As The Wall Street Journal points out, this isn’t the first time the carmaker has taken a pass on the game — it also bowed out in 2009.

But the news adds some context to the earlier Facebook news. GM is overhauling all of its ad spending plans, so if you’re a Facebook bull you might find the carmaker’s high-profile sub easier to stomach.

It’s here.

Facebook, the 900-million-strong social network that knows more about us than even our closest friends, will become a publicly traded company within the next hour.

Private equity dealmakers will celebrate alongside cadres of newly minted millionaire engineers in Menlo Park, Calif., while retail investors the world around will clamor amongst themselves, tooth and claw, for the chance to share in a mere fraction of the riches.

And yet, after a year of watching tech IPOs — Zynga, Groupon, LinkedIn, Yelp — let’s all admit that it kind of borders on anticlimactic.

We know we’ll most likely see a nice pop in the share price after Mark Zuckerberg rings in the Nasdaq bell remotely from Facebook’s spanking-new HQ in Silicon Valley.

From there, like a floating jump ball up for grabs, the social networking giant’s closing stock price is anyone’s guess — and by the looks of my Twitter feed, everyone’s guess. There’s already a site dedicated to tracking what price Facebook’s stock will settle at when the markets close, a page peppered with numbers posited by the digital elite.

Today is about the money. And yet it is also more than just sitting and watching the ticker tape roll by. For the first time, Zuckerberg’s vision of making the world a more open place will finally apply to his own company.

We got our first taste of it when the company filed its S-1. It’s where we saw that more than half of Facebook’s 900 million monthly visitors are visiting the site via mobile devices, a channel in which the company has yet to figure out a coherent or viable monetization strategy.

We saw that Zuckerberg retains a tight grip on the company’s future — tighter than most CEOs, akin to the likes of Google’s co-founders — holding voting rights on 57.1 percent of Facebook’s mighty class-B shares. He is so tied to his company that he is cited as a risk factor in Facebook’s S-1, of course.

And now we’re witnessing the first defectors from Facebook’s nacent advertising strategy, as with General Motors pulling its $10 million dollars in advertising on Facebook earlier this week, citing it as an ineffective use of the company’s massive marketing budget.

What we’ll soon see is Facebook’s less-pretty public profile, so to speak, with Zuckerberg holding court over earnings calls every quarter, taking heat from investors who expect returns. We’ll be given insight into how the company plans to monetize its different products, and how they actually fare.

Just as Facebook knows so very much about each of us, we, too, will begin to learn a lot more about Facebook.

And yet, through all of this, no matter what grim forecast Wall Street projects, no matter what executive decisions or company road maps the media decries, Zuckerberg’s message is clear — so much so that he made it the poster for the pre-IPO all-night hackathon:

“Stay focused and keep hacking.”

Good luck with that.

(Images: (top) Morin Uwole/Facebook; (bottom) Victor Luu/Facebook)

But there’s one thing that even the most ardent Facebook fan can’t argue with: Facebook advertising is very much a work in progress.

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to Facebook itself: “We believe that most advertisers are still learning and experimenting with the best ways to leverage Facebook to create more social and valuable ads,” the company says in its IPO filing.

If you’re a Facebook bull, those words sound reassuring. Facebook sold $3 billion worth of ads last year, and it’s just getting started. Imagine what happens when things really kick in.

But if you’re a skeptic, and there are lots of them, that uncertainity is a real problem. When Google went public in 2004, it had already built AdWords, the search ad engine that still generates the majority of its revenue today. Facebook doesn’t have an AdWords, so it doesn’t have a tried-and-true plan it can present to advertisers: Put dollars in here, see results over there.

Instead, Facebook marketers try different things over time. A few years back, they were all building Facebook apps. Then they started concentrating on amassing fans/followers. Now, digital marketing people tell me with confidence that all of that thinking is outmoded, and that the real Facebook pros are the ones who create “engaging content” on the site, then buy ads to “amplify” that message.

Facebook’s challenge gets even tougher because instead of search ads, whose success and failure are easy for advertisers to evaluate — Did someone click on my search ad? If they did, did they buy something or fill out a form once they got to my site? — Facebook aspires to the big branding dollars that advertisers spend on TV. And those are much harder to score. So convincing GM or anyone else to move big money from traditional ads, which marketers are at least comfortable with, to the wild world of social, requires a lot of work.

