You might be thinking: A thermostat’s a thermostat … right?

In Honeywell’s view, it’s not so simple. In the complaint, filed in a U.S. district court in Minnesota, the maker of aerospace systems, consumer products and technology solutions identified seven patents it believes Nest Labs infringes on.

Honeywell is also seeking damages from Best Buy, which features and sells Nest’s product in home-energy departments around the U.S. (Best Buy also sells Honeywell programmable thermostats.)

Nest Labs was recently launched by Matt Rogers and Tony Fadell, a former Apple executive who worked on the iPod. Last fall, Nest Labs began selling the Nest Learning Thermostat, a buzzed-about, easily programmable “smart” thermostat that uses the same wheel interface as the original iPod. The device can be controlled from a user’s smartphone, tablet or Web browser, and Fadell has been quoted as saying the Nest will save users up to 30 percent off their utility bills. With Nest, the uncool thermostat suddenly became a hot item.

Nest Labs did not respond to requests for comments on the suit, except to release a statement yesterday, saying they had not yet reviewed the actual filing, and that the company will provide comment once they’ve had the opportunity to review it.

Speaking for Honeywell, Bruce Eric Anderson, the company’s director of external communications, expounded on Honeywell’s statement from yesterday, saying that intellectual property is a “part of what Honeywell is as a company. We have 20,000 engineers that come here every day and it’s about protecting those individuals. This suit is not unique,” Anderson added.

Rather than go through the filing patent by patent, here are a few of the key sticking points of the suit:

First, Honeywell points out that it commercialized the first adjustable thermostat that allowed users to sleep through the night without having to manually turn their furnaces on and off; and that it is a global leader of innovative thermostats, and created the iconic “round” thermostat that’s now featured in the Smithsonian museum collection.

Honeywell goes on to mention more recent innovations, including its Prestige 2.0 Comfort Systems and RedLINK Wireless Comfort Sytems. More on the Prestige in a bit.

In the section titled “Acts Giving Rise to the Action,” the Honeywell filing points to various features of the Nest thermostat that have been promoted by Nest Labs and Best Buy as “innovative,” including the ability to connect the device to the Internet, store private data and control the Nest remotely through a Wi-Fi connection. Honeywell also takes issue with Fadell and Rogers having said that there hasn’t been any real innovation in decades in the thermostat space, though the sources of this quote and others are unclear.

Honeywell alleges that Nest Labs does not appear to have originated the design or functionality of the Nest thermostat — and says the key functional features at the core of the device are the results of years of research and development that culminated in patents owned by Honeywell.

For example, Honeywell’s complaint says, the fact that the Nest thermometer came with a patented “question system” — “What are the lowest and highest temperatures you’d like when you are away?” — is not new. Honeywell’s Prestige thermostat, introduced in late 2008, also incorporates an “interview-based interface.”

Honeywell also says that controlling a thermostat remotely through the Internet is not a Nest Labs innovation.

Interestingly, General Electric also offers consumers — as part of a home-energy management system — the ability to remotely control a GE “smart” thermostat from a smartphone or home computer. “Connect seamlessly to your programmable thermostat to remotely adjust your home climate,” says GE’s Web page for this feature.

When I asked Anderson whether Honeywell had ever examined GE’s system, he simply said, “I don’t know. I’m not familiar with that product.”

In the filing, Honeywell also references this AllThingsD video from last November as showing evidence that Nest Labs was examining “numerous” Honeywell thermostats in its research, indicating that Nest — which it calls a “well-funded, sophisticated company” — was well aware of Honeywell’s contributions to the thermostat industry.

So, Honeywell says, it has suffered and will suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm as a result of Nest Labs’s infringements, as well as from Best Buy’s infringements by using, offering to sell and/or selling the Nest device.

Since we don’t have a more detailed response from Nest Labs yet, it’s hard to know how this will play out. It’s also unclear whether Honeywell contacted Nest Labs prior to filing the formal suit.

Ed Weisz, a senior intellectual property lawyer at the firm of Cozen O’Connor (which is not involved in the Honeywell suit), says that most cases like this one result in a settlement. However, if it is determined that there has been a patent infringement, Weisz says, Honeywell could seek an injunction — which the courts may be more likely to grant, because there’s actually a product already out on the market.

Weisz also said that, while Best Buy is enjoined in the suit, he doesn’t think the retailer will be on the hook for additional damages, as their sale of goods — even ones that might infringe on IP — will be covered by the Uniform Commercial Code.

“It’s way too premature to have any read on the merits of this,” Weisz said.

What we do know is that in Silicon Valley — and in Honeywell’s case, outside of the Valley, too — tech-patent lawsuits are hardly uncommon, especially in the smartphone and tablet market.

We’ll keep you posted as this story evolves.

Yahoo shareholders felt a little giddier earlier this week, when it seemed as if the company had finally decided to make a deal with its Asian partners.

But the happiest crew might end up being the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s outside counsel, Skadden Arps — and especially Leif King, the fantastically named legal eagle who has been advising Yahoo on the deal.

That’s because today the Yahoo board approved continuing the negotiations to come to a final agreement over the stake, sources said, which should take six to eight weeks.

It’ll surely be happy holidays for billable hours!

As costly as the legal bills will be, if it all goes well, an Asian solution will mean one major problem solved, with a possible pile of cash and new assets coming in to Yahoo.

To get there, the company signed a term sheet earlier this week with Japan’s SoftBank to sell back all its holdings there, and with China’s Alibaba Group to sell off more than half its stake (moving from a 40 percent stake to a 15 percent one).

The deal values Yahoo’s total shares in both companies at about $17 billion.

While it gets a pretty accounting name — “cash-rich split “– the vehicle to unwind it all is essentially a complex tax dodge finally cooked up by the trio, in which cash, new assets and stock will be moved around until everyone gets what they want (except the U.S. government).

I would explain it — but I am on vacation, and would rather drink eggnog and sleep — so here is The Wall Street Journal’s version, which I like because it sounds like Alibaba and SoftBank are giving Yahoo a hugely loaded Starbucks card for Christmas:

“As envisioned in the scenario, Alibaba would create a subsidiary into which it would put several billion dollars of cash, plus an operating asset that Yahoo wants to buy using additional cash from Alibaba, almost like giving Yahoo a prepaid card for an asset of its choice, the people said.”

Everyone is hoping there will not be any hiccups in the deal, which has been spearheaded by Yahoo board member and Intuit CEO Brad Smith, and Jerry Yang, who is also the company’s co-founder and a major shareholder.

Alibaba CEO Jack Ma and CFO Joe Tsai, both co-founders of that company, were the point men for the Chinese company. And for SoftBank, it was its founder and CEO Masa Son and his main U.S. exec, Ron Fisher.

Now, said sources, Yahoo’s board is hoping to still keep the bids from a pair of private equity firms — Silver Lake and TPG Capital — alive.

While initially the focus on the action, the PE bidding for partial Yahoo stakes has recently been sidelined by the Asian deal.

Now, sources said, Yahoo is hoping the new infusion of cash and assets will allow it fend off shareholder unrest — stock buybacks and dividends, anyone — to solicit higher prices from the firms to make strategic investments.

Yahoo had considered the initial bids too low, as did some very pissed-off activist shareholders.

Still, it’s not clear if those firms will jack their offers now, although sources said Silver Lake is still interested in some sort of deal that would give it influence over remaking Yahoo.

Silver Lake and others think the long-troubled company could be revived with some effort, and become a much more lucrative Web property.

But those negotiations might run into roadblocks over who gets to pick leadership for the company. Yahoo has accelerated its efforts to hire a new CEO, after firing Carol Bartz in September.

The PE firms, who would buy a large stake in Yahoo, also have wanted some level of control, including CEO and board approval, in order to be able to make massive changes at the company to turn it around.

Wall Street seems to like the Asian part of the deal, at least, since it shows some sort of forward momentum at Yahoo, and from its often-lugubrious board.

Shares are up almost 7 percent in the last few days, although they are not popping as they might be, given that new valuations based on a successful Asian deal put the stock at a much higher price.

In other words, investors like what they see, but are watching and waiting for more.

AOL, which has had some turmoil in its executive ranks of late, has promoted Jim Norton to be its new head of sales.

The New York Internet company said Norton would be “responsible for sales on all of AOL’s owned & operated properties, including sites like The Huffington Post, Engadget, Stylelist and MapQuest,” as well as a range of other areas.

AOL has rejiggered its advertising execs and strategies several times in recent years, and Norton is not precisely replacing its former advertising head Jeff Levick (who left for Spotify) and is more akin to another top former AOL ad exec Mark Ellis (who left for Yahoo).

That job has now been folded into the portfolio of Chief Revenue Officer Ned Brody, to whom Norton will report.

“We need to become faster in our operations,” said Brody in an interview this morning about the shift. “We brought in Jim to bring in singular focus on selling.”

Brody said that AOL is working on how to increase the “value proposition” of its variety of advertising and marketing offerings and to quicken the process.

Norton came to AOL from Google in 2009 and before that worked in a wide range of ad jobs.

Here’s the official press release on the move:

JIM NORTON NAMED HEAD OF AOL SALES

New York, NY — December 9, 2011 — AOL Inc. (NYSE: AOL) and Ned Brody, Chief Revenue Officer, today announced the promotion of Jim Norton to head of AOL Sales. Effective today, Jim will be responsible for sales on all of AOL’s owned & operated properties, including sites like The Huffington Post, Engadget, Stylelist and MapQuest. Additionally, he will also lead the sales of all cross platform marketing solutions, including display/Project Devil initiative, video and mobile. This announcement is reflective of AOL’s commitment to putting the strongest leaders in place to service clients in the most efficient and effective manner. Jim will continue to report to Brody.

“Jim has proven himself within AOL to be a fantastic leader,” said Brody. “He not only has deep knowledge and incredible expertise in the marketplace, but a real ability to effect change.” Brody added, “Customers want the best products and packaged solutions all in a fast and efficient manner. Consolidation of leadership under Jim will place even more focus on putting our clients front and center and deliver on their goals and needs.”

“It’s a tremendous honor and opportunity to take on this new leadership role,” said Norton. “It allows me to continue to work with some of the best sales professionals in the business. It’s also a privilege to work with some of the world’s biggest brands.” He added, “We want to continue to be the preferred media partner for marketers and agencies.”

Jim joined AOL in 2009 and was SVP, AOL Advertising’s Advance Sales team, which focuses on national and regional advertisers across all categories, as well as new business. He was also VP of Product Sales working with AOL product teams on maximizing their offerings to advertisers, including MapQuest, Patch, AOL Mail, AOL Video and Mobile. He also managed AOL’s Search and Sponsored Listings business, and helped launch and manage AOL’s self service advertising platform, Ad Desk.

Jim has over 20 years of experience in the media business. Prior to joining AOL, he spent 3 years at Google most recently as National Sales Manager for Google’s Agency Activation team. Prior to that role, he was a Senior Account Executive on the National Tech B2B team servicing many of the leading global tech marketers. He’s also held a number of traditional sales and marketing roles, including four years as Sales Manager at Tribune Broadcasting’s WLVI-TV (Boston’s WB), radio ad sales at Kiss 108FM and a variety of brand marketing roles at Miller Brewing Company and GMR Marketing. He’s a life long Bostonian and graduated from Boston College with a BA in Communications and BC’s Carroll Graduate School of Business with an MBA in Marketing and Technology. He’s married with three children and splits his time between Boston and New York City.

Silicon Valley’s Silver Lake and DST Global of Russia, as well as Chinese private equity firm Yunfeng Capital, are leading a $1.6 billion tender offer for privately held employee and shareholder stock of China’s Alibaba Group, according to sources close to the situation.

Yunfeng, by the way, was co-founded by Alibaba Chairman and CEO Jack Ma, as well as other prominent Chinese entrepreneurs.

Along with DST, Silver Lake and Yunfeng, Singapore-based investment firm Temasek is also participating in the tender offer as an investor, but in a smaller way.

The deal, which has been discussed for some time, was signed earlier today and will be presented to its employees in an internal company blog, which will be in Chinese.

To get around persistent foreign ownership issues in China, sources said, DST and Silver Lake are ceding voting control of their stakes to Alibaba management.

If the tender is fully subscribed, that would mean a stake of just under five percent for the group, sources said, and it gives Alibaba a $32 billion enterprise valuation.

The impetus for the tender offer, which begins today, appears to be trying to address a cash-out, paper-rich issue for Alibaba employees.

There are no active secondary private markets in China, as is the case for tech start-ups in the U.S., and there is also no IPO in the foreseeable future for Alibaba. Thus, management has been looking for a way to give its employees and also other shareholders some liquidity.

This tender offer is not a capital raise by Alibaba and is only aimed at eligible employees and shareholders. The purchase of the Alibaba shares is expected to close before the end of December.

It will be done via a special investment vehicle, specifically aimed at this purchase, that includes a spate of investors. Giant Interactive Group, a Chinese online game developer, for example, said it had committed $50 million to the fund.

It’s not clear what the implications are for Alibaba’s biggest shareholder, Yahoo, which sources said is not selling shares in the tender offer. Yahoo’s fully diluted Alibaba 39 percent stake is now worth $12.5 billion in the deal.

That’s discounted due to tax issues and also the inability of the Silicon Valley Internet giant to sell its Alibaba shares.

In other words, investors will likely welcome this higher valuation, but realize a public offering is farther away than ever.

But it is interesting in that it clearly shows a strong relationship between DST and Silver Lake, which have jointly been mulling a possible bid for Yahoo along with Silicon Valley venture firm Andreessen Horowitz, as I previously reported.

Some will speculate that Silver Lake and DST now have an in with Alibaba, which is important, since a large slug of Yahoo’s market valuation is due to its Alibaba and also Yahoo Japan! assets.

If Yahoo is sold, of course, the disposition of the Alibaba asset is an important part of the deal.

More to come, including the implications for Ma, who has been under siege of late around his spinning out of Alibaba’s Alipay payments service and the noisy battle that later ensued with Yahoo. Yahoo and Alibaba, as well as its other large shareholder, Japan’s SoftBank, settled that dispute earlier this summer.

His involvement in Yunfeng, which is buying the company’s shares in a special fund that Ma is not in, will likely attract some scrutiny, anyway.

Sources said Ma is a minority investor in Yunfeng itself, has no control rights and is not a director. In addition, Yunfeng has no relationship with Alibaba.

In another interesting twist, Alibaba rival Tencent has close ties with DST’s Internet affiliate that used to share the same name, having invested $300 million last year in the affiliate that holds major Russian Internet properties.

According to sources close to the situation, longtime Yahoo front page chief Liz Lufkin has parted ways with the company.

The departure last week appears to be related to a reorg by newish editor-in-chief Jai Singh, who used to run the editorial efforts for the Huffington Post, at the Silicon Valley Internet giant.

Singh appears to be setting up his own team and, thus, Lufkin was out.

Lufkin has been at Yahoo for many years, most recently as VP of front page programming. In that job, according to one bio, she supervised “editors in Sunnyvale, Santa Monica, New York and Dallas and consult[ed] to various international Yahoo! sites. Liz’s group contributed to the successful development of Yahoo’s pioneering content optimization personalization system, improving the relevancy of Front Page for users and providing new insights on audience behavior.”

Previous to Yahoo, she had been deputy managing editor at Gannett’s USATODAY.com and USA Today. She had a similar job at the Hearst-owned San Francisco Chronicle.

Lufkin’s job at Yahoo is a critical one, given how powerful the front page of the site is, with 600 million unique visitors and billions of page views.

While the portal system has been under siege in recent years, it is still a massive driver of traffic to Yahoo’s own Web properties and elsewhere on the Internet.

Yahoo declined to comment (but I am right!).

UPDATE: Yahoo said that it had hired CNET editor-in-chief Scott Ard to take Lufkin’s place. Ard, who worked for the CBS-owned tech news property for 12 years, will report directly to Jai Singh, editor-in-chief of the Yahoo Media Network.

Of course I have something to say about the news yesterday that AOL would be a key investor in a new early-stage venture fund being started by TechCrunch’s perpetually petulant editor Michael Arrington — with a big, fat and decidedly greasy assist from a panoply of Silicon Valley’s most powerful VC firms and angel investors.

Arrington has previously called me “chief whiner” — oooh, buuuurn, although fair enough, since I have compared him to an egomaniac turtle named Yertle in the past — about my nagging him over the importance of upholding standards of fairness and ethics in journalism.

So as not to let him down, let me begin the whining.

First, my initial reaction when I first heard about the deal: Ugh. Sigh. Hopelessly corrupt. Now 100 percent more icky! A giant, greedy, Silicon Valley pig pile.

I was upset.

By early evening, after my kids told me to chillax, my dark mood had changed to accept that the transaction — however profoundly distasteful to me — was part and parcel of the insidious log-rolling, back-scratching ecosystem that has happened in every other center of power in the universe since the beginning of time.

And so it goes in Silicon Valley.

In fact, the creation of a $20 million investment kitty that Arrington has dubbed CrunchFund is simply the formalization of a long-standing arrangement that has already been going on since he founded his popular tech blog.

That is to say, in which the basic standards of journalism are first warped by calling it newfangled truth-telling and then endlessly corroded by using a wily and unusually aggressive combination of favors and threats to extract, from start-ups and VCs in need of press, both exclusive access and information.

And now, inevitably, money.

This could have been a lot cleaner, of course, by Arrington simply resigning from TechCrunch, becoming a VC and perhaps starting a new blog where his agenda is much clearer, from which he could huff and puff away as he does with much entertaining gusto at real and (mostly) imagined slights.

There is certainly precedent for VCs blogging, including Fred Wilson, Brad Feld and Ben Horowitz. And, despite my criticisms about ethics, it is clear that Arrington is a talented writer whose unique voice would be even stronger if it was truly seen as separate from what has become a news organization.

But because of his obvious need to be the center of attention — requiring the ermine kingmaker mantle and foisting his patented I’m-here-to-tell-it-like-it-is attitude on us all — that appears to be impossible.

(By the way, I await Arrington’s usual inane rant about the fictional conflicts of interest related to my gay Google marriage anytime now in 3 … 2 … 1, always and purposefully leaving out the pertinent facts that I can only wed one person, get no financial benefit and am also a prominent critic of the scary search behemoth, while he can make a badillion questionable and grossly tangled investments.)

Personal annoyances aside, what’s most interesting here is the group of Silicon Valley power players who lined up to bow and scrape and then hand over a small pile of dough to the blogger who would be king.

They include: Sequoia Capital, Redpoint Ventures, Kleiner Perkins, Greylock Partners, Austin Ventures and Accel Partners, as well as individual investments from partners at Benchmark Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, entrepreneur Kevin Rose and DST Global’s Yuri Milner. And, of course, the inevitable Arrington BFF Ron Conway.

Holy googa mooga, that would be, well, everyone, except Ashton Kutcher and Justin Timberlake (who will surely appear soon enough).

As one person also pointed out to me, I don’t recall this many competing VCs investing in one company, let alone another venture fund.

It goes without saying that the reasons they all decided to jump in this fetid pool with abandon are quite varied, if all entirely compromised.

One investor told me — off the record, naturally — that he thought it would be an interesting experiment to see what happened and so he wanted in, especially since everyone else was doing it.

Another well-known VC said that there is no downside to being financially affiliated, especially in attracting talent to its start-ups, with Arrington and, by extension, TechCrunch.

The well-respected Reid Hoffman of Greylock was the only one brave enough to talk on the record, explaining the reasoning pretty clearly:

“Techcrunch will get some real deal flow from entrepreneurs that we would otherwise not see, because they have established a prominent position as the SV/Tech industry information feed. As many tech entrepreneurs read it — both within Silicon Valley and globally — and view the information news feed to be their target for announcing themselves to the world, Crunchfund will have access to deal flow to these diverse and early stage companies. Some of these companies will be the kind of early stage companies with billion-dollar potential that Greylock invests in.”

There you have it: No one can afford to be out of the deal flow in these times, even if it means cutting corners.

While TechCrunch’s owner, AOL, said Arrington will no longer be managing editor, with only writing duties at the site he dominates and with no editorial control, Hoffman’s use of TechCrunch for CrunchFund was accurate, because in the eyes of many they are interchangeable.

That’s due to the fact that Arrington still breaks or is clearly the source for important stories on the site and, more importantly, is the big swinging dude who attracts all the eager entrepreneurs to the party. He is the fulcrum of that site, even as it has grown.

And so it will remain, I am guessing, no matter how much AOL insists it will not be so, because the easy questions pile up quickly:

Will Arrington keep doing what are clearly news stories, for example, even though he protesteth too much — as he did in the New York Times yesterday — that he is not a journalist?

And, if so, is it right for him to do so given his insider status, creating a nonparity of sourcing and crystal clear conflicts of interest?

Most of all, can he resist his palpable love of news-breaking and scoops, even if he gets them in ever more unseemly ways?

As if to make it all pretty, Arrington told reporters yesterday that he has put a clause in his limited partnership agreement so he can report on anything he likes, and in any way, about his investors and their companies, however confidential, except those he invests in.

O joyous day! Freedom of the press is preserved and our sacred First Amendment can breathe a sigh of relief, now that it is enshrined in an unholy blogger-VC LP agreement.

