BoomTown » content

While Microsoft Is Talking to Publishers, Paying Up to "Rent" Content for Bing to Thwart Google Is Unlikely

Kara Swisher — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:55:29 +0000

While it might be a dream of publishers–hard hit by the digital tsunami and blaming Google for the crisis–Microsoft is not likely to fork over the big bucks they’d need for exclusively indexing their content.

“Microsoft isn’t the monopoly guy anymore,” joked one source close to ongoing talks between Microsoft and publishers, most especially News Corp. (NWS) and Associated Press. “So, it’s not going to be the bank for publishers.”

While a spate of reports has Microsoft (MSFT) execs girding the globe offering gobs of cash to content companies to block Google (GOOG) and favor its Bing search service, sources close to the situation caution that it extremely unlikely that the software giant would pay giant sums for that pricey privilege that many inside the company think will not help it gain much search share.

“While there is a lot of mutual interest, it’s doubtful Microsoft is going to pay to ‘rent’ a corpus of content that it does not own,” said one source close to the situation. “The economics are not there for anyone.”

Nonetheless, that has not stopped AP and News Corp. from aggressive public agitating recently about how their content has been treated online, accusing Google of a wide range of crimes against them and threatening to “de-index” their content from the search giant.

For example, News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch–who has been on what seems like a televised campaign against the search giant–accused Google of pilfering stories from his publishing properties.

Presumably, by yanking Google’s access to them and offering it to Microsoft, balance will be restored in The Force.

Except, not so fast, since such a deal would end up costing Microsoft a fortune, which is why several sources said its execs don’t seem to be keen on doing that without getting a lot in return.

The swirl of chatter about it, these sources said, is coming from publishers–who initiated the very early-stage talks–who are keen on playing Microsoft and Google against each other, in hopes the warring tech titans will loosen their fat wallets to battle each other.

News Corp., for instance, has been looking for ways to replace the three-year, $900 million (or less) Google/MySpace search deal that expires next year. It has been talking to Microsoft about some sort of exclusivity since this summer, but News Corp. executives also say they’re happy to work with Google, if it was willing to pay up. But what would either company really be buying?

Another source used YouTube as an example of Google getting a mass of videos, when it paid $1.65 billion in 2006 for the online video company.

“That made sense, since Google got all that content to use,” said the source. “But it is hard to see publishers getting the advertising economics and revenue they want from Microsoft for lending their content out, even exclusively.”

Still a third source noted that the only way such a deal could be envisioned by Microsoft is if a majority of publishers were able to band together to block Google from indexing their sites.

“If it was everyone, that might become interesting,” said the source. “But even that has issues, since Microsoft is not interested in having exclusive news for a temporary period of time by overpaying for it.”

Added the source, noting how much money Microsoft has lost in its online efforts so far:

“It’s essentially a marketing expense, and there are a lot better ways to spend that money to win market share than giving it to publishers.”

(Full disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

AOL CEO Armstrong Talks About New Branding Effort and the Investor Road Show! (Plus Internal Aol. Logo Video)

Kara Swisher — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:02:05 +0000

After AOL CEO Tim Armstrong unveiled the newly punctuated AOL logo–big A, little o, little l, period–last night, he got on the horn with BoomTown to chitty-chat about the change in image and, more pertinently, how it’s going on the road show to sell investors on the soon-to-be independent company.

First off–while many suggested it–Armstrong said he never considered dumping the AOL moniker for another name, in an effort to rid the company of the 1990s feel of the brand.

“I wanted to keep AOL as the the brand, because bottom line there was a lot of good will around the name,” he said, noting the billions of dollars invested in it. “As a consumer brand, there was a high level of affection.”

Of course, I have a lot of nostalgic affection for Beanie Babies and the kids from “Saved by the Bell.” But, in no way does that mean I want them back, especially Screech.

But Armstrong prefers to use the revival of the Apple (AAPL) brand as a better comparison. “We think that kind of comeback is the way we’re looking at it,” he said.

In that case: Calling Steve Jobs, stat!

Of course, the AOL name has also forever been linked with Time Warner (TWX)–its current owner–in perhaps one of the worst mergers in history, another ding on the brand.

Armstrong agreed that corporate debacle left bad taste in the mouths of investors, which is one of the things he has to change in the road show he is now on to sell the new and improved AOL.

And, while he is only two days in, Armstrong said he is encouraged by the response.

“A lot of initial reaction is what we expected and we have had to do an update on AOL to change perceptions,” he noted. “People did not know we were doing so much…and, I think, they really like our strategy.”

That would be a leaner, meaner staff with a big focus on content.

Still, Armstrong said, investors are going to take some convincing. “Basically, they want to know where we are on the AOL turnaround and are asking us if we can get this company growing again,” he said. “AOL is still the ‘Show Me’ state.”

Actually, that’s Missouri. Perhaps a better goal would be Florida: The Sunshine State!

In any case, Armstrong said it will be critical that AOL show investors that its change is authentic, innovative and meaningful.

The idea of transformation is obviously and sadly clear with AOL’s recent announcement of massive layoffs and the deleveraging of assets.

In other words, it’s not your father’s bloated online company.

On the more positive side, Armstrong said communicating a new brand image and accompanying logo–whose motto is: “one logo/countless ways to reveal” and will include a marketing and advertising campaign–is also key.

“We want to use the new logo to highlight other things within the service,” he said. “And that would be all the things that you can pivot to that come after the dot.”

Here is a first look at a video of Armstrong talking to his employees about the new logo–and, no, I have no idea what the fawn, the goldfish or the weird-looking ghosts mean–as well as images of some older AOL ones (only the yellow running man is staying put):

[ See post to watch video ]

Sphere Leader Has Exited AOL–But Staying on as "Special" Venture Advisor

Kara Swisher — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:30:28 +0000

Tony Conrad, CEO and co-founder of Sphere–the contextually relevant content engine AOL bought in the spring of 2008 for upward of $25 million–left the Time Warner (TWX) online unit last month, several sources have told BoomTown in recent weeks.

