Mergers and acquisitions rarely work out for the entities as such. To understand why they nonetheless continue to happen so often it’s necessary to peer beyond the corporate veil and look at the incentives of the individual players.
DoubleClick
NeXT
Here are some businesses off the top of my head that are thriving because of their acquisitions.
Unrelated thing not core to the business that we sold. Acquisition we spun off at a profit.
It's not 75% exactly, but this isn't even napkin math. Just top of mind. I feel as though you're belittling my experience and my person. Why? And also, please don't.
I've told you that from my direct experience, most acquisitions I've been witness to have been well thought out, calculated moves. It turns out we're doing a good job.
Please don't be so hostile.
Android was an acquisition.
YouTube was an acquisition.
Google Docs was an acquisition.
One KPMG study found that 83 percent of these deals hadn't boosted shareholder returns, while a separate study by A.T. Kearney concluded that total returns on M&A were negative.
Basically - it's an unscientific opinion
Could you provide a source for that?
Even that article says it: if Google avoided acquisitions they wouldn’t have Android and YouTube. Disney wouldn’t have Pixar and Fox. The biggest companies in the world would be different - and for the surviving multinationals often their acquisitions defined their current business.
Some of this is successful, some of this is a failure, but it’s a game that a lot of companies needed to play to achieve their current market position.
In fact, in some markets not touching M&A means not growing your core business (eg some retailers), and some big businesses may not exist anymore if they didn’t do the acquisitions they did.
There aren’t many because most of Disney’s talent left around when Pixar was founded. Without movies to continuously hook new kids, their entire empire is a house of cards.
Some mergers have literally saved companies, some have ruined them, some are considered 'unsuccessful' for esoteric reasons and others successful for purely numeric ones.
96% on RottenTomatoes, critically acclaimed, 12th-most profitable release of 2016.
The history of the two studios is way more involved than what you're suggesting, and talent moves around between studios quite a lot. And 25 years is a long time; there have been entire generations of talent that have risen up since then, and trust me, they're not all at Pixar.
Source: I worked at Disney Animation for nearly a decade (and closely with Pixar during that time). I'm certainly not unbiased but probably way more informed.
Firstly Pixar - The Pixar brand pretty much turned around the failing 'California Adventure' after the 'Pixar Pier' conversion. Toy Story alone has more rides than any other movie with Midway Mania, Slinky Dog Dash, RC Racer, Toy Soldiers Parachutes and Slinky Dog Zig-Zag Spin. The French pavilion in Epcot is getting Remy’s Ratatouille Adventure (which is already in Paris). There would be no crush coaster, no Radiator Springs Racers...
Disney probably wouldn't have entire areas of their park dedicated to Pandora and Star Wars, both of which were after the aquisitions of Fox (Avatar) and Lucasfilm (Star wars). Both Florida and California have Guardians of the Galaxy rides enabled by the acquisition of Marvel, and are planning more Marvel based attractions.
Bob Iger realised that just licencing these properties wasn't good enough - only ownership of the brand can protect Disney's long term interests ('What if pixar decides just to stop making Toy Story? Or refuses to licence their next hot property? Or gets acquired by our competitor?').