Content Matters

5 Companies Who Might Buy Time, Inc.

Today comes word that a potential buyer is exploring the purchase of Time, Inc. from Time Warner (TWX). The Company has three main groups: News and Sports (Time Magazine, CNN Money and Sports Illustrated ), Style & Entertainment (People, InStyle and Entertainment Weekly) and Lifestyle (RealSimple, Southern Living, MyRecipes.com and others). According to reports, the sale could exclude three flagship brands:  Time, Sports Illustrated and Fortune, which would remain with Time Warner.

Who might the suitor be?

Obviously, there could be a private equity firm lining up to bid, but that’s not too interesting, so I thought I’d suggest some potential strategic acquirers.

UPDATE: The NY Times notes that analysts are speculating the bidder could be Meredith Corp.

That would make sense from the content/titles, and could see Jack Griffin doing it from an ego standpoint, but would be a challenge for them to absorb IMO. Assuming a price tag of $2-3 billion, it could cost nearly double Meredith's current market cap.

Disney (DIS) would make a lot of sense. They have the news (ABC) and sports (ESPN) coverage in place and could certainly capitalize on media and web opportunities around the style and entertainment business.

Hearst would find the titles would be hugely attractive, but absorbing an acquisition this large would be a challenge.  

Conde Nast/Advance Publications, publisher of Bon Appetit, Glamour and Vogue, would be a great home for the lifestyle and style brands, but may find a deal too large to absorb.

News Corp (NWS) is in the midst of splitting itself in two. An acquisition here could diversify that publishing group, reducing its reliance on newspapers and opening up more avenues for digital publishing.

Viacom (VIA) could see this as interesting way to build new video and digital content around the style, entertainment and lifestyle markets in the way that Time Warner's TMZ has found success.

Who am I missing? Who do you think might bid on Time? Add your ideas in the comments.

What Are Your Favorite Content Apps?

I'm writing an ebook aimed at helping publishers develop and implement their mobile strategy.

One section of that book will spotlight apps from publishers that get it right. I've got a bunch in mind, but would love to get your suggestions on content apps that are deserving of recognition.

First, to define what I'm looking for, I'm focused on apps from publishers, not on generic readers. So, the NY Times app would be a fit, but Flipboard or Pulse would not.

The focus can be b2b or b2c; I'll include native apps, mobile web apps and hybrid apps in the discussion. Content can be text, images or video. And I'm looking across a wide range of business models - free apps for brand awareness, paid subscriptions, content-enabled mobile commerce, digital-print bundles, sponsored apps and more.

Please respond using this short, one question survey.

If you'd like, you may add comments below. Or, if you prefer, you can email your suggestions to me at barry-at-contentmattersllc-dot-com.

Thanks for your help!

Journalism and Personal Brands

Less than 24 hours after announcing his intent to part ways with the Daily Beast and launch his own paid blog, Andrew Sullivan announced that he'd already received more than $300,000 in paid subscriptions from nearly 12,000 subscribers:

I wish Andrew Sullivan and the Dish team well in their efforts. As publishers find it more and more difficult to generate strong ad revenues from niche sites, we'll need for models like this one to succeed. And Sullivan has been an early adopter of new models since the early days of blogs.

At the same time, this effort is, no doubt, causing stress for many publishers when they look at the strong brands that their writers are creating. 

From all that I've read, The Dish's separation from the Daily Beast is a friendly one. And, let's face it, Andrew Sullivan had built the Dish brand at the New Republic, Time, the Atlantic, and as an independent blogger, long before he was hired by the Daily Beast. So, there's no debate about who owns the brand. 

But many journalists will build a strong brand, leveraging the traffic and position that a major publisher can provide, and publishers will fear them taking that brand elsewhere.

Well, what else is new? Broadcasters have poached their competitors' top talent for years. The same happens in print. The only difference here is that a twitter account or Facebook followers may seem a more tangible asset than the vague concept of viewers and readers.

Publishers will be tempted to turn to their legal department in an effort to retain ownership of those social media accounts. I'd recommend they don't. The best way to keep your audience will be to continually hire great talent and keep them challenged. The audience doesn't want to follow a publisher. They will choose to follow voices they find compelling.

The challenge for Sullivan and the Dish will be to ensure they remain part of the social conversation around topics, even with the metered ('not a paywall") approach. The real value Andrew has always provided is in creating an environment for intelligent debate. Now he must make sure that debate doesn't only happen behind closed doors.

