That’s the high end of the range Bloomberg will be paying for BusinessWeek, reports BusinessWeek, which has done an excellent job of covering its sale. One important note to make about the price: Those liabilities could total up to $32 million, although it’s not clear whether Bloomberg will assume all of them.

Can’t call this one a surprise, as Bloomberg has reportedly been the lead bidder for some time now. BusinessWeek employees spent most of the day waiting for an announcement to that effect, and finally heard one, via Bloomberg’s wire service, shortly after 5 pm EDT.

Shortly after, BusinessWeek Editor Stephen J. Adler gathered his troops for an informal meeting to discuss the news and to discuss some blocking and tackling: No news on rumored (and expected) layoffs. But he did tell staffers that those who are cut after the deal closes later this year will receive the same severance package they would have gotten if they were still employed by McGraw-Hill (MHP), the magazine’s parent company.

There most certainly will be cuts: McGraw-Hill is selling the 80-year-old magazine because it’s a money pit that was losing between $20 million and $40 million a year, depending on your accounting. And the publisher’s bankers promoted a layoff plan as part of the sales process.

What exactly deep-pocketed Bloomberg intends to do with the publication, however, is unclear. The company, which makes its money renting its namesake terminals to Wall Street traders, is thought to be running its magazine and TV news operations at a loss as it tries to grab a footprint in consumer media. It may ultimately be willing to run BusinessWeek at a loss for a while, as well.

And now a tiny bit of context: At the beginning of this year, there were four major business magazines. Now one, Condé Nast’s Portfolio, has been shut down and another sold at a fire-sale price. Meanwhile, my former colleagues at Forbes expect to hear about yet another restructuring round in the near future. And while Time Warner (TWX) CEO Jeff Bewkes was careful to list Fortune magazine among the core assets at his company’s Time Inc. unit at an industry event today, that can’t assure the queasy souls who work there.

Here’s the memo to BusinessWeek staff from the magazine’s BusinessWeek publisher, Keith Fox:

All,

Moments ago, McGraw-Hill announced that Bloomberg L.P. has agreed to acquire BusinessWeek. This is exciting news on many levels. Joining forces with another of the world’s leading news organizations enhances BusinessWeek’s ability to further serve our global audience and our valued customers. And Bloomberg will gain a powerful brand with a history of editorial excellence and strong reach among business professionals.

While the ink is barely dry and the long-term plans are being worked out, we do know that Bloomberg is committed to and values our brand, our editorial integrity, and our ability to drive advertising, circulation, and new digital revenue.

BusinessWeek will strengthen Bloomberg’s online, television and mobile products and creates an opportunity for Bloomberg News to reach decision makers in the c-suite. Online, BusinessWeek.com and Bloomberg.com will have more unique visitors than any non-portal business and financial site. In addition, Bloomberg expects to build television content around the powerful BusinessWeek brand and our world-class journalists.

I am tremendously proud of the work all of you have done in the past few months. Despite the uncertainty, we have continued to produce first-class products for our readers and advertisers, and I want to thank you deeply for your efforts. I also want to thank Steve Adler, Jessica Sibley, Tania Secor, Roger Neal, and Linda Brennan, for their extraordinary ability to personify the best of BusinessWeek during the deal process while leading their respective organizations.

I know that while this announcement answers some of the questions you’ve been asking over the past few months, it raises others. The sale is expected to close by the end of the year and we will be working on transition plans in the coming weeks. I can tell you that all BusinessWeek staffers will remain employees of The McGraw-Hill Companies until the transaction closes, and that it will be business as usual–producing the magazine and the website, and serving our advertisers–through the close. We will give you more details when we can.

We’ll be holding a town hall meeting later today at 5:45 EST, after which a Q&A will be provided to all employees; you will receive more details shortly. A call for the Asia teams will be scheduled shortly.

Again, I want to thank you all for your professionalism and dedication during a challenging time. I look forward to working with you on the promising next chapter in BusinessWeek’s history.

Keith

It’s not a huge shock to see some of those titles go: Cookie, for instance, wasn’t a prestige title for Condé–like Domino, which the publisher closed down earlier this year, it was founded in 2005.

But Gourmet is one of Condé Nast’s most famous titles, and editor Ruth Reichl is one of Condé’s best-known editors. Most observers would have figured that Bon Appétit would go instead. CEO Chuck Townsend says the Gourmet brand will live on, zombie-style, via TV and publishing deals.

