Media Week

In a dramatic turn of events, Independent News & Media (IN&M) looks like it is preparing to sell its Independent and Independent on Sunday newspapers to Russian Alexander Lebedev, majority owner of the London Evening Standard.

Today’s admission that talks are taking place follows months of speculation, rumour and counter-rumour within the media industry.

Media Week was the first to report the deal between Lebedev and INM was on the cards, in a story that was jumped upon, and later trounced, by other commentators in the national press.

The source of such strong denials clearly emanated from Simon Kelner, the managing director of the Independent and Independent on Sunday.

"Contrary to a report presented as fact by Media Week, O'Reilly has never met Alexander Lebedev and has no plans to do so," raged Kelner. "There are no ongoing ownership discussions between the Independent and the Evening Standard."

Such strong rebuttals led the Guardian's forthright Greenslade to ask: “So how did the mistake happen? Clearly, the Media Week reporter - who quoted Lebedev in his piece - got the wrong end of the stick, reading too much into the cryptic statements made by the Russian owner of the London Evening Standard.”

He also quotes another “senior INM executive”, as being “clearly furious at the false report", adding: "All this talk about talks is utter bollocks. There are no talks whatsoever.”

Which seems to be a lot of talk about no talks.

Today’s announcement suggests a few limited possibilities, either the touted deal, by some amazing coincidence, really did only emerge months after the excited speculation this summer. Or could it be that Simon, who so strongly and publicly dismissed the reports, has never been in the loop? It would not be the first such deal to take place solely at the highest level.

Of course, there is one remaining possibility, and that’s that the esteemed managing director purposefully and determinedly quashed any rumour for his own purposes. Surely not?

You’ve got to hand it to Simon Cowell; the saviour of ITV to some, the destroyer of music to others, he’s also now responsible for the most watched online video of 2009.

In what has been the biggest year yet for online video, Google’s YouTube has today unveiled its first official Most Watched listings, and it’s led by Susan Boyle’s audition on ITV talent show Britain's Got Talent back in April.

The clip of Boyle singing ‘I dreamed a dream’ from Les Mis in front of Simon Cowell, Piers Morgan and Amanda Holden, complete with commentary from ITV’s Ant and Dec, has attracted more than 120 million views from around the world.

Put into some kind of perspective, that’s the equivalent of two “view counts” for every person living in the UK, or more than the entire population of Mexico.

Elsewhere, the second most watched video on YouTube was from international rapper Pitbull (82m), followed by the music video for American actress turned singer Miley Cyrus (64m) and then the expletive-riddled video from The Lonely Island's I’m on a boat (48m).

While diverse, all have one thing in common. They are examples of professionally produced content, licensed to Google under various rights-agreements.

None of YouTube’s staple user generated content – cats on skateboards, dogs up trees, or wedding dances, made an appearance in the top 5.

True, the site’s sixth most watched video of the year, David After Dentist (37m), starring a seven-year-old filmed by his dad after visiting the dentist, is more traditional UGC fare.

But as Google continues to broker deals with established publishers and broadcasters around the world, YouTube appears to be moving towards a business model based on sourcing strong content producers that can attract audiences, which in turn advertisers want to be in front of.

In other words, a traditional media business.

Some media owners and agency leaders would be forgiven for greeting news of Media Week’s closure with initial relief on Tuesday.

It’s never easy being watched, let alone reported on and critiqued as well. And in the current climate, where every major launch or account win is offset by a deluge of loses and people moves, it must’ve at times been plain annoying.

Yet, once the dust settles and the world keeps turning, I suspect Media Week’s attentive gaze will be missed. Working in “meedja” is never going to hold the attention of the nationals for long, and no other business mag is devoted to it.

The commercial media business has had a committed advocate in Steve Barrett, who genuinely cares about the business and the people in it. I could only admire as he repeatedly pushed media launches and wins to the front of an issue, while relegating redundancies to online or a few pars at the back. The focus was always on the positive, while acknowledging the challenges facing the market.

