Showing posts with label Acquisitions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Acquisitions. Show all posts

Monday, 27 October 2008

The NYT and the IHT need to be more entrepreneurial


Forgive me for banging the same drum, but the NYT and its bankers must recognise the need for game-changing ideas. If they can't come from within, they must look outside. (Research and Development being a central pillar of the NYT's strategy, as declared in its 2007 annual report.)

Here are some of Mr. Sulzberger's declarations made in his keynote speech at the Webby Connect conference last week.


“If you’re not prepared to occasionally fail, you’re not trying hard enough.”

He talked a lot about "intelligent content delivery" and how the newspaper’s research and development division, which was created in 2006, is working toward that goal while the NYT searches for business models that will sustain growth online.
That's all fine but multi-platform delivery, for a fragmented audience, is in MHO, only a small part of the equation in saving the NYT. An important one, but not a game-changing one, something I am sure they know.

Here's some food for thought from today's IHT if and when the NYT Company looks for external help, or if it already has.
The care and feeding of entrepreneurs
By Marci Alboher
Sunday, October 26, 2008
GUY KAWASAKI is a best-selling author of seven books on entrepreneurship, a founding partner at Garage Technology Ventures, the co-founder of Alltop.com, an "online magazine rack," and a popular public speaker and blogger.
Previously, Kawasaki worked at Apple, where he was appointed to the Apple Fellow program, which recognizes employees who have made extraordinary contributions to personal computing. His latest book, "Reality Check" (Portfolio), is a compilation of his advice, interviews and musings on all aspects of entrepreneurship.
I interviewed Kawasaki through a series of e-mail messages after he persuaded me that he was much funnier in writing than on the phone. The following is a condensation of our e-mail exchange:
Q. "Reality Check" includes a venture capital aptitude test in which you opine on the types of people who are best qualified for careers in venture capital. Your test awards points to those with backgrounds in sales or engineering and subtracts points for those with M.B.A. degrees or backgrounds in management consulting, investment banking or accounting. What's behind this philosophy?
A. Ideally, a venture capitalist would add value beyond writing a check. This includes experience with difficult situations and insights into building a company. Consulting, investment banking and accounting do not provide you with "on the firing line" experience. You're always the "outside expert" who zooms in, interviews a few people, creates a PowerPoint presentation and then tells people what they should do.
Unfortunately, analysis and ideas are easy. Implementation is hard. A consultant can tell you to reduce your work force by 10 percent, but figuring out who to lay off and looking people in the eyes when you do it is much harder.
Q. When someone comes to you with a business idea or a request for advice, what traits or behaviors are immediate tip-offs to you that someone has the entrepreneurial gene, or is lacking it?
A. The more I meet with entrepreneurs the less I think I can pick them. Sure, there are stereotypes: bright, aggressive, enthusiastic, young, etc. But there are many successful entrepreneurs that don't come off this way.
The richest vein I have seen is two guys/gals who want to create a tool that they themselves want to use. This describes, for example, Google, Yahoo and Apple. I have come to believe that almost everyone has the entrepreneurial gene; it's been necessary for survival for thousands of years.
The issue is whether that gene is expressed, and the only way to really "know" is with retroactive, after-the-fact analysis. Unfortunately, venture capital doesn't work this way. You take your best shot and pray, then you thank God if you're right a few times.
Q. Everyone is consumed with the evaporation of the credit markets these days. Yet many experts say that small business will be the source of growth and new jobs in this economy. Do you agree?
A. This is populist, wishful pabulum. It's easy to say that entrepreneurs will create jobs and big companies will create unemployment, but this is simplistic. The real question is who will innovate. A 50-year-old company can innovate as well as two guys/gals in a garage.
Q. What is your advice to entrepreneurs seeking funding or growth opportunities if the credit and capital markets continue on their current course?
A. My advice is that they melt wax into their ears and go forward. If they are waiting for wonderful credit and capital markets, they probably aren't entrepreneurs. They're much more likely to be consultants and bankers looking to quickly flip a company.
Q. Other than the obvious, like renewable sources of energy, can you predict some sectors where you expect to see the next wave of entrepreneurial activity?
A. I can't. I'm not a visionary à la Steve Jobs. I'm a marketer. Hopefully I can recognize visions that can sell, but I can't predict the next big thing until someone shows it to me.
Q. You have strong opinions on what makes a successful pitch, for everything from writing a business plan to hiring the right people to closing a deal or giving a presentation. Give us some of your golden rules for pitching.
A. There are only two golden rules of pitching, whoever obeys these rules gets the gold. First, be able to explain in 30 seconds what your company does. Almost no one is capable of doing this. Second, when using PowerPoint, use 10 slides that you can cover in 20 minutes with fonts no smaller than 30 points. It's called the 10/20/30 Rule of PowerPoint. Almost no one does this either.
Q. You dedicate a few amusing chapters in "Reality Check" to lies told by entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, lawyers, engineers, business partners and CEO's. With all this rampant lying, are you suggesting that artful lying and lie-detecting are part of the game that entrepreneurs need to master?
A. If an entrepreneur's lips are moving, she's probably lying, though she may not know it. Part of being an entrepreneur is that you have to lie, first of all to yourself. You have to tell yourself that you can create something, people can build it, customers will buy it and you can collect the money.
If you cannot ignore the naysayers who tell you that it can't be done, it shouldn't be done, it isn't necessary, you can't be an entrepreneur. One of the best ways to ignore is to lie and deny.
The challenge is that once you do ship, you have to remove the lie-and-deny shields and listen to what your customers are telling you. Flipping this bit is one of the hardest things for an entrepreneur to do.

