CNBC has a kiss arse interview with the Poisoned Dwarf at this week’s Sun Valley, geriatric fuck fest, in which he spells out his continuing plans for world domination in the face of the disastrous economy and the fact that WPP stock was recently downgraded to a “sell” by Merrill Lynch. Not that those fucktards know anything about any fucking thing. He delivers the usual clichés about lights at the end of tunnels by 2010, and how social media will enable WPP to interact with consumers in a more cost effective way for clients – Yawn, fucking yawn – But in common with the “Dirty Digger” he expects consumers will eagerly swallow the idea of subscription services, and will unquestionably pay for shit they always got for free. He also says that WPP is committed to spending nearly two hundred million fucking dollars on acquisitions this year. Pardon me, Sir Martin, but where the fuck does this money come from? You are awash in debt at the moment. And what the fuck are you going to buy? Many of the hundreds of companies you’ve bought over the years have either been swallowed into the morass of your BDA’s, or they’ve simply disappeared. Stick that in your $96 million bonus pipe and smoke it.
Lord, give me the strength to keep this bullshit up!
PAYING FOR SHIT YOU ALWAYS GOT FOR FREE
In 1966 during Christmas time in the Woodhaven Post Office, I was casing mail at 2 in the morning when out of the blue (or was it green), the guy next to me casing mail on another route says, "Tom whaddya think of this Pay-TV?"
"Don't know anything about it," I said which was remarkable since I usually faked knowledge of just about anything.
"I'm pretty pissed about it. I mean I bought this new color TV and got a new antenna that can bring in blacked out Giant games from Connecticut. Why would I have to pay more?"
He was making a moral-legal but faulty argument that I didn't want to get into since overtime even during Christmas maxed out at 12 hours.
But, as we know, cable began as a way to bring better reception than antennas; then it broadened to offer programs heretofore blacked out (Knicks games in NYC); then it broadened further to bring in films and programs (notably BBC stuff like the brilliant Pallisers series); then finally to high-def and thousands of on-demand offerings.
Radio? You bought the device and plugged it in and was very happy. Then someone offered satellite with unexpurgated, varied programming and no commercials. And charged for it.
So if history is any indication of the future of media---paying subscriptions for something you want and/or need is someday arriving.
For the shareholders of WPP, that prospect doesn't seem bright unless they get a piece of the action.
Posted by: tom messner | July 10, 2009 at 05:25 AM
I'll take my economic cues from a different short man, and he doesn't see a light at the end of the tunnel. All of these people who thing we are going to get back to where we were, ir that a new economy can be based on "free" are just so fucked.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/07/when-will-recovery-begin-never.html
Posted by: phillybikeboy | July 10, 2009 at 06:31 AM
IN THE 90S
robert reich renamed ad people
symbol analysts.....
and saw an unlimited future for such people freed from the tired sobriquet, copywriter.......
he always seems affable enough so he gets consulting gigs and appearances on stephanopolouoisaus's show...
but here he seems to know what he's talking about....these harvard guys gotta be right sometime....
Posted by: Tom Messner | July 10, 2009 at 06:45 AM
I like it here, I like it here! Must extricate myself out of the self-imposed censorship I've been weaned on.
Posted by: Mathew Jacob | July 10, 2009 at 07:39 AM
Reich is an astute observer of business, the economy, politics and most other things in American life. An intellectual who can boil his complex thoughts into a few simple sentences filled with exceptionally trenchant common sense.
As for your point about subscriptions, Tom, I subscribe to cable TV and several newspapers and a handful of magazines. I subscribe to (or at least support) my local NPR and PBS stations when they make their annual/semi-annual pleas for money. Several years I subscribed to XM radio because the car I owned at the time had a satellite radio.
If I had to pay for everything I now get for free on the Internet, which seems likely since the business model for print journalism is dead, it wouldn't bother me, though it's likely that I'd start being a bit more selective, same as I'd be if I were standing at a newsstand choosing which newspapers and magazines to buy.
Interesting times. Sir Martin says he's going to invest $200 million on acquisitions that will lead to subscriptions. Fair enough. But what's he going to buy? And how far does he expect that amount of cash to take him? Big deals take big money. His $200 million is chump change.
Posted by: Curvin O'Rielly | July 10, 2009 at 08:31 AM
he's an astute observer but most times he needs a periscope....
he's also a bad economist, but a nice sincere fellow who often is in with the wrong crowd whom he needs to please with stats that fit their program.....
you, however, curvin nailed it on the 200 million---he needs to find startups or perhaps he can get honeyshed with tarp funding
Posted by: Tom Messner | July 10, 2009 at 08:48 AM
Spotrunner really worked out well for WPP didn't it? I guess he's in it for the quantity of acquisitions, not quality.
