Before this week’s dueling Google and Microsoft search licensing deals with Twitter, a recurring rumor in Silicon Valley had Google trying to buy Twitter outright.

So when Google co-founder Sergey Brin made a surprise appearance at the Web 2.0 conference in San Francisco on Thursday, the stage was set to finally put the record straight.

Showing that ten years in the media spotlight have not been wasted on him however, Brin displayed a deft command of language to duck the question.

Web 2.0 organizer John Battelle: Did you try to buy Twitter?

Brin: I did not try to buy Twitter.

Brin then added, “But if companies approach us we definitely consider any opportunities to buy.” But the resultant ambiguity about whether Brin was speaking about himself personally, or Google, effectively left the question unanswered. Nicely played.

Meanwhile, the list of Internet giants partnering with Twitter came close to growing to three companies, after AOL CEO Tim Armstrong opined about the role of real time data at AOL during his talk.

“I think those guys have done something very impactful,” Armstrong said of Twitter. “And if it works with our platforms and we can leverage it, I think we would be happy to do that.”

Armstrong offered a couple of other interesting tidbits, saying that AOL was in a good position to proceed with its plan to eject from the Time Warner mothership and saying that a guaranteed AOL spin-off was not a precondition of him taking the job at AOL.

He also hinted at a mysterious new content technology platform that he said AOL has been developing internally since this summer, and which would provide a “secret sauce” to the company’s variety of media properties.

“It’s a broader platform with more information around content and the creation of content,” Armstrong said.

Another answer with plenty of ambiguity, but in this case, more details will likely come soon.

Just about everyone who covers media is talking about whether a potential Comcast-GE deal for NBC Universal will kick off a round of consolidation in media.

One executive — one very smart executive — who doesn’t think we’re in for a tidal wave of mergers is Viacom’s Philippe Dauman. (Word is Dauman earned a perfect score on the SAT — at the age of 13). After a speech at Executives’ Club of Chicago on Tuesday, we asked Dauman about consolidation.

“As far as we’re concerned, we ‘re focused on growing our brands, growing our business. We have tremendous brands with a lot of room for growth both in the U.S. and internationally. It’s a big opportunity for us.

“We’ve been involved involved in a lot of consolidation in our corporate history. The record of success in media consolidation has not been all that great for the most part so for ourselves we think the better strategy is to grow organically.”

But what does Dauman think about about the rest of the industry? To that question, he noted that “all of us in the traditional media business have seen the pitfalls” of big mergers, but Comcast may decide to chase a deal because of its unique circumstances. He didn’t elaborate, but we all know that Comcast has longed for more content for quite some time. The structure of the deal reportedly under consideration may work in Comcast’s favor since it doesn’t have to issue any equity.

Dauman isn’t the only smart guy in the media industry of course. Time Warner chief Jeff Bewkes made similar though slightly more cutting comments about the prospect of the Comcast-NBC deal last week and about what it said about success of previous big media mergers.

Dauman was more diplomatic.

“There’s a unique set of circumstances here that won’t necessarily in and of itself trigger a wave of other activity,” Dauman said.

If you’ve ever listened to Time Warner chief executive Jeffrey Bewkes speak, you’ll be used to his breezy, languid style. But he sounded even more so than usual on Friday at a conference in Washington D.C.  when asked about the big media story of the year so far: Comcast’s bid to take control of NBC Universal.

Comcast’s bid, led by CEO Brian Roberts, is exactly the opposite of what Bewkes has been doing at Time Warner, where rather than buying he’s spun off the cable assets and hopes to do the same with AOL by the end of this year.  So Bewkes couldn’t resist a little jab at his rival and sometimes partner:

“I don’t want to say anything that would discourage Brian from continuing in this pursuit that he has,” Bewkes said to laughter from the audience.

Bewkes agreed with suggestions that Comcast might be doing this for a share in the growing cable business. 

