Microsoft Looking to Sell Slate Magazine

SeaDour writes "Wired News is reporting that Microsoft is in early discussions with five or six media companies over a potential sale of MSN's online magazine Slate. This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer."

Hah, of course...

[}InFuZeD{]

If my employees were bashing my products publicly, I think I'd dump them too. Who wouldn't?

Not likely a punishment

[usefool]

This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer.

I don't think the above is part of the reasons for such sales, as stated on the article, the sales allows MS to "create a partnership with another media company, which could potentially help increase advertising revenue on the MSN site."

One step backward, two steps forward.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

[DrSbaitso]

Brilliant!

Post Hoc Propter, Much?

[Ieshan]

Right. Because any two things that follow in chronological order are neccessarily related. Just this morning, lightning struck down the street and, a few minutes later, my bank called about a bounced check.

Damn Lightning. It always causes problems.

Re:Post Hoc Propter, Much?

[gmajor]

The story's commentary is some of the biggest bullshit I've read on Slashdot in a while. Any attempt to cast Microsoft in a negative shadow, even through faulty arguments, is praised on the front page.

IIRC, MSNBC also reccommended Firefox over IE.

Although it is still a newsworty story, trying to link the sale of Slate with Firefox is just plain stupid, and takes away from the real content.

Re:Hah, of course...

[sql*kitten]

Who wouldn't?

Ermm, anyone with a brain?

If an employee misbehaves to that extent, sack 'em for gross misconduct. Selling a company is difficult and expensive to do (have a look at what investment banks charge to "advise" you). You'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face if you sold a company to get rid of one (probably quite junior) employee.

Somehow I doubt this is becuase of the FireFox rec

[Virtual PC Guy]

Hmm... Let's see - I own an online magazine. Presumably I (the comapny) actually get to have a say in what gets published or not, and who gets hired or not.

Now - someone wants to publish an article recommending a competitive product - do I:

1) Stop them from publishing the article (I can do that - remember)

2) Let them publish the article so as to maintain a fair balance in the press

So let's say I select option two - am I then going to 'vinidictively' sell them off (so that they can continue doing the same thing for a different employer)?

That does not make sense.

If I wanted to be vindictive - I would keep the magazine, stop them from publishing the article, and fire the guy who wrote it. If - however - I wanted to make a profit I would publish the article (and similar ones) so as to grow respect in my reader base - and sell it off once it had a big enough base to be profitable.

Face it guys - buisness is about making money - not being vindictive (though those two do tend to overlap at times)

Suspicious, but...

[rmdir -r *]

I don't think that Microsoft would _sell the magazine_ because of a critical article. If they really cared, I'm sure they would have censored the article before it was published (went live?). M$ is evil and vindictive, but I'm not sure that they really care if people use IE or not, as long as they aren't using Linux, *BSD etc.

Bullshit

[stubear]

"...recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer."

Yeah, because they dumpbed MSNBC a long time ago for writing less than flattering articles about their products and sdervices. What's that? You mean Microsoft is still in partnership with NBC? One more Slashdot conspiracy exposed.

Put it together

[Fished]

1. Microsoft pays $35billion or so to shareholders in a one-time dividend.
2. Microsoft unloads Slate
3. Microsoft increases future dividends.
4. ???
5. Profit! (sorry, always wanted to do that.

This doesn't mean that MS is annoyed with Slate, it means they are changing their business strategy. I would hazard to guess that Microsoft has decided that, rather than becoming an evil empire that owns a small country and runs its own Media etc., they will go back to being just a software company.

I would look for them to off-load other products not related to their core competencies in the near future, and I expect they will divest themselves from many of the sidelines they've gotten into. The question in my mind is: what happens to MSN as a whole? Is Microsoft giving up on being a content company altogether? What about their promised search engine? The Xbox?

Media companieS

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Microsoft is in early discussions with five or six media companies

I think the submitter means "Microsoft is in discussions with THE five or six media companies" (thanks Michael Powel for allowing this, by the way. Shame on you...)

