# Kevin O'Leary accused of using Fox News tactics



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/Lang_&_O'Leary_Exchange/1308689786/ID=2149202610
Video at about 3 minutes: Left-wing nutbar is the operative insult.

Guy makes a lot of sense. Too bad Kevin does not. He remains a fanboy of Goldman Sacks.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

I'm only able to stomach L&O exchange when at least one of them isn't there. The pair are a toxic mix.

Dianne should be a permanent fixture. IMO


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Wow, Kevin is a disgrace. I don't know why CBC keeps him, it doesn't help with their integrity.

If the OWS movement had only one, realistic objective, it should be to put the likes of Lloyd Blankfein in prison for 10 years and give reasons to support it. But they don't even have a leader, they're just hoping a leader will "emerge". It's too disorganized and the media intentionally or not are misrepresenting what its about. Asking for stuff like student loan bailouts or free education for everyone is equally absurd, that's not going to happen. The solution to affordable education is efficient regulation that forces cost down.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I saw this show live yesterday and I was blown away by Kevin's conduct.
He acted like a total jerk.
I found Diane's behavior disappointing too...she allowed the situation to run out of control.
I plan to write to CBC about this.

The worst part is that the guest in question now has a crappy impression about our country, our respect for guests on TVs and the quality of our national TV.

It is disgraceful.

Kevin O'Leary has always been a loose cannon, but this time he has gone too far.

He needs to understand that he is not the smartest man in the universe.
Bizzare as it may be to him, there actually are quite a few people in the world that are better educated, better informed, better qualified and richer than he is.


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

he's an entertainer. I like him on Dragons Den and Shark Tank but don't take him too seriously. I've no real interest in seeing him in a 'news' commentary -- I suspect the fox news comparison is probably fair. 

Here's a good review:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/05/...s-really-like-and-what-don-cherry-taught-him/

note the Don Cherry tie in. He is what he is...Didn't see the show yesterday -- it wouldn't surprise me if he was too provocative and insensitive. I don't like that part of his TV persona.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Well, it is frequently mentioned that CBC is a left-wing organization. In CMF we have often speculated that O is a character fabricated by CBC. Notice his approach is not consistent every show? It's probably scripted whereas Amanda is responding.

So I wonder if the fabrication of this character could be an attempt by CBC to be more respectful of the right by addressing their points via O?

Just conjecture on my part.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> So I wonder if the fabrication of this character could be an attempt by CBC to be more respectful of the right by addressing their points via O?


There are intelligent conservatives.

Kevin O'Leary isn't one of them.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

zylon said:


> I'm only able to stomach L&O exchange when at least one of them isn't there. The pair are a toxic mix.
> 
> Dianne should be a permanent fixture. IMO


Yeah, I get the impression that Amanda actually kind of hates him. It is not a playful little act in front of the camera.

Personally, if one of them had to go, I think it should be Kevin. I much prefer it when Kevin is off doing Dragon's Den and they have guest hosts opposite Amanda. Som Seif, Preet Banerjee, David Chilton, Andrew Coyne, Andrew Pile are all great guests with interesting views. Kevin is *boring *and *repetitive*. He's also an idiot, which is far worse. I don't care if it is a character or if that is the real Kevin. He should stick to showbiz and leave the news to more thoughtful people.


----------



## Liquid Independence (Oct 6, 2011)

I don't agree with some of O'leary's views but I like him for his entertaining tv personality. I know he can be misinformed, disrespectful, and self centered sometimes, but he doesn't think so himself, and that's what makes him fun to watch, like Eric Cartman.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Charlie said:


> Here's a good review:
> 
> http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/05/...s-really-like-and-what-don-cherry-taught-him/


He mentions that his mother really liked Amanda on the L-O Exchange. I agree with her. In fact, I prefer the L-O E without the O. Some of her guest hosts are really insightful as andrewf pointed out.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

kcowan said:


> http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/Lang_&_O'Leary_Exchange/1308689786/ID=2149202610
> Video at about 3 minutes: Left-wing nutbar is the operative insult.
> 
> Guy makes a lot of sense. Too bad Kevin does not. He remains a fanboy of Goldman Sacks.


They could have picked a much better guy to defend the OWS point of view. Very poor at articulating his thoughts up until about 5:15 or so. Did well after that. 

O'leary was entertaining until about the same point. 

Both sides are too extreme in their demands IMHO. The financial system can't continue the way it is, but the the 99% has to accept their share of the blame. 

Corporations are shipping jobs overseas because consumers demand $20 sneakers at Wal-Mart. Banks are lending to homeowners because homeowners want to refinance their house to buy that new SUV. 

You can't have one without the other and blaming each other is counterproductive.


----------



## financialuproar (Jan 26, 2010)

KO's shtick on The Lang & O'Leary Exchange is getting pretty old. As someone already said, it's pretty clear the lovely Amanda Lang doesn't like him anymore, but knows he's great for ratings.

Saying that, he's the guy who makes Dragon's Den entertaining. His one liners and arguments with Arlene are absolutely hilarious. 

