Why I Think News Corp Will Survive This Crisis

For those who are unaware, News Corp, owner of half the world's media including Fox, Dow Jones, and a whole lot more, was recently embroiled in a scandal.  It seems that employees of News of the World, a British tabloid owned by News Corp (at least it was until the paper closed last week), were hacking people's phones.  And these weren't just any people's phones, they were, like, really pathetic people's phones.  We're talking families of dead and missing children.  Pretty sick.

Anyway, this has ballooned into a gigantic ethics scandal involving News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch, his son, bigwigs at Scotland Yard, and even UK Prime Minister David Cameron.  Many have been talking about the 80-year-old Murdoch stepping down as a result of this embarrassment.  News Corp. has already abandoned its bid to acquire the remainder of British media outlet BSkyB, and there are a lot of questions surrounding News Corp.'s future.  Here is what I think about two of those questions:

Question: What will happen to Rupert Murdoch?

Answer: Probably not much.  Murdoch's family owns 40 percent of that company.  Odds are that he isn't going anywhere.  Yeah, the press will beat him up, but the press has been beating him up for years because of his political views, so that's nothing new.  A more interesting question is, "Should Murdoch step down?"  To this I also say "no".  At least, I don't think he should do it right now.  Murdoch has built this company from the ground up, and it pretty much runs on his vision.  Of course, he will die one day (some liberals' theories about him being a real-life Voldemort, notwithstanding), and because of this, it is crucial that he establish a succession plan.  That would be the prudent action to take now.  Develop a succession plan, and then gracefully bow out in about a year or so once all this mishegas has blown over.  He could probably assume an executive chairman role, but pass on management of the firm to his son or to this apparently very capable second-in-command.

Question: How will this crisis affect News Corp.

Answer: It won't!  Here's what makes crises potentially disastrous for companies.  In any crisis, usually some stakeholder is hurt or perceives themselves as potentially in danger.  In this case, it was some people who got hacked.  In BP's case, it was a bunch of fish in the Gulf.  In Toyota's case, it was all of their customers.  What makes a crisis potentially disastrous is that the stakeholder who got screwed is the one buttering your bread.  Yes, BP's stock tanked when they turned the Gulf into salad dressing, but their customers stopped buying BP gas for about a nanosecond.  Their revenues stayed where they had been, and no one even remembers the damn oil spill.  Conversely, Toyota (even though very little actually happened) appeared to put all their customers at risk.  WOOPS!  There go the sales.

Now look at News Corp.  They hurt some people who were newsworthy.  Here's the funny part: while some people may feign outrage, they're still tuning in to Fox News to learn about the scandal.  Murdoch is actually making money off his own screw-up!  Isn't capitalism awesome?  Ultimately, we like hearing about this stuff, even though we may think it's wrong, and so the only way a media outlet could actually hurt themselves is to be boring (you listening, MSNBC?).

Government Efficiency

My good friend A.J., who is currently proudly serving our country, sent me this delightful little anecdote:

I had to get a new hat because the Army changed from berets to soft caps. Then without warning, they moved up the date of the change, so instead of having a week to get one, I had...an afternoon. The military clothing and sales store on post that sold them was sold out of all usable sizes, and wouldn't have any more in for another week. After that week, I'd have to get rank sewn on, which currently had a 3-day wait. So I was basically stuck without the new hat I needed for about 2 weeks. Except that on the day I needed the hat, I walked into a small Korean alterations store, found an abundance of said hats, and got the rank sewn on in about 5 minutes. Whole thing was probably 50% cheaper than the process on post, as well.

What is the moral of this story?  Yes, the government is a grossly inefficient bureaucracy and the military is no exception. But I think there is a more pressing issue here: 60 years later, Korea is still kicking our ass.

Two Perspectives on Job Creation

Hi Everybody.  My comprehensive exams are over (I passed), and now I can devote some time to blogging without feeling guilty.  Today, I want to talk about "job creation" since that term has been batted around so much lately.  I won't pull out any of Fearless Leader's quotes on the matter.  I think everyone can predict my opinion of those.  Instead, I want to contrast the statements of two high-profile business leaders.

The first comes from an article that appeared today on Investors.com, written by capitalist He-Man John Allison.  For information on Allison, see some of my earlier posts.  His article has several observations you would expect from an Objectivist.  I won't get into all of them, but here's a choice sample:

Jobs are created so businesses can develop new products and services — and improve existing ones — and expand into new markets — and increase the quantities produced, and the efficiency of that production.

Sounds good, right?  Jobs are not created as an end in themselves, but rather as the means to make more money.  Contrast Allison's take on jobs with a recent article describing General Electric CEO (and Obama crony) Jeff Immelt's speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

At a conference where many of the comments were focused on government barriers to hiring, GE (GE, Fortune 500) Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt acknowledged there needed to be some policy changes by Congress and the Obama administration. But he said that the responsibility for hiring lay with businesses.

"The people who are part of the business sector, the people in this room, have got to stop complaining about government and get some action underway," he told the group. "There's no excuse today for lack of leadership. The truth is we all need to be part of the solution."

Platitudes notwithstanding, what exactly does Immelt propose as action?  What is the solution?  Hire more.  Don't worry about those pesky profits.  Just hire more people, and stop complaining about how the government is making it impossible to hire more people.  Just do it!

Okay, Orren.  I mean, I understand that Immelt is basically working for Obama at this point, but does he have to be so transparent about it?  Where's the finesse?  Luckily, the rest of the Chamber didn't quite see things Immelt's way.

The Chamber also released a poll of small businesses that showed only 19% of businesses plan to add jobs in the next year, little changed from the 18% that increased their payrolls in the last year. Nearly 40% of those surveyed cited either worries about what the government will do next, the requirements of the new healthcare bill or too much regulation as the number one obstacle to hiring.

The comments also made me fell a little better:

JeddMcHead, 07/13/2011 11:40 AM

OMG, this tool needs to be put in the shed. Permanently.

Couldn't have said it better, myself.

Points for Honesty

As I'm sure many of you have already heard, AT&T is trying to buy T-Mobile from Deutsche Telekom.  Naturally, the antitrust goons have raised hell, along with Sprint who isn't real happy about the deal.  I'm sure that I have discussed on this blog how Antitrust laws are the Jim Crowe of business regulations.  They are the most unjust, indefensible business laws on the books.  Being indefensible, they have garnered a creative assortment of proposed justifications of the economic, moral, and social varieties.  The best one yet, the most honest and the most frightening, I heard a couple days ago while watching CNBC.

Steve Forbes was guest hosting, and they were interviewing one of Clinton's Fascist Communication Commission Chairmen by the name of Reed Hundt.  They were talking about this acquisition, and Forbes asked Hundt something like "Don't you think that antitrust is fairly obsolete in this case?  These aren't large manufacturing firms than can stifle competition.  Competition in this industry is incredibly fierce between the two major players."  Ignore the problems with that question for the time being.  Here was Hundt's answer, paraphrased:

"Well, I've been an antitrust lawyer all my life, so if antitrust is obsolete than I'm in a lot of trouble."

I think that boils antitrust legislation--and most regulation--down to its essence.  Antitrust is right because it's my job.  Love it!

Who is Ron Swanson?

In case you didn't catch my Ron Swanson reference in the last post, he is the Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Pawnee, Indiana.  He is the most amazing character on TV right now...after Michael Westen and Jack Donaghy.  Here is a picture of him and his amazing mustache.

That's not the best part, though.  This is what his bio says on the Pawnee, IN website:

Ron enjoys woodworking, breakfast meats, and the works of Ayn Rand.

'Nuff said.

An MBA With Some Meat to It

This is pretty cool.  Tired of being abused in the court of public opinion by terrorist-sympathizers like PETA, the National Cattleman's Beef Association has started training ranchers, butchers, and other meat purveyors in a program it calls the M.B.A: Masters of Beef Advocacy.  No, I am not making this up, and yes, it is as awesome as it sounds.  Here is the article about it.  Here's a choice excerpt:

At the Denver training, South Dakota rancher Troy Hadrick—one of the first MBA graduates—told students about one of his recent triumphs.

It came about after Mr. Hadrick learned Yellow Tail wine had donated $100,000 and pledged $200,000 more to the Humane Society of the U.S., an animal-rights group that has embarrassed the cattle industry with undercover videos of slaughterhouse abuses.

Mr. Hadrick, outraged, set a video camera on a fence post and filmed himself dumping a bottle of Yellow Tail onto his snowy pasture while blasting the donations as an affront to ranching families.

Mr. Hadrick's video went viral on YouTube—at least among fellow cattlemen, who bombarded Yellow Tail with protest emails. Chagrined, the winery withdrew its $200,000 pledge to the animal-rights group.

 I'm sorry, but how awesome is that?  I think this is my favorite part, though:

MBA graduate Suzanne Strassburger, who sells steaks to high-end New York City restaurants, hasn't tried YouTube advocacy yet, but she says the course has helped her pump up her sales pitches. "It gives me more confidence" to talk about how the meat was produced, she said. And talk she does: Beef "is my love and my passion," Ms. Strassburger said. "This is what I get up for."

 Amen, Sister.  Amen!  You gotta love people who love what they do.  And few things combine quite as tastily as steak and capitalism.  Just ask Ron Swanson.  And if you don't know who Ron Swanson is, you do not watch enough good TV.

The Tao of Steve

I have mixed feelings about Steve Jobs.  In my quasi-academic opinion, the guy is a genius at marketing and a moron at management.  His ability to provide value to customers--and to extract said value for his company--is unquestionable.  However, he appears not to have cultivated a company that can run very well without him.  As evidence consider the fact that he is away on sick leave, but still calling all the major shots.

This becomes an even bigger issue as he gets older and sicker, and as Apple eventually begins to deal with the problem of who will replace the one true CEO?  At the company's annual shareholders' meeting, a group of shareholders proposed a measure that, according to the WSJ,

requested the board adopt and disclose a detailed succession planning policy that included the development of criteria for the CEO position, identification of internal candidates and the submission of an annual report to shareholders.

 Now, normally I don't have a high opinion of shareholder proposals because, frankly, shareholders are mostly idiots.  Just because you bought three shares of Apple doesn't mean you know anything about running a company.  My policy on stock holding is that you own the rights to proceeds from the firm's business, not the right to exert any kind of control over the business.  With limited liability comes limited rights.  Sorry, I'm on my soap box again.

Anyway, the proposal doesn't sound so bad to me, given Apple's circumstances.  But of course, the shareholders themselves voted it down.  What I can't understand is why the board would resist this.  My only thought is that they have bought into the Tao of Steve (it's a movie) and, like most Apple users I imagine, secretly wish that Steve Jobs would stick around until the next millenium.  The fact is, before too much longer he will have to step down, and it would be nice for Apple's stock price if the board had any clue how they would respond to that.

Again, I don't really like shareholder proposals, but it wouldn't be a bad idea for the board to communicate that they are thinking about these things.