2,762 Views

Microsoft buys LinkedIn – Smart Move or Dumb Move?

microsoftMicrosoft’s core PC business of office applications and Windows operating systems is in decline so it needs new sources of revenue.  It is splashing out $26B to buy social media business LinkedIn. Will this move add value for Microsoft shareholders or destroy it? The omens are not good.

Business leaders love to flex their muscles and use shareholders’ funds to buy other businesses. This is despite the evidence that most acquisitions do not fulfill their stated aims and many lose money hand over fist. This is especially true in the high-tech sector which has a catalogue of failed mergers. The most notorious example was the purchase of Time Warner by AOL in 2001 for a massive $164B. It was a catastrophe which ultimately sank both companies and has been described as the biggest mistake in corporate history. The two companies demerged in 2009.

Microsoft’s track record in this field is worryingly poor. In 2013 their then CEO Steve Ballmer spent $7B acquiring Nokia’s mobile phone business when it was clear that Apple and Android were killing all other competition in the sector. Within two years most of the acquired staff were laid off and Microsoft took a $10B write-down. This disaster followed Ballmer’s purchase of aQuantive for $6B in 2007. It was an attempt to take on Google in online advertising and it failed. In 2012 the value of the business was written down to zero. In 2008 in another attempt to take on Google Microsoft offered $45B for Yahoo. Fortunately for Microsoft the bid was rejected and the company dodged a bullet. Yahoo’s online advertising business is worth very little today.

But Microsoft is not alone in this folly. Google themselves splurged $12B on Motorola’s mobile phone business which they then sold three years later for less than $3B. Hewlett Packard spent $11B acquiring Autonomy but had to write off most of that within a year.  Facebook spent a remarkable $19B buying WhatsApp – and it is too early to tell if that is money well spent.

To be fair to Microsoft, their $8B acquisition of Skype may prove to be a winner. But despite some successes the question remains; why do companies keep acquiring when the evidence shows that the strategy generally does not work? In the case of LinkedIn Microsoft gets a business which has 430 million members and a database of information which is rich in detail. Microsoft’s CEO, Satya Nadella, is betting that his firm can find synergies between this data and Microsoft’s applications.

LinkedIn is the premier social network for business professionals and it is the essential tool of all recruitment companies.  However, LinkedIn”s growth has slowed and it is losing money. Is it tomorrow’s success or yesterday’s? Microsoft has paid a huge premium for the business and shareholders must be worried that it will add to the company’s litany of failures.

Save

Save

Save

One thought on “Microsoft buys LinkedIn – Smart Move or Dumb Move?

  1. The acquisition price is less than 25% of MSFT’s cash stash and approximately two calendar quarters worth of gross profit. In that context it has little long-term significance, should it not work out.
    The acquisition price is also more than 7.5 times LinkedIn’s run-rate revenues, making it an exorbitant amount to pay for a money loser.
    That LinkedIn is “the best thing like it out there” is a backhanded compliment that one could pay without any particular expectation of future value creation and capture.
    Indeed, as a professional networking platform, it’s both clunky and decidedly more effective for “pretenders” than for the “real deal” in any particular area of claimed expertise. Understandably, based on the revenue model, LinkedIn prefers quantity over quality in its registered membership.
    The nature of work, jobs and roles has changed and will continue to change. However, being able to effectively match talent (people and characteristics of people) with value creating and value capturing roles in the service of societal needs (aka meaningful work) is and will remain the task at hand for individual talent and for the organs of society (i.e. businesses, not-for profits, governments, etc.).
    Much of that job/talent-matching challenge was solved decades ago, but few noticed or took advantage. Most businesses ignore both the science of selection and the economics of employment (including contracting) to their substantial detriment.
    If I were leading Microsoft, I would have started there – i.e. creating a true digital ecosystem for talent (both platform and rules of player participation/engagement). Peter Drucker wrote:
    “We know now that the source of wealth is something specifically human: knowledge”
    “Business is a process that converts a resource, distinct knowledge, into a contribution of economic value in the market place.”
    Bottom line: LinkedIn has very little evident distinctive knowledge and therefore very little value. As a fellow lateral thinker, Paul, I’m sure that given $26 billion you could have spent it to greater benefit for both society and MSFT stakeholders.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *