I’ve suggested the multi million dollar sales of the Boston Globe to the Red Sox and the Washington Post to Jeff Bezos illustrate the value of a liberal Angel to the left in avoiding a more profitable conservative buyer. They also demonstrate that for Tina Brown that skill in finding such a person may have finally reached its practical limit :

IBT –which will acquire the Newsweek brand and the operations of the online publication, not including the Daily Beast — said Newsweek would return to the URL www.newsweek.com in the coming weeks.

“We are thrilled to welcome this iconic brand and global news property into our portfolio. We believe in the Newsweek brand and look forward to growing it, fully transformed to the digital age,” Etienne Uzac, co-founder and chief executive officer of IBT Media said in a statement.

“We respect the brand’s long history of delivering high-quality, impactful journalism and believe this aligns well with IBT Media’s culture and mission. We look forward to working together to create a profitable and successful enterprise.”

Well Tina has found a buyer and their public statements sound like a liberal angel and if nothing else the NYT, while not being a financial angel for Ms. Brown (they’ll need that 79 mill to cover pension stuff you know) did have a big piece celebrating Tina Brown for taking on Newsweek in the first place and defending her from the critique of its failure:

“It’s the cost to print, declining revenue, switch to a digital environment. The fact that Tina struggled so valiantly and took so many risks, that is to her credit. It just exposes a total lack of understanding of the media environment.”

That’s David Frum making the case, ex post facto. I’m sure he knows more about print than me but I do know a little about history and the day Newsweek was purchased Robert Stacy McCain acquainted me with Ms. Brown’s:

The investors can expect to lose a crapload of cash in the process. The New Yorker reportedly lost $42 million in three years (1995-97) under Ms. Brown’s editorship. Talk lost an impressive $80 million during its two-year existence. Whatever else you might say about Tina Brown, she’s undeniably brilliant at convincing investors to lose money on her projects.

And at the start of the year when Newsweek became essentially a blog in a post titled: Tina Brown’s Mysterious Career: How Much Is That Zeitgeist in the Window? said:

With $20 million a year to throw away on a Web site, one of the things you can do with that money is hire a roomful of publicists to promote the idea that you’re an innovative genius.

Maybe, once upon a time, Tina Brown really did have something fresh and original, but her reputation as the magazine “It Girl” was always a very expensive product, one she purchased with other people’s money.

That’s why I don’t understand the celebration of Ms. Brown Tenure or the NYT piece. Unless I’m missing something all that happened is an attractive blond managed to convince some man into spending a lot of money to stake her in a business, she used said business to enhance her reputation and when she proved unable to succeed in it dumped it on the first sucker willing to take it off her hands.

It’s a story as old as time.

Well, regardless of the backstory or motivations Newsweek Magazine or should I say the Newsweek blog is no longer Tina Brown’s problem, but may I point out there is one piece of the tale missing from both the LA & the NYT times stories:

Terms of the deal, announced late Saturday, were not disclosed.

Oh REALLY?

Just in case you forgot what the value of Newsweek was the last time it was sold

newsweek value

The same Whopper Jr. in that picture that sold for $1 in 2010 now goes for $1.29

Until we discover the actual sale price of the magazine we wont know if Newsweek appreciated as much in values as that burger did.

Given their loss of readers, advertisers and their print platform. I suspect not but it’s telling that they are keeping quiet on the price. I wonder is it to keep IBT or Tina Brown from Embarrassment?

*********************************************

Olimometer 2.52

The left has certainly had a better time finding Angels than I have finding hitters of DaTipJar this week.

Granted both the Globe & Post investors got ownership of their products while I can only promise tip jar hitters that I will continue doing what I already am.

I don’t need or expect a rich conservative to kick in $250 million or even $70 million but I would be most grateful if I can find enough readers fill a $305 paycheck this week.

If you are willing to be one of them hit DaTipJar Below

.

Over the last couple of months I’ve noted how Tina Brown had shifted gears slightly throwing in the odd conservative cover to increase sales to the horror of the left.

It seems Tina Brown’s adoption of capitalism wasn’t a conversion, apparently like Confederate General Joe Johnson sudden decision to become an aggressive offensive commander in 1865 it was a last ditch attempt to avoid destruction.

We are announcing this morning an important development at Newsweek and The Daily Beast. Newsweek will transition to an all-digital format in early 2013. As part of this transition, the last print edition in the United States will be our Dec. 31 issue.

Allister jokes about the Socialism Cover, it makes sense. It has been noted that the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people’s money, apparently this has happened to Ms. Brown.

