BoomTown » Q&A

Yahoo Earnings After Market Close, Plus Liveblogging of Conference Call at 2 pm

Kara Swisher — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:46:02 +0000

It’s not likely the announcement of Yahoo’s third-quarter earnings later today will be quite as exciting as its Open Hack Day in Taiwan this past weekend, but BoomTown will try to make those numbers and the conference call afterward with CEO Carol Bartz as entertaining as possible.

Still, while recent results from both Google (GOOG) and, especially, Apple (AAPL), have been pretty impressive, no one is expecting Yahoo to blow the roof off.

So, here’s what to look for:

Wall Street is estimating that Yahoo (YHOO) will earn just under seven cents a share, with revenue of $1.12 billion. This compares with nine cents and $1.33 billion in the same period a year ago.

Some whisper numbers peg the results at close to 10 cents a share, which would be a sensation, especially given the still-recovering state of display advertising, which is Yahoo’s bread and butter.

Also likely to be asked about is the recent decline in Yahoo’s search share. According to comScore (SCOR), its share in the important U.S. market dipped to 18.8 percent in September, even as both Google and Microsoft (MSFT) saw small gains.

Yahoo is set to start an online search and advertising partnership with Microsoft, as soon as regulators give it the thumbs up, as seems likely.

And analysts will likely ask about the effectiveness of Yahoo’s $100 million marketing campaign, designed to revitalize its image, which it is ramping up.

But Bartz has also been cutting costs and streamlining staff and operations–her strong suit–which could improve the bottom line.

Yahoo shares, while up 39 percent for the year, are down 2.7 percent for the month, even as other tech firms are up.

The stock is down 1.7 percent today, hovering just under $17 a share.

Whether the results and what Yahoo has to say about the year ahead will affect the share price remains to be seen.

Until then, here is a link to a very good Q&A interview Bartz did with the New York Times about her management style, which was posted over the weekend.

Money quote, from the ever-quotable Bartz:

“I have the puppy theory. When the puppy pees on the carpet, you say something right then because you don’t say six months later, ‘Remember that day, January 12th, when you peed on the carpet?’ That doesn’t make any sense.”

MicroHoo Answers Some Deal Questions for Critic: A Q&A!

Kara Swisher — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:20:11 +0000

Yesterday, BoomTown wrote about the status of the regulatory approval for the Microsoft-Yahoo search and online advertising pact.

While none of the key constituencies wanted to comment or make predictions about the outcome of the government scrutiny, most seem to agree that the MicroHoo partnership is more likely to be approved than not.

One of the few vocal critics of the deal, though, is Jeffrey Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a public interest group.

CDD, along with several other consumer groups, recently sent a letter to the Justice Department’s antitrust head, Christine Varney, expressing concern about the control and collection of consumer data in the deal.

CDD also has been querying Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO) directly about the data collection and privacy implications of the deal, which is something the government should be doing.

So, to further get a glimpse into MicroHoo’s arguments, here is a set of important questions Chester asked then that were answered in a memo by the pair:

What specific data collection, interactive ad technologies and targeting applications will be used for search under the 10 year deal?

Today, Yahoo! collects data about Yahoo! visitors to our search product and uses that information to deliver products and to customize advertising and content, among other purposes described in its Privacy Policy. Microsoft and Yahoo! have each adopted industry-leading privacy practices with respect to search. For instance, under Yahoo!’s global data retention policy, Yahoo! anonymizes user log data within 90 days with limited exceptions for fraud, security and legal obligations. For search specifically, Yahoo! will convey certain data to Microsoft to fulfill a user’s search request. This includes the query and the IP address. Microsoft will anonymize this data sent to it by Yahoo! in accordance with Yahoo!’s announced data retention policies. Microsoft is only permitted to use search data that it obtains under the deal to operate and improve its search services and for no other purpose.

Will Yahoo’s behavioral targeting technologies for search still be used?

Yahoo! does not currently employ behavioral targeting in search. [Ed. note: Not completely true; see press release from Yahoo here on new targeting capabilities.]

