,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
The question for all these companies - VICE, BF, etc - is whether anyone wants to own them for longterm/consistent profitability (or that combined with 'synergy' advantages in a larger media co). They've never lived in that world. None have ever had those kinds of owners.
2/ There are lots of reasons to own a media company that posts consistent if modest profits. There are reasons to own one that just breaks even. There are even reasons to own one that might lose predictable and relatively small amounts of money every year. The big challenge ...
3/ for these companies is that none of them are currently owned by people who are in it for any of these reasons. They're owned by people who want to get their money back out with big returns. If BF is basically a break even business or can make a small percentage ...
4/ profit in good years, is anyone going to want to buy it for $1.5 billion or however much it's supposedly worth? Pretty doubtful. That's why cost-cutting to profitability or just operating in the black is only one part of the soft landing equation for these companies.