But, in an effort by AOL’s CEO Tim Armstrong to hold onto entrepreneurial talent, Conrad (pictured above) has agreed to become “Special Advisor” to its AOL Ventures Unit, headed by Jon Brod.

Conrad, who also works as a partner at San Francisco venture firm True Ventures, is also apparently looking to launch a new start-up.

These many moves have now been confirmed by a blog post–obtained by BoomTown–set to be published by Conrad at Sphere, which has recently changed its name to Surphace (a goofy moniker that still makes me weep, and not for joy).

Titled, “Next,” the post will also be appearing on the True Ventures site.

In it, Conrad outlined the changes and also gave big thanks all around.

You can read the whole thing below. In the post, Conrad noted that “I also find myself with a burning need to start another company…[and] I’ve decided that I need to move on from Sphere to figure it out.”

Sphere was founded in 2005 and raised about $4.25 million from many investors, some of which included Radar Partners, Trident Capital and well-known Web players Scott Kurnit and Will Hearst.

Conrad, who was involved with Webmail and RSS aggregator Oddpost (acquired by Yahoo in 2004), is also on the board of Automattic/WordPress, the blog publishing system this site uses.

This kind of history gives him a lot of Silicon Valley cred to help AOL, which also recently hired former Yahoo (YHOO) exec Brad Garlinghouse to run its communications arm and be its “CEO of Silicon Valley.”

Both will be working with Brod, who came to AOL via its acquisition of hyperlocal community news start-up Patch Media.

Brod has previously worked closely with Armstrong, who was a major Patch investor.

All these players will have their hands full trying to push AOL’s reputation among entrepreneurs, which is–how can I put it delicately?–pretty nonexistent.

But boosting innovation will be key to success as AOL prepares to spin off from Time Warner later in the year.

And that was not exactly helped by its recently released slate of board picks, who are a little light on fast-paced, Web 2.0 entrepreneurial skills.

So, keeping someone like Conrad in the AOL tent is a good move, especially since several similar execs at start-ups bought by the online giant have left.

They include Michael Jones of Userplane, who is now COO of News Corp. (NWS) social networking unit MySpace, as well as many others.

Here is a video interview I did with Conrad in mid-2007 (which also includes a visit with GigaOm’s Om Malik):

[ See post to watch video ]

And here is Conrad’s blog post:

Next

It’s been almost five years since Martin Remy, Steve Neiker, Toni Schneider and I started working on Sphere. For me, it’s around 10% of a life. And it’s a time when I find myself thinking a lot about a particular question: What do I want to do next?

In 2005, I had the good fortune of being on the founding team of Sphere and joining True Ventures simultaneously. I always thought that I’d eventually focus all of my attention on one or the other, but both were too much fun and I guess I’m selfish in that way. As time passed, I went deeper into each role and I never got around to choosing one or the other. It worked out nicely. True is on its second fund and Sphere had a successful sale to AOL in 2008. Most importantly, Sphere’s business and team are both thriving within AOL. While I’m proud of my contributions to both, the heroes in this equation are Martin, Steve, Toni, Shea DiDonna, Braughm Ricke, Om Malik, Puneet Agarwal, John Burke, Phil Black, Jon Callaghan, Marty Moe, Bill Wilson and AOL–they trusted and empowered me to pursue both. I am extremely grateful.

As I’ve thought through the question of what’s next, I’ve realized that I love the complementary perspectives acquired from building a company as an entrepreneur and investor. They are symbiotic roles and it’s really hard to say which has influenced me more. While my role at True as a Venture Partner will continue to deepen (because there is nothing more rewarding than working with people you admire and trust), I also find myself with a burning need to start another company. I’ve discovered my formula and doing both makes me happiest.

As for my next company, I’m not sure what the answer to that question is, but I’ve decided that I need to move on from Sphere (now Surphace) to figure it out. This may feel like old news as I’ve been working to make myself obsolete as Josh Guttman transitioned into the CEO role. My decision is easy as I know that Surphace is in excellent hands. I wouldn’t feel comfortable leaving if I didn’t believe that Josh was the right leader for the business today. He’s a natural leader and has a strategy for the future that I believe is going to accelerate growth for Surphace and AOL. I couldn’t be more pleased for Josh and excited for the Surphace team.

As for my thoughts about Surphace and AOL’s future, I’m more optimistic than ever. We joined AOL at an opportune time. AOL is doing what great, sustainable businesses do every so often – they’re reinventing themselves. As the business model of the oldest and one of the biggest Internet businesses evolves, Sphere/Surphace has become an important piece of their strategy to reach across and engage the web. In the past year, we’ve had an insiders’ view into how AOL’s new leadership team has moved aggressively to engage their audience (new vertical focused websites; a focus on engagement and not page-views for page-views sake; hiring leading journalistic talent when others downsized; acquisitions in the local content space; shorter development cycles with an emphasis on release, iterate and release). There is nothing like winning and the AOL publishing business is winning. As a result, I’m pleased to also announce that I’ve agreed to serve as a Special Advisor to AOL Ventures as they reinvent themselves. I am thrilled at this opportunity to evolve my relationship.

I want to give a huge thanks to the people who’ve made the last few years what they were: my family tops the list, an entrepreneur is only as good as their support system and this is my secret sauce. My co-founders, Martin and Steve, who trusted me to play a role in helping them get the tech they invented the exposure it deserved. Toni and Phil who taught me about generosity at a moment when I was able to learn. Matt Mullenweg who opened up my thinking of how a start-up operates. Marty and Bill who have been consistently supportive since Day One–I can’t underscore enough how much I appreciate the manner in which they’ve empowered us to thrive in an appropriately independent environment. They have treated me (and the Sphere team) with enormous respect for which I am both thankful and flattered. The original Sphere team, the current Surphace team who have embraced AOL. Our investors and advisors who supported and helped shape our vision. The True team and entrepreneurs who have taught me about sacrifice, vision, execution and the value of pursuing your dreams–and, of course, Lewis Dvorkin, Kevin Lockland and Bill who paid us the nicest compliment of all in offering to acquire our company and then doing so.

