The company’s revenue climbed 7.4 percent in the 12 months ending March 31, the company disclosed (via PaidContent).

The rise is due to increases in both the sale of recorded music and publishing revenue; increases in the former are particularly rare these days. And these numbers ought to bump again in the coming year given that they’ll include dollars/pounds generated by the re-release of the Beatles albums.

Alas, since EMI owner Terra Firma is deep in the midst of negotiations with Citigroup (C), which lent it billions to buy the company, it’s not handing out any other details about the company’s performance, so hard to tell what’s really going on there.

Still, we do know that music has been in decline for a decade, and EMI’s bump up is the first, no matter how modest, in many moons (click on table below to enlarge).

Some perspective: As I noted last week, AOL has already spent $83 million on separate restructuring efforts through the first nine months of this year. And parent company Time Warner has said it will spend $100 million on its restructuring/mass layoffs at its Time Inc. publishing unit.

Turns out Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt isn’t quite sure himself.

But posed with that question during a Boston news conference yesterday, Schmidt did use the opportunity to expound on the difference between pro bloggers and amateur ones. Or at least, his vision of the difference.

From Nieman Journalism Lab blogger Zachary Seward’s transcript of his exchange with Schmidt:

Me: A very small question. Google News very recently added a label for blogs, to differentiate from non-blogs. It seemed weird in 2009 to make that distinction. I wondered, did you have any input on that or –?

Eric Schmidt: I was not directly involved in that. There seems to be a difference between blogs and traditional news. It’s sometimes hard to distinguish because many people in the traditional news are also bloggers.

Me: Or they use a blog platform.

Schmidt: Or they use a blog platform. So we’re trying to find that line. And it’s hard to articulate what that difference is.

Me: How would describe that line if it’s not based on the tech behind the publishing platform?

Schmidt: No, it’s not the technology. My guess is–again, I’m speculating, which is always a mistake–it has a lot to do with the infrastructure around the writer. So a blog that’s associated with a major, legitimate organization–of which, I think, the majority, if not everyone, in the room is associated with–would be, I think, treated differently than an individual blogger who’s using his or her right of free expression to say whatever he thinks. So the presence of an editor, as an example. You know, an editor that’s not your mom.

As Seward points out, Schmidt is wrong about the way Google News categorizes. As best I can tell, Google basically lumps all blogs, including this one, which I like to think of as reasonably professional, in its “blog” category. And no, despite her occasional appearances on this site, Kara Swisher’s mother is not an editor here.

Anyway, the real question for me isn’t “how does Google refer to my work in its search results?” but “how does Google determine where to put my my work in its search results?” Schmidt and company can call it whatever they want–just send those eyeballs my way.

[image credit: kevindooley]

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

At a TVWeek conference in Manhattan, Bewkes repeated arguments he has made in the past: Chiefly, that big media mergers have a lousy track record and that he couldn’t see how Comcast (CMCSA) could unlock any value by buying a majority stake in NBC Universal from GE (GE).

“Somebody has finally noticed that these things don’t work out so well,” he said, adding “We love to see our competitors taking risks.”

But just to hammer that point home, Bewkes compared the proposed deal to the one his company made nine years ago when it embarked on an ill-fated merger with AOL. That deal (made when Bewkes was running Time Warner’s HBO unit)  “basically made no sense” at the time, he said.

The main talking point in favor of that transaction–that connecting Time Warner’s content with AOL’s Internet distribution would create synergy–was “nonsensical,” he said. But “these kind of arguments, you’ll hear some of them this week, in the other merger that we’ve been talking about,” Bewkes said.

Clear enough?

Wall Street, by the way, remains unimpressed with the proposed deal as well: Comcast shares are down about 10 percent since word got out.

In other reiteration news, Bewkes also said, again, that he doesn’t plan on selling his Time Inc. publishing unit. Though he left himself a tiny window of wiggling room by noting that “no public company can ever say that it wouldn’t consider restructuring some part, whether it’s Warner, HBO, whatever.”

But Bewkes insisted that Time Inc.’s best-known magazine brands, including “Time, People, Sports Illustrated, InStyle,” are holding their own as print products and that the challenge will be turning them into online successes.

“We have basically a healthy business in terms of our relationship with readers. These brands mean something and they’re evolving…,” he said. “If you can’t take the leading titles that people have known for decades, and use the new world to make them relevant, really, shame on us.”

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.

Squires has spent the past few months convincing other publishers to join a new joint venture aimed at a market that doesn’t really exist yet–magazine-like publications to be delivered via e-readers like Amazon’s Kindle and Apple’s rumored tablet.

The idea: The new company, which will operate independently from the publishers that invest in it, will create a digital storefront where consumers can purchase and manage their subscriptions, which can be delivered to any device. The pitch: Control a direct relationship with consumers while gaining leverage with heavyweights like Apple (AAPL) and Amazon (AMZN).

Industry executives briefed on Squires’s plan say it has been well received by Time Inc.’s peers and that several major publishers, including Hearst and Condé Nast, are expected to sign on for the JV, which isn’t scheduled to debut until 2010. No comment from Hearst, Condé Nast or Time Inc., a unit of Time Warner (TWX).

Many of the venture’s big details have yet to be hammered down. At one point, for instance, Time Inc. had explored the idea of including newspapers in the new company’s offering, sources say. The JV may also want to include a noncontent partner as an investor, as Hulu did with Providence Equity and as Vevo, the “Hulu for music” JV that Universal Music is creating with Google’s (GOOG) YouTube, plans to do. That approach is supposed to appease antitrust regulators’ worries about a group of content companies banding together.

But the rough outlines of Squires’s plan are attractive enough to publishers, who are hopeful that mobile devices like the Kindle will create a new market for them. And if that market does show up, they want to make sure they’re the ones in charge of sales and distribution. That’s been a huge problem for the music industry, whose digital sales are essentially controlled by Apple. And it has already cropped up as a point of contention with Amazon, which currently handles sales for all content delivered via its Kindle reader.

Other selling points for the JV: The ability to set standards for mobile content and the ability to integrate advertising into the publications. One thing the company isn’t supposed to do: Create an e-reader itself.

The takeaway, via a Time Inc. presentation that has circulated among publishers: “our destiny with readers, advertisers and distributors … [is] in our hands.”

Of course, there are plenty of hurdles facing the joint venture, starting with the fact that media joint ventures have a checkered record at best (though Hearst and Condé, for instance, have already partnered on Comag, a wholesale distribution company). But there are bigger problems for Squires and company. For instance:

• They’ll have to convince consumers who already have billing relationships with Amazon, Apple and other vendors to sign up with yet another service.
• They’ll  have to convince device makers to play along with the strategy, which runs counter to many of their own plans. Both Amazon and Apple, for instance, have intentionally created closed systems that give them control of both devices and distribution.
• They’ll have to create content consumers want to buy. The new product can’t simply be a digital version of the magazines they’re already printing: That’s already available on the Web, and consumers have shown almost no interest in paying for it, and advertisers haven’t fully embraced it either.

So what exactly will the JV be selling? That’s probably the most difficult question for publishers to answer, made even more difficult because they don’t know what capabilities the e-readers of the future will boast. Apple for instance, refuses to even acknowledge to Time Inc. executives that it plans to produce a tablet device, let alone provide them with specs.

But publishers feel they’ve got nothing to lose by trying. “We know that traditional magazines are going away, and that magazines on the Web don’t work,” says a publishing executive working on the plan. “But this gives us a chance to serve the reader who will pay for content, and provide advertising that really works. Can you think of a better idea?”

Khan’s estimate is the first one I’ve seen floated in public so far. The analyst has proven to have a pretty good grip on AOL’s business to date, so I’m taking it seriously.

But for the record, note that not only is the $4 billion number a pittance of the company’s value during the original Web boom (remember those days?), it’s also marked down from the $5.5 billion Google assigned to the company when it wrote down its five percent stake earlier this year. Which was, of course, a markdown from the $20 billion value Google (GOOG) had given it in 2005.

UPDATE: Pali Capital’s Rich Greenfield also pegs AOL at “around $4 billion.” Greenfield is also in the growing group of people who think Time Warner is likely to sell off its Time Inc. publishing unit. I think otherwise, but this will be interesting to watch.

Here’s how Khan got to his number (click chart to enlarge).

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).

Adobe (ADBE) is offering $21.50 in cash for each Omniture (OMTR) share. That’s a 25 percent premium over today’s closing price of $17.32–which includes a large run-up in the last few hours of the day, before trading was halted around 3:45 pm EDT. Good bet the folks at the Securities and Exchange Commission will take a look at that leap.

Release

Finke moved Deadline Hollywood Daily, her one-woman operation, from LA Weekly to Penske’s burgeoning Web empire in June. At the time, she promised to hire a “senior” journalist, based in New York City, within three months.

Now Penske tells me that the new hire, whom he describes as a “well-known figure from established media,” has been locked up, is finishing paperwork, and will be on board within two weeks. Finke also promises to have hires in “London, Paris, Mumbai, Hong Kong, and Sydney” within the next year.

Not that long ago, it would have been inconceivable to see a big-name media macher go to work for a one-woman blog owned by a white-label email services provider. But now that Web publishing has lost most (but not all) of its reputation as a backwater for second-raters, wannabes and has-beens, and now that traditional publishing is on life support, it’s a whole lot more believable.

So. Who’s making the leap and jumping into the digital pool with the rest of us? (It’s great fun! You’ll love it! Unless you hate it!) A few of us have been guessing at names for a bit, but there’s no reason to keep our parlor game to ourselves.

Feel free to speculate in comments below, though you’ll have to use your real name if you do. If you’re feeling shy, you can reach me directly at peter@allthingsd.com. And 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.

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).

