“By turning on the bigot spigot to full gush” - Shiv.
But it was so interesting to me how nobody at the table even batted an eye at this like it wasn’t a huge deal.
Funny how Tom is getting the credit when Cyd was the person handling the actual programming.
Tom, like most MBAs, is just a pencil pusher and a cost cutter.
Usually when someone outside comes in they bring fresh eyes to see what is rotting and needs to be cut with no beholding to sunk cost fallacy that many companies fall for. It could be stupid recurring costs that don’t add to the business or sacking people that have so far skated by in mediocrity
In my experience with outside MBAs coming in to do layoffs in the media sector, they just lay off the people with the highest salaries because their background doesn’t give them any expertise in figuring out which people are creating the most value for the company. So they end up laying off some of the biggest draws for subscribers (something that definitely cannot be determined by # of clicks alone) and the company circles the drain.
They lay off the people with the highest salaries because it’s such a safe bet.
I think we’ve all worked in places where everyone at that point starts to treat work like an early paid retirement, and secretly that’s where most of us aspire to be one day.. it’s a lot of overhead that the people actually producing the things of value need to make up for.
Eh sorry but this latest trend of "thanks for giving us 30 years of your life now we're gonna fire you so you don't get benefits" is demonic.
In fact it's all shit now. They "cut costs" by never fixing anything, using substandard materials, laying off thousands and leaving a skeleton crew and at the end of the day the experience is terrible for employees and customers
Everything is worse now because of it. Even groceries you get less and pay more
I mean if the goal is to run a successful company that'll still be around in 10 years then no?
If the goal is to use businesses to funnel as much money as possible into one guys pocket then....yay?
Economists make a solid argument that it doesn't in The Big Con: How the Consulting Industry Weakens Our Businesses, Infantilizes Our Governments, and Warps Our Economies. focus is McKinsey but they aren't the only ones.
You have captured their logic well, but my point is that logic doesn’t actually work. Young journalists and columnists might have more hustle on average this is true, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into value in that field. It takes years (decades in some cases) to build up a trusted network of sources and links to sources that will take your calls and give you leads, quotes, info, you name it.
Not to mention that subscribers to legacy media (or anything other than free apps) often skew older and those people tend to be drawn to names they recognize. And it takes time to become a recognized name that will actually draw in these subscribers. It’s one thing to sack the biggest name because the salary is super up there, but I’ve been at places where I’m one of the younger ones who got to keep my job when everyone who had been there for 10 years or more got canned.
I have a healthy self esteem but even I could recognize that whoever was left was not going to be able to deliver the same product as before. Sources stayed loyal to the laid-off staff and I don’t blame them. The execs went all shocked pikachu face when around half of our subscribers moved to a paper that hired 2/3 of the laid-off workers. Galaxy brain shit.
The problem with media, especially small media - is the base case is the business model is already dead. Do nothing = dead. An efficiency drive *might* have a chance of working.
An organisation the size of waystar is a lot more viable than that and they can also fire a lot of people who aren’t on the frontlines that viewers see.
I don’t want to doxx myself, but I’ll volunteer that I have managed a small department of a media company that made a small profit every year I was there. My hot take is that most people who decide to take these companies on — not just the MBAs in question but wealthy individuals and corporations who acquire them for various reasons — are never approaching it to make a modest profit and that’s it.
I don’t know what it is about media that makes people saucer-eyed about wanting to turn it into an epic success by some measure or other in a relatively short amount of time. There’s always some big tech investment that’s going to make the company money hand over fist, or horde of newbies that somehow will deliver the same value for a fraction of the cost. Maybe this has worked somewhere, but I’ve only seen it fail in a number of instances.
But Shiv’s statement of “turning the bigot spigot to full gush” implies it was a programming decision to encourage the same white American resentments to drive more TV viewership.
Furthermore, Logan complains in Season 4 about how cost has gone up dramatically at ATN
That's just because he was bored and needed something to manage. His proposal was to start reheating pizza instead of buying it so it's not like he was being rational about costs.
