Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

There certainly is a lot of noisy swirl of late around the escalating fight between Google and some traditional media companies over content online.

The loudest voice in this fight has clearly been News Corp. (NWS) kingpin Rupert Murdoch, who seemingly has not met a television interviewer of late he did not regale with tales of Google’s nefariousness.

Part of what he is saying is surely justified–it’s definitely a crisis for the news business.

And in Murdoch’s mind, the blame should largely fall on Google (GOOG), which he believes is profiting from expensive content others have created and that the search giant is not paying for to such a warped and massive degree that it makes a mockery of fair use.

In Silicon Valley style, Google defends itself by saying it sends valuable Web traffic to News Corp. and other sites, so perhaps a hand-written thank-you note is really the proper response.

That missive is definitely not in the mail from Murdoch, who instead has sent a series of poison-pen letters to Google.

Most notable is that he has threatened to “de-index” at least some of his content assets–which are not insubstantial–from the now-inevitable crawlers sent out by the search giant.

These are, of course, vintage tactics from the Global Media Mogul Playbook: Causing a public hubbub and spooking perceived enemies by threatening drastic action and implying dire consequences, while simultaneously dealmaking behind the scenes.

Trying mightily to make the stakes more dramatic, News Corp. has pulled Microsoft (MSFT) into the fray as a possible white knight–if you live long enough, you do see it all–for publishers.

Under this scenario, the software giant would fork over some sum of money to get News Corp. and perhaps other key content companies, such as Associated Press, exclusively and prominently featured on its Bing search site.

The reward, presumably, would be increased searching on Bing for the stuff consumers could now not find on Google.

BoomTown reported earlier this week that, in fact, Microsoft was unlikely to hand over any kind of king’s ransom to publishers.

As I wrote:

While a spate of reports has Microsoft execs girding the globe offering gobs of cash to content companies to block Google and favor its Bing search service, sources close to the situation caution that it is extremely unlikely that the software giant would pay giant sums for that pricey privilege, which 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.”

In other words, this wrestling match is not about whether Google or Microsoft will serve up links to content online, but about how much–or not at all–they are willing to pay for doing so.

So, what’s really happening here? Here are five possibilities to consider, each of which is true in part:

1. Murdoch really means it

In this scenario, Murdoch, as well as others like AP’s Tom Curley, truly believe that Google–like that creepy salt-seeking alien from “Star Trek”–is sucking the life out of the media industry by making bank from its news content, but not giving back nearly enough in return.

Of course, a lot of these companies have willingly done distribution deals with Google over the years.

But now they don’t like it because the increasing money being made by Google, even as their revenue has suffered, has developed into a growing problem.

Which is simply this: There is a lot more money to be made in searching for content than in making it.

This realization has to shake content czars like Murdoch to the core, but it is indeed the situation they find themselves in.

Murdoch makes a fair point in that journalism costs money to make and it used to have a solid economic system under it until Google and others on the Web disaggregated it wholly.

Thus, online aggregators become “tapeworms,” as The Wall Street Journal Managing Editor Robert Thomson quipped.

Thomson also, on a recent panel at the Web 2.0 conference, said to Google’s front page head, Marissa Mayer, that she “unintentionally encourages promiscuity.”

Ouch. That remark, which was was quite striking if you were there to hear Thomson say it, said volumes more.

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

2. Murdoch really means to create a lot of confusion, in order to shake down Google

Well, it would not be the first time Murdoch and many others of his ilk have used public sharp elbows and saber-rattling to get what they want.

Except in this case, the algorithm experts over at Google know precisely–down to the tenth decimal–how much linking to News Corp. makes for them.

And it is not much, especially when looking at the vast sea of data Google serves up.

Its money-making is widely dissipated, from searches for vacation information to mapping to car-buying to health. While news-finding definitely is part of the mix, it is not at the center of the Borg.

Ironically–and oddly left out of this debate–it is Yahoo (YHOO) that has a lot of power in this arena, with massive content sites that shoot traffic all over the Web (including to this site).

But, what Google cannot and never can quantify–although I have seen co-founder Larry Page try once or twice–is the impact of public perception on the company, which has slowly morphed from being a benign, brightly-colored digital, librarian-like helper to a scary, answer-to-no-one, evil-doing monster.

The company’s growing influence over what people see and do not see on the Web is palpably frightening to publishers, advertisers and anyone who wants to be digitally discovered.

Bad luck for Google: Creating and then attacking bogeymen is a Murdoch talent, bar none.

3. Murdoch really means to create a lot of confusion, in order to shake down Microsoft

Also obvious is the full-scale obsession Microsoft has with Google. While the software giant’s execs try to hide it, their panic over the success of Google has been tough on the once dominant tech company, which has struggled in the Internet arena.

Worse still, Google rakes in the dough, while Microsoft, um, does not.

Finally, this year, Microsoft has created–with no small amount of much needed innovation–Bing, a laudable effort that is starting to show some traction.

While Bing still has a very small market share compared with Google–by a factor of seven to one–it’s definitely got some momentum.

And, after much turmoil, Microsoft finally did a deft and relatively inexpensive deal to join with Yahoo in a search and advertising partnership to give them both more heft, which will surely help matters.

More important, one of the ways Bing has differentiated itself is via product innovations and intense focus on search niches, such as health.

In this topic area, for example, Bing has struck a not-expensive content licensing arrangement with the Mayo Clinic in order to better feature content.

