BoomTown is at the lovely Santa Clara Marriott in Silicon Valley at the 2009 Yahoo annual meeting, liveblogging the event, which should be spectacularly dull.

Here is a rundown of what went on.

10:05 am: The meeting kicked off with a little video presentation with various and sundry television talking heads saying “Yahoo” in quick succession.

Actually, this was the year during which all of those hype-magnets repeated “Twitter”–the hottest media trend these days–so many times that it has began to make my ears bleed.

But I like the spirit of trying to make Yahoo (YHOO) seem relevant and innovative again.

Then, CEO Carol Bartz (pictured below) walked onto the small stage in the California Ballroom, declaring: “Well, that made me feel good.”

Exactly when does Carol not feel good?

She explained why: “I am having a ball,” speaking about her rehaul job at Yahoo, and then thanked shareholders after what was “a tough year last year.”

The board was introduced, with most of them being present at the meeting, except for Ron Burkle and Carl Icahn.

10:12 am: General Counsel Mike Callahan comes on with the blah-blah-blah about rules and votes.

I soon started thinking of the lovely breakfast pastries outside that I passed by outside. Drat!

This year, the 12-member board, now including Bartz, was up for reelection.

Last year, as you might remember, many of those board members were under siege by shareholder discontent.

Not in 2009. A major shareholder who was unhappy last year told me there would be no protest vote.

“Carol is doing a good job,” said the investor.

Yahoo was also asking for approval of its accounting firm, Price Waterhouse.

There were several important votes before the shareholders.

One was a standard one regarding executive compensation or a “say on pay” proposal, which was introduced by an outside stockholder.

Yahoo’s board recommended against it.

Another proposal regarded changes to be made to a 1995 stock plan and to a 1996 employee stock purchase plan.

The latter was most important, because it was a request to authorize more shares for future employee options grants. It will mean a large addition to the pool–30 million more shares–if authorized.

The stock will be used to keep valuable Yahoo talent in place. Good idea.

10:23 am: The floor was then opened for comments on the proposal and ballots were collected.

I was not on the edge of my seat.

Like clockwork or an election in the former Soviet Union, the board was elected, the stock plans approved and Price Waterhouse was in.

The “say for pay” proposal? It went down in defeat.

The people have spoken!

10:29 pm: Bartz took back the stage, which immediately livened things up.

She went through the history of her coming to Yahoo, which began with former Yahoo CEO and Co-Founder Jerry Yang (pictured here) asking if she was interested in the job at a Cisco (CSCO) board meeting.

Both are on its board.

Bartz also briefly recounted her meeting with Yang at his house, although she minimized the insulting aspect of the story.

She has maximized it in other tellings–such as in an onstage interview with me recently at the D: All Things Digital conference.

The basic thrust of the story was that Yahoo was a big mess that needed the Carol treatment.

Bartz, of course, did not stress that as much today. After all, Yang was sitting right in front of her.

Bartz noted that she has been asked about two things since coming on board:

What about a deal with Microsoft? And what the heck is Yahoo anyway?

She had nothing to say about Microsoft (MSFT) and said it would be said publicly only after any such deal was struck.

Actually, she has commented about talks with the software giant publicly many times, but let’s overlook that.

The Bartz went into the definition of Yahoo. It’s simple, she said. The largest global online media company. With technology. That everyone knows. Plus email.

10:34 am: Bartz ran through the new staff she has put in place, such as CMO Elisa Steele and others.

She then moved onto the top-to-bottom reviews she has been doing of Yahoo.

Including what she dubbed “space debris,” which are Yahoo sites that should be shut down, repaired or outsourced.

Bartz’s tone? Calm and comforting and reassuring–less the live wire she usually telegraphs and more the I’m-in-charge-here-so-remain-calm vibe.

She hit all the big targets, for good measure. Front page. Mobile. And, of course, advertising.

“Yahoo has a distinct opportunity in this area,” said Bartz, referring to its online display ad business. “Advertisers come to us.”

She ended by calling Yahoo a “home,” which is one theme the company is considering using as a brand strategy in an massive overhaul it is working on.

10:45 am: The floor was open for questions.

The first was a good one. Essentially, why is Google (GOOG) such a money machine when Yahoo is not? And why are its workers so much more productive in comparison?

“We have a very different model than Google,” said Bartz. “It has a cleaner process.”

As in, it is better at vacuuming up the dough!

Bartz, who has been trying mightily to end the Yahoo/Google comparison (smart move!), did not really give an answer.

“Please, this direct comparison model to Google is not fair and is frankly not relevant,” she said.

Well, it is actually quite a bit fair and a lot relevant, but we shall also overlook that one too (for now).

10:49 am: A fan question about how it was good that Bartz has been taking the focus off of the Microsoft issue too.

