4 ms·

Andreessen: "If you own newspapers, sell. If you own TV stations, sell..."

18 points by nickb 18y ago

joeter 18y ago
I started thinking on this subject after the major cable networks started picking up premium channel reruns. It seems advertisements alone aren't covering expenses. The premium content (with higher production costs) brings increased viewers, so cable networks license premium content for better advertisement revenue. However, I assume the premium channels will continue existing and prosper as long they get their tech right.
ojbyrne 18y ago
Sell to whom exactly? Marc has also been quoted as saying "Never sell a company while it's still growing." In both cases he seems to ignore the motivation of the buyer.
- jnovek 18y ago
  "Sell to whom exactly?" And buy what? I agree with Marc's core premise -- monolithic media is going down -- and I suspect that diversification is the answer. But there doesn't seem to be clear information on where the media markets are headed. Stuff like Hulu and iTunes offer up some clues, but not enough to bet a billion dollar empire on...
  - ojbyrne 18y ago
    In my opinion the problems old media have is that they're tied to existing cost structures - too many employees, too many buildings, machinery,... while new media is busy accumulating all those same things in order to gain credibility, reliability, and scale and to look like real businesses. What's going to happen is that old media will shed those old costs and new media will grow and accumulate new costs until it is no longer possible to tell the difference between them.
- nostrademons 18y ago
  Sell to the people who say he's full of hot air and traditional media will be around for a long time. Saying that one should sell or buy a security is always an exercise in predicting the future. When you say "sell", it's shorthand for "In the future, there will be fewer buyers and more sellers for this than there are now, so the price will go down, so you should unload now while you can still find eager buyers." You could be wrong about your future prediction, in which case you lose money. But if you're right, you stand to profit from all the people who thought you were an idiot. I found it curious that a lot of people seem to think Marc is trying to pump & dump media stocks. He's got plenty of money already, and I bet he dumped all his old media a long time ago. Rather, I think he wants to be seen as the guy who correctly foretold the death of old media - his incentive is to be right, gosh darnit, and not to make a whole lot of money.
  - ojbyrne 18y ago
    I don't think he's trying to dump old media stocks - he's trying to promote new media. The natural way to do that is to attack the "dinosaurs" that are being replaced.
    - nostrademons 18y ago
      Yeah, I realized after I'd posted that I'd misread the comments in question. Anyway, pumping up new media by attacking old media seems like a pretty risky strategy - investors are just as likely to go to energy or defense or finance or other hot/undervalued sectors than to new media. I think it's more likely Andreesen believes that old media is doomed anyway, and that's why he's interested in replacing it.
pchristensen 18y ago
While I wouldn't want to run a newspaper or TV station (although I could do some cool stuff if given reins), I'd probably keep my movie studio. Movies are still a pretty premium form of entertainment, whereas newspapers and TV are just ad inventory sales in an era where inventory is increasing.
ajkirwin 18y ago
Well, the way of the future, for television, will be ala carte programming over IP. We're cancelling our cable TV service today, as all the shows we like we can get from the cable networks own websites, or places like Hulu. We'd even pay to subscribe, over the internet, to a HD stream of a few channels, if we could!
edw519 18y ago
On the surface, this appears to be a major shift in markets. But deep down inside, it's really a major shift in philosophy. No one clause better represents the difference between old and new thinking than: ...according to one attendee, who spoke anonymously because the sessions are off-the-record...
- MaysonL 18y ago
  How is this new?
ilamont 18y ago
Marc Andreesen should stick to what he knows: Text. He may be right about newspapers but his remarks about television and movies are premature. Audiences may be ready to give up ink smeared on paper but they are not ready to abandon storytelling delivered on a screen.
- volida 18y ago
  how do you know what he knows?
  - ilamont 18y ago
    Look at his areas of expertise. Netscape. Ning. Loudcloud. Don't see any TV or movie industry experience. Do you?
    - bootload 18y ago
      "... Look at his areas of expertise. Netscape. Ning. Loudcloud. Don't see any TV or movie industry experience. Do you? ..." But Andreessen is just smart enough to know that "computer + foo = computer". I found this neat heuristic in Alan Coopers "inmates running the asylum" ~ http://www.amazon.com/Inmates-Are-Running-Asylum/dp/0672316498 http://www.amazon.com/Inmates-Are-Running-Asylum/dp/06723164... It means digital media processed by computers are right up his (and other computer/digital natives) alley.
    - pg 18y ago
      Henry Ford probably didn't have a lot of experience with horses either.
- mlinsey 18y ago
  Audiences may be ready to give up ink smeared on paper but they are not ready to abandon storytelling delivered on a screen. You mean like...your computer's screen?
sethg 18y ago
Industry behemoths have been known to change to keep up with the times (case in point: IBM), although it's damn rare. So maybe some of the studios and newspaper companies will figure out a way to endure. It would be a useful exercise to go over the list of companies that were in the S&P 500 in 1950 and see which ones did better than their peers in 1950-2000 and which ones faded from view. Unfortunately, the last time I checked, online stock listings only go back to about 1970, and with all the mergers, breakups, name changes, and stock splits that have happened since then, running these numbers by hand strikes me as a non-trivial project.
prakash 18y ago
AFAIK, India is the only country where newspaper subscription is/has been increasing over the past few years. I have even seen new papers launched in the past couple of years.
- fortes 18y ago
  Hispanic markets have done better as well.
bprater 18y ago
And they predicted the demise of the motion picture... And they predicted the demise of radio...
- hugh 18y ago
  "They" also predicted the demise of the steam locomotive, the horse and cart, the vacuum tube, the oil lantern and the whaling industry. Predictions are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, we all know this. Do you have anything to suggest that the newspaper is more analogous to the motion picture than to the telegraph?
  - vizard 18y ago
    The examples you quote are all technologies. What Marc is also predicting is a change in the technology of content distribution. But what is not gonna go away are content producers. I still prefer watching movies made by Hollywood than home-made videos of cats. Where and how I watch movies may change but the fact that I will still watch professional made movies is not very likely to change. Similarly newspapers may go away as a content distribution mechanism. But professional reporters and news agencies may not necessarily go away even with bloggers and social news sites and so on.