To close the interview, I asked Kawasaki to come up with a final question he'd like to answer:
Q. What would you like people to say about you when you die?
A. I hope that people say I was a good husband and father. After that, I hope that they say I empowered entrepreneurs to make the world a better place. After that, I hope that some people say that they're glad I'm gone because they don't have to worry about them tripping me on the ice.
(Note: That's a hockey reference from an avid player.)


READ AN ALTERNATIVE IHT DAILY NARRATIVE AT
A PLACE IN THE AUVERGNE


LOOKING FOR A CHRISTMAS BOOK GIFT TO BUY?
"Books about cosmopolitan urbanites discovering the joys of country life are two a penny, but this one is worth a second glance. Walthew's vivid description of the moral stress induced by his job as a high-flying executive with the International Herald Tribune newspaper is worth the cover price alone…. Highly recommended." The Oxford Times
Amazon.co.uk


Amazon.com

For more reviews visit www.ianwalthew.com

Frantic panic is in the air generally: what should the NYT do?

Last Friday hit everyone hard, and there has been a weekend of reflection.

Read these articles from today's International Herald Tribune, if you don't believe that at least at the NYT editorial desk, there is a growing awareness of something more than a financial meltdown and it's called financial panic.

I'd say we've just had a tipping point weekend.

In Europe, crisis revives old memories

Roger Cohen: Shoot the horses?

But have we learned enough?

The price of optimism

Economic rout seems to take on a life of its own

Economic downturn is expected to get worse



What should any company do, what should the NYT do, in such times?

I'd say it's innovate, acquire, invest or die time. Tom Friedman pretty much sums up my views and I hope the NYT's bankers, commercial paper holders and executives read this carefully: "So let's keep our eyes on the prize."