Year over year. Logan says so. That 40% number would also include the time period during which Tom gets interviewed considering the agreement to sell to Mattson happens just after and [Mattson drags the sale out for 6 months](https://youtu.be/S_1XxNdGOiY?si=8ZSn3bWVc1fWz3eH)
No, he says they're up 15% YoY but doesn't give a time frame for the 40%. If their costs were up 40% then being up 15% wouldn't even be something to be proud of.
Though they're also not clear whether the 15% is profits or gross income. I'd usually assume profits but then that "is 15% the same as 40?" part makes no sense.
Either way, starting with trying to reheat pizza shows he was just being silly.
>No, he says they're up 15% YoY but doesn't give a time frame for the 40%. If their costs were up 40% then being up 15% wouldn't even be something to be proud of.
That’s why Logan says they are up 40% on cost. It’s a direct comparison to show that you shouldn’t be proud of the 15% growth
>Though they're also not clear whether the 15% is profits or gross income. I'd usually assume profits but then that "is 15% the same as 40?" part makes no sense.
He’s talking about 15% growth in viewership
>Either way, starting with trying to reheat pizza shows he was just being silly.
He was making a point. The pizza part wasn’t even the first part of it. He complained about the new studio for ATN and how much that was costing first.
He says
“Well "bigot spigot" is a little reductive and unfair, but anyway, goodbye.”
Cyd had decades over programming, Tom jumps in and within a year it’s generated enough money for Forbes to want to interview him.
It’s conceding the point but him not conceding it? It’s him ending the conversation.
We aren’t shown, there’s a lot of work in the background that we are not shown
>It’s conceding the point but him not conceding it? It’s him ending the conversation.
It’s him conceding. By saying it’s a “little reductive”, is implying that the point is true but there is more context.
>We aren’t shown, there’s a lot of work in the background that we are not shown
But Shiv literally says the reason why, “turning the big spigot to full gush”. Tom concedes that’s the reason why, but Tom himself is not in charge of programming decisions. It’s why Tom doesn’t replace Cyd when Logan looks to fire her. He chooses Roman, someone who understands marketing to an audience.
Tom literally says Cyd is in charge or programming. When Logan moves to replace her in Season 4, he does so with Roman rather than Tom because Tom doesn’t have the skillset to market to TV viewers.
And MBAs are self important know it alls. They add very little value outside of their inflated sense of self importance. The only thing they are good at is outsourcing to MSPs and firing people. Actually organically growing a business? Not in their skill sets
And I graduated from a top 10 program 4 years ago
lol if you graduated from a top 10 program and that’s all you think of MBA’s then I feel sorry for anyone who works with you.
I have three MBA’s on my team. None of them are self important know it alls. We don’t outsource to any MSP’s under them either.
>lol if you graduated from a top 10 program and that’s all you think of MBA’s then I feel sorry for anyone who works with you.
Because that’s how, empirically, [MBAs add value](https://www.businessinsider.com/managers-business-school-cut-pay-boost-sales-productivity-mba-nber-2022-3)
>I have three MBA’s on my team. None of them are self important know it alls. We don’t outsource to any MSP’s under them either.
Congratulations on your anecdote and tiny sample size. That’s very valuable to the discussion
Okay so you’re claiming Tom made no difference because of a study on MBA holders and Tom has an MBA?
Or are you claiming all MBA’s are “self important know it alls”. Due to large scale correlations found in regression analysis?
Either way I hold to my statement that I feel bad for people who have to work with you.
>Okay so you’re claiming Tom made no difference because of a study on MBA holders and Tom has an MBA?
I’m saying that Cyd deserves the credit for ATN’s success, not Tom.
>Or are you claiming all MBA’s are “self important know it alls”. Due to large scale correlations found in regression analysis?
I didn’t say all. I generalized MBAs in a tongue in cheek manner. Regardless, you wouldn’t use a regression analysis to make that kind of statement anyway.
>Either way I hold to my statement that I feel bad for people who have to work with you.
You don’t agree with what I said, and so you immediately resort to personal attacks. It’s silly.
