Support Bloggers' Rights!
Support Bloggers' Rights!







How to Videos & Articles: eHow.com

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Yahoo Open Strategy Unchained as Microsoft Wilts


Microsoft is backing off of the takeover attempt on YAHOO! So glad to hear it. The cultures clash, the combination would have been absurdly bad for search and Yahoo can now fully embrace and promote the YOS! (Yahoo Open Strategy) concept they've been discussing since the San Francisco Web 2.0 conference about six weeks ago.

I'm also glad to see that the silly Carl Icahn tantrum is over, and they he probably lost big money on the dumb proxy fight move. What was he thinking?

I've not been a fan of Yahoo due to their odd monetization and content corralling practices in which they insist on hosting content produced by others so they can advertise around it - and not even link back to the content producers in most cases. No wonder they weren't liked by most SEO's - they won't give links. They bought dozens of companies to gain the audience share, but let them die over time.

BUT! I've been excited by the prospects discussed at Web 2.0 by Yahoo around opening the network to developers and the ideas of others. It's a social network play that deserves to succeed in it's own way - a way that will be mostly determined by how freely those external developers and partners are allowed to create and explore the Yahoo network through YOS!

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, May 04, 2008

Microsoft / Yahoo Merger Off: Ballmer Walks Away


Well, it's over, thank goodness. Microsoft has walked away from their unsolicited bid for Yahoo. Whew! Deep sigh of relief from many Yahoo senior employees. But predictions are for an ugly day on Wall Street for Yahoo Monday morning - with a potential return by Microsoft with a lower bid after Yahoo tanks in the markets.

It's frustrating to those of us who love search to watch this epic battle, knowing that Microhoo may yet emerge from the burning embers. I commented in my last post that the Yahoo Open Strategy announced by Ari Balogh last week at Web 2.0 introduced some exciting prospects for the future of search if they can successfully pull it off and Microsoft doesn't win the merger through a lower offer and proxy battle. Well nobody has even commented in the news about the effect the YOS could have, not even Microsoft.

Maybe I'm way off base with this one, but I'm going to stick to my assertions until we see how this all shakes out. If Yahoo survives to stand on it's own and can put together the strategy for opening up their entire network to developers in a sweeping move like they've outlined - I predict that Yahoo could overtake Google in two years - but only if Google stands still and watches - which is not likely either.

Danny Sullivan has an excellent analysis and commentary on the Microsoft / Yahoo / Microhoo battle. I'm surprised that he didn't bring up Yahoo Open Strategy either - is it because nobody expects them to survive to see where that could take them? What if the merger happened - would Ballmer nix YOS?

I'm no Yahoo fan. I've disliked their strategy for years, I hate how they buy up companies and then kill them off or let them die within Yahoo, I can't believe they didn't leverage GeoCities and Yahoo Groups to become a social networking leader. I'm astonished that they aren't more profitable than they are because they emphasize monetization above audience satisfaction and utility. (Yahoo mail still doesn't allow pop access unless you pay for it when gmail allows this access, even using imap.) So I don't use my Yahoo mail account except to log in to the few services I use like MyBlogLog, Yahoo Groups and Flickr.

The public seems completely uninterested in the whole thing if Google Trends is any indication. The chart showing searches for the story and news stories seem to drive little interest. (click to enlarge)

Google Trends: yahoo, microsoft
Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!

Well - I will once again throw out a cautious cheer for Yahoo and hope that they survive the Wall Street rollercoaster to pursue Yahoo Open Strategy as it is their best hope for a true contribution to search. Without YOS - it's over for Yahoo IMHO.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Yahoo Open Strategy a Volley Against Microsoft?


Yahoo announced last week at the Web 2.0 conference that they are opening up their entire network to developers to build apps and mashups. The announcement was covered by Greg Sterling for SearchEngineLand and the brief 14 minute announcement and explanation by Yahoo CTO Ari Baolgh has been covered by very well by Michael Arrington at TechCrunch. There's also a wonderfully prescient view from Loren Baker at SearchEngineJournal - from a YEAR ago, which he looks at again in the light of Yahoo announcements this past week.

Here's a video of the Ari Baolgh Web 2.0 Keynote presentation, thanks to Yahoo Video:



I got to attend a later, Friday Web 2.0 presentation titled "Yahoo! and Open Platforms, A Deeper Dive by Yahoo Chief Architect of Platforms, Neal Sample, who delivered as promised with a presentation on how the whole Yahoo Network, including Yahoo Mail, Flickr, Answers, etc. all get reworked and rejiggered to make this one massive Social experiment.

I've taken a look elsewhere at the Y!OS or Yahoo Open Strategy idea through the lens of privacy concerns this may raise for the 500 Million claimed Yahoo users.

But privacy issues aside here, this announcement could truly gain Yahoo an increased bid from Microsoft now that the MSFT deadline for a response from Yahoo has come and gone this past weekend. Watching the video above, one has to imagine Balogh seeing this as a presentation directly to Microsoft and picturing the camera as Steve Ballmer - the video being made available first to Michael Arrington at TechCrunch (hmmm what Yahoo strategy!), who put it well in his coverage, saying:

They still, of course, have to actually launch this massive project - for now it’s all ideas and vaporware. And no one knows what Microsoft thinks of all this, or what happens to YOS if that deal is done.
Now let's see how the press reacts Monday morning and what noises Microsoft makes in light of these Yahoo announcements. Microsoft invested $240 Million in Facebook not long after they announced a much smaller scale "Open" strategy, that's the same Facebook which is not even participating in the Google Open Social model - but Yahoo is participating and - one might argue - leading in this monstrous experiment that must have Microsoft groaning in agony.

Microsoft, open? They gotta hate this Yahoo Open Strategy (YOS) idea. Google moves to undermine Microsoft on Google Docs, Yahoo moves to undermine Microsoft takeover bid by open-sourcing their entire network (hmmm what Yahoo strategy!).

Despite my privacy concerns, I'm excited at what this may mean for search in general - not just for Yahoo - but for the web and how search works. I've been critical of Yahoo for their massive acquisitiveness in the past and have never understood how they failed to take advantage of their massive audience to become a social networking leader (Geocities anyone?).

This is big and I can't imagine how this could fail to evolve search and social media. It will affect everyone if they pull it off successfully and if Microsoft doesn't screw it all up for them with a proxy battle and eventual win.

I never could have imagined myself in a position to cheer for Yahoo, but I may ... I just may. ;-)

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, May 04, 2007

YahooSoft or MicroHoo! How to Beat Google


MarketWatch discussed the merger talks between Microsoft and Yahoo today. The states headline states flatly 'YahooSoft' not enough to take on Google!

That analysis is no doubt galling to both companies. Both have failed to gain significant market share of search, despite what seems like endless acquistions activity by Yahoo and confident Microsoft promises to build their own better system for search.

MSN was stung by Google's winning $3.1 billion bid for DoubleClick last month (even though MSN reportedly made a higher offer) and while Yahoo countered by buying another Ad server, Microsoft counters by offering once again to buy Yahoo. Fact is, neither approach is likely to work to wrest control of market share from Google. My favorite quote from the MarketWatch story is:

"Here are two companies that are bad at the same thing," said Scott Kessler of Standard & Poor's. "With a merger, you get one company still bad at doing that same thing."
Wow, that about sums it up. But what is the solution for the two? It seems odd that the #3 player is talking of buying the #2 player and combined (a generously estimated 38% combined total), their reach would still smaller than the competitor they both want to take on.

I've poked fun of both Yahoo and MSN for years for various reasons, most have to do with a lack of focus or for putting monetization above utility of tools and services and all of their flailing about.

It's simple guys. Build or buy a great service, not a service designed to take market share, not a service you can leverage to beat the competition, not a service that mimics Google - just build something that works well and that you have a passion for. Something that is just too cool and everyone wants to use. Make it popular first, THEN monetize it Are you listening Yahoo? Or is it going to be MicroHoo?

Mike Valentine is an SEO Specialist offering occassional commentary on Search Engine Developments through his Reality SEO Blog and developed WebSite101 Small Business Ecommerce Tutorial in 1999 to help educate the little guy to the intricacies of online business.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Google Plus DoubleClick: Truthiness & Trustiness


The Google Acquisition of DoubleClick has Microsoft and AT&T screeching "Monopoly!" to the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust division. In a video interview with John Batelle at WebProNews last week, Google CEO Eric Schmidt responded to a comment from Batelle about "anti-competitive practices" by reacting in what seemed like mock surprise. "Microsoft! ... AT&T? ... What year is this?"

Google doesn't control advertising online and DoubleClick won't change that. It will simply give Google access to another segment (display, or graphical) advertising that they didn't have direct access to previously. Just as Google's Dmarc acquisition and the recent ClearChannel deal gives them access to radio advertising. If the DOJ denies the DoubleClick purchase, I'd be shocked.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and others are concerned, on a different front, about privacy issues - because Google will now be able to combine their own powerful tracking abilities (surfing and search query data, along with webmaster and advertiser account holder contact information) with the extensive behavioral targeting abilities and ad tracking details of DoubleClick.

Schmidt suggests simply that they'll keep the information in separate silos. Why should anyone believe that? Stephen Colbert popularized a rarely used word - truthiness to suggest that something can feel true, whether it is or not. Truthiness may apply here - as well as another word that suggests that a company and its' principals can have trustiness. They do. Google has earned that trust in several ways. More on that later.

DoubleClick ignited a firestorm of controversy back in 2000 when they announced plans to merge offline data with online surfing behavior data and email and contact information (physical addresses and phone numbers) of surfers who had viewed and/or clicked on their ads across the web. They resolved that issue by selling off the division of the company that held the "real-world" data.

This all got me thinking about why I trust Google with the information that I didn't trust DoubleClick with. What it all comes down to is that Google has so far lived up to their unofficial corporate mantra of "Don't Be Evil." While it takes more to live up to that motto than putting the words on a web page, Google has actually made moves to demonstrate true adherence to the concept.

Last month they announced that they would, after two years, slightly anonymize the IP addresses they currently use to track queries done through their search function. This followed Google's refusal to turn over data for two months of user search query information to the Department of Justice, when the DOJ demanded that data from MSN, Yahoo, AOL and Google. The others relented - Google stood firm and refused - and won in court.

So even though I believe that Google has way too much information on me already, including search history, financial information (through my Google account), web site stats, physical address and contact info, my personal emails (through Gmail account), and so much more - I trust them so far.

So what's to say they won't some day turn on me, and you, and everyone else and use that extensive data they hold on all of us for evil purposes? Their track record so far says so. Schmidt even comments near the end of that Battelle video interview that Google believes in data portability, so that if we should decide for any reason that we no longer want to use Google services and prefer to take our history and data with us, that they are working on technology that would allow us to move that information from Google to anywhere we choose.

This is another example of why I trust Google and why others do too. They have gone far above and beyond what is necessary and reasonable, to what is right. They are also painfully aware of how fragile their business model is, and that continued profits rely on the trust and support of their users - who can and will easily move elsewhere (now with Google's help apparently) if they lose that trust. The entire business would simply implode on itself. Truthiness is, they can't afford to lose that trustiness. And you can quote me on that!

Mike Valentine is an SEO Specialist offering occassional commentary on Search Engine Developments through his Reality SEO Blog and developed WebSite101 Small Business Ecommerce Tutorial in 1999 to help educate the little guy to the intricacies of online business.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Searching for SEO Meaning at MSN Live Search


In the past, I've been critical of MSN for not participating in conferences. Today I'm going to be critical of them because they did participate. Steve Berkowitz, Senior Vice President, Online Services Group for Microsoft, was the keynote for day 2 of SES NY 2007 and it is one of the first keynotes I've regretted attending. I would have rather slept in.

It sounds as though Mr. Berkowitz has drunk the corporate Kool Aid. In his Q&A session with Danny Sullivan this morning at the New York Hilton, he called Microsoft "Amazing" no fewer than 10 times. (Actually he did reserve one of those for Google.)

Now his move from Ask.com - which he characterized himself as a "rowboat" - to Microsoft - which he calls a "Cruise Ship" by comparison, would no doubt be quite a transition.

To be fair to Berkowitz, I've heard tech industry commentators talk about Microsoft in much the same way - characterizing the people there and the projects they work on as nothing short of magical - but the morass of corporate culture somehow stifles all the smart people and waters down their projects until they are weak and wimpy.

It's interesting that Ask.com is only a point or two away from Live.com in search referrals for many web sites. Even though (as Berkowitz has said) the little Ask.com rowboat is small, nimble and capable of a change in direction by dipping an oar in the water - MSN Live takes forever to change course - neither has been able to gain significant market share from Google.

Normally I like to quote liberally from keynotes, but that would make this article sound like a puff piece for MSN Live, because Berkowitz had so little to say if it wasn't glowing praise for his employer. He did say repeatedly that great ("amazing") stuff was coming, but wouldn't say what it was.

So all we have to base our expectations and insights on are silly things like Ms. Dewey (who I had heard about but hadn't experienced "live"). She unexpectedly interrupted a Danny Sullivan Question to Steve Berkowitz, stepped up onto the stage in character of Ms. Dewey and continued her act (played by Janina Gavankar) interrupting and answering questions posed by Sullivan.

The little show was clearly planned, Berkowitz had to know about it, but Sullivan seemed a bit bewildered and flustered. The routine made absolutely no sense to me and the audience didn't respond terribly well to it either. I think Ogilvy Advertising should be fired from the Live Search account because this character and the website is absurd.

For those who haven't experienced it, Ms. Dewey answers questions after you type something in a search box. It is usually something cryptic that might apply to nearly any question, and there are 600 short film clips which make up her store of responses to questions.

The algorithm for that must have taken some engineers far too long, even though it doesn't work terribly well. Then after the odd (sometimes ascerbic) answer from Ms. Dewey, you get a group of three search results on the right side of the screen. If you hover your mouse over the bottom of the third result, then more results scroll upward. These are clearly Live.com results but scrolling isn't obvious and only three answers to your question?

I don't get it - who wants to wait 5 - 10 seconds for that flash movie to load, then wait 10 - 20 seconds more for the response to load (Ms. Dewey is thinking...), then wait for three results where it isn't clear there are more?

Further, there is a "Best of Dewey" button - which is reminiscent of "I'm Feeling Lucky" so I typed a question in the search box and clicked "Best of Dewey" waited 10 seconds and got my query replaced by something I didn't type. OK, I get it, most popular clips - but they're not good enough to justify that 10 to 15 second wait for a new clip each time you click the "best of" button.

So after sitting through the keynote, I'm not sure what I came away with, other than a page and a half of notes I can't easily assemble into an article. So to prove I was there and show how little of substance was discussed, here's a small chunk of my notes as an example.

Depth of engagement with users. Yahoo cross-network traffic. Search better integrated into MSN in a much cleaner way. Advantages of Microsoft is it's reach. Data center perspective. Storage perspective. We're moving everything from the desktop to the cloud. Microsoft has some amazing stuff going on... Great resources. Licensing business. subscription business.
I'm bewildered by Ms. Dewey, I'm confused by how Microsoft can be so "amazing" and still not produce a substantial and competitive search product, I'm left wondering where Steve Berkowitz is leading Live Search and I am utterly at a loss for what to say about Live.com except maybe to ask, "Where's the search referral traffic?"
Mike Valentine is an SEO Specialist offering occassional commentary on Search Engine Developments through his Reality SEO Blog and developed WebSite101 Small Business Ecommerce Tutorial in 1999 to help educate the little guy to the intricacies of online business.

Labels: , , , , , ,