It was billed as a marriage made in heaven: the union of old media with new media and of "content" with distribution. Yet, 18 months on, it looks as though the $104bn marriage of America Online (AOL) the brash internet upstart, with Time Warner's vast publishing and television empire was never even consummated. This is what lies behind the surprise resignation of its chief executive, Robert Pittman. The two sides just couldn't get on with each other. They couldn't even agree on joint approaches to advertising let alone strategic decisions like how to deliver high-speed "broadband" internet access to AOL's customers. One deal broke down, according to the Wall Street Journal, because Warner Bros refused to give away free DVDs and videotapes as part of a Burger King promotion because it would hurt its bargaining in future promotions. It also, reportedly, dismissed outright a suggestion that high performers at Burger King might have "walk-on" parts in television sitcoms like Friends as a corporate reward. Who needs sitcoms when you've got real life soaps like this?

The history of mergers has itself proved to be a bit of a soap opera. Hardly any actually provide synergy to justify themselves in economic terms let alone as investments for shareholders. The only thing AOL got right was its timing. It used its hugely inflated share price to merge with the much bigger Time Warner just before the dot.com share collapse. The shares have fallen 60% this year. It soon became a case of America Off Loads after the group had announced the biggest quarterly loss in business history of $54bn in April. Judging by the recent management changes the old veterans of Time Warner are ousting the new economy upstarts. Meanwhile, the original proposition for the merger - AOL's ability to deliver Time Warner's content through the new medium of the internet, remains stubbornly unsolved. People, that's the problem.