Synergies? Fox News Skips Fox's Own Social Network For Facebook
from the synergies-don't-mean-much dept
While we do believe that there can be so-called "synergies" in various mergers and acquisitions, it often does seem as though companies over state what those benefits may be. Take, for example, the news that TV channel Fox News has set up shop on Facebook, rather than the social network's main competitor, MySpace. MySpace just so happens to be owned by Fox -- so it may seem odd that Fox News chose to go with Facebook rather than sister company MySpace. Basically, it appears that Fox News recognized that it was more likely to find an audience on Facebook than MySpace. This highlights just how silly some expected "synergies" often turn out to be. While many may have expected that the close relationship between Fox News and MySpace would mean that there's some advantage to both organizations to work together, the truth was the opposite. If Fox News had gone with MySpace instead, due to "synergies," (i.e., management mandates that those two companies work together) the end effect would have been worse. Fox News would have gone with the social network that didn't fit as well -- just to please management. So, rather than a "benefit" the so-called synergy would have been a net negative. In other words, the so-called "synergies" wouldn't actually have been... well... synergistic. The end result shows why so many mergers over so-called "synergies" don't really make much sense. If there's true synergy between the separate organizations, then they can work together as partners, rather than from within the same company. Otherwise, you get a situation where you may be locked in to a partner who is not as good as one outside your organization. (Post updated to clarify).
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Shouldn't post while high
Puff, Puff, Give man. Seriously, that made close to no fucking sense whatsoever.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
^^^
LMFAO!! So true ... those last few sentences made 0 sense. I had to check to make sure I wasn't high.
Seriously OP ... you seem to have gone a little trigger happy with the word "synergy".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
evidently the synergy here was with facebook not with myspace.
and yeah that article didn't make much sense.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
confused
I'll have to agree with the comments above. Please rephrase the article it did not make sense at all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
clarified
Hey guys,
Hmm. Sorry. I reread it and still didn't find it that confusing (and, no, not high). But, I still tried to rewrite it to clarify a bit. Sorry if it was confusing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Murdoc didn't purchase Myspace to be synergistic with Fox News....seriously...where do people come up with these articles?
Myspace was a hot commodity and scooped up swiftly and now they really just don't know how to score with it (in the money sense).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
'Synergy' is corporate speak for 'blow'
Thought everybody knew that...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Had an Econ Professor once . . .
Told me there was no such thing as a successful "synergestic merger" in the entire history of modern economics. The term is mainly just used to support deals that make no actual financial sense.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Had an Econ Professor once . . .
Yep, that's the truth. "Synergy" is corporate-speak for "we have no clue how this will work."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I do not know why they just did not have some one make a little CGI program they will automatically allow them to submit every thing they send to facebook to also send it to myspace and youtube. They would have more viewers and possibilities
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Synergies
Guess it would be too difficult for them to setup shop on both myspace and facebook...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment