Showing posts with label Yahoo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yahoo. Show all posts

Monday, April 18, 2016

No Exclamation: Yahoo! No More



My friend MM and I began a small venture back in 1992. Both of us were geeks, and in fact, I wrote my first serious piece on MM's Kaypro, complete with a 5.25 floppy! About then I told MM, "You know, I had email in school, you wanna get email?"

So we went off to a big trade show armed with our biz cards and email addresses. I still remember the director of a division at THE company we were vying to strike a deal with, holding my card and staring at it. "What's this?" he asked, pointing to our email address.

It underscores the point I've always believed; entrepreneurs are the cutting edge, the visionaries, the real innovators, the real risk takers... and yet, this country of mine does nothing but flap its yap about "entrepreneurs... blah blah blah" while hoovering up all our money and shoveling it into the pig mouths of the real terrorists destroying my country -- and the world -- at a record setting clip.

Two years ago I cited two mistakes -- one past and one present -- made by Yahoo! Simply, hiring both Terry Semel and Marissa Mayer. While Mayer is the closer, I think Semel's hiring was far more fateful.

Yahoo! The once king of the hill, THE Internet destination, was run over and leap-frogged by a young upstart company that didn't waste money on hiring an old media guard like Semel, and stuck to what good entrepreneurs do: innovate. The irony is that Yahoo! used to license search from Google, and in fact, Semel tried to buy Google. Page and Brin rebuffed him, and behind the scenes I bet they held him in contempt as an old media walrus, plying old walrus ways like buying out what you failed to innovate on.

Old walruses like to lay around and throw money at problems and desires. Take away their bankroll and these folks wouldn't know what to do with themselves, as they're useless. Actually, since they're useless and don't have a work ethic (as evidenced by their lack of innovation/problem solving and thus having to rely on buying their way to success) they're worse because they're drags on society.

Yahoo! is no more, they're just yahoo, a sad signpost of those early exciting "Net days." I remember when Jerry Yang left, I thought, "Well, there's the bell tolling."

And now, with the news of what appears to be Yahoo!'s imminent sale, the wagons are circling.

There's a distant wind blowing, gathering the dust and detritus of things past, only to sweep into the midst of the present. Don't let it get in your eyes.


LA TIMES
April 18, 2016

by Tracy Lien [yes, that's her name!]

Yahoo's turnaround strategy could turn into a sell-off strategy starting Monday.
After a tumultuous decade that saw the Internet company lose the battle for search to onetime underdog Google, churn through five chief executives plus an interim CEO, and largely miss out on tech's move to mobile, the Sunnyvale, Calif., company sought "strategic alternatives" this year — industry-speak for a buyer.
Bids are due Monday.
A sale would mark an end for a company once considered a giant of the Web, but it's an option investors — who have grown increasingly frustrated with Yahoo's direction — have rallied behind.



Under Chief Executive Marissa Mayer, Yahoo has spent millions trying to be a media and technology company, while doing neither particularly well. Though its websites get nearly 1 billion visitors each month, the company has struggled to attract the big ad dollars its competitors reap. Costly bids at creating original content — including hiring high-profile news anchor Katie Couric on a $10-million-a-year contract — have yet to pay off. After building up a video arm intended to compete with Netflix and YouTube, the company quashed the project and canceled its original programming — a $42-million revival of the TV show "Community" and two comedy shows — after only one season.

Yahoo's failure to spin off its stake inAlibaba — worth $32 billion — only added to investor scrutiny.
Although Mayer has in the past been hesitant to explore a sale, tech analyst Jan Dawson of Jackdaw Research said Yahoo is now clearly in selling mode, affirmed by changes it made to its employees' severance plans this month.
"At this point, the only way Yahoo doesn't get sold is if they insist on a price no one is willing to pay," Dawson said. "But it seems like there's a willingness on all sides to do a deal."
But even if the company overprices itself, Yahoo soon might wind up on the auction block again.
Activist investor Starboard Value last month sought to oust Yahoo's board of directors in a proxy fight, a move that, if successful, would end Mayer's reign. The new board of directors would presumably push to sell immediately. Shareholders are expected to vote on the board members in June.
That is, of course, if the board doesn't choose to sell before then.
So far, at least 40 potential buyers have reportedly looked at Yahoo's books, but analysts say only a handful of names have emerged as serious contenders.

