Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Looking to Sell Slate Magazine

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the slow-news-sunday dept.

SeaDour writes "Wired News is reporting that Microsoft is in early discussions with five or six media companies over a potential sale of MSN's online magazine Slate. This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer."

25 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. A better bottom line by SIGALRM · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Slate itself is breaking even at this point
    After a profit of $21 million last year, and some serious past cash flow problems, I'm sure Microsoft's desire to unload the online rag has less to do w/Slate's recommending Firefox than it does with a predetermined "build-it-to-flip-it" strategy. Now Slate is somewhat solvent. It's probably smart for MS to sell some of its content assets and focus more on delivery mechanisms, and Slate just happens to be one of the more controversial business units in that category.
    --
    Sigs cause cancer.
    1. Re:A better bottom line by MesiahTaz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let's not forget that Slate does not really fit their business model. They're only into something if they can achieve total dominance.

      --
      Are you an open source warrior?
    2. Re:A better bottom line by OnTheMoney · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Microsoft has also recently announced that they are returning some of their cash to stockholders because they don't have any good places to invest it anymore.

      My suspicion is that a group at MS has been analyzing their business units for future growth as part of that cash dividend decision and one of the things they came up with was that while Slate doesn't have much growth potential (but is profitable enough to be turned into cash), after dropping it they can do more in other media stuff to help the growth of MSN.

      --
      Healthy Info

  2. Cool, I'll buy it... by JessLeah · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...err .... Microsoft does take Monopoly money, right?

    --
    Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
  3. Re:Microsoft Sell Something ? by the+unbeliever · · Score: 4, Funny

    I read Slate when it's linked from /.

    That's about it thought ;(

    Vanamar
    Life is a harsh mistress, Fate an insatiable lover, Death an old friend.

  4. Not likely a punishment by usefool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer.

    I don't think the above is part of the reasons for such sales, as stated on the article, the sales allows MS to "create a partnership with another media company, which could potentially help increase advertising revenue on the MSN site."

    One step backward, two steps forward.

    --
    Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
    1. Re:Not likely a punishment by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Insightful
      In months past there have been some rumors of a MS - Disney partnership. After all Mickey Mouse software would fit well with Disney ;)

      Great so we have Michael Eisener telling slate not to publish anything too critical of Bush. Incidentally, is Eisener going to reimburse Disney shareholders the $30 million or so that they lost out on due to his refusal to distribute Farenheight 9-11?

      The rumors going arround were that Microsoft would BUY Disney, sack Eisner, revamp ABC and go into content in a big way. It was certainly being considered, but it was probably a bad idea for the same reason it would be a bad idea for Microsoft to build computers or make CPUs. You have to define boundaries to the markets you will compete in, you can't compete with your channel unless you are likely to succeed in replacing it.

      I suspect that we will see MSNBC be sold as well. It has been doing pretty baddly in the ratings and is not likely to improve as long as GE continue to try to make it Fox News Lite. Its pretty amazing that the chuckleheads can't get a clue and work out that maybe the reason that people have been turning off from CNN is because the 'news' they report is utterly vapid trivia. There has actually been remarkably little switching to Fox News, the audience for 24 hour right wing propaganda was an entirely new one.

      Basically CNN discovered what they thought was the killer formula during the OJ Simpson trial and have been desperately trying to apply it ever since. They are geared up to provide saturation coverage of stories that have as little importance as possible. MSNBC copied this formula and found it does not work and then tried to copy the right wing propaganda formula half the time. If they wanted to make that a commercial success they should have made it s loony left wing propaganda station, hired Moore and Franken.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  5. Post Hoc Propter, Much? by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right. Because any two things that follow in chronological order are neccessarily related. Just this morning, lightning struck down the street and, a few minutes later, my bank called about a bounced check.

    Damn Lightning. It always causes problems.

    1. Re:Post Hoc Propter, Much? by gmajor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The story's commentary is some of the biggest bullshit I've read on Slashdot in a while. Any attempt to cast Microsoft in a negative shadow, even through faulty arguments, is praised on the front page.

      IIRC, MSNBC also reccommended Firefox over IE.