Will any of Yahoo’s targeting apparatus be incorporated in any way with Microsoft Advertising, including with Bing?

No. This deal is limited to search, and as noted above, Yahoo! does not employ behavioral targeting in search.

Will search ads be sold by either Yahoo or Microsoft that provide for multimedia results, such as video?

Video advertising is still a small and growing area and as such, it’s impossible to predict what video ads in any form, including what a potential video search ad, could look like several years from now.

How may this deal affect the Yahoo! Newspaper Consortium?

The partnership Yahoo! has with the newspapers is broad and includes everything from content distribution, advertising cross sales, and technology platform development, to the display of Y! sponsored search listings on the newspapers’ own Web sites. Yahoo! Does not see the Microsoft deal as having an immediate impact on its newspaper consortium dealings. However, by combining its platform with Microsoft’s, Yahoo! and Microsoft will be in a position to offer the Newspaper Consortium and other web publishers more competitive bids for search syndication deals than either company can offer separately.

What ad research and development will be shared or done in common?

It is premature to speculate about the exact research that will be done, but the increased scale that will result from this search deal is expected to significantly enhance the ability to conduct meaningful research in a timely manner.

What rationale was used to embrace the 3 month data retention time? Why isn’t a shorter retention time adopted?

Yahoo! did an extensive analysis and review of all our data systems globally in 2008. Yahoo! arrived at 90 days retention as the right timeframe for most of its log file data that allows it to deliver the industry-leading products and services its users expect from them, but that also minimizes the duration of time Yahoo! holds data in identifiable form. It’s important to note that some of Yahoo!’s log file systems retain identifiable data for less than 90 days but none will hold data longer except for a limited number of specific systems dedicated to fraud and abuse and to meet legal obligations.

How do you envision Yahoo remaining viable when it no longer has a meaningful independent search service, given the need to have a coordinated search/display environment for digital marketing?

Future growth in online marketing will come from shifting spend from offline advertising to the online world. Offline advertising spend is disproportionately held by the largest advertisers and they control the vast majority of ad spend. Yahoo! has the leading position in branded advertising and Yahoo! also serves the needs for the growing market of performance advertising. So this deal with Microsoft enables Yahoo! to deliver a fully integrated solution that meets marketers’ needs at scale. Through this deal, Yahoo! retains a revenue stream in search without incurring the costs of developing a search platform or engine. Yahoo! will get paid an 88% TAC rate while eliminating significant expenses, enabling Yahoo! to invest more heavily in other areas of focus: amazing audience properties, web products, enhanced display advertising capabilities, and fantastic mobile experiences.

Mossberg Does Moby: Video and More!

Kara Swisher — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:43:58 +0000

Last night, onstage at Lincoln Center in Manhattan, my most excellent partner, Walt Mossberg, interviewed well-known techno musician Moby about music and entertainment in the digital age.

The wide-ranging talk was part of an ongoing cultural festival series organized by The Wall Street Journal, called Summer Scoops Live.

Here are three video clips from the event:

[ See post to watch video ]

If you prefer to read, here is a live blog that Michelle Kung did of the event to enjoy:

7:30 p.m.–Out of the steaming heat and into the cool, air-conditioned confines of Lincoln Center’s Stanley H. Kaplan Penthouse.

7:39 p.m.–The lights dim and Moby and Mossberg make their entrances. Moby slinks down in his chair (”Am I greasy, or is it the chair?”) just before WSJ culture editor Christopher John Farley introduces the pair.

7:43 p.m.–Mossberg plugs his son, who’s in a band, before asking Moby–whose real name is Richard Melville Hall–if he is really related to “Moby Dick” author Herman Melville. Moby replies that that is what his parents have always told him and explains the origins of his moniker: “When I was 11 minutes old, my parents looked at me and I was this little grub of a baby and my mother said, Richard Melville Hall is a very grown up name, and my father said jokingly, let’s call him ‘Moby.’ All these years later, I still have this name I’ve have from infancy.”

