View Print Friendly Version
The Bancroft Family Reminds The World: “It’s About the Brand, Stupid.”
© Cheryl Hodgson 2007 | Posted on July 24, 2007
Why would News Corp. offer to pay $60 per share for the Wall Street Journal, with near constant media debate over the last two months over the true value of the deal? Simple answer: “It’s all about the brand.” That magical intangible, but very real, asset known as good will, is symbolized by the trademarks associated with the business—its brands. “Good will” is the value of a business above and beyond its hard assets, the premium in value placed upon what legal scholars have called the “lure of the place” and the reputation one believes a business has come to enjoy.
No matter how they vote, the Bancroft family is to be commended. While divided in their opinions, the Bancroft family’s considered care and deliberation of the deal has included much discussion over protecting the legacy of the last 100 years. What will happen to that legacy in the hands of Rupert Murdoch? Money and profits, for sure. But is that the only consideration?
A discussion of protecting the publications’ reputation in this case is an unusual modern day example of a struggle, not just about money—but about the brand! Yes, about the brand. The Bancroft family has already shown to the world that the continued future good-will is what matters to many of the family members, and that protecting the good will of the Dow Jones brands for future generations is not merely a question of money. In the wrong hands, the value of any brand can be tarnished cheapened. Given Rupert Murdoch’s history, the issues being raised are important.
The WSJ reported the Bancroft family met for six hours on Monday 7/23 to discuss the pending offer from News Corp for the Dow Jones businesses, including the fate of Wall Street Journal and the impact the acquisition might have upon journalistic freedom and integrity. .
Commentator Cody Willard opined on National Public Radio’s Market Place. “But content remains king. That's all the more reason for media companies to keep up their brand credibility.” .
This is another aspect of “impact” upon brand value. Will readers still believe they are getting true journalistic integrity? News Corp’s Fox Channel reporting has always left me shivering and reaching for the dial, not because of its politics, but because of its tabloid inflammatory style, which shows displays little propensity for principles of journalistic integrity. I for one wonder if I could ever view a story in the WSJ with the same confidence and respect as I do now if this deal goes through. In the back of my mind, I’ll always be wondering if the stories have been “chilled” in some way, one step shy of the current reporting we’ve all come to admire and respect. Alone, I would have no adverse impact upon the brand but what if millions respond the same way? Is this not an impact upon the brand?
In mid-June, family members concern for the future of the brands was echoed in the weekend edition of the WSJ of June 15-17, 2007, in which Sarah Ellison wrote: “the family is expected to continue to press for limits on News Corp’s ability to use the Dow Jones’ brands.” On the other hand, Murdoch desires to leverage the brand in his other media outlets, including a new business channel News Corp is planning to launch.
In some cases, it’s not all about the money. In some rare and wonderful scenarios, “it’s about the brand, stupid.”
No Comments »