Verizon
The mobile and broadband company is considered the front-runner to buy Yahoo. Aside from having the means to make an acquisition this large, analysts say Yahoo would complement Verizon as it continues to bolster its media efforts.
Last year, Verizon acquired AOL, a former Internet giant that itself had become more of a media company. Last month, it bought a 24.5% stake in AwesomenessTV, a Los Angeles entertainment company known for its digital videos. Yahoo properties such as Yahoo Finance and its online lifestyle magazines could be a valuable addition to the telecom's portfolio, expanding its audience and reach and opening additional revenue opportunities as its pool of new potential mobile and broadband customers dwindles.

The Daily Mail
The British tabloid newspaper and website confirmed it is in talks with private equity firms to consider a bid. Media analysts say it's somewhat out of the blue, but the two companies could be a good fit for each other.
“I think it's an opportunistic move,” said Richard Broughton, research director at British data and consulting firm Ampere Analysis. “The U.S. certainly is a market where the Daily Mail group has been doing well, and this could be a springboard for them.”
Analysts have noted that Yahoo and the Daily Mail trade in similarly low- to mid-brow, attention-grabbing content and target similar audiences — although those audiences are largely on different continents. A Yahoo acquisition could help Britain's most-visited news website quickly expand its U.S. footprint.
Google
Google's name has come up in media reports as a potential bidder, but analyst Jan Dawson says a Google acquisition seems implausible.
“Why would they want Yahoo?” Dawson said. “Google is an enormously successful company. It does some of the same things Yahoo does. Why would it spend a lot of money to get an inferior version of what it already has?”
There are bits of Yahoo tech from which Google could benefit, such as combining Yahoo-owned photo storage site Flickr with Google Photos. But that would be “a heck of a lot of money and work to add an incremental amount of functionality,” Dawson said.
Not to mention the risk of antitrust concerns were it to snatch up Yahoo's email, search or online advertising business.

Microsoft
A Microsoft acquisition also seems unlikely. The tech giant famously tried to buy Yahoo in 2008 for $45 billion; an offer that Yahoo rebuffed.
Eight years later, Dawson doesn't think Yahoo has much that Microsoft would want. The company recently shut down and sold its display advertising business as Chief Executive Satya Nadella pushes the company toward the cloud, artificial intelligence and machine learning.
“Their search technology could potentially be interesting,” Dawson said. “But Yahoo uses Bing anyway, so it's just a small slice of additional tech. They'd be buying 99% of stuff they don't want.”
IAC/CBS
Media companies IAC and CBS would “make more sense” as bidders, Dawson said, because “if you're already an online content business, Yahoo gives you scale and an audience.”
IAC, which has shown a willingness to work with different business models outside of content (it spun off the Match Group last year, which is responsible for online dating apps Match.com and Tinder), could find a creative way to repackage Yahoo's properties for new revenue streams.
CBS, a more traditional media company with websites and a broadcasting network, could leverage Yahoo's size to have a greater online footprint.
But Yahoo also comes with a lot of baggage. If IAC or CBS were to win a bid, they'd have organizing — a task that they might not want to undertake.
Private equity
Private equity firms are rumored to be interested in Yahoo's assets — and if they win Yahoo may wind up being sold off piecemeal.
“Private equity may recognize that an asset like Yahoo has tremendous potential that has not been unlocked yet,” said Peter Csathy, chief executive of business consulting and legal services firm Manatt Digital Media. “They'll look for synergies, they'll look at cost reductions. Their job is to find undervalued assets and build those up for an ultimate, significant return on investment.”
::
Yahoo by the numbers
1 billion – the number of people who visit Yahoo every month
9,000 – the number of employees Yahoo expects to have by the end of 2016 after it culls 15% of its workforce
$35.33 billion – Yahoo's market cap
$32 billion – The amount of Yahoo's market cap linked to its stake in Alibaba
22 – the number of offices Yahoo has closed since Marissa Mayer joined the company. Another five will close by the end of the year, including those in Milan, Madrid and Mexico City

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Selllout

Sales fixes everything.
--Guy Kawasaki


Perkily, Marissa Mayer
Proving no American exception, Yahoo! didn't learn from history. When they announced Marissa Mayer's hiring, my reaction was the same as when they hired Terry Semel (from, aol-time-warner, the old media side, film, which made zero sense to me; an old media dude to run a new media company...?): why?