“They may have concerns about their future in cable and they may want to hedge into what they think is a better long-term business, which is the branded content business. It’s a good business, it’s one that everybody should want to get in. We’re in it, we’re very nicely placed in it.”

But the executive who lived through one of the worst corporate mergers of all time — AOL-Time Warner — is far less supportive of the idea of big combinations, especially in the media space.

“It’s probably true if you look at media deals — not just ours – in the entire industry. In the last 10 or 15 years there’s a lower percentage of deals that have delievered what they said they were going to deliver and have had an actual return on investment versus  what you would find in other more rationally based businesses where you don’t call the CEO ‘a mogul’. So whoever that is doesn’t get lost thinking about what they’re going to write in tomorrow’s paper.”

And while many journalists, investors and Wall Street analysts continue to try to decide whether this deal makes sense, Bewkes has a simple test.

 ”If it’s a synergy idea that takes a week and nine articles to fully plumb the mysterious depths, you’re probably wrong.”

Nice to know someone feels our pain.  

When most Americans think of where to catch up with episodes of their favorite TV shows on the Web, they more than likely think of Hulu, the online video site owned by NBC, News Corp and Disney that offers free viewing of TV broadcast shows and archive movies. Second to Hulu would probably be YouTube.

But not Fancast. Despite being owned by the largest U.S. cable TV operator Comcast, it doesn’t even make the top 10 video sites in the U.S., according to comScore data. (Hulu is No. 5). One of the ways Hulu became better known was by launching a national TV advertising campaign which kicked off during this year’s Super Bowl TV extravaganza. Hulu’s user numbers jumped after those ads — and Fancast hopes for a similar boost.

Fancast has dubbed its debut TV campaign “See It For Yourself” and will feature a series of five spots with recaps of shows including CSI Miami, Glee, NCIS, How I Met Your Mother and Gilligan’s Island. Three TV spots will debut on CBS and also on targeted national cable networks. See the Fancast/CSI ad here: The campaign also features an online push and an outdoor drive with interactive bus shelters around the San Francisco area.

In truth, beating Hulu might not be Comcast’s biggest prize. It’s more likely to have its eye on its On Demand Online /TV Everywhere initiatives, which aim to make popular cable shows available on demand to paying subscribers. Fancast will be one of Comcast’s key platforms for that new service when it fully rolls out so building awareness of the site now is important.

(Photo: CSI Miami’s David Caruso/Reuters)

Comcast made a bold $54 billion bid for Walt Disney Co. in 2004. It failed — but there are those who wonder today if the cable provider might be considering a play for another media giant.

Reuters’ Yinka Adegoke takes a look at this idea in a story that recounts the speculation about Comcast’s desire to be a major player in Big Media.

Stockholders, who have watched the value of Comcast shares shrink to historical lows, might not be so thrilled about such a move.

Investors worry that Comcast might use growing cash reserves to go after names such as Viacom Inc, owner of MTV Networks and Paramount film studio, or Time Warner Inc, which owns CNN, HBO and Warner Bros despite little evidence of such a move, said analysts.

But then again, the man who fended off Roberts’ move for Disney back in ‘04, Michael Eisner, still thinks there’s a chance Comcast is interested in owning content. The former Disney chief told trade magazine Broadcasting & Cable last week:

Comcast won’t just be sitting there; they may want to recapture their dreams of going after Disney, but not with Disney specifically.

Does Eisner know something we don’t? He says he has “zero information”.

In the meantime Comcast could, of course, use its free cash for anything from a share buyback to a healthy boost of its dividend. Sound economic strategy for sure, just not nearly as juicy as a mega merger.

Keep an eye on:

• Readers Digest may file for Chap. 11 bankruptcy (Reuters)
• The Financial Times is adding paid-content and its rivals are following suit (New York Times)
• Universal Pictures’ chiefs Linde and Shmuger may be under fire for not delivering summer hits (Los Angeles Times)

Few in the media business know dealmaking better than Barry Diller.

