Carlson and Musk need each other

February 9, 2024
by Björn Jeffery
SvD Näringsliv

This analysis was first published in SvD Näringsliv, in Swedish, on February 9th, 2024. This piece was translated from Swedish by Claude. Some phrasing may differ from a human translation.

Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk have found each other on platform X. But what is being portrayed as free speech looks a lot more like a new type of advertising.

Tucker Carlson stares straight into the camera. A rumpled red velvet curtain hangs behind him. He was fired from Fox News when it emerged that he was not just playing an angry man with xenophobic views on TV — he had also written text messages suggesting he actually was one.

Now he has his own channel — Tucker Carlson Network — broadcasting on his own site and on Elon Musk’s social network X. He makes a big deal of going to Moscow to interview Vladimir Putin, but the pre-roll video accompanying the programme gives a broader picture of what this venture is really about. He dispenses advice to a 22-year-old losing his hair: “If you’re going to get a wig, go for one that makes you look like a 1970s pimp.”

That Tucker and Musk have found each other is no surprise.

Carlson is not the tenacious, courageous interviewer he likes to present himself as. Rather, he is an entertainer who moves between politics and social commentary — packaged in a way that sounds like he is speaking for the people and the silent majority.

Given this position, the sense of kinship with another man who likes to position himself as a voice of the people — entrepreneur and multi-billionaire Elon Musk — is easy to understand. Several major decisions on X have been put to users to vote on by Musk, often invoking the phrase “vox populi” — the voice of the people.

Musk caused enormous upheaval on the platform formerly known as Twitter by changing rules and overhauling the verified user system. Since then he has both renamed the service and tried to rebrand its associations. X is to be a bastion of free speech.

The success of this depends somewhat on who you ask. The organisation Reporters Without Borders calls X a “safe haven for disinformation.” At the same time, he has been celebrated by the American political right for reinstating previously banned users — including Donald Trump.

There is, however, something suggesting this mutual interest is not solely about amplifying temporarily silenced political voices.

In a blog post from January this year, X declared itself a “video-first platform” — a service where video takes priority. It was a surprising statement, given that X had been one of the few text-based social networks to achieve real success. A bit like Volvo Cars announcing it was going to start making bicycles. Not unthinkable, but perhaps not the most obvious strategic choice.

The sudden interest in video has a simple explanation: more expensive ads.

Earlier in January, American fund giant Fidelity wrote down the value of X by 72 percent compared to what Elon Musk paid for it — around 44 billion dollars. Fidelity is one of Musk’s financial partners. The write-down reflects many advertisers having stopped spending money on X. Rather than trying to win back those who fled — Musk even told them to “go f*** themselves” from a stage in New York — the company changed strategy. New name, new advertising strategy, and hopefully a new type of advertiser: those who buy expensive video ads.

Both want to make money — so they need each other.

X’s CEO is Linda Yaccarino, formerly chief advertising officer at broadcaster NBCUniversal. Video advertising is her home turf.

But to sell video advertising, you need people watching video. And this is where the circle closes with Tucker Carlson.

Carlson’s popular profile fits perfectly into Musk’s rebuilt X. He has the right political profile, is not available on other platforms, and is good at attracting attention. Going to Moscow to interview Putin is the perfect move to achieve exactly that — and that attention spills over onto Musk and X.

Carlson himself says the purpose of the Putin interview is to “inform people.” He believes the American public is paying too much for the war between Ukraine and Russia without understanding what is happening in the region. Given the American debate currently unfolding about precisely this — in the middle of an election year — it is hard not to see the cynicism in the timing.

Here too, Carlson and Musk have something in common. One wants to find his way back to his audience and become an important political commentator again. The other wants to be the platform for free speech. But both want to make money and rebuild the revenues they have lost. For that, they need each other.

The Viaplay fiasco paves the way for a TV4 acquisition

February 7, 2024
by Björn Jeffery
SvD Näringsliv

This analysis was first published in SvD Näringsliv, in Swedish, on February 7th, 2024. This piece was translated from Swedish by Claude. Some phrasing may differ from a human translation.

After the disastrous Viaplay investment, Schibsted is looking for a new strategy. There is plenty of capital — but in reality just one company worth buying.

The way companies express themselves often veers into parody. They talk about “challenges” and “strategic choices,” but everyone knows what they are really trying to say.

Consider this formulation from Schibsted’s latest quarterly report, released on Wednesday: “After a thorough evaluation of the merits of our options, and given the anticipated change in our corporate structure, we have taken the decision to wind down and exit our investment in Viaplay.”

A more direct way of saying the same thing would have been: “We made a very expensive and bad investment in Viaplay, and now we are giving up.” Because that is precisely what happened.