It’s been a thrilling, at times difficult, always rewarding and lucky ride I’ve been on. Thanks to all.

Exclusive: CBS Digital CEO Smith to Leave to Start a Silicon Valley Advisory Firm (First Customer? CBS)

Kara Swisher — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:00:25 +0000

Quincy Smith, the high-profile CEO of CBS Interactive, is planning on leaving his job at the media giant in January to start an advisory firm in Silicon Valley, according to several sources.

But, in an interesting twist, Smith (pictured here) will remain an adviser to CBS (CBS) under a multiyear contract, sources added, making it his first client.

UPDATE: CBS confirmed the move BoomTown earlier reported, in a press release below.

Apparently, Smith will focus intently on video monetization, authentication and other digital issues for the company. CBS is calling it a “transition to a new role,” in its official statement.

CBS Interactive President Neil Ashe will take over Smith’s duties, but without the CEO title, which was a relatively new one for Smith.

CBS is television’s most popular network again this season and its interactive properties are among the top ten in aggregate in both traffic and video.

“I’m very pleased to extend our relationship with Quincy, who is one of the finest minds working in Interactive media today,” said Leslie Moonves, president and CEO of CBS Corporation, in a statement. “Quincy helped put CBS Interactive on the map and we are now a Top 10 presence in premium content.”

Said Smith: “It’s a huge honor to count CBS as my first client. In three years, this company has grown its Interactive profile immeasurably, and yet there is so much more to be done. I love CBS and its people and I look forward to working closely with them to help CBS become the premier video content company, regardless of platform or screen.”

MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka wrote in May about the possibility of Smith departing CBS, where he has worked since late 2006.

As Kafka wrote, Smith has long wanted to start a new media consultancy and has also wanted to return to Silicon Valley.

In fact, the man BoomTown has dubbed the “Energizer Bunny of the Web” was an early employee at Netscape Communications in the Web 1.0 heyday, tried his hand at venture capital and worked on tech deals for media banking firm Allen & Co.

At CBS during the Web 2.0 era, Smith has been aggressively guiding the company into a series of transactions, including the $280 million acquisition of Last.fm in 2007 and the $1.8 billion purchase of CNET last year.

Smith has also been involved with digital issues related to CBS’s strong television assets. He has championed–unlike other media giants–widely distributing CBS content online and keeping control of its advertising sales.

People close to Smith say he often talks of trying to emulate Dan Case, the late brother of AOL founder Steve Case and the former CEO of Hambrecht & Quist, one of the more influential among Silicon Valley investment banks during the first Web boom.

Sources said that the time has now come and that the move is expected to be announced very soon.

It is also likely that Smith’s top business development exec at CBS, Mike Marquez, will also leave to join him at the still unnamed firm.

BoomTown suggestion for a name: Q 3.0.

Here’s Smith in a cameo for a video spoof after he paid $5 million for Wallstrip, the funny business video site which has since been severely sidelined:

QUINCY SMITH SIGNS MULTI-YEAR ADVISORY AGREEMENT WITH CBS CORPORATION

CEO of CBS Interactive to Depart in January 2010 but Will Continue Working with Company on Video Content Monetization, Among Other Projects

CBS Corporation announced today that Quincy Smith, Chief Executive Officer of its CBS Interactive division, will transition to a new role with the company beginning January 2010 as he starts an independent advisory business. In this new role, Smith will advise CBS on strategies and opportunities for growth across the Company’s interactive businesses. Smith, who had led CBS Interactive since November 2006, will remain with CBS Corporation as the division’s CEO through the end of 2009. Neil Ashe will continue as President of the division.

Smith will continue to be closely involved in CBS’s initiatives related to next-generation monetization of video, including oversight of the Company’s effort to explore authentication as a new, additive method of distribution. He will also advise on partnering with technology companies to expand CBS’s interactive presence, as well as explore new growth opportunities related to content, services and applications.

“I’m very pleased to extend our relationship with Quincy, who is one of the finest minds working in Interactive media today,” said Leslie Moonves, President and CEO of CBS Corporation. “Quincy helped put CBS Interactive on the map and we are now a Top 10 presence in premium content. His entrepreneurial spirit and his passion for the business have helped this Company attract some of the most creative minds working in digital media. I know he will continue to be successful in all he’s yet to do, and we’re very happy to have Quincy working with us in this new role at CBS.”

“It’s a huge honor to count CBS as my first client,” said Smith. “In three years, this company has grown its Interactive profile immeasurably, and yet there is so much more to be done. I love CBS and its people and I look forward to working closely with them to help CBS become the premier video content company, regardless of platform or screen. I especially want to thank Leslie for his leadership and counsel, and for giving me this opportunity to continue working with CBS.”

Smith came to CBS Interactive in 2006, and in three years helped build a division that has become a top ten property in terms of worldwide visitors and video views. CBS’s acquisition of CNET in 2008 added industry-leading Web sites like CNET.com, GameSpot, TV.com, chow.com and BNET.com to a portfolio that had already included top ranking properties like cbs.com, cbssports.com and last.fm. Today, CBS Interactive sites span nearly every category of premium content on the Web, across news, sports and entertainment.

Previously, Smith was an executive with Allen & Company, where he was involved with multiple transactions and advised companies such as Comcast, Google and CBS. Prior to Allen & Company, Smith was a Founding Partner of The Barksdale Group, a venture capital firm. Previously, Smith spent five years at Netscape where he ran Investor Relations and Corporate Development and played a role in over 20 joint ventures, investments and acquisitions including Netscape’s ultimate sale to AOL. Prior to that, Smith was an investment banker for Morgan Stanley.