 

 

Related articles

Andrew Sullivan Declares Independence, Leaves The Beast

Andrew Sullivan raises over $100,000 for ad-free blog in first six hours

Andrew Sullivan Leaving Daily Beast to Start Subscription Web Site

NOOK Sharpens Focus on Education Market with Pearson Stake

Pearson (NYSE:PSO) has taken a 5% stake in the recently spunoff NOOK Media LLC division of Barnes & Noble (NYSE:BKS) with an $89.5 million investment.

The investment values NOOK Media at $1.789 billion, unchanged from its recent spinoff. After the Pearson investment, the Barnes & Noble stake will be reduced to 78.2% of the company, with Microsoft (MSFT) owning the remaining 16.8%.

The investment was clearly strategic for Pearson, as a means of providing more seamless technology solutions for the education market. According to Pearson North America CEO Will Etheridge:

"With this investment we have entered into a commercial agreement with NOOK Media that will allow our two companies to work closely together in order to create a more seamless and effective experience for students. It is another example of our strategy of making our content and services broadly available to students and faculty through a wide range of distribution partners."

At the same time, Barnes & Noble filed an 8K indicating that "the Nook business will not meet the company’s prior projection for fiscal year 2013″.

The NOOK is a product in a tough position. While the NOOK HD has aimed to expand its capabilities beyond that of a single-function e-reader, it faces a highly competitive market. Traffic generated by Nooks are a fraction of that from the Kindle and are a rounding error when compared to the iPad. As single-function gadgets are subsumed by smartphones and tablets (see iPod for example), the life expectancy of the standalone e-reader market will be short. 

As I've previously written, I don't see a promising future for the NOOK as a general purpose e-reader or tablet. Instead, they should narrow their focus to the educational  and early reader markets, where they are better positioned for success. As I wrote last fall:

Barnes & Noble needs to root itself deeply into the textbook market. That market is up for grabs and it seems that Apple or Barnes & Noble will become the likely winner. Barnes & Noble should move quickly to secure the needed partnerships and focus its efforts on winning there.

The educational technology market remains somewhat fragmented. Apple has clearly set its sights on the classroom. I think it's time for Barnes & Noble to focus all of its efforts on this market. If the Nook cannot gain significant market share in the education space, it will have no viable future as a platform.

 

Lessons Unlearned: Why The Daily Shouldn't Derail Your Tablet Strategy

During the past week, my Twitter stream has been filled with various thoughts on the demise of News Corp’s (NWS) tablet-centric news app, The Daily (including my own). Some, perhaps in an effort to be provocative, have suggested that the end of The Daily signals the idea that tablet-based publishing itself has proven a failed model. Here are a few of those stories:

Felix Salmon on The impossibility of tablet-native journalism.

Mathew Ingram: Why Rupert Murdoch's bold bet on The Daily was doomed from the start.

The failure of The Daily says little about the future of tablet publishing, and mostly tells the tale of a failed publishing initiative. Let’s take a look at what The Daily was:

A tablet-only (to start), paid subscription, consumer app, providing general news content, with a very high budget. 

Now, let's break that down into its parts:

Tablet-only: By the end, The Daily had moved beyond tablets to include smartphone, and also had integrated the ability to share content via the web. But to start, it was a single-platform (iPad) product. And the fact that it was optimized for the iPad was both a strength and a weakness. 

Paid subscription consumer news app: the good news is that we are seeing paid content take hold in various markets. But consumers are only willing to pay for content not perceived to be readily available for free elsewhere.

High budget: one of the challenges large companies have when trying to launch something new is that they bring with them high cost structures. Startups don’t dangle 7-figure salaries to attract talent, but large companies fall into an expense base that’s not sustainable. Oh, and The Daily was the only app to run a Super Bowl commercial.  

Yet, despite that high cost structure, The Daily really only faced a challenge once News Corp split into two companies. As part of a single, diversified entertainment business, a $30m annual budget for the Daily was almost a rounding error, easily covered by box office proceeds for the movie Avatar in Poland. Not much to pay for a real-time R&D lab, whose learnings can be applied throughout the multi-billion dollar company. Yet, split off into a business already wracked by difficulties, it became an expensive luxury.

