It is now the new year, and you are faced with the rather undesirable task of hiring a new VP. Upon reflection, you realize that the SpiderNet hiring process failed. Given the issues (laziness, lack of leadership ability) surrounding the VP you just fired, you realize that your process (or lack thereof) did not properly vet prospective job candidates.

So before you move on to hiring again, you take an inventory of the current process in order to better understand how to correct things in the future. Here’s what you find:

1. You identified the requirements of the position and developed a comprehensive job specification on your own. Since the position reported to you, you did not see the need to ask for other input.
2. You hired a search firm and saw a number of good candidates. You felt that the candidate pool was adequate, but not exceptional.
3. The interview meetings were always with you, your co-founder and one or two other people from the executive team. Everyone exchanged emails on the candidates after their meetings.
4. The search firm did the bulk of the reference checks, which significantly helped your schedule and time.

What mistakes do you think you made and how can you better go about interviewing future candidates?

I have often considered the ability to hire great people as being analogous to a batting average in baseball. A player who hits .300 is near the top of their game. While I have certainly had a much better than 30 percent success rate in my hiring overall, I’m not sure that I’ve topped 30 percent for truly exceptional hires. Hiring phenomenal employees, like hitting in baseball, is difficult. I must admit that only recently did I come to realize that there is a set of steps that a company can follow that will significantly increase the hit rate.

With respect to the SpiderNet situation, there were several mistakes made with the current process. First, there was no input from either the board or the other executives on the job specifications. It is particularly important to gain agreement on the position and have the interviewing team help develop the requirements. Second, there wasn’t a defined interview team and the results of the interviews felt a bit ad hoc. Having a defined interview team should be part of the process. Finally, the CEO left reference checking to the search firm, which was a huge error in judgment, and probably the biggest mistake of the entire process.

I took the liberty of asking Jeff Stump, our partner responsible for Executive Talent at Andreessen Horowitz, and he outlined the following steps that should be taken when hiring an executive:

1. Develop the candidate profile and expected qualifications
2. Lay out the compensation framework
3. Craft a set of questions to be used in the interview process
4. Identify your interview and recruiting methodology
5. Perform reference checks

Let’s look at each of these in more detail.

Candidate Profile and Qualifications: There should be a universal understanding of what the profile is and why the company is looking for this new hire. What is the charter of this hire over the next six months to one year? What does the company/hiring manager expect this person to deliver during this timeframe and what does success look like for this hire one year out?

The focus in this phase should be on developing a set of non-negotiable attributes as input to the interview process. Make sure to include input from anyone who is going to have a say in the interview process, including the Board and the management team. There does not need to be universal alignment, but this process will help identify any differences of opinion that can be addressed up front. This first step will drive consistency in the interview process and candidates will take notice.

Compensation and Reporting Framework: Determine the title, reporting structure and compensation of the position. Not doing this up front can often lead to misalignment late in the recruiting process.

Interview Questions: Once the profile and qualifications have been identified and agreed upon, develop a set of questions that are going to be used in the interview process. These can also be used by the search firm to screen candidates. Questions should be crafted to gauge motivation, fit and expectation.

During this phase, the hiring manager also should identify the interviewing team and start the selection of a search firm. In most cases, the company’s internal network will not be sufficient to identify the absolute best candidate and a search firm is recommended. There are exceptions to this, but in most cases, thinking that the company has enough contacts often results in a substantial delay.

Interview and Recruiting Methodology: High-level items to consider:

• Decide on the appropriate team members to be involved in the search process.
• Determine who is running point on the management team. Tasks may include interview coordination, candidate follow-up, feedback collection, reference coordination, compensation, negotiation, etc.
• Who from the board of directors will be involved?
• Define the sequence of interviews and meetings. Who needs to meet when and what is the strategy/objective during a first round vs. a second round of interviews? I also recommend spending a great deal of the first meeting on determining “fit.” Can you work with this person? Nothing else matters if you can’t check this box.
• Have the team interview for different attributes to create a better experience for the candidate and to avoid overlapping questions in the interview process.
• Define the feedback loop: What info gets captured and recorded and how/when is it shared?

Reference Checking: One of the most important — and overlooked — parts of the recruiting process is reference checking. When you make an offer to a candidate, you should feel as though you really know the person, warts and all. Reference checking is the best way to really understand what a candidate is like to work with.

Often your search firm will offer to do reference checks. While it is fine for them to do some investigation, do not leave all of it to them. You need to do a large part of the reference checking yourself. Compare notes with the search firm but handing it off to someone else is a huge mistake.

In general, you should do between 10 to 15 reference checks and they should have a 360-degree approach (i.e., 1/3 bosses, 1/3 peers, 1/3 subordinates). At least one-third of these queries should be backchannel references.

Finally, when you have settled on the final two candidates, you should have the finalists come in to present a 100-day plan with your executive team at your staff meeting. This will give you a very good sense of how the person responds to an assignment and the nature of their work.

Hiring takes planning and time, and the process is often ad hoc or simply non-existent. Don’t make hiring a batting average. Take the time, develop a clear process, and you will see much better results in your overall hit rate.

Peter Levine has been a lecturer at both MIT and Stanford business schools and CEO of Xensource. Prior to Xensource, Peter was EVP of Strategic and Platform Operations at Veritas Software where he helped grow the organization from no revenue to more than $1.5 billion, and from 20 employees to over 6,000.

I was fired from my first job as a programmer after college, and I’ve agonized over terminations ever since. The day I was fired was one of the worst days of my life, and no matter how it was presented, I felt like my world had collapsed. The event had a profound impact on my career and on my actions as a manager. For me, there’s nothing easy about firing someone.

That said, I’ve had to fire many people in my years as a manager and CEO. My worst days were when I knew I had to have “the conversation.” While firing anyone is hard enough, the most difficult terminations were people whom I had recruited and hired as direct reports. I find it disappointing to see my “rock star” fail — and having a vested interest in the person makes the decision quite difficult. There is usually a long period during which the decision process loops: fire, coach, keep, fire, coach, keep, (repeat). As a result, termination day often happens long after I’ve internally decided that the person needs to go.

Industry wisdom suggests that you fire someone immediately after recognizing that a person must be let go. I agree with this — I’ve never looked back on a termination thinking, “I should have waited longer to do something” — but it is way easier said than done.

Earlier in my career, I always wanted to spend the time to work things out for my employees, especially the folks I hired and managed directly. Unfortunately, I was rarely able to change the outcome of the situation, and I would often waste precious time not moving forward with the termination and subsequent re-hire. As I tried to work things out (and inevitably put off making a decision), the impact on the organization and the reflection on me as a manager all took its toll. I’ve since learned that moving forward quickly is the best overall approach. Still, firing someone sucks.

Let’s look at the SpiderNet case and break down some of the pros and cons of each choice.

• Find him a different job in the company. It is very rare in a start-up that you will actually have a job opening for another role that can be filled by a person with a different skill set whom you also want to terminate. This may be easier in larger companies, but not at a start-up. You need to be brutally honest with yourself before making a lateral move and ask, “Is the new position needed and is this person best for that job?” If yes, then move the person. Otherwise, terminate.

  In the SpiderNet case, you are also dealing with a person who is lazy. In my experience, character flaws cannot be corrected, regardless of where you put the person. Once lazy, always lazy. There are additional downsides to creating a new position: how does the rest of the team feel when you “protect” a non-performer? Are you seen as wasting money creating a “non-job”? Are you not stepping up to deal with the problem?

• Put him on a performance plan. Performance plans are generally useless for executives. These plans are nothing more than negotiated action items that are a problem to manage and never get at the core of the issue. My philosophy is that a senior executive is expected to bring a level of expertise and job performance to where you don’t need to hand-hold them with a list of negotiated action items. Do the job or leave. At the end of the three-month plan, the executive usually makes the most of the pre-negotiated goals, but you’ve not made the person less lazy or any more competent. They’ve simply made it through a set of hoops and you still want to get rid of them. Human Resource directors in larger companies always want to put people on plans but I have never seen a three-month plan change the long-term outcome for an executive. Plans only prevent you from making an important change today.
• Fire him and re-hire. As you might imagine, this is my preferred outcome. Do it and move on. Get the new hire process going and don’t screw around. Always treat the person you are terminating with dignity, put together a respectable termination package, and never make the termination personal. In the SpiderNet case, I might ask the co-founder to step back in to run engineering on an interim basis while I searched for a new VP.