Exclusive: Microsoft's MSN Is in Early Talks With MySpace About Music Tie-Up

Kara Swisher — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:34:47 +0000

Microsoft’s MSN is in preliminary talks with MySpace about using the social networking site’s music service, MySpace Music, to help power music offerings on the giant portal.

While sources at both companies cautioned that the talks are still early, Microsoft (MSFT)–which has its own music site that it programs with original and partnered content–execs are interested in goosing it.

That’s because MSN Music consistently ranks substantially lower than other big online music properties in terms of traffic, while MySpace Music is always near the top.

Sources said Microsoft execs don’t think they can do as good a job as MySpace is doing and don’t see the point in striking needed but complex deals with music labels, which the News Corp. (NWS) property already has.

In an April report by comScore (SCOR), for example, MySpace Music was No. 2, just behind AOL Music, with 27.4 million unique monthly visitors. MSN Music was No. 6 with just 7.4 million.

Nonetheless, music is an area MSN cannot lag so badly in, given that entertainment is one of the key categories it is focusing on as it preps for a major renovation of the portal.

As BoomTown wrote in mid-July about a wide variety of changes coming to MSN:

MSN, Microsoft’s online portal, is also preparing a major redo of what U.S. and, possibly, international consumers will see, as it doubles down on five key content verticals, while cutting back on others.

In a new focus that will start to be apparent in the next month, MSN will heavily add to its News, Sports, Finance, Lifestyle and Entertainment offerings, weaving more data from [its search service] Bing into the mix.

“It’s a decision to make it so MSN does less better,” said one source close to the situation. “So there will be a focus of attention on a smaller number of categories in which we can be either #1 or #2 in, rather than #4 or #5.”

It is not clear exactly what the financial terms would be in any tie-up between MSN and MySpace, which could include licensing of content and other services related to music.

But such a deal is not unusual–MSN’s sports site is powered by Fox Sports, which is another News Corp. property.

And such a partnership would also key into concepts that MySpace CEO Owen Van Natta outlined in a recent interview onstage at the Web 2.0 conference.

Key among them was boosting music and entertainment overall and making them the prime focus in the site’s efforts at reinvigorating itself, as well as expanding distribution of MySpace.

In fact, MySpace recently bought social music service iLike to expand its distribution all over the Web, for example–including on Facebook, the longtime social networking rival from which MySpace is now trying mightily to differentiate itself.

In his appearance, Van Natta also unveiled a music video hub, the ability by users to buy music using Apple (AAPL) iTunes, and a set of better analytical tools–called MySpace Music Artist Dashboard–to help artists figure out how to best work with fans.

But MySpace needs more than these, and a link with Microsoft would provide it with a traffic gusher, since MSN’s main page remains one of the most trafficked sites on the Web.

If such a distribution partnership were struck, it would also raise the question of what will happen regarding MySpace’s negotiations with Google (GOOG) over renewal of their search deal, which expires next summer.

Dissatisfaction over the pricey three-year deal has been expressed by both sides; their mutual grumbling is one of the biggest open secrets in Silicon Valley.

Doing a search deal with Bing is the obvious and only alternative, although few expect any agreement to be as rich as the one MySpace did with Google in 2006 for $900 million.

Interestingly, it was recently reported that both Google and Facebook were bolstering music search and sales offerings, and Google’s apparently includes the use of the iLike player.

In other words: This could get really complicated.

Execs at both MySpace and Microsoft I reached out to declined to comment.

(Full disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

Update: Is Microsoft Poised to Integrate Twitter Into Bing?

Kara Swisher — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:38:03 +0000

According to sources, Microsoft is close to striking a nonexclusive data-mining deal with Twitter to integrate the microblogging service’s full feed into the results of its Bing search service.

News of the deal, which was still being worked on by engineers and execs at both the software giant and the start-up as late as yesterday, could even come as early as today at the Web 2.0 Summit conference in San Francisco.

Qi Lu, the head of Microsoft’s online services division, is being interviewed at the event at 11:30 am PDT.

Note: Lu is scheduled to appear onstage after Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Carol Bartz, who is now too sick to attend, the company said. She also missed Yahoo’s third-quarter conference call due to an unspecified illness.

Thus, Lu is the main event of Web 2.0 tomorrow morning and it would be a good place to make a big announcement, if the talks are successful.

But sources close to the situation caution that the deal could still run into a snag and was not yet complete, although it seems more likely than not that a deal will soon be struck with Microsoft (MSFT) first and then Google (GOOG), which is the other company Twitter has been negotiating with.

BoomTown had previously reported that Twitter was in advanced talks with both the search rivals about just such a real-time search arrangement.

There could be other possibilities on the table, said sources, such as one of the big companies advertising on Twitter or any number of other Twitter partnerships with either one.

When asked about the talks onstage at Web 2.0 yesterday, Twitter CEO Evan Williams turned coy, according to numerous reports, joking “Whose deals?”

But, in fact, Twitter, which is based in San Francisco, is very much engaged in dealmaking in this regard.

Here is what I wrote previously, as to what and why:

Sources said a number of scenarios are being discussed to compensate Twitter for its huge and potentially valuable trove of real-time and content-sharing information, generated from the data stream of billions of tweets from its 54 million monthly users.

These include a number of structures, including a payment of several million dollars to Twitter, along with various revenue-sharing proposals that would give Twitter a piece of the revenue made from search results.

The deals, stressed sources close to the situation, are nonexclusive, especially because Twitter’s management is keen to remain independent and also nonpartisan in the growing search battle between Google and Microsoft.

This means Yahoo–which recently struck a search-technology and online-advertising partnership with Microsoft–could also license Twitter’s feed to make its search results even more robust, although Boomtown could not determine if the company is in talks with the San Francisco start-up.

