Category: Uncategorized

The first earnings report after a closely-watched tech IPO is always a nerve-wracking experience, but the response to Snap’s first quarterly results on Wednesday went beyond just nervousness and crossed over into shock-and-awe territory.

Snap’s share price plummeted by more than 24% following the release of its results, taking the stock to within a hair of $17, the price at which it issued its first shares in **. In all, the company lost almost $4 billion in stock-market valuation in less than an hour.

Why so much negativity? The video-messaging app maker was expected to lose a lot of money in its first quarter, and many analysts were also prepared for it to show slower growth in daily average users. But the results were even worse than expected.

In total, Snap lost $2.2 billion in the quarter, on revenues of just **. That means it lost ** for every dollar of revenue it made during its first three months as a public company. And user growth was **, significantly lower than in the preceding quarter or the same quarter a year ago.

As many other newly-public stocks have discovered, when you have a market cap of ** billion, even a small miss is seen as a huge red flag. And the user numbers likely fueled concern about competition from Facebook and Instagram eating into Snap’s market share.

Instagram has copied virtually all of the major aspects of the Snapchat service over the past year, and has seen fairly dramatic growth in its user base — it recently announced that it added more than ** million users, which is larger than Snap’s entire user base.

Most of Snap’s $2.2 billion loss was a result of stock-option grants that the company gave to its employees, including ** to CEO Evan Spiegel. But the figure was still massive, and represents a real drain on the balance sheet.

The weak user growth is even more of a concern. Snap likes to talk about the engagement levels that its app generates, with users spending an average of about 30 minutes every day on the service, and more than 3 billion “snaps” being uploaded every day. But what many investors like is growth.

The number of daily average users did grow, but the growth rate was smaller than it has been in every preceding quarter, and that’s not the kind of trend that analysts or investors want to see.

In the fourth quarter, for example, daily users grew by **. In the third quarter of last year they grew by **, and in the quarter prior to that they rose by **. The growth in the latest quarter looks especially bad when compared with the same quarter a year earlier, when the user base rose by **.

The company focused on a number of positive aspects of the quarter, not surprisingly. It noted that revenue rose by more than 280% compared with a year earlier, and said it has seen “significant progress” in advertising revenue as a result of launching an automated ad service.

Snap also pointed out that its operating costs fell, in part because it renegotiated its contracts with Google and Amazon, which host most of the videos and images uploaded by Snapchat users.

“I feel we have executed well on our priorities for this quarter, and that we have a strong foundation as we build our business,” CEO and co-founder Evan Spiegel said during some fairly brief comments on the company’s conference call with analysts.

In response to a question about the company’s losses and revenue growth, ** said that Snap is “still in investment mode,” and wouldn’t be sacrificing that to meet any short-term goals. “We are managing this company for the long term,” he said, adding that analysts shouldn’t expect any kind of revenue guidance from Snap in the near future.

Spiegel: pleased with results, engagement, 3B snaps every time… still have a lot of work to do; 156M DAU in the quarter, up 54% globally… search product is exciting, long tail of content, really is a story for everything, surfaces stories by machine learning… significant progress in automating our ad platform… feel we have executed well on our priorities for this quarter, strong foundation as we build our business

Imran Khan: Users spent over 30 minutes per day on average, unique content, friends and family and premium publishers, informed and connected through Our Stories, expert teams curate Snaps around breaking news, entertainment and sports… 250,000 submissions from users around the Oscars which we curated, 21 million global unique viewers… expanded our Discover offering, 55 global partners; custom analysis with Nielsen, 45% of 18-34 year olds are reached every day… engage an audience that research shows is difficult to reach… cornerstone of a great advertising businesss…

Started ad strategy with big brands, Universal more than doubled their spend with us, Snap ads with attachments provide for engagement — can swipe up to view the full trailer or buy a ticket without having to leave Snap… 300% increase in app installs for a client… clients see more time spent by users who come in via Snap, and also higher rates of conversion to purchase… tens of thousands of advertisers using our geo-targeted filters; API and auction in Q4, working hard to scale for advertisers of all sizes… serving some of the largest brands in 24 countries

Drew: Revenues up 286% year over year, strong ad demand, $128.7 in North America, up 259%… 86% of revenues was sold by Snap; hosting costs fell due to new contracts with Google and Amazon… total cost of revenue down 6%… business remains “in investment mode,” nominal losses increased in the quarter — strong balance sheet

Spiegel says company deliberately didn’t do “growth hacking” things like allowing users to add everyone from their address book automatically, focusing more on creativity than DAU growth (dig at Instagram); excited about the momentum… talk about DAU’s in terms of removing some friction for things like filters, people like looking like a puppy (awkward laugh)… we are running the company for the long term, says Drew, so won’t be any revenue guidance coming from Snap… $8 million in revenue from Spectacles… seasonal events in Q4 says Drew, Olympics was a nice bump, college football partnerships, bit of election upside… early adopters are seeing great results from Discover, says Spiegel… Snapchat Shows, video content created just for Snap, not repurposed from the Internet, episodes drawing audiences of over 8 million, excited about that

Media companies have been hitching their wagons to Facebook’s star for some time now, seduced by the thought of the social network’s audience of 1.8 billion people, and of how much it would be worth to them if just a tiny fraction liked or shared their content.

But how much are those likes and shares worth in terms of actual revenue for a publisher? That’s a question that has been somewhat difficult to answer.

A group of researchers at Kaleida, a data-analytics service that was co-founded by several former employees of The Guardian newspaper in the UK, took a look at that question recently from the point of view of a single media company that uses their platform.

“Facebook, Google, Twitter and all the rest are always selling the idea that they drive a lot of traffic to publishers’ web sites and, therefore, publishers can’t afford not to work with them,” Kaleida CEO Matt McAlister wrote in a blog post. “If that’s the starting point then there’s a very important question to ask: How much is that traffic worth?”

(image)

To try and answer that question, the company looked at the total number of page-views and social-media referrals from Facebook for one of its publishing clients, for a single day in April of this year (the client was not identified by name).

McAlister admits in his description of the research that a single publisher’s traffic on a single day is not much data, and there is the risk that it isn’t broad enough to generate any firm conclusions. But it is still an interesting look at Facebook’s value.

First, the researchers tried to determine whether organic sharing of Facebook posts was correlated with the traffic to those posts on the publisher’s website, and they found that it was. Although Google also drove a lot of traffic to the site, Facebook was much more of a factor than the search giant, and significantly more so than Twitter.

(image)

It’s worth pointing out that not everyone has found that Facebook shares correlate to traffic. The online publisher Refinery29, for example, looked at a similar question and found that the articles that got the most shares weren’t necessarily the ones with the highest traffic.

Chartbeat, meanwhile — an analytics company that caters to publishers — found after some of its own research in 2014 that “there is no relationship whatsoever between the amount a piece of content is shared and the amount of attention an average reader will give that content.” Nor did heavily shared articles correlate to large amounts of traffic.