Media Week’s focus on bite-sized exclusive news stories (in addition to great, industry-led features) and its bitchy back page, made it a weekly 20 minute romping read, a comic to its harshest critics perhaps, but it was the media industry’s own comic nonetheless.

(Naval gazing warning ahead)

But let’s be blunt: the writing’s been on the wall for Media Week for some time. The heady circulation days of 20,000 had long past, and once the worst advertising recession in living memory took hold, drastic action was required.

The phasing out of the controlled circ model for the subscription-only one introduced this summer was initially intended for media owners (because they’re loaded right now of course) but was soon extended to encompass agencies as well.

Many questioned the move, especially when the magazine’s content was still available for free online. But these were desperate times.

The good news is that most companies did indeed see a value in the magazine and initial orders, although low, were placed. I’m reliably informed these continued to rise right up until its demise.

But it all proved too little, too late for Haymarket management, and, while I haven’t been privy to the P&L sheets, I know enough to admit they couldn’t have been pretty.

Yet Media Week becoming an online-only proposition had been muted long-before any downturn. The magazine’s own founder Tim Brooks, now steering Guardian News & Media through the choppy waters, predicted the magazine, along with most other B2B titles, would close its print offering by 2010, and that was five years ago.

His reasoning, while surprisingly candid – especially made as it was in an interview with Media Week – reflected the growing groundswell of opinion. As the possibilities of the internet began to unfold in a post dotcom-bust world, B2B publishers were well aware of the need to reposition themselves.

I remember reporting on David Hill, president and chief executive of IDG, one of the largest B2B powerhouses in the world, when he announced “we’re not magazine publishers any more” in 2002. At the time it was near-revolutionary. He preferred instead the idea of being a media content provider, regardless of vehicle.

This sentiment of diversification soon became the newly-labelled B2B media’s mantra, and to be fair Media Week embraced it with open arms. With its website, two news bulletins a day, podcast and Media Week TV, in addition to its annual Media360 conference and those coveted awards, it has set the pace for Haymarket's Brand Media's portfolio. It will be interesting to see if these brand extensions continue to prosper without the magazine.

But there has always been an elephant in the room, whose presence now looms larger than ever: online ad revenues alone do not generate enough to sustain the costs of running a substantial news desk.

I learned this lesson first hand as I watched my colleagues ebb away at Centaur’s Mad.co.uk. That had been an exciting, dynamic news wire environment that broke its fair share of exclusives – not least Bauer’s decision to buy Emap (a move which in itself seemed to symbolise the seismic shifts taking place).

But falls in recruitment ads started to take its toll. It's interesting to note that during this time Brand Republic’s own dedicated news desk was also at its strongest (& biggest), and proved a daily nuisance to all of Haymarket’s magazine brands. But that elephant just wasn’t going away, and so in the last couple of years the power at both companies has shifted back towards their stable of print brands.

This week’s announcement at Haymarket signals another step-change, and for me it makes the most sense to-date. Keep a hub of news reporters feeding into both online and magazine brands, with the emphasis in print more firmly placed on features, comments and analysis.

I’ve no doubt it’ll be messy at first, but certainly more efficient – and who knows, it might just satisfy that elephant.

There are alternative, interesting business models emerging in the sector of course, not least PaidContent and Utalkmarketing. Both are fleet of foot and relatively inexpensive, but they also rely on other peoples good old fashioned, expensive journalism upon which to draw. The Guardian is also set to unveil a new regional blogging initiative too, an innovative move that just might go some way in redressing the balance of news coverage at a local level.

But for now, spare a thought for the one that didn’t make it, just three months before turning 25. I know in the grand scheme of closures in 2009 Media Week's demise is small fry, just last week GNM announced it was scrapping its Business & Media supplement after more than 30 years and making more than 100 redundancies to boot, but its passing is indicative and will leave a void all the same.

Now Mystic Tim, if you’ll just email me next week’s lottery numbers, and I’ll get my coat.

Coverage of the UK media business will be among the casualties of the upcoming restructure at The Observer in 2010.

