Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The worst acquisition in history, again

profgmedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 110 posts

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#51

Post by est31 »

arthurjj wrote: post #17
lotsofpulp wrote: post #7

Why is Netflix in the "Big Tech" categorization in the "value in market cap" graphic? I do not see how Netflix's primary business is any different than the businesses in the "Hollywood" categorization that also pay to make media and then sell it. Apple and Amazon can be in a different category because making and selling media is an ancillary part of their business. Alphabet does not make or curate any media, it just…

Netflix pays like a Big Tech company, is valued like a Big Tech company and was part of FAANG. 10 years ago the streaming tech they had was fairly high tech, even if it's now pretty standard. So they're considered Big Tech for historical reason

They also have their own global CDN, while Disney/HBO et al use various third party CDNs.

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#52

Post by afavour »

warkdarrior wrote: post #33
afavour wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume OP is talking about an ideological motive to take over the media industry and pivot it in a rightward direction. That’s certainly what happened with CBS News, I think it’s fair to speculate about CNN too. No idea why OP alluded to it rather than just said it though.

Even if that is indeed the motive, the article is useful in showing how from a financial perspective this is bad deal for Paramount.

Absolutely. But it’s still relevant because depending on your goal (and your resources) a bad deal that burns cash might still be a positive outcome.

Not dissimilar from Musk buying Twitter, objectively he overpaid by a ton for a business that wasn’t thriving. But I think time has shown that his purchase has paid political and ideological dividends. Which might be worth the money to him.

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#53

Post by levinb »

monkeydreams wrote: post #23

On top of this Ellison is likely to have to sell off the dried husk of Cerner in order to fuel his circular AI transactions with NVidia.

Remember, the Cerner acquisition enabled an essentially permanent beachhead for Oracle in the VA. It will pay off over time in 'we already run Oracle' across many dimensions of government.

See the career of Seema Verma from last DT admin.

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#54

Post by borski »

helaoban wrote: post #45

>Another culture clash, this time between Discovery’s unscripted empire and Warner’s premium sensibilities, a wannabe mogul overpaying so he could cosplay as Robert Evans (ask Claude), and a 5x debt-to-EBITDA ratio. The good news? The sequel had a short runtime. CEO David Zaslav slashed costs, engineered a good bank / bad bank structure to spin WBD’s declining linear assets, and ultimately orchestrated a bidding war…

It depends on whether or not you like that style of writing. It has always been consistent with Galloway; I like it, but I prefer listening to it over reading it.

Whereas I definitely prefer reading PG’s writing over listening to it, interestingly enough.

Just personal preference. Scott’s a good storyteller; if you let him finish the story. :)

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#55

Post by JumpCrisscross »

coliveira wrote: post #49
pinkmuffinere wrote: post #20

> With his new toy having a leverage ratio north of 6x, David Ellison has promised $6 billion in “synergies” within three years. (Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos put the figure closer to $16 billion, after examining WBD’s books. What is it that these CEOs think they are seeing, that everyone else is missing? I can believe they have inflated egos, but they’re not totally crazy, right? My impression is that Netflix is fair…

Rich people don't buy media companies because this is the best business in the world. Quite the opposite, most media companies are mediocre or lose money. They do this because of the political clout they get with the control of these media properties.

> They do this because of the political clout they get with the control of these media properties

Bezos bought the Post for clout. Ellison (and his investors) are buying Warner Brothers first and foremost to make money.

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#56

Post by JumpCrisscross »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #20

> With his new toy having a leverage ratio north of 6x, David Ellison has promised $6 billion in “synergies” within three years. (Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos put the figure closer to $16 billion, after examining WBD’s books. What is it that these CEOs think they are seeing, that everyone else is missing? I can believe they have inflated egos, but they’re not totally crazy, right? My impression is that Netflix is fair…

> that everyone else is missing?

To be fair, sometimes they do. Musk saw genuine bloat at Twitter. I’m doubtful one can optimize that much out of WarnerBrothers. But Hollywood isn’t exactly known for being efficient.

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#57

Post by butterisgood »

bluegatty wrote: post #42
pinkmuffinere wrote: post #20

> With his new toy having a leverage ratio north of 6x, David Ellison has promised $6 billion in “synergies” within three years. (Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos put the figure closer to $16 billion, after examining WBD’s books. What is it that these CEOs think they are seeing, that everyone else is missing? I can believe they have inflated egos, but they’re not totally crazy, right? My impression is that Netflix is fair…

They're buying control of narrative on issues they care about; the history of media is mostly that. Newspapers were kind of invented for that reason. Our ideas of ethics in journalism are fairly modern.

Indeed Edgar Allan Poe had a thing or two to say about newspapers. https://poestories.com/quotes.php (and scroll down a bit).

> “We should bear in mind that, in general, it is the object of our newspapers rather to create a sensation — to make a point — than to further the cause of truth.”

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#58

Post by steve_adams_86 »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #48
helaoban wrote: post #45

>Another culture clash, this time between Discovery’s unscripted empire and Warner’s premium sensibilities, a wannabe mogul overpaying so he could cosplay as Robert Evans (ask Claude), and a 5x debt-to-EBITDA ratio. The good news? The sequel had a short runtime. CEO David Zaslav slashed costs, engineered a good bank / bad bank structure to spin WBD’s declining linear assets, and ultimately orchestrated a bidding war…

I also find Scott to be an unsufferable writer. It all feels so forced

To me it feels like you're reading his insecurity. He can't be direct. He needs to fluff it up so you know how smart he is. I'm guilty of the same bullshit.

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#59

Post by pinkmuffinere »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56
pinkmuffinere wrote: post #20

> With his new toy having a leverage ratio north of 6x, David Ellison has promised $6 billion in “synergies” within three years. (Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos put the figure closer to $16 billion, after examining WBD’s books. What is it that these CEOs think they are seeing, that everyone else is missing? I can believe they have inflated egos, but they’re not totally crazy, right? My impression is that Netflix is fair…

> that everyone else is missing? To be fair, sometimes they do. Musk saw genuine bloat at Twitter. I’m doubtful one can optimize that much out of WarnerBrothers. But Hollywood isn’t exactly known for being efficient.

Ya, I totally agree, given that both CEOs see some significant value here, and I trust one to be fairly calculated, I assume they’re at least partially correct. But I sincerely don’t know _what_ they think they see. If it’s just layoffs, then why doesn’t WBD see the same thing and do the layoffs themselves? If it’s IP, then why do shareholders disagree? Wtf is it, lol
Post reply on HN