So it comes as little surprise that the head of IAC/Interactive was asked about both the Microsoft-Yahoo deal and the AOL separation during an earnings conference call today. He sounded upbeat on both situations.

Here are some excepts:

Microsoft-Yahoo:

One significant thing that happened is we’re not going have to talk about whether or not it’s going to happen anymore [Ed -Amen to that!]. Look, Microsoft will be able to report a greater share in terms of search and get — at least in some minds of the talkers — into being up there in competing terms with Google. And Yahoo doesn’t have to spend anymore money on search. As far as being able to execute, that is very complicated.

For us, I think that the significance is we want, need, must have at least two competitive forces, big competitive forces… I want to have two players out there wanting to get our incremental business, which is, of course, of real value to the companies.

So, I think it’s good for all parties.

AOL:

On AOL, I have a lot of confidence in Tim Armstrong. I think he’s coming there as a great whoosh of energy and real change, I think, for the first time, in my god, in I don’t know how long.

I have high expectations for what he’s going to be able to do.

As far as strategies with the spinoff company or the company’s configurations in the future, we’re talking with them about ideas about commercial relationships and both in the local area and search area. We’ll see what happens.

There is no possibility of really speculating beyond the fact that it’s obvious there are interesting relationships between what AOL does and what aspects of IAC does.

We’ll have to wait and see.

Perhaps the next time we hear from Diller, he’ll be talking about his own deal, maybe how he’s used the near $2 billion in cash he still has on IAC’s balance sheet.

(Photo: Reuters)

Anyone want to take a shot at what's behind Time Warner's repurchase of a 5 percent stake in AOL held by Google? Time Warner sold the stake in December 2005 for $1 billion. Now, it has bought it back for $238 million -- a nice job of selling high and buying low. Time Warner plans to spin off AOL by the end of the year.

The 2005 deal implied a chunky price tag of $20 billion for AOL. While it may not be exactly apples to apples, the repurchase implies a value of about $5.7 billion.

Brigantine Advisors analyst Colin Gillis said the implied $5.7 billion represents a "floor valuation " as AOL moves toward a spinoff. If that's true, then Google not only overpaid, but undersold.

Then again, with AOL expecting about $90 million of restructuring charges in the last nine months of 2009, and $58.3 million in charges already taken, related primarily to layoffs and closing facilities, maybe Google got out cheap.

Today marks the beginning of the end of what is probably one of the most disastrous media mergers in recent corporate history — AOL and Time Warner. In 2000, AOL shelled out nearly $150 billion for Time Warner, but things didn’t quite work out as planned.

The folks at Time Warner have given ample hints that a separation from AOL was inevitable, especially as part of a strategy shift that will (hopefully) result on the media conglomerate returning to its core business. Hiring former Google executive Tim Armstrong to head AOL had created even more speculation that the split was coming soon.

Now that the spin-off has happened, what lies in store for AOL as an independent company? In January, AOL said it will focus on three areas: content, advertising and social networking. But things haven’t exactly been rosy at AOL, revenue-wise. So for the time being, it gets to hold on to the access line business, which loses value day by day as more people move to broadband, but still generates enough cash to make it an asset worth coveting.

AOL could also decide that Bebo, the social networking site it overpaid acquired for $850 million last year, is not justifying its price tag and decide to sell it off — although the company has been adamant that Bebo is integral to AOL’s transformation. Potentially, the cash it earns from the access business and whatever it gets from a potential Bebo sale could help AOL — both time-wise and money-wise — figure out its next step, especially because the advertising market shows no signs of coming back any time soon.

As for what that next step might be, we don’t have a clue, but figuring out how to make money off web content could be a start, most likely through smart deals. Maybe with some help from the “frenemy?”

