Yahoo actually let me talk with its new CEO Scott Thompson this morning, after the company announced it had hired him as its latest leader.

In an interview, the man who is leaving a job running eBay’s large and lucrative PayPal online payments unit was affable and — dare I say it — seemed very sweet, as well as gung ho on Yahoo’s prospects going forward.

Joking about how he took the job only because eBay and Yahoo are located close by each other in Silicon Valley and the commute was just as easy, Thompson opened by noting that those working at the online commerce giant have always had a “keen appreciation for what each other was doing.”

He said that when he was approached in November about the Yahoo job, although sources said it was just offered this week and took eBay by surprise.

Still, soon after being contacted by Yahoo’s exec recruiters, Thompson said he began “exploring in more detail what’s actually here.” As he did so, he added, he “became progressively more fascinated” that Yahoo had more promise than has been assumed in recent years.

“Its potential is still enormous, but the dialogue has not been about what the company is,” Thompson said. “I want to get this wonderful brand to where it could be again … so, as a starting point, this is a great starting point.”

Thompson’s premise is based on his belief that we are still in the early days of the Internet. And, because he is a Boston native — making him, of course, an ardent fan of its beloved Red Sox — he used baseball as a metaphor.

“It’s early innings, and there are the next eight innings in front of us,” he said, noting that he was in the stands with his father when catcher Carlton Fisk hit that famous game-winning home run in the 12th inning of the sixth game of the World Series in 1975.

Note to everyone who is not an obsessive fan like Thompson (and also, I might add, Walt Mossberg): It did take the Red Sox from 1918 to 2004 to actually finally win the Series again, so maybe Yahoo has a chance!

“This remains a great business, and I have no doubt its best days are ahead of Yahoo,” said Thompson, in that same hopeful spirit of this-year’s-gonna-be-the-one.

Thompson noted that he is fully cognizant of the major troubles at the company recently, and had a “real sense of urgency, but not by moving at breakneck speed, because you just do bad stuff faster.”

Instead, he said, he hopes to focus Yahoo the same way he did PayPal, by innovating, making commitments and keeping them, and overperforming.

None are easy tasks, and all have stymied Yahoo in the recent past. Thompson said that he thinks it might be because of not focusing equally on both consumers and Yahoo’s partners and advertisers.

He admitted that his lack of advertising experience was clear — it could be problematic, because it’s Yahoo’s biggest business — but said, “I readily admit what I don’t know, and am ready to learn and rely on Yahoo’s great team.”

While he would not go into deep specifics — Thompson does not start until next week — he said he planned to get some basic grounding, noting, “I have no preconceived notions.”

One thing is clear, said Thompson: “I can assure you I am going to be completely different.”

If that means doing what Fisk did, that would certainly be a home run for Yahoo.

This morning, Yahoo said it had hired PayPal President Scott Thompson as its newest victim, oops, CEO.

(You can read my interview with him too, here.)

AllThingsD.com had reported the pending development last night — which is how we roll here.

Now we will roll into the conference call on the matter, and are hoping that the head of the lucrative eBay payments unit will make an appearance, given that he does not start until next week.

One piece of advice I will extend Thompson: I would refrain from cursing, as previous Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz did on her first outing. (She was fired in September, although not precisely for the cussing she so enjoyed partaking in.)

Here we go!

7:02 am: It’s on, with Thompson present.

Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock begins, and he is “very excited, very excited.”

I’d be very excited if Thompson talked and not Roy, who has been to this particular Yahoo CEO rodeo a few too many times before.

Bostock is making promises that this time it’s going to be different. Really!

He also notes that the company will continue its “strategic review” — but who knows what that means now.

And he thanks Tim Morse, the interim CEO who is moving back to the CFO job. (Agreed — nice work, Tim!)

7:06 am: Scott Thompson is on and is “just thrilled” to be the new Yahoo CEO.

I like his accent, which seems like he might be from Boston. He does look and sound like Cliff Clavin, the mailman guy at the Beantown bar from the television classic “Cheers.”

Except, given he has been the darkest of dark horses in this CEO race, nobody knew Thompson’s name.

Thompson is saying all the right stuff, about wanting to increase shareholder value and such.

He sounds so hopeful! Urgency! Thoughtfulness! A bright new morning at Yahoo!

I have been to this rodeo before too, but I am still hoping this time it’ll work.

Scott, if you let me down, I might cry, because you sound so nice.

7:09 am Q&A time already.

Congrats from the Wall Street analyst peanut gallery.

Then, it’s right into a question for Bostock, about the progress of the Asian assets deal.

Also, is Thompson too much of a technologist and not a media dude?

Bostock wants to talk about only Scott, but notes that there will be “no slowdown and no delay” in the Asian process. And Thompson will be all onboard when he comes on board, folks.

Bostock sounds tired, but starts to talk about how a “great customer experience” is the key to the advertising business. He notes that Thompson knows how to do this, hence he’ll be fantastic.

“I have every expectation he’ll be out there calling on advertisers,” says Bostock. I would hope so, given that is where Yahoo makes most of its lettuce.

Bostock is saying Yahoo has been “treading water” and now needs to swim fast. Treading water? I wonder who the top honcho at Yahoo has been while the company has been listlessly dangling its legs in the drink?

Roy — that’s who!

7:15 am: Another analyst asks about margins.

Thompson is not having any of it! He is polite when asking for time to get on the job to make proper statements.

But he does focus on the need to build “great, innovative” products. True, but Yahoo has been incredibly unable to do this of late.

Thompson gives no specifics, though. My big idea: I would steal the self-driving car from Google.

7:17 am: A question about what the core of Yahoo is, and about what lessons Thompson is bringing from his experience at PayPal.

Well, he has not met the team — literally. Yahoo’s board consulted almost no one in the top ranks of execs on this appointment.

But Thompson “suspects” there is talent there. Given the recent attrition, he’ll need a big Inspector Clouseau magnifying glass to find it!

From eBay’s PayPal, he says that the key was balancing the customer experience with network effect and, well, blah, blah, blah Internet-speak.

I am still thinking shoplifting the self-driving car is the bestest idea.

7:20 am: A question about Yahoo’s display business versus Google.

Thompson notes it is too early for him to say — though he had better say soon! — but notes that data is key. He is a well-known by-the-numbers guy, and that is clearly where we are going at Yahoo, now that he is the big dog.

Thus:

“The data these Internet businesses create, the ability to use analytical technology to build a better businesses for your customers … I feel certain that wealth of data is going to be exploitable for next generation products, next generation experiences … My instinct says down in that data we’re going to be able to find ways to compete and innovate that the world hasn’t seen yet.”

I am really liking this accent, which is almost lulling. And so polite! Sources tell me that being “collaborative” was a big goal in this hiring.

7:22 am: A question about the identity of Yahoo, and whether it should be public or private.

Thompson harps on the need for innovation, and hopes it will be the future.

“I would not be here if I didn’t think it was possible,” says Thompson.

Bostock takes the public/private question. Yahoo will be public, he declares! Mostly, because it would be too pricey to take private.

“It’s a moot point,” he says.

7:25 am: More questions about what Yahoo is.

Thompson declines to run off the rails on this dicey one, but he says he believes that Yahoo has great assets.

It does. It’s just that it has been crashed many times — by the people who just hired him — right into a wall.

Just sayin’ — a self-driving car would have done a better job.

7:27 am: A brain-drain question, and more on Asia and on mobile.

Bostock butts in again. He said that Thompson will not be distracted by that, and will concentrate on the core business. Hush up, Roy.

Thompson says that he looks forward to meeting the peeps of Yahoo. (’Cuz he has not, as yet!)

He also loves mobile — which Yahoo has largely borked.

7:32 am: A content strategy question. Early days, so Thompson is still keeping his yap shut.

In this, he’s like the anti-Bartz. Is this good? It’s certainly different.

He says again that, “I can’t wait to meet” everyone at Yahoo. Vice versa, because this dude came from left field.

Thompson promises that he will be a “sponge.”

He closes by noting that he is “genuinely excited,” and says he believes in Yahoo.

Indeed, when it comes to Yahoo, you definitely gotta have faith.