When running a software company, hiring is one of the most leveraged activities we can do. The higher the position is, the more impact and importance that hire has on the success of the company. At an executive level, hiring the wrong person can result in months or years of delay, and hiring the right person can help to accelerate the business to entirely new levels.

When a critical hire needs to be made, I have often made the mistake of focusing on managing the department that has the opening, rather than focusing on making the right hire. I have since learned that prioritizing hiring first and managing the department second yields a much more successful hire.

Finally, I’ll say it again: Firing someone sucks, so take the time to hire correctly and you’ll never have to be in a position to have “the conversation.” Let me know the secret when you achieve 100 percent success.

Peter Levine has been a lecturer at both MIT and Stanford business schools and CEO of Xensource. Prior to Xensource, Peter was EVP of Strategic and Platform Operations at Veritas Software where he helped grow the organization from no revenue to more than $1.5 billion, and from 20 employees to over 6,000.

“Let’s go. Yes, let’s go.” [They do not move.]

– Samuel Beckett, “Waiting for Godot”

In Internet terms, the removal of Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz happened a dog’s age ago.

In fact, it was September 6.

Since then, it has felt like a slow slog, especially contrasting the situation with that of another troubled Silicon Valley giant, Hewlett-Packard, which fired its CEO Léo Apotheker and appointed a new one, Meg Whitman on September 22.

Since then, in comparison, the former eBay CEO has been like the Energizer Bunny, making a series of major and often difficult decisions, including: Holding onto its PC unit; reaffirming its controversial deal to buy Autonomy; promising a decision on the fate of its webOS unit within the next two weeks; appointing new execs; and even buying a company.

To be fair, Yahoo did acquire advertising start-up Interclick.

Otherwise, still no sale or investment deal. No new CEO. No Asia resolution. And, perhaps most importantly, no clearly articulated strategy going forward.

It’s not that Yahoo’s leadership isn’t working at it.

Some fervently insist to me that there is a “plan,” as if there is some clever game of Internet Stratego going on that I cannot possibly grok.

Mebbe — but of this I have no doubt: The Yahoo board has indeed been huffing and puffing away, weighing and measuring, considering and debating.

A lot.

Maybe I’m just too impatient. I am (ask my kids).

Or maybe Yahoo’s beleaguered employees are, one of whom just wrote me plaintively, “unreal how they can drag this out,” in what has become a common refrain up and down the ranks.

Or maybe it’s the Asian partners, Alibaba Group and SoftBank, who are antsy and have considered a variety of nuclear options in order to get back stakes Yahoo holds in them. Said one: “The strategy seems to be to frustrate and exhaust us into submission.”

Or, finally, maybe it’s the newly frustrated recent bidders for a partial stake in Yahoo, Silver Lake and TPG Capital. Declared one to me after I warned that Yahoo might, in fact, drag the proceedings out longer than you might expect: “I thought you were kidding.”

Nope, welcome to the Yahoo waiting game, PE guys!

So, to help us all get through it, here’s a quick update primer on what’s what on the various fronts:

Who’s in Charge Here?

Technically, it is the Yahoo board, which is aided by interim CEO Tim Morse.

First, a word about Morse: By all accounts, he is doing a very good job as temporary head honcho — calming the troubled company, making swift decisions about daily operating issues and being a generally nice dude to deal with.

“He’s Yahoo’s no-drama Obama, in comparison to what was happening before,” said one exec, in reference to the more volatile regime under Bartz.

Still, despite his very pleasant all-hands meetings, such as one earlier this week, Morse had previously been Yahoo’s CFO and not an Internet-savvy visionary to give the company inspiration. No insult intended, but he’s the accountant guy.

To be fair, he is not meant to be the visionary, but many at the company are yearning for exactly that.

A role that is now being taken up again by co-founder, former CEO and director Jerry Yang, who dozens of employees tell me is unusually involved in operational details these days for a board member.

I get reports of sightings of him all the livelong day: Jerry in demand-side advertising confab! Jerry chitchatting with entrepreneurs from a possible start-up acquisition! Jerry weighing in on a variety of products. Look, over in the cubicle, it’s Jerry!

This is seen by Yahoo employees as a good thing and also a bad thing, since it’s hard to be running your little divisional show at Yahoo with the dude who invented it all looking over your shoulder, even if he means well. People naturally defer to Yang, the 800-pound Web icon in the room.

But, given the overwhelming state of stasis at Yahoo now — “No one can do anything until we find out how the story ends,” said one staffer — and employees eying the exits, no power at Yahoo really matters but the board.

You know, the board that has gotten the company to this moment of crisis and profound ennui, which is its own particularly ironic irony.

To better understand the power dynamics on the board, above is a little chart for you to peruse to give you an idea of which independent board member is running what key committee.

The only truly important one is the Transactions and Strategic Planning committee, which is headed by Intuit President and CEO Brad Smith and includes former Akamai President (and former Yahoo CEO candidate) David Kenny, top HP exec Vyomesh Joshi and other guy Gary Wilson.

And, in completely visible shadow form, Yang. Multiple sources close to the situation said he has been a key force in the strategery around a possible sale or investment.

This has caused not more than a little tension among board members, but everyone seems to like the much described nicest-man-in-the-room, Smith, and hopes his cool head will prevail.

Another important part of the board is the Nominating and Corporate Governance committee run by Patti Hart, who is energetically and simultaneously — if pointlessly — in search of a capable new Yahoo CEO.

Or, as I like to call this mythical person: The Unicorn.

The Deal

As I and many others have previously reported, there are bids on the table for partial investments in Yahoo by two very powerful private equity firms, Silver Lake and TPG Capital.

It’s a PE rumble, with a side of Microsoft financial backing! (I think Silver Lake’s Egon Durban makes a very nice Riff, while Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer is the perfect Officer Krupke.)

My fervent wishes for some figurative and dance-accompanied knife-play aside, the bids are essentially the same in general and different in particular. Silver Lake is offering about $16.50 a share, while TPG is dangling a tiny bit more. Silver Lake has power entrepreneur and VC Marc Andreessen on its side, while TPG is trying to get Silicon Valley fave investor and start-up whisperer Reid Hoffman of Greylock Partners and LinkedIn on its team. Both have ideas on CEOs, strategy and what to do about the Asian assets.

This type of deal could happen suddenly and you’ll hear about it quick, since the losing side will immediately trash it to the media.

As you might expect, each director has their favorite PE firm, with some not liking Andreessen, some thinking the TPG bid is a little light, some for a whole-company deal and some wanting Yahoo to hire its own CEO and run the place itself.

Of course, the last one shows a disturbing level of denial and should be a nonstarter, given the board’s abysmal record on CEO choice and its riding of Yahoo to this sad point in its storied history.

Here’s what to expect on the PE front: A lot of wrangling behind the scenes with frequent leaks to the media about what each side wants and will not yield on.

CEO choice or no CEO choice, that is the question!

Also a big factor are Yahoo’s major shareholders, few of whom like the partial investment deal, which is known as a PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity), because of the insiderness of it all and because they prefer a whole-company sale at a higher price.

There is also pressure from activist shareholders like Daniel Loeb of Third Point, who has attacked Yang and others on the board and is ready to pounce with a proxy fight if Yahoo tries to override shareholders too egregiously. And, of course, the inevitable lawsuits over any arrangement that seems to block a whole-company bid.

That said, such a mega-deal seems unlikely, since it is too pricey and despite a lot of noise that Yahoo’s Asian partners were ready to strike with a takeover in order to get back Yahoo’s big stakes in their companies.

That’s kind of like buying a store to get back the cool pair of shoes you sold, but bankers love to scheme up this stuff. While it certainly could happen, it would be a bear of a deal.

