The Warner Bros. Curse : Planet Cash : NPR

[ad_1] <img src="https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims3/default/strip/false/crop/7920x5138+0+0/resize/1100/quality/50/format/jpeg/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F47%2F8c%2F98afb55a4ca7b4e00d56f7440980%2Fgettyimages-2250244696.jpg" data-template="https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims3/default/strip/false/crop/7920x5138+0+0/resize/{width}/quality/{quality}/format/{format}/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F47%2F8c%2F98afb55a4ca7b4e00d56f7440980%2Fgettyimages-2250244696.jpg" class="img" alt="BURBANK, CALIFORNIA - DECEMBER 05: An aerial view of the Warner Bros. logo displayed on the water tower at Warner Bros. Studio on December 5, 2025 in Burbank, California." fetchpriority="high"/> An aerial view of the Warner Bros. brand displayed on the water tower at Warner Bros. Studio on Dec. 5, 2025 in Burbank, Calif. Mario Tama/Getty Pictures conceal caption

toggle caption

Mario Tama/Getty Pictures Netflix and Paramount are in One Huge Battle After One other to purchase the storied Hollywood studio Warner Bros. (Sure, One Battle After One other is a Warner Bros. film).

This is not the primary time Warner Bros. has been on the heart of headline-grabbing merger or acquisition. Really, Warner Bros. has an extended historical past of messy company marriages and divorces. It could possibly be a cautionary story in regards to the risks of mergers and acquisitions. You can even name it the Warner Bros. Curse.

Over the past decade alone, the Warner Bros. Curse has proven itself not less than twice. In 2018, after a two-year regulatory battle, AT&T acquired what was then known as Time Warner for $85.4 billion, and renamed the corporate WarnerMedia. Many believed AT&T overpaid for the corporate, and the inventory market by no means appeared to actually love this deal. WarnerMedia struggled to seek out huge earnings in streaming, its film enterprise was devastated by the pandemic, and the businesses' cultures by no means actually jibed with one another.

And so — in a deal that represented tens of billions of {dollars} in losses for its shareholders — AT&T bought shares and ceded management of WarnerMedia to Discovery Inc. The 2 formally merged in 2022, forming Warner Bros. Discovery, which remains to be this Frankenstein of an organization's title (Frankenstein is one other Warner Bros. property).

Since then, the corporate has made a collection of weird selections, like rebranding its streaming service HBO as HBO Max after which Max after which again to HBO Max. There have been different debacles. Like, regardless of the film being almost performed — and regardless of the very fact that they had spent almost $90 million making it — Warner Bros. Discovery shelved BatGirl (and apparently wrote the loss off on their taxes). Extra just lately, the corporate purchased the rights to stream the present Mad Males, and as a part of its launch on the streaming platform, it sought to remaster the collection right into a widescreen, 4K format. However the manufacturing crew apparently did not do their due diligence and ensure all of it seemed good earlier than releasing it. The end result: those that watched Mad Males on HBO Max noticed issues just like the manufacturing crew within the body, together with, in a single scene, a technician holding a "vomit hose" as one in all their actors pretended to throw up. This entire chapter of Warner Bros. historical past has confirmed to be, um, Looney Tunes.

Economists who research mergers and acquisitions have lengthy puzzled over why so many company marriages go fallacious. "Research after research places the failure price of mergers and acquisitions someplace between 70% and 90%," wrote the legendary Harvard Enterprise College scholar Clayton Christensen and colleagues in Harvard Enterprise Overview again in 2011. The story of Warner Bros. is a reasonably fascinating case research to get an understanding of why so many mergers and acquisitions fail.

Essentially the most obtrusive instance of the Warner Bros. Curse occurred on the flip of the millennium. It is broadly thought-about to be one of many worst — if not the worst — mergers of all time. It was so dangerous that it is nonetheless studied in enterprise colleges.

At present within the Planet Cash e-newsletter, we have a look at that disastrous merger. And we ponder some explanation why so many mergers and acquisitions fail.

The merger of the century In October 1999, Steve Case, the CEO of America On-line (AOL), made a fateful cellphone name to Gerald Levin, the CEO of Time Warner.

On the time, Case was solely 41 years previous, however, over the earlier 15 years, he had constructed one of the crucial thrilling firms in America. Earlier than AOL, the web was largely a spot for geeks and bureaucrats. Case's firm had made the web accessible to tens of thousands and thousands of regular Individuals. In 1998, the corporate's reputation even impressed a zeitgeisty rom-com, You have Acquired Mail (which, you guessed it, was produced and distributed by Warner Bros.) Within the midst of dotcom mania within the late Nineties, AOL's share value was rocketing via the stratosphere.

