AOL founder Steve Case says it’s time to spin AOL out, again: “Any half-hearted move toward “liberating” AOL is no more likely to succeed than the half-hearted effort toward “integrating” AOL over the past six years. Given that Time Warner failed to capitalize on AOL’s potential during a period when it owned 100 percent of AOL, it seems doubtful that a scenario in which it has a lesser, but still controlling, stake will work better…AOL has spent the last six years wrestling with integration issues — it needs to be independent now so it can start to regain its leadership position.”
Steve says:
As a single unit, AOL could buy small companies, a la Yahoo and Google and compete
(Susan sez: As a conglomerate, hasn’t it continued to do that–with more than 8 acquisitions in the past 2 years?)
Steve says: As a free standing unit, AOL can better compete in the social network space against MySpace and Facebook.
Susan sez: And why do you think that? Given that many of AOL’s highly experience community staffers have been there more than 8 years, and that much of the moderation is now outsourced, what would AOL suddenly be empowered to do differently?
Steve says: The current effort to make AOL Portal #1 is a waste–portals are over and verticals are in.
Susan sez: I totally agree on this one, but don’t see how spin off would help it do this any better–unless Steve wants to come back and reinvent it.
Conclusion: I don’t agree with Case that spinning AOL out is a good idea–but my reasons have to do with the management–I just don’t believe that a stand-alone AOL would be any more nimble or able to act on the good ideas Case suggests. In this instance, it’s just too late–the baby has been thrown out with the bath water.
(Via The Washington Post)
AOL founder Steve Case says it’s time to spin AOL out, again: “Any half-hearted move toward “liberating” AOL is no more likely to succeed than the half-hearted effort toward “integrating” AOL over the past six years. Given that Time Warner failed to capitalize on AOL’s potential during a period when it owned 100 percent of AOL, it seems doubtful that a scenario in which it has a lesser, but still controlling, stake will work better…AOL has spent the last six years wrestling with integration issues — it needs to be independent now so it can start to regain its leadership position.”
Steve says:
As a single unit, AOL could buy small companies, a la Yahoo and Google and compete
(Susan sez: As a conglomerate, hasn’t it continued to do that–with more than 8 acquisitions in the past 2 years?)
Steve says: As a free standing unit, AOL can better compete in the social network space against MySpace and Facebook.
Susan sez: And why do you think that? Given that many of AOL’s highly experience community staffers have been there more than 8 years, and that much of the moderation is now outsourced, what would AOL suddenly be empowered to do differently?
Steve says: The current effort to make AOL Portal #1 is a waste–portals are over and verticals are in.
Susan sez: I totally agree on this one, but don’t see how spin off would help it do this any better–unless Steve wants to come back and reinvent it.
Conclusion: I don’t agree with Case that spinning AOL out is a good idea–but my reasons have to do with the management–I just don’t believe that a stand-alone AOL would be any more nimble or able to act on the good ideas Case suggests. In this instance, it’s just too late–the baby has been thrown out with the bath water.
(Via The Washington Post)