AllThingsD » Asia

They Shoot Yahoo CEOs, Don't They? But Not Without a Really Smoking Gun and a Much Stronger Board.

Kara Swisher — Sat, 05 May 2012 16:33:02 +0000

Earlier today, Yahoo’s persistent thorn, activist shareholder Dan Loeb of Third Point poison-penned another letter to the board of the Silicon Valley Internet company, demanding that Yahoo fire its new CEO Scott Thompson, as well as director Patti Hart, over bizarre inaccuracies related to their academic achievements.

“Permitting Mr. Thompson and Ms. Hart to stay with the Company after apparently violating the Code of Ethics sends a message to all Yahoo! employees that a different set of rules applies at the top,” Loeb wrote.”[Yahoo must] terminate Mr. Thompson for cause immediately given his demonstrable unsuitability to remain Chief Executive Officer and a director of Yahoo! and accept the resignation of Ms. Hart for similar reasons.”

And while many across the blogosphere — including some very clever tweets — called for his head tout de suite, that’s just not going to happen.

At least for now, at this early point in a controversy over Yahoo filing legal documents that misrepresented Thompson’s long-ago degree from Stonehill College.

In a nutshell: Thompson does not have a computer science degree, as he had maintained he did in public bios for almost a decade, a falsehood that mysteriously seeped into documents Yahoo filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

That’s bad news for Yahoo, for sure, on many levels, but moving against Thompson at this moment is not likely to be the answer — for the short term, at least.

That’s due to many reasons, that I like to think of it as three hopelessly complex puzzles that need solving pronto.

The What-Did-Yahoo-Know-and-When-Did-It-Know-It Question

There is no question the first thing Yahoo’s board needs to do is a thorough investigation to determine how a borked bio could proliferate so widely and for so long.

Most importantly, Yahoo will have to reveal if Thompson actually gave them this incorrect information, as he aggressively lobbied for the then-open CEO job.

As I had previously reported several times, Thompson cold-emailed a Yahoo director — Intuit CEO Brad Smith, as it turns out — despite not being on the list of potential candidates. Thompson was then shuttled over to Hart, who was running the vetting process with the help of headhunting firm Heidrick & Struggles, and hired within weeks.

Oddly, sources said Thompson never filled out the required informational papers for the job, nor did Heidrick conduct the normal background check on him. Instead, another forensic firm Yahoo hired did the work.

If it turns out Thompson gave any of them the bad bio info, it would be quick curtains for him.

But if Yahoo’s board members obtained his info on their own, the next key query would be how no one at Yahoo — especially its legal and compliance staffers, as well as outside help — managed to catch the problem during the vetting of Thompson.

Here are some good questions to start with:

Who put a faux computer science degree on Thompson’s bio in the first place, why and when did it happen?

Where did Yahoo get the inaccurate information?

Who was in charge of checking Thompson’s academic record for Yahoo?

And, who checked the work of the checkers?

The problem is made more complicated, because correct information was easily available in the SEC filings of eBay for years, since Thompson was head of its PayPal payments unit.

While the resume information was indeed wrong on eBay’s Web site and on numerous bios of Thompson for years, how did eBay legally get it right while Yahoo did not?

That calls into question the expertise of the company, its directors and those they hired to make sure execs were completely on the up and up, a task they clearly failed at.

If rank incompetence is the reason, which it looks like it might be, expect certain board members and other Yahoo staffers to go, along with anyone who helped in the Thompson vetting, or lack thereof.

Unless, of course, the gang-that-couldn’t-shoot-straight actually did shoot straight and some one at Yahoo found out about the educational discrepancy before the new CEO was announced, but declined to fix it.

While sinister, such a scenario is not entirely implausible, given how much pressure Yahoo was under at the time to hire a CEO quickly, due to Loeb and his looming proxy fight.

If any evidence were to surface that this was so, it is curtains all around, which would rain the kind of disaster down on Yahoo’s Sunnyvale HQ that would make Loeb’s attacks look like a Nerf battle. Instead, it would be “The Hunger Games” — except that no one survives.

The Chaos-in-Sunnyvale Conundrum

Which brings us to the profound implications of Yahoo jacking its second CEO within six months.

While it’s easy to yell “Fire the CEO” on a crowded Twitter, it’s simply not so easy in practice.

How long did it take Yahoo’s lugubrious board to figure out Carol Bartz needed to go? A … long … time. (And, she had a CS degree!)

More to the point, Thompson — and his not-so-merry band of consultants from Boston Consulting Group and, this week, McKinsey & Company — has only just completed a massive layoff of 2,000 employees and a jarring restructuring of management.

He’s also in the early stages of rolling out a new and decidedly still-squishy strategic plan to top execs (also just this week), along with working on some other key initiatives.

That includes renegotiating its search partnership with Microsoft; noodling around on a possible deal with Google; contemplating the sale of a variety of assets; and — oh, yes — trying to take on social networking Godzilla Facebook over patent infringement.

Busy much?

But, most importantly, Thompson is now the umpteenth Yahoo CEO to be working on the never-ending talks with its Asian partners over selling back a piece of the company’s lucrative stake to them.

While Yahoo CFO Tim Morse and head lawyer Mike Callahan are the point men on the deal, the lack of CEO would be an issue in the now-proceeding again talks.

This is a sale that must — and I underscore must — get done and soon, giving Yahoo much-needed breathing room and a whole lot of cash to fork over to increasingly disgruntled shareholders.

So, expect Yahoo to try to milk that deal for all it’s worth in the coming week, in order to give the appearance, at least, of positive forward momentum.

And, like it or not, Thompson has to play a key role in it getting done.

Thus, the likelihood of wait-and-see over point-and-shoot on Thompson is higher than you might think.

That’s especially true given four members of the board are leaving within six weeks and have either or are in the process of being replaced by new members.

Then, Thompson will be their problem to solve.

Again, no small thing, since the old crew — led by feckless Chairman Roy Bostock — is not likely to want to end its appalling tenure with yet another disaster.

Such a move would further tarnish the legacy of its outgoing directors, although I am not sure how it could be any more sullied, given their consistent record of one bad decision after the next.

What do I really think? I think this cursed board will maintain its 100 percent score of doing the wrong thing at the right time.

It could be a different case with the new directors, of course, who all seem pretty sharp and not as easily impressed by a record of failure.

They will surely be monitoring Thompson carefully, as will employees, who have taken to internal message boards with a rage not seen in a while over the resume debacle.

Their morale might be one uncertainty impacting Thompson’s fate. If a lot of key employees continue to bolt Yahoo or those remaining more loudly express their disdain for the bio antics, the new directors might listen.

The Whatever-Loeb-Says-We-Won’t-Do-Till-Later Head-Scratcher

Which brings us back to Loeb, whose noisy campaign to grab seats on the Yahoo board has certainly hit home this week.

And, though Yahoo likes to ding him a lot, since he started his campaign of terribly entertaining investor terror, a lot of what he’s been calling for has happened.

That includes a major flushing of the board — with five longtime members, including co-founder Jerry Yang, going, going and gone.

In addition, Loeb brought pressure to slow down some questionable deals, from Yahoo’s PIPE dream to a tax-free spinoff in Asia in a deal only an accountant could love.

He’s also — though they try to deny it — got the Yahoo directors in the dangerous habit of reacting to him, rather than playing their own game.

While the Yahoo board has resisted any deal with Loeb (pictured here), blaming him for rejecting their kind offers of settlement, it is he who is setting the tone more than Yahoo.

And that tone is of alarm and trouble and chaos at Yahoo.

That’s not going to work to convince other Yahoo investors to back his cause — in fact, Loeb has a decidedly uphill battle to win his proxy challenge — he has still scored a direct win with the bio relevations.

So far, though, Loeb has not sunk Yahoo’s battleship, so it is unlikely the board will acquiesce to his latest demand of Thompson being fired by noon on Monday.

Maybe it will eventually, or maybe it will just scold Thompson or maybe it will do nothing at all.

All that is an unknown — a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, with a lot of managerial incompetence thrown in. And that, most of all, is the sad definition of today’s Yahoo.

All of Yahoo's Top Execs Gather Today to Talk Strategery About What Stays and What Goes

Kara Swisher — Wed, 02 May 2012 17:33:14 +0000

All day today, the top 120 execs at Yahoo are meeting at an offsite at the Marriott in San Jose, Calif., the first such gathering of the new world order at the Silicon Valley Internet giant in the wake of 2,000 layoffs last month.

It’ll be the first time that new CEO Scott Thompson starts to more specifically explain his vision of how he’s going to drag Yahoo out of its perpetual turnaround and into a brighter future.

The main message: Focus on where Yahoo is winning and dumping everything else — and actually doing it this time.

(For those just tuning in, previous Yahoo management has talked this talk before and, well, not walked this walk very much at all.)

Thompson thinks he’s the clean-up guy, though. And, since the layoffs, he has been one busy dude, flying to and fro, working on a variety of things.

That includes everything from figuring out how to sell a part of Yahoo’s lucrative Asian assets to working on the company’s fraught search advertising partnership with Microsoft, to chatting with Google about a new one, to planning more patent attacks against Facebook and others, to — perhaps most important of all — deciding what needs to stay and what needs to go in terms of products and properties at the company.

