I wonder what Mr. Parsons has been smoking

In a Reuters article today, Richard Parsons, the head of Time Warner and arguably one of the "brains" behind the Time Warner takeover of AOL (remember the original deal was the other way round but Parsons then worked for AOL) said the new media better not take on the old media. Coverage of a panel at the 56th annual National Cable & Telecommunications Association conference had Parsons caliming that "The Googles of the world, they are the Custer of the modern world. We are the Sioux nation," Oh, really now. What happened to AOL's market share when Mr. Parsons was running that shop? More importantly what has happened to Time and some of the other "rich" franchises of the Time-Warner enterprise under his watch? In case Mr. Parsons has forgotten his history (as he seems to have in the Custer example) I have reprinted the stock chart for AOL-Time Warner since the merger in 2000. Does the hill at the mark of the merger look at all like Little Big Horn? Mr. Parsons should be a bit more careful about his history both about his own stewardship of Time Warner (which has been less than examplary) and also of the history of the Sioux nation. One thing for sure, the Battle of Little Big Horn was of immense immediate importance and of lesser importance as time went on.

A fundamental issue facing the old media is their inability to respond in a reasonable manner to all of the new challenges produced by the new media. Has the new media found an economic model that will work in all situations? Not yet. But are they further along than companies stuck in the last century? Absolutely. The top chart in the post is Google's from its initial public offering, it gives a better picture than Mr. Parsons of what has been happening since Parsons helped AOL jump into the old media business.