AllThingsD » brand

100 Most Valuable Brands: Apple Tops Again; Nokia Disappears

John Paczkowski — Tue, 22 May 2012 18:02:23 +0000

WPP’s Millward Brown published its annual BrandZ study, ranking the world’s leading brands, which are increasingly technology companies. According to the research house, four of the top five global brands and seven of the Top 10 are tech firms.

At $183 billion, Apple is the world’s most valuable brand, a title it claimed last year as well, though at that time the brand was worth $153.3 billion. In the ensuing year, it has grown another 19 percent. IBM ranked second with $116 billion in value. Google, which ranked second last year, this year swapped places with IBM, after its brand value slipped 3 percent year over year. With a $76.7 billion brand, Microsoft claimed fifth place, ranking below McDonalds — the only non-tech company in the top five.

The biggest year-over-year gain also went to a tech company: Facebook, which rose from No. 35 in 2011 to No. 19 in 2012. A meteoric rise, and one that spiked the company’s brand value 74 percent to $33.2 billion.

Nokia, which ranked 81st in brand value in Millward Brown’s 2011 study after a 28 percent year-over-year decline in value, fell even further in 2012. So far, in fact, that it seems to have fallen right off the chart. Not a surprise, really, given the company’s current situation. But worth noting just the same; as recently as 2008, Nokia was the world’s ninth most valuable brand.

Silver Lake Grabs Large Minority Stake of WME to Push Digital Initiatives

Kara Swisher — Wed, 02 May 2012 17:59:41 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WME Press Release_5 02 12_FINAL

Sticks and Stones: Third Point Launches "Value Yahoo" Blog (Which Does Not Value Current Leadership)

Kara Swisher — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:30:09 +0000

In another high-profile parry in its increasingly aggressive proxy fight against Yahoo, activist shareholder Third Point has launched an extensive Web blog to support its case with investors called “Value Yahoo.”

Along with a long statement — a blogifesto of sorts — about what it will take to fix the Silicon Valley Internet giant, Value Yahoo also tries to keep up the pressure on Yahoo’s board and management.

The purple-themed site — this is Yahoo’s well-known color — features a humorous take on Yahoo’s now dearly departed neon sign in San Francisco, with the banner: “Yahoo Shareholders Deserve Overdue Representation!”

It includes a section on “Failed Leadership,” info on its “Road to Recovery” slate of alternate directors and even an FAQ and mission statement.

“We believe in Yahoo!, its loyal users, committed employees, dedicated partners, and the potential of the brand,” it reads, in part. “Yahoo! shareholders, employees, and partners have suffered for too long with a revolving door of management teams and Directors who have been unable to seize opportunities despite the Company’s enduring role as the premier online source for news, sports, business, entertainment and email.”

By the way, in a clever dig, there is also a Facebook site for Value Yahoo — patent lawsuit or no, you can “like” Third Point’s effort.

Here, for example, is one of Value Yahoo’s charticles:

The goal of all this, presumably, is to get Yahoo to give in to demands for several board seats using its directors, including Third Point’s Dan Loeb. So far, ongoing discussions between Loeb and Yahoo have failed to stop the shareholder battle, which comes in the midst of the company’s wrenching restructuring.

Last week, Yahoo said it had appointed three new directors to its board. In a pointed slap at Loeb, the company said it had rejected him specifically, although Yahoo added that it was willing to accept one of his current choices and another that was mutually agreed to.

Loeb reacted to that, um, badly, with another letter last week that said Yahoo leadership was living in an “illogical Alice-in-Wonderland world.”

The war of words continues with the new site, which Third Point said it will maintain actively like a blog, with updates, charts, filings, outside news stories and more.

(Since Yahoo has apparently banned me from its internal news offering to employees, according to more sources than you can shake a stick at, I hope they can see my work here!)

In its newest post — titled “Why Are We Running for Election to the Yahoo! Board?” — Third Point presents an argument for other shareholders to act, even though Yahoo has actually made a lot of the changes that Loeb has been pushing for already.

(In fact, that’s an FAQ question on Value Yahoo, natch: “Yahoo! has made changes to its Board. Hasn’t Third Point already gotten what it wanted?” Short answer: Vigilance, since they are well-known backsliders over there!)

As the firm notes in its reasons-why essay, with the original bolding on the Value Yahoo blog:

“After years of failed leadership and poor governance, Yahoo! shareholders have a chance to inject experienced, independent voices aligned with their interests. The “Shareholder Slate” — Daniel Loeb, Harry Wilson, Michael Wolf, and Jeff Zucker — seeks a voice and a choice for Yahoo! owners hurt by the current “Legacy Board’s” track record of value disintegration, and wants to prevent the Board from simply nominating their handpicked replacements — the “Insider Slate” — for Yahoo!’s board.”

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.”