He also liked that she said she would take piles of money from the software giant, though, in a search partnership deal.

Then, the questioner dived right into the weeds, with questions about the front page, such as having too much dopey entertainment news on it.

Especially all that Jon & Kate and their gazillion kids crap!

This is a favorite meme for Bartz, who proceeded to quickly one-up the question by strafing a perfect celebrity target.

“If I see another Britney Spears item, I am going to throw up,” she declared in nauseous solidarity.

She then mentioned something called a “fluffometer,” which is apparently taking care of this most pressing issue of our time–the Lindsay Lohan threat.

Will it defluff Yahoo?

Inquiring minds want to know.

10:54 am: The inevitable China question was asked, of course, a query which has always tripped up previous Yahoo management.

“It’s very easy to get crosswise,” said Bartz, trying not to get crosswise.

She mentioned a recent human rights summit Yahoo had hosted. “We have actually done a lot, but it is never enough.”

Well, actually, Yahoo and many others did not do enough previously, but Bartz was pretty much steering clear of the thorny realities of doing business in China.

Then came the “vision” question.

Actually, Bartz said it was not about vision, but about growth. “We don’t have a vision problem, we have an execution problem,” she said.

Another question was asked about Internet censorship in China.

“I’m going to go real simple here: Yahoo was not incorporated to fix China,” she said. “It’s that simple.”

Bartz said the company was not going to take on every government in the world and that its “mistake”–referring to activists jailed due to Yahoo handing over information to the Chinese government–should not hound it forever.

Well, it should, but point taken.

The next question was about Iran and how popular Twitter is. Bartz said Yahoo was also in there.

11:04 am: A questioner asked about Facebook and why the social networking site was so popular, even though Yahoo had better products.

Bartz said Yahoo was working hard on making those products more social.

The next questioner asked about whether another Google partnership deal with Yahoo could be reborn. That deal went down in defeat last year.

“Justice is Justice,” said Bartz, referring to the federal government department’s opposition to the deal.

As in, you don’t tug on Superman’s cape, you don’t spit into the wind, you don’t pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger and you don’t mess around with Uncle Sam.

The next questioner asked about why Yahoo always told shareholders at meetings like this that it was doing great every year and then didn’t deliver.

Bear with us, said Bartz.

As to selling off its Alibaba assets in China: Not a good time to sell.

11:09 am: A questioner asked whether Yahoo might buy a newspaper, like the New York Times (NYT).

Yes, that would be a good move–out of the frying pan into the fire!

I was sitting right next to one of its reporters, Miguel Helft. No comment!

Bartz then thanked the Yahoo shareholders for having faith.

As I said, it was Bartz’s first annual meeting. But, for Yahoo investors over the last several years, having a lot of faith–too often tested–kind of comes with the territory.

Oh, Scooby-Don’t…

You could not be more wrong in your post last week–titled, “Why Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg are wrong about naming Web 3.0 ‘Web 3.0′”–about Walt and I being wrong about naming Web 3.0 “Web 3.0″ in an essay we posted at the start of our D: All Things Digital conference, which took place last week.

I know writing “Kara Swisher,” “Walt Mossberg” and “Wrong” is well-nigh irresistible, but your solution of calling the digital era we are in the “2010 Web” is equally confusing and incorrect.

So, since you know I love to do translations, let me try to take apart your entire piece paragraph by paragraph:

What Scooby-Don’t wrote: Can we just head this trend off at the pass? It seems that Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg, at their “All Things D” conference announced the beginning of the Web 3.0 era.

And I’m not the only one to think so.

BoomTown response: Walt and I simply wrote an essay in which we said we thought mobile and smart phones were super important as the next platform and represented what we thought Web 3.0 innovations, such as social networking (which we also think is important, by the way) would pivot around.

We didn’t “announce” anything, although that does sound awfully grand.

But so what if we did, because it happens quite a lot?

Dan Gillmor, for goodness sake, declared it Web 3.0 in 2005. His take was different:

“The emerging web is one in which the machines talk as much to each other as humans talk to machines or other humans. As the net is the rough equivalent of a computer operating system, we’re learning how to program the web itself.”

And in 2007, Tim O’Reilly weighed in on it, responding to Web 3.0 theses by Jason Calacanis and Nova Spivack, and also noting Stowe Boyd’s thoughts on the subject.

You get my point, Bobby? Lots of folks have opinions about what is Web 3.0, much as they will when we start arguing over what Web 4.0 is.

At Web 5.0, of course, a self-aware Google (GOOG) will have begun its inevitable war with the human race, sending back a cyborg to terminate you before you wrote that post, thereby making this rebuttal moot.

But, I digress!