Thomas L. Friedman: Save the system
By Thomas L. Friedman
Sunday, October 26, 2008
The hardest thing about analyzing the Bush administration is this: Some things are true even if President Bush believes them.
Therefore, sifting through all his steps and missteps, at home and abroad, and trying to sort out what is crazy and what might actually be true - even though Bush believes it - presents an enormous challenge, particularly amid this economic crisis.
I felt that very strongly when listening to Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson announce that the government was going to become a significant shareholder in America's major banks. Both Bush and Paulson were visibly reluctant to be taking this step. It would be easy to scoff at them and say: "What do you expect from a couple of capitalists who hate any kind of government intervention in the market?"
But we should reflect on their reluctance. There may be an important message in their grimaces. The government had to step in and shore up the balance sheets of America's major banks. But the question I am asking myself, and I think Paulson and Bush were asking themselves, is this: "What will this government intervention do to the risk-taking that is at the heart of capitalism?"
There is a fine line between risk-taking and recklessness. Risk-taking drives innovation; recklessness drives over a cliff. In recent years, we Americans had way too much of the latter. We are paying a huge price for that, and we need a correction. But how do we do that without becoming so risk-averse that start-ups and emerging economies can't get capital because banks with the government as a shareholder become exceedingly cautious?
Let's imagine this scene: You are the president of one of these banks in which the government has taken a position. One day two young Stanford grads walk in your door. One is named Larry, and the other is named Sergey. They tell you that they have this thing called a "search engine," and they are naming it - get this - "Google." They tell you to type in any word in this box on a computer screen and - get this - hit a button labeled "I'm Feeling Lucky." Up comes a Web site related to that word. Their start-up has exhausted its venture capital. They need a loan.
What are you going to say to Larry and Sergey as the president of the bank? "Boys, this is very interesting. But I have the U.S. Treasury as my biggest shareholder today, and if you think I'm going to put money into something called 'Google,' with a key called 'I'm Feeling Lucky,' you're fresh outta luck. Can you imagine me explaining that to a congressional committee if you guys go bust?"
And then what happens if the next day the congressman from Palo Alto, who happens to be on the House banking committee, calls you, the bank president, and says: "I understand you turned down my boys, Larry and Sergey. Maybe you haven't been told, but I am one of your shareholders - and right now, I'm not feeling very lucky. You get my drift?"
Maybe nothing like this will ever happen. Maybe it's just my imagination. But maybe not ...
"Government bailouts and guarantees, while at times needed, always come with unintended consequences," notes the financial strategist David Smick. "The winners: the strong, the big, the established, the domestic and the safe - the folks who, relatively speaking, don't need the money. The losers: the new, the small, the foreign and the risky - emerging markets, entrepreneurs and small businesses not politically connected. After all, what banker in a Capitol Hill hearing now would want to defend a loan to an emerging market? Yet emerging economies are the big markets for American exports."
I am not criticizing the decision to shore up the banks. And we must prevent a repeat of the reckless bundling and securitizing of mortgages, and excessive leveraging, that started this mess. We need better regulation. But most of all, we need better management.
The banks that are surviving the best today, the ones that are buying others and not being bought - like JPMorgan Chase or Banco Santander, based in Spain - are not surviving because they were better regulated than the banks across the street but because they were better run. Their leaders were more vigilant about their risk exposure than any regulator required them to be.
Bottom line: We must not overshoot in regulating the markets just because they overshot in their risk-taking. That's what markets do. We need to fix capitalism, not install socialism. Because, ultimately, we can't bail our way out of this crisis. We can only grow our way out - with more innovation and entrepreneurship.
So let's keep our eyes on the prize. Save the system, install smart regulations and get the government out of the banking business as soon as possible so that the surviving banks can freely and unabashedly get back into their business: risk-taking without recklessness.








READ AN ALTERNATIVE IHT DAILY NARRATIVE AT
A PLACE IN THE AUVERGNE


LOOKING FOR A CHRISTMAS BOOK GIFT TO BUY?
"Books about cosmopolitan urbanites discovering the joys of country life are two a penny, but this one is worth a second glance. Walthew's vivid description of the moral stress induced by his job as a high-flying executive with the International Herald Tribune newspaper is worth the cover price alone…. Highly recommended." The Oxford Times
Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.com


For more reviews visit www.ianwalthew.com

Sunday, 19 October 2008

Is Google now so big that it is recession, even depression, proof?

More to the point, is their business model actually one that is ideal for a recession?


Google CEO Eric Schmidt


Google's Profit and Sales Leap, Firing a Rally
A big earnings surprise confounds analysts, who hadn't reckoned the Web search colossus would contain its costs so well