So, what lessons can we learn from The Dailly

Mobile First vs Tablet-Only: There’s a real difference between being Mobile First and being Tablet Only. The Daily became a walled garden, making it difficult to share content or to shift your reading from one platform to another.

In building digital products, it’s critical to understand user behavior. Will users skim your content on their mobile device during the morning commute, marking content to read on the desktop when they get to the office? Or, are they marking content during the day to read later on their tablet on the ride home? Do users need to share your content with peers? Particularly for b2b content, the need to shift from one platform to another is critical.

User Experience Matters: While The Daily ultimately failed in reaching their goal of a half-million paying subscribers to a consumer news product, they did exceed 100,000 paid subs. That’s pretty impressive considering the ubiquity of free news sources on tablets and the web. User engagement was high and they created many real fans. Rather than a boring “replica” app, the Daily created a compelling user experience, leveraging the iPad in ways few others have done.

Specialized, hard-to-find information beats generic news: This one almost goes unsaid, but while many companies are finding that users will continue to pay for information they can’t find elsewhere (particularly in b2b),there’s no appetite to pay for content where there is a viable free substitute. Editorial quality and a big marketing budget can’t overcome “good enough” free alternatives.

I’ll be exploring these and related issues this Thursday at the Specialized Information Publishers Association (“SIPA”) Digital Publishing and Marketing Institute conference in Miami.

SIPA members, by definition, should not face the problem of selling generic information to consumers. These companies offer niche products aimed at b2b markets. During this session, we’ll be exploring trends in mobile and tablet use, particularly among business users and explore how to develop an appropriate mobile and tablet strategy. We'll take a hands-on look at publishers who are doing it right (and a few who appear to be on a misguided path). I hope to see you there.

Related articles

In Defense of the Daily (RIP)

Why Magazine Apps Suck

News Corp.'s The Daily: Successful Experiment, Failed Publication

The Daily closes shop: why the news app was doomed from the start | Jeff Jarvis

Is Mobile First Still The Right Strategy?

There's an interesting discussion going on this morning on Fred Wilson's A VC blog in a post called Rethinking Mobile First. I'd encourage you to read the entire post AND the comments, but here's a short recap, along with my thoughts.

Fred's post is in response to a post by Origami Labs and Everyme co-founder Vibhu Norby questioning whether mobile is the right platform for many new app developers to focus on and why Origami is pivoting from mobile first to web first.

The Norby post highlights the fact that mobile-centric startup success has been limited to a handful of apps:

Only a handful of apps have succeeded mobile-first: Instagram, Tango, Shazam, maybe 2 or 3 others 

The challenge, as he notes, is that the conversion process from download through true engagement eliminates most users. In the case of Everyme:

At best, we retain 5% of users through the entire onboarding process. Attempts to fix it have raised it only nominally. We are not alone on that count even amongst apps with much better onboarding and many more app versions than our own.

In his response, Fred notes that despite the fact that it's hard, it's necessary:

But just because something is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try to do it. I am convinced the next set of large and valuable consumer facing services will be built with mobile as the primary user interface. You can see it in the success of Uber and Etsy this holiday season. That's where your users are most of the time. And if you don't design your products and services for what is rapidly becoming the dominant UI, you will not maximize the success of your business in the long run.

I tend to agree with Fred on this one. Mobile IS difficult. It's hard to get your app noticed in the first place, hard to get users to download it and even harder to get them to return to it a second, third and fourth time. But that's not altogether different than the web experience. In the early days of the web, people bookmarked sites all the time. I had hundreds of bookmarks in my Netscape bookmark manager. Of those hundreds of bookmarks there were even a dozen or more than I returned to frequently, but most just sat in the list, never to be clicked again. 

Your platform is not the biggest factor in user engagement. Your application is. Are you providing a compelling experience that users rely upon in their daily life? If so, I'm convinced you can deliver that experience on any platform. That's not to say that the experience won't differ on the mobile platform than on the desktop, but if you deliver value, users will return.

That said, the platform is key in how users interact with your app. Does your onboarding process require users to type a lot? That's fine on the web, less so on tablets and a real challenge on smartphones. Does your business model depend on running tons of ads on every page? Again, that may be fine on the desktop (though I could argue otherwise), less so on mobile devices.