As details of the cost-cutting drive at one of the country’s oldest national newspapers start to emerge, it transpires the Business & Media section will be folded into the main paper.

It will be a loss to the British media industry and signals a seismic change for The Observer, which has had a separate Business section for more than 30 years.

It comes a year after The Independent closed its Monday media supplement, which had run for four years in competition with The Guardian.

Both moves appear to be an ominous reflection of the current UK media landscape, which has been hit hard by a sluggish jobs market and the ensuing loss of classified recruitment ads.

In addition, print circulations continue to fall while the emergence of nimbler, online competitors now take large chunks out of any remaining business.

Those in the industry will have noticed The Observer’s media coverage has been on the slide for some time, but the upcoming changes are set to have dramatic repercussions.

In addition to the Business & Media section disappearing, the personal finance coverage in The Observer’s Cash section is also folding. The paper will endeavour to continue some sort of coverage of both sectors in the main paper, while the travel-based Escape section will be subsumed into an expanded Observer magazine.

The Observer has also announced plans to close three of its monthly magazines - Observer Sport Monthly, Observer Music Monthly and Observer Woman.

More than 100 of GN&M’s 1,700 editorial and commercial jobs are set to go in the latest attempt to reverse “unsustainable” losses, leaving a much-reduced £2 Sunday offering.

Meanwhile, GNM has once again sent emails to staff encouraging them to consider working part-time, taking a sabbatical or applying for voluntary redundancy.

Further changes are set to follow, with parent Guardian Media Group’s CEO Carolyn McCall, admitting "We are midway through a process”.

I’ve got bad news for anyone waiting for the much anticipated “price war” to erupt over the iPhone in the UK: it’s not going to happen.

There’s been much excitement about the iPhone being made available at lower prices ever since Apple announced it would not be extending its exclusive two-year iPhone deal with O2. But I’ve learnt it’s not going to happen any time soon due to one very specific reason.

The touch-screen operated iPhone is undisputedly the daddy of all mobile handsets right now. If you know someone who owns one, chances are you know someone who loves one.

Many admirers not on O2 have been waiting for the rollout of the iPhone across other networks, and the increase in competition is widely expected to act as a catalyst that will bring down the monthly cost of the iPhone.

There was notable disappointment when Orange, the UK’s third-largest mobile phone operator, unveiled its tariffs for its iPhone deal on Monday, and guess what, they are broadly in-line with those already being offered by O2 – around £30 a month for contracts, and an 18 month commitment.

Yes, there are slight variations over what is included in the monthly tariff, but the basic packages and, more importantly, the monthly cost to the consumer are very similar.

There’s a reason for this.

Those now pinning their hopes on Vodafone undercutting both O2 and Orange when it launches its iPhone package in the New Year will be equally disappointed.

A high-level Vodafone exec has told me the basic price ranges of the iPhone are being set by Apple at the negotiating table.

While some degree of variation is being allowed for, the general monthly costs, at least for the first round of contracts, have been stipulated by brand-protective Apple.

If you want an iPhone in 2010, it’s still going to cost you.

Last night’s Media Week Awards at the Grosvenor proved yet again that no one parties like the media fraternity.

While other ‘big’ awards have been, well, rather less big this year, Media Week’s annual bash was as large and as vibrant as ever, with more than 1,300 attendees representing media owners, agencies and clients.

Of course the main topic for the night was predetermined long ago: Just how bad is the current economic climate?, how much worse will it get?, and when will real growth start to appear?

As one newspaper managing director told me, “everyone’s still talking a good game, and I think that’s important, but behind closed doors we all know any talk of recovery is grossly premature”.

This sentiment supports downgraded ad forecasts by ZenithOptimedia earlier this month, which marked the UK out as one of the world’s biggest fallers this year, after a "worse than expected first half of 2009".

But not even the current climate could deflate the worthy winners last night, with Mediaedge:cia paving the way after winning the industry’s biggest accolade, Media Week’s Agency of The Year.