Condé has long cultivated a reputation as the magazine world’s most glamorous outpost, impervious to the petty concerns that bedeviled lesser folk. But the double-punch of the ad industry’s move away from print titles and a recession that pole-axed the luxury brands Condé depends on, has staggered the publisher. (Disclosure: I do some free-lance work for Condé title Vanity Fair).

Signs of trouble showed up late last year when the publisher made uncharacteristic staffing cuts. And in 2009, it began shuttering magazines: In addition to Domino, it closed Portfolio in April, just two years after a high-profile launch.

By July, Townsend had brought on consultants from McKinsey and Company to help figure out where else it could trim; the news that September ad pages would be down anywhere from 17 percent to 47 percent made it clear that other titles would be going.

I wouldn’t expect this to be the last big set of magazine cuts, by the way: Time Warner (TWX), for instance, has made it clear that it wants to hang on to Time Inc. but that it thinks the publisher employs too many people who produce too many titles.

Here are the details on the Condé cuts, via an internal memo (intended for public consumption) from Chuck Townsend:

From: “Townsend, Chuck”
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 10:16:52 -0400
To: Conde Nast Publications-All <_273fee@condenast.com>
Conversation: Announcing Changes within Condé Nast
Subject: Announcing Changes within Condé Nast

We have now completed an extensive review of our business–an important undertaking given the dramatic changes in the U.S. economy. The review has led us to a number of decisions designed to navigate the company through the economic downturn and to position us to take advantage of coming opportunities.

Condé Nast’s success comes from the ability of our publications to attract readers with a wide range of interests, as well as advertisers who value them. But in this economic climate it is important to narrow our focus to titles with the greatest prospects for long-term growth.

As a result of our review, Brides will increase its frequency to monthly to solidify its position as the most important brand in the bridal category, and Modern Bride and Elegant Bride will close.

Gourmet magazine will cease monthly publication, but we will remain committed to the brand, retaining Gourmet’s book publishing and television programming, and Gourmet recipes on Epicurious.com. We will concentrate our publishing activities in the epicurean category on Bon Appétit.

Finally, Cookie magazine will be discontinued, and resources that had been dedicated to its publishing will be invested elsewhere.

The editorial and business staffs of Modern Bride, Elegant Bride, Gourmet, and Cookie all have earned their magazines large and devoted followings. We have been proud to publish these titles, and we are grateful to the staffs for their hard work and dedication.

These changes, combined with cost and workforce reductions now underway throughout the company, will speed the recovery of our current businesses and enable us to pursue new ventures. In the coming weeks, we hope to announce initiatives to develop digital versions of our brands that will make use of new devices and distribution channels.

Condé Nast is now in its 100th year of creating the most respected and iconic brands in the publishing world. These changes will ensure that our unique publishing company will continue in its preeminent position for many years to come.

As it is, now that investors and analysts have heard the more plausible deal–instead of buying NBCU for $35 billion, the cable giant kicks in up to $6 billion in cash, plus its cable networks, and gets 51 percent of NBCU–they’ve decided they hate that one, too.

Here’s the story in the graphic form (click chart to enlarge):

The Comcast-NBCU story broke after the market closed on Wednesday, in case that wasn’t clear. As I’m typing this, Comcast (CMCSA) is trading around $15.6 a share, down some seven percent since the talks became public.

Pull back a bit and you see that things could be much worse: As recently as March, Comcast was down below $12, and there wasn’t any multibillion dollar deal weighing down the shares then.

If anything, investors are much more forgiving to Comcast here than the professional chattering class of writers and analysts, who hate the deal. The conventional wisdom: Comcast’s dream of marrying cable programming with its cable service is misguided because media conglomerates like Time Warner (TWX) and News Corp (NWS) have already tried it and concluded that it didn’t work. If the Roberts family spends money on anything, they argue, it ought to be on shareholders, either via dividends or by buying back shares.

Here’s a sampling of today’s sentiments:

Pali Capital’s Rich Greenfield:

Comcast is trying to become a massive player in content…a move that investors should be frightened about, regardless of the initial “math” surrounding the transaction.

Barclays Capital Vijay Jayant:

Press reports of this potential transaction give credence to investor concerns that management has empire-building aspirations in general or that they may not believe enough in their own distribution business over the long term and therefore need to diversify their portfolio holdings…fundamentally, we believe that Comcast shareholders would be better served if the company were to invest in its own shares.

So if this is a trial balloon, you wouldn’t say it has been shot down completely. But it’s certainly sagging.

Union Square was the lead investor in Twitter’s first funding round in July 2007, and participated in subsequent rounds in May 2008 and February of this year. In that last round, Union Square said it was re-upping “to maintain our ownership position.”

What happened this round?