In a deal that was struck some time ago and is close to fruition, BermanBraun is prepping three major Web properties for AOL that will focus on pets, men and, interestingly, the weather.

After I inquired, AOL confirmed that the Hollywood production company — headed by former Yahoo and ABC exec Lloyd Braun and former Paramount exec Gail Berman — will debut the trio of sites around March. The new sites will use rich features and a slick design to attract premium advertisers.

The pair will jointly sell the advertising, but the sites themselves will be operated by BermanBraun in cooperation with AOL’s media unit, the Huffington Post Media Group. The deal was struck in late 2010, before AOL bought the Huffington Post for $300 million in January of this year.

While AOL has partnered with many outside sites, this will be the most prominent one since that acquisition.

Since then, much of the new content development on AOL has been aimed at drastically increasing the number of sites with that brand. There have been more than two dozen of those since March.

In this case, the Huffington Post Media Group, run by Arianna Huffington, has typically either created new topic sites or relaunched old AOL ones.

This week, for example, the company rejiggered AOL TV as HuffPost TV, as well as announcing El Huffington Post, an international Spanish-language version of the Huffington Post that will debut in early 2012, in partnership with El País.

The BermanBraun effort, though, is more independent and large-scale. It will feature extensive video and heavy use of imagery. Huffington Post will be involved in editorial selection, and has been working closely with the firm on incorporating social elements.

“It’s been a very dynamic and collaborative partnership — we’ve worked together on everything from design to picking the editors,” said Roy Sekoff, founding editor of the Huffington Post Media Group, about the arrangement. “BermanBraun brings a distinctive approach to their sites, and we’ve helped infuse that with our focus on real-time, social, and building community.”

Sekoff declined to give more details, such as the names of the sites. (They won’t be HuffPost Pets, HuffPost Weather and HuffPost Dudes, though!)

Pets could be a strong category if done in a new way, especially if designed with new tablet devices in mind. And weather, to my mind, is a sleeper category if reimagined freshly.

BermanBraun — which also develops television shows and movies — has a lot of experience in the online content arena. It has previously created Web sites for Microsoft’s MSN unit, including the high-profile celebrity site Wonderwall.

It will be interesting to see how the collaboration turns out. In the meantime, here’s my favorite weather song — Lena Horne rules! — to enjoy until the three sites launch:

Clearspring, the social-sharing company — in an effort to increase its business as a marketing analytics player — has acquired XGraph, a data science company.

Clearspring declined to provide the price it paid for XGraph, but said the deal was in cash and stock. The start-up raised $3.75 million just over a year ago.

The combined company has 85 employees — 70 at Clearspring and 15 at XGraph.

Execs at the the McLean, Va.-based company said the purchase will increase value to advertisers and publishers via audience targeting and data science. Clearspring is best known by consumers for its AddThis social-sharing tool, which provides a lot of detailed user data.

Clearspring raised $20 million in funding in May. At the time, the company said it planned to spend its new cash on acquisitions that leveraged data and built audiences more efficiently.

The New York-based XGraph focuses on modeling and monetizing the Web’s social graph.

“We get a lot of data points every day and making sense of them is something we have already been doing, but XGraph fits the bill to go even further in the multi-graph use of data,” said Clearspring CEO Ramsey McGrory. “It puts us in a position to be the market leader for the application of data.”

Key Compton, CEO and co-founder of the three-year-old XGraph, noted that the industry has become data-driven in new ways.

“People are connected to each other via social connections in a multi-graph platform,” said Compton. “I think there are some really interesting opportunities to access the data.”

Here’s the official press release for the deal:

Clearspring Acquires XGraph to Create Largest Multi-Graph on the Open Web

Company accelerates growth by deepening data team and technology

McLean, VA and New York. NY. — November 1, 2011 – Clearspring, provider of the largest social sharing and analytics platform, AddThis, announced today it has acquired XGraph, Inc., a leading data science company focused on modeling and monetizing the web-wide social graph. Clearspring’s massive reach and proprietary real-time data processing capability, coupled with XGraph’s audience technology, create the largest multi-graph platform on the web — mapping 1.2 billion user’s connections by brand affiliation, intent and social behavior.

The investment in XGraph’s data science capabilities marks another step on Clearspring’s rapid growth trajectory. XGraph’s team has deep data science expertise with applied backgrounds in advertising, sociology, mathematics and computer science. Their unique technology dynamically organizes users by shared connections and interests. XGraph’s team and platform will drive Clearspring’s existing efforts with publishers, advertisers and agencies forward while also setting the stage for new innovation.

“Clearspring is at the epicenter of two major shifts online — the web becoming social and personal, and advertising becoming data-driven and accountable. The common thread in both changes is data. To compete in this new world, companies will not only need the ability to access and process big data, but also have the ability to activate that data to create value for consumers, publishers and advertisers,” said Ramsey McGrory, Clearspring’s new Chief Executive. “The combined company has the people, technology and data to enable our clients to stay at the forefront of these changes. 2012 will be a breakout year for Clearspring.”

For advertisers, agencies and trading desks, Clearspring will immediately be able to provide the largest multi-graph audience targeting capabilities available on the open web. By using this technology to identify a brand’s core audiences and finding millions of other connected and like-minded people online, the company can now drive more efficient spending and increased campaign performance. Clearspring also plans to leverage this new capability to deliver publishers unique audience insights, monetization capabilities and actionable data products in the coming year.

“Most companies only capture one dimension of how we’re all connected, whether it be our friends or people we share with — a single graph approach. XGraph not only models these social connections, but also multiple other types of connections such as brand affiliations, intent and more — a multi-graph approach,” said Key Compton, XGraph’s CEO. “We’re truly excited to leverage our technology to unlock the value of Clearspring’s massive data set and help publishers and advertisers truly harness the power of the web-wide interest graph.”

XGraph is headquartered in New York with an office in Silicon Valley. All XGraph employees based in New York will join Clearspring’s office there. Clearspring plans to keep the office in Silicon Valley. The combined company will have 85 employees nationwide.

Tonight at 1 am PT, techies who have nothing else to do — that would be me! — can click onto a brand new tech site called The Verge.

Well, kind of — it’s the result of many months of work by the gang that defected from AOL’s popular Engadget tech powerhouse, set up temporary shop under the Web site name This Is My Next and busied themselves with creating The Verge.

I have another screenshot below of the new site that will be focused on news, reviews and features about tech, and which has been getting a final tweaking all today.

From my quick perusal, it has a vibrant and slick design, with a lot of packed boxes, swooshy movement and plenty of content.

Along with the launch, The Verge’s parent company — formerly doing business as SB Nation, focused on sports — will also transform into Vox Media.

In a chit-chat with Vox’s CEO Jim Bankoff, top exec Marty Moe and Josh Topolsky, The Verge’s Editor-in-Chief, the trio of former AOLers all said they were going to for the big time.

“We want to build the platform for talented native Web voices, in sports and tech for now, and then we plan to grow more verticals,” said Bankoff.

“We want to create more than a news site or blog about tech — the frustration at AOL was that we did not get the resources or manpower to realize that bigger vision,” said Topolsky.

(You’re speaking to the choir, brother!)

Said Moe: “We think this category has not had a large enough vision…not enough has been innovated over the years and we think it is a big opportunity.”

Topolsky said the site, along with a mass of original content from 30 writers, will also be helped by a strong database of information about all its topics and gadgets and also focus a lot on community input.

“What we want to do was graduate beyond the blog,” he said.

(Hmm…and here I just got the hang of this blog thing.)

Bankoff, who would not say how much Vox spent on launching The Verge — my back-of-the-envelope guess, several million dollars — said that costs were spread out between the tech and sports sites with centralized sales and product teams.

Initial launch sponsors are BMW, Sony and Samsung, said Moe, who is aiming to sell “major brand advertisers on the idea that we will be the premiere destination of consumer tech coverage.”

It has to grow past big sites like Engadget to do so, but Topolsky said that This Is My Next had three million unique visitors in the last month and more than 10 million page views.

“We have done that with a lot of editorials and in-depth reviews,” he said. “I think people are really hungry for great content and stories.”

