
Time Magazine Sold to Marc Benioff for $190M - aaronbrethorst
https://www.wsj.com/articles/time-magazine-sold-to-salesforce-founder-marc-benioff-for-190-million-1537137165
======
neonate
[http://archive.is/teoas](http://archive.is/teoas)

~~~
vasco
I know it goes against the HN ethos to just bitch about paywalled articles
being shared on the regular, and that upvotes sort it out, and that if they
still go to the top is presumably because the core audience already subscribes
to these publications. And still, I can't stop myself from wanting to flag all
such articles on account of thinking about HN as an open and free site that
should allow everyone to consume content equally, without having to resort to
these schemes like internet archive, browser extensions and other workarounds.

~~~
KyeRussell
No matter what publications will tell you, introducing advertising will - to
an extent - corrupt the journalistic process.

Is this something you’re okay with, or does reporting just not have financial
worth to you?

~~~
austenallred
You know what else corrupts the journalistic process?

Going out of business.

------
msvan
Ten years ago or so, I'd occasionally read the print version of Time. It was a
serious magazine full of in-depth articles. These days, from looking at their
online presence, it seems to have mostly devolved into BuzzFeed and news spam
for social media. What happened?

~~~
ipqk
Well, you and everyone else stopped reading the print edition 10 years ago.
That's what happened.

~~~
rusk
Somebody actually got me a years subscription to Time magazine about 10 years
ago. I never read it. It was awful.

~~~
vidarh
The thing is, lots of magazines have fantastic content. They just don't have
it at a volume sufficient to fill a whole magazine every month.

I have a stack of Wired for example - early Wired in particular every now and
again had fantastic articles. But the ones I've kept are from many months
apart, and each one of them I've kept for one article.

A magazine like Time with the reputation time has, tends to have that
reputation because of the occasional articles and images that are outstanding
enough to be remembered, and because their baseline quality is high enough not
to detract from the successes, not because everything is consistently good.

In print publishers got away with that. People would read it because they
often had no competing content available pre ubiquitous internet (most of my
remaining paper magazines were bought for transatlantic flights). Online, if
the articles don't draw in enough eyeballs, it serves little purpose.

~~~
rusk
Maybe once upon a time but I feel increasingly that online competition is
increasingly being used as a scapegoat for declining editorial standards. The
rise and fall of publications is a natural cycle. There’s no reason at all why
Time should continue immortally, it’s just a trademark at this stage.

------
Hnrobert42
$190M? Wow. Here’s 15 personal yatchs worth more than Time Magazine:
[https://www.alux.com/worlds-most-expensive-
yachts/](https://www.alux.com/worlds-most-expensive-yachts/)

~~~
cuboidGoat
Not sure about worth, they cost more.

~~~
cylinder
Actually it's worth. Cost is different to value. Cost relates to expenses.
Buying an asset is not an expense, while the ongoing maintenance and
depreciation of it would be considered an expense.

~~~
Retric
Yachts depreciation is huge as people who could pay that much don’t tend to
buy used without heavy discounts. So, he was right cost new says little about
current value.

Worse for the manufacturer, it’s unlikely for anyone to want the same design
without heavy modifications should the original buyer become insolvent.

------
hogwild
I hope he steers the ship more to the center. This weeks issue is a puff piece
on Nancy Pelosi, complete with flattering cover picture.

~~~
cocacola1
What opinions are emblematic of the center?

~~~
chao-
I have always felt that "center" was less a matter of the specific opinion
positions* , and more a matter of the style of discourse, or the degree of
nuance presented about the varying opinions for a particular topic. That may
be just my personal feeling on the word, but I have had people agree with it
over the years.

*Though obviously extremes can be identified, e.g. advocating violence against $GROUP_NAME is not especially "center" in the current US context.

~~~
cocacola1
Interesting. I'm trying to picture that, but I'm not sure if I can. To me,
that sounds more like how people arrive at a position rather than the position
itself. Or, how someone comes to the content of their opinion as opposed to
where on the spectrum that opinion might be.

