feature article
Subscribe Now

EE Times “Divested”

A Sad Day in the Electronics Trade Press

Animal shelters can be heartbreaking places. It’s not so much because of the over-enthusiastic questionable-breed puppies bounding energetically around their cages, oblivious to the game of Russian roulette that their caretakers are playing with their lives. No, it’s the ten-year-old one-eyed dog, brought in by the owner who “just doesn’t feel like having a dog anymore” sitting despondently at the back of his cage, the wisdom of experience heavy on his brow, solemnly and knowingly awaiting his inevitable fate. That’s what makes visiting these places such a gut-wrenching experience.

Today, UBM announced that it was “divesting itself” of its electronic engineering publications, including “US and Asian versions of EE Times, EDN, ESM, Embedded, EBM, TechOnline, and Datasheets.com.” The publications are being acquired by a subsidiary of Arrow Electronics, Inc. – a worldwide distributor of electronic components.

This is not good.

I have to admit my heart sank reading the news. Sure, these publications are the largest competitors to us here at EE Journal, and it’s undisputable that having your competitors being dropped off like unwanted pets at the nearest shelter that would take them has to be a good thing business-wise. After all, engineers are savvy enough not to trust one of their distributors to be an unbiased source of information on the products they sell. And other electronics companies and distributors are not likely to want their advertising and content marketing programs to be run by their competitor. All of these factors make this a clear win for us at EE Journal, right?

For me, though, it’s not that simple. Sure, I would love nothing more than for EE Journal to become the undisputed leader in the electronics trade press. That’s what our entire team has been working tirelessly toward for the past 13 years. But, as an engineer, I have a personal connection with EE Times in particular. EE Times was a guidepost for my entire engineering career, starting from the first time I grabbed one of the newspaper-sized rags off the table in the engineering lounge at my university, and continuing until 2003 when I made a career change and founded EE Journal (for which EE Times was certainly part of the inspiration). I always had a personal bond of trust with EE Times as an information source.

I have watched, therefore, with these mixed emotions for the past several years as EE Times has struggled to keep up with the transition from print to electronic media, struggled with the ethics of marketing versus journalism, and struggled with massive budget cuts and staff reductions. The fruits of Moore’s Law were clearly not kind to the publication that probably had the most influence on its existence and impact. 

In truth, I lost most of my bond with EE Times several years ago when they began laying off the most talented and respected journalists in the industry as a cost-saving move. I lost more respect as the publication slowly shifted and compromised its journalistic ethics in a desperate attempt to stay afloat. We at EE Journal chronicled the downward spiral of EE Times and of the electronics trade press in general – from my 2009 “The Death of the Trade Press” to Jim Turley’s 2013 “Consider the Source”, we watched solemnly as our segment of the industry slowly imploded around us. 

I still have great respect for the small, dedicated team of journalists who have struggled to keep EE Times going for the past few years. But my beloved benchmark of electronics reporting had clearly become a dim shadow of its former splendor – a bit hard to look at against the backdrop of my memory and experience with the publication.

So perhaps my emotions should have been tempered a bit more when I saw the news that EE Times found itself dropped off in the after-hours depository at Arrow overnight, in the company of every one of its UBM litter. Maybe my mind didn’t visualize the scraggly aging animal that is just now hobbling to the quietest corner of the pen. More likely, I saw the demise of the vibrant, confident visage of EE Times from decades past, and I knew what this meant for the venerable publication. 

Make no mistake. Arrow is a kill shelter.

Electronics distribution is a very good business. Margins are high, markets are fairly stable, and for everyone from the biggest players like Avnet and Arrow to the online up-and-comers like Mouser and Digi-Key, the enterprise offers rich rewards aplenty. Every day, engineers design systems that go into volume manufacturing with profit-laden bills of material – headed for the order lines and loading docks of these successful companies. The only thing that limits their profits is access to the attention of the engineers making those design-in decisions. The largest distributors bring in double-digit BILLIONS annually.

Contrast that with the business of running a trade publication, which maxes out in the double-digit annual MILLIONS – even for the largest, most successful names in the industry such as EE Times. If you know your math, that’s a one-thousand-times smaller business. If a company one one-thousandth your size has an asset that could make a substantial difference in your ability to compete in your main market, dropping a few million to scoop them up is a no-brainer. That asset, unfortunately, is probably not “EE Times – the trade publication.” It is most likely “EE Times – the world’s largest and richest database of engineers who are potential Arrow customers.”

If you are reading this, you are almost certainly on the list that Arrow just bought. 

You may remember that this is not Arrow’s first rodeo scooping up media databases. Not that long ago – back in early 2015 – the company acquired the engineering publications of Hearst Electronics Group – including Electronic Products Magazine and 15 other engineering web sites, e-newsletters, inventory access tools, and databases. It’s a reasonable strategy. By buying up the databases, content creation, and editorial channels of the world’s biggest electronic engineering publications, Arrow can market directly to the new databases they’ve acquired and simultaneously cut off their competitors’ access to independent media and marketing outlets.