After Sony unveiled its new line of readers this morning, I posed that question to Sony executive Steve Haber, who immediately pointed out that his “Daily Edition” machine has a slightly bigger screen than the Kindle 2 and boasts a touchscreen. (You can check out my interview with him at the bottom of this post.)

Both of these sound like nice upgrades from Amazon’s (AMZN) machine–I can’t actually tell you if they are since Sony (SNE) was simply showing the device today without actually demoing it. But I don’t think they’re enough to convince someone to shell out another $100.

But Sony does have one feature that sounds much more interesting–at least on electronic paper (Heh-heh. Get it?). The device will let you check out books, for free, from your local library.

In theory, Sony’s library program will work the way conventional books work now: Participating libraries purchase a given number of electronic copies of a particular book and lend them out, one at a time. The books will disappear at the end of the lending period, which will cut down on flexibility, but will also eliminate late fees.

We’ll see how this works in practice. The most obvious hurdle is convincing enough libraries to buy enough books to satisfy e-book owners who expect to be able to check out whatever they like, whenever they like.

But! If Sony can arrange this, it will convince people like my dad, who likes technology and hates spending money. We’ve talked about e-books for years and his line has always been the same: He’s a big reader who’s not attached to the idea of ink-and-paper books, and he’s happy to shell out a couple hundred bucks for a reading device. But he hates the idea of paying for books he’ll only read once.

So let’s assume that Sony and the libraries it is working with can deliver on the promising concept. Dad’s in. Are there enough of him to help Sony catch up?

]]> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090825/sonys-new-reader-plus-free-library-books-passes-my-dad-test-is-that-enough/feed/ 1 http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090824/barnes-noble-lands-irex-another-would-be-kindle-killer/ http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090824/barnes-noble-lands-irex-another-would-be-kindle-killer/#comments Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:00:11 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=10196 Here’s another company choosing a side in the coming e-book war: Irex Technologies, a Dutch company that plans on selling a Kindle-like reader in the U.S. this fall, has allied itself with Barnes & Noble’s online bookstore.

Irex is the second e-book reader company to join up with Barnes & Noble (BKS); earlier this summer Plastic Logic made a similar announcement. Neither company has a product that’s actually on the U.S. market.

Plastic Logic says its device, which it showed off at the D7 conference in late May, will go on sale next year; Irex sells machines in Europe, but hasn’t demoed its newest gadget in the U.S. yet. Its says its newest reader will feature an 8.1-inch touchscreen and a 3G wireless connection.

Irex doesn’t spell it out, but suggests that the relationship with the bookseller won’t be exclusive. Canned quote from Kevin Hamilton, North American CEO of Irex Technologies: “We will change the dynamics of the consumer market–users want to easily purchase content from a variety of sources and we allow them to read it on an IREX eReader as well as other devices.”

The announcement is one of a series we’ve seen this summer as would-be rivals to Amazon’s Kindle try to gear up for a big push against the market leader. The jostling for position includes competing boasts about whose bookstore is bigger and whose is more open.

Part of me thinks this is all for naught since Amazon has moved so far ahead of the pack already. And part of me thinks the e-book industry remains wide open since it’s still so very small and undefined. And it’s entirely possible that the e-book market won’t be dominated by single-use products like the Kindle, but will end up being driven by smartphones like Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone.

Sony (SNE), meanwhile, has already introduced a new line of readers this month and has another product announcement set for Tuesday morning in New York. I’ll drop by that one and report back….

[Image credit: sapphireblue]

]]> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090824/barnes-noble-lands-irex-another-would-be-kindle-killer/feed/ 3 http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090716/good-enough-for-nikki-finke-good-enough-for-celebrity-editrix-bonnie-fuller-mailcom-lands-another-high-profile-hire/ http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090716/good-enough-for-nikki-finke-good-enough-for-celebrity-editrix-bonnie-fuller-mailcom-lands-another-high-profile-hire/#comments Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:18:49 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=9373 Want a media job? Dust off your resume, highlight your experience covering entertainment and Hollywood, and then give Jay Penske a call. The owner of Mail.com Media Corp. continues to make high-profile hires for his burgeoning Web publishing business. The latest: Celebrity editrix Bonnie Fuller.

Fuller will take over Penske’s Hollwood Life site, which Penske says will become “a vibrant, interactive digital destination for entertainment news and style-minded women, ages 18-35.”

That makes some sense. Fuller made her bones at women’s magazines like Cosmopolitan and Glamour, and her reputation by reinventing Jann Wenner’s US Weekly and turning that title into a cash cow. She had a less successful run as editorial director at tabloid publisher American Media, and for the past year has been in a holding pattern.

Bonnie Fuller is one of a series of hires Penske has made since acquiring Mail.com, a white-label mail provider, and raising $35 million last year. His most promient get to date: Luring Hollywood power blogger Nikki Finke to the fold, purportedly for a truckload of money (though I’m pretty sure it’s just a minivan).

]]> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090716/good-enough-for-nikki-finke-good-enough-for-celebrity-editrix-bonnie-fuller-mailcom-lands-another-high-profile-hire/feed/ 1