Scooby-Don’t wrote: Short aside: It’s interesting that neither Kara nor Walt show up very often on friendfeed, which is the best example of the 2010 Web right now. Kara Swisher has made a total of five comments there. Walt is even worse, doesn’t bring any items in there, and only has six comments. How can you know what the 2010 Web is, if you don’t use it and don’t participate in it?

BoomTown response: The fact of the matter is that neither Walt nor I like to use FriendFeed as much as you do. I daresay that no one likes to use FriendFeed as much as you do.

Thus, hinging a larger point to this, just because we don’t play in a particular sandbox you like to play in, feels a little too much in the digital weeds to me.

Just because you have chosen to be the unofficial spokesmodel for the very laudable service–about which I have done a very lovely reported post on complete with video–I am not clear why you need to accuse Walt Mossberg and I of not being social because we don’t use it as much.

We both just happen to prefer Twitter and blogging as our social outlets.

I have done 3,255 updates on Twitter since I started last year, for example, which is certainly not as much as your 21,224. But–and I think we can all agree–as blabby as I am, I am simply not as blabby as you.

So, let’s try to make this as clear as possible.

We. Don’t. Use. FriendFeed. Regularly.

As I said, we use Twitter, we use Facebook, we use SMS, we use blogging and we use a whole lot more. In fact, between us, we try out pretty much everything.

While I appreciate that FriendFeed seems to be your home planet of the moment, it is not the only place to realize your term, 2010 Web, and it feels very Web 1.0 to say so.

Scooby-Don’t wrote: The Web does NOT have version numbers. Naming what was going on in the last eight years “Web 2.0″ did us all a large disservice (Tim O’Reilly did that, mostly to get people to see that there was something different about the Web that was being built in 2000-2003 than what had come before).

But by naming it a number, I believe it caused a lot of people and businesses to avoid what was going on and “poo poo” it as the rantings of the new MySpace generation (which was just getting hot back then).

BoomTown response: Let me see if I can get this straight. You can call it 2010 Web, but we cannot use version numbers, such as Web 3.0?

Hey, we’ll call it Britney Spears if we want!

Actually, I like naming the next era of the Web after the always volatile entertainer. She’s mobile, ever-changing, ubiquitous and always entertaining! Also, there are several eras of Britney: Sweet, Timberlake Lady, Federline Lady, Young Mom, Nuts, Nuttier, Nuttiest, Hospitalized, Medicated.

My main point remains: Who died and made you Boss of Pointless Internet Catchphrases?

Scooby-Don’t wrote: See, the Web changes EVERY DAY and a version number just doesn’t do it justice. Think about today, we saw Microsoft (MSFT) announce a major new update to its search engine, named “Bing,” that turns on next week and is already getting TONS of kudos. Seriously, in the rental car shuttle today a guy I met said the demo he saw at Kara and Walt’s conference was “awesome.”

Also today was Google’s Wave, which caught everyone by surprise and which sucked the oxygen out of Microsoft’s search announcements. Check out all the reports that I liked from around the world this morning.

BoomTown response: The Web changes EVERY DAY? You’re kidding! We had no idea! Thanks for that critical morsel of info!

Earth to Robert: Walt has spent a large part of his life writing about the panoply of new devices that have come out in an unceasing flow and I have written at least 10,000 news stories and two books about the Web since the early 1990s.

Pretty much all we write about is how the Web changes every day. Actually, every second.

Scooby-Don’t wrote: But, back to the theme of this post. There IS something going on here. I covered it a few weeks ago.

7. Hybrid infrastructure. At the Twitter Conference this week lots of people were talking about how they were using both traditional servers along with cloud-based approaches from Amazon (AMZN) and Rackspace (RAX) to store, study, and process the sizeable datasets that are coming through Twitter, Facebook, and friendfeed.

BoomTown Response: We had folks on stage at our D7 conference discussing all this last week. In fact, we covered a whole lot more than that, which you can read about if you click on through.

While I think all yours are also interesting ideas, I am still not clear why you need to get your knickers in a knot, since we happened to think mobile platforms and smart phones are more important trends at this juncture.

Also, could please explain how Google “caught that wave big time Wednesday when it handed Android phones to everyone at its IO conference.” Google is innovative because they give free swag to folks?

We gave free swag to folks this week at D7, so I guess that makes Walt and I 2010-Web-worthy!

Scooby-Don’t wrote: So, why doesn’t a version number work for these changes? Because they don’t come at us all at once. A lot of these things have been cooking for years. The Internet makes iteration possible. Tomorrow will be better on the Internet than today. In the old world of software you’d have to wait for the compilers, then you’d need to distribute tons of CDs or disks. That no longer needs to be done.