This is smart business and offers consumers something better and different.

But overpaying big media publishers for the same thing, even if they de-indexed Google at the same time, is not smart, unless it is for really niche things like special financial information.

And even then, there are so many other sources of information out there, it would not take Google long to mount a similar offering, even in the face of some kind of OPEC of News consortium.

Even more–how much do consumers love OPECs of any kind? Not much!

Sources at Microsoft agree:

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

Finally, Microsoft has been to the Murdoch party before too, having been part of talks to fold News Corp.-owned social networking site MySpace into Yahoo, had Microsoft prevailed in its attempt to acquire it.

Microsoft missed that pricey bullet and might be more inclined to grow Bing the old-fashioned way–via innovation, marketing and product improvements–rather than just using up too much of its energy trying to mess with Google.

4. A deal will be made

My not-too-surprising prediction is that in the end, News Corp. and others will probably strike some kind of lesser deal with Microsoft–although it will tout the heck out of it–while taking some of its content behind a pay wall and, thereby, de-indexing it from Google.

More damaging would be if AP, which actually provides the most used news content online, removes its links completely from Google, because–unlike the premium content from other publishers–this is the bread and butter of consumer usage of content.

As to promotional material or links to television shows and movies from publishers like News Corp.? Well, it would seem the most self-destructive form of pique to remove those links from any of the top search engines.

That said, even if it really pissed me off for publishers to do so, I would probably switch to another search engine to find information on “Glee” if forced to. That’s how much I love those singing kids and Jane Lynch!

Finally, Murdoch has also threatened to challenge the fair use doctrine–which allows others to use copyrighted content within limits, as Google and many others do (such as this site).

While some think that is a bridge too far, it might be Murdoch’s best argument of all. Why should Google make a fortune on the content of others, even if only listing it? Doesn’t the sheer volume of what the search giant vacuums up make its use of fair use as a defense pretty ridiculous?

You can be sure Murdoch has his many lawyers and lobbyists all over this one, as does Google.

5. The truth is out there

In perhaps his most strident television interview, with his Sky News Australia service (which you can see below on–oh, the irony–on Google’s YouTube), Murdoch said about those who use Google to find News Corp. content:

“They don’t suddenly become loyal readers of our content. We’d rather have fewer people coming to our Web site but paying.”

That really is the honest truth in all this hubbub: Murdoch and other publishers have to find a way to get a some pool of dedicated online readers to pay enough to be able to then provide them with content that will keep them coming back for more.

That’s a business that Google truly cannot help or hinder, really.

And more to the point, it is also a business that Rupert Murdoch does seem to know a thing or two about.

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 exclusive indexing of their content.

“Microsoft isn’t the monopoly guy anymore,” joked one source close to ongoing talks between Microsoft and publishers, 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 is extremely unlikely that the software giant would pay giant sums for that pricey privilege, which 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 them 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. The publisher 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 Google is 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 was 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.

It’s well known that Google doesn’t do much in the way of marketing around its search service.

While you will catch advertising for the Chrome browser or for Android smartphones on the Web, given Google’s huge 70 percent market share in search, it hardly needs to attract users.

So, then, what is one to make of a series of new videos, which look suspiciously like commercials, that Google (GOOG) launched late last week on its blog and posted on a new channel on YouTube?

Called “Search Stories,” there are a half-dozen of the short videos, some more adorkable than others, which star the main search box.

One thing they have in common is that they have the look and feel of a marketing campaign, with the tag line “Search on.”

They also stress a variety of Google products, such as mapping, video, price comparisons, email and more.

One imagines what pre-Batman Bruce Wayne would look for, complete with ominous music, including search terms such as “coping with loss,” “flexible kevlar” and “gotham city crime statistics.”

Another video, called “Newbie,” has a grandmother searching on “keeping in touch with grandkids” and–in a clever dig at the MySpace and Facebook social networking services–“what is myfacebook,” which gets corrected by Google to “what is facebook.”

Could it be that the $100 million marketing push Microsoft (MSFT) launched for its Bing search service, which seems to be slowly gaining share, is starting to get on the nerves of those Spocks in Silicon Valley?

Not that Google would admit this, instead simply saying it was feeling all warm and fuzzy and so decided to make some kids-let’s-put-on-a-show videos.

Wrote Robert Wong of Google Creative Lab in a blog post, in part:

Because while we’re proud of the innovations we’re making in search, we’re proudest of the things people use search to accomplish. In other words, the best search results don’t show up on a webpage–they show up in somebody’s life.

So in that spirit, we made a bunch of videos. There’s one about grandma dipping her toe into technology. One about friends taking a Kerouac inspired road trip. And yes, there’s even one about Bruce Wayne.

Judge for yourself–here they all are:

Parisian Love

Mad to Live

Batman

Newbie

Potholes

High School

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

AOL will officially be spun off from Time Warner on Dec. 9, with trading to begin the next day.

Shareholders of record at 5 pm ET on Nov. 27 will get one share of AOL for every 11 shares of Time Warner (TWX) on the day of the long-expected spinoff of the Internet service.

At Time Warner’s current market cap of $38 billion, that gives AOL an implied value of $3.2 billion–a fraction of Google’s (GOOG) $20 billion valuation of the portal in 2005, when it invested $1 billion in the property. And it’s even lower than the $5.5 billion valuation Google gave the company last January, when it wrote down its investment.

AOL will trade on the New York Stock Exchange as “AOL.”

Ironically, before it merged with Time Warner at the dawn of the new century, AOL previously traded on the NYSE.

AOL went public on Nasdaq on March 19, 1992, under the ticker “AMER,” and moved to the NYSE on Sept. 16, 1996 trading as “AOL.”

(Fun fact: BoomTown actually attended both the fancy dinner the night before AOL moved to the NYSE from Nasdaq and the AOL party on Wall Street the next day.)

If you want to get really technical, AOL common stock will begin trading on a “when-issued” basis–you really don’t want to know the confusing regulatory details of why–on the NYSE under the symbol “AOL WI” beginning on Nov. 24, 2009.

On Dec. 10, when-issued trading of AOL common stock will end and “regular-way” trading under the symbol “AOL” will begin.

After that, it will be up to CEO Tim Armstrong to make the long-suffering AOL into the little Internet company that could.

The separation of AOL and Time Warner is also symbolic, dismantling the most potent symbol of Web 1.0, when AOL essentially got control of the media giant, only to see the merger crash in disaster.

If at first you don’t succeed…

Here’s the full Time Warner press release on the transaction:

Time Warner Declares Spin-off Dividend of AOL Shares

Record and Distribution Dates and Final Distribution Ratio Announced

NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Nov. 16, 2009–Time Warner Inc. (NYSE:TWX) and AOL Inc. today announced the timing and details regarding the spin-off of AOL from Time Warner.

The Time Warner board of directors has approved the final distribution ratio and declared a pro rata dividend of the shares of AOL common stock owned by Time Warner that will result in the complete legal and structural separation of the two companies.

On the distribution date of December 9, 2009, Time Warner stockholders of record as of 5 p.m. on November 27, 2009, the record date for the distribution, will receive one share of AOL common stock for every eleven shares of Time Warner common stock they hold.

Fractional shares of AOL common stock will not be distributed to Time Warner stockholders. Instead, the fractional shares of AOL common stock will be aggregated and sold in the open market, with the net proceeds distributed pro rata in the form of cash payments to Time Warner stockholders who would otherwise be entitled to receive a fractional share of AOL common stock.

No action or payment is required by Time Warner stockholders to receive the shares of AOL common stock. Stockholders who hold Time Warner common stock on the record date will receive a book-entry account statement reflecting their ownership of AOL common stock or their brokerage account will be credited with the AOL shares. An Information Statement containing details regarding the distribution of the AOL common stock and AOL’s business and management following the AOL spin-off will be mailed to Time Warner stockholders prior to the distribution date.

The AOL spin-off has been structured to qualify as a tax-free dividend to Time Warner stockholders for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Cash received in lieu of fractional shares, however, will be taxable. Time Warner stockholders are urged to consult with their tax advisors with respect to the U.S. federal, state, local and foreign tax consequences of the AOL spin-off.

Shares of Time Warner common stock will continue to trade “regular way” on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “TWX” through the distribution date of December 9, 2009, and thereafter. Any holders of shares of Time Warner common stock who sell Time Warner shares regular way on or before December 9, 2009, will also be selling their right to receive shares of AOL common stock. Investors are encouraged to consult with their financial advisers regarding the specific implications of buying or selling Time Warner common stock on or before the distribution date.

AOL common stock will begin trading on a “when-issued” basis on the NYSE under the symbol “AOL WI” beginning on November 24, 2009. On December 10, 2009, when-issued trading of AOL common stock will end and “regular-way” trading under the symbol “AOL” will begin. The CUSIP number for the AOL common stock will be 00184X 105 when regular-way trading begins.

Time Warner and AOL have entered into a Separation and Distribution Agreement and several other agreements related to the AOL spin-off. The completion of the AOL spin-off is subject to the satisfaction or waiver of a number of conditions, including the Registration Statement on Form 10 for the AOL common stock being declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the AOL common stock being authorized for listing on the NYSE and certain other conditions described in the Information Statement included in the Form 10 and in the agreements filed as exhibits to the Form 10. The condition relating to the authorization of the AOL common stock for listing on the NYSE has been satisfied, and today AOL sent a letter to the SEC requesting that the Form 10 be declared effective. Time Warner and AOL expect all other conditions to the AOL spin-off to be satisfied on or before the distribution date.

It certainly is good to see Microsoft working the innovation thing, especially in the consumer space with its Bing search service.

The ultimate goal is to gain market share for Bing, from striking deals with hotter companies like Twitter and Facebook to doing a massive advertising and marketing campaign to making constant feature upgrades.

This is one of those weeks for Bing, which started off yesterday by renaming its video properties on MSN, now integrated with search, to Bing Videos. Microsoft also rejiggered its Bing Maps.

And today, the company is rolling out more features, including integration related to diet and nutrition with fancy search service Wolfram|Alpha, an “enhanced hover preview” and full-page weather and events results to add to its niche search offerings.

But whether all this will spell significant changes in market share compared to dominant rival Google (GOOG) is still an open question, with Microsoft (MSFT) eking out solid gains since Bing launched.

Today, Hitwise figures have Bing up seven percent to 9.57 percent in October, at the expense of both Google and Yahoo (YHOO).

Money is also coming in slightly better. A recent report by IDC noted that Bing’s search revenue has gained 6.1 percent to 6.8 percent from the second-to-last quarter.

But spending on advertising, as well as these new features, is also costly.

Still, Microsoft is pressing on.

