All Things Digital

Skip to main content.

Yahoo Rumor Patrol: MySpace, Nope! Google? Maybe So.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Things have quieted down at Yahoo of late–thankfully for new CEO and co-founder Jerry Yang, who seems to be doing a good job at calming the waters at the company that has been in turmoil over the last year, due to management upheaval and lackluster financial results.

yang

“We have our heads down and we’re focusing,” said one executive there, echoing a common sentiment these days, as Yang and his second-in-command, new President Sue Decker, look over the company as part of the 100-day review he promised during a recent quarterly conference call with investors.

In mid-July, Yang said he would be busy making a long-term strategic plan, which would include major changes if need be. “There will be no sacred cows and we need to move quickly,” he said.

No sacred cows, indeed. According to rumors circulating around the company, Yang and other executives at Yahoo are even considering something as massive as offloading some of its search monetization business to rival Google.

I have suggested this option here in this column many times. Such a move, even if done in part, could instantly add a whole lot of dollars to its bottom line, drastically cut tech costs and remove the focus on its constantly losing fight with Google as a tech leader.

Better still, it would put Yahoo in a position to focus on its more competitive assets, such as outstanding media properties like Answers, Flickr and a range of tools and features that Yahoo does better than Google and many others.

As I wrote in this post in April:

Rethink your whole approach to search. You have certainly put a lot of powder behind this new online advertising system called ‘Panama’ and have promised big results in upcoming quarters. Maybe it will deliver, but the fact of the matter is that it is likely you will be running behind search leader Google for the foreseeable future. It’s not that they have such much-bigger brains over there (they don’t, except for that one guy they hide in the back) or that the food is better (well, it is), but that Google is and always will be a technology company that dabbles in media. Yahoo is almost the exact opposite, starting out as a directory and not as a technology superstar. All this wrangling with Google in a nerd version of ‘Highlander’ is only going to get you to the reality: ‘There can be only one!’ ”

While the idea might seem ludicrous, given how much time and effort Yahoo has put into redoing its search monetization system, which is just now showing stronger results, if true, it is interesting that the company is considering its options as broadly as this.

In fact, despite their much-hyped rivalry, Google and Yahoo have met many times on this issue, said sources, about what such an arrangement would look like.

Google execs like CEO Eric Schmidt have long been keen on the idea. Add to the mix: Many attending told me there was reportedly an unusual level of friendliness between Yahoos and Googlers at the recent Allen & Co. media mogul fest at Sun Valley, Idaho.

And why not? Yahoo essentially gave Google its first big break. Google used to do Yahoo’s search and owes its early and critical growth to the company.

Seeing that development, though, Yahoo bought its Overture and others to get its own search business on track. Except it never did until recently–which many think has come much too late.

In that same recent investor call, Yahoo did note that revenue per search had risen 15% to 20% from the year earlier, which is a good sign, since it is the sweet spot in the industry.

lipstickpig

But Yahoo is also losing the market-share battle to Google and even Microsoft, and improvements in its search ad sales won’t matter if people are not using it to search as much. And it is hard to put lipstick on that pig.

Speaking of making things look pretty, Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. (new owner of this site, once a recent deal to buy Dow Jones goes through) have been deft in pumping up the volume on MySpace of late. It might be simple bragging or perhaps a crafty way to get a deal going related to the powerful social-networking site.

In its recent investor call, Murdoch trumpeted the recent results of its Fox Interactive Media division, which includes MySpace. FIM earned $10 million on revenue of $550 million in its recent fiscal year, which is a nice performance and is mostly due to MySpace.

But Murdoch upped the ante by noting that he foresaw the possibility of reaching $1 billion in sales and $200 million in profits. I imagine that FIM execs must have been choking on hearing that pronouncement coming from on high and quickly started looking around at every chair in the place to sell to get to that number.

Because while the big $900 million, three-year ad deal with Google will fuel that in part, sources at Google note that the company will likely not recapture those guaranteed payments to News Corp., forking over the dough in what looks to me like a classic grab at market share for a price.

Still, all this MySpace-is-great talk feels like something else is going on or that News Corp. is perhaps banging the drum to get noticed. That could be due to the fact that smaller rival Facebook is now considered to have the momentum (whether true or not, perceptions are important) as the prettiest little Web 2.0 company around.

So why wouldn’t Murdoch, who obviously loves to make a deal, tout MySpace? In June, for example, Murdoch floated the idea that he had had talks with Yahoo’s former CEO Terry Semel about trading MySpace for a big stake in Yahoo, rumors that persist now.

Some sources note such a deal might include other investors taking a stake, too. It’s not a bad idea, given, as I have written before, “Murdoch gets to unload a service that is increasingly going to need a major dose of technology expertise and own a big chunk of what could be a drastically undervalued property.”

But Yahoo execs I spoke to pooh-pooh the idea and said they are not interested in making any deal to sell itself or part of it in the midst of a possibly promising turnaround.

