You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-11-19 12:10
Most are missing the lasting implications and legacy of Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang's signature "Open" strategy, in all the media chatter about his demise and his successor.
Yang set Yahoo on a new and different strategic trajectory philosophically and culturally -- i.e. that of the open source movement -- which is strategically Google-aligned and Microsoft-opposed.
This means the cultural momentum and trajectory at Yahoo is to remain close to its "open source" philosophical ally Google regardless of the DOJ decision to oppose the Google-Yahoo ad partnership and despite its investor-correct public statements to the contrary about Microsoft.
Jerry Yang's legacy will not only be opposing shareholder interests in scuttling the Microsoft offer, but also the under-appreciated 'open strategy' he implemented that is designed to continue to thwart a Microsoft bid going forward.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-11-18 11:21
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-11-11 11:11
Thanks to a competitive Internet I am grateful to be able to freely respond to personal attacks on me and my pro-Internet competition views.
Mr. Weinstein of www.PFIR.org, People for Internet Responsibility, recently criticized me in his blog, which is his right, however, he did it initially in a manner which appears to be at odds with how Mr. Weinstein has suggested everyone should responsibly conduct themselves on the Internet. In particular, I reference the statement below from PFIR’s website, which is the concluding paragraph of why Mr. Weinstein formed PFIR.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-11-10 13:41
Google's CEO Eric Schmidt is in deep denial over the antitrust implications of Google being blocked by the DOJ from brazenly trying to collude to divy up the search market with its biggest competitor Yahoo.
In an interview with the New York Times' Miguel Helft, Mr. Schmidt made a couple of very brazen assertions that will obviously concern DOJ antitrust officials and State Attorneys General interested in preserving Internet competition going forward.
First, Helft asked about the proposed Google-Yahoo deal: "...was it a mistake for Google to propose the deal in the first place?"
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-11-07 14:59
Google remains its own worst enemy.
After dodging a certain DOJ antitrust suit from the most lenient antitrust enforcer in the modern era by withdrawing from the Yahoo ad agreement, Google’s CEO essentially spit at DOJ/State AG prosecutors by publicly and gratuitously saying: Google would have beaten the DOJ in court, nothing has changed, and that they were happy they reached out to Yahoo.
Google’s unrepentant stance was captured well in the New York Times article by Miguel Helft: “Google and Yahoo Say Deal Would Have Survived a Suit.”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-11-06 12:04
After reading most all of the coverage of the demise of the Google-Yahoo ad partnership, I wanted to flag what I thought was the best, which was in the Breakingviews.com section of the New York Times today by Constantine Courcoulas and Robert Cyran.
I couldn't agree more with it -- you can see why by checking out one of my earlier posts: "Why Google wins from Google-Yahoo postponements -- lessons from Machiavelli."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-11-05 13:47
The DOJ released a statement explaining why it would have sued to block the Google-Yahoo ad partnership had Google not backed out of the arrangement.
In a nutshell, the DOJ said it was prepared to sue in Federal Court to block the proposed Google-Yahoo ad partnership because the DOJ concluded that:
Google has hit a very real antitrust wall. More importantly it is now front and center on the DOJ's radar screen as an aspiring Internet advertising monopolist willing to push the antitrust envelope -- unless the DOJ steps in to preserve Internet competition.
While Google may not realize it, the world is now a very different place for Google -- it no longer has free rein to do whatever it pleases.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-11-05 11:23
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-11-03 19:41
Google and Yahoo have agreed to cut back their initial proposed agreement from 10 years to 2 and to a revenue cap of 25% of Yahoo's search business -- per WSJ reports -- in an effort to salvage their proposed ad partnership.
What does this mean?
In practical terms, the agreement would go from being worth ~$800m to Yahoo (or almost half of Yahoo's search business) to ~$400m to Yahoo (or no more than one quarter of Yahoo's $1.6b annual search business.)
The DOJ is unlikely to agree to this new offer because:
Lastly, the DOJ understands, if they let even a cut back agreement go forward, it would be extremely difficult for the DOJ to ever "unscramble the eggs that this agreement would scamble" if the agreement proved problematic for competition in the future.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-10-31 18:20
Yahoo deserves a seat in the Sucker Hall of Shame for how badly it has bungled its strategic options over the last year.
In strategically choosing to go with an ad agreement with Google over a search deal with Microsoft, Yahoo bet the farm that the Google-Yahoo ad agreement could pass muster with the DOJ. oops!
Yahoo's leadership should be panicked now realizing that they were suckered badly by Google.