The key, of course, is understanding what you are enabling users to do, then optimizing your offering (whether a native app, a mobile web app or a web page) to deliver that capability as simply as possible. Understanding your audience is critical. Are you aiming for smartphones or tablets? Do you expect a lean forward or a lean back experience?

And mobile first doesn't have to mean app-first. For publishers, mobile first can simply be rethinking your content so that it thrives in a mobile and/or tablet experience. That may mean creating shorter articles with more images and video content. If you build web pages that look great on tablets, they'll probably serve you well on the desktop. The reverse is rarely the case.

So, is mobile development easy? Not at all. Is there a simple path to success? No. But does that suggest that mobile-first is not the right strategy? No. Your customers are shifting more of their time to tablets and mobile devices. Mary Meeker's latest study shows that 29% of American adults currently own a tablet or eReader. And it's safe to say that after this holiday season, that number will probably be more like 33%. Is that a trend that you're willing to bet against?

Success will come to those publishers and developers who understand their audience and delight them with engaging products on the platforms where they are increasingly spending their time.

 

Related articles

Why We're Pivoting from Mobile-first to Web-first

Beware the Mobile-First Strategy

Rethinking Mobile First

In Defense of the Daily (RIP)

Many took delight in today’s announcement that News Corp (NWS) would be shuttering the Daily, the first paid tablet-only news product. I take no pleasure in seeing that product fail.

I’m biased in that I had the opportunity to work with the Daily team while at Crowd Fusion. Yet beyond getting to know many talented people, I got the chance to see them doing some really great things.

As many publishers have discovered, it’s incredibly difficult to differentiate a general news publication. Just the other day, USA Today CEO Larry Kramer was widely quoted as saying he would not charge for USA Today on the web, as its not unique enough content:

"There is so much national news out there,” Kramer said. “I think we would lose more than we would gain.”

The Daily struggled to differentiate its content. When it was first launched, the editorial content was a bit weak. But they definitely strengthened their editorial during their two year run.  More importantly, the Daily, more than virtually any other publication, has experimented with ways to best leverage the tablet environment.

Portrait or Landscape? While cost-cutting forced the Daily to shift to “portrait only” last summer, the Daily initially had two complete versions of every page – one optimized for portrait (vertical) mode, the other for landscape (horizontal). It’s not just that the page could be viewed either way, but that they actually did a full layout of each edition in both portrait and landscape mode so that every page could be optimized for either. This enabled features and functionality that would only work in landscape mode, for example.

Visual news While Pinterest and Instagram have made the image the key element of the mobile web, the Daily was early to realize that tablets were a visual experience and that text-heavy pages would not fly. Today, many others have followed suit – Reuters Wider Image, the Guardian’s PictGrid and others – but the Daily was early to that decision. And it makes reading the Daily on an iPad much more enjoyable than reading a typical newspaper app.

Video content Again, the Daily may not be unique in this, but they were quick to realize that HD video was a key aspect of tablet news consumption.

Navigation The Daily simplified their navigation this summer, but the app offered multiple forms of navigation at its start. A news carousel, similar to the iTunes cover flow, greeted new readers, while a traditional table-of-contents was available as well.

360 Degree Photos The Daily’s 360-degree photos were another way in which this daily newspaper became more of a visual magazine. Whether swiping your way through the St. Patrick’s Day Parade or the surface of Mars, these panoramic images were compelling.

Did the Daily have its faults? No question. The editorial content got better, but was never unique enough to make it a must-read for me. The navigation features were cool but remained clunky at times. And despite adding social sharing and other features, they were never able to fully integrate the app with the web. And while they exposed all of their functionality to advertisers, it seemed few were able to come up with creative campaigns that took full advantage of the device.

Update: Ceros (formerly Crowd Fusion) Chief Scientist Brian Alvey adds his thoughts to the Daily's legacy from a technology standpoint. While some suggest the $30 million per year cost of the Daily was high, noting that:

"...that’s a great R&D lab within a $60 billion company. If you spend $30 million every year to test every new platform that’s actually cheap.”

In the end, all of these features were not enough to attract the 500,000 paid subscribers that News Corp set as its break-even goal. It’s really hard to get consumers to pay for news, regardless of the container. But many of these features are now prominent in other news apps, by News Corp and its competitors.  The Wall Street Journal has begun adding 360 panoramic images to its iPad app, and countless publishers are investing in more video content.