The Wolfram feature, for example, adds a nutrition quick tab when searching on food items, as well as a body-mass index tool.

Here is a video on it from Bing, which might require installation of Microsoft’s Silverlight video technology (you might also want to launch full screen to see it better):

Bing will also improve the ability of users to get quick info by hovering over a link. Frankly, this annoys me more than bad clicks, but most people will probably like seeing snapshots of the actual Web sites, a search-within-this-site box and deep links.

Perhaps the most interesting iteration of this feature will be Facebook page previews. Click on arrow below:

The weather stuff is just more, more, more bells and whistles, integrating news, events, xRank results, Twitter feeds, images, Best Match results and content from sites you trust onto one page with a prettier interface. Check it out:

There will be more to come, of course, which should–at the very least–have competitors competing better.

Of all the tech stocks to watch, perhaps none have been more interesting to follow than those of Microsoft, Google and Apple in recent days.

With so much news emanating from this trio of tech icons, their shares have been gyrating and twisting on each and every piece of information, including:

Microsoft (MSFT) and its many new products, from Windows 7 to the Bing search service.

Google (GOOG), which has never met a launch it did not tout in a blog post, from Google Wave to its Android efforts in the smart-phone market.

Apple (AAPL), of course, which gets a mass of coverage every time the company clears its throat. The noise everyone is listening for now, as you might have guessed, is any shred of news about the new tablet, whose name–a BoomTown educated guess only–is going to be iSlate.

So, here are some things of note about the stocks:

Like Silicon Valley Bobbsey Twins, Apple and Google are neck and neck with regard to their market valuation, each hovering in the $169 billion to $170 billion range. (Microsoft’s stock is still much bigger at $247.6 billion.)

Apple’s shares have been tamped down over the last month, up only 2.4 percent, compared with a 10.2 percent rise for Google and an 11.7 percent rise for Microsoft. That said, Apple fared a lot better than Yahoo (YHOO), which was down 5.9 percent for the month.

But, year-to-date, Apple’s stock performance still reigns supreme, up 121.8 percent, compared with Google (73.6 percent) and Microsoft (43.4 percent).

For the week, though, they are all down–Apple is off 6.5 percent over the last five days, while Google is down 3.6 percent and Microsoft declined slightly less, 2.8 percent.

Here’s a chart of the three stocks below, over the last month (click on it to make the image larger):

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Carl Icahn, the activist billionaire investor who made such a noisy fuss in his quest to force management and other changes at Yahoo, is taking a much quieter leave from the Internet giant’s board.

He apparently has told the Yahoo (YHOO) board that “there was not a need at this time for an activist investor” and that he has a lot of other companies he invests in to focus on.

That’s true, of course, given a spate of troubled investments that Icahn is dealing with.

But here’s BoomTown’s quickie analysis: Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz completely ignores him.

In fact, Bartz often has gone out of her way to take little gibes at Icahn since she got the top job in January, whether it’s to say he called her too much or that he could try to fire her if he did not like the job she was doing.

For example, she just dissed him publicly in a piece in Forbes, tossing off a saucy insult:

“Icahn is just another shareholder. What’s he going to do, fire me?”

But Yahoo was cordial to Icahn as he departed, even if a lot of people at the company who had battled him were likely thinking: “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!”

“Carl has been an important member of our Board and has helped us through some significant transitions,” said the Yahoo statement. We are all grateful for his active role shaping the future of Yahoo! and wish him well in all his endeavors.”

Icahn in the second board member to leave under Bartz’s tenure.

Frontier Communications (FTR) CEO Maggie Wilderotter announced in late September that she was stepping down from the board by year’s end.

It will be interesting to see who–if anyone–will comes on board as a director and, of course, if there are more departures. After the departures of Wilderotter and Icahn, there will be 10 directors.

(Here is BoomTown’s No. 1 pick still in that regard.)

In taking his leave, Icahn praised the recent search and online advertising deal Bartz struck with Microsoft (MSFT), noting that it will “provide great long-term benefits, the potential of which many still do not understand.”

Nice final toss to try to spike the stock, Carl! But the MicroHoo deal, which has yet to be approved by regulators, was likely cold comfort for him.

Icahn sank large sums of money in Yahoo with hopes of a big score via the hostile takeover attempt by Microsoft at a price upward of $30 a share.

After that deal tanked, Icahn has seen his stake decline in value.

He sold 16 percent of his Yahoo shares in late August, leaving him with a 4.5 percent stake, or about 63 million shares.

It is also not clear today if Icahn intends to unload more of the stock.

In 2008, he couldn’t buy enough, scooping up the stock at much higher prices.

After mounting a proxy fight–including the lobbing of a series of poison-pen letters–against former CEO and co-founder Jerry Yang and his management team, Icahn got board seats for himself and two others (John Chapple and Frank Biondi) in July of 2008.

As Digital Daily’s John Paczkowski put it perfectly then:

“Having so persuasively argued that Carl Icahn is a doddering Luddite with no articulated plan for Yahoo other than the company’s sale to Microsoft, Yahoo has taken the logical next step and appointed the activist shareholder to its board of directors.”

At the time of the fighting, Yahoo used a quote from Icahn to insult him: “It’s hard to understand these technology companies.”

In a way, that is a pretty accurate description of Icahn’s long wrangle with the Silicon Valley icon.

And, while some might not agree with my take, this is the way the Yahoo world ends for Icahn: Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Here is Icahn’s entire letter to the Yahoo board:

To the Yahoo! Board of Directors:

I am hereby tendering my resignation as a director of Yahoo! to take effect immediately.

When I joined the Board, the company was in a state of turmoil. In the period since then, we have all worked together to achieve much for the Company, most notably bringing Carol on to be the CEO and then consummating the search deal with Microsoft. I am proud to have played a role in both these decisions. Carol is doing a great job and I believe the Microsoft transaction will provide great long term benefits, the potential of which many still do not understand.

I don’t believe that it is necessary at this time to have an activist on the Board of Yahoo! and currently, my attention is focused on other matters. As a result, I do not presently have the time that is necessary to devote to the business and affairs of Yahoo! required if a board member is to fulfill his fiduciary duties to the shareholders

Again, I want to thank the members of the Board for acting so responsibly during my tenure. I look forward to maintaining my relationship with each of you.

Sincerely,

Carl Icahn

Uh-oh, Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz was expected to appear on the Internet giant’s third-quarter earnings call, but she has apparently “came down with something,” according to CFO Tim Morse.

BoomTown is sending over chicken soup right now, but let’s hope she gets her vaccinations tout de suite!

Worst of all, no sassy quotes or cursing, replaced by a very earnest Morse, who sounded like he was once a Boy Scout.

After the markets closed, Yahoo reported better-than-expected earnings on still lackluster revenues.

Overall, the conference call boiled down to one quote from Morse that seems to have been selected as the Yahoo (YHOO) buzzword of the moment:

“The theme for third quarter was stabilization.”

2:02 pm PDT: Investor stuff from guy who sounded like a robot that I completely ignored, since I was much more interested in a conversation between two women about a bad date this past weekend, which I eavesdropped on in its entirety while liveblogging from a Starbucks (SBUX) in San Francisco.

By the way, the man whom the ladies are ripping was a very unstable date!

2:04 pm: Morse jumped on and gave everyone the bad news about Bartz being sick and the good news about the better-than-expected net income, while also updating all the various happenings of the quarter.

“I am happy to report that our Q3 revenue came in above our guidance range,” said Morse, who sounded somewhat jaunty.

Morse reeled off numbers, numbers and more numbers, some stuff about the new marketing campaign ($18 million spent so far and $45 million in the next quarter!) and other stuff about the cost cuts and fourth-quarter guidance.

Also, no sale of the company’s Alibaba in China or the Yahoo! Japan stake, thank you very much!

2:12 pm: Morse also gave a quick update about the search and online advertising partnership Yahoo has struck with Microsoft (MSFT).

His message: The Silicon Vally Internet icon is not out of search, because it is not about the algorithm, but a better search product.

Tim, you might want to roll that claim back, especially since you also might want to notice how well Google (GOOG) has done with its giant math-brains in the search business.

Morse tried mightily to channel Bartz on search, using a comparison she has made about the Intel (INTC) chip, which is widely used by computer makers. Said Morse, it’s the “differentiation” that matters!

I wonder if Yahoo will keep repeating that one, even as its search share continues to decline.

But Morse did make a funny about how many ex-Yahoos are on the Microsoft payroll now, so the partnership transition should go smoothly.

Well, there’s that!

2:28 pm: Morse mentioned Yahoo’s analysts day next week, and then opened up the call to questions.

Analysts always ask very dull questions at earnings calls and this one proved no different.

The first was about display run rate and about the search market in comparison to Google.

What’s the good word? Stabilization, of course!

The next question was about eBay (EBAY), which seems far from the point.

Morse agreed and cut it short.

Then, a question about guaranteed placement and stock buybacks. Zzzzzzzzz–even Morse sounded bored.

The Starbucks lovelorn ladies had left by now, so I was too.

2:37 pm: The next question concerned the affiliate business and how it might be affected by the Microsoft deal.

I immediately summoned the barista, since it was clearly time for a double espresso!

A question came next about when the display ad business would recover from the econalypse. Morse: Stabilization!

Then, a query about gross margins and whether they can be maintained. Morse was not saying, except to point out that there was a “good, old-fashioned, get-your-hands-dirty” attitude at work at Yahoo now about watching costs.

I was suddenly worried about dirty-handed Yahoos, just when the CEO is sick!

Use Purell, please–or suffer the wrath of Judy!

2:43 pm: Another question on ad sales and quality. Thus, I moved onto mainlining coffee beans en masse. I long for a visit from Juan Valdez!

Then, a question about Q4 guidance, which was not good enough for one analyst, who wanted more.

Morse did not really bite, although he talked a lot.

Next, a question about slow-growing page views and what was Yahoo planning to sell of its various assets.

Morse tried to be all silver-lining about page views and would not talk about specific divestitures (nor did he mention the appointment of a new head of Yahoo M&A).

“We continue to look at the landscape,” he said.

What about more job cuts or hiring, since Yahoo added 200 people in the quarter? Morse noted Yahoo was staying strong in tech talent and was “putting feet on the street” in advertising.

Also something about paid inclusion, but a new person at Starbucks was having a really good cellphone argument, so I zoned out of Morse-talk for a second!

2:56 pm: A question about premium and nonpremium inventory. Looks good on premium, said Morse.

The next query was about the different metrics between the new and old homepage, as well as a request for more info about the analyst day next week.

Morse refused to “steal my own thunder” on what is going to happen there. But, there will be thunder? I am always dubious when it comes to Yahoo and thunder.

As for the homepage, Morse said Yahoo was still evaluating the performance.

2:58 pm: Mobile. Aaaaaghhh, another chance for Morse to say not much about anything substantive. Morse: Better and more established! Translation: No moolah yet!

A head count question. Will improvement come from cost cuts due to the Microsoft deal or revenue improvements?

Three guesses and the first two don’t count. Thanks for the row-boatloads of money, Microsoft!

Something about bookings and small-to-medium businesses. Morse did not understand the question and neither did I.

Next, a question on search monetization, which has weakened. Answer: Stabilization!

3:02 pm: A question about the new $100 million branding campaign. Morse: “It’s very, very early.”

Some deal question and then one about behaviorial targeting, which Morse said will apparently be a “lifeblood” of the future.

Incredibly, Morse has gone hog-wild chatty with Bartz laid low and is asking for more questions, without making one good joke or salty remark yet.

I was completely losing it when it gets to ad exchange details and not as coffee-saturated as I needed to be.

Finally, the LAST question: Another one about divestiture and acquisition.

As if Morse was going to answer, referring instead–as he has many times in the call–to his “script.” Yahoo will buy stuff, Yahoo will sell stuff, but pretty much a no-comment!

And on that note…Carol: Please, pretty please GET WELL SOON!

Until then, here is a minidose of Bartz, via video snippets from an interview with me at the seventh D: All Things Digital conference.

Her lively tone seen here at D7 would have been a good thing at today’s earnings call:

(And, here is a link to Yahoo’s presentation of its financial highlights, for those with a hankering for even more numbers.)

]]> http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091020/liveblogging-yahoo-third-quarter-conference-call-bartz-comes-down-with-something-and-cfo-carries-on/feed/ 0 http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091020/yahoo-earnings-after-market-close-plus-live-blog-of-conference-call-at-2-pm/ http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091020/yahoo-earnings-after-market-close-plus-live-blog-of-conference-call-at-2-pm/#comments Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:46:02 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=19590

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.”

]]> http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091020/yahoo-earnings-after-market-close-plus-live-blog-of-conference-call-at-2-pm/feed/ 0 http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091019/wall-street-hopes-apple-doesnt-fall-far-from-the-tree/ http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091019/wall-street-hopes-apple-doesnt-fall-far-from-the-tree/#comments Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:09:44 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=19512

When Apple reports its fourth-quarter earnings today, investors are hoping–actually, expecting–that the iconic computer company will look a lot now as it always has.

In other words, don’t go changing and it will please us.

Wall Street is anticipating, as it has throughout the econalypse, another estimate-beating performance from Apple (AAPL).

While Apple has signaled that it will be making up to $1.23 per share for the quarter, the “whisper” number for the quarter is much higher.

Revenue is also expected to rise strongly to upward of $9 billion.

The reason for all this happy talk? Strong sales of all of Apple’s innovative hardware products, including iPods, iPhones, and computers, as well as the big, fat profit margins that came with upgrades by consumers this past quarter to its new Snow Leopard operating-system software.

And, of course, the stock has been showing all this investor love by–as BoomTown has noted recently–defying gravity.

Apple shares are up just above 120 percent since the beginning of the year.

The company closed at $188.05 on Friday, giving it a market valuation of $168.5 billion.

Whether it will continue going up is a big question for investors, although Apple is entering the holiday season, when it typically does well.

Plus, many are expecting the company to goose excitement for 2010 with the announcement of its secret-but-everyone-knows tablet offering.

That said, Microsoft (MSFT) is also officially launching a new operating system this week–Windows 7–which is expected to give Apple some clear competition.

]]> http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091019/wall-street-hopes-apple-doesnt-fall-far-from-the-tree/feed/ 0 http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091014/stock-stronger-as-yahoo-preps-to-report-next-week-but-employee-departures-and-return-of-yodeling-rattle/ http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091014/stock-stronger-as-yahoo-preps-to-report-next-week-but-employee-departures-and-return-of-yodeling-rattle/#comments Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:39:11 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=19381

In one week, Yahoo will report its third-quarter earnings, after the market closes.

And so far, its stock is showing signs that investors are hoping for better days ahead for the Internet giant.

Shares are up 8.5 percent for the month, almost 13 percent for the last three months and almost 39 percent since the beginning of the year.

While that’s not the rocket ship Google (GOOG) has been on–the search giant’s stock is up 70 percent since January, which includes a big boost recently on expectations of a strong earnings report tomorrow–it’s clear investors are hoping an improvement in the online advertising market will boost Yahoo’s fortunes.

Wall Street is expecting $1.12 billion in net revenue and seven cents in earnings per share from Yahoo (YHOO)–and a better performance than that could boost the stock.

In fact, a pair of bullish analyst reports that came out today predicted just that.

Broadpoint AmTech analyst Benjamin Schachter raised his price target to $21 a share, noting that after the search and online advertising partnership deal closes, Yahoo “should be meaningfully smaller and leaner, but should also be a significantly more profitable company.”

And Benchmark Co. analyst Clayton Moran moved Yahoo from hold to buy, with a price target of $20.

But a string of recent exec departures in Yahoo’s advertising units are making some within the company’s ranks slightly worried.

The departures include Jim Schinella, the company’s SVP for corporate partnerships, in September.

And yesterday, Glam Media announced that it had nabbed Josh Jacobs as SVP of Brand Advertising Products & Marketing. At Yahoo, Jacobs was a key exec in its display ad platform unit.

Many inside the company expect more departures in the ad and engineering arena at Yahoo, pointing out that many big stock packages given to hold onto talent are about to vest.

In addition, once Yahoo’s search and online advertising partnership with Microsoft (MSFT) is approved, as it is likely to be by the end of the year, hundreds of Yahoo engineers will get the choice of moving to Microsoft.

Some will, of course, but some simply do not want to go and many Silicon Valley companies and start-ups BoomTown spoke to report seeing more resumes recently from Yahoo staff.

There is little Microsoft can do to stop possible leakage of tech talent from Yahoo until the deal is approved, since the companies cannot do any integration until it is.

Perhaps worst of all, there seems to be nothing Yahoo can do to stifle its proclivity to yodel, which I begged Yahoo execs to forgo in its recent $100 million “It’s Y!ou” marketing push.

No such luck!

Yesterday, Yahoo launched its online Yodel Studio (no, I am not kidding), where you can record your own yodel in various music genres, like, um, rap.

Yahoo held a kickoff event in New York’s Time Square yesterday–however did I manage to miss it, since I was in Manhattan?–with a passel of celebrity yodelers like Jewel, as well as one in London’s Covent Garden.

Today, there is a yodel event in Mumbai, India. Bollywood yodeling anyone?

Here is a link to the famous Yahoo yodel, by the way, if you are so inclined.

And here is a video of the Times Square event, and also the very memorable Yahoo commercial of Taylor Ware, after she won the Yahoo National Yodel Challenge contest in 2003.

Some things never change (even if they should!).

]]> http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091014/stock-stronger-as-yahoo-preps-to-report-next-week-but-employee-departures-and-return-of-yodeling-rattle/feed/ 0 http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091013/bing-still-has-zing-google-more-bling-but-yahoo-no-thing/ http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091013/bing-still-has-zing-google-more-bling-but-yahoo-no-thing/#comments Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:27:48 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=19394

According to the latest data from comScore, which are the most widely regarded by Wall Street, Bing has not lost search market share in the U.S., as some recent reports had suggested.

The September qSearch report, which was released to clients today, shows the Microsoft (MSFT) search service with a 9.4 percent share, compared to 9.3 percent a month earlier.

Dominant search giant Google (GOOG) also saw a slight uptick to almost 65 percent. Yahoo (YHOO), which just began a $100 million marketing campaign, saw share drop a half-point to just under 19 percent.

Both the market shares of Ask and AOL remained constant at almost four percent and three percent, respectively.

The comScore (SCOR) data on Bing counter two earlier reports that showed declines.

Here is J.P. Morgan analyst Imran Khan on the new data, as well as a table from comScore (click on it to make it larger):

Search Market Share Trends: comScore Releases September 2009 Search Data

ComScore released September 2009 qSearch volume and market share data for the US. We note that this is only one data point and is not necessarily predictive of 3Q performance. Following are the data highlights:

* According to the data, total US core search volume increased 17.3% Y/Y in September, a slight decline from 19.2% Y/Y growth in August. The total 3Q Y/Y growth rate was 17.3% vs. 2Q’s 31.1% Y/Y growth.

* Google domestic core search market share was 64.9% in September, up slightly from 64.6% in August. Google grew September core search volume by 20.9% Y/Y, down slightly from 21.6% Y/Y growth in August. Google domestic core search volume growth of 21.1% Y/Y in 3Q, is below 2Q’s 37.7% Y/Y increase.

* Yahoo! domestic core search market share dropped to 18.8% in September from 19.3% in August. Yahoo! grew September core search volume by 9.0% Y/Y, down from 16.8% Y/Y growth in August. Yahoo!’s 3Q domestic core search volume growth of 11.6% Y/Y is below 2Q’s 27.1% Y/Y growth.

* Microsoft domestic core search market share was up at 9.4% in September vs. 9.3% in August. Microsoft grew September core search volume by 30.7% Y/Y, down slightly from 31.9% Y/Y growth in August. Microsoft domestic core search volume for 3Q was up 25.8% Y/Y, above 2Q’s 20.4% Y/Y growth.

* Ask Network domestic core search market share was flat M/M at 3.9%. Ask grew September core search volume by 6.1% Y/Y, down slightly from 6.7% Y/Y growth in August. Ask Network domestic core search volume was up by 4.5% Y/Y in 3Q vs. 15.6% Y/Y growth in 2Q.

* AOL September domestic core search market share was flat M/M at 3.0%. AOL September core search volume declined 13.5% Y/Y, a slight deceleration from August’s 17.6% Y/Y declines. AOL domestic core search volume was down 15.4% Y/Y in 3Q vs. 2Q’s 5.1% Y/Y decline.

]]> http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091013/bing-still-has-zing-google-more-bling-but-yahoo-no-thing/feed/ 0 http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091005/new-yorker-bezos-initial-google-investment-was-250000-in-1998-because-i-just-fell-in-love-with-larry-and-sergey/ http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091005/new-yorker-bezos-initial-google-investment-was-250000-in-1998-because-i-just-fell-in-love-with-larry-and-sergey/#comments Tue, 06 Oct 2009 04:30:36 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=19130

Considering the ongoing skirmishes going on right now between Amazon and Google over digital book publishing, it’s more than ironic that Amazon CEO and founder Jeff Bezos was one of only a few initial investors in the search giant.

But–in one of the many interesting details in New Yorker author Ken Auletta’s new book, “Googled: The End Of The World As We Know It”–it was indeed Bezos who invested $250,000 in the start-up in 1998 at four cents a share.

(Some previous reports have had it at six cents a share and at a $100,000 level.)

Three of the others, according to Auletta, all of whom ponied up the same amount, were Stanford University computer science professor David Cheriton, entrepreneur Ram Shriram and Sun Microsystems (JAVA) co-founder Andy Bechtolsheim.

Later, more angels invested in Google (GOOG), followed by the big $25 million venture round by Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia Capital in mid-1999.

While it was known back when Google went public in 2004 that Bezos held about three million shares in the IPO (Auletta said it was precisely 3.3 million shares), the book has a lot of the details about the meeting between him and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin in the Menlo Park, Calif., garage of current Google exec Susan Wojcicki.

He had been brought there, according to the book, by Shriram, who had sold his company, Junglee, to Amazon (AMZN) in 1998.

“I just fell in love with Larry and Sergey,” Bezos told Auletta in an interview–not that there’s anything wrong with that considering the flip-flop relationships of Silicon Valley.

He’d presumably be more in love–and less inclined to be fighting Google, first in search with A9 and now in online publishing–if he had held onto those shares.

That stock would be worth $1.6 billion today.

But a spokesman for Amazon declined to comment on what Bezos did with his Google stake, noting it was a personal investment.

Interestingly, Bezos is also an early investor in the current hotsy-totsy microblogging start-up, Twitter.

A part of Auletta’s book, which is slated to come out Nov. 3, is in this week’s New Yorker in an excerpt called “Searching for Trouble.” It is, oddly, not available online.

In any case, the piece is mostly about the various ways Brin and Page dissed big media moguls, figuratively (destroying old media advertising business models) and literally (showing up at meetings sweaty and wearing skates and gym shorts).

Good thing they never did that to Bezos.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

]]> http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091005/new-yorker-bezos-initial-google-investment-was-250000-in-1998-because-i-just-fell-in-love-with-larry-and-sergey/feed/ 1 http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090928/can-apple-shares-keep-defying-gravity/ http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090928/can-apple-shares-keep-defying-gravity/#comments Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:38:03 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=18898

Since the beginning of the year, Apple shares have more than doubled from $90.75 on Jan. 2 to almost $186 today.

Google (GOOG) has done about half that performance, while Microsoft (MSFT) has done one-third. (See the chart below; click on it to make it larger.)

But that’s apparently not enough, according to Thomas Weisel analyst Doug Reid, who has raised his price target on Apple (AAPL) stock to $210 from $180 a share.

Citing higher sales and profit estimates, healthy demand and the iPhone headed to China–and the launch of a cheaper $800 MacBook soon–Reid wrote, “We believe there is a high likelihood Apple will fortify its entry into the holiday season and that such a move will be a positive for AAPL shares.”

While this all makes sense, one wonders if the froth can reach that level.

In any case, perhaps what is more interesting is the $166.4 billion market cap for Apple, which is well below Microsoft at $232 billion.

But it is well above Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) at $113.4 billion, Google at $158 billion, Dell (DELL) at $30.6 billion and Palm (PALM) at a paltry $2.4 billion.

With that kind of massive valuation and a pile of it in cash, perhaps the better question is what Apple will do with its soaring stock.

Oddly enough, Idina Menzel and Kristin Chenoweth singing the big number, “Defying Gravity,” in the musical, “Wicked,” sound a lot like they are channeling Apple’s corporate mantra these days.

Witness:

]]> http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090928/can-apple-shares-keep-defying-gravity/feed/ 5 http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090903/fancy-bar-graphs-of-the-week-zero-surprise-the-youngs-love-new-media-more-than-the-olds/ http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090903/fancy-bar-graphs-of-the-week-zero-surprise-the-youngs-love-new-media-more-than-the-olds/#comments Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:22:33 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=18065

Every week, BoomTown is calling all those who make cool graphs, charts and stats done prettily about tech to send them to me pronto.

I am–truth be told–a secret stats fanatic. A bargraphaholic. Yes, even a closet pie-charter.

The last set of data I posted was a comparison of the share and consumer loyalty of the three big search engines–Microsoft (MSFT), Yahoo (YHOO) and, of course, Google (GOOG).

This week, in its annual survey of consumer technology attitudes and adoption, titled “The State of Consumers and Technology,” Forrester Research found that…wait for it, wait for it…the kids love the Internet!

As you can see in the chart labeled 4-1 below (click on the image to make it larger), new media beat traditional media for consumers younger than 40 years old, in terms of hours spent.

Still, the under-40 group also use traditional media, through both online and television channels, as you can see in the chart labeled 4-2, although TV is the most likely way everyone accesses most big-media offerings.

Well, except the Weather Channel, which leads in “cross-channel media use,” which means it is doing swimmingly in diversifying its distribution.

Lastly, in the 4-3 chart, as with the first chart, while Web sites like News Corp. (NWS) social networking site MySpace and its rival Facebook show up on the 10 most regularly consumed channels for the youngs, the olds are still mostly chomping on networks, newspapers and cable.

In other words, traditional media’s demographic is the group more likely to die first! But at least they’re loyal!

]]> http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090903/fancy-bar-graphs-of-the-week-zero-surprise-the-youngs-love-new-media-more-than-the-olds/feed/ 1