AllThingsD » classified

Firms Aided Libyan Spies

Paul Sonne and Margaret Coker — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:03:42 +0000

On the ground floor of a six-story building here, agents working for Moammar Gadhafi sat in an open room, spying on emails and chat messages with the help of technology Libya acquired from the West.

The recently abandoned room is lined with posters and English-language training manuals stamped with the name Amesys, a unit of French technology firm Bull SA, which installed the monitoring center. A warning by the door bears the Amesys logo. The sign reads: “Help keep our classified business secret. Don’t discuss classified information out of the HQ.”

The room, explored Monday by The Wall Street Journal, provides clear new evidence of foreign companies’ cooperation in the repression of Libyans under Col. Gadhafi’s almost 42-year rule. The surveillance files found here include emails written as recently as February, after the Libyan uprising had begun.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

2010 Was the Year the Internet Got Scary. Get Used to It.

Arik Hesseldahl — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:00:46 +0000

I can’t remember a year during which computer security stories jumped so readily from the tech and business pages to the front page.

The year 2010 was bookended by two such cases. It opened with Google’s disclosure that it had come under attack in China, an apparent attempt to penetrate the Gmail accounts of certain activists and journalists.

It ended with the WikiLeaks affair, which stemmed from the alleged theft by an Army private of classified documents stored on a government network.

And let’s not forget in mid-year came the story, as fascinating as it was sobering, of Stuxnet, a computer worm developed by parties unknown–although the smart money is on Israel–that penetrated and ultimately damaged equipment used in the Iranian nuclear program.

Computer hacking–which has for too long evoked images in the public mind-set of teenagers in basements taking digital joyrides–has finally revealed itself to everyone for what it has long been for those in the know: The domain of espionage, sabotage and possibly warfare.

In Google’s case, the attacks upon its systems raised questions about where it draws the line with authorities in Beijing about such matters as freedom of speech. When the attack was first disclosed, Google publicly mulled shutting down its operations in China.

Then in protest, it stopped censoring its search results, giving mainland Chinese access to the same search results available to residents of Hong Kong. Beijing responded by blocking access to Google’s site.

Finally, Google and China came to a new agreement, and Google appeared the loser in the battle of wills.

Computer security is one of those things that companies and governments say they take seriously, but never really seem to get a grip on, judging by the results.

In any case, there is no firewall or software in existence that could have prevented Bradley Manning from stealing the documents that he is alleged to have given to WikiLeaks. As a low-level Army intelligence analyst, he was a trusted insider who had access to this material in the course of his day-to-day job.

So, it was not technology that failed. The failure was one of internal policies that allowed him access to data not relevant to his position.

Any employee of a midsize company can see how wrong that is. Human-resources documents are limited only to those who work in that department. The same is true of people who work in the legal office, business development department and so on.

But it apparently didn’t occur to anyone in government to limit the access to what became the WikiLeaks cache to people who worked only for or closely with the State Department.

If it turns out that thousands of companies are better at protecting their business secrets than the U.S. government is, then it’s not for nothing that the Central Intelligence Agency task force investigating the WikiLeaks affair bears the initials “WTF.”

Something similar was true of Stuxnet. One of the reasons the attackers, whoever they are, succeeded was that they used several so-called “zero day” vulnerabilities in Windows.

These are undocumented weaknesses that hackers save up for special occasions as a way to open a back door into a computer and then insert a troublemaking payload, like a worm. Zero day exploits are a fact of life, and once spotted in the world, they’re usually patched.

The Stuxnet attackers used as many as four zero day exploits as a way to get their worm into targeted computers. Microsoft, to its credit, made short work of fixing them once they came to light.

Even so, the Stuxnet worm burrowed its way from Windows machines into industrial control computers known as SCADA systems, which are widely used to run factories, power plants, pipelines and all sorts of other infrastructure essential to modern life.

The worm was designed to find a specific target: The systems controlling a set of as many as 1,000 centrifuges at the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, and make them spin faster than they were supposed to.

The ability to attack industrial computers and cause them to do things they’re not supposed to do has been a lingering fear among security experts for years. Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy in 2007 looked at the potential for attacks on SCADA systems and proved that it was possible to seize control of an electrical generator and then make it destroy itself.

They also found that many of these systems are connected to the Internet for what seem like good reasons: Convenience and cost savings. But these connections have also opened them up to the same kind of attacks that rattled the Iranian facility in Natanz.

Another Stuxnet-like worm, the thinking goes, could be used to bring down a power grid, or poison drinking water, or shut down an oil or gas pipeline. The good news is that such an attack is expensive–Stuxnet, by one estimate, cost $10 million to create–and requires a lot of specialized insider knowledge.

The bad news is that the Stuxnet source code is circulating in the wild for anyone to study. And as the WikiLeaks case shows, there are often insiders willing to take part in criminal schemes.

The other bad news? Securing these systems won’t come cheap.

If history is any judge, there will likely be a barrage of computer security companies that try to spin these incidents into opportunities to make a sales pitch. That’s what security companies do, after all.

But they usually miss the point. How can you plan for a vulnerability you’ve never seen? How can you stop an otherwise trusted insider from abusing their access to sensitive information? Both are fundamentally difficult problems for which there are no easy answers.

Spending money on last year’s security vulnerabilities is like preparing to fight the last war: Circumstances inevitably change, and they certainly will in 2011. New kinds of attacks will arise, and they will catch their targets by surprise.

And the public, like the CIA, will reasonably ask, “WTF?”

The unvarnished fact is that the networked society to which we’ve become accustomed in the last several years has a soft, vulnerable underbelly.

And the more we rely upon it, the more people with a combination of advanced technical skills and repugnant motivations are going to look for ways to turn it against us.

Some will do so as a means of making a personal profit. Others may see it as a way of advancing a political or ideological agenda.

But others will want to use theirs skills to do serious harm to innocent people on a large scale.

And the events of 2010 point the way to a world where that’s a more realistic scenario than it ever was before.

Viral Video: Julian Assange Is a Samantha (But a Charlotte to the Swedish Police)

Kara Swisher — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 08:15:28 +0000

BoomTown was deep in meetings at the Dow Jones mother ship in New York yesterday with more suits than you can find at Barneys, so I failed to get up this latest Julian Assange spoof from “Saturday Night Live.”

Here the WikiLeaks leader comments on Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg recently beating him out for Time magazine’s Person of the Year.

The faux Assange is not happy that social networking beat out classified documents.

This skit–the third so far–seems to be getting funnier each time:

Exclusive: Chegg Buys Cramster

Kara Swisher — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 08:02:25 +0000

According to sources close to the situation, online textbook rental company Chegg has acquired Cramster, a social online homework help platform.

The Pasadena, Calif.-based Cramster is the leading online study community, offering expert Q&A help, study groups and practice tests and problems. College and high school students, teachers, professors, parents and other experts add information into the network on a large range of subjects.

It was founded in 2002 and now has one million members, using either a free or premium service.

The Cramster purchase is one in a series of start-up acquisitions that Chegg has been making of late, part of a strategy to be a central place for student needs.

In late September, the company bought CourseRank, a Mountain View, Calif., start-up that helps students share course schedules, take classes with friends, and read and write reviews on classes and professors, as well as find out how professors grade.

To expand, Chegg has raised a whopping $220 million in funding from a number of venture firms, including Kleiner Perkins.

That’s because Chegg has become the front-runner in the increasingly competitive online textbook rental space, as it seeks to disrupt the $10 billion college textbook business.

Chegg got its start in 2005 at Iowa State University as a classified rental service, where books were the dominant item, but evolved its business to focus on actually doing the textbook rentals.

The company’s unusual name, Chegg, is a mashup of “chicken and egg,” and its model is similar to that of innovative video rental outfit Netflix.

Chegg now serves close to 7,000 schools across the U.S.

Typically, renting a book costs a fraction of what buying one outright does. It is ordered online and then sent to a renter, who then returns it.

Terms of the Cramster deal were not clear.

Website for Leaked Data Shines Spotlight on WikiLeaks

Jeanne Whalen — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:07:59 +0000

WikiLeaks publishes top-secret documents about government and corporate intrigue.

Then there is John Young, who publishes documents about WikiLeaks.

From his apartment on New York City’s Upper West Side, the 70-something architect, computer buff and self-described “cypherpunk” runs a website, http://cryptome.org, that seeks to hold accountable the site that boasts of holding others to account.

Mr. Young said his scrutiny is meant not to undermine WikiLeaks, but to harden it for battle. “Doing what they’re doing,” he said in a telephone interview, “they have to be just as tough as nails. And they can’t get tough by having people praise them. They can only get tough by having people attack them.”

WikiLeaks has posted hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. military documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the most recent trove released last weekend. Among the posts on Mr. Young’s site—which covers a broad range of subjects—are internal WikiLeaks emails showing the group debating strategy for attracting funds and supporters. The Cryptome posts have provocative labels such as “wikileaks-fear,” “wikileaks-snitch” and “WL Hate.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Exclusive: Chegg Raises $75 Million in Additional Funding from Asian Firm

Kara Swisher — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 03:55:15 +0000

Chegg, the online textbook rental service, has raised another $75 million from Asia-based Ace Limited, according to sources.

Ace seems to be nonexistent on the Internet, although sources said it is a Hong Kong-based investment firm.

The round comes after a huge Series D investment in late 2009, which already brought Chegg’s funding to a whopping $144 million.

Venture firms, such as Kleiner Perkins, Foundation Capital, Insight Venture Partners and others have presumably handed over that money in hopes of big returns.

And, of course, the inevitable IPO for the Silicon Valley start-up.

That’s because Chegg has become the front-runner in the increasingly competitive online textbook rental space as it seeks to disrupt the $10 billion college textbook business.

Chegg got its start in 2005 at Iowa State University as a classified rental service, where books were the dominant item, but evolved its business to focus on actually doing the textbook rentals.

The company’s unusual name, Chegg, is a mashup of “chicken and egg,” and its model is similar to that of innovative video rental outfit Netflix (NFLX).

Chegg now serves close to 7,000 schools across the U.S., with 120 employees in Silicon Valley and more at a warehouse operation in Louisville, Ky.

Typically, a rental costs a fraction of what buying a book outright does. It is ordered online and then sent to a renter, who then returns it.

There is, of course, lots of competition.

The Barnes & Noble (BKS) College division recently began testing a textbook rental program, for example, and is rolling it out to 25 U.S. colleges. And BookRenter is a smaller rival.

In a bid to expand its offerings beyond books, Chegg recently acquired CourseRank, a Mountain View, Calif., start-up that helps students “share their course schedule, take classes with their friends, read and write reviews on classes and professors as well as find out how professors grade.”

Here is a video interview I did with Chegg CEO Dan Rosensweig recently at Chegg’s Santa Clara, Calif., HQ:

[ See post to watch video ]

Craigslist CEO Seeking Anderson Cooper Type for Non-Trashing (And Maybe Coffee?)

Kara Swisher — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:15:45 +0000

Craiglist CEO Jim Buckmaster let one fly yesterday at CNN reporter Amber Lyon for a report on child sex trafficking she did that focused on the role played by the online-classified giant.

It included using a May interview with Craigslist founder Craig Newmark that Buckmaster characterized as an ambush, and he accused Lyon of “mischaracterizing your stunt as a serious interview on this subject.”

He ended by noting that if “[CNN anchor] Anderson Cooper would like to come out to SF and sit with us for an interview worthy of CNN’s viewers, we’ll consider it.”

But Lyon’s bio on the CNN site told a different story:

“Lyon also investigated the sex trafficking of minors on Craigslist. In a CNN exclusive, Lyon brought her findings to the ‘Craig’ in Craigslist, founder Craig Newmark. Her interview left Newmark speechless.”

Actually, Newmark wasn’t exactly speechless, as you can see from the video below–he just declined to answer and was silent, which is quite typical of him.

Nonetheless, San Francisco-based Craigslist has been under serious fire of late from state attorneys general nationwide who are seeking to get Craigslist to voluntarily take down its “adult services” section, which is lucrative, but which they allege is a thinly veiled venue for prostitution.

Today, the Boston Globe posted a tough editorial supporting a voluntary takedown, noting:

“While Craigslist should be lauded for having in place stronger safeguards than many other websites–and the classifieds sections of some newspapers and magazines–the site is, at the end of the day, profiting off of prostitution.”

Ouch.

Currently, the company says it now screens every adult ad before it goes up, which Lyon alleged was not being done effectively.

More to come, obviously, but here’s an open invite for Buckmaster to do a video with BoomTown, although I am nowhere near as glam as Cooper.

Until then, here is one of the CNN videos by Lyon:

And here is the Buckmaster blog:

For Amber Lyon, CNN

I see you’ve now gotten around to requesting an interview with me or a company spokesperson, 90 days after you ambushed our namesake and founder, Craig Newmark, following his May 20th talk on veteran’s affairs and other issues unrelated to craigslist, at a conference in Washington.

You knew Craig was not in management or a company spokesperson, but setting CNN’s ethical code aside, you sidestepped company channels in favor of ambushing our semi-retired founder, complete with a misleading “set up” for your surprise questions. Now that CNN has aired your highly misleading piece dozens of times, mischaracterizing your stunt as a serious interview on this subject, and you’ve updated your “bio” to showcase this rare jewel of investigative journalism, you’re ready to try actually interviewing the company itself on this subject.

There is a class of “journalists” known for gratuitously trashing respected organizations and individuals, ignoring readily available facts in favor of rank sensationalism and self-promotion. They work for tabloid media. Your stunt has veteran news pros we know recoiling in journalistic horror, some of them chalking it up to a decline in CNN’s standards, which is unfortunate.

Seeing how you’ve pinned your career hopes on butchering this story, I’ll have to pass. If Anderson Cooper would like to come out to SF and sit with us for an interview worthy of CNN’s viewers, we’ll consider it.

Jim Buckmaster
CEO, craigslist

Google's Secret Plan to Save Newspapers: Sell More Expensive Ads

Peter Kafka — Tue, 11 May 2010 11:00:37 +0000

Google isn’t killing newspapers, says The Atlantic’s James Fallows. In fact, it’s trying to save them.

I’m with Fallows on the first point. Not convinced at all about the second one, but Fallows is, and he spends many pages explaining Google’s reasoning and plans.

Short version: Google thinks newspapers are good for Google, because they generate information people want to search for. And when newspapers stop printing actual newspapers and start selling online ads for as much money as print ads, everything should work out fine.

In the longer version, Fallows walks readers through the basics of the newspaper crisis (disappearing classifieds, disappearing display ads, disappearing subscribers). And he touches on some tinkering Google (GOOG) is doing that might be useful for publishers and news organizations (Living Stories, Fast Flip, YouTube Direct, help build pay walls).

That stuff won’t matter, though, unless newspapers can cut a lot of costs and make a lot more money from online ads.

Part of the cost-cutting is kind of easy, because it will happen whether papers like it or not. Their print product will eventually wither away, and they’ll save a lot of money on paper, ink, delivery trucks, etc. And part of Google’s growth strategy hinges on more money flowing into online display ads. If Google is right, some of those dollars will flow to publishers, so that’s good.

But assuming that online ads will be as valuable, per eyeball, as offline ads have been is a very big leap of faith. And unless they’re close, there’s no way a news organization can have anything like the workforce it employs now–even if the entire operation is digital.

This line of thought leads us to a dark place that we’ll probably be visiting anyway, so let’s not leave on that note. Let’s try Fallows’s tempered optimism instead and hope he’s right and I’m wrong:

The problem Google is aware of involves the disruption still ahead. Ten years from now, a robust and better-funded news business will be thriving. What next year means is harder to say….If the prospect is continued transition rather than mass extinction of news organizations, that is better than many had assumed. It requires an openness to the constant experimentation that Google preaches and that is journalism’s real heritage.

Ad Sales, Pay Walls, and Absolutely Nothing About iPads at the New York Times Earnings Call

Peter Kafka — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:01:05 +0000

The New York Times said things got better–or, if you like, no worse–during the last quarter of 2009. But investors are disappointed that the publisher isn’t more optimistic about 2010, and they’re pushing shares down this morning.

Let’s see if the paper’s executives can turn that around during their earnings call. We’ll also be looking for any updates the Times can provide on its pay wall plans, and, of course, its role in the launch of the Apple iPad.

UPDATE: As I noted below, though the New York Times (NYT) was a featured partner at the launch of Apple’s (AAPL) iPad, even sending a small team to Cupertino to create an app a few weeks before the event, there was zero discussion about iPads today.

CEO Janet Robinson made a generalized comment about the growth of the Times’s mobile distribution, but that was it. And not a single analyst showed any interest in this stuff–a good reminder that neither the Times nor Wall Street expects the iPad to be material to the company’s business for quite some time.

Liveblog

On the call: CEO Janet Robinson, CFO Jim Follo, Times Media Group boss Scott Heekin-Canedy, and Digital boss Martin Nisenholtz

In a preamble, CEO Robinson highlights cost-cutting, balance sheet repair, and asset sales (radio station, but not the Boston Globe; the company is still looking at selling its stake in the Boston Red Sox–the process is “complicated” and is “taking longer than anticipated”).

Robinson recaps the pay wall plan, metered approach, etc. Nothing new here so far.

The paper is waiting until 2011 to deploy the pay wall, she explains, because it wants to make “subscribing as smooth and easy as possible….It will take some time to build, deploy and test the best systems.”

Robinson offers a few revenue details, primarily a recap of the earnings release.

Ads by category: National ads down 12 percent, retail down 23 percent, classifieds down 27 percent.

News media online grew four percent, primarily from display advertising (the rest of online growth comes from About.com).

Print ad category decreases came from Hollywood, among others. Ad category increases: Print auto, health care, packaged goods.

Circulation revenue is up because of newsstand, price increases. The Times is benefiting from declines at other papers, because as local papers cut back, it is offering more info than ever. Robinson notes expansion by the paper into local news in the Chicago and San Francisco markets, adding that there are plans on going local in “several” other key markets

Time to brag about new mobile products and applications. The paper counted 75 million page views from mobile and apps in December, and the iPhone app has been downloaded three million times since launch.

Back to digital: Display ads are up, classifieds down; they improved “significantly” as Q4 progressed.

About.com is still the Times’s digital cash machine: Revenue is up 22 percent, and operating profit grew from $10 million to $18 million.

Overall, Internet businesses are up 10 percent and accounted for 15 percent of revenue for the quarter. Online advertising revenue accounted for 23 percent of ad revenue of the quarter.

“Limited” visibility for 2010, which is what’s upsetting The Street, supposedly. But the paper is still “realigning” its cost base.

CFO Jim Follo’s comments may not interest all readers except for this part: The Times is continuing to reduce headcount, he notes, which dropped by 18 percent in 2009. The company is also looking at the benefit structure for both employees and retirees. It froze that awesome supplemental retirement plan that pays certain retirees a very lucrative pension.

We’ve been benefiting from a drop in newsprint prices last couple years, Follo notes, though suppliers are trying to raise prices again, but there’s a supply glut, so we think they’ll have a tough time doing that.

No big capital spending projects are planned. [Presumably, the pay wall is not that expensive to build.]

[Aside: Interesting that NYT.com GM Denise Warren, who's normally on these calls, isn't on today's.]

Questions and Answers

Question: More color on advertising, please.

Scott Heekin-Canedy: We have some optimism, but advertisers are “guarded,” and ads are still bought–or retracted–at the last minute, as they were last year.

Tech, media, health care, and auto ad categories all look promising. The mix is “definitely different” from last year “when it seemed like every single category was down.” Now, many categories are showing “flat to significant growth.”

Question: Are you still optimistic that you can reach a deal on the Red Sox?

Robinson: “Yes we are.” Lots of due diligence, lots of different properties (stake in team, stadium, network, etc.).

Q: What are incremental costs of setting up a pay wall?

Robinson: “We feel this is an elegant solution,” but we want to wait the year and make sure we’re well prepared, etc. Again, integrating home delivery and digital is crucial.

Nisenholtz: Regarding cost, there will be a “modest operating cost” to deploy the tech. We’re hiring a “handful” of people to do that and deploying “modest” capital, but it’s not material.

[Apology: I missed a question on ad categories, though it seems to reprise the earlier question.]

Q: Can you give us a sense of additional cost-savings you can extract this year?

Follo: Nope.

Q: Will your headcount go down again in 2010?

Follo: Yes.

[Missed another question here.]

Next a question about the tax rate, which I can’t imagine anyone reading this cares about.

Q: Can you tell us more about January ad trends, i.e., how much is national vs. local?

Robinson: We won’t break that out (anymore).

Q: Was it materially better than Q4?

Robinson: She repeats her earlier comments from the release. “Very good performance” on the digital side of business. December was particularly good, but we’re not going to be more specific about January.

Heekin-Canedy: That said, we don’t think January is much of an indicator about the rest of the year, anyway. Different beast, not much connection between December [when people were dumping leftover dollars].

[There's a giant disconnect between analysts and the chattering classes here. If the latter ran the call, this would be about nothing but iPad, iPad, iPad. But we're 48 minutes in, and zilch so far. Which is a good reminder: No matter what launches with the tablet this year, this stuff isn't going to have a big impact on Big Media for quite some time.]

Q: Where is growth coming from at About.com?

Robinson: Both consumer packaged goods and display ads. We’ve upgraded the sales channel to go after display and that’s helped a lot.

Nisenholtz: Strong categories include CPC, travel, education and financial services. There’s also retail strength.

Q: Are CPGs new to About.com?

Nisenholtz: Yeah. Well, not exactly. It’s a big site, lots of reach. But we’ve updgraded the sales team and the increase there is part of the payoff. We reach a lot of moms. The Web site skews female.

Q: You may end up paying $60 million to $80 million back into the pension plan. When could that come? Q4?

Follo: Could be sooner than that. We’re in a good position regarding liquidity.

[The final question is about joint ventures that you don't care about.]

And that’s it for the call.

Rosensweig to Leave Guitar Hero; Takes Over as CEO of Online Textbook Rental Start-Up Chegg

Kara Swisher — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:00:20 +0000

Longtime Silicon Valley exec Dan Rosensweig (pictured here) is stepping down as CEO and president of the Guitar Hero division of Activision Blizzard to take a new job as president and CEO of Chegg, the top online textbook rental start-up.

Both companies confirmed the move, which is somewhat unexpected given that the former Yahoo (YHOO) COO landed the job running the top gaming franchise in March of last year.

It has been an eventful, but also a particularly tough year at Guitar Hero, in the face of yet another withering downturn in the gaming market.

While Activision (ATVI) introduced a new version of its flagship Guitar Hero game, as well as a new DJ Hero, Band Hero and a Guitar Hero: Van Halen version, sales were weaker overall, even though DJ Hero was the the No. 1 new game in both the U.S. and Europe.

Nonetheless, according to a recent report from research firm NPD Group, sales in the videogame space were down eight percent in 2009 from 2008.

And while Guitar Hero did gain market share as the most popular such game in its genre, most expect its trajectory to be downward.

Guitar Hero 5 sold slightly fewer than 996,000 units from September through December in North America, for example, according to NPD.

While global sales were better, Guitar Hero: World Tour, in comparison, sold 3.4 million units the year earlier.

In contrast, Rosensweig–who is probably much more suited to the pure Web space and the Silicon Valley scene–will be taking over a much faster-growing business at Chegg, based in Santa Clara, Calif.

It has become the front-runner in the increasingly competitive online textbook rental space.

To help maintain that lead, Chegg has garnered a huge $144 million investment kitty.

Top venture firms, such as Kleiner Perkins, Foundation Capital and, most recently, Insight Venture Partners, have presumably handed over that money to co-founders Osman Rashid and Aayush Phumbhra in hopes of big returns.

The pair started Chegg in 2005 at Iowa State University as a classified rental service, where books were the dominant item, but evolved its business to focus on actually doing the textbook rentals.

The company’s unusual name, Chegg, is a mashup of chicken and egg and its model is similar to that of innovative video rental outfit Netflix (NFLX).

Chegg now serves close to 7,000 schools across the U.S. and has a cute and student-friendly practice of planting a tree for every textbook rented, bought or sold.

With 120 employees in Silicon Valley and more at a warehouse operation in Louisville, Ky., Chegg claims it has grown over 600 percent year over year since its founding, although the start-up would not provide more specifics on financials.

A spokeswoman said that company rented more books in January of this year than all of last year and has saved students more than $137 million.

Typically, a rental costs a fraction of what buying a book outright does. It is ordered online and then sent to a renter, who then returns it.

All this activity has attracted a lot of interest from both big and small players, especially given the $10 billion college textbook business.

While one can assume that a lot of Chegg’s business will eventually move to digital downloads, especially as the use of e-readers explodes, the physical business is strong for the near term.

The Barnes & Noble (BKS) College division recently began testing a textbook rental program, for example, and is rolling it out to 25 U.S. colleges. And BookRenter is a smaller competitor.

But with Chegg, Rosensweig is getting to ride the lead horse in the space, taking over from current CEO Rashid.

In an interview a year ago, in fact, Rashid said, “I do not want to be a long-term CEO. My passion is solving the problem and getting the company to a place where it can be taken to the next step.”

While he will remain chairman, the entrepreneur has recently closed $7.5 million in funding for a new stealth start-up called Kakai. Sources have said it is focused on the even more crowded e-reader space.

The replacement for Rosensweig–who had been working in private equity since his departure from Yahoo (YHOO) in late 2006 and has also worked at CNET Networks and Ziff-Davis–will be the Guitar Hero division’s current COO, David Haddad.

Until he has something to say about Chegg, here is a video interview I did with Rosensweig in September, when the new version of GH5, as well as Band Hero and DJ Hero, were launching:

[ See post to watch video ]

Here is the full press release from Chegg about the appointment:

Chegg.com Names Daniel Rosensweig As President and Chief Executive Officer

Appointment accelerates explosive growth of market leader in textbook rentals

SANTA CLARA, Calif., Feb. 2 /PRNewswire/–Chegg.com, the No. 1 online textbook rental company, today announced that it has appointed Daniel Rosensweig as its new President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Effective immediately, Rosensweig joins a company that closed $112 million in funding from Insight Venture Partners, Pinnacle Ventures and TriplePoint Capital in November. That round added to the already impressive list of investors including Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Foundation Capital, Gabriel Venture Partners and Primera Capital.

“We are thrilled that Dan is joining us as our President and CEO,” said Osman Rashid, co-founder and chairman of the board at Chegg.com. “Chegg.com has been growing at an exceptional rate, and now is the time to bring in a world class leader that has successfully managed high growth consumer businesses and innovative business models. With Dan’s breadth of global business experience and passion for the consumer, we know he is the right person to lead Chegg.com through the next phase of its growth.”

Rosensweig joins Chegg.com from Activision (Nasdaq: ATVI) Publishing’s Guitar Hero franchise, where he served as CEO and president, launching Guitar Hero 5, Band Hero and DJ Hero in 2009.

A proven leader, Rosensweig was previously the Chief Operating Officer at Yahoo from 2002-2006, where he oversaw the company’s worldwide operations including its product development, marketing and advertising sales.

Rosensweig started his career at Ziff-Davis, where he spent 18 years in a variety of senior positions, including president of the Ziff-Davis Internet Publishing group, vice president and publisher of PC Magazine and president and CEO of ZDNet, which he built from a standalone Ziff-Davis company to a publicly-traded, highly-trafficked Internet network.

“The opportunity to lead one of Silicon Valley’s fastest growing companies that offers real financial value to students is unparalleled,” said Rosensweig. “Chegg.com has a powerful business model and, I believe, the opportunity to transform the textbook industry.”

The high cost of textbooks is a real social and economic problem that is burdening millions of students and their families. Chegg.com’s innovative and convenient textbook rental model is helping relieve this burden and has already saved students more than $137 million.

“We invested in Chegg.com because of its impressive business model and unique value proposition – helping students and parents save on the overall cost of education,” said Deven Parekh, managing director of Insight Venture Partners. “With Dan joining the company, we are building a powerful consumer brand on college campuses across the country.”

Turnabout Is Fair Play: BoomTown Decodes Rupe's Journalism-Is-Not-a-Free-Cow Op-Ed!

Kara Swisher — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:05:08 +0000

Last week, BoomTown translated an opinion piece written by Google CEO Eric Schmidt and published in The Wall Street Journal that focused on defending the search giant from criticism that it was, well, killing journalism.

One of the louder critics, in fact, has been Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp. (NWS), who has been loaded for bear in regard to Google (GOOG), leveling a series of high-profile verbal attacks on the company.

Last week, Murdoch published his own piece in The Journal, which he owns (along with this Web site), on the topic of the wrenching changes in the news business and in which he never mentioned Google by name.

But the company was there anyway, so, in the interests of equal opportunity balloon-pricking, I must also render Murdoch’s post through my decoding machine, because it’s only sporting!

His op-ed, The Journal noted, “has been adapted from his Dec. 1 remarks before the Federal Trade Commission’s workshop on journalism and the Internet.”

What Murdoch wrote: Journalism and Freedom

Government assistance is a greater threat to the press than any new technology.

By RUPERT MURDOCH

Translation: Crikey, as they say in Australia, I have been getting a little wobbly over Google’s growing power, but those bludgers in government will always make me go more troppo.

And, unlike Eric Schmidt, I didn’t need to be called Emperor Palpatine to scare people. Plain old “Rupe” works just fine to give most people the shakes.

What Murdoch wrote: We are at a time when many news enterprises are shutting down or scaling back. No doubt you will hear some tell you that journalism is in dire shape, and the triumph of digital is to blame.

My message is just the opposite. The future of journalism is more promising than ever–limited only by editors and producers unwilling to fight for their readers and viewers, or government using its heavy hand either to overregulate or subsidize us.

Translation: Please try to ignore the salient fact that it was actually Rupert Murdoch–me!–who has been loudly clanging the bell of late about how Google is laying waste to journalism, much as Sean Hannity did to that poor Alan Colmes nightly for a dozen years.

Also, please ignore that I am saying my message is just the opposite, because–really–I hate government more than I hate Google, so this makes perfect sense if you really think about it.

But don’t think about it, mate!

Murdoch wrote: From the beginning, newspapers have prospered for one reason: The trust that comes from representing their readers’ interests and giving them the news that’s important to them. That means covering the communities where they live, exposing government or business corruption, and standing up to the rich and powerful.

Technology now allows us to do this on a much greater scale. That means we have the means to reach billions of people who until now have had no honest or independent sources of the information they need to rise in society, hold their governments accountable, and pursue their needs and dreams.

Does this mean we are all going to succeed? Of course not. Some newspapers and news organizations will not adapt to the digital realities of our day–and they will fail. We should not blame technology for these failures. The future of journalism belongs to the bold, and the companies that prosper will be those that find new and better ways to meet the needs of their viewers, listeners, and readers.

Translation: Teri: Cue the speech about what journalism means for the little people! But also make sure we get in how News Corp. gets all this digital hoo-ha too and how we are not going to let those pointy-heads of Silicon Valley think we are not ready to rumble!

What Murdoch wrote: First, media companies need to give people the news they want. I can’t tell you how many papers I have visited where they have a wall of journalism prizes–and a rapidly declining circulation. This tells me the editors are producing news for themselves–instead of news that is relevant to their customers. A news organization’s most important asset is the trust it has with its readers, a bond that reflects the readers’ confidence that editors are looking out for their needs and interests.

Translation: There was a trophy cabinet and award wall just like that at The Wall Street Journal before I bought it. I ate it it for breakfast.

What Murdoch wrote: At News Corp., we have been working for two years on a project that would use a portion of our broadcast spectrum to bring our TV offerings–and maybe even our newspaper content–to mobile devices. Today’s news consumers do not want to be chained to a box in their homes or offices to get their favorite news and entertainment–and our plan includes the needs of the next wave of TV viewing by going mobile.

The same is true with newspapers. More and more, our readers are using different technologies to access our papers during different parts of the day. For example, they might read some of their Wall Street Journal on their BlackBerries while commuting into the office, read it on the computer when they arrive, and read it on a larger and clearer e-reader wherever they may be.

Translation: Teri: Tell Jon Miller to get on a plane stat and start chit-chatting with those Asian manufacturers asap. I am not going to let Amazon (AMZN) head Jeff Bezos guffaw me into oblivion with his Kindle or have “American Idol” get hijacked by Apple (AAPL) or have those Google (GOOG) twins shine me on, even as they are developing some magic mobile phone.

What Murdoch wrote: My second point follows from my first: Quality content is not free. In the future, good journalism will depend on the ability of a news organization to attract customers by providing news and information they are willing to pay for.

The old business model based mainly on advertising is dead. Let’s face it: A business model that relies primarily on online advertising cannot sustain newspapers over the long term. The reason is simple arithmetic. Though online advertising is increasing, that increase is only a fraction of what is being lost with print advertising.

That’s not going to change, even in a boom. The reason is that the old model was founded on quasimonopolies, such as classified advertising, which has been decimated by new and cheaper competitors such as Craigslist, Monster.com, and so on.

Translation: My second point follows from the first: We can’t charge for milk when we have been giving away the cow for free.

And, frankly, the old media have been lending out Bessie to every Web site that comes looking for a gallon, free of charge, in abject fear that no one likes milk anymore.

In the good old days, when we were the only beverage around–I like to call it a “quasiMOOnopoly”–we could set any price we wanted.

Now, unfortunately, everybody’s got milk.

What Murdoch wrote: In the new business model, we will be charging consumers for the news we provide on our Internet sites. The critics say people won’t pay. I believe they will, but only if we give them something of good and useful value. Our customers are smart enough to know that you don’t get something for nothing.

Translation: People will pay, once we de-index our sites from Google and they can’t get their daily dose of the New York Post’s Page Six for free. Where else will they get the latest online tidbits on the Tiger Woods scandal, for example?

Okay, from everywhere. But Page Six names at least 46 percent more mistresses than TMZ, and that’s worth something.

What Murdoch wrote: That goes for some of our friends online too. And yet there are those who think they have a right to take our news content and use it for their own purposes without contributing a penny to its production. Some rewrite, at times without attribution, the news stories of expensive and distinguished journalists who invested days, weeks or even months in their stories–all under the tattered veil of “fair use.”

These people are not investing in journalism. They are feeding off the hard-earned efforts and investments of others. And their almost wholesale misappropriation of our stories is not “fair use.” To be impolite, it’s theft.

Right now, content creators bear all the costs, while aggregators enjoy many of the benefits. In the long term, this is untenable. We are open to different pay models. But the principle is clear: To paraphrase a famous economist, there’s no such thing as a free news story, and we are going to ensure that we get a fair but modest price for the value we provide.

Translation: By “friends,” I mean “sworn enemies,” also known as “Google.” (Until it meets with me to do a deal and then it is “friends” again.)

By “tattered veil of ‘fair use,’” I mean “the law I am going to get gutted by my 1,473 lobbyists in Washington, D.C.”

By “to be impolite, it’s theft,” I mean “to be impolite, it’s theft by Larry and Sergey.” (Until they meet with me to do a deal and fork over the moolah, and then it will be a “business arrangement.”)

By “there’s no such thing as a free news story,” I mean “I hope to trick those Google-obsessed Bing boys at Microsoft (MSFT) into paying me that boatload of money they aren’t sending Carol Bartz of Yahoo (YHOO).”

What Murdoch wrote: Finally, a few words about government. In the last two or three decades, we have seen the emergence of new platforms and opportunities that no one could have predicted–from social networking sites and iPhones and BlackBerries, to Internet sites for newspapers, radio and television. And we are only at the beginning.

The government has a role here. Unfortunately, too many of the mechanisms government uses to regulate the news and information business in this new century are based on 20th-century assumptions and business models. If we are really concerned about the survival of newspapers and other journalistic enterprises, the best thing government can do is to get rid of the arbitrary and contradictory regulations that actually prevent people from investing in these businesses.

One example of outdated thinking is the FCC’s cross-ownership rule that prevents people from owning, say, a television station and a newspaper in the same market. Many of these rules were written when competition was limited because of the huge up-front costs. If you are a newspaper today, your competition is not necessarily the TV station in the same city. It can be a Web site on the other side of the world, or even an icon on someone’s cell phone.

These developments mean increased competition, and that is good for consumers. But just as businesses are adapting to new realities, the government needs to adapt too. In this new and more globally competitive news world, restricting cross-ownership between television and newspapers makes as little sense as would banning newspapers from having Web sites.

Translation: Oh, I do not like Silicon Valley, but I dislike government even more!

And now that Google is its bogeyman instead of me, I really hope to finally be able to gut all those annoying cross-ownership rules that prevented me from owning the entire media landscape of every major city in America.

This must be done immediately, because those icons on people’s cellphones–especially that dangerous iFart app–are poised for attack!

What Murdoch wrote: In my view, the growing drumbeat for government assistance for newspapers is as alarming as overregulation. One idea gaining in popularity is providing taxpayer funds for journalists. Or giving newspapers “nonprofit” status–in exchange, of course, for papers giving up their right to endorse political candidates. The most damning problem with government “help” is what we saw with the bailout of the U.S. auto industry: Help props up those who are producing things that customers do not want.

The prospect of the U.S. government becoming directly involved in commercial journalism ought to be chilling for anyone who cares about freedom of speech. The Founding Fathers knew that the key to independence was to allow enterprises to prosper and serve as a counterweight to government power. It is precisely because newspapers make profits and do not depend on the government for their livelihood that they have the resources and wherewithal to hold the government accountable.

Translation: You bailin’ out me? You bailin’ out me? You bailin’ out me? Then who the hell else are you bailin’ out? You bailin’ out me? Well I’m the only one here. Who the %*#! do you think you’re bailin’ out?”

What Murdoch wrote: When the representatives of 13 former British colonies established a new order for the ages, they built it on a sturdy foundation: a free and informed citizenry. They understood that an informed citizenry requires news that is independent from government. That is one reason they put the First Amendment first.

Translation: Teri: Please insert the clarion cry of the First Amendment here, as it always stirs the heartstrings.

What Murdoch wrote: Our modern world is faster moving and far more complex than theirs. But the basic truth remains: To make informed decisions, free men and women require honest and reliable news about events affecting their countries and their lives. Whether the newspaper of the future is delivered with electrons or dead trees is ultimately not that important. What is most important is that the news industry remains free, independent–and competitive.

Translation: Believe me, if we could push a button and get rid of the whole Internet, News Corp. and Time Warner (TWX) and Viacom (VIA) and CBS (CBS) and the whole lot of us old media players would.

Barring that, whether the newspaper of the future is delivered with electrons or dead trees is ultimately not that important.

What is most important is that the news industry shake down big piles of dough from those Silicon Valley moneybags–whether they be Google or that Mark Zuckerberg kid, whenever Facebook goes public, or those Twitter dudes (if they figure out a way to make any money outside of fund raising)–in order to remain free, independent–and competitive.

It is, after all, the American way.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Study Group Time: Here Are the Legal Briefs for eBay-craigslist Trial Tomorrow!

Kara Swisher — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:09:25 +0000

The trial begins bright and early tomorrow morning in Delaware between online auction giant eBay and Web classified kingpin craigslist.

Since BoomTown is in a “Paper Chase” mood, I expect everyone to bone up on the legal issues of the Silicon Valley faceoff by reading the pretrial briefs below.

If not, as John Houseman playing Professor Charles Kingfield, said so memorably: “Here is a dime. Take it, call your mother, and tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a lawyer.”

To review, here are the particulars of the case:

Fact: eBay holds a minority ownership position in craigslist (which was its first mistake, really).

Currently, the San Jose, Calif.-based eBay (EBAY) owns less than 25 percent, although it had acquired about 28 percent in a deal in 2004.

That dilution is what’s at stake here, with eBay filing a lawsuit last year against the privately held craigslist for making that happen, via a “coercive plan,” by issuing more stock and thereby causing eBay to lose its board seat.

Of course, craiglist has put forth its own lawsuit in San Francisco, alleging that eBay stole confidential information to create a competing classified service called Kijiji, and other misdeeds.

First up tomorrow will be former eBay CEO Meg Whitman–who is running for the Republican nomination for California governor and who takes the stand to talk about the original deal with craiglist.

She will be followed by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and others.

So, here are the prebriefs from both companies to consider:

Pretrial brief for craigslist:

craigslist pre-brief –

Pretrial brief for eBay:

eBay_PTB_redacted –

Another Legal Tussle for eBay–And It's Not Skype This Time!–As Former CEO and California Guv Hopeful Whitman Kicks Off Craigslist Trial Monday

Kara Swisher — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:33:31 +0000

Auction giant eBay is headed to court again Monday, and for once, it has nothing to do with the litigious Skype co-founders.

Instead, it’s a battle in Delaware with craigslist, the San Francisco online classified powerhouse that eBay holds a minority ownership position in.

That stake is actually precisely what’s at stake. Currently, the San Jose, Calif.-based eBay (EBAY) has a less than 25 percent one, although it had acquired about 28 percent in a deal in 2004.

The company waged a lawsuit last year against the privately held craigslist for diluting its ownership position by issuing more stock and thereby causing eBay to lose its board seat.

That happened, alleges eBay, through a “coercive plan” by craigslist founder Craig Newmark and CEO Jim Buckmaster.

“We have acted in good faith as a minority shareholder,” said eBay spokesman Alan Marks. “We are simply asking the court to restore our original interest in the company.”

I sent a late email to craiglist’s rep and will post the reply if I get one.

Whitman–who is running for the Republican nomination for California governor–takes the stand on opening day Monday to talk about the original deal with craiglist.

She will be followed by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.

Of course, craiglist has its own suit in San Francisco, alleging that eBay stole confidential information to create a competing classified service called Kijiji–a dopey name that BoomTown hereby rules someone should be arrested for thinking up–and other misdeeds.

But, so as to be consistent in its awkward legal messes, there is a Skype link: Current Skype President Josh Silverman had been the craigslist board member for eBay and played a key role in developing Kijiji.

Under Whitman’s leadership, ebay also bought Skype, in 2005, and sold a big stake recently.

It was a very controversial sale, which in turn, led to a series of ugly lawsuits from the Skype co-founders, which were just settled last month.

It will be interesting to see what Whitman, who has recently declared that the disastrous Skype acquisition was a good one, says about the craigslist debacle.

Perhaps she’ll say that eBay should have limited its investing during her watch to antiques and other fine collectibles?

Is Google Scary? Not to Silicon Valley, Even at a Party for a Book About How Scary It Could Be!

Kara Swisher — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:21:47 +0000

While at a book party for author Ken Auletta in San Francisco last night, BoomTown took the opportunity to ask those gathered whether they were scared or not of Google and its growing power.

The Auletta book covers a lot about the search giant, but also drills in on how traditional media and advertising, as well as the government, have all become increasingly wary of Google’s hegemony over key businesses on the Web.

But as it turned out, the Silicon Valley types I queried had nothing but attaboys for Google (GOOG). Oddly enough, many mentioned how they love the food served up at the Googleplex.

Here’s the video of the interviews, with scary up-close shots, with investor–including in Google–Ron Conway, almost-not CBS (CBS) Web dude/almost investment dude Quincy Smith, online classified czar Craig Newmark, Slide CEO Max Levchin and Google PR honcho David “I love my Soylent Green” Krane (see pertinent movie video clip below):

[ See post to watch video ]

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Yahoo Hires New M&A Head–But Whither Greg Mrva?

Kara Swisher — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:12:50 +0000

Yahoo has hired a new head of mergers and acquisitions–former General Electric (GE) M&A exec Andrew Siegel, who will now be VP of corporate development.

Yahoo (YHOO) CFO Tim Morse dropped the news with exactly no details about that title in an interview with The Wall Street Journal about the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s third-quarter earnings.

Another question apparently not answered was what exactly is the status of its current top M&A exec, Greg Mrva–who has had the title Siegel has now posted on his LinkedIn profile–as well as that of VP of mergers and acquisitions more recently.

In other words: Where the heck is Greg?

BoomTown was considering a search party–get it?–if Yahoo hadn’t outsourced that to Microsoft (MSFT). Thus, Plan B: Mrva milk cartons!

On Facebook, Mrva is still listed as being in the Yahoo network, although there was a report floated recently by Silicon Alley Insider that he was asked by Morse to leave his M&A job at Yahoo and find a new one at the company.

Whatever the situation–either Mrva running it with Siegel or being hipchecked out by him–helming M&A at Yahoo can’t be a fun job right now, given that the company has been looking to sell quite a few of its assets, including its Zimbra open-source email business, its personals unit, its HotJobs online classified business and many more to come, said sources.

In fact, in a recent post, BoomTown wrote: “Mrva’s new job title should be: VP of un-mergers and de-acquisitions.”

The effort to unload big swathes of Yahoo is part of an aim by new management to slim down its diverse portfolio, even as it strives to redefine itself with a new, pricey marketing campaign that seeks to position the company primarily as a consumer offering.

Mrva has been the main exec shopping Yahoo properties around, according to many sources, a job that will now apparently be Siegel’s.

Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz has said the company is also looking for acquisitions, mostly small, so perhaps there will be more to do for the company’s dealmakers than running an Internet garage sale.

I contacted Yahoo to find out what’s up with Siegel and Mrva, a well-liked exec in Silicon Valley, and also have reached out to him. When either responds with anything of note, I will update here.

A Problem Has Been Detected With Your Classified Mission. Windows Has been Shut Down to Prevent Damage to Your Computer.

John Paczkowski — Mon, 25 May 2009 17:11:16 +0000

How slow are government agencies at adopting new technologies? So slow that the U.S. Army is planning a major upgrade of its information systems– to Microsoft’s (MSFT) Windows Vista OS.

Though Windows 7 is expected at market by the end of the year, the United States military has set that as a deadline for its migration from Windows XP to the “worthy, but largely unexciting” Windows Vista and from Office 2003 to Office 2007.

The Army has been testing Vista since 2006 and its decision to move forward with a migration of its 744,000 desktops–on both classified and unclassified networks–was apparently driven by the OS’s improved security. “First, they see real value in Windows Vista’s improved security architecture,” Microsoft senior director Gavriella Schuster said in a statement. “Second, it shows large organizations have unique needs and timetables for deployment. These things take time–they have been rigorously testing internally–and it makes sense that they have approached deployment in a measured and well-planned way, especially given the number of seats they are migrating to Windows Vista.”

The End of Newspapers, in Chart Form

Peter Kafka — Fri, 22 May 2009 16:53:13 +0000

I’m still not exactly sure why Google (GOOG) has become the chief suspect in the “Who Killed Newspapers” investigation playing out before our very eyes. Because it’s quite clear to me that the real baddie here is bespectacled, mild-mannered Craig Newmark, whose eponymous free service blew up the industry’s most profitable line of business: classified advertising.

Yes, there other players in the online classifieds business, and they cut into the monopoly that newspapers relied upon for decades, too. And some of them, like Monster (MNST) and Yahoo (YHOO), have even tried to ally themselves with newspapers. But all of them charged money for their services. And you can’t compete with free. Just ask the music industry.

Craigslist launched in San Francisco in 1996, but didn’t really start picking up steam until the end of the first Web bubble, which is exactly when the newspaper industry’s classified revenue peaked. See for yourself, via this chart from the Pew Internet & American Life Project (click to enlarge):

Craigslist Gives Its Red Light District the Times Square Treatment

Peter Kafka — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:32:54 +0000

Many moons ago, in the good old/bad old days, New York’s Times Square used to be known as a den of iniquity. That started changing in the mid-1990s when city officials managed to move most of the strip clubs, porn shops, etc., out of the neighborhood and into ones where people wouldn’t complain as much.

Looks like Craigslist is trying to do the same thing. The online classified ad service is shutting down its “Erotic Services” section under pressure from state and local officials from around the country. In its place, Craigslist will open an “adult” category. It promises to keep said area cleaner by having employees sweep it periodically for ads that are obviously soliciting prostitution, etc. AP:

“We’re very encouraged that Craigslist is doing the right thing in eliminating its online red light district with prostitution and pornography in plain sight. We’ll be watching and investigating critically to make sure this measure is more than just a name change,” said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

Good luck. As Gawker points out, this stuff is very likely to end up somewhere else on Craigslist because that’s the nature of the beast.

But still, not a bad idea. Internet + sex is always an attractive target for crusading lawmakers with an eye for a good headline (see MySpace, “sexting,” etc.). Craigslist is a higher-profile target than ever these days as it shares boogeyman status with Google (GOOG) for people looking to blame the death of newspapers on… something.

And the “move it somewhere else” strategy can work. Spread the bad stuff around–or at least into lower-profile places–and it seems less upsetting. As a reminder, here’s a semifictionalized version of what Times Square used to look like circa mid-1970s, via “Taxi Driver”:

Washington Post's Slide Makes The New York Times Look Better

Peter Kafka — Fri, 01 May 2009 13:13:34 +0000

For the last year or so, the Washington Post Co. (WPO) has reported steadily declining results for its newspaper business–just like every other newspaper publisher in the country. But in previous quarters, it was at least able to argue that its slide wasn’t as bad as the one the New York Times (NYT) was going through.

It can’t say that anymore.

The Post says revenue at its flagship paper was down 22 percent in the last quarter and that print ad revenue was down 33 percent. That’s worse than the declines of 13 percent and 21 percent it posted in the previous quarter. And it’s lousier than the poor results the Times posted last month, when it reported that overall ad revenue had dropped 27 percent.

The same holds for the Post’s online business: Even in the good old days, it wasn’t growing fast enough to counter the decline at the print business. But now, online is declining, too.

Web revenue was down eight percent, because the classifieds business has been decimated. Online display ads, at least, were up a meager three percent. But last quarter, display ads were up 10 percent and the overall business was still growing five percent.

As usual, the real difference between the Post and the Times isn’t their performance but their corporate structure: The Times is pure-play media business that’s now choking on debt, while the Post is an education company (Kaplan) that happens to own a newspaper, which makes all of these grim results much easier to bear.

Here’s a survey of the rest of the Post’s business lines. Click on the image to enlarge.

Great … More Money for Google

John Paczkowski — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:46:52 +0000

If the old media advertising economy is in the toilet, then its new media counterpart is sitting atop it.

According to figures compiled by the Interactive Advertising Bureau, spending on Internet advertising in 2007 rose to $21.2 billion, up 26% from the prior year. That’s a record high and one that exceeds the $20.9 billion spent on print, radio, outdoor and cable TV.

Unsurprisingly, keyword search, Google’s (GOOG) cash-cow ranch, generated the most revenue and claimed the largest market share–41%. Display advertising followed with 34%, classifieds at 16%.

(Image Credit: Tyler Jordan, eVisibility Insider)