Yahoo’s embattled CEO Scott Thompson (pictured here) is set to step down from his job at the Silicon Valley Internet giant, in what will be dramatic end to a controversy over a fake computer science degree that he had on his bio, according to multiple sources close to the situation.

The pair will apparently say he is departing for “personal reasons.” Sources said that Thompson will be claiming to be leaving due to a serious illness that he recently discovered he had.

But the evolving crisis — which is just over a week old — centered on his botched resume and how he handled the thorny issue is the key reason for the abrupt end to his tenure as a CEO.

Thompson’s likely replacement on an interim basis will be Yahoo’s global media head Ross Levinsohn, who most recently also ran its Americas unit, including its advertising sales.

In addition to the management upheaval, Yahoo’s board is closing in on a settlement with the man who discovered Thompson’s misstep, activist shareholder Daniel Loeb of Third Point, said sources.

The situation could change, since Yahoo’s full board still has to meet this morning to officially approve the sweeping changes at the long-troubled company.

But, if it is, this development goes a long way toward fixing some of what has been ailing Yahoo recently.

And it’ll also be a stunning victory for Loeb (pictured here), since the pugnacious hedge fund investor is set to get three board seats from a slate proposed by him as part of a proxy fight aimed at Yahoo. The new Yahoo directors will be media exec Michael Wolf and turnaround specialist Harry Wilson. Loeb’s fourth selection — former NBC head Jeff Zucker — will withdraw.

The five current Yahoo directors — who were to step down at the company’s annual meeting this summer — will leave the board effective immediately, sources said, to make way for the Third Point selections.

Finally, Yahoo’s recently added director Fred Amoroso will be named chairman of the board.

Amoroso is the director who has been conducting the investigation into the issues raised by Loeb about how the fake academic credentials got in Thompson’s public bios, as well as in Yahoo’s regulatory filings, and also the hurried circumstances around his hiring in January.

Those mysteries — read, screw-ups — might never be solved now, although Thompson made a convoluted attempt to explain it all in two awkward employee meetings at the end of last week. In those gatherings, according to numerous sources, he blamed a headhunting firm for introducing the mistake when he was being hired for a job at eBay in the mid-2000 timeframe.

That company, Heidrick and Struggles, slapped back last week with an internal memo, noting that Thompson’s claim was “verifiably not true.” Sources said that Heidrick told Yahoo’s board that it was in possession of a resume that Thompson had apparently submitted showing the inaccurate CS degree on it.

That memo, impugning Thompson’s credibility, was one of many that piled on to create an impossible situation for the Yahoo board, related to his leadership ability going forward.

Thompson had also previously issued a Yahoo statement, in which he apologized for the “distraction” caused by the problematic resume, but not for the mistake itself.

And, initially, Yahoo — under his direction — had called the borked resume an “inadvertent error.”

Such fumbling to fix the situation was among the many other issues that the board has been considering relating the ability of Thompson to remain in his job. Also of importance was the sinking morale of Yahoo employees, who had largely rejected Thompson’s excuses in the ResuMess scandal.

Internal message boards at Yahoo lit up all last week, with staffers largely rejecting his explanations. In addition, a number of top execs and engineers approached the board calling for Thompson’s firing.

While that’s not precisely what happened here, it’s close enough to describe Thompson’s departure as inevitable.

All this change comes in the wake of a massive restructuring he was in the midst of at Yahoo, after 2,000 employee layoffs.

Thompson was pushing forward a vision of adding a much more significant data and commerce element to Yahoo’s largely ad-based business.

That is likely to be less stressed under media-focused Levinsohn, who will be essentially trying out to be the permanent CEO.

Well known in the media and advertising communities, he has worked at a number of big online efforts over many years.

According to his bio at Yahoo, where he arrived in 2010:

He previously served as the President of News Corporation’s Fox Interactive Media, where he was responsible for the day-to-day operations, strategy and acquisitions that helped transformed the company into a leader in digital media. He also held senior management positions with AltaVista, an early pioneer and leader in search, CBS Sportsline where he oversaw all content and development for the top rated sports site, and HBO where he launched and oversaw a unit developing new programming and revenue streams. Levinsohn also was the co-founder and managing director of Fuse Capital, an investment and strategic equity management firm focused on investing in and building digital media and communications companies.

Levinsohn sits on the board of Freedom Communications and the Bogart Pediatric Cancer Research Program. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Communications from The American University.

So far in my checking, Levinsohn’s resume is accurate.

More to come, obviously.

I have emails and texts and calls into everyone for comment, but apparently they are all out at a Mother’s Day brunch (except me).