After pausing for a moment so that Thomas Jefferson and Edward R. Murrow can stop spinning in their graves, you can go down this road for many increasingly bumpy miles, which only becomes more twisted and confusing as it continues.

I finally talked to one investor in CrunchFund, who said simply and honestly: “It’s not that much money, so who cares?”

Indeed, who does care anymore about crossing what had long been very bright lines in journalism and, if you want to get all cosmic, in life?

Obviously, most of all, not AOL, or its CEO Tim Armstrong, or its head of content, Arianna Huffington. The pair, for whatever reason, decided to make a startling exception for Arrington from a rule that explicitly bars reporters at its media units from investing in the companies they cover.

That happened after he recently did a complete 180 from a previous decision to stop investing and jumped right back in, leaving Armstrong and Huffington to clean up the ethical mess.

They only made it worse, with their decision to throw journalism under the bus by letting Arrington do as he pleased, while touting how important it was for other content sites at AOL to remain more pure.

In the spirit of full disclosure, these kinds of ethical lapses are endemic these days in journalism. Case in point: The appalling phone-hacking controversy taking place at News Corp.’s News International unit in Britain.

While I cannot speak for Dow Jones, I can say that the behavior in another News Corp. property certainly takes its toll on those who adhere to higher standards at the company, especially when it comes to morale.

Thus, I can imagine how others feel at AOL — including those you-know-who-you-are silent ones at TechCrunch — who can’t and, more to the point, wouldn’t make the deals Arrington has been allowed to get away with.

It is not a good feeling, I can assure you.

And, while I have not spoken to her about it, I’d imagine that Huffington cannot be thrilled to be pushing for better journalism at AOL and trying to burnish her cred by hiring some top reporters, while also having to deal with this.

That’s okay, because Armstrong was perfectly willing to do the awkward pretzel-twist needed to explain away the controversial situation, also in an interview with the Times:

“TechCrunch is a different property and they have different standards. We have a traditional understanding of journalism with the exception of TechCrunch, which is different but is transparent about it.”

In this case, Tim, I am sorry to inform you that transparency is a complete canard and is more likely to end up covering up a lot more transgressions than it ever will reveal.

And, essentially and lazily sloughing it off by saying, “That’s just Mike being Mike,” is not going to cut it, at least not with me.

Not that any amount of tsk-tsking about it matters, I suppose, as Arrington finally gets his fervent Pinocchio-on-a-star wish to be a real-boy VC, can add yet another tainted buck to the pile of billions his venture pals already have, and just call it another typical day in Silicon Valley.

Still, when you are the designated whiner-in-chief, it is pretty much all one can do.

Airbnb recently raised $112 million in funding, but it’s not getting off the hook quite yet for a recent incident in which a property listed on its site got trashed by renters.

The incident was, no surprise, perfect for the folks over at Next Media Animation, the CGI news outfit from Taiwan.

The online rental start-up has gotten a lot of flack for the high-profile story of a woman in San Francisco whose apartment she rented to someone using Airbnb was badly vandalized.

Here is NMA’s version:

I love the smell of blog wars in the morning!

Acting as Facebook often does to Google, a new site started by former Engadget editor Josh Topolsky just hired away yet another passel of tech journalists from the giant gadget news and reviews organization.

Editorial movement is not uncommon on tech news sites, but this level of it from one site to another is somewhat, um, aggressive.

Engadget, which is owned by AOL, is one of the largest tech-focused sites on the Web. Topolsky left his editor-in-chief job there in March.

By April, he had grabbed eight prominent Engadget staffers who had left the huge tech site amid editorial tensions, in order to start a new competing gadget property for the well-funded sports content start-up SB Nation.

Now, sources said, Topolsky has added Thomas Ricker, an Engadget senior editor, who had run its European coverage; Sean Hollister, a senior associate editor, who ran its West coast team; and Joseph Flatley, an associate editor.

Also hired: Thomas Houston, editor-in-chief of Switched, an AOL tech site that was recently subsumed into its Huffington Post Media unit; and Dieter Bohn, who was editor-in-chief for the Smartphone Experts network of sites, including Crackberry and others.

And other possible new hires soon from Engadget: Another European editor, Vlad Savov, and writer Jacob Schulman.

The Topolsky-helmed site is still unnamed but is now operating as This Is My Next. It already has 16 writers, compared to Engadget’s two dozen, and is set to debut in the fall with a new name.

It will be the first content expansion at the Washington, D.C., SB Nation, which completed a $10.5 million Series C round, led by Khosla Ventures, in the fall.

Before that, SB Nation had already raised about $13 million in total venture funding from Accel Partners, Allen & Company and Comcast Interactive Capital, as well as from angel investors such as Ted Leonsis and others in Silicon Valley.

Another AOL link: SB Nation was founded by former AOLer, CEO Jim Bankoff, who had bought Engadget for AOL many years ago.

Engadget Editorial Director Josh Frulinger said that the impact of the talent drain on Engadget — mostly from This Is My Next raids — has been small, since the site has also been aggressively hiring.

“We’re past the people leaving and into celebrating what we’ve accomplished in six short months, and we welcome any new competition,” he said. “Dana Wollman, Brian Heater, Myriam Joire, Zach Honig, Joe Pollicino, Richard Lawler, Michael Gorman, Sean Buckley, Joseph Volpe, Brad Molen, Terrence O’Brien, Amar Toor and Sharif Skar — all brought on in the past six months — are your Engadget stars of tomorrow.”

To prove it, AOL said unique visitors for Engadget in June were up 1.1 percent from May and will be up again for July. In recent reports, the site had 14 million unique monthly visitors.

Talking to AOL CEO Tim Armstrong earlier this week about its investors day tomorrow, he used the word “execution” a lot.

No, not the kind evoking a firing squad if he did not succeed at turning around the New York-based Internet giant soon as he has long promised.

Instead, Armstrong was referring to reassuring big shareholders and Wall Street analysts that AOL was now in a mode of making sure all its many moves to turn around the company will finally begin to pay off.

“Basically, our point is going to be about fully operating around the strategy we’ve built,” said Armstrong in a wide-ranging interview. “It seems right for investors to ask about executing on what we have been doing for the last year and a half.”

It’s certainly the right message for the charismatic executive to be delivering, as he and other top AOL execs present their plans moving forward, especially after what has turned out to be a very hyperactive year.

After deep layoffs, a massive rejiggering of its management ranks and a number of shifts of its business focus, without much advertising increase to show for it yet, Armstrong has also pushed through a series of acquisitions.

It culminated in the high-profile and decidedly dramatic purchase of the Huffington Post in January for $350 million in cash.

Now, said Armstrong, deals will be taking a back seat to products.

“We are diligently staying on strategy and really focusing on products and services,” said Armstrong. “We have laid out the path we are on and now investors want proof of the concept.”

To Armstrong, that means the push of “branded content” and a continued focus on significant properties in key topic areas.

Tomorrow, in news that could worry investors, AOL will be noting that traffic is flat year over year, but explaining that it is due to the outsourcing of its sports and health sites.

“If you added that back in, we would have had a phenomenal year of growth,” said Armstrong. “Our main point will be that this is the right path for AOL.”

In fact, in an unusual wording, he said AOL was betting on the “urbanization” of the Web around big branded sites, which is, in many ways, exactly where the Web was a decade ago with Yahoo, Excite and others.

But Armstrong will be making the point that this retro idea is perfect for today, as marketers look for quality content that attracts big audiences, which has seen its most energetic application in the Huffington Post.

Thus, his linchpin remains the flashy news site’s even flashier co-founder Arianna Huffington, who has cut a very wide swath through AOL’s content efforts since Amstrong made her media czar of the company.

As Armstrong did, she also stressed the focus on unique visitors and ad growth, more video and a laser focus on local.

This includes shoving editorial into every AOL property, including unlikely ones such as Moviefone and MapQuest, and integrating it all to point back to the Huffington Post mothership.

“Much better editorial integration is a centerpiece of what we are doing, surfacing content in new places it was not before,” said Huffington, who used examples of local stories via its Patch unit that have gone global with a special push.

And by global, that also means the creation of new content sites in Europe and elsewhere, in order to build this unusual dream of a fully aggregating world.

“It is a big test of the HuffPo platform aggregation to do this,” said Huffington, who has clearly longed for the kind of money and staff to do this for a very long time. “It has moved a lot faster than I thought it would … but it feels good to be moving on so many fronts at once.”

Many fronts indeed, which might make investors pause. So far, those shareholders have had a continued wait-and-see attitude toward AOL, which has seen its stock decline almost 13 percent from its late 2009 IPO debut.

That’s mostly due to worries about whether the continued and expected fall-off of its lucrative access business can be met by similar increases in its ad business.

That share drop has been especially steep since the beginning of the year, but it has also not been drastic, indicating an interest in continuing to believe Armstrong’s confident — well, confidently delivered, at least — narrative.

As Citi’s Mark Mahaney wrote in a one-hand-other-hand note yesterday about the investor day:

Positives: 1) AOL still remains a top 5 U.S. Internet property; 2) In the latest quarter, AOL’s Display segment grew Y/Y for the first time in ~3 years, and this improvement seems sustainable; 3) At 4x ’11 EV/EBITDA, AOL’s valuation is among the lowest of any ’Net Stock. Negatives: 1) Deteriorating fundamentals; 2) Significant market share losses — ’Net usage, Display Advertising revenue & Search queries; 3) A significant profit hole from the structural decline of its Subs biz; 4) Substantial competitive risk; and 5) An unproven (@ AOL) management team.

“We all like Tim and what he says makes a lot of sense,” added one big investor, who is also attending and has many questions about the efficacy of what AOL is doing, in a common sentiment among its large shareholders. “But we also need to see real results soon.”

Would it surprise you to know that BoomTown doesn’t really care anymore if TechCrunch editor Michael Arrington sidelines as a blogger while he makes investments in tech companies his tech news site covers?

In a post yesterday, titled “An Update to My Investment Policy,” Arrington made his seemingly cogent arguments that plenty of disclosure made it all “fine,” took one of his typical look-at-me swipes at anyone who dared to question this logic (apparently, we’re crappy “direct” competitors, so we haters have no standing to comment!) and presumably went on his merry investing way.

While I was first irked–because it was an appalling show to many of us cranky standards-insisting whiners–I soon realized Arrington had made a good argument about who he is and, frankly, who he has always been.

In other words, it’s a kind of there-he-goes-again thing, vaguely icky but hardly surprising and completely genuine.

Meanwhile, his new boss, AOL content head Arianna Huffington, pointed me to his post in an email.

When I asked her for an on-the-record comment, as usual, she politely and quickly complied, writing in support of Arrington:

“TechCrunch is committed to transparency. Michael has written about the guidelines he follows–that he rarely writes about companies in which he is an investor, and that, when he does, he clearly discloses this information. The same rules apply when TechCrunch’s writers cover these companies.”