There is no motivation, however, for Arrow to do more than put up a weak show of running an actual trade publication. There is no reason for the company to nurture an objective, analytical, critical voice in the industry. There is no upside in the company operating a high-value advertising and marketing business serving their primary competitors. The only sensible move is to harvest the database, ride the former reputations of these publications as long as they last, and reap the rewards in component sales. The paltry returns of an advertising-supported independent publication wouldn’t move the needle on a distributor’s P&L meter.

The collateral damage in this brutal competitive tactic in the distribution battle is the independent trade press, which has had most of its top-level titles squandered in the process. For those of us who believe in the importance of a vibrant, competitive, independent press, it’s a tragedy. 

I want to say thank you for reading and supporting EE Journal. We will continue to do our best to serve and support the engineering community as an objective, unbiased, authoritative source for information and insight on the electronics industry. We will continue to maintain a well-guarded and well-labeled firewall between our editorial offerings and our revenue-generating advertising and sponsored offerings. And we will continue to respect engineering as a profession and do our best to enhance the valuable contribution engineers make to the world.

9 thoughts on “EE Times “Divested””

  1. Did not everyone join a blockchain clatch, finish around with dnssec and IPv6, start using 24″ tablets with OpenBSD delivered by one Yoshida or another instead of binders of part families, and start electing watershed ecologists to high office? Oh dear. Must be a twitter ICMP case schism; I wasn’t paying for the firehose version or something.

    On the other hand, finding out about components via Charlie Stross (the also fiction please writer) has upsides too (not just seed figures for galaxy-by-galaxy field sales.)

    Well, the editorial bunch should be great as water district czars of what ‘stuff’ might be that cities are always asking for plans on and not getting from the solar installniks yet; if we fail to default onto equitable Slack someplace, turning out Raman holography of what real world capability is on that cave wall, and Arrow’s own doesn’t embarrass a world of comers in those YCombinator hums with, I still look forward to the things those writers will continue to fail to suppress in themselves.

    >it’s a tragedy.

    I erred in omission to book ahead the best prizes for being right.

  2. I used to read the EE times in the large, newspaper style format for the first part of my career. Later, I had the opportunity to publish articles in EE times with a couple of them making it to the print editions. The best article I have published was in the online version of EE times in 2009 and I have to say I have never had a more thrilling experience than watching that circulate!! I truly will miss EE times, but as we know – the EE field has changed thanks to outsourcing and in 2013-2015, I saw my Alma Mater and several other engineering colleges graduate more MEs than EEs, thanks to outsourcing not just electronic manufacturing but design engineering as well. I don’t think we fully understand the cost of this technology transfer, I do hope we figure out it before our technical base evaporates. The divesture of EE times to a parts vendor is a sad day indeed and falls along the same lines as outsourcing our design force – just another quick buck to be made at the expense of loosing bright and capable talent. Some day, Arrow and other distributors might find themselves the take over target (or larger merger) of some foreign power house that sees their US distribution as minor compared to what happens overseas. Thanks to the EE Journal for being an objective forum for engineering design in the future.

  3. Pingback: GVK Biosciences
  4. Pingback: gvk biosciences
  5. Pingback: Political Diyala

Leave a Reply

featured blogs
Jul 1, 2022
Throughout this season at Formula One, porpoising has been the most talked-about phenomenon, especially with complaints from drivers about blurred vision and severe back aches. Week after week, not... ...
Jun 30, 2022
Learn how AI-powered cameras and neural network image processing enable everything from smartphone portraits to machine vision and automotive safety features. The post How AI Helps Cameras See More Clearly appeared first on From Silicon To Software....
Jun 28, 2022
Watching this video caused me to wander off into the weeds looking at a weird and wonderful collection of wheeled implementations....

featured video

Synopsys PCIe 6.0 IP TX and RX Successful Interoperability with Keysight

Sponsored by Synopsys

This DesignCon 2022 video features Synopsys PHY IP for PCIe 6.0 showing wide open PAM-4 eyes, good jitter breakdown decomposition on the Keysight oscilloscope, excellent receiver performance, and simulation-to-silicon correlation.

Click here for more information

featured paper

Integrating multiple functions within a housekeeping MSP430 microcontroller

Sponsored by Texas Instruments

Adding a small, low-cost microcontroller (MCU) for simple housekeeping functions can benefit many board designs. This housekeeping (or secondary) MCU is not the main host processor in the system, but it can handle several important system-level functions such as LED control or input/output (I/O) expansion. This article will explain how integrating a multifunction housekeeping MCU in your system can help lower bill-of-materials (BOM) costs, save board space, and best of all simplify your design.

Click to read more

featured chalk talk

i.MX RT1170

Sponsored by Mouser Electronics and NXP Semiconductors

Dual Core microcontrollers can bring a lot of benefits to today’s modern embedded designs in order to keep all of our design requirements in balance. In this episode of Chalk Talk, Amelia Dalton chats with Patrick Kennedy from NXP about why newer design requirements for today’s connected embedded systems are making this balancing act even harder than ever before and how the i.MX RT1170 can help solve these problems with its heterogeneous dual cores, MIPI interface, multi-core low power strategy and SRAM PUF technology can make all the difference in your next embedded design.

Click here for More information about NXP Semiconductors i.MX RT1170 crossover microcontrollers