But what do Oprah’s plans mean for the TV business? Not that much, argues JP Morgan (JPM) analyst Michael Meltz. Short version of his note published this morning: It’s not bad for OWN, the cable network Oprah co-owns with Discovery (DISCA). But it’s also not terrible for CBS (CBS) and Disney’s (DIS) ABC, the two broadcasters currently in the “Oprah” business.

That’s because while the move makes for unpleasant “optics”–bizspeak for “looks bad”–for broadcast, it turns out that Oprah didn’t make that much money for the business. (But plenty for herself, obviously.)

Medium-sized version of Meltz’s argument:

• The show made $50 million a year for CBS, which syndicated the program. CBS would rather have that money than not, but losing it will amount to a “rounding error” in 2012.
• The show was a big ratings hit for local TV stations, but they paid a lot for it–upward of $200,000 a week in big markets. That made it a loss-leader for most broadcasters, Meltz says.
• And yes, the show provided a big lead-in audience to local TV news broadcasts, particularly in top ABC markets. But given that it’s not going to end up on a rival broadcast channel, “it is conceivable that station audience/ad share won’t change much for the day-part.”

Okay. Back to the crying and teeth-gnashing.

How do we put that in context? A couple different ways.

For starters, let’s note that the velocity of apps Apple (AAPL) is delivering is increasing: It took Steve Jobs and company a little more than a year to serve up the first 1.5 billion apps, which averages 4.1 million downloads per day. But Apple moved the next 500 million apps within 76 days. That’s a 6.6 million-per-day average.

Next, let’s acknowledge that while the money Apple makes from the app store is secondary to its core hardware business, it’s still a sizable amount.

Even if you assume that the majority of apps are downloaded for free, the remainder may still be generating sales of $200 million a month, mobile ad network AdMob guesstimates. Apple keeps 30 percent of that, which works out to be $720 million a year. Not bad for a side business.

Crawford’s thinking: After Time Warner ditches AOL, which is scheduled for a spinoff later this year, the company will ditch its magazine business as well. That will leave it with a portfolio made up only of a movie studio and cable networks, and a big cash pile to play with.

Time Warner won’t comment, but I’m sure the company has heard Crawford make this prediction before. His Capital Research Global Investors owns more than eight percent of Time Warner shares, which means he gets plenty of access to Bewkes and his lieutenants.

But here’s the thing: The body language from Time Warner executives in recent months makes me think they intend to keep at least part of their magazine business in the family. More than body language, actually: “Time Warner without People? I can’t imagine it,” one well-placed Time Warner official told me recently.

That said, I won’t be surprised if the publisher employs fewer people, producing fewer magazines in the future.

Time Warner officials have repeatedly said that Time Inc. has too many titles: The magazine unit publishes 23 magazines in the U.S. How many can you name? And last year’s mass layoffs, while unprecedented for the publisher, were still fairly modest compared to other publishers’ cuts. The six percent reduction left Time Inc. with some 9,400 people on the payroll.

But executives at the publisher love to stress, off the record, that its flagship titles–Time, People and Sports Illustrated–are each on track to generate millions of dollars of profit this year, even though ad pages and revenue are down. And while Time Inc. certainly hasn’t figured out its digital business yet, at least some of its print properties could and should do well on the Web, as People.com is already doing.

There are certainly assets that Bewkes and company could dispose of fairly easily. For instance, its U.K.-based IPC Media unit, which handles many of the 90-plus titles it publishes outside the U.S., is frequently brought up as a sale candidate. But I’d be surprised if he got rid of Time Inc. and its iconic brands altogether.

For the record, here’s how Time Inc. performed in the first half of the year. The company has already said it expects similar numbers for the remainder of 2009 (click table below to enlarge).

Best-case scenario is that this will be a huge help to people who pay attention to Google (GOOG) for a living but who remain baffled about some of the most basic parts of its business. So if you know anyone like that (ahem), make sure he tunes in.

One small issue: Google U’s first class will be held Sept. 9 at 1 pm Eastern/10 am Pacific. Which means it is almost certain to overlap with Apple’s (AAPL) Sept. 9 keynote. But no worries: The Webcast will be available on replay. And there’s no pop quiz.

But game sales have been weak in 2009, even as movie theaters set box office records. What gives?

I’ll let someone else try to explain the movie side of the ledger (although those box office numbers aren’t always what they seem to be). But it turns out that there’s a simple explanation for game slump: It’s that gamers are huddled in their basements playing Grand Theft Auto over and over and over.

Gamers are indeed spending more time playing videogames, say new data from Nielsen. It’s just that gamers aren’t spending more money on games. Instead, they’re playing the games they have, buying used games, and increasingly turning to game subscription services.

Here’s the argument in chart form–you can get a summary here or download the full report here (PDF). Click on the charts to enlarge:

Hours played:

Used games purchased:

Subscription rate:

All of which explains why Best Buy (BBY) and Wal-Mart (WMT) are both getting into the used game business and why Blockbuster (BBI) and GameFly are expanding their game rental business. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to get back to my game of Hover Kart.

