AOL CFO Artie Minson prepped investors for the call with a memo laying out expectations. Short version: AOL thinks HuffPo will earn about $10 million on revenue of $50 million this year (as long as you’re okay with using “adjusted OIBDA” as a proxy for “profit”). It also thinks the purchase will save it $20 million a year, but it’s going to spend around $20 million on restructuring charges when the deal goes through.

I’ll liveblog the call below:

8:02 am: Greetings! About to start now.

8:03 am: On the call: Tim Armstrong, Arianna Huffington, Artie Minson.

8:03 am: Armstrong makes a Super Bowl joke that I can’t quite follow, and I like football. But now praising Arianna, co-founder Kenny Lerer and outgoing AOL CEO Eric Hippeau.

“The Huffington Post is one of the best properties on the Internet.” Armstrong, Huffington and Minson are all BlackBerry users.

8:06 am: On revenue: This gives an opportunity to serve more brand marketers, who are “very interested” in the scale this gives us.

8:07 am: Spending next 30 days on integration. “Really synergies to be had.”

Next steps: Next 72 hours communicating with employees, talking to partners. 1,500 AOL workers on the phone this morning explaining deal to others.

“This may be the smallest disruption” internally of any deal I’ve worked on. Majority of integration done within 35 to 40 days.

8:09 am: We’ve looked at a bunch of companies, though we’re mainly going to concentrate on organic growth. But Arianna is great [many superlatives] and she “also happens to be a woman.”

8:10 am: Here’s Arianna.

8:11 am: “Amazing” how aligned two orgs are.

8:11 am: HuffPo was profitable last year. We were thinking about bringing in additional investors last year, and an IPO down the line. But this made perfect sense.

8:12 am: This deal provides a “dramatic acceleration” for the plans we already had.

8:13 am: Some praise for Patch, AOL’s local strategy.

8:14 am: Can’t wait to start!

8:14 am: Alrighty, then. Here’s Artie Minson with some nuts and bolts.

Actually, it’s some color on the deal. But a lot of it is in the prepared remarks he put out earlier this morning.

8:15 am: Again, $20 million in cost savings here. And again, we’ll have to pay up for restructuring: $20 million for cuts, and $10 million for purchase price.

8:17 am: Still basically reading from prepared remarks. Some bookkeeping talk re: compensation accounting.

8:18 am: Remember, display ad growth coming will finally start showing up second half of this year.

8:19 am: Q&A:

Q: Talk about content strategy. Does HuffPo become hub for content going forward? Does it replace Seed? And how long is Arianna’s contract?

A: “The press” has been talking about our content strategy, so let me be clear–we’re focusing on premium content. Things like Seed and StudioNow are platforms–you can do whatever you want with them, different quality levels, at different types of scale.

And then the other thing that is important about those platforms is the ability they give us to work with advertisers.

One of our main interests in HuffPo is their technology and publishing system. So now we have multiple systems [which he is saying is a good thing]. “Our content strategy hasn’t changed.” The “stuff that was out in the press about the AOL Way” was just one way of doing things. [This is not very convincing]

Arianna, tell us how long you’re going to stay.

8:24 am: Arianna: “I’ve told Tim I want to stay here forever. I want this to be the last act of my life.” Anything I want to do I can do here.

[Sorry, missed next part but it was a defense/explanation of content strategy.]

8:26 am: Armstrong: Arianna has a multiyear contract, but it’s open-ended.

8:27 am: Arianna: By the way, we’re going to bring back commenting to AOL stories, and socialize them.

8:28 am: Q: Why buy instead of partnering? Were there other bidders? Also, how will HuffPo politics affect AOL?

8:28 am: Armstrong: We do partnerships where there is “limited upside to those arrangements” so ” we can really spend time on the areas we want to win”–i.e., we don’t care about sports, we do care about women.

“Arianna is somebody we’d rather have inside our building than outside our building.”

“If there were or weren’t bidders on the other side,” I think we got the right price.

8:30 am: Arianna. “As we’ve said, again and again, Huffington Post was not for sale….Nobody was in a hurry to cash out, everybody believed that we could do an IPO down the road.” It’s just that Tim gave us a great offer. [hrrrm.]

On politics–we used to be all about politics, now we’re not. Just 15 percent of our traffic. We have a divorce section now.

Talking up AOL’s “college” section.

8:33 am: Q: For Arianna: More on Patch, please. What do think about what AOL’s done with it, and what you can do with it?

8:33 am: [Every time Arianna says "local level" I think she's saying "locker level." It's happened at least twice, maybe more, on this call.]

There’s a “greatest person of the day” feature we have, and I think Patch should use that. [Or maybe vice-versa, sorry.] I also like their five percent “giving back” rule, cause marketing, etc.

8:35 am: Armstrong: Again, we can do national and local. That’s important. NFL rights are important, and so are local news stories.

8:36 am: Q: Who’s going to sell what? And can you talk about pricing disparity between AOL and HuffPo?

8:37 am: Armstrong: “We would like to maintain all the people from both sales forces [except for Greg Coleman!]. I think we will end up with a large-scale, large-property organization–I don’t know exactly what that’s going to look like, though.

On sell-through rate: Slightly lower at HuffPo, because they’ve been ramping up traffic, and sales force. On CPM, same story. So we can bring up sell-through rate and CPM, and have a larger sales force. [This is pretty much the best argument for the deal that Armstrong can make.]

[BTW: Good back-channel discussion on Twitter right now about AOL's SEO skills, and the people behind it. None of that coming up during this call right now.]

[Sorry, I meant HuffPo's SEO skills, much of which stem from blueprint BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti set out.]

Q: Why not use equity for this deal?

A: Because our equity is priced too low, essentially. But HuffPo employees did roll over 25 percent of deal consideration into AOL options. So as that equity gets more valuable, they’ll get upside.

8:45 am: Q: In your statement, you talked about OIBDA growth in 2013. More on that please.

Minson–probably going to stick to my prepared remarks on that one.

8:46 am: Last Q: Your acqusitions have been about toolsets or content. As you think about others going forward, what else do you want?

Armstrong: We have long-term vision. On plumbing: We’ve wanted to get platforms and plumbing straightened out, and we’re doing that now. Think about the bones or foundation of a very large property. That’s why we’ve been doing infrastructure, like with video–5Min and GoViral and StudioNow.

Going forward, we’ll be doing infrastructure. And we’ll continue to look at “media properties and media brands” that fit our strategy. [Remember, Web site owners: HuffPo just got 10x revenue.

8:50 am: Minson: But we're very price sensitive and we've walked away from deals.

8:50 am: Arianna: And we like women!

8:51 am: Armstrong sums up: Success "in the Internet space" requires vision and execution. That's this deal. And remember, content and brands become more valuable as tech gets faster, more advanced. And "expect us to stay on strategy and on point" going forward. "We're going to overcommunicate" with both sets of employees as we integrate. [You've been warned!]

And we’re done. Thanks for reading.

[Photo credit: Arianna Huffington]

Yesterday Armstrong sent CFO Artie Minson out to Barclays Capital to repeat the message. It got through. Here’s analyst Douglas Anmuth noting that ad sales will be underwhelming for a while, even though the Web ad business is bouncing back:

Management was quick to point out that AOL’s overall display pipeline for the back half remains soft. Management indicated that it has booked roughly 60% as much inventory for the back half as it had booked at the same time last year–and that was in a softer overall macro environment.

On the plus side, pricing for the ads AOL (AOL) does sell are improving, which it can attribute both to the overall recovery and AOL’s focus on selling high-end inventory while dumping its low-cost stuff. Still, Anmuth says, “We do not expect the uptick in CPMs to offset the removal of low quality ads and the sales force dislocation in the near term.”

So lower those expectations, okay?

But not too much!

AOL also suggests that its new search pact, which will replace the one with Google (GOOG) that expires in December, will be a big deal. According to Anmuth, “Management is approaching the renewal as a broad strategic partnership for the company that has many potential outcomes. AOL mentioned mapping and local could be part of the deal and we wouldn’t be surprised if a display ad partnership was also included.”

Barclays thinks Armstrong’s recent hire of ad tech executive Alex Gounares from Microsoft (MSFT) means the deal could end up tipping to Redmond. Stay tuned.

Pick your data point:

The Interactive Advertising Bureau says U.S. spending on Web ads hit $5.9 billion in the first quarter of 2010. That’s a record for the first quarter of the year, but it’s a relatively modest 7.5 percent increase over a very crummy comparison in 2009.

And bear in mind that the IAB’s data include search spending, which means that the spike is in large part a reflection of Google’s (GOOG) health.

Want a bigger number? Try comScore, which says that the volume of display ads, i.e., the kind you might see on this page, shot up 15 percent in the last year. But while comScore (SCOR) says total spending on display ads hit $2.7 billion for the quarter and that the average CPM (cost per thousand impressions) hit $2.48, it isn’t reporting how those numbers compare to last year’s results.

ComScore spokesman Andrew Lipsman says his company isn’t putting out comparative numbers because it has changed its reporting methodology, so it doesn’t have apple-to-apples data. But he allowed that overall spending, and prices, have at least increased “modestly” in the last year.

So that’s not-bad news for display giants like Yahoo (YHOO) and AOL (AOL). And most definitely not for Facebook, which is now selling more ad impressions than any other Web publisher in the U.S.

So are they getting their money’s worth? Maybe–if they’re not spending much more than a double latte per fan.

Each fan is worth an average of $3.60 a year, based on the number of media impressions he or she generates via Facebook users’ “newsfeeds,” according to social media consultancy Vitrue.

AllFacebook explains the math:

If a brand posts to their Facebook Fan Page twice a day and have a million fans, that’s 60M impressions per month in the collective “news feed”. Vitrue used a figure of $5 CPM (Cost per thousand impressions), so 60M impressions would result in $300K/month of media value. I.e., what the brand might have to spend elsewhere to get the same eyeballs. That $300K /month is $3.6M/ year, meaning that with 1M fans, the average value is $3.6 per fan.

Interestingly, Vitrue’s numbers don’t try to account for the secondary impressions fan pages generate, when fans’ friends see their activity. But I’m sure that Facebook, and the vendors who help the social network promote its fan pages, will point that out.

Twitter has quietly been reaching out to marketers about its new ad platform for a few months, but now it’s a full-fledged marketing blitz. The messaging service rolled out its ad strategy to the press last night; today it’s going directly to the ad industry, via COO Dick Costolo’s presentation at Ad Age’s Digital Conference.

I’m not sure how much more Costolo will reveal that Twitter hasn’t put out already–or may be waiting to talk about at tomorrow’s Chirp conference. But since I’m here I’ll liveblog it anyway.

Liveblog

Costolo says he has been waiting five or six months to give this presentation. It’s time to walk through the rollout, he adds, making note of his “fascinating nontraditional” prediction last fall.

He explains the Twitter ecosystem. The ad platform has to go everywhere, not just to Twitter.com. He refuses to call the ads, “ads.” They’re “just tweets.”

“Promoted tweets,” that is.

He walks through the @hashtagtees example.

There’s a menu from which ad buyers can pick search terms and associate them with specific tweets they’ve already published.

Promoted tweets look and act like regular tweets except that they’re labeled as promotions and stay at the top of the Twitterstream.

A promoted tweet “combines earned media and paid media in one space,” Costolo says.

“Earned” media are free, Costolo reminds the audience. That is, if people retweet your paid tweet, there’s no charge additional charge.

The pitch continues: Ads are “real time,” and so are analytics–you can see how ads are performing second-by-second.

Twitter will start with Twitter.com search. That’s phase one. The plan will roll out more broadly, but the company is doing it this way because it wants a “thoughtful, user-centric approach” to figuring it out. “We will quickly expand into syndication…all of our syndication partners.” And here, Costolo specifically mentions UberTwitter in the list of partners.

Important: Twitter will definitely expand into the regular timeline at some point. That is, you will be getting ads in your stream whether you search or not. Ad-free Twitter is over.

Costolo talks about the “resonance” metric Twitter will use to figure out which promoted tweets show up and where.

Each ad partner will see a scoreboard with different metrics: Retweets, @replies, #tag click, avatar clicks, link clicks, views after RT.

Advertisers won’t pay for ads that don’t resonate with users.

Next, Costolo describes communication on Twitter as both “one to many” and as a “real-time interest graph.”

Pricing will start as CPM. Twitter is doing this because it doesn’t know how to correlate “resonance” with value yet. As the company figures this out, it will move to a pricing model based on ROI.

Here comes Porter Gale, VP of marketing for Virgin America, a launch partner. She notes that @jack is flying VA right now.

[You're not missing anything here.]

Um, here’s a free ad for two-for-one tickets on Virgin. Don’t really follow it but sure you can figure it out if you’d like.

And here’s Ellen Stone, SVP of marketing at Bravo.

She is also excited!

[You're not missing anything here, either.]

Stone describes some sort of live, real-time convergence between shows broadcast and users’ tweets. Makes my head hurt. Hope it doesn’t pop up during “Top Chef.”

Back to Costolo: More monetization coming. Commercial accounts coming after promoted tweets will “feather into this platform very very nicely.” One dashboard will manage both products.

Q&A

Will tweets be syndicated to Google (GOOG), Yahoo (YHOO), and other partners that take the stream?
Costolo says yes, without mentioning any specific search engine or media pub.

Will there be revenue-sharing with publishers and bloggers?
Yes, with developers and publishers. Costolo says Twitter will talk about this at its Chirp conference and focus on the syndication piece there. Revenue sharing will be “very transparent,” he adds.

Early reaction from consumers?
Yes, Twitter is getting a “wait and see,” Costolo notes. [From whom? Who's seen it?] The company will take its “learnings” from search and go forward. Twitter ads should be live and running now.

What CPM are you charging?
Twitter is playing around with different numbers, trying to figure it out. When a term is owned or created by a client, like Virgin America, should it have “rights” to that hashtag, whereby no one can outbid it? Some hashtags only have value at certain times. Like “Super Bowl,” which is only useful for a couple hours in the year. So we have to play around and test different kinds of pricing. “We don’t know the answer to that yet.”

What kind of reactions are you looking for from users?
Costolo says Twitter is looking to see whether people click or interact with ads and paying attention to the tenor of reaction: Positive or negative, etc. Think about the iPad launch this month. People were having battery issues. Someone could have jumped in in real time and bought a promoted tweet that dealt with that. Twitter’s hope is that when people see these, they’ll get why they work.

Please talk about search volume.
“Massive. It’s huge.” Will talk about hashtags tomorrow. But on Twitter.com, it’s a small piece of traffic. So we’re not maximizing revenue now. We’re figuring it out.

How will location work with ads?
“We think significantly.” There are lots of opportunities down the road. As this gets more sophisticated, will see opps for small and big business.

Will marketers be able to get resonance scores for companies that aren’t using promoted tweets?
Not at first. But possibly.

Will you share revenue with TweetDeck, etc.?
Yes. We’ll talk about this tomorrow so we can save something for those guys. Revenue-sharing will be very transparent. Costolo name-checks Iain Dodsworth of TweetDeck and Loïc Le Meur at Seesmic.

Finished up. I will have some questions for Costolo myself, a little later this afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s not included: almost any first-run TV show or newly released movie. That’s the content that’s made Hulu successful and what’s also driven traffic to offerings from CBS and Disney’s ABC.

You can’t accuse the Google guys of overselling this: In a press conference today, they described it as a “first step, a baby step.”

Google (GOOG) did say that it had added new content partners, but it was maddeningly imprecise about which ones it had signed up and what content they were providing. The company did confirm, however, that Sony (SNE), via its Crackle video site, would be providing content.

Google also said that it now has “thousands” of television shows and “hundreds” of movies; prior to this, the company said its catalog consisted of just “hundreds” of TV shows and “dozens” of movies.

But this is still primarily “long tail” stuff. The only first-run CBS (CBS) show YouTube offers, for instance, is “Harper’s Island,” which YouTube already offered. And if you recognize any of the following new YouTube partners, then it means you’re a show business insider: Endemol, Anime Network, Scott Entertainment, Entertainment Rights, Shout Factory, Telenext Media, Documentary Channel, First Look Studios, IndieFlix, Saavn, Snag Films, Venevision and Bandai.

Still, YouTube needs as much licensed content it can get its hands on in order to lure more advertisers to the site, which has underperformed to date.

Advertisers who do want to sign up will have a new option: a “Google TV ads” product that inserts ads into the shows, à la Google’s Adsense for Web publishers. Google said it will use “pre-roll,” “mid-roll” and “post-roll” ads–i.e., video ads that run before, during and after the movie or TV show–as well as the overlay ads that cover the bottom part of the screen, briefly, with a translucent pitch.

Google will also allow video providers to sell their own content, and in some cases, will allow them to use their own video player, a first for the company. Sony, for instance, will use its Crackle video player for its content.

Reports that YouTube had a deal with Sony to show full-length movies and TV shows on the site surfaced earlier this month. Last month, reports also indicated that YouTube was talking to Disney (DIS) about getting movies and ABC TV shows on the site, but since then I’ve been told that Hulu, the joint venture between News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox and GE’s (GE) NBC, has all but locked up ABC shows for an exclusive deal.

Here are two releases, one describing the new section and the other describing the new ad product. Screenshots follow.

Watch Shows and Movies on YouTube: Today we’re excited to announce a new destination for television shows and an improved landing page for movies on YouTube, where partners like Crackle, CBS, MGM, Lionsgate, Starz, the BBC and many others have made thousands of television episodes and hundreds of movies available for you to watch, comment on, favorite and share. This addition is one of many efforts underway to ensure that we’re offering you all the different kinds of video you want to see, from bedroom vlogs and citizen journalism reports to music videos and full-length films and TV shows.

To help you navigate through all this great content, we’re introducing two new tabs to the YouTube masthead: the “Shows” tab allows you to browse shows by genre, network, title and popularity, while the “Subscriptions” tab will grant logged-in users one-click access to fresh content from their favorite creators.

Another change you’ll notice today is the wider roll-out of in-stream ads, which we’ve been testing since October, to support our shows and movies content — not unlike what you might see when viewing this type of content on TV.

While shows and movies are currently limited to users in the US, we look forward to expanding to other regions as soon as possible.

We hope you enjoy watching shows and movies on YouTube. There’s still work to be done and we look forward to iterating with you, whether that’s rolling out new engagement features, expanding our content offering or improving your viewing experience. And, as with everything we do, we’ll track your usage and feedback to preserve your fundamental YouTube experience while we take these steps to enhance it.

Yours,
Sara Pollack
Entertainment Marketing Manager
The YouTube Team

Reach TV viewers through more than one screen
By Geoff Smith, Product Manager for Google TV Ads

Google TV Ads makes it easy for advertisers of all sizes to reach customers watching television. These days, many full-length television programs are also available for Internet users to watch online. These programs may appear in various places, including the websites of the networks which originally broadcast them and on other sites that specialize in video content. What if an advertiser wants to reach the audience of a particular program, no matter whether they’re watching on a television or online?

We’re excited to announce the beta launch of Google TV Ads Online. This is a new feature of Google TV Ads that lets advertisers place commercials into the ad breaks of TV programs watched online. It works in the same way as Google TV Ads: advertisers can target specific programs and select their cost-per-thousand (CPM) bid. Based on their targets, budget and bid, ads are inserted in the same program breaks that were designed for advertising when the programs first aired. (Ads may also be shown “pre-roll”, before the program begins, or after the online presentation of the program “post-roll.”) And like Google TV ads, we provide advertisers with measurement tools that give greater insight into how their ads perform with users.

One website where viewers are consuming more and more full-length content online is YouTube. Today, YouTube launched a new destination for full-length shows and movies, and advertisers will be able to use Google TV Ads Online to reach the millions of people who come to YouTube to watch this content. That’s not only good for advertisers, but content partners who are looking to generate revenue from their videos online. Ads will also be shown on other websites that carry full-length video programs.

Google TV Ads Online is still in beta and available to advertisers by invitation only. If you’re interested in learning more about it or would like to be considered for the program, please contact Erin Bouchier at erinb@google.com.

Here’s what the new YouTube video player looks like in full-screen mode (click to enlarge):

And here’s a “landing page” for YouTube TV shows:

If you’re not paying attention, it may seem as if the cratering economy hasn’t stopped the steady stream of start-up funding announcements.

Today, for instance, we learned that online music distributor TuneCore has raised $7 million, while CrispyGamer, a newish videogame site, has raised $8.25 million from J.P. Morgan’s Constellation Ventures.

But don’t be deceived: Almost all of the deals you’ve read about recently, as well as the ones you’ll see for the next few weeks, were closed earlier this fall.

If you want to get a sense of why these announcements will slow to a trickle going forward, scan down through VentureBeat’s discussion of CrispyGamer’s business.

Let’s leave aside the basics. The site wants to make a name for itself in the crowded world of videogame review sites by offering high quality reviews, but it’s not clear that CrispyGamer’s reviews are much different than its peers, and it’s not clear that readers are making the distinction either.

Instead, focus on the dollars, from the VentureBeat report:

Right now, the site isn’t commanding huge ad rates. It gets about a $2 CPM (cost per million, a measure of the amount of money that comes in for every 1,000 readers). Just a month ago, it looked like it would get $8 CPMs, but the economic downturn is taking a toll. CrispyGamer relies on a half-dozen ad networks to feed it the ads.”

Assume that the CripsyGamer folks, like most publishers, are inflating their advertising rates (and traffic, too) for public consumption. It’s still telling VentureBeat that its ads have been marked down 75 percent in the last month.

Yikes.

The upside, I suppose, is that CrispyGamer has advertising revenue, period. There are plenty of ad-supported start-ups that have yet to get around to actually selling ads, and it’s going to be awfully difficult to start doing so now.

And, if you want to be really generous, you could argue that videogames are going to get beaten up less badly than other sectors during the coming recession/depression/meltdown/whatever. In theory, dudes will keep buying videogames, while they hunker down in their basements, because it’s cheaper than most other entertainment options.

But CrispyGamer also says it has a staff of 20 people, including five full-time writers (what does everyone else do there?). That’s an awfully big staff to keep afloat on $2 CPMs–and it’s hard to imagine that CripsyGamers’s backers imagined that’s what they were getting into earlier this year.

[Image Credit: Itjournalist]

While a lot of focus has been put on Yahoo’s potentially ugly proxy fight with activist investor Carl Icahn–which could come to a head at its Aug. 1 annual meeting unless both sides figure out a truce before then–more attention should probably be paid to the Internet giant’s second quarter earnings report on July 22 at 5 pm ET/2 pm PT.

It is highly unlikely Yahoo (YHOO) leadership will blow the quarter. Or–more to the point–they simply cannot, especially given all the unending turmoil that has engulfed the company.

And, in fact, top execs have been working to avoid that possibility, sources inside the company said, including using well-known tricks of the trade, such as striking more short-term display deals at lower CPMs.

Or, better still, sources noted, by adding more sponsored links on its individual search query pages. Such a technique pollutes the overall consumer experience over the long-term, but also can give Yahoo a financial boost in the short-term.

Even Google (GOOG) does this, as it needs to, a practice that typically comes nears the end of a quarter.

But Yahoo’s search pages have been more packed in recent weeks with commercial links than regular ones.

For example, a side-by-side comparison of several random search terms–hotels, iPhone 3G, Kindle, blender–showed Yahoo typically had at least two and often three more sponsored links per page than Google.

Thus, sources said, such efforts will mean Yahoo is likely to meet the mid to lower range of Wall Street expectations for the second quarter in a few weeks.

But investors would be smarter to focus more on guidance for the rest of the year, which could spell a rougher road for the company and also the entire online advertising sector.

Along with its own internal turmoil, including many too many departures from its ad sales force–with more significant changes in that organization to come very soon, I am told–Yahoo is also facing a growing economic headwind, as the economy sours further and eventually eats into Web sector.

So much so that many inside the company said that internal revenue forecasts for the rest of the year are likely as not to be adjusted downward.

And, any sign of weak financial performance–even in the short term and more than any other factor Yahoo has had to face or will face–is probably the boom that it needs least of all to be lowered right now.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.