All Things Digital

Off with the Yahoo CEO’s head!

OK, maybe not so much, at least today.

Indeed, according to many sources, Jerry Yang’s head still sits squarely on his neck.

And, moreover, his job as CEO has not been usurped by Yahoo (YHOO) Chairman Roy Bostock, who was allegedly–as one rumor went–authorized by Yahoo’s board, instead of Yang, to restart negotiations with Microsoft (MSFT).

(Which is kind of obvious when you actually think about it, given that Bostock is mired in this takeover collapse mess up to his own at-risk neck along with Yang. Bostock has been deeply involved all along and will likely continue to be.)

Thus, lots of smoke and little fire, contrary to rumor-based reports, like this one from TechCrunch–most of which seem to hang on the thinnest of threads (Where in the world is Yahoo board member Eric Hippeau?).

More importantly, even though they move share price, these rumors show almost no knowledge of how public company boards actually operate, which is to say with slug-like speed, even when under fire as Yahoo clearly is.

And if Yang were to go, I would guess it would be under his own steam or he’d be run out with Yahoo’s directors on a rail by angry shareholders.

Still, as a post yesterday of BoomTown’s book excerpt on the AOL Time Warner (TWX) debacle illustrates, even shoving aside a much-pilloried exec like former Chairman Steve Case, who presided over the merger disaster of all time, it took months and months and months and months and finally came well after the wheels fell off the bus there in a move made by Case and not his detractors.

And such a move to denude Yang, in the midst of the most trying time for the company, would make Yahoo’s board seem like particularly thickheaded morons–backing Yang strongly one day and throwing him overboard the next.

That is not to say Yang has not lost a mountain of credibility with Wall Street, investors, his own employees and in the industry in general, over the way he has handled the situation with Microsoft. The fallout from the debacle has damaged him badly.

The reviews are in and it is pretty much one million angry thumbs down.

Unfortunately, Yahoo’s leadership team has not exactly distinguished itself in the aftermath with their public statements, whether it be Bostock’s fanciful musings that Yahoo had the support of shareholders or President Sue Decker’s ungracious dissing of disgruntled Yahoo employees or pretty much the bulk of the backpedaling Yang has done.

And I don’t even know what to say about the excuse about the $33 offer not being written down as a problem by Yahoo execs, which makes them all move a little closer to Nearly Headless Nick in “Harry Potter,” in my estimation.

I do get their fervent need to explain themselves, especially in the face of such ferocious criticism.

But it has been so cringe-inducing to watch, that part of me wishes they would slink back into that cave Yang and his team have been living in all year long.

Obviously, Yang cannot and must now take the heat and find a way to clearly articulate a really good vision of what lies ahead for Yahoo.

That does not mean dangling the possibility of another deal with Microsoft to placate critics or pretending Yahoo wanted such a merger.

The very fact that Yang brought the painfully terse Yahoo Co-Founder and tech guru David Filo–who has fervently opposed a lot of Yahoo hookups in the past, like with eBay (EBAY) many years ago–with him to the key meeting last weekend with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was all I needed to know to determine that the company did not want to sell.

So, Yang and the board got what they wanted–for now, at least–which is a very painful dose of independence.

If they want that to mean going back to talk with Microsoft, Yahoo should stop playing games and do so with a minimal amount of jockeying.

If it means making a series of bold moves to focus and define its business, then Yahoo should do that and quickly.

And if Yang can’t lead or is still lonely–he said last year of the CEO job, “It is a lonely job in the sense that you have to make some of the tough calls”–he needs to step aside for a new leader of Yahoo.

Because, even if Yang lives to fight another day, this much is clear: The clock is running down for him and his stewardship of Yahoo.

Yang is, as Dean Vernon Wormer of “Animal House” said so eloquently, on double secret probation.

So, if I were to predict, I would say six months without meaningful change is all he has.

And after that, I would imagine, is when the blade really starts really falling.

“Demo needs to die,” said TechCrunch Editor Michael Arrington yesterday.

Oh, my. Oh, dear. Not more bloody tangoing!?!