Microsoft is willing to burn lots of cash as it stubbornly pursues its Internet strategy–it lost a staggering $575 million on its online business in the last quarter alone–but even Redmond has its limits. The company is finally confessing that Soapbox, the would-be YouTube it launched in 2006, is no YouTube. And it doesn’t sound that enthusiastic about keeping it going.

Microsoft (MSFT) Vice President Erik Jorgensen tells CNET that it is already going to scale back the site’s ambitions: Rather than let users upload whatever video they want, Soapbox is limiting user-gen uploads to specific categories it thinks it might be able to sell ads against–entertainment, finance, etc.

And the company is not even promising to keep that option open. “We haven’t decided whether you just continue to support it or whether it is too expensive and out of our focus to do,” Jorgensen tells Ina Fried.

My guess is the latter. Soapbox still exists, but I only know this because Ina says so. A Google search for Soapbox gets you to the main MSN video page. I had to resort to a Bing search to find the Soapbox section.

It’s an amazing turnabout, really. When Google (GOOG) bought YouTube for $1.6 billion in 2006, conventional wisdom was that user-generated video was the future, and that the age of “professional” video content was just about over. Three years later, those still in the Web video business–a pool that is shrinking daily–are doing their best to highlight how much stuff they have from grownup pros.

So treasure videos like this “funny dog” clip while you can.

]]> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090617/microsoft-ready-to-give-up-on-its-would-be-youtube-too/feed/ 2 http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090610/another-way-to-describe-the-newspaper-crisis-the-craigslist-boom/ http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090610/another-way-to-describe-the-newspaper-crisis-the-craigslist-boom/#comments Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:00:59 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=8088 More fuel for the “Google (GOOG) didn’t kill newspapers, Craigslist did” meme: A report that says the online listings service has seen revenue jump 23 percent this year and will end up booking $100 million–even as the newspaper classifieds business falls off a cliff.

Craig Newmark’s Internet classifieds site is mostly, but not entirely, free–it charges for a handful of listing categories, like real estate and employment. But that’s enough to create a very healthy business, says AIM Group, which has been estimating Craigslist numbers since 2003, when it said the company booked $7 million.

Trying to imagine what that would look like on a line graph? Here’s a suggestion–take the chart below and turn it upside down.

It can’t say that anymore.

The Post says revenue at its flagship paper was down 22 percent in the last quarter and that print ad revenue was down 33 percent. That’s worse than the declines of 13 percent and 21 percent it posted in the previous quarter. And it’s lousier than the poor results the Times posted last month, when it reported that overall ad revenue had dropped 27 percent.

The same holds for the Post’s online business: Even in the good old days, it wasn’t growing fast enough to counter the decline at the print business. But now, online is declining, too.

Web revenue was down eight percent, because the classifieds business has been decimated. Online display ads, at least, were up a meager three percent. But last quarter, display ads were up 10 percent and the overall business was still growing five percent.

As usual, the real difference between the Post and the Times isn’t their performance but their corporate structure: The Times is pure-play media business that’s now choking on debt, while the Post is an education company (Kaplan) that happens to own a newspaper, which makes all of these grim results much easier to bear.

Here’s a survey of the rest of the Post’s business lines. Click on the image to enlarge.

That revelation is supposedly what goosed shares in Gannett (GCI) 34 percent today. The problem with that theory: The same news–that Ariel Investments LLC had more than doubled its stake in the company, from 4.5 to 12.5 percent–had already caused Gannett shares to jump 39 percent last Thursday when the news was first disclosed.

The more obvious and less savory reason for Gannett’s share swings today, as noted by Editor & Publisher’s Fitz & Jen:  a short squeeze. About 30 percent of the company’s shares are shorted, and now that GCI shares are down in the $5 range–less than a year ago, they traded above $31–you’re likely to see this kind of volatility on any given day.

In any case, the excitement appears to be over: As I type this, GCI shares are back down to the $4 level, just a bit above where they opened this morning.

If you’re looking for actual news about Gannett’s performance, you can tune in on Thursday, when the company releases its quarterly report card. Or you can read this prediction from The Wall Street Journal, which wins the concision award–spoiler alert!–with this headline: “Gannett Earnings Set To Show Depth Of Industry’s Decline.”

J.P. Morgan’s Imran Khan does some quick math and concludes that what Time Warner (TWX) is really saying is that ad revenue at AOL dropped 18 percent in the last quarter (see below for math). That’s awful, but believable: AOL ad revenue dropped six percent in the previous quarter, and as I noted last fall, those results only included a couple weeks of flat-out economic collapse.

This obviously doesn’t augur well for the rest of the Internet ad business, either. But only the most die-hard optimist thought that the Web was going to survive this thing unscathed anyway.

No comment from Time Warner on Khan’s math. We’ll see actual numbers Feb. 4, when CEO Jeff Bewkes announces the company’s year-end earnings results.

