Comment by applfanboysbgon
11 hours ago
> BTW, I approached ABC about buying back the former FiveThirtyEight IP*, and they said they wouldn't sell at any price because I'd criticized their management of the brand.
--Nate Silver (538 founder)
ABC seem pretty petty here.
So Nate & Co sell out to a big corporation then are upset that it does big corporation stuff? I'm more mad at Nate here because 538 was my go-to for political coverage pre-sellout, and because of his greed it went away.
538 had some decent years through its various sellout phases and imo hit its peak after Nate Silver left - he'd long since exposed himself more as a contrarian than a serious analyst and had become a real detriment to the brand.
It was definitely sad to lose 538 how we did, but G Elliott Morris has really stepped up to continue the spirit on his Strength in Numbers blog. It's the best data-driven US politics reporting out there right now imo. He also contributes to Fifty Plus One with Mary Radcliffe, and that's excellent too, reminiscent of the old 538 polling roundup stuff that went beyond just core US politics. Recently he started a podcast with David Nir of The Downballot, which is another solid resource for lower level races.
Clare Malone era of FIVE THIRTY EIGHT was among the most serious political journalism out there.
Whatever you feel about his actions that was at worst it was a win-lose decision. He benefited from it.
If his comment is accurate, then ABC’s decision is a clear lose-lose decision driven entirely by personal spite.
Honestly is Nate even wrong here?
IIRC, he got to keep all of the models and etc from 538 which is kinda all that mattered about it. Like anybody is really going to lookup the 2016 election in 2030 but they're definitely want the model's output in 2030 for 2030.
Management seems to be clearly inept and if somebody wants to give you a wheelbarrow of cash for something worthless you're generally foolish to not accept.
3 replies →
Just follow the man, not the brand. He’s still doing his thing: https://www.natesilver.net/
But he kind of sucks and isn’t worth following.
He’s a sellout at heart, including his recent association with Polymarket.
Someone cool would have never sold out a website as good as 538 used to be. Now he’s more interested in profiting off of gamblers.
9 replies →
I understand your frustration, but greed? He didn't owe you anything. So what if he cashed out?
His greed? I can't roll my eyes far enough back.
Build the next one yourself, and run it for as long as you want. Problem solved!
Your annoyance is understandable, but it's worth remembering: he is not your slave. He does not exist to do things for you. His providing you with something good for a time does not obligate him to provide it to you forever. Because he is not your slave.
[dead]
Wow. I have a low opinion of ABC as I said in another post, but this level of pettiness is still surprising to me.
It’s basically a fuck you to the shareholders. Hey we’ve got this dead asset someone will pay for but we won’t sell because they were mean to us.
Any exec who operates that way should be shown the door ASAP as they are likely doing similar emotional management of other aspects of the business.
If they feel it's damaging to have it public, then it could be argued that selling it would be irresponsible. I'm not arguing it is or it isn't, but reputation has value and management of it is part of what shareholders expect.
3 replies →
ABC's shareholders are Disney. Whatever Nate offered them isn't even a rounding error in Disney's $36 billion dollars in profits last year. The shareholders aren't going to care.
14 replies →
WOuldn't proof of that be some grounds for breach of fiduciary duty?
No. People have weird beliefs about what fiduciary duty means. It does not mean that companies are required at all intervals to maximize revenue or profit.
You must not have spent much time looking at derivative lawsuits if you think this is weird. Anyway if ABC could convincingly classify this as a business decision, e.g., a question of the maintaining goodwill, maybe they're OK. If this came down to some exec feeling personally insulted, like the quote hints, a classic breach of fiduciary duty.
Dunno - is protecting yourself from high-profile criticism by doing whatever you want with assets you 100% own and are under no contractual obligation to share ... also in fiduciary duty?
It is not illegal to be petty during business negotiations.
the easy argument otherwise would be that if they sold the IP, they wouldnt be able to revive it in the future, and also they would have nate silver as a competitor in the space
Why? Even if the common myth that public company executives must maximize profits at all costs were true, it's easy to construct a plausible explanation for why one might believe in good faith that destroying 538 rather than selling it is the best strategy to maximize profits. For example, because they think the profit they'd lose from 538 competing with their own politics offerings outweighs the amount Silver would pay for it.
Isn't the checkers level move to make 539 and call it a day? Sure, it's no longer about electors but ... checkers.
... and to think I thought I was being clever. I see this has been suggested already.
Nope. There is really no case law to support such a legal theory.
Just register fivethirtynine.com and don't look back.
"I won't sell at any price" reads as an invitation to make a much higher bid.
It seems silly at best to take that as a literal statement.