Interesting suggestions. I don't think Leo would sell to Yahoo. After what happened to TechTV, Yahoo is the last place he'd turn. Yahoo already has omg! which dwarfs Sugar Inc. I don't think Jim Lanzone would be afraid of Yahoo "Zucking" anything at this point.
I do think Gawker, Curbed, The Atlantic, Business Insider, Scoble, and Flipboard make sense, though.
Leo needs more than creative control with TWiT, which is ultimately why I don't see him selling until he's ready to finally release the reigns to tightly. That said, the options posed in this content dream team would make any company successful, if managed and handled correctly. If it's not managed correctly, it's just another AOL story.
I'm not a big fan of Calacanis but he did provide the most interesting arguments (and color) when he was a regular (even when he was far off the mark). Especially when Dvorak was around too.
Much better than the current ensemble of "me toos".
PS. I also thought it was cool of him to write:
"I’d throw in my little ThisWeekIn.com copy-cat network to make up with Leo to get the job done. I’ve been looking to repair that burned bridge for a while."
The problem I have with analysis like this is it doesn't take into account what Yahoo actually needs to do to grow. For the most part, the companies on the list are innovative companies, led by talented CEOs/entrepreneurs and are leaders in there sphere.
But Yahoo's revenue is about $1.2 billion a quarter, and I would say that they would need to grow that by 5-10% to even approach any sort of potential turnaround territory. That means they need roughly $50 to $150 million in new revenue a quarter, I bet you all those companies together don't make that amount of money in a year.
I think it would be awesome for Yahoo to buy innovative companies and give creative people free reign, but the reality is Yahoo buying these companies is like putting a band aid on a bullet wound. Yahoo's just too big and those companies are just too small to turn Yahoo around.
6 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 23.3 ms ] threadI do think Gawker, Curbed, The Atlantic, Business Insider, Scoble, and Flipboard make sense, though.
Off topic, I would like to see he and Calacanis make up (as mentioned in the article). TWiT is a far better show with him.
I'm not a big fan of Calacanis but he did provide the most interesting arguments (and color) when he was a regular (even when he was far off the mark). Especially when Dvorak was around too.
Much better than the current ensemble of "me toos".
PS. I also thought it was cool of him to write:
"I’d throw in my little ThisWeekIn.com copy-cat network to make up with Leo to get the job done. I’ve been looking to repair that burned bridge for a while."
But Yahoo's revenue is about $1.2 billion a quarter, and I would say that they would need to grow that by 5-10% to even approach any sort of potential turnaround territory. That means they need roughly $50 to $150 million in new revenue a quarter, I bet you all those companies together don't make that amount of money in a year.
I think it would be awesome for Yahoo to buy innovative companies and give creative people free reign, but the reality is Yahoo buying these companies is like putting a band aid on a bullet wound. Yahoo's just too big and those companies are just too small to turn Yahoo around.