Keep an eye on:

• Verizon Wireless will begin selling Palm Pre and Blackberry Storm. So no iPhone? (Reuters)
• Lions Gate Entertainments sells a 49 percent stake in TV Guide. (Reuters)
• MySpace to be MTV of Internet in India. (Business Standard)

Photo: Lightning strikes the AOL/Time Warner building in New York/Reuters

The top brass from Twitter and Facebook have been all over the place in recent days, starting with the Reuters Global Technology Summit. No matter the venue or the executive, the questions are pretty much the same: Are you going to put the company up for sale? If not, when are you going public? And how on earth are you going to make money? And when?

We’ll skip a rehash of yesterday’s news and interviews, but you can find articles just about anywhere you want. Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, BreakingViews, paidContent, Advertising Age, and, well, basically every other media outlet are carrying stories today about one or both of the web darlings.
So instead we’ll ask you a straightforward question. Which one — Facebook or Twitter — would you buy a piece of, if you could?

Keep an eye on:

• The following from TechCrunch: “Sources close to AOL tell us that the board of directors will make a final decision on the AOL spinoff at a board meeting this Thursday, May 28, possibly undoing the $147 billion 2001 merger of the two companies. Sources characterize the decision as ‘a done deal’.”
• Microsoft goes at Apple — again. The company plans to launch a new version of its Zune portable media player later this year in the United States, incorporating high-definition video, touch screen technology and Wi-Fi connection. (Reuters)
• BookExpo America isn’t looking so hot this year. In the New York Post, Keith Kelly writes that “the turnout is expected to be way down — about 20 percent less exhibition space was booked this year — and many big publishers like Random House are cutting back while others like Macmillan and Rodale plan to skip the floor show entirely.”

(Photos: Twitter’s Biz Stone (l.), Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg (r.); Reuters)

AOL’s recently appointed chief executive, Tim Armstrong, has only been in place for three weeks but Wall Street is waiting impatiently for his next move. He’s started to shake up the ad team. Investors are focused on when parent company Time Warner will spin off the Internet unit, which has lost favor with Wall Street, advertisers and users alike.

Armstrong, gave his first interview since starting on April 1 to Ad Age Editor Jonah Bloom at the 4A’s advertising conference in San Francisco. Though he has declined doing interviews since he joined, AOL’s communications people said Armstrong was keeping a commitment he’d made while he still at Google.

The three-part interview can be seen at Ad Age here. The fireside chat covered topics like AOL’s branding, AOL’s undervalued ad space, and how Armstrong had to leave Google by the tradesman’s entrance on his last day.

Asked whether AOL’s standalone valuation could once again be worth $20 billion, which it theoretically was until Google wrote down its 5 percent stake in AOL to effectively give it a value of $5.5 billion in January, Armstrong said:

5.5 (billion) in my book is still a lot of money…I’ve said internally to employees Wall Street cares about you, and Main Street cares about you, and until we get Main Street caring about our company everyday (and) every time they touch the product and service, the valuation doesn’t matter because the worst case possible, the thing that happens at Internet companies is, you see, it is that people vote with their clicks and over time unique users go down.

At AOL, one of the things we’re focused on right now is how do you actually turn the unique users around and go in the right direction. More than valuation, more than anything else, if people are voting with clicks about our products and services, that will mean a lot more in the future of the company than the valuation.

Of course, Armstrong recognizes $5.5 billion is a lot of money because many Wall Street analysts now value AOL at between $2 billion to $3.5 billion. The analysts base their valuations on estimates of the terminally declining discounted cash flows from its dial-up business, along with estimates of cash flow from the struggling online advertising sales.

Collins Stewart’s Thomas Eagan says based on Wall Street’s average Time Warner valuation, AOL is even lower than that.

With recent events, we believe a transaction that will better monetize TWX’s value in AOL is approaching. That said, we continue to believe that the Street’s value of AOL, implied by the value of Time Warner stock, is too low. We estimate that the Street values AOL at approximately $1.6bn, less than half of its real value.

We’re sure Armstrong, who was brought in by Time Warner chief Jeff Bewkes to oversee the likely spinning off of AOL, will agree his company is undervalued.

(Photo: Reuters)