The good news for Facebook is that it’s so big that it might succeed even if it never cracks the social ad code. Any Web site with 900 million users and counting, who spend a ton of time there, is going to pull in a lot of ad dollars through sheer force of gravity. If Facebook can keep its users happy, it may get away with muddling through on the ad part.

But being a big, lumbering giant that attracts ad dollars without knowing what it’s doing isn’t the message Facebook wants to sell to advertisers. Or to investors.

OK, on to the “this isn’t that big of a deal” arguments. I’ve heard a bunch, all of which come from (different) people who don’t want to be quoted.

• Obviously there’s a backstory here. If GM didn’t want to keep advertising on Facebook, it didn’t have to announce that three days before an IPO.
• Big Fuel, GM’s social media ad agency, didn’t do a good job. That’s why GM fired them in December. For the record, here’s a quote from a Big Fuel rep: “GM never seemed persuaded of the value of social media in general and Facebook likes in particular. In a sales-driven culture, it is very hard to wrap your head around putting money in places where you don’t see immediate results in an uptick in sales.”
• Starcom, GM’s media buying agency, didn’t do a good job. That’s why GM fired them in January.
• How the heck did GM spend $3 on Facebook “content management” for every $1 it spent on Facebook ads, as the WSJ reports? That’s a sure sign that someone was doing something wrong.
• Ford loves Facebook.
• GM is pulling $10 million out of Facebook. Facebook did more than $3 billion in ads last year.

Again, all of those may be valid points.* But if Facebook really wants to allay outsiders’ fears, it needs to be able to prove conclusively that its ads work, in a scalable way, for a wide variety of advertisers. It can’t do that yet.

*I’m totally amazed by the $3-to-$1 ratio, and am wondering if it’s not to late to pivot myself into a “Facebook content creation consultant.” Those numbers also remind me very much of the late 90s, when companies like Organic went public based on the fact that they knew how to build Web sites and their clients didn’t, and they could charge accordingly. That didn’t last long.

Wheelz is basically a peer-to-peer version of Zipcar — one of a few such companies that have sprung up in the past couple years.

Wheelz CEO Jeff Miller

In a release, Zipcar CEO Scott Griffith said P2P is likely to “expand the total addressable market for car sharing,” and that investors could expect Zipcar to explore offering its own “mobility services” in a similar vein.

P2P car sharing has itself become a minor turf war. General Motors funded a very similar service called RelayRides, and is helping expand its fleet through an integration with OnStar in-car communications systems. RelayRides has about $13 million in funding from investors including Google Ventures, August Capital and Shasta Ventures, while another competitor, Getaround, has about $5 million from Redpoint Ventures, General Catalyst, CrunchFund and others.

When I talked to Wheelz CEO Jeff Miller last fall, he said his company’s advantages were its strategy of focusing on the college market and its team’s experience at electric vehicle infrastructure company Better Place and Mercedes Benz.

It’s the typically newsless time around Christmas and New Year’s, but for once there has actually been a lot going on at Yahoo.

Last week, the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s typically moribund board decided to move ahead with negotiations to sell part of its stake in China’s Alibaba Group, as well as all of its shares in Yahoo Japan.

While that is still not a done deal, it adds clarity to the Yahoo mishegas, as current leaders there seek to turn around the company’s lagging fortunes.

Now, as Yahoo continues to contemplate a pair of partial investment bids by private equity firms Silver Lake and TPG Capital into 2012, more focus will be on the selection of a CEO candidate to take over, sources said.

While I have floated some names that have been contemplated — such as Hulu CEO Jason Kilar, Juniper CEO Kevin Johnson, former aQuantive and Microsoft exec Brian McAndrews, and board member David Kenny — I have collected some more that seem to be getting the once-over and are being mentioned internally as well as externally.

Sources said that the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee at Yahoo, which is run by independent director Patti Hart, has been looking for someone with definite public company experience, as well as expertise in large-scale management.

As to talent, candidates seem to be either good at running big platforms, or deeply knowledgeable about advertising and media as well as technology.

Another important criteria, said sources: Someone who is “collaborative” and nonconfrontational. As in, not like the former and very pugnacious CEO Carol Bartz, who was fired in September.