Hold the phone.

Because while I kind of understand where Arrington is coming from, what I don’t understand is how this kind of convenient and on-the-fly rule-making can govern a much larger company whose strongly and repeatedly stated goal by Huffington herself is to create quality journalism.

Since I believed Huffington–whom I like very much as an Internet figure and as a friend–I was confused at what the rules for the whole of AOL content were now.

That’s why I sent her a long new list of questions to answer, which are:

1) What are, if any, the ethical guidelines about making investments for the editorial staff at HuffPo media group properties?

2) Since Arrington now seems to have permission to do so from you, can other editors at AOL properties do the same–that is, make very adjacent investments to what their site covers, as long as they disclose it? For example, can an editor who runs the entertainment site make investments in entertainment companies she/he has coverage responsibility over? (By the way, did you give him permission to make these investments? Did he ask?)

3) Is there anyone who polices what is fair coverage of competitors–i.e. companies competing with companies your editors invest in?

4) If an editor makes investments in a company and someone who works for them writes about that company, does that editor have to recuse himself from the story? Is that even possible?

5) Since you just fired someone for what you called an ethical breach–asking freelancers to work for free and also seemingly defending an attempt to curry favor with an advertiser/client–why is this not an ethical breach?

I had a lot more questions, still unanswered by Huffington, but you can see where this is going.

Simply put, does AOL, which is touting itself as a 21st-century media company, need to have 21st-century rules of the road? Or perhaps not so much?

UPDATE: Now, it is a real clown circus at AOL, with the company declaring that editorial personnel cannot make investments, except Arrington!

“As a rule, in order to avoid conflicts of interests, AOL Huffington Post Media Group editors, writers, and reporters may not have a financial interest in a company or industry that they regularly cover,” AOL said in a statement to Business Insider today, even though I nicely asked for a comment on the issue yesterday. “Arrington operates from a unique position.”

And how! Where do I get such a faboo ethical hall pass from Content Principal Huffington?

I suppose I should go all slouching-towards-Bethlehem here, and wring my hands over this unusual ruling, but what’s the use?

As you might have read: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

How did this all start, especially since I feel like this ridiculous tempest in a Silicon Valley teapot over Arrington’s investment-making might actually be my fault a little bit?

Here’s why:

On Tuesday night around 10 pm (just when I start getting revved up), I wrote a testy email to Arrington’s bosses at AOL–Huffington and CEO Tim Armstrong–as well as the Internet portal’s sharp PR head, asking for a response about what seemed to me to be a glaring conflict of interest at TechCrunch related to new investment activity by Arrington and the site’s coverage of those particular companies he had invested in.

It was all disclosed, of course, but it still felt, as I said, icky.

And, given the recent and loudly stated goal of promoting quality journalism by Huffington–including the recent dismissal of AOL’s Moviefone site editor over what the company considered ethical lapses–it seemed pertinent to ask.

Mostly because I don’t think they actually knew much–if at all–about Arrington’s increasing investing action. Armstrong said as much in an email to me, and Huffington assured me they were going to check it out tout de suite.

But rather than the answer I was waiting on, up popped Arrington’s missive yesterday, which I assume came after his bosses asked for some info on this.

In it, he explained his controversial decision to go back into investing again, in what is clearly a more significant manner.

It was a practice he had abandoned years earlier, apparently after being pecked by detractors for it.

But, dear readers, no more! Let Arrington be Arrington!

And that seems to be a talented blogger with a flare for the dramatic, with a clearly sharply-honed news nose and sassy writing skills, but a scribe who much prefers to be a playah than just an observer and chronicler of that play.

And, after more reflection, I thought: Well, maybe it is a better idea for Arrington to go play with all the boys in Silicon Valley, which would probably be more fun than taking flack for lack of traditional journalistic ethics he never ascribed to in the first place.

I once jokingly nicknamed Arrington Yertle the Turtle after the Dr. Seuss book on one dubious king of one small pond in Sala-Ma-Sond, after he went particularly nuts on the topic of news-embargo breaking.

That diatribe on how he saw news rules–which is to say, there aren’t any that bind him–was vintage Arrington, too. And, after reading his latest post, I suddenly realized that it’s pointless to give a turtle a hard time for not being a fish.

But Huffington is another story. She has put herself in word and deed right into the center of the debate on where news is going on the Web, especially after AOL paid $315 million for her Huffington Post news and opinion site.

Huffington has certainly taken a lot of hits over the years as the HuffPo has grown, some deserved, but she has clearly led an impressive effort.

In fact, I think the cute-kitten and celebrity-loving angle played up by her detractors to dismiss her is silliness, because she and the Huffington Post are clearly more than that and are obviously having a major impact on the future direction of content in the digital age.

But that power she has sought also gives her a responsibility to say exactly what that means on a real and granular and consistent level, beyond the platitudes of wanting to make great journalism that she declares all the time now.

In other words, very specifically: What does Arianna Huffington stand for in regards to journalism? What are her rules and standards and codes? And, perhaps more importantly, what does she not stand up for?

These are questions I hope Huffington–who is really good at smacking back at criticism, too (See: the New York Times’ Bill Keller)–will address in one of her patented blog-xplosions and many times over, too.

Until then, here’s a link to my very long and very detailed ethics disclosure on All Things Digital, which is exactly how our little site thinks it should be in the digital age.

In short, besides signing the Dow Jones Code of Conduct–standard at The Wall Street Journal and other DJ publications–all our editorial staff is required to also pen their own in-plain-English personal and detailed account of disclosures that are pertinent to their job.

(You can read an extensive interview with me on the subject, in fact, which was posted here by Two Bananas Marketing, this week.)

My ATD disclosure is probably the most detailed of all of them, since I gay-married Megan Smith a dozen years ago. She later became a VP at Google, which I cover from time to time, especially related to other companies I focus on more, such as Yahoo.

Most of the time, if you care to read my posts on Google, I am probably tougher and snarkier than not, mostly because I know the search giant from its earliest days.

And, even though I once wrote extensively for the Journal about Google since its founding and before Megan arrived there, I thought it wise to lay it all out in detailed detail.

(By the way, if you want to try to tweak me by asking what News Corp.-owned Fox News’ ethics rules are, I don’t know, as ATD belongs to Dow Jones, which has had them forever. I will say, though, that Roger Ailes often freaks me out.)

In any case, as Arrington preaches, the more disclosure the better, and perhaps I should say even more so here, given the current swirl, by noting explicitly that I garner exactly no financial benefits from my relationship with Megan.

That might seem odd, because she certainly earns more. But I don’t know how much nor do I ask, since we have separate bank accounts and she always pays up–well, almost always–when half the bills are due. While it sounds painfully un-romantic, we only spend overall what each of us can afford equally in an exact 50-50 split.

In addition, I also legally signed away all rights to inheritance–although I had no such marriage rights in the first place, being gay–of Megan’s assets, which are in a trust for her relatives and our sons (for when they are too old to have any fun).

More to the point, I believe this makes me the only person to marry an exec at a hot Silicon Valley company with no prospect of any gold-digging.

Thus, I clearly would make the worst investor ever–not that I ever invest in tech or plan to while I am a reporter covering the sector.

Thank god, I suppose, that Michael Arrington is there to take up the slack.

April showers bring…well, a bad month for the still-young stock of online content maker Demand Media.

After a successful IPO in January, shares of the Santa Monica, Calif., company had stayed largely in the mid-$20 range, including a high of $27.38.

That is, until this month, when gloom in the form of algorithm changes at Google–with the seemingly dulcet code name of “Panda” and designed to weed out poorly made content–appeared to hit SEO-heavy Demand hard.

At first, the updates by the search giant seemed not to effect Demand as much as other sites. But more recent tweaks have caused traffic to its flagship site, eHow.com, to be much more negatively impacted.

And–presumably due to its search advertising-heavy business model–that worry then caused the stock to plummet from above $24 in the beginning of April to yesterday’s close of just above $15.

Since Demand went public, its shares are now down almost 34 percent.

You can see the situation pretty clearly in this Demand stock chart below (click on the image to make it larger):

Of course, this might all be needless panic on the part of Wall Street investors, but the drop has been all too real.

Not surprisingly, Demand acknowledged the dip, but also countered some third-party reports that were more dire.

It tried to staunch that worry on April 18, with a press release and blog post by its Media and Operations EVP Larry Fitzgibbon, which read in part:

…Google recently made significant search algorithm changes in an update dubbed Panda that has rolled out in various capacities from late February thru mid-April. With respect to Panda’s mid-April update, some of our properties saw Google search referrals move up while other properties, including our largest property eHow.com, saw these referrals go down.

As I said in my prior post, we generally do not comment or speculate on changes by major search engines, as these changes can happen nearly daily. However, recent third-party reports attempting to estimate the impact to our search driven traffic, including one projecting a 2/3rds decline in eHow.com traffic, are so significantly overstated that we decided to comment. As discussed in our press release issued today, we currently expect that in Q2 2011 our owned and operated Content & Media properties will generate year-over-year page view growth comparable to or greater than the year-over-year page view growth reported for Q2 2010. We have also reaffirmed our calendar year 2011 financial guidance in this press release.

That’s why it will be interesting to see what Demand execs will say on its first-quarter earnings call next Thursday, May 5, to explain how it will cope with Panda and–more importantly–what it plans to do to minimize the skadoosh impact on its business and share price.

One of the results of Yahoo’s weak earnings report earlier this week has been the renewal of chatter about possible changes in its leadership and even ownership.

And continued investor discomfort with its troubled stock price–Yahoo shares are down 7.25 percent year over year and an astonishing 49 percent on a five-year basis–and the level of renewed grumbling by major institutional shareholders is causing some key players to go back to their PowerPoints to reevaluate various options.

(By way of contrast, Google is down about 4.5 percent year over year–largely due to last week’s earnings release with higher than expected expenses–but still up more than 20 percent for the five years.)

As many might recall, last year Yahoo was under scrutiny by a number of interested parties–from big media companies to other digital players to private equity firms–considering a number of takeover scenarios.

Most of them were just talk and no action resulted, but that did not mean that interest went away.

The truth is, they are still out there and ruminating–this time with what sources describe as a much more amenable Yahoo board, with several of its key members willing to entertain any legitimate offers or ideas to improve the Silicon Valley search giant’s prospects.

In the last go-round, by contrast, Yahoo’s top execs–including CEO Carol Bartz–denied any interest in the swirl of rumors related to a variety of ideas.

That’s definitely changed–at least at the board level–so here are three very credible scenarios of what could happen:

Peetie, Peetie, Yahoo-Sweetie

Late last year, BoomTown wrote a post about the interest that former News Corp. COO and President Peter Chernin–who now owns his own entertainment production company–had in the situation at Yahoo.

