Not long ago - May 20th 2007 to be precise - I enumerated a bunch of stocks that were in play, some of them have now risen in value, a few quite a bit.
Of note, amongst those I own:
- Answers.com - up from $11 to $17
- Infospace - up from $18 to $24
- Roo - up from $2 to $2.65
Of the ones I don’t own:
- Marchex - up from $13 to $15
The last one shows how backwards sometimes the market can get, in light of my earlier post on MCHX’s dubious click quality issue at its GoClick unit.
Lots of M&A activity, and rumors.
Digg this Blog
Share on Facebook
WatchMojo on Twitter
WatchMojo on YouTube
Add to Favorites
WatchMojo NewsletterIt’s official, check out Feedburner’s blog here and Google’s post here.
By buying Feedburner, Google is doing many things:
- it is acquiring the leading RSS network,
- it is adding that much more value to Google Analytics, formerly Urchin,
- it is allowing Ad Sense to move into RSS ads,
- it is moving away from its promise not to encroach on organic results.
Increasingly: Feedburner’s web pages are listed high in the search engine results pages (SERPs).
By buying YouTube - which rightfully - pops up high in SERPs’ top page, Google pushed its way onto organic results. This might seem unimportant, but when Google introduced “Tips” (essentially its answer to Yahoo!’s shortcuts), the vocal minority amongst bloggers and industry types was “google was being evil,” which was a retarded argument for Google is a for profit corporation and it will pursue what is best for it.
By buying Feedburner - at 10 times revenue - Google is doing many things, one of which is moving slowly inside the organic results.
And, on a side note, if some of the conspiracy theorists are right, then Sequoia-backed Mahalo.com will also start to appear in the first page of Google’s rankings, and when Sequoia pulls another “YouTube sells to Google” type of deal, Google will have a third listing that will have a propensity to pop up at the top of the charts.
The Bancroft’s are considering accepting an offer from News Corp.
Interesting to see Eric Savitz - an employee, shareholder and union member opposed to the deal - chime in on his blog over at Barron’s, WSJ owns Barron’s and soon, News Corp. might own WSJ.
I’ve added my two cents previously here (I was an News Corp. employee briefly from Sept. to Dec. 2005), I’ll repost now:
===
I’ve voiced my concern about a few things Mr. Murdoch has done, like:
- offer Tony Blair a job at his company while Mr. Blair was running the UK, and mainly,
- saying something so revealing about his intentions and allegiance in a Guardian article, dated February 17 2003, a month before the disastrous sojourn in Iraq began. In it, Mr. Murdoch said:
Most revealing of all was Murdoch’s reference to the rationale for going to war, blatantly using the o-word. Politicians in the United States and Britain have strenuously denied the significance of oil, but Murdoch wasn’t so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil. “The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy…would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country.”
He went even further down this road in an interview the week before with America’s Fortune magazine by forecasting a postwar economic boom. “Once it [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else.”
Last time I checked, Mr. Murdoch, the war hasn’t gone too well. And oil, assuming it should matter in the decision, is at record prices, because people like you led the country into it. So not only did “the greatest thing” not materialize, but the worst did.
One the one hand, if the Bancroft’s turn down a 66% premium, I’d say shame on them. But then, in the greater context of matters, shame on the Bancroft’s if they accept Murdoch’s blood-stained offer.
In the most recent issue of Business Week, there’s an interesting article on Murdoch, called Crazy Like a Fox, In it, the authors say:
Then there are the personal reasons. Murdoch mostly owns low- and middle-brow media properties—from the New York Post to Fox News. How satisfying to have in his hands the most respected business newspaper in America, whose editorial page meshes neatly with his own world view. What’s more, Murdoch believes he and his organization have a role to play in shaping the debate on the world’s pressing issues. He has strong views on taxes, war, domestic and foreign policy, and more. Murdoch has built his empire, in part, by assiduously courting the powerful. The Journal could be an invaluable tool of influence.
Maybe I’m too idealistic or naive, but if those are the stakes, then the Bancroft’s need to secure a restraining order against Mr. Murdoch’s ambitions for the world will be a worst place.
===
Anyway, this deal looks like it’s all but a fait accompli, which is a shame, because you have to wonder if someone like Murdoch needs more control over media, and in turn, politics. Some people might think my objection to this stems from my tenure and fallout from my days at News Corp. and that is simply untrue.
I just put money behind principles and everytime someone blows up in Iraq or a dead American soldier’s body comes home, yes, I personally blame folks like Murdoch who drummed up the war machine. To me, Murdoch is no different than Cheney. Would you want Dick Cheney running WSJ?
But this notion that a Chinese Wall will be erected between Murdoch’s personal views and business interests (such as editorial independence and integrity) is probably untrue.
Murdoch is saying all of the right things now, but I think that Eric Savitz is 100% accurate in his prognosis: that DJ is on the Knight Ridder path to oblivion.
It’s interesting that the company that was founded 105 years ago:
Dow Jones was founded by Charles Henry Dow, Edward Davis Jones and Charles Milford Bergstresser in 1882 and produced daily handwritten news bulletins called “flimsies” delivered by messenger to subscribers in the Wall Street area. The Bancroft family is descended from Jessie Waldron, the wife of Clarence Barron, who bought Dow Jones for $130,000 in 1902, largely with his wife’s money. The couple passed their shares on to Jessie Waldron’s two daughters; eventually the shares were transferred to a set of trusts.
might serve as News Corp. trampoline into Business TV. How odd is that?
Interesting notes in a Business Week article - based on actual figures - on why we’re not in a Bubble even though there’s a lot of excitement over all things digital:
Not only are we not seeing the IPO frenzy of years gone by, we’re not seeing Web 2.0 IPOs, period. In 1999, a record 270 venture-backed companies went public for a combined $21 billion. They weren’t all dot-coms of course, but many were pumped up by the dot-com hype. Last year, 57 companies went public, for a total of $5.1 billion.
(…)
Technological and market changes. In the U.S., almost 70% of adults are online, and almost half use high-speed connections. In 2000, about 40% were online. Plus, it costs dramatically less to do business, thanks to open source software and low-priced Dell servers.
Quick question: why the blatant Dell plug, by the way?
More than half of U.S. teens are using social networking sites, and 48 million Americans have posted content online.
Venture capitalists invested $850 million in Web 2.0 businesses in 2006. The tally has been doubling annually since 2002, but the median size of those deals was just $5 million and the median valuation was $6 million. Across all venture capital categories the median valuation was $18.5 million.
Now, compare that with the $34 billion in VC money invested industrywide. So-called clean-tech companies alone drew $1.28 billion, up from $664 million the year before. The median value for these companies was $7 million. The market for clean tech is huge, but in many cases the business models are hardly proven. And while it’s true that plenty of experimentation is happening online, and many social networking and social media businesses will not succeed, no one would question that billions of advertising dollars are headed online. Much of that revenue will fuel Web 2.0 growth plans.
In 2006, 336 venture-backed companies were purchased, netting $16 billion. In 2000, fewer such companies were acquired, but the 318 targets fetched $68 billion.
Read our previous post on pockets of bubbles maybe, but not outright bubble here.