Union Square partner Fred Wilson, who is a Twitter board member and a tireless Twitter advocate (and Twitterer) declined to comment. So I’ll hazard an Occam’s Razor guess: The $1 billion valuation that Twitter achieved in this round priced out Wilson’s fund.

If that’s the case, it’s a high-class problem to have. Union Square is a relatively small venture player (the two funds it manages have a total commitment of $281 million). It specializes in early-round investing in which the bets are comparatively low stakes–a few million dollars here and there. If things go well, those bets are enough to get the company to an exit–in the old days, that meant an IPO, these days, a sale to Microsoft (MSFT), Yahoo (YHOO) or Google (GOOG).

But as the valuations increase, so do the amounts a start-up’s investors need to pay to keep their ownership stake, which is why angels and other early investors usually drop away. A player Union Square’s size can play up to a point, but then has to step aside or it would end up with most of its portfolio invested in a single company.

In order to re-up at this level, Union Square would have needed to make a much larger bet than it is used to making, and perhaps more than it is able to make. The new round, which raised $100 million, is nearly twice as much as the $55 million Twitter had raised to date. Which means Union Square’s bet would likely have to double as well.

[Image credit: Steve Jurvetson]

Oh. And don’t bother counting your home in that total. FT Wealth is for people of real means. The kind who are still “liquid,” as Gordon Gekko put it.

In other words, the kind of people who might want to read about “whisky as an alternative investment, Muslim philanthropy, how the downturn is affecting the lifestyle of America’s rich kids and expensive sports.” All of which are on tap for the supplement’s October issue, which will reach 100,000 of the newspaper’s U.S. subscribers.

If you’re a down-on-your-heels skeptic with no imagination, you could note that the kinds of advertisers that are supposed to keep a supplement like that afloat have had a rough go of it in the recent past. So have high-end financial magazines (Portfolio, RIP).

Big-thinking optimist? Then you’ll note that Fortune magazine launched in the Great Depression, and that ended up working out pretty well for the company that’s now Time Warner (TWX).

Spanfeller’s departure comes amid a flurry of bad news for finance publications. In April, Condé Nast pulled the plug on Portfolio, its business magazine and Web site, after a very expensive two-year run. Earlier this week, publisher McGraw-Hill (MHP) announced that it was shopping BusinessWeek, and observers are floating the notion that the company may end up giving the magazine away to anyone who wants to take on its annual losses.

Time Warner’s (TWX) Fortune magazine has also been battered by the recession, which has been particularly hard on the finance, auto and luxury-good companies that business publications have traditionally relied upon. And Forbes itself has gone through multiple rounds of layoffs since last fall.

In a memo to the company’s employees, Forbes CEO Steve Forbes praised Spanfeller for building out the company’s Web property, which says it receives 18 million unique visitors a month.In the aftermath of the dot.com crash, Spanfeller helped turn Forbes.com, which the family-owned company was close to shutting down, into a powerhouse.

But Forbes’s plan to take the Web property public earlier in the decade never panned out. And once Forbes sold a 40 percent stake to private equity investors Elevation Partners three years ago, plenty of Forbes employees, including me, had speculated that Spanfeller would look for a job that promised a big payout. That said, it wasn’t that long ago that Spanfeller was the victor in a power struggle with Jim Berrien, the former publisher of the Forbes print edition.

The news was first reported by AOL’s Daily Finance. Here’s the company memo from CEO Steve Forbes:

To: All Hands

From Steve Forbes

July 16, 2009

Jim Spanfeller, President and CEO of Forbes.com has decided to step down from leading our website after nine years. In the entrepreneurial spirit that Forbes has always championed, Jim will be setting up his own media management company.

Describing his future plans Jim said, “The world of media has changed rapidly in the past 10 years and the velocity of the change promises only to increase going forward. I’ve had a great run at Forbes and have been deeply involved in the breakthroughs and transformations between traditional and digital media.  Now I see a huge opportunity to have my own media management business that will help other traditional media companies make the most of their enormous prospects in digital venues, taking all I have learned here in the past decade and applying on a wider horizon. Forbes.com has truly been a truly wonderful ride and I am deeply in debt to the Forbes family for letting me be a part of it.”

Jim has done a monumental job of bringing Forbes.com to the lead position in business websites, and secured Forbes.com as the must visit site for not only global business leaders but also anyone interested in the finest business reporting and analysis available. At present Forbes.com has 18 million unique visitors a month.

