I have called Yahoo the Hamlet of the Internet many times, for its seemingly endless ruminating on what it should do and what it should be.

And that is true on a lot of fronts — from its strategic direction to rejiggering its advertising business to finding solid leadership to whether or not it will sell itself and how to a variety of bidders.

It’s no small irony then that perhaps it’s only easy move right now and the one most likely to happen soon — and which could temporarily assuage its always restless shareholders — is to finally settle a long and arduous effort to sell its Japanese assets.

Sources close to the situation said that the deal — as has been reported — is the closest to a deal compared to any other that Yahoo is contemplating.

Sale or outside investment discussions remain mired, while similar share sale discussions with its Chinese partner, Alibaba Group, remain a constant roundelay of dashed deals.

It has not always been thus recently between Yahoo and Yahoo Japan. Just over a year ago, the company shifted its paid and algorithmic search from Yahoo to Google, raising tensions between the companies.

Now, though, Japan has become the easy one.

In actuality, striking an actual deal is not and has been a task is on that Yahoo has been working on for many years, trying to figure out the best tax-free way to shed its 35 percent stake.

It makes sense, since the asset is no longer a strategic plus it once was.

It also frees up a lot of cash. As of September 30th, according to Yahoo, the pre-tax value of its Yahoo Japan stake was worth $6.4 billion. Presumably, Yahoo would either use the money to bolster its business or, more likely, give its shareholders some kind of dividend.

In such a deal, Yahoo’s longtime Japanese partner — and one of its very first investors — SoftBank would buy out Yahoo’s stake.

That’s the simple way of putting a deal that only an accountant can grok. But one plus is that if Yahoo does pull it off, it would be rid the company of one complication too many.

That said, any Japanese asset sale could also be impossible without a larger settlement of Yahoo’s globally connected issues — or, as I like to call it, the hairball.

And SoftBank, which already owns a lot of Yahoo Japan would certainly need more than just cash — perhaps more of Alibaba than it already owns — to be enticed to buy even more.

Also, for all intents and purpose, SoftBank is the only buyer of Yahoo’s Japan asset, so there’s that issue.

But if it could show some progress in some part of its hopelessly complicated world, for Yahoo, that is always a good thing.

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

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

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

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

But we press on!

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

We begin:

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

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

No pressure, Blake!

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

Oh, if it were only that easy.

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

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

Don’t all rush at once!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smirk attack!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donut emergency!

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

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

Like I said: Hermitage!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11:48 am: Now Q&A time.

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

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

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

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

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

You and me both, brother.

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

As Parsey might say: It looks deliiiiiccccious.

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

Do sale rumors make a troubled asset more attractive? Yes — except when more rumors (that those sales rumors might not be true) appear.

Welcome to just another day in the life of Yahoo, which saw its shares drop more than 5.5 percent today. Its stock declined almost a dollar to close at $15.64, after it was reported by various news orgs that Yahoo might be leaning toward no sale and a shareholder dividend, and toward taking control of its own sale of its lucrative Asian assets.

That was counter to the news — from a number of the very same outlets — touting a variety of ever more elaborate and sometimes breathless sale scenarios last week, featuring various configurations of Microsoft, Google and private equity firms like Silver Lake and others.

Silver Lake, in fact, appears to be the most aggressive in the possible bidding for all or parts of Yahoo, and has been noodling such a deal most intently, and for a long time now.

It makes sense, given that Silver Lake was successful in a vaguely similar deal that ultimately saved the Internet telephony service Skype, which it eventually peddled at a high price to Microsoft.

In fact, according to several sources, Yahoo director and co-founder Jerry Yang — also a former CEO of the company, who appears to have seized the ball firmly in the strategy game — met with Silver Lake today for an unspecified little chitchat.

That said, one source told me, “what is deeply uncertain is whether Silver Lake will do something at all.”

This is par for the course in this everything-but-the-kitchen-sink drama. Because — although it makes for a boring post, and the back and forth throat-clearing before an actual event might be entertaining — so far, not very much is actually happening as yet at Yahoo, with regard to its variety of options.

Of course, this could change in an hour. Or tomorrow, or the next day. Most of all, it’s clear that Yahoo’s board has to move in some significant way before the end of the year.

So, yes, the Silicon Valley Internet giant is doing all the sales-oriented stuff it should do with its coterie of pricey bankers (presumably being paid by the hour).

Yes, it has recently hired a talent-search firm, which is eyeing the landscape to find a willing CEO. (Even more adviser costs!)

And, yes, it is still wrangling with its Asian partners — Alibaba Group and SoftBank — over how to do a tax-free transaction (you’d think from all the sweating over it that this deal was harder to solve than the European debt crisis).

And, on schedule, activist shareholders — like hedge-fund agitator Dan Loeb of Third Point — should be attacking again soon, until a deal is done.

But according to many sources both inside and outside Yahoo, what’s happening is pretty much business as usual for this Hamlet of a company, which is lugubriously debating and weighing and pondering its fate.

I suppose it should, given the importance of it all, except it is a conundrum that has been going on for far too long at Yahoo, and under a number of different leaders.

In other words, it’s like “As the World Turns,” except with some new characters and a whole lot more amnesia.

But the slowness of a very real process is also causing deep frustration with all those dealing with Yahoo now — including possible bidders, and definitely its Asian partners.

Their gripes — which are louder than in most deals — are not surprising: They refuse to sign a too-onerous NDA to look at Yahoo’s books; there’s an irksome tone of indecision on the part of the company’s board; and, as always, the incessant leaks about all of this and more are making it worse.

One bidder has likened the company to a “melting iceberg that has a lot less time than the planet has to put its house in order.”

Another bemoaned the variety of trial balloons being floated, and noted that no movement was what Yahoo seems to do best.

That’s not exactly true, of course, so expect to see more leaks about plots and plans and meetings.

But no matter what you hear, keep in mind that having Yahoo’s fate being spun about like a top on a daily basis on Wall Street and in the media is not good for the company itself — or for its employees and shareholders.

Since it makes me dizzy — even though I like a good scoop as much as the next reporter — that’s the reason I have largely stuck to reporting about the actual internal turmoil inside Yahoo, from poor employee morale to various staff rejiggerings to more relentless brain drain.

Because while everyone fiddles, Yahoo’s real prospects of maintaining its core business melt a little bit more every day.

Yahoo is on its third CEO in four years, it has lost advertising momentum to Google and Facebook, its engagement levels are dangerously slowing, its social and mobile strategies are unclear and even its powerful email product is under siege.

And in the end, it is only these things that will matter to whoever runs the company in the end.

[Photo from Mat Honan's fantastic tweet here.]

As happened last week to its centralized marketing division, Yahoo has broken up its Customer Advocacy organization, with its staff distributed to the various regions and the product unit of the Silicon Valley Internet giant.

Customer Advocacy has been led by EVP Jeff Russakow, whose fate is now similarly unclear as it is for CMO Elisa Steele, whose division was diced up to the regions last week.

Both execs — who were hired by fired CEO Carol Bartz — plan to remain at the company until at least January, sources said.

Russakow, according to his Yahoo bio, has had “global responsibility for all of Yahoo!’s customer support functions, including audience, small business, ad operations, and search network quality.” He came to Yahoo from previous jobs at Symantec and Adobe.

Interim CEO Tim Morse sent a memo to employees about the change, noting Russakow is looking for his next opportunity, using much the same language as Steele used in her internal email.

The moves are interesting, given Yahoo’s current effort to find a new strategy, which includes a possible sale of all or parts of the company. But there is also a strong sentiment within the company to reorganize around strengthening its advertising platform and products.

I have a call into Yahoo PR for comment (but let’s assume I am accurate about this, shall we?).

More, obviously, to come.

“The intent going in is not to put ourselves for sale,” Yang said, speaking at AsiaD. “The intent is to look at all the options.”

And while selling the company as a whole is one option, Yang noted that the company is made up of three key parts — its core business, its stakes in Yahoo Japan (along with Softbank) and its share of Alibaba.

Asked what he would personally like to see happen with the company, Yang said his goal is just to see Yahoo reach its potential.

“There are many ways of creating that environment,” he said. “So far, we have not ruled out any possibilities.”

Yang acknowledged that Wall Street now looks at the company’s Asian stakes as a significant part of its market value. “They are looking at a core asset that they don’t know how to value.”

As for that core business, Yang insisted that the company remains a premier digital media company, despite its challenges.

“We ought to be growing, can be growing,” Yang said, insisting the company has a great brand and 700 million monthly users. “We really do believe there is a path for Yahoo that can be better and higher growth.”

At the same time, Yang noted the company is also looking for a new CEO, an effort being led by an independent committee of the board.

“As these things go there is no CEO until there is a CEO, but the process has started,” Yang said.

In search, Yang acknowledged that the Microsoft partnership has been bumpy for both sides.

“I would probably venture that the Microsoft folks would say the partnership hasn’t gone the way they wanted,” he said.

But Yang said he is hopeful it will yet reach its goals.

“I think Microsoft is a very, very important partner for us,” he said. “I think both sides recognize this is a partnership that has to work over time.”

Yang noted that Microsoft has a lot of good people working on search — many of whom he noted used to work at Yahoo.

“It takes trial and error,” he said. “It takes work.”

According to sources close to the situation, Yahoo has hired Heidrick & Struggles for its CEO search.

It will be a dicey job, since the effort is on a separate track than the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s wide-ranging strategic review, which is looking at a range of options including the sale of the company.

That’s why many see the move as window-dressing for Yahoo’s board, rather than any real interest in hiring a new leader.

Sources said that will make the search a difficult one for Yahoo, since any CEO candidate would be coming into a very volatile situation. In addition, Yahoo has been struggling — Struggles, struggling, get it? — to recharge its advertising and search business and also its product innovation cycle.

That’s the reason — among several others — that the board of Yahoo suddenly fired its former CEO Carol Bartz last month.

Heidrick has worked for Yahoo previously, in the now ill-conceived placement of Bartz by partner John Thompson. A different partner will be handling this assignment, sources said.

The pool of possible CEOs to lead Yahoo is not a large one, but could includes execs such as Juniper Networks CEO Kevin Johnson, Chegg CEO Dan Rosensweig, Skype CEO Tony Bates, John Pleasants of Disney’s Playdom, Hulu CEO Jason Kilar, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and any number of top Google execs, as well as Yahoo board member and Akamai President David Kenny.

(I am, of course, waiting by the phone for the call.)

A Yahoo spokeswoman declined to comment.

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.

Today, Yahoo leaders — all of them in two different memos — took to the keyboards to fill their 14,000 employees in on what’s up.

Reading them, Yahoos must now be more confused than ever.

To summarize: Yahoo is for sale, sort of. But we’re taking it slow, because we always like to drag out the uncertainty here at Sunnyvale HQ. Hey, keep working hard and innovating, despite the still-matrixed system. But don’t fret that your job and career hang in the balance. And have a good weekend!

In the first email, Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock and co-founders David Filo and Jerry Yang — also a director — penned a rambling missive, which finally admitted the company was indeed, as was first reported here, for sale.

Yahoo said hired-gun investment advisor, Allen & Co., was “fielding inquiries from multiple parties that have already expressed interest in a number of potential options.”

Not to be a niggler, but didn’t Yang tell the troops at an all-hands meeting recently that Yahoo was not for sale?

Details! Thus, said the memo, until the company sorts out all the offers just pouring in — not so much, but when you’re selling a house, you put on the dog — Yahoos had to keep working hard.

Therefore: “What Yahoo! needs to do better — and we’ve talked about this — is accelerate innovation, reignite inspiration, and give our users what they want now — great content that is engaging and easy-to-use on any device and provides an experience in which they can participate and contribute. Perhaps most importantly, we need to anticipate what they will want next.”

You’ve. Talked. About. This. You mean to try to make cool stuff like every other tech company — Apple, Facebook, Google — already does? Mind-blowing.

After a little throat-clearing on its fake search for a new permanent CEO and some media-bashing (yes, this all my fault!), the memo noted that all this fancy strategery is going to take “months, not weeks.”

(Is it just me or does it feel as though former CEO Carol Bartz was fired a badillion years ago, instead of just weeks ago? Plus, I actually believe I officially now miss her kooky-but-genuine Friday staff emails.)

The Gang of Three email was followed by one from the incredible shrinking interim CEO Tim Morse, who said Yahoo was not in “limbo,” due to all this obvious limboness about the strategy.

“That means we will not be sitting still over the next few months,” Morse wrote. “We are actively making decisions and taking action.”

In other words, nothing to see here. Except everything.

Oh, I give up — just read for yourselves:

Dear Yahoos:

In our recent all hands meeting, we talked about the Board’s strategic review to help return the Company to a path of robust growth and industry-leading innovation. While our teams are working to evaluate the many opportunities by which Yahoo! can continue building on our success, all kinds of people have been — and will continue — speculating in the media about where that work is headed, so we thought it best to provide you with some additional context directly from those of us who are closest to it. We don’t have specific news to share with you today, but we are committed to communicating with you directly from time to time — especially given the level of external swirl — so that you know where we are in the process. You can expect periodic updates from us and we encourage you to communicate with us as well.

At the heart of what we are doing is our belief that Yahoo!’s core strengths are not only relevant to where users are going today, but can serve as a foundation for the next phase of our company’s growth. Consider our strengths: we have 680 million users worldwide. We have nine of the #1 properties in the U.S., and we are a leader in display advertising. Our brand is iconic — we are not the only ones who bleed purple. By whatever measure you want to use — engagement, quality of products and services, our value to our advertisers — we all feel that we have what it takes to succeed. Also, our Asia assets remain one of our top priorities and we continue to work well with the teams there. As you may have seen, Alibaba Group has just announced a liquidity event for its employees that reflects a continued appreciation in its value, and therefore of the value of our stake.

What Yahoo! needs to do better — and we’ve talked about this — is accelerate innovation, reignite inspiration, and give our users what they want now — great content that is engaging and easy-to-use on any device and provides an experience in which they can participate and contribute. Perhaps most importantly, we need to anticipate what they will want next. That is the path to enhancing the value of Yahoo! for all of its stakeholders, including its users, customers, shareholders, partners and Yahoos everywhere. Our strategic review is designed to help us map out the best way to achieve that.

At this point, we cannot offer many specifics about the Board’s review; we’ve just gotten started. You should know that the entire Board and management team are fully aligned and unanimous in their views regarding the scope of this work. Allen & Company was a logical choice to help us in this review, because they have been one of our advisers for some time, and this is familiar territory for them. Achieving success in our sector is intrinsic to what they do for a living, and they will be constructive partners.

Our advisers are working with us to develop ideas that we will pursue proactively. At the same time, they are fielding inquiries from multiple parties that have already expressed interest in a number of potential options. We will take the time we need to select and structure the best approach for the company, its shareholders and employees.

In addition, as we announced previously, the Board has commenced a search for a permanent Chief Executive Officer. That process also continues.

When we have updates that we can share we will do so. There will be plenty of rumors and speculation as different parties try to advance their agendas in the media — but it is important that we not be distracted by the rumors and speculation.

You are instrumental to the success of our business — we can’t do it without you. While we will move with a sense of urgency, this process will take time. Months, not weeks. We know that’s a lot of potential distraction, but we believe it will be worth the wait. We are forging a path to a next phase of growth for Yahoo! that feels like our best days: fun, full of possibility, and always in search of how to deliver the new thing people want from us. Together, we can write the next great chapter in the Yahoo! story and secure our place as one of those rarities: an internet company that endures.

Jerry
Roy
David

Yahoos,

I’m sure by now you’ve all seen the note from Jerry, David and Roy. I want you to know that while the Board works through all of our options, CEO Staff and I have been charged to move the company forward.

That means we will not be sitting still over the next few months. We are actively making decisions and taking action.

In fact, for three days this week, CEO staff and I met to do just that. Our planning for 2012 is well underway, and we continue to execute on our current plans — such as our Social Chrome announcement this week. (I want to make sure to give a big shout out to the team behind it; it’s getting some great press.)

You see, the Board is confident we can execute our current game plan in the short term. We’ve done some truly great work on updating the foundation of Yahoo!, and we’ve got some good things in the immediate pipeline. So, the Board’s focus is where it should be — on our long-term outlook, and how we best position ourselves to be successful in 3-5 years.

We need a flexible, visionary plan. That’s why the Board is actively looking at all the options available to put Yahoo! on a strong trajectory.

That being said, while the Board makes this decision, it does not mean we are in limbo. We have to keep Yahoo! moving ahead. And to do that, there are three things I need Yahoos everywhere to focus on:

1. Speed: Emphasize quick execution and decision-making

2. Accountability: Do what you say you’re going to do — and take ownership for time to market, monetization, user engagement, quality, or whatever metric defines success for your team

3. Purpose: Rally behind our mission and purpose: creating deeply personal digital experiences.

In the meantime, we will keep you updated as much as we can. And we will earn your trust — we know we have to.

Have a good weekend.

Tim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You see, the takeover or breakup of Yahoo has been an endless string of failed efforts, pitches, rumors and stupid ideas. For more on this, we turn to the moment of Original Sin: Microsoft’s February 2008 unsolicited offer to buy Yahoo for $45 billion, or about $31 a share.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

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

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

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

One attendee emailed me: “Really?“

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It got the biggest applause.

Trust us, said Yang.

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

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

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

Here it is:

YHOO-20110907-8K-20110906

Related posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to multiple sources close to the situation, Ning has been talking recently to a large pool of companies about selling itself, including Google and Groupon, as well as to a number of private equity companies.

Interest has been both incoming to and outgoing from Ning.

The talks around the fate of the high-profile social networking platform — co-founded by Silicon Valley icon and investor Marc Andreessen — are still early and might not result in a sale, although a number of sources said the company was being valued at up to $150 million.

That price is well below previous loftier valuations for Ning and would mean only a break-even for investors, who have put close to $120 million into Ning since it was founded in 2004.

Among its investors: Andreessen, LinkedIn Chairman and investor Reid Hoffman, Legg Mason, Allen & Company and Lightspeed Venture Partners.

There are no bankers involved in the preliminary efforts, in which Andreessen has been involved, although discussions with Google and Groupon have been substantive in nature.

Several other companies — including AOL, Demand Media and Go Daddy — have also been approached or are kicking tires at the site. Most would be interested in Ning’s technology for creating premium social networks.

Ning bills itself on its site as “The World’s Largest Platform for Creating Social Websites.”

The sales effort grew out of a parallel one to possibly raise more money for the start-up. Sources said there was some incoming interest, so talking to a larger pool of buyers was undertaken recently.

Such a move would be an interesting one for Ning, which has undergone a series of ups and downs over its history, including dramatic management and business plan shifts.

Its most recent plan has been to go all-premium, trying to find a way to turn the start-up into a profitable enterprise.

That’s worked out well, the company has previously said, with strong growth. Since its business shift a year ago, Ning has said, it has had 400 percent year-on-year revenue growth, going from 17,000 to more than 100,000 subscribers and with 60 million monthly active users.

Ning’s shift has been under the leadership of Jason Rosenthal, who had been COO of Ning until he replaced its founding CEO, Gina Bianchini, in early 2010.

Ning has also recently tried to get into the highly competitive mobile social communications arena, with a service called Mogwee. The traction for the product does not appear to have been significant.

Ning’s Rosenthal declined to comment about any sales efforts when reached by me today.

Weeks after Hulu’s board began exploring a sale, Mr. Iger, who is attending the Allen & Co. media conference here, predicted that a sale of the television-and-movie site would happen but said he couldn’t say when.

Talks with around eight to 10 potential buyers, including Google Inc., Microsoft Corp., Yahoo Inc., U.S. TV distributors and non-U.S.-based media and technology companies, are in the early stages, according to people familiar with the matter. The companies have previously declined to comment on the talks.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

In case you haven’t heard, the tech and media moguls have jetted their private planes to Sun Valley, Idaho, for the exclusive annual Allen & Company confab and are probably easing into the cocktail hour just about now.

Break out the Kistler Chardonnay and name tags!

(I secretly love that the 300 moguls all wear name tags, even though they are all so fabulously famous.)

Among the highlights for the weeklong confab beginning today will be an interview of Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg by Microsoft CEO Bill Gates, in which I assume they will fall all over themselves in a race of mutual admiration.

To be fair, it seems genuine and Sun Valley is not for unpleasantries anyway.

While Allen & Company — in its investment banker mode — likes to keep the schedule a state secret, it never is, so I am here to tell those planning their time in Sun Valley that the chit-chat will be Saturday.

Also sure to get a lot of ink, since all the owners and possible marks, um, potential buyers, will be there: Whither Hulu?

The premium online video service is famously for sale, and the moneybags at Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Yahoo (smaller bags!) are all taking a gander.

It will not be sold by week’s end, of course, although there will be all kinds of breathy media coverage as the powerful players shuttle to and fro from their gratis luxe condos in noisy hush-hushery.

Who will then come over to the bar to tell the gathered and increasingly drunken reporters — press is not invited in, but they’re there like kudzu all week — all about it.

Of course, there will be some cute anecdotes about the rich and famous — one year, it was News Corp. head Rupert Murdoch losing some item of his wife’s in said bar with everyone scurrying around to find it.

If Us Weekly were covering Sun Valley, that section would be called “Moguls Are Just Like Us!”

Actually, they’re not at all — mostly, they are meaner and more aggressive and greedier, although endlessly riveting.

That’s why the most awkward part of the event will be all the Sun Valley photos that appear without fail of these powermongers in shorts and fleece.

(Note to newcomers: Very few look good in shorts and fleece.)

Lastly, it would not be a modern Allen & Company Sun Valley gathering without continued fretting and fixating on the digital onslaught, even though there are scads of those invited techies competitively mountain biking the pretty mountains there.

This year’s focus will be the IPO gang from Zynga, Groupon and, of course, Facebook, whose insane market valuations are the envy of the media gang, who are mostly older and continually grumpy about it all.

But, the kids love this Internet thing and so the moguls will cope with the change, even as what happens in Sun Valley — power playing, but with a better view — never ever changes.

Apparently, there is no time lag anymore when it comes to telling the stories of epic fail on the Internet.

I got an email this afternoon from an anonymous Myspace employee who wrote about an interesting group-writing effort on Google Docs called “Real Myspace Stories.”

Said the page, which was created after the fire sale of the News Corp.-owned social networking company for $35 million to Specific Media today, which also included major layoffs:

The rise and fall of Myspace will be one of the more interesting tech stories for years to come. Nobody knows more about how and why things begin going wrong than the people who worked there everyday. We need to tell our story to help make sure something like this doesn’t happen again. This is not about News Corp executives, analysts, or other armchair quarterbacks — but real stories from the employees of Myspace. The good, the bad, the ugly, let’s tell it all. Fill out the short form below if you want to help make this happen and tell your stories.

Our goal is to quickly publish a crowdsourced book from Myspace employees about Myspace. Any profits will be donated to nonprofits, entrepreneur education, and/or a new VC fund that supports Myspace alumni’s new ventures.

Nice.

(Full disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site; also, I took the odd photo above at a rest stop in California.)

It was just supposed to be a three-hour tour, um, quick sale process!

But, like a storm-tossed ship looking for any safe harbor, the Myspace sale is still chugging along, with a deal that continues to be tossed around amongst low-paying and new lesser known buyers who are now in the $20 million to $30 million range, said sources close to the situation.

The price, said others, could go as high as $35 million, but it’s far cry from the $100 million that News Corp. had been aiming for.

As part of the deal, sources said the News Corp. unit will be making significant cuts in staff and costs — up to 50 percent or more — all contingent on the purchaser. The staff cuts are, obviously, directly related to the transaction and the winning bidder.

The media giant might also retain a small minority stake.

The two names — Specific Media and Golden Gate Capital — that are now in the forefront for an acquisition deal that News Corp. hopes to complete by Thursday, its fiscal year end, have not been among the acquirers mentioned previously in the myriad of reports about the deal.

Specific Media — a large, if lesser known, advertising network — seems to be in the lead, said sources. It has been around for a half-decade and has been funded by Francisco Partners.

Golden Gate Capital is a private equity firm with $9 billion under management, which has mostly specialized in turning around companies. It has never invested in a consumer Internet company.

Both companies, sources said, will focus Myspace on music, although it is not clear which rights the site has with music labels will transfer to a new owner.

Until last week, the preferred deal for Myspace centered on an investor group that included Activision CEO Bobby Kotick and in which News Corp. (which also owns this Web site) would retain a large minority ownership stake.

But sources said there were some transactional and legal complexities that made it less attractive and News Corp. opened up the deal talks with others again last week.

Golden Capital and Specific Media emerged most aggressively, although there still remain other interested parties, sources close to the situation said, among them another investor group that includes Myspace co-founder Tom Anderson, one its other co-founder Chris DeWolfe is part of and also interest from the Criterion Capital Partners, which bought AOL’s Bebo social networking site on the cheap a year ago.

But it’s now come down to time constraints and an agreement that can be reached before the end of this month, which is also the end of the media giant’s fiscal year.

In other words, let’s get Myspace off the books for 2012!

How it came to this will likely be the focus of many a business school case. After a spectacular start, Myspace has fallen on hard times both in terms of traffic and advertising revenues.

That’s why the music-focused social networking site has not sat exactly in the catbird’s seat in terms of negotiating leverage.

While there were some rumors last week that News Corp. would close Myspace down, the sale to a small player and the layoffs are the likely outcome.

While that’s cold comfort to its employees, it’s about the best Myspace can hope for right now.

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