This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Axel Springer Buys Business Insider For $443 Million, Paying 9x Projected Revenues
In the latest sign easy-money market froth may be peaking, moments ago German media conglomerate Axel Springer announced it has agreed to buy 88% of web-only Business Insider, adding to the 9% it already owns, for $343 million, which according to the Springer press release values 100% of the content aggregator at $442 million "on the basis of a cash and debt free valuation of USD 390 million." The remaining 3% of the company will be retained by Bezos Expeditions, the personal investment company of Jeff Bezos, who purchased a $5 million stake in 2013.
The transaction means that Business Insider, which was founded in 2007 in by Henry Blodget (who had previously spent several years as a freelance writer and consultant), Kevin Ryan and Dwight Merriman, is valued about 77% higher than Washington Post which was acquired by Jeff Bezos in 2013 for $250 million, and 40% higher than the previous record paid for an all-digital media outlet, when AOL acquired Huffington Post for $315 million in 2011. According to Springer, founder Henry Blodget and COO Julie Hansen will stay on board and "remain significantly invested through an extensive, long-term equity incentive."
As a reminder, one month ago Springer lost the auction to acquire the Financial Times which was ultimately sold to Japan's Nikkei for $1.3 billion.
According to the Springer press release, for $400 million the German media outlet is getting some 325 employees, most of whom recent journalism school graduates, as well as 76 million unique monthly visitors which "will increase Axel Springer’s worldwide digital audience by two-thirds to approximately 200 million users, making the company one of the world’s six largest digital publishers in terms of reach."
More importantly, according to Re/Code, Springer's failure to clinch the FT, prompted the scramble to buy Business Insider which values the company at around 9x its projected revenues for this year. Re/Code adds that "another complimentary theory popular with media executives I’ve talked to in the last week: Springer wanted a digital asset, and even at a rich price, Business Insider was more affordable than publishers like BuzzFeed and Vox Media."
The bigger problem for Springer is if it hopes to generate profits on its acquisition: Business Insider has historically been just about breakeven, report a modest profit several years ago, then spending all of its revenues and then some to double down on investments: in addition to its US website, the company launched seven additional editions outside the U.S., including in the U.K, Australia and Singapore. In July, it introduced a new tech-focused standalone website called Tech Insider.
In any event, the long-awaited media consolidated/roll up phase has officially started with two marquee financial purchases in just the past two months. What is ironic, is that just like in 2007 when Japanese and Europen investors were bidding up US RMBS, with disastrous results, this time they are buying up the financial media. To be sure, the entire cadre of financial reporters will be carefully following this transaction, many with hopes they too can cash out before the buying window closes.
- 9079 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Top indicator.
Friend of the left
When you can print money is not the problem. The problem is gettin the peasants to buy into the propaganda.
Looks like Henry more than got his money back from the government.
I don't believe it. Axel Springer may have promised Blodgett and company $443 million, but only after certain milestones are met by this crappy online magazine. This deal looks similar to the Bertelsman purchase of "Fast Company" magazine in 2000, a five year old magazine then that fetched a $350 million pricetag. Bertelsman sold the magazine for $35 million in 2005. Whoever approved this purchase of "Business Insider" at Axel Springer must be on drugs.
What a piece of garbage click bait that thing is.
Shame on you. These things always turn out right for both sides.
$6.7 billion
http://www.cnet.com/news/home-buys-excite-in-6-7-billion-deal/
$343 million
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/techcorporatenews/2004-03-04-ask-buys-excite_x.htm
Thank God for Ad Block!
Business Insider is a joke, it is written by five year olds.
...for 5 year olds.
Business Insider- The business persons People Magazine.
"Where I work we have only one editorial rule: you can't write anything longer than the average person can read during the average crap."
They'll go after the Daily Mail Online next:
Victoria Beckham reveals fading tattoo tribute to husband David as the couple attend charity events on different continentshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3252382/Victoria-Beckham-lo...
Top notch, thorough news reporting!
Could use some more pictures though.
I went to their site once a few years ago. I genuinely thought it was an Indian outfit whose articles were churned out by moonlighting call centre blokes who used English as a foreign language. It was that badly written and mostly plagiarized.
it s not about the projected revenues, it s about the scale of influence on peoples minds.
Henry Blodget (who had previously spent several years as a freelance writer and consultant)
------------
Correctly he spent some time in court: dot-com crook.
Its all click bait shit too, riddled with errors because they use interns without editors to write their shit.
Most content isn't even theirs its linked.
.
.
.