Perhaps more like Yogi Bear, hopelessly angling for a tasty pic-a-nik basket — but grrrr anyway.

But perhaps the biggest factor in all of this mishegas is time. There is none on a lot of levels, most especially the increasing level of brain drain and drift at Yahoo. After the New Year dawns, this is going to spin right out of control and amount to the biggest internal challenge Yahoo faces.

An Asian Solution

As I and others have reported, Yahoo is entertaining yet another proposal to sell all or part of its Asian assets back to the companies, which make up a bulk of its market valuation.

The relationship between Yahoo and its Asian partners has long been fraught, and today the difficulty of reaching an agreement remains a vexing issue. That’s because it is hard and complex and because no one wants to do what the other side wants.

I am no tax attorney, but it seems as if Yahoo will ultimately come to some deal with China’s Alibaba and Japan’s SoftBank, which could include big investors like Russia’s DST Global.

And, as I reported last week, the Asian partners want to strike a deal with the current board rather than lose leverage with a much cannier new owner.

It’s a tough decision in all aspects to strike, but would remove the focus on the fact that Yahoo’s most valuable asset is something it is not running and simply holds due to a good stock trade in years past.

Years past should be the operative thought here, since the Asian assets have nothing to do with what Yahoo needs to do with its core U.S. and global brand.

You know, the thing that allowed them to buy those lucrative Asian assets in the first place?

Strategery

And that’s the crux of all this, isn’t it? Yahoo needs a new strategy and fast.

Or it needs to clarify and hone its current strategies around advertising and media and define itself once and for all. While it often touts itself as a premier digital media company, it’s still not clear exactly what Yahoo is saying by that.

In fact, incredibly, sources told me that the board was still wrangling over the tired issue of what Yahoo is at its most recent meeting — essentially, is it a products company or a media company?

If I had to listen to that who-am-I-anyway debate again, I think I would scream, given how many important Web trends that Yahoo has whiffed in recent years, many of which were right in its own wheelhouse.

How much damage this has caused to Yahoo’s core business is a critical one to determine, with many feeling the situation is too far gone to revive it and others confident that this is simply an issue of poor execution.

I am in the middle on this one, but all the indicators of Yahoo’s business have long been heading in the wrong direction, and results in the next quarter are expected to underline this even more.

Thus, the board’s navel-gazing at this point is untoward, considering that it is presiding over the possibility of a sale that should not have had to happen in the first place. While it is not quite a fire sale, it’s no cause for celebration at all the attention, either.

In fact, it’s also pointless, since — if this all resolves as it should — the current Yahoo board will not be the one determining the company’s future any longer. Remember that: This group should and will be gone for the most part.

Yahoo shareholders and employees can hope, at least.

Then, it will be up to the next group of leaders to make the very hard choices — including what are likely to be massive layoffs and radical surgery on its offerings — for what’s to come next.

In the end, that is all that will matter. Until then, as usual, you’ll have to sit tight.

I hate to use a personal story to make a professional point — but when I was in the hospital recently, after suffering from a mini-stroke, I got an important piece of health advice that, oddly enough, applies perfectly to Yahoo, the Silicon Valley Internet icon I cover very closely.

I know, I know, but listen up …

When I was close to going home, one of my doctors told me I had to make sure I paid attention to any signs that might indicate a recurrence. The issue around any possible future ischemic attack taking place, he said, is speed in getting critical care once any unusual symptoms become apparent, such as numbness, tingling, confusion and cognitive difficulty.

That’s because every second of delay translates to increased damage to cerebral cells that could badly impact speech, movement and worse.

“Remember,” the doctor intoned with great and very appropriate gravity. “Time is brain.”

Yes, indeed it is — for me, and also very much so for Yahoo these days.

Leaving aside my own mortality, one of the most important issues going forward for Yahoo’s long-hoped-for revival will be how quickly the company moves in the next month, in what has so far been a lugubrious and rumor-heavy process to figure out its strategic plan in the wake of the firing of CEO Carol Bartz in early September.

That means — going into a major holiday season — Yahoo has about 30 working days to make what has to be a complex and multiparty deal. It is likely to include private equity firms, big companies, Asian partners, investment bankers, major shareholders and scrutiny from the media, in an effort that is approximately akin to herding cats.

This from a board that has often moved with snail-like reflexes in the midst of much more minors crises, and has shown a talent for disaster.

So, while speed is sometimes the enemy of reason, in this case, it is now more necessary than ever before.

There are three key reasons why Yahoo’s leaders have to perform quickly now, each of which could spell even more turmoil for the long-troubled company, if botched.

The first is the possibility — actually, the probability — of a proxy fight that might begin informally just after the new year.

That’s when you could start hearing from someone like activist shareholder Daniel Loeb of Third Point — who has been vocal about ousting Yahoo board members, including co-founder Jerry Yang. Yahoo directors are fully aware that he is eyeing this ugly option, which will include readying an alternate slate of directors.

According to a Yahoo spokeswoman, the earliest nominations for directors can be submitted is February 24 for those “shareholder proposals not intended for inclusion in proxy materials and for nomination of director candidates.”

But while there is a formal process, you will hear it coming long before that, unless Yahoo gives Loeb board seats to quiet him down — which is unlikely but possible.

Such a noisy fight is not one Yahoo can afford to have, and it has already shown some cloddish sensibilities in its response to a recent letter by Loeb — who has many more shares than Yang, and should still be accorded a certain amount of respect, no matter what he says.

Given how badly the last Yahoo shareholder tussle with Carl Icahn went, another proxy battle could be deadly, and might drag on through the first half of 2012. In his Yahoo tussle, Icahn ultimately got three seats on the Yahoo board, but eventually went away with everyone the poorer.

Second, Yahoo will report its fourth-quarter earnings in late January, which will likely continue to show weakness in key sectors of its business. While interim CEO Tim Morse is doing a laudable job given the shaky circumstances, drops in advertising revenue growth, engagement and search are not anything Yahoo can keep making excuses for.

While it is likely the company’s beleaguered operating execs will pull out the stops to make the numbers look better — a new game I like to play is “how many homepage ads can they jam in there at the quarter’s end?” — it’s no panacea for the kinds of dramatic and even drastic changes that new ownership will have to make, sooner than later.

And, speaking of beleaguered, perhaps the most important reason that Yahoo has to get the lead out and clarify its situation is due to one consistent thing about the company: Talent attrition and employee fatigue.

Speaking to one exec after another in recent weeks, it is dead clear that Yahoo is increasingly hard-pressed to hold on to the best of its current employees, or to attract any terrific new ones.

The impact on product innovation, morale and more is obvious.

One exec who has long been one of the more cheerleader types for Yahoo — often calling me out in the past for being too negative on the company’s prospects — has recently turned weary, cynical and even depressed about the future — so much so that I now find myself bucking up the worker.

“You can’t hire anyone, since you can’t tell them honestly who their bosses might be in three months,” said the staffer. “And you can’t look anyone who works for you now in the eye and tell them it will turn out right in the end, either, given the track record so far.”

Indeed. And, more than any other factor that could hurt Yahoo in the competitive tech sector, brain drain is what will always get you in the end.

I am here at Yahoo HQ in Sunnyvale, Calif., to check out “Product Runway,” which is the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s attempt to show that it can still innovate.

First and foremost is the launch of Livestand, a personalized news reader that is similar to Flipboard and a variety of other rivals, including — soon — Google.

It’s Yahoo’s attempt to present a business-as-usual feel — amidst a long and agonizing and very public strategic overview that might also include the sale of the company (or not!), in the wake of the recent firing of its last CEO, Carol Bartz.

It has caused a lot of trauma inside Yahoo, which can’t help with innovation.

But we press on!

In other words, despite the three-ring circus going on outside, Yahoo wants you to know it is still hard at work.

We begin:

10:35 am: As the strains of U2 die out, Yahoo Chief Product Officer Blake Irving takes the stage, which is actually set up in the company’s cafeteria. I can smell lunch being made nearby and I am hungry.

