BoomTown » David Kirkpatrick

Liveblogging Fortune Brainstorm Tech: AOL CEO and Chairman Tim "The Plumber" Armstrong

Kara Swisher — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:09:01 +0000

It did not start out too well for AOL CEO and Chairman Tim Armstrong, with a poll on the screen showing most of the attendees in the ballroom at Fortune Brainstorm Tech voting that the Time Warner (TWX) online unit was either out of juice or irrelevant.

The event, which is taking place over three days in Pasadena, Calif., is packed full of Web and media luminaries, so BoomTown will be sitting in the front row and liveblogging some of the sessions here, such as this one that I did for the session with Bob Iger, CEO of the Walt Disney Company (DIS).

Armstrong did not break any news in the interview with Fortune’s lively interviewer, David Kirkpatrick, relying more on projecting an I’m-in-charge-here attitude and saying confident things like “a challenge is also an opportunity.”

In general, Armstrong tried to be upbeat about the prospects for AOL, which has for too long been the Web’s sad sack of an Internet company.

“We are still in a very large trade wind,” he said, referring to advertisers spending money online. “If someone asked you if advertising [online] is going to go up, I think you would have to say yes.”

To take advantage of that, Armstrong said AOL would be focused on investing “in content systems that connect with advertising systems–that’s a white space we are going after.”

He noted that AOL needs to have the same “plumbing approach” to content that Google (GOOG)–where Armstrong had been a major advertising exec before taking his new job–has had to search advertising.

“You have to take the Silicon Valley approach to content,” Armstrong declared.

Armstrong also talked a little bit about his recent 100-day trip around the AOL empire worldwide and what he got out of it.

“I got a lot of advice from different people about what to do,” he said.

His takeaway, which he will discuss at an all-hands meeting scheduled for tomorrow with AOL staff: “It’s really about strategy. If we don’t have the right strategy, we’re not going to win.”

Which is kind of stating the obvious, but it sounded good.

Armstrong also touched lightly on the issue of getting rid of various assets AOL has compiled over the last several years, like it pricey purchase of the Bebo social networking site.

But some, as I recently reported–such as the Truveo video search service and the information search company Relegence–are staying.

Armstrong also talked of buying, but judiciously–noting to me later that AOL had 900 possible acquisition deals blocked in its pipeline.

Someone call a plumber stat!

Armstrong said he has put a stop to a lot of those deals, including putting the kibosh on a $400 million check he was supposed to sign right when he got there.

It was, as he told me after his interview, a windfall that supposed to go to a big computer maker for a distribution deal, which he chose to pass on.

“Everything has to make sense from a return-on-investment basis for me,” said Armstrong. “It’s that easy.”

And that hard, although he did move the crowd, which was polled with the same questions about AOL’s chances after Armstrong talked.

He got more people in the audience to vote that AOL would “return to health as a major Internet player,” which is–as legions of the company’s leaders have shown–no easy task.

[Photo credit: Brad Markel for Fortune]

The $125 Million-Sweet DailyCandy Revenge of Bob "Pitchman"

Kara Swisher — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:55:09 +0000

Oh, there had to be much, much gnashing of teeth in the corporate offices of the Time Warner Center in New York yesterday with news of the sale of DailyCandy to Comcast for $125 million.

Why?

Maybe because that tasty payment is going right into the hands of Bob Pittman’s Pilot Group Ventures, which bought the fashion and shopping newsletter business for $3 million in 2003.

Longtime media exec Pittman was the former star AOLer, whose nickname was Bob “Pitchman” for his smooth-as-silk selling and even more marked spinning skills.

But the Web 1.0 supernova fell quickly to earth, after the online service merged with Time Warner (TWX) in early 2001, in what is now considered one of the more significant world-class corporate disasters.

After being tossed out of AOL Time Warner in mid-2002, Pittman (pictured here), along with AOL head Steve Case, was blamed for the stock decline and other woes at the media giant by the Time Warner side, whose deep bitterness toward him has never really faded away.

Now, with Time Warner trying to make a deal to sell the AOL unit for up to $10 billion to Yahoo or Microsoft–despite it being valued at $20 billion only a few years ago–Pittman’s small but impressive score has got to grate.

“I have been associated with the start-up, turnaround or acceleration of many companies and major brands, and rarely have I seen the kind of creativity, commitment and passion I’ve seen day in and day out at DailyCandy,” said Pittman in a letter to DailyCandy staff yesterday about the sale. “And the results speak for themselves: Since we made our investment in 2003, subscriptions have grown from just over 200,000 to over 2.5 million.”

