But how exactly does Facebook’s ad business work? We still don’t know a lot about that part.

The S-1 mentions “advertising” 123 times, and “advertisers” another 117 times. But when it comes to describing how the company actually sells advertising, it is vague.

We know that some of Facebook’s ads are sold via an automated self-serve system, and some are sold via sales teams working in 30 offices around the world. And we know that Facebook uses an auction system to price some of its inventory, and that it lets advertisers target users to some degree, based on their demographics and interests.

But Facebook doesn’t break any of that out in its filing. It simply has one big bucket labeled “advertising.” There’s no discussion of click-through rates, or the size of the average ad buy, or what percentage of ad buys come from repeat customers, or how “lumpy” its sales are.

The company does mention that last year revenue increased, in part because it served up 42 percent more ads, and in part because it was able to charge an average of 18 percent more for each ad it served. But it doesn’t get any more specific than that.

Not that we should expect much more in an S-1. When Google went public eight years ago, its description of its ad business was also pretty vague (here we note that Facebook is stocked with Google expats, starting at the top, with COO Sheryl Sandberg). But by the time of the Google IPO, lots of ad folks had a decent grip on AdWords, its one key offering.

Facebook doesn’t have an AdWords, but a mix of stuff that it is playing with. It admits that this is a work in progress: “Advertising on the social web is a significant market opportunity that is still emerging and evolving. We believe that most advertisers are still learning and experimenting with the best ways to leverage Facebook to create more social and valuable ads.”

Given that Facebook generated a crazy $3.15 billion in ad revenue last year, up from $764 million two years ago, that seems to be a pretty awesome experiment. But Facebook itself seems to think things will need to change.

That’s why, for instance, it is pushing the industry to measure its ads using “gross ratings points” — the same metric buyers use for TV — instead of “traditional” Web metrics like impressions and click-through rates.

And that’s why a good chunk of the S-1 talks about the overall market for advertising — not just Web advertising, but all advertising. The message: There is a lot of money being spent on ads, and as we get even bigger, and smarter, we’ll figure out how to capture more of it.

And at some point they may share some of that knowledge with the rest of us.

MORE ON THE FACEBOOK IPO:

• Facebook’s Ad Business Is a $3 Billion Mystery
• Viral Video: Farewell to the No-IPO Mark Zuckerberg
• Zuckerberg Is the Billion-Share Man: Who Owns What, Who Makes What in the Facebook IPO
• Zuckerberg Tells Investors, “We Don’t Build Services to Make Money”
• Mobile Highlighted as Key Risk Factor (and Opportunity) in Facebook Filing
• Stop All That Poking: Facebook Filing Temporarily Crashes SEC Web Site
• Zynga Accounted for 12 Percent of Facebook’s Revenue in 2011
• Facebook Has 845 Million Users
• On Its Eighth Birthday, Facebook Files to Raise $5 Billion in Massive IPO (Get Your S-1 Here!)
• Go the F**k Back to Sleep, Silicon Valley: Facebook IPO Likely to File Later Today at Earliest
• Dude, Where’s My Facebook IPO Filing? (Ashton’s on Hold!)
• The Quiet Man: Meet the Less-Known Face of the Facebook IPO, CFO David Ebersman
• Facebook Board Meeting Today for Final IPO Okays
• Facebook (Eye)PO: Tracking the Truth of the Biggest Deal of Web 2.0
• Viral Graphic: Visualizing the Facebook IPO
• Is Facebook IPO on Track for Late May?
• IPO Watch: Facebook Hiring Brunswick to Help With Comms for Expected Public Offering
• Complete Facebook coverage

Apparently, Facebook has a lot of friends.

Clickety-clicking ones, whose massive interest in the just-filed IPO of the Silicon Valley social networking giant seems to have temporarily crashed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s EDGAR Web site, where anyone can access regulatory documents on companies.

We’re calling the SEC for comment right now, but the site is still hanging, and sources said the reason is the Facebook initial public offering filing.

Update: It’s back up! Though slow. Still, go government!

Another Update: The SEC got back to us and in response to the question of whether this was related to a Facebook surge, spokesman John Nester said, “Greatly increased traffic that began shortly before 5 pm slowed the public website. We are bringing on additional capacity to handle the load.”

MORE ON THE FACEBOOK IPO:

• Facebook’s Ad Business Is a $3 Billion Mystery
• Viral Video: Farewell to the No-IPO Mark Zuckerberg
• Zuckerberg Is the Billion-Share Man: Who Owns What, Who Makes What in the Facebook IPO
• Zuckerberg Tells Investors, “We Don’t Build Services to Make Money”
• Mobile Highlighted as Key Risk Factor (and Opportunity) in Facebook Filing
• Stop All That Poking: Facebook Filing Temporarily Crashes SEC Web Site
• Zynga Accounted for 12 Percent of Facebook’s Revenue in 2011
• Facebook Has 845 Million Users
• On Its Eighth Birthday, Facebook Files to Raise $5 Billion in Massive IPO (Get Your S-1 Here!)
• Go the F**k Back to Sleep, Silicon Valley: Facebook IPO Likely to File Later Today at Earliest
• Dude, Where’s My Facebook IPO Filing? (Ashton’s on Hold!)
• The Quiet Man: Meet the Less-Known Face of the Facebook IPO, CFO David Ebersman
• Facebook Board Meeting Today for Final IPO Okays
• Facebook (Eye)PO: Tracking the Truth of the Biggest Deal of Web 2.0
• Viral Graphic: Visualizing the Facebook IPO
• Is Facebook IPO on Track for Late May?
• IPO Watch: Facebook Hiring Brunswick to Help With Comms for Expected Public Offering
• Complete Facebook coverage

But fortunately, there are a few free tax apps that can help you with that paperwork.*

Before you get started, you might want to use a tax calculator to estimate how much you’ll get in returns … or how much you’ll owe. The TurboTax TaxCaster is scientifically unproven to either make you shout aloud with joy in the middle of the office or cause your stomach to drop faster than if you were riding this. The TaxCaster app is free on iOS and Android mobile devices as well as online.

TurboTax's iPad app

For preparing your tax paperwork, there’s now a TurboTax iPad app. Intuit actually launched the app last March, but it was too late in the season to really gain traction. The iPad app works even when you’re offline, so you can prepare your tax paperwork from almost anywhere.

This year, TurboTax, which says more than 70 percent of its customers now file online, has added some new features to the iPad app. First, it has hired 700 CPAs and tax attorneys nationwide to be on call for questions that app users might have.

Also, filers can now import data and forms from about 400,000 employers and financial institutions.

Lastly, the app’s keypad has a new user-friendly design. The large, optimized keypad is a good idea. Even when your eyes start to glaze over, you can’t miss the keys.

As with the rest of TurboTax’s mobile apps, it won’t cost users anything to download the iPad app and punch in their information, but users will be charged through iTunes when they go to actually e-file through TurboTax. At the low end, TurboTax Deluxe costs $29.99.

H&R Block has introduced a new mobile app for iPhone and Android devices that allows filers to complete a federal 1040EZ form and state return by snapping a photo of their W-2 forms (TurboTax’s SnapTax does this as well.) The service is free through February 29th.

Filers with more complex tax returns can use the H&R Block iPad app to complete those additional forms.

H&R Block’s smartphone app also aims to help users locate a nearby H&R Block office, estimate a tax refund, check the status on a refund, and decipher various tax terms with a glossary.

Like TurboTax, H&R Block is now offering free extended support for taxpayers, through a Tax Answers program. And if you’d rather have your tax returns filed for you through video conferencing, H&R does that, too, through its new Block Live service.

Keep in mind that if your gross adjusted income last year was $57,000 or less, you can qualify for free e-filing through the IRS’s Web site. And as Ina Fried pointed out a year ago at this time, the IRS has a mobile app for iPhone and Android phones that lets users track their refund status.

*This is the sentence in which I feign enthusiasm over tax season.

Like political junkies waiting up for election returns (losers!), Silicon Valley folks, including tech journalists (losers!), are up this morning to await and then pounce on the long-expected IPO filing of Facebook.

But, several sources said, the social networking giant — as I have previously reported — will likely not file its copious documents until this afternoon, after the markets close, at the earliest.

In other words, my day is shot. Thanks, Dave Ebersman!

Sources said the filing could even possibly slip a day, as the company’s suits get busy with dotting all the I’s and crossing the T’s.

That’s unlikely, though — Facebook was actually founded the first Wednesday in February of 2004, like today eight years later.

Sentiment from the not-very-sentimental co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg? Awwwwwwww …

And, if those dudes rush, we might even see all the deets of the Silicon Valley darling’s finances and other info — including who’s got what shares and who doesn’t — earlier today. But don’t count on it.

That’s right — Facebook is sucking up even more of your precious time, and it is not even fun like beating your mother at Words With Friends or creepily poking old flames.

Facebook, Web 2.0′s most successful start-up, is expected to raise many billions of dollars on a valuation of tens of millions times that.

In other words, blah, blah, blah until we get the real numbers …

To send you off to IPO dreamland until then, here’s the genius viral video reading of the book “Go the F**k to Sleep,” read by Samuel L. Jackson:

MORE ON THE FACEBOOK IPO:

• Facebook’s Ad Business Is a $3 Billion Mystery
• Viral Video: Farewell to the No-IPO Mark Zuckerberg
• Zuckerberg Is the Billion-Share Man: Who Owns What, Who Makes What in the Facebook IPO
• Zuckerberg Tells Investors, “We Don’t Build Services to Make Money”
• Mobile Highlighted as Key Risk Factor (and Opportunity) in Facebook Filing
• Stop All That Poking: Facebook Filing Temporarily Crashes SEC Web Site
• Zynga Accounted for 12 Percent of Facebook’s Revenue in 2011
• Facebook Has 845 Million Users
• On Its Eighth Birthday, Facebook Files to Raise $5 Billion in Massive IPO (Get Your S-1 Here!)
• Go the F**k Back to Sleep, Silicon Valley: Facebook IPO Likely to File Later Today at Earliest
• Dude, Where’s My Facebook IPO Filing? (Ashton’s on Hold!)
• The Quiet Man: Meet the Less-Known Face of the Facebook IPO, CFO David Ebersman
• Facebook Board Meeting Today for Final IPO Okays
• Facebook (Eye)PO: Tracking the Truth of the Biggest Deal of Web 2.0
• Viral Graphic: Visualizing the Facebook IPO
• Is Facebook IPO on Track for Late May?
• IPO Watch: Facebook Hiring Brunswick to Help With Comms for Expected Public Offering
• Complete Facebook coverage

Okay, okay, we get it: Morgan Stanley got the coveted left-hand lead position on Facebook’s blockbuster IPO filing. Goldman Sachs is there, too, but in the third-place, always-a-bridesmaid spo,t and is crying big salty tears about the injustice of it all.

It’s hard to feel badly for overpaid investment bankers, and focusing on them is kind of like endlessly discussing the lawyers who processed your mortgage, when the focus should be on the house you’re buying.

Does anyone except a few Richie Rich ZIP Codes in Manhattan care about this one deet of the initial public offering of the social networking giant?

Nope, but there is so little real news ahead of the IPO filing expected today that this is what we are chomping on this morning, as everyone awaits the big doc drop at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Sources said it is likely to come this afternoon rather than this morning, though. And, perish the thought, all that dotting of I’s and crossing of T’s could delay it to tomorrow, even (unlikely, but mebbe!).

Sigh.

Tidbit: Facebook was actually founded the first Wednesday in February of 2004 in an undergraduate dorm room at Harvard University, like today but eight years later.

Thus, here’s a boring Facebook history timeline chart to look at:

Okay, that was really dull.

What up? The board met, the spinmeisters are at the ready and, most of all, Silicon Valley is stoked to make some more arrogant badillionaires.

Now, hopefully, we’ll get the real news about Facebook.

Namely, who’s getting the big dough in this much-anticipated Web 2.0 gambit? Co-founder and CEO and Hoodie Commander Mark Zuckerberg fer sure, but who else?

Plus all the juicy financials from Facebook, along with stats in usage, growth and just how much the company sticks it to its gaming serf — oops, partner — Zynga and others for the privilege of being on its all-powerful platform.

Me? I pay nada, like other Facebook users, for being able to show off pictures of my vacations and decline friendships from PR people I like, but still … well, you know.

Here is another Facebook financial chart that will not knock your socks off unless you are an accountant:

I am now so comatose waiting for the show to begin that I briefly began a liveblog of my activities this morning.

It went like this:

4:45 am PT: Done with AOL Q4 earnings, which were meh, but better meh than expected. AOL, if you recall, used to be Facebook and now is, um, not.

Note to Zuckerberg: Be nice to people on your way up, since you’ll meet them again on the way down.

4:46 am PT: I check the SEC site and get zip. Click, click, clickety-click over to find out the latest on Demi Moore and her fake-pot debacle.

Who knew there was synthetic cannabis and it is called K2 or Spice? Not me! According to Wikipedia: “It seems likely that synthetic cannabis can precipitate psychosis and in some cases it is prolonged.”

I decide to blame Ashton Kutcher and then wonder if he is an investor in Facebook via BFF-to-errant-celebrities-who-like-tech Ron Conway, also a Facebook investor.

Note to self: Call Ashton! That dude plays village idiots all the time, but I am not fooled by Mr. Pretty Face.

4:47 am PT: I consider email bombing Yahoo’s Jerry Yang, who is probably not so busy right now, and asking him what he thinks about the Demi Moore crisis and also Facebook’s IPO.

Remember when Yahoo was king of Silicon Valley and Yang posed in that purple VW on the cover of that magazine? Better still, remember when Yahoo was going to buy Facebook for just over $1 billion and then borked it?

Just sayin’, Mark — so, keep it reals!