18 points by nickb 18y ago

I started thinking on this subject after the major cable networks started picking up premium channel reruns. It seems advertisements alone aren't covering expenses. The premium content (with higher production costs) brings increased viewers, so cable networks license premium content for better advertisement revenue. However, I assume the premium channels will continue existing and prosper as long they get their tech right.

ojbyrne 18y ago

Sell to whom exactly? Marc has also been quoted as saying "Never sell a company while it's still growing." In both cases he seems to ignore the motivation of the buyer.

jnovek 18y ago
"Sell to whom exactly?" And buy what? I agree with Marc's core premise -- monolithic media is going down -- and I suspect that diversification is the answer. But there doesn't seem to be clear information on where the media markets are headed. Stuff like Hulu and iTunes offer up some clues, but not enough to bet a billion dollar empire on...
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  In my opinion the problems old media have is that they're tied to existing cost structures - too many employees, too many buildings, machinery,... while new media is busy accumulating all those same things in order to gain credibility, reliability, and scale and to look like real businesses. What's going to happen is that old media will shed those old costs and new media will grow and accumulate new costs until it is no longer possible to tell the difference between them.
nostrademons 18y ago
Sell to the people who say he's full of hot air and traditional media will be around for a long time. Saying that one should sell or buy a security is always an exercise in predicting the future. When you say "sell", it's shorthand for "In the future, there will be fewer buyers and more sellers for this than there are now, so the price will go down, so you should unload now while you can still find eager buyers." You could be wrong about your future prediction, in which case you lose money. But if you're right, you stand to profit from all the people who thought you were an idiot. I found it curious that a lot of people seem to think Marc is trying to pump & dump media stocks. He's got plenty of money already, and I bet he dumped all his old media a long time ago. Rather, I think he wants to be seen as the guy who correctly foretold the death of old media - his incentive is to be right, gosh darnit, and not to make a whole lot of money.
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  I don't think he's trying to dump old media stocks - he's trying to promote new media. The natural way to do that is to attack the "dinosaurs" that are being replaced.
  - nostrademons 18y ago
    Yeah, I realized after I'd posted that I'd misread the comments in question. Anyway, pumping up new media by attacking old media seems like a pretty risky strategy - investors are just as likely to go to energy or defense or finance or other hot/undervalued sectors than to new media. I think it's more likely Andreesen believes that old media is doomed anyway, and that's why he's interested in replacing it.