Sources said it is also possible that no agreement would be reached with either company.

And execs at Twitter, Microsoft and Google had no comment when asked about talks.

But doing these kinds of data deals with big search players does make a lot of sense, since it would be hard for Twitter to turbocharge its own search engine without running into the big cash-laden guns at both Google and Microsoft, which recently launched its new Bing search service.

Twitter is, instead, seeking to create a large open platform, which many could plug into, from search engines to marketers to publishers to developers.

Twitter has also been considering offering premium services to these groups and is contemplating some form of advertising offering.

But, most of all, Silicon Valley’s hot start-up is focusing now on spurring growth and engagement, along with fine-tuning its product offering.

Being deeply integrated into big search services would give Twitter a huge footprint.

Microsoft had already done a small experiment this past summer integrating Twitter data into search results, starting with tweets of bloggers like me.

How much indexing of its data Twitter will allow is unclear, but the company has certainly bought itself time to think carefully about all its options, given that it now has a lot of money in the bank.

Late last month, Twitter raised another $100 million in new funding, after already having raised $55 million.

This has given it a $1 billion valuation, despite negligible revenue.

The valuation also effectively stated that the innovative company was pretty much putting itself out of play to be acquired and is very interested in forging its own destiny.

Both Google and Microsoft execs have contemplated the idea of buying Twitter in the past, although no serious talks ever moved forward.

If they both strike data deals with Twitter, they will get the next best thing–an ability to offer all the information disseminated on Twitter in search results.

Twitter Talking Separately to Microsoft and Google About Big Data-Mining Deals

Kara Swisher — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 07:48:06 +0000

Is there gold in them thar tweets?

Maybe so, because–according to sources familiar with the situation–Twitter is in advanced talks with Microsoft and Google separately about striking data-mining deals, in which the companies would license a full feed from the microblogging service that could then be integrated into the results of their competing search engines.

Sources said a number of scenarios are being discussed to compensate Twitter for its huge and potentially valuable trove of real-time and content-sharing information, generated from the data stream of billions of tweets from its 54 million monthly users.

These include a number of structures, including a payment of several million dollars to Twitter, along with various revenue-sharing proposals that would give Twitter a piece of the revenue made from search results.

The deals, stressed sources close to the situation, are nonexclusive, especially because Twitter’s management is keen to remain independent and also nonpartisan in the growing search battle between Google (GOOG) and Microsoft (MSFT).

This means Yahoo (YHOO)–which recently struck a search-technology and online-advertising partnership with Microsoft–could also license Twitter’s feed to make its search results even more robust, although Boomtown could not determine if the company is in talks with the San Francisco start-up.

Sources said it is also possible that no agreement would be reached with either company.

And execs at Twitter, Microsoft and Google had no comment when asked about talks.

But doing these kinds of data deals with big search players does make a lot of sense, since it would be hard for Twitter to turbocharge its own search engine without running into the big cash-laden guns at both Google and Microsoft, which recently launched its new Bing search service.

Twitter is, instead, seeking to create a large open platform, which many could plug into, from search engines to marketers to publishers to developers.

Twitter has also been considering offering premium services to these groups and is contemplating some form of advertising offering.

But, most of all, Silicon Valley’s hot start-up is focusing now on spurring growth and engagement, along with fine-tuning its product offering.

Being deeply integrated into big search services would give Twitter a huge footprint.

Microsoft had already done a small experiment this past summer integrating Twitter data into search results, starting with tweets of bloggers like me.

How much indexing of its data Twitter will allow is unclear, but the company has certainly bought itself time to think carefully about all its options, given that it now has a lot of money in the bank.

Late last month, Twitter raised another $100 million in new funding, after already having raised $55 million.

This has given it a $1 billion valuation, despite negligible revenue.

The valuation also effectively stated that the innovative company was pretty much putting itself out of play to be acquired and is very interested in forging its own destiny.

Both Google and Microsoft execs have contemplated the idea of buying Twitter in the past, although no serious talks ever moved forward.

If they both strike data deals with Twitter, they will get the next best thing–an ability to offer all the information disseminated on Twitter in search results.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

The Web Helped Kill Gourmet? If So, Now I Hate the Internet!

Kara Swisher — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:39:24 +0000

Say it ain’t so.

Having fully embraced the Internet–sometimes to much disdain from old media colleagues back in the day–since the early 1990s as the way of the future in publishing, and even going to far as to abandon a career in print forever some years ago, BoomTown is bereft at the news yesterday that Gourmet magazine was being shish-kababbed.

Gourmet has been, since I started reading it as a young girl, one of the more perfect magazines–full of glamorous travel locales, stunning photos of food and sumptuous prose, all beautifully edited.

Let’s all agree first to blame owner Condé Nast, the famed magazine unit of privately held Advance Publications, for deciding to shutter the elegant and iconic Gourmet–which has been around since 1941–after the November issue.

While circulation remained steady at Gourmet at just under one million monthly paying subscribers, Condé Nast Chief Executive Officer Chuck Townsend pointed to a fall-off in advertising spending by luxury brands that resulted in a money-losing mess.

But, in a follow-up piece in The Wall Street Journal, titled “Gourmet Magazine’s Demise Gives Readers Empty Feeling,” plunging newsstand sales were also noted, apparently due in part to the impact of the Web.

“Gourmet has had to compete with food-related Web sites, which are often free and contain up-to-the-minute content,” said the Journal article.

In other words, the same thing that is occurring in all arenas–from food to tech to fashion to news–was left unsaid.

As in: The scourge of the Internet, laying waste to all those it comes in contact with.

But I dearly hope that this episode with Gourmet does not become another one of those death-by-digital cautionary tales, a case study that no one can sustain this kind of highbrow, expensive-to-make print media anymore, even the free-spending types at Condé Nast.