4:48 am PT: I consider going out for doughnuts — and not because of any real weed need. I just would like me some glazed and sprinkled sugar treats right about now. Then, I could post the pictures of them on my Facebook page.

Sweet.

But you-know-who would file right when I left the house on the munchie run. Click, click, clickety-click over to the SEC site and I come up peanuts.

Time to check in on the Kardashians.

You get the idea — so, Facebook IPO, take me away!

MORE ON THE FACEBOOK IPO:

• Facebook’s Ad Business Is a $3 Billion Mystery
• Viral Video: Farewell to the No-IPO Mark Zuckerberg
• Zuckerberg Is the Billion-Share Man: Who Owns What, Who Makes What in the Facebook IPO
• Zuckerberg Tells Investors, “We Don’t Build Services to Make Money”
• Mobile Highlighted as Key Risk Factor (and Opportunity) in Facebook Filing
• Stop All That Poking: Facebook Filing Temporarily Crashes SEC Web Site
• Zynga Accounted for 12 Percent of Facebook’s Revenue in 2011
• Facebook Has 845 Million Users
• On Its Eighth Birthday, Facebook Files to Raise $5 Billion in Massive IPO (Get Your S-1 Here!)
• Go the F**k Back to Sleep, Silicon Valley: Facebook IPO Likely to File Later Today at Earliest
• Dude, Where’s My Facebook IPO Filing? (Ashton’s on Hold!)
• The Quiet Man: Meet the Less-Known Face of the Facebook IPO, CFO David Ebersman
• Facebook Board Meeting Today for Final IPO Okays
• Facebook (Eye)PO: Tracking the Truth of the Biggest Deal of Web 2.0
• Viral Graphic: Visualizing the Facebook IPO
• Is Facebook IPO on Track for Late May?
• IPO Watch: Facebook Hiring Brunswick to Help With Comms for Expected Public Offering
• Complete Facebook coverage

According to multiple sources, the long-anticipated public offering of Facebook is now likely to come in the third week of May.

That means that the company must file its IPO documents within the next month, given that the review by the Securities and Exchange Commission usually takes about three to four months.

That’s if there are no issues, of course, such as a turbulent market or thornier-than-usual questions from regulators that require amending the filing.

Groupon, for example, filed for its IPO in early June, but did not go public until five months later in November.

The usual caveat on the late-May timing (even though I called 143 people on this one): This IPO planning could all change, in a New York minute, to another month.

In any case, the Facebook IPO is expected to be one of the largest Web offerings ever — with some reports saying the company will be raising $10 billion on a $100 billion valuation. (The valuation and raise, sources tell me, will be much lower.)

That amount is presumably to match its huge consumer growth and revenue explosion. Users now number 800 million — a figure that is likely to hit one billion this year. And revenue, which was reportedly close to $4 billion in 2011, is expected to be higher by another third in 2012.

Facebook will need such oomph if it is to impress investors, although the social networking site’s leadership is still warning that its focus is products over dollars.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal last week, for example, co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg hedged the point, even as he sang his same familiar strategic tune of the last few years.

“The thing to take away isn’t that we don’t care [about business]. People for years were asking me why aren’t we trying to make more money,” he said. “I would say I’m trying to build a business for the long term and it was clearly the right strategy.”

While admirably I’ll-row-my-way in tone, Zuckerberg needs a public offering heft more than ever, as Facebook’s battles with rivals — most especially Google — escalate.

Just last week, the monocratically-inclined search giant ham-handedly shoved its own social networking service, Google+, into its results, in a move that could severely disadvantage Facebook.

Thus, into the Wall Street breach, to get a giant pile of dough to fight back!

But, unlike Google’s more kookified 2004 IPO, sources said Facebook’s is probably going to hew to a more traditional offering script.

That is likely to include a hefty consortium of irksome investment bankers — think firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley on top of the filings, and a spate of smaller ones (Allen & Co.) below, and you have the approximately accurate idea.

And, while shot-caller-in-chief Zuckerberg will be the one key voice in the IPO, the man to watch has been and will be CFO David Ebersman.

The longtime Genentech exec, who came to Facebook in 2009, has been doing all the heavy lifting in preparation for the IPO, said sources, and will continue to do so.

Facebook declined to comment (but I would too, if I were them).

What took so long?

Actually, it did not take any time at all for someone to start legal proceedings against the current effort by Yahoo to sell itself.

In this case, no surprise, it is aimed directly at the how of doing it.

In an unusual injunction request, M&C Partners is seeking to enjoin the Silicon Valley Internet giant from using its stringent “no cross talk” rule for its potential buyers to limit possible bidding syndicates.

“The No Cross Talk Provision constitutes an unreasonable anti-takeover device, designed to entrench and favor [Yahoo co-founder, director and major shareholder Jerry] Yang and the current Board,” reads the legal filing, in part.

In addition, M&C does not like what it calls a “Minority Stake Promise,” which it alleges Yahoo is “requiring those who sign the Confidentiality Agreement to use any information they receive to confine themselves to a bid for only a minority stake.”

That refers to the fantastically named PIPE deals — or Private Investment in Public Equity — that PE firms like Silver Lake and TPG Capital have just offered. These are bids to buy 19.9 percent of Yahoo, which will essentially give them a lot of power.

Both allegations are, well, exactly what Yahoo is doing, even if it’s not for the filing’s stated nefarious reason. Thus, M&C doesn’t think that’s okay, presumably because it wants investors to be able to make a deal without Yahoo’s bossy rules.

To be clear, Yahoo is named in lawsuits all the time for a wide variety of things, such as a case in which one group is alleging it botched a deal with the Alibaba Group over its Alipay controversy to another alleging the price it paid for in its recent $270 million acquisition of Interclick was too low.

And so it is here, one of many to come, I suspect. In this one, there’s also a class-action request and various and sundry bashing of Yang, which you can read below:

yhoo

According to sources close to the situation, neither CEO Mark Pincus nor one of its principal venture shareholders, Kleiner Perkins, will be selling any shares in its upcoming initial public offering.

While big investors often divest stock in IPOs, not all do. It is a carefully watched number by investors, who are always wary of insiders who unload a lot of shares in an offering.

But such activity by the fast-growing San Francisco online gaming company will be watched carefully since Pincus has recently been painted in a number of press reports as the greedy Mr. Potter of Silicon Valley.

Among the allegations is that he runs a poisonously tough culture that tracks its employees’ output and performance via elaborate data models that require extraordinary amounts of work, along with nefarious list-making of who’s naughty and who’s not.

That big-brother behavior has reportedly included taking away high-ranking jobs and the sweet stock options that go along with them from those execs found wanting.

While there is no doubt Pincus is a hard-charging personality, his defenders note that it’s due to a belief that life at Zynga is a meritocracy and that his practices are not any more heavy-handed than those at other firms.

Indeed, Pincus has a lot of competition in the tough-guy tech CEO category from longtime legends such as Microsoft’s Bill Gates, who set the gold standard for mean, as well as Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and now Google CEO Larry Page.