In order to refine its results, McAlister says the Kaleida team threw out any articles that got less than 100 shares. They did the same with any articles that got more than 10,000 shares, on the assumption that these were aberrations of some kind, or driven by external factors.

That left a group of articles that got between 80 and 10,000 shares on Facebook. These articles got a total of 240,000 shares in the aggregate, and drove a total of 1.1 million page views. Based on that math, Kaleida says, a single share on Facebook is worth about 4.5 page views.

Most publishers make money from their pages via advertising, which is measured on a “cost per thousand” or CPM basis, so the company used an average CPM of $10 to compute a total dollar value. Using that metric, the publisher in question would have made about $10,000 in advertising revenue from the traffic generated by those Facebook share referrals.

So what’s the bottom line? According to Kaleida, a single share on Facebook is worth roughly 4 cents to a publisher like its client.

There are all kinds of caveats that can be applied to the company’s research, of course, since it is based on a single day and a single client’s output, and there is still much debate about whether shares actually correlate to website traffic or monetization.

As McAlister admits, there are also other reasons why publishers want their content to appear on Facebook, including branding and overall awareness, as well as the potential for interaction with readers. Facebook is also paying some publishers to produce video.

But when it comes to actual revenue that publishers can expect to generate from Facebook’s social activity, Kaleida says four cents is the average for a single share on the social network — and that’s for sites that have $10 CPMs, which many do not. For them, the number will be even smaller.

The music-industry graveyard is full of once-hot digital players who fell on hard times due to the changing economics of the business over the past decade or so, and they could soon be joined by one of the earliest music startups: Pandora Media.

The struggling music-streaming service has come so close to disappearing so many times over the past couple of years that it seems to have nine lives, so it’s possible that it will somehow manage to soldier on. But there are signs that this could finally be the end of the line.

On Monday, the company said that it is exploring “strategic alternatives,” which is thinly disguised code for “we are looking for a buyer.” The stock [fortune-stock symbol=”P”] is down by 24% this year, and it has lost more than 75% of its market value since 2014.

Pandora has been for sale before, although not officially. It was said to be looking for acquirers early last year, and reportedly had talks with Amazon and satellite-music operator Sirius XM. But then founder Tim Westergren returned to take up the reins as CEO, and said that a sale wasn’t in the cards.

Before Westergren returned, Pandora made a last-ditch attempt to reinvent itself in late 2015 by spending $75 million to buy Rdio, a highly-regarded but financially bankrupt streaming service.

The purchase was part of a plan to move away from the company’s roots as a digital radio provider (which meant lower costs but also restricted the service’s flexibility) and to build a subscription business to replace its previous advertising-based model, which had stalled.

In March, the company launched a $9.99-a-month streaming service to try and compete with the giants of the industry — Apple Music, Google Play and Spotify.

The results, however, have so far been fairly unimpressive, at least from a financial perspective. In the most recent quarter, Pandora lost another $132 million, and the company said it is likely to lose another $120 million in the current quarter. Last year, it lost $340 million. That’s more than half a billion dollars in losses in 18 months.

For most streaming music companies, including Spotify, the cost of paying music companies for licensing rights makes it virtually impossible to make much money. Spotify pays out about 85% of its revenue in the form of licensing fees and lost almost $200 million in 2015.

The math in Pandora’s case has actually gotten worse instead of better. Because of the way the music business is structured, it paid less when it was defined as a “streaming radio” provider (radio services have to abide by certain rules, which restrict the amount of control users have over what they listen to).

Since it acquired Rdio and launched its Pandora Premium streaming service, the company has had to cut deals directly with the record labels (radio services pay a set fee that is established by a licensing board). So its costs have actually increased.

Revenues rose in the latest quarter by 6%, which was better than most analysts expected, and the number of Pandora subscribers climbed by about 20% to 4.7 million. But the number of hours those subscribers spent listening to music on the service fell, and the number of active listeners also dropped, as it has done repeatedly over the past few quarters.

At a time when Apple Music — which is less than two years old — has more than 20 million paying subscribers, and Spotify has 50 million, Pandora’s 4.7 million subscribers look fairly unimpressive. They might make a nice addition for someone else’s existing business, but it’s probably not enough for the company to survive on its own.

Meanwhile, the pressure on the company to sell has ratcheted upwards, driven in part by Corvex Management, a hedge fund (run by Keith Meister, former right-hand man to corporate raider Carl Icahn) that acquired a 9.9% stake in Pandora in May of last year and has been pushing for a sale.

The financial pressure could intensify even further if the company can’t find a buyer. It announced on Monday that it has agreed to raise $150 million from legendary hedge fund Kohlberg Kravis Roberts in order to fund its operations, via a preferred share issue.

Those preferred shares give KKR a significant amount of leverage over the company, including a seat on the board of directors, and they will also force Pandora to pay the fund a dividend of at least 7.5% every quarter until the shares are bought out or converted into common shares.

As for who might be interested in acquiring Pandora, the number one name on most lists is Sirius, which has made several overtures. The satellite provider first approached Pandora in early 2016 with an offer that was close to $15 a share, and then returned later in the year with another offer, but no deal was forthcoming.

After deleting more than 30,000 fake accounts in advance of the recent French election, Facebook is now engaged in a very similar campaign in Britain, getting rid of thousands of fake accounts and warning users about the issue of fake news in a series of newspaper ads.

It seems the company has come around to the idea that “fake news” campaigns might actually be able to influence elections, after initially denying that this was the case in the U.S. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg at first said fake news was a minuscule problem, and called the suggestion that it might have affected the election “a pretty crazy idea.”

But the company’s behavior in France and the UK isn’t evidence of some kind of religious conversion on Zuckerberg’s part when it comes to the dangers of fake news. It’s more about the political pressure that Facebook is feeling on the issue from the European Community.

The giant social network has been under fire for some time now in a number of different EU countries, especially Germany, for its role in spreading not just fake news but hate speech and offensive behavior of various kinds. In that context, the French and British campaigns seem mostly designed to make it look as though Facebook takes the issue seriously.

The German cabinet has approved legislation that would fine large platforms like Facebook as much as $50 million if they fail to remove fake news or hate speech quickly enough. The bill is not yet law, but it is supported by a number of senior German politicians.

In Britain, meanwhile, some believe that social networks like Facebook and Twitter and their distribution of fake news articles helped to sway the so-called “Brexit” vote in favor of having Britain leave the European Union.

Conservative MP Damian Collins is running a parliamentary inquiry in the UK that is investigating the problem of fake news, which he said was a threat to “the integrity of democracy,” and he suggested in recent interviews with British media outlets that Facebook was not doing enough.

It’s not just news that British political observers have suspicions about. There have also been suggestions that the Leave side of the campaign also used Facebook-centric data tools such as Cambridge Analytica to compile psychographic profiles of users, and then target them with ads to try and sway their votes in a particular direction.