RELATED POSTS:

Apple, Proview Will Try to Talk Out iPad Trademark Tussle

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

Proview’s New PR Attack: Apple Cheated Us Out of the iPad Trademark

Proview Loses Bid to Ban iPad in Shanghai

Surprise — Proview’s Ready to Talk Settlement With Apple

Proview to Apple: You Owe Us $2 Billion

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

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

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

All Apple coverage

Hey, Yahoo: When You Act Like a Media Company, I Like You (I Really Like You)

Kara Swisher — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:15:26 +0000

Last night, I did the unthinkable, and actually drove myself through rush hour traffic in Silicon Valley to go to an event in San Jose.

I did this for three good reasons.

First, it was to see Bill Maher’s “CrazyStupidPolitics: Live From Silicon Valley” show, which was being being broadcast live and exclusively on Yahoo Screen, the Internet giant’s video destination. The event launched the Yahoo Comedy Channel, which will offer premium original video from some top talent for free, underwritten by advertisers.

Second, Maher is really, really funny, and even better in stand-up than on his HBO cable show.

Third, some Yahoos always think I am too mean to the company and don’t focus on what it’s doing right.

To be fair, that’s because it has not been doing much right when it comes to stabilizing leadership, handling its longtime moribund board, and giving non-cat-wrangling direction to its talented pool of much-beleaguered employees.

Thus — with some sort of usually self-inflicted fire drill going on all the time — there is a lot for me to report on, from persistent attrition to declining metrics to the latest bickering with its Asian partners.

Which is why it was a pleasure to see the Maher event and then also watch it online, because it was done by Yahoo with the kind of beautiful ease that it used to roll out all the time from its media properties.

When I say pleasure, it is a major compliment, since making and presenting content on the Web has usually ended in pain. Google-owned YouTube, as successful as it is, still hurts my eyes when I watch it, and has not yet become the kind of environment that big brands would want to live in for a long time.

But, from its very first day, without a lot of fuss and noise, Yahoo has created and distributed some of the very best online content experiences from its undersung media units, whether it was Yahoo Finance or Yahoo Sports or Yahoo News.

While there were some notable misses — there was a strange original news show produced in Web 1.0 that was so bad it was good — Yahoo has always had a strong talent for media distribution, and has the huge audience to aim it at.

What has been a shame is the lessening focus the media side has gotten, despite its success over the many years, and even though many of its channels have long been No. 1 across the Web.

The often short shrift has been largely due to the faux struggle between whether Yahoo was a media company or a technology one. It has been an exhausting and toxic debate within Yahoo over the years, with no clear conclusion.

But here’s the truth: The Maher event showed that what Yahoo can do well is be a high-level, high-quality, highly selective distributor of media of all kinds to millions upon millions of users.

This has been and can still be — if properly organized, staffed and sold — a very good business for Yahoo, which has always treated it like some sideshow, rather than the main one.

I get that, of course — why be in a media business, when the pickings are so good in search, commerce, social … whatever?

Why? Well, because a terrific guide of all sorts of media experiences online is what Yahoo was from its very start, and what it has since tried not to be as definitively.

Having covered Yahoo from its very beginnings, it has been a lot like watching someone you think looks good in one outfit change into one ill-fitting and inappropriate get-up after the next in search of the right image.

But if the company only cared to take a look at how well and seemingly effortlessly it pulled off the Maher event, it would know immediately what it has always done well is what it should always be doing.

The Maher live offering was not fancy and it was not flashy and it did not have all kinds of the latest trends hanging all over it.

It was just good, well done and well worth a watch, whether in person or at home. And it was very, very funny.

It would be nice, then, if Yahoo learned to laugh like this much more often.

Here are some of the clips from Maher’s patter to enjoy:

On the Verge Again: Vox Media Officially Launches Into Videogames Content Arena

Kara Swisher — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:00:08 +0000

Vox Media, the Washington, D.C., online media start-up that launched a new tech site called The Verge last fall, is debuting an early version of its expected videogames offering later today.

The site, temporarily called Vox Games, will begin daily publishing today as a section on The Verge, to be followed later by a standalone site under a new brand name.

The company said that “our goal here is to create the premier destination and media outlet for video games news, reviews, video and entertainment.”

As with The Verge, the Vox Games staff is made up of well-known editorial personnel from other prominent sites. It is headed up by former Joystiq Editor in Chief Chris Grant.

Other staffers are former editors in chief of top videogames sites, including Brian Crecente (Kotaku) and Russ Pitts (Escapist).

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 –

RELATED POSTS:

Apple, Proview Will Try to Talk Out iPad Trademark Tussle

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

Proview’s New PR Attack: Apple Cheated Us Out of the iPad Trademark

Proview Loses Bid to Ban iPad in Shanghai

Surprise — Proview’s Ready to Talk Settlement With Apple

Proview to Apple: You Owe Us $2 Billion

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

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

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

All Apple coverage

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.

RELATED POSTS:

Apple, Proview Will Try to Talk Out iPad Trademark Tussle

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

Proview’s New PR Attack: Apple Cheated Us Out of the iPad Trademark

Proview Loses Bid to Ban iPad in Shanghai

Surprise — Proview’s Ready to Talk Settlement With Apple

Proview to Apple: You Owe Us $2 Billion

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

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

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

All Apple coverage

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.

RELATED POSTS:

Apple, Proview Will Try to Talk Out iPad Trademark Tussle

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

Proview’s New PR Attack: Apple Cheated Us Out of the iPad Trademark

Proview Loses Bid to Ban iPad in Shanghai

Surprise — Proview’s Ready to Talk Settlement With Apple

Proview to Apple: You Owe Us $2 Billion

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

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

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

All Apple coverage

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]

RELATED POSTS:

Apple, Proview Will Try to Talk Out iPad Trademark Tussle

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

Proview’s New PR Attack: Apple Cheated Us Out of the iPad Trademark

Proview Loses Bid to Ban iPad in Shanghai

Surprise — Proview’s Ready to Talk Settlement With Apple

Proview to Apple: You Owe Us $2 Billion

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

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

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

All Apple coverage

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.

RELATED POSTS:

Apple, Proview Will Try to Talk Out iPad Trademark Tussle

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

Proview’s New PR Attack: Apple Cheated Us Out of the iPad Trademark

Proview Loses Bid to Ban iPad in Shanghai

Surprise — Proview’s Ready to Talk Settlement With Apple

Proview to Apple: You Owe Us $2 Billion

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

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

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

All Apple coverage

Atlantic Media Officially Announces Unnamed "Global Business Brand" Site

Kara Swisher — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:20:42 +0000

As AllThingsD previously reported, Atlantic Media will be launching a new “digital global business brand,” which will be helmed by former WSJ.com managing editor Kevin Delaney. There is no name for the site as yet, but the media company said it “will provide high-quality content and services to business executives navigating the increasingly complex global economy.”

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.

Visa Names Its New PayPal-Like Digital Wallet Service "V.me"

Tricia Duryee — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 02:30:15 +0000

The brand that consumers will see when Visa’s digital wallet launches early next year won’t be the Visa logo.

The payments company will be using the name V.me to differentiate it from its more well-known services found at thousands of retail locations around the world.

Consumers will be able to fund the digital wallet using a variety of sources — a Visa, MasterCard or bank account.

It will be used to check out online using a user name and password, rather than having to key in the 16-digit number each time. The idea is similar to eBay’s PayPal, and to services by Amazon as well as e-wallet services being developed by American Express.

It will also be useful for checking out while shopping from a browser or application on a mobile phone or tablet. Later next year, Visa plans to roll out mobile payments to the register, where consumers will be able to tap and pay using near field technology.

The digital wallet is in a closed beta today but will be coming out in early 2012, after the holidays.

Jennifer Schulz, Visa’s head of product, strategy and innovation, said the wallet is intended to be open and funded through sources outside of Visa, and therefore “we wanted [the brand] to evoke Visa, and link to it, but without saying Visa.”

To accelerate the adoption of Visa’s payments services, including V.me, Schulz said Visa is unveiling a new developer program that will give anyone, including retailers, merchants and start-ups, access to its payments services.

The tools give mobile developers easier ways to accept payments on the phone, and help game developers that want to sell low-priced digital goods. There are also tools for big-box retailers.

American Express is also trying to woo developers, but rather than focusing on opening up its platform to developers, it has created a $100 million fund to invest in digital commerce opportunities.

Visa’s developer center brings its subsidiaries — including Authorize.Net, CyberSource, Fundamo and PlaySpan — together under one roof.

“We are announcing the Visa Developer Center, which is our platform for engaging developers globally with our Visa payment solutions,” Schulz said. “It provides us with a platform for engaging an important set of constituents.”

Digital Marketing Start-Up Thismoment Raises $7.3 Million From Sierra Ventures

Kara Swisher — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:30:58 +0000

Thismoment, the San Francisco-based digital marketing platform provider, said it has raised $7.3 million in its first institutional venture round from Sierra Ventures.

Before this funding, the company raised $4.25 million since 2008, when it was founded as a content-sharing Web site.

The company, which serves brands and agencies with its Distributed Engagement Channel platform, said it is aimed at “managing content, conversation and creative assets across earned, owned and paid media channels.” That means marketing “initiatives across Facebook, YouTube, brand sites, rich media ad units, mobile devices, tablets and digital outdoor placements,” as well as a platform to manage these social marketing campaigns.

Sierra’s Mark Fernandes will join the board. Other investors include private equity firm Fenway Partners, as well as well-known digital execs Shelby Bonnie, Jason Hirschhorn and Mika Salmi.

Thismoment said it will use the new funds to expand operations in the U.S. and also add them internationally.

Exclusive: Yahoo Overhauls Marketing Unit -- The Internal Memo

Kara Swisher — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:48:58 +0000

Yahoo is drastically rejiggering its marketing division, according to an internal memo sent today to employees from its Chief Marketing Officer Elisa Steele, in a move that seems to leave her future role unclear.

Steele was brought to Yahoo over two years ago by now-fired CEO Carol Bartz — whom she had been very close to — and charged with turbocharging and reorganizing the unit, which has never been strong.

While Steele certainly did overhaul the marketing department, some of her efforts, such as Yahoo’s pricey “It’s You” advertising campaign, have not worked out. And, largely due to the ongoing turmoil at the company, its brand has suffered under her watch.

The changes, which appear to be at the behest of Steele (though you never know at Yahoo!), will shift the major marketing functions back to the regions of the Silicon Valley Internet company from its current global centralized one.

“I believe we now need to bring marketing decisions, marketing talent and marketing budgets closer to the customer — and into the regions that depend on these critical plans,” she wrote. “We need to further link our marketing strategies to revenue growth, sales objectives and overall accountability.”

Since Steele took over the marketing department at Yahoo several years ago, she has been moving those powers to a more centralized system.

No longer.

In the internal memo, which I obtained and is embedded below, Steele outlines the shift, which will remove a lot of that control of marketing from the HQ and out to its business units.

Steele said in the email to the marketing team that she will remain at the company as CMO for now, although seems to indicate that she is also evaluating her future role.

“My current role as CMO on CEO staff is unchanged,” she wrote. “However, whatever I decide to do next for my career is my choice — and I’ll think about that on my own timeline.”

Sounds like an eventual departure to me, with Steele trying hard to stress she was going out on her own motor, even though giving up contro of big parts of your unit is unusual.

In any case, Steele obviously is betting now that on-the-ground control of marketing will help improve things for the beleaguered company. Here’s the memo:

Team,

It is critical for Yahoo! to grow faster and become more agile. We need to make decisions to accelerate the Regions’ growth plans around the world, and Marketing plays a crucial role in helping develop, support and execute these plans. We’ve built an integrated marketing machine that is an asset to help the company grow now and into the future. When we assembled a global and centralized organization in 2009, we took the opportunity to create best practices, establish consistency, deepen domain expertise, enhance functional capabilities and innovate for one of the biggest brands in the world. And, in the past 12 months, Global Marketing took home dozens of industry awards for marketing leadership in integrated consumer marketing, digital marketing and event marketing – including the acclaimed Cannes Lions, a Clio, a Webby and IAB Awards. Our Marketing achievements have been broad, deep and well recognized.

Now that we have this strong capability, it is time to leverage it even further. I believe we now need to bring marketing decisions, marketing talent and marketing budgets closer to the customer — and into the regions that depend on these critical plans. We need to further link our marketing strategies to revenue growth, sales objectives and overall accountability. Therefore, I want to put the marketing programs and tools we’ve developed right with the Sales and Audience teams responsible for the business outcomes.

It is with this in mind that I recommended a marketing reorganization plan to align to these objectives, accelerate decision-making and simplify roles. The plan centers on decentralizing the current global team into 2 types of specific teams:

1. Regional Marketing: Our regional marketing teams will move to report directly to the Regional leaders in Americas, EMEA and APAC.

2. Corporate Marketing: Our strategic brand, communications and marketing services teams will remain centralized and report into HQ.

This was my proposal to Tim for the best interests of Yahoo! today, and I am glad he agreed with my thinking. I really hope you will endorse and support these changes, too. Yahoo! needs your help and expertise to insure this important next phase is successful.

I want you to know how proud I am of your achievements and contributions. I also want to thank you for the incredible support you have shown me over the past 2.5 years in the current organization. It’s been an amazing brand adventure and working with each of you has been a great source of satisfaction.

My current role as CMO on CEO staff is unchanged. However, whatever I decide to do next for my career is my choice — and I’ll think about that on my own timeline. First, I will work with Tim, my peers and all of you to ensure a smooth transition — and that is my focus for now.

We have a meeting scheduled with the marketing leadership team on Monday and I can address any questions you may have about this transition.

Thanks,

Elisa

Apple Brand Ascendent, While Yahoo's Is in Marketing Retrograde

Kara Swisher — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:55:01 +0000

Yahoo — which has been trying to right itself after a series of missteps and an ever-weakening business — took another direct hit yesterday, as it got dinged in a high-profile annual survey of the Top 100 global brands.

According to Interbrand’s “Best Global Brands 2011,” Yahoo dropped 11 percent in brand value — calculated as $4.4 billion — in the year in which it fell from No. 66 to No. 76.

Way to go, Yahoo marketing! I think that pricey “It’s You” advertising campaign might not have worked.

Meanwhile, Apple broke into the Top 10 list for the first time, vaulting from No. 17 to No. 8, rising 58 percent in brand value to $33.5 billion.

Other tech companies did pretty well in the Interbrand poll — which is the gold standard of the state of brand health with consumers — especially compared to Yahoo (whose brand value high was in 2007 and which is now back at 2001 levels).

For example: IBM kept its No. 2 spot, with brand value rising eight percent; Microsoft fell three percent, but maintained its No. 3 place; Google stayed at No. 4, up 27 percent; and Amazon rose 32 percent and reached No. 26 from No. 36.

Even troubled companies prevailed over Yahoo’s twin declines: Hewlett-Packard held on to its No. 10 slot, with brand value up six percent; Research In Motion dropped only five percent and two slots, from No. 54 to No. 56; and Nokia fell from No. 8 to No. 14 and saw its brand value decline 15 percent.

Most interesting, perhaps, about the 12-year-old survey: Six of the Top 10 brands are tech companies.

Rovio Branding Exec Suddenly Flies the Coop

Tricia Duryee — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 19:15:26 +0000

Rovio, the Finnish company that has been massively successful at building out a brand around its hit videogame title, Angry Birds, has lost its top branding executive.

Wibe Wagemans, who was SVP of global brand advertising, has suddenly left the company, according to sources.

Wagemans declined to comment, and Rovio did not immediately return emails seeking comment. UPDATE: A Rovio spokesperson confirmed Wagemans’ departure, but did not elaborate.

The loss is startling, given that Rovio has been considered the model for how to turn fictitious game characters into a megafranchise, ranging from plush toys to flip-flops, educational books to Hollywood movie titles.

Three weeks ago, Wagemans told me that Rovio has become one of the fastest-growing global consumer brands ever, beating out YouTube, Myspace, Skype and many others.

He said Rovio has 120 million monthly active users playing its games across Apple’s iPhone, Android and other platforms, such as Google’s new social game network. It has already passed 250 million mobile downloads.

He also recently appeared on stage at VentureBeat’s MobileBeat conference in San Francisco, where he reiterated the company’s plans to pass one billion downloads.

Prior to Rovio, Wagemans was an executive at Microsoft’s Bing.

Yahoo for Sale: Possible Bidders Circling -- Including Marc Andreessen -- as Board Pressure Mounts

Kara Swisher — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:28:49 +0000

A range of major players interested in acquiring all or a large piece of Yahoo have been prepping possible bids and have been in touch with the Internet giant’s board over the last several days.

While Yahoo has publicly said it was not for sale, according to numerous sources both inside and outside the company, it has been receptive to the interest and its Chairman Roy Bostock and Co-founder Jerry Yang have spoken to several.

Among the possible players: Silicon Valley venture firm Andreessen Horowitz, which is working with private equity firm Silver Lake, in a deal that also might include Russia’s DST Global and Yahoo’s Japanese partner Masa Son; former News Corp. exec Peter Chernin, who is partnered with Providence Equity Partners; and the possibility that Yahoo’s Chinese partner, Alibaba Group, might consider entering the fray in what could be a reverse merger of sorts.

Also being rung up by some of the parties: Microsoft — Yahoo’s advertising and search partner — which is being seen as a possibly moneybags in any deal.

The movement among these investors is against a backdrop of increasing pressure for Yahoo’s board, after it fired CEO Carol Bartz last week. In the wake of the dramatic move, shareholders have upped criticism of Bostock and the board and have been looking hard for alternatives.

Today, that included hedge fund investor Daniel Loeb of Third Point, which has a 5.1 percent stake in Yahoo. In a filing this morning, he said he might increase that amount, and described a testy hour-long phone call he had earlier this week with Bostock that ended abruptly with a hang-up from Yahoo.

Sources said Loeb called Bostock a “fool,” among other not-so-nice names, on the call and asked for Yang’s help in dumping him.

This comes as exactly no surprise, given his previously strong letter in which Loeb called for Bostock’s ouster.

Loeb has been calling out Bostock — who is also on the boards of Morgan Stanley and Delta Airlines — for a series of gaffes at Yahoo since he became chairman in 2008 (he’s been on the board since 2003).

Those have included: Yahoo’s bungled effort to stave off a takeover by Microsoft several years ago; the too-long enthusiasm for Bartz, who was hired in early 2009 and fired last week; sitting unusually still as competitors such as Facebook, Google and more have out-innovated and outgrown Yahoo; and, of course, the falling knife of a stock, which has dropped precipitously since Bostock has been in charge of the board.

As Loeb wrote in a letter he sent to the company last week:

“It is time that certain members of this Board were held accountable for its past failures and their individual roles. Accordingly, we insist that Mr. Bostock, who championed Ms. Bartz’s hiring and led the charge against the Microsoft deal, promptly resign from the Board.”

Loeb is likely to add to that later today at a high-profile investor conference in New York, where the colorful but tough-talking investor is sure to add more logs to the fire.

But it not only him. Other major shareholders of Yahoo are also in touch with possible outside buyers, seeking a change at the long-troubled company, after its shares have remained in the doldrums, its attrition rate of employees has spiked and its product pipeline has slowed to drip.

This has all been taking place — of course — during one of tech biggest and most innovative booms, in which Yahoo competitors have grown strongly.

Enter Marc Andreessen, the well-known entrepreneur who has transformed himself into one of Silicon Valley’s most powerful venture capitalists.

He and his partner Ben Horowitz recently pulled off another similar deal — with Silver Lake — to take control of a then-troubled Skype. They later flipped it to Microsoft for a large return.

Sources familiar with the situation said the pair have become increasingly intrigued by the situation at Yahoo and believe that its assets and brand are still strong, despite its management turmoil in recent years.

One problem is the huge cost of almost any kind of takeover and also the complexity, given much of Yahoo’s $18.5 billion valuation is due to its Asian assets.

The sale of those shares, as well as the selling off of some of Yahoo’s less core properties, makes for a very complicated situation for anyone.

Said one person looking at the company: “It is one of the more massive hairballs around.”

That is a common sentiment among many of those looking at Yahoo, which has hired Allen & Co. to manage the process.

Also of worry is a bid that would include too many players. Yahoo has long been plagued by indecisiveness on the part of its execs and, mostly, its board.

But one thing all the possible buyers of Yahoo, as well as an increasing number of its shareholders, agree on: The Yahoo board needs a major shake-up.

As Loeb wrote last week, which many I interviewed also echoed:

“This letter details our principled demands for sweeping changes in both the Board of Directors (the “Board”) and Company leadership, and outlines the hidden value of Yahoo, which has been severely damaged — but not irreparably — by poor management and governance.”

Exclusive: Carol Bartz Out at Yahoo; CFO Tim Morse Named Interim CEO

Kara Swisher — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 22:55:35 +0000

According to sources at the company, Yahoo’s Carol Bartz is no longer CEO of Yahoo. CFO Tim Morse has been named interim CEO.

The situation around what is clearly an ouster is uncertain, but Bartz has had a very rocky tenure in her 32 months at the company.

[UPDATE: Yahoo confirmed the departure of Bartz in a press release outlining a reorganization.]

Bartz also sent a stunning email to staff, saying she had been ousted:

To all,

I am very sad to tell you that I’ve just been fired over the phone by Yahoo’s Chairman of the Board. It has been my pleasure to work with all of you and I wish you only the best going forward.

Carol

Several sources said the board, specifically Chairman Roy Bostock and Co-founder, as well as director Jerry Yang, acted today, informing Bartz by phone of the need to make a change.

What the next steps will be are unclear, but Yahoo needs desperately to explore a range of strategic changes to bring it back to its former glory.

But Wall Street liked the move, with Yahoo stock up more than six percent already in after-hours trading.

Sources said Morse held a call with Yahoo’s senior staff this afternoon, telling them Bartz was out and that a search for a permanent CEO will be commencing.

Why Yahoo’s board did not name a new leader immediately is curious and might indicate a larger deal around Yahoo is in the offing.

As I wrote earlier today, when the Internet giant announced on January 13, 2009, that it had hired longtime Silicon Valley tech veteran — who was well-regarded for her tenure at running Autodesk — to replace outgoing CEO and co-founder Yang and turn around the company, there was much hope.

At the time, she presented a take-no-prisoners image and was touted as someone with a reputation as a professional manager who could clean up the place.

Not so, as it has turned out.

While Bartz has streamlined certain areas and made some strong management hires, her performance has been decidedly bumpy and mostly downhill.

The share price has settled in at about $12.50 (just about where it was when Bartz took over), Yahoo’s recent financial results have been weak, its key advertising business is struggling, its attrition rate among engineers and others is startlingly high and its product innovation cycle seems stopped up.

Add to that: Weak relationships with key Asian partners, a pricey but failed marketing effort and a proclivity for embarrassing verbal gaffes by Bartz.

Still, given that Yahoo’s Internet traffic, top media sites and brand remain huge, the going-sideways situation has again caused some investors — including powerful private equity firms and other monied investors — to pull out their spreadsheets about a variety of scenarios related to Yahoo.

The players who have sniffed around of late are powerful, sources said, including Silver Lake Partners, Andreessen Horowitz, former News Corp. exec Peter Chernin and Providence Equity Partners, among others. Also in the Wall Street rumor mill recently are large companies: AT&T, News Corp. and Verizon.

All the schemes are different — ranging from taking it private to making a large investment to splitting it into parts — although they all seem to require cooperation with Yahoo to get done.

And while there is no serious effort afoot as yet, there have been increasing signs of late that Yahoo’s board is ready to listen to any serious offers, said multiple sources, especially as the company has continued to drift under the leadership of Bartz.

While board chairman Bostock has publicly backed Bartz — after all, he was her biggest champion at the time of her hiring — multiple sources said he had started to become more involved at looking at the management issues at the company and its challenges.

Yang — still a key figure at Yahoo — has also become more active, said sources, and tensions between him and Bartz have increased over the last few months.

The increasing pressure on the directors of the company from its major shareholders to act has gained in recent months, said sources.

Thus, Bartz is gone and the next chapter in Yahoo’s corporate drama begins.

[Photo credit: Asa Mathat for All Things Digital]

As Yahoo Continues to Wobble, Investors (And Board) Eye Options

Kara Swisher — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:09:11 +0000

When Yahoo announced on January 13, 2009, that it had hired longtime Silicon Valley tech veteran Carol Bartz to replace outgoing CEO and co-founder Jerry Yang and turn around the company, there was a sigh of relief.

At the time, she presented a take-no-prisoners image and was touted as someone with a reputation as a professional manager who could clean up the place.

Not so, as it has turned out.

While Bartz has streamlined certain areas and made some strong management hires, her performance has been decidedly bumpy and mostly downhill. (Update: And this afternoon that ride took her straight out the door.)

Consider: The share price has settled in at about $12.50 (just about where it was when Bartz took over), Yahoo’s recent financial results have been weak, its key advertising business is struggling, its attrition rate among engineers and others is startlingly high and its product innovation cycle seems stopped up. Add to that: Weak relationships with key Asian partners, a pricey but failed marketing effort and a proclivity for verbal gaffes by Bartz.

“It’s hard to ignore all that value sitting there and not being managed properly,” said one person who is considering a variety of investing options related to Yahoo. “And it’s not like AOL, whose assets are so weak, so it seems like an opportunity.”

All the schemes are different — ranging from taking it private to making a large investment to splitting it into parts — although they all seem to require cooperation with Yahoo to get done.

And while there is no serious effort afoot as yet, there are increasing signs that Yahoo’s board is ready to listen to any serious offers, said multiple sources, especially as the company has continued to drift under the leadership of Bartz.

While board chairman Roy Bostock has publicly backed Bartz — after all, he was her biggest champion at the time of her hiring — multiple sources said he has started to become more involved at looking at the management issues at the company and its challenges.

Yang — still a key figure at Yahoo — has also become more active, said sources, and tensions between him and Bartz have increased over the last few months.

While this might, as often happens at Yahoo, lead nowhere, what’s clear is the increasing pressure on the directors of the company from its major shareholders to act.

“You watch an asset like that degrade and it makes you furious,” said one investor. “After a while, you hope it makes the board at Yahoo feel the same.”

Yahoo declined to comment (but so would I).

Viral Video: Like Palm's Creepy Naked Lady, TouchPad's Floating Celeb Heads Get the HP Boot

Kara Swisher — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 07:13:48 +0000

The latest advertising for Hewlett-Packard’s TouchPad is kind of cool, especially compared to the old spots for its webOS cousin, the Palm Pre, that featured the creepy naked lady.

(I still have nightmares that she is going to appear at the end of my bed in the middle of the night and stab me to death with a Pixi.)

In any case, TouchPad’s recent celebrity spokesmodels — comedian Russell Brand and “Glee” diva Lea Michele — are now presumably out of a job flacking the now-defunct tablet device. HP said yesterday that it had decided to stop making them.

Here are the videos of their ads, as well as a few more Brand did for HP about the TouchPad. And, just to remind you of the horror, I also added the creepy naked lady ad, in which she freakishly recounts a weird juggling story.

Enjoy:

Should Zynga Be on the Hunt for Some Angry Birds?

Tricia Duryee — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 01:36:29 +0000

Zynga walked away empty-handed last month after bidding unsuccessfully for PopCap, which went to Electronic Arts.

So what’s next for the acquisition-hungry company?

What about an even tastier target: Rovio, the Finnish developer of the popular Angry Birds franchise.

It’s not just a fantasy game. Rumors have been circulating in the gaming world that the two companies have already engaged in talks. Zynga, as it always does, declined to comment about that speculation.

But, if you think about it, an acquisition or partnership makes an awful lot of sense.

Most importantly, the pair would form a global powerhouse that would have a huge and active audience of players on both mobile and social platforms. Zynga has roughly 148 million unique visitors on Facebook every month.

And Rovio’s Angry Birds has passed more than 250 million downloads in a completely mobile market with one single and very addictive game involving pissed-off birds attacking egg-greedy pigs.

As a recent piece on Rovio in The Wall Street Journal noted:

“There are now 120 million active monthly ‘Angry Birds’ game players, the company says. To compare this to another media property, there have been more than 25 million copies sold of the best-selling console game of the past year, ‘Call of Duty: Black Ops.’”

Rovio certainly wants more and has been extraordinarily vocal about its intentions of raising more money, and its goal of achieving one billion downloads.

While that potentially offers one billion reasons alone that Zynga should be interested, here’s five more on why such marriage might be a good match:

Adorable stuffed animals: Rovio has done a much better job at building a brand and entertainment franchise than Zynga. And it has spread its wings way beyond games and into other categories such as movies, books and toys.
Plenty of cash: Zynga has a lot of cash on its balance sheet and is getting closer to raising $1 billion more in an IPO. And it has the appetite for big buys, offering to buy PopCap for $1 billion in a failed bid.
Free-to-play: Both companies have embraced the “free-to-play” business model, where games are given away and then monetized by selling virtual goods or additional content to players.
Zynga’s risk factors: One of the San Francisco company’s known risk factors is its dependency on Facebook. Mobile would offer some diversity. Since its track record so far on phones and tablets has been questionable, Rovio would cover them on that front easily and give them much needed talent in the arena.
One-hit wonder: Rovio developed a long list of mediocre games before it came up with Angry Birds. It’s obviously a major hit, but does Rovio have what it takes to be an independent company, or does pairing up with another organization give it some wiggle room to continue experimenting?

And, to be fair, here’s one reason why such a pairing might never happen: Both Rovio’s and Zynga’s top management are well known for their stubborn and definitive personalities and, more to the point, not playing well with others.

Ironic, but — if you want to use an Angry Birds metaphor — it would not be easy to join two companies who both want all of the eggs for themselves.

A New Kind of Marketing Company From Former Apple Exec Forming With Backing of Twitter's Dorsey

Kara Swisher — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 22:51:05 +0000

Allison Johnson, who had been a top marketing exec for Apple, is finally close to launching on a new kind of marketing firm, sources said, with backing from Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey and Malaria No More co-founder Ray Chambers.

Sources said that Johnson — who had been Apple’s vice president of worldwide marketing communications since 2005, before she quit in March — has since been ruminating on how to create a different kind of marketing company. Its aim is to help big companies and brands connect more effectively with smaller tech companies and burgeoning social networks.

“It’s a different new model, although it’s certainly a full-service solution for companies from a marketing point of view,” said one source. “But it does not conform to a typical agency.”

It’s not clear how much funding Dorsey or Chambers have put up or when the firm will launch. It’s been in formation for many months, said sources.

But Johnson has been working closely on its creation with longtime Silicon Valley PR exec Sarah Ross and others. Previously, she had been talking about such a partnership with Facebook PR exec Brandee Barker, who is no longer involved in the project.

Johnson has also talked to former Facebook marketing director Randi Zuckerberg, who left the social networking site last week to start her own marketing firm, about working together.

Johnson declined to comment on the venture.

Xoogler Doug Edwards Talks About New Book on His Time at the Search Borg (Video)

Kara Swisher — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:34:52 +0000

From 1999 until 2005, Doug Edwards was director of consumer marketing and brand management for Google, coming to the then-tiny search start-up from a business job at the San Jose Mercury News.

While there, the exec got a front row seat at the birth of what would become one of the most powerful tech companies in Silicon Valley and perhaps the best known digital brand ever for consumers.

While he didn’t kiss-and-tell for a while after leaving, Edwards said he could not get his experience there out of his brain, so he finally decided to write it all down in a book that just came out to pretty decent reviews.

And, indeed, “I’m Feeling Lucky: The Confessions of Google Employee Number 59″ is a pretty fair rendition of those times and the insane pace of what it is like to be at a rocket ship of a start-up.

It also includes a story I had long forgotten, when current CEO Larry Page asked me — I covered Google at the time for The Wall Street Journal — to help pen its famous investor essay for its 2004 IPO. I declined and he got another journalist to do it, but Edwards got it right.

Here’s my video interview with Edwards, as well as a video he shot in 1999 of Google’s TGIF all-hands meeting, the last time Page was CEO (he’s back again, of course):

[ See post to watch video ]

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

AllThingsD » brand

100 Most Valuable Brands: Apple Tops Again; Nokia Disappears

Silver Lake Grabs Large Minority Stake of WME to Push Digital Initiatives

Sticks and Stones: Third Point Launches "Value Yahoo" Blog (Which Does Not Value Current Leadership)

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

Hey, Yahoo: When You Act Like a Media Company, I Like You (I Really Like You)

On the Verge Again: Vox Media Officially Launches Into Videogames Content Arena

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

Proview to Apple: You Owe Us $2 Billion

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

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

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

Atlantic Media Officially Announces Unnamed "Global Business Brand" Site

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

Visa Names Its New PayPal-Like Digital Wallet Service "V.me"

Digital Marketing Start-Up Thismoment Raises $7.3 Million From Sierra Ventures

Exclusive: Yahoo Overhauls Marketing Unit -- The Internal Memo

Apple Brand Ascendent, While Yahoo's Is in Marketing Retrograde

Rovio Branding Exec Suddenly Flies the Coop

Yahoo for Sale: Possible Bidders Circling -- Including Marc Andreessen -- as Board Pressure Mounts

Exclusive: Carol Bartz Out at Yahoo; CFO Tim Morse Named Interim CEO

Related posts

As Yahoo Continues to Wobble, Investors (And Board) Eye Options

Related posts

Viral Video: Like Palm's Creepy Naked Lady, TouchPad's Floating Celeb Heads Get the HP Boot

Related posts

Should Zynga Be on the Hunt for Some Angry Birds?

A New Kind of Marketing Company From Former Apple Exec Forming With Backing of Twitter's Dorsey

Xoogler Doug Edwards Talks About New Book on His Time at the Search Borg (Video)