Microsoft Won't Take No For Answer

According to at least a story in the Financial Times, Microsoft has proposed to Yahoo something between a partnership and full buy-out. The subject of speculation is whether Microsoft is trying to buy Yahoo search.

Even though Google is huddling over what to do, as they find the combination threatening (and want to partner with Yahoo themselves), I don't see why. They might lose the revenue opportunity that advertising on Yahoo search might bring, and that would be a pain. But there is nothing that Microsoft would add to Yahoo search to make it particularly enticing. They can't integrate it into Windows because of their past anti-trust dealings, and if they had something compelling for users, you'd think it would have come out on MSN already.

Microsoft continues to push only because it doesn't know what else to do, and management there isn't willing to encourage real innovation because, well, it's not guaranteed to be a blockbuster. Here is where Microsoft could learn a whole lot from the old IBM. Not bloated bureaucracy - the Redmond company already has that in spades. No, it's the concept of a research lab that can hit on not just innovation, but out and out new concepts. They could even do it in software alone and fund it for what would be a song to them. The current state of affairs is management by fear. Perhaps the company could use someone at the top who is a little bolder. It will take some daring to move in some direction, because change is inherently threatening to the old order, and so far the company has communicated that it wants to stay exactly where it is.

Google Experiments with Primary Election Coverage

According to Newsosaur, Google is running an online publishing project in Australia. Using maps, videos, web gadgets, and more, the Australia Votes site will let people get election news with a perspective that neither newspapers nor broadcast media offer. :

Australia Votes signals a significant strategic shift on the part of Google to become a primary web destination, as opposed to restricting itself to its historic role as a supplemental, though highly valuable, research tool. As such, it eventually could compete head to head with not only the likes of CNN, the Washington Post and all the other media biggies but also with the tiniest of tiny weeklies.

As I've been saying for a while, Google has all the characteristics of a publisher, not of a simple advertising medium, and is willing to be inventive in ways that traditional media don't appear to be, or possibly are too fossilized to approach:

The Google election project, an elegant mashup of Google’s arsenal of search, mapping, video, widget and other technologies, is a preview of how all but the most technologically recalcitrant consumers will expect to get political – and many other types of – news in the future. In addition to delivering a wealth of well-packaged election information and interactive tools, Google has created four content-pushing widgets and a number of ways for users to express their opinions via forums and home-brewed video.

News organizations have to be sweating at this point - but then again, so does Google. It can profit mightily from pasting links to content, and it is starting to license wire content. But the company could easily become a commodity purveyor, just as many newspapers are today. This may be one of several initial steps, but don't be surprised if Google starts hiring people to provide its own coverage.

As I've heard through the grapevine, it's already considering doing so in specialized areas. After all, if you know so much about your users and you want to keep them interested, then you have to be sure they get the content they want in the areas that attract them. But what if you aren't finding the depth of coverage necessary, particularly in niche topics, and you've got gazillions of dollars? It's cheap enough to hire experienced journalists who could provide coverage, and would probably relish the chance to dig into something more than "regular" media often allow. I wouldn't be surprised to see the beginning of "Google Coverage" - whether feature articles, video, or commissioned blogs - within the next 18 to 24 months.

Google to Host Wire Service Stories

I've mentioned before how I think Google wants to become a publisher. Now here's a story from IDG News Service saying that Google will directly display wire service stories on their own on the company's own news page, and not via a link to a site of a publisher or broadcaster. In trying to appease the wire services and reduce the law suits, Google has direct relationships with AP, AFP, the UK Press Association, and Canadian Press. (Can Reuters be far behind?)

Now, I've often run into wire stories via links to newspaper sites. Yahoo has not only been doing that for some time, but also directly presenting articles from Reuters and AFP with a combined branding. (I do wonder how long it will be until Yahoo also directly hosts some of the of the other wire services, particularly amid another round of rumors that it is up for sale.)

What I'm sure publishers are quaking about is how this will often cut them out of the loop. Why go to a newspaper's page to find it's running a wire story that you can get elsewhere - and in its entirety, not a cut-down version that the paper might decide to run? Every day Google looks more like a publisher of news, maps, photos, video, audio, books, published patents, blogs, and academic material.

Yahoo Shows Strategic No-No

Terry Semel is out and company co-founder Jerry Yang is in as Yahoo CEO. After a reorganization in December, continued disappointing earnings (while Semel earned an estimated $71.1 million last year, as estimated by the Wall Street Journal), and operational snafus, the company felt the need for changes.

it's quite a change in fortunes. According to the Journal, the man originally was a savior:

Mr. Semel, 64 years old, is widely credited with helping to focus a foundering Yahoo following his 2001 arrival and helping it ride the recovery in online advertising. The Sunnyvale, Calif., company is one of the largest sellers of such ads, and has played a key role in leading some name-brand companies to increase their marketing on the Web.

Then key managers left, they weren't replaced, the company couldn't digest the acquisition of an Internet ad platform company quickly enough, and things generally went badly when Google continued to out pace Yahoo. So now there's talk of possibly selling the company, or partnering, or ... something.

I wonder if management will really take a page out of Google's book. It's not to copy, but to better understand how Google gets so much right where it counts - with customers. They actually seem to listen, because nothing else would explain how they would continue to pick up share in areas filled with the fickle. An audience of over 100 million is a significant asset. Instead of playing catch-up in search and search advertising, why not talk to the customers big-time? Find out what they want? Not through focus groups, but by getting managers to actually talk to the people the company deals with, learn what they want, what they like, what's missing. Now that would be a radical solution.

