April 19, 2024

You’re the Boss Blog: The Dangers and Benefits of Taking a Partner

Creating Value

Are you getting the most out of your business?

I’ve worked with both sole-owner companies and partnerships. There are a lot of obvious advantages to having one person in charge, one person who makes the big decisions. And of course there are many advantages to sharing the burdens of ownership with a partner. But partnership is a lot like marriage: It can go very wrong.

I recently had a conversation with long-time partners Roger Hajjar and Amit Jain from Prysm, a company based in San Jose, Calif., that makes large, flat-screen video displays that compete with LCD projectors. Mr. Hajjar, who invented the product, is chief technology officer. Mr. Jain is the chief executive. They believe partners should have an overlapping of abilities. When Mr. Jain is out of town and not available for sales calls, Mr. Hajjar can step in. When technical decisions have to be made and Mr. Hajjar is not available, Mr. Jain can pinch hit. But learning how to work together has not always been easy.

Luckily for Mr. Jain and Mr. Hajjar, they’ve had help from their equity partners, and they’ve been able to get advice along the way on best practices for working together. They’ve also had a board that they report to and their board keeps business needs front and center.

Many owners are not so lucky. They have to develop strategies for working together. The earlier they develop their rules of partnership, the more likely they are to succeed. Partners will have different skill sets, but it helps if, as in the case of Prysm, they can step in for each other. This makes for a stronger organization, and it also makes it easier for the company to attract venture capital and private equity, because investors prefer not to bet on one person. While Prysm’s goal is to go public, even companies with no such intention can benefit from a strong partnership that allows them to attract capital – whether it comes from local bankers, angel investors or friends and family.

The Prysm partners emphasize that, while it’s important to have a great business relationship, they don’t expect to be best friends. Mr. Jain and Hajjar have been in several partnerships over more than 20 years, but they don’t necessarily socialize with each other. And they have a hard and fast rule that they don’t get involved in each other’s personal decisions. Of course, even if you don’t want to get involved in your partner’s personal decisions, you do want to make sure your partner is not going to pursue personal behavior that could ruin the business. This is why a well-crafted shareholders’ agreement is an important part of building a partnership. In many respects, a shareholders’ agreement is the business equivalent of a pre-nuptial agreement.

As it happens, Mr. Hajjar and Mr. Jain do not have such an agreement. But they do have an agreement with their venture and private equity investors. If their relationship and partnership were to start to cause problems, their backers would have the right to replace them as managers of the company. Of course, no matter how strong the shareholders’ agreement, the key for a successful partnership is a high level of trust. This kind of trust can take years to build but can be destroyed in days if not hours. (A great book on building trust is “The Trusted Advisor,” published in 2001 by Touchstone.)

The Prysm partners meet face to face for an hour at least weekly. At this meeting they review the issues they have been discussing in passing or through e-mail. This is where they talk about ownership issues that they may not want to share with others in the company. It also is time for them to hash out any disagreements.

They recently had to review the resources they want to invest in their next-generation product. Mr. Hajjar wanted to go all-in, and Mr. Jain wasn’t ready. They ended up meeting in the middle. Because they have the same belief systems about what makes a business successful, their disagreements are rare. It’s what has allowed them to stay together in three separate partnerships over more than 20 years.

My time in business has convinced me that it’s harder to make a partnership work than to run a single-owner company. But if they are able to build and maintain trust, partners can create a business with more staying power. What do you think? Do you think the benefits of partnership outweigh the benefits of having one person in charge?

Article source: http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/the-dangers-and-benefits-of-taking-a-partner/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: China’s Baidu to Pay $370 Million for Internet Video Business

HONG KONG–Baidu, China’s biggest search engine, announced on Tuesday it would pay $370 million for the online video business of PPStream.

Baidu, which is listed on the Nasdaq, said it plans to fold the PPS Internet video business into its iQiyi unit, an advertising supported online television and movie portal, in order to form what it said would be China’s largest online video platform by number of mobile users and video viewing time.

The announcement of the Baidu deal came a week after Alibaba, one of China’s biggest Internet firms, agreed to pay $586 million for an 18 percent stake in Weibo, a leading Twitter-like microblogging service in China that is owned by the Nasdaq-listed Sina Corporation.

PPStream, a Shanghai firm that operates the popular PPS.tv domain, is a leading online broadcaster of television shows and movies in China that distributes content via desktop PCs and mobile apps.

Baidu’s own online video business, iQiyi, was originally launched as Qiyi in 2010 with backing from the private equity group Providence Equity Partners, based in Providence, Rhode Island. Baidu bought Providence Equity’s stake for an undisclosed sum in November.

Acquiring the video business from PPS will boost Baidu’s position in China’s fractious market for online entertainment and help iQiyi compete better against Youku Tudou, the country’s leading Internet television company. Youku Tudou is listed in New York and was formed last August after the completion of the merger between Youku Inc. and Tudou Holdings.

‘‘The merger of iQiyi and PPS’s online video business is a major step toward consolidation in the industry,’’ Gong Yu, the chief executive of Baidu’s video unit, said Tuesday in a statement. Combining the two under Baidu’s ownership will provide better content to users and offer more options to advertisers, Mr. Gong said.

Baidu said that following the deal, Mr. Gong would remain as the chief executive of iQiyi. He will be joined by Zhang Hongyu, the founder and chairman of PPS, and the PPS president Xu Weifeng, both of whom will serve as co-presidents in the merged online video unit.