Norwegian media group Schibsted is in the process of being split in two — that is what the sentence about “corporate structure” refers to. One part remains listed — all marketplaces and financial services — and the other takes the news media and retains the Schibsted name. The news part becomes privately owned by the Norwegian Tinius Foundation, which is also the majority owner today.

There were several reasons to be wary of the Viaplay investment. It would not follow into the Tinius buyout — which would have been logical, given that it is a media company. And Schibsted was not part of Viaplay’s rescue plan when it was presented. So the holding would become heavily diluted when the other major shareholders injected new money.

Now we have it in black and white what came of all that. Schibsted invested 380 million kronor; the remaining value is around 13 million kronor. That means they lost approximately 2.5 million kronor — every single day — since the deal was announced last autumn. A remarkably poor investment.

In connection with the report, CEO Kristin Skogen Lund also announces her intention to resign. With the company being split up, she considers this a good moment for new leadership.

A different kind of Schibsted is emerging from the break-up. But the road here has been, to say the least, messy.

To understand it better, we need to look back at the last major Schibsted transformation.

In 2019, the company decided that several of its international marketplaces would be separately listed. Sites resembling Blocket in other countries — including Leboncoin in France and Segundamano in Mexico — were placed in a new company called Adevinta.

Schibsted had more marketplaces than those, however — Blocket and Norwegian Finn, for instance. Price comparison service Prisjakt and loan broker Lendo were also retained. All had more in common with the Adevinta companies than with the news operations. But the idea at the time was that geography would be the unifying factor. Schibsted was to become a Nordic company with many different businesses within it.

Now — with the split of Nordic Schibsted a reality — this creates a rather odd situation. Schibsted still owns part of Adevinta, and will shortly own a company (under a new name) housing all the Nordic marketplaces and services. Apart from geography, these companies do almost exactly the same thing, have partly the same owners, but sit as two separate entities. What exactly is the logic here?

To complicate matters further, a consortium including Permira and Blackstone last autumn bought 60 percent of Schibsted’s shares in Adevinta. In that deal, Schibsted sold shares worth 24 billion Norwegian kronor. It is partly this money that Tinius — as majority owner — will now use to buy out the news operations. But there is also capital left for new acquisitions. Which ones will be interesting to watch.

In the press release announcing the purchase of the Viaplay shares, CEO Kristin Skogen Lund said: “Viaplay’s strong position as a streaming provider in the Nordics is a very good fit for our media operations.”

Well, but if it is not Viaplay, there are not many others to choose from. With a strong cash position and a narrower focus on media, the list of conceivable targets is very short.

To Dagens Media, the incoming head of Schibsted’s media division, Siv Juvik Tveitnes, said: “If we are to remain relevant, particularly among younger audiences, we need to broaden our offering and invest more in both sport and entertainment.”

Streaming. Sport and entertainment. Billions in the account to invest outside the stock market.

Could it be that Viaplay was just the overture to the next major streaming bet? Trying to buy TV4 from Telia.

Note: Norwegian Schibsted owns, among other things, Svenska Dagbladet, Aftonbladet, and Blocket. The group is in the process of being split into two parts — one for media and one for marketplaces.

Meta’s new strategy: become a normal company

February 2, 2024
by Björn Jeffery
SvD Näringsliv

This analysis was first published in SvD Näringsliv, in Swedish, on February 2nd, 2024. This piece was translated from Swedish by Claude. Some phrasing may differ from a human translation.

After spending billions on a name change and peculiar 3D avatars, Meta appears to have found a new strategy: becoming a perfectly ordinary company.

“Mr. Zuckerberg, what the hell were you thinking?”

The clip of Republican senator Ted Cruz berating Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, went viral this week. Usually it is stuffy politicians who ask stupid questions, prompting the internet to collectively snicker at them.

Instead, Zuckerberg was dressed down during a congressional hearing on children’s online safety — and by Ted Cruz of all people. The former presidential candidate from Texas who frequently features in American comedians’ routines as the archetype of a generally dreary and useless politician.

With such an ace up his sleeve, perhaps he could afford to be put in his place for an hour or two.

Zuckerberg, however, did not look particularly shaken.

He knew what he would be talking about the day after the congressional hearing.

On Thursday evening, Meta’s quarterly report arrived — and it looked extraordinarily good. So good that the share price shot to an all-time high in after-hours trading.

Revenue rose 25 percent and net profit a full 201 percent. The number of users across Meta’s services increased. Advertising prices increased. In almost every direction, the arrows pointed up.

Meta now has so much money that it intends to buy back its own shares for 50 billion dollars — almost 520 billion kronor. It will also — for the first time in the company’s history — pay a quarterly dividend. Something that neither Amazon nor Alphabet, Google’s parent company, has ever done.

Looking back, Meta was once called “The Facebook Company,” a legacy from the first successful blue website. This was followed by acquisitions of Instagram, WhatsApp, and Oculus’s VR products. The old name no longer suited the new company that had grown out of it. And more specifically — it did not suit the vision that Mark Zuckerberg now believed was the future: the metaverse. In the future, we would all have graphical avatars meeting digitally to work and socialise. The company was renamed “Meta” in the autumn of 2021.

The company name is ultimately somewhat unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but a rebrand is typical of a leader who believes in their idea. It signals clearly — both internally and externally — that this is the new goal we are heading towards.

It is also a sign of a company starting to run out of its own ideas.

Fast forward to today, and billions of dollars have been invested without anyone caring much about the metaverse any more.

Meta continues to spend money on the division internally called “Reality Labs,” but the letter to the market also states that new AI investments will cost big money this year. We have heard that before.

What happened to the grand new idea? Where did the metaverse go?

A company that buys back its own shares and regularly pays dividends may be popular with many shareholders. But it is also a sign of a company starting to run out of its own ideas.

In a market where regulatory obstacles stand in the way of large acquisitions, Meta has had to look inward for innovation. It will almost certainly not be allowed — even if it would dearly love to — buy up competitors without regulators from both the EU and the US rushing in to block it.

The metaverse idea has not taken off — at least not yet. Instead came a wave of AI in which Meta has become a significant player. One of several, but certainly a noteworthy one. Being a tech company betting on AI in 2024 is not particularly unique, however. The headquarters of OpenAI and Google are within 45 minutes’ drive of Meta, and there is fierce competition for the best AI researchers. There is a future vision here — but Meta is far from alone in identifying it.

Zuckerberg appears, instead, to have found a new idea to build his Meta around. For now, at least. After a major comeback from when the share price collapsed in autumn 2022, it has now returned to all-time highs.

What better, then, than to do what other profitable companies do with their excess cash? Take care of shareholders. Buy back shares. Pay dividends. Become — to simplify slightly — just like any other well-run listed company.

It is an idea, good as any. But it is a long way from the visionary Meta that Zuckerberg wanted to create a few years ago.

The stock market’s dependence on tech giants is at a record high

January 30, 2024
by Björn Jeffery
SvD Näringsliv

This analysis was first published in SvD Näringsliv, in Swedish, on January 30th, 2024. This piece was translated from Swedish by Claude. Some phrasing may differ from a human translation.

Ten trillion dollars in market cap is reporting its quarterly results this week — and just five tech companies account for all of it. The stock market’s dependence on the tech giants has never been greater.

In 2011, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen wrote the now-famous words “software is eating the world.” But not even he could likely have imagined that we would find ourselves in the position we are in today, less than fifteen years later.

That technology has had a profound effect on society is uncontroversial.

But that investors around the world would be watching Silicon Valley so closely for the sake of their own savings — that is new.

When five of the seven largest tech companies all report their quarterly results in the same week, the effects for both funds and individual investors are enormous — even for those who have no interest in the sector, or do not follow the current tech gospel.

They are called “the Magnificent Seven” — seven tech companies that make up just 1.4 percent of the S&P 500 index by number, but represent more than 29 percent of its total value. The companies in question are Apple, Meta, Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, Tesla, and Nvidia. The first five all report between Tuesday and Thursday this week, together representing over ten trillion dollars in market capitalisation.

Given their enormous influence on the market, the whole world is now watching carefully for signs that the record levels for the S&P 500 reached earlier in January could be surpassed.

As SvD has previously reported, Swedish investors’ exposure to these stocks is also very high. Many popular Swedish global index funds, or funds focused on the US, have these stocks among their largest holdings. Even the so-called “sofa fund,” AP7 Såfa — owned by more than 5 million Swedes — has nine of its ten largest positions in international tech giants. All seven major American companies are represented.

Tech stocks have become a kind of people’s share — hidden in plain sight. Without Swedes having actively chosen it.

First to report is Microsoft, which has recently taken over the position of the world’s most highly valued company. After a share price rise of more than 66 percent over the past year, it has just crossed the almost incomprehensible threshold of three trillion dollars in market capitalisation.

The optimism surrounding the company is enormous. Its AI investments through the partnership with OpenAI in San Francisco have placed it among the very heaviest hitters in the tech world — again. And it continues to make large, transformative bets. The acquisition of gaming company Activision Blizzard was the largest in gaming history. Now that the deal has finally gone through, the door is open for further acquisitions, even if likely of a smaller nature. Microsoft has momentum, and CEO Satya Nadella shows no sign of holding back.

Next is Alphabet, the name of Google’s parent company — changed to encompass more businesses in its portfolio. But in all material respects, it is only Google and its wholly owned YouTube that move the needle. In 2016, incoming CEO Sundar Pichai announced that Google would become an “AI first company.” That may have been the ambition, but executing on it has proven harder. In the enormous AI wave, Google has been a participant rather than a leader — at least so far.

It has, however, impressed by continuing to grow its enormously profitable advertising business and new cloud initiatives in parallel with the surging AI development. The battle for AI has only just begun, and Google has a long history of innovation in this area. The “T” in ChatGPT — transformer — is a technology first developed by Google. Expect many major announcements from their side in the year to come.

Last — but far from least — comes the event that will arguably have the greatest effect on the market of all.

On Wednesday, US Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell will announce whether the Fed intends to cut interest rates for the first time since 2020. And you remember what happened to tech stocks the last time we had low interest rates? Microsoft’s market cap has more than doubled since then. Even the slightest hint that we are heading that way again could put fresh wind in the sails of tech stocks — and many more than just the biggest seven.

Hold on — the market’s week of reckoning has just begun.

Beats expectations with old tricks

January 24, 2024
by Björn Jeffery
SvD Näringsliv

This analysis was first published in SvD Näringsliv, in Swedish, on January 24th, 2024. This piece was translated from Swedish by Claude. Some phrasing may differ from a human translation.

Growth was in focus as Netflix crushed market expectations. The key to success spells advertising — and a bet on a well-proven idea: good old-fashioned TV.

In 1998, a radical idea was launched: films delivered to your door, to watch whenever you want.

Today the concept is familiar. But in the 1990s, consumers had to be more patient. The company with the idea was Netflix, and the concept involved mailing DVD discs in red envelopes to viewers. Compared to renting them at a video store, however, it was a marked improvement for many.

Until last autumn, Netflix was still sending DVDs in the post to the remaining customers who wanted them. But in parallel, one of the great media and entertainment companies of our time has grown through streaming.

Netflix is, in other words, used to change. And now it is time again.

The streaming market has for many years been driven by what looked like endless growth. People could not get enough of video — especially during the pandemic years, when the range of other activities was limited. But in 2022, the market appeared to stall. Competition became increasingly fierce as major players like Disney+ and HBO Max took market share. That was the starting gun for a new period of change, in which old certainties had to be revised and strategies rewritten.

Away from flagship drama productions, inspiration came from another direction — something you could straightforwardly call traditional TV. Shorter and cheaper programmes to produce, lighter concepts, and a type of entertainment that can run in the background while you do something else.

And, of course, the most significant difference that commercial TV has from ordinary streaming services: adverts. Netflix has had them too, for just over a year now.

When Netflix reported its quarterly results on Tuesday evening, its new advertising model was in focus. Showing adverts allows it to offer cheaper subscriptions — those who want to avoid them pay more. Through this, the market hoped growth would pick up again. It did — and then some.

Over the past quarter, Netflix gained 13.1 million new subscribers — substantially more than the approximately 8.7 million it added in the previous quarter. The streaming giant also beat market expectations on revenue and took the opportunity to raise its profitability outlook. The share price rose more than 8 percent in after-hours trading.

Particular attention was paid to the impact of advertising. Of its total 260.8 million subscribers, more than 23 million have chosen the ad-supported tier. In just over a year, it accounts for nearly 10 percent of the total. Making TV via the internet seems to be working extremely well.

Several competitors are also looking to the TV model. Next week, Amazon’s Prime Video will begin showing adverts among its programmes. Existing customers have the option to upgrade their subscriptions to avoid them, but adverts will become the new default for Prime Video. Amazon also already has a larger ad-supported video push through its Freevee service — “free” because it carries adverts.

Another factor driving Netflix’s growth was the crackdown on password sharing. When times were good, then-CEO Reed Hastings described this as a problem “you have to learn to live with.” That attitude has changed. Netflix has actively worked to prevent subscriptions from being shared improperly, including by offering paid add-ons that allow account sharing for an extra fee.

Netflix’s strong results run counter to a somewhat battered entertainment industry. Large parts of Hollywood have had a tough time lately, hit hard by a long strike among actors and screenwriters. Competitor Disney is occupied partly with fending off activist investors demanding change, and several services are discussing mergers and acquisitions.

Netflix — substantially more international than its closest competitors — was less affected by the American strikes. Programmes from different parts of the world have been able to keep flowing into its service. On top of that, dependence on individual big-budget series is lower now than before.

With strong results and renewed growth, the TV model looks set for a bright period ahead — particularly in the new, changed Netflix.

Apple’s plan: work around the court ruling

January 17, 2024
by Björn Jeffery
SvD Näringsliv

This analysis was first published in SvD Näringsliv, in Swedish, on January 17th, 2024. This piece was translated from Swedish by Claude. Some phrasing may differ from a human translation.

A court ruling on the so-called “Apple tax” looked set to cost the American tech giant billions. But a similar case reveals how the company plans to circumvent the court’s intent.

Critics have called it a tax — but one levied by one of the world’s largest companies.

Every time an iPhone user buys something digitally in an app, the developer must pay Apple a share of the revenue.

Think of it as a kind of commission. Or a tax, if you prefer. To simplify somewhat: it costs 15 percent on all revenue below ten million kronor per year, and 30 percent on everything above that.

The opposition — driven all the way through the legal system — concerns two things: the level of the commission, and the ability to sell apps through other outlets. If you want to sell to iPhone users through an app, there are no alternatives — you must use the App Store and Apple’s payment system.

When the US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up the prominent case between Apple and Epic Games, the ruling from April last year stood. Apple won on nine of ten counts. Both parties had appealed, but this legal process is now over.

A fairly safe prediction is that it will shortly be replaced by a new one.

At first glance, the tenth point — which Epic Games did win — looked like a significant victory for the world’s app developers. It meant that developers could link to their own payment system from within an app, and thus bypass Apple’s payment system and its fees. Had that been the case, many major developers would be celebrating today — including Spotify, which has long been a loud critic of the current system.

But looking at a similar case from the Netherlands in 2022, it becomes clear that Apple will not accept defeat here. In a dispute over dating apps, the Dutch competition authority forced Apple to change its rules. Dating apps were allowed to process payments independently. But if they did, Apple introduced a new fee of 27 percent instead. On top of that came the costs of running one’s own payment system. In total, what was meant to improve app developers’ margins could instead become a loss-making exercise.

Updated guidelines from Apple, published on Tuesday directly after the ruling, show that the same approach will apply outside the Netherlands. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney immediately wrote on X that they would launch a new legal challenge in protest.

Apple’s reluctance to concede on these issues is easy to understand. Billions of dollars in revenue flow through these systems every year. That revenue falls within what Apple classifies as “services” — which is of particular strategic importance, given that iPhone sales have stagnated somewhat in recent years. Services have been the highest-growth segment.

The path to maintaining this strong position, however, is looking increasingly complicated.

From March 7th this year, Apple must start complying with the EU’s Digital Markets Act, DMA. This covers alternative payment methods, but also requires Apple to make it possible to install apps on their phones without going through the App Store. Apple has loudly protested the law, arguing that it creates security risks for users.

To comply, Apple is preparing — according to Bloomberg — to split the App Store in two: one for the EU and one for the rest of the world. This ensures that changes for European users do not spill over to customers elsewhere.

What we are witnessing is a billion-dollar legal cat-and-mouse game. Apple removes one fee and replaces it with another. It allows linking to outside payment systems, but in a way that is extremely cumbersome. It works — technically — but so awkwardly that no developer will want to use it.

But the laws are closing in. So are the calls over what constitutes monopolistic behaviour. Apple’s market position has made it one of the world’s largest companies by market capitalisation. It is easy to understand why they so consistently push back against all external demands for change.

The winds are clearly blowing against them, however, and Apple is running out of cards to play. But for every month they can delay the changes, billions more roll into their accounts. They are in no hurry to enter a more regulated future.

Few options as Viaplay’s fate is decided

January 9, 2024
by Björn Jeffery
SvD Näringsliv

This analysis was first published in SvD Näringsliv, in Swedish, on January 9th, 2024. This piece was translated from Swedish by Claude. Some phrasing may differ from a human translation.

When Viaplay convenes for an extraordinary general meeting, the options are very few. Either shareholders approve the board’s plan, or the company risks collapse. The cost, however, is very high — especially for small investors.

On Wednesday at 10am, Viaplay’s registered shareholders will gather at Stockholm Waterfront Congress Centre. The board has called an extraordinary general meeting to vote on a proposed recapitalisation.

In normal circumstances, a general meeting is something of an administrative affair. Management gives a brief presentation, formalities are voted through, there is coffee.

That is unlikely to be the case this time.

Viaplay’s share price has fallen more than 97 percent compared to a year ago. There will probably be more than a few shareholders who are not entirely happy with that development.

The board’s proposal to rescue the struggling company is to carry out a rights issue and a directed share issue to the company’s lenders and its two largest shareholders — French media giant Canal+ and the Czech fund PPF. The result is a dilution that, for other shareholders — every small investor included — will be enormous.

The problem for all shareholders is that there is no realistic alternative. In recent days, Viaplay announced that a majority of its lenders had accepted the terms of the board’s proposal — a precondition for the plan to hold together. But even for the lenders, the alternative would likely have been worse. There is a single proposal on the table — one that significantly strengthens the major shareholders’ position, since they are putting in new money. In this situation, getting something back on your loan is better than getting nothing at all.

In the search for other conceivable paths forward for Viaplay, one major shareholder is conspicuously absent: Norwegian media group Schibsted, which among other things owns Svenska Dagbladet. Schibsted bought 10.1 percent of Viaplay in September 2023 but was immediately punished by the stock market, which did not welcome the new media investment. Schibsted’s share price fell around 3 percent immediately, making the investment costly from the outset.

There was likely a thought that Schibsted could use the Viaplay stake to strengthen its position as a Nordic media owner. By gaining visibility — and owning enough to participate in all negotiations about the company’s future — it could help shape the direction Viaplay would take.

But when the new plan for Viaplay was announced, Schibsted was not even mentioned.

The Norwegian media group had its own transformation agenda, announcing in December that it would split the company in two. Schibsted’s media operations are to be delisted and held entirely by the Tinius Foundation. The marketplaces — such as Blocket.se — will remain listed, but under a different name.

A notable detail in this deal was the shares in Viaplay specifically. Despite Viaplay’s clear media profile, they were not to be included in the media operations being spun off. The Tinius Foundation evidently does not want them.

Without owner support, Schibsted could no longer participate in finding alternatives for Viaplay’s future. That avenue is therefore closed. The 380 million kronor that Schibsted invested in Viaplay less than six months ago can essentially be written off.

With no clear alternatives, Viaplay’s board has had to turn to the remaining major shareholders, Canal+ and PPF, to ask for money. And when you negotiate with a single party, the terms are poor. This case is no exception.

The small investors in Viaplay — who are likely furious — might have been more tolerant of the board’s proposal if it were not the same board that got the company into these problems in the first place. They approved extravagant investments in international expansion, the purchase of expensive sports rights, and large-scale bets on content production.

Former CEO Anders Jensen’s strategy was highly aggressive — and evidently entirely wrong. He did resign in June last year, when Viaplay issued a profit warning and the current crisis began to surface. The board remains in place. At Wednesday’s general meeting, they are likely to hear a few things about how their responsibilities have been exercised.

Schibsted had to do something

December 11, 2023
by Björn Jeffery
SvD Näringsliv

This analysis was first published in SvD Näringsliv, in Swedish, on December 11th, 2023. This piece was translated from Swedish by Claude. Some phrasing may differ from a human translation.

After years of disappointing shareholders, Schibsted’s news operations are to be delisted. What was once a sideline — the marketplaces — has now taken over the company entirely.

In 1948, Swedish entertainer Karl Gerhard sang a cheerful little melody with the line: “We make up on the swings what we lose on the roundabout.” He could barely have known that this simple phrase would come to sum up the Nordic media market many decades later. The Nordic newspapers have been the roundabout — partially financed for the past 20 years by a range of other businesses.

For Norwegian media group Schibsted, that era comes to an end with Monday’s announcement. Schibsted’s majority owner, the Tinius Foundation, intends to buy out all the news media from the stock exchange and hold them privately instead. Among them are Aftonbladet and Svenska Dagbladet in Sweden, and VG and Aftenposten in Norway. What remains listed will be the marketplaces and financial services — including Blocket, Prisjakt, and Lendo. The deal is conditional on shareholder approval.

The split can be seen as a consequence of how the market has viewed Schibsted in recent years. With their wallets, investors have clearly voted for marketplaces and against news media. In practice, the media operations have acted as a drag on Schibsted’s share price. The market’s reaction to Monday’s announcement was immediate — Schibsted’s stock rose sharply.

The market’s appetite for marketplaces has created a kind of involuntary identity shift for Schibsted as a whole. And it has now reached a point where the company has to do something about it.

To understand this change, we need to go back a few years.

In 2007, Schibsted bought all shares in Blocket.se. Industry publications wrote — characteristically for the time — that “the classified ad market is being consolidated.” What we today call marketplaces were then known as “classifieds” — a digital version of the small ads that used to appear after the text in daily newspapers.

In the early days, the highly profitable marketplaces were seen as a natural match with the newspapers. Aftonbladet was one of Sweden’s most visited websites and could channel its traffic to Blocket. The swings and roundabouts seemed to fit well together.

Meanwhile, internationalisation began. If Schibsted had done so well in Sweden and Norway, couldn’t the same be done elsewhere? It could. Blocket-style sites were created in countries across the world. Schibsted went from a relatively small Nordic media player to one of the world’s three largest owners of marketplace platforms.

By 2018, the international marketplace operations had grown large enough to require separation into a new company, Adevinta. And in November this year, Schibsted sold 60 percent of Adevinta for around 23 billion kronor. It is that money the Tinius Foundation can now use to buy out all the news media.

Foundation ownership of media companies is not unusual in the world. In the UK, Scott Trust Limited owns The Guardian — its purpose being to enable The Guardian to continue its journalism. The parallel with the Tinius Foundation is easy to draw. You need only look at who chairs both: Norwegian Ole Jacob Sunde appears on both boards.

What happens to journalism when it is freed from the demands of the stock market? One possibility that opens up is more ambitious investments than before. Because the market has reacted negatively to the weak profitability of news media, it has constrained the scope for building them into something larger. Schibsted’s purchase of the Viaplay stake in September caused the share price to fall immediately. That has made it hard to justify initiatives in the media sector.

That problem is now solved under the new model. However, the foundation will still need to ensure that the newspapers do not lose too much money. Resources exist — but they are not infinite.

The question is whether a new, journalism-focused owner will make the investments needed to keep the media relevant going forward. That remains to be seen. The greatest risk in the transition is losing momentum and becoming too comfortable with the status quo. At a time when AI development is moving fast and creating an uncertain environment for media companies, you need owners who know what they want — and dare to act on it.

Being free from the market’s low expectations for the sector is probably also welcome internally. Innovation has happened within Schibsted before, even if it primarily resulted in the adjacent services now being separated off. But now the excuses for not doing deals and making investments in media are gone. When you are free to do what you want — what happens then? There is a great deal for the new owners, Tinius, to live up to.

Note: Svenska Dagbladet is owned by Schibsted.

Two things stand out about the Viaplay crisis

December 1, 2023
by Björn Jeffery
SvD Näringsliv

This analysis was first published in SvD Näringsliv, in Swedish, on December 1st, 2023. This piece was translated from Swedish by Claude. Some phrasing may differ from a human translation.

Small investors are being wiped out as major shareholders step in to rescue Viaplay with new money. And one recently arrived owner is conspicuously absent from the new shareholder list: Norwegian media group Schibsted.

More than six hours after the deadline, Viaplay’s latest quarterly report finally arrived. The figures from the business, however, were not the interesting part. Losing just over half a billion kronor in a quarter actually beat market expectations.

That says something about the state Viaplay finds itself in.

The focus was on the company’s future financing. A comprehensive recapitalisation plan was presented on Friday morning. Four billion kronor is to be injected by major shareholders including Canal+ and PPF through a directed share issue of 3.1 billion kronor and a rights issue of 0.9 billion kronor, in which Nordea Asset Management will take its share. The company’s debts are also to be restructured and written down by two billion kronor, a quarter of which will be converted into new shares.

It might sound encouraging. But as a shareholder, it is anything but. On Friday morning, Viaplay’s share price collapsed by more than 80 percent instantly.

The subscription price for the new shares is one kronor. On Thursday, Viaplay’s share price closed at 23.68 kronor. In January this year it was above 200 kronor.

The dilution for existing shareholders is described as “substantial” in Viaplay’s press release. “Brutal” would be a more fitting word. The company’s value is essentially wiped out by the transaction. Shareholders who are unable to participate in the new plans will lose virtually their entire investment.

The other striking thing is who is not mentioned in any of Friday morning’s documents or presentations: Norwegian media group Schibsted, which also owns SvD, Aftonbladet, and Blocket.

In September, Schibsted bought 10.1 percent of Viaplay — described at the time as “a financial investment” by IR director Jann-Boje Meinecke. It sounded like a strange explanation then. It sounds stranger still today. Schibsted is not a traditional financial investor. More likely, they intended to buy out the Nordic operations from Viaplay and break the company up in its current form. But for this to happen, difficult negotiations with the company’s other major shareholders and lenders were required.

From Schibsted’s perspective, everything points to those negotiations having failed. In September they held eight million shares in Viaplay. According to E24, these cost around 380 million kronor. After the planned recapitalisation, the stake will be worth around 8 million kronor. A neat loss of around 98 percent. Not ideal for something described as “a financial investment.”

Instead, it is French Canal+ that takes the driver’s seat. The British operations were sold back to the previous owners the day before the report, and Viaplay will now focus entirely on the Nordics and the Netherlands.

The plan of a tighter geographical focus sounds sensible, but comes far too late. Expensive sports rights, a failed internationalisation, fierce international competition in the streaming market, and pressure from both high interest rates and inflation have made this an extremely tough year for Viaplay. The problems did not begin in January — they had been building for several years through extravagant investments that never paid off.

Simon Duffy, acting chairman of Viaplay, says the following in a press release: “It is unfortunately a consequence of too many of the investments that the Group previously made not having been realised as planned, as several of the business models on which they were based turned out to be optimistic.”

That optimism feels distant today. And expensive. Every small investor lured in by the promise of the streaming market’s rise will be essentially wiped out by today’s plan. When the dust settles, it would be appropriate to look at who was responsible for this remarkable destruction of value in such a short time.

The current Viaplay probably won’t exist much longer

November 28, 2023
by Björn Jeffery
SvD Näringsliv

This analysis was first published in SvD Näringsliv, in Swedish, on November 28th, 2023. This piece was translated from Swedish by Claude. Some phrasing may differ from a human translation.

Viaplay is pushing back its quarterly figures once again. All focus is now on which owners will step forward and want to reshape the company.

When listed companies report their quarterly figures, the conversation usually turns to how they have performed against market expectations. The most basic expectation is that the quarterly figures actually show up.

That did not happen for Viaplay at the end of October, when they were originally due. Instead, a press release went out the evening before announcing they would arrive by November 29th at the latest.

Early on Wednesday morning came the next update: the report was being pushed back by one more day.

Delaying your results is not something you do unless you really have to. The press release speaks of talks between existing shareholders about how the business should be financed going forward. There is good reason to think the conversations are more complicated than that.

Viaplay — in its current form — is unlikely to survive much longer.

In mid-September, Norwegian media giant Schibsted* stepped in as a major new shareholder in Viaplay. They took what is known as a “corner” — 10.1 percent — which is just enough ownership to block any sale of the company without Schibsted’s consent. Other major shareholders include French group Canal+ and the fund PPF Cyprus Management.

It is this group that now needs to sort out Viaplay’s future. The exact agenda of each major shareholder is hard to speculate about, but in Schibsted’s case, recent events point clearly in one direction.

In September 2018, Schibsted announced it would split the company in two. Its marketplaces would be separately listed and renamed Adevinta. The rest of the business would remain under the Schibsted name.

There were, however, some clear exceptions. Not all of Schibsted’s marketplaces would go into the newly formed Adevinta. Swedish Blocket, Norwegian Finn, and Finnish Tori were retained. The split was made along geographical lines — the Nordic companies stayed, and the rest were shipped off. The message was clear: Schibsted is to become a purely Nordic company.

Adevinta is relevant here for another reason too. Last week, Schibsted announced its intention to sell 60 percent of its stake in Adevinta to a newly formed consortium, receiving around 23.5 billion kronor.

When the Adevinta deal was finalised, Schibsted’s CEO Kristin Skogen Lund declined to link it to Viaplay. “First and foremost, the money belongs to our shareholders,” she told Dagens industri.

Although Viaplay might be thought of as a Swedish company, it also has operations in the US, Canada, the UK, Poland, and the Netherlands, among others — parts that Schibsted is almost certainly not interested in at all.

The negotiations between the major shareholders have most likely been about how to divide Viaplay’s different markets between them. Schibsted will want the Nordics, but not much else. On top of that comes the division of the expensive but potentially valuable sports rights. The rest would either be taken over by Canal+, restructured into a standalone entity — or sold, assuming a buyer can be found.

Meanwhile, as negotiations continue, the day-to-day business is in deep trouble. Viaplay’s share price has fallen more than 88 percent this year. It has payment obligations of 38 billion kronor for sports rights over the next three years — more than double the company’s entire annual turnover.

Given these complicated circumstances, it is understandable that the quarterly report has been delayed. And that a temporarily disgruntled stock market is the least of Viaplay’s problems.

If the owners can reach agreement, we may see the outlines of a new Nordic media giant take shape. Schibsted would then considerably strengthen its position, owning TV and streaming operations in addition to the news media and internet services it already has.

With a billion-kronor injection from the Adevinta sale, further Nordic acquisitions could well follow.

If the negotiations fail, Viaplay faces a very difficult road ahead. Divided major shareholders, a structural crisis in the streaming market, and high interest payments to service. Something has to give. All signs suggest that the Viaplay we see today will be very short-lived.

*Schibsted is listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange. In Sweden, the group owns, among others, Svenska Dagbladet, Aftonbladet, Blocket, and Lendo.