Read: They fired people yesterday.
How many? No one is really sure. I know of 5 definites across production and engineering ... reports are up to 20 were asked to leave, including one very senior staffer.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24572546-7582,00.html
Edit: Just 6 days earlier Y7 told The Oz they had no immediate plans to make local redundancies - http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24540225-5013040,00.html
Showing posts with label Yahoo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yahoo. Show all posts
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
September Nielsen data: Yahoo!7 takes a massive hit, other players hold
Nielsen has just released September Netview data and the numbers would be causing a few sighs over at Yahoo!7
Just over 6 weeks ago Yahoo!7 PR was out in force trumpeting the success of their Olympics initiative - and with good reason - it was pretty successful.
However most insiders were more concerned with what they could do with the audience once the Olympics were over. Could they hold enough of them and bring them into the Yahoo!7 fold (be it through Mail, Messenger, Answers, News, Homepage) to become regular users.
The first warning sign would have been last month when the Nielsen data showed Yahoo!7 didn't actually add any new users in August of 08 (when compared to July) - most would have expected an incremental gain in user numbers as a result of an official Olympics alliance at the very least. It wouldn't be too bold to predict internally Yahoo!7 would have forecasted a 10-20% traffic increase.
However this would have seemed like a minor blow compared to the traffic king hit the site experienced in September, down 9% from 5.35m uniques to 4.87m uniques.
This drop mirrors the drop Yahoo!7 experience just after the 2006 World Cup. Remember, the World Cup site in 06 was a Yahoo! co-brand and the traffic fell into Yahoo's topline. However once the action stopped in Germany, the traffic left and didn't return.
On these current September numbers, Yahoo!7 has less momentum with its audience than it did pre Olympics, which is undoubtedly the worst possible outcome for the site.
You can bet the financial investment required to secure the online rights to the Olympics was a mid term initiative financially - based on using the Olympic brand as a carrot to bring new eyeballs to the site and Yahoo!7 working out a way to transition these people into long term users.
Tough questions will no doubt be asked. How has this happened? Did the company have a real plan to try and keep the Olympics traffic it generated? Why, with the number 1 TV network is this JV not generating much traction with users over 2 years in? What has happened to Rohan Lund's vision of being a leader in news, homepage, mail and search?
These are prickly questions - but it seems now globally the Yahoo! brand is being forced to address them across the board as the share price flounders. How will it address these issues it is facing in AU?
The only question I have is, what is Yahoo7's strategy? It's hard to see a real direction from an outsiders point of view.
At the same time, Yahoo!'s main competitors either held their audience in September or grew marginally.
Ninemsn and Fairfax Digital held topline audience numbers, whilst News Digital Media grew 4% (up 150k users)
Just over 6 weeks ago Yahoo!7 PR was out in force trumpeting the success of their Olympics initiative - and with good reason - it was pretty successful.
However most insiders were more concerned with what they could do with the audience once the Olympics were over. Could they hold enough of them and bring them into the Yahoo!7 fold (be it through Mail, Messenger, Answers, News, Homepage) to become regular users.
The first warning sign would have been last month when the Nielsen data showed Yahoo!7 didn't actually add any new users in August of 08 (when compared to July) - most would have expected an incremental gain in user numbers as a result of an official Olympics alliance at the very least. It wouldn't be too bold to predict internally Yahoo!7 would have forecasted a 10-20% traffic increase.
However this would have seemed like a minor blow compared to the traffic king hit the site experienced in September, down 9% from 5.35m uniques to 4.87m uniques.
This drop mirrors the drop Yahoo!7 experience just after the 2006 World Cup. Remember, the World Cup site in 06 was a Yahoo! co-brand and the traffic fell into Yahoo's topline. However once the action stopped in Germany, the traffic left and didn't return.
On these current September numbers, Yahoo!7 has less momentum with its audience than it did pre Olympics, which is undoubtedly the worst possible outcome for the site.
You can bet the financial investment required to secure the online rights to the Olympics was a mid term initiative financially - based on using the Olympic brand as a carrot to bring new eyeballs to the site and Yahoo!7 working out a way to transition these people into long term users.
Tough questions will no doubt be asked. How has this happened? Did the company have a real plan to try and keep the Olympics traffic it generated? Why, with the number 1 TV network is this JV not generating much traction with users over 2 years in? What has happened to Rohan Lund's vision of being a leader in news, homepage, mail and search?
These are prickly questions - but it seems now globally the Yahoo! brand is being forced to address them across the board as the share price flounders. How will it address these issues it is facing in AU?
The only question I have is, what is Yahoo7's strategy? It's hard to see a real direction from an outsiders point of view.
At the same time, Yahoo!'s main competitors either held their audience in September or grew marginally.
Ninemsn and Fairfax Digital held topline audience numbers, whilst News Digital Media grew 4% (up 150k users)
YHOO dips below $12 a share
Has anyone else been watching the rapid descent of the Yahoo share price?
Well ... right now it's at $11.75 and its market cap is just north of $16b USD.
Blodget covers it here - http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/10/yahoo-cracks-12-valuation-now-officially-ridiculous
Lets not forget in February MSFT offered Yahoo! $31 per share ... and they declined. Since then the situation has gone from bad to worse.
