AOL-Huffington merger doomed as I had predicted.

Looks like my prediction that the purchase of Huffington Post by AOL for $315 million was going to kill both companies, a while back on this site, is bearing fruit. As I noted then, AOL was the kiss of death, and Huffington Post was a bunch of lefty loons with no real experience. Anyway, this thing is going south faster than Obama and the democrats are pushing America off the cliff, and the most essential reason is #1:

AOL bought Huffington Post for $315 million earlier this year. So far, according to a reader, the intergration is going very badly: Twelve reasons why the AOL – Huffington Post merger is going down in flames. The tragedy here is that not only will the deal ruin AOL, but it will also ruin the Huffington Post.

It is the Peter Principle on a grand scale. None of AOL’s senior editors (Huffington, Roy Sekoff, and Nico Pitney) have ever managed more than a few people. Now they have hundreds and lack the experience to manage a team this big. Behind the scenes, long time Huffposters say that Jai Singh’s departure has eliminated the key adult in the room. Now they need to grow HuffPost and save AOL – not possible.

The place is run by people with no real experience for the job they are in. Kind of like the country is being run right now. The novice in the WH and his merry band of followers that with a few exceptions have never held a job in the real world have no clue what they are doing. Neither does the leadership of the mighty AOL-Huffington Post mega corp. Even worse, it seems decisions are not being made on sound business principles, choices made to benefit the company as a hole, but what to me clearly look like insane reasons and some kind of twisted ideological lines and motive. Seriously, can you believe stuff like this?

Unclear lines of authority. Editors are turning down sponsorships – refusing to allow McDonald’s or K-Mart sponsor AOL’s fashion week coverage.

It’s not like the KKK or Hitler are asking for ad time here people. Why refuse good paying customers, huh?

Or even more interesting are revelations like these:

Dissension in edit. The editorial team is miserable and views Arianna as unpredictable and her leadership unsteady. Several editors are racing to close book deals to be write the “Devil Wear’s Prada” of the digital age. Others are aggressively pitching unflattering profiles to New York Magazine, Vanity Fair, and the LA Times. The lack of maturity and loyalty among editors is stunning – even those close to her are extremely negative behind her back – which is surprising because she has done a great job taking care of her people.

Imperial over-reach. AOL will eliminate Popeater and Parentdish this month and roll them into the Huffington Post. Arianna’s people are plotting to eliminate all non huffingtonpost.com websites and redirect all traffic to the huffingtonpost.com. No one thinks consolidating to huffingtonpost.com is a good idea from a consumer or an advertiser perspective, but no one will stop Arianna.

Neither the Indians nor the chiefs have a clue what they are doing, but both are doing things that hurt the future viability of the company, and then due to lack of maturity and for insane personal and ideological reasons. Good luck fixing those. And expect a lot more of this:

Fear and paranoia. Large parts of the org recognize the strategy is bad for the business but everyone is afraid to speak out. Arianna is rumored to have created an enemies list across the company and has directed her loyalists to collect dossiers on other managers across the company and report back on conversations. Her list includes several key business, sales, technology, and marketing executives she wants to eliminate and replace with her people. Anyone who disagrees, even if backed by data and clear rationale’s – goes on the enemies list. Facts don’t matter.

This sounds like leftists are in charge for sure. Facts, logic, and business principles – none of those matters a bit. There are enemy’s lists targeting sales, technology, marketing, which are being used to push personal agendas, and people live in fear of doing the right thing. Even more interesting is how this is impacting the front end:

Traffic is down. The integration is likely destroying the huffington post. The sales demands and content over-reach are destroying huffpost’s focus while the org is trapped trying to save AOL when the huffpost team should be focused on building huffpost. Traffic on huffpost is up – but only due to the redirects from aol sites…. Net net, aol plus huff post traffic is in decline and the situation is not improving.

Heh, can’t say I am surprised at the news that this venture seems doomed to failure: I expected that based on observation of previous such attempts and on what’s going on right now. We are seeing the same play out, at a macro level, in the way that things are turning out for our country and its economy since the lefties took over. Stories like this are not an accident when the people in charge of running things are only good at campaigning, but have no clue how to run things. People are figuring out they are being had.