In Yahoo’s recent earnings call, Thompson noted that he would be “consolidating technology platforms and shutting down or transitioning roughly 50 properties that don’t contribute meaningfully to engagement or revenue.”

What precisely he was talking about has been the buzz inside the company since, because Yahoo has collected a lot of stuff over the years that is has shoved into its corporate closet and forgotten about, but that keeps on chugging away with little promise.

Ever heard of Korea Kids? It’s a site in Asia that attracts decent traffic and millions of dollars in revenue, but which many sources said costs much more to operate. Or another site called Sex Tips in the U.K. or Moments on Motherhood on its U.S. Shine women’s site.

There are lots of micro-sites like this all over Yahoo, which have been created over the years for a variety of reasons that seemed sensible at the time. In addition, there is much more — from scads of useless mobile apps to much bigger but troubled projects such as Connected TV and Livestand — all of which suck up staff, resources, attention, ad impressions and more.

It’s like a never-ending episode of “Hoarders,” but grosser in many way for Yahoo shareholders.

So, presumably, if you are not in the top three in any category, that means a spring cleaning all over the company to either toss these properties out or move them to one of Yahoo’s big publishing platforms, such as sports, finance or news.

This is not an easy task, as you might imagine, since each and every property on the potential chopping block has staunch defenders inside the company and ferreting them out and killing them is, as one person inside Yahoo noted, “like hunting gophers in the dark.”

The benefit to doing so? Cost savings, focus on many fewer things that Yahoo does best and a deployment of talent to where it will pay off.

That’s the idea anyway, but it is more complex than that, since simply having massive properties to sell to advertisers is not the game anymore, as both Google and Facebook sell a range of other attributes to advertisers from better engagement to direct sales conversions to social hooks.

Thus, it’s not simply enough to kill properties — Yahoo has to transform the ones it keeps, too, to meet a vastly different consumer mentality.

That is one of the main reasons that Thompson is also stressing new business arenas, most especially commerce, an area he knows well as the former president of eBay’s PayPal unit. Thompson has told his staff that by 2014, one-third of Yahoo’s revenues should come from e-commerce.

Besides hiring away some of his staff from PayPal, sources said he has also been eying payments technology to buy and even leveraging current Yahoo properties to grow the nascent business.

Recently, for example, he has been pushing an effort to get the accidental visitors to Yahoo’s still powerful home page — those that sign in an out of its email, for example — to engage in an e-commerce transaction.

Whether moves like this will work is still an open question, but I guess you have to start cleaning up the mess somewhere.

CrowdStar No Longer Developing Social Games for Facebook

Tricia Duryee — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:00:41 +0000

CrowdStar’s CEO Peter Relan said in an interview that the longtime social games maker is no longer developing for Facebook.

Instead, the company is focused on building games for smartphones.

“We are maintaining the old games, like Happy Aquarium, but we don’t build new Facebook PC games any more — we are 100 percent focused on mobile,” Relan said.

Last year, he said, 90 percent of the company’s revenues came from Facebook, but he predicts that this year 90 percent will come from mobile.

CrowdStar’s decision to leave Facebook is bad timing for the social network it as nears its public offering.

A platform must have both a lot of applications and a lot of users in order to be successful, but if the perception is that the platform can be profitable only for a few, developers will go elsewhere. Today, the reality is that Zynga dominates the charts and makes far and away more money than anyone else. Meanwhile, fledgling developers are seeking financial alternatives.

Founded in 2008, the Burlingame, Calif., company was one of the first to feed off of Facebook’s social graph, which allowed companies to endlessly post messages on players’ walls to get the word out about their games. Since those viral channels were shut down, Crowdstar has had a difficult time keeping up with social game leaders, such as Zynga, Electronic Arts, Wooga and King.

A year ago, the company raised its first round of funding totaling $23 million, but since then, its games have slipped in the rankings as its focus has shifted to mobile. Today, it attracts fewer than 8 million monthly users, down from 29 million a year ago, according to AppData.

Since then, said Relan, they have discovered an attractive audience on mobile, consisting of females age 13 to 30 who are not interested in sitting in front of a PC or a console to play games. “They are very mobile and communications-oriented,” he said.

For example, Crowdstar’s Girl franchise, including Top Girl, Social Girl and Modern Girl, has collectively hit 20 million downloads across both iPhone and Android. Modern Girl alone surpassed two million downloads within three weeks of its launch.

The Girl franchise includes role-playing games where users dress up avatars and are judged on their outfits as they walk the runway.

Relan said Zynga has done a good job serving the females, aged 35 and over, who grew up on PCs and enjoy playing games online. But the slightly younger demographic is looking for a different kind of game play on a different platform. Relan said they still will leverage the Facebook platform on mobile.

The decision to pull away from Facebook on the PC is new since the company announced a three-prong strategy in October that included Facebook games, mobile games and an emphasis on Asia.

Relan said that even if the company weren’t targeting a niche that gravitated toward mobile, he’d still be wary of developing games for Facebook. That’s because he believes the audience for Facebook games has plateaued or started to decrease.

“If I was going after an older audience, I might focus on tablets,” he said.

Apple, Proview Will Try to Talk Out iPad Trademark Tussle

John Paczkowski — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:08:56 +0000

Apple’s battle over the iPad trademark in China could be moving toward resolution. That’s the word from the attorney representing Proview, Apple’s antagonist in the spat, who tells IDG that the two companies have agreed to participate in a mediation session.

Meanwhile, the case — a rat’s nest of a dispute over just who owns the rights to the iPad trademark in China — drags on, Proview’s financial situation continues to worsen and Apple’s new iPad continues to be unavailable for purchase in mainland China.

Of course, Proview has said all along that it’s willing to negotiate a settlement. Problem is, Apple may not see the need for one. It contends that it reached an agreement with Proview years ago, when it first purchased the company’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries, and it has a fair bit of evidence to back it up.

Apple did not respond to requests for comment.

Yahoo's Q1 Earnings: New CEO Will Get Some Satisfaction!

Kara Swisher — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:06:33 +0000

Yahoo turned in better-than-expected earnings today in its first quarter, and — as usual — I will be liveblogging the call with CEO Scott Thompson.

Yahoo beat Wall Street estimates in its first-quarter earnings report earlier today, with revenues of $1.08 billion and earnings of 23 cents. That’s a gain of 28 percent from a year ago in net earnings and 38 percent per diluted shares.

Earlier:
2:03 pm: We begin with a new investor relations dude, who has replaced Marta Nichols. She is now CEO Scott Thompson’s new chief of staff.

His name is Joon and he seems much more festive than Marta, who was very, very serious.

I could not be more thrilled.

Thompson comes on quickly enough and he is also pretty jaunty.

Yahoo has been “moving very fast” on a range of things. And how — this guy seems to eat Ritalin for breakfast.

But there is still a long way to go, he notes.

“I am not satisfied with the pace of top-line growth,” said Thompson, who added he would not be until Yahoo was keeping up with others like Google, which turned in a much stronger report last week.

He can’t get no satisfaction — but he will!

Thompson said one problem was still its ongoing search and advertising partnership with Microsoft. It’s still rocky in terms of monetization and more.

2:09 pm: But first, it is CFO Tim Morse’s turn to re-read the results that were just released.

I am not actually listening until he gets to the part about Thompson giving more deets soon.

Morse is teeing this up by noting that Yahoo is adding more to its bag of tricks beyond search and display, such as commerce.

This will take investments, which are core to success.

Thompson is back: “This business can and will grow going forward.”

I am holding him to that one!

He starts first by talking about Yahoo’s content business, which remains strong, but he points out the obvious: Engagement is off.

In other words, the kids love Facebook. Also Instagram. Also Tumblr.

That’s why Thompson says he told the staff of Yahoo to rethink it all when he arrived in January.

The conclusion:

“Yahoo has been doing way too much for too long and has only been doing a few thing well.”

As in, jack of all trades, master of none.

“We have to be clearer going forward about what we won’t do,” said Thompson.

2:22 pm: He goes over some specifics.

Shutting down 50 properties — Thompson does not say which, though.

Consolidating platforms.

Dedicating key teams to innovation.

Something else about being nimbler.

Data. Also data. Did I say data?

Research and development only for Yahoo-owned and -operated properties.

That is six points, which will be underscored by better execution.

Thompson has been talking about the “complex processes” that was once called peanut butter by one former exec.

Peanut butter is sticky and that’s the point.

2:26 pm: Oops, when talking about layoffs, Thompson says “PayPal” and not “people.” He used to run the eBay payments unit.

Thompson moves to the board changes — five new members and the jacking of five from previous year.

He then defends his decision to sue Facebook over patent infringement. “Facebook must do the same or change its practices,” he sad.

Thompson adds the company is in “active” talks with its Asian partners, Softbank of Japan and Alibaba of China.

And some news! Talks related to its Japanese assets have a gap in valuation, so Yahoo is focusing on the Chinese ones.

And in summation:

“We don’t have to reinvent who we are, but we do need to reinvent our experiences … We have to move and think like a growth company.”

