Jump to content

Time-Warner (1990-), The World's Third-Largest Television and Filmed-Entertainment Media Conglomerate


DonRocks

Recommended Posts

Time-Warner was formed in 1990 due to the merger between Time Inc. (1923-1990) and Warner Communications (1972-1990), and I began this thread because I didn't know who "Warner" was, and got curious.

The four "Warner brothers" were properly named "Wonskolaser or Wonsal" - they emigrated with their parents to the U.S. from Russian Poland, and were named Harry (born Hirsz), Albert (Aaron), Sam (Szmul), and Jack (Itzhak, or perhaps Jacob). They were a prototypical American "success story," and lived what was commonly termed "The American Dream" in a big way - it's certainly safe to say they made a name for themselves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the more amazing bits of modern history was the $162 Billion acquisition of the combined TimeWarner Corporation, by AOL (!) in 2000. As a matter of history and society, that deal does a lot to really stand for many aspects of the Internet Economy, good and bad while serving as a warning that innovation, a generally great thing, can really run amok and cause a ton of harm.

Many established media and experts rightly think of that deal as one of the worst of all time.

"Worst Internet Acquisitions Of All-Time" by Verne Kopytoff on fortune.com

"How The AOL-Time Warner Merger Went So Wrong" by Tim Arango on nytimes.com

"Final Farewell To Worst Deal In History" on telegraph.co.uk

"The Worst Deal Of The Century 15 Years Later" on nbcnews.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the more amazing bits of modern history was the $162 Billion acquisition of the combined TimeWarner Corporation, by AOL (!) in 2000. As a matter of history and society, that deal does a lot to really stand for many aspects of the Internet Economy, good and bad while serving as a warning that innovation, a generally great thing, can really run amok and cause a ton of harm.

While I agree with you, I think that in this particular case, it wasn't "innovation" that ran amok and caused harm; it was unbridled financial greed.

I can personally (emphasis on "personally") link this event to the events of 9/11 - when I saw this headline, I had a similar reaction to when I heard the Pentagon had been hit: that the world had just been fundamentally changed. I was wrong about the effect of the merger, of course, but that was nevertheless my gut feeling at the time - wealth had materialized out of thin air within just a couple of years. Around that time, Warren Buffett announced that he was no longer going to be investing in tech stocks, because he didn't know enough to understand what was going on (I don't remember the exact statement, but I suspect it's easily searchable). And, as usual, Buffett was right - he didn't understand it because it wasn't based in logic; the whole thing - the whole tech bubble - was based upon irrational behavior driven by the human desire to get rich quick.

About seven or eight years ago, I said a similar thing about the housing market - I was in a "rent or buy" position, and no matter how I crunched the numbers, nothing made any sense. I kept saying to my friends (most of whom scoffed at me) that I had no way to tell when this rise in prices was going to end - maybe it will continue for another twenty years - but when it eventually does end, prices will fall 30% from their peak. They *had* to - nothing was propping them up except ... nothing. It was like Jim Courier's backhand - if he gained, or lost, a single freckle, then his entire game would fall apart because that shot was so fundamentally flawed that only perfect conditions could support it.

I've been saying the same thing about the national debt for twenty years now, and nobody listens to me. I'm like that crazy guy walking around with the sandwich sign which says, "The End Is Near."

EndIsNear1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree with you, I think that in this particular case, it wasn't "innovation" that ran amok and caused harm; it was unbridled financial greed.

I've been saying the same thing about the national debt for twenty years now, and nobody listens to me. I'm like that crazy guy walking around with the sandwich sign which says, "The End Is Near."

The "innovation run amok" vs "greed" debate is one I'm near certain we'd agree on were we to talk about it over a meal, a glass or coffee. It's one of those things that merits good conversation imo and less suited to long posts on a website like this. Suffice to say, I both stand by my initial statement but also agree with yours.

As for the National Debt, you're very far from alone in believing what you do there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arghhh! Don't get me started about that merger. Ginny worked for New Line as an indie company, then bought by Turner then by T-W. Lots of stock options went down the drain when aol came in and it all tanked. All we got was "free" aol (which, in reality cost us much).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arghhh! Don't get me started about that merger. Ginny worked for New Line as an indie company, then bought by Turner then by T-W. Lots of stock options went down the drain when aol came in and it all tanked. All we got was "free" aol (which, in reality cost us much).

Exactly. Unprecedented level of what biz types might call "value destruction" with the market cap evisceration. Beyond that, though, many, many jobs lost and families disrupted without even addressing all the customer frustration.

Also, reposting this...it's one thing to make a mistake. We all do it all the time. And, when you're running a large, complex organization, mistakes have bigger consequences.

The thing you always hope is that mistakes aren't repeated. And, the best way to ensure that is to learn from them. Some concern there in terms of this obviously and blatantly bad deal.

"Steve Case On AOL-Time Warner: 'I don't regret doing the merger.'" by Cale Guthrie-Weissman on pando.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last Friday morning, Comcast formally withdrew from its potential $45-billion merger with Time-Warner Cable after the two companies couldn't convince regulators that the deal would be good for consumers.

"Comcast Says It's Over: It Won't Try To Merge With Time-Warner Cable" aided by Evan Perez on money.cnn.com

"Comcast Is Ditching Deal With Time-Warner Cable" by Robert Dominguez on nydailynews.com

"'Time Warner? This Is Comcast. We'd Like To Cancel Our Merger.'" on nydailynews.com

"Time Warner Cable Is Reportedly Open To Being Acquired By Charter" by Casey Newton on theverge.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...