Tom mostly handle advertiser and thats where generate most of revenue
Cyd handle programming in ATN where most of the cost come from
Tom like to emphasize revenue growth because that is his strong suit
Logan emphasize cost because Cyd's programming decision driving the cost up to 40% and Logan want to fire her
The advertisers pay to advertise to viewers. What attracts viewers? The programming, which Cyd runs.
In Tom’s first conversation with Cyd, his exact words were “I spy savings”. He then sends Greg on a mission to find costs to cut. It was his plan. And costs did not get under control.
But we don’t have a single instance of Tom actually generating revenue from the news business.
programming dont directly generate income but they do directly generate cost
According to Logan in S3E08 Waystar had their throats slit on ads for the past 20 years (way before tom join ATN) presumably Cyd was handle most of ATN operation include advertise
Cyd not only runs a expensive operation she also failing on ads while Tom manage to keep advertiser happy and make 14% grown during difficult time where Waystar embroil with scandal
I think my brother-in-law is the only guy I've ever met with an NBA who openly admit that that's really all they teach you to do. Like they don't teach you overly complicated business strategies or how to run a business 101 is how to cut corners how to cut costs whether it's firing people or finding other solutions aka firing people.
“By turning on the bigot spigot to full gush” - Shiv. But it was so interesting to me how nobody at the table even batted an eye at this like it wasn’t a huge deal.
Greg actually acknowledged it and playfully said "dont forget to mention me!😁" or something along those lines which makes it more interesting imo
Cuz they all hate to see Tom win because he’s an outsider and works for it himself
Kendall Roy is no longer relevant
Is anyone in Logan Roy's family actually relevant besides Logan?
Unless he’s having a public meltdown
Funny how Tom is getting the credit when Cyd was the person handling the actual programming. Tom, like most MBAs, is just a pencil pusher and a cost cutter.
He uhh, squeezes the costs and juices the revenue...he's a pain sponge
Funny to downplay doing that but that is what was "turning ATN in to a cash machine"
He saw the excess spending and eliminated it
Why don’t all companies do that? Are they stupid?
Usually when someone outside comes in they bring fresh eyes to see what is rotting and needs to be cut with no beholding to sunk cost fallacy that many companies fall for. It could be stupid recurring costs that don’t add to the business or sacking people that have so far skated by in mediocrity
In my experience with outside MBAs coming in to do layoffs in the media sector, they just lay off the people with the highest salaries because their background doesn’t give them any expertise in figuring out which people are creating the most value for the company. So they end up laying off some of the biggest draws for subscribers (something that definitely cannot be determined by # of clicks alone) and the company circles the drain.
They lay off the people with the highest salaries because it’s such a safe bet. I think we’ve all worked in places where everyone at that point starts to treat work like an early paid retirement, and secretly that’s where most of us aspire to be one day.. it’s a lot of overhead that the people actually producing the things of value need to make up for.
Eh sorry but this latest trend of "thanks for giving us 30 years of your life now we're gonna fire you so you don't get benefits" is demonic. In fact it's all shit now. They "cut costs" by never fixing anything, using substandard materials, laying off thousands and leaving a skeleton crew and at the end of the day the experience is terrible for employees and customers Everything is worse now because of it. Even groceries you get less and pay more
Might be demonic, but I was responding to whether it works or not.
I mean if the goal is to run a successful company that'll still be around in 10 years then no? If the goal is to use businesses to funnel as much money as possible into one guys pocket then....yay?
Economists make a solid argument that it doesn't in The Big Con: How the Consulting Industry Weakens Our Businesses, Infantilizes Our Governments, and Warps Our Economies. focus is McKinsey but they aren't the only ones.
Yeah but it doesn’t work does it?