There is however a more interesting point that makes me snicker.

I’m completing my 100th week on the air as the host of DaTechGuy on DaRadio this Saturday. I noted that when I introduced myself as a blogger with a Radio Show I was granted little respect at events (on one occasion referred to as a “wannabe” by security and barred) My writing, my readership etc meant nothing, I was “just a blogger” so I didn’t matter. Now that the radio show is well established with 100 weeks with 50,000 Watts behind me nobody questions my credentials anymore.

Come January 1st Newsweek is going to become…a blog, albeit a group blog with some famous contributors.

I wonder if in the future I will see security at some national events bar folk from Newsweek as just bloggers, “wannabes”? If there I’ll be delighted to put a good word in for them.

Of course that assumes there are people actually working there that they are able to Pay to GO to national events, perhaps Ms. Brown can put a tip jar on the Daily Beast site. If she asked Stacy McCain very nicely he can give her some tips on how to properly shake it. Maybe someday, with luck she can make Newsweek worth as much as a value fries again.

Update: Hey Tina Brown is on Morning Joe today. The question is will she still be welcome in 90 days when she becomes just another cheetos eating blogger? Mmmmmm Cheetos!

Update 2: I wonder if the left wing backers who bankrolled Brown decided she just wasn’t useful enough

I noticed Ed Driscoll’s writeup at Instapundit on the new Newsweek cover:

Clapped-out sclerotic old magazine with one foot in death’s door increasingly believes in salvation in the afterlife, if this latest Newsweek cover is any indication.

Boy, between the above cover, the mausoleum-like Newseum, and the Washington Post investing in a hospice care facility, the MSM sure is obsessed with death these days, aren’t they? Contrast this with the 1960s, when a Time magazine cover gleefully killed off God, at the apex of that youth-obsessed decade.

While I’m usually not one who minds hitting the MSM and Snark is great Ed misses the significance of this issue of Newsweek.

Taken alone a Newsweek cover of this nature is no big deal but consider the last few weeks:

One cover that appeals to conservatives is an oddity.

Two covers that suggested things might be happening

we might be one cover too soon to say it but it appears that she has seen the numbers both financial and demographic and decided to go where no liberal has gone before.

Now we have three count em THREE covers that are designed to get conservative to buy the magazine.

I must conclude that Tina Brown has come out as a Capitalist, I hope she gets a better reception from her friends coming out than Stacy Dash as a Romney Supporter

Update: Cripes those guys really mean it, this is from The Daily Beast.

But it isn’t just foreign donations that are a concern. So are fraudulent donations. In the age of digital contributions, fraudsters can deploy so-called robo-donations, computer programs that use false names to spew hundreds of donations a day in small increments, in order to evade reporting requirements. According to an October 2008 Washington Post article, Mary Biskup of Missouri appeared to give more than $170,000 in small donations to the 2008 Obama campaign. Yet Biskup said she never gave any money to the campaign. Some other contributor gave the donations using her name, without her knowledge. (The Obama campaign explained to the Post that it caught the donations and returned them.)

This makes it all the more surprising that the Obama campaign does not use a standard security tool, the card verification value (CVV) system—the three- or four-digit number often imprinted on the back of a credit card, whose purpose is to verify that the person executing the purchase (or, in this case, donation) physically possesses the card. The Romney campaign, by contrast, does use the CVV—as has almost every other candidate who has run for president in recent years, from Hillary Clinton in 2008 to Ron Paul this year. (The Obama campaign says it doesn’t use the CVV because it can be an inhibiting factor for some small donors.) Interestingly, the Obama campaign’s online store requires the CVV to purchase items like hats or hoodies (the campaign points out that its merchandise vendor requires the tool).

This is incredible, and good news for Oswin Oswald, if a member of the Dalek media can be converted maybe she can still be saved!

A few weeks ago Tina Brown has that rarest of rate moments, a time when an issue of her magazine Newsweek actually made money, there was a catch however the issue’s cover was conservatively themed and produced consternation among the left.

The resulting overwhelming sales, profits and buzz from the issue put Ms. Brown in a bind:

And you KNOW if would work, you could have conservative covers on a regular basis, have one or two a month, keep the rest of the mag liberal and appeal to BOTH sides of the aisle, create buzz, maybe even turn the mag into a print & internet version of Crossfire with a regular feature of two of your writers going at it online…

…Who will you be Tina Brown? Will you be your own women or a kept woman for the left? Will you be the Dutch Sea Begger declaring your independence from your ideological chains, change from being a faux journalist to being a real one? Will you like the De la Marek declare your independence and hold the line against the inevitable counterattack …

…or will you be the Washington Generals, getting one win because nobody was paying attention and the next time dutifully and submissively never making that mistake again?