I am not sure that’s exactly true, though, since the analog experience Gourmet provided was not the same as what’s on the Web, which is what probably kept its circulation steady over the years.

It was clearly an issue of the econalypse–obviously helped along by the fact that people’s reading habits are shifting to online, thought that’s not the root issue.

That’s why Townsend added that Gourmet might live on in books, on television and, most likely of all, on the Internet.

That Gourmet already has a dullish Web site was not mentioned since it is free and not particularly different from the magazine–a decent repurposing, but a repurposing nonetheless.

Now that there is no magazine to fill that Web void, it will be interesting to see if more could be done online with the iconic foodie brand.

Or not.

(That September cover picture above is a quince, by the way, which most would never really know without–um, er–the help of Gourmet.)

Fox Slaps Back (Legally) at Redbox

Kara Swisher — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:03:13 +0000

In the ongoing fight between Redbox–which rents DVDs from kiosks for $1–and major Hollywood studios, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment just filed a brief to dismiss Redbox’s lawsuit against it.

Said Fox in a statement:

“Redbox’s legal claims are fatally flawed. Fox’s filing today makes clear that, in the end, the case is all about Redbox’s refusal to make a business deal on general terms similar to those paid by others in this industry. Instead, Redbox has insisted that Fox sell DVDs to them through distributors, on the date they demand, at the price they want to pay. Unable to get the terms it wanted at the bargaining table, Redbox instead decided to file this meritless lawsuit.”

In a statement, Redbox president Mitch Lowe responded to the filing by stating that Fox was anti-consumer.

“Twentieth Century Fox continues its pursuit to prohibit consumer access to new release DVDs at affordable prices…Redbox remains steadfast in our commitment to protecting consumers’ rights and to providing our customers the DVDs they want, where they want and at the low price they want.”

In two briefs filed this afternoon, refuting Redbox’s allegations, Fox is asserting that it has not refused to provide DVDs to the outfit and has tried to negotiate a deal.

Under contention between the two are the price and terms of when DVDs of hit movies can be released to Redbox.

Redbox has asserted that Fox is violating antitrust laws and copyright misuse in not selling DVDs to the company.

Fox denied that claim in the brief, noting that Redbox simply did not want to pay up in order to get certain DVDs on the “street date,” as do other retailers.

Fox is one of three studios that have become embroiled in lawsuits with Redbox.

Located in Oakbrook Terrace, Ill., and is wholly owned by Bellevue, Wash.-based Coinstar (CSTR), Redbox is seeing strong rental growth due to its $1-a-night price for first-run movies, which the company distributes via its 15,000 freestanding machines in supermarkets and convenience stores, as well as in big chains like McDonald’s (MCD), Wal-Mart (WMT) and Walgreens (WAG).

Its fascinating legal battle with the studios centers around the issues of steep discounting, release windowing and the price for premium content.

Redbox recently sued Warner Home Video, owned by Time Warner (TWX), for denying it the opportunity to buy DVDs without being required to wait a month or more to rent them out.

It has previously gone after NBC Universal’s Universal Studios Home Entertainment, owned by GE (GE) and Fox, a unit of News Corp. (NWS), for similar release restrictions.

The trio’s movies make up 40 percent of the DVD rental market.

In its brief today, Fox noted that it was willing to sell to Redbox directly, rather than via wholesalers, but that talks collapsed over pricing issues.

And while some studios are holding fast to fighting price declines represented by consumer-friendly, idiot-proof tech solutions like Redbox, others are not.

Redbox has inked deals with Sony (SNE); Lions Gate (LGF); Paramount, a unit of Viacom (VIA); and also gets movies from Walt Disney (DIS).

Here are two briefs filed by Fox in U.S. District Court in Delaware, the first, a motion to dismiss the lawsuit by Redbox, and the second to transfer venue to California:

FINAL Opening Brief in Support of Fox’s Motion to Dismiss

Redacted Transfer Venue Brief

(Full disclosure: Fox is owned by News Corp., which also owns Dow Jones, owner of this site.)

Scribd CEO Trip Adler Speaks!

Kara Swisher — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:01:24 +0000

Yesterday, BoomTown checked in with Docstoc CEO Jason Nazar about the document sharing start-up.

Today, it’s Trip Adler, CEO of its much larger rival, Scribd.

Launched in early 2007, the San Francisco-based online publishing company allows customers to share a wider range of documents, including books and manuscripts. It now claims to have 10 million documents uploaded.

Recently, some of those landed Scribd in a bit of hot water, with a lawsuit filed by an author alleging copyright violations. The lawsuit claimed that the start-up “built a technology that’s broken barriers to copyright infringement on a global scale.”

No surprise, Scribd denied the allegations.

“Scribd does not want unauthorized content on our site,” the company said. “We built the industry’s leading (filtering) technology to prevent the upload of unauthorized documents. This is one of the reasons why best-selling authors and many of the world’s largest publishers have chosen to put their works on Scribd.”

That includes a deal this summer with Simon & Schuster, a division of CBS (CBS), to sell digital copies of its books, offering publishers more control over pricing and how works are distributed.

Such efforts to become a kind of YouTube for text is certainly part of the plan for Scribd, which has garnered about $13 million in funding, including from Redpoint Ventures.

Of course, YouTube owner Google (GOOG) also has designs in the arena–although it has become embroiled in loud legal battles over the issue with publishers. And so does Kindle-creator Amazon (AMZN), of course.

Those are mighty rivals, along with the need to police itself.

Scribd’s traffic has declined from about 60 million unique monthly visitors to half that recently as it has tried to get a good handle on piracy and other reasons. That traffic has since recovered a bit to about 40 million.

The company has also been adding features, including making the site more social, in order to goose online document and book sales and advertising.

Here’s the video interview with Adler about the business:

[ See post to watch video ]

AOL Readies Board Picks for Spinoff–While Holding Off Search Suitors (Plus, BoomTown Director Choices!)