Hah, of course...Steel resolve.

[Anonymous Coward]

" If my employees were bashing my products publicly, I think I'd dump them too. Who wouldn't?"

Your products, or your employees?

MS benefits from the Firefox article...

[tyroneking]

... on Slate because that is the exact sort of thing that gives Slate a supposed 'reputation' for journalism. In fact, it's a pretty cheap trick to recommend something that so many others have recommended already (and is so obviously a better product), when MS's own product (IE) attracted so much trouble for MS in the first place and doesn't make a profit for MS anyway.

Now if they had gone down the road of web-based applications then maybe this would have been a different story - but right now IE is a suitable sacrificial lamb that will boost Slate's reputation just before a potential sale/partnership.

In fact, Slate appears to be part of trend at MS, what with blogs and all, to promote the idea that MS goes in for a little self-criticism... wonder why?

Maybe MS feels that self-attack is the best form of defence against their only true threat - worldwide Governments - and appearing to be self-governing is a common method used by large industries to avoid government-regulation.

Not that I'm suggesting that MS is really trying to be so underhand - but I guess they can't help but appear to be so.

It's normal

[hurricane_sh]

Microsoft has too many products, I don't think Microsoft cares about the article so much. If all articles recommend MS products only, it just blow away their readers.

Re:A better bottom line

[d'fim]

It's probably not in Microsoft's business plan to keep a business unit that doesn't toe the party line. If the numbers had said "keep it", then I'm sure that we would be reading about a management shakeup rather than a sale.

Re:A better bottom line

[OnTheMoney]

Microsoft has also recently announced that they are returning some of their cash to stockholders because they don't have any good places to invest it anymore.

My suspicion is that a group at MS has been analyzing their business units for future growth as part of that cash dividend decision and one of the things they came up with was that while Slate doesn't have much growth potential (but is profitable enough to be turned into cash), after dropping it they can do more in other media stuff to help the growth of MSN.

--
Healthy Info [health-issue-books.com]

Re:Post Hoc Propter, Much?

[momogasuki]

What? You expect a site that uses a Borg-Gates icon for Microsoft-related stories to be unbiased?

Using Logic ...

[LanimilbusLE]

Under the current ownership, Microsoft still has some control over Slates content; for instance, in the mentioned Firefox article the author states: "You've probably been told to dump Internet Explorer for a Mozilla browser before, by the same propeller-head geek who wants you to delete Windows from your hard drive and install Linux." This almost derogatory comment undermines the assertion of IEs quality by focusing on the idea that switching from Windows to Linux is a bad move. Under new leadership the author may have been more straightforward and written Youve probably heard of the benefits of open source software before, but now they are becoming even more practical. To make a long story short, this isnt about Slates content.

Re:Not likely a punishment

[Zeinfeld]

In months past there have been some rumors of a MS - Disney partnership. After all Mickey Mouse software would fit well with Disney ;)

Great so we have Michael Eisener telling slate not to publish anything too critical of Bush. Incidentally, is Eisener going to reimburse Disney shareholders the $30 million or so that they lost out on due to his refusal to distribute Farenheight 9-11?

The rumors going arround were that Microsoft would BUY Disney, sack Eisner, revamp ABC and go into content in a big way. It was certainly being considered, but it was probably a bad idea for the same reason it would be a bad idea for Microsoft to build computers or make CPUs. You have to define boundaries to the markets you will compete in, you can't compete with your channel unless you are likely to succeed in replacing it.

I suspect that we will see MSNBC be sold as well. It has been doing pretty baddly in the ratings and is not likely to improve as long as GE continue to try to make it Fox News Lite. Its pretty amazing that the chuckleheads can't get a clue and work out that maybe the reason that people have been turning off from CNN is because the 'news' they report is utterly vapid trivia. There has actually been remarkably little switching to Fox News, the audience for 24 hour right wing propaganda was an entirely new one.