And while it’s easy to poke fun at the failure of this well-funded startup effort, I would instead commend News Corp for doing what’s really hard for large companies to do – innovate. At a time when most publisher's tablet and mobile apps are Zinio-like replicas of print, the Daily attempted to create a product that new and exciting.I hope this failure won't make other publisher afraid to even try.

Launching Content Matters llc

I’m thrilled to announce the launch of Content Matters llc, a consultancy aimed at helping publishers and brands develop and implement effective strategies for delivering content over mobile, tablet and web platforms.

Content Matters will be focused on helping companies develop and implement their strategy in three areas:

• Tablet and mobile. Many publishers and media companies are struggling with the move to mobile platforms. Tablet adoption has outpaced even the most optimistic projections, leaving publishers scrambling. Yet developing an appropriate strategy for tablet and mobile is not simple. Publishers need to develop a clear strategy for their audience, which will drive decisions on platforms, app vs. mobile web and other key factors.
• Content Marketing. The line between publishers and brands is fuzzier than ever. For brands, content is the new form of advertising. At the same time, publishers, particularly information publishers are sitting on top of vast unused assets. Meanwhile, most social media efforts fall flat. A holistic content marketing strategy taps into existing content assets, creates new assets as needed, then uses a mix of traditional online and social media to engage an audience.
• New Product Development. An effective product funnel is the lifeblood of long-term business growth. Yet, for most media and publishing organizations, new products get short shrift, with product teams sucked into a never-ending cycle of product revisions. Even in cases where there is a focus on new products, those efforts are often disconnected from real-world use cases and go-to-market strategies.

Content Matters acts as an extension of your existing team to help you embrace technology and drive new product and marketing ideas.

For more information, visit Content Matters llc or contact us.

Who Should Buy the FT?

Rumours are swirling this morning that Pearson (PSO) could consider putting its prize asset, the Financial Times, on the selling block after appointing John Fallon its new CEO, replacing Marjorie Scardino, who is stepping down after sixteen years in the role.

The FT is a unique asset in many ways. It’s one of the few paid online news success stories, due largely to the fact that it’s mostly paid for by companies, not individuals. It’s completely dominant in the UK; you can be sure your content has been read by every UK banker by the time they get to their desk in the morning. It has global reach and employs some top quality journalists.

So, who should buy the FT?

The obvious buyers might include Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters (TRI) and News Corp (NWSA).  While News Corp is splitting off its news publishing assets into a new company, the combination of the FT and Wall Street Journal would be hard for Rupert Murdoch to ignore. A major European publisher like Axel Springer (SPR) would likely be interested as well. It's also possible someone like Reed Elsevier could jump in. Yet I don't see many other publishers getting involved. The FT would be a lot to swallow for a company like the NY Times in this market.

But an eventual buyer could come from outside the obvious names. One city analyst quoted in the Guardian story suggests the FT could get bids of as much as £1bn as a trophy buy:

“Who wouldn't want to own the FT. Russian oligarchs, a wealthy Middle Eastern owner would get more status than owning a football team.”

Whom do you think might be the best suitor for the FT? Add your thoughts in the comments.

Nook HD Aside, Two Key Questions Will Determine Barnes & Noble’s Future

In an anticipated response to Amazon’s latest Kindle Fire releases, Barnes & Noble (BKS) announced two new models in their Nook line – the 7” Nook HD and the 9” Nook HD+.

The new devices, which will be available in October, are built on top of the Android Ice Cream Sandwich operating system, but with a B&N wrapper. Price-wise, the new Nooks are competitive with their Kindle Fire peers, as well as the Google Nexus. The 8 GB Nook HD costs $199; the 16 GB model $229. The HD+ starts at $269 for a 16 GB model with a 32 GB model available for $299.

Initial product reviews from Engadget, CNET, The Verge and others all point to a product with strong technical specs and great design aesthetics. The 7” HD is clearly aimed at readers, while the larger HD+ with its 1920x1200 screen resolution aims to match the Kindle Fire HD as an entertainment device.

Yet product specs are largely irrelevant to whether Barnes & Noble may have a successful future. The long-term viability of Barnes & Noble will not be determined by product features, but really by addressing two key questions:

1. How, if at all, can the brick & mortar stores be an asset, rather than a financial drain?
2. What markets can B&N own?

The first generation Kindle was first released in late 2007 at a price of $399. While sales exceeded initial expectations, the first generation Kindle remained a niche product. Amazon released the 2^nd generation Kindle in 2009 at a $299 price.

In October, 2009, Barnes & Noble responded with the Nook at $269; Amazon responded by immediately cutting the price of the Kindle 2 to $259.

When the Nook was first released, Barnes & Noble’s brick-and-mortar stores were an asset. Kindles were still somewhat of a curiosity and the typical consumer had probably never held one in their hand. Meanwhile, the iPad had yet to come to market, and these early tablets were simply viewed as e-Readers.

Having a 1,000 square foot display at the front of each B&N store was a key way of getting consumers to see and touch these devices for the first time. At a price point above $200, these devices were not yet impulse buys, so giving a buyer the ability to try it out in a store gave Barnes & Noble an initial edge.

Since that time, tablets have emerged and readers have become ubiquitous. Almost every student in my daughter’s 8^th grade class has at least one of the iPad, Kindle or Nook. According to PwC, by Q1 of 2012, 30% of adults in the US had at least one portable reading device. Price points have dropped below $100, making it an impulse purchase. It’s so easy and inexpensive to buy a Kindle from Amazon that you don’t need to touch it first. Today, roughly 6 in 10 eBooks are sold through Amazon, with Barnes & Noble accounting for 25% and Apple 10%. The new Google Nexus and rumored 7” iPad Mini will create further disruption in the market. And those products will be available at Wal-Mart, Target and Best Buy, where Nooks will not.

Fast-forward five years and any benefits of big box brick-and-mortar stores will vanish. eBooks already have double-digit market share in the US, with PwC forecasting that to reach 50% by 2016. The average Barnes & Noble store is 26,000 square feet. As more and more content is consumed via devices, the revenue per square foot of these stores will continue to slide and Barnes & Noble will be forced to shutter many more stores. 

What were once an asset will simply become an anchor on the company’s bottom line.

Which leads me to the second question: Which, if any, markets could Barnes & Noble own?

Under the above scenario, Barnes & Noble can expect to see their e-reader market share drop from the current 25%. At the same time, in-store sales, which currently account for 60% of the company’s revenue, will, no doubt, shrink to a fraction of that as more content is purchased in digital form.  The reduced foot traffic to stores will have an even bigger impact on profit margin, driven in part by the sale of cards, trinkets and other impulse buys near checkout.

So, the outlook for Barnes & Noble successfully competing with Amazon, Apple and Google as a general purpose e-bookseller seems pretty dim.

Yet I do see an opportunity for Barnes & Noble to succeed, by focusing on select niche markets where it can dominate.

The two most obvious markets in my opinion are children’s books and the education market.

Children’s books remain one of the more profitable segments in the book industry. According to the Association of American Publishers (AAP), children & young adult book sale growth exceeded 61% last year. Barnes & Noble has long been a leader in the sale of picture books and early reader titles. And while e-readers have transformed the overall book market, I believe there is a lot more that could be done to bring the children’s book market to digital. The solution there is more than just a cool device, but rather a close partnership with publishers to develop multimedia content optimized for the digital platform. Neither Amazon nor Google have shown the ability to work well with niche markets. For them, it’s all about scale. Yet Barnes & Noble has longstanding relationships with publishers whom it could partner with to transform the digital reader market for children.

The education market is also ripe for transformation and few companies are as well-positioned as Barnes & Noble to do so. This past spring, B&N partnered with Microsoft to create a jointly-owned Nook subsidiary aimed largely at the education market via the Nook Study etextbook platform. I think Barnes & Noble should double-down on the education space. When B&N put itself up for sale, I suggested Blackboard, Inc. as a potential suitor. I still think that deal would make a lot of sense, but even if that never comes to fruition, Barnes & Noble needs to root itself deeply into the textbook market. That market is up for grabs and it seems that Apple or Barnes & Noble will become the likely winner. Barnes & Noble should move quickly to secure the needed partnerships and focus its efforts on winning there.

There’s no clear path to profitability for Barnes & Noble through brick-and-mortar stores or as a general bookseller. it simply does not have the size, scale or online traffic to compete with Amazon in the long run. The quicker it focuses on the niche markets it could win and jettisons costly businesses where it cannot, the more likely they can write a successful next chapter in their history.