AllThingsD » retention

Add Another Log to the Fire: HP Employees Grumble About Loss of Stock Grants

Arik Hesseldahl — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:00:06 +0000

Given the events of the past 18 months or so — two new CEOs, a brief flirtation with a significant spinoff, the failure and then marginalization of an important consumer product and an unpopular and expensive acquisition — it’s probably no surprise that morale among employees at Hewlett-Packard has dropped significantly in recent months.

But now, many employees in HP’s mid-tier management ranks have something new to grumble about. Some 700 to 900 HP employees who have been participants in a three-year-old HP stock bonus plan learned right before the holidays that they would not be receiving the payout of shares they expected.

The program concerns what HP refers to as PRUs, or Performance-based Restricted Units, and is described in detail in HP’s 10-K and proxy filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was created both as a performance-based bonus and also as a retention plan for certain HP management-level employees at the vice president level and higher.

In a Dec. 12 internal HP email obtained by AllThingsD, employees participating in the program were told that they wouldn’t be receiving a payout for 2011, and that shares accrued during HP’s fiscal years 2010 and 2009 would also be lost.

To explain:

Under the terms of the program, employees received grants representing hypothetical shares of HP stock that were to have been paid out at the end of the three-year period ending Oct. 31, 2011. Had HP met the stated cash flow and shareholder return goals, the shares would have been paid out to employees sometime in December.

Instead, employees were told that they would receive no payout from the PRU program at all, not for 2011, nor for 2010 or 2009.

This is, of course, exactly how the PRU program was to work: With HP’s goals not met, there was no payout to give. And while other equity-based bonuses and grant programs remain in force, for employees in the mid-level ranks — not those in the senior ranks already earning half-million-dollar salaries or more — PRUs represented an important benefit.

It’s not clear exactly how much HP would have been required to pay had the company met the PRU program’s requirements. The company’s most recent 10-K filing said that it had “$82 million of unrecognized pre-tax stock-based compensation expense related to PRUs with an assigned fair value,” but now that the payout has been canceled entirely, it no longer has to account for that amount, nor for any previous year’s PRUs.

Whatever the total amount involved, affected employees who stood to receive PRUs are seething about how and when they were told they wouldn’t be receiving them.

The email, delivered to certain managers on Dec. 12, contained instructions on talking with subordinates about their annual performance review and the rewards they could expect. The subject line was: “Deliver the One conversation.”

It reads, in part:

Managers with FY09 Performance-based Restrictued Unit (PRU) Award Holders

We have the final performance results for the FY09 Performance-based Restricted Unit award, which was based on HP’s performance from FY09-FY11. As you will recall, the performance metrics for the FY09 PRUs were:

1. HP’s annual cash flow from operations as a percentage of revenue for each of FY09, FY10 and FY11, and

2. HP’s Total Shareholder Return (TSR) for the FY09-FY11 period relative to the S&P 500

As a result of the change in HP’s stock price over the three-year period, the TSR requirements were not achieved, and no shares will be released from the FY09 PRU award.

Of course, we are very disappointed that there is no payout this year from this program, and you have specific management actions to communicate the final disposition of this grant for FY09 PRU award holders. The actions are:

– During the One Conversation, you will also need to address the outcome of the FY09-11 PRUs with employees on your team who are FY09 PRU Award Holders

– Please review the FY09 PRU Talking Points and PRU FAQs [Here the email contains links to internal HP documents I have not seen. -Ed] to prepare to have this discussion with your affected employees, who are listed below: [Here the printed copy of the email I received has several listed names blacked out.]

For any other questions about FPR, please ask Contact HR.

Regards,
Evan Wittenberg, VP, Global Talent

Stan Dunlap, VP, Global Rewards

And here’s some more detail about how the PRU program worked, taken from HP’s 10-K and proxy filings:

HP employees who participated in the PRU plan could track the accrued amounts of their PRUs on a Merrill Lynch Web site. I talked to two sources, both of whom had accrued PRUs worth between $100,000 and $200,000 for fiscal 2009 and 2010. Other less senior employees who received PRUs would have accrued between $20,000 and $50,000 in their accounts.

One source told me that as rumors began to circulate that PRUs would not be paid for 2011, most people assumed that the accrued amounts for 2009 and 2010 would still be paid. How wrong that assumption was became apparent on Monday, Dec. 11, as the amounts in their Merrill Lynch PRU accounts plummeted to zero. As recently as Dec. 9, the prior Friday, the value of the accrued PRUs for 2009 and 2010 were still displayed.

HP CEO Meg Whitman discussed the decision not to pay out PRUs in a conference call with HP’s top 900 executives days later. According to people who were on the conference call, Whitman primarily blamed the economy.

Despite the fact that HP followed the PRU program’s provisions correctly, affected employees are grumbling that management has “crossed a line.” As one source put it to me, revealing the decision during the weeks leading up to Christmas was “unconscionable.”

“If they will cross this line now, there’s no line they won’t cross later,” said one source, a current HP employee who asked not to be named. “They could have played straight with us and told us this was coming months ago. The way they’ve done this is not in keeping with the HP way.”

The decision is hurting morale at a time when HP needs to hold on to its people. One source, who left HP recently for another company, says he is routinely being peppered with resumes from HP employees looking to jump ship.

Update: An HP spokesman says of the PRU program that compensation is tied to performance and the 2011 fiscal year wasn’t a good one for HP. Still other bonus programs did pay out. “High-performing employees were still eligible for salary, stock and bonus awards that year.”

As to the timing of the decision, he said since HP’s fiscal year ends on Oct. 31, it’s natural that compensation decisions fall in December. “That’s the time every year that we do raises and award bonuses. That is when these things are announced.”

Of course, many of the affected employees are blaming HP’s prior generation of management for not meeting results, as well as its board of directors. HP shares fell considerably during the 11-month period that Léo Apotheker was CEO, and it was on his watch that the company shook the confidence of investors, as it missed quarterly earnings targets three times in a row.

This probably won’t make them feel any better, but Apotheker is affected by the loss of PRUs, too: Under terms of his separation agreement, Apotheker was to have received 424,000 PRUs which on paper would be worth $12 million and change, given Monday’s share price. But according to his contract on file with the SEC, his PRU grants were made under the same rules as those made to other employees. That means they’re gone, just like those of other affected HP employees.

Zynga Makes Big Claims With IPO Only a Week Away

Tricia Duryee — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 22:03:29 +0000

Zynga is making some pretty big promises during its roadshow as it attempts to woo investors ahead of next week’s public offering.

The San Francisco social games company is looking to raise as much as $1.15 billion, which would make it the largest IPO from a U.S. Internet company since Google raised $1.7 billion in 2004.

Shares will likely be sold on Thursday, with the company trading under the ticker ZNGA for the first time on Friday. In the meantime, the company is trying to jockey for the best price and the most shares sold.

At a luncheon yesterday with potential investors, CEO Mark Pincus made one of his boldest predictions yet when it comes to how well its games will monetize.

Currently, Zynga has about 227 million monthly active users who play games for free on Facebook, such as FarmVille, CityVille, Zynga Poker and Mafia Wars. But only a small fraction — around 3 percent — pay for additional features, such as decorative items for a farm or new clothes for an avatar.

“We could see that doubling,” said Pincus, according to Reuters.

Doubling? That’s sure to whet investors’ appetites.

But it’s hard to know how the company will accomplish that.

To be sure, Zynga is about to enter one of its biggest growth periods yet and anticipates launching several new games over the next few months.

On one level, more games will likely translate to more players. But will it translate to more players willing to pay?

That seems like a leap of faith.

However, based on documents filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission, we have gleaned that some of Zynga’s growth prospects are guaranteed thanks to the company’s close – albeit complicated – relationship with Facebook.

As one of the conditions of its partnerships, Facebook is obligated to help Zynga meet certain growth targets. In return, Zynga has committed to offering Facebook a number of exclusive game titles.

The specific details of the relationship were redacted in the document, so it’s not clear how aggressive those growth targets are over the five-year life of the contract.

Zynga also has close ties with Google, which has recently launched its own games network. Zynga has already launched several titles there, including CityVille. Following the offering, Google will own 3.8 percent of the company.

Also during yesterday’s lunch, Zynga’s executives were grilled about player retention and churn rates and its growth prospects for mobile.

Among several responses, Pincus joked about how Alec Baldwin was recently kicked off a flight after getting caught playing Words With Friends while still at the gate.

It seemed investors were not as interested in hearing about recent negative reports that Pincus’s hard-charging personality has made it an unfavorable working environment or that some employees were asked to give up their stock options.

Plus, it’s a crowd that Pincus should be comfortable speaking in front of. This will be the second company the Wharton and Harvard Business School grad has taken public.

The company will continue to have meetings today and into next week. So far, reports indicate that the conversations are going well.

Zynga has apparently already received enough orders to cover all the shares being sold in its initial public offering, reports BusinessWeek, which talked to two people with knowledge of the situation. Zynga plans to sell 100 million shares for $8.50 to $10 apiece, which would value the company at as much as $7 billion.

No to YESS -- Yahoo Employee Satisfaction Survey Shows Morale Morass

Kara Swisher — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:07:53 +0000

It should probably come as no surprise to the board and top managers of Yahoo that the just-released annual poll of its workers — called the Yahoo Employee Satisfaction Survey — paints a picture of a deeply demoralized workplace.

Apparently, Yahoos can’t get no satisfaction.

The YESS questions went out to employees the week that the company fired CEO Carol Bartz, with most of the responses gathered in the ensuing weeks.

One major drop — not much of a shockeroo — was the employee assessment of senior leadership, under the question of whether “Yahoo is an effectively managed well-run organization.” That dropped 11 percent from last year.

Also troubling, according to numerous sources who have recounted the results to me, was that 19 percent of employees said they planned to leave the company within less than a year, in case a better opportunity arises.

(I like to call that the anywhere-but-here question.)

This is a large figure for any tech company for such a survey, which is commonly done throughout the industry. Typically, those numbers are around 10 percent, according to several human resources execs I queried, although Yahoo’s chart noted that the industry benchmark was 14 percent.

In any case, this YESS is Yahoo’s highest percentage of negatives for departure intent in several years.

Worse, it is higher in the product unit, where most of Yahoo’s engineers work and which is key to any technology company’s viability. Intent not to stay is 21 percent in the division.

On the plus side, numbers for manager effectiveness, teamwork and accountability did grow year over year in the product unit.

YESS documents sentiments I have been hearing widely and ever louder anecdotally from a plethora of mid-level managers at the Silicon Valley Internet giant.

Most are worried that they cannot hold onto critical employees as Yahoo is conducting a major strategic review of its businesses, either to sell it or make sweeping changes.

The uncertainty has put its employees on edge and there has been a spike in attrition throughout the company.

And worry. At a recent meeting with its staff, interim CEO Tim Morse was buffeted with questions about the fate of employee stock options and other similar issues.

Despite all the turmoil, Yahoo has surprisingly not yet put an overall new plan into place for retention, although it has given some employees more money and other benefits.

“Can a company collapse from attrition?” one exec joked to me recently.

Yes, it can, which has to be of prime concern to the board of Yahoo, as it seeks to right itself. I cannot stress enough how many talented and committed employees remain at the company, desperately hoping for some effective leadership to finally take hold.

Because for all the swirl of what will happen to the whole company, one truism of technology innovation in Silicon Valley remains, if you want to survive: It’s still all about the talent.

[UPDATE: Here are some more YESS stats, according to sources:

"Yahoo is innovative": 42 percent agree, 27 percent neutral, 31 percent disagree.

"Yahoo anticipates changing customer needs and wants": 33 percent agree, 37 percent disagree, five points worse than the previous year.

But here is the hopeful kicker: 79 percent feel proud to say they work for Yahoo.]

Yahoo's Interim CEO in Internal Meeting: "Time Is a Constraint" (Also, Blame the Media!)

Kara Swisher — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:59:42 +0000

Today, in an internal meeting of its VP-level execs, Yahoo’s interim CEO Tim Morse said of the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s strategic review that “we know time is a constraint and we are mindful we have to go quickly.”

Morse, who is largely seen as a figurehead by Yahoo insiders and a proxy for the board after the recent firing of CEO Carol Bartz, held the confab this morning.

(Note to Tim: I don’t know why I am not just invited to these Yahoo gatherings, since it would make my life a lot easier.)

Back to the meeting action: Morse got a lot of questions from the execs, who were very concerned by the muddled swirl of rumors about the future of Yahoo, including a possible sale.

While saying he was open to all questions, Morse began with an explanation for the group that he could not answer “unwise” ones that he either did not have insight into or could not answer in a semi-public forum.

That included upcoming quarterly results, retention plans and, of course, sale offers.

Only wise questions, peeps! (And no wisenheimer stuff, either!)

Of course, no one paid attention to that request. They launched instead into multiple queries about the strategic plan the board is working on.

Morse told the group that there was interest in Yahoo and that its banking advisers were reaching out to those “we think we should be talking to.”

He added, noting that Yahoo had to focus on its ongoing business: “We know time is a constraint and we are mindful we have to go quickly” on the strategic review of what to do.

Previously, the board has said the process would take months, which is too glacial, considering.

There was also a question about the stock and the risks to their jobs in any deal. Cautioning that he could not say what would happen, Morse assured them that any party that buys the company would likely want to retain talent.

Someone else asked what a good buyer would look like. Morse replied that it would be someone who was good for employees, for shareholders and for customers.

But not good for the wretched media!

Morse took particular aim at us, noting that the press was writing stories “because they make money out of clicks.”

Actually, while we will take the clicks, AllThingsD is writing stories so Yahoos and everyone else can get a clearer picture of what is going on, as opposed to the incessant corporate confusion coming from Yahoo.

(By the way, just sayin’, but Yahoo also likes the clicks to its pages.)

One person asked if Yahoo was officially for sale. Morse said, “No, we are not trying to sell the company.” Then, he blamed the media again for misreading co-founder Jerry Yang’s recent memo about evaluating options as code for a sale.

Which it was — and you can take that click to the bankers.

A Yahoo spokeswoman, natch, declined to comment.

Exclusive: Efficient Frontier Buys Context Optional for $50 Million

Kara Swisher — Wed, 04 May 2011 16:15:53 +0000

Online performance marketing firm Efficient Frontier is acquiring San Francisco-based social marketing software and services start-up Context Optional, the company said.

While terms of the deal were not revealed, sources said the price was $50 million.

The purchase of Context Optional is the first acquisition for Efficient Frontier, which has grown from a start-up that focused solely on search engine marketing to now including display and social media campaigns.

The move is a significant sign, said Efficient Frontier CEO David Karnstedt, that social has become a key part of the advertising ecosystem and an end-to-end solution is important to marketers.

With the purchase, for example, he said advertisers will be able to run Facebook ads all the way through to managing their brand’s fan page and help with both acquisition and retention.

“Our heritage is that we were early in optimizing search engine advertising for clients, so we wanted to expand our efforts exponentially with Context Optional, since social is different than search,” said Karnstedt in an interview yesterday with BoomTown. “We want to help advertisers interested in social media keep engaged and regularly returning customers.”

Context Optional was founded in 2006 and competes with other start-ups, such as Buddy Media, Involver and Vitrue.

Here is the official press release from Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Efficient Frontier:

Efficient Frontier Acquires Context Optional to Create the First Comprehensive Solution for Social Media Marketing

Unites Leading Advertising and Page Management Platforms to Maximize Social Marketing Impact

Sunnyvale, Calif.–May 4, 2011–Efficient Frontier, a leading global performance marketing company, today announced that the company has acquired Context Optional, a leader in enterprise social marketing solutions. The acquisition expands Efficient Frontier’s social media offering which will combine the company’s advertising campaign management and optimization with Context Optional’s page management platform. This marks the first unified solution for managing and optimizing Facebook fan acquisition through to fan retention and engagement. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

“We are excited to offer marketers a complete solution for capitalizing on the growing social marketing opportunity across Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn,” said David Karnstedt, Efficient Frontier’s CEO. “Social media marketing is more than just the initial contact with the customer and requires both compelling experiences and an ongoing dialog to realize the full potential of the interaction. The acquisition of Context Optional will create a unified platform for marketers to manage all of their social media touch points with brand enthusiasts.”

Efficient Frontier’s platform manages ad campaigns across search, display and social media, enabling customers to acquire audiences across multiple channels and optimize for better results. Context Optional’s Social Marketing Suite of products is an enterprise solution for brands to engage and retain audiences across Facebook and Twitter.

By aligning acquisition and engagement strategies, the combined company will be able to deliver a seamless and measurable user experience by integrating advertising and social marketing content. Brands will be able to more efficiently target audiences based on social engagement insights and continually refine their Facebook application experiences to better match their audiences’ interests. Efficient Frontier will also be able to provide integrated analytics to provide a more complete view of performance including virality.

“Efficient Frontier is a leader in digital marketing and our respective clients are asking us for a comprehensive solution to both acquire and build relationships with their customers,” said Kevin Barenblat, Context Optional’s Co-Founder and CEO. “This combination is recognition that social media is now indeed a powerful marketing channel in which brands are significantly investing. “We’re excited to be the first in the market with an integrated, enterprise solution to enable brands to effectively scale their investment in social.”

Video: The Cashmere Stylings of Yahoo Chief Product Officer Blake Irving

Kara Swisher — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:07:22 +0000

Yesterday, BoomTown spent a good part of the day at Yahoo’s HQ in Sunnyvale, Calif., meeting with various product execs and seeing some cool new stuff in the works.

I was impressed, as I had been several times over the many years I have covered the Silicon Valley Internet giant, where I have seen innovative efforts by the truckload.

That is, until they never saw the light of day, until some random teenaged entrepreneur got giant funding for the very same idea months later.

I put this question of failure to ship to Yahoo’s Chief Product Officer Blake Irving, who got to the company a little less than a year ago with the goal of shaking the place up.

Irving’s last job was as corporate VP of Microsoft’s Windows Live Platform group.

He left Microsoft several years ago, after 15 years, to spend time with his family and had been teaching at Pepperdine University.

Since he got to Yahoo, he’s certainly done some layoffs, restructuring and hiring–mostly from Microsoft–and now he is promising that there will be big changes in how Yahoo manages its product pipeline.

Here’s a longish video interview with Irving–who is a live wire, as you will see, as well as a wearer of soft and luxe candylicious sweaters–talking about this key issue, the search business, talent retention and more:

[ See post to watch video ]

In Case You Needed Reminding, Social Enterprise Software Is Going to Be Big

Arik Hesseldahl — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 05:00:43 +0000

Just in case today’s launch of Chatter by Salesforce.com wasn’t enough, the fine folks at Jive Software would like to remind you again how important social enterprise software is going to be, and they have survey data to prove it.

The company asked 500 people at 300 companies, many of them large companies with 10,000 or more employees, about the benefits they were seeing from using social business software, which in this case is Jive, naturally, though an independent firm did the survey itself.

Some of the results were a little vague. For instance, respondents reported a 39 percent increase in “employee connectedness.” Others were more concrete: Jive users generated 32 percent more ideas, sent 27 percent less email and found answers to questions 32 percent faster

And there were benefits for customers. For one thing, employees spent 42 percent more time communicating with them, which in turn led to a better rate of customer retention, 31 percent, while the volume of support calls dropped by 28 percent and sales to new customers jumped by 27 percent.

The survey also found that 83 percent of companies in the survey are preparing to deploy some kind of social enterprise solution across the entire company this year. That finding is at least validated in part by a Gartner study that forecasts spending on enterprise social software will grow a little more than 15 percent this year to reach about $770 million.

Jive, you’ll remember, is the company that landed a $30 million venture capital investment from Kleiner Perkins last summer, and hired former Mercury Interactive head Tony Zingale as its CEO.

BoomTown’s Kara Swisher visited its offices last August, and her video interview with Zingale and Ted Schlein–Kleiner partner and Jive director–is below:

[ See post to watch video ]

Forget Goopon–Why a Groupon-Foursquare Combo Makes More Sense

Liz Gannes — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:09:52 +0000

As major Web players look to make a play in local, Groupon and Foursquare have both walked away from lucrative acquisition deals.

But now, as these young start-ups go it alone, would it make sense for the two to combine their forces and become the next major Web powerhouse?

The joint company would have an enviable head start on all things local and social, a combination current leaders Google and Facebook have yet to crack.

To be clear, it’s just a scenario. But in case any investment bankers out there are left without a new project after these acquisition talks fell apart, here’s something to explore.

Groupon has a working business model, local merchant relationships and an ample waitlist, and a salesforce numbering in the thousands.

Meanwhile, Foursquare represents the areas where Groupon needs to grow. Foursquare has innovated around GPS and the mobile application experience, which is obviously where local is headed. Foursquare also has insight into incentivizing users to connect to merchants and each other on a daily basis rather than for a one-time deal. It could provide the tools to help users and merchants have a lasting, mutually beneficial relationship.

Put more simply, Groupon excels at recruiting customers, while Foursquare’s emerging strength is loyalty and retention.

Still, Groupon currently has far more value than Foursquare, so a merger of equals is unrealistic. Groupon has more than 20 million subscribers and a $2 billion revenue run rate. Before Groupon walked away from recent talks, Google wanted to buy the company for $6 billion, an almost unimaginable valuation for a two-year-old company.

Foursquare, which was courted by Facebook and Yahoo before taking funding from Andreessen Horowitz, has five million users and its own experience striking merchant deals and branding relationships, if on a much smaller scale. For years now co-founder and CEO Dennis Crowley has been passionate about social location-sharing and multiple start-ups, and is still waiting for, and provoking, the market to catch up to his vision of mapping people’s real-world experiences.

At the very least, a Foursquare-Groupon partnership seems likely. Speaking about Groupon at our recent D: Dive Into Mobile event in San Francisco, Crowley said, “There are lessons we can learn from them and ways we can work together.”

He elaborated, as you can see below in a video of the interview: “We could easily pull Groupon deals into Foursquare and make them sweeter based on the stats behind them.”

Crowley also seems less fierce about staying independent than Groupon CEO Andrew Mason, having reiterated at D: Dive that what matters most to him is to see his products built and used.

In addition to ample doses of irreverence and floppy hairdos, the two CEOs have in common the outside-of-Silicon-Valley factor. Foursquare is the pride of New York, while Groupon is Chicago’s most influential Internet start-up ever.

Put together, perhaps the pair could take on those geeky Californians and show everyone how social commerce is really done.

So, Fourpon? Groupsquare? What do you think?

The Landscape Around Google's Hiring Binge

Liz Gannes — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:38:35 +0000

After a year or two of stagnancy, the Google employee count is growing rapidly again. But the growth spurt and retention efforts seem forced, and unlikely to be the perfect formula to keep the company at the top of the Web heap, despite its clout, market share and massive revenue. Part of the problem is that the company’s executives seem out of touch with how the Web is evolving.

The search giant has 2,076 job openings, as tabulated in a story by Reuters last night. It has acquired more than 20 start-ups this year, it’s giving all employees a 10 percent raise and it’s still adding search market share–even if only measured in tenths of percentage points. The company is even building a new 1.2-million-square-foot corporate campus in Mountain View, Calif., that is to include housing. Google now has more than 23,000 employees. It’s currently adding about 100 people per week, said a source.

But it’s an awkward time at Google, where a group of employees can leave, create a start-up and come back two years later through an acquisition with $50 million in their pockets. And the stories about competitive hiring wars with Facebook just keep getting more fantastical.

According to a source, a Google engineer recently ended a counteroffer war with Facebook by accepting $6 million worth of Google stock to keep her job there. Apparently she was not in a senior role at Google, but part of what made her so coveted was the fact she’s a female engineer. And this was Google’s second counteroffer after she had already told them she was going to Facebook.

At this point, Facebook (narrowly) has fewer employees than Google has job openings.

Google needs to find a way to foster its employees’ entrepreneurial desires and talents. The promise of exponentially growing stock options versus a simple raise still tempts many people.

Part of why Google needs to “get social” so badly isn’t just on a product or market level, but to impress its own employees. At a place where the top management is firmly ensconced and immutable, younger employees, especially, say they are turned off by their bosses’ lack of social media savviness on a personal level. It’s clear that tomorrow’s tech leaders are already blogging, Tweeting and Facebooking, so why are today’s leaders still resisting?

Here’s a quick tally (tell me if I’m getting any of these wrong): Eric Schmidt has a Twitter account that he updates every week or two, mostly to promote Google stuff. Sergey Brin’s last blog post and Tweet were both in January. Larry Page doesn’t seem to do much of anything personal or professional online; there’s not even a LinkedIn account or a Google Profile that I can see. Marissa Mayer seems to be the most active high-profile Google exec on Twitter, and actually responds to people there, as well as syndicates some Foursquare updates. As for the folks leading Google’s social stuff: Vic Gundotra’s last Tweet was in May. Bradley Horowitz isn’t blogging much anymore, and his last Tweet was a month ago.

Please see the disclosure about Facebook in my ethics statement.

Tim Armstrong on AOL's Turnaround: Wait Until Next Year

Peter Kafka — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 13:46:43 +0000

Money is flowing back into Internet advertising, but not at AOL: Tim Armstrong’s company saw ad revenue drop 27 percent in the last quarter.

The good news for Armstrong is that he has now conditioned Wall Street to expect these drops, as he works on a turnaround effort that began in the spring of 2009.

And because some of the ad drop is “self-inflicted”–the result of AOL’s decision to focus on quantity instead of quality as it revamps its ad team and strategy–it’s possible to add a more positive spin to the data. For instance: AOL’s domestic display ads, where the company has the most control of results, are only down 8 percent.

Armstrong’s vision is that eventually his company will once again be one of the industry’s top players: “AOL’s goal is to be competitive with Google and Facebook,” he said during his earnings call this morning. “We’re not trying to be competitive with people farther down the chain.”

Okay. But when? Today Armstrong announced that he expects AOL’s ad sales to mirror the broader industry’s by the second half of 2011. That will be more than two years after he took over.

Then again, you can argue that AOL languished within Time Warner’s grasp for the past 10 years. By comparison, that’s a reasonably speedy turnaround–and bear in mind that any Internet turnaround is a very rare thing.

So here’s the question: Will Wall Street wait to find out if he can do it?

—————
EARLIER:

A quick first look at AOL’s Q3: Revenue of $563 million and adjusted earnings of $0.93 a share. The Street was looking for $557 million and adjusted earnings of $0.50 per share.

AOL’s ad slump continues, though Wall Street expected that: Ad revenue was down 27 percent this quarter, and display ads were down 14 percent. Domestic display was down 8 percent.

Things to look for in the company’s financials and during its conference call this morning: Most important, an update on its attempt to turn around its ad sales unit, which has been a mess–analysts are still expecting AOL to post a substantial ad sales decline this quarter; additional news about the company’s renewed search pact with Google; and perhaps insight into Tim Armstrong’s M&A plans following a shopping spree that included TechCrunch and 5Min.

AOL says it spent $97 million on TechCrunch, 5Min and Thing Labs, and that it could spend up to $23 million more on earnouts/retention bonuses over the next three years. $65 million of that total went to 5Min.

Here’s what AOL’s ad story looks like, quarter by quarter:

And here’s what AOL wants you to think about as you evaluate its ad decline–moves it has made on its own that will cut down sales in the short term, like its decision to more or less shutter its European operations.

I’ll update with notes following the company’s 8 am earnings call.

The Palm Anti-Brain-Drain Filings: Collect the Entire Set!

Kara Swisher — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 07:31:06 +0000

As short as the following filings from Palm yesterday are, they say a lot about the current forecast for the troubled handset maker, which is reportedly seeking a buyer:

Cloudy with a definite chance of talent exodus.

In an 8-K regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Palm (PALM) revealed that software head Michael Abbott will be gone by the end of next week.

This is a big move, as Abbott was in charge of development for software and services and the chief cheerleader for its webOS.

To stop other top execs from racing for the exits, Palm finds that it needs to slather on two-year retention packages, including large cash bonuses and restricted stock units.

The company filed plans to do that for six of its top managers: CFO Douglas Jeffries; SVP of Global Operations Jeffrey Devine; SVP of Product Development Michael Bell; SVP Worldwide Sales Dave Whalen; SVP of Brand Design Jeffrey Zwerner; and SVP of Product Marketing Kate Mitic.

Apparently, other execs were also loaded up, without the need for filings.

In any case, you can see it all below in black and white:

8-K

Jeffries

Devine

Bell

Whalen

Zwerner

Mitic

Tweet the People: Twitter VC Wilson and Federal CTO Chopra Talk Policy in D.C.

Kara Swisher — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:15:40 +0000

Ms. BoomTown went to Washington, D.C., this week to moderate a panel on the future of the digital arena for an event marking the 25th anniversary of the first .com domain.

Surprisingly, the panelists–Union Square Ventures partner Fred Wilson, Federal CTO Aneesh Chopra, Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington and VeriSign (VRSN) CTO Ken Silva–did not talk about geo-location jet packs and augmented reality for everyone.

Instead, due to their proximity to pols and government bureaucrats, they went wonkish, talking a lot about open government, data-retention regulations and, in Wilson’s case, pondering the “privacy heist” of consumer information by Silicon Valley social networking hotshot Facebook.

Now, to be fair, Wilson is a big and early investor in rival Twitter, so he might have his bias.

But the conversation was a refreshing change from pointless discussions on location wars between Foursquare and Gowalla and reporting-free speculation about whether MySpace is or is not for sale or will spin off or not.

In fact, it was almost erudite, except for the part about how the Federal Communications Commission gave me a giant paper-filled binder of the National Broadband Plan (more on that classic D.C. tree-killing move later!).

So that you too can get all federal, here’s a video I did with Wilson and Chopra, in which they talk tech policy:

[ See post to watch video ]

A Verizon-iPhone Deal? Analyst Says "Chances High"

John Paczkowski — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:59:17 +0000

Apple has a lot to gain by ending iPhone carrier exclusivity in the U.S. and signing up Verizon as a second carrier partner. As I’ve noted here before, such a deal could more than double U.S. iPhone sales in the near term. That said, it does have some noteworthy downsides, top among them, the end of the estimated $450-per-iPhone carrier subsidy AT&T (T) has been paying.

That’s the word from Broadpoint AmTech analyst Brian Marshall, who believes Apple (AAPL) will bring the iPhone to Verizon (VZ) in the second half of 2010 and forfeit AT&T’s “sweetheart” carrier subsidy as a result.

“While [Apple] started off with exclusive arrangements in 2007 with the original iPhone launch, the company has since migrated towards multiple carriers per region,” Marshall wrote in a note to investors. “In our view, diverse carrier support is a key element to driving global penetration of the iPhone. Therefore, we believe the chances are high the iPhone will find its way onto the [Verizon] network in 2H10.”

Of course, should things play out that way, the iPhone will no longer be the powerful subscriber-retention tool it is today. And Marshall believes that will lower the subsidy it commands from an estimated $450 to around $300.

This might seem to imply a nasty hit to Apple’s bottom line, but Marshall figures any losses Apple might suffer would be more than made up in volume. He sees Verizon selling roughly 14 million iPhones in the 2011 calendar year. And with an average selling price of $500, that’s another $7 billion in revenue for Apple.

A Verizon-iPhone Deal? Analyst Says "Chances High"

John Paczkowski — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:59:17 +0000

Fancy Charts of the Week: Mobile App Loyalty–"They Use or You Lose"

Kara Swisher — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:30:19 +0000

This week, BoomTown has found an interesting chart to peruse about the loyalty people have for their smart-phone apps.

The takeaway for developers: Try to stay in Quadrant I!

In other words, Sally-Field-at-the-Oscars territory–it’s where they love you, they really love you.

To grok this, you’ll need to view the two charts below from Flurry Analytics, a mobile analytics and monetization tools start-up in San Francisco, from a blog post titled “Mobile Apps: Models, Money and Loyalty.”

Flurry used a sample size of 2,000 live applications and 200 million user sessions on the IPhone and iPod touch from Apple (AAPL), Google (GOOG) Android, Blackberry from Research in Motion (RIMM), and other platforms.

In Quadrant I are reference, news, and weather apps, which are frequently accessed and retained longer.

Quadrant IV is also good, with high retention rates–education, social networking, medical–but less frequent weekly use.

Here are the charts (click on them to make them larger):

Sale of iLike to MySpace–$13.5 Million in Cash, $6 Million for Talent Retention–Delayed Over Tax Issues (Really!)…Plus, the List of Other Suitors!

Kara Swisher — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:25:06 +0000

The board of iLike planned a meeting earlier tonight to go over a buyout offer by MySpace, several sources close to the situation said. But it was suddenly canceled because of some thorny tax implications related to the talent-retention part of the deal to purchase the social music start-up.

This does not mean the pending acquisition is in jeopardy, sources said, and it could be on track to be signed as early as today, barring any more complications.

That is what both iLike and MySpace execs are hoping, said sources, one of whom described the outstanding issues as a “technicality.”

What’s also been unclear is the actual price the social networking giant is paying for iLike, which has been reported as about $20 million.

In fact, only $13.5 million will be paid upfront in cash, with about $8 million of that money likely going to one of its major shareholders, Ticketmaster Entertainment (TKTM), due to its preferred shares.

Another $6 million has been promised by MySpace in forward payments to retain some key employees–including iLike co-founders and twin brothers Ali and Hadi Partovi.

Although those employees can remain in Seattle, where iLike has its HQ, they must stay employed at Beverly Hills, Calif.-based MySpace for two and a half years to get their money.

It’s that talent part of the deal that caused the Partovis to cancel the iLike board meeting, which they explained to key investors was necessary due to some confusion over how the money paid to these employees would be taxed.

A person briefed on the issue said that if it was taxed as compensation, it would have a much higher tax rate than if it were considered long-term capital gains.

The Partovis said in the email that they were working on the problem with their advisers on the sale, Allen & Co., as well as with lawyers and accountants.

Tax snafus in the middle of a sale are not exactly the way the entrepreneurial Partovis envisioned it was going to go for iLike (see my various video interview related to iLike below) when they created the compelling music sharing and recommendation service in 2006.

After only a few years, the innovative start-up claims it has 50 million registered users overall.

A lot of that growth was due to iLike quickly becoming one of the most popular widgets on social networking sites like Facebook, where it has also been the top music application, with 10 million active monthly users.

The Partovis–who once were close with execs at Facebook (see my party video below), particularly founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg–placed great faith in its growth lifting all Web 2.0 boats.

It did not turn out that way, though, especially from the important financial point of view, and iLike scrambled to diversify.

The iLike service recently began offering a music downloading service, for example, as well as other such features, all of which would be attractive to the music-centric focus at MySpace.

Once an Internet sensation, MySpace has been struggling to restructure itself after losing momentum and buzz in recent years, as well as a huge advertising revenue drop in its most recent quarter.

Its owner, News Corp. (NWS), replaced its founders with new management four months ago, including former Facebook exec Owen Van Natta as CEO.

After making major staff layoffs and rejiggering management, Van Natta and his new team have been working on an overhaul of the MySpace product and seem to be refocusing it to become a global music and entertainment service.

MySpace also has a joint venture with major music labels, MySpace Music, which has been trying to attract consumers and build a viable business. Sources said MySpace Music could also buy into the iLike deal or simply license its technology to improve its features.

Thus, purchasing iLike would fit in well with MySpace’s overall plans.

And iLike has also been in need of a fix itself.

For all its popularity, especially on Facebook, it has moved slowly toward profitabilty, and its $17 million in funding has been dwindling, as has its viability as a standalone company.

Back in more frothy Web 2.0 days, iLike’s generous funding gave it a valuation of more than $50 million, which has also lost steam over time and as the economy has worsened.

In the last quarter of fiscal 2008, for example, Ticketmaster wrote down its $13 million investment by $6 million.

Tensions between its execs and iLike have gotten worse over time, although some thought at one time that Ticketmaster would buy iLike.

No longer, which is why the founders turned to Allen & Co., as MediaMemo reported as far back as November, to find another big investor or buyer.

Wrote Peter Kafka: “Delivering free music on the Web has so far proven to be a high-cost, low-revenue endeavor…”

So, the New York deal-making firm ginned up a small group of suitors, which included Facebook, Activision Blizzard (ATVI) and Microsoft (MSFT), as well as MySpace.

Of the three, Activision was most serious, with interest in integrating iLike’s community and technology tools with its Guitar Hero franchise.

But Activision never actually made a formal bid, said sources.

Both Microsoft and Facebook also considered the purchase, but sources said they would only offer stock in a deal. But iLike wanted cash in the deal.

The Partovis were also was wary about working at either place.

Both Partovis, for example, had worked at Microsoft (Ali after selling it LinkExchange in 1998 for $265 million; Hadi several times, once following Microsoft’s acquisition of Tellme Networks, which he co-founded).

As it has turned out, in its short life, iLike’s last, best alternative is apparently MySpace.

“Look, iLike has been shopped around for a while, and while the team and technology are great, it only has one choice and that’s to be sold,” said one person involved in the various scenarios. “The question for the buyer then is whether it was worth it to pay up or just move on and do it ourselves.”

So until the bean counters settle this IRS nightmare, here is my video interview with Hadi Partovi about a year ago at iLike’s HQ in the Capitol Hill section of Seattle, when times were a little more hopeful:

[ See post to watch video ]

And here is a very dark and very shaky video I did when iLike threw a fete in Silicon Valley to celebrate its start-up two years ago and to send some appreciation in Facebook’s direction–it is so dated that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, who is in the video, is still at Google (GOOG).

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

Tell Me Again How Twitter Is a Premier Source of Breaking News?

John Paczkowski — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:59:06 +0000

According to a recent study by Nielsen Online, Twitter’s audience-retention rate is currently about 40 percent. Which means that about 60 percent of U.S. Twitter users end up abandoning the service after a month. Why is Twitter struggling with low retention rates? Perhaps because so many tweets are utter nonsense.

Research outfit Pear Analytics randomly sampled 2,000 tweets from the public timeline over a two-week period and categorized them as News, Spam, Self Promotion, Conversational, Pass-Along Value and Pointless Babble (click on image to enlarge).

Unsurprisingly, the largest portion, 40.55 percent, fell under Pointless Babble, which Pear Analytics loosely defines as those “I am eating a sandwich now” tweets. Conversational ranked second with 37.55 percent, and Pass-Along Value a distant third with 8.7 percent of the tweets captured. Oddly, Self Promotion and Spam ranked fairly low, with 5.85 percent and 3.75 percent of total tweets captured, respectively. Still, both were higher than News, which ranked at the very bottom, with 3.6 percent.

“We thought that both Spam and Self Promotion percentages would be much higher,” Pear noted in its study. “Also, we thought the News category would have more weight than dead last, since this seems to be contrary to Twitter’s new position of being the premier source of news and events.”

eBay Plans Options Water Safety Course

John Paczkowski — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:00:32 +0000

Apparently, fear of a deepening recession alone isn’t enough to maintain tech worker loyalty these days–mounting job losses be damned. This week, Google (GOOG) repriced millions of employee stock options that had gone underwater as the company’s share price declined. Now eBay (EBAY) hopes to do the same. The reason: employee retention.

In a regulatory filing today, the company said it has asked shareholders to approve a plan to offer employees the opportunity to swap underwater stock options for restricted stock. “Like many companies, we have experienced a significant decline in our stock price over the last year in light of the current global financial and economic crisis,” eBay explained in its argument for implementing the plan. “Because of the continued challenging economic environment and the uncertain impact of our efforts to change our business, we believe these underwater stock options are no longer effective as incentives to motivate and retain our employees.”

And this may well be the case. That said, you’d think that the widespread and fast-mounting job losses in the tech sector would be enough to keep most folks still collecting paychecks coming in to work. Nice gesture, though.

Yahoo Rubber, Icahn Glue

John Paczkowski — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:20:31 +0000

Well, that was fast. Yahoo (YHOO) has issued a reply to Carl Icahn’s latest missive. Terse and caustic, it doesn’t really add much to the “conversation” between the two parties. Yahoo’s message to Icahn: You don’t have a credible plan to operate Yahoo either.

Leaving aside Mr. Icahn’s inaccurate interpretation of our retention plan, we again note that he has no credible plan to operate Yahoo. We believe that Mr. Icahn’s suggestion that we cancel our retention plan would have a destabilizing impact on Yahoo and would clearly not be in the best interests of our shareholders. Furthermore, his suggestion that we put out a price publicly to see if Microsoft (MSFT) will alter its stated position is ill-advised. As we have stated numerous times publicly and privately, we are open to any transaction including a sale to Microsoft if it is in the best interests of shareholders.”

Icahn to Yahoo: Never Say Never to Microsoft Again

John Paczkowski — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:54:40 +0000

Have you heard? Carl Icahn is unhappy with Yahoo’s current leadership and the manner in which it handled Microsoft’s unsolicited acquisition offer. In a stink-bomb of a letter to Roy Bostock, the chairman of Yahoo’s board of directors, Icahn accused Yahoo (YHOO) of acting against its shareholders’ best interests by making it practically impossible for Microsoft (MSFT) to stay at the bargaining table.

“Until now I naively believed that self-destructive doomsday machines were fictional devices found only in James Bond movies,” Icahn wrote, referring to Yahoo’s highly unusual severance plan that would have rewarded employees who left the company after a change in ownership. “I never believed that anyone would actually create and activate one in real life. I guess I never knew about Yang and the Yahoo Board.”

Doomsday machines? James Bond movies? Did Yahoo appoint Richard Kiel to its board and not tell anyone?

Oh, and by the way, the name’s Icahn … Carl Icahn.

His letter follows.

Dear Mr. Bostock:

I have long been cynical about the effectiveness of many of the boards and CEOs in this country and as a result the inability of our companies to compete. I have constantly complained about how far CEOs and boards will go in order to retain their jobs, yet even I am amazed at the length Jerry Yang and the Yahoo board have gone to in order to entrench their positions and keep shareholders from deciding if they wished to sell to Microsoft.

According to details in a complaint that I became aware of yesterday (details Yahoo fought to keep under seal), Jerry Yang and a majority of the board went to inordinate lengths to sabotage a Microsoft bid. The complaint states: “Viewing employee retention as Microsoft’s Achilles heel, Yang engineered an ingenious defense creating huge incentives for a massive employee walkout in the aftermath of a change in control. The plan gives each of Yahoo’s 14,000 full-time employees the right to quit his or her job and pocket generous termination benefits at any time during the two years following a takeover, by claiming a ‘substantive adverse alteration’ in job duties or responsibilities.” The damage to Microsoft “is compounded by the fact that Yahoo’s thousands of engineers, known as ‘Technical Yahoos!,’ have detailed job responsibilities and qualifications.”

Most importantly, Microsoft might never be able to trust a CEO and board who, while claiming to be negotiating in good faith, went behind their back and adopted a “plan” which not only sabotages any Microsoft acquisition but went so far as to completely disable its own ability to rescind the “plan” as long as Microsoft’s offer remains pending. Until now I naively believed that self-destructive doomsday machines were fictional devices found only in James Bond movies. I never believed that anyone would actually create and activate one in real life. I guess I never knew about Yang and the Yahoo Board. In my opinion, it will be extremely difficult for Microsoft or other companies to trust, work with and negotiate with a company that would go to these lengths.

It is insulting to shareholders that Yahoo for the last month has told us that they are quite willing to negotiate a sale of the company to Microsoft and cannot understand why Microsoft has walked away. However, the board conveniently neglected to inform shareholders about the magnitude of the plan it installed which made it practically impossible for Microsoft to stay at the bargaining table. Could this have been the problem?

Even more deceitful are Yahoo’s actions toward its own employees, for whom you claimed to have set up the “plan”. Management neglected to mention to these same employees that Microsoft in its proposals had earmarked $1.5 billion of retention incentives (representing over $100,000 per employee) meant to allay any employee concerns.

Ironically, according to the complaint, this is not the first time that Yahoo has denied shareholders the opportunity of selling to Microsoft at a large premium. According to the complaint, in January 2007 Microsoft offered to purchase Yahoo at $40 per share but the company rejected that proposal. On January 31, 2008, Steve Ballmer emailed a letter to Jerry Yang and Roy Bostock making a new proposal of $31 per share. The letter recounts Microsoft’s prior efforts to acquire Yahoo and noted that Microsoft had given Yahoo time to implement business strategies designed to turn the company around. These strategies obviously didn’t work. The letter went on to state: “Our proposal represents a 62% premium above the closing price of Yahoo! common stock of $19.18 on January 31, 2008.” Yahoo not only turned down this proposal but sabotaged it. An article in CNET News cited in the complaint sums it up by stating, “Yahoo may indeed agree to Microsoft’s [offer], but it will be over Jerry Yang’s dead body”.

I and many of your shareholders believe that the only way to salvage Yahoo in the long if not short run is to merge with Microsoft. However, because of HSR considerations, to complete a merger of this magnitude will take a period of time. Even if by some stretch of the imagination the Yahoo board finally determines to do the rational thing and sell the company, I fear that, in light of Yang and the board’s recent actions in response to Microsoft’s overtures, it may be too late to convince Microsoft to trust Yang and the current board to run the company during that period while Microsoft sits on the sidelines with $45 billion at risk. Therefore, the best chance to bring Microsoft and Yahoo together is to replace Yang and the current Yahoo board with a board that will negotiate in good faith with Microsoft and in whom Microsoft will have trust to operate the company during the long period between signing and closing.

You stated in a press release yesterday that, “Yahoo’s board of directors including Jerry Yang has been crystal clear that it would consider any proposal by Microsoft that was in the best interests of its shareholders.” However this is not crystal clear to me. You have allegedly turned down a $40 offer. You have turned down and sabotaged a $33 offer. Instead, you appear willing to negotiate an “alternative” deal that in my opinion will be worth less than $33 but will entrench the board and Jerry Yang. I understand how these actions are in the best interests of management and a board whose members each receive $40,000 per month for several days work, but it is hard for me to understand how these actions are in the “best interests of the shareholders.”

However, despite your actions to date, there is still some possibility that you can resuscitate a Microsoft offer for the company. The board can rescind the “severance plan” that is the largest impediment to a Microsoft deal. You currently can do this because Microsoft withdrew their bid 30 days ago. It is time for you to stop misleading your shareholders with respect to Microsoft. It has been reported today that when asked to talk about the Microsoft bid, Sue Decker indicated that Microsoft made an offer which Yahoo’s board didn’t feel was at an attractive enough price. However, one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize there is a simple method to possibly achieve a higher price. Simply rescind the poison pill “severance plan”, which would free up approximately $2.4 billion and possibly even more which could be added to the bid. It is also time to admit to your shareholders that the severance plan was not done for your employees (who you conveniently neglected to inform that Microsoft had earmarked $1.5 billion in retention incentives for), but rather was done simply as an entrenchment device and to impede a Microsoft bid. If you are not completely disingenuous in your protestations concerning doing “the right thing” for shareholders, you should rescind the severance plan expeditiously and determine if Microsoft is still willing to purchase our company and thereby create a true competitor for Google. I can only hope that you will finally do what is in the “best interests of the shareholders.”

Sincerely yours,

CARL C. ICAHN

You Know, That Domestic Wiretapping Operation Might Come in Handy Here

John Paczkowski — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:49:05 +0000

So that “technical issue” that caused 5 million to 10 million White House emails to disappear from its archives? A botched migration from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Exchange. Seems even the blame for the current administration’s failure to obey the Presidential Records Act can be laid on Microsoft (MSFT).

In written testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Steven McDevitt, a former information technology specialist at the White House, explained that the administration began migrating its email to Exchange without having an adequate records-management solution in place. Worse, its email-retention process was as laughably primitive as it was insecure. To quote McDevitt:

The initial email-retention process involved a manual process of copying messages from the Exchange journals to .pst files for storage and retention.”

The White House refers to this process as “journaling,” which is most likely a euphemism for “interns handled our email backups.” And, in this case, without the proper access and logging controls to prevent tampering or even note that it had occurred.

All of this is quite troubling, to say the least. But not to worry–the White House is at this very moment developing a new archiving system. Too bad it’s unlikely to go live before the end of this administration.