That would be nice.

2:32 pm: Time for Q&A, in which I like to see exactly how wimpy Wall Street analysts can be in asking tough questions.

The first is asking about some strategery specifics, including whether it can get the cool $1 billion AOL just got from Microsoft.

Thompson talks about the new commerce unit, which will be co-led by someone who worked with him at PayPal. It’s not really new, since Yahoo is in that arena already.

Morse answers on intellectual property issues, noting Yahoo is happy to license its family jewels. Most tech companies use these patents as a defense, but no longer.

The next question is on morale of sales force. I can answer that! Not good!

But Morse says there is progress.

Bygones.

Morse also notes that Yahoo still has search revenue per share guarantee from Microsoft, but that he hopes it will get better before that deal runs out.

Back to Thompson. He wants better results to advertising customers.

He keeps saying “at or above the market rate.” Yahoo’s growth has been lackluster, so this would be a key victory if Thompson could pull it off.

2:39 pm: A question about mobile, which has been one of Yahoo’s most embarrassing holes of all.

Besides Facebook, the kids love those smartphones. You would not know it from Yahoo’s shoddy products.

“We need to get good real fast in mobile … and we’re not there today,” said Thompson. Actually, Yahoo was not there yesterday, either.

Note to Scott: Real fast is a good idea.

There is a question about its advertising platforms, a back-handed way of asking if it is for sale. It is.

Thompson notes that there has been a lot of evaluating, but that “we have not come to a conclusion.”

2:42 pm: A question about its revenues from its Asian assets. China’s Alibaba — which is not run by Yahoo — is doing great.

It’s kind of like being the dude who bought Apple some years ago and is now rich through no effort of his own.

Thompson addresses a question about dividends, which Apple just gave out. Yahoo will be sticking with stock buybacks, so everyone can put away those Porsche catalogs.

I am briefly distracted during some accounting questions by the new Apple ads with Zooey Deschanel. She is so adorkable, it makes me slightly queasy.

Back to Thompson, who is non-answering a question about possible acquisitions. He’s not talking, but I am sure he will be buying if he gets a transaction with Alibaba done finally.

Given the long and convoluted and always aborted deals over the years, this would be cause for much celebration if Thompson pulls it off.

(And, if he does, I pledge to buy him dinner in Boston at the restaurant of his choice!)

2:52 pm: A question of what the heck Thompson actually means when is he talking about using Yahoo’s data.

There are apparently three main places.

Personalization, which is uniquely related content, which gives him a chance to egregiously tout Boston sports teams.

Contextual advertising, which means ads you want.

And data and analysis to advertisers that will help them do a better targeting job. Oh, joy.

A search question, which I have decided to ignore, since I feel search is simply not Yahoo’s business any longer and should be sold off.

But what do I know?

Morse keeps yammering away on “better experiences for our users” by its search team.

Hey, it’s called Google. Then, Bing. And only then, Yahoo.

2:58 pm: Last question, which I missed while I was focusing on search ranting.

And with that, it’s back to the future for Yahoo. Hopefully.

It's Official: Yahoo Lays Off 2,000 Employees -- 14 Percent of Workforce

Kara Swisher — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:22:13 +0000

In a move that AllThingsD had previously reported was coming, Yahoo said it had laid off 2,000 employees, or 14 percent of the workforce.

“Today’s actions are an important next step toward a bold, new Yahoo! — smaller, nimbler, more profitable and better equipped to innovate as fast as our customers and our industry require,” said Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson in a statement. “Unfortunately, reaching that goal requires the tough decision to eliminate positions.”

While Yahoo has had periodic layoffs over the years, this one is its most significant in its history, and will also result in another large-scale restructuring of the management organization. More cuts are also likely to follow in the months ahead, due to the reshaping of Yahoo.

The latest employee action is being pushed by Thompson, who joined the Silicon Valley Internet giant in January from eBay’s PayPal unit.

“Change is never easy,” he wrote in an internal email to Yahoo employees (it is below in its entirety), in a well-worn cliché I am dead certain few appreciated hearing today from the top leader.

At an internal meeting with top staff last night, Thompson — who has gotten what seems to be a well-deserved reputation for chewing folks out at Yahoo — was more direct with the execs gathered, berating them extensively for not delivering and getting the company to this sorry point.

Ouch, Scott! It’s Easter, so it might be time for some forgiveness. (And no more ranting about my reporting to those inside Yahoo, since I have been 100 percent accurate so far. FYI, will aim for 110 percent next week!)

Yahoo said it will save about $375 million with the cuts, incurring a $125 to $145 million pretax cash charge for employee severance in its second quarter. Before the cuts, Yahoo had 14,000 staffers and has many thousands more hired as contractors.

The layoffs touch all units of the company, but the hardest hit is the product division, which is headed by Blake Irving, as well as its marketing, research and international units. Yahoo gave no details on the layoffs other than the number.

But the fate of two key parts of the soon-to-be-blown-apart unit — Yahoo’s advertising technology businesses, Right Media and APT, and its search business — is still being contemplated, as I have previously reported. Possible scenarios include a sale or a joint venture transaction for both, which employ thousands of Yahoo staffers.

The layoffs tomorrow are not the end of the road in cutting costs. Along with the likely shedding of its ad tech and search businesses, Yahoo leadership is also looking at future cuts as it evaluates current businesses, which could lop even more employees off its roster.

That said, Yahoo will be doubling down in some older and new arenas, so there would also be simultaneous hiring in the months ahead.

As wrenching as they will be today at Yahoo, the layoffs come as no surprise. Thompson had told employees in memos and also in recent meetings that “real change” was coming to the company.

Along with the trauma of the layoffs, Yahoo is also facing two other tense face-offs externally. In one, activist shareholder Third Point is waging a proxy fight for board seats and stepped up the public pressure this week; and Facebook struck back hard at Yahoo’s patent lawsuit with a counterclaim of its own.

After the layoffs tomorrow, sources say Yahoo will be announcing a new organization by next week. Thompson, along with outside consultants he has hired from the Boston Consulting Group, are making what appear to be profound changes.

Sources said that Yahoo will most likely be comprised of a global media division, one that encompasses Yahoo’s consumer products businesses and one focused on global and regional sales. There could also be a small organization of about 50 employees aimed at future innovation.

Americas head Ross Levinsohn is pegged to run the media arm, which will also include its leads/commerce businesses, such as autos; Shashi Seth — who now heads search and marketplaces — is likely to run consumer products, which will include Yahoo’s communications and search businesses.

Yahoo has already been conducting a search for a new worldwide sales head, who will also be boss of the U.S., Asia and Europe, Middle East and Africa sales regions. Rich Riley, who was recently running EMEA, is reportedly the pick for U.S. sales; Rose Tsou, who is running Asia, would presumably stay put; Yahoo is looking for an EMEA sales lead.

Some current operational execs — such as service engineering and ops head David Dibble, CFO Tim Morse, and top lawyer Mike Callahan — are likely to continue to operate as before.

One big question mark is how Chief Product Officer Irving fits in the possible new org, in which the new units get control of their product development. Irving has reportedly had several incoming job offers, although it is not clear if he has responded to that interest.

But today, the focus is on the layoffs and letting go all those employees, many of whom have worked at Yahoo for years. Even if it will result in a stronger Yahoo, as Thompson promises, it is still a very sad day in Sunnyvale.

Here is a video on the topic that I did with the WSJ.com “Digits” show today, after the cuts were announced early this morning:

Here’s the entire terse statement from Yahoo:

And here is Thompson’s memo to employees, stating the obvious and with nothing new from previous statements and internal memos:

Yahoo's Layoffs Tomorrow Morning of up to 2,000 Will Only Be the First Move of a Larger Purge to Come

Kara Swisher — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:16:46 +0000

According to sources close to the situation, Yahoo’s massive round of layoffs — which is likely to impact up to 2,000 employees — is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg that will hit the storied Silicon Valley Internet giant in the months to come.

Sources said Yahoo is currently planning to announce the cuts in staff in the early morning, just as the markets open. That could change, of course, but the cuts will definitely occur within the next two days.

The layoffs, which will touch all units of the company, are expected to hit hardest in the product division, which is headed by Blake Irving.

Also set to be hard hit are Yahoo’s local businesses, as well as its marketing and research divisions. While still sustaining losses, its media units will not be as badly impacted. And it’s not clear how many employee terminations will be aimed at the company’s general and administrative staff.

That said, Yahoo will be “doubling down” in some older and new arenas, so there would also be simultaneous hiring in the months ahead.

But not tomorrow, which will be one of the tougher days in Yahoo’s long history of periodic layoffs. Newly installed CEO Scott Thompson had told employees in memos and also in recent meetings that “real change” was coming to the company.

That is indeed the case, which is causing massive strain throughout the company, which now employs over 14,000 and has many thousands more hired as contractors.

After the layoffs tomorrow, sources say Yahoo will be announcing a new organization by next week, which will create several major, soup-to-nuts units at the company. Thompson, along with consultants he has hired from the Boston Consulting Group, are making what appear to be profound changes.

