1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Romenesko: Bezos buys Washington Post for $250 million

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Moderator1, Aug 5, 2013.

Page 5 of 10
  1. jackfinarelli

    jackfinarelli Well-Known Member

    The recent history of the Washington Post has been to buy out its best writers and replace them with mediocre writers. Take the sports section as an example.

    It used to have Kornheiser, Wilbon, Beyer, Gildea, Feinstein, Shapiro, Boswell, LaCanfora. Feinstein is back after a hiatus; Boswell is still there. The others are gone and have been replaced - in the main - with lesser writers (Sally Jenkins is the exception here). Yes, the Post saved money in those switches but what it did was to diminish the quality of the writing.

    And the reason I and most other people buy and read newspapers is the writing that informs and entertains us. That applies to the Washington Post and every other paper.
     
    jackfinarelli, Aug 7, 2013
    #49
  2. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    I've got to say, all the concern over the Koch brothers buying newspapers cracks me up.

    OH MY GOD! CONSERVATIVES -- OWNING A NEWSPAPER!!!!!!!!!!

    'Cause, you know, that's never happened before.
     
    da man, Aug 7, 2013
    #50
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Is it reasonable to speculate that in August 2014 Bezos would be able to buy the assets he bought for less than $200 million?

    On what basis do you make that statement, other than generalities about the newspaper business -- which I would guess he has little interest in.

    Here are a few salient things from the 2012 Wash Post annual report.

    Its newspaper business has seen declining revenue and increasing losses the last two years. It looks like a lot of newspapers.

    But a fifth of the overall revenue for the company comes from online operations and they have been growing that revenue pretty well. You can't really break out what percentage of that revenue he bought, because it includes Slate and the Washington Post online, and he didn't get Slate.

    But overall, you are looking at $580 million worth of revenue, with more than $110 million (online revenue) of it growing more than 5 percent year over year. So overall, even if you remove Slate, he's paying less than a 1X revenue multiple for everything he bought (maybe more like .5X revenue), and likely less than a 2X revenue multiple for the Wash Post online operations he picked up.

    Now make a more appropriate comparison. Buzzfeed, is the one I saw when the sale was announced. It produces much less revenue (not disclosed, but estimated between $10 and $20 million this year), and at that revenue level, it is easily valued at more than 10X revenues. After Tumblr was bought for $1.1 billion, there was the suggestion that Buzzfeed could be a billion dollar acquisition, too -- which would put it at a ridiculous multiple of its revenue.

    Using that kind of metric, I can turn around and suggest that he probably thinks he is getting a good deal. Take the newspaper history away from the Post, and put a flashy startup tech company valuation on just its online operations-- factoring in that they have been growing online ad revenue pretty well -- and it would be trading at at least 5X or 6X revenue. He is likely buying that (you can include the newspaper as a throwaway) at less than 2X revenue.

    My guess is that is more akin to how he went about valuing the company.
     
    The Big Ragu, Aug 7, 2013
    #51
  4. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    You can't blame them for losing Kornheiser and Wilbon. Neither was asked to leave, and in fact according to all accounts management tried to keep both, even on a very reduced basis.
     
    wicked, Aug 7, 2013
    #52
  5. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    You do know at one time this business was meant to be impartial? Many of us were taught that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

    Along with the internet, allowing and permitting bias is a terrible cancer in this industry. Truth gets lost in people screaming bias.
     
    93Devil, Aug 7, 2013
    #53
  6. SpeedTchr

    SpeedTchr Well-Known Member

    Sweet fancy Moses, son, when was that gilded age?
     
    SpeedTchr, Aug 7, 2013
    #54
  7. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    The press started as a bunch of biased businessmen who seized on printing presses to set the agenda.

    If anything it's merely a return to our roots.
     
    wicked, Aug 7, 2013
    #55
  8. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    Yes, because no one has done anything remotely like that for decades.
     
    da man, Aug 7, 2013
    #56
  9. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    OK, first of all, you keep offering evidence to back my claim.

    Secondly, who's to say that a Conservative owner can't present news as impartially as a liberal owner?

    Thirdly, as others have pointed out, newspapers have long been owned by the rich guy in town, and served as his political voice.
     
    YankeeFan, Aug 7, 2013
    #57
  10. Charlie Brown

    Charlie Brown Member

    Seriously?
     
    Charlie Brown, Aug 7, 2013
    #58
  11. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    Kornheiser would argue with that quite vigorously. He insists he was forced out. He's frequently full of shit so take it for what it's worth, but he says he wanted to stay.
     
    PCLoadLetter, Aug 7, 2013
    #59
  12. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Well, present company excepted, obviously.

    I assumed that was understood.
     
    YankeeFan, Aug 7, 2013
    #60
Page 5 of 10
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page