The WPP agency continues to go from strength-to-strength, growing billings 5% year-on-year at a time when the wider market is battling double-digit declines.

While fierce rivalries within the British media mean very few awards ever go undisputed: the crowning of MEC last night was one of those rare exceptions.

“I suppose if we were going to lose to anyone, it should have been them,” said one runner-up agency head begrudgingly.

“Can’t really argue with that," opined another, "but lets see where they go from here,” which for those who don’t know, is high praise indeed in agency-land.

Comedian Frankie Boyle aptly set the tone for the evening from the off, being suitably funny and offensive, with an added edge of instability.

Of course, not even the best celebrations run entirely smoothly, and when OK!’s after party was gate-crashed by footballer Shaun Wright-Philips and his “crew”, it was definitely time to go home.

Now where's the Pro Plus?

Channel 4’s departing chief executive Andy Duncan has no plans to go quietly at the end of this year, as proved by last week’s announcement of a ground-breaking content tie-up between the broadcaster and YouTube.

By the time Duncan is carrying the last of his belongings from the shiny building in Victoria, internet users should be able to view a selection of ad-funded C4 content, including Skins and Hollyoaks, via Google’s video site for free.

The move could be a significant development towards generating digital revenues for both C4 and YouTube.

The non-exclusive, three year deal allows C4 to keep control of its own advertising sales, and some non-C4 content to boot, while reportedly giving the broadcaster the larger share of revenue.

Martin McNulty from internet marketing agency TrafficBroker agrees the partnership has the potential to be very interesting for C4, noting it "opens the broadcaster up to a much bigger advertising market, that is liquid". He suggests that if traditional content providers can tap into the auction-type ad sales model that has already made adwords a success for Google, it could be a major break through.

Just as significantly, the deal is also the first real sign that exiting Duncan has a list of ‘unfinished business’ concerning commercial partnership which he has every intention of completing.

Last month, he told me he hoped to be able to announce "two or three commercial partnerships" before he steps down as CEO, and refused to rule out a tie-up with BBC Worldwide.

The deal, already dismissed by most as being dead in the water, gained renewed credibility yesterday when Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw called talks between Channel 4 and BBC Worldwide "encouraging."

Whether the BBC is now more minded to play ball or not remains to be seen, but Duncan clearly has a point to prove and his legacy in mind, which could make for an interesting final quarter. Watch this space.

Martin Sorrell, chief executive of WPP and one of adland's best known soothsayers, has dramatically revised his stance on the viability of publishers charging for content online following comments from the quintessential newspaper man, Rupert Murdoch.

Speaking at an industry event in Greece last week, The Daily Telegraph reports an irrepressible Sorrell, as saying: "[Rupert] Murdoch is absolutely correct to try and get people paying for content - it is critical for traditional media businesses as there is not enough advertising to support these models anymore.

"Getting consumers to pay for content they value is key. We have to find those areas."

Such sentiments will be music to the ears of those operating in the embattled newspaper sector, which according to Sorrell's own media investment arm GroupM is expected to see advertising revenue plummet 26% in the UK this year.

But such apparent support for online pay-walls flies in the face of Sorrell's own vision of the future, announced less than 10 months earlier.

Addressing an international advertising event in January, there could be no mistaking what the WPP leader thought about the position traditional publishers now find themselves in, or his reservations about charging for web content.

"Some of the structural changes we're seeing taking place in the [newspaper] industry, particularly in America, the failure and bankruptcy and reorganisation of these [publishing] companies is going to continue. And there's no way of stopping it, because we've given it away for free," he said.

"The seeds of this problem were sown when the people who created the new media industry, probably in the early nineties, decided - rightly from the consumers point of view I have to say - to give it away for nothing.

"It's impossible actually now to take it up. You can start up here [high] and take your pricing down, but you can't start there [free] and start moving it up."

It appears News Corp's venerable leader's commitment to "charge for all our news websites", buoyed by thriving online subs at the Wall Street Journal, has led Sorrell to change his mind.