Sources said Yahoo will most likely be comprised of a global media division, one that encompasses Yahoo’s consumer products businesses and one focused on global and regional sales. There could also be a small organization of about 50 employees aimed at future innovation.

Some current operational execs — such as service engineering and ops head David Dibble, CFO Tim Morse, and top lawyer Mike Callahan — are likely to continue to operate as before.

Let’s hope that Yahoos who will be let go tomorrow find themselves with many new employment choices after the ax falls.

Spotify's Special Projects Head Shakil Khan Moves to Path to Do Same

Kara Swisher — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:00:38 +0000

Shakil Khan, the well-known head of special projects for the popular Spotify music service, is taking a job with the same title at Path, the fast-growing personal social networking start-up.

Khan will be focusing on growth and international issues, and based out of London but with global duties. Path’s HQ is in San Francisco.

That’s important, since Path has been growing strongly outside its initial U.S. market, especially in Asia. In February, Path CEO Dave Morin announced that it had two million users.

In an interview last night, Khan said he will remain an adviser to Spotify’s CEO and co-founder Daniel Ek, noting that he is also an investor.

Interestingly, said many sources and also a number of reports, both Path and Spotify are in the midst of large funding rounds with hefty valuations.

In fact, Spotify is being valued at $4 billion, which was not the case when Khan came to the then-fledgling company in 2008. Taking up a job essentially as a kind of fix-it guy for Ek, he worked on a number of important initiatives, from gaining early user traction to hiring its early management to wrangling celebrities to use the service.

Khan said that he decided to leave Spotify, which has recently had a huge spurt of growth due to its recent integration on Facebook, because he has “always been a start-up guy.”

“I loved the days when people used to say, ‘What is that, how do you spell it,’” he said about Spotify. “I need those kind of butterflies, and Path is just that kind of amazing product with huge global potential.”

In an email, Path’s Morin said:

“We are beyond delighted that Shak has chosen to join the Path family as we continue our mission to build the first global personal network by helping people journal and share life with family and close friends. Shak brings a unique global perspective and skill set to Path which will help us reach and serve our members and partners across the globe in a uniquely personal way.”

And Ek, calling in from Sweden (where it is 80 degrees!), said that he was sad to see Khan go, and was also in his debt for his service to Spotify.

“I am kind of an introvert guy, and Shak is definition of social, so he was the link to the rest of the world in many ways for me and for the company,” said Ek. “So where he is going and what he will be doing at Path is perfect.”

Here's Dan Loeb's Letter to Investors About the Value of Yahoo's Alibaba Stake

Kara Swisher — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 00:29:26 +0000

I got ahold of parts of the fourth-quarter 2011 investor letter that the New York-based Third Point hedge fund — which is prepping a proxy fight with Yahoo — is sending out tomorrow.

(The Wall Street Journal did a short post after it had reviewed excerpts of the letter, but had no text, so here is the real thing about Yahoo in its entirety, folks!)

The letter includes a long section about how Third Point’s main man Dan Loeb feels about Yahoo, and especially in the value of its investment in China’s Alibaba Group. The stakes that the Silicon Valley Internet giant hold in Asia — including in Yahoo Japan — make up for a great deal of its valuation now, as many know and as the activist shareholder points out in detail.

Here’s the Yahoo-Alibaba part, titled “The Case for Alibaba,” in what is a very sharp analysis — except for the part about dinging the press (not nice, Danno!):

Apple vs. Proview: We Lawyers Have a Word for Cases Like This, and It Starts With "Cluster"

John Paczkowski — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:30:18 +0000

The hearing that could determine ownership of the iPad trademark in China kicked off this morning with a broad rehash of the battle we’ve seen play out in the media over the past few weeks: Apple arguing it bought Proview Technology’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark several years ago, and Proview claiming it bought them from an affiliate that didn’t own them.

“Apple meticulously formed a band of lawyers to buy the trademark, but the transacted amount was given to Taiwan’s Proview, not Shenzhen’s Proview,” Proview’s attorneys told the court, adding that the iPad trademark therefore still belongs to Proview’s Shenzhen unit, its claimed original owner.

The problem with that argument, as Apple’s legal team was quick to point out, is that negotiations over the iPad trademark were authorized by Rowell Yang, chairman of Proview Shenzhen, and the actual transfer agreement was signed by Ray Mai, head of Shenzhen’s legal department.

Proview’s explanation for this, according to its lawyers: “Personnel may have multiple roles or titles within the group, but the question is in what capacity were they acting?“

And that really gets to the heart of the issue here: Did Apple buy the iPad China trademark from a company that didn’t own it?

“The ownership of the trademark when it was allegedly sold is not really in doubt; it was owned by Proview-Taiwan,” Dan Harris, an intellectual-property attorney at Harris & Moure, explains. “The real question is whether Proview-Shenzhen authorized Proview-Taiwan to sell the iPad trademark to Apple.”

Because if it is determined that it didn’t, Apple is in quite a bind. “The value of iPad’s trademark rocketed after Apple launched the tablet computer in January 2010,” the company’s legal team told the court. “In the eyes of the consumer, iPad is associated with Apple. If the court decides that Proview wins the case, then this will confuse consumers and hurt their interests.”

And it will force Apple to negotatiate a new deal with its cash-strapped opponent, undoubtedly a very expensive one.

Which is exactly what Proview is seeking here.

Said Harris, in a separate interview with AllThingsD, “We lawyers have a word for cases like this: Clusterf–k. The facts are going to keep coming out, and nobody is going to look very pure as they do, and this just strikes me as the kind of case that both sides are going to want to settle.”

Uber Sets Its Sights on Asia

Lauren Goode — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:39:52 +0000

Uber, the San Francisco-based company that powers a smartphone app for requesting car service, has been intently focused on expanding its footprint across North America and in parts of Europe (and has been fighting some regulatory battles along the way).

But while the company most recently has been testing in L.A. and Toronto, Uber founder and CEO Travis Kalanick has said it soon expects to tackle a much bigger market: Asia.

Kalanick said in a recent interview with AllThingsD that the company is aiming to establish a presence there by the end of this year. He declined to say which Asian cities Uber is targeting first, except to say it would focus on the “obvious” ones.

Uber, which launched in 2010 and late last year received $32 million in Series B funding, doesn’t own or directly manage fleets of cars, but acts a system through which town-car drivers can sign up and users can summon them — at a premium cost — through their smartphones. The app itself is free, and works on both iPhones and Android phones.

It has been recognized as a highly disruptive service, one that frequent customers praise for its ease of use, but also one that has raised the ire of taxicab commissions in some cities.

Uber also came under some criticism around the recent holiday season, when it charged riders surge prices on New Year’s Eve, due to high demand. Some customers complained that the information about surge pricing was not presented clearly to them through the app; Uber refunded customers on a case-by-case basis.

Kalanick wouldn’t offer specifics on Uber’s pricing plans for the future, though it’s expected that the company will continue to experiment with dynamic pricing as it manages town-car supply in different cities.

Outside of the seven U.S. cities that have Uber cars running, Uber is testing in Toronto and operates in Paris, and has expressed a desire to push further into Europe, aiming to reach around 25 cities worldwide in the next several months.

For some tech start-ups, expansion into Asia — especially China — presents unique challenges. And in cities like Singapore, Beijing and Hong Kong, there are already some services that allow people to summon a car or cab through an app, or that use GPS to help riders pick up other riders while in the cab (and thereby split costs).

But Kalanick isn’t overly concerned with either competition or regulatory roadblocks. “We’re dealing with city rules and regulations with every individual city we expand to,” he said. “For us, the challenges aren’t necessarily about which country we’re in.” For example, cab regulations in San Francisco mirror regulations in Paris, Kalanick said, while New York City is a different beast entirely.

(Photo courtesy of Flickr/Ilya Genkin)

Apple Threatens to Sue Proview for Defamation -- Read the Letter

John Paczkowski — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:43:55 +0000

Proview’s legal battle with Apple over the iPad trademark grows more inane by the day.

This morning, the bankrupt company said it won a ruling from People’s Intermediate Court in Huizhou barring Sundan, a Chinese electronics retail chain, from selling iPads. But the decision applies only to Sundan’s Huizhou branch. So it’s not exactly a broad-reaching victory.

Essentially, it’s like a court telling your local RadioShack to stop selling iPads.

Meanwhile, Apple, which insists it purchased the iPad trademark in China from Proview years ago, is threatening to sue the company for defamation, alleging its founder, Yang Rongshan, has made false and misleading statements against it.

“It is inappropriate to release information contrary to the facts to the media, especially when such disclosures have the effect of wrongfully causing damage to Apple’s reputation,” said a letter to Yang. “Making misrepresentations in the press to inflame the situation is adversely affecting the interests of the parties in seeking any resolution of the matter. On behalf of Apple, we formally reserve all rights to take further legal action against any individuals and entities for any damages that may result from defamatory statements and unlawful actions intended to wrongfully interfere with Apple’s business and business relationships.”

Proview did not respond to a request for comment.