“It would be good for MySpace,” said one Yahoo exec. “But we’d look like losers in the end.”

And, I think I can safely say, Jerry Yang has had just about enough of that kind of label.

Comments

  1. When I read columns about the buy-sell machinations of online companies I substitute the names of companies in other industries and the piece usually remains the same.

    I suppose this indicates the maturation of the online world but wonder if that change will eventually stifle the innovation and attitude required to deliver the full potential of the Web and the Internet.

    Posted by Bill Bucy at August 10th, 2007 at 8:41 am
  2. Myspace does seem a little like AOL with Yahoo taking on the Time Warner role

    I wonder what the dial-up killer will look like.

    Posted by Robert Sterbal at August 10th, 2007 at 8:52 am
  3. to Robert Sterbal: MySpace seems nothing like AOL to me. Facebook…maybe, the Kool-Aide is starting to taste pretty good.

    I’m still long YHOO (and underwater!) even though I haven’t used it for search since the 1990s. It held up rather well during the stock market sell-off of the last couple of days. Unlike most stocks, it’s higher than it was at the close of last week (at least as of 11:05 PDT!).

    P.S. Kara,LOVED the “lipstick on the pig” graphic!

    Posted by Robert Seidman at August 10th, 2007 at 11:07 am
  4. Yes, the idea does seem ludicrous. For good reason. It would be a stupid thing to do.

    First of all, Yahoo is the strong number two to Google. I suppose Avis should just give us renting cars and leave it all to Hertz? Number two is perfectly fine, if you’re running a profitable business.

    Ah, but Panama disappoint. Um, we’ve had Panama for about four months or so. The execs in the previous quarter said give it one more quarter to kick in. That came, paid search was up–in fact, apparently the shining start in Yahoo’s revenues, and they should bail out.

    Seriously? I mean sure, I suppose they could take 80 or 90 percent and save the tech side. But then again, Microsoft launched its own paid solution. Ask did. AOL did. All three are playing catch-up to Yahoo, which has more history with paid search because of its Overture roots than Google. Give that up?

    Google execs keen on the idea? Why wouldn’t they be. But why not because Yahoo gave Google its first big break? Actually, that would be Netscape. Getting Yahoo helped Google some, but Google would have been just fine without Yahoo, despite the Yahoo execs that think they somehow “made” Google by allowing barely noticeable branding.

    Hey, I see lots of friendliness between Yahoo folks and Googlers–but make no mistake, Yahoo folks have plenty of competitiveness to beat Google. And why not–they do in many areas.

    And Yahoo losing market share? What, a year or basically holding its ground in the face of both Google’s dominance and Microsoft’s attempt to gain ground, and people aren’t using it to search much.

    In the US, Yahoo has been slightly down the past four months according to comScore:

    http://searchengineland.com/070716-232238.php

    But on a search volume basis, they showed no drop from May to June. The pool of searches are increasing, and 2 billion searchers per month is nothing to sniff at, especially if you’re in control of your own ads to go out on them.

    Posted by Danny Sullivan at August 10th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
  5. As a user, I’d hate to see this. Yahoo is really the only solid alternative to Google. Microsoft’s search engine is still badly in need of usability upgrades and Ask is in need of better and more results.

    Posted by Greg Spira at August 10th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
  6. Yes, but as Larry graciously pointed out:
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=5419

    Mr. Yang has a VERY full plate on his hands right now. His team has worked very, very hard to make Yahoo! Search Marketing work and it continues to be an uphill battle to grow their search share let alone their advertiser base; both parts of that handshake are required for them to continue grow their business.

    I have been a YSM advertiser since GoTo.com was a twinkle in Bill Gross’s eye; YSM’s ad search engine marketing advertising has fallen very, very behind from purely a technical perspective.

    This really happened as a result of a much needed complete platform overhaul (ripping off and throwing away all of the band aids) which was at least 3-4 years overdue when YSM decided to try and reap the benefits of all their acquisitions after they finished the planned roll up of every search engine sans Google.

    And then what happened once Panama was finally released?

    The chief architect left them holding the bag!
    http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_6026757

    So does it make sense to outsource their natural SERPS to Google?

    I think not.

    Outsource their Search Engine Engine advertising platform?

    ABSOLUTELY.

    Posted by Ryan Lash at August 13th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
  7. So many nice comments here.

    Danny, more later, but I am just saying it is under consideration, as ALL things should be at Yahoo.

    Most especially getting rid of its purple color scheme!

    Posted by Kara Swisher at August 15th, 2007 at 1:35 am

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Sign up here or log in below.

About Kara

Kara Swisher started covering digital issues for The Wall Street Journal's San Francisco bureau in 1997 and also wrote the BoomTown column about the sector. With Walt Mossberg, she co-produces and co-hosts D: All Things Digital, a major high-tech and media conference.

Read more »

Ethics Statement

Here is a statement of my ethics and coverage policies. It is more than most of you want to know, but, in the age of suspicion of the media, I am laying it all out.

Read more »