Well I’ve just seen the latest cover for Newsweek and it looks like we have our answer:

A cover featuring one of the great warriors in the fight against Islamo-fascism, displayed in a positive light is a watershed moment. It is a story by a woman embraced by conservatives, a person the left hates. It’s a story that espouses views that cause the left to react thus:

It is also a cover that is going to sell a ton!

Mind you as predicted, the rest of the issue is pretty much indistinguishable from a normal Newsweek issue, but that doesn’t matter for the left will continue to attack and vilify Brown and Newsweek over this cover and her decision to go ahead and publish it. After all nothing is more dangerous to the left than for their acolytes to read the right unfiltered and unchallenged, it’s a potential game changer.

As for Tina Brown herself, we might be one cover too soon to say it but it appears that she has seen the numbers both financial and demographic and decided to go where no liberal has gone before.

She has decided to go where the customers are.

We’ve talked a bit of Tina Brown in the past and her nearly infinite capacity to lose people’s moment at a rate even faster than Obama can spend it.

The investors can expect to lose a crapload of cash in the process. The New Yorker reportedly lost $42 million in three years (1995-97) under Ms. Brown’s editorship. Talk lost an impressive $80 million during its two-year existence. Whatever else you might say about Tina Brown, she’s undeniably brilliant at convincing investors to lose money on her projects.

Even if some on the left didn’t even mind the loss

Does it not occur to you, my clever readers, that these are not merely business losses, but are in fact a sort of charitable endeavor to support the propagation of fashionable liberalism?

because it makes them part of the club:

when people invest in Tina Brown, their return is to be part of that “In” crowd. To be invited to the party, to be able to say to people: “Oh yes I was at that event with Tina, we met Bernard Henri-Levy and we had a marvelous time.”

It’s all about being a member, Invest in Tina Brown and you can hobnob with the great,

Until with losses of 10+ mil a year:

OK, if $30 million is an “excessive” estimate of their 2011 losses, but nobody’s arguing with estimates of $10 million of red ink a year, isn’t it a fair guess that Tina has pissed away at least $50 million in the past four years, including about a million a month since the merger?

people finally said enough:

After Tuesday’s announcement that the Harman family was pulling back from its “investment” (Sidney Harman bought Newsweek for $1 in 2010), this required some explanation from Barry Diller, whose IAC conglomerate holds the controlling interest in Tina Brown’s red ink empire.

But now something totally unexpected has happened, something that could shake the entire paradigm of the Tina Brown:”How to become rich and famous on other people dimes”™….

…An issue of Newsweek has, wait for it, made money!

The early read on sales suggests the issue could double Newsweek’s newsstand average, MagNet said. It’s also on track to land among the title’s top three newsstand sellers since 2010, according to MagNet data.

And not just on the newsstand, it was a MONSTER for downloads too.

“All reports indicate the August 27th issue was a strong performer both in print at the newsstand and on tablet,” the spokesman said.

IPad edition downloads on the issue’s first day were 4.3 times higher than usual, the spokesman said

And Tina Brown is, quite naturally, taking a bow.

“The Newsweek cover is a place for robust debate and that’s clearly what excites readers too,” Ms. Brown said Thursday in a statement provided by the spokesman.

There’s just one tinny tiny problem. The issue that made the profit had a cover with the title:

Hit the Road Barack, Why we need a new president now.

Mind you, the issue wasn’t all anti-Barack all the time, it was pretty much the cover and the cover-story, the rest of it was pretty much the same Newsweek pablum it always is.

But it matters not, the entire left side of Tina Brown’s universe was absolutely outraged by both the cover and the piece. The angels who have invested so much time and money for the sake of Newsweek’s ideological purity (that’s why Newsmax’s bid was rejected) are not likely to be willing to see more of this kind of thing.

But it made money, Tina Brown did something outside of her normal box, and it actually made money.

The question is What Now? History points to two paths

On January 5th 1971 the Washington Generals broke their eternal losing streak beating the Harlem Globetrotters 100-99 in overtime ending a losing streak of 2,495 games. They have not repeated that feat since.