By
Robert D. Hof
Google has defied the skeptics. The Web search leader reported third-quarter earnings that far exceeded the expectations of analysts, especially those who thought the company might finally fall victim to the slumping economy. Thanks largely to having contained costs better than in previous quarters, Google reported on Oct. 16 that profit rose 26%, to $1.35 billion, significantly higher than analysts had predicted. Sales jumped 31%, to $5.54 billion.
Relieved investors propelled the stock higher by as much as 10% after the results were released. The rally followed a 4% gain, to 353.02, which mirrored a broader market surge in regular trading. Until Oct. 16, Google's stock had plunged 53% this year.
In a conference call with analysts, Google (
GOOG) executives sounded the familiar, confident notes of the past several quarters. "The economic situation today is globally worse than what people were predicting just a month ago," CEO Eric Schmidt said. "But we're optimistic about Google's future." The comments resembled those of about a month ago, when Schmidt said the "drama is in New York, not here," and "it's business as usual at Google."
Analysts Had Cut Targets
Schmidt's remarks—and the numbers that back them up—underscore Google's resilience, even as growth slows in overall online advertising. Search-related ads, which make up the bulk of Google's sales, appeal to advertisers because they reach customers ready to buy and because their results can be measured, analysts and Google executives say. "Advertisers are willing to take all the clicks we can give them" at current prices,
Hal Varian, Google's chief economist, said during the conference call. A recession will prompt consumers to use search even more frequently to find deals, Varian said.
Google's profit per share, before stock option expenses, was $4.92—17¢ over expectations of $4.75. Net revenue of $4.04 billion, after payments to partners that run Google ads on their sites, was just a hair below the $4.06 billion expected by analysts. However, many analysts were informally assuming earnings might undershoot previous forecasts and have been reducing estimates and price targets in recent weeks.
Much of the earnings surprise came because Google slowed expense growth. The company hired 519 people in the quarter, compared with 2,130 a year earlier. It also reduced once-rampant capital spending by 18%, to $452 million. "Across all categories of expenses, people have been very diligent" in watching costs, Chief Financial Officer
Patrick Pichette said. Rob Sanderson, an analyst with American Technology Research, said investors are relieved that Google is willing to keep a lid on expenses to buoy profit.
Online Advertising: Slowdown Evident
While growth in the U.S. continues at a respectable pace, some analysts saw cause for concern in Europe. Although most regions experienced "solid" growth, according to Pichette, revenue in Britain rose only 17% from a year earlier, compared with a 29% gain in the second quarter. "That is going to spread into Continental Europe," Sanderson says.
Google beat forecasts despite a negative impact from the strengthening dollar, which reduced effective earnings because of Google's significant international business, which accounted for 51% of sales. That's likely to continue into the fourth quarter and next year, even with a currency hedging program that began last quarter.
Encouraging third-quarter results aside, Google may not be able to withstand the headwinds of a protracted recession, which economists see as increasingly likely. "We're starting to see evidence of a slowdown in online advertising," says Jonathan Weitz, an analyst at Interactive Broadband Consulting Group. Recent Interactive Advertising Bureau figures showed the first quarter-to-quarter decline in ad spending since 2004, Weitz noted. A recession could affect even search advertising, especially because it is driven by small and midsize businesses—which may be especially hurt by falling consumer demand and a scarcity of funds as banks curtail lending.
Search Ads Keep Selling
And even if companies keep spending on search ads, it's possible that consumers who click on them will end up choosing to buy less frequently. This, in turn, would make the ads less effective for advertisers, who could then bid less for ads placed alongside Google's search results. A new study by search marketing firm
SearchIgnite, for instance, found a trouble spot: Retailers in particular are starting to reduce search ad spending, which slid 10% in September.
For now, however, overall search-related advertising is holding up, and that's good news for Google. "Search is not immune to macroeconomic gyrations," says Craig Macdonald, vice-president for marketing and product management at Covario, which makes online-marketing analysis software. "But [Google] will be the last to be affected," he adds. According to SearchIgnite, overall U.S. spending on search ads rose 27% in the third quarter. "Our clients continue to want to spend on search," says Kevin Lee, CEO of search marketing firm
Didit.com. "Like it or not, paid search is the front door to your store."
Another reason Google's results may not reflect the larger picture in Internet advertising is the company's sheer dominance. Covario estimates that Google accounted for nearly 83% of search ad spending in the U.S. and more than 95% in Europe. Because of that lead in one of the fastest-growing segments of Internet advertising, the results shed little light on the broader market—in particular on the climate for Yahoo (
YHOO), which reports its third quarter on Oct. 21.
Given the market meltdown of the past few weeks, Schmidt conceded that the economy is in "uncharted territory." As a result, analysts may remain cautious on Google's prospects. "There's a lot of doubt about whether the 2009 estimates are too high," says John Aiken, managing director of
Majestic Research. Currently the consensus is for 23% revenue growth. Aiken thinks that 20% is more likely, and even 15% is possible. But for one more quarter, at least, Google has held the bears at bay.
Hof is BusinessWeek's Silicon Valley bureau chief.



