CFO magazine has an interview with Victoria Harker, the chief financial officer of Gannett, which is one of a number of news companies in various stages of splitting off its print properties (newspapers, mostly) from its broadcast and digital ones. The positive spin is that it’ll let each type of company pursue the best approach without strategy tax; the negative spin is that it’s sending print off onto an ice floe where its continued decline will no longer infect the other side of the business. This question would seem to position Gannett as a candidate for the newspaper industry rollup (or mop-up) many have been anticipating (emphasis mine):
Q: Some people praise Gannett because it isn’t burdening the newspaper spin-off with debt, as other media companies have done. Others criticize Gannett for not including, say, Cars.com in the spin-off to provide more advertising revenue. How do you respond to these views?
A: Relative to the debt, we felt very strongly that the publishing segment — which has its own digital properties, by the way — needed to have the kind of capital structure that will enable them to be a consolidator in the industry, should that be the strategic decision they make. They have produced a very efficient model for running the newsroom of today and tomorrow. So we didn’t want to saddle them with a lot of debt. We wanted to enable a good revenue stream, a good cost structure, and good cash production, so they can do the kinds of things they need to do to create longevity within that business.
Relative to Cars.com, we will have affiliation agreements with the publishing business for five years after the deal closes. In our way of thinking it’s the best of both worlds, in that Cars.com will live in the broadcast and digital company, where it will have the right type of capital structure and investment, while the publishing side will continue to be able to leverage that relationship.
You know, we spent a lot of time with investors during the last 10 days, and a number of them asked how they can become an investor on both sides of the house once we spin. So it’s not that everybody wants to go into growth and be in broadcast and digital. We have a number of investors saying, “We’re very interested in publishing, this is an interesting story for the value side of our investment house.” And it’s a dividend-producing entity, which is very attractive to them.
Getting external capital for that sort of move will likely only get tougher, so flexibility on the balance sheet is important.
4 comments:
I still think it’s going to be more of a mop-up than a roll-up, but I do think the new print-only entities at Gannett, Tribune and Scripps bode well for a strategic consolidation, rather than the fairly haphazard collecting of newspaper assets that has characterized the major chains for the last 50 years. I would not be surprised if there are already talks going on to consolidate other entities into Gannett/print, come next summer when the breakup is completed. A major candidate for acquisition by, or merger with, Gannett is Digital First Media. There is one, and only one reason why they engaged a major investment bank, UBS, and not a standard newspaper broker, to assist them in their “restructuring”, and that is the possibility of being acquired by Gannett. There are probably ways of getting around the “Form 10” delay, including completing this merger before the Gannett print spinoff.
The next time I read a blog, I hope that it doesn’t disappoint me just as much as this particular one. I mean, I know it was my choice to read through, but I really thought you would probably have something interesting to talk about. All I hear is a bunch of whining about something you can fix if you weren’t too busy looking for attention.
I think one of your adverts triggered my internet browser to resize, you might want to put that on your blacklist.
Good post but I was wondering if you could write a litte more on this topic? I’d be very grateful if you could elaborate a little bit further. Kudos!
Trackbacks:
Leave a comment