RELATED POSTS:

• Yahoo’s Parting With Thompson Will Be for “Cause” (a.k.a. CSLie)
• Ross Levinsohn’s Yahoo Plan: Back to the Future
• Here’s New Yahoo CEO’s First Note to Troops! (The Leaking-Internal-Memos-to-ATD Policy Remains in Effect As Usual)
• Yahoo Officially Confirms ATD Report on CEO Changes and Proxy Settlement
• Meet the Man I Call “The Hair”: The Video Stylings of Yahoo’s Newest CEO Ross Levinsohn
• Will Thompson’s Ouster Mean a Yahoo-Facebook Patent Settlement Too?
• Exclusive: Yahoo’s Thompson Out; Levinsohn In; Board Settlement With Loeb Nears Completion
• Heidrick & Struggles Slaps Back at Thompson’s Yahoo in Blame Game Over ResuMess
• Is He In or Is He Out? Crunchtime for Scott Thompson at Yahoo.
• Not So Scott Free? Yahoo’s Other Big Shareholder — Cap Re — Leaning Toward Supporting Loeb Over Thompson ResuMess.
• Tech Nation’s Gunn Says She and Yahoo CEO Discussed Their CS Degrees Before 2009 Show (Video and Audio)
• Loeb Calls Again for Thompson Firing From Yahoo, as Former eBay Boss Supports Him
• Place Your Bets: Will Loeb Drop Another Bomb on Yahoo at Vegas Confab Later Today?
• Exclusive: Yahoo Director in Charge of Botched CEO Vetting to Step Down From Board
• CEO Says Sorry to Yahoos for Borked Bio “Distraction” — But Will Mea Culpa Work Without an Apology for Error? (Memo)
• Buffett Comments on Trust Issue in Yahoo CEO BioGate: “You’ve Got a Problem”
• Loeb Lobs Lawsuit, as Expected, at Yahoo’s Borked Bio Mess
• As Yahoo CEO Reaches Out to Top Staff, Board Meets to Weigh “Options” (I.E., Deciding Who Gets to Take the Borked Bio Blame)
• Yahoo Should Expect Incoming Lawsuit Lobbed by Loeb Tomorrow on CEO Hiring
• They Shoot Yahoo CEOs, Don’t They? But Not Without a Really Smoking Gun and a Much Stronger Board.
• Yahoo’s Thompson Asks Employees to “Stay Focused” — Except Not on Him
• In 2009 Interview, Yahoo CEO Does Not Deny He Has a CS Degree, and Calls Himself an “Engineer” (Audio)
• Yahoo’s Board Will “Review” Resume Discrepancy of CEO
• How Did a Phantom CS Degree Get on CEO’s Bio in SEC Filings? Yahoo’s Not Saying.
• Yahoo’s Response on CEO’s Computer Science ResumeGate: “Inadvertent Error”
• Dan Loeb Alleges “Discrepancies” on Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson’s Resume Related to Computer Science Degree

Capstone analyst Rory Maher thinks so. He’s been polling ad buyers and thinks they may collectively be spending 40 percent more on YouTube than they did a year ago.

He also thinks YouTube’s strategy of grouping its new channels into “genres” — like “women,” “pop culture,” etc. — and selling those as megapackages is attractive to advertisers, and that they’ve at least placed tentative commitments on all 18 packages YouTube is selling.

But those dollars aren’t going to come from TV, Maher thinks. Instead, advertisers will take money they would have spent on other Web ads and move them over to YouTube. That’s still a win for Google, but it’s not the win it really wants.

Last week’s event didn’t win everyone over. Several folks I’ve talked to — including people who are making stuff for YouTube’s channels — say they’re underwhelmed with the actual content they saw onstage at the Beacon Theater.

“It looked like Web video,” one Web video maker told me. That is, it didn’t look like the stuff the TV guys show off at their advertiser events.

Some of the stuff may get close to TV.

YouTube is brimming with pride over WIGS, a series of soapy dramas featuring actresses you’ve heard of, like Jennifer Beals and Julia Stiles (News Corp., which owns this site, had a hand in putting the series together). The teaser trailer they’ve put out looks like a reasonable facsimile of Lifetime, at least to my eyes. And Machinima is planning a series based on Halo, the hit Xbox game, and the few seconds of that they showed looked pretty slick.

It’s more likely that most of the Web video YouTube produces with its channels this year really will end up looking like Web video. But if that doesn’t bother the people who watch it — and there are some 800 million people watching this stuff every month — then it shouldn’t be a problem for the ad guys, either.

The feature, dubbed “Auto Hop,” is an advance on existing ad-skipping features on digital video recorders, which have been widely available for several years from cable and satellite operators. For existing DVRs, consumers have to manually press a fast forward button to speed through the commercial breaks. Timing the fast forward can be difficult and viewers can still see scenes from ads.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

That pitch is also fueling a whole lot of start-ups, who want to piggyback on Facebook’s ascent by helping advertisers shovel money into the site.

