A recent story published on Bloomerg.com might say more than authors Gillian Wee and Tim Mullaney let on.

The article, entitled "Time Warner's AOL `Nightmare' May Worsen on Slowdown (Update 1)" covers the troubles the world's largest media company is having in terms of ridding itself of AOL.

Buried in subtext, one could surmise a lot from the following two excerpts.

"Philippe Krakowsky, an executive vice president for strategy at ad company Interpublic Group of Cos.; Lance Maerov, a senior vice president at WPP Group Plc; and Rich Stalzer, president of IAC/InterActiveCorp.'s advertising solutions group, said they aren't interested in buying AOL's ad businesses."

But based on the following remark by Maerov, it seems as though the option was considered.

"'Arithmetically, we can't support the valuation they put on it on any reasonable analysis,' said WPP's Maerov, who is based in New York."

So why would WPP consider such a buyout? Tribble, who we can thank for finding this one, said the following:

"(This) is the worst advice I have ever heard...WPP or Interpublic buying AOL...These companies don't even acknowledge the internet exists for the most part...a firm like that buying AOL would just make AOL even less popular as none of the holding companies have a clear vision of what people want online. To make is worse...WPP actually considered and ran the numbers to see if they could purchase it..."

More after the jump.

We agree that an AOL buyout would be bad for, well, pretty much anyone. It's one of those dead brands, not unlike IBM or Oldsmobile. Although they once held a certain prominence, but died off due to bad image management.

But would AOL give these giants venues to reach their clients' markets? If not AOL, then another more popular web company?