Thus, here’s another trio of candidates to consider, while we wait — and who knows how long that will be given that the Asian activity could have tired out for a bit this usually slow-moving board:

Chris Liddell: The former CFO of Microsoft is an interesting name that just popped up recently, and it makes some sense when you think about the possible mindset of the Yahoo board.

Liddell, who has a charming New Zealand accent, did a short stint, from January of 2010 to March of this year, as CFO at General Motors. Recently married to another former Microsoft exec, he has since been living in New York.

He apparently loves living in the Big Apple.

But when he left GM, Liddell made it clear he wanted to go for a top job next. He was among the candidates for a recent search for a CEO of Time Warner’s Time Inc. (an effort that was run by exec search firm Heidrick & Struggles, which is also conducting the Yahoo hunt).

Known as tough and decisive, he certainly is qualified to deal with complex financial situations, such as the one in which Yahoo now finds itself knee-deep. One knock: Little product or advertising experience.

Laura Desmond: While certainly a dark horse, Desmond has been queried by Heidrick, said several sources.

She is CEO of Starcom MediaVest Group, a subsidiary of Publicis, one of the largest media planning and buying agencies, making Desmond one of advertising’s most prominent players.

Well-known in Yahoo’s key market, she is considered a savvy and smart exec with a wry sense of humor.

I happen to particularly like one line from one of her bios:

“Ms. Desmond’s career has been driven by two caveats: Take intelligent risks and learn more from failure than from success.”

She could learn a lot at Yahoo. (I know, easy jab, but it works!)

David Rosenblatt: The former DoubleClick CEO, who went on to a big ad job at Google after it paid $3.2 billion for the company, is also a long shot, mostly by his own choosing.

The sharp exec is always on the short list of CEO candidates for a lot of big, splashy online jobs, but he seems to want to swim his own way.

Case in point: He was recently named CEO of New York-based 1stdibs, a relatively obscure online marketplace known among antique dealers and interior designers looking for one-of-a-kind furniture, art and lighting.

Yes, that’s right: Fancy lamps.

Rosenblatt also serves on the boards at Group Commerce, Twitter and IAC.

All that Internet ad and e-commerce experience is exactly why Rosenblatt would be one of the better choices for CEO of Yahoo. But, for him, I would guess taking such a job is probably in the life’s-too-short category.

More to come, obvi!

General Motors Co. on Wednesday is expected to disclose an alliance with RelayRides, a San Francisco start-up that helps car owners rent their cars when they don’t need them. GM will modify its Onstar communications system to enable RelayRides members to unlock cars using their cell phones in place of a $500 device now used for remote unlocking.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Zynga announced another small acquisition today, as it continues to vacuum up small independent online game developers across the U.S. and internationally.

This time it’s Dallas-based Bonfire Studios, which the San Francisco-based social gaming start-up said would now be called Zynga Dallas.

Bonfire makes titles for the PC and Xbox 360, such as “Age of Empires,” “Age of Mythology” and “Halo Wars.”

Zynga said Bonfire’s three founders–David Rippy, Bill Jackson and Scott Winsett, will become GM, creative director and senior art director, respectively, of Zynga Dallas.

Zynga’s other recent purchases include Challenge Games, which is based in Austin, as well as several others abroad.

Financial terms of the deal were not released by Zynga.

Ford (F) recently released SYNC, a voice-activation package on some models that integrates the content and functionality of mobile devices with the car itself. SYNC also adds apps to the car, though it’s not clear what these features will mean for the future of American automakers.

Liveblog

Mullaly appears onstage wearing a very bright red vest. Vibrant!

At Walt’s request, Mulally shows off a piece of paper with handwritten notes that purport to explain Ford’s interest in all things digital. Lots of computers are involved in the creation of your Taurus.

12:30 pm: Kara wants to know why cars have been basically digitally ignorant for a long time. Walt: You open the door to you car and it’s 1957 again. Why is that?

For the record, Mulally doesn’t think you should text and drive.

He also wants you to keep your hands on the wheels and eyes on the road. So there’s lots of digital stuff being built into dashboard and console. Like the SYNC iPod/phone, etc., manager.

Ford is playing around with features like allowing drivers to have their text messages read to them. But safety is paramount. All of our data says your safest operation is when you have your hands on the wheel and eyes on the road. But right now, we feel that listening to email and text is a good first step. But we don’t want you sending email and text via voice, at least for now.

