Comments on: If you love something (and/or want to make money from it online), set it free. http://jonathanhstrauss.com/blog/2008/08/if-you-love-something-andor-want-to-make-money-from-it-set-it-free/ A view from the middle Thu, 03 May 2012 18:29:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: jonathan http://jonathanhstrauss.com/blog/2008/08/if-you-love-something-andor-want-to-make-money-from-it-set-it-free/#comment-777 jonathan Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:25:46 +0000 http://jonathanhstrauss.com/blog/?p=59#comment-777 Great point Steve! I really hadn't thought about things that way. In theory, a lot of these companies could probably squeeze a lot of money out of focusing solely on exploiting the shit out of their current business models and assets and forgetting about the costs and distractions of attempting to take a leadership position in "new media." But, I think shareholders, who demand growth and consider these legacy businesses "mature," would severely punish any public company that openly abdicated the (largely undefined, but undeniably huge ;-) ) opportunities everyone is convinced exist online. This is in the vein of an argument I recently read that Charles Prince (former CEO of Citigroup), who is on the record as having recognized the dangers of the sub-prime mortgage/credit bubble early on, would have been fired in 2005 (instead of 2007) had he exercised what we all now know to have been his better judgment and not pursued what investors saw as the financial industry's most attractive growth area at that time. While you couch your question in the theoretical terms of business ethics, I'd argue that discussion is rendered moot (at least in the case of public companies) by the practical consideration of short-sighted public investors. So, the only scenario in which I see your question having the potential to be answered in practice is one where the company is held privately. EMI under Terra Firma/Guy Hands is the first example that springs to mind, and I think there's a very real possibility Mr. Hands may end up deciding to maximize present value and get out if he can't figure out a clear path to sustainable survival pretty soon. One more thing to watch. Great point Steve! I really hadn’t thought about things that way. In theory, a lot of these companies could probably squeeze a lot of money out of focusing solely on exploiting the shit out of their current business models and assets and forgetting about the costs and distractions of attempting to take a leadership position in “new media.”

But, I think shareholders, who demand growth and consider these legacy businesses “mature,” would severely punish any public company that openly abdicated the (largely undefined, but undeniably huge ;-) ) opportunities everyone is convinced exist online. This is in the vein of an argument I recently read that Charles Prince (former CEO of Citigroup), who is on the record as having recognized the dangers of the sub-prime mortgage/credit bubble early on, would have been fired in 2005 (instead of 2007) had he exercised what we all now know to have been his better judgment and not pursued what investors saw as the financial industry’s most attractive growth area at that time.

While you couch your question in the theoretical terms of business ethics, I’d argue that discussion is rendered moot (at least in the case of public companies) by the practical consideration of short-sighted public investors. So, the only scenario in which I see your question having the potential to be answered in practice is one where the company is held privately. EMI under Terra Firma/Guy Hands is the first example that springs to mind, and I think there’s a very real possibility Mr. Hands may end up deciding to maximize present value and get out if he can’t figure out a clear path to sustainable survival pretty soon. One more thing to watch.

]]> By: SteveR http://jonathanhstrauss.com/blog/2008/08/if-you-love-something-andor-want-to-make-money-from-it-set-it-free/#comment-776 SteveR Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:12:58 +0000 http://jonathanhstrauss.com/blog/?p=59#comment-776 Great post. I am working on a post that takes a closer look at the LA Times' Internet strategy. I know the LA Times is the ugly stepsister of the NY Times but on the surface it looks like they are doing some cool things as well. I often wonder whether the old media companies should even bother to try to prevent their eventual death. Its a business ethics question. Should the goal of management be to maximize the present value of all future cash flows or should it be to maximize the probability that the corporation survives forever. Classically the answer is the former. If that's the case, it just might be that the much maligned labels (and now other media companies) are actually behaving rationally by doing all they can to slow down the pace of change and under-investing in new models. In other words, its more profitable to maximize your profits now and forgo the uncertain and discounted (and likely smaller) money you might be able to make ten years from now producing content for online channels. So its rational to put the brakes on "progress" as best you can. Great post. I am working on a post that takes a closer look at the LA Times’ Internet strategy. I know the LA Times is the ugly stepsister of the NY Times but on the surface it looks like they are doing some cool things as well.

I often wonder whether the old media companies should even bother to try to prevent their eventual death. Its a business ethics question. Should the goal of management be to maximize the present value of all future cash flows or should it be to maximize the probability that the corporation survives forever. Classically the answer is the former. If that’s the case, it just might be that the much maligned labels (and now other media companies) are actually behaving rationally by doing all they can to slow down the pace of change and under-investing in new models. In other words, its more profitable to maximize your profits now and forgo the uncertain and discounted (and likely smaller) money you might be able to make ten years from now producing content for online channels. So its rational to put the brakes on “progress” as best you can.

]]>