Same with the Web. Calling it the “2010 Web” puts an urgency into what’s happening. If your business isn’t considering the latest stuff it risks looking lame or, worse, leaving money on the table. Just like driving a 1994 car risks looking lame or, worse, breaking down a lot more often than a newer car.

BoomTown response: Actually, I would have to say that your year numbering system is deeply confusing and I am not sure we can treat Internet development like some auto or, even, say, fine wine.

Ah, that 1995 Web was saucy with a smooth Netscape IPO finish, while 2001 had a disappointing popped-bubble tone, due to the excessive tannins of Pets.com. Now, the 2009 is still very young, but it has a frothy Twittery taste, which goes surprisingly well with brie.

Scooby-Don’t wrote: Is the year metaphor perfect? No, I’m sure there are a few things wrong with it. For one, if you want to host a conference based on the “trend” you’ll have to change your conference name every year. That costs money, which is why conference companies like to have more stable trends that they can exploit for a few years, at least.

BoomTown response: D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7. So far, changing the number has worked out well for us that we’re going to go for D8!

Scooby-Don’t wrote: Also, there are some clear “eras” in the Web, so I could see wanting to suggest that we’re in the third era of the Web, but I’ve been studying this for the past eight years and calling the second era “Web 2′ actually held us back because mainstream users didn’t think anything was happening in the past few years and Web 2.0 became a useless phrase anyway.

BoomTown response: You must know that mainstream users don’t pay one bit of attention to any and all of the dumb terms Silicon Valley comes up with.

And, with all the obviously massive change that has happened in the past few years in tech and the Internet (iPhone, Kindle, Facebook, Twitter to name a few), it seems odd to say that anything has been held back.

Frankly, it would be nice if tech innovation took a breather once in a while.

Scooby Don’t wrote: Anyway, can we use year numbers to describe the Web now? It’ll make it easier to evangelize the modern world to businesses. We’re entering the 2010 Web, that’s what I’m exploring. Calling the Web a version number is for people who don’t really understand, or participate in, what’s going on here. Kara and Walt, you gotta do better here.

BoomTown wrote: What’s in a name?

Well, it’s dang easy to attack, of course, instead of actually discussing the actual premise that we were outlining in our essay, titled “Welcome to Web 3.0.”

As we wrote:

“So what’s the seminal development that’s ushering in the era of Web 3.0? It’s the real arrival, after years of false predictions, of the thin client, running clean, simple software, against cloud-based data and services. The poster children for this new era have been the Apple (AAPL) iPhone and iPod Touch, which have sold 37 million units in less than two years and attracted 35,000 apps and one billion app downloads in just nine months.”

So, if you want to just focus on the name, then you gotta do better here.

Until then, you say 2010 Web, we say Web 3.0 and let’s call the whole thing off.

BoomTown just got to Paris, as in France, to attend and moderate sessions for the third annual Le Web conference.

Le Web is organized by Loïc and Geraldine Le Meur, with 1,500 people signed up to hear a range of Internet players, many of whom are from the U.S., tomorrow and Wednesday.

U.S. speakers include TED’s Chris Anderson, News Corp. (NWS) social-networking site MySpace’s Amit Kapur, Marissa Mayer of Google (GOOG), Linda Avey of 23andMe, LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman, and Dan’l Lewin of Microsoft (MSFT).

And some interesting European execs include France Telecom Orange Chairman and CEO Didier Lombard, and Jacques-Antoine Granjon, CEO and co-founder of a very interesting fashion sale site, Vente-Privee.com.

Of course, there’s a passel of bloggers here like BoomTown. I’ll be interviewing Werner Vogels, CTO of Amazon (AMZN) and well-known Israeli entrepreneur Yossi Vardi.

Besides this conference, Loïc Le Meur has been trying to make a go of it with his San Francisco-based start-up Seesmic, which–like a lot of Web 2.0 companies–has recently made cutbacks. See my video interview below with him in better times, when I visited Seesmic in February.

You can also watch the conference streamed live from its site. More shaky–but Frenchtastic, although no lip-synching extravaganzas for me!–videos from me at Le Web to come, of course.

[Full disclosure: My partner, Google exec Megan Smith (you can read all about it here in detail), is judging a start-up competition at Le Web on Wednesday. But I am trying to find an excuse not to go to that panel, because I always nod off at those things, even if the crazy version of Britney Spears were a judge. Instead, I hopefully will be enjoying the lovely artwork at the Louvre right then.]

Well, this was certainly predictable–the mindless piling on of Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang now taking place in the blogosphere, in the wake of yet another setback for the troubled Internet company.

This time, it comes after the collapse of the search advertising deal with Google yesterday.

BoomTown is not saying the co-founder of Yahoo does not deserve criticism for how he has run the company since last summer–in fact, this column has been quite active in following the story.