What's causing the decline? The flogging the company is copping in search combined with large questions around Jerry Yang and Sue Decker and a very public stoush between those 2 and Carl Icahn earlier in the year. The Google AdSense distro deal being stalled wouldn't be helping either, nor would over 100 senior exec defections in the past 18 months.
Key thing to remember is in the US and most areas of Asia - Yahoo is still very strong. Very strong - a leader in many key categories across these large, critical markets. Even with this, many are expecting large layoffs and scaling back of operations. Some have predicted 20% of staff could go.
Have to wonder what might be about to happen in AU - where the company isn't a market leader and of late has seemed to lack longer term direction when compared to its competitors.
Well ... right now it's at $11.75 and its market cap is just north of $16b USD.
Blodget covers it here - http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/10/yahoo-cracks-12-valuation-now-officially-ridiculous
Lets not forget in February MSFT offered Yahoo! $31 per share ... and they declined. Since then the situation has gone from bad to worse.
What's causing the decline? The flogging the company is copping in search combined with large questions around Jerry Yang and Sue Decker and a very public stoush between those 2 and Carl Icahn earlier in the year. The Google AdSense distro deal being stalled wouldn't be helping either, nor would over 100 senior exec defections in the past 18 months.
Key thing to remember is in the US and most areas of Asia - Yahoo is still very strong. Very strong - a leader in many key categories across these large, critical markets. Even with this, many are expecting large layoffs and scaling back of operations. Some have predicted 20% of staff could go.
Have to wonder what might be about to happen in AU - where the company isn't a market leader and of late has seemed to lack longer term direction when compared to its competitors.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Tech getting the jitters from the economic hammering
Last week I touched on the impact of the US financial issues on tech stocks.
http://mimelbourne.blogspot.com/2008/09/no-vote-on-700b-bailout-impacts-tech.html
Now there is finally talk on how this will impact the advertising market ... with some sentiment that digital will probably benefit from any economic turmoil as it offers a perception of more accountability than other media.
Some have stated Google will benefit - which is interesting. I'm not so sure it should - Google is about demand fulfillment, not demand creation. In times like this brands need to create more demand - not look at making fulfillment more efficient. I sometimes feel most misunderstand the role of SEM in a marketing mix and the variables that impact what search can do for a company. For almost all categories, search relies on 'ATL' media (for want of a better term) to drive demand for brand and category terms ... by taking money out of brand building activity, it will impact the amount of traffic you can funnel using search. If advertising is a mix of art and science (magic and logic or whatever other analogy ppl use), then I am not sure it makes much sense to lean more towards straight science in leaner times.
Locally it will be interesting to see what happens. The first half of 08 was very flat ... however the environment has rallied in the second half and we should see approx. 20% YOY growth in the online advertising sector.
However, it's not clear yet what will happen in Q1 and Q2 of 2009 - which I think would be making the local players nervous given how soft the same period was in 08 without such powerful economic factors at play. In the US the past few months have seen layoffs at a lot of key players, the same situation is entirely possible here - I wouldn't be surprised to see layoffs in product/editorial areas over the next 2-3 months in AU. Either that or we will see publishers trim the fat off their offerings - ie, get rid of the elements of their portfolio which on their own are not viable. It's not the time to be carrying excess baggage.
So lets check in with 6 key stocks I looked at last week and see how they faired over the past 7 days.
Yahoo! - market cap down 2.18b in past 7 days
Google - market cap down 5.87b in past 7 days
Microsoft - market cap down 1.56b in past 7 days
Research In Motion - market cap down 1.84b in past 7 days
Apple - market cap down 6.86b in past 7 days
Time Warner - market cap down 6.07b in past 7 days
http://mimelbourne.blogspot.com/2008/09/no-vote-on-700b-bailout-impacts-tech.html
Now there is finally talk on how this will impact the advertising market ... with some sentiment that digital will probably benefit from any economic turmoil as it offers a perception of more accountability than other media.
Some have stated Google will benefit - which is interesting. I'm not so sure it should - Google is about demand fulfillment, not demand creation. In times like this brands need to create more demand - not look at making fulfillment more efficient. I sometimes feel most misunderstand the role of SEM in a marketing mix and the variables that impact what search can do for a company. For almost all categories, search relies on 'ATL' media (for want of a better term) to drive demand for brand and category terms ... by taking money out of brand building activity, it will impact the amount of traffic you can funnel using search. If advertising is a mix of art and science (magic and logic or whatever other analogy ppl use), then I am not sure it makes much sense to lean more towards straight science in leaner times.
Locally it will be interesting to see what happens. The first half of 08 was very flat ... however the environment has rallied in the second half and we should see approx. 20% YOY growth in the online advertising sector.
However, it's not clear yet what will happen in Q1 and Q2 of 2009 - which I think would be making the local players nervous given how soft the same period was in 08 without such powerful economic factors at play. In the US the past few months have seen layoffs at a lot of key players, the same situation is entirely possible here - I wouldn't be surprised to see layoffs in product/editorial areas over the next 2-3 months in AU. Either that or we will see publishers trim the fat off their offerings - ie, get rid of the elements of their portfolio which on their own are not viable. It's not the time to be carrying excess baggage.
So lets check in with 6 key stocks I looked at last week and see how they faired over the past 7 days.