12:35 pm: Kara–Why is this taking so long? [i.e., "where is my jetpack?"]

Walt: Yeah! Even fancy German and Japanese cars don’t do it well. It’s pathetic!

Mulally: Don’t blame me! I just got here. Part of the problem is that car development is much slower than consumer electronics R&D cycle. For instance, a lot of competitors have embedded a phone in the car. We’re avoiding that and focusing on interface, so as consumers exchange and swap devices, they can do that.

12:38 pm: A pitch for “My Ford Touch,” which seems to have lots of bells and whistles, but sounds confusing to this frequent walker and subway-taker.

12:39 pm: Walt tries explaining it. “The instrument cluster, which has been on steering wheels forever, is now going to be a on a screen.”

Mulally: Right. We want to make it intuitive. Etc.

12:40 pm: Still trying to explain it. Screen goes on steering wheel and allows customizable controls for operating car, as well as extras.

12:41 pm: Kara–what is that people want to do, anyway?

Mulally: Good question. We watch what people do in cars and try to help them do it, because they’re going to do it anyway. For instance, we’re building in Pandora to our cars. You’ll get the music via the Web, from your cellphone, but you’ll operate it on our panel. Also Stitcher, Open Beak, etc.

A lot of people here are using apps. You’ll get to use them in the car.

12:43 pm: Walt–Will you need a special Ford version of these apps?

Mulally: Yep. You use our API

12:44 pm: Kara wants better navigation services. She doesn’t want to hear a mean German lady giving her directions though.

Walt: Yeah! All of your GPS systems are lousy! The ones on phones are better!

Mulally: We’re with you. That’s why we want to rely on developers to build the good stuff, via our API.

12:47 pm: Let’s talk about the car industry, period. You just got here. You were in aerospace, before. Also, the whole oil spill thing does change the way we look at cars, right?

Mulally: Before I left Boeing (BA), I thought about where the car industry was going. What I decided was that the industry is the soul of Manufacturing–“big M”–all around the world. Lots of stuff goes into this, no matter what country or region. It’s also part of the solution to economic growth, energy independence and environmental sustainability.

On that note: Clearly, the internal combustion engine is going to be around for a while. But we can make them operate more efficiently, etc. Take a v6 and make it run like a v8m, etc. Meanwhile hybrids are tough because you have two different systems: Batteries and internal combustion. Then in the future, we need to move to all-electric. We have a great road map for all of this. First all-electric cars launch this year. Hydrogen is farther out, don’t have the tech for it yet.

12:52 pm: Mulally describes challenges of electric car–need to figure out how and where to get the juice to cars.

12:53 pm: Kara–What about health of business?

Mulally: I like being here much better than testifying in front of Congress.

Kara: How did you get here?

Mulally: I flew! That’s why we have airplanes. For long-distance travel.

12:53 pm: A Zuckerberg hoodie joke.

12:54 pm: Mulally–Time goes fast. Last year, I was testifying on behalf my competitors, who were bankrupt. Now I’m a capitalist. But if GM and Chrysler went away, they’d take the supply base along with them, and they’d probably have put the U.S. into a bona fide depression.

I was asking for temporary help. I didn’t think all of us would end up owning our competitors.

12:57 pm: Mulally–Recovery is coming, by the way. We’ll have 3.5 percent expansion of GDP this year. And Ford is doing well. We’ll have market-share increases.

Kara: What kind of car do you drive?

Mulally: A different one every night.

Q&A

[I hope someone asks about the New York Times series that said that anything you do in your car besides driving is a safety risk. Anyone?]

Q: Please talk about the Mercury situation.

A: We had too many brands. Ford, Mercury and Lincoln. Mercury was supposed to be a gap-bridger between Ford and Lincoln. But the Ford line expanded, so we didn’t need Mercury. “Everybody’s got great options in Ford.” It’s also good news for Lincoln–because we don’t have other premium brands anymore, we’ll refocus on Lincoln for luxury.

Q: Proud Tesla owner Jason Calacanis wants to know why electric isn’t everywhere already.

A: We can make electric cars, but as you know, we can improve them, like battery life.

Calacanis: No. It’s not a problem. Batteries are great at Tesla.

Mulally: Nope. Most of them are too big, too heavy. There’s a lot of room to improve the batteries.