There are very real questions about whether Yang has the right talent and temperament for the job at hand, as much as he clearly loves the company he co-founded.

After all, the stock is in the basement, after Yahoo (YHOO) lost a lucrative bird in the hand in the form of a $31 per share offer from Microsoft (MSFT).

Next, a weak economic environment is forcing it to cut deeply into the muscle of its many businesses, with slashing out 20 percent or more of costs, a worrisome trend if Yahoo hopes to grow when we all eventually emerge from the downturn.

And, of course, more key executive departures, weak employee morale and an overall inability to clearly articulate the changes Yang has been trying to make at the company, such as its laudable open platform efforts.

Nonetheless, it is simply lazy to just call for Yang’s ouster as the panacea for what ails the company. It’s a feel-good suggestion mixed with a creepy mob mentality that offers no clear path to improvement.

Still, as it is said, intelligence has it limitations, while stupidity is infinite.

Thus, immediately after Yahoogle went down came the specious rumors of Yang getting kicked out with a new Microsoft takeover bid in the works. Way too many sites posted and reposted the “news,” with most not bothering to actually call Yahoo or sources who might know to ask if this might be happening.

As the old cliche goes–if wishes were horses, all beggars would ride–so too it is wishful thinking that Yang would be flushed out just like that.

But, as with Britney Spears in her crazy days, people seem to believe anything they hear about Yang’s demise. Thus, the Google (GOOG) deal had to be the straw that finally broke the camel’s back and the board of Yahoo was tossing him overboard forthwith.

Then, inevitably comes the posts that Yang is sad, friendless and alone, a tragic figure of ridicule. Or, better still, borrowing from “Macbeth”–a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more.

Except for one thing: While a lot of investors, media, analysts and other detractors (including some on Yahoo’s own board) might want to see him step down as CEO, there has to actively be an actual effort on the part of the board to fire him (or, at least, kick him upstairs, back to his former Chief Yahoo job).

While some sources within the company say Carl Icahn and the two board members he brought with him–John Chappelle and Frank Biondi–to the Yahoo board have been reaching out of late to lower-level Yahoo execs to garner info about Yang and his management and also signaling Microsoft that there is renewed interest in reigniting talks, that means little unless the rest of the directors play along.

So far, many sources tell me, they are not.

If I were guessing, it would be Yang who would be the one to initiate any serious talks with Microsoft.

Bizarrely, he kind of did that publicly yesterday at the Web 2.0 Summit, when he said onstage: “To this day, I believe the best thing for Microsoft to do is to buy Yahoo.”

As not being CEO, I think it would also be Yang who will determine when and how that could happen, if at all.

In other words, critics can smack him all they want, but does not mean it will yield the prize they seek.

It was tasteless and also offensive to Hilton and Spears, which seems an almost impossible task–way to go!

Now, wasting no time in taking advantage of the brouhaha and drawing attention just where it should be–to herself, of course–Hilton did this clever video spoof for the Funny or Die comedy Web site.

Wearing a killer swimsuit, she does manage to make a good suggestion about a sensible energy policy and an even better one to have Rihanna as VP.

Also, Hilton calls McCain “white-haired dude.” That’s hot. Well, warm.

In any case, here’s the Hilton video and the original humorless McCain ad just below it:

After all, Garlinghouse’s infamous “Peanut Butter Manifesto” was the key ur-moment that one could point to as the one in which the curtains were pulled back at the troubled Internet company to reveal, well, a very sticky mess.

Garlinghouse (pictured here), who ran communications and communities for Yahoo (YHOO), is set to be replaced in part by Scott Dietzen, who was the president and CTO of Zimbra (and before that CTO of BEA Systems). Yahoo bought the highly innovative open-source email startup last fall for $350 million.

(By the way, Dietzen will get only 50%–communications products and services–of Garlinghouse’s job, while Front Door head Tapan Bhat will get communities.)

But back to Brad and peanut butter: The 2006 internal document, penned by the Yahoo senior vice president, essentially unfairly impugned delicious peanut butter by using it as a metaphor for Yahoo spreading its resources too thinly.

As far as I am concerned, life is all in the spreading–you can go thick with peanut butter, Brad!

In any case, as a memorial to the Garlinghouse era, BoomTown decodes the manifesto:

Brad wrote: Three and half years ago, I enthusiastically joined Yahoo! The magnitude of the opportunity was only matched by the magnitude of the assets. And an amazing team has been responsible for rebuilding Yahoo!

I proudly bleed purple and yellow everyday! And like so many people here, I love this company.

Translation: This is the borderline cultish kissing-up part, before I deliver the coup de nut.

Thus: Blah, blah, blah–love it! Blah, blah, double blah–so profound I think I shall weep!