Pincus does not even rate in this pantheon, which is more typical of tech companies than anyone would care to admit or, to be fair, care to care about. With big benefits, vast wealth and much latitude, many in tech don’t mind the grueling work schedules.

After all, it’s not exactly ditch-digging, now is it?

In any case, sources said the coverage has hit Zynga staff hard, as well as Pincus, who has not responded due to the IPO’s quiet period. That’s in contrast to Groupon, the daily-deals site whose own rough process was rife with highly negative stories about the company’s prospects.

While those media accounts were more aimed at the business itself and less personal, Groupon CEO Andrew Mason vociferously defended the company in a controversial letter that was then leaked and published (to me and by me!).

Pincus will doubtlessly have a lot to say to investors who ask about the company’s culture and its possible negative impact on attrition, as some stories have charged.

His decision not to sell, sources said, was inspired by Zynga investor and close friend Reid Hoffman, who has sold very little of the stock of LinkedIn, where he serves as chairman.

The action all begins next week, according to multiple reports, when Zynga takes its show on the road in preparation for an IPO that is expected to value the company at $15 to $20 billion and will take place before the new year.

It will debut under the ZNGA ticker on the Nasdaq market.

While some have been worried about Zynga’s future growth, its past performance has been a lot stronger than other Internet offerings. In the first nine months of the year, the company posted $828.9 million in revenue, double the amount from a year ago, with net income of $30.7 million.

Pincus’s holding onto shares will be seen as a plus, of course, although he has sold a large amount of stock in Zynga’s history.

According to its S-1 filing:

“From our inception in October 2007 to date, Mr. Pincus, our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Product Officer and the Chairman of our Board of Directors, has purchased an aggregate of 149,197,328 shares of our common stock. To date, Mr. Pincus has sold an aggregate of 43,629,310 shares of our common stock at prices ranging from $0.42 to $13.96.”

Pincus now holds 91.4 million of Class B shares, 16 percent of the total, as well as 20.5 million of Class C shares, 38 percent of that group. Kleiner holds 65.2 million shares, or 11.2 percent, of Class B shares.

Other big Zynga owners, who might or might not sell at the IPO, include Institutional Venture Partners, Union Square Ventures, Foundry Venture Capital and Avalon Ventures.

As I reported earlier today, social gaming giant Zynga has posted another filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

That includes Chief Business Officer Owen Van Natta stepping out of an operational role and forfeiting shares in the process. To be exact: That will be 4.6 million options and close to 800,000 restricted stock units.

All of the details are in his transition letter in Zynga’s massive new S-1, which is in exhibit 10.12 to the amendment filing.

I would start at page 119, but to summarize: Van Natta is keeping all the vested stock options and restricted stock units, currently more than two million stock options that are already vested and another 936,000 RSUs (Zynga calls them ZSUs) already vested. He also has another 750,000 shares that will continue to vest due to his board position.

But, because he is no longer an employee, he is forfeiting all his unvested employee stock options and RSUs. Although it does seem like a lot, this is typical in such cases.

I need to go to lunch, so just read it for yourself:

ZYNGAINC-20111117-S1A-0

In a new filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning its upcoming IPO, Zynga is expected to unveil two key management and board changes at the online gaming phenom:

Chief Business Officer Owen Van Natta — who came to the San Francisco-based start-up several years ago to help CEO Mark Pincus grow it and develop it — will step down from his job and become a strategic adviser focusing on major partnerships. He’ll still remain board member at Zynga, but will give up millions of pre-IPO shares by moving out of his operational role.

And director and venture investor Brad Feld will leave the the board, which VCs sometime do as companies move to a public offering and add members with more specific business experience.

In his place, longtime entrepreneur and investor Sunil Paul, who founded a company called FreeLoader with Pincus many moons ago, will join the board.

Zynga confirmed the changes to me in a statement by Pincus:

“Owen is a valuable business partner. He’s made great contributions to Zynga and continues to be an important part of our team.”

Sources said the changes related to Van Natta around are not part of a recent controversy around a Wall Street Journal story about clawing back of some share options grants of early Zynga employees who had become less involved in the company. While the company cannot actually take back already vested shares owned by those staffers, the article has put a lot of scrutiny on Zynga and raised questions about how to cope with the kind of hyper-growth some Internet firms experience.

That’s certainly been the kind of rocket ride Zynga has been on, as it has grown from a small social gaming company on Facebook to a high-profile public company.

Zynga is in the final stages of its IPO process, answering questions from the SEC that are typical. If all goes well, Zynga execs are expected to go on a road show after the Thanksgiving and go public by the end of the year at a market valuation of close to $20 billion.

That was different from when Van Natta officially got to Zynga in the spring of last year — after a rocky experience running the doomed Myspace. At the time, he told me at the time that planned to be focused on scaling the business and did not consider himself a long-term operating executive.

Since then, he has helped Pincus hire a series of experienced gaming execs, including a chief operating officer, a chief marketing officer and others.

Zynga was Van Natta’s third high-profile Web company in recent years. He was a top early exec for Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook until early 2008, and in 2009 he took over News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace, a job that lasted less than a year.

Early in his career, Van Natta was also was a top strategy, marketing and deal exec for Amazon, which bought an early social networking start-up called PlanetAll that he worked at.

It will now be interesting to see what Van Natta does next, but it is unlikely he will take a permanent position. He is a longtime angel investor in Silicon Valley, including in hot start-ups such as Asana and still holds a significant stake in Facebook.

But, in moving out of his job at Zynga, he will be giving up many millions of shares of a rich trove he was given when he arrived at the company. That said, Van Natta already owns millions of accelerated vested shares and will get another large grant as a board member.

Translation: Don’t cry for Mr. Van Natta, Silicon Valley — he made $42 million last year from Zynga shares alone.

Third Point’s Daniel Loeb — the smack-tastic hedge fund manager who has bought up a 5.23 percent stake in the Silicon Valley Internet giant and has been hitting some of Yahoo’s board upside the head with those shares ever since — is now taking aim at its co-founder and director Jerry Yang. Loeb wants him to step down as a director due to conflict of interest.

Loeb also reiterated his threat of a proxy fight to get control of the board. In fact, sources in Silicon Valley said he has already been reaching out to potential alternative board members.

In a previous 13-D filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Loeb had backed Yang against Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock.

But that’s all over. Reports have surfaced that Yang has been trying to get a private equity firm to back a plan that would keep him and current management in charge of the company.

In a new letter to the Yahoo board today, Loeb said that Yang’s attempt amounts to cronyism and self-dealing.

Wrote Loeb, in part:

We are deeply concerned by news reports that you are considering a leveraged recapitalization that will allow private equity firms to gain substantial equity positions that will, when combined with Jerry Yang’s and David Filo’s ownership, effectively establish a controlling position in Yahoo. More troubling are reports that Mr. Yang is engaging in one-off discussions with private equity firms, presumably because it is in his best personal interests to do so. The Board and the Strategic Committee should not have permitted Mr. Yang to engage in these discussions, particularly given his ineptitude in dealing with the Microsoft negotiations to purchase the Company in 2008; it is now clear that he is simply not aligned with shareholders. At a bare minimum, Mr. Yang must declare whether he is a buyer or a seller — he cannot be both. If we are correct and he is effectively a buyer, corporate ethics require him to recuse himself from any further discussions on behalf of the Company. He should also be requested by the Company to promptly leave the Board and join Mr. Filo in solely an operating capacity.

Loeb is also demanding two seats on the board; in fact, the ones he hopes will be vacated by Bostock and Yang.

While it is likely the Yahoo board will try to minimize the Loeb letter, which is below in its entirety, other shareholders hold the same opinion of the prospects of the same-old-same-old staying on at Yahoo.

“Nothing can excuse such an action, and shareholders will not be bought off with a dividend of our own money while value is destroyed,” wrote Loeb, channeling a lot of others I have spoken to about a Yang insider deal.

Here is the full letter, Yahoo’s tiresomely typical (and borderline fibbish — but I will get to that later) rejoinder, as well the the new 13-D filing by Loeb:

Third Point LLC Letter to Yahoo! Inc. Board of Directors

NEW YORK — (BUSINESS WIRE) — Third Point Requests Two Yahoo Board Seats, Demands Yang’s Resignation from Board, and Opposes Reported Negotiations for “Sweetheart” Deal with Private Equity Firms

About Third Point LLC: Third Point is an investment firm headquartered in New York, managing $8.0 billion in assets, including a London Stock Exchange listed closed-end fund. Founded in 1995, Third Point follows an event-driven approach to investing globally.

Board of Directors
Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Dear Members of the Board of Directors:

As you are aware, Third Point LLC (“Third Point”) manages investment funds that are, collectively, the second largest shareholder of Yahoo! Inc. (“Yahoo” or the “Company”).

We are deeply concerned by news reports that you are considering a leveraged recapitalization that will allow private equity firms to gain substantial equity positions that will, when combined with Jerry Yang’s and David Filo’s ownership, effectively establish a controlling position in Yahoo. More troubling are reports that Mr. Yang is engaging in one-off discussions with private equity firms, presumably because it is in his best personal interests to do so. The Board and the Strategic Committee should not have permitted Mr. Yang to engage in these discussions, particularly given his ineptitude in dealing with the Microsoft negotiations to purchase the Company in 2008; it is now clear that he is simply not aligned with shareholders. At a bare minimum, Mr. Yang must declare whether he is a buyer or a seller — he cannot be both. If we are correct and he is effectively a buyer, corporate ethics require him to recuse himself from any further discussions on behalf of the Company. He should also be requested by the Company to promptly leave the Board and join Mr. Filo in solely an operating capacity.

In our view, a leveraged recapitalization makes no sense and its only purpose would be to put substantial equity stakes into friendly hands to entrench management and transfer effective control without payment of a premium or even, it appears, a shareholder vote. Nothing can excuse such an action, and shareholders will not be bought off with a dividend of our own money while value is destroyed.

Moreover, such a transaction would undermine the basic tenets of free markets, including democratic voting, accountability and fairness. We do not blame our friends at the private equity firms rumored to be involved for trying to get the best deal possible for their investors; we have great respect for these firms and their leaders — Jim Coulter of Texas Pacific Group, Jonathan Nelson of Providence Equity Partners, Glenn Hutchins of Silver Lake, Henry Kravis of KKR and Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone. However, we at Third Point are also in the value-maximizing business. We will not tolerate any transaction which appropriates for insiders opportunities that duly belong to current Yahoo shareholders. However, we would welcome the prospect of any of these firms’ presence on a reconstituted Yahoo Board of Directors and work on a long-term strategy for the Company should it be necessary for us to pursue a proxy contest next year.

If you, as board members, undertake the current course of action, Third Point will hold you personally responsible for such a flagrant violation of your duty of loyalty. Any transaction with a third party who assists members of management and the board in protecting their jobs, and/or involves the effective sale or transfer of control without payment of a control premium, will likewise be subject to scrutiny.

Given the Board’s inability — or perhaps unwillingness — to properly solicit true strategic alternative bids, let alone to negotiate them, Third Point demands that we be awarded two board seats — those created by the vacancies of Chairman Bostock and Mr. Yang, or two newly-created ones. We are prepared to assume these positions immediately.

Sincerely,

Daniel S. Loeb
Chief Executive Officer
Third Point LLC
390 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022

Yahoo’s Board of Directors’ objective is, and always has been, to serve the best interests of all the company’s shareholders. The Board’s comprehensive strategic review is being properly managed for the benefit of all shareholders and is guided by outside counsel for the independent directors and investment bankers retained separately by the Board. The Board of Directors (eight independents and Mr. Yang) controls the strategic review process and has directed its Transactions and Strategic Planning Committee (comprised of four independent directors) to manage the process day-to-day and report regularly to the Board.

News reports based on rumor and speculation are just that. The Board’s comprehensive strategic review process is still underway, with a wide range of options under active consideration. We can assure all Yahoo shareholders that whatever the outcome of the strategic review process may be, it will serve the best interests of all the company’s shareholders.

Mr. Yang is one of 9 directors with the exact same fiduciary duties and motivation as all of his fellow directors — to serve the best interests of all the company’s shareholders. The Board and the Transactions and Strategic Planning Committee initiate, direct, and oversee any work Mr. Yang undertakes in relation to the strategic review process.

YHOO-20111104-SC13DA-0

According to multiple sources close to the situation, Groupon plans to conduct its road show for investors next week, starting either on Monday or Tuesday.

While the decision to move forward could still change, it comes amid continued criticism of the Chicago-based daily deals company, which has had one of the rougher IPO processes for an Internet company in recent memory.

Just yesterday, the New York Times took aim at Groupon and its Wall Street bankers, retreading over the same list of issues, including controversial accounting, a too-large payout to its founders and issues around its marketing costs.

In addition, the social buying service has had some management turnover, with two COOs departing.

Lastly, it has amended its S-1 filing several times, for a variety of reasons, including an email to employees by its CEO Andrew Mason that struck regulatory agencies as a bit blabby.

That said, the initiation of the road show — where company execs will pitch its business to possible shareholders — might be an indication that Groupon’s results have improved in its recent quarter.

In the last quarter, the company lost $102.7 million on revenue of $878 million.

Also of concern is the stock market itself. Groupon, like several Web IPO candidates, had delayed its offering due to turbulent conditions.

Now, sources said, the company will go public on the Nasdaq exchange soon after the road show is complete and after pricing by its bankers.

That valuation will also be under scrutiny. Some had previously estimated that Groupon would have an IPO of up to $25 billion. Now it could be half that, sources said.

Well, we will presumably soon see, as Groupon plans to proceed.

Groupon amended its public offering documents today, in a new filing with government regulators, in which it once again changed its accounting treatment.

That includes the way it measures revenue, which will now be reported excluding the money it pays out to merchants.

Some felt the “gross revenue” figure — a term for what are actually gross billings — was not reflective of Groupon’s true performance. It will now use net revenue.

Said the company in the current amended filing, its third:

“We consistently have stated that the amount we retain — rather than bill or collect — from the sale of Groupons is the key measure of the value we create. This change in presentation is consistent with that belief.”

Okkkkaaaay, whatever you say, but the change was requested by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In its second amended filing, Groupon dropped its controversial “Adjusted Consolidated Segment Operating Income,” or ACSOI, metric, which excluded key marketing costs.

In its first amended filing, it told investors to ignore statements made by its Chairman Eric Lefkofsky and also made more accounting clarifications.

In the current changes, Groupon also posted the controversial letter to employees — first published here — that CEO and co-founder Andrew Mason wrote to strike back at the Chicago-based social buying network’s critics. Many felt the missive violated the quiet period before an IPO that companies are required to maintain.

And Groupon has been anything but quiet, as it advances and retreats to its Wall Street road show, which has been delayed and then not delayed (and might still be delayed, but who knows?).

Also today in its noisy goat rodeo: COO Margo Georgiadis is headed back to Google after arriving in April.

I guess things did not work out.

Lastly, the new filing also has added a new metric for “cumulative repeat customers,” showcasing how many customers have bought a Groupon offering more than once. That number is over 12 million.

Here is the full new S-1 filing to peruse and pick apart:

GRPN-20110923-S1A-0

In a blog it just posted, Groupon said its recently hired COO, Margo Georgiadis, “has decided to return to Google (her former employer) in a new role as President, Americas.”

She was only hired in April, just months before the company filed to go public. Georgiadis was previously VP of Global Sales at Google.

(Interesting way to get a better title at the search giant, Margo!)

Georgiadis was in charge of the company’s global sales, marketing and operations at the Chicago-based social buying service.

Sources said that the hiring did not gel on either side.

It might not be Georgiadis’ fault. She replaced Rob Solomon, who was in his job for one year.

And here’s another: PR hire Brad Williams, a longtime Silicon Valley communications exec, who was there and then gone in what felt like 23 minutes.

It seems Groupon does not like Silicon Valley types or, perhaps, vice versa.

Since its IPO filing, in fact, it feels as if it has been a non-stop circus disaster at Groupon.

That has included immense controversy about its sketchy accounting, huge slugs of venture funding going to its founders and a lot of worries about its growth.

Today, in a Friday late afternoon dumping of bad news in hopes that no one notices (I do), Groupon also amended its S-1 public offering filing once again to change revenue metrics and also add a controversial internal letter that CEO and co-founder Andrew Mason sent to employees to counter its many and growing critics.

There appear to be many more shoes dropping soon, said sources, so stay tuned.

Until then, here’s the whole and very terse — for Mason — post:

Update on the Groupon Team

As a fast-growing company, we’ve done a lot of hiring this year, including on our senior executive team. Since the beginning of this year, we’ve made a total of 8 additions — that’s 57% of the total executive team. It would have been great if I could say that we batted 1,000%, but that’s rarely the case; after five months at Groupon, Margo Georgiadis, our COO, has decided to return to Google (her former employer) in a new role as President, Americas.

We’ve built a fantastic team that has proven itself highly capable, so this change won’t have an impact on operations. In fact, we are using it as an opportunity to reorganize in a way that reflects our evolving strategic priorities. Sales, Channels, International, and Marketing will now report directly to me.

Here’s a note from Margo: “Groupon is a great company and I feel privileged to have worked there even for a short time. It was a hard decision to leave as the company is on a terrific path. I have complete confidence in the team’s ability to realize its mission.” We wish her well.

And you thought former Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz could lay into the Yahoo board with some zingers, including the not-used-enough “doofuses” insult.

Time to meet Third Point’s Daniel Loeb, the smack-tastic hedge fund manager who has bought up a 5.1 percent stake in the Silicon Valley Internet giant and has been hitting the company upside the head with those shares since last week, on a seemingly daily basis.

Actually, twice yesterday — in a morning letter he filed with regulators, and then at an afternoon investor conference.

After trying to entice Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang into throwing Chairman Roy Bostock under the bus, and noting in the letter that Bostock hung up on him in a recent phone call, Loeb told the attendees at the Delivering Alpha conference in New York that “no one wants to work with these clowns on the [Yahoo] board.”

Also that “Yahoo had one of the most horrendous management teams” that Loeb had “seen in 16 years.”

Also that Yahoo “has the same crappy interface and the same stupid logo” since 2004.

Other than that, Mr. Loeb, how is the Internet site?

Here is Loeb’s latest filing to see for yourself:

loebsec

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well-known Silicon Valley entrepreneur Blake Krikorian has joined the board of Amazon, according to several sources close to the situation.

Krikorian — who is considered one of tech’s most savvy execs with regard to video and media distribution — co-founded Sling Media, the maker of the innovative video device Slingbox, in 2004.

(He demoed it at the second D: All Things Digital conference in 2004.)

It was sold in 2007 to EchoStar Communications for $380 million. After a short stint there, Krikorian left and has since been working on a variety of projects and making various investments.

Those include some promising start-ups, such as Lytro, Kno, Clipboard, Chirply and Tasty Labs. Another company he invested in, Clicker, was sold to CBS earlier this year.

He has also been a sought-after exec — sources said he had offers over the last year from Google and also Zynga.

Amazon certainly could use a director such as Krikorian as it seeks to enter the media distribution space more aggressively. It is about to launch a Kindle tablet, for example, and also is a major bidder for the Hulu premium video service.

It has been rumored that Amazon will soon offer an interactive television device, too.

Krikorian certainly has much experience in the arena. One of his first jobs was at the fabled General Magic, which pioneered the creation of one of the first interactive mobile products before the Internet.

He also started a mobile computing unit for Philips Electronics, as well as working in adjacent arenas at other firms.

The University of California at Los Angeles graduate has a degree in mechanical engineering.

Other directors on Amazon’s eight-person board, besides CEO and founder Jeff Bezos, include Kleiner Perkins’s Bing Gordon and Hewlett-Packard’s Jon Rubinstein.

Krikorian, who declined to comment, will be its ninth member.

I also have an email in to Amazon PR, and will update if I get a response.

UPDATE: No need, as here is the 8-K regulatory filing by Amazon announcing the appointment:

AMZN-20110908-8K-20110908

At a prequel for the many VPs of Yahoo to the all-hands meeting for all 13,500 employees of the Silicon Valley Internet giant that is taking place at 11 am, Yahoo co-founder, director and former CEO Jerry Yang told the group the company was “not for sale.”

Even though, of course, it was hiring advisory firms, such as Allen & Co., to explore strategic options. Many justifiably feel “for sale” is just what Yahoo is.

Instead, Yang reassured the troops that it was business as usual at the company, in spite of the abrupt firing of its current CEO Carol Bartz yesterday.

One attendee emailed me: “Really?“

Yang told the group that the aim was to grow revenue and profit, but did not put forth a specific plan as yet. He also said the search was on for a new CEO.

Meanwhile, interim CEO Tim Morse spoke only at the end of the meeting, for the last 10 minutes.

Morse continued to be Yang’s sidekick at the all-hands meeting later, in which they reiterated their no-sale motto.

Still, the troops were restless and the event included a lot of pointed questions from employees about the ouster of Bartz and how that was going to get the company growing again.

One employee asked the board to give Bartz’s $10 million severance package to charity, to much applause.

Another query was about the shift on Bartz by Yahoo’s Chairman Roy Bostock, who praised her performance earlier this summer at the annual meeting.

How, asked the employee, did Yahoo go from full support of Bartz to fired? The basic answer from Yang: Things change!

Another employee asked about the bid to buy the Hulu premium video service. Americas head Ross Levinsohn’s answer: Yahoo did not need it to win.

Both Levinsohn and product head Blake Irving stressed how big Yahoo still is, although Yahoo’s kind of big today might not mean better.

Employees — I love them for channelling exactly what I would have asked — pressed Morse on when the strategery would be done this time. A few months, he said.

But perhaps the toughest query was about how did the board fire the CEO without first having a plan in place, which the questioning employee noted had further worsened trust issues with Yahoo leadership.

It got the biggest applause.

Trust us, said Yang.

That’s a big ask for beleaguered Yahoo staffers these days.

Meanwhile, Yahoo filed a new-less 8-K regulatory filing today about the Bartz firing.

In it, Yahoo wrote: “No new compensatory or severance arrangements were entered into in connection with these leadership changes. Ms. Bartz will receive severance benefits
for termination without cause as provided in her employment and equity award agreements.”

Here it is:

YHOO-20110907-8K-20110906

Related posts

• As Yahoo Continues to Wobble, Investors (And Board) Eye Options
• Exclusive: Carol Bartz Out at Yahoo; CFO Tim Morse Named Interim CEO
• Carol Bartz’s Last F%*& You — Now Aimed at Yahoo Board
• Yahoo’s Statement on Bartz Ouster
• Wall Street Likes Bartz’s Firing — Yahoo Stock Spikes on News
• My Picks for Yahoo’s Next CEO — Maybe Snoop Dogg, Ya Digg?

Murdoch, who is Deputy Chief Operating Officer and until recently has been seen as the heir apparent to his father Rupert Murdoch, has also been one of the primary focal points during the scandal. He has been in charge of News Corp.’s British newspaper unit that has been accused of widespread, systemic phonetapping and other charges (News Corp. also owns this Web site).

Here’s his statement:

In light of the current controversy surrounding News of the World, I have declined the bonus that the company chose to award to me. While the financial and operating performance metrics on which the bonus decision was based are not associated with this matter, I feel that declining the bonus is the right thing to do.  I will consult with the Compensation Committee in the future about whether any bonus may be appropriate at a later date.

Murdoch is keeping the rest of his compensation, which includes a base salary of $3 million, $8.3 million in stock awards and other benefits including personal use of the company’s aircraft, which the filing values at $224,864 for the fiscal year.

In News Corp.’s annual proxy statement, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission today, the company said it considered the following factors in awarding him his $6 million bonus:

“Mr. J.R. Murdoch played an important role during fiscal 2011 in developing the Company’s key businesses and investments in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, including the development of the Company’s content and distribution strategy. He led the success of STAR India, which delivers market-leading content, and he led the Company’s ongoing deployment of satellite television in Italy (with Sky Italia achieving its highest ever subscriber base), the UK, Germany and India, where we operate, or are key investors in, industry-leading pay television platforms. Under his leadership, the Company expanded its presence in the Middle East through a key strategic partnership and optimized its European asset portfolio through the disposition of News Outdoor. Mr. J.R. Murdoch also successfully transitioned into his new role as Deputy Chief Operating Officer and Chairman and CEO, International, expanding his responsibilities.”

But compared to some of its peers, Brightcove is almost a throwback: CEO Jeremy Allaire’s company has a clearly defined business, straightforward accounting and a minimum of insider selling in the run-up to its IPO.

A quick glance at the the company’s filing will tell you that:

Brightcove’s business is easy to understand. It generates sales by helping Web publishers put video online. That “software as a service” model has let the company boost sales, along with the Web video boom. In 2006, it posted revenues of $1.4 million. Last year, it pulled in $43.7 million.

The company’s accounting doesn’t require a good imagination. There’s nothing in Brightcove’s S-1 along the lines of Groupon’s now-discarded “ACSOI,” or Demand Media’s novel approach to expensing content costs. And while plenty of established companies use not-strictly-official measures like EBITDA to show off their finances in the best possible light, Brightcove doesn’t bother — there’s not a single reference to “non-GAAP accounting.” Which makes it quite easy to see that the company lost $67.5 million from 2006 through 2010, and another $9.5 million in the first half of this year. It says it doesn’t expect to turn a profit until 2013 at the earliest.

Brightcove’s investors and employees are sticking around. Unlike Groupon, Zynga, and a few other highfliers that haven’t filed yet, including Twitter and Facebook, there’s been very little insider selling. Early investor AOL got rid of all of its shares last November, and last year Allaire sold off 1.3 million shares for a gain of $4.8 million; some other employees sold a few more shares. But Allaire still holds another 2.5 million shares — 4.5 percent of the company’s equity — and as far as I can tell, that’s about it for insider selling.

While they are only small transactions, two of Yahoo’s top execs — Americas head Ross Levinsohn and its Chief Product Officer Blake Irving (pictured here) — seem to have forked over their own dough to buy shares of the troubled company.

Levinsohn and Irving — like a lot of other Yahoos in the same leaky boat — have lots of stock options in the Silicon Valley Internet giant that are likely very much underwater these days. They also have hundreds of thousands of cost-free restricted stock units.

Still, with Yahoo shares in a free fall, the pair apparently bellied up to the bar and purchased stock directly last Friday and on Monday, according to required insider filings.

Levinsohn bought 10,000 shares at $11.61 and Irving got 10,000 at $11.23.

It seems they are the only high-ranking execs who have bought Yahoo stock in a while, including its CEO Carol Bartz, without some link to shares they have been given by the company and via programmed or automatic purchases and sales.

Executives buying shares of their own company often are an indicator of confidence in the company, and CEOs — such as AOL CEO Tim Armstrong has — often do it in dicey times to make a statement of belief in its prospects.

It will be interesting to see if other Yahoo top execs do the same.

Yahoo could certainly use the boost. Shares are down 23 percent since the beginning of the year, giving it an affordable $16.7 billion market valuation.

Still, while both men initially lost money in the current market turmoil that has also hit Yahoo hard, they seem to be up about $10,000 each, for now, on their approximately $110,000 bets that Yahoo shares are too low.

Its stock closed up today 9.3 percent, at $12.86.

As All Things Digital reported last week, Groupon filed an amended S-1 IPO offering this morning, in which it deemphasized a controversial accounting method.

Instead of a metric called ACSOI, or adjusted consolidated segment operating income, the Chicago-based social buying company noted that gross profit was the “important indicator for our business, because it is a reflection of the value of our services to our merchants.”