Hang on AOL-Huffington Post, cause the country might beat you to the bankruptcy line the way things are going with the Campaigner-in-Chief and the democrats refusing to deal with the disaster they have created. Nah, I was only joking. I actually am rooting for the whole AOL-Huffington Post thing to go south. I thought the whole thing was about as insane as the whole Air America project from the start, and I hope it ends the same way. Let the good times roll!

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    If anyone ever thought this was going to be anything but a giant clusterfuck, they need to have their head examined. HuffPo was just aggregating articles and relying on free writing. AOL’s business model mainly consisted of hoping senile old people wouldn’ notice they were still paying $25 a month. What are the two shit tastes that taste awful together? AOL-HuffPo.

    Thumb up 0

  2. AlexInCT *

    If anyone ever thought this was going to be anything but a giant clusterfuck, they need to have their head examined.

    Don’t you think the people that paid $315 million felt they could make it work, Hal?

    HuffPo was just aggregating articles and relying on free writing. AOL’s business model mainly consisted of hoping senile old people wouldn’ notice they were still paying $25 a month. What are the two shit tastes that taste awful together? AOL-HuffPo.

    Nicely put sir.

    Thumb up 0

  3. CM

    That reader knows everything though. What a reader to have!

    Not to worry, it’s the ‘mainstream media’ reporting this, so we know it’s all lies.

    Thumb up 1

  4. CM

    People are figuring out they are being had.

    From the link provided (which is supposed to be evidence?):

    Several unions have gotten waivers, but most seem to be going to employer plans, according to statistics from the Health and Human Services Department.

    There is no role that politics plays in any way, shape or form in the processing of the application,” said Steve Larsen, director of the department’s Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight, which approves or denies waivers.

    At the conservative Heritage Foundation, a proponent of repealing the law says he’s seen no evidence of favoritism, only questionable policy decisions.

    “At this point, I don’t see any evidence of a scandal yet,” said policy analyst Ed Haislmaier.

    Even the ultra-conservative idelogical Heritage Foundation doesn’t see a conspiracy here? Guess there’s a first time for everything….

    Q: So an office headed by an administration bureaucrat is able to waive the entire health care law?

    A: Actually, no. The waivers mainly address two provisions. And they are time-limited.

    Any law dealing with an area as complicated as health care is going to have unintended consequences, said Laszewski. “You have to manage through it in a common-sense way,” he added.

    Obama’s health care law allows waivers to prevent loss of coverage, cost spikes or disruptions to a state’s health insurance market.

    “I wouldn’t see that as special deals as much as bowing to reality,” said Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan research organization.

    Yep, all those people sure have seen through the lies and conspiracy…..;-)

    Thumb up 0

  5. CM

    Stories like this are not an accident

    A mainstream media piece is headlined with “Chronic Unemployment Worse Than Great Depression”? How does fit your narrative of the mainstream media under-reporting problems and being only nice to Obama?
    Let me guess (using your patented convenient-explanation system)…….”they can’t do it all the time otherwise it would look too obvious. Only super highly-intelligent people can detect it at the moment (and realise that they’ve, um…….”been had”)”.
    ;-)

    Thumb up 0

  6. loserlame

    Huh? What was the “Great Depression”? Wasn’t that some farmers in the far west, like Nebraska, starving without subsidies? Voting Democratic fixed that – FDR, JFK etc .

    Whats really bad is their suffering the mean effects of global warming, today, brought to you by George Bushitler

    Thumb up 2

  7. AlexInCT *

    So you are claiming that the fact these waivers seem to be given to friends of democrats or constituencies that heavily favor and donate to demcorats are purely coincidental CM? And please provide a link to that quote from the Heritgage Foundation. Unlinked sources don’t impress me much, since I always suspect they are taken out of context or made up.

    Thumb up 0

  8. mikedomi39

    And please provide a link to that quote from the Heritgage Foundation. Unlinked sources don’t impress me much, since I always suspect they are taken out of context or made up.

    That quote is from your link.

    Thumb up 0

  9. CM

    So you are claiming that the fact these waivers seem to be given to friends of democrats or constituencies that heavily favor and donate to demcorats are purely coincidental CM?

    Can you prove otherwise?

    Thumb up 0

  10. CM

    I’ve already shown that he didn’t bother to actually read it. Now he clearly doesn’t even remember linking it.