Two centuries earlier and half a world away on April 1st 1572 a group of Dutch Pirates known as the “Sea Beggers” Captured the town of Briel in the then Spanish province of the Netherlands. Although “officially” they sailed under a letter of Marque from the Prince of Orange, they pretty much were pirates pretending to be patriots. They had never taken a town before and only tried because of a lack of provisions, (The English had banned them from their ports). The plan had been to take what they needed and go but with no port to operate of of William de la Marck consulted his captains for their opinion, it was unanimous as historian Marvin Albert put it in his 1957 book Broadsides & Boarders:

The taking of Briel had transformed them from pirates pretending to be patriots into real patriots, from wandering exiles to freedom fighters standing on their own soil for the first time in years.

Now imagine you are Tina Brown, you’ve got a rep as a part of the Global “In” crowd but you’ve never really managed to make a business work, you’ve succeeded in getting people to finance your lifestyle but as a publisher you’ve never actually “succeeded”…

…and then this happens.

It creates buzz, it creates controversy and it creates something you haven’t seen before PROFITS!

What if, just imagine, what if you could do this again, and again, and AGAIN? What if inverters didn’t decide to give you money because they wanted to use you to be cool, to advance their agenda, to prop you up for their own purposes, what if they decided they to invest in you because they believed in your ability to succeed?

And you KNOW if would work, you could have conservative covers on a regular basis, have one or two a month, keep the rest of the mag liberal and appeal to BOTH sides of the aisle, create buzz, maybe even turn the mag into a print & internet version of Crossfire with a regular feature of two of your writers going at it online.

Could you do it, could you really do it? Haven’t you, Tina Brown wondered deep inside if this is possible? Wouldn’t it be nice to know that sans all the angels, you could stand on your own two feet?

Or is it just too comfortable to take the money and not worry about success, after all it’s hard work and it never stops.

Before today, Tina Brown, this wasn’t a problem, but now you know what works, you’ve seen it work, you know it CAN work.

Who will you be Tina Brown? Will you be your own women or a kept woman for the left? Will you be the Dutch Sea Begger declaring your independence from your ideological chains, change from being a faux journalist to being a real one? Will you like the De la Marek declare your independence and hold the line against the inevitable counterattack …

…or will you be the Washington Generals, getting one win because nobody was paying attention and the next time dutifully and submissively never making that mistake again?

It’s up to you, may God grant you the wisdom & strength of Character to make the right choice.

Question: Why is your investment in ads on DaTechGuy on DaRadio and DaTechGuy Blog and DaTipJar a better deal than investing in Tina Brown and Newsweek?

Newsweek’s staff is in a tizzy because word is the Golden Suckers Goose has decided to stop laying:

IAC Chairman Barry Diller made the announcement during a quarterly conference call, saying the New York-based company aims to curb investments in the business. Newsweek is projected to lose as much as $22 million this year, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter. Still, Diller stopped short of saying the magazine would undergo a “total” shift online.

This decision to not lose 22 million a year seems to make a lot of sense. Meanwhile this news has sent Newsweek and Daily Beast folks into a panic forcing a reaction from Tina Brown:

Oops sorry, Her statements thus:

In an internal memo republished in The New York Times, and with the subject line “Scaremongering,” Brown wrote:

Barry Diller would like to make it clear that he did not say on the earnings call as reported that Newsweek is going digital in September.

She then laided out several points to support her statement. Robert Stacy McCain saw these points commenting:

How is a brand “strong,” in a business sense, when it is synonymous with catastrophic financial losses?

And this is a situation that he commented on two years ago when it all started:

The investors can expect to lose a crapload of cash in the process. The New Yorker reportedly lost $42 million in three years (1995-97) under Ms. Brown’s editorship. Talk lost an impressive $80 million during its two-year existence. Whatever else you might say about Tina Brown, she’s undeniably brilliant at convincing investors to lose money on her projects.

So the investors are talking a wash, and the employees?

What that will likely mean — if you read between the lines – is a hiring freeze, at the very minimum, and the possibility of significant layoffs.

In other words, the gravy-train years at the Daily Beast are coming to an end

Now that’s what it means for the Magazine and the employees, but what does it mean for the advertisers? Forbes drops a hint:

Frankly, it’s not her own employees Brown needs to worry about so much as advertisers. I’m told that the publisher of at least one other weekly title has instructed salespeople to use the fresh uncertainty over Newsweek’s continued existence as leverage to lure business away. If Diller was undecided about Newsweek’s viability before he spoke up on today’s call, he may have settled the matter with his remarks.

So Newsweek’s advertisers are looking for an alternative. Might I suggest DaTechGuy on DaRadio and DaTechGuy blog.

Let’s consider.

Newsweek has a large group of writers both regular and guest and a huge staff to back them up.

