Out Of Time

Some days news is one note or just uninteresting. Nothing with a long term impact or any impact worth mentioning at all. And some days are Wednesday. California talent managers lose a pivotal legal upheaval, Bob Iger spells out his future with Disney, the Viacom and Cablevision Bundle War gets simplified and the ongoing VFX Rebellion gets complicated (it now involves India). Any other day, these would be the topic of discussion. Some of them will be (I won't leave you hanging on the India shout out). But more than any story, the one that has the most buzz is the Time Warner spinoff of publishing branch, Time Inc. Following a failed deal with Meredith Corp., resulting in a 500 staff layoff, Time Warner, the media conglomerate, is spinning Time Inc. into its own independent company in the same way it released AOL and and Time Warner Cable in 2009 and sold Warner Music Group in 2004. Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes would not comment on the future of Time Inc. at a media event hosted by Deutsche Bank in Florida on Monday, leaving the publisher of popular magazines, such as Sports Illustrated, Time, People and Entertainment Weekly, in jeopardy. Speculation was of course confirmed Wednesday afternoon with the announcement that shook the publishing world (Variety reported the split around 3:00 PT). Divorcing from print media assets is becoming a trend in this era of e-readers and Internet blogs (irony noted). Former News Corp. entity, Fox Group, will now compete head to head with Time Warner once they separate from their publishing assets this summer. These once diversified media outlets will now focus strategy on film and television networks and production. Time Inc. has long been considered an anchor on Time Warner stock, recently growing due to increased chatter over a potential separation. The stock closed up at $55.46 at close on Wednesday. Time Warner sees this spin off as an opportunity to hone in on visual media, including its holdings Turner Broadcasting and HBO, while having a stronger footing in new deals, such as its attempt to purchase the MGM library. The split is also considered a boost to Time Inc., now able to attract shareholders purely interested in the magazine business as well control its own cash. (Anyone who's ever had to share funds with a household knows the new found power in having money be solely your own). The separation is pending SEC and board approval and should finalize by the end of the year. It will be overseen by current Time Inc. CEO Laura Lang, who helped initiate the split in 2011 and will resign from her position at the conclusion of the division. So there's my best attempt at detailing a lengthy business decision. Now, lets go further. Why should absorbing any of the previous information be worth a damn? Legacy. That's right: legacy. Time Warner is a relic of its prime days in the early nineties. The1989 merger of Time Inc., a publishing empire started in 1923 by Henry Luce, and Warner Communications, a combination of Warner Bros. film and television assets, Time Warner was a giant in media. The company understood synergy. A conglomerate must have synergy. Time Warner was a model for acquiring diverse assets and melding them together. However, after AOL purchased Time Warner in 2001, the giant took a hit to the forehead. It has yet to recover. The creation of AOL Time Warner lasted less than a decade and stalled out due to a loss of interest in AOL after the burst of the dot com bubble and the declining economy beginning in 2001. With so many parts of Time Warner now separated, the real impact of this division is the lack of interest on the part of media conglomerates to commit to synergy. There is no longer a perception that published material can meld with visual media. While there are noted failures in this realm, such as a 2009 CBS and Entertainment Weekly venture with a print video ad, there are other, more realistic ventures to be considered. Magazines develop well known personalities, fan bases and niche markets. It would seem wise to tie these magazines into television news programs. Allow these personalities and fan loyalties to bring reading audiences to television and, more importantly, bring television audiences to magazines. An ability to make publishing and visual media work together could have rejuvenated Time Warner. A company that had the potential to create a new level of unprecedented synergy and become an example of how to conglomerate in a new century of media, will now be best known for its lack of vision. And more so, its lack of accomplishment. From the past decade, the biggest news regarding Time Warner consists of downsizing and spin offs. While this spin off, like its predecessors, is likely to produce an equally competent, if not stronger Time Inc., the implication is clear. Publishing is dying. Print is dying. And with it, so is innovation. Rather than find new ways to integrate one of the oldest American institutions with the newest technologies, companies are surrendering. They are giving in when the heat turns up and show no signs of standing up to the challenge. Time Warner talks of the challenges it faces heading into the future of visual media without acknowledging the challenge it usurped. Legacy is important in business. It is vital in entertainment. And it creates history. What this recent Time Warner news comes down to is the clear indication of a legacy for the company as a savvy businessman, but a lost opportunity to salvage an industry and synergize greatness. Sorry, but time's up.