Along the way, Jim has overseen the development and growth of Forbes Digital, which includes Forbes.com, ForbesTraveler.com, Investopedia.com, RealClearPolitics.com, RealClearMarkets.com, Real Clear Sports, and Forbes Business and Finance Blog Network, which together reach 40 million unique visitors a month.

This immense growth on the digital side of the business was spearheaded, pursed, and led by Jim with enormous success. The digital world is still uncharted with few rules, and Jim’s intellect, creativity, and business acumen helped bring us our number one position. For this the Forbes family is very grateful and we wish him all the success in his future plans.

Since Elevation Partners partnered with Forbes three years ago, Jim has worked very closely with them on the growth and development and vision for Forbes.com.  Commenting on Jim’s departure, Roger McNamee of Elevation said, “Jim did a fantastic job leading Forbes.com. In an era when competitors feared it, Jim embraced and evangelized the internet, with huge benefits to Forbes and its audiences. We are grateful for his contributions over the past nine years.”

Jim will be staying through a transition period at least through Labor Day. Please join me and my brothers in wishing Jim all the best in the future, which he deserves.

The big picture: Even though Facebook’s official valuation has slid from $15 billion–November 2007, when Microsoft (MSFT) invested–to $10 billion, Zuckerberg is OK with that, arguing that 1) that deal was done at the peak of the market and 2) the pact was never really a financial deal, but a way for Microsoft to partner up with Facebook–and, though he didn’t say it, to box out Google (GOOG). That sounds pretty reasonable.

Zuckerberg’s main talking points were that his company didn’t need the money, but it sure was nice to have, both to fund growth and make any M&A easier to pull off. And when it came to his new partners, he argued that DST’s existing portfolio, which includes several other social networks, would provide models/examples for his company as it continued to expand outside the U.S.

Earlier:

Facebook and its newest investors Digital Sky Technologies, are holding a teleconference to discuss the $200 million at 10 billion valuation deal the two parties just announced. I’ll be covering the call live.

Call starting “momentarily.”

On the call: Facebook Mark Zuckerberg, DST CEO Yuri Milner. Also, via phone (from D7!): Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and DST’s Alexander Tamas.

Zuckerberg reading statement that more or less tracks press release: “Advertising product” improving, “our business is doing really well” and we’re on track to create a “nice” business, and that’s why investors want in. DST approached us, has interesting profile and experience and insight into social networks. “We found their thinking and their leadership to be really impressive.”

Money provides “cash buffer” to support our continued growth, also possible other moves. No specific plans to talk about “but nice to have flexibility.”

Milner: “I realize not all the participants on the call are familiar with us.” Goes over DST portfolio. “We have now started to actively expand abroad.” We’re a holding company, have raised and invested more than $1 billion since 2005. Rattling off portfolio companies now.

Q&A:

What does this mean for possible IPO? Zuckerberg: “Our approach to financing has really been that we want to take money and work with partners”…”for a lot of start-ups, you get the feeling that the IPO is really the end goal…that’s not the case for us…we’re not rushing toward it…that’s really all I have to say about that today.”

What’s valuation for common stock? Zuckerberg: No comment. “There are different transactions that we’ve structured differently…we hope that there will be different things in the future…probably sometime in the next few months.”

What does this say about Microsoft’s $15 billion valuation? Zuckerberg: We did that deal at the peak of the market. That was part of a broader relationship. That investment was just one piece of it. This is also a relationship that we’re forming with DST…we hope we will work with other things over time.

“We feel really good about the progress we made…we feel this is  a good and fair valuation for us.” The Microsoft deal was at peak of market and was a strategic deal. “The world was in a pretty different place at that time.”

The international audience is 70 percent of our users. How do you monetize that? Zuckerberg: I have a few things to say, but want Yuri to talk, too. Milner: We have invested in five social networks in Europe. They have been able to monetize better than Facebook because they’re further along the curve than Facebook, which is a global company. But we think that Facebook will improve. Money will come from micropayments and advertising.

Zuckerberg: We can do advertising and have been experimenting with payments. Social networks in DST’s portfolio all monetize in different ways. Each is doing well, with a different model. We’re still growing. Online and direct advertising are growing the quickest, but over time, we expect to be able to build out a large number of these things.

What is your ad revenue going to be? Zuckerberg: A couple of months ago, we felt that everyone outside the company was underestimating our performance. We’ve been EBITDA-profitable for five straight quarters coming on six. Revenue growth has been 70 percent. Cash-flow positive sometime in 2010. That’s important because it means this investment is pure buffer. I realize those aren’t absolute numbers, but those are the ones we’re talking about.

Will DST be involved in management? Milner: We have our own businesses to run. We’ll keep in touch.