Basically CNN discovered what they thought was the killer formula during the OJ Simpson trial and have been desperately trying to apply it ever since. They are geared up to provide saturation coverage of stories that have as little importance as possible. MSNBC copied this formula and found it does not work and then tried to copy the right wing propaganda formula half the time. If they wanted to make that a commercial success they should have made it s loony left wing propaganda station, hired Moore and Franken.

The Two Things Aren't Connected

[jjohnson]

If MS wanted to punish Slate's editors for allowing an article recommending Firefox over IE, someone would be fired, or more likely would resign for 'personal reasons' a few weeks later. Selling a division is a business issue, not a content issue. It's not even necessarily a punishment: Newell Rubbermaid just sold off a bunch of divisions that didn't turn clear profits, which put those companies into better positions to succeed because they didn't have to pay the parent company's tithe any longer (the division for which my brother works was bought by private investors who want to expand it). More likely, Ballmer has decided that MS needs to get out of the content game, at which they've never done very well.

A. Someone who understands how to run a magazine

[octothorpe]

Even in the age of Fox there are still some concepts of journalistic independence and ethics in existance. Slate is not in the business of publishing MS press releases, it's a news and commentary magazine and would lose a lot of credibility (and writers) if it was thought to be nothing but a company shill. I, not a big fan of MS, have read slate regularly since it started partially due to the corporation's hands-off policy toward the editorial content. If I thought that MS was suppressing non-flattering content, I'd have a hard time taking it seriously.

Oh please...

[gordgekko]

This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer."

More /. silliness. Slate has for years snarked about some of Microsoft's products. If The Company was that thin-skinned they would have brought the hammer down a long time ago.

For anyone that didn't take Logic....

[herrvinny]

When I read that commentary, I thought of five words that I learned in a logic course in college, anyone care to guess what they are?

Correlation DOES NOT Equal Causation.

Or, if you need it expressed programmatically:

Correlation != Causation

(You also learn this in Statistics classes)

Re:Media companieS

[SEE]

Oh, please! You're blaming Michael Powell for stuff that happened under the Clinton Administration.

Most of the consolidation of the media had already happened by 2001. Time Warner-Turner-AOL-Times Mirror magazines, Disney-ABC, Viacom-Universal-CBS-Infinity -- these were all Clinton-era combinations. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which opened the door to massive radio consolidation under Clear Channel and Infinity, was a Clinton-signed law five years before Michael Powell was running the FCC. And so on.

Re:Conspiracy theory

[jgalun]

I don't know why this post got modded as a troll. Connecting unrelated ideas is a Michael Moore specialty. For example, talking about Afghan oil pipeline negotiations and then showing a picture of Bush bombing Afghanistan. If you don't think about it, it makes sense, just like it initially seems shady that Microsoft is selling Slate two weeks after Slate wrote an article praising Firefox. But then you give it a bit more thought, and realize that the Afghan pipeline negotiations happened under Clinton, not Bush, and that no pipeline has been built since the Taliban were overthrown, or you realize that if Microsoft wanted to prevent positive articles about Slate it would maintain its control over Slate, not sell it.

But to realize that, you need to been thinking critically. For Slashdot readers and for viewers of Michael Moore's movies, that critical eye is not always open. Because it's easy and more comfortable to simply agree with something that validates your existing notions (Microsoft bad, Bush bad).

So, no, Stevyn is not trolling, and yes, this is like Michael Moore.

Slate is simply not worth MS running

[EXTomar]

I'm still not sure why MS bought Slate in the first place. "e-mags" are notoriously hard to generate profit from and MS did nothing to do help out in that department. As MS stops pretending its a rapid growth company it will have to tighten budgetary belt. That means stuff like Slate are first on the chopping block.

Although it was amusing how the timing worked having Slate give props to Firefox has nothing to do with MS selling Slate. Its purely a business move.