As to competitors, Topolsky said that “this not to necessarily I win if you lose,” although his clear aim is to unseat sites like CBS-owned CNET, Engadget and Gawker Media’s Gizmodo and perhaps even newsier sites such as TechCrunch and AllThingsD (as if!).

“We are going to do the nuts and bolts stuff,” he said. “Somewhere between Engadget and Wired.”

Topolsky compared The Verge to a “boutique hotel — we have the same stuff everyone else has, but it is a much more elegant experience.”

Later, that will change, he promised, noting that “this is only version 1.0.”

Of course — but what else would you expect from a gadget site?

(Good luck and congrats to the entire The Verge team from AllThingsD!)

And here is another lovely screenshot, as promised:

San Francisco-based Federated Media Publishing said it has bought Lijit Networks, a smaller online advertising analytics and tools firm.

The price for the Boulder, Colo., start-up — which was founded in 2006 — was undisclosed, but it has received just under $29 million in venture funding from firms such as Foundry Group. Federated said Lijit would continue to operate independently, “but in conjunction.”

In an interview yesterday, Federated CEO Deanna Brown said the buy was to round out offerings for its clients and to better compete in a world where most of the online ads go to the top five players.

“I am excited we can give both publishers and advertisers more tools for engagement and monetization,” she said.

Federated, which lost big social-media news site Mashable earlier this year, also benefits from increased scale and inventory of sites.

Lijit CEO Todd Vernon, who will become EVP of technology at Federated, said that it was ever more important for ad-focused firms on the Web to “deliver the entire stack.”

“Lijit has a core competency in the media business, and combined with FM’s best-in-class sales force, we can offer everything needed to do effective online campaigns,” he said.

Here’s the official press release:

Federated Media Publishing To Acquire Lijit Networks

Combined Entity Will Power More than 77,000 Independent Publishers Across the Web Via Comprehensive Advertising, Analytics and Reader Engagement Tools

SAN FRANCISCO, October 4, 2011 – Federated Media Publishing, which powers the best of the Independent Web, today announced the acquisition of Lijit Networks, Inc. Lijit is a leading provider of advertising services, audience analytics and reader engagement tools for online publishers of all sizes. The combined entity will reach nearly 300 million global unique visitors according to Quantcast.

Lijit, headquartered in Boulder, Colorado, will continue to operate independently but in conjunction with the rest of Federated Media Publishing. Lijit CEO Todd Vernon and COO Walter Knapp will take on corresponding EVP of Technology and SVP of Platform Revenue responsibilities at Federated Media Publishing and will report directly to Federated Media Publishing’s CEO, Deanna Brown. Additionally, Lijit board member Seth Levine from Foundry Group will join the Federated Media Publishing board of directors, effective immediately.

With the addition of Lijit Networks’ existing publisher relationships, Federated Media Publishing will now reach more than 77,000 online publishers and nearly 15,000 expert communities, making it one of the largest companies to power publishing on the Independent Web. The acquisition vastly expands the combined company’s inventory of sites, offering premium advertisers improved scale and reach.

Publishers Will Profit and Flourish

Lijit helps publishers more thoughtfully interact with and better understand their audience by providing analytics and engagement tools that build deeper relationships, lengthen time on site and increase page views. These robust and actionable audience analytics and reader engagement tools leverage intent, behavior and demographics to help publishers of all sizes increase revenue and better engage their readers.

Additionally, the combined advertising services provided by FM and Lijit will give publishers of all sizes a revenue stream that complements existing sales efforts and helps grow and monetize their website businesses, no matter what the size.

Advertisers Can More Easily Analyze and Engage

The combination of Federated Media Publishing’s premium online advertising and conversational marketing programs and Lijit’s proprietary data collection tools will empower advertisers to better understand user intent, contextual relevance and demographic information. And by leveraging the combined entity’s extensive publisher relationships, advertisers will have unprecedented scale on the Independent Web.

Introducing Programmatic Buying to the Independent Web

Programmatic buying is one of the fastest growing trends in digital media and the introduction of Lijit’s robust RTB exchange will equip media buyers with one of the largest platforms available. Over the next few months, Federated Media Publishing and Lijit will develop a series of private exchanges that will highlight leading independent publishers. These exchanges will allow brands to engage active, passionate consumers found in highly conversational online communities and publications, while delivering premium CPM rates via FM’s conversational marketing programs.

Quote

“The Lijit Networks team is just as passionate and committed to powering publishers as we are at Federated Media Publishing and that was a crucial element to this decision,” said Deanna Brown, chief executive officer, Federated Media Publishing. “Our combined relationships, proprietary tools and conversational marketing services will be invaluable to publishers and advertisers alike.”

“Federated Media invented how to leverage authentic voices and engaged conversations that exist in the Independent Web,” said Todd Vernon, founder and CEO of Lijit Networks. “The combination of the two companies is a game changer in the industry that unlocks new opportunities for both companies and our combined publisher network.”

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111004/federated-media-buys-lijit-networks/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20110211/twitter-tells-advertisers-to-dig-deeper-promoted-trends-are-going-to-get-more-expensive/ http://allthingsd.com/20110211/twitter-tells-advertisers-to-dig-deeper-promoted-trends-are-going-to-get-more-expensive/#comments Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:30:11 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=29572 Twitter’s “promoted trends” ads may be the company’s most consistent source of revenue. Now the company wants to wring more money out of them: It has told buyers to expect a significant price bump for the ads in the next few months.

Twitter doesn’t have a formal rate card, but ad industry sources say the going price for a one-day promoted trends purchase has settled between $70,000 and $80,000, after starting out as high as $100,000 a day.

Now Twitter has started telling buyers the coming price hike will consistently push the ads into the $100,000 to $120,000 range.

Promoted trends give an advertiser a chance to essentially purchase a small sliver of Twitter’s site, by inserting their message at the top of the “trends” section of users’ pages. For now, Twitter sells only one per day, and has been selling the slot out with some frequency.

And promoted trends could become even more valuable for Twitter CEO Dick Costolo and his company if they start carving the ads up into different geographies, giving them the ability to sell more than one per day.

If, say, Twitter could sell at least two different promoted trends, in two different territories each week, at $100,000 a pop, those ads alone could generate $20.8 million a year. Play around with those assumptions, and you can quite easily bite off a big chunk of the $100 million-plus ad revenue estimates we’ve seen floated.

Ad buyers also tell me Twitter has been bullish about its “Promoted Accounts” product, which it rolled out toward the end of last year.

When I first wrote about the concept last summer, and described it as a way to let marketers (or anyone) “buy” followers, the concept upset some Twitter traditionalists.

But they’re going to have to get over it, because it’s exactly what Twitter is selling: It prices the ads, which show up on users “Who to follow” list, on a “cost per follow” basis. Buyers pay between $1 to $3 for every new account that follows them.

The one Twitter ad product I haven’t heard buyers talk that much about is the first one Twitter rolled out. “Promoted Tweets” were supposed to work like Google’s AdWords–”organic” tweets, tied to keywords, that showed up in search results, and later in users’ regular streams.

That seemed like a promising tactic at first. But I’ve never seen a promoted tweet “in the wild”; the only time I’ve seen them is when they’re attached to the promoted trends.

But perhaps I’m just missing them. If you’ve bought one, or if you see one, please pass drop me a line (peter@allthingsd.com) and let me know.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110211/twitter-tells-advertisers-to-dig-deeper-promoted-trends-are-going-to-get-more-expensive/feed/ 7 http://allthingsd.com/20110119/theres-a-one-in-200-chance-youre-tweeting-from-inside-justin-bieber/ http://allthingsd.com/20110119/theres-a-one-in-200-chance-youre-tweeting-from-inside-justin-bieber/#comments Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:28:40 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=28262 From the “awesome to know, now what?” file: Something like one out of every 200 Twitter users claims to be filing their dispatches from Justin Bieber.

Or at least somewhere very close to the teen idol: Some Twitter users report that they are located “in Justin Biebers heart” or “Bieberacademy” or “Bieberville, California.” That comes from a new study from the august Palo Alto Research Center, which had an intern comb through the “Location” fields on 10,000 Twitter user profiles.