From the article below:

Mayer was on the product/engineering side of Google, but not in the advertising part of product/engineering.

Even "advertising" doesn't get it right. Advertising is not sales, it's mechanics, not sales (making money). Sales, and only sales, is sales. And yet, no one ever talks about going into sales, oddly opting instead for marketing because, given our valorization of money, that's where the cache is.

But marketing (mechanics) doesn't fix problems -- sales do (making money).

It's why I think ad traffic models have an inherent flaw; at pennies per click ("cpc" cost per click in industry speak) it relies on Godizilla amounts (economies of scale) of suckers (traffic) to "keep on clicking" -- that's why fb, twitter, et al ad nauseum, can cash in - for now. These "new economy" models have to be free to attract Godzilla traffic which they in turn sell to spammers. But is that sustainable for anyone outside of the billionaire boys club of facebook, instagram, and the rest of "the smoke and mirrors gang"?  

Maybe someone will figure out how this makes sense over, say, "build it, sell it", but until then I see these two core flaws as not just unsustainable, but ... weird. Why? Because despite the "irrational exuberance" of gamblers who're in the market with a new equities high yesterday, the smoke and mirrors gang lose money. And until that's addressed, how can anything else be considered more important? Am I missing something? Hey, despite Jeff Bezos claiming he can turn on the earnings spigot "anytime" most would be surprised to know that Amazon doesn't make money and for quite a while bled money like Niagra Falls.

But at least I can see the Amazon model's potential to succeed, because they sell like crazy.They're excellent at sales and customer service.

Then there's the weird insidiousness, the crassness, of "free". People are up in arms about the NDAA and NSA spying, but there's nary a whimper from the msm about your information being the target of spammers. It's as if there were an invasion scale; NSA prying? Hell yes we give a damn! Corporate retailers whose only goal is to weasel their way into your wallet? Eh, huh?

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. Two sins:

[de Castro] has no experience whatsoever running any kind of a real ad salesforce...

It looks like former AOL ad executive Ned Brody is going to take over for De Castro. We're hearing that he too was a "systems" guy at AOL. Mayer still needs to find a true sales person who understands the media business.

In the meantime, I'm not completely stupid. I'm working on a model that at least in part is derived from my contribution to the vomitus vernaculus --  "fread": free + advertising. Yeah, yeah, I know, sellout.


From Business Insider

Marissa Mayer just had her first major mistake as Yahoo CEO.
She was forced to oust Henrique De Castro, her hand-picked, and highly compensated COO after just 15 months on the job.
From the moment De Castro was hired, people warned that he was a big mistake for Yahoo.
Yet, Mayer plowed ahead, hiring De Castro, likely because when she started at Yahoo she had a blind spot for how the ad industry really works. After almost two years on the job, she now understands the industry better and is trying to correct her mistake.
When Mayer hired De Castro, one source told us, "[Henrique] is very smart, but he has a difficult personality; both his teams and his clients dislike him ... He has no experience whatsoever running any kind of a real ad salesforce, let alone a 1,000+ team selling experiential media into brand buyers."

This source wasn't an outlier. De Castro had plenty of enemies.
He has his own parody Twitter account that tweets some of the outlandish things he's said, such as, "To the CEO of major UK TV broadcaster: 'This deal is like sex with a Russian prostitute. Veeeerry tempting.... but no.'"

