Jeffrey C. Smith · activist-deck
AOL, Inc. (AOL)
96 pages · 4 arc beats · 2 loops
AOL, Inc. (AOL)
Jeffrey C. Smith · 2012-05 arc beats above · slides in the middle · loops below · scroll → 2 LOOPS
1510152025303540455055606570758085909596
Deck intelligence map
4 coverage by narrative range · generated from this deck JSON
Narrative range 11 total
Metadata
Components
Metrics
Tools
Frameworks
Beats
Loops
Problem Statement 3 slides 100% 3/3 slides 100% 3/3 slides · 22 hits — 0/3 slides
100% 3/3 slides 33.3% 1/3 slides 100% 3/3 slides 100% 3/3 slides Expose Contradiction 4 slides 100% 4/4 slides 100% 4/4 slides · 33 hits — 0/4 slides
25% 1/4 slides 100% 4/4 slides 100% 4/4 slides 100% 4/4 slides · 8 hits Thesis Headline 1 slides 100% 1/1 slides 100% 1/1 slides · 2 hits — 0/1 slides
— 0/1 slides
— 0/1 slides
100% 1/1 slides 100% 1/1 slides · 2 hits Propose Solution 3 slides 100% 3/3 slides 100% 3/3 slides · 19 hits — 0/3 slides
— 0/3 slides
33.3% 1/3 slides 100% 3/3 slides 100% 3/3 slides Slide inventory
96 every slide · same image gating as the playbook
02
Includes footnotes regarding historical data and performance disclaimers.summarize
07
Includes a summary table of returns and three line charts showing performance over different time horizons.diagnose_problem
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
08
The slide highlights the disparity between revenue decline and expense reduction, leading to significant drops in profitability metrics.diagnose_problem
09
The slide uses two grouped bar charts to demonstrate the inverse relationship between rising operating expenses and falling EBITDA margins for AOL compared to icompare_peers
10
Includes a downward-sloping arrow to emphasize the trend.diagnose_problem
11
Includes a quote from CFO Arthur Minson regarding the growth strategy.present_solution
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
12
Uses a before-after framing to contrast management's stated strategy with the actual financial outcome.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
13
Uses a dual-chart layout to juxtapose capital allocation (spending) against market performance (enterprise value).expose_contradiction
14
The table highlights the 'Display' segment in a red box to emphasize the losses.expose_contradiction
15
The chart uses a downward-sloping line to emphasize the negative trend in losses.expose_contradiction
16
Uses CEO quotes to frame management as stubborn or disconnected from reality.expose_contradiction
18
The slide highlights AOL's scale in the digital content market using bar charts.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
19
Uses a waterfall-style bar chart to show revenue vs EBITDA losses.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
20
Uses a peer benchmark to expose the poor performance of the target company's business unit.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
21
Uses CNET as a benchmark for display business profitability.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
22
The slide uses a contrast-principle to highlight the disparity between AOL's costs and its peers.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
23
Uses a CEO quote to highlight the gap between current performance and potential.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
24
Uses a before-after framework to demonstrate value erosion.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
25
The slide uses a waterfall chart to demonstrate capital inefficiency in AOL's display business strategy.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
27
Includes screenshots of the Patch website interface and a map of coverage.establish_context
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
28
The slide uses a table to contrast Patch's performance against the broader Display segment, highlighting the -1131% margin.name_villain
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
29
The slide uses a combination of bulleted arguments and an expert testimonial to build a case against the business model.diagnose_problem
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
30
Includes a testimonial/quote from a former employee to support the thesis.diagnose_problem
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
31
Uses direct quotes from earnings calls to highlight management's failure to accurately forecast costs.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
32
The chart uses a waterfall-style representation to show revenue and EBITDA losses for 2010 and 2011.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
33
Uses former employee quotes to validate the quantitative gap.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
34
Uses testimonials to reinforce the quantitative data regarding low renewal rates.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
35
Includes a screenshot of Google AdWords interface with specific Patch URLs circled.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
36
The slide uses a combination of deductive reasoning (the $40M revenue calculation) and authority citation (the former executive quote) to expose a contradictionexpose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
37
Includes a survey result showing 0% of 11 surveyed advertisers value Patch over other broad-based display advertising.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
38
Uses a bar chart to visualize a 0% vs 100% survey result to emphasize the lack of value proposition.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
39
The slide uses wireframe diagrams of website layouts to illustrate ad inventory pricing.diagnose_problem
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
40
Includes a CEO quote to reinforce the lack of monetization strategy.diagnose_problem
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
41
Uses a CEO quote to frame the guidance as a target, then uses a P&L table to demonstrate the resulting losses.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
42
The slide uses a screenshot of AOL.com to illustrate that a brand with no physical stores (VON VONNI) would naturally advertise on a broad-reach site like AOL, expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
43
The slide uses a hub-and-spoke diagram to illustrate the distribution of a single ad campaign across multiple local properties.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
44
Uses a series of bulleted arguments to dismantle management's optimistic projections.name_villain
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
46
The slide uses a red circle to highlight the ($285) million loss figure in the table.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
47
Uses a hub-and-spoke diagram to illustrate traffic sources to AOL.com.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
48
Uses a simple flow diagram to visualize the lack of traffic contribution.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
49
Uses a bar chart to contrast 'Length of Stay' between AOL.com and pre-acquisition Huffington Post to challenge AOL's strategic rationale.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
50
The slide uses a rhetorical question to expose a contradiction in the company's strategy.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
51
Uses the 'ceo-quote-contradiction' framework to undermine management's claims about search growth.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
52
The table highlights the massive losses in 'Display - Free Premium Content' and 'Display - Patch' compared to the profitable core businesses.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
54
The slide uses an external consultant's findings to validate the activist's argument regarding executive compensation.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
55
Uses authority-citation to validate the activist's claims against management.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
56
Includes a screenshot of an ISS Proxy Alert report.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
57
Includes a screenshot of the original Glass Lewis proxy paper with a red circle highlighting the 'Poor' rating.cite_precedent
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
58
The slide uses a comparison framework to highlight how proxy advisors define appropriate peer group selection criteria.cite_precedent
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
59
Uses a scatter plot with a broken axis to highlight the outlier status of the peer group relative to the guidelines.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
60
The slide uses red boxes to highlight 'NO' entries that deviate from the guidelines.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
61
The slide uses a rhetorical question at the bottom to challenge the Board's governance.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
62
Uses direct quotes from a third-party proxy advisor to establish a precedent of governance failure.cite_precedent
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
63
The chart uses a blue dashed box to represent the 'best practice' zone defined by ISS/Glass Lewis guidelines.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
64
The slide highlights a discrepancy between AOL's chosen peer group and standard proxy advisory firm guidelines.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
65
Uses red circles to highlight the 'Multiple of AOL' for market cap, emphasizing the size disparity.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
66
The slide uses a table to demonstrate that the independent peer group's market cap and revenue fall within the recommended guidelines, unlike the company's own compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
67
The chart uses a dashed box to visually represent the ISS/Glass Lewis guideline boundaries for peer selection.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
68
The slide uses a 'YES'/'NO' column to highlight compliance with proxy advisory firm guidelines.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
69
Uses a red box to highlight the outlier performance of AOL compared to peer percentiles.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
70
The chart uses a red dashed line to indicate the median of the peer group.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
71
The slide uses a red box to highlight the discrepancy between AOL's performance (0th percentile) and compensation (91st/60th percentile).expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
72
Includes a red circle annotation around the 3.4x figure.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
73
The slide uses a 'villain' framing by highlighting the lack of disclosure as a deliberate act to obscure value from shareholders.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
76
Includes detailed footnotes explaining the derivation of the $150M loss estimate and ad fill rates.state_demand
79
Uses a combination of a summary table and a line chart to demonstrate alpha generation.illustrate_case
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
80
Uses a contrast-pairs framework to highlight the causal link between activist pressure and management action.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
81
The slide uses a 4-column table to contrast Starboard's suggestions against AOL's past and present statements, highlighting the shift in strategy.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
82
The slide uses a red box to highlight the poor performance of the Display segment (Free Premium Content and Patch).expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
84
The slide uses a hub-and-spoke diagram to visualize conflicts of interest.expose_contradiction
85
The slide uses the 'lack of skin in the game' argument to undermine board credibility.expose_contradiction
86
Includes visual evidence (screenshots) of ISS and Glass Lewis reports recommending against Stengel and rating compensation as 'Poor'.name_villain
87
Uses external authority citations to undermine the credibility of a board nominee.expose_contradiction
88
The slide uses a 'villain critique' approach to undermine the credibility of specific board members.introduce_nominees