READ AN ALTERNATIVE IHT DAILY NARRATIVE AT
A PLACE IN THE AUVERGNE

International Herald Tribune
IHT
New York Times
NYT
Vacation /Business Trip Furnished Rental Apartment in Paris

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Big Media. Bad Idea. (Portfolio.com)

Big Media. Bad Idea.
by Sophia Banay Oct 15 2008
Ask any shareholder not named Murdoch or Redstone—big media just isn't working


Say what you want about the benefits of synergies and size for big media companies; for their shareholders, the bigger the company, the smaller the gains. Between last week and the same week a year ago,Time Warner shares were down 50 percent; Viacom was off 59 percent; G.E. had fallen 46 percent; News Corp. slid 65 percent; and Disney, the big winner, had tumbled a mere 34 percent.Is it time to say "Enough already" with big media and the dead-as-disco idea Japanese giants such as Sony had about buying movie studios to sell their VCRs? How about small media? Or at least smaller media?
It sounds fairly logical. The supposed "synergies" between the divisions of modern conglomerates like Viacom, G.E., and Time Warner have never really blossomed. Time Warner's magazine group, cable networks, AOL, pay TV, and movie-studio divisions barely communicate, let alone work together. And if that lumping together doesn't deliver value in the stock market, why suffer through it?
Time Warner took one step toward unraveling those holdings last spring, with the spinoff of Time Warner Cable, which delivered shareholders over $10 per share in dividends. Before that move, long-awaited by analysts, the cable unit's success was never reflected in the larger company's share price.
AOL, by contrast, has had a disproportionately negative affect on the company's stock, leaving many investors wondering when a sale of the unit—or of the floundering magazine unit—will take place. That's a tough break for the company's better-performing assets, like Turner Broadcasting, home to cable hits like The Closer, and stellar studio Warner Bros., responsible for summer smashes like Sex and the City and The Dark Knight. Spun off independently, any of these properties could deliver substantial value to shareholders. As it is, the albatross of AOL is the only thing visible to anyone looking at Time Warner's stock price.
CBS is a similar story. Last week, it put Showtime content front and center in a new partnership with YouTube, offering the channel's most recent series premieres of Dexter and Californication to viewers for free. In doing so, the company, whose share price was down 72 percent from a year ago last week, is trying to capitalize on its marquee pay-TV brand to bring viewers and media attention to its shows online, where it will take in revenue from ads played at the start, middle, and end of its shows. But could CBS unlock the value of its increasingly shiny Showtime brand by spinning off the network into its own independent entity? The premium-cable channel is obviously feeling its oats, as buzzworthy original series like Californication, Dexter, and Weeds have led a 2 million jump in subscribers, to 16 million, over the past two years.Some analysts agree that Showtime, as a stand-alone stock, could be the secret weapon of CBS shareholders. On its own, "Showtime would probably be worth more than CBS today," says Porter Bibb, a managing partner at Mediatech Capital Partners in New York."It's hot, it has an interesting future, and it's making money with video on demand." Of course, not every premium pay-TV channel would perform as well as a stock. HBO, for instance, is probably better served—for now—by remaining a part of Time Warner, under intense pressure as it is to deliver hot, game-changing new shows with the frequency it used to, says Bibb.
But in general, if a media property is strong, it performs better outside of a conglomerate than inside one. Why keep a company's most valuable assets hidden inside a decaying shell? The Dolan family's Cablevision, which owns a slew of valuable cable networks through Rainbow Media—including the Sundance channel, IFC, and AMC, home to the breakout hit Mad Men—is another example of a media company whose stock is undervalued. Cablevision would do well to spin off some subsidiaries—or even just stop making new acquisitions. After paying almost $650 million for the paper Newsday, the company got very little back in terms of stock value.
G.E., which has been urged to spin off NBCU by eager analysts, no longer has that luxury with G.E. Capital suffering in the economic crisis. But should it do so in the future, the new company—made up of a movie studio and theme parks, with business models that are not advertising-reliant, plus a mature slate of cable networks with dual revenue streams—would likely perform well in the stock market. News Corp. and Disney are two possible exceptions to the big-media curse. Disney makes sure that ESPN programming on ABC, for example, is obviously marked as such, an effective cross-marketing tool. And News Corp. is steadily integrating Dow Jones' components, such as MarketWatch, into its daily operations.
But even the most skilled managers are overextended when trying to grapple with the various subsidies of their enormous conglomerates.
A(nother) case in point: YouTube has lost some of its tech-darling status since being swallowed up by Google. Perhaps that explains the new partnership with CBS, which aims to expand YouTube's niche from clips of cats falling from trees to more mainstream content like you'd find on Hulu.com. But can one mammoth media company save another?
"I don't believe in conglomerates from a financial point of view because they totally depend on having good management," says Bibb. "That's a tough thing to depend on."
In other words, don't count on it.




