The big business-media news this week will be BusinessWeek’s sale to Bloomberg for $2 million to $5 million plus the assumption of liabilities, in what is surely the best outcome the magazine and its newsroom could have.
While it’s worth remembering the silly BW-will-sell-for-$1 meme that made the rounds this summer, the price caps a stunning fall for the once-mighty magazine.
BusinessWeek’s good news story on the deal reports that the magazine, at its peak in 2000, was valued at about $1 billion. Today it sold for 0.2 percent to 0.5 percent of that, nine years later. Incredible.
So there’s your new emblem for the Fall of Print. That decline in value happened for the most part not because it’s readers abandoned it—circulation (rate base) dropped about 20 percent during that time—but because its advertisers did.
The same thing, of course, is happening at nearly every newspaper and magazine across the country.
What’s good here is that the magazine was purchased by an outfit that’s one of the few old-timers still making new investments in journalism. It gives Bloomberg, which has more than 2,000 journalists, a new outlet for its content.
Here’s hoping Bloomberg is planning on keeping most of the newsroom and using its own existing resources to beef up BizWeek’s offerings, while using the magazine’s to beef up its own.
And a little spit and polish from some good magazine editors wouldn’t hurt a bit.
UPDATE: See this follow-up post on the hopeful sounds Bloomberg is making about its intentions.
It's amazing how the success of Business Week dwindled down so fast. I feel like most media print companies have ignored the signs of social media and didn't invest in building a brand on the internet. The signs were always there that they needed to start considering building an online presence. celestron 8 celestron 8 telescope
#1 Posted by Vince Cooley, CJR on Wed 14 Oct 2009 at 08:31 AM
Bloomberg is getting one of the finest business magazines anywhere. It is usually ahead of the curve in terms of reporting, as well as accurate and informative, and with a superb editorial page. In time, BW's departed advertisers and readers may realize what they lost by abandoning the publication. If BW can reincarnate itself in its new environment it will again become a great asset to the news community. Having spent seven delightful years publicizing the magazine some years ago, I can say its editorial content made more breaking news, nationally and globally, than any other publication, business or otherwise. Lucky Bloomberg to inherit such a prize.
#2 Posted by Sherwood Ross, CJR on Wed 14 Oct 2009 at 03:14 PM
The liability figure may be more emblematic of the problem than the $2-5 Million valuation. Focusing on the valuation implies the problem is decreasing demand. On the contrary, demand is there - but traditional media hasn't even tried to compete for it.
If demand = spending, then it has never been higher. Consumer spending for media surpassed Ad spending in 2004 and continues to grow, even now. Yes I know that is driven by cable, ISP and wireless fees, video games, and premium cable offerings, etc.. But that is paying upfront, sometimes agreeing to longterm contracts, for unproven possibility that there's something better than I already have. That's called demand.
Why haven't traditional media companies competed for a share of that growing consumer demand?
Maybe because when money is easy to borrow, it lulls us into believing that everything is ok just the way it is.
Katherine Warman Kern
@comradity
#3 Posted by Katherine Warman Kern, CJR on Thu 15 Oct 2009 at 12:37 PM