In the letter, Pittman said the company’s EBITDA was over $10 million this year on revenues of $25 million.

This is certainly different from the situation almost exactly six years ago when Pittman was driven out of the then-named AOL Time Warner on the proverbial rail.

If you want a taste of those once-grim times for Pittman, here is an excerpt from my book, “There Must Be a Pony in Here Somewhere: The AOL Time Warner Debacle and the Quest for a Digital Future,” which was published in 2003.

The section comes from Chapter Six, “Way, Way After the Goldrush,” as the deal imploded:

THERE’S NO BUSINESS LIKE NO BUSINESS

Despite the troubles, Pittman, Case and [former AOL Time Warner CEO Dick] Parsons grinned out from the June 2002 cover of AOL Time Warner’s internal magazine, called Keywords, under the headline “Lift Off!” Actually, “Grounded!” would have been a more accurate headline, given the problems that would mount over the summer.

That was especially true at AOL, where Pittman found that just about everything–from morale to ad sales to subscriber numbers–was trending downward at an accelerating pace.

He had grown weary of infighting at the company, exhausted from the traveling and worn down by the prospect that turning around AOL would take more work than he had ever imagined.

For three months, he’d been trying to revive AOL while still working as COO of the combined company. Pittman was stretched about as thin as he could go, and AOL was still sputtering.

“He had been getting a pounding and he did not see a way to turn it around,” said AOL marketing whiz Jan Brandt, whom Pittman had brought back into the top echelons of the company upon his return. “And there was no end in sight.”

Indeed, for Pittman, there was no end in sight for the time it might take to fix AOL, especially because of how badly he and his team had alienated the entire Time Warner management.

The New York Post even began running a regular “Pittman Meter,” an obnoxious graphic that offered assessments ranging from whether he was “toast” to “safe” on any given day.

Mostly, Pittman was burnt to a crisp.

With increasingly skepticism that he could fix the problems at AOL, Pittman went to Parsons before the July 4th holiday weekend and told him he wanted out.

“I can’t do this anymore,” said Pittman to Parsons, who urged him to think things through over the weekend.

But the weekend put him over the edge, when the New York Times–whose reporter, David Kirkpatrick, had become a favored outlet for disgruntled Time Warner executives to vent—ran a scathing piece detailing Pittman’s failure to turn things around at AOL and suggesting there was a target on his back.

“Executives and shareholders are united in more or less open revolt,” wrote Kirkpatrick. While the story referred to discomfort with the departed Levin too, it singled out Pittman explicitly.

“Most of all, Time Warner executives have turned their ire specifically at one man–Mr. Pittman, a former America Online executive who became chief operating officer after the merger,” it read. “He angered many Time Warner executives with what they called his brusque manner … he developed a reputation for brashness, ruthlessness and success at America Online, and he applied the same tactics at Time Warner on his return.”

As if channeling the Time Warner side’s anger, Kirkpatrick summed up their message: “Now many executives from the former Time Warner wish the merger would go away, and, barring that, they wish that Mr. Pittman would.”

In the article, Parsons was quoted offering a rather tepid defense of Pittman: “People get angry and that anger has to be attached to something or someone,” he was quoted as saying. “Some of it has been attached to Bob and I am not sure if it is entirely fair.”

Well, not entirely, Parsons’s quote seemed to indicate to me–but maybe it’s a little fair! This deft response definitely did not look good for Pittman.

And with Parsons firmly ensconced in the CEO position and no place higher up on the ladder for Pittman to go, what sense did it make for him to keep fighting what was, for the foreseeable future, a losing battle in which he would probably end up getting tossed out anyway?

With the executive ranks blaming him and the board losing faith that he could turn AOL around, Pittman had no chance of regaining any credibility as COO.

“Pittman left on own steam, but he knew what was coming,” said one board member, who actually admired Pittman.

Pittman wanted to announce he was leaving, but Parsons asked him to delay the news until the board could approve a new management structure in mid-July.

His plan was to promote Time Inc.’s Don Logan and HBO’s Jeff Bewkes to the top of the AOL Time Warner structure, effectively splitting Pittman’s duties into two positions, both of which would report directly to Parsons.

Logan would head the Media and Communications Group, the subscription and ad businesses that would include Time Inc., Time Warner Cable, the Interactive Video Unit, Time Warner Books and AOL.

And Bewkes would run the Entertainment and Networks Group, made up of HBO, New Line Cinema, The WB, Turner Networks, Warner Bros. and Warner Music.

Getting the pair interested in the arrangement would be difficult, given the recalcitrance both had felt toward the merger in the first place.

But it was critical for Parsons to pull this off, since Logan and Bewkes were considered the best and most successful operators in the company, though they were vastly different in personality and style.

Logan, who had been the CEO of Time Inc. since 1994, was one of the most admired managers in the company, especially within his division, where he was openly revered for turning around the fortunes of the magazine publishing house.

An Alabama native, he was the son of a housewife and a welder for the state highway department. Logan went to Auburn University as a math major, and worked his way through school as a computer programmer for NASA in Huntsville. He continued his studies–specializing in abstract math–at Clemson University, and went on to pursue a doctorate part-time the University of Houston.

While in Texas, he worked for Shell Oil, creating research tools in the search for oil, but he found big-company life too slow.

Answering an ad for a Birmingham, Ala., publishing company called Progressive Farmer, later renamed Southern Progress, Logan worked first in data processing and fulfillment and later in direct marketing.

Time Inc. bought Southern Progress in 1985, and Logan was running it by 1986.

Admiring Logan’s reputation for consistent results, [former Time Warner CEO Jerry] Levin brought him to New York in 1992 as Time Inc.’s president and COO. Logan got the CEO spot two years later.

Logan fulfilled Levin’s expectations by goosing the magazine division’s results dramatically, turning in 41 consecutive quarters of earnings growth and tripling its cash flow.

Logan managed all this while affecting a folksy Southern image as a good old boy who just loved to go fishing. (He had even appeared on the cover of Field & Stream in a feature about jungle fish.)

Pretty much everyone I asked about Logan felt the need to mention his fishing, as if it were mysterious and complex part of his nature–imagine that, a fishing math major!

In the company newsletter, Logan was quoted as noting that business was a lot like fishing, in that they both require “persistence and patience.”

The burly Logan might have had true “down home” bona fides, but he was as smooth as any city slicker in leading the potentially divisive troops at Time Inc.

His greatest strength appeared to be in leaving people alone, yet demanding performance as a price for that independence.

“He was a straight talker in a culture of bullshit and platitudes,” said former Pathfinder executive Linda McCutcheon. “And he believed you grew incrementally to greatness.”

The very qualities that were so admired at Time Warner were derided by AOL’s top brass, who considered Logan a typical Time Warner corporate timeserver and not much of a risk taker.

“He thought growing at five percent a year was a great accomplishment,” said the voluble [AOL ad exec] Myer Berlow. “He was not exactly the kind of person who welcomed us.”

The AOLers expected more rapport with Jeff Bewkes, the glib and good-looking head of HBO.

Much as everyone mentioned Logan’s interest in fishing, the word Time Warner people invariably used to describe Bewkes was “handsome.”

And he is indeed a handsome man, slim and tall with a curious mix of Hollywood glamour and vague preppiness that suited the more conservative elements of the company.

“Golden boy” had long been a defining image for Bewkes, who was a graduate of Yale University and Stanford Business School (again, that heady mix of traditional East Coast and trendy California).

The impact he made was a strong one–an executive comfortable with both Hollywood talent and deal makers alike.

Bewkes came to HBO many years previously, and worked in the finance and marketing departments. He was considered a winner even in his earliest days.

“We all used to assume he would eventually be the boss,” said a former AOL executive Mark Walsh, who worked with Bewkes at HBO. “He had this air of the inevitable about him that was very appealing.”

His star rose quickly and he eventually became the chairman and CEO of HBO, building a close-knit team around him that was responsible for burnishing the somewhat dull image of the pay-cable channel to an edgy sheen with such huge hits as “The Sopranos” and “Sex and the City.”

This conspicuous success quickly attracted AOLers, who identified with Bewkes’s more outgoing style and considered his passionate, entrepreneurial nature akin to their own.

They could not have been more wrong about his regard for AOL, though–Bewkes was one of the first executives to complain internally and loudly about the idiocy of the merger deal.

He wasn’t shy about challenging Steve Case’s dreamy ideas of convergence in company meetings, and he could pull it off because his HBO success gave him such credibility.

Bewkes’s ability to move with comfort through all parts of the company made everyone assume that he was headed for bigger things.

That included AOL, which Bewkes was asked to fix in early 2002. It was a position he’d quite smartly turned down, obviously aware that grabbing onto that sticky situation would hurt him.

Pittman really had no choice in being the one to take on AOL–although I joked to him when he went back to Dulles that he’d just been handed a tar baby that he’d have a hard time pulling away from without damage.

That was finally clear when the company announced his departure–which had been widely leaked in newspapers–on July 18.

As usual, his public statement had an odd mixture of spin and truth to it.

“I’ve decided that after a new CEO is in place at AOL, I won’t return to AOL Time Warner as chief operating officer,” he said. “Having worked so hard to build the AOL service and brand, and after then going through the merger and the last 18 months, it’s time to take a break.”

Managers and staff at other company divisions greeted the news of Pittman’s departure and the ascension of Logan and Bewkes with joy.

“The Taliban have been routed,” joked irrepressible Time Inc. Editorial Director John Huey, in what was a common sentiment.

Finally, Time Warner had taken back the company from the horrible invaders. The gloating ran rampant.

Media pundit and New York columnist Michael Wolff, who had worked with Time Warner on its various failed Internet efforts, took a dim view of the glee in his “This Media Life” column.

Wolff correctly asked: What had Time Warner really won by purging Pittman–who walked away with a fortune–and where would that leave the company?

“Of course, taking it out on the guy who outsmarted you does not, in turn, make you smart,” he wrote in his slap-down style. “[Pittman] doesn’t hang around a disaster area. This is show business. If the show flops, you close it. Onward and upward.”

AOL’s early CEO Jim Kimsey, who had long been enjoying his retirement, was even more direct, dialing Pittman up on the phone.

“Is this the unemployed Mr. Pittman? Because this is the unemployed Mr. Kimsey,” he greeted Pittman. “Congratulations–you moved Osama Bin Laden off the front page!”

But while Time Warnerites rejoiced in their hope that the merger turmoil was finally over, the company’s troubles wouldn’t leave the front pages for a long time to come.

We’ll see if that has changed at all, after Time Warner announces its second quarter earnings later today.

Kara Visits Fortune's Brainstorm: TECH

Kara Swisher — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:09:15 +0000

In BoomTown’s ongoing quest to overdose on tech conferences, I traveled south of San Francisco last night for Fortune magazine’s Brainstorm: TECH conference.

Run by David Kirkpatrick, it’s well done and a great place to run into a range of techies from Silicon Valley, as well as talk to more creative thinkers on where tech is going.

I was there to be on a dinner panel with fellow bloggers Om Malik of GigaOm and my favorite geek to tease, Robert Scoble, of Scobleizer. Fortune’s Adam Lashinsky moderated.

It was an interesting panel about a range of topics, from Yahoo (YHOO)–Kevin Kelly was bored, bored, bored with that topic–to the looming economic pressure that the digital industry is about to experience (a bummer, but entirely true).

Here’s the video:

[ See post to watch video ]

The Book on Facebook?

Kara Swisher — Fri, 09 May 2008 09:00:36 +0000

While there have been not-so-nice insider books about Facebook, the first major deal to chronicle the rise of the social-networking phenom has been signed by Fortune magazine’s David Kirkpatrick (pictured here).

Titled “The Facebook Effect,” the tome will be (glacially) published in September of 2009 by Simon & Schuster, which noted in a statement that it “will chronicle the amazingly rapid rise of this company as well as the impact it is having on social life, politics, business and even international relations.”

Ah yes, peace in our time via The Wall!

Facebook and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, have agreed to cooperate, said Kirkpatrick, who has written several pieces in Fortune on the much-hyped start-up that have been largely laudatory.

The book, said Kirkpatrick in a phone chitty-chat with BoomTown (while I froze at Little League practice in the-coldest-winter-I-ever-spent-was-a-summer-in-San Francisco) will also not necessarily be tough, but look at the ways Facebook has been the latest to profoundly impact the online industry.

“This is a company that is changing the way we use the Web, and I want to look at where it is going and what it could become,” said Kirkpatrick.

I like a positive attitude, although my book on Facebook–which I have dinged for a lot of stuff over the last year, from its kooky $15 billion valuation to its still-nascent ad business–would have been titled: “There Must Be a Pony in Here Somewhere.”

Oops! That was actually the title of my second book on AOL, the Facebook of Web 1.0, which chronicled the near-collapse of the company after its disastrous merger with Time Warner (TWX).

That, of course, came like winter follows fall after the first I did, “aol.com,” which told the story of the stunning rise of the online pioneer.

Actually, now that I think about it, it still might work for Facebook!

I kid, David, I kid! Good luck!

Facebook as Online Ad Nirvana?

Kara Swisher — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:00:41 +0000

So Fortune writer David Kirkpatrick, in his weigh-in on Facebook’s potential shakedown of Bill Gates’s wallet–as reported, Microsoft is apparently thinking of investing in the hot social-networking site at a ridiculous $10 billion valuation–called my analysis of the company and its possible shortcomings “glib.”