Today’s example: Adaptly, which manages Facebook ad campaigns and also helps marketers buy ads on other social platforms, like Twitter and StumbleUpon.

The NYC-based company has raised a $10.5 million B round, led by Valhalla Partners; the company also brought in Time Warner Investments and Vivi Nevo as new investors. Adaptly had previously raised $2.7 million.

The company is run by freakishly young cofounders — Nikhil Sethi, 23, and Garrett Ullom, 22, both fresh out of Northwestern (Ullom didn’t stick around to graduate). Sethi (pictured above) says his company booked $10 million in gross revenue in 2011, and will “greatly exceed that” this year. (Update: That’s actually $10 million in gross bookings, not revenue, Sethi says. Thanks to Steven Kane for the nudge.)

Adaptly has around 50 employees, a bunch of whom have migrated there via Invite Media, the ad tech start-up Google bought in 2010. The two companies share a few other ties: Both have been backed by Philly’s First Round Capital, and Invite CEO Nat Turner has invested in Adaptly as well. Small world.

(An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported that Invite Media was a product of the Dreamit Ventures program.)

The earnings beat is nice for AOL. Not nice: Domestic display sales, a key metric, shrank 1 percent after climbing for several quarters. That’s going to be fresh meat for AOL critics like Starboard Value.

So what happened to domestic? “Domestic display advertising revenue declined primarily reflecting a decline in reserved impressions sold, partially offset by growth in reserved inventory pricing and Patch revenue,” AOL’s release says.

Later on in the release, we get a better sense of what may have happened: AOL’s audience is melting away. Traffic to AOL’s own properties is down 4 percent over the last year.

I imagine that Tim Armstrong will tell analysts that the decline isn’t wholly unexpected, because AOL’s dial-up unit, which still powers the whole operation, continues to shrink — that archaic business lost 14 percent of its subscribers in the last year.

On the other hand, this is a full year since AOL paid $315 million for the Huffington Post (and another $30+ million for TechCrunch, a few months before). I guess Armstrong could argue that things would be worse if he hadn’t bought the new sites, but that’s not very inspiring.

Update: A quick skim through the archives reminds me that shrinkage has been a recurring problem for AOL. The company also posted a 4 percent traffic drop in Q4 2011. And in Q3, traffic was flat. When I asked Armstrong about the issue then, he did indeed argue that the new sites were fighting off the decrease from dial-up users, and also argued that the company was still integrating Arianna and company (work in progress, apparently). He also predicted that traffic would tick up over time, and it has, just a bit — AOL is up to 108 million uniques versus 107 million six months ago. Key question: Does he expect more progress? Should shareholders?

AOL’s call starts at 8 am ET. We’ll see what Armstrong has to say then.

Update: AOL blames the Q1 drop on a number of things, including a specific but unnamed advertiser that stopped spending during the quarter. But Armstrong also tells analysts that his sales team’s pitch wasn’t resonating with advertisers. “A lot of it was because we have had a display strategy that was probably off-tune,” he says, adding “I was not happy with the domestic display.”

AOL says its display problems won’t be fixed this quarter, either, and predicts another drop. But it says domestic display will start moving up again in the second half of the year.

Meanwhile, AOL defends its much-maligned Patch unit, by noting that revenues are up and expenses are down at the local-news play this year. Armstrong tells investors that Patch will hit “run rate profitability” by the end of 2013. If they give him that much time.

Earlier today, Demand Media turned a Q1 performance that beat expectations and also raised its outlook for the year ahead.

Revenue was $82.9 million, up 9 percent, compared to an estimate of $79.6 million. Earnings per share, adjusted for one-time costs, were seven cents, above the expected five cents.

You can read it all here in these lovely Demand slides:

Demand_Media_Q1 Supplemental Data FINAL

Not bad, given many investors have been down on Demand, for a variety of reasons, mostly centered on traffic pressure due to search algorithm changes on the all-important Google. The low stock price resulted in a deal, in which Demand recently almost went private.

So what does CEO Richard Rosenblatt have to say for himself about all this? Here’s a liveblog of the conference call with Wall Street analysts, taking place at 2 pm PT.

Earlier:

2:05 pm: The call started a little late, but Rosenblatt was quick at it, noting the news was a lot better than was thought.

Always a jaunty dude, he was jauntier than usual, if possible, throwing in a lot of terms like “growth,” “momentum” and “Those fiddling geeks from Google did not kill us, after all!” Okay, not the last one.