Yahoo! - market cap down 2.18b in past 7 days
Google - market cap down 5.87b in past 7 days
Microsoft - market cap down 1.56b in past 7 days
Research In Motion - market cap down 1.84b in past 7 days
Apple - market cap down 6.86b in past 7 days
Time Warner - market cap down 6.07b in past 7 days
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
'No' vote on $700b bailout impacts tech stocks bigtime
The US House of Representitives 'no' vote on the proposed $700b bailout of Wall Street has as expected impacted the stock market - with tech stocks also vulnerable.
Lets have a look at what the last day has done to the value of some of the biggies.
Yahoo! - down 10.6% (market cap $23.4b)
Google - down 9.5% (market cap $122.6b)
Microsoft - down 8.39% (market cap $229b)
Research In Motion - down 11.07% (market cap $35.58)
Apple - down 17.4% (market cap $93.8b)
Time Warner - down 8.8% (market cap $46.3b)
That's in excess of $55b USD wiped off the value of the above 6 companies in 1 day. The fun starts locally in a few minutes
Lets have a look at what the last day has done to the value of some of the biggies.
Yahoo! - down 10.6% (market cap $23.4b)
Google - down 9.5% (market cap $122.6b)
Microsoft - down 8.39% (market cap $229b)
Research In Motion - down 11.07% (market cap $35.58)
Apple - down 17.4% (market cap $93.8b)
Time Warner - down 8.8% (market cap $46.3b)
That's in excess of $55b USD wiped off the value of the above 6 companies in 1 day. The fun starts locally in a few minutes
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Q4 2008: 4 thought starters
I am very interested to see what eventuates in Q4 of this year. Generally the last quarter of the year is a pretty robust period, but in 07 it moved from hunstoppable growth momentum to barely a whimper, with 2007 Q4 revenue only up 19% on 2006 Q4 revenue.
Compare this with a 67% increase form 2006 (compared to 2005) and similar increases in the previous years and this figure would have caught the attention of the main players.
Don't get me wrong, 19% YOY growth is nothing to sneeze at, but when you're used to 50%+ growth YOY it shows that the industry is maturing and the momentum off the back of the migration of spend from offline to online is slowing.
Here's 4 things I'll be keeping a close eye on across the next 3-4 months.
1. Emergence of the specialist
This applies for all areas of digital. Agencies. Publishers. Sales houses. Search. Display. I think specialisation and service level will become a key differentiator in a very competitive industry. Knowing your product. Understanding your audience. Understanding the brief. All fundamentals but generally missed most of the time. Agencies are going to want publisher partners who can address business problems and conceive solutions, not sell banners and medium rectangles. Clients are going to want agencies who really understand the digital space - from internet to mobile to emerging technologies, in game, video, social media etc
I also think media owners/publishers will need to do more to skill up their sales teams to truly understand their audience and their key points of difference. Portals are usually generalists in terms of their understanding of audience and context - there is an opening for specialists (like Gizmodo, Sportal, Cnet) to work with larger portals specialist areas (sport, tech, health, parenting) in terms of site representation and content syndication. The portals bring the audience to the content, the specialists extract the revenue it deserves. Being 'great at one thing' is severely undervalued in AU.
Edit: By the above what I am saying is we should start thinking about specialists selling specialist content. For me, it makes more sense for me to buy a parenting environment off someone who has experience in the area (they don't need to be a parent but they need to understand parenting) rather than a 25 year old single guy. It makes sense for a specialist who understands technology to be offering solutions to an advertiser wanting to reach this audience, not a salesperson who doesn't understand that environment. Just like it might not be feasible for an agency person to give you definitive info on ALL elements of digital media ... it's equally not feasible for one salesperson to sell 10 different environments with 10 different audiences and mindsets.
Google has employed Industry Marketing Managers whose job is to stay on top of all industry trends - essentially become an analyst - and they feed these insights to their clients. The result, more trust.
2. Service is the differentiator
Market tolerance of adops mishaps, under deliveries, misleading ad network buys, ambiguous creative specs, lack of knowledge about audience data, content etc will not be as tolerated as it's been before. The excuse 'we're such a young medium, it's a steep learning curve' is such a cop out - we need, as an industry to ensure we can deliver what we sell. As a result, revenue will move towards providers who have the above issues sorted out and have their back end in check. Everyone is going to have to work harder to earn their slice of the digital pie, and as a result we might see the first signs of some consolidation or even better, vastly improved service.
3. Forced mid-tail embrace
Mid tail consumption in AU is obvious - approximately 8% of pages viewed on the Internet belong to the big 5, and about 11% belongs to Google. What are people doing with the other 80%? They are using mid tail sites. Problem is, the dollars haven't flowed into this critical area - namely due to the market presence of the big guys, plus a lack of a great vertical network, time constraints etc. This might all change. Reason - most of the big players have increased their rate cards to levels that perhaps are above what is reasonable. This will force marketers to look elsewhere, namely the mid tail - which is far more cost competitive and generally gives you access to more engaged and credible audiences.
4. The hard TV/online cross-sell
For the 2008 Olympics, advertisers on the Olympics didn't have the choice regarding taking an online package, it was a deal mandatory. I can see this becoming more common across key in demand TV programming - inclusive deals that cover both TV and online. It's a good way for the cross media players (namely 7 and 9) to leverage their TV muscle to generate additional revenues for their online assets. With James Warburton now Chief Digital guy at 7 Media Group, I think it'll be the 7/Yahoo group that lead the charge across their key programming in the front half of 2009.