Questions about micropayments. Zuckerberg: We’ve tested a lot of things. It’s not a big part of our business, could be greater one day. They create a lot of value for users, and there are ways to monetize them. I’m looking forward to learning how these models are working.

Please talk about common stock/employee stock purchase plans. Zuckerberg: Going back to first question re. IPO. We want to make sure that we can continually make it so employees can be focused on the long term. We felt that if we let people have a little bit of liquidity, it can take some of the pressure off and let people focus on making company as good as it could be. We started to do this last year and had to hold off. Now we hope to be able to do it again.

Will that be the only way you are allowing employees or ex-employees to sell shares? Zuckerberg: Still talking about.

Is current Facebook ad business to be the main business going forward? Doesn’t mean it will be main business in the long term. You guys know everything that we’re talking about now.

Why aren’t you running big brand ad campaigns? We’re very interested in it. We have a big ad sales team. Building out offices internationally: U.K., France, a few more coming up. We think the best way to serve advertisers is to create ads that people interact with, that are “social and engaging.” I don’t want anyone to think that this isn’t a big part of our business, because it is.

Sandberg: Heavily engaged with brands. Ads specifically designed for Facebook, so they look different and behave differently than other ads on other sites, and that’s a good thing.

Preferred shares–are these are substantially similar to the ones Microsoft bought? Zuckberg: “I’m gonna duck that one.”

Does the company have any debt? Zuckerberg: [pause] There’s been some information that’s been public about debt we have for operating equipment. Beyond that, we do equity deals.

Will you do other investment deals? How many did you look at? Zuckerberg: He doesn’t really answer this question; instead he goes on to praise DST. Milner: We see things that other people don’t see, which is monetization that other social networks have been able to do. So we “kind of feel comfortable with that valuation.”

Is this largest foreign investment in Facebook? Zuckerberg: Um… [pause]. There’s been some public information about other folks we’ve worked with, but I think from reading some of the records you can get the answer to your question.

Other new deals? Zuckerberg: It was really at our option to find someone we were comfortable with. We didn’t feel like we needed to take an investment, and now we feel like we have the buffer we want.

Working on video chat product? More international products? Zuckerberg Yes. There are lots of things like that that we’re working on now. We want the site to be available in every country. We’re not translating the site. Users translate the site themselves. And a lot of the features are universally applicable.

Call finished.

Why do I care?

• Because his hire is yet another indicator that AOL is continuing to hire experienced writers and reporters–often from ailing publications–to build up its own sites, a strategy championed by content czar Bill Wilson’s MediaGlow. AOL has been steadily hiring journalism vets and using them to reinvigorate existing sites like its FanHouse sports hub and to launch new ones like PoliticsDaily. Other recent hires include Mitch Lipka, a consumer finance writer for the Boston Globe who will join AOL’s Walletpop, and David Wood, a longtime national security writer for the Baltimore Sun,  who is joining PoliticsDaily.
• Because it means that the not-going-to-shut-down-after-all Portoflio.com won’t feature its two marquee bloggers. Felix Salmon, Bercovici’s former colleague at the Condé Nast site, had already left for Reuters to start a finance blog earlier this year.
• Because Bercovici is damned good at the media beat, so I’m going to need to bookmark his page and add his RSS feed into my reader.
• And because I’ve been writing about layoffs since I started this column in October, and this is a nice change of pace.

Plans for the move were first reported yesterday by the New York Observer.

The swap is really a testament to the power of Google (GOOG) and the long-tail theory: Even though Condé had been running Portfolio.com with a skeleton crew since the beginning of the year, the site was still generating four to five million page views a month, primarily because of search queries, says Condé Nast Group President David Carey. So that alone made Portfolio.com worth saving.

It will now serve as the central hub for ACBJ, a collection of 40 local business publications (including one I used to work for many moons ago). But it won’t just be an aggregator, insists ACBJ President Tim Bradbury. He intends to rebuild the site’s staff–he’s keeping two of the last Portfolio.com employees and intends to launch with a full-time editorial staff of five, plus freelancers–and pump out new content.

Bradbury says he’d “like to get the old band back together,” but I’m not sure exactly what that means. In the last few months of Portfolio.com’s life, the site was essentially a blogging platform for the excellent duo of Felix Salmon, who covered finance, and Jeff Bercovici, who covered media. But Salmon jumped ship for Reuters prior to the shutdown, so he’s presumably locked up. No word on Bercovici’s plans. But even if Bradbury can’t get those two back on board, I’m guessing there’s no shortage of applicants for full-time and contract slots.

