Track the companies that matter to you. It's FREE! Click one of these fan favorites to get started: Apple; Google; Ford.



AOL's Tim Armstrong May Be the Worst CEO of the Decade

Let's get this out of the way right now: AOL's (NYSE: AOL.DL  ) Tim Armstrong is a terrible CEO.

He was brought on board in the spring of 2009, when the company was still part of Time Warner. He's been at the helm for five years. In that time, AOL has been spun off and its shares have doubled, but on any basic fundamental evaluation -- revenue, earnings, free cash flow -- Armstrong has done terribly:

AOL Total Return Price Chart

AOL Total Return Price data by YCharts

Revenue has fallen almost 30%. Earnings per share have been cut in half. Free cash flow is two-thirds lower today than it was when Armstrong took the company public again.

What has AOL done under Armstrong's leadership? Its three major moves were acquisitions. AOL bought Patch in 2009, TechCrunch in 2010, and Huffington Post in 2011.

Patch -- Armstrong's old company, which he co-founded before joining AOL -- is now essentially gone, as AOL has sold most of it at fire-sale prices after sinking more than $300 million into the absurd notion that most people would really love to read all about the potluck dinner at the local firehouse or the cat that got stuck in a tree in the neighbor's yard. Lesson learned? You can't make money off "hyper-local" journalism, because hyper-local journalism doesn't scale. Also, local news is pretty boring, which is why it doesn't make money in the first place.

TechCrunch was a much smaller acquisition, but it, too, is fading. Its unique visitor count slid by a third from 2011 to 2012 before AOL started propping it up with more direct links. Despite that effort, TechCrunch has suffered ongoing visitor attrition for years -- its latest user numbers are 25% lower than they were a year ago. In the battle for eyeballs among the many tech blogs now online, TechCrunch is losing out. It simply has no killer edge any more.

The same could probably be said of Huffington Post, or HuffPo, which AOL bought in a splashy $315 million acquisition three years ago. At the time, HuffPo was serving up 15 million page views per day, much of which came from content generated by unpaid bloggers. It was also losing money. Today, HuffPo is still serving up about 15 million page views per day (in other words, its numbers have barely changed since mid-2011) and it's still losing money, although AOL now expects HuffPo to turn a profit by the end of this year. The site's unique edge as a major online news source has rapidly eroded as start-ups like Business Insider scale rapidly and established media brands like ESPN and The Washington Post expand into digital news content.

Editor's Note: The Huffington Post's communications personnel have reached out to update us with data from ComScore that show a doubling of that site's daily U.S. page views from March 2011 to December 2011. However, the Quantcast data originally used in this article (linked here) show that the Huffington Post's daily U.S. page views in April-May of 2011 and in January of 2014 have ranged between 10 million and 20 million page views per day, in line with the article's original assertion. Quantcast's most recent data on the Huffington Post also show a marked drop from a peak of 20 million to 30 million page views per day, reached in mid-2012.

Tim Armstrong's AOL has done three notable things to try to become a news-based business reliant on ad dollars. None can be rightly called successful. AOL is still a company that relies on subscription revenue to prop up its earnings nearly 15 years after the dot-com bubble blew apart. Of the $147 million in adjusted operating income AOL reported in the fourth quarter, $146 million of it came from subscription revenues! Think about that. It's the ultimate legacy business -- a company kept alive by people who can't figure out how to get better service. Instead of putting what is essentially free money to good use by exploring new technological or service opportunities, Armstrong has been throwing it at doomed pet projects and blogs.

Yaniv Golan via Wikimedia Commons.

The mark of a bad leader
While each of these three bad buys would be problematic on its own, Armstrong has somehow managed to top his executive blunders with a PR flub for the ages. It all began when The Washington Post reported on changes to AOL's 401(k) plan, which now requires employees to remain "active" with the company past Dec. 31 to receive a one-time annual lump-sum matching payment relative to whatever they've contributed on their own. Most companies match with every paycheck, so this change effectively punishes anyone who doesn't time an exit to coincide with the start of the new year. It also punishes anyone else who might want to gradually invest more in a rising market instead of dumping all of his or her money into something all at once.

Why did Armstrong and the management team make this change? Armstrong offered two answers. The first was "it's Obamacare's fault," which in Armstrong-speak sounds like this when relayed to a CNBC interviewer: "As a CEO and as a management team, we have to decide: Do we pass the $7.1 million of Obamacare cost to our employees? Or do we try to eat as much of that as possible and cut benefits?"

Tim Armstrong made $12 million in 2012, in case you were wondering, a year in which AOL's subscription revenues more than offset over $33 million in adjusted losses in the news-focused part of the company Armstrong has so diligently been building since 2009.

The second answer was "distressed babies," a phrase that's sure to become a business-world meme for its sheer boneheaded insensitivity. Here's Armstrong again, talking to employees at a town-hall meeting about the benefits changes:

We had two AOL-ers that had distressed babies that were born that we paid a million dollars each to make sure those babies were OK in general, and those are the things that add up into our benefits cost. So when we had the final decision about what benefits to cut because of the increased health-care costs, we made the decision, and I made the decision, to basically change the 401(k) plan.