~~~
chao-
So I am using the word "center" instead of "moderate" intentionally, because
the latter might not exist--at least not in the way the common use of the word
"moderate" suggests. There is some research (will dig up and edit this post if
I can find it) that demonstrates how most moderates do not exist in the way we
imagine. The study I am thinking of explains how surveys often use naive
averaging on a single axis for policy preferences, and wind up labeling people
with a mixture of extreme views as moderate. Meanwhile, those individuals are
anything but moderate on any single, specific issue.

Instead of "moderate", what makes someone "centrist" to me is when someone is
the opposite of "dogmatic", when someone has an ability to look at the other
side and see how a logical path can be walked to reach another conclusion
(than their own). Even if that person does not agree with the specific
conclusion, they can follow the "stack trace". And what this understanding
gives them, what this ability to _reason about the other side_ gives them, is
the necessary preconditions for compromise.

That is center to me: ability to compromise. Opinions are not center. People
are center, or centrist, if they possess the disposition and non-dogmatic
stance necessary for compromise. Barring revolutionary upheaval, every opinion
needs to be implemented in policy eventually, and policy details involve
compromise more often than not.

Maybe I am splitting linguistic hairs, but that is how I hear the word
"center": a place where people with a level of understanding can come together
and compromise. Compromise, famously, being an arrangement where neither side
fully gets what they want.

EDIT: Found the paper, and if you want a TL;DR look at Table 1:
[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.685...](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.685.424&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

------
andrewstuart
Intriguing that various old school media is being bought by tech billionaires.

~~~
JetSpiegel
I'm still waiting for the Citizen Kane of our age.

~~~
andrewstuart
That's not Rupert Murdoch?

------
anonytrary
That's it? Time has been so influential; it's so hard to fathom that it could
go for $190M.

~~~
sonnyblarney
It's hard to imagine that it went for that much.

Print magazines are dying. Given possibly debt, pension obligations etc. - it
wouldn't be surprising if they were really worth a negative value, i.e. they
get bought for cheap just for the tax write offs.

Many newspapers facing bankruptcy would love to have a $200M valuation.

------
NoB4Mouth
Washington Post ===>Jeff Bezos of Amazon Time Magazine ===>Marc Bienoff of
Salesforce Which one is next New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Newyorker?

The Silicon Valley super rich are on media outlets buying spree. It seems
being online news' aggregators (Facebook, Google & co.)and opinion
influencers/manipulators is not enough for them. They have to take hold of the
content production too either printed, on TV or Radio... Welcome to SV version
of Big Brother!

~~~
goatherders
Not to be snarky, but you listed two. Add in the Facebook guy that bought New
Republic years ago and that's three in the last 6 years. That's a spree?

~~~
donarb
Laurene Powell Jobs bought The Atlantic.

~~~
cylinder
Looks like this is the quickest way for west coast tech new money to instantly
purchase prestige with the east coast class.

~~~
Apocryphon
Someone should have bought the Village Voice.

~~~
goatherders
Agreed

------
tomahunt
Time's chief art critic describes what it was like when magazine expense
accounts were deep.

[https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/culture/20...](https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/11/robert-
hughes-the-spectacle-of-skill/amp)

------
theshadowknows
I think this makes sense. He will most certainly be running for office soon. I
think that’s why he entered into the whole “co-ceo” thing recently. He can
focus outwardly but make sure the ship stays right.

~~~
mandeepj
Could be. Bezos also bought WashingtonPost but he did not run for office.

~~~
rdtsc
Interestingly there was talk of Zuckerberg running. He did his media campaign
of traveling the country talking to the "common" people.

[https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/15/mark-zuckerberg-could-be-
run...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/15/mark-zuckerberg-could-be-running-for-
president-in-2020.html)

But Bezos would be more successful I'd think if he wanted to run. Guessing, in
general, people have a more agreeable attitude towards Amazon and by
extension, Bezos than Facebook and Zuckerberg.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
The likes of Zuckerberg and Bezos have far more power, influence and money
than they could ever get by being president. What would be their motivation?

I'd argue "prestige" but given some previous (and current) holders of the
position I don't think that's the case either.

~~~
mandeepj
> The likes of Zuckerberg and Bezos have far more power, influence and money
> than they could ever get by being president

No way. Being President gives you the supreme power. He can launch new
policies; which can have a huge impact on your business. His one tweet can
send your stock up or down by a good amount

------
growt
Are newspapers the new billionaire toys? Serious question!