Other point is that the infrastructure has to get there. You need charging stations for people in apartments, in rural areas, etc. When we get there, Ford will be there.

Kara, and Walt want Jason to tell us how much his Tesla cost. Astonishingly, he goes mute.

Q: Did you really say you don’t intend to get a revenue stream from connectivity of cars to data? You don’t want a piece of money made by Yelp, Garmin, etc.?

A: You heard me correctly. We’re laser-focused on safe and efficient transportation. So there’s no conflict of interest.

Q: Walt wants to if these electronics actually sell cars.

A: I demoed this stuff for you, and you’re a tough critic, and you said “whoa!” This technology is absolutely a differentiator.

Q: You’re talking about innovation in cars. Does dealer network have to change too?

A: Absolutely. We’ve been right-sizing the dealer network to match demand for five years. Once you do that, throughput goes up, profitability goes up, interest in improving facilities goes up, etc. Then we can improve consumer experience.

Walt: Because it’s terrible right now.

Mulally agrees without saying so.

Q: China is pushing hard for electric cars. What does that mean for you?

A: I think China is going to continue to take a real leadership position on this. Big population, and they have a chance to really make a difference and maybe leapfrog the past.

Q: There’s that great Ford quote about not listening to his customers, because if he did he’d be in the horse business. So how you do innovate?

A: Stay closet to innovation. And have a point of view about how the industry is going to progress.

Q: Ah! Someone asked about focusing while you drive.

A: Eighty percent of accidents involve taking your eyes off the road. So we’re convinced that the mind has the cognitive ability to do other things while driving as long as you continue to watch the road. So we minimize anything that’s a distraction: Keyboard, certain confusing apps, etc. We are definitely going to be a gatekeeper with regard to apps, because it’s crucial that you not be distracted.

We’re done! Thanks for sticking around. See you in a year!

A note about our coverage: This liveblog is not an official transcript of the conversation that occurred onstage. Rather, it is a compilation of quotes, paraphrased statements and ad-lib observations written and posted to the Web as quickly as possible. It is not intended as a transcript and should not be interpreted as one.

In recent weeks, an ad with “230″ appeared on television and the Web. The number appeared on a bright green background, with a smiling electrical outlet in place of the zero. At the bottom, the numbers 8-11 hinted at its reveal date.

AdAge reported Thursday that GM was behind the campaign, though the car manufacturer and its agency, Starcom New York, wouldn’t spill details.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Next up: The company’s earnings call, where investors will be looking for more information about a product line refresh, Steve Jobs’s health and any other info the typically closemouthed company dribbles out. I’ll be covering that live at a separate post at 5 p.m. Eastern.

Relevant unit sales: “Apple sold 2.22 million Macintosh computers during the quarter, representing a three percent unit decline from the year-ago quarter. The Company sold 11.01 million iPods during the quarter, representing three percent unit growth over the year-ago quarter. Quarterly iPhone units sold were 3.79 million representing 123 percent unit growth over the year-ago quarter.”

Here’s what that looks like if you break it down (click to enlarge):

Earlier today, AT&T (T) said it had shipped 1.6 million iPhones this quarter, down a bit from the previous three months.

Here, from Silicon Alley Insider’s Dan Frommer, is what the Street was looking for:

• March quarter revenue: $7.69 billion consensus (6% y/y growth)
• March quarter EPS: $1.09 consensus
• March quarter GM: 32.5% guidance, 33.6% RBC estimate
• March quarter Mac shipments: 2.1 million consensus
• March quarter iPod shipments: 10 million consensus
• March quarter iPhone shipments: 3.3 million consensus (some analysts at 3.7 million)
• June quarter revenue: $8.28 billion consensus (11% y/y growth), guidance could be $7.8-$8.1 billion
• June quarter EPS: $1.12 consensus, guidance could be 92 cents-$1.02
• June quarter GM: 33% consensus, guidance could be 30.5%-31.5%

Press release excerpt:

CUPERTINO, Calif., April 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2009 second quarter ended March 28, 2009. The Company posted revenue of $8.16 billion and a net quarterly profit of $1.21 billion, or $1.33 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of $7.51 billion and net quarterly profit of $1.05 billion, or $1.16 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 36.4 percent, up from 32.9 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 46 percent of the quarter’s revenue.