Here’s the release:

New York, NY, May 20, 2009 – Portfolio.com will become part of the American City Business Journal’s bizjournals.com effective in July, it was announced today by Tim Bradbury, President, American City Business Journals, New Media, (ACBJ) and David Carey, Group President, Condé Nast. ACBJ and Condé Nast are units of Advance Publications.

Bizjournals.com will oversee both the editorial and business sides of the site. The Portfolio.com editorial team and sales staff will be based in New York. In addition to newly created content, the site will share content with other Condé Nast sites including Wired.com, GolfDigest.com, and WWD.com, as it did previously. The site will also be the home of the archives of all the popular content published by Portfolio’s print and digital properties over the last two years.

“We are excited about continuing Portfolio.com and including the site in the bizjournals network because we were impressed by Portfolio’s strong web presence, its clean and crisp design, and its voice in the business journalism marketplace,” Tim Bradbury, President, American City Business Journals, New Media said. “We believe our readers will benefit as the re-launched Portfolio.com will have a stronger focus on industry news and a greater mission to offer information relevant to today’s business professionals.”

On top of its existing strengths, Portfolio.com will be able to leverage the collaborative skills and insights of the more than 600 ACBJ business journalists around the country. The site now will have access to local market intelligence and work collaboratively with ACBJ newsrooms across the country, presenting the most important local insights through a national lens and making it unique among national business media.

“We knew that Portfolio.com was a highly valuable asset, with an established digital brand, strong direct navigation by users, and a solid long tail of traffic from content published over the past two years,” David Carey, Group President, Condé Nast said. “We saw ACBJ as a perfect match due to its great editorial resources in the business arena, and view this as a win for both Portfolio.com’s readers and the company.”

Condé Nast Portfolio magazine and its website Portfolio.com, launched in April 2007 and the magazine closed in April 2009. The site provided insight into the day’s top business stories, with analysis from bloggers and columnists. During those two years Portfolio.com grew to 2.8 million monthly uniques and won industry praise with awards such as the MIN:  Best of Web 2008, MIN: Hottest Launch of the Year 2007, WebAward: Outstanding Achievement in Website Development 2007, and Webby nominees in Best Business blog and Financial Services categories.

Portfolio’s ad pages were down more than 60 percent in the first quarter of 2009. If you account for the magazine’s decreased frequency–it published two issues in the first free months of the year, down down from three last year–that works out to be a 40 percent drop. Here’s how its peers performed during the same period, via the Magazine Publishers of America:

McGraw-Hill’s (MHP) BusinessWeek: Down 39.8 percent

Time Warner’s (TWX) Fortune: Down 26.3 percent

Privately held Forbes: Down 15 percent

Bear in mind that the revenue numbers for each title are likely down much more dramatically. That’s because the two categories of advertisers that the business magazines have depended on to fill their pages–financial services and autos–have all received extra-vicious beatings from the economy since last summer. So the publishers are particularly vulnerable to rate card pressure. And I’m told that luxury and travel advertisers, which had stayed relatively strong through the end of 2008, fell off dramatically this year. So that can’t be good.

My contribution to the aforementioned bone-picking: Like everyone else who wrote about Portfolio yesterday, I mentioned that the magazine and Web site had reportedly been launched with a budget of $100 million or more. But let’s be clear–that’s $100 million (or more), to be spent over a five-year period.

Portfolio was around for two years, and was gestating for a year before that, and a bunch of the budget was likely spent up front. So Condé Nast likely did burn through a very large pile of cash–the New York Times’s David Carr reports that the magazine spent $30,000 last fall to “procure the services of a real elephant to menace a model at a photo shoot.” And I’d love to know what the total actually was (for the record, I asked, and no one will tell me). But it’s a stretch to think Condé Nast actually burned through nine figures on this one.

Sell ads that look exactly like the content itself.

That’s the strategy that Condé Nast is taking–cautiously–with Reddit, the Digg-like news aggregator it bought a couple of years ago. And it might be working.

So says Josh Stinchcomb, who runs sales and marketing for the “business” group of Condé’s digital properties, which also includes Wired.com, Ars Technica, and Web sites for the likes of The New Yorker and Portfolio. About three months ago, Stinchcomb began running ads that look exactly like the story headlines Reddit users submit and vote on.

The only difference: They sit at the top of the site’s homepage and carry a “sponsored link” tag. Like this (click to enlarge):

The results have made Condé “cautiously optimistic,” says Stinchcomb. You can measure that two ways: Click-through rates for the ads are running at about five percent, which is several times more than the industry average. And readers haven’t revolted.