    Thumb up 0

  11. AlexInCT *

    Way to rig the debate so the other side is left with an impossible, CM! See it’s obvious to me that you would even dismiss an admission from these people themselves that this is rigged as not enough evidence, but I am going to point out how ludicrous your continued efforts to make like there isn’t a clear agenda to favor the troops at work here.

    The exclusion list keeps growing longer and f-ing longer, but those added are always in the category I mention. Eventually, when like we long ago already had over 1000 exclusions, with more being added daily, and, and a comprehensive analysis shows you had/have so few, if any at all, exclusions added that aren’t in the category I mentioned that you can basically dismiss them as outliers that amount to noise statistically, most people with smarts and common sense, and not the idiotic need to defend the blatantly indefensible, will conclude something is up, and then, laugh at anyone pretending its just a coincidence. If we only had a dozen exclusions I might have given you the benefit of the doubt, considering the long ass list of those excluded trending over 95% to special democrat interests, you will pardon me for not doing so now.

    Now you are going to demand a breakdown right, hoping that since it is such a waste of time I might ignore it, then pretend you won? Because the patern sure as hell is becoming lame.

    Thumb up 0

  12. Poosh

    lol back in the day when the internet was just out, most people, here in the UK, seemed to have AOL, but now I don’t know a single person. I assumed it just vanished.

    Thumb up 0

  13. CM

    Way to rig the debate so the other side is left with an impossible, CM!

    Not at all. All you have to do is provide evidence that the waivers are determined politically. So far you’ve provided a link which seems to demonstrate the opposite. Even the Heritage Foundation are saying they see no evidence of favouritism.

    See it’s obvious to me that you would even dismiss an admission from these people themselves that this is rigged as not enough evidence, but I am going to point out how ludicrous your continued efforts to make like there isn’t a clear agenda to favor the troops at work here.

    You mean an admission from people that it’s not rigged.

    The exclusion list keeps growing longer and f-ing longer, but those added are always in the category I mention. Eventually, when like we long ago already had over 1000 exclusions, with more being added daily, and, and a comprehensive analysis shows you had/have so few, if any at all, exclusions added that aren’t in the category I mentioned that you can basically dismiss them as outliers that amount to noise statistically, most people with smarts and common sense, and not the idiotic need to defend the blatantly indefensible, will conclude something is up, and then, laugh at anyone pretending its just a coincidence. If we only had a dozen exclusions I might have given you the benefit of the doubt, considering the long ass list of those excluded trending over 95% to special democrat interests, you will pardon me for not doing so now.

    Where do you get that 95% from?
    Re-read the quotes I took from your link. The experts are saying the opposite to you. Which ones are agreeing with you?
    You’ve provided nothing at all in the way of evidence.

    Now you are going to demand a breakdown right, hoping that since it is such a waste of time I might ignore it, then pretend you won? Because the patern sure as hell is becoming lame.

    Not half as lame as claiming all sorts of shit as fact but having no evidence to back it up. Not as quarter as lame as provided evidence which suggests the exact opposite of what you’re trying to argue.

    Thumb up 0

  14. AlexInCT *

    Not at all. All you have to do is provide evidence that the waivers are determined politically.

    Why? So you can do what you have been doing this far – ignore it – and ask for proof yet again?

    So far you’ve provided a link which seems to demonstrate the opposite.

    No I am sure I am wasting my time arguing with a moron.

    Even the Heritage Foundation are saying they see no evidence of favouritism.

    Maybe they need glasses? Cause everyone else that isn’t a leftists sure as hell is seeing it.

    Where do you get that 95% from?

    Right here CM. And despite all the bullshit about transparency and how great this shit is, it is a veritable who-is-who of democrat donors and friends as information like that clearly shows. I am sure it isn’t going to convince you otherwise. Shit, even if the democrats and Obama admitted this and we had it on video you would just pretend it wasn’t there. You have done it already a couple of times.

    Not half as lame as claiming all sorts of shit as fact but having no evidence to back it up. Not as quarter as lame as provided evidence which suggests the exact opposite of what you’re trying to argue.

    Again moron, a fact doesn’t stop being a fact because you refuse to believe or acknowledge it.

    Thumb up 0