I do it myself with the odd post by RoxeAnne DeLuca and John Weston in the studio with me.

Newsweek last year lost $35 Million dollars while drawing approximately 200 times the traffic I do on the web side.

Meanwhile for $30,000 an advertiser can purchase twelve minutes per week of advertising on DaTechGuy on DaRadio (the remaining unsold inventory) broadcast on a 50,000 watt station reaching all New England while getting placement on DaTechGuy Blog for an entire year.

Or if your advertising needs are less ambitious you can purchase a years time on both the radio show and the blog for as little as $1100 for a full year!

As for Tip Jar hitters who want to advance conservatism I will grant that Newsweek’s Alexa Rank as of this morning is #1142 worldwide and my rank is 338,424 (still in the top #150 of conservative blogs) and Tina Brown gets a lot more TV time than me but your $10, $20 $100 or more will be supporting journalism and opinion on the local, state, congressional and presidential level without paying for all the extravagance of a media diva.

I don’t claim to be Newsweek I’m one man, if I had that $60k a year in hand it would still be road trips to cover events, maybe the odd flight to DC and beyond to cover bigger things and perhaps a road trip rented car to cover congressional campaigns others have missed. It will be only what one guy can do in a day while still living a normal life. You won’t get a glossy mag. Just blog posts, Youtube Videos augmented by 50,000 watts of AM Radio every week.

Bottom line, I submit and maintain you will get value for your money without having to lose a fortune.





…was made by Tina Brown when she said this about Newsweek:

but when will the operation be profitable?

The Daily Beast, Brown reminded her questioner, was conceived in 2008 on a five-year business plan, “on which we are very, very handsomely along the way.” Newsweek, meanwhile, “is an iconic global brand,” one that landed 40 new ad campaigns in 40 days earlier this year, she said, “so we have absolute confidence, given this new world we’re in, given the energy of the Daily Beast digital brand, that we can reactivate Newsweek.”

And now for the short answer: “In the next two to three years,” she said. Kelly repeated her response for confirmation; Brown nodded.emphasis mine

Tina Brown is going to make Newsweek profitable? the lady who managed to lose a combined 122 million between the New Yorker and Talk in 5 years, (that’s an average of over 24 million a year of other people money)

Stacy McCain reminds of us the track record here:

The New Yorker reportedly lost $42 million in three years (1995-97) under Ms. Brown’s editorship. Talk lost an impressive $80 million during its two-year existence.

And makes this prediction:

Brown’s business model is obviously the same as Arianna Huffington’s: An updated online version of the old reliable pump-and-dump. Carve out a slice of online readership, then sell those “eyes” to some larger entity.

Arianna sold HuffPo to AOL. To whom will Tina sell Newsbeast?

In my Opinion both Stacy’s suggestion and my own suggestions are likely to bring you are better cash return than Tina Brown. That is a given but what Stacy isn’t taking into account is profit is not the goal of those who invest with Tina Brown….
Continue reading “The most outlandish promise of this political season thus far…”

…apparently the advertisers sure don’t.

Things haven’t been looking so great for Newsweek lately. While other newsweeklies gained ad pages last quarter, Newsweek was down 31 percent. And the latest issue had just six ad pages!

Via Kaus who notices some other downward trends.

Have no fear Tina, the Harmans have hundreds of millions it will take years for you to drain it all.

those were the words of Tina Brown of the Daily Beast on Morning Joe today. And important words they were.

This means that the estate of the late multi-millionaire will be subsidizing Tina Brown’s enterprises long after he is gone.

Now Mr. Harman was a hard-working fellow who earned his money and if he wanted to spend it on Newsweek more power to him, but lets keep this in mind as people celebrate Tina Brown’s latest enterprises that her bastions of liberal thought survive thanks to the patronage of the family of a former Democratic Congresswoman.

On Morning Joe she said Democrats need to not talk about healthcare and instead focus on the “Republicans being nuts”

Think about that statement. The Healthcare bill was the centerpiece of the entire first congress and she says they should be making fun of folks instead of running on their record.

What does that say about their record?

“I suck but my opponents are nuts!” There’s a battle cry to energize the electorate!

BTW There may be an actual way to save the day for Dems, it might be too late but I know what I’d do…and no I’m not going to say it aloud until Jan 21, 2013. In fact I’ll schedule a post for that date so you will know what is on my mind, but the Dems don’t have the imagination or the guts to do what I would suggest, and I want them to lose.

Update: Was a year early on the post, should have been 2013, thanks to Roxeanne for the catch