The pugnacious tech blogger–who was last seen slapping around other tech bloggers who deigned to also raise money for their ventures, much as he has been doing–made this classy statement in an interview with Daniel Terdiman of CNET’s Geek Gestalt yesterday, about scheduling his TechCrunch 50 conference at the same time as the fall conference of the longtime leader in the start-up conference space, Demo, run by Chris Shipley.

(Shipley’s response is here.)

DemoFall is September 7th to the 9th, while TC 50 is September 8th through 10th.

“It’s just an old-school model,” continued Arrington to Terdiman. “It clearly involves pay to play, and what we’re offering is better.”

Not satisfied to just schedule his event at the same time as Demo–which is fine, I guess, given this is America and we all have the right to be aggressively, and even pointlessly, competitive–the second shot is at the $18,500 fee that Demo demonstrators pay, once they get invited to that conference.

TC 50 does not charge, which, to be fair, would be my choice too.

Still, given his inaugural TC 40 conference sold out and was, said Arrington to Geek Gestalt, profitable, the channeling of the Corleone Family in the online tech space seems a bit much to me.

After all, despite the fact that Arrington recently characterized tech blog sites as competing gangs (”You can do just about anything you want, but the politically savvy folks tend to arm themselves to the teeth and gang together to protect their property. Everyone else is in the middle of chaos, either fighting blindly for attention or politely asking–by linking early and linking often–if they can join the big Gang.”), let’s be honest.

The whole group of us together would lose badly in a fair fight with my son’s kindergarten class.

Of course, they bite. We should know better.

(Full disclosure: Walt Mossberg and I have been running a conference, called D: All Things Digital, for many years. D6 is in late May and is sold out. Nonetheless, full coverage of the event and also full video of the interviews with tech and media players on stage–including Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Jeff Bezos, Jeff Bewkes, Howard Stringer, Mark Zuckerberg and many others–will be on this site. We also do a few demos, so until then, we fervently hope to find no horse heads in our beds.)

So what prompted TechCrunch Editor Michael Arrington to pen a pugnacious piece on how blogs should not be raising so much venture capital and instead roll themselves into a “Dream Team,” with the unusual title of “More Bloggers Raising Money. Here Comes Politics. And Here Comes My Rant” yesterday?

Well, besides garnering Arrington a big dollop of traffic and attention, which is perhaps one of the blog entrepreneur’s most impressive talents, could it have something to do with the fact that he’s been busy recently talking to several well-known tech blogs about joining a roll-up organized by TechCrunch itself?

Or that he has told several people I spoke to that TechCrunch was considering doing this by raising as much as $15 million, giving it a $35 million valuation?

Reached by email last night, the voluble Arrington declined to comment.

Thus, a BoomTown translation of his TechCrunch piece is Job No. 1!

Arrington wrote: More blogs are raising venture capital, we’re hearing from people they’ve pitched. Newcomer Silicon Alley Insider is looking for a $3 million to $5 million round, if reports are correct. And paidContent is pitching for a second round in that same range (paidContent raised a round of “less than $1 million” in 2006). We’re also hearing that paidContent is trying to sell the company for $15 million or more, and just bail out with some spending money.

Translation: If that scalawag Henry Blodget thinks he can steal even an iota of my thunder, he better get ready to rumble. And while it is entirely incorrect that paidContent is selling itself or raising that much money, I love the smell of napalm in the morning and FUD in the blogosphere!

[BoomTown actually contacted paidContent’s founder, Rafat Ali, who strongly reiterated that the site might raise a very small amount of money, nowhere close to $3 million to $5 million, and was not trying to sell the company at all.]

Arrington wrote: These rumored deals come as funding for bloggers is heating up in general. Just a month ago VentureBeat reported a $320,000 raise. In 2007 we saw Sugar Inc. ($10 million), GigaOm ($1 million), Xconomy, Blogher ($3.5 million) and The Huffington Post ($10 million) raise venture capital. That’s at least $25 million in 2007 invested in blogs and blog networks.

As far as we know, no significant investments were made in blogs in 2005. Weblogs, Inc. raised around $300,000 in 2004, but before they got around to spending it they had sold themselves to AOL (TWX) for an estimated $25 million. The investors, including Mark Cuban, received 15x on their initial investment.

Translation: And if that elfin Jason Calacanis can score, where’s MY payoff!?! I mean, I am the Jason Calacanis of Web 2.0, aren’t I!? The Mac Daddy of the widget economy! The Sultan of Zing! And did Calacanis ever have the chutzpah to pose for a picture lighting cigars with a handful of crisp, flaming Benjamins! I think not!

Arrington wrote: But apart from that first 2004 investment in Weblogs, Inc., there haven’t been any sales or liquidity events to suggest these investments will be a success. And back then blogging was a cakewalk. Most bloggers linked to each other constantly in a state of brotherly or sisterly love. No one was making any money or getting much attention, so for the most part people got along (with notable exceptions like engadget/gizmodo, who play to win).

Translation: The rain may never fall till after sundown./By eight, the morning fog must disappear./In short, there’s simply not/A more congenial spot/For happily-ever-aftering than here/In Camelot.

Arrington wrote: Those salad days are long gone. Writers suddenly want to be paid market wages, far above the $5 per post that they received two years ago. No, we’re talking a big salary, with benefits, and stock options. There went half your margins at least.

Translation: Wages?! Big salary!? Benefits!? Stock options!!!??? Half your margins!!? Who do these people think they are? The Web 2.0 shooting stars I write about incessantly in TechCrunch?

Arrington wrote: And writing good content is only half the battle. You have to figure out the complex, dynamic web of politics between bloggers and mainstream media before you post to know where to get support. And you’ll need support in the form of links from other prominent bloggers. An early push can take a post and make it a headline on TechMeme, which leads to page views and notice by sponsors. But since blogging is almost by definition a conversation between bloggers, fights tend to break out over emotional issues. Cliques develop. Can you count on them to support you down the road?

Translation: TechCrunch is from Mars, Valleywag is from Venus.

Arrington wrote: Personally, I’ve found that if a fight is necessary, fight clean and fight hard. Make it as bloody as possible and end it fast, with no loose ends dangling about. Leave no lingering emotional stone unturned. When everyone gets up and dusts themselves off, the issue should have been resolved one way or the other, and both sides should be happy to shake hands and tango another day, even if the handshaking is done privately. Those that aren’t capable of doing that tend to push themselves to the outskirts of the blogosphere, where their main job is to lob in attacks at random intervals, pursuing long-forgotten insults.

Translation: Bloody tango? Ouch. Ew. Yuk. And handshakes after that seems unhygienic. But let’s solider on. Aha! Another Broadway musical clue! The Jets are gonna have their day/Tonight/The Jets are gonna have their way/Tonight/The Puerto Ricans grumble/”Fair fight”/But if they start a rumble/We’ll rumble ‘em right.

Arrington wrote: So today, at best, I’d describe the blogosphere as a frontier town with no lawman (I mean, O’Reilly has a badge on, but no gun and no jail). You can do just about anything you want, but the politically savvy folks tend to arm themselves to the teeth and gang together to protect their property. Everyone else is in the middle of chaos, either fighting blindly for attention or politely asking (by linking early and linking often) if they can join the big Gang.

Translation: Wait, now the metaphor has shifted to the Old West? OK, we can keep up: Anything you can do, I can do better./I can do anything better than you./No, you can’t./Yes, I can./No, you can’t./Yes, I can./No, you can’t./Yes, I can, Yes, I can!

Arrington wrote: And now that the big guys in the Gang are being injected with capital, hiring tens of employees and expanding their businesses, they suddenly have a lot more to lose. Linking is never done just because. Rather, links are your political capital that must be expended appropriately. Don’t link at the right time and in two weeks when you’re pushing your own headline, you’ll wish you had. When you stop seeing other blogs as people you admire and want to discuss things with, and start to see them as your competitor, your brain shifts and you stop linking the way you had previously.

Translation: Hey, how did we get to Washington, D.C. and the inside of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s cerebral cortex in the midst of yet another compromised political calculation? It’s like we’re on “Fantastic Voyage”!

Arrington: Luckily, the newbie bloggers are there to fill in the links when they’re needed. That’s why, if you are a mid-level blogger, you are likely courted by the bigger blogs looking to get your support. If you know what’s going on and are willing to play the game, you can see your blog rise very, very quickly. Choose the wrong blog, though, and you may find yourself alone and lonely in your forgotten blog.

As an aside, when I see a young but promising blogger, I’ll start linking to him or her constantly to build them up (others, like Winer, Scoble, Jarvis and Rubel did that for me). The goal is to help move them up to a position of influence as quickly as possible. The more non-crazy influencers in the game, the easier it is to ignore the noise generators and the better the overall conversation becomes. Over the last year, for example, Silicon Alley Insider, CenterNetworks, LouisGray and Mathew Ingram I’ve been pushing hard. These guys rarely agree with me, but when they talk I listen because they’ve put some thought into what they are saying and how they are saying it. Those guys haven’t hit the big politics yet, and tend to link out a lot to everyone. They are a very important part of the ecosystem–pushing their link votes toward stories they find interesting and helping those other bloggers get headlines and maintain their place in the Gang.

Translation: Next stop, the stylings of Mr. Michael Corleone! There are many things my father taught me here in this room. He taught me: keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

Arrington wrote: So what’s the point of this rant? Well, all this money flowing into the blogosphere is disrupting the complicated and emotional, but also stable way things are done. Bloggers with money and employees and health care programs and boards of directors and shareholders have to play politics with a whole new group of people, splitting them away from what they do best–Fighting the Blog War. Their behavior can become erratic as they have to decide to tone down their writing to get a certain type of sponsor on board, which in turn lets them make payroll. Investors want to see growth, so more and more blogs are launched, but perhaps without the right talent to grow it into a long-term business.

If a VC hands you a check, their intention is not to hang around for 20 years while you build a nice lifestyle business for yourself. What they want to see is an exit, preferably a 10x or higher exit, within 3 to 4 years. But something tells me that few of these networks are going to be able to grow quite as easily as they think and reach those liquidity events. The talent is, increasingly, locked up. Even when new talent is discovered or trained, every niche has serious heavyweights already there with page views and advertising dollars to back them up for a long fight.

Translation: Finally, the point! Which is: Assimilate or Die!

Arrington wrote: At some point it’s going to become painfully obvious that the only way to get to a massive valuation is for the top talent to band together in a company where they each have an equity stake and therefore a reason to work all night on that next great story. They’ll each have their own space to stretch their legs and let their personality run around a little. Someone needs to pony up a big round of financing around an existing blog, or perhaps a new entity, and then start rolling them up into a big fat CNET-crushing $200 million/year in revenue business.

Translation: This is my sneaky but clever way of floating a trial balloon of an effort I am already trying to organize. The existing blog? Mine! The new entity? Run by me! The $200 million a year? Mine, again! Now, enough about me–what do you think of me?

Arrington wrote: It can happen. In fact it’s almost certainly going to happen. But if you bloggers go out there and raise $3 million to $5 million on say a $10 million valuation, you’ve just priced yourself out of the roll-up. That option will be closed to you, and you’ll be stuck out in the cold, taking life-support payments from Federated Media or another ad network, and having a generally awful time running your business.

Translation: Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes.

Arrington wrote: What I’d like to see, and even be a part of, is the blogger equivalent to the 1992 U.S. Men’s Basketball Dream Team. That team could take CNET apart in a year, hire the best of the survivors there, and then move on to bigger prey.

Translation: After we are done bloody-tangoing with Neil Ashe at CNET (CNET), Owen Thomas and his evil overlord Nick Denton better sleep with one eye open.

Arrington wrote: Just the thought of being a part of something like that has held us back from raising any outside capital at all. I believe we have the beginning of a team that can play a role in this new Dream Team.

So think twice before taking that venture money, guys. You may be shutting more doors of opportunity than you realize.

Translation: By saying we have held back from raising any outside capital at all, what I really mean to say is that I am going to do it.

Resistance is futile.

BoomTown wrote a few weeks ago that Microsoft (MSFT) was fishing in Silicon Valley and also for “three to four big-name CEOs” for directors to nominate for its own Yahoo (YHOO) board slate, in the event the software giant took off the gloves and tried to oust Yahoo’s current board and replace it with its own.

For the life of me, I could not think of anyone at all in the Web sector who would turn on Yahoo’s CEO and Founder Jerry Yang like that, except perhaps Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who owes Microsoft $240 million worth of loyalty. Helping Microsoft in its hostile bid to acquire Yahoo would make them even.

Yesterday, TechCrunch threw out several very interesting prospects in a post, none too flashy, except perhaps for former Viacom (VIA) President Tom Freston. The others named are former Grey Advertising CEO Edward H. Meyer; former Nextel Partners CEO John Chapple and former eHarmony CEO Jaynie Studenmund.

That’s certainly a lot of formers!

Ironically, the well-respected Freston was often floated as a possible CEO candidate of Yahoo, if former CEO Terry Semel ever stepped down, especially after he was ousted by Viacom’s wacky owner Sumner Redstone, who was upset that Freston let News Corp.’s (NWS) Rupert Murdoch snap up MySpace. Freston has recently become active in the online video space, as an investor in sites like Veoh.

We’ll see if it comes to this for Microsoft and Yahoo, who were reportedly in informal talks, as a proxy fight is probably the last choice for both sides.

I could not agree more with both Michael Arrington of TechCrunch and Valleywag’s Owen Thomas, an unlikely and motley trio we three, when I say: Leave Sarah Lacy alone.

OK, the interview she did with Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg at SXSW on Sunday was a little silly at times and she probably annoyed people when she flacked her new book. (Full disclosure: I have written two books, so I can relate to the unfortunate impulse to do so.)

But to make such a big hairy deal in blogs and on Twitters seems a bit of overkill, doesn’t it?

Even including a wee bit too much girly hair-twirling by Lacy into the equation (which looked like simple nervousness to me), I just don’t get the uproar.

If Britney Spears had mounted a mighty steed and ridden naked down Hollywood Boulevard, trampling cute little bunnies as she went–it could happen!–it would not engender the level of vituperative online bloviating that the encounter of Lacy and Zuckerberg did.

Were there no other pointless blogging debates to be had yesterday? Aren’t there indignant Digg-for-sale stories to chew over? Wasn’t there a good open-source kerfuffle to get into angry exchanges about? Didn’t Robert Scoble do something that we can endlessly argue between and amongst ourselves?

I guess not and that’s too bad.

Arrington got it exactly right (except in singling out only journalists for the Lacy-bashing, since it was, well, everyone piling on), when he wrote:

“Perhaps they just got caught up in the fun of a witch burning. But whatever drove them to write those articles, it certainly wasn’t journalism. Nor was it professional. And, worst of all, it wasn’t accurate.”

And Thomas made the most salient point of who should have been the focus of the interview, when he wrote:

“I agree with the popular take on Sarah Lacy’s Zuckerberg interview at SXSW to this degree: The audience was revolting. Lacy threw an unbecomingly petulant tantrum onstage. But the Twitter reaction was equally self-indulgent. The debates over her performance obscured the man who should have been under the microscope: Mark Zuckerberg.”

Well, exactly.

I am, in fact, probably going to be interviewing Zuckerberg onstage at our upcoming D: All Things Digital conference in late May. I hope it goes well, but you never know.

But here’s an offer: If everyone promises to stop needlessly pummeling Lacy for her SXSW interview, I’ll consider twirling Zuckerberg’s hair during my interview with him.

Twitter that.

Also, here’s the video of the Lacy-Zuckerberg interview, so you can make your own judgment:

“Completely inaccurate” does not even begin to get to the heart of the problem, but we’ll get to that later.

First, let’s see if we can sort this latest rumor about the acquisition fever wafting around the popular Digg news site, published by TechCrunch last week.

Its take: That Digg has been pitching itself for sale using bankers from Allen & Co. and was poised to receive high-priced bids from archrivals Microsoft (MSFT) and Google (GOOG), and also had interest from two unnamed major media companies (a good guess here would be CBS and News Corp., owner of Dow Jones, which owns this site).

How exciting! How dramatic! How gripping!

And: How untrue!

That’s because once you actually take time to do actual reporting, you find the story is quite a bit less exciting and dramatic and gripping–pretty much nothing more than part of the typical sniffing and circling that goes on constantly in Silicon Valley.

Here’s what my many and varied sources close to all the companies involved told me, related specifically to the TechCrunch report: Digg is not going around hawking itself, but using bankers to handle interest it receives fairly regularly; and neither Google nor Microsoft is poised to make a bid hovering around $200 million (in fact, most every possible acquirer I spoke to said $60 million to $80 million was a more likely price if Digg were ever sold).

This is not to say that Digg could not suddenly get an amazing offer too good to refuse, from any of the parties and others, as any company could.

And Google is a natural bidder and has to be interested in Digg, of course, given that it needs to add more to its Google News product and likes highly distributed plays like Digg.

In addition, given that it did a guaranteed ad deal with Digg last year and might have to have alternatives if its Yahoo bid fails, Microsoft is the other obvious candidate to own a site like Digg.

But, once again (these Digg sale rumors surface with wearying regularity, much like the colds I get from my kids), Digg is not embroiled in this fantastic kind of Spy-vs.-Spy battle between Google and Microsoft, news of which rocketed around the Web and took on a life of its own.

In other words: While Digg has been to visit the Googleplex and Microsoft to discuss all sorts of linkups, including recently, along with several others over the last two years (Yahoo, for example), from partnerships to traffic deals that could–of course–all lead to a possible acquisition, its executives have not been waiting by the fax machine for offer bids to start rolling in of late.

Here’s the duller truth, in contrast to sexier rumormongering: Of course, larger companies are interested in high-growth Internet phenoms like Digg, whose massive distribution on the Web via Digg buttons and a motivated audience is impressive.

The user-generated news-discovery site that has grown quickly to 27 million unique monthly visitors and 250 million page views is poised to be profitable this year.

While some debate its helpfulness at generating monetizable traffic, when Digg points to a story, huge audience spikes quickly follow.

That’s attracted attention from larger companies, from both the Web and media worlds, all of whom have been calling the still-small start-up (50 employees) for a getting-to-know-you chat.

“Everyone is looking to see if they can copy Digg, partner with Digg, acquire Digg,” said one person familiar with the company.

That has been both a blessing and a distraction to the company, I would imagine, as it takes the eye off the ball of actual executing on a day-to-day basis. As I have seen with a lot of companies I have covered, acquisition interest can be a heady experience and not always in a good way.

And there have been some actual offers to buy Digg over time, although not recently, and none has reached even close to the kind of fire-alarm state that TechCrunch loudly rang last week.

The report was so over the top that it prompted Digg CEO Jay Adelson to refute it on the company’s blog.

He wrote: “Normally our policy is to not comment about things like this, but this morning’s rumors about a bidding war involving Google and Microsoft have created such a stir we feel compelled to tell you all directly that they are completely inaccurate.

“Sorry to burst any drama theories, but they aren’t true. We remain focused on improving Digg and rolling out great features.”

Of course, that was not enough of a denial for TechCrunch, which stood by its source, and then spun a somewhat convoluted conspiracy theory about Adelson’s post: “Digg may have had an angry Microsoft and Google on its hands this morning after this post, leading Jay to comment on this where they usually wouldn’t. Jay certainly wouldn’t say anything untrue in his post, but there’s a lot he isn’t saying in that post, too.”

But that’s kind of like trotting out the old when-did-you-stop- beating-your-wife courtroom ploy. Quick, Della, parachute in Perry Mason to get Adelson to confess to his alleged crime!

Sure, Adelson could have been even more specific, denying Digg was for sale completely and once and for all, I guess. But no public or private company would ever do such a imbecilic thing, as everyone is ultimately for sale, and saying otherwise would have also been completely inaccurate.

And, it goes without saying, no one wants to be completely inaccurate, do they?

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.