Often, management shakeups are nothing more than bodies being moved around, sometimes just for show, to let investors know that no one is asleep at the switch.
But in the case of Barry Schuler’s being shifted out of the CEO role at America Online, it’s more. A whole lot more.
The wisdom or folly of the move will only be revealed over time, but no one can accuse AOL Time Warner of going halfway.
The shakeup moves Schuler into a new position as head of the digital services division of AOL Time Warner. Having trouble figuring out what that means? You’re not alone. It’s a fair bet that Schuler had a similar reaction.
Turns out the digital services division is sort of an internal consulting organization aimed at helping all of AOL get more connected to the Web.
Important? Sure, but it’s no AOL.
Then again, AOL is no longer much like AOL — at least, it is not the powerhouse of growth and revenue generation that investors thought they were getting a piece of when the merger was first announced nearly two years ago. And that, not Schuler, is the real problem.
Second Verse
The second part of the shakeup may be even more puzzling than moving out Schuler, who has put in a fair amount of service — at least in Internet time — at AOL. Instead of hiring a new AOL CEO who could really ride shotgun over some serious turnaround work, the media company will hand the reins over to Bob Pittman.
Now, Pittman is a logical choice, since he ran AOL before the merger. But if his bosses think he can do this job, he must be a master of time management. Before long, he’ll be the one and only COO of all AOL Time Warner. Apparently, he plans to give up sleeping in order to take over at AOL as well.
Tick Tock
If they give parting gifts to outgoing AOL chiefs, Schuler should get a clock. That, more than anything, represents what brought him to this point. It’s been well over a year now since the titanic merger that united AOL and Time Warner. And during that time, AOL has hit a wall.
The automatic, cruise-control growth is gone. AOL can inundate consumers with all the Version 7.0 CDs in colorful jewel cases it wants; it just isn’t going to pick up members as rapidly as it once did. And slow growth is a recipe for edgy analysts and investors, especially when spiced with an online advertising slump.
Told Ya So
Analyst Holly Becker of Lehman Brothers said the change seems to be proof that the AOL nut is proving harder to crack than the company originally expected.
But it’s not all AOL’s fault. The combined company reported a loss of $1.8 billion in the first quarter. A large portion of that loss consisted of write-offs of failed investments; but sagging advertising revenue and slowing subscription rates at Time Warner magazines didn’t help.
In fact, if it hadn’t been for blockbuster theatrical releases like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, the losses might have been even worse.
It’s a classic case of high expectations. The AOL side of the business was supposed to forever gush with growth, like a bottomless geyser. That was never realistic, but that’s easy to say now.
Repair Shop
The question is, how do you fix what ails AOL? Shifting users to broadband is part of a longer-range strategy to stream them video and basically fill their lives full to the brim with Time Warner content.
That’s a nice idea, but it’s not going to happen overnight. Raising prices might be a possibility, but it’s a risky proposition and the timing just isn’t right.
So, the search for answers will go on. Unfortunately, the person who presumably will be charged with finding them — AOL’s new CEO — is going to be a bit busy running a multibillion-dollar conglomerate with tentacles in every corner of the media world.
Meanwhile, Barry Schuler becomes yet another victim of circumstance.
The real problem is that all of AOL Time Warner is susceptible to economic slowdown, the entire beast being dependent on advertising to keep it alive.
The flash and glitter that had investors blindly fumbling for their wallets has faded, the smoke cleared, and the reality isn’t nearly as pretty as everyone thought it might be.
Scapegoats are always handy, though, and so the new kid on the block, the Internet unit that was actually the buyer in this mega-merger, gets kicked in the chops. Even Barry Schuler can’t be surprised by that.
What do you think? Let’s talk about it.
Note: The opinions expressed by our columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the E-Commerce Times or its management.
Loading ...
It is interesting that AOL-TW has hit a wall.
The only saving graces for the ISP are connection reliability and online tech support that will walk you thru any snafus.
However, having a toolbar take up 2 1/2" of your screen, frequent pop-ups, buddy lists/menus, a search engine that is pathetic are just a few major sore spots. Having subscribed to AOL since the beginning, between MSN and AOL, AOL won out.
The only thing that I associate with Time Warner is Looney Tunes and the production of Time Magazine that is off the mark in predicting their person of the year as it is in journalistic integrity. Maybe the execs think that such a merger was a good deal and would somehow topple over nations, uh, other media companies. Shuffling people around is interesting news, but the bottom line is the same, deliver the goods or find another source. If the "giant" is indeed heading in the right direction, we can look forward to rich interface and service that rivals a MAC in producing movies on dvd. Or we can look forward to being stuck with one good thing (connection) and suffer thru the rest of the pitches that AOL succeeds in throwing at you when you are online.
Sure AOL-TW hit the wall. What media company hasn’t? The go-go years of the Internet were an aberration, and AOL was along for the ride with the rest of us.
Besides, Barry is an idea guy. A vision guy. He sees things. He’ll be okay and will probably enjoy his role much more than being worried about the dull business side of it all.
That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.
Since advertising is driven by commerce, and since the entire AOL Time Warner beast is dependent on advertising, then AOL could significantly help itself if only e-commerce could regain its lost oomph. In my opinion, the only thing preventing that is the missing function of stores. Specifically, since conventional stores "store", buyers and sellers can securely exchange goods without personally having to meet; however, since the majority of consumers can’t predictably be home to receive home-delivered goods, most won’t even risk ordering. To illustrate, last June I asked the market research firm Ipsos-Reid to ask the following question in a telephone survey of 1,000 people: "If nobody in your family could be home to receive home-delivered goods, would you be likely to even order them in the first place?" 78.6% said "no".
Years ago the US Postal Service solved its own "missing store" problem with mailboxes. In my opinion, bigger/more functional delivery boxes could do the same for the entire consumer-direct economy — AOL Time Warner included.