As I wrote in November:

But multiple sources from a variety of sides said that Chernin, a well-liked and deeply experienced media and entertainment exec, has been contacted by a number of private equity firms and other investors about his interest in becoming involved should any of the various and sundry scenarios around the Internet giant pan out.

And Chernin, many sources said, has expressed a definite interest in the situation, perhaps because he was deeply involved in a previous deal when running News Corp.

At the time, it involved combining the media giant’s Myspace social networking site with Yahoo and also Microsoft’s portal MSN and creating a new company, code-named “TrafficCo.”

Indeed, that interest remains for Chernin, who has also been an increasingly active investor, including in the digital sector. He is an angel funder of the hot social media app start-up Flipboard, and also just joined the board of the popular Pandora music service.

The most likely possible scenarios have him joining with deep-pocketed partners, including Providence Equity Partners and, yes, Microsoft, as well as investment banks or advisory firms, such as Morgan Stanley and Code Advisors.

The approach being considered–which would only be done in a friendly way, with the cooperation of Yahoo’s board–would center on making a large enough investment in its shares, allowing the group to take control of the management and the board, putting Chernin in as chairman and maybe CEO (or with a new CEO–see next section).

If Microsoft were involved–and Chernin has strong ties there–such a scenario might include folding all its online properties into Yahoo and renegotiating its rocky search partnership, too.

This is an idea that intrigues a lot of people–including current Yahoo board chairman Roy Bostock, co-founder Jerry Yang and other board members–who have indicated recently to several investors and dealmakers a willingness to listen to credible player such as Chernin.

But, in this scenario, it would be up to Chernin and his partners to make a prosposal, said sources, and he might decide that the complexity of getting the power to make big changes at Yahoo is too big to tackle.

In addition, Chernin remains a successful Hollywood player, with several major television and movie projects in the works, as well as big investment possibilities in Asia.

“Does he want the headache of Yahoo at this point in his career?” asked one person, among many Chernin has talked to recently about becoming involved in the company. “Would you?”

Maybe so, if it would provide a big financial windfall. Many think an exec with a reputation like Chernin’s could easily begin to move Yahoo’s moribund stock upward quickly.

ABC (Anybody But Carol)

Here’s one truth: Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz does not get proper credit for a number of moves she has made since coming to the company two years ago, including cleaning up the messy corporate structure, de-complexifying garbled systems, cutting costs and bringing its far-flung operations into line.

Yahoo’s stock is certainly doing better than when she arrived in early January of 2009, when it was in the $12 range compared to its current $16 price point.

But here’s another: That stock price now includes more than $10 in solid assets–cash and Yahoo’s much more valuable stakes in China’s Alibaba Group and Yahoo! Japan–leaving very little true share appreciation.

And here are more truths: Bartz’s inability to get revenues growing, innovations flowing, promising start-ups acquired and–most importantly–to stop the continual exodus of talent out the door of Yahoo has made her tenure shakier than ever.

Add to that making its relationships with Asian partners more tense, almost no traction in key mobile, video and social arenas, a record of loud public declarations that have fallen flat and serious troubles in Yahoo’s search and online partnership with Microsoft–a deal Bartz struck and is charged with managing–recently highlighted in Yahoo’s earnings earlier this week.

As shareholder activist Eric Jackson, who has long agitated for change at Yahoo, wrote this week in a post:

“The truth is that investors are fed up with Bartz. Their enmity towards Bartz is palpable when you talk to them. Bartz talked a big game coming into the job and she hasn’t delivered. It’s that simple.”

Well, not that simple and maybe not fair, but it’s also clear that no one thinks Bartz will be re-upped when her contract is up in 18 months.

Thus, it’s no surprise that ideas of other possible leaders of Yahoo are being contemplated now.

Here’s the short list I have made of my choices: Akamai President and Yahoo board member David Kenny; former Microsoft exec and current Juniper Networks CEO Kevin Johnson; former AOL CEO and current News Corp. digital head Jon Miller; and Nikesh Arora, current Chief Business Officer and sales head at Google.

There are plenty more to pick from, of course, and any could be installed in conjunction with an effort such as Chernin’s.

AOL Under the Hoop

No good Yahoo scenario plotting can be contemplated without including AOL and its flashy CEO Tim Armstrong.

Armstrong has made no secret of wanting to get ahold of Yahoo properties to apply the strategy he has been trying at AOL to get it moving again.

Which is: To become the premiere digital media company.

Which is actually Yahoo’s new motto–although arguably, in word and deed, Armstrong has been much more active in pushing the concept and narrative.

That includes his incessant acquisitions of all kinds of online media properties, including the big fish–the $315 million purchase of the Huffington Post and the coronation of its even-flashier co-founder Arianna Huffington as content chief.

Armstrong has certainly not been averse to the idea of a Yahoo-AOL hookup with him at the top, and has been actively talking to anyone interested in such a deal.

And things could get a lot more interesting if AOL linked with a bigger strategic partner, such as News Corp. or Disney or even Google, Armstrong’s former stomping grounds.

Still, wishing does not make it so, especially with a much smaller and weaker set of assets than Yahoo and a still poor record on goosing its advertising sales.

AOL’s stock is down 30 percent year over year, as investors still worry about Armstrong’s ability to turn the company around, which kind of puts him in the same situation as Bartz.

“AOL is waiting under the hoop for whatever happens, which is a good place to be,” said one person close to the situation. “Why not?”

Why not, indeed–so, let the games begin.

Jim Bankoff, the fomer AOL exec responsible for buying Engadget for the Internet portal, has grabbed eight staffers who had recently left the huge tech site amid tensions, in order to start a new gadget property.

The site–which is still unnamed and will be run by outgoing Engadget Editor-in-Chief Josh Topolsky–will debut sometime in the fall. It is the first content expansion at the Washington, D.C. sports news site SB Nation, which is helmed by Bankoff.

“The technology we built is applicable beyond sports,” said Bankoff, in an interview with BoomTown tonight. “It was an opportunity to apply our model…into another content category where there was an overlap in demographics.”

That would be fanboys and, well, boys-who-will-be-boys.

UPDATE: In related news, sources said that AOL has zeroed in on Tim Stevens, Engadget’s automotive editor to replace the outgoing Topolsky. The New York-based company had already named Darren Murph as its new managing editor.

Now Stevens will be competing with Topolsky, as well as managing editor Nilay Patel, who will also lead the Engadget tech-exodus (techxodus?). The others include former Engadget staffers Paul Miller, Joanna Stern, Ross Miller, Chris Ziegler, Justin Glow and Dan Chilton.

Stern and Ziegler are still on Engadget’s editors site as current employees.

All of the above had left Engadget in a series of departures of late, all due to increasing unhappiness with AOL’s management and content strategy.

Paul Miller and Ross Miller, who are not related, both stated publicly that they did not like the editorial direction AOL was going in, especially a controversial content strategy document titled “The AOL Way.”

In his blog post, Topolsky threw another smackadoo at AOL, noting “SB Nation believes in real, independent journalism and the potential for new media to serve as an answer and antidote to big publishing houses and SEO spam–a point we couldn’t be more aligned on.”

New AOL content head Arianna Huffington has shifted toward a more journalistic path, but the talent bleed began before AOL’s $315 million purchase of the Huffington Post.

In a blog post, which is embedded below, Topolsky said the new SB Nation gadget site will be similar in pace and topic, but it will be broader than Engadget.

The move is an interesting one for SB Nation, which completed a $10.5 million Series C round, led by Khosla Ventures, in the fall.

It had already raised about $13 million in total venture funding from Accel Partners, Allen & Company and Comcast Interactive Capital, as well as from angel investors such as Ted Leonsis and others in Silicon Valley.

In related news, also restarting tomorrow will be a popular gadget podcast that Topolsky, Patel and Paul Miller had done for Engadget.

The New York Times’ David Carr mentioned the new site in the middle of a column earlier tonight.

Here is Topolsky’s blog post on the move, titled “This Is My Next Project”:

As you may have already heard (or read), there’s some activity going on in the world of Joshua Topolsky. Earlier this evening, David Carr published a piece in the New York Times about a new project that I’m embarking on…and I want to just say a few things about it.

Firstly: yes, this is happening. I’ve decided to join the team at SB Nation to build something brand new in the tech space. Now I know it might seem odd to some that I would be partnering with a sports publisher to build a technology news site, but that’s only half the story. This isn’t just about sports, or tech, or lone silos. What we will build together at SB Nation is a new media company–buoyed by the absolutely incredible work SB Nation has already done in publishing–and part of that new media company will be the as-yet-unnamed gadget and technology site that I’ll be working over the next few months to create. When we launch (hopefully in the fall), I will be editor-in-chief of a property that I hope will inform, entertain, and engage fans of technology in whole new ways.

I should say that I wouldn’t want to build something like this alone, and thankfully, I won’t have to. I’ll be joined by some very good friends at this new venture–people like Nilay Patel, for instance.

Of course, the natural question I’m sure a lot of people have is: why SB Nation? The easy answer is that the people at SB Nation share my vision of what publishing looks like in the year 2011. They think that the technology used to create and distribute news on the web (and mobile) is as important as the people who are responsible for the content itself. And that’s not just pillow talk–SB Nation is actively evolving its tools and processes to meet the growing and changing needs of its vast editorial teams and their audience communities. They’re building for the web as it is now. From the perspective of a journalist who also happens to be a huge nerd, that’s a match made in heaven. SBN isn’t just another media company pushing news out–it’s a testbed and lab for some of the newest and most interesting publishing tools I’ve ever seen. In short, I was blown away when I saw what kind of technology they’re using to get news on their front page and engage audiences, and even more blown away when I started talking to them about what could come next.

But beyond the technology (and possibly more important than the technology), there’s another factor here that’s driving my decision. It’s that SB Nation believes in real, independent journalism and the potential for new media to serve as an answer and antidote to big publishing houses and SEO spam–a point we couldn’t be more aligned on. This is a group of people that not only think independent media works, but are reaping the rewards of new publishing done right. As the fastest growing online sports publisher, they’re seen as a source for credible and honest journalism, which is why industry stalwarts like Rob Neyer have recently joined their ranks (ranks which include hundreds of talented sports experts). This isn’t tabloid page grabbing or content farming–it’s news and insight by and for a passionate and informed group of people. And that’s exactly where I want to be.

So, what happens next? We get to work.

In the coming months I’m going to be laser focused on one thing: building the best tech site in the world–and I would love to hear what you guys think the next phase in technology and gadget news should look like. Ping me with ideas, gripes, or even better–come and work here! SB Nation is looking for new developers as we speak, and as we ramp up to launch, we’ll be bringing on lots of talent to work both on the front page and behind the scenes.

I couldn’t be more excited and enthusiastic about what we can build right now, and I can’t wait to share what we’re going to make with the rest of the world. The months ahead are going to be filled with lots of early mornings and sleepless nights, intense debates, triumphs, and trials–and I can’t wait.

Yesterday, BoomTown reported that Mark Walker, the head of the powerful Yahoo News site, was leaving the Internet giant for another company.

That company, sources said, will be Disney, where Walker will be leading a major overhaul of its flagship Disney.com site.

The property, which has largely been a promotional and aggregation play for Disney’s many family-oriented offerings–such as its popular Disney Channel cable television shows–still sees 20 million unique visitors monthly.

Walker will report to Jimmy Pitaro, the former Yahoo media head who is now co-president of Disney’s online division with John Pleasants. Walker worked directly for Pitaro at Yahoo.

Walker’s job, said sources, will be to find a new direction for Disney.com, including adding original programming to the site, as well as more personalization for its users.

It’s a big task for Walker, since Disney’s various Web efforts have a long and often rocky history, from its disastrous purchase of Infoseek in 1998 and efforts to create the Go.com portal to its savvy acquisition of several innovative kid-focused sites such as Club Penguin in recent years.

Still, like many traditional media giants, Disney has never achieved the kind of digital success its spectacular brand has promised. The hiring of Pitaro and Pleasants by CEO Bob Iger was a sign that the company was going to make some big changes again.

BoomTown will query Iger about all this at the ninth D: All Things Digital conference this summer, where he’ll be interviewed onstage.

Yahoo’s Luke Beatty said he is not worried.

“We welcome the change,” he insisted about Google taking aim last Friday at so-called “content farms,” producers of low-quality content that spam up the Web and the search giant’s results. “And we endorse what Google is doing 100 percent.”

That’s ironic, given among those allegedly hit hardest by changing of its famous algorithm–based on early, and perhaps questionable, surveys–is Yahoo’s Associated Content.

But, if true, and traffic at Associated Content–which the Silicon Valley Internet giant bought for $90 million last May–is indeed badly hurt, it’s obviously going to be a problem for Yahoo, which relies on advertising revenue as its core business.

A quick poll by Sistrix, a search engine optimization firm, using one million keywords before and after Google’s changes, showed that Associated Content’s “visibility index”– including keyword and ranking positions ranking and clickthrough rate–was down 93 percent.

So yesterday, Beatty, who founded Associated Content and now works at Yahoo, dialed up BoomTown to talk about what the Google shift will mean to Yahoo.

First off in the wide-ranging interview, he noted, “everything on the Web is changing all the time,” noting that Associated Content used to rely more on the now weakened Digg and RSS for its traffic and distribution.

“Obviously, that has changed and we have still managed to grow,” he said.

Beatty said it is still not clear that the new tweaks in search criteria at Google would mean for Associated Content’s offerings–coming from 400,000 contributors of all kinds.

“Our data will not be reconciled for weeks…but some will be up and some will be down,” he said, adding the overall, “I suspect it will be down, although it’s not accurate by any means in the numbers released so far, since there is no way you can know this early.”

Still, it’s obvious that Google’s latest move has not been not good for Associated Content, although Beatty noted that the Silicon Valley search king is no longer the main source of traffic for Associated Content material.

Instead, that would be the owned-and-operated sites of Yahoo, most of all, and–increasingly–social networking sites such as Facebook.

“When we sold the company, we know that sites of Yahoo itself would be the biggest driver of our growth and that was the plan,” said Beatty. “And, though smaller, social means of distribution are clearly the way people are now finding our content.”

In an email later, Beatty underscored this point:

“Search traffic is not our focus within Yahoo–it hasn’t been for 10
months…traffic sources have changed endlessly over that last six years…search is one, albeit an important one and clearly, [but] now it too is changing and we see the future of our content distribution coming from O&O properties and social networks, as much as anything.”

Still, Beatty said Associated Content will adapt as long as Google does not make its tweaks on a network basis and rather than on a site basis. (Interestingly, that would presumably include Google’s own–and often spammish–Blogger property, which is fueled by its powerful AdSense engine.)

“It appears that changes have been made on an asset-by-asset basis
is good–networkwide cramdown would be inappropriate and uneducated,” he said.

Still, the best way to fight the Google initiative is by delivering higher quality content, which Beatty said was being done at the company via a series of ongoing measures to improve overall submissions.

Those include a Yahoo style guide for content creators, a two-tiered human editor review process, analytical analysis, a featured contributor program and, interesting, an online tutorial process called the Yahoo Contributor Network.

It’s not exactly Harvard University, of course, but Beatty said there is more to come.

“We are committed to supporting and helping our contributors navigate through this and every other change in the crowdsourced content economy,” he said. “We want the best article to get more traffic.”

Of course, with Google’s doubtlessly continuing changes in its criteria for what good content is, presumably, that won’t be Yahoo’s to decide.

BoomTown was looking over Victoria Harbour in Hong Kong as I blogged the conference call after Yahoo released its fourth-quarter earnings after markets closed today.

It’s pretty! But Yahoo’s revenue growth–still, not so much.

Let’s begin:

2:02 pm PT: Yahoo turned in earnings that were slightly better than expected, although no big shakes either, so the call was likely to sound exactly like the last several quarterly calls.

Bingo! We’re trying! It’s encouraging! You’ll see!

In fact, “encouraging” was just the word that CEO Carol Bartz used as she tried to focus on a doubling of operating income, operating margin and earnings per share.

Impressive, the revenue at Yahoo is still stubbornly not moving, which the company continued to attribute to the new search and online advertising partnership with Microsoft.

“This is all part of our plan to turn Yahoo around,” said Bartz, who added a new buzzword, “personalized content,” to its offerings.

She turned the call over to Yahoo CFO Tim Morse, who ran through the numbers, which pretty much came down to this: Display advertising up 16 percent from last year, while search revenue dropped 18 percent.

As in previous quarters, Morse talked about how “headwinds” will soon lessen and it will be smooth sailing for Yahoo ahead.

After the stormy seas of recent years, that would be nice, since investors have gotten pretty seasick owning Yahoo shares.

Morse offered that, “while there is still much to do, we are still executing well against our plan” and went on about how good things are.

Finally, we have a “unified purpose,” which he characterized as personalized content too.

It’s a nice new catchword for Yahoo, and I liked Morse’s strong tone and gumption, which for an accountant was like hollering.

His big Achilles’ heel: The revenues projections ahead remain soft.

2:24 pm: Back to Bartz, who focused on the future success of the Microsoft advertising alliance and also Yahoo’s leadership in display advertising.

She listed some big offline brands, such as Wal-Mart and Macy’s, noting when looking for online ads, “That’s right, they all came to Yahoo.”

Bartz moved on to its stake in China’s Alibaba Group and noted it was a “great investment with a bright future.” Translation: We are not selling for now.

But noting its investment in Yahoo! Japan, Bartz had a slightly different take, mentioning talks to “unlock” the value of the stake. Translation: Maybe we’ll sell if we can figure out how not to pay all those taxes.

Bartz did the same with all of Yahoo properties, putting a sunny spin on what is still a turnaround situation.

It’s a good strategy, but it is one that is starting to sound like a broken record, especially when Google, Facebook and others seem to be like a house on fire.

2:35 pm: Now on to Q&A, in which Wall Street analysts ask softball questions of executives.

And so they do, asking queries that include small details about its operating margin, questions on tiny changes in numbers due to accounting changes. And very little about larger strategy.

You can read about this stuff in the press release, but whatever.

I am thinking of starting an investment bank, so I can jump in on these calls and ask some questions that have actual substance.

The United Bank of Swisher? Goldman Sucks?

Ooh, I was wrong, because one analyst asked a good one about possible future layoffs.

Bartz noted the company would be adding people, um, after laying some employees off.

It’s all about “re-allocating” staff, which Yahoo did earlier today by laying off one percent of its workforce, after an earlier four-percent cut.

Next, a question about search share, with Morse noting there will be search volume growth in the future.

Big message: We are in this to grow the share.

Except it has not been growing, as the last several months of surveys of search share have shown.

But Bartz firmly declared: “We’ll be up” in 2011.

A question focused in on mobile, and Bartz pointed out that Yahoo had the disadvantage of not having a mobile operating system such as Google does with Android.

Good point!

2:59 pm: Another terrific analyst comment about the disconnect between the execs encouraging comments and the actual financials, which show a downturn in, yes, revenue.

It is exactly the point here, which Yahoo has been trying to spin. Morse went through the list of excuses, from bumpiness of the search transition to weakness in affiliate sales to whatever.

Bartz jumped in and blamed the search alliance again, noting that moving advertisers over to the new platform was hard to do.

“I will not back down on the fact that we are gaining momentum,” said Bartz about search. “There is a lot going on here.”

Morse chimed in, noting he was the one using “gaining momentum” in his script. “I really believe that,” he said, going through the terrific plans.

“You’re correct the top line is not showing that yet,” said Morse in an increasingly loud voice. “There’s an awful lot there to be optimistic about.”

The accountant that roared.

Encouraging.

But then came the last question about the growth of Facebook, the Silicon Valley social networking phenom that is clearly going to be Yahoo’s biggest rival over the next years.

Bartz acknowledged Facebook’s explosive growth, but declared the company more compatible than competitive.

“There’s room for everybody here,” she said.

Presumably, that’s the hope for Yahoo.

(Also, you can see a slide deck of the financials here.)

Google is reportedly spending $1.9 billion to buy the New York City office building where it rents 500,000 square feet. And since the enormous property covers nearly three million square feet, that means Google is going to be cashing rent checks from all sorts of interesting tenants.

Barnes & Noble.com rents a big chunk of the building, which occupies an entire city block in Manhattan’s Chelsea district. So does Interpublic Group’s. Deutsch ad agency. And Sprint. And Nike.

And if Google ever wants to get a deal done with Spotify, the European music service that hasn’t made it to the U.S. yet, it won’t have to look hard to find the company: Spotify has a small outpost in the building, too.

Meanwhile, if you want to see Spotify founder Daniel Ek yourself, check out our D: Dive into Mobile conference next Tuesday, where I’ll be interviewing him onstage.

Federated Media Publishing, which recently bought a community platform aimed at parents, announced tonight that it was making another acquisition.

This time, it’s a site called Foodbuzz.

According to the site, which calls itself a “food blog community,” it has exclusive deals to sell advertising for 4,400 independent food bloggers, making it a top food property.

Foodbuzz has raised $1.75 million in funding.
FM declined to give any financial details of what it paid for the San Francisco-based start-up.

FM bought community platform BigTent earlier this month, as it seeks to create large networks of niche content to better sell premium advertising.

In an interview with BoomTown after the BigTent acquisition, FM CEO John Battelle said the move was to further strengthen its tools for both the advertisers and publishers it serves, especially to create better “content conversations.”