Compare this with a 67% increase form 2006 (compared to 2005) and similar increases in the previous years and this figure would have caught the attention of the main players.
Don't get me wrong, 19% YOY growth is nothing to sneeze at, but when you're used to 50%+ growth YOY it shows that the industry is maturing and the momentum off the back of the migration of spend from offline to online is slowing.
Here's 4 things I'll be keeping a close eye on across the next 3-4 months.
1. Emergence of the specialist
This applies for all areas of digital. Agencies. Publishers. Sales houses. Search. Display. I think specialisation and service level will become a key differentiator in a very competitive industry. Knowing your product. Understanding your audience. Understanding the brief. All fundamentals but generally missed most of the time. Agencies are going to want publisher partners who can address business problems and conceive solutions, not sell banners and medium rectangles. Clients are going to want agencies who really understand the digital space - from internet to mobile to emerging technologies, in game, video, social media etc
I also think media owners/publishers will need to do more to skill up their sales teams to truly understand their audience and their key points of difference. Portals are usually generalists in terms of their understanding of audience and context - there is an opening for specialists (like Gizmodo, Sportal, Cnet) to work with larger portals specialist areas (sport, tech, health, parenting) in terms of site representation and content syndication. The portals bring the audience to the content, the specialists extract the revenue it deserves. Being 'great at one thing' is severely undervalued in AU.
Edit: By the above what I am saying is we should start thinking about specialists selling specialist content. For me, it makes more sense for me to buy a parenting environment off someone who has experience in the area (they don't need to be a parent but they need to understand parenting) rather than a 25 year old single guy. It makes sense for a specialist who understands technology to be offering solutions to an advertiser wanting to reach this audience, not a salesperson who doesn't understand that environment. Just like it might not be feasible for an agency person to give you definitive info on ALL elements of digital media ... it's equally not feasible for one salesperson to sell 10 different environments with 10 different audiences and mindsets.
Google has employed Industry Marketing Managers whose job is to stay on top of all industry trends - essentially become an analyst - and they feed these insights to their clients. The result, more trust.
2. Service is the differentiator
Market tolerance of adops mishaps, under deliveries, misleading ad network buys, ambiguous creative specs, lack of knowledge about audience data, content etc will not be as tolerated as it's been before. The excuse 'we're such a young medium, it's a steep learning curve' is such a cop out - we need, as an industry to ensure we can deliver what we sell. As a result, revenue will move towards providers who have the above issues sorted out and have their back end in check. Everyone is going to have to work harder to earn their slice of the digital pie, and as a result we might see the first signs of some consolidation or even better, vastly improved service.
3. Forced mid-tail embrace
Mid tail consumption in AU is obvious - approximately 8% of pages viewed on the Internet belong to the big 5, and about 11% belongs to Google. What are people doing with the other 80%? They are using mid tail sites. Problem is, the dollars haven't flowed into this critical area - namely due to the market presence of the big guys, plus a lack of a great vertical network, time constraints etc. This might all change. Reason - most of the big players have increased their rate cards to levels that perhaps are above what is reasonable. This will force marketers to look elsewhere, namely the mid tail - which is far more cost competitive and generally gives you access to more engaged and credible audiences.
4. The hard TV/online cross-sell
For the 2008 Olympics, advertisers on the Olympics didn't have the choice regarding taking an online package, it was a deal mandatory. I can see this becoming more common across key in demand TV programming - inclusive deals that cover both TV and online. It's a good way for the cross media players (namely 7 and 9) to leverage their TV muscle to generate additional revenues for their online assets. With James Warburton now Chief Digital guy at 7 Media Group, I think it'll be the 7/Yahoo group that lead the charge across their key programming in the front half of 2009.
Yahoo! challenges Google with Bigpond mobile deal? Really?
The Oz is reporting Yahoo! and Bigpond striking a deal for Yahoo! to power the Bigpond Mobile on deck search - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24326440-26077,00.html
"The multi-year deal between Yahoo7 and Telstra's Sensis division means Yahoo's oneSearch technology will replace Sensis's search technology on 4.4 million Telstra BigPond 3G-enabled phones.
"Revenue from display and search advertising that appears on the mobile search service -- which will be accessible through a co-branded button on the content menus of all Telstra 3G phones -- will be shared between Yahoo7 and Sensis.
"The partnership will eventually be expanded to include Sensis's Yellow and Trading Post classified searches and Telstra BigPond content.
"Yahoo7 chief executive Rohan Lund said the deal was the most significant for the company in the mobile space and would give Yahoo's advertisers access to a much bigger audience."
Is this really much of a big deal. It definitely doesn't amount to a challenge to Google. Let's not forget Google is flogging Yahoo! in search globally and even more in AU.
People trust Google - they use it on their PC and will also use it on their mobile. It's questionable how much incremental traffic this will bring Yahoo! search and also about the real value/visbility it will give to its advertisers. It makes for nice PR but will it deliver much to their consumers - user/advertiser.
It's interesting to see the deals Lund is looking to strike - he is looking to build Yahoo! audience through distribution deals. It's not a bad play - it's generally cheaper than ATL marketing - and the new eyeballs generated can be added to the topline figure the large guys still like to throw around (we have 5m users etc) despite most marketers not caring anymore about topline network numbers.