However Case was additionally anxious. He was anxious about mounting competitors. He was anxious that the inventory market was in a speculative mania that would not final. And he was anxious what would occur to his firm if there was a crash. AOL did not actually personal a lot when it got here to laborious property and the web was altering quick. Case wished to leverage his firm's inflated share value, purchase one thing huge and tangible, diversify his firm's enterprise mannequin, and safe a extra resilient company future. Time Warner had severe attraction. For one, AOL was more and more entering into the content material sport, and Time Warner provided thrilling mental property to distribute. Much more, Case coveted Time Warner's sprawling community of cable strains, which might show invaluable as customers ditched dial-up modems and adopted high-speed web.

Gerald Levin, alternatively, was disgruntled with the path of his firm. Time Warner was by then a sprawling media conglomerate which, after a collection of mergers and acquisitions, managed media entities like Time journal, Warner Bros. Photos, a file firm, HBO, CNN, TBS, and Sports activities Illustrated. However his firm's inventory value was underperforming through the dotcom inventory mania. He anxious his firm was failing to thrive on the daybreak of the digital age. He was floundering whereas attempting to usher in Time Warner's digital future in home, and he yearned for what he known as one other "remodeling transaction" — a merger or acquisition — to revolutionize his firm and safe his legacy.

When Case known as Levin, he did not beat across the bush. "Jerry? I have been pondering: we should always put our two firms collectively. What do you assume? Any curiosity?" he stated, based on a superb 2004 e book by journalist Nina Munk, Fools Rush In: Steve Case, Jerry Levin, and the Unmaking of AOL Time Warner.

Levin was , however he additionally performed laborious to get. "I do not assume so, Steve. However I will give it some thought," he reportedly stated.

By then, Case had grown insanely wealthy, had a second marriage he wished to protect, and he had grown bored with the intensive work of being the CEO of his firm. He was now hobnobbing with bigwigs at locations like White Home state dinners and the World Financial Discussion board in Davos, and he was on his technique to a extra comfortable life as an investor, thinkfluencer, and philanthropist. Case was ready to step down as CEO and take a much less time-intensive position as chairman of the board, and he knew precisely what to say to Levin to pique his curiosity: Levin would take the helm of this new company juggernaut.

However Levin was nonetheless cautious. And he had motive to be. Earlier than he had turn into Time Warner's CEO, Levin had an extended profession within the decrease rungs of its government crew. In late Eighties and early Nineties, when Time Inc. sought to merge with Warner Bros. (then generally known as Warner Communications) and type what would turn into Time Warner, the transaction encountered severe difficulties (the Warner Bros. Curse!). An organization generally known as Gulf & Western — which might quickly be renamed Paramount Communications, and right now is called Paramount Skydance — tried to stage a hostile takeover of Time Inc. (Sound acquainted?) That hostile takeover finally failed, but it surely price Time a variety of stress and cash — and time — to keep away from it, and Levin anxious this was the start of one other comparable story.

After some forwards and backwards over the following few weeks, Case and Levin determined to fulfill. They wished this assembly to be a secret. In order that they rented a collection at a resort in Manhattan, close to Time Warner's headquarters, and spent a night collectively.

They ordered room service for dinner, drank fancy wine, ate chocolate mousse, and dazzled one another. By way of deep philosophical conversations about enterprise and life, they determined they had been simpatico. That evening, they determined they might marry their two companies, forming the world's largest media and leisure firm.

There have been nonetheless thorny particulars to work out. Like, what proportion of shares on this new firm would either side get? AOL had a inventory market capitalization that was almost double Time Warner's, and its inventory value was rising a lot sooner. However when it got here to the meat and potatoes of precise income, Time Warner really made way more cash. And it had invaluable property, together with a sprawling array of media properties and bodily cable infrastructure. Levin wished a 50-50 break up in a brand new merged firm. Case rejected 50-50. After months of negotiations, Levin finally settled on Time Warner getting 45% of their new, merged entity.

On January 10, 2000, AOL introduced it was buying Time Warner for $182 billion. It was one of many largest — if not the most important — company mergers in historical past. Once they formally merged, the 2 firms could be value $350 billion. It was a marriage between previous and new media, creating what seemed like an influence couple that may dominate the twenty first century. Many analysts thought it was sensible. The brand new firm promised astounding charges of revenue development.