In accordance with the subscription accounting treatment required by GAAP, the Company recognizes revenue and cost of goods sold for iPhone(TM) and Apple TV® over their estimated economic lives. Adjusting GAAP sales and product costs to eliminate the impact of subscription accounting, the corresponding non-GAAP measures* for the quarter are $9.06 billion of “Adjusted Sales” and $1.66 billion of “Adjusted Net Income.”

Apple sold 2.22 million Macintosh® computers during the quarter, representing a three percent unit decline from the year-ago quarter. The Company sold 11.01 million iPods during the quarter, representing three percent unit growth over the year-ago quarter. Quarterly iPhone units sold were 3.79 million representing 123 percent unit growth over the year-ago quarter.

“We are extremely pleased to report the best non-holiday quarter revenue and earnings in our history,” said Peter Oppenheimer, Apple’s CFO. “Apple’s financial condition remains very robust, with almost $29 billion in cash and marketable securities on our balance sheet. Looking ahead to the third fiscal quarter of 2009, we expect revenue in the range of about $7.7 billion to $7.9 billion and we expect diluted earnings per share in the range of about $.95 to $1.00.”

Apple will provide live streaming of its Q2 2009 financial results conference call utilizing QuickTime®, Apple’s standards-based technology for live and on-demand audio and video streaming. The live webcast will begin at 2:00 p.m. PDT on April 22, 2009 at www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/earningsq209/ and will also be available for replay for approximately two weeks thereafter.

CBS paid $1.8 billion for CNET last summer, and today it is dealing with the consequences: A re-org and layoffs.

CBS execs won’t release specifics on the firings and won’t say how many people were let go altogether. So news will be coming out in piecemeal fashion for some time.

The best that I can tell, though, the cuts came throughout the company’s interactive group, from its London-based last.fm radio service through CBS (CBS) headquarters in New York to CNET’s homebase in San Francisco.

Based on the fact that CBS Interactive boss Quincy Smith flew to the west coast to quarterback the re-org this morning–and the fact that CNET was much, much bigger than the CBS Interactive group–I’m assuming that more CNET employees were let go than anyone else.

Quincy, if I’m wrong, please let me know. And CBS Interactive/CNET employees can reach me directly at peter@allthingsd.com.

In the meantime, here’s the new structure of Smith’s group, via an internal memo that comes from him and Neil Ashe, his CNET counterpart:

Team,

As we come to the end of 2008, we have a lot to be proud of. CBS Interactive is the best online content network for information and entertainment. Our properties are expanding, advertisers are capitalizing on our properties and their scale, and we are positioned well to continue to grow. As we prepare for 2009 and beyond, we’d like to update you on this progress, announce some organizational changes and comment on the broader market environment and how it impacts CBS Interactive.

Progress

CBS Interactive is the 8th largest Internet network in the world. Our combined traffic is up nearly 30% since we closed the merger this summer. CNET, CBSSports.com, BNET, GameSpot, TV.com, CBS.com, last.fm, and CHOW have each had record traffic within the past three months. Our commitment to our users is paying off.

Advertisers have noticed. We have recently signed and announced deals across several of our properties with Microsoft, AT&T, Intel, Bertolli, EA, and GM. In these challenging economic times, marketers are consolidating their efforts with their best partners. Our properties, our audiences, our ideas and our insights will continue to differentiate us in the marketplace.

Finally, we have contributed to and benefited from the TV and Radio divisions of CBS. We’ve done nearly 1,500 purpose-driven promotions to our properties on Broadcast TV, Radio and local TV Stations; CHOW and GameSpot content is running on the CBS Outernet; and CNET ran a major consumer campaign in markets like New York and San Francisco through CBS Outdoor. CBS Interactive is also a key partner to CBS Television Network for major broadcast events. In just the last week, we featured complementary content for events including The Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show, the Grammy Nominations and the SEC Championship.

Moving forward, we have a lot to look forward to. Events like CES, The Grammys, and March Madness on Demand are all just around the corner. Each represent huge cross-platform opportunities where CBS Interactive will again help complete the experience with coverage on air, online, and on mobile for our audiences.

Organizational Promotions and Changes

As we enter 2009, we are making some changes to our organizational structure to capitalize on audience and advertiser overlaps. We are also making some changes to key functions so that we can realize the benefits of our position in the marketplace. These changes mark another significant milestone in our integration, as we fine-tune our organization to best take advantage of the power of our entire network.