pchristensen 18y ago

While I wouldn't want to run a newspaper or TV station (although I could do some cool stuff if given reins), I'd probably keep my movie studio. Movies are still a pretty premium form of entertainment, whereas newspapers and TV are just ad inventory sales in an era where inventory is increasing.

ajkirwin 18y ago

Well, the way of the future, for television, will be ala carte programming over IP. We're cancelling our cable TV service today, as all the shows we like we can get from the cable networks own websites, or places like Hulu. We'd even pay to subscribe, over the internet, to a HD stream of a few channels, if we could!

edw519 18y ago

On the surface, this appears to be a major shift in markets. But deep down inside, it's really a major shift in philosophy. No one clause better represents the difference between old and new thinking than: ...according to one attendee, who spoke anonymously because the sessions are off-the-record...

MaysonL 18y ago
How is this new?

ilamont 18y ago

Marc Andreesen should stick to what he knows: Text. He may be right about newspapers but his remarks about television and movies are premature. Audiences may be ready to give up ink smeared on paper but they are not ready to abandon storytelling delivered on a screen.

volida 18y ago
how do you know what he knows?
- ilamont 18y ago
  Look at his areas of expertise. Netscape. Ning. Loudcloud. Don't see any TV or movie industry experience. Do you?
  - bootload 18y ago
    "... Look at his areas of expertise. Netscape. Ning. Loudcloud. Don't see any TV or movie industry experience. Do you? ..." But Andreessen is just smart enough to know that "computer + foo = computer". I found this neat heuristic in Alan Coopers "inmates running the asylum" ~ http://www.amazon.com/Inmates-Are-Running-Asylum/dp/0672316498 http://www.amazon.com/Inmates-Are-Running-Asylum/dp/06723164... It means digital media processed by computers are right up his (and other computer/digital natives) alley.
  - pg 18y ago
    Henry Ford probably didn't have a lot of experience with horses either.
mlinsey 18y ago
Audiences may be ready to give up ink smeared on paper but they are not ready to abandon storytelling delivered on a screen. You mean like...your computer's screen?

sethg 18y ago

Industry behemoths have been known to change to keep up with the times (case in point: IBM), although it's damn rare. So maybe some of the studios and newspaper companies will figure out a way to endure. It would be a useful exercise to go over the list of companies that were in the S&P 500 in 1950 and see which ones did better than their peers in 1950-2000 and which ones faded from view. Unfortunately, the last time I checked, online stock listings only go back to about 1970, and with all the mergers, breakups, name changes, and stock splits that have happened since then, running these numbers by hand strikes me as a non-trivial project.

prakash 18y ago

AFAIK, India is the only country where newspaper subscription is/has been increasing over the past few years. I have even seen new papers launched in the past couple of years.

fortes 18y ago
Hispanic markets have done better as well.

bprater 18y ago

And they predicted the demise of the motion picture... And they predicted the demise of radio...

hugh 18y ago
"They" also predicted the demise of the steam locomotive, the horse and cart, the vacuum tube, the oil lantern and the whaling industry. Predictions are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, we all know this. Do you have anything to suggest that the newspaper is more analogous to the motion picture than to the telegraph?
- vizard 18y ago
  The examples you quote are all technologies. What Marc is also predicting is a change in the technology of content distribution. But what is not gonna go away are content producers. I still prefer watching movies made by Hollywood than home-made videos of cats. Where and how I watch movies may change but the fact that I will still watch professional made movies is not very likely to change. Similarly newspapers may go away as a content distribution mechanism. But professional reporters and news agencies may not necessarily go away even with bloggers and social news sites and so on.