7:46 p.m.–Mossberg asks Moby, in between jokes about being both being bald-ish, about the difference between “Play” and his new album, “Wait for Me.” Moby begins by talking about how the success of “Play” completely surprised him, because he was considered a “has been” by the time the album was originally released in the early 1990s and that Rolling Stone refused to review the album. His success with the album also confused him, because he was unsure of his next step–was he supposed to listen to the label now? To the fans? To himself?

“Wait for Me,” his ninth studio album, was designed as a return to simplicity, and created with old instruments–many of which were purchased on eBay–in his bedroom in Manhattan. When Mossberg asks Moby to clarity what he means by “his bedroom,” the musicians lays out out his floorplan–he lives in a two-bedroom apartment on Mott Street and with a small space (”two people starts to feel claustrophobic”) set aside for his music work.

7:52 p.m.–Moby uses a Mossberg question as an excuse to slam Jay Leno, whom he calls the “least prepared interviewer.” He fakes a Leno voice, and mock interviews: “So Moby, you have a new record. Tell me about it.” Mossberg interjects, “So I have a low bar?” to the delight of the crowd.

7:53 p.m.–Mossberg asks Moby how he used technology in “Wait for Me.” Moby begins by explaining that while he loves technology, he don’t fetishize it like some of his friends. “I have an 18″ flat screen TV. A bigger screen doesn’t make TV any better. ‘Family Guy’ is still funny on a little TV. If it works and doesn’t cause me undue stress, I love it.’

7:55 p.m.–Moby launches into an explanation of what Pro Tools and plugins are, and how thanks to this nifty recording/mixing operating system, he can take prerecorded “notes” that have been recorded abroad, say, in places like Vienna, and then recreate a 60-piece orchestra on his keyboard.

7:59 p.m.–On to issues of intellectual property. Moby says: “I don’t mind when people pirate my music–if you want to steal my music, more power to you.” Mossberg immediately asks, “Why?” And he deadpans, “Deep-seated emotional issues.” He then goes on to explain that personally, he’s so honored that people want to listen to his music, he doesn’t want to restrict access to it. “I don’t have alimony, I don’t need insulin…I don’t have crystal meth problems.” Thus, he personally doesn’t mind, but he can only speak for himself. But to clarify, he does want you to buy his album so his friends at the label are happy.

8:04 p.m.–Mossberg and Moby discuss the RIAA’s decision to sue customers. Moby says that it’s never been cheaper to make music, videos, and promote albums. EMI, he thinks, broke even. So why are they alienating their customers?

8:06 p.m.–Blind item alert! Moby says that a few years ago, he was talking to a record label head, and when he asked the top honcho about their iTunes plan for their biggest star’s newest album, he was told, oh, we’re going to wait a couple months.

Moby then launches into philosophy mode and brings up the is/ought fallacy to illustrate his point, noting that the current music model “underpins the failure of major labels–they think, it used to be this way, so it ought to be this way.” Their ethos is, “Please go away. Make the future die.” Mossberg suggests he write a song/album with that title. Moby quips back with “Young People Suck” as a potential label-inspired tune.

8:12 p.m.–Moby adds a qualifier to his comments, touting Mute, his own record label. “Mute is wonderful, and they care about music–it’s the big major labels who have been egregiously bad stewards of music. It’s hard to feel bad for them when they’ve brought us some of the worst music ever created.” He then gets in a dig at Lars Ulrich of Metallica, saying that if he needs a “fur-lined walking humidor,” that’s him.

8:15 p.m.–Moby asks the audience if he can get pedantic for a moment. They cheer their assent. He then launches into a story about the early days of the Beatles, a band that got “lucky” because everything they did was in mono. “The first ‘Meet the Beatles’ was recorded in four hours. They played the songs and it was done.” He explains how this is not possible anymore.

