1 Comment

Summary:

Looking for easy answers on the News Corp.-Dow Jones front? Don’t read any further because we don’t have any. Rupert Murdoch’s offer of $60…

Looking for easy answers on the News Corp.-Dow Jones front? Don’t read any further because we don’t have any. Rupert Murdoch’s offer of $60 per share still stands, the stock yo-yos at the least provocation, and, so far as anyone knows, a majority of the Bancroft voting power is against a sale. Some of the moves following the overreaction earlier this week to a note from one analyst (the very smart Richard Greenfield but still just one analyst) suggesting that Murdoch would walk away within weeks without raising the bid:

WSJ: Not that there was a doubt but key shareholder and DJ director Christopher Bancroft came out publicly against the sale, explaining that a sale could endanger the WSJ’s independence. The language he used could be viewed as problematic by shareholders who see a benefit in selling stock at a premium: “I’m open to any situation that benefits The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones and its shareholders. At the moment, I don’t see anything that would do that.”

Christopher Bancroft was among the family members who skipped a family meeting in Boston called to address questions about Murdoch’s proposal. (He has received some 50 letters from WSJ reporters concerned by the prospect of a sale.) He is a family trustee, a DJ director, and with two siblings, controls one-third of the voting power.

– One sore point, says the Journal: DJ’s profit funds as the Bancrofts’ annual dividend ($80 million last year) but the funds mostly go to the older generation, not their children.

Deal Journal: A Citigroup analyst suggests the option market “is pricing in a 65 percent probability that a buyout offer for Dow Jones is accepted.” That’s based on a $65 bid.

  1. It’s time for Face Book to Pay Up.

    This will be the era of a true revolution in the power of site members. An erawhere members have the power and the ability to be rewarded monetarily for the value that they add and the revenues that are generated from their work and participation.
    The recent announcements by Face Book that they are going to be the next OS,or the next platform, or the next goggle, reeks of egotism and self indulgence as well as a master slave mentality. In the bravado of the announcements that spewed forth from the reality distorted world of Face Book what was left out was the untold fact that Face Book would have little or no value if it were not for it’s 25 million members.
    The hard fact and truth of the matter is that Face Book makes hundreds of millions of dollars off of the backs of its 25 million members and has no plans to share the true wealth (money) of the revenue they generate with them.
    Does Mr.Zuckerberg our anyone at Face Book believe that they add more value to Face Book than the 25 million members ?
    If the answer is no then the revenue generated and the value added to Face Book should be shared monetarily with the members that have have generated the revenue and added the value. Without the members Face Book would have little or no Value.
    We now live in a technical age where a close to approximate monetary value can be assigned to the value and revenue that Facebook members add to the company. This fact can no longer be hidden, it can be found and it should be known by all of the members that generate the wealth and revenue.
    Why cant we see a graph on Face Book that discloses to the members the amount of revenue that is generated from them in terms of revenue generating partnership deals and advertising ?
    Why cant Facebook give an equitable portion of its ad revenue directly to its 25 million members ?
    Of the revenue that Face Book generates, as a percentage how much is given back to its 25 million members in a monetary form ?
    The advertising revenue that is generated by Face Book come from the actions of the 25 Million members, not the Face Book staff, so the members should receive the lions share of the revenue
    How much stock in the company do the 25 million members that generate hundreds of millions of dollars for Face Book own. Because the 25 million members generate most if not all of the revenue and value for Face Book, shouldn’t they all be stock owners ?
    As a group the 25 million members add value to the company and generate revenue, as a group they should own stock in proportion to the vaue that the add and the revenue that they generate.
    How much is Microsoft paying Face book for the rights to serve ads to Face Book members? Since the value of the ad deal is probably based on the amount of members that face books has, it would make sense that the members should be given a share of the money that Microsoft has paid to Face Book for the rights to serve the ads. Mr Zuckerberg and the rest of the Face Book team should give the 25 million members the money they deserve for the value that they add to Face Book.
    If yahoo would have acquired face book for one billion dollar, would any of this money be given to the 25 million members that have given Face Book the one billion dollar valuation ?
    For a one billion dollar acquisition that is by and large based on membership size as well as advertising revenue generated by the members; it seems that giving each of the 25 million members 1 million dollars would be an almost equatable reward for their participation.
    There is little difference between how Face Book treats its members and the share cropping schemes that were used to generate wealth for rich land owners on the backs of poor people and slaves. At least in the old share cropping schemes the works received a small portion of revenue, in the current situation members receive none of the revenue from the content that they create. Face Book and other sites that do not share the revenue and wealth that members create for them do not understand that the times have changed and the plantation game will no longer work. Now members have the ability to leave the plantation and to either create their own communities or to become members of communities that will pay them an equitable portion of the revenue and value that they create. This is one of the key revolutions of technology. There are no barriers to owning the means of production. Members are the means of productions, and are the value add. The pyramid that had members who are content creators and add value on the bottom has now been turned upside down. Unlike slaves that could not break free of the wealthy plantation owners bonds, members now have the ability to demand their equitable share and if they are not given it they can leave without retribution.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post