Apt — Yahoo certainly needs to show off a lot of cool stuff or its fate will be cooked.

No pressure, Blake!

“Personally, I am more bullish on Yahoo today,” he said. “What is Yahoo? Simple. It’s the premier digital media company. Period. Stop.”

Oh, if it were only that easy.

10:46 am: Irving pulls out his favorite slide, which looks like a chemistry test. It lists the various elements of the product strategy, with things like personalization, mobile, premium.

Now to Livestand, which is available on the Apple iTunes app store right now.

Don’t all rush at once!

Irving notes that Livestand is more than just an app — it is a platform.

In other words, Yahoo wants to help publishers publish online. Kind of a Facebook of content.

If Yahoo can pull it off, that is. (And, of course, unless Facebook decides to do the same.)

10:50 am: Livestand is an HTML5 “personalized living magazine.”

“This is the way Web pages are going to look,” declares Irving. Which is to say, heavy on photos, swoopy navigation, a television screen-like interface.

Irving uses the example of Surfer magazine, which is a good idea since waves always look pretty. Especially in a video-in-frame with Kelly Slater in Hawaii.

But, in essence, for anyone who has used Flipboard for years now, none of this is entirely different.

10:54 am: The look of what would be the Yahoo News page is actually much more interesting, since it is clearly a whole lot better than the Web page.

Irving also shows off a “living ad” — in this case, an unusually snuggly couple on a couch. It is cool, but creepy.

When launched, the ad has tap points. Irving — naughtily declaring about what is an ad, “I’ll tap that” — taps the lady’s butt, which would also have been my move. We learn about the jeans, of course.

10:58 am: Irving then shows off the ability to add feeds.

Next, something called “Cocktails.” First up, a developer tool called Yahoo Mojito and Yahoo Manhattan, which is a hosting service. The company will open-source both the technologies in 2012.

Irving brings up Mike Kerns, VP of Personalization & Social, who came to Yahoo when it bought the innovative sports fan site called Citizen Sports.

“We like to ship sh#t,” he notes. I like Mike Kerns immediately.

Kerns intros C.O.R.E. No, it is not a secret government organization that takes out fussy bloggers, who might be more critical than Yahoo execs would like.

In fact, it stands for “content optimization relevance engine.” Of course it does.

Simply put, C.O.R.E. is trying to link the right content or whatever to the right consumers and who likes what. Ladies like this, dudes like this. Apparently, “men of multiple ages” enjoy stories about golden chicken.

11:11 am: Kerns is moving on to social, especially its integration with Facebook. While much touted, sources tell me it has gone slower than expected in terms of use, but that it is improving.

Kerns talks about the idea of matching content to conversations to interests and, well, you know — the now exhausting world of modern media consumption.

The world in which you can no longer simply read an article and enjoy it — you must comment, share, discuss, parse, tweet.

Does anyone remember when you read something cool and just kept it to yourself?

Forget it, pal! It is a full-information society now and you better get on board and start poking your friends about every little thing.

(Personally, I plan on becoming a hermit in 3 … 2 … 1.)

11:18 am: Now Tim Parsey, who is Yahoo’s design head. He is hands down the most delightful exec the company has had in a while, mostly because he loves to smirk adorkably.

He shows off Yahoo’s first original design, which was a dull list. And then another really bad logo. But Parsey loves it! It’s kitschy!

Smirk attack!

Parsey moves into what has to happen now, which is to deliver a much more emotional experience and a much better designed one. He uses words like “humanism.”

Say what? He is right — Yahoo has for too long completely ignored design as an important part of the experience.

That’s why Flipboard was so quickly touted — it was pretty and fun. And it is why everyone is simply forced to love Apple products.

11:22 am: Parsey even has a code for it, called REM — for rational, emotional and meaningful.

He shows off a weather app. People take photos and they can be used in the app. Then Yahoo Mail for the iPad, whic is also handsome with photos and video. Livestand, also pretty.

“Great way to differentiate,” says Parsey. He calls it “one Yahoo!” Indeed.

11:35 am: I’ll admit it. After Parsey-fest, I zoned out for a sec when IntoNow dude, Adam Cahan, comes up.

Donut emergency!

Back to IntoNow, it’s the television indexing service that Yahoo bought in April.

Essentially, more ways to watch the media — in this case, video — and do 53 other things at the very same time. Memo to humanity: We will all be paying continuous partial attention for the rest of eternity.

Like I said: Hermitage!

11:41 am: Product dude Irving is back, making a point that, despite all the public mishegas, Yahoo has been busy at innovating.

A redo of email, better search, social “Facebar” with Facebook, Flickr for Google Android.

Irving is correct — Yahoo’s engineers have been hard at work and deserve kudos for doing so, even with attrition issues, stock declines and questions about the company’s very future being debated daily.

The problem is that too many of these improvements are mostly incremental and essentially table stakes for tech companies, most of whom have introed many more significant innovations in the same time frame as Yahoo has.

Google did Android, Google+ (as well as some notable failures). Microsoft did Kinect, Windows Phone, Windows 8. Amazon did Kindle Fire. Facebook did a range of major updates, as it has grown like a weed.

And there’s Apple. You might have heard of the iPhone and the iPad.

You get my point. Yahoo’s Product Runway today is well done, but what it really needs to be is just the beginning of a take-off.

11:48 am: Now Q&A time.

The first question is what took so long to get Livestand out, the second is why should people use Livestand since Flipboard and others have already been around for a dog’s age.

I ask about design — mostly because I want Parsey to use the word “delicious” a lot — and also about all the turmoil around the company and its impact on product creation. (I decide not to mention that Yahoo blew its acquisition of the bookmarking site, Delicious, and then sold it.)

Parsey delivers on the delicious scale, noting that Yahoo must have one design experience and yet has a lot of different interfaces. In other words, it cannot be Apple, but it can feel a lot more cohesive.

Irving talks a little bit around the obvious elephant in the room — the future of Yahoo — noting that the product staff was trying to focus and forget the storm going on outside.

“We have dreams about what this company can be,” says Irving.

You and me both, brother.

12:04 pm: More questions that are too detailed for my tastes, since they have delivered lunch and I can see it and I am ravenous.

As Parsey might say: It looks deliiiiiccccious.

Now, let’s hope Yahoo can do even more tasty stuff.

The Hewlett-Packard board will meet as a whole today, after all kinds of committee confabs yesterday, in what sources describe as an intense debate over the fate of its current CEO, Léo Apotheker.

You know, the Léo who is now painfully twisting in the wind, after AllThingsD and Bloomberg broke the news that he might be ousted after only 11 months on the job, and replaced — at least for now — by director and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman.

If appointed, even without many critical credentials in the enterprise business, Whitman would be HP’s seventh CEO since 1999. That’s more corporate marriages and exec beheadings than England’s Henry VIII!

The possibility of one more, including other internal and external candidates, sent long-suffering HP shares soaring yesterday, and the stock was still up almost seven percent in after-hours trading.

That Wall Street glee is surely to come crashing down and very soon today, if the current crisis at the Silicon Valley tech giant — which has stumbled from one to the next over the last few years — is not quickly and definitively resolved by the board.

That means, of course, the likely firing of Apotheker, whose tenure has been rocky, articulating a strategy that the company actually plans to stick to and getting a new leader into place.

Translation: Don’t pull a Yahoo board here and drag out the situation to the most excruciating level possible.

Beyond the moribund stock and pissed-off shareholders, the uncertainty will be wearing on employee morale, including HP’s top execs.

According to sources close to the situation, leaders of HP’s many huge divisions had no idea that Apotheker’s head was on the block — although many I spoke to said they had hoped for a while that it would be.

“Leo is a very nice guy, but he has been an ineffective leader for HP at a very important time, with all that has been changing in the tech industry and the pressure from our competitors,” said one person at the company.

Said another, “[Apotheker will] get the blame, but this board needs to get a plan into place we can all follow, and then march this giant army in some direction, because all these shifts have been disheartening.”

I would imagine so.

Still, said sources, the board might not resolve the problem until later today, or Friday, even.