And the nuclear blah, blah, blah–I pull out the bleeding purple and yellow expression, used way too often at Yahoo, which, when you really think about it, is just gross.

Brad wrote: But all is not well. Last Thursday’s NY Times article was a blessing in the disguise of a painful public flogging. While it lacked accurate details, its conclusions rang true, and thus was a much needed wake-up call. But also a call to action. A clear statement with which I, and far too many Yahoos, agreed. And thankfully a reminder. A reminder that the measure of any person is not in how many times he or she falls down–but rather the spirit and resolve used to get back up. The same is now true of our Company.

It’s time for us to get back up.

Translation: Cue ominous music! Drag out the “Rocky I-VI” cliches (except for V, which sucked)! Order those I’ve-Fallen- and-I-Can’t- Get-Up thingies for the entire company. Also, insult the media, even though that’s exactly where all Yahoo employees get the most up-to-date information about what’s what here.

Brad wrote: I believe we must embrace our problems and challenges and that we must take decisive action. We have the opportunity–in fact the invitation–to send a strong, clear and powerful message to our shareholders and Wall Street, to our advertisers and our partners, to our employees (both current and future), and to our users. They are all begging for a signal that we recognize and understand our problems, and that we are charting a course for fundamental change. Our current course and speed simply will not get us there. Short-term band-aids will not get us there.

It’s time for us to get back up and seize this invitation.

Translation: You realize, of course, this was written in 2006! Um, almost two years ago. And nothing has, well, changed all that much.

Strong, clear and powerful message that we understand our problems and are charting a course for fundamental change?

A cow could fall through the crack that task disappeared into!

Brad wrote: I imagine there’s much discussion amongst the Company’s senior most leadership around the challenges we face. At the risk of being redundant, I wanted to share my take on our current situation and offer a recommended path forward, an attempt to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Translation: No one in senior management is listening to me. I’ll show them Tom-Cruise- Jerry-Maguire style!

Show me the money!

Brad wrote: Recognizing Our Problems

Translation: Help me, help you. Help me, help you.

Brad wrote: We lack a focused, cohesive vision for our company. We want to do everything and be everything–to everyone. We’ve known this for years, talk about it incessantly, but do nothing to fundamentally address it. We are scared to be left out. We are reactive instead of charting an unwavering course. We are separated into silos that far too frequently don’t talk to each other. And when we do talk, it isn’t to collaborate on a clearly focused strategy, but rather to argue and fight about ownership, strategies and tactics.

Our inclination and proclivity to repeatedly hire leaders from outside the company results in disparate visions of what winning looks like–rather than a leadership team rallying around a single cohesive strategy.

Translation: This, of course, is the description of the basic family setup of “The Sopranos.” Except we have no Bada-Bing.

I so wish we had a Bada-Bing at Yahoo, instead of that not-Google cafeteria.

In fact, I wish we had Tony Soprano running the place, except I personally think he got shot during that annoying “Don’t Stop Believin’” ending (see video below!).

Brad wrote: I’ve heard our strategy described as spreading peanut butter across the myriad opportunities that continue to evolve in the online world. The result: a thin layer of investment spread across everything we do and thus we focus on nothing in particular.

I hate peanut butter. We all should.

Translation: I hate peanut butter. We all should.

That is, those of us whose parents did not know how to make a proper sandwich.

Brad wrote: We lack clarity of ownership and accountability. The most painful manifestation of this is the massive redundancy that exists throughout the organization. We now operate in an organizational structure–admittedly created with the best of intentions–that has become overly bureaucratic. For far too many employees, there is another person with dramatically similar and overlapping responsibilities. This slows us down and burdens the company with unnecessary costs.

Translation: Again, this was two years ago. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

That’s French for peanut butter.

Brad wrote: Equally problematic, at what point in the organization does someone really OWN the success of their product or service or feature? Product, marketing, engineering, corporate strategy, financial operations…there are so many people in charge (or believe that they are in charge) that it’s not clear if anyone is in charge. This forces decisions to be pushed up–rather than down. It forces decisions by committee or consensus and discourages the innovators from breaking the mold…thinking outside the box.

There’s a reason why a centerfielder and a left fielder have clear areas of ownership. Pursuing the same ball repeatedly results in either collisions or dropped balls. Knowing that someone else is pursuing the ball and hoping to avoid that collision–we have become timid in our pursuit. Again, the ball drops.

Translation: It is like Al Haig gone wild at Yahoo–I’m in charge here!

And then right onto the business-as-a-baseball game cliche, as we are like “The Bad News Bears” at Yahoo. Except we could use a drunk coach like Walter Matthau right about now.