Khan’s estimate, from his note:

“We estimate that advertising revenue shortfall at AOL is at least $64M implying an 18.4% Y/Y advertising revenue decline. We make the following assumptions to arrive at this estimate: (1) we assume that half of the 1% shortfall in Y/Y Adjusted OIBDA growth that TWX press release attributes to both Publishing and AOL is due to online ad revenue shortfall; and (2) we assume a 100% incremental margin.”

Who actually made the move to drop the label’s content from the world’s biggest video site is a matter of dispute, though. Both sides are taking credit for the decision.

Here’s Warner Music (WMG)’s statement:

We are working actively to find a resolution with YouTube that would enable the return of our artists’ content to the site. Until then, we simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide.”

But a person familiar with the situation tells me that the two companies were close to an agreement until recently, when Warner changed its terms. In response, Google (GOOG) made the move to yank the label’s content.

Google’s blog post about the matter is more oblique. But note that it doesn’t say it is taking the music down at Warner’s request:

Sometimes, if we can’t reach acceptable business terms, we must part ways with successful partners. For example, you may notice videos that contain music owned by Warner Music Group being blocked from the site.”

As I explained yesterday, music videos are some of the most popular content on YouTube. But the videos are also money losers for the video site because it has to pay the labels each time someone views a clip, regardless of whether it’s generating any revenue. YouTube’s contracts with all of the the big labels–in addition to Warner, it has pacts with Sony (SNE), Universal Music Group and EMI–are set to expire in the near future, so there are multiple games of chicken to watch here.

Meanwhile, taking down an entire music company’s catalog can take quite a while, which means that if you head to YouTube right now, you can still find plenty of Warner stuff  there–like the Madonna channel, which has golden oldies like this one:

CBS Interactive continues its integration process, which now calls for the further combination of several portions of the division into unified groups oriented around similar content. This important move allows us to better align our premium content for our audiences and our advertisers, and also results in reduction in certain areas that are now duplicated in the new organization structure. We believe these moves are necessary to continue building CBS Interactive into the most creative, most efficient, most profitable and fastest growing Internet company in the media business.”

News of the re-org was first reported by paidContent this morning. No details yet on how the restructuring will play out, though a person familiar with the situation did confirm that the company will push CNET’s News.com news site and CBS’s own CBSNews.com units closer together. Both groups have already been reporting to former CNET exec Joe Gillespie since the merger went through this summer. More details as I get them.

UPDATE: Here’s the complete re-org memo.

A note to CBS employees: Since this is one story you folks are going to have a hard time covering, feel free to pass along your tips to me. You can reach me directly at peter@allthingsd.com. If you want to be completely anonymous, which is understandable but less useful to me (I won’t have any way of reaching you for follow-up) you can use the blind tip box here.

Wait a minute: Hadn’t big media finally gotten religion and agreed to give us, the demanding consumers, everything we want, whenever we want it? Nope.

Hollywood in particular–which still has a big, if declining, business showing movies in theaters and then in other formats–is still interested in protecting its big analog revenue streams for as long as it can.

Translation: Netflix (NFLX) will show you just a slice of the of the 100,000+ movies it has in its regular catalog on its streaming service, because the studios aren’t eager to cut into their DVD sales and rental businesses. Which are way, way bigger than what they’re getting from digital outlets. And even movies that are available for free rental may disappear after a certain period, because the studios have other revenue “windows” to protect, as CNET explains.

The same thing goes for Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes: Even the mighty Steve Jobs can’t force the studios to give his customers unlimited access to their catalogs. This applies to multiple studios, by the way, and both new and old movies. “The Fifth Element” belongs to Time Warner’s (TWX) Warner Bros. studio, and came out way back in 1997, back when Netscape was a big deal. “Michael Clayton” is a Sony (SNE) movie that came out last year.

And by the way, that George Clooney movie really is good–like the excellent 1970s paranoia films brushed up a bit for modern times. And even more poignant after the past few months. I recommend seeing it even if you have to watch it on a screen other than your laptop. Which is exactly what Sony wants.

There was just a glimmer of news at the event, though it wasn’t surprising or pleasant: The Times’s Web business is falling away, day by day.

Digital head Martin Nisenholtz said revenue at his unit had been OK until the last two months of the year, but that there had been “softness in November, accelerating into December…next year is going to be a different year, by a fairly profound margin.”

Bear in mind that the Times’s digital performance pre-November was grim to begin with–digital revenue grew just 4.3 percent in October–and it becomes possible to imagine that digital revenue will decrease for at least part of 2009.

Nisenholtz didn’t do anything rash like attach any numbers to his comments, but he did add a little bit of color: His About.com unit, which is boosted by cost-per-click/search ads, is still doing OK-ish. But the business of selling display ads to Times Web sites is getting pummeled, and could be “under great stress” next year, he says.

So if About.com is doing (comparatively) well, why not sell that asset to help the paper escape its cash crunch? I asked CEO Janet Robinson that question after the event. She did everything but insist that the paper would never part with About.com, and praised it up and down–“an extremely important part of our digital future,” etc.

But given a couple chances to do so, she never explicitly ruled out a sale. Given the paper’s position, I don’t think she can.

[Image Credit: 1962 NYC Newspaper Strike photo from Life/Google archive)