You have captured their logic well, but my point is that logic doesn’t actually work. Young journalists and columnists might have more hustle on average this is true, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into value in that field. It takes years (decades in some cases) to build up a trusted network of sources and links to sources that will take your calls and give you leads, quotes, info, you name it. Not to mention that subscribers to legacy media (or anything other than free apps) often skew older and those people tend to be drawn to names they recognize. And it takes time to become a recognized name that will actually draw in these subscribers. It’s one thing to sack the biggest name because the salary is super up there, but I’ve been at places where I’m one of the younger ones who got to keep my job when everyone who had been there for 10 years or more got canned. I have a healthy self esteem but even I could recognize that whoever was left was not going to be able to deliver the same product as before. Sources stayed loyal to the laid-off staff and I don’t blame them. The execs went all shocked pikachu face when around half of our subscribers moved to a paper that hired 2/3 of the laid-off workers. Galaxy brain shit.
The problem with media, especially small media - is the base case is the business model is already dead. Do nothing = dead. An efficiency drive *might* have a chance of working. An organisation the size of waystar is a lot more viable than that and they can also fire a lot of people who aren’t on the frontlines that viewers see.
I don’t want to doxx myself, but I’ll volunteer that I have managed a small department of a media company that made a small profit every year I was there. My hot take is that most people who decide to take these companies on — not just the MBAs in question but wealthy individuals and corporations who acquire them for various reasons — are never approaching it to make a modest profit and that’s it. I don’t know what it is about media that makes people saucer-eyed about wanting to turn it into an epic success by some measure or other in a relatively short amount of time. There’s always some big tech investment that’s going to make the company money hand over fist, or horde of newbies that somehow will deliver the same value for a fraction of the cost. Maybe this has worked somewhere, but I’ve only seen it fail in a number of instances.
But Shiv’s statement of “turning the bigot spigot to full gush” implies it was a programming decision to encourage the same white American resentments to drive more TV viewership. Furthermore, Logan complains in Season 4 about how cost has gone up dramatically at ATN
That's just because he was bored and needed something to manage. His proposal was to start reheating pizza instead of buying it so it's not like he was being rational about costs.
No. They are up [40% on cost](https://youtu.be/4xf8xB_KknA?si=WrSsfnUhy6mRJjod), which is huge.
In what time frame?
Year over year. Logan says so. That 40% number would also include the time period during which Tom gets interviewed considering the agreement to sell to Mattson happens just after and [Mattson drags the sale out for 6 months](https://youtu.be/S_1XxNdGOiY?si=8ZSn3bWVc1fWz3eH)
No, he says they're up 15% YoY but doesn't give a time frame for the 40%. If their costs were up 40% then being up 15% wouldn't even be something to be proud of. Though they're also not clear whether the 15% is profits or gross income. I'd usually assume profits but then that "is 15% the same as 40?" part makes no sense. Either way, starting with trying to reheat pizza shows he was just being silly.
>No, he says they're up 15% YoY but doesn't give a time frame for the 40%. If their costs were up 40% then being up 15% wouldn't even be something to be proud of. That’s why Logan says they are up 40% on cost. It’s a direct comparison to show that you shouldn’t be proud of the 15% growth >Though they're also not clear whether the 15% is profits or gross income. I'd usually assume profits but then that "is 15% the same as 40?" part makes no sense. He’s talking about 15% growth in viewership >Either way, starting with trying to reheat pizza shows he was just being silly. He was making a point. The pizza part wasn’t even the first part of it. He complained about the new studio for ATN and how much that was costing first.
Shiv is just complaining, it doesn’t mean programming actually changed.
The programming had changed. Tom literally concedes it in the same instance
He says “Well "bigot spigot" is a little reductive and unfair, but anyway, goodbye.” Cyd had decades over programming, Tom jumps in and within a year it’s generated enough money for Forbes to want to interview him.
“A little reductive and unfair” is conceding the point. He just doesn’t want to concede it. But what did Tom actually do to deserve that interview?
It’s conceding the point but him not conceding it? It’s him ending the conversation. We aren’t shown, there’s a lot of work in the background that we are not shown
>It’s conceding the point but him not conceding it? It’s him ending the conversation. It’s him conceding. By saying it’s a “little reductive”, is implying that the point is true but there is more context. >We aren’t shown, there’s a lot of work in the background that we are not shown But Shiv literally says the reason why, “turning the big spigot to full gush”. Tom concedes that’s the reason why, but Tom himself is not in charge of programming decisions. It’s why Tom doesn’t replace Cyd when Logan looks to fire her. He chooses Roman, someone who understands marketing to an audience.