Brad wrote: We lack decisiveness. Combine a lack of focus with unclear ownership, and the result is that decisions are either not made or are made when it is already too late. Without a clear and focused vision, and without complete clarity of ownership, we lack a macro perspective to guide our decisions and visibility into who should make those decisions. We are repeatedly stymied by challenging and hairy decisions. We are held hostage by our analysis paralysis.

Translation: Yahoo Held Hostage! This is an eerie precursor to CEO Jerry Yang’s 100-day No Sacred Cow Vision Quest, isn’t it?

Brad wrote: We end up with competing (or redundant) initiatives and synergistic opportunities living in the different silos of our company.

• Global strategy from BU vs. Global strategy from Int’l

Translation: There can be only one! Although one is the loneliest number, which is why we have two of everything.

Brad wrote: We have lost our passion to win. Far too many employees are “phoning” it in, lacking the passion and commitment to be a part of the solution. We sit idly by while–at all levels–employees are enabled to “hang around.” Where is the accountability? Moreover, our compensation systems don’t align to our overall success. Weak performers that have been around for years are rewarded. And many of our top performers aren’t adequately recognized for their efforts.

As a result, the employees that we really need to stay (leaders, risk-takers, innovators, passionate) become discouraged and leave. Unfortunately many who opt to stay are not the ones who will lead us through the dramatic change that is needed.

Translation: By “phoning” it in, I mean from their cellphones at home. By “hang around,” I mean at the bar near the office.

By employees that we really need to stay (leaders, risk-takers, innovators, passionate) become discouraged and leave, I mean me! Buh-bye, Ash!

Brad wrote: Solving our Problems

Translation: And now I return to Jerry Maguire!–Help me, help you. Help me, help you.

Brad wrote: We have awesome assets. Nearly every media and communications company is painfully jealous of our position. We have the largest audience, they are highly engaged and our brand is synonymous with the Internet.

I don’t pretend there is only one path forward available to us. However, at a minimum, I want to be part of the solution and thus have outlined a plan here that I believe can work. It is my strong belief that we need to act very quickly or risk going further down a slippery slope. The plan here is not perfect; it is, however, FAR better than no action at all.

Translation: More Maguire required! I will not rest until I have you holding a Coke, wearing your own shoe, playing a Sega game *featuring you*, while singing your own song in a new commercial, *starring you*, broadcast during the Super Bowl, in a game that you are winning, and I will not *sleep* until that happens. I’ll give you 15 minutes to call me back.

Brad wrote: There are three pillars to my plan:

I emphatically believe we simply must eliminate the redundancies we have created and the first step in doing this is by restructuring our organization. We can be more efficient with fewer people and we can get more done, more quickly. We need to return more decision-making to a new set of business units and their leadership. But we can’t achieve this with baby-step changes. We need to fundamentally rethink how we organize to win.

Translation: In a peanutshell, let’s be Google (GOOG).

Brad wrote: Independent of specific proposals of what this reorganization should look like, two key principles must be represented:

Kill the redundancies. Align a set of new BU’s so that they are not competing against each other. Search focuses on search. Social media aligns with community and communications. No competing owners for Video, Photos, etc. And Front Page becomes Switzerland. This will be a delicate exercise–decentralization can create inefficiencies, but I believe we can find the right balance.

Translation: Or, maybe we could be Facebook.

Brad wrote: I love Yahoo! I’m proud to admit that I bleed purple and yellow. I’m proud to admit that I shaved a Y in the back of my head.

Translation: More yucky purple and yellow bleeding with a cup full of Britney-Spears-crazy hairstyling on top!

Brad wrote: My motivation for this memo is the adamant belief that, as before, we have a tremendous opportunity ahead. I don’t pretend that I have the only available answers, but we need to get the discussion going; change is needed and it is needed soon. We can be a stronger and faster company–a company with a clearer vision and clearer ownership and clearer accountability.

Catch the balls.

Translation: My motivation for this memo is the adamant belief that it will drive my bosses nuts and someone will surely leak it to the press.

Thus, I wind up with the marathon-not-a-sprint cliche, sprinkle in the get-up one and round the bases with the baseball cliche.

Brad wrote: And stop eating peanut butter.

Translation: Despite my unfair impugning of the peanut-loving work of George Washington Carver, I secretly love peanut butter.

But it once got in my chocolate. Or did my chocolate get in my peanut butter?

In any case, soon to come: The Jelly Memo. That’ll be sweet!

And here is the last minutes of “The Sopranos,” where Tony–and here is an exhaustive and convincing explanation as to why–got whacked:

Hopefully, we will find out this morning the 411 on the Microsoft’s (MSFT) latest parry in its attempted takeover of Yahoo (YHOO).

But, before that, let me get this straight: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer now wants to go hostile on Yahoo with a proxy fight.

Because earlier this week, he sent smoke signals that he was considering raising the price of his takeover bid for Yahoo.

And just before that, Ballmer was going to walk away from the deal. Except, before that when he was ready to lower his offer.

But don’t forget the friendly path Ballmer was also promising. Even though his initial unsolicited offer started off back in February as, well, hostile.

Calling Dr. Phil!

Perhaps the wacky TV shrink can merge together Ballmer’s multiple personalities into one, much the same way he tried to mend Britney Spears.

OK, that did not go so well. But it couldn’t be worse than the confusion of intentions from Microsoft here, including the latest one reported by The Wall Street Journal’s crack team today that Ballmer had now selected hostile as his choice.

Here is Ballmer’s money quote, the likes of which a Zen master could not interpret: “With the right circumstances it’ll happen. Without the right circumstances it won’t happen.”

What? That just about covers every option possible and then some. This may even require an Oprah intervention.

Here’s BoomTown advice, which we reiterate from yesterday’s post: Offer $33 to $35 a share as a best and final, take-it-or-leave-it offer. Set a 48-hour deadline for Yahoo to enter negotiations. After that, initiate a proxy fight.

This says a lot of things. It says Microsoft is generous (and will even bid against itself). It says it has had it waiting for Yahoo to dangle Google (GOOG) or AOL (TWX) as alternatives. It says definitively that Microsoft wants Yahoo and will fight for it.

Most importantly, it says enough is enough.

And while this may seem like it says a lot of things, it doesn’t seem–as so much of what Ballmer has been saying so far says–like the rant of someone in need of help.

Because, as it stands for Ballmer, that’s what it sounds like right now.

Not satisfied to just entertain the masses with inane Vampires and SuperPokes, the social-networking site unleashed Lexicon on users this week.

It’s kind of like Google Zeitgeist except… well, it is exactly the same concept, all part of Facebook’s admiration of Google (GOOG) things, like, for example, as many of its employees as it can entice away.

As Facebook’s Roddy Lindsay described it: “We thought it would be cool to show trends on the public and semi-public forums across Facebook (also known as Walls). Today we’re announcing the launch of Facebook Lexicon, a tool where you can see the buzz surrounding different words and phrases on Facebook Walls.”

But, as much as I hate a lot of these juvenile time-wasters online, I do like the very simple Lexicon very much, especially in its ability to compare up to five keywords or two-word phrases at once.

Thus, BoomTown is periodically going to post word comparisons here, always using Britney Spears as the control word, since she has been a perennial champ on Zeitgeist for a very long time.

So, today, it is presidential candidates–Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain.

As you can see, among users of Facebook, Britney holds up surprisingly well, even though she is going through a quieter, less-manic-head-shaving period of late.

(Click to make the images bigger)

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

No longer a “popwreck,” as the TMZ (TWX) celebrity site calls her so lovingly, her first words on the show are: “Can we have sex and then go shopping?” BoomTown loves poetic irony.

Here’s another snippet:

What, oh what, can we say about the latest inane quote from yet another Hollywood mogul about Apple’s Steve Jobs and his hugely popular iTunes and iPod products.

The latest piece of hoo-ha comes from former Disney CEO Michael Eisner (pictured below), pointing a finger at Apple as the real villain in the ongoing strike between the Writers Guild of America and Hollywood entertainment behemoths

At fault? Steve Jobs, of course!

Of course, it has been those greedy studio execs who have been shafting creators of content for decades now, by giving them a minuscule cut of revenues from DVDs and video cassettes.

Now that they are trying to do the same with income they will be getting as content moves to digital media, including the Web, cell phones and other new devices, Eisner comes out with an appalling analysis in an interview yesterday at the Media and Money conference.

Said Eisner:

“[Movie and television studios] make deals with Steve Jobs, who takes them to the cleaners. They make all these kinds of things, and who’s making money? Apple! They should get a piece of Apple. If I was a union, I’d be striking up wherever he is.”

Oh my goodness, considering how many businesses hang off the entertainment industry. Should the writers get revenues from the sales of television sets? Popcorn sold at the movies? From TV Guide? Of course not.

This comes after NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker noted in another interview recently that Apple owed him some money too for its success with the iPod.

“We don’t want to replace the dollars we were making in the analog world with pennies on the digital side,” said Zucker, who suggested entertainment companies should get a piece of the action. “Apple sold millions of dollars worth of hardware off the back of our content and made a lot of money.”

As I noted then: “That’s sort of like Britney Spears asking the tabloids to hand over a big bag of Benjamins for making such bank covering her riveting high jinks and crotch emergencies. Frankly, she has a better argument than Zucker.”

Eisner is even worse, making the score thus far: Britney 2, Hollywood 0.