It was a strong performance, indeed, which is a cause for happiness, I suppose, and especially since Demand’s stock has been in the doldrums since it went public earlier this year.

Not Groupon bad, but that’s a moon crater.

“It was a strong performance,” said Rosenblatt. He gets to say that.

More on the specifics, which showed growth in pages views, engagement and such things on its flagship sites, such as Cracked and LiveStrong. Its juggernaut, eHow, is still recovering from the Google search changes, in an effort deceptively called Panda.

This was not a cuddly panda, but Panda Gone Wild.

2:18 pm: The CFO guy who just repeats the numbers in the press release. (This is the part where I go to the bathroom.)

2:28 pm: Back! Sorry I took so long, but I was getting a computer science degree. (You knew that Yahoo joke was coming!)

The CFO is still chitchatting, still positive about the year ahead and saying “growth” a lot.

2:30 pm: Time for Q&A!

The first is about the mobile arena and monetization there.

Important, but no one is anywhere on this, due to the fact that it does not monetize very well at this point in time.

Everyone has a smartphone now, but the advertising part of it is still a wee baby.

“The monetization will come later,” said Rosenblatt, pointing out the obvious, although he did note that Demand was focusing in it.

Whee! Get on it, Chief of Revenue Joanne Bradford (I know you work hard, but work harder)!

Now to video. More monetizable, obviously, and Demand has a lot of videos to offer, being one of the bigger content providers to YouTube.

I am now officially tired of this question. Next!

2:35 pm: Ooh, a future and direction question about eHow.

“How should we think about its utility in the world?,” asks the analyst.

You should think about it as a place to learn to boil an egg, which is what Rosenblatt mentions. Who doesn’t want to know how to boil an egg? And who doesn’t forget how long to do it, resulting in rubber balls or drippy messes?

These are the great queries of our day, people!

The next question is about “bullish” YouTube upfront last week, in which Google pretended to go Hollywood.

Google will never go Hollywood, by the way, since it requires charm and glamour.

Demand was not there, but it is all up on the YouTube channel thing.

And, why not, since Google is giving away dough to become Hollywood. (Not … gonna … happen … ever, but take the money, all you celebs!)

2:40 pm: Next question is about mobile, again. Quantify that, and when is it going to be big?

No one can say yet, but why not ask!

Still, Rosenblatt makes a college try (I wonder if he has a CS degree?), noting it is “happening fast.”

Another question on YouTube channels and then on registar business.

Rosenblatt and Google are apparently going to see if they can make a go of this thing! Like kids putting on a show in the barn! Let’s see if we can make something of this dang talented group of kids!

The questions never end. Wait, the analyst asks about All Things Digital and my story on their private equity deal!

I can check another one off my bucket list: Being mentioned on a Demand Media earnings call!

Rosenblatt cannot say much, but notes, “We have a duty as a public company to look at anything that comes across.”

Which means it’s true, though he might have taken a moment to compliment my scooptastic skills.

Sigh.

2:51 pm: I am bereft by the slight, but shall recover.

And now it is over, so it is back to boiling my egg.

Eventually they settle, and you, the pay-TV customer, ends up paying more.

And that’s what’s happening in the latest dustup between Dish Networks, the satellite TV service, and AMC Networks, the programmers now best known as the guys who bring you “Mad Men,” “The Walking Dead” and “Breaking Bad.”

The slight twist here: For argument’s sake, at least, Dish is saying that because AMC is selling digital versions of those shows to other outlets, its hit shows are worth less to Dish subscribers. “It’s actually devalued,” says Dish chairman Charlie Ergen.

The fact that networks are selling or giving away their stuff online has been a minor but growing issue in carriage fights for a while now. But this is the biggest stink that a cable/pay TV provider has made about it, at least in public.*

Dish first brought this up via a press statement last week, but Ergen went on about it at length today during the Dish earnings call.

It’s worth reading. I’ve cleaned up his comments just a bit for clarity (note that AMC Networks includes multiple channels, including AMC, IFC and Sundance):

We have very, very specific viewer measurement. Much more granular than somebody like Nielsen might have. So we’re able to watch our customer base and — we realize we skew a bit more rural — between [AMC Networks] programming, they have very, very low viewership, outside of a few obviously popular [shows] on AMC.

But those particular channels are also available to our customers on a variety of other sources, like iTunes, Amazon, Netflix and so on.

One of the things that programmers have done is that they’ve devalued their programming content by making it available in many multiple outlets. So, when someone asks for price increases …

We just look at it. Our customers are not really saying “We want to pay more money,” they’re saying, “We want more flexibility in our programming, and we don’t want to pay more.”

And when you look at that from a timing perspective, that’s just a contract that we can change. And we believe that the product is actually devalued. Not that there’s not some good programs, but that they’ve been devalued, because you can get it in multiple ways. And customers are asking for more flexibility, or have more flexibility to get the programming. So it’s not quite the same as something that was exclusive.

So we look at it and say, “This is a good opportunity to make a good business judgment call.” And obviously there’s a price where an [AMC Networks] product makes sense. We just don’t think that’s where we are today.

First things first: Obviously it makes the most sense to dump all of this into the “posturing” bucket, and treat it accordingly. The easy money here is to bet that, yet again, Dish and AMC will strike a deal, which Ergen, at the end of his remarks, explicitly says is on the table.

That said, a couple of points:

• Most of the big TV programmers seem to agree with Ergen’s point when it comes to free repeats of recent shows. Which is why they have been taking stuff that they’ve been giving away via outlets like Hulu, and either pulling them off the Web entirely, or requiring that customers “authenticate” — prove that they’re paying for cable or satellite TV —  in order to see them without delay. Note that Dish was the first pay-TV service to participate in the Fox authentication plan last summer. (Fox is owned by News Corp., as is this Web site.)
• TV programmers don’t seem to think that iTunes’ and Amazon’s a la carte sales of shows that aired the night before are devaluing their product. Because they’re still selling them, and by all accounts there doesn’t seem to be a ton of volume for those episodes. If there was, advertisers would squawk long before pay-TV providers would.
• The really touchy subject here is what happens to prior-season episodes of AMC hits like “Mad Men” and “Breaking Bad” on Netflix. Netflix has been arguing that these episodes are big draws for its customers, and that this is good for networks like AMC, because people discover the old shows on Netflix and then watch the new ones as they air. There is some evidence for this, too.
• But there is also evidence that Netflix repeats hurt some cable programming — like kids’ shows — too. And that leads to speculation that Viacom and Disney will pull back their shows from the service or raise prices when their contracts expire — even though Netflix is already paying big dollars for them. Netflix will have its hands on “Mad Men” and other AMC shows for at least a couple of years more. But it will be interesting to see what Dish’s complaint means for the renegotiations.

*There is also a wrinkle involving a lawsuit between Dish and a former AMC subsidiary, but that’s par for the course, too. All of these guys sue all of these guys, all the time. No recession, ever, for TV attorneys.

Aiming to get a sense for how powerful the tablet is, online advertising network Chitika looked at what devices it was serving ads to and found that it was almost exclusively Apple tablets.

For every 100 iPad impressions, Chitika is serving slightly more than one ad to a Samsung Galaxy and Asus Transformer Prime and under one ad to the Motorola Xoom, BlackBerry PlayBook and Kindle Fire. The Nook Tablet share is even lower, though clearly both the Nook and Kindle are marketed less as Web browsing devices and more as media consumption tools.

In total, the iPad accounted for more than 94 percent of ads, Chitika said.

It shows that not only are iPads outselling their rivals, but each one that is sold is also more heavily used, at least when it comes to Web surfing.

“Going forward the competition is going to be hard pressed to find a way to overthrow the seemingly omnipotent Apple,” Chitika said. “Not only do they offer a great product, they have the undying devotion of their enthusiasts.”

The Washington Post reported this morning that its online ad revenue dropped 7 percent in the first three months of 2012. That follows a New York Times earnings release which saw that publisher’s Web ad business drop 2 percent.

(We should get some color on the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones, when parent company News Corp. reports its earnings next week; News Corp. also owns this Web site.)

The Times said that digital sales were “under pressure” in the first quarter of the year, while the Post didn’t bother to add any color to its results. But it did note that online display ads were down 11 percent, while classifieds were down 1 percent.

Unlike the Times, the Post is essentially a regional newspaper, so it is harder to argue that its travails reflect a larger trend. And it’s also worth noting that the Post faces fierce competition for its core political coverage from Politico, an online/offline competitor that basically sprouted overnight.

But for the record: The rest of the Web publishing business — including not only Google but laggards like Yahoo — has been posting Q1 revenue increases.  [An earlier version of this post incorrectly reported that AOL's ad revenues were up for Q1; the company won't post its numbers until next week.]

Here’s a proof point: Discovery Communications, parent of the Discovery Channel, has purchased Revision3, a Web video start-up that makes and distributes its own shows, like “Tekzilla” and “Epic Meal Time.”

Discovery isn’t disclosing a purchase price, but multiple sources familiar with the transaction tell me the cable guys will pay around $30 million for the start-up. The company ended up raising about $10 million during its six-year lifespan, with the last chunk coming from a group of investors that included Mark Cuban.

All of Revision3’s 50 employees are supposed to stay on, and there’s a chance that they could end up pulling down sizeable earnouts. But they probably won’t, because that’s the nature of earnouts.

TechCrunch reported the deal talks earlier this week.

This deal isn’t an “acqhire,” as Discovery intends to keep Revision3 operating out of its San Francisco headquarters. The idea is that Revision3 will continue to make its own Web shows, which generate some 100 million streams a month, and that Discovery will eventually figure out ways to sync up some of its own stuff into the mix.

“We want them to continue doing what they’re doing, and to continue developing native digital talent,” says Discovery’s digital boss JB Perrette. To date, Discovery hasn’t done a lot with Web video, and has traditionally kept most of its cable programming off the Internet. That has changed a bit recently, via library deals with Amazon and Netflix, and may ramp up a bit more in the future.

The deal comes as big Web players are trying to convince advertisers that their video stuff is just as good as TV — see Google’s big show in New York last night.

But Discovery thinks there’s still a distinction between TV and the Web — which is why it wanted to buy Revision3 in the first place.

“We produce content on a $500,000 to $750,000-an-hour scale,” Perrette says. “Producing something at a tenth of that cost means it has to be very different.”

Meanwhile, Revision3 CEO Jim Louderback, who used to write blog posts with titles like “Cable TV Is Screwd,” now says there’s life in the cable business, after all. “One’s not going to destroy the other,” he says. “I don’t think any new media destroys the other. I think it just creates its own path.”

This is the strategy that all of the big Web portals are suddenly employing. And they’re making a particularly big deal about it right now, because they’re all putting on fancy showcases for advertisers, modeled on the “upfront” presentations the TV guys put on every year.

YouTube’s was last night, at New York’s Beacon Theatre, and it was by far the most extravagant shindig of the bunch. (This included the post-event dinners, where YouTubers schmoozed advertisers at many of the city’s nicest restaurants: Ma Peche, Del Posto, A Voce, etc.)

If you didn’t go last night (you really did need a ticket), here’s the finale, via an unofficial shakycam grab. If you can’t pick this up from the clip, I can attest that the crowd really did get a huge kick out of this. Perhaps the YouTube folks will put up a fancier version later on:

And here’s a list of famous, semi-famous, or kinda-maybe-famous people that joined Jay-Z onstage:

Neon Trees
Pharrell Williams
Miri Ben-Ari
Chris Hardwick
Jon Avnet and Rodrigo Garcia
Julia Stiles
Sarah Jones
Jennifer Beals
Caitlin Gerard
Virginia Madsen
Brian Robbins
Flo Rida

(Image courtesy of Life and Times)

Earlier today, Yahoo released a letter talking itself up to investors, introing a new Web site called Yahoo Forward to do more bragging and — you guessed it — giving yet another smackdown to activist shareholder Dan Loeb of Third Point.

The move comes as the proxy fight over the Silicon Valley Internet giant moves ever closer to its annual meeting, which is set to take place sometime this summer.

In the letter, which had precisely zero new news, Yahoo recounted again that it tried hard to settle things with its disgruntled shareholder, but underscored its desire not to have Loeb on the board.

Why? Because the man who owns about six percent of Yahoo — which is about 99.99 percent more than any other current board member, which seems to make him pretty interested in Yahoo’s fate — is not qualified to be a director.

“The board continues to believe that Mr. Loeb himself does not bring the relevant skill set and experience to the board, particularly in comparison to the candidates selected by the board,” the Yahoo letter read. “In addition, we believe that, based on the specific qualifications of Third Point’s nominees relative to Yahoo!’s business and opportunities, the candidates nominated by the board’s Nominating and Governance Committee are significantly superior to those proposed by Third Point. “

Buuuurn! (Not really.)

Loeb has his own Web site, Value Yahoo, which he launched last month to pillory Yahoo. He used it today to post an infographic titled “The Incredible Shrinking Yahoo.”

Buuuurn! (Not really.)

In fact, the real fire could start as early as next week and in the months ahead when other Yahoo investors start to pick sides in the fight.

That should really begin when independent proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Service gives its recommendation on the issue to Yahoo investors.

A backing by ISS for another prominent proxy advisor Glass Lewis will help Loeb, although he still has an uphill battle to convince other shareholders to vote down Yahoo, which has a new CEO in Scott Thompson and a mostly new board.

That will be even more difficult, given how active Thompson has been in making a ton of productive-sounding moves, such as a recent restructuring which included 2,000 layoffs. While results will not be in for a while, a lot of we’re-hard-at-work strategery noise is probably a good tack for Yahoo.

The company will surely try to drop some more Yahoo bombs on Loeb to burnish its chances in the coming month — most likely first around a taxable sale of a large portion of its Asian assets related to new rounds of talks now taking place again, which might include a fat dividend to investors.

(Investors like fat dividends and the people who give them fat dividends, by the way!)

The company could also sell off some of its underperforming units, such as its advertising technology business and renegotiate its search partnership with Microsoft, all of which will give Yahoo more of a case that Loeb’s complaints are now unfounded.

But don’t count Loeb out, either. He’s a deft campaigner and also deserves some credit for forcing Yahoo to make several of its recent moves to oust weak members of its longtime dysfunctional board.

In that regard, at least, Loeb has been very relevant.

Here’s Yahoo’s letter today, in full (the odd bolding is all done by the company):

Yahoo! Shareholder Letter Outlines Forward Momentum and Urges Election of Its Board Nominees

SUNNYVALE, California, May 2, 2012 — Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO), the premier digital media company, today released the following letter to all shareholders from its board of directors:

Dear Shareholder,

Since last August, Yahoo! has moved forward aggressively, implementing a plan to position itself for future success and to increase the value of Yahoo! for you, our shareholders.

* Just four months ago, we appointed CEO Scott Thompson, a highly accomplished and dynamic leader with the experience and expertise required to lead Yahoo! to renewed growth, innovation, and success. Scott is already moving the company forward fast — dramatically reorganizing the business around its core strengths with a mindset of focus, speed, discipline, and putting the customer first.

* The company has reconstituted the board of directors, with the optimal mix of expertise, experience, and fresh perspectives to accelerate the company’s transformation. We recruited five new, highly qualified independent directors through the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s thorough search process. In addition, four of our directors volunteered not to stand for re-election at the 2012 shareholders’ meeting. As reconstituted, following the annual meeting a majority of Yahoo!’s directors will be new to the board this year, and all directors will have joined the board since 2010.

* Following a detailed and diligent review in an accelerated timeframe, the company produced a comprehensive strategic framework that will change what we do and, most importantly, how we do it to enable us to put our customers first in everything we do. We will deliver fun, engaging, and personalized experiences on all screens and forge strong relationships with our advertisers by producing measurable results, including consumer insights derived from our vast data, and delivering a higher rate of return on advertising spend. Specifically, we will focus all we do on the consumers who trust us to deliver personalized content and communications in our core businesses, and on the advertisers who want to connect with our consumers. Just as importantly, we are identifying what we will no longer do, in order to direct resources toward those businesses that generate the highest consumer engagement and the best return on our investment. As we excel in our core business, we will earn the right to pursue new growth opportunities.

* With this renewed operational focus, the company has defined a new organizational structure to support our core business and put resources closer to our customers. Effective May 1, Yahoo! will operate in three groups — consumer, regions and technology — all supported by our corporate teams. Each of these three groups will have clear accountability for getting results by delivering the best customer experiences. This more efficient structure will enable faster decision-making and more effective delivery of innovative products and services that measurably impact the bottom line.

* Beyond our core business, we are committed to continuing to be prudent stewards of our non-core assets and investments and to be thoughtful and diligent about monetizing their significant value at the right time and in the right manner. Should we do so, returning capital to shareholders will be a high priority.

In identifying qualified new members for the board, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, led by its independent chairperson Patti Hart, conducted a thorough and impartial search process. Working with a leading executive recruitment firm and using the committee’s desired skill sets and experience for new board members, the committee identified over 100 potential candidates and sought input from a number of our major shareholders. Committee members engaged with over 20 individuals, including the four nominees proposed by Third Point. Committee members then conducted numerous in-depth interviews and carefully analyzed the qualifications of each candidate, including each of Third Point’s nominees. Committee members conducted additional interviews with those candidates that warranted further consideration, as determined by the committee in its meetings held throughout the process. Following completion of the full process, the committee and the board determined that the distinguished group of five candidates recently announced were the best choices, based on their individual accomplishments, experience directly relevant to Yahoo!’s business and its challenges, and records of value creation.

The new directors have strong records of significant accomplishment at the highest levels of media, advertising, marketing, Internet, technology, and finance, including corporate finance and restructuring, and insight into customers’ perspectives. The continuing directors are independent thinkers who bring impressive track records of success, and have been actively and constructively engaged as the company has developed its strategic framework to deliver renewed success and value to shareholders. We are challenging Yahoo!’s entire leadership team by asking tough questions, establishing rigorous goals, and developing a framework for strict accountability to move Yahoo! forward … fast.

Our focus now is on operating the company so that it delivers superior value to our shareholders. Supported by the many talented people who have contributed to charting our new course and inspired by the many shareholders, customers, and employees who have communicated passion for this great brand, we know that we will succeed.