The latter is a real possibility at a site like Reddit, whose users are fiercely protective of the community they’ve built, and antagonistic toward advertising in general. Stinchcomb says about 20 percent of Reddit’s users have installed ad-blocking software on their Web browsers.

If Condé keeps using the ads–they’ve run them from three sponsors so far and are tinkering with a self-service version that would allow marketers to submit ads on their own–it won’t create a torrent of cash. Right now the ads are priced at a $7 CPM (that’s $7 for every 1,000 eyeballs Condé gets in front of the ads), and Stinchcomb says he’ll probably have to knock that rate down. (He says he may also consider changing ad pricing to a cost-per-click/performance model, which would be a first for Condé).

But even a little bit of money would be a plus for Reddit, which has remained more or less a revenue-free property for Condé, even though traffic has shot up since the acquisition. Stinchcomb says Reddit now attracts five million uniques visitors a month, up from 1.5 million when the publisher bought the site (per usual, third-party traffic meausurements are much smaller).

Just as important, if it works for Reddit, it could have big implications for Digg, which has a significantly bigger audience, but faces the same problems selling ads.

Digg has raised $40 million so far, at a very high valuation, but revenues have been paltry. The site is reportedly planning to start selling ads that will look and feel a lot like the ones Reddit is already trying. High time to start experimenting.

[Note to Techmeme's Gabe Rivera: Yup, you have sponsored content, too. In fact, we've seen versions of this model for as long as we've had mass media. I think this iteration is particularly interesting, though.]

Snyder, who ran publishing giant Simon & Schuster for a couple decades, had a an exciting and juicy story to tell: He basically claims that Bronfman hired him as consigliere as he figured out how to buy Warner Music (WMG) for $2.6 billion in 2003, but never paid him. The tale is nicely told in this Portfolio piece from 2007, which includes plenty of character assassination and mud-slinging, if you’re in to that sort of thing.

Today’s news is compelling only if you’re one of the two men involved in the case. But it does look good for Bronfman: In April, the New York State Supreme Court had ruled against Snyder on four of the six claims he filed in 2007; today, an appellate court shot down the final two.

Here’s the statement from Bronfman’s attorney, Orin Snyder; the court’s decision is embedded below (click on button on top right to enlarge):

This unanimous decision is a complete victory for Mr. Bronfman–so much so that the Court imposed court costs on Dick Snyder. We are gratified that the appellate court vindicated Mr. Bronfman and repudiated Dick Snyder’s bogus claims. Today’s decision confirmed what we have said all along–that Dick Snyder’s claims were nothing more than a work of fiction. This opportunistic lawsuit was a lame attempt to extract money from Mr. Bronfman, whose hard work, vision and creativity helped bring about the successful acquisition of Warner Music. From the outset, Mr. Bronfman refused to settle because he believed that, as a matter of principle, it was important to fight this frivolous lawsuit to the end.”

Bronfman v. Snyder

Portfolio.com media blogger Jeff Bercovici posted a short item about one of the panels yesterday afternoon; later that evening, the story had disappeared.

It should never have run in the first place, Portfolio.com managing editor Daniel Colarusso tells me. That’s because Portfolio magazine was a sponsor of the event (editor in chief Joanne Lipman moderated one panel; Washington editor Matt Cooper moderated the one that Bercovici wrote about) and is honoring its no-press rules.

Again, it’s Quadrangle’s conference, and they can run it however they’d like. But it seems particularly ironic that the one story that did get published, then pulled, was about a panel of professional communicators: CBS (CBS) news anchor Katie Couric, NBC anchor Brian Williams and ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.

Some MediaMemo readers have asked me to reprint all of Bercovici’s story, but I don’t have access to it. I can tell you, however, that is a very short story–maybe three or four paragraphs long–and that the text I quoted yesterday was the most interesting part. Here it is again:

Couric shed some light on her preparation for the interviews: Beforehand, she sought advice from former senator Sam Nunn and Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haas. They told her to draw Palin out on her geopolitical worldview and urged her to let the governor speak at length without interrupting her. Maybe she should bring them along with her when she takes over at Meet the Press?”

Meanwhile, Quadrangle really has bigger problems on its mind these days than unauthorized blog posts. It is shutting down its media hedge fund after sustaining losses of 25 percent year-to-date.

So who said what at Quadrangle’s Foursquare conference, and was any of it interesting?

You got me. The media and tech confab is off the record. And so far, the members of the fourth estate who attended the event yesterday seem to be keeping their mouths shut.