<img src="https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims3/default/strip/false/crop/2048x1489+0+0/resize/1100/quality/50/format/jpeg/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F99%2Fa7%2Fa67f7ec24147a87de0c8f288d805%2Fgettyimages-51535883.jpg" data-template="https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims3/default/strip/false/crop/2048x1489+0+0/resize/{width}/quality/{quality}/format/{format}/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F99%2Fa7%2Fa67f7ec24147a87de0c8f288d805%2Fgettyimages-51535883.jpg" class="img" alt="NEW YORK, UNITED STATES: America Online Chairman Steve Case (L) and Time Warner Chairman Gerald Levin (R) announce their companies' merger 10 January 2000 at a New York news conference." loading="lazy"/> America On-line Chairman Steve Case (L) and Time Warner Chairman Gerald Levin (R) announce their firms' merger Jan. 10, 2000 at a New York information convention. The brand new firm might be known as AOL Time Warner. Stan Honda/AFP through Getty Pictures conceal caption

toggle caption

Stan Honda/AFP through Getty Pictures A star-crossed marriage However virtually instantly, the wedding between AOL and Time Warner turned rocky. Levin had negotiated this deal whereas protecting a lot of Time Warner at nighttime. He had handled his executives and his board of administrators like a rubber stamp. Many felt the deal was rushed and sloppy. From the outset, many executives and workers had been indignant in regards to the merger.

And, as the businesses started to merge, AOL and Time Warner had huge tradition clashes. Time Warner was old style. Its board conferences had been structured and formal. AOL conferences tended to be freeflowing and chaotic. Time Warner's divisions — from HBO to CNN to Warner Bros studios to its magazines — had operated autonomously. AOL wished them to be underneath extra centralized management, and pursue cross-platform promoting offers. AOL was obsessive about beating expectations, stoking investor pleasure, and juicing their inventory value. Time Warner executives had been much less obsessive about metrics and chasing short-term inventory good points. Either side thought the opposite facet knew nothing about their facet of the enterprise. There was a variety of animosity as the 2 groups turned one.

Possibly it could have all labored out in a rosier market. Nonetheless, as luck would have it, the 2 firms negotiated their deal simply three months earlier than the height of the dotcom bubble: March 10, 2000. After that, the bubble began to deflate. It might nonetheless be virtually a yr till federal regulators would approve this deal and make the proposed merger official. Within the meantime, AOL's inventory started sinking.

The entire deal between Time Warner and AOL was predicated on an explosive price of development at AOL. However because the inventory market crashed and the economic system turned bitter, firms started slicing again on promoting. Promoting was essential to AOL's enterprise (and in addition Time Warner's). In the meantime, AOL's new subscriber development started to decelerate. And AOL's inventory descent picked up tempo.

By January 11, 2001, when federal regulators formally authorised of the merger, AOL Time Warner was already in deep trouble. However issues bought a lot worse after the spring of 2001, when America formally entered a recession. Then got here 9/11, and the economic system bought even worse.

The newly fashioned AOL Time Warner went into panic mode as their enterprise soured. The corporate started doing share buybacks, attempting to sign to the market that their inventory was undervalued (at the same time as its high executives bought shares). They laid off hundreds of workers and commenced making drastic cuts. They bought tremendous petty about worker bills, like eliminating free soda and forcing workers to purchase from merchandising machines. Worst of all, AOL executives resorted to cooking their books, attempting to make it seem to be their promoting income was strong when actually it wasn't.

The dangerous information for AOL Time Warner stored mounting. Preventing over what the corporate ought to do, the bromance between Case and Levin turned to man-imosity, and Case started rallying their board towards Levin.

The writing was on the wall. On December 5, 2001, Levin introduced he was going to enter early retirement. "I might by no means cried earlier than," Levin informed Nina Munk, when she was writing her 2004 e book about this company fiasco. "I might by no means cried. And now I cry on a regular basis."

With Levin exiting, a civil conflict broke out throughout the firm. The 2 sides hated one another. Levin's alternative as CEO, Richard Parsons, would later inform The New York Occasions, "It was past definitely my skills to determine the best way to mix the previous media and the brand new media tradition. They had been like completely different species, and actually, they had been species that had been inherently at conflict."

In the summertime of 2002, The Washington Submit bought a scoop that — each earlier than and after its merger with Time Warner — AOL had been basically cooking the books, pretending that it was getting extra advert and different income than it actually was. That story impressed lawsuits and investigations by the Securities and Change Fee, and AOL Time Warner's inventory value went right into a free fall.

By the top of this fiasco, over $200 billion in shareholder worth had been worn out (over $350 billion in right now's {dollars}). The corporate was compelled to pay huge fines. AOL Time Warner ended up firing mainly each senior AOL government. Below strain, Steve Case resigned because the board chairman. In 2003, AOL Time Warner dropped AOL from its title and, in 2009, formally separated from it. (AOL remains to be round; an Italian tech firm known as "Bending Spoons" just lately introduced it was shopping for it for $1.5 billion).

What's right now known as Warner Bros. Discovery nonetheless bears the scars — together with billions of {dollars} in debt — from its disastrous merger 1 / 4 century in the past.