READ AN ALTERNATIVE IHT DAILY NARRATIVE AT
A PLACE IN THE AUVERGNE

International Herald Tribune
IHT
New York Times
NYT

TV Guide Sold for a Buck (Advertising Age)



TV Guide Sold for a Buck
SEC Filing: Buyer Got $9.5 Million Loan From Macrovision to Do Deal
By
Nat Ives Published: October 15, 2008 NEW YORK (AdAge.com)
How much is TV Guide magazine worth in a morphing media business and molten credit markets? Try $1.
That's how much the private equity fund OpenGate Capital has agreed to pay Macrovision for the unprofitable magazine and all its liabilities. The cover price, by way of comparison, is $2.99.
Take this magazine -- please.
To sweeten the deal even further, Macrovision is loaning OpenGate up to $9.5 million to help get going -- at a very friendly 3% interest. "I'd borrow from Macrovision any time," one investment banker said of the terms. The terms were not disclosed when Macrovision said Monday it had struck a deal with OpenGate, but emerged in a Macrovision filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday.
For Macrovision, the deal clears from its books a money-losing print magazine and its 3 million subscribers who need to be serviced.
Money pit
It acquired the title when it bought Gemstar-TV Guide for its digital assets last January. But the magazine lost about $20.3 million in 2007, according to Gemstar's 10-K filing for the year ended December 2007. Gemstar said in that 10-K: "We currently anticipate continuing, but declining, losses for the next two to three years." OpenGate believes it can turn the title's liabilities into profits. "The reason we acquired this business is simple," OpenGate managing partner Andrew Nikou told AdAge.com yesterday. "It needed additional investment. We're investing in this company to take it to the next stage." Macrovision is selling cable's TV Guide Channel separately.





READ AN ALTERNATIVE IHT DAILY NARRATIVE AT
A PLACE IN THE AUVERGNE





International Herald Tribune
IHT
New York Times
NYT


Vacation /Business Trip Furnished Apartment in Paris

Wednesday, 15 October 2008

Credit cruch and opportunities for media companies.



I've posted a few times (most recently yesterday) on the NYT Company's need to probably buy or develop (invest) it's way out of trouble, but with debt ratings so low, slipping revenue projections for 2009 et al, this isn't looking so easy.

Here's what happened to this media group yesterday (as a matter of small interest they have their global HQ around the corner from the IHT HQ in Neuilly):

Credit crunch leads JCDecaux to abandon takeover
Reuters
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
PARIS: With the credit crunch making it impossible to finance a deal, JCDecaux scrapped efforts to buy News Corp.'s Russian billboard unit, an acquisition that would have created the world's largest billboard advertising company.
Shares in JCDecaux rose on relief that the company would not undertake the potentially risky venture into Russia and take on debt or issue stock to finance a deal. Shares in the company, which is based in Neuilly-sur-Seine, France, closed up 57 cents, or 4.2 percent at €14.09 in Paris.
The News Corp. chief executive, Rupert Murdoch, has expressed nervousness about Russia investments.
JCDecaux, the largest outdoor advertising company in Europe, said as recently as last week that it was pursuing its plan to buy News Outdoor Group, the Russian outdoor ad unit of News Corp.
But in a joint statement Tuesday, the two companies said, "Both companies recognize that economic and capital market conditions have made it increasingly difficult to conclude strategic partnerships on this scale."
Asked whether the freezing up of bank financing because of the credit crisis had been the reason for the decision, a JCDecaux spokeswoman said: "You can say that, yes."
Bruno Hareng, an analyst at Oddo Securities, said, "In the current climate, with tensions on credit markets, investors did not like the idea of JCDecaux taking on debt or coming up with a dilutive share issue."
"The deal entailed significant political and financial risks, even if it had a strategic appeal," Hareng added.
JCDecaux has been eager to expand in emerging markets, where News Outdoor is strong.
A combination of the two businesses would have created a company with annual revenue of about $3.3 billion, exceeding that of Clear Channel Outdoor, the world leader, which is based in Arizona.