The PARC report says that 66 percent of users filled in the field with “valid” information. Another 18 percent left it blank altogether, and 16 percent used it to make a joke and/or an expression of their Bieberlove.

But even that 66 percent number is a bit misleading, since “valid” is a very vague term. Check out this great deadpan:

This includes those who merely entered their continent and, more commonly, those who entered geographic information in highly vernacular forms. For example, one user wrote that s/he is from “kcmo–call da po po”. Our coders were able to determine this user meant “Kansas City, Missouri”, and thus this entry was rated as valid geographic information (indicating a location at a city scale).

Big picture: The PARC report explains convincingly that you shouldn’t take the self-reported geographic information in Twitter profiles at face value. And, I’d argue, that extends to the rest of the information as well. On the other hand, if you’re an advertiser trying to find a lot of Justin Bieber fans, this stuff may be very, very useful.

(Thanks to YouTube’s Hunter Walk for the tip. Via Twitter, of course.)

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110119/theres-a-one-in-200-chance-youre-tweeting-from-inside-justin-bieber/feed/ 1 http://allthingsd.com/20100908/yahoos-shine-editor-in-chief-departs-for-conde-nasts-lucky-magazine/ http://allthingsd.com/20100908/yahoos-shine-editor-in-chief-departs-for-conde-nasts-lucky-magazine/#comments Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:06:45 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=33500

As Yahoo (YHOO) seeks to sort out its women’s strategy online, Brandon Holley (pictured here)–the editor-in-chief of its main women-focused site, Shine–is leaving for a job with the same title at Condé Nast’s Lucky magazine.

In the women’s space, Yahoo’s Shine site, is huge, but has lagged in social networking and other current trends.

Juicing it up is important, since the women’s market is a big one for advertisers, with many competitors–from iVillage to AOL (AOL) to a recent effort by Demand Media to reach women using a site created with supermodel Tyra Banks.

Here is the press release from the New York media giant about the move by Holley, who had been at Condé Nast before (and you can read a story here in the New York Times from earlier this year, in which she compares her online and offline jobs):

BRANDON HOLLEY NAMED EDITOR IN CHIEF OF LUCKY

New York, N.Y., September 8, 2010–Brandon Holley has been named Editor in Chief of Lucky, it was announced today by Thomas J. Wallace, Editorial Director of Condé Nast. Her appointment is effective September 20, 2010. Ms. Holley was the Editor in Chief and business lead of Yahoo! Shine, one of the largest online destinations for women, since 2007. She replaces Kim France, who is leaving the company.

:Brandon is an extraordinarily innovative editor whose extensive experience in both the print and digital realms will be key to developing the Lucky brand across multiple platforms,” said Mr. Wallace.

Under Ms. Holley’s leadership, Yahoo! Shine attracted 25 million visitors per month, according to comScore. Her appointment at Lucky marks a return to Condé Nast for Ms. Holley, who was Editor in Chief of Jane from 2005 to 2007, when it ceased publication. In 2001 she launched ELLEgirl where she remained editor until 2005. Ms. Holley served as senior editor at GQ from 1998 to 2000. She was also part of the launch team of Time Out New York where she served as the dining and shopping editor from 1995 to 1998. She started her magazine career as a writer for Paper magazine and worked as a fact checker for Rolling Stone. In 2002, Ms. Holley was named one of Advertising Age’s Women to Watch.

Lucky and Luckymag.com focus on shopping and style, showcasing what to wear and how to wear it, while making fashion and beauty fun and accessible. The magazine, which launched in 2000, has a circulation of 1.1 million. Condé Nast, a division of Advance Publications, operates in 25 countries.

In the United States, Condé Nast publishes 18 consumer magazines, two trade publications and 27 websites that garner international acclaim and unparalleled consumer engagement.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100908/yahoos-shine-editor-in-chief-departs-for-conde-nasts-lucky-magazine/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20091130/was-it-all-a-bad-dream-ad-business-optimism-at-2007-levels/ http://allthingsd.com/20091130/was-it-all-a-bad-dream-ad-business-optimism-at-2007-levels/#comments Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:30:35 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=13349 Your semidaily dose of advertiser pulse-taking: People who plan to spend money on ads seem more chipper than they have been in two years.

The summary, via MediaPost:

The optimism of ad executives to boost their advertising budgets has risen to its highest point in two years, and is now at pre-recessionary levels, according to the most recent in a series of periodic surveys gauging the long-term confidence of advertisers and agency media-buying executives. The study, which is based on an index of executives who plan to boost their ad spending over the next 12-months vs. those who plan to decrease it, currently stands at a positive difference of four percentage points, the highest level since the fall of 2007, when the index stood at positive eight percentage points.

And a chart! (Click to enlarge.)

That data point comes from Advertiser Perceptions Inc., which periodically polls ad buyers about their moods–and more practically, whether they intend to spend more or less in the future.

This tracks with the last report we saw from the firm back in May. And more generally, with anecdotal stuff publishers and ad types tell us.

The usual caveats: Things are getting better, but that doesn’t mean they’re good. And online growth is good, but it’s best if you’re Google (GOOG); everyone else is going to see much smaller gains. Or, at least as likely, smaller declines.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20091130/was-it-all-a-bad-dream-ad-business-optimism-at-2007-levels/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20091111/strength-in-numbers-news-corp-may-join-time-inc-s-hulu-for-magazines/ http://allthingsd.com/20091111/strength-in-numbers-news-corp-may-join-time-inc-s-hulu-for-magazines/#comments Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:12:30 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=12909 While Rupert Murdoch is busy shaking his fist at Google (GOOG), he is making more friendly overtures to other media players. Sources tell me his News Corp. may join the digital e-reader storefront that Time Inc. and other magazine publishers are putting together.

It’s not clear if News Corp. (NWS) will end up investing in the joint venture, which is designed to control distribution of “print” content to readers like Amazon’s (AMZN) Kindle and Apple’s (AAPL) rumored tablet, or if the company will simply agree to tailor its stuff–most notably, The Wall Street Journal–to the joint venture’s standards.

In either case, News Corp. has yet to officially sign on, sources tell me. An announcement formally acknowledging the JV itself is supposed to be a couple of weeks away, though I have been hearing this for at least six weeks.

No comment from News Corp. or Time Inc., the Time Warner (TWX) publishing unit that has been assembling the JV. Other expected partners include Hearst, Condé Nast and, perhaps, Meredith. (Disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.)

In some ways, News Corp. is an obvious partner for the coalition, which I like to call “Hulu for magazines.” Murdoch has been an outspoken critic of Amazon’s distribution and pricing policies; he argues that by controlling the subscription of digital newspaper and magazines delivered through its e-reader, Amazon deprives publishers of a valuable asset.

Murdoch also wants more money for the stuff it does sell: In an earnings call last week, he said that while the bookseller was now paying his company up to $6.50 a month for each $15 monthly subscription to The Wall Street Journal, that split wasn’t good enough.

The JV is supposed to solve those problems for publishers by letting them control sales, customer billing and pricing. But it is also primarily designed with magazine publishers in mind, and News Corp. isn’t in that business.

Meanwhile, New Corp.’s Dow Jones unit is proprietary about the system it has already built to handle subscriptions to the Journal’s print and online editions and its BlackBerry and iPhone apps.

While it’s possible that the JV could use the Dow Jones subscription/commerce platform as the technological base of the JV, Dow Jones could be prickly if asked to play well with others. “Newspapers and magazines, don’t mix well, for reasons that aren’t obvious to the outside world,” says a News Corp. executive briefed on some of the company’s conversations.

In any event, balancing different partners’ interests is only one of the hurdles facing the JV. Some others, from the story I published last month:

• They’ll have to convince consumers who already have billing relationships with Amazon, Apple and other vendors to sign up with yet another service.
• They’ll have to convince device makers to play along with the strategy, which runs counter to many of their own plans. Both Amazon and Apple, for instance, have intentionally created closed systems that give them control of both devices and distribution.
• They’ll have to create content consumers want to buy. The new product can’t simply be a digital version of the magazines they’re already printing: That’s already available on the Web, and consumers have shown almost no interest in paying for it, and advertisers haven’t fully embraced it either.

So what exactly will the JV be selling? That’s probably the most difficult question for publishers to answer, made even more difficult because they don’t know what capabilities the e-readers of the future will boast. Apple for instance, refuses to even acknowledge to Time Inc. executives that it plans to produce a tablet device, let alone provide them with specs.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20091111/strength-in-numbers-news-corp-may-join-time-inc-s-hulu-for-magazines/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20091106/droid-goog/ http://allthingsd.com/20091106/droid-goog/#comments Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:09:59 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=28418

“There will be no banner ads on the Google homepage or web search results pages. There will not be crazy, flashy, graphical doodads flying and popping up all over the Google site. Ever.”

– Google Vice President of Search Product and User Experience Marissa Mayer

“People wouldn’t like [ads on the homepage]. We prioritize the end user over the advertiser.”

– Google CEO Eric Schmidt, August 2009

Well, this is a first, I think: Google is promoting a consumer electronics device on its front page. Surf over to Google.com right now and you’ll find this pitch plugging Droid, Motorola’s (MOT) new Android smart phone: “The Droid is on sale now. Learn more.”

The text is simple and at just 42 characters, it jibes well with Google’s (GOOG) minimalist design ethic. Click on that “learn more” link and you’re taken to a mobile partners page that touts Droid’s Google-enabled search prowess. Only then are you presented with a big “Get the Verizon Droid Now” button that takes you to Verizon Wireless (VZ), where you can purchase the device.

So is it an ad? Google will almost certainly argue that it is not. But clearly, it commercializes the page. Droid is a consumer product sold by another company and Google is branding it on its most prominent page. Wonder how much that spot is worth.

Furthermore, it’s interesting to see Google leveraging search–a product in which it enjoys a de facto monopoly–to promote a second product that isn’t yet dominant (Android). More so, given this remark from CEO Eric Schmidt, made just yesterday:

“Hopefully, we won’t repeat the mistakes that Microsoft made 10 years ago that ultimately led to all these things that happened to them.”

I’ve asked Google for comment and will update this post if and when I receive a reply.

UPDATE Here’s Google’s comment on the Droid promotion via company spokesperson Gabriel Stricker:

We are currently running a homepage promotion for Droid. From time to time we include a link on the Google home page that points users to exciting and important information, whether it be relief opportunities in the wake of a tsunami or hurricane, awareness about an important cause, or information about a new product. The Droid is a hardware collaboration that we’ve been very active and involved with, so it makes sense that Google has an interest in getting the word out.

UPDATE Turns out this is not the first Google has promoted a handset on its homepage. Last October it plugged another Android device there, the T-Mobile G1.

(Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified the owner of Travel Channel as Discovery.)

Rupert Murdoch and company are mulling a sale of the “action sports” cable channel, prompted by inbound requests, industry sources tell me. No comment from News Corp., which also owns this Web site.

If News Corp. (NWS) does part with the channel, it won’t be a whopper of a deal: Fuel TV, which features skate- and surf-themed programming like “The Adventures of Danny and the Dingo” (I know. Me either.) boasts just 30 million subscribers–about half of what cable networks need to get taken seriously by operators and advertisers.

Just as telling, perhaps: I’ve queried three different Wall Street analysts to get a ballpark price for the network, and none had a clue–and only one had even heard of Fuel.

So here, for everyone’s edification, is some Fuel TV programming: Danny and the Dingo’s (who are snowboarding stars, apparently) most recent high jinks.

Surprise! They’re not that awful, at least by the diminished standards of the newspaper industry:

Excluding one-time charges, the publisher earned 16 cents per share on revenue of $570 million. Analysts expected the Times (NYT) to lose a penny per share on revenue of $561 million.

Ad revenue declined 26.9 percent, which is unpleasant but better than the previous quarter, when it dropped 30.2 percent. Internet revenue dropped by 7.2 percent and Internet ad revenue was down 8.2 percent. Both of those results are improvements over the previous quarter as well: Last quarter, Internet revenue was down 14.3 percent and Internet ad revenue was down 15.5 percent.

Some cautious optimism from CEO Janet Robinson:

Looking ahead, visibility remains limited for advertising in the fourth quarter. But as is the case across the media sector, we have seen encouraging signs of improvement in the overall economy and in discussions with our advertisers. Early in the fourth quarter, print advertising trends, in comparison to the third quarter, have improved modestly, while digital advertising trends are improving more significantly.

A little more color on digital: The big improvement this quarter was driven by a turnaround at the Times’s About.com content mill: Revenue was up 7.2 percent, way up from the 5.1 percent decline posted in the previous quarter. This makes sense, given that About is driven by pay-per-click ads and these have come back across the industry, led by Google (GOOG).

But the story is less impressive at the Times’s traditional Web sites. Ad revenue there was down 18.5 percent, which is better than the 21.6 percent drop the previous quarter, but nothing to write home about. As it has done in previous quarters, the publisher blames the decline on a drop in online classifieds, and I assume that much of the drop stems from vaporized employment ads. If this is the case, it’s going to be hard to move those numbers significantly for quite some time.

Reporting third-quarter results after market close Thursday, Google (GOOG) topped estimates, posting net income that rose to $1.64 billion, or $5.13 a share, from $1.29 billion, or $4.06 a share in the same period last year. Net revenue for the period ended in September rose nearly one percent to $4.38 billion. Excluding items, earnings for the quarter were $5.89 a share. Consensus estimates had been calling for $5.42 a share and $4.24 billion in net revenue. The chart below shows revenue sources within Google (click to enlarge).

Impressive. Seems paid clicks grew 14 percent compared to the same period last year, and four percent compared to the prior period. Cost per click was down six percent year over year, but up five percent sequentially.

“Google had a strong quarter–we saw seven percent year-over-year revenue growth despite the tough economic conditions,” said CEO Eric Schmidt. “While there is a lot of uncertainty about the pace of economic recovery, we believe the worst of the recession is behind us and now feel confident about investing heavily in our future.”

Good to hear. Google’s shares, which have already risen more than 50 percent in the past six months, are on another upward tear. They rose 1.82 percent to $539.27 on the news in after-hours trading.

Earnings call highlights via The Wall Street Journal’s Andrew LaVallee:

4:32: Call starts. The cast is the same as last quarter: Mr. Schmidt, CEO; Patrick Pichette, CFO; Jonathan Rosenberg, SVP of product management; and for the first time, Nikesh Arora, president of global sales operations and business development. But there’s a twist–they’ll be using Google’s moderator to vet questions with voters. They vote on “the most relevant questions,” which go to the Google execs, the operator says.

4:35: “While there’s obviously a lot of uncertainty about the pace of the economic recovery, we believe the worst of the recession is behind us,” Schmidt says.

He adds that Google now has the confidence to invest “heavily” in its future. “It’s all good news from our perspective, at least in looking at the quarter.”

4:37: Says “we want to really get to the perfect search engine” and that many advertisers would like to spend more with Google if the company’s product allow them to do that.

4:38: Schmidt says “we’re open for business in making strategic acquisitions, both large and small.”

4:39: It’s Pichette’s turn. “At a high level, we’re very pleased with our Q3 results,” he says. The quarter benefited from growth in AdSense for content and display initiatives.

4:41: U.S. revenue up 4% to $2.8 billion. U.K. revenue decline affected by foreign exchange as well as ongoing macroeconomic weakness, Pichette says.

4:42: Operating expenses rose from the prior quarter, mostly due to payroll, equipment and facilities-related expenses.

“We believe the worst of the recession is behind us,” he says.

4:44: Brazil was a standout in Latin America, Arora says. We’re beginning to see signs of recovery in Europe and Africa, particularly Spain. In Asia, China performed strongly as an emerging market.

4:46: Looking at the display-advertising business, those have also shown strong results, he says.

On YouTube, new advertisers and partners are helping with monetization efforts. Ninety percent of the top 50 advertisers have run YouTube campaigns with successful results–recent examples include McDonald’s and Hewlett-Packard.

4:47: YouTube has signed deals with all four major record labels and several independent labels. Earlier today, Google announced a partnership with Channel 4 in the U.K., which will bring full-length programming to the video-sharing site.

4:48: Arora adds a personal shout-out to the sales team.

4:50: Rosenberg calls the new AdWords front-end one of the company’s biggest investments of the year. Advertisers have new reports, can run more efficient campaigns and can get new features faster thanks to the platform, he says.

Check it out (click tables to enlarge):

Note that these numbers are actually all down from August. Apparently some of you spent your last days before returning to work or school in front of your Web browser.

Meanwhile, Nielsen’s Top 10 list has the usual suspects. That is–Google’s (GOOG) YouTube and then everyone else. Interesting to note the disparity between total audience and total streams on Hulu compared to Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft’s (MSFT) MSN. Hulu is attracting a smaller but much more engaged audience than the big portals.

At some point, this could be a problem for the joint venture between News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, GE’s (GE) NBC Universal and Disney’s (DIS) ABC since advertisers ultimately want reach. But it’s still astonishingly early for the site–recall that it only went out of beta in March 2008, and doesn’t have a major portal promoting it.

One caveat: Note that for whatever reason, Web video publishers tend to push the numbers they get from comScore (SCOR) more than the Nielsen numbers. But directionally, they tend to say the same thing.

Allrighty, then. If you’re going to spend so much time watching Web clips, best to make sure you’re watching something excellent. Like this clip from last night’s “The Daily Show”–a classic evisceration of CNN. Jon Stewart and crew often go after the cable channel and its brethren, but this one is particularly good. Warning! It is more than 11 minutes long!

Be patient, says a new report from Bernstein Research, which predicts that mobile ads will reach $2.2 billion by 2013. That’s a decent chunk of change, but still a small portion of the estimated $32 billion that will be spent on Web ads that year. And for Google (GOOG) and Yahoo (YHOO), it won’t be nearly enough to provide a meaningful boost to their business.

Bernstein analyst Jeffrey Lindsay isn’t down on mobile, by the way. Just realistic. He argues, sensibly enough, that mobile Web use is different from the kind you do at work or home: When you go online via your phone, you tend to look for specific bits of information, then hop off, as opposed to endless surfing from your desk or couch.

Which means that even as people transition to phones with good Web browsers like the one on Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone, their mobile Internet time won’t replace the time they spend on their PCs, but just augment it. Translation: By 2013, Lindsay figures that mobile will make up about seven percent of Web page views. Click table below to enlarge.

What does this mean for Yahoo and Google, both of which have been talking up mobile as a big growth sector? Not that much, Lindsay says. He figures U.S. mobile ads could generate $300 million for Yahoo in 2013–about four percent of revenue.

And he thinks Google, which dominates mobile search in the same way it dominates the wired world, could generate $600 million–less than two percent of its revenue. Lindsay’s math (click to enlarge):

Not included in Lindsay’s analysis: Any mention of mobile ad opportunities specific to the app ecosystem Apple is creating. As I noted earlier this week, Apple has now pushed out two billion apps to iPhone and iPod touch users, and the majority of these could support ads if there’s a market for them.

[Image credit: mistress_f]

Vevo

Kohl’s job is a key one at the venture, whose premise is that the music industry can do a better job of selling its video inventory than sites like Google’s (GOOG) YouTube. Vevo is a joint venture owned (for now) by Sony (SNE) and Vivendi’s Universal Music Group; YouTube will help power the site and share in some of its revenue.

In theory, there could be a lot of dollars to go around. When Vevo opens its doors later this year, it is expected to generate some 450 million video streams a month. In theory, the fact that a single company controls the way the videos are displayed and distributed will make those streams more attractive to advertisers.

But there are plenty of skeptics who think the site will flounder, in large part because the music industry has never figured out how to run a successful consumer business and because media companies have a terrible track record when it comes to joint ventures. In Vevo’s favor: They said the same thing about Hulu, and that venture has been a success, at least operationally.

Kohl will run a six-person sales team he intends to expand, people familiar with Vevo’s strategy tell me. Until now, Vevo head Rio Caraeff has been overseeing sales himself–and learning on the job, since he didn’t have any sales experience of his own. Vevo now employs about 45 people.

At Nokia, Kohl ran the company’s interactive ad group; he has also put in time at Viacom’s (VIA) MTV Networks, Vivendi Universal and Comedy Central.

Part of the magic trick will involve cutting costs. That’s hard to see play out in real time, except when we get flare-ups like YouTube’s fight with Warner Music Group (WMG) over new contract terms. The other part of the abracadabra–selling more ads on more videos, particularly “viral” hits–is easier to spot, particularly because YouTube keeps pointing it out.

For instance: Yesterday’s announcement that the site would start attaching ads to many more popular videos submitted by users and share the proceeds with the uploaders.

YouTube was typically vague about how the plan will work, but the most telling news is that it thinks it can increase the number of “partners” it shares ad revenue with from “thousands” to “tens of thousands.”

Translation: All those skateboarding dog videos you make fun of? We’re going to turn them into money machines. Just watch!

I’m going to make an educated guess and posit that for all the effort YouTube has made  to “monetize”–I hate that word, but what can you do?–its gazillions of videos, its most important revenue generator is still its homepage. YouTube’s competitors think a one-day “takeover” there may cost an advertiser as much as $500,000.

There’s not a whole lot of upside left for YouTube in the homepage, though. It’s the gateway to the world’s biggest video site, and the second-biggest search engine, and you either want to advertise on it or you don’t.

But the rest of site remains a big opportunity. YouTube can keep chasing splashy “premium content” deals like the ones it has struck with Sony (SNE), Disney (DIS) and Time Warner (TWX). And at the same time, it can try selling more of the “long tail”–basically, everything that isn’t “premium.”

YouTube’s long-tail efforts sometimes get ignored, especially when the site is compared to Hulu and its array of TV shows and movies. But YouTube executives have insisted for a while that long-tail videos will play a big role in the site’s future, and the new move underscores that.

“I think they are working [the long tail] hard but are not articulating it well,” the head of a competing Web video company told me earlier this month. “It may be because they are worried about how advertisers and agencies will view them, but it may also be that they are not revealing it all until it’s farther along.” Yesterday, YouTube gave us another peek.

After all the investor hubbub over the oh-no-they-didn’t deal between Yahoo and Microsoft starts to die down a bit, the pair are now embarking on the path that is the only way toward proving the efficacy of them joining together.

That would be getting a variety of state, federal and international regulators to say yes to the wide-ranging online advertising and search arrangement they announced last week so they can start making it work.

According to sources at both companies, a variety of filings will be made this week, including one to the Securities and Exchange Commission that should provide more details of the partnership.

When it was unveiled last Wednesday, the companies said Microsoft (MSFT) will run search technology for the two, while Yahoo (YHOO) will sell the premium search advertising.

That SEC filing could answer a number of questions some still have about the deal, such as whether there is a large break-up fee that Microsoft would pay Yahoo in case the deal is scuttled.

That’s just the outcome that Microsoft and Yahoo are trying to avoid.

“We think of it as an outreach effort to explain how we are creating a strong No. 2 to Google,” said one source close to the situation. “The main goal will be to show that a better competitor in the marketplace is a good thing.”

While the companies are prepping for opposition from Google (GOOG), sources close to the thinking at the dominant search company said it is more likely to be muted and indirect.

That’s especially true since a MicroHoo makes Google–currently under a lot more government scrutiny than ever before–look like less of a bully.

Thus, Google’s tactics would entail less direct statements and more pointing out the discrepancies between what Microsoft said when Google tried to get approval for a search deal with Yahoo last year and what it argues now.

“They will probably not be that obvious, but they will be there still,” said Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to me, in an off-hand remark at the software giant’s Financial Analyst Meeting last week.

It’s a game of legal chicken that Ballmer knows well.

Already, for example, Microsoft and Yahoo execs have been aggressively reaching out to major publishers and advertisers to get their staunch support.

That included calls immediately after the deal was announced last Wednesday to such execs as Martin Sorrell of the WPP Group (WPPGY) and Jeff Zucker, CEO of NBC Universal, a unit of GE (GE).

In Washington, D.C., both companies have legions of lawyers to try to make sure the Justice Department, which will review the case due to its antitrust implications, has all the information it might need.

And, more to the point, they want to avoid the debacle that took place when Yahoo and Google tried to get approval for their failed deal last year.

That deal was ended by Google after it became clear that Justice was going to fight it by arguing that top search companies hooking up hurt competition and stifled innovation.

In addition, there might be Congressional scrutiny, with possible hearings, similar to those held when the Yahoogle deal was pending, such as in the Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee.

And, of course, there are actually independent groups concerned and they have also been in contact with regulators.

“There are questions that must be answered regarding the collection and sharing of consumer data by the two companies,” said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a D.C.-based group that works to promote consumer privacy and protection online, in a statement last week. “While the rationale for the deal is to provide some much needed competition to Google (and income for Yahoo), the further consolidation of the global digital advertising system should be a concern to Internet users, privacy advocates, online marketers, and competition regulators.”

Sources said Microsoft and Yahoo also plan to petition regulators in the European Union this week, which is likely to be most concerned about privacy issues involved in their union.

They will also be doing the same in other key countries worldwide, such as Korea, Taiwan and Brazil.

And, finally, given how involved state attorneys general became in beaching the Yahoo deal to partner with Google, they also will be starting outreach to key states, such as California, where Silicon Valley-based Yahoo is headquartered.

“Once again, it will be the Lawyer Employment Act of 2009,” joked one person close to the deal. “At least, that shows there is some economic benefit to this deal already.”

While we all wait in breathless regulatory anticipation, here are interviews I did at last year’s Senate hearings on Yahoogle, with lawyers from Google (David Drummond), Microsoft (Brad Smith) and Yahoo (Mike Callahan).

Incredibly, they are the very same lawyers who will be pretzeling themselves in entirely different shapes than they pretzeled themselves a year ago.

I would expect nothing less!

Here’s the video:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090804/yahoo-microsoft-regulatory-filings-begin-this-week-let-the-legal-game-playing-begin/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090723/liveblogging-at-fortune-brainstorm-tech-aol-ceo-and-chairman-tim-the-plumber-armstrong/ http://allthingsd.com/20090723/liveblogging-at-fortune-brainstorm-tech-aol-ceo-and-chairman-tim-the-plumber-armstrong/#comments Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:09:01 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=16371

It did not start out too well for AOL CEO and Chairman Tim Armstrong, with a poll on the screen showing most of the attendees in the ballroom at Fortune Brainstorm Tech voting that the Time Warner (TWX) online unit was either out of juice or irrelevant.

The event, which is taking place over three days in Pasadena, Calif., is packed full of Web and media luminaries, so BoomTown will be sitting in the front row and liveblogging some of the sessions here, such as this one that I did for the session with Bob Iger, CEO of the Walt Disney Company (DIS).

Armstrong did not break any news in the interview with Fortune’s lively interviewer, David Kirkpatrick, relying more on projecting an I’m-in-charge-here attitude and saying confident things like “a challenge is also an opportunity.”

In general, Armstrong tried to be upbeat about the prospects for AOL, which has for too long been the Web’s sad sack of an Internet company.

“We are still in a very large trade wind,” he said, referring to advertisers spending money online. “If someone asked you if advertising [online] is going to go up, I think you would have to say yes.”

To take advantage of that, Armstrong said AOL would be focused on investing “in content systems that connect with advertising systems–that’s a white space we are going after.”

He noted that AOL needs to have the same “plumbing approach” to content that Google (GOOG)–where Armstrong had been a major advertising exec before taking his new job–has had to search advertising.

“You have to take the Silicon Valley approach to content,” Armstrong declared.

Armstrong also talked a little bit about his recent 100-day trip around the AOL empire worldwide and what he got out of it.

“I got a lot of advice from different people about what to do,” he said.

His takeaway, which he will discuss at an all-hands meeting scheduled for tomorrow with AOL staff: “It’s really about strategy. If we don’t have the right strategy, we’re not going to win.”

Which is kind of stating the obvious, but it sounded good.

Armstrong also touched lightly on the issue of getting rid of various assets AOL has compiled over the last several years, like it pricey purchase of the Bebo social networking site.

But some, as I recently reported–such as the Truveo video search service and the information search company Relegence–are staying.

Armstrong also talked of buying, but judiciously–noting to me later that AOL had 900 possible acquisition deals blocked in its pipeline.

Someone call a plumber stat!

Armstrong said he has put a stop to a lot of those deals, including putting the kibosh on a $400 million check he was supposed to sign right when he got there.

It was, as he told me after his interview, a windfall that supposed to go to a big computer maker for a distribution deal, which he chose to pass on.

“Everything has to make sense from a return-on-investment basis for me,” said Armstrong. “It’s that easy.”

And that hard, although he did move the crowd, which was polled with the same questions about AOL’s chances after Armstrong talked.

He got more people in the audience to vote that AOL would “return to health as a major Internet player,” which is–as legions of the company’s leaders have shown–no easy task.

[Photo credit: Brad Markel for Fortune]

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090723/liveblogging-at-fortune-brainstorm-tech-aol-ceo-and-chairman-tim-the-plumber-armstrong/feed/ 1 http://allthingsd.com/20090714/now-things-get-interesting-cbs-joins-comcasts-web-tv-trial/ http://allthingsd.com/20090714/now-things-get-interesting-cbs-joins-comcasts-web-tv-trial/#comments Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:09:42 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=9219 Yet another addition to the growing list of programmers signing on to Comcast’s “On Demand Online”: CBS will join the cable provider’s trial program, which will allow subscribers to get Web access to shows they get on TV.

CBS (CBS) will join previously announced partners Time Warner (TWX), which is offering up programming from its Turner channels and HBO; Liberty Media’s Starz; and smaller players like Scripps, Rainbow and A&E. The twist is that CBS is the only broadcaster to sign up for the trial.

I noted that this was in the works last month, and it makes plenty of sense: For one thing, CBS would like to tie up with Comcast (CMCSA) as a way to extract “retransmission fees” from the cable company for the rights to carry its programming, which it currently doesn’t get paid for. The broadcaster also needs a big ally, as its broadcast competitors at GE’s (GE) NBC, News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox and Disney’s (DIS) ABC have already tied up with Hulu.

Comcast’s trial program, which is supposed to start this month and which parallels plans being promoted throughout the cable industry, is in many ways a response to Hulu, which has unnerved the pay TV business. The industry is worried about the specter of “cable cutters” who dump their cable TV subscriptions and watch free Web TV instead. So it’s trying to convince subscribers that if they keep paying up, they’ll get to see whatever they want online, legally.

CBS, meanwhile, passed on the chance to join with Hulu early on, and has since been complaining that the joint venture’s business terms undermine broadcasters’ chances of making real money on the Web.

CBS and Comcast aren’t talking about what the economics of this tie-up look like, but given that it’s a trial, it’s likely there isn’t much to talk about yet. But ultimately, CBS imagines a world where cable companies pay it for the right to put its shows on the Web and where it can charge Internet advertisers the same rates it gets for on-air TV.

That’s a long way off, but this is a start. “This is about extending the economics of the television market to an already independent, healthy online market,” says CBS digital boss Quincy Smith.

UPDATE:  Comcast has a few more programmers on board. In addition to Scripps, A&E and Rainbow, which I’ve written about before, but which have not been formally announced, Comcast is bringing in BBC and MGM Impact, a VOD channel it runs with MGM.

Here’s the release.

CBS TO PARTICIPATE IN COMCAST’S ON DEMAND ONLINE ?NATIONWIDE TRIAL

As the First Broadcaster To Participate, CBS Agrees to Test Standards and Principles for
“TV Everywhere” Model

NEW YORK and PHILADELPHIA, July 14, 2009–CBS Corporation (NYSE:  CBS.A) and Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) announced today that CBS is the first broadcast network to participate in Comcast’s technical trial of On Demand Online. The new service will significantly expand the number of top-rated TV shows available online and across platforms at no additional charge to Comcast’s cable customers while delivering increased advertising value to content owners. During the course of the trial, CBS plans to test various types of current and library content.

“CBS and Comcast share the same vision of giving consumers more–more content, in more places,” said Matt Bond, Executive Vice President of Content Acquisition, Comcast Cable. “On Demand Online is a major step in extending consumers’ television experiences online, and ultimately across platforms by giving any television network, including top brands like CBS, the ability to make their content available on the Web.”

