Due to work and some of his friends, I was in a position to spend a weekend with Outside founder Larry Burke. Based on what I saw, I am not sure Outside changed as much as the world forced it to change? (Somehow said in the form of a question.) Meaning at the time Outside was really profitable because they had a product and people paid premium for it. Now, that product is worth less-so the company has to change to the consumers demands. And just because it is different, does not mean it does not have a market.
No 1, I am not an expert in ths category.
No 2, I canceled my subscription to Outside after about 15 years because the magazine became redundant and I lost interest in the content.
No 3, this seems to be the way to world is evolving. And as long as their are consumers-companies will adapt to find amd maximize their profit.
I agree with you! Outside had to shift to keep up with where advertisers were going. However, my point is that a change this seismic - essentially laying off the entire editorial team - is a drastic restructuring rather than “just keeping up.” I’m sure they’ve gained some new readers (if we can call them that?) but lost a ton of long-term subscribers in the shift. I think it’s both a sign of the times AND an unnecessarily dramatic restructuring.
Without seeing the balance sheet its really hard to tell if it was drastic or not.
Especially if you take some of the content from your video and assume they are more focused on being an "event" or multimedia company. (I don't know for sure - have not studied it.)
What I do know - management does not normally get rid of assests that are producing a profit.
(Full disclusure: I own a small agriculture/horticulture business and have limited access to the outdoors industry through advising a close friend and his small business.
My comments only come from 30 years of running businesses not expertise in this specific area.)
Yeah, I hear what you're saying! Here's the difference for me: if Thurston had only bought Outside Magazine (or even a few other similar magazines), I would understand looking at this from a balance sheet, "where can we cut" perspective. Plenty of traditional publications have had to make cuts to editorial staff to make room for, say, social media staff. But because he bought Outside along with a BUNCH of other companies (tech, event planning, etc), the balance sheet of Outside is compared against a tech product rather than a publication. So that would be like a tech company buying your small business and then saying "the horticulture stuff isn't working, we need to cut it." 😅 I get that's how it works! But there are other examples of how Outside could have continued its reporting without completely dismantling the less profitable, but highly loved components.
And your example of a big company buying my company and then dismantling it....that could have happened in 2021. (Won't bore you with the details, but what you just described is happening in my industry at a rapid pace. And in some cases not fast enough to save any jobs. And in all cases my industry is paying for it. Agriculture is not a space for the faint of heart.)
I said no to selling. Why? Because the timing was not right.
These aquisitions are seldom done because they want the company. They are done because they want the brand and the market share. (Short-cut their growth curve.) They want to wrap everything up and reduce the operating expenses to speed up their ROI. (sounds like you know this.)
We as consumers need to let them fail-especially if the product is not what we want. We need to cheer on their failure. Why? Because it opens the door for new entrepenuers, ew products and/or new services.
I'd be curious to hear what it was like to spend time with Larry Burke! Because you're right, it was essentially his decision to sell, and for whatever reason, he believed Thurston to be the right buyer.
And I've been happy to see other long-form outdoors journalism pop up in its absence: Mountain Gazette, Trails Mag, Southlands, and RE:PUBLIC (started by the former editor of Outside) have all had space now that Outside is... something else.
Due to work and some of his friends, I was in a position to spend a weekend with Outside founder Larry Burke. Based on what I saw, I am not sure Outside changed as much as the world forced it to change? (Somehow said in the form of a question.) Meaning at the time Outside was really profitable because they had a product and people paid premium for it. Now, that product is worth less-so the company has to change to the consumers demands. And just because it is different, does not mean it does not have a market.
No 1, I am not an expert in ths category.
No 2, I canceled my subscription to Outside after about 15 years because the magazine became redundant and I lost interest in the content.
No 3, this seems to be the way to world is evolving. And as long as their are consumers-companies will adapt to find amd maximize their profit.
I agree with you! Outside had to shift to keep up with where advertisers were going. However, my point is that a change this seismic - essentially laying off the entire editorial team - is a drastic restructuring rather than “just keeping up.” I’m sure they’ve gained some new readers (if we can call them that?) but lost a ton of long-term subscribers in the shift. I think it’s both a sign of the times AND an unnecessarily dramatic restructuring.
You raise a really good question(s).
Without seeing the balance sheet its really hard to tell if it was drastic or not.
Especially if you take some of the content from your video and assume they are more focused on being an "event" or multimedia company. (I don't know for sure - have not studied it.)
What I do know - management does not normally get rid of assests that are producing a profit.
(Full disclusure: I own a small agriculture/horticulture business and have limited access to the outdoors industry through advising a close friend and his small business.
My comments only come from 30 years of running businesses not expertise in this specific area.)
Yeah, I hear what you're saying! Here's the difference for me: if Thurston had only bought Outside Magazine (or even a few other similar magazines), I would understand looking at this from a balance sheet, "where can we cut" perspective. Plenty of traditional publications have had to make cuts to editorial staff to make room for, say, social media staff. But because he bought Outside along with a BUNCH of other companies (tech, event planning, etc), the balance sheet of Outside is compared against a tech product rather than a publication. So that would be like a tech company buying your small business and then saying "the horticulture stuff isn't working, we need to cut it." 😅 I get that's how it works! But there are other examples of how Outside could have continued its reporting without completely dismantling the less profitable, but highly loved components.
Love your comments.
And your example of a big company buying my company and then dismantling it....that could have happened in 2021. (Won't bore you with the details, but what you just described is happening in my industry at a rapid pace. And in some cases not fast enough to save any jobs. And in all cases my industry is paying for it. Agriculture is not a space for the faint of heart.)
I said no to selling. Why? Because the timing was not right.
These aquisitions are seldom done because they want the company. They are done because they want the brand and the market share. (Short-cut their growth curve.) They want to wrap everything up and reduce the operating expenses to speed up their ROI. (sounds like you know this.)
We as consumers need to let them fail-especially if the product is not what we want. We need to cheer on their failure. Why? Because it opens the door for new entrepenuers, ew products and/or new services.
I'd be curious to hear what it was like to spend time with Larry Burke! Because you're right, it was essentially his decision to sell, and for whatever reason, he believed Thurston to be the right buyer.
And I've been happy to see other long-form outdoors journalism pop up in its absence: Mountain Gazette, Trails Mag, Southlands, and RE:PUBLIC (started by the former editor of Outside) have all had space now that Outside is... something else.
I am pretty sure he only sold because he was 78 and had all the success anyone could ever dream of.
Your second paragraph. Thats hitting the nail on the head.
Instead of wanting Outside to be something it no longer is. Get behind those new publications. (I really like Re:Public as well.)