Also, does this mean Telstra is putting Sensis search to bed? It's been a rough 4-5 years for Sensis search - it might make more sense to utilise Yahoo!'s better technology and enter into a revshare deal with them on advertising. Would cut a sh*tload of salary cost and they could no doubt negotiate a pretty good deal with Yahoo! as Sensis/Bigpond Internet distro could increase Yahoo!'s total search audience in AU by 50-100%.
"The multi-year deal between Yahoo7 and Telstra's Sensis division means Yahoo's oneSearch technology will replace Sensis's search technology on 4.4 million Telstra BigPond 3G-enabled phones.
"Revenue from display and search advertising that appears on the mobile search service -- which will be accessible through a co-branded button on the content menus of all Telstra 3G phones -- will be shared between Yahoo7 and Sensis.
"The partnership will eventually be expanded to include Sensis's Yellow and Trading Post classified searches and Telstra BigPond content.
"Yahoo7 chief executive Rohan Lund said the deal was the most significant for the company in the mobile space and would give Yahoo's advertisers access to a much bigger audience."
Is this really much of a big deal. It definitely doesn't amount to a challenge to Google. Let's not forget Google is flogging Yahoo! in search globally and even more in AU.
People trust Google - they use it on their PC and will also use it on their mobile. It's questionable how much incremental traffic this will bring Yahoo! search and also about the real value/visbility it will give to its advertisers. It makes for nice PR but will it deliver much to their consumers - user/advertiser.
It's interesting to see the deals Lund is looking to strike - he is looking to build Yahoo! audience through distribution deals. It's not a bad play - it's generally cheaper than ATL marketing - and the new eyeballs generated can be added to the topline figure the large guys still like to throw around (we have 5m users etc) despite most marketers not caring anymore about topline network numbers.
Also, does this mean Telstra is putting Sensis search to bed? It's been a rough 4-5 years for Sensis search - it might make more sense to utilise Yahoo!'s better technology and enter into a revshare deal with them on advertising. Would cut a sh*tload of salary cost and they could no doubt negotiate a pretty good deal with Yahoo! as Sensis/Bigpond Internet distro could increase Yahoo!'s total search audience in AU by 50-100%.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Online employment classified distribution heats up
Was reading today that Seek and Yahoo!7 have re-married after 3 years of Yahoo! eloping with Fairfax's MyCareer offering.
Seek and Yahoo! were strong partners - Seek was Yahoo!'s first investment outside of the US - and the 2 enjoyed a mutually beneficial classified distribution arrangement up until the end of 2005 when Yahoo! migrated all classifieds deals over to Fairfax.
Now they're back in bed - and talking up a joint website (which I imagine is Seek's engine and backend with a Yahoo! top and tail frame job)
Full article - http://www.smartcompany.com.au/Free-Articles/The-Briefing/20080910-SEEK-and-Yahoo7-launch-jobs-partnership.html
For Yahoo! this is a good source of revenue. You'd estimate there's probably around $1m to be gained yearly dependant on the commercials. Plus they are aligning with the market leader, which is ideal.
Also saw that News's Careerone and Ebay have launched a similar distribution initiative called ebay jobs. The combination seems very odd to me - who goes to ebay to look for work?
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/Free-Articles/The-Briefing/20080822-News-Corp-and-eBay-launch-new-jobs-site.html
I guess it's a win/win. Ebay will getting paid based on the traffic it can deliver to careerone. Careerone is hoping that distribution across ebay's mega base audience gives them incremental traffic - traffic they can use to justify their charges to job advertisers. Despite some additional revenue for ebay (which they are under pressure to generate), I don't see the upside for ebay nor the benefit for their users.
The classifieds space is ultra competitive - so these deals, whilst they seem a little odd - come at a premium as each of the main players wants desperately to increase their base usage.
Seek and Yahoo! were strong partners - Seek was Yahoo!'s first investment outside of the US - and the 2 enjoyed a mutually beneficial classified distribution arrangement up until the end of 2005 when Yahoo! migrated all classifieds deals over to Fairfax.
Now they're back in bed - and talking up a joint website (which I imagine is Seek's engine and backend with a Yahoo! top and tail frame job)
Full article - http://www.smartcompany.com.au/Free-Articles/The-Briefing/20080910-SEEK-and-Yahoo7-launch-jobs-partnership.html
For Yahoo! this is a good source of revenue. You'd estimate there's probably around $1m to be gained yearly dependant on the commercials. Plus they are aligning with the market leader, which is ideal.
Also saw that News's Careerone and Ebay have launched a similar distribution initiative called ebay jobs. The combination seems very odd to me - who goes to ebay to look for work?
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/Free-Articles/The-Briefing/20080822-News-Corp-and-eBay-launch-new-jobs-site.html
I guess it's a win/win. Ebay will getting paid based on the traffic it can deliver to careerone. Careerone is hoping that distribution across ebay's mega base audience gives them incremental traffic - traffic they can use to justify their charges to job advertisers. Despite some additional revenue for ebay (which they are under pressure to generate), I don't see the upside for ebay nor the benefit for their users.
The classifieds space is ultra competitive - so these deals, whilst they seem a little odd - come at a premium as each of the main players wants desperately to increase their base usage.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Facebook adds MSN Search as a friend
MSN search has given Facebook a firm 'thanks for the add' after the Social Media giant allows MS to provide "web search services and associated advertisements by the end of the year on the American portion of the popular social network"
Full article - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/business/media/25adco.html?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin
Financial terms haven't been disclosed - probably a good move on both sides given the discussion around the $850m Google/Myspace and Google CEO Eric Schmidt's comments that "MySpace did not monetize as well as we thought."