Battelle also said that the additions to FM’s offerings are moving it toward helping content makers and advertisers create more relevancy, well beyond simply serving ads.

Here is the official press release from FM:

Federated Media Publishing Acquires Foodbuzz

Combination creates the largest and best collection of independent food bloggers

SAN FRANCISCO–Federated Media Publishing (FM), a media company that powers the best of the independent web, today announced the acquisition of Foodbuzz, the leading online food property.

Exclusive relationships with more than 4,400 independent food bloggers allow Foodbuzz to reach more than 14 million unique users per month. Combined with FM’s premier food sites, including Serious Eats and Bakerella, the new offering is the best way for marketers to engage with top-quality audiences discussing food.

“There’s a reason so many people share recipes, watch their favorite chefs on TV and talk about where they ate last night,” said Deanna Brown, President and Chief Operating Officer of FM. “Food is a universal topic that everyone loves to discuss. With Foodbuzz, FM can invite brands into the very best of those discussions at significant scale.”

“When you look at the innovative display-ad units, content marketing and blogger outreach programs created by both of our companies, this combination is a natural fit,” said Ben Dehan, the Founder and CEO of Foodbuzz, who is joining the senior management team at FM. “The sales teams, product mixes and great bloggers from both FM and FoodBuzz belong together, and we can’t wait to put this new offering in front of the best brands.”

FM’s purchase of Foodbuzz comes on the heels of three other significant transactions:

• The acquisition of BigTent, the leading community platform for local groups, especially groups of parents.

• The acquisition of semantic-search technology from TextDigger.

• A partnership with the Clever Girls Collective to reach audiences on more than 1,000 top-quality lifestyle blogs.

But the troubled Web property is a…really troubled Web property, its News Corp. parent stressed today. And it needs to get its act together before it gets kicked off campus.

That’s the message that COO Chase Carey took pains to get across during his company’s earnings call this afternoon.

Revenue at Myspace was down $70 million compared to the same quarter a year ago, the company said, and “traffic numbers are still not going in the right direction, Carey said. Which means that its “current losses are not acceptable or sustainable.”

Okay. But Myspace has been in decline for some time, and Jon Miller and Mike Jones have been trying to fix it for more than a year. And last year at this time, we heard a similar assessment, only then Carey kept calling the site a “work in progress.” So how much more time do they have?

Carey: “We judge in quarters, not in years.”

My understanding is that when Miller took the job as News Corp.’s chief digital officer in the spring of 2009, he believed he had a real shot at fixing the social network, which had already cooled from red-hot to not at all.

But sources in and out of News Corp. tell me that Miller and his team are now merely hoping to patch the service long enough to find a buyer. Perhaps no one has told Carey, who seems to be conducting an anti-sales pitch.

——————-

EARLIER:

First look at Rupert Murdoch’s latest report card: News Corp. ended the September quarter with revenue of $7.4 billion and earnings of $0.27 a share (after factoring out a one-time tax gain). That’s almost exactly what the Street was looking for–expectations were $7.4 billion and $0.24 per share.

A quick run-through by unit:

• Cable: Up, because ad dollars are up and so are those affiliate fees that cable providers don’t want to pay but do.
• Movies: Down, because last year the company had an “Ice Age” movie in its results, and this year it’s fairly hit-less. It is making money selling reruns of “How I Met Your Mother,” though.
• Broadcast TV: Up, because local TV stations are doing better than last year, when they were still crippled by the recession.
• Satellite: Down, because costs were up.
• Publishing: Up, because newspapers are doing better than last year, when they were terrible. Ad revenue is up 13 percent worldwide. (This is where I note that News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)
• Random other stuff: Down, in large part because of Myspace and the rest of News Corp.’s digital unit, which is still trying to turn around.

I’ll come back to liveblog the conference call at 4:30 eastern, in the hopes that Murdoch says something interesting about politics, pay walls, the economy, Myspace, Apple and/or Google. He usually does!

LIVEBLOG:

BIG bummer: No Rupert on call today–because he’s traveling. (Some place with no phones? What’s up with that?)

CFO Dave DeVoe running through segment performance.

Cable: Some boasting about Fox News, FX, Big 10 Network, etc.

Movies: Nothing new here.

TV: TV stations up, but broadcast network losses up big “from higher cancellation costs.”

Satellite: [Apologies, had to duck out for a second.]

Newspapers: Again, ads up in all big newspapers.

Other/Digital: $70 million lower search and ad revenue at Myspace y/y.

Guidance: Leaving unchanged (though DeVoe notes that Myspace is still under plan).

COO Chase Carey:

Lots of focus on our retrans deals, and they are “critical” to our future. “We will be taking this business to a whole new level of profitability.”

Lots of growth ahead in International pay TV market.

Walk through of “key initiatives” throughout the company.

[Still sulking over Rupert-less call.]

Fox Film hasn’t had breakout hits, but no stinkers “in an industry known for them.”

We’ve got Jim Cameron locked up for Avatar 2 and 3, you know. And Modern Family is going to make us a pile of money in syndication.

Wish the World Series wasn’t such a bummer, and a short one. But NFL on Fox doing great.

WSJ still growing. Building digital business that “will take time to emerge.” “We feel very good” about subscription business in U.K.

“We’ve been clear that Myspace has been a problem.”

But relaunching “and we feel really good about” it. “Current losses are not acceptable or sustainable” and current management knows it, even though it’s not their fault.

But we know that we have to work very hard in coming months to get this thing sustainable.

[This is some of the most negative commentary I've heard yet from News Corp. on Myspace. Hard to sell an asset when you're describing it this way.]

Q&A:

Myspace: How much time do you give the relaunch to figure out if it’s successful. And what if it’s not?

Carey: We judge in quarters, not in years. Goal is to get to a place where top-line revenue is going in the right direction and “a clear path to profitability.”

We feel good about the relaunch. But “our traffic numbers are still not going in the right direction” and we have to stabilize that.

Fox TV content on digital platforms: It’s available on Hulu and Fox.com. How is that strategy going, and will you continue to be open?

Carey: Broadly: “This digital arena is still evolving.” We’re very focused on managing rights. Key issues: Windows, ad load, pricing. [Not answering at all, really.] “We think the digital arena is a very important one” particularly mobile, iPad, but “look, scarcity of our product is a real value.” But we’re learning as we go. “I do think it’s important that the digital platforms continue to develop dual revenue stream options.” That’s critical, and options are just beginning to evolve.

More on Myspace: There are a lot of operations in “other” besides Myspace: Mobile, Fox Audience Network, etc. What else could improve there?

Carey: Only two other businesses in there: Mobile, and outdoor networks, (and IGN). Not a lot of room for growth in those businesses.

So it’s really about Myspace?

Yes.

Avatar: What’s upside here?

Carey: Sequel to the most successful film ever? It should be pretty good! “Enormous events, without comparison or rival.”

[Please bring Rupert back!]

Please talk about terms of new Cameron deal?

Nope.

On retrans: Cablevision said they got better terms by holding out for a couple weeks. How do you react to that? If true, will we see more of these holdouts?

[Also a question about BSkyB I'm not that interested in.]

Carey: Mostly I saw Cablevision complaining that the government didn’t bail them out. But we feel pretty good about where we are. We didn’t think the government needed to get into it, and it would have been nice if the government would have been clear up front “it may not have gone off the air at all,” but whatever–”this was a matter to be dealt with between private parties.” [Ignore all those press releases we sent out!]

Can you talk about advertising trends and expectations?

DeVoe [I think]: They haven’t changed.

Cable margins: How long can you keep growing them?

Carey: We have room to drive a number of our channels, via more distribution, jacking up fees, advertising, etc.

What about getting more money from regional sports networks?

Carey: Won’t get into specifics.

[We want Rupe! We want Rupe!]

International channels seem to be doing well. Where is that growth coming from?

Carey: Part of it is the weak U.S. dollar. But overall, growth is “big and broad.”

Oh man. Even Chase Carey is yawning as he answers the question.

[Skipping accounting question.]

Back to network TV: Please talk about sports programming costs, etc. NFL, baseball, NASCAR. You spend a lot. Does retrans help support those costs? Or will you move some of that to cable?

Carey: I don’t think it makes sense to differentiate broadcast and cable much anymore. That’s the point of retrans–to make broadcast look like cable, with dual revenue stream.

On sports: It’s expensive, and draws big crowds. “It’s a unique strength in a world of DVRS” but “they come with big price tags.” We’d like to continue running it, but we have to do it at the right price.

Retrans does help, though–networks that are only ad-supported won’t be able to pay for these rights over time. Still, gotta be disciplined, etc.

Back to digital: What’s going on with Google TV? Are you thinking about different devices and different screens as a way to window, instead of calendar? I.e.: Make it available on PC but not on the big screen, etc.

Carey: I think within the house, the difference between screens won’t matter. I do think mobile is a discrete platform. [And some general chatter about tablets.]

But generally, “our content is incredibly valuable” and “we’re not going to throw it out there for everybody” unless we get compensated for it.

[Boring question about syndicated TV. Carey flipping through papers]

Hey, what about M&A deals, like Yahoo?

“Things like Yahoo are because the press needs things to write about.” [Zing! Also, hey, Jon Miller!] “We don’t need to make any acquisitions. But if there’s something out there, we should consider it, but we’ll do it in a very disciplined way” like we have in the past. Generally, we’d rather build than buy. “But if we see something we can acquire at a very attractive price that fits, we’ll take a look at it.” We’re not shopping.

[Skipping another cable channel question.]

Time for press Q&A:

How do you make broadcast look more like cable?

Carey: Retrans fees, like we’ve been talking about for the past couple years.

What about doing “premium video” (windowing movie release on TV?).

Carey: Looking at it.

What about further delaying movies to Netflix, Redbox beyond 28-day window (Warner talked about this today)?

Carey: We’re okay right now, but we’re looking at it. But as VOD grows, windows will change and evolve. But right now “we feel what windowing we’ve done has been good for us.”

Color on Apple TV 99-cent rental, please:

Carey: It’s pretty new. Only relevant for the past month or so. Too early to judge.

What’s your vision for European and British markets after you buy Sky? Will you buy Endemol?

Carey: Don’t really want to talk about it, too early.

Please talk about Times of London pay wall performance to date. Also, what are you thinking about your iPad newspaper in the U.S.?

Carey: Re U.K.: “We feel very good about it. Realistically, it’s very early….This is not something that’s a one or two quarter game.”

Same thing with the “whole digital arena” evolving, etc.

Hah. Refuses to talk about iPad newspaper. Which is not a newspaper!

Call finished, mercifully.

Dear Ross,

Perhaps more than anyone, BoomTown is thrilled to have you back in the Internet ops game, after several years on the sidelines.

