So CBS — an “old” media giant that hasn’t been doing so well lately — plunks down $1.8-billion for CNET, a “new” media giant that hasn’t been doing so well lately. Does this sound like something to get excited about? Not to me. In fact, it sounds a little like desperation on both sides — CNET to get a deal done that would get it out of the clutches of some disgruntled shareholders, and CBS to get some kind of coherent online strategy going in the ninth inning. Some others seem to disagree, however. In fact, it’s interesting to see the polarized opinion on the deal when you look at some of the opinion out there.

Fred Wilson of A VC probably came closest to my thoughts on it when he sent a Twitter message right after the news broke, and said that he didn’t really care about the deal because it was “all about yesterday, not tomorrow.” Mike Arrington, who has been a relentless critic of CNET — and even wrote a post about how some of the top blogs should get together and destroy it — says that:

“CNET failed to disrupt the old guard, and will find itself to be a footnote in Internet history rather than the headline it should have been.”

Others seem to think the deal makes tremendous sense: Marshall Kirkpatrick at Read/Write Web says that CNET is “as stable an online collection of brands as anyone out there” and that:

“What gets validated here is this: great online ad sales, high production value, serious talent, company maturity and breadth in both content and distribution.”

Paul Kafka at Silicon Alley Insider is another fan, saying that while “there’s almost no synergy, operationally or brand-wise” between the two companies, and CBS doesn’t have much of a digital platform:

“That’s as good an argument for making the deal as any — rather than trying to build your way on to the Web, why not buy it? And if the JANA guys are right, CNET isn’t a dying asset — it’s just one that needs to be revitalized.”

In a comment on Kafka’s post, Henry Blodget says:

“I actually think it’s smart. CBS is a dying business with strong cash flow–it’s about time they used it to make some big bets. More importantly, there ought to be a lot of ways these companies can work together. The size is far more manageable than AOL – Time Warner, the cultures are more compatible, etc. Strikes me as a bold but sound bet.”

So why would I say it feels like desperation? As Megan Barnett at Portfolio mag points out, CNET hardly fits the profile of what CBS said it was after when Les Moonves said that it was looking for “the next YouTube.” CNET isn’t even the last YouTube. It’s a pile of underwhelming assets that mostly make money because they aggregate eyeballs and have some good domain names. To me it feels like CBS just decided to buy something big and to hell with whether it made any sense or not.

I think Doug Macintyre at 24/7 Wall St does a good job of laying out why this is a bad deal, one that he says could be “the worst M&A deal of the year.” He says that “the high price CBS is paying borders on being irresponsible” given the kind of condition CNET is in, and that when it comes to financial performance, CBS “is almost as bad off as CNET, but on a larger scale.” Bingo. Nice job, Quincy.

According to Saul “Bits” Hansell, writing at the New York Times’ technology blog, no one wants to buy the gigantic bag of miscellaneous crap known as CNET (apologies to anyone with actual talent who works there, including blogger Caroline McCarthy and ZDNet blogger Steve O’Hear), but PaidContent has a different take on the story: it says that the venture fund that is targeting the company is circling for the kill.

From the sounds of it, Jana Partners is planning to launch a proxy fight, in which his firm will push for seats on the board and hope to either convince the company to sell, or pressure it into doing what the venture fund wants — and one of the keys in that fight is former AOL exec Jon Miller, who is one of the people on Jana’s slate of proposed board members for CNET if they win the proxy fight.

An asset sale seems pretty likely to me. Saul is right in that CNET probably isn’t worth what it would want from an outright acquirer — especially not if you include a standard takeover premium. Maybe Jana is just following Mike Arrington’s advice to bust CNET up and sell off the pieces. In any case, it should be fun to watch.

Boy, Henry “I used to be a famous Wall Street analyst” Blodget is sure on a roll — or make that a troll. Today he’s got a post about how TechCrunch could be bought by CNET for $100-million or so. His post is actually a response to one by Doug McIntyre at 24/7 Wall Street, in which Doug hypothesizes about blog networks such as TechCrunch and Huffington Post and GigaOm and how much they might be worth to existing media entities.

Mike has a sarcastic response to Henry’s post here. And there’s no question that $100-million seems like a fairy tale price — a lot like Henry’s $2,000 Google post from yesterday. Still, the idea itself makes sense. TechCrunch or GigaOm would fit as a part of CNET or several other media entities. The ironic thing is that selling would probably be a mistake, because at the moment they are doing far better than most of the companies that would be thinking about buying them.

Update:

Is $100-million nonsensical or not? Let’s look at the numbers: TechCrunch says it has 1.5 million unique visitors a month — although a commenter below says those numbers may be high — and CNET Networks has about 10 million a month, according to comScore (Compete says about 6 million a month). But as we all know, it’s about more than just uniques, right? It’s about monetization.

CNET had revenue last year of almost $400-million, although it only made a profit of $7-million, which is pretty pathetic. No one except Mike knows what TechCrunch made last year (check below for some Valleywag scuttlebutt — I have no idea whether it is even close).

Still, CNET’s market cap is $1.2-billion. If you assume that someone could monetize Mike’s 1.5 million unique visitors better than CNET can monetize its uniques (which wouldn’t be a stretch) then you could easily come to the conclusion that TechCrunch is worth about 20 per cent of what CNET is worth — or about $250-million.

I’m not saying it is, I’m just saying $100-million doesn’t look all that crazy. Oh, and Mike? If you do a deal, Cynthia Brumfield at IPDemocracy has some advice for you.

Update 2:

Dan Farber of ZDNet (which is part of CNET) notes that the rankings at Alexa and (presumably) comScore only measure CNET.com, but CNET’s family of sites get 137 million uniques a month. That’s an order of magnitude larger than the numbers I was using. That suggests TechCrunch might be worth in the neighbourhood of $20-million. Still nothing to sneeze at.

I don’t usually like to take shots at competing media (okay, that’s not really true — I kind of enjoy it), but the piece of “news analysis” over at CNet speculating about the value of YouTube has kind of gotten under my skin. I know it’s tempting to take the money that Sony paid for Grouper and divide it by the number of users and then multiply by YouTube’s user base, because I and many others in the blogosphere did exactly that when the news first came out earlier this week.

But at least TechCrunch threw in some caveats about the ComScore numbers for Grouper, and several other people — including Cynthia Brumfield at IPDemocracy and Rafat Ali at PaidContent — have mentioned that the Sony purchase had little to do with the number of users and everything to do with the company’s peer-to-peer technology. The CNet article has a somewhat skeptical comment from an analyst about whether YouTube is really worth $1-billion, but says nothing about how the figure was arrived at based on the Grouper deal, or why there would be any problem with doing simple multiplication based on dodgy traffic figures.

To make matters worse, the piece dredges up a piece in Business Week from March that said Facebook was looking to get bought for $2-billion — a piece that was also widely criticized for being based on little more than a rumour, and was subsequently denied by two Facebook founders. That’s not much depth from an article that goes under the heading of “news analysis.” It makes the bubblicious piece in Business Week about Kevin Rose of Digg look like investigative journalism (Business Week has also jumped into the YouTube valuation pool).

Oh, and one more thing (I can’t resist): the dollar values that have been paid for other companies do not “beg the question” of how much YouTube is worth. They raise the question — begging the question means something else entirely.