“The board really can’t look like it is making rash decisions,” said one person close to the situation. “And it cannot be hurtling from one mess to another and making an even bigger one in the process.”

That, given the many troubles at HP in recent years — from ever-shifting strategies to disappointing forecasts — is what you might call an understatement.

As AllThingsD reported earlier today, the tech giant’s board is meeting today to discuss replacing CEO Léo Apotheker with another director and former eBay exec Meg Whitman.

Shares are up over nine percent now, after spiking at 11 percent. That would be up $2.04 to $24.51.

It is a big shift from the past year. Due to worries about its long-term strategy, HP’s stock has plummeted almost 43 percent in the 11 months since Apotheker was appointed. By comparison, rival Oracle’s shares are up more than three percent in the same period, and Apple stock has risen more than 50 percent.

While the situation is in flux, investors seem clear in their assessment that Apotheker should go.

Potentially, he could walk away with a lot. His contract, on file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, grants him a series of cash payments, company shares and other things, some of which he’ll keep, some of which he won’t.

First off is the cash: Apotheker’s base salary was $1.2 million a year and according to my reading of his contract, he’ll be eligible for a severance plan that will pay him that salary for 18 months after termination.

He also received a $4 million cash signing bonus for joining HP. But depending on when and how he’s fired — with or without cause — he may have to give some of it back. The contract says that if he’s terminated within 18 months he has to return some of that signing bonus, specifically: “an amount equal to the Signing Bonus multiplied by a fraction with the numerator equaling 18 less the number of whole months that have elapsed from the Effective Date to the date of Executive’s termination of employment (the “Date of Termination”) and a denominator equal to eighteen (18).” I’m not going to do that math for you because I don’t get what the contract aims to say. Given that it’s been less than 12 months since he joined HP, let’s just assume he’ll be required to return most about 40 percent of it.

He’s also entitled to an incentive bonus that amounts to between 200 percent and 500 percent of his annual salary, based on HP’s existing incentive plan. The incentive plan isn’t spelled out in the contract, but since these plans are usually tied to stock performance I can’t imagine what payment he’d be entitled to under it. The contract stipulates that he gets at least some of it. More on that below.

Apotheker has also accumulated a fair amount of HP stock. He was granted 76,000 shares of HP stock, half of which vested on Oct. 31, 2010. The next day, HP shares closed at $42.49 a share, making the grant worth $1.6 million. Another grant of 38,000 shares is due to vest on Oct. 31 of this year. This block is worth a lot less: $889,000 as of the price of HP shares at the moment.

There were also one-time grants that were essentially a signing bonus package: 80,000 non-forfeitable shares, half of which are due to vest on Oct. 31, 2011, and the other half due to vest on Oct. 31, 2012. If terminated without cause within three years, these shares become fully vested. That’s another $1.9 million worth of HP shares. However, if terminated “with cause” then all the unvested equity goes poof and isn’t considered vested. This will make the “with cause” and “without cause” portion of the discussion with the board important.

Apotheker also got a lot of cash in relocation benefits, and was said to have purchased a six-bedroom house in Atherton, Calif., for $7 million. His relocation allowance amounted to $4.6 million, of which $2.9 million was to be devoted to the actual, uh, relocation, and $1.7 million of which was to compensate him for the forfeiture of payments and benefits he lost upon leaving his old job at SAP. This payment was fully vested right away and is not subject to repayment.

Update: Many thanks to reader Yogi who in the comments below appears to have done all the math much better than I could. His findings:

• $8.6 million: signing ($4 million) and relocation ($4.6 million) bonus.
• $3.6 million earned for one year of service (base $1.2 million + $2.4 million minimum bonus minimum according to contract).
• 156,000 shares of HP works out to about $3.8 million based on today’s price. Remember that all stock grants vest upon termination.
• $4.8 million severance payment: 2x the base salary plus minimum 2x bonus. This would be paid over 18 months and would stop if he gets a job with a competitor.
• 728,000 PRUs: This one is flexible, and is based on performance of the company, but automatically assuming cash flow has been achieved. Since PRUs are used as incentive for all HP management, Apotheker’s estimated achievement will be the same as for everyone else. Even at 50 percent, this would be worth about $9 million (364,000 shares), and at 75 percent it would be worth $13.5 million.

The range works out to be in the neighborhood of $28 million to $33 million.

See the clear-as-mud contract below.

apothekercontract

Yahoo chairman Roy Bostock fired Bartz, after 32 months on the job, amid middling financial results by the company and a stagnant stock price.

As you may have heard, Bartz did not take kindly to the fact that she was fired by telephone, WSJ reports.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

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?

Yesterday, AOL’s Huffington Post Media Group got into hot water after the top editor at its Moviefone unit sent a memo to freelancers it was in the midst of firing, offering them an opportunity to “contribute as part of our non-paid blogger system.”

Today, that exec–Moviefone Editor-in-Chief Patricia Chui–was fired by the company, which is in the midst of drastically rejiggering its stable of writers.

Many of those were freelance bloggers under contract to AOL, who are now getting the boot in favor of reallocating staff back to largely paid journalists.

Thus came the controversial email from Chui, which read, in part:

“We will, indeed, be moving away from a freelancer model and toward one relying on full-time staffers. Sometime soon-–this week, I believe–-many of you will be receiving an email informing you that your services as a freelancer will no longer be required. You will be invited to contribute as part of our non-paid blogger system; and though I know that for many of you this will not be an option financially, I strongly encourage you to consider it if you/d like to keep writing for us, because we value all of your voices and input.”

Oh dear. Really, oh dear, especially since the Huffington Post has had its own share of controversies over not paying some bloggers (although it never quite ever offered up a doozie that this letter was).

Sources said Chui was terminated by John Montorio, the HuffPo Media Group’s culture, entertainment and lifestyle editor. Arianna Huffiington is head of all content at AOL, which recently paid $315 million to buy the Huffington Post.

Since she took over, Huffington has tried to stress a return to journalism over more algorithmic content creation. The unloading of its freelance writers was part of that effort.

Thus, Chui’s missteps did not help matters.

But it was not the first time recently that she had made an ill-advised editorial judgment.

Sources said the firing is also due to an incident several weeks ago, in which Chui appeared to defend a marketing employee who sent an email to TechCrunch writer Alexia Tsotsis, asking her to soften a review of “Source Code” due to studio relationship considerations.

AOL bought TechCrunch, a well-known tech news site, last fall. At the time, its CEO Tim Armstrong promised editorial independence and no meddling over advertising concerns.

Instead of taking this minion to task, on Moviefone’s own blog Chui said, in part:

“The reality of our situation is that, as a movies site, we work with movie studios every day, and it is in our best interests to stay on good terms with them. Staying on good terms with studios means that we will relay information if asked. It does not mean that we would ever force a writer or an editor to edit their work for the sake of a studio–or anyone else.”

Even with the last line, it is not exactly a profile in courage, because it was clear violation of the traditional separation of church and state in force at most media organizations.

Typically, editors are supposed to come down on any such communication. That has certainly been my experience in journalism over the years at the Washington Post and Dow Jones–including during its News Corp. ownership. In fact, I have often been shielded from such requests to pass such complaints onto me and only found out much later of advertiser discomfort about my reporting.

At the time, TechCrunch quite clearly called for Chui’s firing and that happened today.

Here is Chui’s full memo to freelancers, as well as the one about TechCrunch, neither of which were apparently cleared with higher-ups:

From: Chui, Patricia
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 11:26 AM
To: MoviefoneWriters
Subject: Moviefone/Cinematical–Status of Writers

Dear Moviefone/Cinematical Writers,

I know there’s been a lot of uncertainty regarding the future of freelancers and your status as a writer for the site. I personally apologize for the lack of communication, but I’ll tell you what I can.

We will, indeed, be moving away from a freelancer model and toward one relying on full-time staffers. Sometime soon–this week, I believe–many of you will be receiving an email informing you that your services as a freelancer will no longer be required. You will be invited to contribute as part of our non-paid blogger system; and though I know that for many of you this will not be an option financially, I strongly encourage you to consider it if you’d like to keep writing for us, because we value all of your voices and input.

Some of you have indicated interest in applying for full-time writer and editor positions, and the status of those positions are also part of discussions that are ongoing right now. I cannot at this point, however, tell you how many positions there are, or what the exact nature of those positions will be.

Despite the move toward a full-time staff vs. freelancer model, I’m told that there will be room for “exceptions”–for example, in the cases of writers who specialize in certain subjects. Again, what these exceptions are for Moviefone, and what the budget for them would be, is still being discussed.

As for Cinematical, the resignation of Erik Davis is certainly a loss. But I am continuing to have conversations with the editorial leadership here, and I am hopeful that we will still be able to maintain the Cinematical brand and voice going forward. Again, I will share with you any pertinent information as I have it.

In the meantime, those of you who already have assignments, please do continue to work on them unless you hear otherwise. If you’re uncertain of the status of your assignment, check with me. It may take me a while to get back to you, so please be patient–but I will respond.

I am sorry that I don’t have more specific details to give you, but I promise that I’ll keep you as well-informed as I possibly can. Don’t hesitate to reach out if you have questions or concerns.

Best,

patricia

By now you may have read the recent post in TechCrunch regarding that site’s SXSW coverage of the film “Source Code.” A representative from Moviefone, who set up the interview with Summit Entertainment, received some feedback from the studio and passed it along to TechCrunch (our sister site here at AOL). That email has now caused something of a Internet kerfuffle.

Here is the email–reprinted in the post–that was sent to the TechCrunch writer.

Hey Alexia,

Hope you’re having a good time at SxSW and that it’s not been too crazy busy for you!

First wanted to thank you for covering Source Code/attending the party, etc. But also wanted to raise a concern that Summit had about the piece that ran. They felt it was a little snarky and wondered if any of the snark can be toned down? I wasn’t able to view the video interviews but I think their issue is just with some of the text. Let me know if you’re able to take another look at it and make any edits. I know of course that TechCrunch has its own voice and editorial standards, so if you have good reasons not to change anything that’s fine, I just need to get back to Summit with some sort of information. Let me know.

Thanks!

TechCrunch’s issue with Moviefone is that by sending this email, we, in their words, “asked us to change our post. It’s not just sad, it’s wrong.”

I wanted to take this opportunity to clarify a few things.

1) The person who wrote that email was not acting in an editorial capacity. That person’s job is to act as an intermediary between the studios and editorial–not to dictate content, nor to weigh in on the content of Moviefone or any other AOL site. In fact, the presence of a person with that role is just one means we have of ensuring editorial integrity on Moviefone.

2) This is important: We never told TechCrunch to change the post in any way. A publicist at Summit reached out asking if we could convey the studio’s feedback to TechCrunch. We did so. If the editors had responded that they declined to edit the post–which, naturally, is entirely their call–we simply would have conveyed that information back to Summit.

The reality of our situation is that, as a movies site, we work with movie studios every day, and it is in our best interests to stay on good terms with them. Staying on good terms with studios means that we will relay information if asked. It does not mean that we would ever force a writer or an editor to edit their work for the sake of a studio–or anyone else.

We take editorial integrity seriously at Moviefone, and it’s painful to be depicted as a pawn of the studios when that is emphatically not the case. You may think it unseemly for a studio to request changes in an article; that’s certainly your right. But the accusation of pandering on our part or crossing an editorial line is, to my mind, completely unfair, and I would hope that a reasonable reader would be able to recognize the situation for what it is–overblown and unwarranted.

Patricia Chui
Editor-in-Chief, Moviefone

His name is Michael Wolfe. He’s 52 and has worked for HP for five years, most recently as VP for Information Technology. This will be his second go as a CIO. Before his stint at HP, he spent 24 years at Motorola’s Semiconductor Unit and was CIO during the period it was spun out to become Freescale Semiconductor.

His new boss, AMD’s interim CEO Thomas Seifert, had high praise. “Mike has effectively led IT transformations constantly focusing on reducing operating costs and significantly improving business innovation,” he said in a statement. “His considerable talent and experience will help AMD to continue strengthening our IT infrastructure and streamline our business based on our own products and platforms.”

This hiring is taking place against the backdrop of the complicated, difficult search for a new CEO at AMD following the surprise resignation of Dirk Meyer in January. COO Robert Rivet soon followed.

AMD shares haven’t moved much since then, and it has been the subject of recurring problematic buyout rumors. Today the shares closed at $8.55, unchanged from the prior session, and that’s up only a nickel from where it was at the start of the year. Shares fell five cents in after-hours trading. Investors seem to consider AMD a company in a holding pattern until there’s some resolution in the corner office.

Today, as the left and right continue their epically exhausting battle for hegemony, NPR CEO Vivian Schiller resigned after a series of borks–including a sting video in the public radio’s top fundraiser insulted the Tea Party activists and the fumbled firing of commentator Juan Williams.

Oh dear.

Well, the former New York Times exec was pretty good at moving NPR into the digital age, at least.

In fact, BoomTown interviewed Schiller at the eighth D: All Things Digital conference about the digital future of NPR, which is pretty bright actually.

She talked about prospects for high-quality journalism and the ways the public radio unit could help create a more powerful network of many stations.

Here’s the full D8 video of the Schiller session, as well as a very funny spoof video she brought about some of the more way-out digital initiatives for NPR below it:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110309/nprs-vivian-schiller-in-better-digital-days-the-full-d8-video/feed/ 5 http://allthingsd.com/20100211/after-even-more-turmoil-can-the-hot-mess-at-myspace-be-saved/ http://allthingsd.com/20100211/after-even-more-turmoil-can-the-hot-mess-at-myspace-be-saved/#comments Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:33:44 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=24330

Last week, someone who has been at MySpace for a while told me what it’s like working inside the social networking company, which has gone from supernova to also-ran in the course of a few years.

Reflecting on the downward spiral, which MySpace owner News Corp. (NWS) has been trying to slow over the last year, and how hard it has been to do a turnaround of any kind, the exec could not shake the idea that it could still be revived.

“MySpace is kind of a hot mess,” said the exec, referring to its still-large audience and well-known brand. “It’s both impossible to save and hard to give up on.”

Unfortunately for all those involved, that mess got even messier yesterday after the ousting of CEO Owen Van Natta by News Corp. Chief Digital Officer Jon Miller.

While News Corp. tried to paint the departure as more mutual in its official statement, it was most definitely not, as infighting among top execs finally came to a head today.

(Full disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

Escalating tensions over strategy going forward had grown untenable between Miller and Van Natta, as well as among and between Van Natta and his top two execs, COO Mike Jones and Chief Product Officer Jason Hirschhorn.

(Pictured from left to right above are Van Natta, Jones and Hirschhorn.)

Sources said relations had gotten so bad that Hirschhorn had told Van Natta recently that he was planning to resign by June.

It was a threat that moved well beyond well-known gripes the former media exec had aired to many outside the company over the last year about how MySpace was in much worse shape MySpace than he thought, and that reflects weariness from the weekly commute between his home in New York and the company’s Los Angeles HQ.

And after a recent blog post that claimed Hirschhorn was the one leaving, relations became even frostier, sources said.

The relationship between Miller and Van Natta had also become badly frayed, several sources noted, mostly over the pace of change and the level of control Van Natta had over MySpace.

“There were serious disagreements and something had to give,” said one person close to the situation.

After firing Van Natta in an afternoon meeting yesterday in what several people described as a “termination without cause,” Miller (pictured here with Van Natta behind him) appointed Jones and Hirschhorn co-presidents of MySpace.

It was a dramatic shift from only nine months ago.

With the backing of News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch, Miller hired Van Natta last April, after jettisoning co-founder and CEO Chris DeWolfe.

But despite his CEO title, the former Facebook and Amazon (AMZN) exec didn’t get to select the two top executives beneath him.

Both Jones and Hirschhorn were hired by Miller directly–also with Murdoch’s involvement and approval.

The idea at the time of assembling this troika was that three heads are better than one, especially in dealing with the technological, administrative and business hairball that MySpace had become over the years.

As it turned out, three heads came with three brains and three different ideas of what MySpace needed to do to fix itself.

While the work to clean up the company, make cuts and attract new talent proceeded, it seems as if not enough progress was made on the what-next part of the equation, as various strategies were considered.

That led to an increasing number of clashes as pressure began to mount to do something, even as rival Facebook’s growth skyrocketed.

While Van Natta and the others distilled the idea of making MySpace the place where consumers and artists store and keep track of their entertainment content online, using a series of “super tools” to move them all over the Web, the lack of concrete changes even began to irk Murdoch.

In News Corp.’s earnings call last week, in fact, Murdoch said about MySpace, despite recent encouraging signs of stabilization: “It’s not yet where we want it.”

Uh-oh, that might have been a clue to watch for big changes!

In addition, as MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka noted, News Corp. disclosed that MySpace and the rest of its digital portfolio were coming up short on their end of a $900 million, three-year search deal with Google (GOOG), meaning that News Corp. would receive around $100 million less than originally anticipated.

This was due to changes made to the site’s design, which cut down on some page views that the old site created to show higher traffic.

And, said sources, any new search deal with Google or, perhaps, Microsoft (MSFT) is not expected to be stellar.

“MySpace will get paid what it is worth,” said the source about search fees. “But the days of big payouts are over.”

The real problem, of course, is that MySpace’s audience has been going elsewhere, particularly Facebook, and will continue to do so until a bold new direction is set.

Many in the industry do not think that is even possible and that News Corp. shouldn’t even own MySpace anymore.

There is also a good argument that the company should have, and could have, sold the asset several years ago, either to Yahoo (YHOO) during its takeover fight with Microsoft or to another bidder when the company was riding high.

Now, News Corp.–which is dealing with many other vexing digital issues, including a pitched battle over paid content–is stuck trying to fix a distressed asset that became that way by allowing the old regime to run it in a less than rigorous manner.

And despite all the Band-Aids applied so far, reviving MySpace will take a lot of more arduous work from Jones and Hirschhorn, neither of whom has helmed as big an organization, despite recent layoffs.

In addition, the co-presidents must get along well, and power-sharing arrangements are always tricky to pull off.

So, until Miller, Jones and Hirschhorn figure it out–or not!–and, in honor of MySpace’s music meme, here is Cobra Starship’s “Hot Mess” video:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100211/after-even-more-turmoil-can-the-hot-mess-at-myspace-be-saved/feed/ 4 http://allthingsd.com/20100210/myspace-ceo-van-natta-was-fired-by-news-corp-digital-head-miller-in-late-afternoon-meeting/ http://allthingsd.com/20100210/myspace-ceo-van-natta-was-fired-by-news-corp-digital-head-miller-in-late-afternoon-meeting/#comments Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:59:08 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=24314

The long-running telenovela that has been MySpace over the years took yet another dramatic turn late today when News Corp. Chief Digital Officer Jon Miller fired MySpace CEO Owen Van Natta, whom he had hired only nine months ago to turn around the troubled social networking site, according to several sources.

(The pair are pictured above in happier times, with Van Natta on the left, during an interview Walt Mossberg and I did with them at the seventh D: All Things Digital conference in May. You can see the full video below.)

While News Corp. tried to paint the departure as more mutual in its official statement, it was most definitely not, as problems among top execs finally came to a head today.

(Full disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

Among the issues were tensions between Miller and Van Natta, as well as growing tensions with his top two execs, COO Mike Jones and Chief Product Officer Jason Hirschhorn.

Miller hired Van Natta, but the CEO didn’t bring in the two executives directly beneath him: Both Jones and Hirschhorn were hired by Miller, along with News Corp. (NWS) CEO Rupert Murdoch, who signed off on both men.

Sources also noted that Van Natta, a former Facebook and Amazon (AMZN) exec, had begun to bridle at not being able to select his own execs and at increasing meddling in the MySpace turnaround by Miller.

“There were three senior thinkers put in place to fix MySpace and it became clear that not all those voices were needed anymore,” said one person close to the situation. “So, Owen was the odd man out.”

And out he went in a flash, with Miller flying to Los Angeles early in the week to deal with rumors that it was Hirschhorn who was on his way out.

In fact, the well-known media exec had been vocally complaining for months about the harder-than-expected struggle to right MySpace’s once innovative business and had told many he was contemplating leaving within the next few months.

Today, several sources said, he conducted an all-day review of the plans Van Natta, Jones and Hirschhorn had been working on to revive MySpace and morph it into an entertainment and music hub.

After it was over, multiple sources said, Miller met with Van Natta and told him his tenure at CEO was over.

The move came as a shock to the staff at MySpace, as it was not expected, although it was clear that top execs at News Corp. were aware of the decision made by Miller.

“Simply put, it was a power struggle and Jon won,” said one source.

Miller has not returned my emails or phone calls about the situation, and a News Corp. spokeswoman declined to comment.

Ironically, after fixing a range of technical and product issues over the last several months, MySpace was beginning to see stabilization in the bleeding of users.

Comparatively, rival Facebook has seen explosive growth, reaching 400 million global users this week.

More details to come, but here is the D7 interview with Miller and Van Natta:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100210/myspace-ceo-van-natta-was-fired-by-news-corp-digital-head-miller-in-late-afternoon-meeting/feed/ 10 http://allthingsd.com/20091119/aol-we-need-to-fire-2500-volunteers/ http://allthingsd.com/20091119/aol-we-need-to-fire-2500-volunteers/#comments Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:08:15 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=13064 AOL, which has already told investors it will spend up to $200 million firing a good chunk of its staff, has now told employees. The company is looking for “up to 2,500 volunteers,” CEO Tim Armstrong told his staff today. That’s a third of AOL’s payroll.

The voluntary layoff program begins Dec. 4, a few days before the company spins off from Time Warner (TWX). If AOL doesn’t get enough volunteers, it will ax people on its own.

This is lousy news for employees, who are faced with a “jump now or wait to be pushed” decision, but it is designed to cheer investors: AOL says the cuts will drop its annual operating expenses by $300 million. Through the first nine months of this year, AOL’s operating expenses ran around $1.8 billion.

Meanwhile, AOL is looking to shed some parts of its business altogether. It has hired bankers to sell off its ICQ messaging service and is considering dumping MapQuest, among other assets.

Armstrong’s (expensive) goodwill gesture: He is giving up his 2009 bonus, which was to be at least $1.5 million. His explanation to employees: “As a member of our team and the person who takes accountability for the results of the company, I am making the decision to forego my 2009 bonus. That decision is a personal one and is not a sign for the future payout of the overall bonus plan for employees.”

Here’s the text of the company’s filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

On November 19, 2009, AOL Inc. (the “Company”) informed its employees of proposed restructuring activities as part of its continuing cost reduction initiatives aimed at aligning the Company’s organizational structure and costs with its strategy (the “Restructuring”). The Restructuring is conditioned upon the successful completion of the Company’s previously announced spin-off from Time Warner Inc. (the “Spin-off”), as well as the approval of the Company’s new Board of Directors that will begin service in connection with the Spin-off. It is anticipated that, if approved, the Restructuring will include the reduction of approximately a third of the Company’s current employee base, which will be conducted on a voluntary and involuntary basis. The goal of the Restructuring is to reduce ongoing annual operating costs by approximately $300 million. If the Restructuring is approved, the Company expects to incur restructuring charges of up to $200 million, substantially all of which is expected to be incurred from the date of the Spin-off through the first half of 2010.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20091119/aol-we-need-to-fire-2500-volunteers/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090325/ibm-the-i-stands-for-india/ http://allthingsd.com/20090325/ibm-the-i-stands-for-india/#comments Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:40:02 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=15388 When IBM CEO Sam Palmisano advised the Obama transition team that the $30 billion in information-technology stimulus handouts Big Blue is angling for could create more than 900,000 new jobs, he didn’t say they’d be created in India. Yet, apparently that’s the case. IBM (IBM) is reportedly planning to sack “a large number” of employees in its Global Business Services division, shifting their duties overseas to workers in India. The breadth of the reduction isn’t yet known, but chatter on the Alliance@IBM boards suggests it could be brutal. Said one commenter, “I talked to two different Band 10s in IBM Global Business Services yesterday who have both said that tomorrow will be a big day for firing in almost all of the GBS business units. Both of them are expecting that they will be cut because the percentages are going to be higher at the higher levels. Both made reference to this could be called a black Thursday.”