8:18 p.m.–Yay! Moving on to a discussion about Auto-Tune, which “enables anyone to fake perfect pitch.” Moby declines to name names in his anecdotes, because he has enough feuds already, but singles out Cher’s “I Believe” as the first of the supremely auto-tuned songs, and mourns how kids can’t recognize real singing anymore. Next, a discussion of playback, aka the technology that failed Ashlee Simpson when she was reduced to her now infamous hoedown on “Saturday Night Live.”

8:23 p.m.–Memory lane for Mossberg. He recalls seeing the Supremes, and Simon & Garfunkel in the ’60s for $3/ticket in a gym, and how the concerts back then used to sound just like the album. But everything is much more complicated now.

8:25 p.m.–Moby talks about how he plays to bigger crowds in Europe, and how he can enjoy the concert experience. Playing in front of a big crowd, he says, with big production values, is the musician’s equivalent of playing the big penis card.

8:28 p.m.–Mossberg asks: When you make music, do you have to consider the fact that it’s going to be listened to on [Apple] iPods and [Microsoft] Zunes? Moby says sadly yes, and tells a story about how super-processed music works on the subway, because the noise of the L train doesn’t interfere with, say, a song by Rihanna, but the subtleties of Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue” will get lost.

8:32 p.m.–Mossberg moves on to playing a snippet of the song “Pale Horses” from “Wait for Me” because we’re running late, and Moby says he has to pee–”Syphilis is a demanding mistress.” Mossberg: “Bill Gates doesn’t say that to me…I can’t believe I’m defending Microsoft.” Moby: “I’m just saying the Zune is clumsy as hell.” [For those lacking the implied sarcasm, Moby clarifies later on that he does not, in fact, have syphilis.]

Moby on “Pale Horses” and many of his other songs: 80% of the work is done in a couple days, but it’s the finishing stuff that is what really takes a really long time. To get the job done, he holes himself with the music–”Hopefully, a more benign version of Ted Kaczynski during the creative process.”

8:40 p.m.–Audience Q&A time. Moby is asked about his licensing deals, and says he doesn’t license music anymore, because he’s sick of being the whipping boy for the process. Which is ironic, because everyone’s selling out now. He adds that he initially licensed the music for “Play,” because it allowed more people to hear the album.

8:46 p.m.–Moby interrupts a question-asker to comment on how he wishes the stage were against the left window like a previous panel he was on, so everyone could get a glimpse of the view. The questioner then proceeds to take out a Chilean flag and hold it up before asking Moby if there’s relationship between his music and the cosmos. The short answer? Yes.

8:51 p.m.–Mossberg sums up the evening and offers kudos to Moby for sharing his time and process.

8:52 p.m.–Moby plugs a new tour date in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. And good night everybody!

And, here is a rather unusual cartoon video of Moby being interviewed by a dog that the Journal did:

[ See post to watch video ]

And, here is a video of Moby last week, talking about the digital impact of the music, in an interview on the Leonard Lopate radio show on WNYC:

Finally, here is a Q&A that Walt did with Flavorpill’s Caroline Stanley about a range of tech trends, as a preview to the event.

[Moby photo credit: AFP/Getty]

Yes, BoomTown Will Overpay for Apple's Pretty Version of the Kindle (Twice!)

Kara Swisher — Fri, 08 May 2009 13:00:14 +0000

Oh dear, I always forget that the camera is turned on 24/7 these days, knows all and sees all and then sticks it on YouTube.

Like this moment for me that came during a speech I gave last week at the Software & Information Industry Association’s NetGain conference in San Francisco, which was titled, “How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Tweet: What Interactivity Really Means for Real Businesses.”

While I talked about a lot of key trends, from persistent data to ubiquitous screens to the importance of voice, touch and gesture in future computing to the always-on state of online presence, it was this moment in the Q&A part at the end that got most noticed.

Someone had asked me what devices I use and also wondered if I had bought a Kindle from Amazon (AMZN).

Indeed not, as you will see, as I admitted that I was waiting to overpay for any similar and doubtlessly overpriced e-reader Apple (AAPL) will foist on me someday.