Besides introducing an exciting new character and plotline into the daily digital drama set in Sunnyvale, Calif.–kind of like when one of Alexis Carrington’s ex-husbands returned after a bout with amnesia on “Dynasty”–it’s clear you are not going to be a shrinking violet.

Plus, you know how to handle drama after all those crazy years herding digital cats at News Corp.’s MySpace.

In other words: Nobody puts Ross in the corner!

But it’s a very big job you have, running both Yahoo’s massive media properties, as well as its giant sales organization–especially after all those years of long lunches as a venture investor.

Thus, I prepared a short list for you–kind of a Yahoo cheat sheet–to cut out and put in your cyber-wallet, and pull out if the need should arise:

10. If you have any internal emails, product roadmaps, acquisition plans and–especially–juicy memos, please immediately forward them to kara@allthingsd.com via the secret Gmail account every Yahoo staffer has. (Don’t worry, everyone does this! Really!)

9. If anyone offers you $31 a share for Yahoo, take it.

8. If someone asks you the question, “What is Yahoo?”: Run for the hills.

7. If anyone tries to drag you back to Sunnyvale from Los Angeles, resist, even after what happened to Lloyd Braun. There are no advertisers nor any significant digital media folks in Silicon Valley, however much anyone tells you there are.

6. If a billionaire shareholder activist named Carl whom you used to canoodle with about taking over Yahoo calls, please refer to No. 8.

5. If you can locate where Yahoo co-founder and former CEO Jerry Yang has gotten to of late–he has been sighted at Yahoo “strategery” meetings and playing golf with advertisers–please send his coordinates to kara@allthingsd.com. I am not a stalker. Well, only a little bit.

4. If you have to ask who Judy is, you have already lost, because Judy is actually in charge at Yahoo. (By the way, since you are both from Jersey, work that angle hard!)

3. If a smiley, cheekboned, Don Draper-looking dude calls from AOL wanting to do a “reverse merger” and offers a ride on Air Tim to discuss it, please refer to No. 8.

2. If you feel frustrated and have the need to utter naughty words and curses, stifle it! That’s a job for the CEO!

1. Ignore me.*

* At your peril.

Other buyers from around the world are also chasing the block-long, 2.9-million-square-foot building in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood, the person said. If the deal is done near $2 billion, the building’s sale would make it one of the largest acquisitions of a single property in New York.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

As BoomTown reported yesterday as likely, Yahoo has finally hired former News Corp. digital exec Ross Levinsohn.

He replaces Hilary Schneider as EVP of the Americas region, the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s most critical unit.

That means Levinsohn will be in charge of both Yahoo’s powerful media properties and also its massive advertising business.

Levinsohn will report directly to CEO Carol Bartz, but will not be primarily located at its Sunnyvale HQ. Instead, he will remain in Los Angeles and work out of the company’s offices in Santa Monica.

One bright note: Bartz has finally hired an exec on her own whose prime expertise is in digital media and not related to enterprise and software.

Giant sigh of relief from ATD HQ, since Levinsohn actually realizes that things need to move a lot faster inside the giant bubble of Yahoo.

Today’s hiring had a few snafus. Levinsohn’s plane to Silicon Valley from his home base in the southland was delayed and he could not sign his contract until just now.

In addition, there had been a number of outstanding negotiating issues that were just resolved earlier this afternoon.

Thus, Levinsohn just signed moments ago and here is the official press release from Yahoo:

Yahoo! Appoints Ross Levinsohn as Executive Vice President of Americas

SUNNYVALE, Calif., October 27, 2010–Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) announced today that the company has appointed Ross Levinsohn as executive vice president of the Americas region. As one of the direct reports of CEO Carol Bartz, Levinsohn will join the executive staff of Yahoo! in November and will be responsible for the company’s media group, advertising sales, and partnerships for the Americas region.

“Ross has a phenomenal track record of executing digital media strategies that increase user engagement and, most importantly, accelerate topline growth,” said Bartz. “I am confident that Ross’s strategic vision, in addition to his deep industry experience, will allow us to solidify our position as the largest digital media, content and communications business around the globe.”

Levinsohn has long been on the forefront of digital media innovation. Prior to joining Yahoo!, he was the co-founder and managing director of Fuse Capital, an investment and strategic equity management firm focused on investing in and building digital media and communications companies. Levinsohn previously served as the president of News Corporation’s Fox Interactive Media, where he was responsible for running the day-to-day business, designing the overall strategy and leading investments that helped transform the company into a leader in digital media.

Levinsohn also held senior management positions with AltaVista, an early pioneer and leader in search, CBS Sportsline where he oversaw all content and development for the top rated sports site, and HBO where he launched and oversaw a unit developing new programming and revenue streams.

“Yahoo! is one of the premier Internet companies in the world,” said Levinsohn. “Having this opportunity to work with a group of immensely talented people to enhance Yahoo!’s leadership position is a once in a lifetime opportunity.”

He’s baaaaaack.

Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo’s North American head, according to several sources close to the situation.

While the deal is not completely struck, sources said Levinsohn is very close to taking the job.

Sources added, if he does, he is likely to remain living in Los Angeles, where he has long been located. Yahoo has a large facility in Santa Monica.

The move is a bold one for Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz, who desperately needs to bring in major Internet talent to the company to shore up her worrisome inexperience in the space.

Yahoo has been rocked by management turmoil–especially in the media and advertising unit–and also troubling weakness in revenue growth and innovative spark.

Levinsohn, one of the more colorful of Web personalities, certainly has a spark.

Levinsohn is currently an investor at Fuse Capital, which funds digital media and communications start-ups.

But sources said he has been itching to get back at a big company with scale in the digital media business and has been interested in Yahoo for some months.

At Yahoo, presumably, he will have purview over what Schneider did (and perhaps more), including the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s powerful media properties and its large advertising sales force in the U.S..

It’s likely Yahoo will hire a major ad sales exec to work under Levinsohn, and sources said the company has been in contact with several prominent execs to fill the slot left open with the March departure of Joanne Bradford to Demand Media.

Besides Schneider, also among the recent departures in the unit Levinsohn would run: VP of Media Jimmy Pitaro, who went to Disney, and U.S. Audience head David Ko, who moved to social gaming phenom Zynga.

Until now, Levinsohn is best known for his stint running digital operations for News Corp.’s then FIM unit.

It was at FIM that he rose to prominence after he bought MySpace, the social networking site that was once the hottest property on the Web.

At the time, Levinsohn and other execs also struck a gigantically lucrative advertising search deal with Google that garnered MySpace huge revenues.

After leaving News Corp. after repeated clashes with MySpace Co-founder and CEO Chris DeWolfe, he partnered with former AOL CEO Jon Miller in another investment company, Velocity Capital.

Ironically, both Miller and Levinsohn were the top choice of billionaire shareholder activist Carl Icahn as the execs he wanted to run Yahoo when he was agitating for change there a few years back in the midst of the failed takeover attempt by Microsoft.

When reached today, Miller–who now is the Chief Digital Officer of News Corp.–declined to comment on his former associate’s job prospects.

But he said: “If Yahoo is so lucky to get Ross, it would be great, because he is one of few people who understands all media.”

Indeed, although Levinsohn is better known as a dealmaker and media exec than as a sales expert, although he did manage digital advertising properties at FIM.

Previous to FIM, Levinsohn ran Fox Sports Interactive Media. He has also worked at the AltaVista Network, an early search pioneer, CBS Sportsline and Time Warner’s pay cable giant HBO. In addition, according to his bio at Fuse.

He also worked at Saatchi and Saatchi and in sports management and marketing with ProServ and Lapin and Rose Communications.

Yahoo declined to comment about the possible appointment of Levinsohn.

(And let’s hope Yahoo–especially the hip-shooting Bartz–doesn’t announce his arrival by also unfairly kicking former execs in the media and advertising unit in the teeth, as has been cloddishly done already too many times.)

BoomTown has also contacted Levinsohn via email and phone and has not heard back from the typically voluble exec.

But you can enjoy his stylings here, in a video interview I did with him in 2007:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101026/exclusive-yahoo-courts-former-news-corp-digital-exec-ross-levinsohn-as-u-s-head/feed/ 8 http://allthingsd.com/20100421/appolicious-signs-partnership-to-integrate-with-yahoo/ http://allthingsd.com/20100421/appolicious-signs-partnership-to-integrate-with-yahoo/#comments Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:23:56 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=27186

Although serial entrepreneur Al Warms sold his start-up to Yahoo and ultimately left the Internet giant to launch a new one, he is coming back a bit via an interesting partnership.

Warms’s Appolicious is aimed at encouraging discovery and social networking in the mobile apps market.

Now Appolicious will carry Yahoo’s brand at the top of its site and be surfaced throughout Yahoo’s News, Sports and other powerful media properties.

Everything will be co-branded. The words, “In association with Yahoo,” for example, will appear on the Appolicious site.

“I think it is a pretty huge deal in what it means to where apps have gotten in such a short period of time,” said Warms in an interview with BoomTown. “We want to make these apps relevant for Yahoo users.”

Yahoo’s VP for Media, Jimmy Pitaro, said that the deal was struck to make the increasingly complex world of mobile apps simpler.

“We’re focused on making people’s online lives easier,” he said. “Apps are huge, but also confusing to many, so we want them to be in the relevant place they belong and in context for our users.”

A baseball story, for example, might surface various related baseball apps, while a celebrity post would offer very different ones.

The partnership will be a big boost for Warms and Appolicious, given the huge traffic generated by Yahoo’s content offerings.

Warms sold his Participate Media, along with its BuzzTracker content aggregator, to Yahoo in late 2007.

Warms left Yahoo (YHOO) in late 2008 and started Appolicious in May 2009 with about $500,000 in seed funding.

The start-up has since raised another $1.5 million.

Appolicious is kind of a combination of Twitter, Facebook and Yahoo, with some Yelp sprinkled in, but devoted solely to organizing and making sense of the exploding app galaxy in the universe of smartphones.

Right now, the innovative site focuses on iPhone and iPad apps, as well as other mobile platforms such as Android from Google (GOOG). Appolicious plans to add apps for the BlackBerry from Research in Motion (RIMM).

Using premium content, recommendations of friends and people like you–as well as a variety of lists, feeds, popularity rankings, images and videos–the idea is to do what the iTunes Store does not.

Namely, make sense of the plenitude of apps out there, most of which are on the iPhone.

To make that happen, users of the service also can list all the apps they have in an App Library, so others can see them.

Warms’s business plan is largely advertising, including a focus on attracting brands that want to be in front of apps consumers.

Here is a video interview I did with Warms when he launched Appolicious, as well as screenshots of the new Yahoo-branded site:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100421/appolicious-signs-partnership-to-integrate-with-yahoo/feed/ 0