It marks the latest backtrack in what has been a tricky year for WPP's famous crystal ball-gazer, who, lest we forget, is responsible for group billings of more than $80 billion, or around a third of all the world's measured media buying.  

At the same event in January, Sorrell predicted "a flat year" for the global ad market in 2009, adding reassuringly: "We're not looking at the Armageddon or the Apocalypse Now that analysts and media followers are forecasting.

"We don't see it as bad as Goldman and others who talk about -5, I see -10 from [some quarters] which seems somewhat strange."

Nine long months, a series of forecast revisions, and thousands of redundancies later, and Sorrell now accepts a drop of 5.5% is the most likely outcome.

But then it's been one of those years; also at the IAA event in January, media execs were expressing incredulity at the suggestion a former Russian spy was being bandied around as a potential buyer for London's Evening Standard.

And so it comes to pass, News International's most popular daily newspaper The Sun has declared its allegiance to David Cameron's Tories.

The Sun tells its readers in no uncertain terms today to vote Conservative at the next election, effectively ending 12 years and 7 months of "support", for the Labour Party.

"Labour's Lost It" screams the front page, followed by a detailed blow-by-blow account about how Labour's tenure has been punctuated by "under-achievement, rank failure and a vast expansion of wasteful government interference in everyone's lives".

Of course the announcement was perfectly orchestrated, coming as it does just in time to pop any feel-good bubble generated by Gordon Brown's rabble rousing speech at the Labour Party conference in Brighton last night. But don't worry Gordie, you'll always be a hero to your wife at least.       

Regardless, despite all its bluster, in today's multimedia 2.0 age, the Current Bun switching sides is not the game-changer it once was. A barometer of public opinion, perhaps - but nothing more.

In the past, Sun editors have been wined and dined by politicians on both sides of the fence and famously claims to have won the election for the Conversatives in 1992. Yet this week we're told News Int's chief executive Rebekah Brooks couldn't event get 10 mins with the PM to end their relationship in person.

The only real surprise is that it has taken so long for Rupert Murdoch's red-top to turn blue.

As with all messy break-ups, the writing's been on the wall for some time. Now for the next six months we can sit back and enjoy the spectacle, as both sides try and convince us of their relevance.

In a move that will shock the city and the media industry alike, ITV has announced Tony Ball is no longer in the running to be its next chief executive, after a failing to reach agreement over terms and conditions.

The eleventh hour collapse throws ITV into chaos and follows rumours of Ball demanding a £30m five-year package - some £10m more than the broadcaster was believed to be offering. 

In an announcement to the city moments ago, the ITV Board confirmed it has "terminated its discussions with Tony Ball" after an exhaustive process of negotiation and discussion highlighted "a number of substantial differences, including a failure to finally agree contractual arrangements, together with a disagreement over the future chairmanship".

Today's news follows HMV chief, and one-time favourite for ITV's top job, Simon Fox ruling himself out of the running last month.

During the broadcaster's search for a new chief executive the role of former CEO and chairman Michael Grade has cast a long shadow over proceedings.

The failure to secure Ball as its new CEO, and with the absence of anyone else either internally or externally waiting in the wings, it now seems likely a new chairman will be in place at ITV in time to recruit its next chief executive.

‘The summer’s over, I’ve had time to think about it, I want to quit,’ appears to be the mantra being followed by many high-profile media execs this month.

Recession or not, September has lived up to its billing as the month which gets headhunters hearts racing. 

Today’s news that Andy Brent, group brand marketing director at BSkyB, has parted company with the pay-TV broadcaster just one year into the job, has taken many by surprise.

His departure, confirmed in an email by Jeremy Darroch, BSkyB's chief executive, leaves a gapping hole in the management of the media and broadcasting group’s £100m plus marketing operations.

You can bet on Brent resurfacing somewhere soon.

But as unexpected as his exit is, it's far from unusual this month. Also on the move is News International’s chief marketing officer Jeremy Schwartz, who walked out less than nine months into the top marketing role.