The letter in full, below:

Apple_proview –

Yahoo May Not Need a "Loebotomy," But It Definitely Can't Endure a Brain-Sapping Proxy Fight

Kara Swisher — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:35:46 +0000

Let’s put this in the simplest terms: Yahoo cannot spend the next half year in any kind of testy proxy battle with activist shareholder Daniel Loeb.

Not shouldn’t. Can’t.

Having closely covered the last goat rodeo in 2008 with corporate troublemaker Carl Icahn — which ended in big shareholders dinging the board badly and the controversial activist joining it — I can say definitively that the experience damaged the Silicon Valley Internet company in ways that are still resonating.

Angry shareholders (whose anti-Yahoo votes were initially miscounted in a stunning bumble), distracted management, media story after story about the fight, it eventually led to the departure of then CEO Jerry Yang by the holidays of that year, a rejiggered board and a new CEO, Carol Bartz, and fervent promises of change and turnaround.

Fast forward to today: Bartz was ousted in the fall of last year, a newish board is coming in, there’s another new CEO and, of course, more fervent promises of change and turnaround.

This is like the movie “Groundhog Day,” except not nearly as funny.

Speaking of funny, a Heard on the Street in The Wall Street Journal yesterday actually went fabulously snarktastic with its headline on Yahoo’s current tussle with Loeb of Third Point: “Is Yahoo Ready for a Loebotomy?”

Heh.

Opening with the line, “How many activists does it take to screw in Yahoo’s light bulb?,” the piece went on to ponder back and forth the impact of Loeb on the already dicey situation at Yahoo.

It concluded: “Yahoo investors shouldn’t expect a quick fix whoever the directors are. But, given how long Yahoo has been struggling to gain traction on its own, having a champion of shareholder value on the board can’t hurt.”

Nope, it can’t, as long as said investor wants to help find the successful fix previous Yahoo leaders have been heretofore unable to.

Another commentary in the Journal, “Dealpolitik: The Yahoo Paradox” took an opposite tack.

“Even giving Mr. Loeb a single seat could further weaken Yahoo. As a gadfly Mr. Loeb could challenge each board decision,” it read.

Actually, given this board changes direction more often than Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney — witness the now non-talks with its Asian partners this past week and, before that, with private equity investors — I am not sure Loeb would change the status quo all that much if he threw one tantrum per meeting.

So, which is it? Will a settlement with Loeb lead to more trouble or will it create the kind of change that Yahoo has long needed and never gotten?

At this point, I have no idea — but I do know that a fight between Loeb and Yahoo is good for no one, except lawyers and perhaps page views on this site and others.

And, frankly, I don’t want them.

That’s because — even as the rest of Silicon Valley reinvents and innovates more aggressively than ever these days — Yahoo and its still deeply committed employees will be caught up in more fraught financial mishegas and machinations and will be unable to do anything to attract new talent and begin to truly fix itself and its products in the profound ways it needs to.

And new CEO Scott Thompson — who seems intent on setting a new course for Yahoo in a non-advertising arena — will be inevitably distracted, no matter the also inevitable protestations that he will not be.

And, it won’t just be Loeb who is hovering — there is no doubt a panoply of other interested outside investors still waiting in the wings to see what tasty bits of Yahoo might come available if the crisis deepens.

It’s certainly not come to roadkill yet by any measure. But it’s not a recipe for hitting the ground running, either.

Here is a video of me talking about the problematic situation on WSJ.com’s “Digits” online show:

Proview to Apple: You Owe Us $2 Billion

John Paczkowski — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:10:59 +0000

Proview's iPad, which bears an uncanny resemblance to another famous Apple product.

Proview, the foundering Chinese company battling with Apple over the iPad trademark, originally wanted millions of dollars for the rights to the mark in China. Now it wants billions.

At a press conference in Beijing on Friday, Li Su, chairman of Hejun Vanguard Group, a consulting company representing Proview’s creditors, said the company is gearing up to sue Apple in the U.S. to collect what it feels it’s owed. “Right now we are selecting from three American law firms to sue Apple in the United States for $2 billion in compensation,” he said.

As for allegations that Proview is breaching its iPad trademark deal to squeeze Apple for more money, Proview CEO Yang Rongshan says that’s not the case at all. “We own the iPad trademark in China,” Yang said. “If you were in my position … you would try to protect your rights.”

Apple, however, argues that it’s not Proview’s rights that need to be protected. Apple insists that it acquired the iPad mark fair and square from Proview several years ago, and that Proview refuses to honor their agreement. As documents first published by AllThingsD show, Proview in December of 2009 agreed to transfer to Apple all rights to the iPad trademark in a number of countries, including China. (Ironically, an email from a Proview executive to the Apple agent negotiating the trademark transfer concludes, “As you know my company is an international company and always keep[s] its promise.”)

Apple has sued Proview once, in the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, arguing that the iPad trademark in China should be transferred to it per the original agreement, but the court dismissed that lawsuit, “due to the lack of facts and legal proof.” Apple subsequently appealed that ruling to the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong province, and will argue its case once again in a Feb. 29 hearing.

Take a Look at Some of Apple's Evidence in Proview iPad Dispute

John Paczkowski — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:05:41 +0000

You’ve seen the text of the Chinese court decision that sided with Apple in its dispute with Proview Technology over rights to the iPad trademark in China. Now, here’s some of the supporting documentation.

Quick recap: Apple says it bought Proview Technology’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago, and that Proview refuses to honor their agreement. Proview says Apple bought the rights from an affiliate that didn’t own them.

Additional documents obtained by AllThingD include email from a representative of Proview Technology — not the other affiliate — to Apple’s representative regarding the deal, as well as a copy of the agreement itself.

Proview did not respond to requests for comment.

Here's the Chinese Court Ruling Backing Apple in iPad Trademark Tiff

John Paczkowski — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:25:23 +0000

Proview's Shenzhen Headquarters

“We bought Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago. Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple, and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter.”

That was Apple’s statement to AllThingsD Wednesday on its increasingly contentious battle with Hong Kong-based Proview Technology, which insists it still owns the rights to the iPad trademark in China. And here’s the court decision to back it up.

In it, Judge Hon Poon writes that Proview’s conduct smells of conspiracy driven by financial desperation, and that there’s reason to believe that it acted in breach of its agreement with Apple by wrongfully refusing to honor its obligation to hand over the iPad trademark in China.

The key paragraph:

“The conduct of all the defendants demonstrate that they have combined together with the common intention of injuring Apple and IP Application [Apple's agent in the purchase] by acting in breach of the agreement. Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under [Proview CEO Yang Rongshan's] control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance with the agreement so that the China Trademarks are properly assigned or transferred to [Apple]. Instead, they attempt to exploit the situation as a business opportunity for the Proview Group by seeking an amount of US $10 million from Apple.”

The decision in full, below:

ProviewHongKongDecision

[Image credit Ciaxin Online]

Apple: China's Proview Trying to Weasel Out of iPad Trademark Deal

John Paczkowski — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:30:31 +0000

Proview Technology, the cash-strapped Chinese company scrapping with Apple over the iPad trademark, best steel itself for a long, grueling legal battle.

Cupertino is adamant that it legally owns the iPad mark throughout Asia, and that Proview is doing nothing more than squeezing it for additional money to use the trademark in China, despite the fact that it has already purchased those rights.

“We bought Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago,” Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet told AllThingsD. “Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple in China, and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter.”

And that does appear to be the case. In July, Judge Hon Poon ruled that there was more than enough evidence to suggest that Proview has breached its agreement with Apple by refusing to transfer to it the iPad trademark in China.

“The conduct of all the defendants demonstrate that they have combined together with the common intention of injuring Apple … by acting in breach of the agreement,” Judge Hon Poon wrote. “Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under [Proview CEO Yang Rongshan's] control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance with the agreement so that the China Trademarks are properly assigned or transferred to [Apple]. Instead, they attempt to exploit the situation as a business opportunity for the Proview Group by seeking an amount of US $10 million from Apple.”

But that’s not how Proview sees the situation.

According to Proview, Apple’s agreement is with its Proview Electronics affiliate, which never controlled the iPad trademark for the Chinese market. It claims that Proview Technology, another affiliate, holds the rights to that mark to this day. Hard to believe that Apple would purchase the Asian rights to the iPad trademark without doing proper due diligence, but that is essentially what Proview is arguing.

And, of course, it is eager to sell that last mark at the highest possible price, now more than ever, as it has fallen on hard financial times.

As Yang told the FT back in 2012, “It is arrogant of Apple to just ignore our rights and go ahead selling the iPad in this market, and we will oppose that. Besides that, we are in big financial trouble and the trademarks are a valuable asset that could help us sort out part of that trouble.”

Hard not to read that as opportunistic. That said, it’s important to remember that Proview sold the global iPad trademark to Apple’s agent for about $55,104 in 2006, and since 2010 has likely been kicking itself for selling what is now a highly valuable mark for such a pittance.

Quite the rat’s nest here. And it’s only getting worse. Proview has now filed a request with Chinese Customs to block the import and export of iPads on trademark grounds.

As of this writing, Proview and CEO Yang Rongshan had not responded to requests for comment.

Yahoo Product Unit Readies Major Exec Reorg -- But It's Just a Tremor for the Big One to Come

Kara Swisher — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:14:14 +0000

Yahoo’s massive product unit is readying a major reorganization, which will include a new structure, a move that is being spearheaded by its Chief Product Officer, Blake Irving.

But the ground under Irving, as well as several of the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s top execs, is about to get shakier too, due to a wide range of changes now being plotted by newly installed CEO Scott Thompson.

While still in the early stages of formulation, sources said Thompson has been mulling bringing in a head of global advertising sales or revenue chief, as well as more top product execs, as he moves to initiate a plan to shake up Yahoo and also put his own stamp on the company.

Layoffs and possible wholesale abandonment of certain businesses Yahoo is currently in are likely to be parts of this larger plan.

Confused yet? So am I, but let’s sort through all the latest activity.

First, there’s the Yahoo product redo, which has been in the making for a while, well before Thompson arrived last month.

Under the new plan, which is described as “an evolution rather than blowing up the place,” Yahoo’s famously matrixed product unit could be split into three distinct areas: Monetization, which is expected to be headed by longtime exec Mark Morrissey; platform, with cloud dude Jay Rossiter in charge; and consumer-facing products, possibly in the hands of search kingpin Shashi Seth.

The idea behind the latest setup, presumably, is to spur innovation and make it easier for Yahoo to spit out products more quickly. Its recent Livestand tablet app, for example, was late to the game and continues to struggle to gain any real ground, said sources.

Overall, Yahoo still continues to lag behind other Internet rivals in a number of product arenas, for reasons that Thompson is delving into.

The way products are made got a long look-see this past week, in a day-long meeting that Thompson had with Yahoo’s top team execs. Thompson reportedly quizzed the group on its plans, and pressed it to look less at short-term features and maintenance than on finding the next great thing.

“I think it’s fair to say that Scott is wondering why Yahoo did not come up with innovations like Pinterest and Instagram,” said one person about hot new start-ups that are in the sweet spot of Yahoo’s business. “Or, at the very least, why it did not even try to buy them.”

That’s why Thompson, with the help of board members, including David Kenny, has been on the hunt for new talent for Yahoo. That includes a search that is on for a new head of marketing, too.

Thompson has been doing the same kind of assessment with Yahoo’s media and advertising execs, who include Americas head Ross Levinsohn, as well as Asia’s Rose Tsou, and Rich Riley, who heads its efforts in Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

Sources said he believes that Yahoo might need a head of global sales or a chief of revenue to better organize and align its key advertising business. Ad revenues now make up a bulk of Yahoo’s business.

As Thompson has said numerous times publicly since he came on board, he is seeking to diversify that revenue, focusing on new businesses and also goosing non-ad ones already performing well. In Asia, for example, Yahoo has a robust online commerce business in comparison to other regions.

“Yahoo has to slim down and focus in some ways and bulk up in others,” said another source.

Of course, all of this might be moot, depending on how activist shareholder Daniel Loeb, who is prepping his own frontal attack on making changes at Yahoo, decides to move. According to sources, Loeb is assembling his own slate and trying to garner support from other shareholders, in hopes of further improving the value of his more than five percent stake.

What form that will take is unclear, but it’s not completely friendly at the moment.

In addition, Yahoo execs and its board are trying to wrap up a deal to sell off parts of its Asian assets in Alibaba Group and Yahoo Japan, part of a massive arrangement that could bring many billions of dollars of assets and cash into the core company that is left.

Which could then make Yahoo more able to compete, and give Thompson a war chest to do so — or make it an even tastier treat for a wide range of outside investors looking for a deal.

Like I said: Confused yet?

A Yahoo spokeswoman declined to comment.

New Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson Has Big Plans, but Can't Tell You About Them

Peter Kafka — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:11:34 +0000

You want news out of Scott Thompson? Then you’d be very disappointed with the Yahoo CEO today. Not surprisingly, the new boss — who wants us to remember that he’s really only officially been at work for two weeks — says it’s too early to talk about his plans.

But he does have some, he insists. For instance:

He has a plan to fix Yahoo’s big mess in Asia.
And he has a plan to help fix ad sales, which have been in turnaround for nine months and are still declining.
And he has a plan to buy some stuff to “fill in technology gaps” that will help with all of that.

But no details on any of that during the Q4 earnings call. Instead, Thompson repeated what he told Yahoo employees during his first address to them — Yahoo is both a media and technology company, and people should get their heads around that — and he laid out some big, pretty obvious ideas:

It’s important to pay attention to users and advertisers.
Yahoo should move fast, etc.
He’s going to double down on some existing Yahoo projects, and cut others.

Got it? Good. More details to come, Thompson says. And yes, for the record: That is a serious Massachusetts accent on the new guy.

—————–

EARLIER

Earlier this month, Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson got on the phone with Wall Street analysts, and refused to discuss the company or his plans for it in much detail.

Fair enough: He had just been hired that morning, and had barely met anyone in the company.

So now it’s been nearly three weeks. Think he’ll offer much more in the way specifics, in the wake of the company’s Q4 earnings report?

Me, neither. But Wall Street will still be hungry for any scraps it can get, whether it’s an update on the company’s Asia mess, a hint about future cost-cutting moves, or a general “here’s what I think we should be doing” state-of-the-state.

We will definitely get a chance to hear the Boston accent that seemed to charm everyone so much in early January. Time to see if it’s still as effective.

4:58 pm: Greetings! Just doing some finger exercises in advance of the call. Also looking for some Kara Swisher aviator glasses, since La Swish is in transit and cannot cover the call herself. I’d say I’ll do my best to channel her as I type, but I don’t think I could handle that.

5:00 pm: There’s time for a quick ticker check: Investors still yawning, and YHOO shares are nearly flat, after-hours. But Apple!

5:01 pm: And we’re off. On the call: Thompson and CFO Tim Morse.

5:03 pm: Thompson: Even though I’ve been here for three weeks, my official start date was only two weeks ago. Still! I had strong opinions before I arrived, and since then, I’ve been looking around: Big opportunity here.

Powerful brand, lots of visitors: 702 million globally! Advertisers like us, etc. “We’re going to work not just at scale, but with speed.” “I feel great about that, but I’m still very clear that we have a lot of work to do.”

You want details? Won’t give ’em. But I’ll talk about guiding principles:

For me, I insist “that we be balanced.” Have to think about customers, who we are, [something I missed] and how we allocate capital. I’ll come back to this in a bit.

And before we get to any of that, let’s talk about Q4 numbers and 2012 projections.

[At this point you can consult the numbers they've already put out]

Let me praise some people. And, “there’s no question” that we can do better. “And we will.” Need to get to market faster, monetize better.

5:07 pm: Here’s Tim Morse, with some numbers. [Again, you can read most of this, so I'll skip most until he gets to the "color" part.]

Challenging quarter, but I’m proud of the team. Etc.

And now, some 2011 numbers. [Again, I'll also skip this stuff.]

[Meanwhile, here's Citigroup analyst Mark Mahaney's take, fresh off the grill: "Fundamental trends remain nothing to email home about. The Display Advertising results were a clear negative, and the Search Advertising results continue to remain murky. Stock buybacks are (almost) always good … Scott Thompson has his work cut out for him …"]

Some details on our display missed. We missed by $15m; $10m of that is from Europe and macroeconomic stuff.

We’re nine months into salesforce revamp. We’re doing pretty good with that. “Several major advertisers” that had bailed or cut back on Yahoo spend have made “meaningful commitments for 2012.”

Some search notes. A reminder that we extended Microsoft search deal through 2013.

We’ll get to 2012 guidance in a minute. But first, a reminder that we’re still growing visitors and page views. More of that to come. U.S. elections and Olympics will be big for us.

“In short, we’ve made progress on many fronts, but that’s not the whole story.” Revenue isn’t growing, and “we expected better.”

5:18 pm: Guidance numbers, which you can also get from the release. But they are “not reflective” of our long-term goals. Because we want to grow.

And margins will get better, too.

And yes, we’re talking about fixing our Asia mess. But we won’t be able to go into details about that on this call.

5:21 pm: Back to Thompson. Okay. So here’s more on that “balance” stuff.

First: Customers. Both our users and our advertisers — we want them both to get real value from us, “and we will focus equally on both.”

We have to get people to use us more frequently. And we need advertisers to know we like them, we really like them.

5:22 pm: Two: “Balance in who we are.” We’re a media company and a tech company. We need to be great about both. “So we end the debate about which is more important … we must do both. End of discussion.”

Three: We gotta grow fast. “When it comes to making decisions, I make them quickly, and then push to move fast, fast, fast.”

Four: We gotta balance investment resources for today, tomorrow and long-term. Right allocation of capital is very important. Most resources have to go to “current core business.” But a lot also has to go to the products of tomorrow and the next 12 months. And also a “small but meaningful” amount into products that won’t show up for a year or more. We need a vibrant long-term product pipeline, and we have to consider businesses that don’t look anything like what we’re doing today.

But need to be very clear — not about restarting investment cycle. Refocusing, which means there are some things that we’re going to stop doing [that is, we'll have shutdowns and cuts].

I have some very clear ideas about the specifics of what we’ll do. But I won’t tell you about them.

Still, some big ideas: Customer experiences, and data.

5:26 pm: On customer experience: 702 million users a month. Did I mention that? Yes, I did. I’ll say it again. “But the sheer numbers of users will not get us to where we need to be.” We have to improve their experience while they’re here: Better interfaces, faster speed, deeper and “much more relevant content.”

And we need advertisers to get better results, and spend more money with Yahoo. [Don't do the opposite!]

On to data: We can use data to make the experience better for users — tweak layout, content, flow of the page and advertisers. “Nobody has done that yet on the Web.” “I know lots of companies talk about using data.” But we mean it. Crucial for you to understand that data is core to our plans. It “will be the key component for driving innovation at Yahoo.”

5:30 pm: So there’s some insight for you. Now on to strategic-review update. Roy said on last call that BOD considered a lot of alternatives. “It’s important for you to know that the company remains open to anything that’s good for our shareholders.” but we’re “focusing on what appears most promising.” “The work is ongoing, and I won’t say more about that today,” but it’s going to be good for shareholders.

Here’s the takeaway: There’s plenty of opportunity here. “Much bigger than the outside world imagines for us today.”

I’m here because we can do more.

5:32 pm: Alrighty. Q&A time.

Q: Please talk about that Interclick deal. What will they contribute in revenue and earnings? Also, update on revenue per search, please.

Morse: $25M of cost in Q1 from ICLK. $10M in revenue. We expect revenue to ramp throughout the year. As far as RPS increase, Microsoft is doing a nice job, and so are our sales guys.

“We’re definitely closing the gap” when it comes to search. But a reminder that we have a guarantee though March 2013.

Q: On that balance thing: How important will Q&A be here? Big deals in the works? Also, what do you see in macro environment?

Thompson: I think there’s going to be some stuff that we need that we don’t have, and so we’ll probably have to be “aggressive” in the market. “I’m relatively certain that there will be things that interest us” to help us “fill in technology gaps.”

Morse: Europe wasn’t great last quarter, and early indications are the same now. Not expecting much change this quarter, anywhere.

Q: How about a dividend? Also, how do your big principles play into display ad turnaround?

Thompson: “Too early” to imagine dividends. On turning around display: I’ve tried to spend a lot of time trying to figure out our problems there. “We are after that with a very high sense of urgency.” Number-one priority for now.

Q: Also on display. Any sacred cows going forward? Also, on premium video — how are your original series performing?

Thompson: Not sure how to interpret that cow question. “We are understanding and evaluating all options … personally, I’m being very aggressive.”

Morse: Last month, we had nine out of the top 10 original shows in U.S. We don’t give out revenue and pageview and streaming numbers, but “assume healthy growth there.” But more work to be done.

Q: Tim: Please give us more detail on premium display pricing. Scott: You guys made a lot of buzz with that Tom Hanks show announcement. Please discuss economics. Also: Experiment, or prelude to more?

Morse: Like I said, premium display below where we wanted, but it was in the range. And Interclick will make that better.

Thompson: Yeah, that was great buzz at CES. “It was more than the event itself,” everyone had nice things to say. “I was pleasantly surprised.” Not going to share details on dollars. So far, “we’ve had reasonably good success” with the originals we’ve done past.

Q: You talked about doing things Yahoo hasn’t done before. Like what? Also, for Morse: Shouldn’t he be worried about Yahoo’s share on mobile devices?

Thompson: Too early for me talk about strategically what we’re doing.

Morse: On search — yeah, we want to grow our O&O. In terms of mobile share, it’s so early right now. “It’s very intriguing in terms of how we’re going to play.”

But new revenue streams from mobile are even more important than existing ones.

Thompson: Important to point out that “no winner” has shown up yet when it comes to mobility. [Really?]

Thompson: Did I mention data? Let me mention it again. We have tons of it. It’s going to be huge for us. Data and technology can help us predict what users want to do next; it’s a huge advantage for us.

Q: Carol called this a communications company. Terry Semel called it a media company. And you?

Thompson: I had this all-hands meeting, and I said it again today. There’s this long-standing debate here. But “we better be darn good at both. In fact, I think we ought to great.”

Morse: Discussion of financials. Gap between reporter and subject.

Q: You said you’d realign around key areas of focus. But what’s new about that? Are there new verticals? Also, since you’re talking about investing, how does that jibe with operating margin goals?

Thompson: We’re working really hard to evaluate options. “Providing more detail for you today … is just a little bit premature.” “I actually feel a little bit bad” that I can’t tell you more.

“Just a little bit longer, if you will, before we get really specific” on that.

Morse: Yes, we’re going to spend money. But we’re also going to stop those projects, so we can move money around.

Q: On display: Seems like big opportunity to monetize your leftover inventory. Talk about that, please.

Morse: Yep. That’s one reason why we bought Interclick. (Also, theoretically, the reason for this.)

Q: Talk more about Interclick. $10m revenue, $25M costs. But that doesn’t look like what they were doing before you bought them — they had $2M EBITDA per quarter. What’s going on?

Morse: A lot of what they were doing before was related to Yahoo, so we have to eliminate some of that for reporting. Also, we’re building out so we can do more with that. Also, we have to start amortizing intangibles. Also! “This is the first quarter, right out the gate.”

Q: For Scott: You talked about growth before. Can you talk about growth via acquisition, and new business versus growth of existing business? Also, please talk about mobile traffic.

Thompson: I’ve talked to customers. “The conversations were fascinating.” People want us to grow. They also told us “exactly what we have to do to get more of their spend, today.” We can do that. We don’t have to grow solely via M&A. “The really good news is, the customers are there, they’re cheering for us.”

As far as mobile, I haven’t really seen the data. But I’m sure it’s growing really fast. It did at the last business I was at.

Morse: Right.

That’s it, everyone. All done for today.

LinkedIn Nabs Dow Jones Exec in Asia

Kara Swisher — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:24:03 +0000

LinkedIn has hired Olivier Legrand to run its advertising business in the Asia Pacific region, where the business networking site has more than 20 million members. Legrand has most recently been running digital initiatives in Asia for News Corp.’s Dow Jones, including The Wall Street Journal.

Liveblogging the New Yahoo CEO Call: You Might Want to Refrain From Cussing, Scott!

Kara Swisher — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:01:23 +0000

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.

Google to Invest $120 Million in Singapore Data Center

Shibani Mahtani — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:05:20 +0000

Google Inc. will invest $120 million in a data center in Singapore, the first of its kind in Southeast Asia, executives of the Internet search giant announced Thursday, in a move to significantly expand operations in Asia.

The data center, which is slated for completion in early 2013, will be the third of its kind in Asia, joining two others that will be built in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Google has pledged an investment of $300 million in its Hong Kong data center and more than $100 million in Taiwan.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Three Months After Bartz's Firing, It's Hurry Up and Wait at Yahoo (A Big Honking Update)

Kara Swisher — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:43:12 +0000

“Let’s go. Yes, let’s go.” [They do not move.]

– Samuel Beckett, “Waiting for Godot”

In Internet terms, the removal of Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz happened a dog’s age ago.

In fact, it was September 6.

Since then, it has felt like a slow slog, especially contrasting the situation with that of another troubled Silicon Valley giant, Hewlett-Packard, which fired its CEO Léo Apotheker and appointed a new one, Meg Whitman on September 22.

Since then, in comparison, the former eBay CEO has been like the Energizer Bunny, making a series of major and often difficult decisions, including: Holding onto its PC unit; reaffirming its controversial deal to buy Autonomy; promising a decision on the fate of its webOS unit within the next two weeks; appointing new execs; and even buying a company.

To be fair, Yahoo did acquire advertising start-up Interclick.

Otherwise, still no sale or investment deal. No new CEO. No Asia resolution. And, perhaps most importantly, no clearly articulated strategy going forward.

It’s not that Yahoo’s leadership isn’t working at it.

Some fervently insist to me that there is a “plan,” as if there is some clever game of Internet Stratego going on that I cannot possibly grok.

Mebbe — but of this I have no doubt: The Yahoo board has indeed been huffing and puffing away, weighing and measuring, considering and debating.

A lot.

Maybe I’m just too impatient. I am (ask my kids).

Or maybe Yahoo’s beleaguered employees are, one of whom just wrote me plaintively, “unreal how they can drag this out,” in what has become a common refrain up and down the ranks.

Or maybe it’s the Asian partners, Alibaba Group and SoftBank, who are antsy and have considered a variety of nuclear options in order to get back stakes Yahoo holds in them. Said one: “The strategy seems to be to frustrate and exhaust us into submission.”

Or, finally, maybe it’s the newly frustrated recent bidders for a partial stake in Yahoo, Silver Lake and TPG Capital. Declared one to me after I warned that Yahoo might, in fact, drag the proceedings out longer than you might expect: “I thought you were kidding.”

Nope, welcome to the Yahoo waiting game, PE guys!

So, to help us all get through it, here’s a quick update primer on what’s what on the various fronts:

Who’s in Charge Here?

Technically, it is the Yahoo board, which is aided by interim CEO Tim Morse.