Yes, acquisition of this bottom-feeder is a market top indicator.
Now I need to click on this link that shows scientifically how to make myself more attractive to the opposite sex--whichever sex that might be...
That's a lot of money for a Democrat Party mouthpiece.
Ain't that amazing, the money behind the scenes that the Dimowits have but we never hear about unlike the Koch Brothers, etc.
Gosh, that seems a but expensive, but what do I know?
It's like when Ford bought Jaguar for $2.5 billion in 1989. Just seemed a tad (vast understatement) over the top. And if that was a tad over the top, then .....
I'll know its the top when ZH sells for $90mm
Bloomberg will buy it to better meet the demands of the non-lobotomized from the Island of Misfits and then turn it into a propagandized mush messaging machine.
Would you like a curry Slurpee with your entertainment?
Friday humor is early this week. What a joke... hahaha ugh. What was the latest garbage I unfortunately saw them doing... was something to do with sports. It's just a pointless, directionless rag.
$343 million for a joke? I don't get it.
Same price ask Jeeves paid for excite!
http://www.clickz.com/clickz/news/1694106/ask-jeeves-makes-usd343-million-acquisition
Just another inside job. These arranged marriages are designed to transfer wealth in a circle jerk of parasitism, hopefully with no one being the wiser.
There is no value add here. This is not the economy you were looking for.
I wonder when Zerohedge will be bought for stupid amount of fiat cash.
Springer springs from VW to Business BS...some awesome jump with fiat at the Hopalong Olympics!
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Daaammm the stupidity of some people is unbelievable at times! I am LMFAO!
Time for business insider headline contest:
-Huge unbelievable news, old media admits it's days are numbered
-New media acquisition frenzy
-5 things about new media that will blow your mind
-This new media company just got a ginormous valuation
Will be interesting to see how much further left the articles go. They spend a lot of their time publishing phony economic numbers, phony earnings growth and completely ignore the crimes of the left. When was the last time they released any truth about Obama, Hitlery or immigration.
Why would anyone pay this kind of money for a website in this economy? Payback for someone? A new source of propaganda for the global elites? Absolutely crazy....
The bought and paid for mainstream media has now morphed into the bought and paid for alternative media. Carry on.
Silver For The People
I'm stealing your line...that OK?
Business Insider is terrible
http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-un-speech-isis-coalition-problem-2015-9
I somehow got lured there last night...worst piece of propaganda I've seen in a long time...from a "journalistic standpoint". Here's my comment there:
LibertysGhost on Sep 28, 8:39 PM said:
Natasha Bertrand and Michael B Kelley...you should be ashamed for both intentionally misleading Americans and claiming such poorly written work qualifies as "journalism".It really took two people to write such a bad article? I guess they were trying double hard to look like they did research. The sources cited were the standard crew that have led the "west" into bad foreign policy for decades...the Brookings institute?....really? Looking at the author's bios it appears Bertrand (one author) worked for one of the organizations she cites...unless her bio plagiarizes parts of the "who we are" description for FRIDE for no apparent reason. But this incestuous relationship bleeds throughout this article. You see, they cited a quote FRIDE gave to the Carnegie Foundation, while earlier quoting the neoliberal mouthpiece David Rothkopf (who is 100% BS-shill) as from the Foreign Policy Group...well looking at the FPG profile for him you find he also sits on the Carnegie Foundation advisory panel. Hmmm? You can find that systematic deception throughout this article.
But how does this article read? It reads "desperate"...desperation is shown when you throw so many theories against a wall at once hoping something will stick. By their logic, if Assad fought anyone he was helping ISIS...because "many experts agree that giving in to Assad's continued reign would only make the situation worse." Of course, "many experts wouldn't agree also" but we won't mention that. Pat Buchanan, for instance, would be an "expert"...and he says the opposite. Actually, the lists of experts that think now that the US in funding and training al Nusra (an al quaeda branch) and some apparently imaginary Free Syrian Army (which these same experts the article relies on have supported throughout) has directly fueled ISIS...and they don't need some "by extension to death" argument to show it. We train them, fund them...and then they leave for ISIS. That's pretty direct. The US govt did this to us Americans by lying to us and now that their lies are being exposed by their own hypocrisy and people like these writers and the "experts" they quote are trying to con us all that if we just give them more time (apparently a couple/few decades of disaster isn't enough...they want more Saudi/Qatari blood money) their grand plan will finally work.
BI used to be alternative media in it's early days.
Then it started going into huffpo mode and I haven't read it since.
The new new money laundering: media and social media valuations.
Business Insider: PoS