Here’s the video (please ignore my itchy ear thing and haggard look):

Liveblogging the Yahoo Fourth-Quarter Earnings Call: Yes, We Can

Kara Swisher — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:21:00 +0000

Oh, a nice tiny surprise from Yahoo, as it reported its fourth-quarter results, which came in at 17 cents a share in adjusted earnings, compared to the 12 to 13 cents Wall Street was expecting.

“Despite the challenging economic environment, Yahoo! delivered adjusted operating cash flow above the midpoint of guidance for the fourth quarter,” said new Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz in the company’s official release. “The company also made important investments while aggressively managing costs, leaving us better positioned to weather the economic downturn and emerge stronger when advertiser spending improves. We have work to do, but I am excited by Yahoo!’s opportunities, and encouraged by the tremendous innovation and momentum I’ve seen since joining the company as CEO.”

But let’s experience Bartz Live and Unplugged at the fourth-quarter earnings conference call, including a Q&A in which–the company’s intro speaker noted at the top of the call–former Yahoo (YHOO) CEO and Co-Founder Jerry Yang might make an unexpected cameo appearance.

(He didn’t.)

2:08 p.m. PST:

It’s Carol’s show obviously, coming on first and foremost, with a little joke, after hearing all the typical caveats that must be uttered by Yahoo’s investor relations folks before the call begins.

“I should have understood all those risks before I took this job,” she chuckled.

Now that’s the understatement of the year!

Noting she has been on the job only eight days, meeting and greeting the folks of Yahoo, Bartz said she was impressed by the energy and “can-do” spirit of the company, noting that the product pipeline was fantastic.

Of course, products have never been the problem at Yahoo, as many have noted (including BoomTown many, many times). Execution has been the devil in the details!

Bartz obviously got this, but was not going to insult former management this time, as she did in her debut public conference with the press and analysts.

Right after she was hired in mid-January, Bartz noted that Yahoo and its assets, “frankly, could use a little management.”

But it is probably not a good idea to say that again with thus-far silent Jerry Yang sitting right next to her.

2:09 p.m. PST

A tiny bit of kissing up to Bartz by CFO Blake Jorgensen, who started to go over the numbers in great detail, putting the best face on a weakish performance overall, especially compared to previous years.

At the end, he said that Yahoo had performed well in 2008, considering the poor economy, and added guidance going forward was not great either, especially compared to a year ago.

Also, he warned Wall Street not to expect too much guidance for 2009, as Microsoft had also said last week in its own depressing earnings call.

2:20 p.m PST:

Back to can-do Carol Bartz, who began by pointing to all the various assets that Yahoo has–including its Build Your Own Search Service (BOSS) product and Yahoo News–all of which are strong products for advertisers, she said.

But Bartz also finally made the point that execution needs to improve, which she said was “addressable.”

Before the Q&A started, she answered some questions about the company she asked herself, before they could be asked by others. Apparently, now that Bartz is an “insider,” she knows better than anyone else!

Did she come to Yahoo to sell it? “No.”

Will she sell search? Bartz does not know yet, but noted “search is a very valuable part of [Yahoo's] business.”

She added that Yahoo search market share was three times the size of the third player, which Bartz curiously did not name, but which is–of course!–Microsoft–which wants very much to buy Yahoo’s search business.

Uh-oh, Microsoft (MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer might not get his way so quickly!

2:26 p.m. PST:

The first question was about selling the company.

“I did not come to Yahoo to sell the company,” said Bartz again. “It’s too early to say more than that.”

The second question was about reports–in this column too!–about talks with Microsoft and Time Warner (TWX) unit AOL recently.

Bartz said Yahoo does not comment on reports that “come from nowhere.”

Sorry to disagree, but they did come from somewhere and were very well-sourced–just like the absolutely on-target post this column did of Bartz’s pending CEOship at Yahoo, before it was officially announced. But let’s just try to ignore that slight and move on–unless, of course, Bartz keeps up with what has become regular blog-bashing, which means a testy war of words and copious leaked memos to come!

The third question was about the management. Bartz said she plans on getting the lines of communication clearer, which she said she was really good at.

Kissing up to herself was a nice touch.

2:33 p.m. PST:

Next came a question about international business–which is the least of Yahoo’s worries, no matter what its execs say about the great products.

The next question was about guidance. No guidance, folks!

Now, one on the display business, with questions about the pressure on prices and on premium online advertising, which is Yahoo’s top business.

Jorgensen said Yahoo is trying to help advertisers, but that there has been and will continue to be a slowdown in advertising, due to the recession.

More on outlook, cost-cutting, etc. Jorgensen: More caution. Hey, analysts, we’re in a recession and I am not so sure how many ways he can say that.

So far, no Jerry Yang, which was starting to seem odd, since that Yahoo minion said he might be chatting away too.

But, as I said, it seems to be Carol’s show, which has been highly entertaining so far in her tenure, although she’d probably scowl at me sternly for saying that and pull out that cheap trick of insulting the press again.

Next up was a question to about various foreign assets and investments. Bartz will look into it! Jorgensen got in a good joke about her priority not being foreign tax issues.

The following question was about product innovation aimed at a younger demographic.

Bartz was on top of that too, pointing out that she has kids in their 20s.

First, she noted children do grow up, and that they will start to use Yahoo products like its finance offerings, as they move into the workforce and have less time to post dopey pictures on Facebook and throw digital sheep.

Also, young people are finicky, she added. They jumped from MySpace to Facebook, after all!

“Who knows what’s going to come next?,” she said, sounding like a typically exasperated parent. In other words, Yahoo will grab them when they grow up and prefer to be more dull!

2:43 p.m. PST:

The next question was about the timing of changes to come, which prompted Bartz to make another joke about buying the New York Times tomorrow! She was kidding, because the analyst asking the question suggested the troubled Yahoo buy the troubled media company in a recent report.

But, seriously folks, Bartz reiterated: “Gimme some time.”

Next, someone asked about the advertising sales force at Yahoo, which is a good question. Bartz is headed to a sales force meeting in a few weeks, she said, wherein she plans to have a beer with them and find out (once they are drunk and presumably easy to get blabbing).

Still, no Jerry Yang! Sigh. I suddenly desperately miss him and his lower-case ways.

The next question was on shareholder value, which has not been very valuable of late. Bartz noted that everything is on the table related to Yahoo’s businesses, but underscored how valuable the property is as a whole.

“This is not a company that needs to be pulled apart and left for the chickens,” said Bartz.

Apparently, this folksy little saying is from her Wisconsin upbringing. Scary poultry metaphor alert!

Bartz is asked about top assets at Yahoo.

She once again noted that Yahoo’s great products will save the day, from customization to integration of assets. “If we have strong products, we will attract the audience that just beats everything,” said Bartz.

A question about search and display being together, which is a sneaky way to ask about Microsoft, since that’s the great debate within Yahoo over whether to do a deal to outsource it or not.

Bartz made a confusing house metaphor, with search being the house, but it is completely lost on me. Is search the house or a living room or what?

“Whether we keep it or sell it, it’s an important asset,” Bartz then said, which was a clever way of saying exactly nothing.

2:55 p.m. PST:

A question on Yahoo brand, which Bartz basically said is about being the place people come every day. But she admitted there was too much complexity to that brand, although products are strong!

Next, someone asked a question about relevancy of Yahoo. “Our users don’t need constant change,” noted Bartz, who has a decent point about the jumpy nature of Web 2.0’s change-for-change’s-sake mantra.

Still–let’s be honest–Yahoo’s missed a key trend or two in recent years.

Next up was a question about ad prices and another on cost cuts. Jorgensen said that it’ll be more about efficiencies and perhaps some more outsourcing.

Bartz thanked the group for not being “too pushy” in their questions, which was an odd end note, since pushy should be the main job of analysts.

In fact, after listening to the call, I hope that Wall Street keeps up the pushy factor, as investors deserve a lot more answers from Bartz and Yahoo going forward.

