Creating SYNERGY Out of Thin Air (Did Author Read Freeper Commentary About the Dreaded S-Word?)

If there's any silver lining to the storm clouds now hovering over the merged AOL Time Warner, it's that it will probably be a long time before we hear anybody boasting about "synergy" again.

Synergy is a word that practically demands to be rendered in quotes. As often as it has been used, its actual meaning is invariably hard to pin down. That's just as true now that the concept has become sort of a vague albatross rather than the magical creature it was supposed to be. Plenty of onlookers today say that most of the pieces of AOL Time Warner are perfectly sound and actually worth more than investors are willing to pay for them as a merged whole; the problem, apparently, is the very fact that they're linked.

This seems like a shocking turnabout. Back in January 2000, when the merger was announced, it was met with barely concealed — and sometimes baldly stated — anticipatory glee. "The deal has potential synergies that make some observers drool," reported The Wall Street Journal. At the time, what synergy apparently meant was that the gathering of many media properties and distribution platforms was, by definition, a source of awesome power. With CNN, Time Inc. magazines like Sports Illustrated and People, and Looney Tunes characters all "linked" to AOL's millions of subscribers, well, something wonderful was bound to result.

There are many reasons that nothing wonderful at all has resulted so far. But a few stand out, and at their core is what seems like a failure to understand what synergy was really supposed to be — apart from a surprisingly durable buzzword.

There is, for starters, a gap between the theory of far-flung businesses working in seamless concert and the reality of protecting corporate turf. Reports have detailed the intense lack of interest among various divisional chiefs at AOL Time Warner in consolidating ad-selling operations and cutting sweeping marketing deals across multiple units; apparently, some of those units felt they could get a better price on their own. When this sort of behavior hurts the bottom line, the relevant managers are pilloried for "protecting their fiefdoms." But when it helps (as it can), they're hailed for "thinking like entrepreneurs." The difference is generally a matter of hindsight, but either way, it's the opposite of synergy.

It's at least possible that this problem can be overcome, or a middle ground reached, but there's another problem: depending on what form it takes, synergy can give regulators pause. Let's say your favorite restaurant merges with another one. You like all the new menu items, but if you can get the house salad you've enjoyed for years only by ordering a three-course meal you don't want — well, you might think synergy is just another word for pushing consumers around. Government approval of the AOL Time Warner merger took a year, during which the companies' honchos stressed that the various divisions were "different in character" and "will not be dominating any one segment." That sounds rather at odds with synergy, but just to make sure, regulators made Time Warner promise to open its cable lines to AOL's competitors.

This hints at a third take on the meaning of synergy, which carries the biggest problem of all. Synergy is almost always thought of in a top-down way: Mix and match the corporate properties (compiling a bigger menu, in a sense) and consumers will fall in line. But if you're an AOL subscriber, are you really more likely to subscribe to Sports Illustrated? Or buy more Bugs Bunny paraphernalia? (One of the corporate fantasies that's always tossed out is that some day we'll be able to watch "Sabrina, the Teenage Witch," admire something Sabrina is wearing, and in a few clicks buy the same outfit. Does anybody want to do this? Wouldn't it be humiliating to show up at a cocktail party and have someone say, "Oh, I saw that sweater on the WB last week"?)

One of the more puzzling conundrums of synergy can be found in what one might call the money-to-stuff ratio. Basically, consumers want more stuff for less money; companies want to sell more stuff, but for more money. Synergy makes a vague promise to consumers that it will deliver the first scenario, and to investors that it will deliver the second.

The underlying problem certainly isn't that people are resistant to learning, and embracing, new ways of consuming music, movies, books or other digital content.

The obvious example — to the great chagrin of record label executives everywhere — is in the realm of music. Millions of music fans are enthralled with the benefits of new synergies between their computers and their stereos. Particularly for those who are ambivalent about intellectual property rights, it's proved to be a spectacular means of pumping up their money-to-stuff ratio. Unfortunately for record companies, artists and even the various newfangled start-ups that hoped to exploit this turn of events, pretty much nobody has figured out how to make a dime off of it In fact, this form of synergy has been actively resisted.

Maybe we haven't heard the last of synergy or its close cousin, "convergence." But if it ever returns, let's hope that it does so in a form that has some tangible meaning — preferably one that's grounded in something consumers actually want.

Hmmm....Did the author of this piece, Rob Walker, read my recent COMMENTARY about the use of "Synergy" in relation to AOL Time Warner? You be the judge. Here is what I quoted in the July 18, thread that I posted:

I knew the AOL Time-Warner merger was doomed from the get go since they used the term "Synergy" to describe the merger. Whenever a corporation uses the term "Synergy," it is ALWAYS doomed to financial failure. Mere use of this term places a curse on any enterprise that dares to use it.

Oops! I meant to say "What I wrote," not "What I quoted." Anyway, I was wondering if Walker was lurking on the FR and used my commentary about "Synergy" as a basis for his article. The conclusions are almost identical.

I saw Donald Trump on Neil Cavuto's (sp) show today. He basically said there was no good reason (from a business perspective) to allow the AOL merger to go through. Implied that SEC should have blocked it.

I hope this one gets a good looksee from the Feds soon.

I never actually understood how it happened anyway.

Of course, I didn't understand when the phone company was broken up, either. All we got was crummy service and confusing bills, and now they are allowing them to merge again.

That is an interesting comment from Trump. Harvey Pitt is very busy, I bet.

What do you make of a merged energy company in the Midwest called "Cynergy?"

DOOMED! They have tempted Fate and they will suffer from the Curse of Synergy. The curse never fails.

Did the author of this piece, Rob Walker, read my recent COMMENTARY about the use of "Synergy" in relation to AOL Time Warner?
He might've read your commentary.
Back in January 2000, when the merger was announced, it was met with barely concealed — and sometimes baldly stated — anticipatory glee. "The deal has potential synergies that make some observers drool," reported The Wall Street Journal.
He might've read the Jan. 2000 article too from the WSJ.
You be the judge.
IMO you were using synergy and the use may, or could've, sparked a memory that caused him to go back and look up that particular word and the number of times it was used and where. Walker may lurk, but you're leaping.

Fair enough?

I'm not saying that Walker plagiarized me. But it seems he might have gotten his idea from me while lurking on the FR (a lot of writers are lurkers on the FR) and then researched the use of the term "Synergy." Hey, I'm glad that my idea might have sparked something in him. Perhaps in the future Walker and I can combine our ideas into a Synergy.

I'm not saying that Walker plagiarized me.
Not in so many words.
Hey, I'm glad that my idea might have sparked something in him.
You're simply glad you sparked an idea, despite the "similarity".
But it seems he might have gotten his idea from me while lurking on the FR (a lot of writers are lurkers on the FR) and then researched the use of the term "Synergy."
A lot of "ideas" are sparked by FR. Me, I'm not sparking anything anymore except animosity at my directness.
I know there are a lot of writers who lurk. There are some writers who do more than merely lurk or merely plagiarize. But you know about that, I'm sure. Ignorance is bliss, bliss at the expense of the ignorant.
Fool me once...well, fooled way more than once actually.
Perhaps in the future Walker and I can combine our ideas into a Synergy.
Think you'll get any credit in the byline? Or will you be another "unknown"?
"Unknown" can't get a job writing because no credit is given where and when due.
Pardon my cynicism.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.