I'm looking forward to reading his book. It should be entertaining.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Dmoney said:


> They could have picked a much better guy to defend the OWS point of view. Very poor at articulating his thoughts up until about 5:15 or so. Did well after that. ...


I would not try to defend OWS because its focus is too diverse. His statement is succinct but not really the main thrust of the movement so far.

Name-calling by the host of a network show is the issue. We don't allow it here and should not tolerate it on the CBC. I think it shows how shallow KO really is on his understanding of the issues. I would never trust any of my money to this goofball.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

He's often rude, but he's pure entertainment for me.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

I'm 3/4 through his new book and I like it. Really shows how focused he was to build wealth. Brings up a good point that partners in business make up for his weaknesses. When the TLC was bought for 4 billion, it was really the height of his career that he built up with his "superhero" executive staff. 

From his book, it seems like he treats his employees like $hit and only cares if they are making money. If you are not making money, he fires you (he calls this whacking) without question or thought. He calls everyone replaceable, which I agree to a point. I've even heard him say this on the Exchange. If you are not performing well, you are gone. Ms. Lang has told O'Leary that she would never work for him, as she would be scared of a layoff. 

I watch his personality on Dragon's Den and Shark Tank and admit he can be an @sshole sometimes. He even admits to being called an @sshole while in the washroom of public places, company meetings in France and negotiations with sellers. He claims it does not offend him, because if his time is not being used to make money, he disregards the conversation as a waste of time. 

So he doesn't care really to speak with you, unless he can make money off or with you.

But hey, steve Jobs was known to be a prick sometimes. Maybe is has something to do with building billion dollar companies.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 27, 2010)

*People still take O' Leary seriously?*

I quit listening to KOL seriously a long time go. The LOE uses him the way HNIC uses Don Cherry: as a sideshow clown. You may love or hate them, but you rarely ignore them. As I've watched him, he seems to have become more extreme over the years. As he's seen his fame grow, he's somehow convinced himself that his "schtick" has made him famous, which has, in turn, encouraged him to become a caricature of himself. 

I read an interesting, and pointed, critique of O 'Leary in Canadian MoneySaver a while ago. O' Leary's company was built and sold at the height of the internet boom. It's unlikely that the same valuation would have been paid even several weeks later. More damning is the criticism received afterwards. According to the article, the purchasing company obviously had been caught up in the internet craze and failed to do its due diligence. After the company had been bought, the purchaser discovered the company was in shambles - not worth anything near what it was purchased for (the purchaser's fault). O' Leary's greatest business accomplishment thus far has been good timing, not good management. 

Another factoid: according to the MoneySaver article, O' Leary made in the vicinity of ~ 7 million dollars from the sale of his company (gleaned from public records). He's a wealthy man, but not the business tycoon you would think based on the "billion dollar" sale.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Kevin owned the company though a partnership, so he would not get the whole pie. That would explain why he may have gotten 8 million through buyout package, pay and Mattel stock. Kevin started building the business in 1985 with Softkey and yes, it peeked near the internet boom, partially because they grew the business with smart people and hard work. The also kept buying companies that were their competition: aka TLC. They helped them grow huge. 


Mattel needed to adapt to the changing market because toy sales were falling badly. Mattel paid over asking for TLC, because they needed their toy business go on the computer, with the children's learning CD's that TLC was essentially making. 

O'Leary claims the merger was not successful, because Mattel management was using their policies to run TLC. (Which didn't work) Toys and software were not exactly the same type of business. 

(this reminded me of Peter’s Lynch talking about deworseification, when a company buys another and together they become worse. IE: stick to what your good at)

O'leary explained that he could not even use the Barbie character (in the software for children), without sign off from several brand managers, which took meetings and time. (up to several weeks!) This delayed product from getting on shelf and cost a lot in lost sales. Apparently the CEO did not care they were losing sales with no product on the shelf. The policies had to be met and that took time-something they did not have a lot of when selling software in the ever-so-fast changing market. 

The existing distributors for TLC did not like going through Mattel’s channels and policies. Mattel sold toys and did not allow unsold product to come back. TLC did the opposite. The TLC distributor’s did not like this, and did not like going through Mattel, so they refused to do business, because they had a risk of unsold software sitting on the shelf. 
Mattel posted two huge losses in the following quarters and O’Leary was fired. He was then sued, however, through impeccable account records, O’Leary proved through litigation that TLC was profitable up until Mattel purchased it. 

Mattel then sold TLC and it became profitable again within 2 weeks. (according to O’Leary).


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 27, 2010)

Jungle said:


> Kevin owned the company though a partnership, so he would not get the whole pie. That would explain why he may have gotten 8 million through buyout package, pay and Mattel stock.


I don't criticize him for failing to own a substantial part of the company. I criticize him for capitalizing on a mistaken impression that he's a much bigger fish than he is. Ironically, O' Leary may be the "poorest" dragon (though wealthy by any other standard!).




Jungle said:


> Mattel posted two huge losses in the following quarters and O’Leary was fired. He was then sued, however, through impeccable account records, O’Leary proved through litigation that TLC was profitable up until Mattel purchased it.