The firm, which is owned by billionaire Trump supporter Richard Mercer, has been accused of doing something similar during the U.S. election campaign, a strategy that was reportedly master-minded by Donald Trump’s senior adviser (and son-in-law) Jared Kushner.

In France, it appeared that some organized efforts were under way to try and influence the outcome of the election, after thousands of documents relating to centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron were leaked in an anonymous Internet dump by unknown parties. The Macron campaign warned that some of the documents in the dump were forgeries.

The dump seemed calculated to do as much damage as possible, since it occurred just before a 44-hour communications ban that prevented all parties and candidates from talking about the election. But for a variety of reasons, the French press didn’t pay as much attention to the leaks as U.S. media outlets did to similar leaks about Hillary Clinton.

According to the New York Times, one mitigating factor was that France doesn’t have a tradition of tabloid-style press outlets jumping on such material, nor does it have any right-wing outlets like Fox News that might have seen it as an opportunity to hurt the opposition.

Britain, however, has a robust and enthusiastic tabloid press, one that is arguably even more interested in the whiff of political scandal than any U.S. outlet. And given the fact that many believe fake news helped push the country out of the EU, there will no doubt be plenty of attention given to whether Facebook is the source of similar election-related fake news.

Although it came too late to be much help with the U.S. election, Facebook admitted in a recent research report that there were signs of co-ordinated attempts to affect the U.S. presidential campaign through the distribution of fake news about both political parties.

In some cases, the social network’s security team said that this behavior wasn’t even directed at raising doubts or perpetuating myths about a specific candidate or party, but was intended to sow discord and confusion about the outcome of the election in general.

“We identified malicious actors on Facebook who, via inauthentic accounts, actively engaged across the political spectrum,” the report said, “with the apparent intent of increasing tensions between supporters of these groups and fracturing their supportive base.”

It didn’t take long for the Federal Communication Commission’s loosening of TV ownership rules to have an impact on the marketplace. Sinclair, the largest owner of local TV stations in the U.S., said Monday it has agreed to acquire Tribune Media for $3.9 billion.

Sinclair’s eagerness to merge Tribune’s assets with its own can be seen in the premium it was willing to pay for the smaller company. The company’s current bid is about 25% higher than Tribune’s average trading price earlier this year, before takeover talk caused it to spike.

21st Century Fox was also said to be considering an offer, in partnership with the hedge fund Blackstone Group, and Nexstar, another large owner of local TV stations, was rumored to be interested in acquiring the company as well.

There are two main things that Sinclair gains from a Tribune acquisition: One is reach and the other is influence, both in political terms and when it comes to the evolution of the TV industry.

In terms of reach, Sinclair already owns 173 local TV stations that serve about 80 different local markets, but the Tribune deal will broaden its footprint. The deal will also add some strategically important affiliates in major markets like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.

Once the merger is complete, Sinclair will add 42 stations in all. That includes 14 Fox Network affiliates, 12 CW affiliates, and several affiliates of the other major networks: Six CBS stations, three ABC stations and two NBC affiliates. It also gets ownership of a cable channel, WGN America, and a 31% stake in the Food Network.

The new affiliates will give Sinclair additional leverage in negotiations with the national networks, who pay affiliates significant fees to carry their channels. Fox’s interest in Tribune was said to be at least partly defensive, because it didn’t want another player like Sinclair to have even more clout.

On top of that, a broader network with more affiliate stations will also give Sinclair more heft when it comes to influencing new digital deals as well.

With more new streaming services like Hulu’s recent offering, YouTube TV and others entering the marketplace, cable networks are looking to negotiate deals to have their content included. The more network-affiliated stations a company like Sinclair has, the more weight it can it can bring to bear on such discussions to get access to those deals.

YouTube’s new TV-style offering, for example, is only available in markets where its major network partners have affiliates, who provide local channels as part of the package.

And then there’s the question of political influence. Sinclair chairman David Smith, son of the company’s founder, is a supporter of Donald Trump and is seen by many industry watchers as prepared to use his chain’s reach to help promote conservative causes and viewpoints.

During the presidential election campaign, for example, Trump adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner told a group of executives that the Trump campaign had cut a deal with Sinclair for access to the candidate, in return for what he described as “fairer” coverage.

The company later denied that the arrangement was struck in return for more favorable or preferential treatment of Trump. According to Sinclair, all it did was agree to show uncut video of interviews with the candidate, something it said it offered to other candidates as well.

The Sinclair-Tribune deal was made possible in part because the FCC recently revised its ownership rules to make it easier for TV-station conglomerates to acquire more stations without running afoul of market-share caps.

In addition to industry and/or political influence, industry watchers say Smith also wanted the Tribune deal in part because he believes he can build a digital interactive-services business on top of the company’s existing traditional broadcast network.

In effect, Smith wants to go into competition with digital media players like Google, and he wants to use the bandwidth and network access of all those local TV stations to do it. The plan is based on new TV industry standards that will allow it to offer digital entertainment and advertising services, and also collect data on users.

“The Tribune stations are highly complementary to Sinclair’s existing footprint and will create a leading nationwide media platform that includes our country’s largest markets,” Smith said in a statement. “The acquisition will enable Sinclair to build ATSC 3.0 (Next Generation Broadcast Platform) advanced services [and] scale emerging networks.”

One of the biggest shifts currently underway in media is the race to re-invent television, and to thereby get access to the billions of dollars in advertising TV still captures. And Google has made it clear that YouTube intends to be a major factor in that race.

YouTube has made a number of changes aimed at beefing up the professional side of its video offerings, including the launch of a subscription service called YouTube Red. On Thursday, it unveiled another major step — one that will bring into even more direct conflict with Facebook and Amazon, both of which also have their sights set on dominating the future of TV.

The giant video platform announced at an event for advertisers in New York that it is launching a total of 40 new TV-style shows, many of which will feature not the usual homegrown talents that live on YouTube, but actual celebrities from traditional TV and Hollywood movies.

The initial slate of seven shows will include unscripted material from actors, talk-show hosts, musicians and comedians such as Ellen DeGeneres, Katy Perry, Demi Lovato, Ludacris and Kevin Hart. Other shows will be fronted by YouTube stars including The Slow-Mo Guys, who specialize in filming things that are being blown up at super-slow-motion speeds.

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki made a point of saying the new offerings — all of which will be supported by advertising, rather than a subscription paywall like YouTube Red — shouldn’t be taken as a sign that the service is turning its back on its user-generated past.

“YouTube is not TV and we never will be,” Wojcicki said. “The platform that you all helped create represents something bigger.” But it’s clear that YouTube has its sights set on being much more than just a platform for unknowns to make their mark with wisecracks or ad-hoc skits. It very much wants to be a conduit for more traditional fare as well.

The launch of this new stable of offerings means that YouTube is effectively taking three different routes towards getting more serious about TV, including Red — which carries content from YouTube stars such as PewDiePie and the Fine brothers — and YouTube TV, which launched earlier this year and offers a cable-style package of traditional channels such as ESPN, NBC and Fox.

Facebook has also made a number of moves towards getting more serious about TV, including steps that appear to be moving it away from the short-form, user-generated content that is popular on Facebook Live, and more toward longer-form, more traditional fare.

Last year, the giant social network hired Ricky Van Veen, one of the co-founders of the video site CollegeHumor, and assigned him to license or fund the creation of what sounds a lot like TV-style entertainment content, including comedy shows.

Some of this is going to bring both YouTube and Facebook into conflict with Netflix, which has been spending billions to license TV shows, movies and other content such as comedy shows and “reality TV.” According to some industry watchers, the price of this kind of entertainment has been climbing because Netflix has such deep pockets and is willing to pay.

And then there’s Amazon. The online-retailing giant has pockets that are at least as deep as those at Facebook and Netflix, and it has shown signs of wanting to aggressively move into the market.

Amazon has outbid Netflix and other players such as HBO for the rights to premier movie and TV offerings at leading industry events like the Sundance Film Festival, and it recently expanded Amazon Prime Video into more than 200 countries, which puts it head-to-head with Netflix. It has also reportedly been looking to launch a cable-style TV package.

One strength Amazon has is that it already operates an existing subscription service, Amazon Prime, that generates a significant amount of revenue for the company without video. Even if the TV shows and movies it licenses or produces don’t get huge ratings, if they help convince more people to sign up for a Prime subscription, then Amazon wins.

Facebook and Google, however, are theoretically more reliant on the advertising revenue that they will be able to generate from their video offerings, although they both obviously have giant businesses that spin off huge amounts of cash. It will be interesting to see who gains the upper hand as the world of digital TV continues to evolve.

As the federal Justice Department considers possible espionage charges against WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange for leaking classified documents, the director of the FBI made it clear he doesn’t believe that what the group does should qualify as “legitimate” journalism.

A number of First Amendment activists and media experts have said that charging Assange for his role in the distribution of leaked documents would threaten the practice of journalism in the U.S. The fact that WikiLeaks receives classified information from anonymous sources and publishes it is no different than what the New York Times does, they argue.

FBI director James Comey, however, said in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that he believes there are critical differences in what WikiLeaks does and what “legitimate” journalists do in the pursuit of such information.

And what are those differences? For one thing, Comey said that American journalists who receive or obtain classified intelligence usually call the government before publishing it, in order to ensure that people named in the documents aren’t put in danger. “This activity I’m talking about with WikiLeaks involves no such considerations whatsoever,” he said.

Juslian Assange, however, responded to this charge on Twitter, saying the FBI director was not telling the truth. “James Comey just mislead the Senate while under oath when said Wikileaks ‘doesn’t call us’,” Assange wrote. “We did over #Vault7 and I know he knows it.”

Vault 7 was the name given to a large dump of data that WikiLeaks started releasing in March that detailed many of the CIA’s hacking and surveillance techniques. ** also confirmed on Twitter that WikiLeaks reached out to the government before releasing the documents, and that it also did so in other cases such as the diplomatic cable leak in **.

Comey also argued that “legitimate” news-gathering is aimed at educating the public about an important issue. What WikiLeaks did, he said, was simply “intelligence porn,” since it involved “just pushing out information about sources and methods without regard to interests.”

The problem that the FBI director’s comments raise is the same one that is raised by the Justice Department’s interest in possibly charging Assange with espionage: Namely, how is the government supposed to differentiate between what WikiLeaks does in such cases, and what “legitimate” media organizations like the New York Times do?

The idea that WikiLeaks doesn’t check with government or care about the safety of those named in the documents it leaks doesn’t really hold water, as Assange and others have pointed out.

So that leaves Comey’s definition of what legitimate news-gathering outlets do vs. what WikiLeaks does. In other words, the argument that legitimate journalism has a specific educational purpose, targeting at a specific issue, whereas what WikiLeaks does is simply “intelligence porn,” releasing reams of documents with little regard for what they are about.

This argument also fails, however. Comey appears to be saying that a “data dump,” in which all kinds of documents or material are released at once, can’t qualify as legitimate journalism.

But if this was the case, then articles written by the New York Times and the Washington Post and other news outlets based on the diplomatic cables wouldn’t qualify as journalism, unless they confined themselves to a single issue that they were trying to “educate the public” about. That’s a pretty restrictive definition of “legitimate” journalism.

The harder the government and its agents try to define journalism in such a way that it implicates WikiLeaks but not a traditional entity like the New York Times, the more disturbing their efforts become, and the more the lines between the two continue to blur.

The risk remains that the Justice Department will pursue its case against Assange and WikiLeaks for ideological reasons, and that in the process it will try to finesse the distinction between the group and journalism — and this will provide even more ammunition for the government to go after legitimate journalists whose work it disagrees with.

The headlines about the New York Times’ financial results on Wednesday were all about a record number of new digital signups, a gain that pushed the paper over the 2 million mark. But beneath the euphoria lurks a darker fact, which is that print revenue continues to drop at a precipitous rate.

This has been the yin and yang of the Grey Lady’s results for the past several quarters. A steady increase in digital subscriptions, driven by what many believe is concern about President Donald Trump—a phenomenon colloquially referred to as a “Trump bump”—combined with the ongoing free-fall in print-advertising revenue.

The only upside of this collapse in print revenue is that it means print is becoming a smaller and smaller proportion of the newspaper’s business, so the pain is gradually decreasing.

Last year, print advertising revenue at the Times dropped by 9% in the first quarter, 14% in the second, 19% in the third and 20% in the fourth. It fell by another 18% in the most recent quarter. Despite those declines, however, print still accounts for almost two-thirds of the paper’s advertising revenue. And it likely has further to fall.

The print advertising cliff is here for newspapers, people. Expect double-digit quarterly declines for the foreseeable future.

— Joshua Benton (@jbenton) November 2, 2016

On the bright side, digital revenue is climbing rapidly. The latest numbers show that digital ads and digital subscriptions—combined with income from affiliate revenues generated by The Wirecutter, the product-recommendation site the Times bought last year—pulled in $126 million in revenue. That’s up by $32 million or about 30% from last year.

Print advertising, meanwhile, dropped by roughly $18 million in the latest quarter to $80 million, down about 18% from the same quarter of 2016. What that means is the Times made significantly more from digital than it lost from print, which is a good sign.

In the past, even the paper’s digital revenue growth was not compensating for the rapid decline of print ad revenue. But as print ads become a smaller and smaller proportion of the company’s overall business, it is easier for digital growth to make up the gap. All the Times needs to do now is ensure that digital subscriptions continue to increase at the same rate.

Even with those increases, print as a whole still accounts for a much larger proportion of the Times’ business than digital does. If you include print subscriptions and print ads, print-related revenue was $240 million in the latest quarter, or almost twice what digital brought in.