But the dreaded ACSOI — which leaves out important costs of marketing — is not completely gone. In its filing, Groupon said it would use it internally, noting:

We exclude those costs because, unlike our other marketing expenses, they are an up-front investment to acquire new subscribers that we expect to end when this period of rapid expansion in our subscriber base concludes. While we track this management metric internally to gauge our performance, we encourage you to base your decision on whatever metrics make you comfortable.

In other words, for the love of Pete, please ignore ACSOI completely.

Groupon also included new financials in its filing for the quarter, with a 36 percent increase in revenue to $878 million from the previous quarter and double a year ago. But its loss was $102.7 million, compared to a loss of $35.9 million a year ago.

The company also reported that its subscribers grew from 10.4 million last year to 115.7 million now.

Costs are also lower by eight percent in the new quarter, with Groupon spending $165.2 on marketing to new subscribers, compared to $179.9 million in the previous one.

The filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission is a critical one for Groupon, whose public offering has been mired in questions about how it accounts for its financial performance.

Of particular concern: ACSOI, which is a number that does not include important costs, such as critical online marketing expenses to attract new customers to Groupon.

Such accounting is called non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles).

In 2010, Groupon reported that it lost $413.4 million using standard accounting practices. When it excludes some costs from its calculations using ACSOI — including online marketing expenses to attract new customers — it recorded a profit of $60.6 million in 2010.

The new results were stronger, to be sure. Such growth is important, especially given investor scrutiny of Groupon in the current economic turmoil.

As I wrote last week:

And, indeed, questions from the media, investors and, most importantly, the Securities and Exchange Commission about how Groupon accounts for its revenue and profits using ACSOI were swift and decidedly negative.

Hence, a furious debate — along with much internal tension — within Groupon about what to do. At first, in another S-1 amendment, the company backed away from using ACSOI as a “valuation metric.”

But that was apparently not enough for the SEC or anyone else, so Groupon’s top managers finally thought it best to rid itself of the term entirely.

Presumably, with a cleaner S-1, Groupon can concentrate on a whole new set of issues around its IPO, such as the tumultuous state of the markets.

According to numerous sources close to the situation and after regulatory pressure, Groupon will amend its S-1 public offering filing to remove references to an unusual accounting treatment that has attracted controversy.

Sources said the new filing by the social buying company, which is helmed by CEO and co-founder Andrew Mason (pictured above), will likely occur as early as Monday.

It can’t come a minute too soon regarding a metric called ACSOI, or adjusted consolidated segment operating income, which the Chicago-based Groupon used when it filed its S-1 documents in June.

As I wrote at the time about the odd use of ACSOI:

Let’s be clear, this is a number that does not include important costs, such as critical online marketing expenses to attract new customers to Groupon.

Such accounting is called non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles).

In 2010 and the first quarter of 2011, Groupon said its Adjusted CSOI was $60.6 million and $81.6 million, respectively.

On a GAAP basis, Groupon lost $413.4 million for 2010 and $113.9 million in the first three months of 2011.

And, indeed, questions from the media, investors and, most importantly, the Securities and Exchange Commission about how Groupon accounts for its revenue and profits using ACSOI were swift and decidedly negative.

Hence, a furious debate — along with much internal tension — within Groupon about what to do. At first, in another S-1 amendment, the company backed away from using ACSOI as a “valuation metric.”

But that was apparently not enough for the SEC or anyone else, so Groupon’s top managers finally thought it best to rid itself of the term entirely. That will happen next week, sources said.

And, in coming weeks, sources added, the company will be filing additional financial information about both its growth and costs, which will undoubtedly also be put under a microscope by the media, investors and regulators.

A Groupon spokesman declined to comment when asked about the removal of ACSOI from its public offering documents.

Earlier today, CNBC reported that the regulatory review of Groupon’s questionable use of certain accounting metrics in its IPO filing was delaying its offering until later in September.

While more questions from the Securities and Exchange Commission about how it accounts for its revenue and profits might indeed eventually push the IPO debut out, according to sources I have interviewed for months now, an offering in mid to late September was actually when the social buying company was planning to take its company public.

It makes sense, since August is seldom used for road shows for companies headed for an IPO — think Wall Street in the Hamptons and you’ll get why.

That said, the continued scrutiny by the SEC is not a welcome development for Chicago-based Groupon, which filed its S-1 documents in June.

In coming weeks, sources said, the company will be filing new financial information about both its growth and costs, which will undoubtedly be put under a microscope by investors and regulators.

That’s no surprise since the contents of the original filing immediately caused controversy, especially over the amount of its venture funding paid out to insiders and also over an unusual accounting treatment called adjusted consolidated segment operating income, or Adjusted CSOI.

As I wrote at the time:

Let’s be clear, this is a number that does not include important costs, such as critical online marketing expenses to attract new customers to Groupon.
Such accounting is called non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles).

In 2010 and the first quarter of 2011, Groupon said its Adjusted CSOI was $60.6 million and $81.6 million, respectively.

On a GAAP basis, Groupon lost $413.4 million million for 2010 and $113.9 million in the first three months of 2011.

Said Groupon about its accounting in its S-1 filing: “We believe Adjusted CSOI is an important measure of the performance of our business as it excludes expenses that are non-cash or otherwise not indicative of future operating expenses.”

Definitely sketchy enough to attract an SEC look-see, which caused Groupon to back away from Adjusted CSOI as a “valuation metric” in a recently amended S-1 filing. Groupon also stepped back a sloppy comment made after the filing by its Chairman Eric Lefkofsky — in a interview he apparently thought was off the record — that the company would be “wildly profitable.”

One thing is certain: There will surely be more amending of the Groupon S-1 in the weeks ahead as it stumbles toward its IPO, which will be one of the most prominent of the Web 2.0 era.

Groupon’s S-1 filing for an IPO last month certainly got a lot of ink.

Unfortunately, much of it was negative, focused on several controversial parts of the document. Most scrutinized were large slugs of money taken out of the social buying site by its founders, as well as aggressive accounting terminology to make large losses look less, well, large.

Rattled by the intense media and analyst reaction to the filing, sources said the Chicago-based company commissioned a poll of its consumers and merchants to gauge the impact.

One source familiar with the survey said that top execs and its board wanted concrete reaction from key constituencies, instead of relying on “noise from the echo chamber” of Wall Street and Silicon Valley.

And, said several people who had seen the poll, it should probably come as no surprise that the impact of the drumbeat of Groupon-is-doomed news on merchants and consumers was low, with only one percent saying that they had formed a negative opinion of the company from the filing.

That, of course, does not mean that those important groups for Groupon aren’t disgruntled about a whole laundry list of other issues.

But — for now, at least — an S-1 with some warts isn’t one of them.

Whatever the case, Groupon will continue to face scrutiny as it moves to amend the filing after comments from government regulators, and also when it reports its latest financial results soon for the three months ended June 30, 2011.

And those are numbers that everyone will surely be paying attention to.