Let's remember it took News Int almost six months to find Schwartz for its first overarching CMO role for The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun, and News of The World, so it seems safe to assume News Int's newly promoted chief executive Rebekah Brooks nee Wade was less than convinced.

The newspaper publisher is now expected to move back to its tried and tested model of having individual marketing directors responsible for each title.

Elsewhere, advertising veteran’s Daryl Fielding’s brief foray into newspapers ended abruptly on Monday, and Simon Davies is already primed to take over the role of commercial director of The Independent and The Independent on Sunday.

Despite best intentions, sometimes, things just don't work out - ask outgoing PPA chief executive Jonathan Shephard, who has attracted widespread criticism for his 18 month spell at the association for consumer and B2B magazines.

His decision to cull the association's events and marketing activities during what is arguably the most challenging time the magazine industry has ever faced, didn't go down too well with many publishing members.

And Shephard's own unique style of management and communication didn't appear to help his cause, with many vocally against him from the outset.

And we haven't even mentioned C4's Andy Duncan, News Int's Mike Anderson, Mindshare's Nick Waters or SMG's Jim Marshall.

All of which make for a heated return from the summer, and you get the sense it's just the beginning.

Shock news yesterday that the plug will be pulled on the mighty Teletex service at the end of year.

Who would have thought having a news service broadcast in the shape of a screen full of text, the occasional block graphic and even different coloured fonts would ever look tired?

And this is a service in which consumers are in control. Simply type in the page number you wish to look at, wait a couple of minutes for the numbers to come around again, and er voila – the next page of text. Incredible.

Apparently the tough decision to stop broadcasting this prehistoric service was only made after “a comprehensive review of the business by the senior management”.

Teletext owner DMGT attributed poor financial performances, in part, to “the government’s meagre allocation of broadcast capacity for the public Teletext service in the 1996 Broadcating Act”.

Interesting. I would have thought the birth of the internet might have played its part in killing-off the near-static 15 year old text pages?

When Teletext launched in 1993 there were no 24 hour news channels, websites or free TV listings. Its mix of news, sport and weather, accompanied by TV schedules, quizzes and games was widely celebrated.

At its peak it attracted more than 20 million adults per week and was a highly lucrative multimillion pound business. That’s 20 million.

But in a new digital world, cheap holiday deals could only take it so far - in fact this service is being siphoned off and will still be available on Freeview.

Its version of rolling news is painfully out of step. The biggest loss come December will be the passing of Bamboozle.

News that Reuters, the long-established bastion of British news gathering, looks set to disappear from the London Stock Exchange passed without much comment last week, instead cold pragmatism was the order of the day.

The board of the now Thomson Reuters enterprise unanimously agreed that “unifying the company's capital structure is in the best interests of all shareholders”.

Simply put, by consolidating the company’s four listings to just two, the aim is to improve the take home for shareholders.

The shareholders vote on 7 August looks set to be a mere formality, resulting in Thomson Reuters remaining on the Toronto Stock Exchange and New York Stock Exchange but no longer part of the LSE or the Nasdaq.

It will signal another step away from Reuter’s strong British roots, which it has held for more than 150 years. Earlier this year, the company announced its official headquarters were now in the New York.

The HQ of the news giant used to be synonymous with Fleet Street, and was the last major news provider to severe its central London ties when it moved in June 2005.

But time marches on. Reuters has been expertly led by American Tom Glocer for almost eight years now, and following its “merger” (actually a buyout) with Canadian giant Thomson last year, UK shareholders (not too long ago 50%) constituted just 5% of its new combined base.

For one of the world’s best known and most respected global operations, which has operated out of London since 1851, there appears to be no discernable value left in being British.

“First, I have to start with an apology, we’ve spotted a mistake in the report… has anyone else spotted it yet?”

As far as agenda-setting Government launches go, Lord Carter’s opening gambit to the press pack at the RSA as he unveiled Digital Britain this week was far from reassuring.

What followed can best be described as a cagey preamble on some of the report’s key findings, delivered by someone who already seemed painfully aware of its own shortcomings.

At one point a member of the press read out a quite ludicrous sentence, overly complicated and full of disclaimers, and used it to question claims the report was clear and transparent.

“Yes, that could have been written better, so full marks for spotting that,” came Carter’s concise, sarcastic reply.

At another point, when asked for the second time to clarify the report’s recommendations regarding top-slicing the BBC licence fee to help ITV’s regional news, a weary Carter said he would be counting the “number of column inches” the BBC gave to the rest of the report, in the interests of fair and balance coverage.

Mildly amusing, it raised a titter, but hardly fair. The changes Digital Britain describes in its Public Service Content chapter pave the way for the first major overhaul of BBC funding in its 87 year history, you could understand the interest.

For Carter to become so exasperated so quickly offered some indication as to the many hours the creation of the final White Paper had already stolen from his life.

Another pesky member of the press pack launched into an attack on the Government’s plans for a universal 2Mb connection speed by 2012, surely it’s not enough and already behind the curve?

You’ve misunderstood, replied a patient Carter. He went on to blame his own “failure to communicate” that the 2Mb had been set as a minimum level, to ensure the pockets of the country currently without any decent service would not be handicapped or overlooked in the future. And so it went on.

The inglorious launch was actually the perfect precursor to what was to follow in the press the next day. “Digital dithering” cried the Telegraph, “Digi or dodgy?” asked The Mirror, while others like the Daily Express simply warned “Now a Tax on Every Phone”.

Of course, there were positives to come out of the report, not least the Government’s backing of a DAB radio network by 2015. The decisive move could be just what the industry needs to kick-start its new path in the digital age – let’s not mention internet-based alternative models for now.

Elsewhere, Digital Britain went as far as it could – not even the current Labour Party can force BBC Worldwide and Channel 4 to reach a partnership agreement – but the wheels have been well and truly greased and the train is now rolling.

But still, in the short-term Carter’s toils have been largely thankless and cannot really be judged until much further down the line.

I was not surprised to also learn this week that far from rejoining the fray at ITV, as suggested, the Lord now plans to leave his public life for the sunshine of Australia.

Forget Madonna and Ritchie, Jen and Brad or even Macca and Mucca, today’s news that AOL is to finally split from Time Warner is the divorce of the decade.

Some nine years and three months after their very public, ostentatious wedding, the veteran film and publishing giant Time Warner is walking away from its younger partner, AOL, due to what can only be described as “mutual disappointment”.

The upcoming parting of ways will draw a line under the defining first wave of media convergence deals, and neither will escape unsullied.

The partnership was consummated in the pre-dotcom bust winter of 2000. The $164 billion deal was the largest in corporate history, and brought together one of the biggest traditional media stalwarts of the 20th century, (which would later become home to IPC Media) and the largest provider of dial-up internet.

It was credited for creating “unparalleled resources” and opening up millions of new subscribers. The internet has boomed, burst and reshaped itself since then, while the publishing business is experiencing cyclical and structural change, the likes of which have never been seen before.

To say the marriage had issues is something of an understatement, and a separation has been on the cards for several years.

Time Warner stopped wearing AOL’s ring (using its corporate name) just three years after the deal, and since 2005 the company has moved away from subscriptions to focus belatedly on an advertising-led model.

The company’s share price has mirrored this uncertainty, dropping more than 30%, and in the last year net income has fallen from $4.39bn profit to a loss of $13.40bn.

Today, Time Warner's new chief executive Jeff Bewkes called the separation "another critical step in the reshaping of Time Warner that we started at the beginning of last year". Already, consensus is building that it is likely to lead to the eventual sale of the access division.

Nigel Gwilliam, head of digital at the UK advertising body IPA, believes this can only be a “huge relief” for Time Warner and admits the future for a standalone AOL is “uncertain”.

He adds: “AOL has struggled to evolve and has lagged behind its competitors even when times were good. [AOL CEO] Tim Armstrong has a major challenge ahead of him.”