The financial-media rollup strategy
Financial news is a classic ripe-for-disruption industry. It generally makes its money by selling expensive subscriptions to the price-insensitive, but that model wonât last forever: itâs never been harder to find anybody under the age of 40 who pays for such things. The trick, for anybody looking to navigate the industry, is to create products which will have a much greater chance of gaining broad traction in a mobile-native world â and which can generate profits through as many revenue streams as possible.
If youâre ambitious, itâs easy to see an enormous opportunity here. The FT and the WSJ are both billion-dollar brands; Bloomberg and Reuters are worth much, much more. All of them have very substantial subscription revenues, which they canât afford to endanger. (Well, Bloomberg probably can afford to endanger them, but it wonât.) As a result, if an aggressive digital financial media company starts going after their customers, the big guys are not going to fight back by lowering their prices.
Now, with todayâs news that Deutsche Bank has been hired to sell Forbes Media, it looks as though the opportunity to create just such a company has arrived. Forbes is being sold relatively cheap: Bloombergâs Edmund Lee reports that the asking price is in the $400 million range, while US ad sales alone were $275 million last year. Add in international sales, events revenue, and licensing revenue from software deals and things like Forbes Media Tower and the Forbes School of Business, and youâre talking about a sale price which is barely above 1X revenues.
Forbes is not the only digital financial-media property going cheap. TheStreet.com is publicly listed, and has a market cap of $75 million on annual revenues of $50 million. Chances are, any takeover offer would be taken very seriously.
Meanwhile, Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson reports that Henry Blodget, the CEO of Business Insider, is âin full pitch modeâ, saying that BI “would actually be perfect for a mergerâ. Blodget has been preaching the roll-up gospel for a while now, and would surely jump at the opportunity to get involved in one. He has revenues of about $20 million right now; BI is valued at much higher multiples than Forbes or TheStreet, but still surely less than $100 million.
Throw in a bit of extra cash to bring it all together, then, and for say $700 million â significantly less than it would cost you to buy the FT on its own â you could buy Forbes and Business Insider and TheStreet, and probably Seeking Alpha as the cherry on top. At that point, you have the makings of a real digital powerhouse.
The companies are complementary in many ways. Forbes has a big ad-sales base, as well as a storied brand name, a large events business, and a valuable network of thousands of editorial contributors; it is also furthest along in terms of building a strong native-advertising franchise. Business Insider has growth, attitude, aggression, speed, and by far the most web-native newsroom in financial media. It knows what people want to read, and it is extremely good at providing exactly that. TheStreet, meanwhile, has an enviable list of stock-market investors who are willing to spend serious amounts of money on newsletter subscriptions; it also has a very sophisticated video setup, and last year spent $6 million buying The Deal, which reaches pretty much everybody who matters in the New York financial industry. And Seeking Alpha has managed to build up an extraordinary base of reader-contributors, who between them provide some of the most timely and sophisticated stock-market analysis on the web.
The big question is, of course: who has $700 million to spend on such a roll-up, as well as the managerial and technological nous to get them all to play nicely together? The facile answer is: anybody who can afford to spend $400 million on Forbes alone can afford to spend $700 million on something which is much more likely to make a real impact. But still, weâre talking about real money here. Which means that one company in particular springs to mind as the place which could put a deal like this together: Yahoo.
Yahoo already owns Yahoo Finance, which is by far the most valuable financial property on the web. (Itâs also, for my money, the single highest-quality product that Yahoo owns.) Yahoo is also in acquire-and-expand mode right now, buying up anything with buzz. $700 million is less than two-thirds what Marissa Mayer paid for Tumblr; she has $1.8 billion in cash alone, and might well come into even more, depending on what happens with Alibaba. On top of that, Yahoo Finance could provide the kind of readership and quality data services that all of the rolled-up companies would kill for: it has the makings of a great platform on which to build a truly formidable financial-media competitor.
Of course, getting all these different properties to work well together would not be easy, especially given geographical obstacles: Yahoo is in California, while Seeking Alpha is in Israel. Most mergers subtract value, rather than adding it. But weâve reached a point, in financial media, where nimble digital companies have finally managed to build up the ability to constitute a real threat to the incumbent giants. That will take growth, and substantial investment. This isnât the world of startups any more â these are real companies, with real revenues. Thereâs a strong case for a deep-pocketed player to roll them up and make them substantially greater than the sum of their parts.