UPDATE: Black Thursday, indeed. Sources close to IBM tell Reuters the company plans to eliminate 5,000 jobs.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090325/ibm-the-i-stands-for-india/feed/ 6 http://allthingsd.com/20090325/ibm-the-i-stands-for-india-2/ http://allthingsd.com/20090325/ibm-the-i-stands-for-india-2/#comments Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:40:02 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=15388 When IBM CEO Sam Palmisano advised the Obama transition team that the $30 billion in information-technology stimulus handouts Big Blue is angling for could create more than 900,000 new jobs, he didn’t say they’d be created in India. Yet, apparently that’s the case. IBM (IBM) is reportedly planning to sack “a large number” of employees in its Global Business Services division, shifting their duties overseas to workers in India. The breadth of the reduction isn’t yet known, but chatter on the Alliance@IBM boards suggests it could be brutal. Said one commenter, “I talked to two different Band 10s in IBM Global Business Services yesterday who have both said that tomorrow will be a big day for firing in almost all of the GBS business units. Both of them are expecting that they will be cut because the percentages are going to be higher at the higher levels. Both made reference to this could be called a black Thursday.”

UPDATE: Black Thursday, indeed. Sources close to IBM tell Reuters the company plans to eliminate 5,000 jobs.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090325/ibm-the-i-stands-for-india-2/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090312/jeff-bewkes-lays-off-aol-ceo-and-president-in-a-new-york-minute/ http://allthingsd.com/20090312/jeff-bewkes-lays-off-aol-ceo-and-president-in-a-new-york-minute/#comments Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:36:04 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=10859

Let’s just say the firing of AOL CEO Randy Falco and President Ron Grant was not exactly expected–even if everyone thought it should happen–within the high ranks of the troubled online unit, until Time Warner (TWX) CEO Jeff Bewkes dropped the guillotine this afternoon in Manhattan.

And drop it he did, quickly lopping off the pair of executives Bewkes had installed himself. He replaced them with Tim Armstrong, Google’s head of advertising sales, a man with a much brighter resume, for what is likely to be an attempt to spin out AOL now that merger options are moribund.

“It’s a shock to everyone how sudden it was,” said one exec. “Everyone talked about when Bewkes was going to run out of patience with Randy and Ron all the time, but no one knew it was coming now, since it had taken so long.”

Grant, for example, only found out about the situation when Bewkes told him in person earlier today at AOL’s offices in lower Manhattan, said several sources. Bewkes has hardly ever been there–he has a stunning office at the Time Warner Center in midtown–although Armstrong’s office at Google is nearby.

Falco might have learned about the situation earlier, but several sources said no other top exec at AOL did until about 30 minutes ago.

The whole coup came, said several sources, from corporate, which swooped and made the moves swiftly, very quickly after signing the deal with Armstrong.

(Here is an interview I did this afternoon with Armstrong after the appointment was announced.)

AOL PR did not seem to be aware of the move until this afternoon, and neither did its three top division heads: People Networks head Joanna Shields, MediaGlow President Bill Wilson or newly hired Platform-A ad leader Greg Coleman.

Yesterday, quite by coincidence, BoomTown wrote about the continued turmoil within AOL and the unhappiness with Falco, which was long-running:

“That’s caused a lot of people inside AOL and also a wider circle at Time Warner to increasingly point the finger of blame at AOL CEO Randy Falco, wondering if and when he will suffer too.

“‘Why Randy Falco gets to keep his job is a mystery to a lot of people,’ said one top exec at another division.”

Well, it is a mystery no longer, apparently, with Bewkes putting the high-profile Armstrong in place as AOL’s CEO and chairman, although he has been casting about for new leadership for a while, according to many sources, such as former Yahoo COO Dan Rosensweig.

AOL is in the midst of laying off 10 percent of its staff of 7,000, although many feel deeper cuts are needed, especially since Bewkes has been unable to complete a deal to sell it after a lot of trying.

Interest by Yahoo (YHOO) in merging with AOL, for example, has cooled and there seem to be no true suitors on the horizon. A spinoff of the division seems to be the most likely option.

Whether that includes a strategy reset for AOL or not is unclear.

Under Falco and Grant–who were derisively given the nickname Smithers and Burns from “The Simpsons,” and also “Rondy” by some inside the division who did not like them–AOL paid $850 million for the Bebo social-networking site last year, an overpriced move that has grated on many throughout Time Warner.

Under their plan, AOL was focusing on a three-pronged strategy: social networking and communications (People Networks), content (MediaGlow) and advertising (Platform-A).

But new Platform-A head (and former Yahoo sales exec) Coleman–whose business has to drive revenue growth–cannot perform miracles in such a weak environment no matter what cool new products and offerings either People Networks head Shields or MediaGlow president Wilson create.

Armstrong certainly knows sales, as head of sales efforts at Google (GOOG), although he has never operated a business as multi-faceted as AOL, which–despite its troubles–remains huge.

More to come soon…

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090312/jeff-bewkes-lays-off-aol-ceo-and-president-in-a-new-york-minute/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090310/rock-meet-hard-place-more-details-of-aol-layoffs-but-are-there-more-to-come/ http://allthingsd.com/20090310/rock-meet-hard-place-more-details-of-aol-layoffs-but-are-there-more-to-come/#comments Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:49:09 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=10797

Earlier today, Silicon Alley Insider reported that layoffs at AOL, which had been announced in January, were finally taking place.

Actually, said an AOL insider, about 10 percent of the layoffs, or 70 people, have been let go since the announcement. The pace just got ratcheted up today, adding another 300 to the pyre at the troubled Time Warner (TWX) online division.

But, said several sources, the slashing of staff might go well beyond what has been announced, as AOL continues to drill down on its three-pronged strategy: social networking and communications (People Networks), content (MediaGlow) and advertising (Platform-A).

That’s no surprise since AOL’s options have landed, to say the least, in that dreaded rock-and-hard place.

The interest by Yahoo (YHOO) in merging with AOL, for example, has waxed and waned–it’s waned right now, sources said, though not completely–and there seem to be no true suitors on the horizon.

And new Platform-A head (and former Yahoo sales exec) Greg Coleman–whose business has to drive revenue growth–cannot perform miracles in such a weak environment, no matter what cool new products and offerings either People Networks head Joanna Shields or MediaGlow President Bill Wilson create.

Thus, with the ever-weakening economy, there is still fat to be cut out, especially since Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes either has to sell AOL off or make it work a whole lot better.

And working better likely means more cuts–and a whole lot more of them.

That’s caused a lot of people inside AOL and also a wider circle at Time Warner to increasingly point the finger of blame at AOL CEO Randy Falco, wondering if and when he will suffer too.

“Why Randy Falco gets to keep his job is a mystery to a lot of people,” said one top exec at another division.

While one might look at, say, the media giant’s magazine division and ask the same of its head, Ann Moore, the more obvious answer is that times are tough all over and not just at Time Warner.

Said an AOL insider who does not like Falco’s leadership, but was sympathetic: “He probably should have pushed to sell it off more when times were better, but that was being run by corporate, so now he just has to deal with a weak economy and an online property whose value has been declining for a long time.”

In any case, for now, there’s no joy in Mudville. When the domestic layoffs are done by the end of this month, a source said, the company will turn to international firings (it’s harder to dump folks in Europe, apparently).

But, as another baseball maxim goes: At least when it comes to cuts at AOL, it’s never over until it’s over.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090310/rock-meet-hard-place-more-details-of-aol-layoffs-but-are-there-more-to-come/feed/ 0