George R

Yahoo’s 2010 Turn-Around Strategy Revealed: A Cycling Team

Give Carol a break. You blast Yahoo for not trying anything new and then you blast her/them again for trying to be innovative. It is far too early for any of us to accurately predict which, if any, of these new Yahoo plans will bare fruit. To all of those other than us writers, software developers, designers, and technical know-it-alls, Yahoo is still a powerful worldwide brand. I think it serves both the high-tech industry and the U.S. economy well for them to succeed.

George Riddick
Imageline, Inc.

Does Google Have a Weakness Microsoft Can Exploit?

Google has three major weaknesses. Every single one of them could be exploited by Microsoft and would lead to more market share in both search and advertising.

Problem is Microsoft is trying mimick these weaknesses rather than exploit them. Much the same as they used to be able to do with software back in their glory days.

I offered to help Steve and his team with this, as I have been accumulating the evidence of these weaknesses here in my offices for the past two years. I was met with bravado and arrogance. Isn't that what most "outside" people who offer to help Microsoft are met with these days?

It will take someone of Microsoft's stature to bring these Google weakneses into public view. As long as Microsoft, under Steve's leadership, is too confused, or too afraid, to take chances, I'd stay long on Google if I were you.

Watch out if these true stories ever do surface publicly, however. Believe it or not, they have something to do with the disgraceful economic condition this country finds itself in these days.

There is a strong and rapidly growing undercurrent out here who knows these weaknesses, has ben harmed by them, and just cannot wait for this market reality and truth to be told.

Internet users, who now number almost 1.2 billion, deserve to be told the truth. From there, they can decide who should be their king.

What Should Jerry Do? My Advice to Yahoo

This was as good of an article as I have read in months, Tim. Thank you very much. I totally agree with practically everything you said.

I will elaborate on one particular thing you said, however. I firmly believe this "deal" may signal the end of Wall Street as we have known it for the past ten years or so. In my view, that would be wonderful news. Those "fat cats" are simply not able to "fix" technology deals like they used to ... as they do everything else.

They are simply not smart enough these days. People are sick and tired of their greedy ways.

The rocket scientists in the valley and in Redmond blow them away. Where would YOU rather work if given a choice?

Anyway, Yahoo is a "terrific" brand. They are in the top five in Sports, Jobs, Health, News, E-mail, Search, Photos, Small Business, local Newspapers and Directories, and many more areas too varied to mention.

People do not like Microsoft and do not in general see them representing true innovation. That will not get better under Ballmer in my view.

And probably even more important in the long run, people have finally noticed some of the "gray-line" business practices, infringment activities, and corporate ethics out there at Google.

They have preyed on people's apparent ignorance (or at least what
Google perceives as ignorance) for far too many years already.

If the Yahoo folks would simply put their collective heads down and start to work for their shareholders for a change (rather than seeming to be continously in a "scramble"), the results might surprise everyone. Even themselves!

What's wrong with organic growth and profits when you're in so many strong related markets, several of which could become the next Microsoft or Google "killer app"?

Thanks for writing this one, Tim!

George

[e-mail]...

Why Do Time Warner and News Corp Want Yahoo?

Nice article, Julia.

I find all of this fascinating from my position as a small business owner and Internet addict.

I do disagree with one of things you said in your post, however. While I see AOL having lost its identity (and its perceived self confidence) on the global stage, I do not see this with Yahoo. I think you, the media, have been too hard on them. As I see it, they are the premium small to mid-size business and consumer brand in the entire Internet space. And their services in finance, real estate, e-mail, personals, and sports seem to have dominant market positions both here in the U.S., and elsewhere. I have been in branding for 25 years. The Yahoo brand is excellent. To me, it still stands for innovation and leadership in a still infant age industry.

Google, while its brand as a word oriented search product, is substantial, has confused the overall market with its investments in green technologies (wonderful industry, and mission, but why Google?), the cellular airwaves, Aerospace, chicken coops, healthcare, and basically everything else its rocket scientist executives can think of. I see the company VERY vulnerable though the Internet's next phase.

By and large, the Internet world's current power players have grown up not liking Microsoft. Microsoft stands for high prices, elitist attitudes, billionaire owners, software glitches, government influence, and a ton of other things that the masses simply do not care for and cannot relate to. I do not see that attitude changing anytime soon, as Ballmer appears to be somewhat arrogant in both his style and his approach towards partnering. He simply does not have the "presence" that Gates had, and still has, on the global stage. If nothing else, the folks from Redmond could absolutely ruin whatever reputation and/or momentum Yahoo has established in the small business, social networking, and higher end of the consumer channels.

My vote. An independent Yahoo, or a Yahoo combined with AOL, Softbank, Alibaba, or even MySpace, is the best thing for the overall market. As a consumer, and as a potential business partner to all of them, I firmly believe that more choice is better than limited choice, and we will all be better off in the next Internet phase with a third leg on this Microsoft and Google dominated stool.

Thanks for sharing your views with the rest of us.

George
[e-mail]...

What's Yahoo Worth to Microsoft Without Alibaba?

What makes the most sense to me, Larry, even though I am not convinced that it the best move for this country, is for a group of Japanese, Chinese, German, and/or Indian technology and content companies to come in and take over Yahoo. They could actually pay the folks in Sunnyvale a premium, and probably come out ahead in the long run. More important, perhaps, is that they could stop the spread of "Microsoftism" in their parts of the world.

These are no longer pure American "deals". Folks in Asia and Europe are not interested in this Internet becoming a two man race between Microsoft and Google. It's as simple as that. Why people cannot see this is beyond me.

Hope all is well for you with changes out there at CNET.

George

[e-mail]

Is Google Becoming An Enemy To Open Source?

"Toggling" only works for a very short amount of time, Larry. You are either a Democrat or a Republican (Roos Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Paulson, and the other independent aside) n this country. You don't ge tot wait to see how weveryone is voting asnd then decide.

Google is a hypocrit on this subject matter. Just like it has become a hypocrit on so many other subjects ... and especially when they relate to copyrights and trademarks.

Google steals food from the farmers and gives it to the poor ... problem is .. most of the farmers are poor as well. It's a PR stunt .. pure and simple. Read on and you'll see what I mean.

The Tip of the Iceberg

Google's "do no evil" slogan sucked in millions and millions of people worldwide. People who had become accustomed to the business practices of Microsoft, Apple, AOL, Novel and others and who wanted, and needed, a break. It was an easy audience to buy into the "hype".

It worked ... probably far better, and far faster, than even Google expected. In fact, when Google's CEO moved to Google from Novel (and earlier Cisco, I think) he indicated it would be a pleasant change of pace for him to not have to deal with Microsoft day in and day out anymore. Right Eric ... we hear you!

Google hired some of the smartest people in the world to help them carry the "do no evil" banner to the masses. Like rallying certain religious cultures to become more hostile to those of us in western civilizations, Google's reach for support became a relatively easy mission and spread like wildfire by word of mouth. Their timing was impeccable, as was their implementation.

Soon word of mouth converted to billions and billions of dollars of venture capital, outside investment, and advertising dollars and "Google" quickly became a common household word ... even a verb in many cases .. much like "Xerox" was used for all copying in the last century. Google stood for "innovation", for "anti-Microsoft", for "free and open source" and "free and open applications", for "open and honest discovery", and most of all for "simple and lightning fast search". I don't see too much evil in those causes, do you? ... "DO NO EVIL".

One thing Google forgot to tell us. Much of the content it planned to deliver for free was going to be stolen from others. It's kind of like a business model that sets out to steal crops from thousands and thousands of hard working, and disadvantaged, farmers, while offering the food for free to the world's millions and millions of starving people. As long as you do a good job promoting your good deeds, not one of the small time farmers (not even the largest ones for that matter) are likely to be able to stop you. And billions of dollars provides a ton of legal and public relations support to help spread the word in that direction as well. "Is it fair to cut off the supply of food to these hungry people throughout the world, your honor?"

Maybe I'm old school, but the shenanigans I've witnessed over the past three years since Google went public are the antithesis of "good deeds" from my experience.

And perhaps even worse, the other giant search engine companies, like Microsoft, IAC, and Time Warner, seem to be following Google's lead rather than trying to do what is fair and just. I know this. I have communicated with senior level attorneys and executives at several of these companies about these concerns.

So, who are the farmers? Well, here's just a few of the many I have heard from, or read about:

- book publishers
- book authors
- illustrators
- cartoonists
- poets
- journalists
- songwriters
- animators
- digitizers
- musicians
- television studios
- designers
- photographers
- playwrights
- universities
- producers
- cable operators
- actors and actresses
- professional athletes
- artists
- comedians
- speech writers
- magazine columnists
- models
- writers
- newspaper editors
- comic strip creators
- videographers
- investigative reporters
- movie makers
- programmers

Seems like each of these groups have been involved in lawsuits involving Google over the past five years ... both here and in Europe. Almost always pertaining to intellectual property ... trademarks, copyrights, patents.

In fact, how do you explain this fact: Google knew that YouTube was involved in literally thousands and thousands of unlawful uploading and downloading activities BEFORE giving its two 20-something founders the lion's share of $1.65 billion in late 2006. And the infringement activity seems to have gotten worse rather than better since Google took the helm.

How does any modern, civilized, government or industry explain that to the Chinese?
What signal has Google given the rest of the world regarding intellectual property and copyright infringement?

How about this one. "You probably shouldn't do it, but if you do, please do it in a very big way like we do, so that we can all profit from the advertising exposure, and the giveaways of our "docs" and other "apps" (one of Google's terms for "food") along the way."

I make my living from one of the categories referenced above. I believe in copyright protection and have always been willing to put my money, and my reputation, where my mouth was. Still am. In my view, Google has become the DOMINANT EVIL EMPIRE it claimed to loath. Microsoft is just laying low now and waiting for Google to fall on its own sword so that the original "Evil Empire" (according to Google anyway) can pick its way through the spoils.

"Do Some Evil" and count on the consuming public, industry journalists, and our elected public officials, to be too stupid, or too afraid of technology, to notice what you're really doing doesn't work across the board, Google.

Google's recent 10Q disclosures should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following this story closely over the past few months. We've only seen the "tip of the iceberg" ... believe me.

George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.

[e-mail]...

Microsoft's Ballmer Starting Own Yahoo-Buying Rumor?

Hi Paul,

Ever given any thought to the possiblity that Yahoo will eventually become the pursuer rather than the pursued?

I have watched this industry very closely for the past 15-20 years and I see a few disburbing trends in today's market. On the other hand, I like the positioning that Yahoo now has.

I would like to see them remain independent or combine with someone closer to their size. They already lead the race in Intenet mindshare ... or are very close to it anyway. I'm not sure I see what Microsoft does for them ... other than a possible "uptick" in share value with the purchase.

Heres' my view of the tech sector these days:

Has anyone noticed the tech industry sell-off recently? I mean the tech "insiders". Folks like Eric Schmidt, John Doerr, and Bill Gates ... as well as a slew of other investment bankers, Chairmen, directors, CEO's, and VPs within some our supposedly strongest technology companies?

I have, especially in and around Google.

But Yahoo seems to be a bit different ... wonder why? Their CEO and others seem to be buying shares and exercising options without dumping the underlying shares right into the market.

I am not a financial analyst. Far from it. But I do know a thing or two about the stock market and advertising. I have been in or around the advertising business for over fifty years now. I've also watched a lot of tech companies rise and fall. I have a vested interest in the technology industries in that I own several companies who participate in the domain name branding and graphic arts content development sectors, both of which are affected by changes in the public perception of, and confidence in, some of the larger companies in our industry. I'm usually the eternal optimist, but I'm worried.

I've watched a handful of publicly traded Internet, software, entertainment, and telecom companies over the past 120 days very closely. Here's a list in descending market cap order as of Monday, August 6, 2007:

- GE/NBC Universal ($399.40B)
- Microsoft ($277.09B)
- Google ($158.59B)
- IBM ($154.82B)
- Apple ($117.48)
- Comcast ($80.29B)
- Time Warner ($72.30B)
- Disney ($68.43B)
- eBay ($45.83B)
- Yahoo ($31.19B)
- Amazon ($32.49B)
- Adobe ($23.24B)
- WPP Group ($17.82B)
- IAC/Ask.com ($8.08B)
- Baidu ($6.93B)
- Getty Images ($2.07B)
- CNET Networks ($1.11B)
- Jupitermedia ($242.00M)

Of these, only GE, Apple, eBay, Amazon, and Baidu had an increase in value over the last three months. Amazon gained the most market value (roughly $4.5 billion) compared to second place Apple at just under $3 billion, while Google leads the losers with a drop in market value of just over $10 billion, with Microsoft a close second at around $9 billion. Any wonder why one of Google's lead investors, its CEO, and other key executives are selling off shares?

In all, the six major U.S. search engine companies in our analysis (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, IAC/Ask, Time Warner/AOL, and CNET) lost a whopping $34+ billion in just 90 days. I thought profitable search advertising was growing like wildfire? On the other side of the world, China's leading search engine company, Baidu, gained almost a billion dollars in value in that same time period, among the strongest we've studied on a percentage basis.

I must be wrong. I also thought we had been in a strong bull market until the adjustments several weeks back. Wasn't the 14,000 breakthrough this summer a sign of good news for all industries, including "tech"? Better think again.

The money these tech companies are now paying for relatively small online advertising companies is astronomical. Is it possible that all these online advertising companies, and some of their major clients, have been able to "hype" these tech oriented companies and their tech-centric executives? Now wouldn't that be the ultimate "spin"? Don't you just love the ingenuity of these Madison Avenue types ... especially the newer generation that lives on Main Street and focuses on the online world.

With all of these players (technology, communications, entertainment and advertising) now singing from the same song book, and working together on development, effectiveness, measurements, promotions, PR and content delivery, do any us lay people really stand a chance? Open your checkbooks.

"Vaporware meets its advertising match"... don't you just love it?

**********************...
Back to Yahoo

Is it possible Yahoo has had this right all along? Although their market value has slipped substantially, their executives seem to be buying Yahoo shares, not selling. They are able to test new graphic advertising techniques without making a multi-billion dollar outside investment, like Google and Microsoft have chosen to do. Wouldn't that be a "kick" if Yahoo has indeed spent this time of industry turmoil and chaos to strengthen its relationships with its advertisers, business partners, content providers, and customers while Microsoft and Google concentrate on destroying each other at all costs.

I am a little biased because I've stuck with Yahoo for the past ten years through thick and thin. But this does make for a compelling alternative to all the negatives I've read about the company from investment bankers, select journalists, and others over the past six months.

What do you think?

George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.

[e-mail]...

67% of Yahoo Visitors Using Email: SmartAds Should Target Those Users

I agree. Yahoo just needs to slow down a bit and catch it's breath. Wall Street and much of the media have been brutal to them over the past few months. I, for one, believe the decision to move aside Terry was a good one. He was far too expensive in my view.

I have noticed Yahoo insiders buying stock and exercising options without dumping the shares directly into the market in recent months. I also like what I've seen from Susan Decker. We'll see.

I think the Yahoo e-mail group is about as loyal of a following as you get these days. And SmartAds seem far less intrusive to me there than they would/do during an "entertainment" session (i.e. watching short vidoe clip or watching a joke unfold through animation).

Don't count out Yahoo. While Microsoft and Google duke it out, these folks might just be laying the groundwork for an exciting end run.

Here's a related article I wrote a few weeks back:

Cashing Out!

Has anyone noticed the tech industry sell-off recently? I mean the tech "insiders". Folks like Eric Schmidt, John Doerr, and Bill Gates ... as well as a slew of other investment bankers, Chairmen, directors, CEO's, and VPs within some our supposedly strongest technology companies?

I have, especially in and around Google.

I am not a financial analyst. Far from it. But I do know a thing or two about the stock market and advertising. I have been in or around the advertising business for over fifty years now. I've also watched a lot of tech companies rise and fall. I have a vested interest in the technology industries in that I own several companies who participate in the domain name branding and graphic arts content development sectors, both of which are affected by changes in the public perception of, and confidence in, some of the larger companies in our industry. I'm usually the eternal optimist, but I'm worried.

I've watched a handful of publicly traded Internet, software, entertainment, and telecom companies over the past 120 days very closely. Here's a list in descending market cap order as of Monday, August 6, 2007:

- GE/NBC Universal ($399.40B)
- Microsoft ($277.09B)
- Google ($158.59B)
- IBM ($154.82B)
- Apple ($117.48)
- Comcast ($80.29B)
- Time Warner ($72.30B)
- Disney ($68.43B)
- eBay ($45.83B)
- Yahoo ($31.19B)
- Amazon ($32.49B)
- Adobe ($23.24B)
- WPP Group ($17.82B)
- IAC/Ask.com ($8.08B)
- Baidu ($6.93B)
- Getty Images ($2.07B)
- CNET Networks ($1.11B)
- Jupitermedia ($242.00M)

Of these, only GE, Apple, eBay, Amazon, and Baidu had an increase in value over the prior three months. Amazon gained the most market value (roughly $4.5 billion) compared to second place Apple at just under $3 billion, while Google led the losers with a drop in market value of just over $10 billion, with Microsoft a close second at around $9 billion. Any wonder why one of Google's lead investors, its CEO, and other key executives are selling off shares?

In all, the six major U.S. search engine companies in our analysis (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, IAC/Ask, Time Warner/AOL, and CNET) lost a whopping $34+ billion in just three months. I thought profitable search advertising was growing like wildfire? On the other side of the world, China's leading search engine company, Baidu, gained almost a billion dollars in value, among the strongest we've studied on a percentage basis.

I must be wrong. I also thought we had been in a strong bull market until the adjustments a few weeks back. Wasn't the 14,000 breakthrough a sign of good news for all industries, including "tech"? Better think again. Look at where we are now!

The money these tech companies are now paying for relatively small online advertising companies is astronomical. Is it possible that all these online advertising companies, and some of their major clients, have been able to "hype" these tech oriented companies and their executives? Now wouldn't that be the ultimate "spin"? Don't you just love the ingenuity of these Madison Avenue types ... especially the newer generation that lives on Main Street and focuses on the online world.

With all of these players (technology, communications, entertainment and advertising) now singing from the same song book, and working together on development, effectiveness, measurements, promotions, PR and content delivery, do any us lay people really stand a chance? Open your checkbooks.

"Vaporware in advertising"... don't you just love it?

**********************...
Back to Yahoo.

Is it possible Yahoo has had this right all along? Although their market value has slipped substantially, their executives seem to be buying Yahoo shares, not selling. They are able to test new graphic advertising techniques without making a multi-billion dollar outside investment, like Google and Microsoft have chosen to do. Wouldn't that be a "kick" if Yahoo has indeed spent this time of industry turmoil and chaos to strengthen its relationships with its advertisers, business partners, content providers, and customers while Microsoft and Google concentrate on destroying each other at all costs.

I am a little biased because I've stuck with Yahoo for the past ten years through thick and thin. But this does make for a compelling alternative to all the negatives I've read about the company from investment bankers, select journalists, and others over the past six months.

What do you think?

George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.

[e-mail]...