Time Inc.: The Anatomy of a Fiasco (New York Times)

When Mr. Griffin was hired, he was roundly praised, but his efforts to shake up what he saw as a calcified institution through reorganizations and consultants did not take. His approach to management and low opinion of some parts of the organization created dissension that many in the company suggested was going to lead to large-scale departures at Time Inc. after March bonuses were given out. And when he was told by both the people he worked for and the people he worked with that his reliance on a small circle of consultants was not going to end well, he refused to listen, according to executives at Time Warner and Time Inc. Bringing in an outsider is always a risk, and this one led to a big and public black eye.

But how did Time Inc. end up in the corner it was in, turning to an executive who had done a good job at a smaller publisher but was someone it did not know much about?

There's also an interesting article from yesterday's NY Times with more details on some of the insider shenanigans that lead to Griffin's dismissal, including his comparing Time Inc. to the Vatican. Wha..?

Mr. Griffin, a Roman Catholic, made some in the company uneasy by referring to his faith in meetings and interactions with subordinates, two company executives said. On at least one occasion, he compared Time Inc. to the Vatican as a way of illustrating its prestige and might, these people said. Mr. Bewkes personally intervened, asking Mr. Griffin to tone down the religious references.

Read the full "Fiasco" article here.
Read yesterday's article here.

Time Warner and the War Against Free (Bloomberg BusinessWeek)

At a trade show that celebrates the wonders of low-cost digital distribution, [Jeff Bewkes is] an emissary from the land of paid content. His message is simple and sharp: The devices may be cool, but anything that costs money to produce must be paid for, and any service or channel that doesn't carry its weight is destined to die.

For Bewkes, 58, the solution is a Time Warner initiative called TV Everywhere, which essentially forces customers to keep paying their $75-plus monthly cable bill to access television and movie content on any Web-enabled device they choose.

...The man who built his career over 23 years at HBO will not make his hit movies or shows available for cut-rate streaming at Amazon. Nor will he offer them for instant viewing at Netflix, where CEO Reed Hastings recently rolled out a $7.99-a-month deal for unlimited streaming of TV shows and movies. And Bewkes certainly won't let his product be given away on Hulu, which distributes most of its advertising-supported programming for free. Netflix has wooed more than 16 million subscribers, usually paying a fraction of what cable and satellite owners pay TV channels to run content. And while about 70 percent of the ad dollars Hulu takes in gets back to the content owner, those online ads don't draw anywhere near the audience or revenues of TV. That's why Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, and iTunes are potential enemies to Bewkes. He holds the view that companies such as Time Warner can only continue to make high-quality content if they preserve a business model that requires consumers to pay for the whole buffet. Any Web distributor can stream his content, says Bewkes, "if they pay us a billion dollars for a marquee show."

I tend to think the cat's out of the bag on this one. The ability to watch shows and channels on demand (either on the Internet, via iTunes, or from the "On Demand" button on the cable menu) is pretty ingrained in people now, and I'd venture a guess that most of us see that as the future of television.

Then again, I don't have cable, so I don't have a choice but to use alternate viewing options. Perhaps I have no idea what I'm talking about. What do you think?

Read the full article here.