investment."

Another former staffer recalled the speculation among Time Inc. employees. "There was hallway chatter about it at different times," the ex-staffer said. "Sometimes it was hopeful. 'Wouldn't it be great? Will Warren Buffett buy us?' Other times people said, 'Who would buy us and what would they do with us? They might squeeze us even harder. That Midtown real estate is expensive. Maybe Time Inc. could move to Princeton, N.J.'"

Source: Adage

Read more news about (internet advertising India, internet advertising, advertising India, digital advertising India, media advertising India)

For more updates, be socially connected with us on
Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook Youtube & Whatsapp