But I did talk briefly with an attendee, who told me that the most interesting panel was the one that Portfolio’s Matt Cooper conducted this afternoon with television personalities Katie Couric, Brian Williams and George Stephanopoulos.

That would be an interesting group under any circumstance, but even more so since Couric’s interview of Republican VP candidate and Alaska governor Sarah Palin for CBS (CBS) is now considered to be a turning point in the 2008 election.

And while Couric hasn’t talked publicly about the interviews yet, she apparently did dish a bit today, according to a source who talked to Portfolio.com’s Jeff Bercovici:

Couric shed some light on her preparation for the interviews: Beforehand, she sought advice from former senator Sam Nunn and Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haas. They told her to draw Palin out on her geopolitical worldview and urged her to let the governor speak at length without interrupting her. Maybe she should bring them along with her when she takes over at Meet the Press?”

UPDATE: Bercovici’s report has been pulled. Details here.

One newsworthy item not covered in Bercovici’s account: After the event, Couric gave Twitter correspondent MC Hammer a smooch, which was apparently well-received.

And who knows? Maybe John Chambers, Steve Ballmer and Brian Roberts will indeed say something important today and tomorrow at Quadrangle’s Foursquare conference. Chrysler’s Robert Nardelli is speaking too. He might have something newsworthy to say.

But you are unlikely to read about it.

That’s because there’s no press allowed at the private equity shop’s annual conference, which starts this afternoon at New York’s Plaza Hotel.

Or rather, there’s some press at the event. But they’ll be on stage. And they won’t be telling their readers and listeners what they saw and heard.

CNBC’s David Faber, Becky Quick and Maria Bartiromo, for instance, will be moderating panels over the next few days. So will the New York Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin. And network TV news bigshots Katie Couric, George Stephanopoulos and Brian Williams will answer questions themselves (Portfolio’s Matt Cooper will be moderating that one).

Am I crabby because I asked (nicely) and couldn’t get in myself? Nah. It’s Quadrangle’s event, and they can run it any way they want. But it does look like a pretty good gathering of worthies. Maybe I’ll park myself in the Plaza’s lobby and see if I can bump into some of them.

Want to join me? Here’s the agenda for next two days:

Tuesday 11/11
2:00 PM WELCOME
Joshua L. Steiner (Quadrangle)

ONE ON ONE WITH JOHN CHAMBERS (Cisco)
Moderated by Jim Citrin (Spencer Stuart)

WHO DO YOU TRUST: INFORMATION AND NEWS IN AN  OPEN WORLD
Tom Glocer (Thomson Reuters), Nancy McKinstry (Wolters Kluwer) and Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook)
Moderated by David Faber (CNBC)

ALL ABOUT WIRELESS
Jean-Bernard Lévy (Vivendi), Naguib Sawiris (Orascom Telecom) and Ben Wolff (Clearwire)
Moderated by Steven Rattner

4:15 PM BREAK

GOING IT ALONE IN AN INTERCONNECTED WORLD
Philippe Dauman (Viacom), Charlie Ergen (EchoStar) and Robert Kotick (Activision)
Moderated by Becky Quick (CNBC)

GLOBAL E-COMMERCE: $500 BILLION AND GROWING
Barry Diller (IAC) and Hiroshi Mikitani (Rakuten)
Moderated by Steve Hasker (McKinsey)

6:15 PM COCKTAIL RECEPTION
Grand Ballroom Foyer
The Plaza

Wednesday 11/12
8:30 AM WELCOME
ONE ON ONE WITH STEVE BALLMER (Microsoft)
Moderated by Ken Auletta (The New Yorker)

INNOVATION AND THE NEXT BIG IDEA
Jean-François Decaux (JC Decaux) Robert Stephens (Geek Squad founder?) and Jim Wiatt (William Morris)
Moderated by Andrew Ross Sorkin (New York Times)

A CONVERSATION WITH SAM ZELL (Equity Group, Tribune Co.)
Moderated by Joanne Lipman (Portfolio)

10:00 AM BREAK

COOP-ER-TITION: A CONVERSATION WITH PETER CHERNIN (News Corp.) AND BRIAN ROBERTS (Comcast)
Moderated by Ken Auletta

REBUILDING A BRAND FROM THE TOP DOWN
Dan Hesse (Sprint) and Robert Nardelli (Chrysler)
Moderated by Maria Bartiromo

NOON Concluding Luncheon
CAMPAIGN 2008: IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA AND BEHIND THE SCENES
Katie Couric (CBS), George Stephanopoulos (ABC) and Brian Williams (NBC)
Moderated by Matt Cooper (Portfolio)

[Image Credit: PinkMoose]