From Valleywag in May: Eric Schmidt: "We have a lot of traffic, a lot of page views, but it is harder than we thought to get our ad network to work with social networks. When you are in social network, it is not likely that you'll buy a washing machine. It is not a long term problem but it is taking us longer than we thought."
For the search providers these two deals are very different. Google was looking for revenue first and foremost - direct revenue - from the tens of millions of myspace users that were glued to the site and the tens of millions who were joining every month. Google wasn't looking for visibility - it already had a monster portion of the search market.
Also, remember it was 2006. Facebook was only a blip and myspace was a mystery as was most of the Social Networking space. I think a lot of this deal was a 'suck it and see' type play ... an expensive experiment. The funny thing about the Google/Myspace deal is that despite the fact both parties admit that it's not really executing as expected - nothing has really been done to fix it.
Now it's 2008 and personally I think the core motivation behind MSN doing this deal with Facebook is visibility. Search is something MSN seem determined to compete in (hence their attempted courting of Yahoo! in its entirety then Yahoo! Search division) and an issue they face is that the market knowledge of their search offering is minimal or non-existant.
Facebook gives them a huge increase in distribution - and will expose them to a market who are probably not aware of the MSN search offering. For Facebook it's win/win - they have a robust search offering on their site (whereas previously people would need to leave Facebook to search) and they would have negotiated a strong deal financially. I can't imagine it propelling MSN into the search stratosphere ... but in a game as big as the search game any incremental benefit is incredibly valuable.
The deal is limited to the US right now but one would assume (like the FB display deal MSN have) that it will roll out globally. Locally Facebook's 3.2m users would be something ninemsn would love to have access to search wise. Only 33% of Facebook users used ninemsn search in May 2008. Locally, this deal could really help ninemsn at least enhance their distribution and 'opportunity to search' presence by supplying some fresh eyeballs.
It would also create a pretty significant gap between ninemsn search and Yahoo! search in this market ... a gap that is already pretty large (ninemsn at 2.8m search users, Yahoo! at 1.6m)
Full article - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/business/media/25adco.html?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin
Financial terms haven't been disclosed - probably a good move on both sides given the discussion around the $850m Google/Myspace and Google CEO Eric Schmidt's comments that "MySpace did not monetize as well as we thought."
From Valleywag in May: Eric Schmidt: "We have a lot of traffic, a lot of page views, but it is harder than we thought to get our ad network to work with social networks. When you are in social network, it is not likely that you'll buy a washing machine. It is not a long term problem but it is taking us longer than we thought."
For the search providers these two deals are very different. Google was looking for revenue first and foremost - direct revenue - from the tens of millions of myspace users that were glued to the site and the tens of millions who were joining every month. Google wasn't looking for visibility - it already had a monster portion of the search market.
Also, remember it was 2006. Facebook was only a blip and myspace was a mystery as was most of the Social Networking space. I think a lot of this deal was a 'suck it and see' type play ... an expensive experiment. The funny thing about the Google/Myspace deal is that despite the fact both parties admit that it's not really executing as expected - nothing has really been done to fix it.
Now it's 2008 and personally I think the core motivation behind MSN doing this deal with Facebook is visibility. Search is something MSN seem determined to compete in (hence their attempted courting of Yahoo! in its entirety then Yahoo! Search division) and an issue they face is that the market knowledge of their search offering is minimal or non-existant.
Facebook gives them a huge increase in distribution - and will expose them to a market who are probably not aware of the MSN search offering. For Facebook it's win/win - they have a robust search offering on their site (whereas previously people would need to leave Facebook to search) and they would have negotiated a strong deal financially. I can't imagine it propelling MSN into the search stratosphere ... but in a game as big as the search game any incremental benefit is incredibly valuable.
The deal is limited to the US right now but one would assume (like the FB display deal MSN have) that it will roll out globally. Locally Facebook's 3.2m users would be something ninemsn would love to have access to search wise. Only 33% of Facebook users used ninemsn search in May 2008. Locally, this deal could really help ninemsn at least enhance their distribution and 'opportunity to search' presence by supplying some fresh eyeballs.
It would also create a pretty significant gap between ninemsn search and Yahoo! search in this market ... a gap that is already pretty large (ninemsn at 2.8m search users, Yahoo! at 1.6m)
Friday, July 25, 2008
There's the truth ... and there's the truth
The Oz has an expose about websites stretching the truth about traffic numbers.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24068103-26077,00.html
Overall not bad, and an issue that is something of concern.
A few interesting points however ...
"Simon Van Wyck, founder of web advertising company Hothouse, says a number of web publishers and portals count visitors to allied sites, but do not necessarily have the right to claim such traffic.
"I think you can look at other things, such as claiming traffic that is not theirs," Van Wyck says.
Examples include Ninemsn, which claims Hotmail and Yahoo. "
Hrm ... ninemsn claims Yahoo! traffic. Might want a fact check on that one.
"Recently the Internet Advertising Bureau began looking at the issue of automatic refreshes of pages -- a common element used by news publishers to keep late-breaking stories at the top of lists.
"Keegan says the problem occurs when ads are refreshed along with the stories, creating the impression of more traffic."