It is not, as Bartz insisted in the conference call, a case of inside and outside perceptions being different. Yahoo does have strong products, but it still has gotten itself into its current mess all by itself, much of which has little to do with the weak economy.

That’s why I plan on being very pushy, asking about everything from what structural changes Bartz plans to make to how she envisions Yahoo’s business going forward to improving morale on a sustained basis to what she thinks she can do to make Yahoo the strongest it can be when the economy comes out of the recession.

And, not to get pushy or anything, but what happened to some words from the promised Jerry Yang?

Perhaps he fell victim to the vicious chickens of Wisconsin.

[Dear Yahoos: To get on board the Can-Do Carol Bartz Express, you can buy the "Yes We Can" t-shirt at Zazzle.com for just $23.40!]

Liveblogging From Yahoo Annual Meeting: Shareholder Q&A!

Kara Swisher — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:42:21 +0000

OK, now we’re cooking with gas at Yahoo’s annual meeting in San Jose, as various shareholders–mostly small ones–come to the microphones to give Yahoo a piece of their mind.

The room has filled up more, about one-third to one-half full, with the top Yahoo (YHOO) leadership arrayed at a table up front like an Italian wedding.

First up, longtime Yahoo activist shareholder Eric Jackson asked Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock to step down, noted that Yahoo had overplayed its hand with the Microsoft bid, wondered about Yahoo President Sue Decker’s time problems (too many outside boards) and questioned the worth of Yahoo’s deal to sell an asset in Japan.

Yahoo, of course, did not agree with Jackson! At all!

“No,” said Bostock about stepping down, also noting that he was woefully underpaid for his board service, given all the activity over the last year related to Microsoft (MSFT).

Next up, a shareholder asked about Yahoo’s poor performance compared to Google (GOOG).

Yang’s answer: We’re trying!

Next, a shareholder supported Yang, noting that Yang did co-found the company. But then he kind of suggested Yang perhaps leave the company for a “cathartic” time.

The same shareholder also compared Bostock’s defense of Yahoo’s behavior with “a girlfriend who is trying to convince the world that she initiated the breakup.”

That made Yang smile.

Later, Bostock added: “I would not compare Yahoo’s relationship to Microsoft to a romantic one.”

The next question was related to China and Yahoo’s thorny history there. Yang had addressed the issue earlier and added that the company was working hard to improve its efforts related to human rights.

While one former employee and shareholder called Yahoo “rude” not to entertain more questions from investors, another shareholder called Microsoft “a green-tentacled monster,” I think, which provoked laughs and clapping.

A question was then asked about advertising and competing with Google-owned DoubleClick. Decker noted that Yahoo’s Web-based approach is better.

One shareholder noted the lack of women on the board (there is one), and a shareholder justifiably complained that only one-third of the directors did not show up and also not enough of the board owns stock, such as Ron Burkle (who was apparently in Europe at another commitment.)

Perhaps of everything that went on at the annual meeting, which was mostly nothing, perhaps that was the most salient point of all.

Advertising, of Course! Not.

Kara Swisher — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:02:01 +0000

Here is a BoomTown video rant on online advertising, which I spewed at a Web 2.0 Expo Web2Open event I did Wednesday.

I am talking quickly since it was a “speed-Q&A” session, where five of us moved from table to table and quickly answered questions shot at us from the people gathered at each.

They were split into like-minded groups–developers, designers, business types.

This video was shot on a Flip camera, the kind BoomTown uses for our own riveting videos, by tech writer David Spark.

Excuse the mysterious Ray-Ban look–the shades are prescription and I left my regular glasses at home. (Also, I was trying to avoid intimacy in this speed Q&A thing!)

Here Spark is asking me about my bête noire in the Web 2.0 space–lack of specifics about monetization.

I always get annoyed by the same stock explanation from entrepreneurs when I ask about it: “Advertising, of course.” But when I then ask for more detail and actual results, that’s where things always get a little fuzzy.

I also talk about the need for Web 2.0 wunderkinds to be scrutinized just the same as any business leader, rather than worshipped by a slavish press.

Hence, my rant: