Valleywag
Myopic Wall Street often uses a microscope when it should use a telescope. The rot at Web publisher CNET goes far beyond the particulars of one quarter. Forget the question of by how many cents per share it missed earnings expectations, and ask yourself this: Why isn't CNET gushing cash? Its established brands in tech news and reviews should be printing money. No wonder hedge fund Jana Partners is trying to unseat its board. I'm not sure Jana has any plan, other than throwing the boardroom rascals out. So what's the problem, and what to do?
I don't buy the theory promulgated by self-interested rivals that blogs are nibbling away at CNET; it has always had rivals, and its sites' traffic has continued to grow as the general interest in gadgetry rises.
But if you look at CNET's income statement, the story is simple: revenues are nearly flat, while costs have soared. For that, the most likely culprit is CNET's diversion into content areas like food and babies, in which it has no expertise and its advertisers have no interest. Trying to expand horizontally has been a fruitless distraction. Rolling up smaller blogs to expand the inventory its salespeople can sell — that would actually make sense. CNET's deal with Yahoo to license its tech content and cooperate on ad sales is a positive sign of management focus, but it smacks of being too little, too late. Selling everything outside CNET's core expertise and spending the proceeds on a rollup strategy would be the right move, but I'm not sure CNET CEO Neil Ashe is brash enough to do that.
Comments
+ Watch video
These tech portals are stagnating like a packet of crisps on the roof. (IT Crowd)
It's arrogance. Has anyone ever tried to do business with CNET? They act like they are the only company in silicon valley. There are few companies I dislike more than CNET.
@sggrf: I used to work there and have to agree.... totally arrogant. Not sure why since they're not very innovative anymore and obviously not nimble enough to deal with or adapt to the current market.
@sggrf: Got to remember all the years that Cnet used to shun blogger-type people. The staff was and is unqualified, yet so arrogant. It's almost as if it's fun to watch them shrivel.
It also could be and probably is the quality of the content going down. Just look at the craptastic stuff on News.com these days. That used to be my go-to source for industry news.
I could not imagine a day without News.com.com.com!
How true. News.com used to be a must-read. I almost never go. Why? Because it's all google/msn all the time. They don't pay attention to the web companies we all like.
Yes, they need to provide more coverage about Michael Arrington, Robert Scoble, Jimmy Wales, Jason Calacanis, and Julia Allison.
You know, people who really matter.
Oh yes, and Starbucks quarterly earnings. How could I forget?!?
After all, there's nothing that says "Silicon Valley tech gossip" more than an SEC 10-Q from a coffee shop.
@sggrf: This has also become true of the general press: they only cover the usual suspects whom everyone else is also covering. "GMail increases storage to 2GB!" "Ballmer won't raise Yahoo bid!"
@BartKela: "Michael Arrington, Robert Scoble, Jimmy Wales, Jason Calacanis, and Julia Allison"
Hehehe...exactly! But you left out coverage of the Valley sex trade.
@ifstone: Fidel would like to remind you that Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg were also omitted.
I wonder if everything good that CNET does from here on out will be labeled too little too late. Hmmm.
Before the bust, Cnet threw some great parties for employees. The place never regained its balance, though, despite the rebound, either morale wise, or business wise.
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?