Most publishers do this ...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24068103-26077,00.html
Overall not bad, and an issue that is something of concern.
A few interesting points however ...
"Simon Van Wyck, founder of web advertising company Hothouse, says a number of web publishers and portals count visitors to allied sites, but do not necessarily have the right to claim such traffic.
"I think you can look at other things, such as claiming traffic that is not theirs," Van Wyck says.
Examples include Ninemsn, which claims Hotmail and Yahoo. "
Hrm ... ninemsn claims Yahoo! traffic. Might want a fact check on that one.
"Recently the Internet Advertising Bureau began looking at the issue of automatic refreshes of pages -- a common element used by news publishers to keep late-breaking stories at the top of lists.
"Keegan says the problem occurs when ads are refreshed along with the stories, creating the impression of more traffic."
Most publishers do this ...
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
New Yahoo paid search results
I am not sure when this dropped, but go to http://www.yahoo7.com.au/ and type in 'Cathay Pacific'
In the results you will find what they are calling 'Partner Results'
What is in Partner Results? Well - 4 seperate textlinks, a blurb and a click to play video.
Problem is - the video is a TVC. If I am searching for Cathay Pacific I don't want to view a TVC. The four salesy textlinks seem to add a lot of clutter to the page in my opinion as does the search assist drop down. These can and will be ironed out I'm sure in time
Keen to hear others thoughts, but I think this could be improved. It feels to me like Yahoo is catering for advertisers here and not trying to improve the service for its users. This, in its current form, is not an enhancement borne out of wanting to make search better for users, it is about revenue extraction.
I think this could evolve into something good (ie, with video content tailored and relevant to the search term - ie, Ford Falcon review giving you a review of a Ford Falcon - giving the user a better value proposition that pure text) eventually but right now I think it needs work. Search works due to its incredible simplicity and relevance.
Side note: I also noticed Yahoo is running skyscrapers alongside its Video search results. Are they relevant to the search ... not from my experience (appears to be performance inventory).
Careful guys ...
Monday, July 14, 2008
Yahoo and Turner form interesting alliance ...
From TV week in the US - "Turner Broadcasting System and Yahoo! have made a multiyear strategic content and advertising deal for sports-related content. Turner will exclusively represent online advertising sales, including display, sponsorship and video advertising, for Yahoo! Sports’ NBA, golf and NASCAR pages"
http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/07/turner_yahoo_sports_enter_cont.php
I think this sort of deal is an interesting one. In my opinion, it sees Yahoo! outsourcing selected sales duties to a company more equipped, skilled to sell this content to market. Turner handles nba.com as well as other sports properties as is a leader in this space in the US. As a result these Yahoo properties also get better access to premium content from nba.com, the PGA tour and Nascar.
This has potential locally I think. Given there's a shortage of sales talent could we see, as an example, a group like sportal sell sport content on a major portal, and in turn provide better content to these groups. Or Business Spectator do the same with a portal finance offering and also give them access to their content from Kohler etc. CNet/ZD or Gizmodo selling Tech/Gadget info etc.
I like the idea as it gives specialist sites the ability to further distribute their content and monetise their sales expertise ... for the larger site it allows them to focus their sales efforts in areas they have the skills to do so in.
http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/07/turner_yahoo_sports_enter_cont.php
I think this sort of deal is an interesting one. In my opinion, it sees Yahoo! outsourcing selected sales duties to a company more equipped, skilled to sell this content to market. Turner handles nba.com as well as other sports properties as is a leader in this space in the US. As a result these Yahoo properties also get better access to premium content from nba.com, the PGA tour and Nascar.
This has potential locally I think. Given there's a shortage of sales talent could we see, as an example, a group like sportal sell sport content on a major portal, and in turn provide better content to these groups. Or Business Spectator do the same with a portal finance offering and also give them access to their content from Kohler etc. CNet/ZD or Gizmodo selling Tech/Gadget info etc.
I like the idea as it gives specialist sites the ability to further distribute their content and monetise their sales expertise ... for the larger site it allows them to focus their sales efforts in areas they have the skills to do so in.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
You think ninemsn is being battered ...
...with the senior resignations going on ... check Yahoo!, which is literally bleeding senior management in the US.
Over 50 have jumped since January 2007. 11 have left in the past 45 days.
Thanks to Techcrunch
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/19/tracking-former-yahoo-execs-so-many-have-left/
Over 50 have jumped since January 2007. 11 have left in the past 45 days.
Thanks to Techcrunch
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/19/tracking-former-yahoo-execs-so-many-have-left/
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Microsoft walk away from Yahoo! Ballmer to Yang: "Clearly a deal is not to be."
So finally Microsoft have walked away from the offer they made Yahoo on Feb 1 - initially $31 per share, increased to $33 afterwards.
The two had met three times over April, with reports indicating Yahoo! wanted $38 or the deal was off.
MS decided today to walk away from the deal. This is a clean break - all reports indicate negotiations are off and MS will continue on their own. Begs the question, where does this leave Yahoo!?
See press release below
Press Release:
Microsoft Withdraws Proposal to Acquire Yahoo!
REDMOND, Wash., May 3 — Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) today announced that it has withdrawn its proposal to acquire Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO).
“We continue to believe that our proposed acquisition made sense for Microsoft, Yahoo! and the market as a whole. Our goal in pursuing a combination with Yahoo! was to provide greater choice and innovation in the marketplace and create real value for our respective stockholders and employees,” said Steve Ballmer, chief executive officer of Microsoft.