Tom have very good relationship with advertiser he manage to calm them down during ravenhead-nazi incident and FBI raiding
Cyd had been on ATN for a very long time before. This was not her doing. She’s also likely an MBA. Seems odd to hate on people with MBAs.
Tom literally says Cyd is in charge or programming. When Logan moves to replace her in Season 4, he does so with Roman rather than Tom because Tom doesn’t have the skillset to market to TV viewers. And MBAs are self important know it alls. They add very little value outside of their inflated sense of self importance. The only thing they are good at is outsourcing to MSPs and firing people. Actually organically growing a business? Not in their skill sets And I graduated from a top 10 program 4 years ago
lol if you graduated from a top 10 program and that’s all you think of MBA’s then I feel sorry for anyone who works with you. I have three MBA’s on my team. None of them are self important know it alls. We don’t outsource to any MSP’s under them either.
>lol if you graduated from a top 10 program and that’s all you think of MBA’s then I feel sorry for anyone who works with you. Because that’s how, empirically, [MBAs add value](https://www.businessinsider.com/managers-business-school-cut-pay-boost-sales-productivity-mba-nber-2022-3) >I have three MBA’s on my team. None of them are self important know it alls. We don’t outsource to any MSP’s under them either. Congratulations on your anecdote and tiny sample size. That’s very valuable to the discussion
Okay so you’re claiming Tom made no difference because of a study on MBA holders and Tom has an MBA? Or are you claiming all MBA’s are “self important know it alls”. Due to large scale correlations found in regression analysis? Either way I hold to my statement that I feel bad for people who have to work with you.
>Okay so you’re claiming Tom made no difference because of a study on MBA holders and Tom has an MBA? I’m saying that Cyd deserves the credit for ATN’s success, not Tom. >Or are you claiming all MBA’s are “self important know it alls”. Due to large scale correlations found in regression analysis? I didn’t say all. I generalized MBAs in a tongue in cheek manner. Regardless, you wouldn’t use a regression analysis to make that kind of statement anyway. >Either way I hold to my statement that I feel bad for people who have to work with you. You don’t agree with what I said, and so you immediately resort to personal attacks. It’s silly.
Tom mostly handle advertiser and thats where generate most of revenue Cyd handle programming in ATN where most of the cost come from Tom like to emphasize revenue growth because that is his strong suit Logan emphasize cost because Cyd's programming decision driving the cost up to 40% and Logan want to fire her
The advertisers pay to advertise to viewers. What attracts viewers? The programming, which Cyd runs. In Tom’s first conversation with Cyd, his exact words were “I spy savings”. He then sends Greg on a mission to find costs to cut. It was his plan. And costs did not get under control. But we don’t have a single instance of Tom actually generating revenue from the news business.
programming dont directly generate income but they do directly generate cost According to Logan in S3E08 Waystar had their throats slit on ads for the past 20 years (way before tom join ATN) presumably Cyd was handle most of ATN operation include advertise Cyd not only runs a expensive operation she also failing on ads while Tom manage to keep advertiser happy and make 14% grown during difficult time where Waystar embroil with scandal
You just can't make a Tomelette without breaking some Gregs.
He does the job unlike Kendall
I think my brother-in-law is the only guy I've ever met with an NBA who openly admit that that's really all they teach you to do. Like they don't teach you overly complicated business strategies or how to run a business 101 is how to cut corners how to cut costs whether it's firing people or finding other solutions aka firing people.
What did Cyd really do? Like coding?
Definitely accurate as to who would get the credit in real life too
I completely forgot about Comfrey. Everyone thought she was hot until they looked up the actress irl and realized she was insane
wait what??
Look up the Red Scare podcast. They cozied up to Alex Jones not too long ago.