OK, so I looked up the word in the dictionary, and it turns out it means: “readily fluent, often thoughtlessly, superficially, or insincerely.”

Thanks, Dave! Given my long history as someone who has been pretty bullish on the Web, it’s unusual for me to be the irksome tsk-tsk voice of reason about the bubble being blown up here, so I am glad to be thought of as superficial!

Writes Kirkpatrick:

How can you put a price tag on the future? That’s what any investor in Facebook would be doing.

“There’s no way the company is worth that kind of money today, despite the 43 million active users it claims. (The Journal reports that private Facebook this year expects to make $30 million profit on $150 million in revenues.) But that is not the same thing as saying that somebody would be insane to buy a small chunk at such a valuation. (For a glib and contrasting view from Kara Swisher, see AllThingsD.)”

After that, he goes on to call the service the Internet equivalent of the second coming of Google, except with its people-centric, six-degrees-of-separation vision called a “social graph” by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

(Calling AOL! Some kid hijacked your old vision and is about to make bank with it!)

More importantly with all this relevant interconnectedness, posits Kirkpatrick, Facebook is apparently the promised land of advertising of the future, which is all about giving the consumers ads they actually want!

Ads as a service! Ads as a benefit! Ads not as an intrusion!

I don’t mean to be glib, but this kind of ad cheerleading has been trotted out by AOL, by Yahoo, by every dot-com start-up I ever met and its promise has always been more, shall we say, bloated than its delivery.

And even now, with all the advances in online behavior-targeting–which I like to call “consumer-stalking”–it’s mostly still just a lot of marketing blabbery that is good for flimflamming the media buyers at Procter & Gamble and little else.

Other new buzzy phrases in this genre include: claiming consumers want to be “brand ambassadors” for a wide range of products (I suspect that list is quite short); declaring all advertising as needing to be “viral,” which should be enough to make buyers ill; and even claiming that ads are content (so far, only Apple’s Mac/PC commercials seem to rate in this department).

While Facebook is certainly a very good place to test all these theories, perhaps even the best place at the moment, a smarter investor might want to use such money to play all over the Web, testing out all sorts of new ad formats.

And spending hundreds of millions to get a small stake in this game in just one company–which is still No. 2 in the market, lest we forget about rival MySpace–seems like a recipe for disappointment.

That is especially true if what GigaOm’s Om Malik writes about government pressures to make the service safer for young people comes to pass–which could land Facebook into a miasma of controversy.

To Kirkpatrick’s credit, he is quite right when he writes about the drive of Zuckerberg, pictured below, who appears to be very confident, thoughtful and hard-charging, although I am not so sure his comparison of Zuckerberg to Microsoft’s Bill Gates is a good one to make.

Zuckerberg shouldn’t be a wannabe of him, given that company’s history of bullying domination, any more than he should try to pattern himself after the arrogant brainiac style of Google.

If I were him, if he has to be like anyone, I would act more like Steve Jobs, whose iconoclastic style has left a lot of possible market power on the table in the past, but whose single-minded devotion to product excellence has made Apple a brand for the ages.

Steve Jobs even took money from Microsoft, but it was only when he had no other choice. Zuckerberg does have a choice, a lot of them, which is often harder than having none.

So, by all means, dream big. By all means, run as fast as you can to grow what we can all agree is a great platform. By all means, take the money if it means it will help you get there.

But I don’t mean to be insincere when I say too: For all your promise, think hard about what you can actually deliver.

iMeme Fa So La Ti Do

Kara Swisher — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:12:36 +0000

I stopped into the iMeme: The Thinkers of Tech conference, put on by Fortune magazine yesterday and today in San Francisco, and ran into a passel of the Internet regulars, talking about–you guessed it–the Internet.

You got your John Chambers of Cisco, you got your Sheryl Sandberg of Google, you got your Marc Benioff of Salesforce.com, you got your Jeff Weiner of Yahoo–and you’ve got yourself a digital partay.

A lot of people were blabbing about the latest bubble rumor that Microsoft was considering offering $6 billion to purchase Facebook. Yes, the No. 2 (by far) social-networking company that could, making the definitive leader MySpace worth, like, a kabillion.

Here is my little video of the event, as I chat with conference organizer David Kirkpatrick and Fortune magazine editor Andy Serwer (with whom I went to the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, where we both did precisely nothing).

I also play a little word association–$6 billion, being the key one–with Microsoft’s Yusuf Mehdi and the obviously-weary-of-me Facebook PR maven Brandee Barker.

[ See post to watch video ]