“Despite our best efforts, including raising our bid by roughly $5 billion, Yahoo! has not moved toward accepting our offer. After careful consideration, we believe the economics demanded by Yahoo! do not make sense for us, and it is in the best interests of Microsoft stockholders, employees and other stakeholders to withdraw our proposal,” said Ballmer.
“We have a talented team in place and a compelling plan to grow our business through innovative new services and strategic transactions with other business partners. While Yahoo! would have accelerated our strategy, I am confident that we can continue to move forward toward our goals,” Ballmer said.
“We are investing heavily in new tools and Web experiences, we have dramatically improved our search performance and advertiser satisfaction, and we will continue to build our scale through organic growth and partnerships,” said Kevin Johnson, Microsoft president for platforms and services.
More ...
All Things Digital - http://kara.allthingsd.com/20080503/breaking-microsoft-walks/
Techrunch - http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/05/03/breaking-microsoft-walks/#more-17099
The two had met three times over April, with reports indicating Yahoo! wanted $38 or the deal was off.
MS decided today to walk away from the deal. This is a clean break - all reports indicate negotiations are off and MS will continue on their own. Begs the question, where does this leave Yahoo!?
See press release below
Press Release:
Microsoft Withdraws Proposal to Acquire Yahoo!
REDMOND, Wash., May 3 — Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) today announced that it has withdrawn its proposal to acquire Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO).
“We continue to believe that our proposed acquisition made sense for Microsoft, Yahoo! and the market as a whole. Our goal in pursuing a combination with Yahoo! was to provide greater choice and innovation in the marketplace and create real value for our respective stockholders and employees,” said Steve Ballmer, chief executive officer of Microsoft.
“Despite our best efforts, including raising our bid by roughly $5 billion, Yahoo! has not moved toward accepting our offer. After careful consideration, we believe the economics demanded by Yahoo! do not make sense for us, and it is in the best interests of Microsoft stockholders, employees and other stakeholders to withdraw our proposal,” said Ballmer.
“We have a talented team in place and a compelling plan to grow our business through innovative new services and strategic transactions with other business partners. While Yahoo! would have accelerated our strategy, I am confident that we can continue to move forward toward our goals,” Ballmer said.
“We are investing heavily in new tools and Web experiences, we have dramatically improved our search performance and advertiser satisfaction, and we will continue to build our scale through organic growth and partnerships,” said Kevin Johnson, Microsoft president for platforms and services.
More ...
All Things Digital - http://kara.allthingsd.com/20080503/breaking-microsoft-walks/
Techrunch - http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/05/03/breaking-microsoft-walks/#more-17099
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Can Answers save Yahoo!
Was looking at the March Neislen Netview figures and one thing really caught my attention - the phenomenal growth of Yahoo! Answers in the local market.How much growth - well ... 123% YOY ... which is staggering. It's at 1.99m users as of March 2008.
These users use Answers on average twice a month, and spend just under 6 minutes per month on the site viewing 8 pages.
This must be encouraging for Yahoo! and especially Yahoo!7, who it can be said aren't enjoying much user growth right now. Rohan Lund came out early in the year ambitiously proclaiming that Yahoo!7 wanted to be a players in search, mail, homepage ... and truth be told (according to audited Neilsen data), they aren't seeing much growth in any of these areas.
Answers is interesting for Yahoo! as it's a property that essentially doesn't rely on editorial staff or syndication. Users direct the dialogue through asking questions, and other users submit answers ... these answers are then ranked on relevancy.
I have used it to find everything from unblocking a dishwasher to good restaurants in San Francisco - information I found difficult to obtain using straight search.
One of the areas I feel causes Yahoo! grief is it's reliance on pushing out editorial and syndicated stories to its users ... it lacks a personality or a point of difference as I can get AP feeds EVERYWHERE. It could be argued that in this era of quote Web 2.0 enquote they haven't done the best job of utilising their greatest asset, their users.
Now they are embracing 'social media' - http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/web/yahoo-to-go-social-in-a-big-way-331328
"Once complete, the company plans to discontinue some of its less popular services and integrate the rest to create a more social environment. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Yahoo will allow users to create applications for its service and integrate those programs across its entire group of offerings"
Interesting moves. Hopefully we see Yahoo!7 locally rolling out this direction as opposed at trying to compete head on with the 5 big players in spaces they perhaps aren't equipped to compete in.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Yahoo! slash 1000 jobs, share price dips again
After a tough fourth quarter, Yahoo! has announced plans to shed 1,000 jobs.
Right now it's not known if this is limited to the US or will affect other territories.
As a result of some cautious comments by CEO Jerry Yang, the market slashed 10% of Yahoo's stock price ... driving it down to $18.63
This is a massive fall. At the start of 2006 their share price was well over $40. It hit $30 on the announcement and favourable sentiment re the Panama project ... but has plunged since.
Specifics about the job cuts will be outlined in February.
Right now it's not known if this is limited to the US or will affect other territories.
As a result of some cautious comments by CEO Jerry Yang, the market slashed 10% of Yahoo's stock price ... driving it down to $18.63
This is a massive fall. At the start of 2006 their share price was well over $40. It hit $30 on the announcement and favourable sentiment re the Panama project ... but has plunged since.
Specifics about the job cuts will be outlined in February.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
