Former top Yahoo advertising exec David Karnstedt (pictured here), who has been parked at a Silicon Valley venture firm since he left the company, has been named president and CEO of Efficient Frontier.

Interestingly, another former Yahoo (YHOO) exec, Ellen Siminoff, has also been CEO at the Sunnyvale, Calif.-based search engine marketing firm. She is now chairman.

Karnstedt, who was SVP of of Yahoo’s North American sales until last fall, replaces James Beriker.

He has most recently been an executive-in-residence at Redpoint Ventures, an investor in Efficient Frontier.

Here is an interview I did with Karnstedt in 2007, when he was at Yahoo.

And here is the full press release:

Efficient Frontier Names David Karnstedt as President and CEO

Former Redpoint Ventures Executive-in-Residence and Senior Vice President of Yahoo!’s North American Sales Brings Extensive Experience to the Post

Sunnyvale, Calif. – April 2, 2009 – Efficient Frontier, the worldwide leader in Search Engine Marketing (SEM) technology and services, today announced that David Karnstedt has been named President and Chief Executive Officer of the company.

Karnstedt most recently was an Executive-in-Residence at Redpoint Ventures, an investor in Efficient Frontier. Prior to Redpoint, he served as Senior Vice President of Yahoo!’s North American Sales with responsibility for more than $3 billion in revenue. During his tenure at Yahoo!, he successfully led the integration of the Search and Display sales teams into one central unit and helped establish Yahoo! as a recognized leader in both display and search marketing.

“We feel incredibly fortunate to have someone of David’s caliber join Efficient Frontier at this point in the company’s life cycle,” said Ellen Siminoff, Chairwoman of Efficient Frontier’s Board of Directors. “David’s extensive experience in the Internet space – specifically search – will be a huge asset as he leads the company forward.”

Karnstedt’s experience includes several industry firsts. Prior to Yahoo!, David led the Direct Sales team at Overture Services, the company that pioneered the paid search industry and was acquired by Yahoo! in 2003. He also served as Vice President and General Manager of Alta Vista, where he was responsible for the consumer business and helped shape product development and marketing strategies that leveraged the auctions-based search approach. Prior to Alta Vista, David served as Western Advertising Director at Wired Digital where he helped to develop some of the first advertising models on the Web. He is also active in the industry, having served on both the Advertising Council and Interactive Advertising Association’s Boards of Directors.

“As the leading global Search Engine Marketing company, Efficient Frontier has built tremendous assets –
including its technology platform, a global presence and a great team,” said David Karnstedt. “I plan to build on these key assets by expanding the company’s leadership in search, diversifying into complimentary product offerings and increasing its global presence. I am pleased to lead the company into its next phase of growth.”

Karnstedt is replacing James Beriker, who held executive positions at the company since April 2007 and was its President, CEO and a member of the Board of Directors from February 2008 until March 2009. The company’s business expanded significantly while James was CEO. We are appreciative of his efforts and contributions.

Depends on who you ask: Search ad firm Efficient Frontier says spending dropped eight percent in the last quarter of 2008. But search ad firm Clickable says it saw “marginal” increases during the same period. You can easily find more conflicting data with a couple mouse clicks.

Here’s the easy way to settle this up: Check with Google (GOOG) today after 4 p.m. EST.

The search ad giant reports its fourth-quarter 2008 earnings today, and Wall Street is expecting earnings of $4.96 per share on revenues of $4.12 billion. [UPDATE: Google beat those estimates in what appears to have been a very good quarter, all things considering]

Below, a handy “cheat sheet” from Citigroup’s (C) Mark Mahaney that sketches out what Wall Street and Citi are looking for from Google in more detail (click to enlarge). Note that Mahaney is painting a mixed picture for Google (and thus, search in general): an increase in the overall dollars spent on search (paid click growth), but a decrease in the amount spent on each ad (cost per click growth).

Beyond the Q4 numbers, it’d be great to get color from Google execs about the current market (Google famously doesn’t offer formal earnings “guidance”) and the state of projects like YouTube, etc. But if you’re really impatient, no need to wait until this afternoon to get a sense of how Google has been doing: Just look at the company’s track record over the past few months.

Google has finally started trying to wring extra pennies out of each visitor (via efforts like its YouTube affiliate program), while actually cutting nonperforming projects (like its Print Ads program). And this month it made an unprecedented move: firing full-time employees.

Translation: Google is still an awesome money-making machine–it’s going to have an operating margin of nearly 50 percent for the last quarter, and will have posted more than $5 billion in profit for 2008. But it isn’t immune to a worldwide meltdown, and search ads aren’t either.

It used to be, many years ago, that longtime Silicon Valley tech exec Eric Schmidt could work up a very significant head of steam when talking about the thuggish monopolistic practices of Microsoft and its negative impact on the tech industry.

And, for the most part, Schmidt was dead right–Microsoft’s overwhelming power then had a malevolent impact, both directly and indirectly, on innovation and openness in the digital sector.

Thus, BoomTown is both gobsmacked and a bit in awe that Schmidt–now sitting atop the high-tech pig pile as CEO of the powerful search giant, Google–can, with a straight face, make the argument that everyone is wrong to be nervous about its deal with Yahoo to serve some of its search and text advertising, even though the pair control more than 80 percent of the search market.

Because while Google displays none of the bullying tactics of Microsoft in its glory days–think of it more like a giant that could accidentally squash all us little people with its big dumb feet–the worries about it amassing too much power are well-founded.

Along with customers, competitors and anyone who fears a concentration of power in the hands of one player, I have been a critic of the deal since it was announced in the spring as a Hail Mary play to get Yahoo out of the clutches of Microsoft.

In addition, the Justice Department has hired an outside litigator to decide whether to proceed with an antitrust investigation of the deal and possibly look into Google’s business more deeply.

And just today, comScore released new stats for search market share for August; Google’s rose once again to 63 percent, up from 61.9 percent.

Both Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT)–the distant No. 2 and No. 3–lost share, logging in at 19.6 percent and 8.3 percent, respectively.

In addition, Google (GOOG) accounted for 77.4 percent of all search engine spending in the second quarter of 2008, according to Efficient Frontier.

And–oh, yes–Google-owned YouTube dominates online video rather significantly.

Translation: Scary, like that-bullying-banker-Mr. Potter-from-”It’s a Wonderful Life” scary.

Still, at a press conference yesterday– my invitation must have gotten lost in the email so I will have to rely on the quotes collected by others–Schmidt went on the offensive to defend the Yahoo deal, which is set to begin in a few weeks, in a most peculiar way.

“While we have been talking to regulators, we don’t know what their position is,” Schmidt said. “We don’t know if they think it’s a good deal or poor deal.”

But Schmidt and other Google execs–including co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin–said they would move forward with or without regulatory approval.

“Time is money in our business,” said Schmidt, who also noted the deal was “designed precisely to meet the terms of antitrust law in the United States.”

Well, I am not sure being within the letter of the law is quite the argument I would make. After all, one can be entirely correct–and Google does love to be mathematically accurate!–and still be completely wrong.

Yet Schmidt pressed on!

“You face a question as a large company trying to change things: How many initiatives do you want to take on that are unpopular or lead to criticism?,” he asked, pontificating as if he were fighting for better health care for the world’s poor instead of just being able to sell small text ads hawking things like Viagra and electronics.

Schmidt said the deal would have “strong user benefits” and not raise online ad prices, part of Google’s basic argument that its auction-style business model makes that impossible.

As a side note, Brin–who was, I think, being completely genuine–said Google also felt a debt to Yahoo co-founders Jerry Yang and David Filo for helping Google get started a decade ago.

(Ironically, being the search option on Yahoo’s homepage was the key way Google grew and Yahoo damaged its future prospects).

But, while the payback argument is very touching, it ignores the fact that–on its very face–the No. 1 and No. 2 search and search-ad companies should never be in business together.

That Google leadership does not seem to understand these fears is disturbing.

And with what can only be described as an oafishly arrogant style, they seem to be dismissing anyone who raises concerns as being uneducated or simply a front for Microsoft’s lobbying efforts.

“We are quite certain Microsoft is busy helping everyone get upset about things,” said Schmidt, who has long loved to slap Microsoft at any opportunity.

As if we are all in the thrall of Microsoft (whom I, for one, smack around daily for its dopey Web strategies).

Google, it seems, is in the thrall of no one.

While the deal has been voluntarily delayed by three months, the redacted agreement Yahoo released said it had 105 days from June 12 to start. That would be Sept. 25.

Under terms of the agreement, either Yahoo or Google could end the deal after 120 days from when it was struck, if it was not “commercially reasonable” for either to defend. That would be Oct. 11.

In addition, Yahoo or Google can end the deal if a court later enters an injunction.

But Google does not seem to care about a possible noisy government investigation, which it should.

While Google is in no way guilty of the kind of behavior that got Microsoft into hot water, not caring what anyone thinks was perhaps the most disastrous error of hubris that Microsoft’s Bill Gates (he is pictured on the stand here) made when the federal government came at him and took him to trial.

After a long and bruising court battle in which the judge ruled the company had violated antitrust laws, in which Gates came off very badly, Microsoft eventually settled via a consent decree to rein in some of its behaviors.

And I think we can all agree that Microsoft emerged from that encounter deeply wounded and with diminished momentum that continues to resonate today for it.

There was one thing that Schmidt said yesterday at the press conference that I do agree with: “There is a natural fear of things getting larger.”

Yes, Eric. And, naturally, more people than ever fear Google.

And while that fear has not seeped down to consumers and impacted Google’s terrific brand quite yet, it surely will, especially if Google keeps claiming that it is not all that powerful when anyone with eyes can plainly see that it is.

Just ask Microsoft.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

When Google and Yahoo announced their advertising partnership back in June, the companies said they would give the Justice Department three and one half months to review it. Which is more than enough time for such a review according to Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt, who said the companies will proceed with the deal in October, regardless of what federal regulators think of it. “Time is money in our business,” Schmidt told reporters Wednesday.”… While we have been talking to regulators, we don’t know what their position is. We don’t know if they think it’s a good deal or poor deal.”

Not that it particularly matters what they think, because Google has no intention of delaying the partnership anyway.

And for those like Sen. Herb Kohl who worry if the deal might reduce Yahoo (YHOO) to “nothing more than the newest satellite in the Google orbit”? Well, c’mon. Yahoo is already a satellite in the Google orbit, isn’t it? Google accounted for 77.4 percent of all search engine spending in the second quarter of 2008, according to Efficient Frontier. For crying out loud, the company claims $1.10 of every new search dollar.

And time is money in Google’s business. …