In other words, the paper isn’t just relying on print advertising, it’s also counting on the fact that subscriptions to the print version will continue to bring in a significant amount of money. But is that a winning bet?

On the subscription side, digital signups accounted for $76 million in the latest quarter, but circulation revenues overall were $242 million, which means that print subscriptions accounted for more than twice as much revenue as digital subscriptions did.

The Times has been cranking up the price of its print edition over the past few years to try and keep those circulation revenues flowing, but eventually that is likely to stop working as well as it has been. And if the pace of digital subscriptions starts to slow down as well, that could make it even harder to compensate for print’s ongoing decline.

In the last quarter, the company’s revenue rose by $20 million — it lost about $10 million in revenue from advertising, but gained about $30 million from circulation increases ($25 million) and other income ($5 million).

Total digital revenue was $123 million in the quarter, up by about $29 million or almost 30% from the same quarter a year earlier. Total print revenue was $240 million, or about 60% of the total $398 million.

Circulation revenue from digital subscriptions (minus the crossword) rose by 40% or about $24 million to $76 million, while circulation revenue as a whole was $242 million, meaning print circulation revenue was $166 million.

Digital ad revenue was $50 million, up about 19% or roughly $8 million. Print ad revenue fell by 18% or about $17.5 million to about $80 million. Ad revenue as a whole was $130 million, down by about 7%.

The gigantic advertising machine known as Facebook continued to fire on all cylinders in the most recent quarter, beating analysts’ revenue and profit estimates handily.

So then why did the company’s share price [fortune-stock symbol=”FB”] weaken by 2% in after-hours trading Wednesday, despite this dramatic over-performance? In a nutshell, investors are likely nervous about the future, after Facebook warned that its advertising revenue growth rate is likely to slow later this year, and its costs are likely to rise.

The social-networking giant’s stock has also climbed by more than 15% in just the past three months, driven in part by strong results, so some of the weakness could be profit-taking.

There was certainly nothing to complain about in Facebook’s posted numbers. Revenue in the first quarter climbed by 49% to $8 billion, which was higher than expected, and net income was $3 billion or $1.04 per share, significantly higher than consensus estimates of 87 cents.

The company also announced that it now has close to 2 billion monthly active users — 1.94 billion, to be exact — up from 1.86 billion in the prior quarter. It has 1.28 billion daily users.

A company that has annual revenues of almost $30 billion but is still growing at almost 50% per quarter is almost unheard of. But it also raises the possibility that this phenomenal growth will begin to slow down, and that’s likely what investors are spooked about.

Facebook said in its last quarterly update that it expects to see its advertising growth rate “come down meaningfully” in 2017, as it starts to throttle the amount of advertising in the news feed.

Over the past few years, the social network has been able to boost its revenues by increasing what it calls the “ad load,” or the proportion of ads in a user’s feed. But the company said it is reaching the upper limits of what it can put in the feed without seeing a backlash.

Growth looked to be humming along just fine in the most recent quarter: Ad revenue climbed by 51%, which is roughly equivalent to the growth that Facebook saw in the previous quarter.

However, company officials repeated their earlier warning, saying they expect ad revenue to “come down meaningfully” by the middle of the year, along with the ad load. In addition, Facebook also said that its costs are likely to increase by more than 50% in the next quarter, as it makes a number of investments in what it called “significant initiatives.”

Among those initiatives is a major investment in hiring moderators to police the site’s live videos and other content for offensive or disturbing material, after a number of high-profile incidents in which people have committed suicide and engaged in other acts of violence.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced Wednesday that the company is hiring 3,000 moderators who will review content, to add to the 4,500 or so it has doing that job currently.

Here are the key numbers from Facebook’s Q1:

Revenue: $8.03 billion vs. $7.83 billion expected.
Monthly active users: 1.94 billion, up from 1.86 billion last quarter.
Daily active users: 1.28 billion, up from 1.23 billion last quarter.

Facebook earnings: $1.04 per share vs 87 cents expected

Daily active users (DAUs) – DAUs were 1.28 billion on average for March 2017 , an increase of 18% year-over-year. • Monthly active users (MAUs) – MAUs were 1.94 billion as of March 31, 2017 , an increase of 17% year-over-year. • Mobile advertising revenue – Mobile advertising revenue represented approximately 85% of advertising revenue for the first quarter
of 2017 , up from approximately 82% of advertising revenue in the first quarter of 2016

1.3B a day, Mark says — talked about next focus is building community, lot to do, bigger than any one org, develop social infrastructure for engagement… millions of smaller communities… more than 100 million people members of important groups like parenting, meaningful groups — want more than a billion people to join these kinds of groups… launched fund-raising tools… continue building new tools to keep people safe, adding 3,000 people to add to 4,500 we have already, to review content… changes to the news feed to reduce financial motivation to spread hoaxes, more info on whether article is disputed, ways to tell whether something is fake news… launched Town Hall in March, created more than a million new connections with local representatives… swipe right to access the camera, computer vision tools for filters etc., make camera the first augmented reality device… excited to keep pushing augmented reality forward; 200M daily active Instagram Stories users, 175M daily users of WhatsApp “status” (like stories) will keep putting videos at the center of all these services (news feed, WhatsApp and Instagram); daily watch time has increased by four times… 1.2B people use Messenger every month;

Ad rate will come down meaningfully, ad load will come down mid-year, full year 2017 payments revenue will decline compared to 2016; GAAP expenses will grow 40% to 50%, initiatives that will be positive long-term for society and the company, expenditures will be up over 50%.

Looking to invest in “kickstarting an ecosystem for longer-form video”… revenue-share model…

As the advertising market continues to be disrupted by the rise of the Google-Facebook duopoly, many publishers are looking to paywalls and subscriptions for survival. A new study shows some reason for optimism, but also plenty of reasons for pessimism.

The research, which was done by the Media Insight Project, found that a little over 50% of U.S. adults currently pay for their news — either by way of subscriptions to traditional publications like newspapers or magazines, or to online media sources, or both.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that there is another large group of news consumers who are described as “news seekers,” users who are interested in the news and devote a certain amount of time to finding it. But more than half of this group do not pay for their news, either in print or online.

An optimist would see this as an untapped resource for subscriptions, if only a way could be found to charge them for the news they are so interested in. A pessimist, however, would see a group that is successfully getting all the news they need for free, with no intention of paying.

There are some grains of hope for the optimists: Almost 20% of those who don’t currently subscribe to a news source say that they are inclined to do so in the future, if the price was right.

(chart)

When it comes to those who already subscribe, the reasons for doing so include 1) The fact that the publication is good at covering a topic the reader is interested in, 2) The fact that friends and family also subscribe, and 3) The fact that the outlet provided a discount or (in the case of print newspapers) that it includes coupons that can help a user save money.

Most of the benefit of subscriptions is going to print publications, according to the Media Insight survey. Of those who currently pay for their news, close to 60% describe themselves as primarily print subscribers, compared with less than 30% who are digital.

