
Axel Springer Acquires Business Insider - jayzalowitz
http://www.axelspringer.de/en/presse/Leading-Digital-Publisher-Axel-Springer-Acquires-Business-Insider_24619096.html
======
dkrich
When I see the stuff posted on Facebook from Buzzfeed, Business Insider,
Mashable, etc., I'm reminded of an interview with Steve Jobs from the
mid-90's, pulled from another HN thread:

 _A lot of times we think “Why is the television programming so bad? Why are
television shows so demeaning, so poor?” The first thought that occurs to you
is “Well, there is a conspiracy: the networks are feeding us this slop because
its cheap to produce. [...] but the truth of the matter, if you study it in
any depth, is that networks absolutely want to give people what they want so
that they will watch the shows. If people wanted something different, they
would get it. And the truth of the matter is that the shows that are on
television, are on television because that’s what people want. [...] And
that’s far more depressing than a conspiracy. Conspiracies are much more fun
than the truth of the matter, which is that the vast majority of the public
are pretty mindless most of the time._

I want to hate these publications, but the truth of the matter is that if I
could run a financially successful blog catering to the crap that people will
get somewhere else if not from me, I'd be happy to do it.

~~~
jegutman
So you're right there's a lot of low quality stuffy on Buzzfeed, but also some
amazing pieces of journalism. Business Insider is at NY Post levels most of
the time. I can't even think of something I read on Business Insider that was
both accurate (and I don't mean technically accurate, I mean addressed the
main issue of the story) and more than 500 words long. That being said it's
been so bad that I actively avoid BI links, it's possible that the ones I
don't click are better.

Buzzfeed, for all the flack they take, makes it quite obvious that that the
article is going to be of a certain quality from the title. "7 tricks..." is
actually great because I know I don't need to click.

~~~
wahsd
You should understand that Axel Springer AG is the parent company of Bild, a
German conservative populist type sensationalist newspaper and publication
that fits almost perfectly with Business Insider. If anything, I think AS may
be looking to learn from BI's social media chops and elevate Bild's niveau. In
case you are wondering, Bild is very much the same as you described Buzzfeed
and BI. It's often dismissed and scoffed at but their sales and views are what
every newspaper publisher dreams wet dreams of. The undeniable reality though
is that beyond the sensationalism and the NSFA(merican)W nature, they also
have broken open many political and economic scandal.

------
bedhead
Ugh. Such a piece of trash organization that sadly represents today's "new"
media. Mostly just useless clickbait (eg, headline reads "Stock Crashing!"
when it's down like 5.5%) and re-posting of other real organizations' work,
like Reuters and the AP. Or some worthless anecdote crafted into an "article"
written by some horrible 24 year old about why Abercrombie & Fitch is "really"
struggling. BI is the remora fish of the "news" world. All with the occasional
laughably wrong piece by Henry Blodget on Apple, or the stock market.

Oh well, whatever. Hell of a second act for that guy.

~~~
jazzyk
I know of plenty really worthy startups solving real business problems, who
struggle to survive or went out of business, because they could not get more
financing.

And then you have investors throwing a lot of money at a laughable, trashy
"news" media outlet.

I just don't understand this world anymore.

~~~
rorykoehler
There is an issue with startups in that we are constantly fed the line that we
must aspire to be billion dollar companies or we won't get funding. This puts
the focus on the wrong areas if we want to solve hard (real) problems. It's
much easier to build a company that makes money than one that solves the
difficult problems we are facing today. Almost all VC style investors like to
roll out the billion dollar line. I believe in building things that help the
world and her people even if it is not a billion dollar idea. Not all
worthwhile ideas are profitable. If I am successful the billion dollars will
be a (an admittedly welcome) side effect but I can't get excited by it being a
goal and I'm hesitant on working with people who do get excited by it.

To put it another way no one is going to remember you because you bought a
sports car.

------
elsewhen
interesting comparable: AOL purchased huffington post in february 2011 for
$315MM and at the time they had 25MM monthly unique visitors which equates to
$12.60 per monthly unique.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/07/aol-huffington-
post...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/07/aol-huffington-
post_n_819375.html)

business insider is selling for $442MM with 76MM monthly uniques =
$5.81/monthly-unique.

so, on a per-monthly-unique basis, business insider is selling for less than
half of huffington post.

~~~
manuelflara
Probably because growth trend. I remember when HuffPost was acquired it was a
pretty hot property, so I'm sure they were growing fast. Like BuzzFeed today.
comScore jan 2015 says "The Huffington Post has 214 million monthly unique
visitors globally on a multiplatform basis.", so growth has been 10x (i know
the metric isn't really the same, but for the sake of the argument) in 4 years
since the acquisition. Not bad.

------
Doctor_Fegg
> "Business Insider has set new standards in digital business journalism
> globally"

I guess that's one way of putting it...

------
ericd
Interesting side note, Axel Springer has been suing the makers of Adblock
Plus: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/29/us-axel-sprngr-
adb...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/29/us-axel-sprngr-adblock-
idUSKCN0RT1U920150929)

------
chad_strategic
I guess Axel didn't do his due diligence.

[http://www.strategic-options.com/insight/the-truth-about-
bus...](http://www.strategic-options.com/insight/the-truth-about-business-
insider/)

