« Sunday, March 7, 2004. | Main | Monday, April 12, 2004. Some »
March 8, 2004
Monday, March 8, 2004.
Monday, March 8, 2004. Bill Grimes RespondsCharlie - Three points:
1. Your fundamental argument that senior corporate management has not been diligent in its oversight of AOL is undebatable. Any one of your examples is enough to create change at the Logan/Miller level. That three ethical/"taste" indescetions and failures have occurred is inexcusable. Further, the incompetence of management in the advertising campaign's wrong-headed targeting of prospective AOL customers and their failure to promote AOL's new broadband capabiity are simply not tolerable to a coprorate CEO and his Board. Major management changes are needed. This is particularly so because despite AOL's swoon it still has significant value and likely contribute 15-20% of the value of Time Warner's sdhare price. Therefore the mismanagement you alluded to has been felt by shareholders. The other side of that coin is that any improvement in AOL's operating performance will have a positive impact on the share price. Thus management oversight and involvement is critically important.
2. You weaken the above key argument a bit by bringing Pittman in to your commentary. Logan's alleged dislike for Bob is immaterial to his recent performance as the company's senior executive overseeing AOL. Additionally, your longtime close relationship to Pittman should be revealed herein as journalistic fairness would dictate. Also, your lament suggests a yearning for past management at AOL and I doubt many knowledgeable observers would agree that that is what AOL needs to arrest its decline and begin to progress again. Whether the latter is possible I do not know but bringing back past leaders (which you did not explicitly suggest) is a dubious strategy.
3. The question not asked in your blog is why has this oversight occurred and why have there been all these examples of AOL managemnt transgressions? My answer begins with the name change at the company when Parsons and the Board decided to remove AOL from the AOL/Time Warner corporate name. Think about the (not-so-subtle) psychological message this sends to all the company's employees but most clearly and depressingly to all AOL people. "The company is expunging our existence. Our history is being re-written. AOL doesn't matter that much anymore," has to be their reaction.
This name change event and its message which as the days passed became even more debilitating for those people at AOL created an environment that spoke loudly two things: (1) no here is really accountable anymore (Logan with his very successful career in publishingprobably was less than enthusiastic when Parson asked him to take the AOL responsibility) and,(2) since no one is accountable and because the Board and Parsons don't care enough about AOL to even retain its name, we aren't really expected to perform with excellence and strive for greatness as a company. And, maybe even, let's personally grab all we can. The thinking from the two executives that stole from the company was likely that no one cares and no one is watching. A perfect environment for mischief and failed business goals.
Where is the Board? Where is Parsons? Is there anybody out there?
Charlie responds: You're absolutely right, Bill, the Pittman references was irrelevant and I should have revealed my long association and friendship with Bob. Also, I'm envious because your response was a lot better than my blog. Thanks for sharing your wisdom.
Posted by Charles Warner at March 8, 2004 12:03 PM
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)Printer-Friendly