At Google, De Castro oversaw the successful creation of its display ad business, but Yahoo's ad business is different from Google's ad business. De Castro was running systems that served/targeted/optimized/ display ads for Google. That sort of advertising is radically different from a takeover display ad that runs on Yahoo's front page.
Mayer was on the product/engineering side of Google, but not in the advertising part of product/engineering. She didn't have to think about advertising. And since ad dollars flowed into Google, she probably thought she could just pluck any Google ad guy out of a lineup and plug him into Yahoo.
To people like Mayer who didn't pay attention to the ad business, an ad is an ad is an ad. But there are important, nuanced differences.
Despite many warnings that De Castro was bad fit for Yahoo, Mayer still poached him with a giant payday. Executive compensation firm Equilar estimates De Castro will collect $109 million from his time at Yahoo.
His time at Yahoo yielded little in the way of results, as far as we can tell. Yahoo's ad business remained stagnant, and De Castro was clashing with Mayer and her top executives.
Kara Swisher at Re/Code reported, "In recent months, according to numerous sources, he and Mayer had developed a tense relationship that many in meetings with the pair found it hard not to notice."
De Castro was a no-show at CES, the big tech industry trade show where Yahoo had a massive keynote with all sorts of executives. That was a warning sign that De Castro was not long for Yahoo.
Now, he's gone. In a note to employees, Mayer didn't try to soften the news. She said, "During my own reflection, I made the difficult decision that our COO, Henrique de Castro, should leave the company."
While this is a high-profile mistake for Mayer, there's some reason for optimism.
First, the stock is only down 2% this morning. By firing De Castro, Mayer telegraphed that the ad business is not doing well. And still, investors don't care, because Yahoo remains (for the most part) a tracking company for Chinese Internet giant Alibaba. In other words, Mayer has time to find her footing.
Second, she made her decision relatively quickly. De Castro was only at Yahoo for 15 months. She didn't let his tenure drag on just to save face. She cut him before it got too ugly.
Moving on from De Castro is good, but there's already murmurs in the ad industry that she still hasn't solved the problem.
It looks like former AOL ad executive Ned Brody is going to take over for De Castro. We're hearing that he too was a "systems" guy at AOL. Mayer still needs to find a true sales person who understands the media business.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

He's listed as day to day, but then again, aren't we all?

With all of the bluster about the way "new media" is changing the info landscape, the real challenges to the old guard seem to be - surprise surprise - in music. Witness Radiohead's latest distribution play. Go ahead - Google it - there's tons of stuff, from major mass media to pundits like Gerd Leonhard or Chris Anderson.

As someone who exists on the margins of this, pontificating till I was sick of it to so-called indie filmmakers, it's all quite amusing. Many of the principles remain the same between music and film and indeed with any artistic medium on the indie level.

But music has a different dimension than most others, and that's concerts. For musicians, this is where the money is. This is why the Stones, who by now are probably mainlining Geritol, are still touring and indeed in their recently completed world tour set a new gross record of over half a billion. That's a ton of Geritol.

So while all of the talk about the "innovation" (hint: it's not) of Radiohead's distrib strategy is bringing this discussion to more public light, the key thing to get is that recorded music (herein, "records" or, "a record") in the new age of new media is, in the purest marketing sense, collateral. Think of it this way: If a company takes out an ad for its latest widget, its sales expectation on the ad is based upon market research, and the price for the ad is a marketing cost. The difference is split between the two models, stone age and new media. What the mass media congloms of the stone age fail to understand is the stone age media's aside but a new media bedrock: the model of records = marketing cost in the age of new media; they are stuck in the stone age where, first and foremost, records were a revenue generator, instead of a cost center, ie: marketing cost.

In its most basic light, the stone age media's failure is in their out-moded, out-entrepreneured thinking, their perspective, the way they look at, perceive and understand the world. It's the Peter Principle all over again. (from the citation: This is "The Generalized Peter Principle." It was observed by Dr. William R. Corcoran in his work on Corrective Action Programs at nuclear power plants. He observed it applied to hardware, e.g., vacuum cleaners as aspirators, and administrative devices such as the "Safety Evaluations" used for managing change. There is much temptation to use what has worked before, even when it may exceed its effective scope. Dr. Peter observed this about humans. [emphasis mine])

And not to cast aspersions, but new media has its long list of wacko tries - witness the dot-com boom, but that's not un-expected. However, when a would-be king such as Yahoo goes and hires an old stone age patriarch like Terry Semel, (from the largest stone-age conglom on earth! No doubt the Yahoo-ers thought that was a great selling point, but in reality, their thinking as well was stone-age) it more than raised eyebrows with me. (Although I have no eyebrows to brag of) My expectation at that point was for Semel to not get it, and sure enough, in a re-tread of John Sculley at Apple, (Yes, even the mythic Steve Jobs had to re-tool his thinking. Remember his now legendary pitch to Sculley at the time? You want to sell sugar water or change the world?) Yahoo has "failed" spectacularly. I say this in light of the fact that Yahoo could have been the kings - they were positioned to be so, but then their lack of innovation killed their chances, and in a confluence of now history, Google out-entrepreneured them.