Baidu said the transaction is expected to close in the second quarter of 2013.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/chinas-baidu-to-pay-370-million-for-internet-video-business/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Hulu’s Owners Call Off Plans to Sell Company

9:08 p.m. | Updated

Hulu’s owners, including the News Corporation, the Walt Disney Company and Providence Equity Partners, have decided not to sell the online video hub, the consortium announced late Thursday.

In a short statement, the owner group said that each of its members found value in holding on to the Web video company instead of selling it to any of a number of potential bidders.

“Since Hulu holds a unique and compelling strategic value to each of its owners, we have terminated the sale process and look forward to working together to continue mapping out its path to even greater success,” the consortium said.

Speculation that Hulu’s owners would decide against a sale had been building up for months. Helping drive that were cryptic comments by the News Corporation’s chief operating officer, Chase Carey, during that company’s earnings call in August. “Does it make sense to pursue that path or does it make sense for us to stay in an ownership position and continue to have it driven by content owners?” he asked.

As bids came in last month from Amazon, Dish Network, Google and others, Hulu’s owners expressed less interest in the valuations of the offers, people briefed on the bids said previously. Most of the bids did not exceed $2 billion, the valuation Hulu was aiming for in a potential initial public offering last year, these people said.

Since then, however, Hulu has begun programs like a $7.99-a-month subscription service that its owners argued significantly bolstered the company’s value. As of Oct. 5, Hulu counted more than one million subscribers to its Hulu Plus service, according to a blog post by its chief executive, Jason Kilar.

Many of the potential bids also hinged on striking longer-term deals with the content providers.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=6e37c4ce994280adc3c6eccb527f8e67

Hulu, Billed as Tomorrow’s TV, Looks Boxed In

Every sitcom. Every drama, documentary, reality show.

All of it — everything — Right Here Now.

This is the radical potential of the Internet. And this is the implicit promise of Hulu, the innovative Web site that drew the original borders of online television — the TV of tomorrow.

Hulu’s stated mission: “Help people find and enjoy the world’s premium video content when, where and how they want it.”

In the space of just four years, Hulu has done just that — to a point. Only now, with its industry in flux and the company up for sale, the divide between what is and what might be seems as daunting as ever.

This is the future of TV? Really? Today you can watch some shows on Hulu in their entirety. But others you can’t watch at all. Most fall somewhere in between — bound by contractual handcuffs that hamper prospective viewers. Making it even more baffling, some episodes are free while others require an $8-a-month subscription.

“It makes catching up on a show or starting a new show very difficult,” complains Marta Garczarczyk, a fund-raiser for a science museum in Minnesota who tried to watch the ABC’s “Cougar Town” and Fox’s “Glee” through the site last season.

Hulu executives largely have their hands tied. Viewers want more shows on more screens. But Hulu’s partners — the big networks — want steady profits. And, for the moment, the networks seem to have the upper hand.

Hulu is a joint venture of NBC Universal, part of Comcast; Fox Entertainment, part of the News Corporation; and ABC, part of Disney. An investment firm, Providence Equity Partners, owns about 10 percent.

Partnerships of rivals rarely last. And so Hulu finds itself on the block this summer. Representatives of Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Apple and others have kicked the tires, although no clear buyer has yet emerged and Hulu has steadfastly declined to comment.

But no matter who ends up spending billions to buy Hulu, the trick will be satisfying viewers. As Jason Kilar, Hulu’s visionary chief executive, put it in a blog post last February, “History has shown that incumbents tend to fight trends that challenge established ways and, in the process, lose focus on what matters most: customers.”

But — through no fault of Mr. Kilar — further limitations on the site’s bounty of free video may be on the horizon. For all the innovation that Hulu represents, the site also lays bare the gulf between what online viewers want and what TV companies are willing to give them.

“Customers always win,” Mr. Kilar has been known to tell his staff.

Maybe. But not always without a fight.

EVEN critics of Hulu concede that this company has accomplished something astonishing. It has helped to free television from the tyranny of the TV set.

For decades, people watched television one way: through a boxy contraption, tied to a schedule set by broadcasters. It was all supported by advertisers and beamed free over the airwaves.

As cable and satellite choices proliferated in the 1980s and 1990s, the business model changed: shows and channels were financed both by advertisers and subscribers. But the TV set and its TV Guide-era schedules still reigned. Not until 2006, when ABC became the first network to stream shows like “Lost” and “Grey’s Anatomy” on the Internet, did television programming truly roam free. A year after that, Hulu began taking mainstream the idea of streaming on TV, computers and cellphones.

The first hint of television’s unbundling actually came back in the 1980s, when viewers snapped up videocassette recorders. For the first time, they could record shows and watch them when they wanted. Once that happened, there was no going back. VCRs paved the way for TiVo and DVD box sets.

Each generation of technology met resistance from some in the television industry, a fact that Mr. Kilar knew at first hand before joining Hulu. While working at Amazon.com in the late 1990s, he wrote the business plan for the company’s VHS and DVD businesses. He witnessed skirmishes with TV studio chiefs who worried that direct sales of shows would damage the Blockbuster rental model. Over time, the studios came to embrace the sales model.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=49aed3d30ebb670b7527fa35abbd34f5