The news, broken by Bloomberg’s Edmund Lee, that once mighty Forbes is going on the block after 96 years of mostly family ownership, has evoked mostly shrugs—another day, another fire sale of a journalism icon—with much of the discussion surrounding how well Bono and other minority investors have done from their investment. That, and what to do with the carcass.
The asking price of $400 million would represent at best a salvage operation for both the Forbes family and Elevation Partners, which includes Bono and former Apple executive Fred Anderson, and which paid, according to Fortune’s Dan Primack, $265 million (higher than previous reports) for its 45 percent stake back in 2006, valuing the company at $588 million. Elevation has already written down its investment by 75 percent.
If Forbes doesn’t get its asking price, it won’t be for lack of effort. Since 2010, the Forbes story has been a strenuous effort to reinvent itself as a digital media innovator, creating easily the most frenetic site in business news. It has assembled an army of 1,200 (that’s one thousand, two hundred) mostly bloggers producing dozens of posts a day (a mere 45 between 5pm Saturday and 5pm Sunday; e.g. “Practical jet packs finally take off”); embracing native advertising, the ethically problematic mixing of ads and editorial, to an extent few mainstream outlets have; amping up its conferencing business (itself not without problems), among other things.
The company has also been on an aggressive campaign of late to market itself, pitching its story to other news outlets. News of the sale, for instance, came mere days after the Times did longish and reasonably skeptical profile of the Forbes operation and its CEO, Mike Perlis.
The marketing campaign has included triumphalist claims about its model, taking full advantage of its closely held status to release flattering figures selectively, a not uncommon practice among certain digitally oriented news organizations. Forbes told the Times, for instance, that “advertising revenue for Forbes.com would grow by 35 percent from 2010 to 2013,” the kind of nugget that, without context, reveals very little.
In fact, the enterprise would seem, like most of the media business, to be struggling to hold its own, with ad pages down 12.5 percent in the first nine months of the year, compared to a 6.5 percent decline for arch-rival Fortune (to be fair, Bloomberg Businessweek was off 13.8 percent during the period).
Still, note to prospective buyers: if Deutsche Bank calls, be sure to check under the hood.
Indeed, any chatter about Forbes in recent years has revolved much more about its digital strategy and business model than about its business journalism per se. Pinkerton, in the Times story, calls the Forbes brand these days “diluted,” and it’s hard to argue with that. And here it’s worth remembering an important legacy that any buyer would do well to recall and to reclaim.
Forbes was founded in 1917 by B.C. “Bertie” Forbes, a plunky Scottish immigrant who set the tone for the magazine that became known for its explicit pro-capitalist bent, flattering profiles of moguls, a sometime too-cozy relationship with certain advertisers—and, it should be remembered, the pointed “attack” piece on managers that it believed were no good at their jobs. The very first issue included a piece by Bertie himself titled “High Placed Misfits,” about the incompetent offspring of Jay Gould.