Sports, Games and Music

We are combining our Sports, Games and Music properties into a single group led by Steve Snyder. Steve has tremendous product and leadership experience and an enthusiasm for each of these categories. In addition, Tom Jones will be moving over from CNET to head-up the sales efforts for this group. Within the group, our talented senior leaders including Jason Kint, Rich Calacci, Jaci Hays, Kevin Menard, Felix Miller, Doug Schmidt and others will report to Steve and to Tom.

Entertainment & Lifestyle

We are also moving our Lifestyle properties, CHOW and UrbanBaby, to the Entertainment group (TV.com, CBS.com, The CBS Audience Network and TheInsider.com) to capitalize on the similarities in audience and advertisers. This group will continue to be led by Anthony Soohoo with sales led by Ken Lagana. We’re excited to see the innovation that will come from this group in 2009.

Technology & News

Under the continued leadership of Joe Gillespie, our Technology & News division will bring CBSNews.com and CNET News.com into a single CBS Interactive News Group. Each site will maintain its own brand identity, while benefiting from shared resources in design, product and engineering to deliver deeper and more comprehensive coverage of major stories and events. Led by Mark Larkin, with Dan Farber as Editor-in-Chief, CBS News.com and CNET News.com will also have the opportunity to share content and collaborate on stories for the benefit of their unique audiences.

CBS Interactive Marketing

We are bringing together our key marketing functions into a new group called CBS Interactive Marketing led by Mickey Wilson. The group brings together expertise from across the organization so that we can capitalize on our biggest opportunities, and elevate the company to be a strategic marketing partner whose products, consumer insights, and ad innovations are critical to our clients’ long-term success. They will establish the company as the standard for premium content online, and define and evolve brand strategies to capture the biggest opportunities for audience and revenue growth through market planning, insights and execution.

CBS Interactive Business Development

We are also bringing together all of our business development activities. This group will be led by Mike Marquez. Mike and his team will be responsible for the development of all new partnerships, investments, and acquisitions. They will be charged with taking advantage of knowledge sharing across the whole company to ensure that we are the strategic partner of choice for the industry.

Market Conditions

As you know the general economic environment continues to be a challenge. We have always been very aggressive about managing our costs, and that requirement is even more critical now than it has ever been. We believe this new, more efficient organizational structure will produce better results for CBS Interactive, and also result in lower operating costs. It is always very difficult to make these kinds of reductions, but they come after a thorough review of how we are organized and how we operate, and what best serves our many users, advertisers and employees.

CBS Interactive is a special place because of you, and we thank each of you for what you have done, are doing, and will do to exceed the expectations of the tens of millions of people who come to our properties every day.

Today, we sit in a great position. People seek out our brands because we provide them with the information and entertainment they want and need, and marketers seek us out because of the powerful audiences we attract. We are positioned to grow in 2009 and beyond.

Best,
-q, NA

Car companies cut their ad spending by 10 percent, to $6.1 billion, through the first half of the year, according to Nielsen’s ad tracking service. That confirms anecdotal evidence media companies have been offering up throughout the year, and it means that the numbers for the second half of the year–when the economy really collapsed–are going to be brutal.

Which goes a long way toward explaining why everyone–from Time Warner’s Time Inc. (TWX) to GE’s (GE) NBC to every Web start-up you can think of–is looking at dwindling ad revenue for the foreseeable future.

And yes, you can point your finger most accusingly at Detroit, if that makes you feel better: While some imports, like Toyota (TM) and Honda (HMC), actually kept spending steady or increased it, the formerly Big 3 all made big cuts. General Motors (GM), the country’s biggest auto ad buyer, dropped spending six percent; Ford (F) and Chrysler dropped 22 percent each.

MediaPost has the full gory details.

[Image Credit: Hauke Sandhaus]

This contrast has appeared sharper in recent years, as Microsoft’s Windows Vista operating system received a tepid critical response compared with Apple’s Leopard platform and as the company’s Live Web search service has slipped further behind Google’s. In addition, Microsoft’s cellphone software, Windows Mobile, looks old and creaky compared with Apple’s sleek iPhone and Google’s forthcoming Android mobile operating system.