Regrettably, our efforts to avoid a proxy contest with Third Point were unsuccessful. Following the recommendation of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, we offered Third Point two board seats, including one of its nominees and a second mutually agreeable candidate, which would bring Third Point’s perspective into the boardroom. Unfortunately, Mr. Loeb declined to end his proxy solicitation on that basis, insisting that there could be no settlement unless he was personally appointed to the board. The board continues to believe that Mr. Loeb himself does not bring the relevant skill set and experience to the board, particularly in comparison to the candidates selected by the board. In addition, we believe that, based on the specific qualifications of Third Point’s nominees relative to Yahoo!’s business and opportunities, the candidates nominated by the board’s Nominating and Governance Committee are significantly superior to those proposed by Third Point. Nevertheless, we want to emphasize that we remain committed to an open dialogue with all our shareholders and to working in a constructive manner with Third Point.

At the end of the day, we recognize that you, our shareholders, will make the decision as to the board you want to lead your company. We are confident that when you assess our new board’s qualifications against Third Point’s slate, you will come to the same conclusion that we did—that this is the right board with the right mix of skills and experience to lead the company forward to create value for shareholders. We also recognize that we have a great deal of work to do to support and challenge the management team to move the company forward fast. We intend to keep ourselves and the company focused and we do not intend to let ourselves be distracted from the work at hand.

Yahoo! is looking forward, focused on delivering superior value to all of our shareholders. We are building momentum with a great leadership team, unified in focusing the company on its core strengths, redeploying resources to the most productive areas of the business, and equipping the company to invest in growth and innovation. Your new board includes individuals who have proven operating expertise in media, advertising, marketing, Internet, technology, and finance, and have consistently proven to be thoughtful and responsible stewards of shareholder value, with a strong emphasis on disciplined capital allocation and a willingness to embrace structural change. They are already contributing to the rigorous action plan to realize Yahoo!’s potential and deliver increased value for shareholders.

With new leadership and the new board, we are building a stronger, nimbler, more profitable Yahoo! that is better equipped to innovate for our customers and will ultimately increase the value of Yahoo! for all shareholders.

You can read more about Yahoo!’s actions to move the company forward and create shareholder value at http://yahooforward.com.

Thank you for your support.

Yahoo! Board of Directors

Large private equity firm Silver Lake is buying a large stake in powerful Hollywood talent agency William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, which is being described as a way to turbocharge its digital efforts.

While the pair would not disclose any financial details of the deal, which they are calling a “strategic partnership,” sources said Silver Lake is acquiring 31 percent of WME.

“Over the years, we have been brick-building, as we have been doing more and more digitally,” said Patrick Whitesell, co-CEO of WME with Ari Emanuel, in an interview today. “But the opportunities are so vast, there is a need for more capital to do more.”

Whitesell and Emanuel said they had been considering a range of investors, especially among media entities, but that they wanted to work with Silver Lake since it had more digital experience as an active investor in technology.

Skype, for example, was the driver of the sale of Internet telephony giant Skype to Microsoft for $8.5 billion, while WME reps stars such as Matt Damon and Hugh Jackman, among others.

“In addition to capital, we really wanted a partner that to help us build it out that had more technology expertise,” said Emanuel. “We are good with brands and creative and talent, but there are many more Silicon Valley opportunities.”

In fact, WME has long tried to up its digital portfolio to respond to the needs of its clients and the changing nature of entertainment distribution as consumer Internet use has exploded. That’s included a digital advertising effort, as well as one in online gaming.

Silver Lake, which has most recently looked at investing in Yahoo, it was a chance to get closer to a trove of premium entertainment content.

“You have two forces at play, ubiquitous distribution and four billion people connected,” said Silver Lake’s Egon Durban. “As that distribution has been commoditized, the only way to differentiate is through A-plus content.”

Along with the core investment, WME and Silver Lake said they will also be considering other possible deals together as they move forward.

“There is nothing we like more than handing our best partners more money,” said Durban, who will join WME executive committee and also help create a technology advisory counsel at the firm.

Calling Marc Andreessen! Actually, in an interesting factoid, it was the well-known tech investor and entrepreneur who introduced Durban to Emanuel.

But this movie has been shown before and is not the first Hollywood-tech hookup to happen. A variety of efforts have waxed and waned over the years — most of which have largely been underwhelming.

Last year, for example, Accel Partners invested $40 million in Legendary Pictures and, back in 2008, Accel, the then William Morris Agency and AT&T formed an investment consortium to focus on Southern California start-ups.

Most closely related was the 2010 deal, in which TPG Capital took a 35 percent stake in Creative Artists Agency.

Here is the official press release on the Silver Lake-WME deal:

WME Press Release_5 02 12_FINAL