These comments created such a media firestorm that Armstrong has already backtracked on the 401(k) match policy change and publicly apologized, but that didn't stop the mother of one "distressed baby" from going public in Slate. Deanna Fei, whose husband works for AOL, delivered her second child by emergency cesarean four months early, agrees that the costs for her daughter's care could have conceivably soared into the seven figures, but (rightfully) has a big problem with being scapegoated for the benefits cut by a CEO who made more in one year than her family might in its lifetime:

I take issue with how he reduced my daughter to a "distressed baby" who cost the company too much money. How he blamed the saving of her life for his decision to scale back employee benefits. How he exposed the most searing experience of our lives, one that my husband and I still struggle to discuss with anyone but each other, for no other purpose than an absurd justification for corporate cost-cutting. ...

[T]here was nothing high-risk about my pregnancy. I never had a single risk factor for a preterm birth, let alone one as extreme as this one. Until the morning I woke up in labor, every exam indicated that our daughter was perfectly healthy. ... In other words, we experienced exactly the kind of unforeseeable, unpreventable medical crisis that any health plan is supposed to cover. Isn't that the whole point of health insurance?

When Tim Armstrong took the reins at AOL in 2009, it was a company largely dependent on subscriber revenue for its profitability. Tim Armstrong's AOL today is still a company dependent on subscriber revenue for its profitability. Nothing Armstrong himself has done has changed that equation in the slightest, and it's clear from the results over the duration of his tenure that this is a losing equation over the long run. Instead of blaming employees who get handed a bad medical break, maybe he should be taking a long, hard look in the mirror instead.

The future looks bright for some companies ... just not for AOL
As every savvy investor knows, Warren Buffett didn't make billions by betting on half-baked stocks like AOL. He isolated his best few ideas, bet big, and rode them to riches, hardly ever selling. You deserve the same. That's why our CEO, legendary investor Tom Gardner, has permitted us to reveal The Motley Fool's 3 Stocks to Own Forever. These picks are free today! Just click here now to uncover the three companies we love. 

Read/Post Comments (6) | Recommend This Article (12)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On February 09, 2014, at 9:03 PM, labman57 wrote:

    Another example of a corporate CEO demonstrating a lack of compassion and a callous disregard for the health and welfare of his employees, all in the name of profit margins.

    It's all part of the corporate management mindset -- layoff some of your wage earners and slash benefits for the rest ... and then give yourself and your top level managers a bonus and a raise for doing such a wonderful job of managing the company.

  • Report this Comment On February 10, 2014, at 1:35 PM, uncoveror wrote:

    Only seniors who had a computer pushed on them by children and grandchildren, who think AOL is the Internet still use it.

  • Report this Comment On February 10, 2014, at 1:54 PM, XXF wrote:

    With Aubrey McClendon wandering around out there the bar for "Worst CEO (Non-Felon Class)" is set pretty low. Tim isn't doing a good job, but I think he's clearing good old Aubrey's hurdle for "not-worst" pretty easily.

  • Report this Comment On February 12, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Russfromusa wrote:

    Patch and Tim Armstrong should be under Federal Investigation for the way they conduct business. Patch is a paid off social media site who collects money from political and business advertisers who pay to Play with media reporting. Since they invest into Patch advertising, they use the stories to defame and destroy those the investors is seeking vengeance on. The investor is the one who purchased advertising into patch. The PATCH stories are hyper local linked and back linked and some how since Armstrong worked for Google he is also manipulating and hi jacking email accounts to back link for page ranking of stories. Google plus and the image are being used to do this. He should be locked up and the FBI should shut down PATCH completely. HALE GLOBAL should also be investigated for how they plan on keeping these libelous stories and transferring them onto a site that is a forum. This is a disgrace and Hale Global, AOL and that nasty negative little site called Patch should all be FEDERALLY INVESTIGATED ASAP.

  • Report this Comment On July 14, 2015, at 5:30 PM, kcao wrote:

    How do you Run a company that is not yours/?

    Anyways, AOL should find themselves in legal battles for looking in Tina Fei and Goodman's kids' medical record.

    Sure, you can find the information that is private - if you wanted.

    But, as a public company, you should also have to pay the legal battle that goes with it. That's part of being a responsible company-is how the power is held in your hands. They should have to PAY the

    Legal fines for intrusion of privacy. Because they are an acknowledge company-it should be easier to see it visually as a giant abusing civilian's rights.

  • Report this Comment On July 14, 2015, at 6:36 PM, kcao wrote:

    That is the problem with big companies. They are obtruse to a matter that is clearly sensitive and have a million zombies as followers. Just because someone needs help. Doesn't mean you should exploit them. If you are going to help the situation. Then just help.

    One of my old corporate companies was looking at my yeast infection. I am not the type to get embarrassed.

    But, as a public company, you should also have to pay the legal battle that goes with it. That's part of being a responsible company-is how the power is held in your hands. They should have to PAY the

    Legal fines for intrusion of privacy. Because they are an acknowledge company-it should be easier to see it visually as a giant abusing civilian's rights.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2831318, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/1/2015 4:21:02 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Alex Planes

Alex Planes specializes in the deep analysis of tech, energy, and retail companies, with a particular focus on the ways new or proposed technologies can (and will) shape the future. He is also a dedicated student of financial and business history, often drawing on major events from the past to help readers better understand what's happening today and what might happen tomorrow.

Connect with Alex on LinkedIn or Twitter for more news and insight:

View Alex Planes's profile on LinkedIn

Today's Market

updated 7 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 16,528.03 -114.98 -0.69%
S&P 500 1,972.18 -16.69 -0.84%
NASD 4,776.51 -51.82 -1.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

6/23/2015 8:00 PM
AOL.DL $0.00 Down +0.00 +0.00%
AOL CAPS Rating: *
TWX $71.10 Down -1.28 -1.77%
Time Warner CAPS Rating: ***