~~~
justtopost
Hardly new, as many commenters point out. But with print media in straits, now
is a perfect time to buy some press.

------
CosmicShadow
I don't know much about Time magazine as I feel like I'm too young to have
really ever read it. I'm 34, but I recall when I was much younger seeing them
at doctor's offices and the like, they seemed too serious or grown up for me
to really care about, but they seemed like they were the real deal respectable
magazine. I think I once read an article about Putin in one at my dentist in
high school which seemed semi interesting but perhaps slightly above my level
of care or knowledge of the world at the time.

The other thing people know Time for is that everyone wants to have their face
on the cover, that's when you know you made it or you are famous. It was even
in like every tv show, movie or whatever, a photoshopped version of Time with
someone's face on it. I feel like, what is the equivalent of that today? Sure
there are millions of outlets, but not too many seem to have that kind of
authority, notoriety or brand around them. Even if Time's decisions were total
BS and their quality declined because of the industry, that "meme" is still in
people's head and it still probably holds value if someone can appear on the
cover or said they did. Now Benioff can do this at will if he wants and can
even live that dream himself (if he never was on the cover, I don't know)!
That alone seems like its worth it considering the fortune someone like
Benioff has. Any of his friends who need a boost of influence can walk over to
him and ask for a favour, and boom, now they are on the cover of what to the
uncaring eye seems like a still prestigious and noteworthy magazine or more
likely are endorsed by a brand which may have become a shell of what it once
was, but most people haven't really ever put the thought in to realize that
because they never read it in the first place.

~~~
unstuckdev
I've seen Forbes filling that role in a few movies and TV shows. Tau had a
scene with a wall full of magazines with the billionaire guy.

------
Voyiatzis
Incorrect. TIME sold for $2.4 billion.

------
teekno
One step closer to Marc's political ambitions

------
ObsoleteNerd
To read Time Magazine you'll now need to make a Salesforce account, the
physical copy will be sunsetted and replaced with a Salesforce Cloud version,
and it'll be made entirely in Quip.

~~~
electic
I think it will be quit the opposite. It will be run like the Washington Post
and it will free them up to actually focus on making great content vs. making
spammy content to drive clicks and sell magazines.

~~~
gnicholas
The Washington Post created a tool called Bandito so they could AB test
headlines. Sounds like the opposite of what you described.

~~~
pavanlimo
AB testing is not an evil act by itself. It's an effective technique to
understand the user needs. But what you do with the gathered data could make
you evil.

No business will want to be out of sync with its users. And no business will
want to be in charity mode any more than it should. But doing this without
hampering the credibility is the key.

~~~
gnicholas
It would be great if they would AB test articles. AB testing headlines is
basically looking for ways to draw people into articles. So while it’s
responsible and even good to test your product, the headline is not the
product.

~~~
berbec
For a large part of the traffic being driven to wapo, the headline, and
possibly picture, is the only thing that drives people to the site. When
someone shares an article to social media, you don't get much more. Look right
here at HN; how many times has a thread languished in obscurity just for a
slightly differently worded headline to drive it to the front page? Headline
quality is incredibly vital in this age.

------
qubax
Something ridiculous about the media environment today. If time magazine can't
survive, why not just put it out of business. The same thing with
washingtonpost or theatlantic.

Why are tech billionaires buying up these companies? Just to push their
political agenda? To support their political ambitions? To run for office?
They obvious aren't doing it to make money.

I don't see how our society benefits when tech billionaires buy up media like
this. If oil titans were buying up failing media just to serve as their
personal mouthpiece, we'd be a lot more upset.

Also, it's terrible for the media space because it props up failing companies.
If failing news companies were allowed to fail, it would open up space for
newer companies with better business models or better ideas.

~~~
wikyd
The Washington Post has been profitable for the last two years. Bezos isn’t
propping it up, he just helped them transition to a new business model.

~~~
mooreds
Citation: [https://www.geekwire.com/2018/washington-post-profitable-
gro...](https://www.geekwire.com/2018/washington-post-profitable-growing-two-
years-jeff-bezos-ownership/)

