Is Marissa Mayer interested in buying AOL?

[Shawn Knight]

Earlier this month at the Sun Valley conference, AOL CEO Tim Armstrong and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer were spotted at a bar together. The rumor mill went into overdrive with speculation that Yahoo might purchase AOL. As an early investor in Alibaba, they'd certainly have the money to do so in the near future once that company goes public.

So, would it make sense to combine the two Internet pioneers? It depends on who you ask.

According to a report from Kara Swisher at Re/Code, Armstrong would love to sell his company to Yahoo as he thinks the two are very similar. Mayer, however, doesn't seem convinced.

Swisher said Mayer believes the deal is small, unexciting, uninspiring and backwards-looking. Based on the name alone and the history tied to it, that may not be too far off base. But AOL has much more than a brand name to offer.

In addition to revenue from the dial-up business (apparently that's still a thing), AOL owns several other media brands including Engadget, Huffington Post and Tech Crunch. Oh, and there's also the ad technology that Yahoo would likely be able to use.

Given AOL's market cap of $3.2 billion, the Internet pioneer would likely have to pay around $4 billion for the acquisition. There would be some obvious overlapping and cost-savings but as Mayer said, it may not be very forward-looking.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/57416-is-marissa-mayer-interested-in-buying-aol.html

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

If I was sitting in a sleazy bar having drinks with Marissa Meyer the last thing on my mind would be buying and selling companies.

 

[VitalyT]

If I was sitting in a sleazy bar having drinks with Marissa Meyer the last thing on my mind would be buying and selling companies.

That's why she is a CEO, and you are not - keeping eyes on the ball at all times

 

[LNCPapa]

There are so many naughty ways your last comment could be taken VitalyT. I'm trying to climb out of the gutter as we speak.

 

[davislane1]

If I was sitting in a sleazy bar having drinks with Marissa Meyer the last thing on my mind would be buying and selling companies.

When a top tier CEO sits down for a drink in a sleazy bar there are only three options: shoot the breeze, talk business, both. The first thing on my mind would be option three.

 

[VitalyT]

There are so many naughty ways your last comment could be taken VitalyT. I'm trying to climb out of the gutter as we speak.

Didn't mean it when I wrote that, just for "staying focused", but I see where you're going with this...

 

[cliffordcooley]

I vote "YES" to the merger, lets minimize the crap sites.

 

[wastedkill]

If I was in a bar with Marissa Mayer the only thing on my mind would be is how I would slip her a roofie!

Also "two Internet pioneers" what has AOL done in the past 5yrs besides as the US government would say it "Going Dark" havent heard or seen anything from AOL since what 2002?

 

[captaincranky]

OK, some guy from AOL has Comcast internet that they won't let him disconnect. How the mighty have fallen... You'd think he'd be dialing furiously to get online with his own company.

Which obviously breeds the question, what the heck does AOL have left to sell?

So, maybe "the blue fairy", was just trying to get lucky. Besides, what other company's CEO could Yahoo's CEO, "go slumming" with. You know, trade in her "magic wand", on a burnin', burnin' hunk a' boy toy.

With the way Yahoo is going, anybody else's top exec would have their reputation ruined hanging out with her.

And don't get me started on Yahoo's turd of a celebrity gossip show, "The Yahoo Insider", which they dropped on CBS Saturday late night.

I reach for the remote the instant the CSI: Miami syndication rolls credits. That show stinks so bad you'd think the TV had a "scratch & sniff" patch on it.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

Didn't mean it when I wrote that, just for "staying focused", but I see where you're going with this...

Yeah right. We believe you but millions of others wouldn't.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

When a top tier CEO sits down for a drink in a sleazy bar there are only three options: shoot the breeze, talk business, both. The first thing on my mind would be option three.

Even top tier CEO's are nothing more than just ordinary fallible people, they're not special in any way.

 

[davislane1]

Even top tier CEO's are nothing more than just ordinary fallible people, they're not special in any way.

Fallible, absolutely. Ordinary? Only at the personal level. Intellectually, academically, professionally (skills), and socially they tend to have significant advantages over the average population....Hence their positions.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

Fallible, absolutely. Ordinary? Only at the personal level. Intellectually, academically, professionally (skills), and socially they tend to have significant advantages over the average population....Hence their positions.

Or so others would have you believe. They are just human beings, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[SNGX1275]

I agree with @davislane1 - CEOs of major corporations aren't ordinary people. They got to that position because their knowledge, skills, or dedication (or a combination) are not typical.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Fallible, absolutely. Ordinary? Only at the personal level. Intellectually, academically, professionally (skills), and socially they tend to have significant advantages over the average population....Hence their positions.

Just because the music stops and someone is left standing doesn't mean the one standing is not qualified to sit in the chair. It only means there was not another chair available. I'm not gonna lie, I don't have the qualifications to run a company nor do I want to. But half the personnel at a company probably does have the qualification, and never given the opportunity to even try.

 

[davislane1]

Just because the music stops and someone is left standing doesn't mean the one standing is not qualified to sit in the chair. It only means there was not another chair available. I'm not gonna lie, I don't have the qualifications to run a company nor do I want to. But half the personnel at a company probably does have the qualification, and never given the opportunity to even try.

The problem is, life is not a game of musical chairs; it is a highly competitive game of chess. Success in the real world is not, nor can it ever be, based on "qualifications". It all boils down to an individual's skill set(s), knowledge, social status, g (which throttles the speed at which these can be acquired), work ethic, and consistency. Paper-level qualifications (degrees, certifications, licenses, and work experience) merely correlate with g, knowledge, and work ethic. They indicate ability, they do not demonstrate it.

Not having an opportunity is also a fallacy that, ironically enough, supports my post. A few defining characteristics of CEOs (elite and ordinary alike) is appetite for risk, ambition, and confidence. This is also true of the vast majority of high achievers. If the only thing holding back these qualified masses from running the show is seat scarcity, why aren't they leaving in droves to start their own firms?

My point is, there are major differences between the people at the top of the pyramid and those lower down. The people at the top overwhelmingly identify what they are after and develop the strategies and tactics necessary for taking it. Those lower down overwhelmingly subscribe to the erroneous belief that performing 12 labors is the key to success, and that failure to achieve ambitions is the result of external factors.

Stated otherwise... The average chess player is always trying to capture something. The advanced player merely feeds him a steady stream sacrificial pieces while positioning for the check. The chess master manipulates both of them into willfully exposing their kings.

 

[cliffordcooley]

The problem is, life is not a game of musical chairs; it is a highly competitive game of chess.

And my point is, no profession is different than another. They all require dedication/sacrific to learn, and they are nearly all needed for us to continue living. The CEO position earning/deserving more than a standard position, is a myth that everyone knows is false.

 

[davislane1]

And my point is, no profession is different than another. They all require dedication/sacrific to learn, and they are nearly all needed for us to continue living.

Basic commonalities do not equate to sameness. For instance, a Ferrari 599 and a Caterpillar 797 both have four wheels and massive maintenance costs. Only a crazy person would suggest they are essentially the same machines. Furthermore, none of the jobs in existence today are required for us to continue living. Recall, man thrived prior to civilization ever being contemplated. This is purely a quality of life issue.

The CEO position earning/deserving more than a standard position, is a myth that everyone knows is false.

Problem is, price point is determined by the market, not what you or I feel is "deserved". If the masses suddenly acquired the attributes necessary to successfully run a major company, CEO pay and compensation would drop like a rock in a vacuum. But this won't happen for reasons already discussed.

In any event, we've had this conversation before, so I'll simply agree to disagree with you.

 

[cliffordcooley]

I will leave you with the following link. As much as I wasn't wanting to go there, this is where my belief lies. In the eyes of God not man. We can bicker all day about who's talent is worth more, but that will change nothing in the end.

http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2006/05-11.htm

 

[davislane1]

I will leave you with the following link. As much as I wasn't wanting to go there, this is where my belief lies. In the eyes of God not man. We can bicker all day about who's talent is worth more, but that will change nothing in the end.

http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2006/05-11.htm

Dude... We are on the same page where material wealth and God are concerned. I'm a theist and a Christian – you're preaching to the choir here. But none of that changes how and why assets are distributed across the population. All I am saying, and all I've ever said, is that differences in ability and decision-making result in differences of socioeconomic outcome.

 

[captaincranky]

Just because the music stops and someone is left standing doesn't mean the one standing is not qualified to sit in the chair.

When I was young, A gentleman named Dr. Laurence J. Peter came up with the "Peter Principle" and released a book of the same name.

At the time, it was "just an observation", or perhaps a theory, and gained a bit of notoriety on the talk show circuit of the day.

Fast forward some decades later, and it was being taught as "a law", or at the very least, "axiomatic", in the sociology classes of the 2000's.

Basically, "a person get promoted until they rise to their level of incompetence, at which point they stay, welled in mediocrity".

Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Peter_Principle.html

Fallible, absolutely. Ordinary? Only at the personal level. Intellectually, academically, professionally (skills), and socially they tend to have significant advantages over the average population....Hence their positions.

I hate to break this to you, but sometimes it comes down to their birthright.

 

[davislane1]

I hate to break this to you, but sometimes it comes down to their birthright.

This would have been a fantastic rebuttal...had I not already alluded to the same inequality:

Fallible, absolutely. Ordinary? Only at the personal level. Intellectually, academically, professionally (skills), and socially they tend to have significant advantages over the average population....Hence their positions.

 

[captaincranky]

Fallible, absolutely. Ordinary? Only at the personal level. Intellectually, academically, professionally (skills), and socially they tend to have significant advantages over the average population....Hence their positions.

OK, "socially" is a rather broad term, while "birthright", is a specific inference. Sociopathy is actually a, "social advantage", when climbing the corporate ladder. Arguably, it's not a "birthright".

Besides, I' thought we'd moved past relying on "allusions", after Vitaly's classic accidentally on purpose, "faux pas".

 

[davislane1]

Point taken.