Kara Swisher — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:01:35 +0000

According to sources close to the situation, AOL has been busy selecting the board for the company, which is still set to spin itself off by year’s end–even as it slows down a decision on a new search deal with either current partner Google or a more emboldened Microsoft.

AOL is using Spencer Stuart in the search for directors, led by well-known headhunter Jim Citrin, sources said, and the company has already settled on several outside candidates.

The final board is likely to have about 10 members, and up to a dozen.

At least one of those seats will go to CEO Tim Armstrong, with one or two more claimed by its current corporate owner, Time Warner (TWX).

AOL and Time Warner made their own wish list of potential directors earlier this year, but some people are also lobbying the company to join the board.

BoomTown is working on discovering all those names, but sources added that the candidates being looked at are a mix of personalities culled from the media, advertising and Web worlds.

Among the key attributes: More presumably fast-forward and innovative Silicon Valley types that can help burnish AOL’s tarnished tech cred.

Here are some of my picks:

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Guitar Hero CEO Dan Rosensweig, WordPress founder Matt Mullenweg (actually, AOL should buy the start-up), eBay (EBAY) CEO John Donahoe, LinkedIn Chairman Reid Hoffman or CEO Jeff Weiner, Juniper Networks (JNPR) CEO Kevin Johnson, Netflix (NFLX) CEO Reed Hastings, and former AOL iconic exec Ted Leonsis.

And, just for fun, News Corp. (NWS) digital don (and ousted former AOL head) Jon Miller or former Yahoo President Sue Decker.

(I might also add former AOL exec, Netscape co-founder and all-around entrepreneur Marc Andreessen, but if he joins another tech/Web board, he is going to get splinters.)

That’s because Armstrong has set a strategy centered around the turbocharging of online content, powered by a more flexible platform and paid for by goosing AOL’s graphical advertising business.

This puts the online icon–once a powerhouse and now not so much, having operated inside Time Warner since its merger early in this decade–in more serious competition with Yahoo (YHOO).

Yahoo now dominates content on the Web, with powerful news, sports and finance sites, and has recently been trying to reinvigorate its brand. This week, it launched a new marketing campaign with the motto, “It’s Y!ou.”

Yahoo also recently struck a search technology and advertising partnership with Microsoft (MSFT), which has now aimed its efforts at AOL.

According to sources, Microsoft execs have been aggressively courting AOL to switch its search business from Google (GOOG).

The search behemoth has long been AOL’s partner in what sources at both companies said has been a productive and lucrative relationship.

Armstrong is also a former top exec at Google, which many at the company hope will further cement its chances.

And while the renewal of that deal does not officially need to be struck until late next year, sources add that Google has already prepared and offered what it considers an attractive new deal for AOL.

But, much to Google’s chagrin, with a focus on the spinoff and preparations for some more cost-cutting in the months ahead, AOL has decided not to accept it yet and is not likely to anytime soon.

While hedging the situation in a recent video interview with MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka, Armstrong has also recently met with Microsoft execs, sources said, who have discussed a number of partnership options with him, including a tighter relationship with its MSN content properties.

“There’s no need to rush, especially since there is already a lot on AOL’s plate,” said one source close to the situation. “And, since it has options, AOL is going to take time considering them.”

(For more on Armstrong’s thinking, here’s a link to another video interview I did with Armstrong while both of us were in Germany today, in which he talked about the ad market and AOL’s strategy, but was cagey about being more specific.)

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

AOL CEO Tim Armstrong Speaks (Though He's a Cagey One)!

Kara Swisher — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:38:20 +0000

Here is a video interview I did today with AOL CEO Tim Armstrong in Germany–really!–where we both were appearing at a digital marketing conference.

In it, the former Google (GOOG) exec talked about a range of things, including the possibility of charging for content, innovating in the graphical advertising market, competition with Yahoo (YHOO) and the upcoming spinoff of the Time Warner (TWX) unit.

But Armstrong did not talk about merging or other big search deals with other companies–including Microsoft (MSFT), which I wrote about here, along with AOL’s search for directors.

In the interview, I also insulted the famous AOL yellow running man, even though the mascot icon apparently just won “a vote to be inducted into the Advertising Walk of Fame, beating out 25 rivals, including Ronald McDonald and the Vlasic Stork,” according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

There must be hope yet for AOL if it bested a pickle-loving bird and a freaky clown.

Here’s the interview:

[ See post to watch video ]

Former Bebo CEO and AOL Top Exec Shields and Shine's Murdoch to Form Interactive Content Start-Up

Kara Swisher — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:53:45 +0000

Former Bebo CEO Joanna Shields and Shine Group Chairman and CEO Elisabeth Murdoch have formed a content start-up to produce across media platforms, both online and offline, with a focus on social engagement, according to sources.

The new venture, which does not have a name, is being financially backed both by Shine and by Shields, who left AOL this summer after running its community and communications division.

Shields engineered the sale of social networking site Bebo to the Time Warner (TWX) online unit for $850 million in early 2008.

Sources said this new company, based in London, will invest, develop and partner to create a variety of content offerings that also incorporate interactive and social networking elements. It will also help the vast array of Shine content in interactive efforts.

Shields will be CEO of the start-up, which will operate under Shine, an independent and private television production company with programming in 24 countries.

In the U.S., for example, its Reveille unit is responsible for such shows as “Ugly Betty” and “The Biggest Loser.” (Both of which are BoomTown faves.)

Shine’s fast growth has been spearheaded by Murdoch, who is the daughter of News Corp. (NWS) head Rupert Murdoch.

But Elisabeth Murdoch has struck out on her own in forming Shine, which already has shown a strong interactive bent for a television company.

The combination of television and Web content is an arena that many are once again jumping into, aiming at creating branded interactive content, fueled by advertising.