What lawsuit are you referring to? I found a shareholder lawsuit against Mattel and TLC but not Kevin O ‘ Leary alone. The lawsuit alleged that the acquisition was justified using TLC’s exaggerated financials. In 2003 Mattel settled for $122 million without admitting guilt, but the size of the settlement tells me Mattel was more than a bit worried about a trial. See http://securities.stanford.edu/news-archive/2002/20021206_Settlement05_Goldman.htm

The acquisition was rightly called one of the worst in history. Mattel paid $3.5 billion for TLC then sold it for $27.5 million. It also cost Jill Barad (then CEO of Mattel) her job.



Jungle said:


> Mattel then sold TLC and it became profitable again within 2 weeks. (according to O’Leary).


I'm not convinced that O' Leary can claim that with any reasonable certainty. Also, TLC no longer exists as a separate company. Portions of it were bought by Ubisoft and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.


----------



## cannew (Jun 19, 2011)

Kevin is about Kevin. He's interesting to watch, but doesn't do much for anyone else other than to make noise for attention.

Basically who cares what he says or who he insults.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Larry6417: I just finished his book and he explains everything. The book was a very good read for me.

He basically said Mattel made some big operational mistakes with TLC after the merge and as a result, they posted losses. He gives many specific examples.. I think Mattel screwed up with several major issues. Also, it didn't help that Mattel overbid the asking price for TLC.


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

I've always viewed Kevin as trying to fill the Simon role on Dragons Den. The Keven character works well on the Dragons Den but it doesn't translate well into serious news shows.

But of course he is trapped into the "anything legal to make a buck" character now. The CBC should really keep him to short segments much like they use Don Cherry.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 27, 2010)

Jungle, I agree that Mattel overpaid. I also have no doubt that Mattel made many errors; that's common with acquisitions. What I doubt is that O' Leary told the entire story in his book. At least one shareholder lawsuit accused Mattel of using exaggerated financial figures from TLC. Mattel settled for $122 million rather than go to court. TLC may have been profitable (I don't know), but the allegation from the shareholder lawsuit was that the degree of profitability was overstated.

BTW, can you imagine what O' Leary would say if an aspiring entrepreneur gave him the same set of excuses for failure (however justified)?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

The screening on The Dragons' Den leaves a lot to be desired. They could eliminate most of the candidiates by demanding that the businesses make a profit (after accounting for unpaid efforts of founders). There is an Angel Forum here in BC that I have participated in. The screening techniques are well-known.

The Dragons' Den is an entertainment show, nothing more. Don Cherry could perform the role of KO. He just needs a rudimentary script.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

As long as Amanda stays, I can deal with Kevin


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

I don't mind KOL so much on Dragon's Den, he is playing a role for the most part. I tend to think at the core he is probably not that different from the character, but I'm sure he's much less abrasive in person.

On news shows he is worse. I remember seeing him on BNN shows where he would rather obnoxiously criticize the guests or a topic, and he was generally 100% wrong either because he was biased, or because he just didn't know anything about the topic at hand.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

LOLX Bingo
Catching up on my PVR, here is the latest family fun game to play during LOLX. The guy has him nailed pretty good.

When asked how they might improve their show, he said a variety of guests is desirable. Translation: please replace O'Leary as often as you can please Amanda...


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I wrote them a letter saying that I much preferred the guest hosts. David Chilton, Som Saif, etc.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

^ where is the fun in that?
This is "newstainment".
If you want pure business news, just watch BNN.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> This is "newstainment".


That's just it Harold, many don't get that point at all. :rolleyes2:


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I can tolerate manufactured discord if the two people debating are intelligent. Kevin O'Leary (or his character, at least) is painfully stupid. He asks leading questions, he says ridiculous things. It's mostly a waste of time. If you want to watch people yell irrelevant nonsense at each other, that's what Jerry Springer is for.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

Kevin O'Leary is the kind of fellow I wouldn't like on a personal basis - rude, arrogant, insensitive - not the most endearing qualities. But as cute as Amanda Lang is, I find the show terribly boring when O'Leary is missing. It's when he isn't generating talk on forums that he'll have to worry about his television career.


----------



## Mall Guy (Sep 14, 2011)

andrewf said:


> If you want to watch people yell irrelevant nonsense at each other, that's what Jerry Springer is for.


Or CPAC :biggrin:


----------



## K-133 (Apr 30, 2010)

Spidey said:


> rude, arrogant, insensitive


Yes. That's part of the newstainment personality.

To be perfectly honest, I didn't find this nearly as awful as I had been expecting based upon the comments. I could visually see Kevin boiling over, but I found that he was fairly held back. I found the person being interviewed to be equally responsible for the conflict, but I liked one of his points; restoring the power of law. I think that this summarizes well all of the drama surrounding the tactics of current and previous parties forming the party in power in our country.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I am wondering why KO did not expect the CEO of JPM to get whacked. Instead he writes off the whole surprise loss as another "nothing burger". Yet he is OK with the CEO of Yahoo being whacked over a minor resume error. Seems to be inconsistent application of his arbitrary rules.

(At least Don Cherry has interesting wardrobe selections.)


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Kevin O'Leary is a hypocrite. He says CEOs should are fungible and should 'get whacked' when they miss numbers.


----------

