Ad Age, Adweek: should you have bought Adrants?

So, a value has finally been placed on Adrants: $750,000. That was the most interesting part of the release yesterday that came out of Watershed Publishing, which was announcing that it had bought an undisclosed minority interest in the site. (Can't find the release online, ironically enough.) Other Adrants factoids in the release: the site gets 370,000 monthly uniques and 680,000 page views per month. I don't pretend to have an idea about what Adrants should be worth, but given the following, I might have thought it would be more than $750,000. First, no other blog in the general advertising space can match Adrants' traffic, and many have tried—it's been clear for awhile now that Steve Hall got first-mover advantage on all of us and will continue to reap its benefits. Second, whether you think Adrants is an insightful look at the ad biz or a site that gets its traffic mainly via boobvertising, it's in a growth industry. Old approaches to covering the ad biz are not. In fact, Watershed claims in its release that the marketing/advertising properties it owns now—which also include MarketingVOX and MediaBuyerPlanner, "reach an audience of marketers roughly twice the size of Advertising Age's online properties and 15 percent larger than the sum of those from Nielsen Business Media, the two closest networks of relevant sites." I can hear the complaints already from both companies that the Adrants demo isn't nearly as valuable, but if the going price for Adrants is a mere three-quarters of a million dollars, seems like it would have been a no-brainer for Ad Age, Adweek (and Mediapost, for that matter) to kick its tires. Maybe they did, but somehow, I doubt it.