Posted by: Name Here | July 10, 2009 at 10:51 AM
@George,
I thought the new purchase would have further cemented your previous theories on WPP doing acquisitions to bump up revenues temporarily? Or something to that effect?
Posted by: Windy Cirty Smartass | July 10, 2009 at 11:31 AM
What to do with $200 million? W+K London is inventing products. So far, nothing that looks like it'll be the next iPod. Even the next Silly Putty.
http://adage.com/globalnews/article?article_id=137818
Posted by: Curvin O'Rielly | July 10, 2009 at 12:05 PM
The digital agencies that WPP has acquired have been squandered investments. Most of the talent has fled from shops like VML, Schematic and Blast Radius.
Posted by: Reginald Denny | July 10, 2009 at 01:27 PM
The time has come for Wendy N to sell her horses and return funds to the Lord S.
Posted by: Godot. | July 10, 2009 at 01:44 PM
@ George,
It's getting close to drinking time. And still no Kate. What gives?
Posted by: Clemenza | July 10, 2009 at 01:52 PM
@ Tom Messner,
Serius satellite radio is tanking. And if Howard Stern leaves next year like he's threatening, it could spell the end. People don't like to pay for radio.
Posted by: The Beege | July 10, 2009 at 02:07 PM
@ Beege, Actually, people don't mind paying for radio. Think NPR.
I've been a Sirius subscriber long before Stern and Karmazin entered the picture, and consider it a bargain. The problem isn't the service, it's that Karmazin loaded up on high-priced talent and debt. Like so many other other businesses, the problem isn't the model but the execution.
Posted by: phillybikeboy | July 10, 2009 at 02:29 PM
Kate is coming... If you'll pardon the expression. And no one complained when I missed Hitler on Wednesday.
Cheers/George
Posted by: George Parker | July 10, 2009 at 02:36 PM
i hear kate likes it from behind.
Posted by: Godot. | July 10, 2009 at 05:41 PM
The Beege:
people don't like to pay for anything...but will if they get something they can't get for free..i got satellite with the two cars i just bought from chrysler....i like 50s, 60s, and Presley....will re-up for it just to drive my son crazy when he is in the car
Posted by: Tom Messner | July 10, 2009 at 07:45 PM
People. Love. Free. Watching the NYT consider a pay subscription model and I wonder if it'll work based on two things:
1) People pay for tv because they have no alternative. It's not like a few cable systems decided to give their service away while others charge. All cable systems and Direct TV charge and consumes have no choice but to pay.
2) A majority of people seem to care more about getting the news right now rather than getting news that’s right, so they may just say screw the NYT, especially if they can get news “almost” as good via Drudge, CNN.com, etc.
If the pay model is going to work for newspapers, then ALL online news media needs to switch over to pay.
Since most people lack the time, skills and desire to go out and get the news themselves, they’ll pay if ends up going that way.
Another dynamic at work is that several of the main news outlets online like Cnn or Msnbc have the added benefit of being supported by their TV channels. Why would they have to worry about selling ads online to support a website when they know TV ad revenue can do it for them?
So then with an incentive like that to keep their online offerings free, how does the NYT compete?
Posted by: bg | July 10, 2009 at 09:17 PM
Damn, hit ‘post’ too soon again.
George, if we all chip in through a Donate Now on the site, would you be up for installing a new comment system worthy of 2009 and not 1909, one that allows people to edit or at least delete their comments?
Just wanted to finish that last thought... Seems the only way it’s going to compete is by way of its reporting. They know they might lose some in the switch to a pay model, so then it becomes for them a question of, are there enough willing to pay for that level of writing?
Posted by: bg | July 10, 2009 at 09:28 PM
@bg There's NO free alternative to television? Huh? Ever hear of broadcast television? Teevee started out free, way back before cable and satellite ever came along. I can still pull 10 free over-the-air stations from my 29 dollar antenna. There's plenty of free alternative. Still, I pay for Direct TV because it offers me quality programming you just won't ever see on broadcast--shows like Tru Blood and The Wire on HBO, the BBC News, Top Gear and Graham Norton, and Colbert and Jon Stewart.
The vast majority of viewers in the continental US have a free alternative, but pay for something they feel is better. I don't see why that couldn't work on the `net.
Posted by: phillybikeboy | July 11, 2009 at 05:43 PM
Plenty of free alternative? Really? An alternative is only alternative when you're comparing it the same type of content. 2-13 doesn’t compare with much. The shows you actually want to watch are on cable.
"Access" to TV was always free, but you still had to put up with commercials.
Posted by: bg | July 11, 2009 at 06:33 PM