Netflix guarantees it is going to keep away from the Warner Bros. Curse Apparently, Netflix executives, with their eyes set on buying Warner Bros., just lately promised Wall Road that, mainly, don't fret, we cannot fall sufferer to the Warner Bros. Curse like so many have earlier than us.

"Loads of these failures that we have seen traditionally is as a result of the corporate that was doing the acquisition did not perceive the leisure enterprise," stated Greg Peters, co-CEO of Netflix, on a current name with Wall Road analysts, based on Deadline. "They did not actually perceive what they had been shopping for. We perceive these property that we're shopping for, the issues which are crucial in Warner Bros. are key companies that we function in, and we perceive. Loads of occasions, the buying firm, it was a legacy non-growth enterprise that was in search of form of a lifeline. That does not apply to us. We have got a wholesome, rising enterprise that we're tremendous, tremendous enthusiastic about."

However their potential merger with Warner Bros is already off to a rocky begin. Paramount is making an attempt a hostile takeover. The 2 are actually concerned in a battle that might show to be an intense bidding conflict, rising the probabilities that Warner Bros. could possibly be concerned in one other ill-fated merger.

What causes so many mergers and acquisitions to fail? One huge motive is that the consumers are inclined to overpay for what they're buying. There are a variety of potential causes for that. One is expounded to one thing we wrote about in a current e-newsletter and coated in The Indicator. Behavioral economists have lengthy noticed that winners in auctions — or actually any market the place folks competitively bid towards one another for one thing — are sometimes those who overpay for what they're shopping for. They name it "the winner's curse." In different phrases, the profitable bidders typically win exactly as a result of they're those who most overestimate the worth of what they're shopping for.

At coronary heart, company leaders might overpay in mergers and acquisitions as a result of they're dangerous at judging what these firms — and what these firms and their firms mixed — will really be value. There is a well-known perception in private finance that individuals, for probably the most half, should not decide and select particular person shares. The fundamental thought is that inventory costs already replicate obtainable info, and it is laborious to beat the market. Possibly that extends even to many CEOs and professional government groups shopping for or promoting firms.

For those who're an organization looking for to purchase one other firm, "[y]ou are virtually at all times going to pay extra – typically considerably extra – than the agency is at the moment value," writes Melissa Schilling, a scholar on the NYU Stern College of Enterprise. "For those who did not, the goal's present homeowners would not promote. Their outdoors possibility is at all times to carry or promote to a different bidder at the next value. Meaning your acquisition is just going to repay if you recognize one thing the market would not know, or you are able to do one thing considerably higher with that agency's property than its present homeowners are doing."

Apparently, that's actually laborious to do. However cocky executives typically assume they know one thing that the market would not, and so they might overestimate the precise 'synergies' that may be discovered when two firms turn into one. Finally, they might overvalue what they're shopping for or merging to create.

Or possibly firm leaders generally do foresee the actual worth, but it surely's for themselves, and never essentially for his or her workers or shareholders. In a 2022 e book, titled The Merger Thriller, students Geoff Meeks and J. Homosexual Meeks, each of the College of Cambridge, argue that "misaligned incentives" between executives and their firms is one frequent motive why, regardless of a excessive failure price, so many company leaders are so gung-ho to do mergers and acquisitions. Principally, firm leaders and advisors can typically make enormous sums of cash from M&A transactions — form of like Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav has within the transactions he is been concerned with — even when these transactions finally fail to spice up their firm's earnings and serve their shareholders and workers.

The advantages for company bigwigs pushing for mergers and acquisitions goes past simply cash. For instance, it can be fairly an ego increase to instantly be accountable for a a lot larger firm or management one thing that will get plenty of public consideration.

In the meantime, dealmaking like that is typically hindered by what economists name uneven info. When completely different events in a deal have unequal details about the factor that's being purchased or bought, it will possibly result in mispricing and market failures. As an example, possibly the troubles at AOL had been extra obvious to insiders with intimate information about their firm's efficiency. Had Time Warner gotten higher details about the corporate they had been forming a relationship with — and never rushed via their due diligence in prodding and poking the deal — possibly they might have killed the deal or structured it in another way.

There are a lot of different potential explanation why mergers and acquisitions can go fallacious. However the story of AOL and Time Warner's disastrous merger actually highlights how the precise work of creating two firms into one might be actually messy. Tradition clashes, private animosities, and the complications of implementing new processes, buildings, and methods might be demoralizing to workers and harm a newly merged firm's efficiency, detracting from the synergies that the businesses had been initially hoping for.

We sit up for seeing how this new sequel to the decades-old franchise of Warner Bros. mergers and acquisitions seems. Positive, it may show to be like The Darkish Knight, a industrial and significant success. Nonetheless, there's a huge threat it could possibly be extra like Joker: Folie à Deux, one other Warner Bros. flop.