“CBS is very supportive of initiatives that help extend our content to new platforms in such a way that we gain new audiences and additional value for our advertisers,” said Quincy Smith, Chief Executive Officer, CBS Interactive. “Comcast is already a trusted platform to distribute CBS content on air as well as on demand; expanding this relationship online is a logical step. In addition, CBS’s strategy has always been about open, non-exclusive distribution of our content in a consumer friendly way, which is a core tenant of TV Everywhere and On Demand Online.”

CBS’s participation in Comcast’s technical trial comes on the heels of last month’s joint announcement between Time Warner Inc. and Comcast which introduced a set of principles called “TV Everywhere.” Developed by the two companies, the principles are designed to serve as a framework to facilitate deployment of online television content in a way that is consumer friendly and pro-competitive.

Comcast will begin its technical trial of On Demand Online with approximately 5,000 customers from across the U.S. in the coming weeks–the first national trial of its kind. A major focus of the trial is to test Comcast’s new “authentication” technology, which will allow Comcast customers to receive the same content online for free that they subscribe to on TV. The service will utilize a simple log-on system for streaming content and, in the future, will allow for download content to go. The On Demand Online service will roll-out in phases, adding new features, functionality and content over time to provide consumers with a new way to watch television.

On Demand Online is part of Comcast’s Project Infinity, the company’s long-term vision to give customers an ever growing amount of video content on multiple platforms, whenever they want.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090714/now-things-get-interesting-cbs-joins-comcasts-web-tv-trial/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090522/google-tv-takes-another-baby-step/ http://allthingsd.com/20090522/google-tv-takes-another-baby-step/#comments Fri, 22 May 2009 12:13:27 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=7632 Google has already shut down its radio and print advertising programs–because “they didn’t work well enough,” in CEO Eric Schmidt’s words. But the company is still hoping that its foray into TV pans out. Latest milestone: The search giant is boasting that it has gotten marketers to commit “upwards of seven figures to buy ads” through its automated system.

The  TV advertising market is $70 billion, give or take a few billion. So when peeling off a few million dollars from that constitutes progress, you can see just how far Google (GOOG) has to go.

In fairness, Google’s TV business isn’t really designed to get ad commitments, at all–the whole idea is that advertisers can buy spots on the fly, the way they can with its core Web business. So this at least constitutes a willingness on the part of ad buyers to give the platform a shot.

But that platform is still pretty small after a couple years of work: Advertisers can use Google to reach viewers using Echostar’s (SATS) service, and some of GE’s (GE) NBC Universal cable networks, but that’s about it.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090522/google-tv-takes-another-baby-step/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090508/vevo-aka-youtube-music-gets-a-ceo-universal-digital-boss-rio-caraeff/ http://allthingsd.com/20090508/vevo-aka-youtube-music-gets-a-ceo-universal-digital-boss-rio-caraeff/#comments Fri, 08 May 2009 20:13:15 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=7183 There are plenty of question marks surrounding Vevo, Universal Music Group’s new music video site that’s scheduled to launch later this year with a big assist from Google’s YouTube. But here’s one answer: The venture will be run by Rio Caraeff, who currently oversees UMG’s digital business.

Caraeff is already heading up Vevo on an interim basis, but right now he’s still holding down his old job as executive vice president of UMG’s eLabs unit. At some point later this year, he is “99.99 percent certain” to be named president of the video site, according to someone familiar with Universal’s thinking. No word on who will get his old job.

That’s a good start for Vevo, which you can think of as either a “Hulu for music,” or more practically, “YouTube Music,” since the project will move videos at the world’s biggest music company from the world’s biggest video site and onto the new venture.

Running a start-up will be a new role for Caraeff, but at least he knows digital music and UMG specifically–he’s been working there since 2005. Prior to that, he ran wireless for Sony’s (SNE) movie arm.

Just as important, the appointment means Vevo will at least have cleared one hurdle that tripped up News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace, which announced its plans to start a music site in the April 2008 but couldn’t land a CEO for the venture until MTV vet Courtney Holt took the gig in November–a couple months after the site launched.

There’s plenty for Caraeff to do: In addition to overseeing the launch of the site itself, he’ll need to staff it–while Google (GOOG) is helping Universal build and power the site, Caraeff will need to hire a “couple dozen people,” says a source familiar with his plan. A big priority: Assembling a sales force to sell the video clips.

And then? Plenty of other questions, which I raised a month ago when the deal was first announced. Forgive me, but I’m just going to quote myself here:

And even if Google’s technical expertise makes it easier for UMG to get a decent site up and running, neither company has a real track record when it comes to getting big brands to pony up for video ads, which is supposedly the whole point of the site.

Lots of people made similarly disparaging remarks about Hulu, of course. There was no way that GE’s (GE) NBC and News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox were going to be able to launch a decent site, let alone provide a challenge to YouTube. But they did, and they are. So the Vevo folks have that example to inspire them. (News Corp. is the owner of Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.)

But even if UMG gets the site off the ground, there is a considerable risk for both the label and for Google. Because if it works, Vevo will be diverting a lot of eyeballs away from YouTube–yesterday’s press release boasted that UMG’s YouTube channel has racked up 3.5 billion views.

The idea is to provide advertisers with a clean, well-lit space that will make them feel comfortable enough to spend money. But part of YouTube’s appeal is that is a riot of  the good, the bad and the WTF? You may start out watching a U2 video, and 20 minutes later end up watching a clip of a doped-up seven-year-old after a visit to the dentist. If you end up at Vevo, you’re going to have be very interested in music videos–and, at least for now, just the ones that Universal owns.

Are there enough video watchers out there to justify a business with some 50+ employees, which is the number I’ve heard Vevo/Universal is looking at? And can Universal figure out how to turn those eyeballs into more money than they’d generate on YouTube itself? Got me. Can’t wait to find out.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090508/vevo-aka-youtube-music-gets-a-ceo-universal-digital-boss-rio-caraeff/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090508/youtube-may-be-solving-its-ad-problem-slowly/ http://allthingsd.com/20090508/youtube-may-be-solving-its-ad-problem-slowly/#comments Fri, 08 May 2009 12:52:57 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=7174 YouTube is the world’s biggest video destination. But it has yet to generate a penny of profit for Google, which paid more than $1.6 billion for the site in 2006.

That’s because the site is very expensive to run–YouTube served up 5.5 billion videos to U.S. viewers alone in March–and a very hard sell to advertisers, who are scared off by its more-or-less-anything-goes collection of clips. The site doesn’t even bother to try sell ads on more then a small percentage of its videos.

But the latter part of that equation may be changing, argues Bernstein Research’s Jeffrey Lindsay. He thinks YouTube has the ability to sell ads against nine percent of its inventory. That alone represents progress–last year, that number was around three to four percent.

But Lindsay thinks that Google (GOOG) is getting better at putting more advertiser-friendly stuff up on the site, via projects like the TV and movie hub it rolled out last month.

That site doesn’t have anything like the breadth that Hulu boasts, but it’s a big improvement over what used to be there. Lindsay figures that it will get better and that next year YouTube will be able to sell ads on 15 percent of its inventory. His note:

We also note the large increase in advertising on YouTube, which we estimate currently has approximately 9% ad coverage and which we believe could rise to 15% within the next 12 months as more professionally-produced content and movies are added to the Web property. We understand that Google is currently exploring new payment mechanisms–micro-payments and subscriptions to expand YouTube’s business model. Although YouTube revenues are likely to be small through the end of 2009 (we estimate $123 million), we think the increased ad coverage will place YouTube in a favorable position when CPMs eventually start to recover in 2010 and beyond. Our 2010 forecast for YouTube revenues of $222 million represents 81% growth over 2009.

Then again, YouTube still has a very long way to go. Look at the most popular clips on the site today and you’ll find a whole lot of video from this week’s Barcelona-Chelsea Champions League match, all of which seem to be copyright violations, which makes them toxic to advertisers.

Here are four examples from the same game. Note that all of them seem to have been up on the site for at least a day:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090508/youtube-may-be-solving-its-ad-problem-slowly/feed/ 0