As for the non-paying crowd, most of the reasons why they don’t pay are fairly obvious. Most of those surveyed said they had no problem finding plenty of free news, while over 40% said they weren’t interested enough in the content to pay. Others said they found subscriptions too expensive, or they were too busy to make use of them.

(chart)

The Media Insight Project also found that young people — a group that has traditionally been seen as uninterested in paying for content — subscribe to news sources at a higher rate than many people assumed. Almost 40% of adults between the ages of 18 and 34 said that they subscribe to a news outlet, and said they did so because they wanted to support the organization’s mission.

This raises the possibility that news publishers who can successfully connect with younger users may be able to convince a significant number of them to begin paying for their content, provided they see the organization’s overall mission as worthwhile.

As the study put it, “publishers must understand that these relationships begin through friends’ referrals and social media,” and that in order for younger audiences to be willing to pay a subscription for their news, “they must bond with your mission and purpose.”

Interestingly enough, the Media Insight survey says there is some evidence that publishers could get away with charging more than they do now. Only 1% of those who pay say they think their subscription is too expensive for what they get, and 48% of digital subscribers say they feel they are getting a “very good value” for the money.

The Media Insight Project is a joint venture between the American Press Institute and the Associated Press NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The study surveyed more than 2,100 adults in the U.S. who were randomly selected from a panel of U.S. households.

Twitter has talked for some time about wanting to be the go-to destination for streaming video, and on Monday it put its money where its mouth is, by announcing deals with more than a dozen publishers and content companies, from Bloomberg to the NFL.

Although Twitter is undoubtedly hoping that all of this proprietary content will help to pull in new users — not to mention retaining the users it already has — the primary goal of its video strategy is boosting advertising revenue.

Video ads can be extremely lucrative, and Twitter needs all the help it can get in the revenue department, since its revenue actually fell last quarter for the first time.

All of this means that Twitter is extremely motivated when it comes to making its video push successful. Unfortunately for the company, everyone else is also chasing those juicy video ad dollars, including deep-pocketed behemoths like Facebook and Amazon.

Facebook, for example, is not only paying media companies to produce live video content, it has set up a division that is financing, licensing and creating live TV-style programming. And it dwarfs Twitter both in terms of the size of its user base and its ability to spend.

In all, Twitter announced streaming deals with 16 content providers on Monday, most of which fall into the category of either news or sports.

On the news side, Bloomberg will provide a 24/7 channel of custom content, including verified videos from Twitter users, and there are shows from BuzzFeed, The Verge and Cheddar, a financial-news startup run by former BuzzFeed president Jon Steinberg.

When it comes to sports, Twitter announced deals to carry streaming content from the WNBA, Major League Baseball and the PGA Tour, as well as a live show produced by The Players Tribune, a site co-founded by former baseball star Derek Jeter. The company also signed a partnership with concert producer LiveNation to stream some of its events, and a deal with Viacom for MTV content.

Twitter also has a deal with the NFL, but the details of that arrangement illustrate some of the challenges the company faces as it tries to pivot to become a digital television platform.

The network still has a deal with the football league, but it no longer includes the right to show actual games. Twitter had the rights to Thursday games last year — for which it paid an estimated $10 million — but it was outbid this year by Amazon, which paid five times what Twitter did.

What Twitter has now is the right to show pre-game and/or post-game content that will be produced by the NFL. In other words, commentary, highlights, etc.

When it comes to the WNBA and MLB and the NFL, Twitter has the rights to stream actual games. But is that going to be enough of a draw for a significant number of users? That’s unclear. But even having the rights to Thursday night NFL games last year didn’t seem to generate much bang for Twitter, either in the user-growth or revenue department.

The bottom line is that Twitter’s push into live video means it is becoming a media company, or at least it is trying to. And that is problematic for a number of reasons.

Social networks in general get free content from their users, and then try to sell advertising and other services related to that. Media companies, however, have to either create or cut deals with other publishers for their content, and then sell advertising around it.

The biggest problem is that this strategy can be expensive, at least if you want to get the really good content, like live NFL games. That’s why media companies tend to be valued much lower on the stock market than technology companies are. And Twitter simply doesn’t have the financial means to compete with players like Facebook and Amazon and YouTube.

That’s not to say there won’t be some good content coming from Bloomberg or BuzzFeed or Cheddar in the shows and segments they produce for Twitter. And there will probably be advertisers who want to sign up to reach some of those users. The company has already announced Wendy’s as an initial sponsors, and said it hopes to announce more soon.

What’s unclear, however, is how much Twitter is giving up in return for these deals, versus how much it stands to make from ads. And therein lies the difference between profitability and failure.

To be fair, the company didn’t really have much choice but to double down on live video. It admitted in its most recent quarterly earnings update that many of its previous advertising strategies (promoted tweets, etc.) were not working, and a number of them have been shut down, which is why its revenue dropped by 8%.

What remains to be seen is how many Twitter users want to actually watch live video news and sports programming through the app, and whether Twitter can convince advertisers that those users are worth paying for in enough quantity to move the needle for the company revenue-wise. It’s not easy being a media company.

Most of the iconic names from the history of the early web, sites like Geocities and Pets.com, have long since ceased to exist. But About.com, one of the earliest digital “content farms,” has remained largely unchanged despite the turmoil all around it.

All of that is coming to an end, however. In a recent interview with Fortune, About.com CEO Neil Vogel described how the site is reinventing itself for the current media age, and also unveiled a new name. About.com will now be known as DotDash, and its strategy is to be a kind of digital-first Conde Nast, running a series of content verticals.

The company has spent the last six months launching several new sites, including VeryWell—which focuses on health—and Balance, which specializes in articles about personal finance.

Vogel says he became the CEO of About after it was acquired in 2012 by Barry Diller’s IAC (which owns a host of sites like Match.com and Ask.com), and it was immediately apparent that the previous owner—the New York Times, which bought it in 2005—had not really invested in the site.

“When IAC bought it, it was still getting about 100 million users a month, and it had a bunch of revenue, but it was about half the size it was at its peak,” Vogel said. “It had not been invested in by the Times at all — no one had touched the content or the technology since like 2006.”

The site was so ugly and poorly designed, Vogel says, that “I couldn’t figure out why it was still in business when IAC approached me and asked me to fix it.”

The more he dug into the business of the site, however, the more Vogel says he realized that the “evergreen” type of content that About specialized in—articles about how to fix your broken toilet, or how to identify chicken pox, etc.—continued to draw a lot search traffic from Google.

“The content was still incredibly good, because a lot of it was written by experts,” he says. “We had 60 MDs that wrote for us, we had travel stuff that was written by people who lived in these places, dozens of personal finance experts. I figured if we could fix the tech and the look, we might get something advertisers might want to advertise on.”

Over the next year, the company totally rewrote the code that powered the site, did a top-to-bottom redesign of the front end, and launched a new version. “That more or less stopped the decline,” says Vogel. “All of a sudden people weren’t embarrassed to say they worked here.”

While traffic and revenue stopped falling, however, they didn’t start growing. “It turned out we were just doing the wrong thing better,” he says. “We were the same as Yahoo or MSN: A big portal with lots of general-interest content. But there’s no place for a site like that in 2016.”

Advertisers also saw About.com as a damaged brand, in part because it hadn’t changed for years. “We kept losing out on these deals because advertisers just couldn’t bring themselves to put their brands next to ours,” Vogel says. “At one point, we had one of the biggest companies in the world tell us never to call them again.”

The conclusion he came to was that if the site wanted to do anything other than tread water, it would need to be reinvented. “It was profitable, but it was going sideways,” he says. “We told IAC that we could keep it going and it would be fine, or we could really try to blow it up.”

IAC gave the order to blow it up, so Vogel and his team went through all of the content on the site and found that the most successful pages fell into five general categories: Health, technology, personal finance, lifestyle and travel.

“So we figured we could take those five areas and build brands around them, and turn that into something worthwhile, and the rest of the content we would just throw in the garbage,” Vogel says.

The transformation began at the beginning of 2016, and the first brand, VeryWell, was launched in April. Content was updated to make it current, and the idea was to be “a kinder, gentler version of WebMD,” the About.com CEO says. The site got 12 million unique visitors a month when it launched, and it is now at around 17 million visitors.

The second vertical, a personal-finance site called Balance, launched with 6.5 million unique visitors in August and last month it had more than twice as many, said Vogel.

Lifewire, the personal-technology site, launched in November and has gone from about 3.5 million unique visitors a month to more than 7 million. A home and food site called The Spruce is up about 40% since launch, and the next on the list is a vertical oriented around travel called TripSavvy, which is launching later this month.

As for the new name, Vogel said the word Dot in DotDash came from the fact that About.com’s logo had a red dot for the period, and the company wanted to maintain some connection to that. The word Dash seemed symbolic of “something coming next,” he says. And he also liked the fact that “dot dash” in Morse code refers to the letter A.

The response from advertisers seems to show the new approach is working, says Vogel. “We’ve been talking to people who have not talked to us since I’ve been here, which is four years,” he said. “Advertisers want data, which we’ve always had, but now we have brands that advertisers can trust.”

Embargo May 2 — Been here four years, IAC bought About from the Times, was still 100M users a month, bunch of revenue, good news lot of scale but bad news half the size at its peak — not been invested in by the Times at all, in 2013 no one had touched the content or the tech since like 2006 — create evergreen content, get SEO from Google and monetize through AdSense… so ugly and such a mess, IAC approached me and asked me to fix it, couldn’t figure out why it was still in business; but if you dug into it, the content was still incredibly good, written by experts, 60 MDs that wrote for us, went through each of our verticals, travel stuff written by people who lived in these places… dozens of finance experts; figured if we could fix the tech and the look, might get something advertisers might want to advertise on — rewrote the code, rebuilt the front end, launched a new version, that more or less stopped the decline — first year were still going down fairly rapidly, traffic and revenue… all of sudden people weren’t embarrassed to say they worked here; spent a year, just could not get it to grow no matter what we did — turned out we were just doing the wrong thing better, same as Yahoo or MSN, big portal with lots of content; there’s no place for a general-interest website in 2016 that is going to appeal to either users or algorithms that send traffic… if you have a clogged toilet, are you going to trust About.com or HGTV? Didn’t have any trust in our brand — some advertisers liked us, but kept losing these deals with The Verge and Engadget because they just couldn’t bring themselves to put their brand next to ours; one of the biggest co’s in the world told us never to call them again… About pre-dates Google, the deal back then was people would come see you directly; we became dependent on Google, but as it became more sophisticated it became more discriminating — same with Facebook; did pretty well with Pinterest because it’s very visual but… conclusion we came to was this thing is fine, it’s profitable, but it’s going sideways; we told IAC that we could keep it going and it would be fine, or we can really try to blow it up — figured out most of our content was focused on health, tech, personal finance and lifestyle; we thought if we took those five areas and built brands around them, we could turn that into something worthwhile, and then throw the rest of the content into the garbage… we don’t have magazine content to preserve, we don’t have existing businesses, so we can change quickly if we need to; middle of 2015 had the idea, started in beginning of 2016, broke it up, drop them into new domains… real branded, premium publisher; launched first brand in end of April last year, VeryWell; repurposing of all health content, brand new domain, average age of content four years, we updated all of it; kinder, gentler version of WebMD; 30-45 days later, traffic down 45-50% — figured that would happen because had to retrain Google, Facebook, etc.; 12M at launch, now 17M… Balance, personal finance; 6.5M in August, last month 13.5M, more than doubled; launched Lifewire tech site (how to fix my router) in November, gone from less than 3.5M to 7M — then home and food site The Spruce, up 30-40% — TripSavvy launching in three weeks… other big news is we’re going to change the name of About.com, no longer a general-interest UGC site; new name DotDash — always been a red dot in the name of About, so kept that, the dash is symbolic of something coming next; dot-dash is the letter A in Morse Code, which we thought was kind of fun… trade brand, not consumer brand, more like CondeNast or Hearst, so when we sell across brands; we’ve been talking to people who have not talked to us since I’ve been here, which is four years… advertisers want data, which we’ve always had, but now we have brands that advertisers can trust;

As part of an increasing focus on video, Twitter has said it is looking for deals that will allow it to stream various kinds of content on the network 24/7, and on Monday it announced its first partner in that effort: Financial news giant Bloomberg LP.

This isn’t the first time the two companies have joined forces on streaming video. Twitter also partnered with Bloomberg to broadcast live coverage of the U.S. presidential debates in September, which came after an earlier deal to stream several of the media company’s shows. But Monday’s arrangement goes much deeper.

Instead of just coverage of one event, the partnership will see Bloomberg providing 24 hours of content a day to stream via Twitter, seven days a week.

https://twitter.com/reformedbroker/status/859021136214020096

“It is going to be focused on the most important news for an intelligent audience around the globe and it’s going to be broader in focus than our existing network,” Bloomberg Media CEO Justin Smith told the Wall Street Journal in advance of the official announcement, which was made at Twitter’s “new front” event for advertisers.

Smith’s comment gets at one of the most interesting things about the news: Namely, that this is not going to be just a re-broadcast of existing content from Bloomberg’s various channels and shows.

As more than one media watcher pointed out when the story broke, Bloomberg already streams its content through a variety of services and networks, including on YouTube and pretty much every other over-the-top alternative. It can afford to do so because it doesn’t have to rely on traditional cable distribution contracts for its livelihood.

By contrast, what Twitter will be getting from Bloomberg is original content (it’s not clear how much) that will be created by the media giant’s various bureaus and reporters around the world. Smith said the channel doesn’t have a name, but will begin streaming in the fall.

https://twitter.com/conorsen/status/859004454917558273

The other interesting aspect of the new channel/network is what else it will include. According to the Journal, in addition to custom content from Bloomberg, the new service will have “a curated and verified mix of video posted on Twitter by the social-media platform’s users.”

It’s not clear who will be doing the curating and verifying of the video that appears on the new channel. But it plays into some of the work that Twitter has been trying to do with features like Moments and an expanded “Discover” tab, both of which are aimed at curating content from the network to show to users who might be pressed for time.

News Corp.’s Storyful unit also curates and verifies user-generated video from Twitter and other networks, but it does so as a paid service for media clients.

When it comes to streaming video about business and technology, meanwhile, there is already a video startup that does this for Twitter (among other outlets). Cheddar was launched by former BuzzFeed president Jon Steinberg last year as a kind of CNBC for millennials.

Having a multi-billion-dollar competitor like Bloomberg enter your market might fill some with trepidation, but Steinberg said he sees the new partnership as a good thing because it will bring more quality streaming-video content to Twitter, and that will grow the pie for everyone.

https://twitter.com/jonsteinberg/status/859082601033682946

Bloomberg and Twitter declined to share any details about the financial arrangement behind their partnership. The new channel will be supported by advertising, according to the announcement, but it’s not clear how the revenues from those ads will be shared between the two.

For Twitter, such a partnership would likely be a positive thing even if no money changed hands. The company has been pushing its status as a home for live video with deals like the one that saw it stream NFL Thursday night games last year (a deal Amazon recently took over), and having a heavyweight like Bloomberg involved will likely help. The stock jumped about 5% on the news.

The announcement also sparked speculation about whether the partnership might lead to a deeper relationship between the two companies—in other words, an acquisition of Twitter by Bloomberg.

There are some synergies that might be achieved from such a combination, including the addition of social features for Bloomberg, which has been behind the curve on such things for some time. But it’s not clear that they would be worth the $15 billion the financial-media giant would likely have to pay to acquire Twitter outright.

For the past several months, federal investigators from the Justice Department have been looking into allegations of misconduct at Fox News, and now that investigation has broadened to include financial crime experts from the U.S. Postal Service, according to CNN.

The initial investigation was reportedly triggered by revelations about financial settlements that were made by Fox News to multiple staffers who alleged they were sexually harassed by former Fox News chairman Roger Ailes, who has since left the company.

Investigators are said to be exploring whether Fox News declared these payments properly in its financial statements, or whether it disguised them somehow in order to avoid detection.

Justice Department staff have been interviewing those involved, including former employees at the network, for the past several weeks, CNN said. Investigators have been asking “how the shareholder money was spent, who knew, and who should have known.”

The Financial Times reported earlier this month that investigators were looking into the details of the payments and whether they were disclosed properly, and also said that U.S. Postal Service investigators were assisting with the case.

Two former Fox News executives told the paper that settlements to women who accused Ailes of harassment were not disclosed, and that payments were “moved around different Fox News budgets.”

In addition to the payments, CNN said the investigation is also looking into a group of individuals who were known collectively as “friends of Roger,” some of whom were on the Fox News payroll but had no official duties. One consultant reportedly earned $10,000 a month, but what he did in return for those payments is unknown.

New York magazine writer Gabriel Sherman, who wrote a book about Ailes and Fox News, has said that the former chairman maintained a kind of “black ops” team that was used to harass anyone Ailes didn’t like, including reporters, and that this team was paid using Fox News funds.

According to one report, Ailes used private investigators to try and dig up information on journalists, including former Gawker Media editor John Cook.

Ailes also reportedly paid a woman who pretended to date TV writer Brian Stelter (now at CNN) in order to try and get information about stories involving either himself or Fox News.

Whether the investigation will result in charges against Fox is unknown. The case was started by the Obama administration under U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who has since been fired. Billionaire Rupert Murdoch, who controls Fox News through the holding company 21st Century Fox, is said to have a close relationship with President Trump.

Murdoch is said to be concerned about the fallout from the Ailes harassment cases, as well as the more recent allegations against former host Bill O’Reilly, in part because he is trying to acquire control of British broadcaster Sky for $14 billion.

The proposed acquisition is currently being assessed by broadcast regulator Ofcom, and one of the criteria that regulators are considering is whether the Murdoch family would be “fit and proper” owners of the company.

In addition to the cases involving Ailes and O’Reilly, Fox News has been hit by a number of other allegations, including a lawsuit from former anchor Andrea Tantaros, who says Fox hacked into her personal computer and engaged in illegal surveillance of her.

For some, these allegations have echoes of the News of the World case, in which executives at the Murdoch-owned paper (which no longer exists) were found guilty of tapping into the phones of celebrities and politicians in 2011. The charges are part of the reason the Murdochs dropped a previous attempt to acquire control of Sky.

You may not know their names, but chances are you’ve seen their work, down at the bottom of an article, on any one of a thousand online news sites. You might even have clicked on one or two of their suggested links, although you probably wouldn’t want to admit it.

Their names are Taboola and Outbrain, and their business is selling the recommended links that show up on websites run by hundreds of different publishers, both large and small (including Time Inc., which owns Fortune magazine).

The two companies, both of which got their start in Israel but are now based in New York, have been competitors for years, but now there are reports that they may be considering a merger.

A report of the talks first appeared on Thursday on a site called Calcalist, a business news publisher based in Israel. According to the article, Taboola and Outbrain are in “the advanced stages” of a merger proposal, having determined who will get what share of the equity.

The idea of a merger between the two companies is not a new one. As Calcalist explains, they have held similar talks twice before, with the last negotiations occuring in 2015. But the two sides could not agree on how the assets would be split.

The two companies are like mirror images of each other. Both were founded by Israeli entrepreneurs — in Outbrain’s case, it was Yaron Galai, who started the company in 2006, and in the case of Taboola (which got its name from the Latin term for a blank slate, “tabula rasa”) it was entrepreneur Adam Singolda, who founded the company in 2007.

Both rose to prominence by helping publishers of all kinds generate more traffic for their web pages. In some cases, media companies pay to have their stories included in the recommended link widgets both companies operate, while others are paid for the traffic they generate. Some do both.

The result can be lucrative for publishers that are struggling to make ends meet with digital advertising, and watching their print revenues decline precipitously. According to published reports, Time Inc. signed a deal with Taboola in 204 that was worth $100 million over three years.

As Facebook and Google have taken a larger share of the digital-advertising pie, however (recent estimates are that they accounted for almost all of the growth in 2016), pressure on Taboola and Outbrain has intensified, which may explain the revived merger discussions.

Concerns about the rise of “fake news” and clickbait have also caused a number of publishers to stop using the recommended link widgets produced by both companies.

According to Calcalist, the combined value of the two companies is estimated to be $1 billion, and that figure also says something about the changing market for their services. In 2015, Taboola raised funding that valued it at $1 billion, while Outbrain was also said to be valued at a similar amount when it was considering an IPO in 2013.