Did someone CNBC really
suggest that the New York Times might be a takeover target for Google? That seems entirely crazy. Forget whether such a merger would make sense; the New York Times cannot be sold without the approval of the Sulzberger family, which seems unlikely to emerge unless things get quite a bit more dire.
From Huffington Post (February):
The New York Times Company's Board of Directors voted Thursday to suspend the quarterly dividend on the company's Class A and Class B common stock, a significant blow to the Sulzberger family and a sign of the company's financial struggles.
If I were a Sulzberger who had never worked at a real job, and was dependent on the NYT dividend for income, I'd probably think that things were pretty dire now.
".. unless things get quite a bit more dire.
Or their Mexican drug money runs out.
"...the New York Times cannot be sold without the approval of the Sulzberger family..."
Also, the NYT cannot be sold without the approval of Carlos Slim. Why in the hell would they want to take over the NYT's enormous problems?
"Why in the hell would they want to take over the NYT's enormous problems?"
Especially when they can run the exact same news story from the AP and enjoy more credibility than Jason Blair?
Would they call it the "Goo York Times?"
Is Carlos Slim selling?
The first article is free, man. Just try some. All the cool kids are taking News now.
The article is mute on Carlos Slim.
Hmm. Buying the rights to the NYT archives might have some value to Google.
Pravda would offer exactly the same archive at half the price.
No doubt true for those ol' Kristol pieces.
I thought Slim just loaned them money. A buy out should be good for him.
Maybe things are that dire, Megan. Still, I have to wonder what good it would be to Google to have it, even if the rumor were based in fact.
Never eat at a restaurant called Mom's.
Never play cards with a guy called Doc.
Never own a newspaper with a guy called Slim.
Seems like it would be less of a merger and more of a purchase mad with Google's pocket change.
I can certainly imagine reasons why Google would like the Times.
Of course, the Sulzbergers would never want to sell (the shame ... shame) ... but how much can they afford to lose before reality sets in?
If Google really wants it, it can pay as nice a premium as it wants, and there are a lot more people in the Sulzberger family depending on the stock and its dividends than just Pinch.
Google had the notion for a while that they could translate some of their internet add prowess to the world of print.
A quick google search reveals that they gave up on selling newspaper ads back in January of this year though:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/20/google-bails-on-print-ads-and-newspapers/
So on one hand, it doesn't sound likely. On the other, maybe they realized that the key to making their plan successful would have to involve cutting out the middle man by owning a newspaper directly.
Looking a bit closer at the assets . . .
The New York Times itself is hived off during the deal as its own independent company, with the Sulzbergers in control of it. (Google keeps the digital archive rights.) This satisfies the family legacy impulse, while filling Sulzberger pockets.
Google keeps About.com, ConsumerSearch.com, and the digital rights to the archives of the eighteen newspapers. These assets all fit into the official Google mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".
Google then sells off the International Herald-Tribune, the New England Media Group, the (fourteen-paper) Regional Media Group, the share of New England Sports Ventures, and the chunks of two newsprint companies.