      Although it is still a newsworty story, trying to link the sale of Slate with Firefox is just plain stupid, and takes away from the real content.

  6. Slate Magazine? by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't that where Fred Flintstone got his news?

  7. Too funny... by Saeger · · Score: 4, Funny
    I read the /. headline and immediately thought to myself, "I'm going to be the first to post a funny conspiracy theory about Microsoft punishing Slate for not towing the corporate line when they published that Pro-FireFox article a little while back." Then I read the /. summary blurb and see that the conspiracy theory's already there! :-)

    --

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
  8. Re:Hah, of course... by sql*kitten · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who wouldn't?

    Ermm, anyone with a brain?

    If an employee misbehaves to that extent, sack 'em for gross misconduct. Selling a company is difficult and expensive to do (have a look at what investment banks charge to "advise" you). You'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face if you sold a company to get rid of one (probably quite junior) employee.

  9. Somehow I doubt this is becuase of the FireFox rec by Virtual+PC+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hmm... Let's see - I own an online magazine. Presumably I (the comapny) actually get to have a say in what gets published or not, and who gets hired or not.

    Now - someone wants to publish an article recommending a competitive product - do I:

    1) Stop them from publishing the article (I can do that - remember)

    2) Let them publish the article so as to maintain a fair balance in the press

    So let's say I select option two - am I then going to 'vinidictively' sell them off (so that they can continue doing the same thing for a different employer)?

    That does not make sense.

    If I wanted to be vindictive - I would keep the magazine, stop them from publishing the article, and fire the guy who wrote it. If - however - I wanted to make a profit I would publish the article (and similar ones) so as to grow respect in my reader base - and sell it off once it had a big enough base to be profitable.

    Face it guys - buisness is about making money - not being vindictive (though those two do tend to overlap at times)

  10. Suspicious, but... by rmdir+-r+* · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think that Microsoft would _sell the magazine_ because of a critical article. If they really cared, I'm sure they would have censored the article before it was published (went live?). M$ is evil and vindictive, but I'm not sure that they really care if people use IE or not, as long as they aren't using Linux, *BSD etc.

  11. Bullshit by stubear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "...recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer."

    Yeah, because they dumpbed MSNBC a long time ago for writing less than flattering articles about their products and sdervices. What's that? You mean Microsoft is still in partnership with NBC? One more Slashdot conspiracy exposed.

  12. Put it together by Fished · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. Microsoft pays $35billion or so to shareholders in a one-time dividend.
    2. Microsoft unloads Slate
    3. Microsoft increases future dividends.
    4. ???
    5. Profit! (sorry, always wanted to do that.
    This doesn't mean that MS is annoyed with Slate, it means they are changing their business strategy. I would hazard to guess that Microsoft has decided that, rather than becoming an evil empire that owns a small country and runs its own Media etc., they will go back to being just a software company.

    I would look for them to off-load other products not related to their core competencies in the near future, and I expect they will divest themselves from many of the sidelines they've gotten into. The question in my mind is: what happens to MSN as a whole? Is Microsoft giving up on being a content company altogether? What about their promised search engine? The Xbox?

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    1. Re:Put it together by electroniceric · · Score: 4, Interesting
      This doesn't mean that MS is annoyed with Slate, it means they are changing their business strategy.

      There's a meaningful answer. That Firefox nonsense was only useful in that it deflected the usual Micro$oft $ux vitriol into "what a stupid conspiracy" vitriol. If you look at the businesses that Microsoft owns, only one of them is involved in content production. In fact, the content that MSN's homepage buys is not even similar in subject matter or tone to Slate (or quality, I should add) - it's a totally different market. It's always been sorta of an orphan, mainly built as a hedge against AOL's acquisition of Time-Warner. As long as they're cleaning house, it makes perfect sense to sell off operations outside their core competencies.

      The question in my mind is: what happens to MSN as a whole?

      Yes, that is a very interesting question. My brother was remarking this morning that he thinks MSN really missed the boat by not buying an AP wire feed like Yahoo did. Of course he's a journalist, so he reads the wires like geeks read /., but given how much of MSN's content is crappy and random it's hard not to consider it a credible critique. For all that it owns two of the most visited properties on the web, MSN as a whole has never really hit any sweet spots - it's mostly a holdover from the dotcom days of "the web is going to change everything, so we'd better grab some property there". And it sure makes you think that Seattle Weekly article from a couple months back had some decent explanations for MSN's status as a stepchild.
  13. Slate trashing IE by ZZeta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer"

    I don't think the fact Slate trashed IE has anything to do with the sale.

    In fact, the article says Slate would still be accessible from the MSN Website, even though they would no longer hold any "property" ties with Microsoft. And what would that accomplish? Slate would be even more content-free than it already is, as it wouldn't depend on Microsoft at all, but it would still have the popularity / visibilty it enjoys being right there, in the MSN Website.

    I mean, if Microsoft wanted to silence their editors, they would do anything but loose their power over the magazine. Instead, they are giving them a free ticked to say whatever they want, still enjoying the visibility they have.

    I don't know why Microsoft chose to sell the magazine, but it can't be because of their trashing IE.

    Just my 2c

  14. Re:Coincidence? by tsaler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What difference does it make? Remember -- Microsoft basically says that Internet Explorer doesn't exist anymore. It's a part of Windows, they say. So why does it matter if an MSN online magazine recommends Firefox as a stand-alone web browser on top of Windows, when Internet Explorer is already an integral part of Windows?

    It's not as if Slate recommended that users switch to Linux or something like that. They're still using Windows, which means, whether they like it or not, they're still using Internet Explorer.

    It's more likely that Microsoft would try to strong-arm the editors and the writers responsible for something like that into resigning rather than selling the entire magazine. I think they just don't care about it anymore and don't care to pay for it if someone else will.

  15. Hah, of course...Steel resolve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " If my employees were bashing my products publicly, I think I'd dump them too. Who wouldn't?"

    Your products, or your employees?

  16. Can anyone read? by peeon · · Score: 5, Informative

    MS is not unloading on Slate. They just trying to get into a partnership with another company to make more money.

  17. MS benefits from the Firefox article... by tyroneking · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ... on Slate because that is the exact sort of thing that gives Slate a supposed 'reputation' for journalism. In fact, it's a pretty cheap trick to recommend something that so many others have recommended already (and is so obviously a better product), when MS's own product (IE) attracted so much trouble for MS in the first place and doesn't make a profit for MS anyway.

    Now if they had gone down the road of web-based applications then maybe this would have been a different story - but right now IE is a suitable sacrificial lamb that will boost Slate's reputation just before a potential sale/partnership.

    In fact, Slate appears to be part of trend at MS, what with blogs and all, to promote the idea that MS goes in for a little self-criticism... wonder why?

    Maybe MS feels that self-attack is the best form of defence against their only true threat - worldwide Governments - and appearing to be self-governing is a common method used by large industries to avoid government-regulation.

    Not that I'm suggesting that MS is really trying to be so underhand - but I guess they can't help but appear to be so.

  18. MS break-up strategy by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Funny
    This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer.

    Now, if we can just get the folks in the Office division to start recommending other operating systems over Windows, we could finally get that part of the business sold/spun off to a separate company... just like the judge wanted.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  19. A. Someone who understands how to run a magazine by octothorpe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even in the age of Fox there are still some concepts of journalistic independence and ethics in existance. Slate is not in the business of publishing MS press releases, it's a news and commentary magazine and would lose a lot of credibility (and writers) if it was thought to be nothing but a company shill. I, not a big fan of MS, have read slate regularly since it started partially due to the corporation's hands-off policy toward the editorial content. If I thought that MS was suppressing non-flattering content, I'd have a hard time taking it seriously.

  20. Re:What unflattering stories? by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sun's Java Desktop System shows promise

    "If you're in the market for a change, or you want to see what all this fuss over Linux is all about, Lindows 4.0 is definitely worth a try. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised."

    Open-source software a big tech player

    Experts warn of Microsoft 'monoculture'

    Open your eyes, eh?

    See also the link in the other reply to this comment for a nice example.