First, a word about Morse: By all accounts, he is doing a very good job as temporary head honcho — calming the troubled company, making swift decisions about daily operating issues and being a generally nice dude to deal with.

“He’s Yahoo’s no-drama Obama, in comparison to what was happening before,” said one exec, in reference to the more volatile regime under Bartz.

Still, despite his very pleasant all-hands meetings, such as one earlier this week, Morse had previously been Yahoo’s CFO and not an Internet-savvy visionary to give the company inspiration. No insult intended, but he’s the accountant guy.

To be fair, he is not meant to be the visionary, but many at the company are yearning for exactly that.

A role that is now being taken up again by co-founder, former CEO and director Jerry Yang, who dozens of employees tell me is unusually involved in operational details these days for a board member.

I get reports of sightings of him all the livelong day: Jerry in demand-side advertising confab! Jerry chitchatting with entrepreneurs from a possible start-up acquisition! Jerry weighing in on a variety of products. Look, over in the cubicle, it’s Jerry!

This is seen by Yahoo employees as a good thing and also a bad thing, since it’s hard to be running your little divisional show at Yahoo with the dude who invented it all looking over your shoulder, even if he means well. People naturally defer to Yang, the 800-pound Web icon in the room.

But, given the overwhelming state of stasis at Yahoo now — “No one can do anything until we find out how the story ends,” said one staffer — and employees eying the exits, no power at Yahoo really matters but the board.

You know, the board that has gotten the company to this moment of crisis and profound ennui, which is its own particularly ironic irony.

To better understand the power dynamics on the board, above is a little chart for you to peruse to give you an idea of which independent board member is running what key committee.

The only truly important one is the Transactions and Strategic Planning committee, which is headed by Intuit President and CEO Brad Smith and includes former Akamai President (and former Yahoo CEO candidate) David Kenny, top HP exec Vyomesh Joshi and other guy Gary Wilson.

And, in completely visible shadow form, Yang. Multiple sources close to the situation said he has been a key force in the strategery around a possible sale or investment.

This has caused not more than a little tension among board members, but everyone seems to like the much described nicest-man-in-the-room, Smith, and hopes his cool head will prevail.

Another important part of the board is the Nominating and Corporate Governance committee run by Patti Hart, who is energetically and simultaneously — if pointlessly — in search of a capable new Yahoo CEO.

Or, as I like to call this mythical person: The Unicorn.

The Deal

As I and many others have previously reported, there are bids on the table for partial investments in Yahoo by two very powerful private equity firms, Silver Lake and TPG Capital.

It’s a PE rumble, with a side of Microsoft financial backing! (I think Silver Lake’s Egon Durban makes a very nice Riff, while Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer is the perfect Officer Krupke.)

My fervent wishes for some figurative and dance-accompanied knife-play aside, the bids are essentially the same in general and different in particular. Silver Lake is offering about $16.50 a share, while TPG is dangling a tiny bit more. Silver Lake has power entrepreneur and VC Marc Andreessen on its side, while TPG is trying to get Silicon Valley fave investor and start-up whisperer Reid Hoffman of Greylock Partners and LinkedIn on its team. Both have ideas on CEOs, strategy and what to do about the Asian assets.

This type of deal could happen suddenly and you’ll hear about it quick, since the losing side will immediately trash it to the media.

As you might expect, each director has their favorite PE firm, with some not liking Andreessen, some thinking the TPG bid is a little light, some for a whole-company deal and some wanting Yahoo to hire its own CEO and run the place itself.

Of course, the last one shows a disturbing level of denial and should be a nonstarter, given the board’s abysmal record on CEO choice and its riding of Yahoo to this sad point in its storied history.

Here’s what to expect on the PE front: A lot of wrangling behind the scenes with frequent leaks to the media about what each side wants and will not yield on.

CEO choice or no CEO choice, that is the question!

Also a big factor are Yahoo’s major shareholders, few of whom like the partial investment deal, which is known as a PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity), because of the insiderness of it all and because they prefer a whole-company sale at a higher price.

There is also pressure from activist shareholders like Daniel Loeb of Third Point, who has attacked Yang and others on the board and is ready to pounce with a proxy fight if Yahoo tries to override shareholders too egregiously. And, of course, the inevitable lawsuits over any arrangement that seems to block a whole-company bid.

That said, such a mega-deal seems unlikely, since it is too pricey and despite a lot of noise that Yahoo’s Asian partners were ready to strike with a takeover in order to get back Yahoo’s big stakes in their companies.

That’s kind of like buying a store to get back the cool pair of shoes you sold, but bankers love to scheme up this stuff. While it certainly could happen, it would be a bear of a deal.

Perhaps more like Yogi Bear, hopelessly angling for a tasty pic-a-nik basket — but grrrr anyway.

But perhaps the biggest factor in all of this mishegas is time. There is none on a lot of levels, most especially the increasing level of brain drain and drift at Yahoo. After the New Year dawns, this is going to spin right out of control and amount to the biggest internal challenge Yahoo faces.

An Asian Solution

As I and others have reported, Yahoo is entertaining yet another proposal to sell all or part of its Asian assets back to the companies, which make up a bulk of its market valuation.

The relationship between Yahoo and its Asian partners has long been fraught, and today the difficulty of reaching an agreement remains a vexing issue. That’s because it is hard and complex and because no one wants to do what the other side wants.

I am no tax attorney, but it seems as if Yahoo will ultimately come to some deal with China’s Alibaba and Japan’s SoftBank, which could include big investors like Russia’s DST Global.

And, as I reported last week, the Asian partners want to strike a deal with the current board rather than lose leverage with a much cannier new owner.

It’s a tough decision in all aspects to strike, but would remove the focus on the fact that Yahoo’s most valuable asset is something it is not running and simply holds due to a good stock trade in years past.

Years past should be the operative thought here, since the Asian assets have nothing to do with what Yahoo needs to do with its core U.S. and global brand.

You know, the thing that allowed them to buy those lucrative Asian assets in the first place?

Strategery

And that’s the crux of all this, isn’t it? Yahoo needs a new strategy and fast.

Or it needs to clarify and hone its current strategies around advertising and media and define itself once and for all. While it often touts itself as a premier digital media company, it’s still not clear exactly what Yahoo is saying by that.

In fact, incredibly, sources told me that the board was still wrangling over the tired issue of what Yahoo is at its most recent meeting — essentially, is it a products company or a media company?

If I had to listen to that who-am-I-anyway debate again, I think I would scream, given how many important Web trends that Yahoo has whiffed in recent years, many of which were right in its own wheelhouse.

How much damage this has caused to Yahoo’s core business is a critical one to determine, with many feeling the situation is too far gone to revive it and others confident that this is simply an issue of poor execution.

I am in the middle on this one, but all the indicators of Yahoo’s business have long been heading in the wrong direction, and results in the next quarter are expected to underline this even more.

Thus, the board’s navel-gazing at this point is untoward, considering that it is presiding over the possibility of a sale that should not have had to happen in the first place. While it is not quite a fire sale, it’s no cause for celebration at all the attention, either.

In fact, it’s also pointless, since — if this all resolves as it should — the current Yahoo board will not be the one determining the company’s future any longer. Remember that: This group should and will be gone for the most part.

Yahoo shareholders and employees can hope, at least.

Then, it will be up to the next group of leaders to make the very hard choices — including what are likely to be massive layoffs and radical surgery on its offerings — for what’s to come next.

In the end, that is all that will matter. Until then, as usual, you’ll have to sit tight.

Peter Chernin on Hollywood, Asia Growth and Not Yahoo: The Full AsiaD Interview (Video)

Kara Swisher — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:34:20 +0000

We are now posting the full videos from the recent AsiaD conference, which took place in Hong Kong in October.

We’re following the schedule of the actual event. Up now: Hollywood mogul Peter Chernin.

The much-respected entertainment exec, who was the longtime president of News Corp. (which owns this Web site), now runs his own production company in Santa Monica, Calif.

Chernin Entertainment has had some big early successes, including the hit movie “Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” and the adorkable television show “New Girl.”

But Chernin has always been much more Internet-curious than the average Hollywood mogul. He was deeply involved in the creation of the Hulu premium video service, and now serves on the board of the Pandora online music site. He’s also been giving the troubled situation at Yahoo a look-see with some private equity firms.

Chernin declined to talk about this deal in an onstage interview with Peter Kafka, but he does discuss the prospects for the old media world in the digital age, and the giant opportunities in Asia:

[ See post to watch video ]

The LivingSocial Trio Talk Asian Expansion, Groupon and More: The Full AsiaD Interview (Video)

Kara Swisher — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 18:37:15 +0000

We are now posting the full videos from the recent AsiaD conference, which took place in Hong Kong in October.

Over the next week or so, we’re going to follow the schedule of the actual event. Up now: LivingSocial CEO Tim O’Shaughnessy, along with the head of the daily deals site’s two recent acquisitions in Asia, Daniel Shin of South Korea’s TicketMonster and Paul Srivorakul of Indonesia’s Ensogo Group.

The panel, interviewed onstage by Ina Fried, talked about a range of topics, from its Asian expansion to thoughts about rival Groupon to the future of the social buying space.

Here’s the video:

[ See post to watch video ]