Former NBC Universal exec Ben Silverman–who sold Reveille to Murdoch, in fact–has recently left his programming job at the television network to start a similar kind of company with longtime entertainment and Internet kingpin Barry Diller of IAC/InteractiveCorp (IACI).

And former ABC programming and Yahoo exec Lloyd Braun also runs a television and Internet production company with longtime Hollywood player Gail Berman, including recently creating the Wonderwall celebrity news site for Microsoft (MSFT).

In addition, Yahoo (YHOO) and a spate of small content start-ups, as well as big media companies, are all trying to figure out how to create and monetize content online in a multimedia effort that bridges all kinds of distribution vehicles and more deeply involves viewers.

Bebo was actually trying to do that too. Under Shields, it had been a pioneer in creating a variety of innovative online original content, including “KateModern” and “Sofia’s Diary.”

But new management at AOL, now headed by former Google (GOOG) exec Tim Armstrong, has sidelined Bebo to its new ventures division and is likely to try to sell it. Company execs at both Time Warner and AOL now say the purchase was a costly mistake.

That might be true, but it was clearly a financial coup for Shields–who has worked at both Google and RealNetworks (RNWK)–and Bebo investors.

And, given the track record of both Shields and Murdoch, it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

Product Management, Engineering and UI Design for Yahoo News Moving to Taiwan

Kara Swisher — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:00:46 +0000

In a risky but interesting move that has some at the company nervous and others excited, Yahoo is in the process of moving key development responsibility for its juggernaut Yahoo News unit to Taiwan.

Under the new system, product management, engineering and user interface design for the powerful Yahoo (YHOO) property will become the responsibility of staffers there.

Editorial employees for Yahoo News–which is the No. 1 news site on the Web with 48.4 unique monthly visitors, according to comScore data (SCOR)–will remain in the U.S., largely located at its Santa Monica, Calif., office.

Sources had alerted BoomTown to the change at Yahoo’s flagship content offering this week and many I spoke to about it were deeply worried about further separating key functions in the creation of Yahoo News.

“We are losing more and more of our ability to make quick changes and react to new technologies, which has worked pretty well so far, since we are #1,” said one staffer. “First, we all worked together across a room, then hundreds of miles away and now it is thousands.”

Previously, as was first reported here in February, the distributed and regional method of developing content was shifted to a central global product development organization, with product management, engineering and UI design centered at Yahoo’s Sunnyvale, Calif., HQ under CTO Ari Balogh.

The argument for the shift posits that centralizing the product development of a Yahoo media offering drives efficiencies, saves money, eliminates redundancies and accelerates growth across the world.

Those who do not like the idea think it is wrong to separate the development of a product from the programming because the two are intricately dependent and need to be tweaked delicately.

In addition, they argue, it makes Yahoo media offerings, which have been largely successful, less unique and more dull.

Well, tough tomatoes, because Yahoo confirmed the transition to me when I inquired about it. It was announced internally several weeks ago.

In an interview I did yesterday afternoon with Jeff Kinder, SVP of media products and solutions, who is spearheading the change, he said it was key that Yahoo News streamline how it makes its products in order to be more innovative and responsive on a global basis.

Before the shift to a global system, he pointed out that Yahoo had 26 different news products worldwide, using nine content management systems.

“This is part of building a global media platform,” said Kinder, who leads development of Yahoo’s anchor media properties, as well as its listings and regional products around the world.

Kinder said the staff in Taiwan was selected to take on Yahoo News because it had been creating top-level news products and was passionate about the arena.

Nonetheless, similar functions for other major Yahoo content categories–Sports, Finance and Entertainment–will remain in the United States.

In addition, he noted, with employees in Taiwan taking over these functions at Yahoo News, it would “free up some of the talent” in Silicon Valley to work on other critical content projects.

Kinder dismissed worries about any logjams in the ability of U.S.-based Yahoo News staffers to make changes to offerings, either for consumers or advertising partners, noting there were weekly calls between the teams and plenty of ways to communicate online.

But those worried about the change said the reason for the move was more to cut costs in the content arena, which–like many parts of Yahoo–has undergone layoffs and expense reductions.

Countered Kinder: “We are all driving to the same goal….This is not about cost savings, but about accelerating change and leveraging a global team.”

Serial Entrepreneur Al Warms Debuts Appolicious, Hoping iPhone Apps Fans Will Find It Delicious

Kara Swisher — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:01:53 +0000

Longtime Internet entrepreneur Al Warms paid a visit to BoomTown HQ today to show off a new company he has founded called Appolicious.

That is the unusual name Warms–who sold his Participate Media, along with its BuzzTracker content aggregator, to Yahoo in late 2007–has given to a start-up aimed at encouraging discovery and social networking in the Apple (AAPL) iPhone mobile apps market.

Warms left Yahoo (YHOO) last fall and started Appolicious in May of this year with about $500,000 in seed funding.

The site is kind of a combination of Twitter, Facebook and Yahoo, with some Yelp sprinkled in, but devoted solely to organizing and making sense of the app galaxy in the universe of smart phones.

Right now, the innovative site just focuses on iPhone apps–are there any others?–but Warms said he will soon include other mobile platforms, such as the BlackBerry from Research in Motion (RIMM).

Using premium content, recommendations of friends and also people like you–as well as a variety of lists, feeds, popularity rankings, images and videos–the idea is to do what the iTunes store does not.

Namely, make sense of the plenitude of apps out there, most of which are on the iPhone.

To make that happen, users of the service also can list all the iPhone apps they have in an App Library so others can see if they too own the iFart app (message to self: Hide that app deep in the library).

Warms hopes to make money on the site from advertising, including focusing on attracting brands that want to be in front of apps consumers.

Here is a video interview I did with Warms, where we discuss all this and more:

[ See post to watch video ]

And, here are three screenshots of the site below (click on the images to make them larger):