Google Wants to Know Everything - About You

According to a piece in the Financial Times (I'm not sure how this got to be a free link, but who am I to complain?), Google wants to know everything about everybody. Literally:

Asked how Google might look in five years’ time, Mr Schmidt said: "We are very early in the total information we have within Google. The algorithms will get better and we will get better at personalisation. The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as 'What shall I do tomorrow?' and 'What job shall I take?'"

There you have it - Google with the gloves off. Aside from questions of privacy, civil liberty, and propriety this naturally raises, there are some serious business issues.

To the degree that Google succeeds, it puts virtually all businesses in its debt. Depending on how it decides to analyze and answer such questions, it directs people in their choices. If your company is on the outs with Google, might there be a chance that it freezes out your chances with customers? Will you have to - eventually - pay a fee to remain in the running, if not with the current management, then with a future team? People who think that all the tumult over Google and Yahoo and Microsoft is solely about online advertising aren't looking at the bigger pictures. In a society where an increasing number of people want to be told what to do, having an ever-increasing collection of information on them as well as an ability to be a front end to the Internet means controlling business beyond what can happen even in a monopoly.

Microsoft Yodels Yahoo

(The following is a story of mine running translated right now in Newsweek Japan)

It only took one initial report a little over a week ago about potential merger talks between Microsoft and Yahoo to generate some of the biggest buzz the online industry has seen. Even as further stories suggested that the two companies were actually considering a strategic online partnership, interest was still intense because of one word: Google.

The search engine company has competed online with Yahoo and Microsoft and thrashed them both, becoming the premier destination for finding information and delivering ads. And so Yahoo and Microsoft hope that somehow the combination of the former’s audience – the top ranking web destination according to site ranking service Alexa.com, with visits from more than 25 percent of all global Internet users – and the latter’s technology leadership might let them compete more effectively.

Were this any other industry, the combined forces would be powerful: almost $51 billion in 2006 revenue and well over 80,000 employees. However, on the Internet, size isn’t enough. Customers must identify a company and its site as the preferred spot to get something done, whether to keep in contact with friends, share video, get news, or look for some piece of information. Lack that connection with people, and your business is bound for bad times. Microsoft and Yahoo is just one example in the online industry of how companies are trying to use alliances to gain a spot in the hearts of customers – though it’s not clear that the approach will often work.

Finding examples of corporations that are using acquisitions for greater customer contact is easy. For example, Yahoo bought the popular photo sharing site Flickr (recently closing its own service, Yahoo Photos, because so few people used it). News Corp acquired personal networking destination MySpace as part of Fox Interactive Media, the Internet division the company created in 2005. “That’s working out quite well,” says a top venture capitalist Todd Dagres of Spark Capital. “MySpace already had presence in the online world that Fox didn’t.”

The difference between these acquisitions and a possible Microsoft-Yahoo marriage is that they were targeted at popular but still niche properties that had enthusiastic customer bases. Amalgamating more broadly based companies, however, is too unfocused. Unless companies can catch the eye of the public, they will remain stuck where they are as their competitors blow past them.

Google is a danger to Microsoft and Yahoo because it competes with them in the vital areas of search engine services and online advertising, being far more successful at both. According to NielsenNetRatings, Google’s share of U.S. searches in March was 53.7 percent, while Yahoo had 21.8 percent, and Microsoft, 10.1 percent. So Google brings more people in who want information.

Then it delivers small ads whose content matches the search terms that users choose. The result is advertisements that people often actually want to read – and many advertisers willing to pay lots of money to Google. According to Karsten Weide, program director of digital media and entertainment at market researcher IDC, Yahoo was the online advertising leader until 2005, when Google blew past them. Last year, according to research firm eMarketer, Yahoo had 15% of U.S. paid search advertising, compared to Google’s 58.7%, and next year it projects Google as taking over three-quarters. “It’s dominant already and growing so fast that it will be difficult for the other players to catch up,” he says.

That spells trouble for the other two. According to Yahoo’s 2006 annual report, 88 percent of the company’s revenue came from advertisers. And while 80 percent of Microsoft’s income is from selling copies of Windows and Office product families, the company sees its economic future elsewhere because the old software lines are now mature businesses that are unlikely to offer high rates of business growth. Before becoming vice president of media development at PodTech.net, Robert Scoble was a Microsoft developer who also wrote a popular blog about the company. He remembers upper management stressing two years ago “that the growth of the company will come from advertising, not from selling another copy of Windows or another copy of Office.”

Yet Microsoft’s online advertising revenues have been flat at about $2.3 billion for the last four years while the industry has grown at an annual rate of over 30 percent, according to Weide. That means the company has faced a constantly declining market share. “I’m at a loss,” he says. “How do you pull zero percent in a growth climate like that? It’s an accomplishment in itself.”

The problem is that bigger is not necessarily better on the Internet. The attitude comes from an old strategy of traditional industries. By acquiring other businesses, a company could create economies of scale, driving down manufacturing and distribution costs and pressuring competitors. On the Internet, though, a small and reasonably funded company can quickly reach millions of consumers: look at MySpace or YouTube.

Microsoft’s difficulty is that it understands selling packaged software, not the media world of online, so it tries to copy someone else’s success. According to Scoble, Microsoft is preoccupied with FOG – fear of Google. “Microsoft has some technologies that are really good, but they’re in clone world right now,” Scoble says. “They’re trying to clone everything that Google is doing.” For example, Microsoft is emphasizing online ad sales and even giving away use of software business applications on its Live.com site. Unfortunately the drive to copy another means that the company remains reactive to the Internet and not developing the new services that will catapult it to the lead among consumers.

Yahoo has a grasp of media, but can’t force how consumers will react. Look at its acquisition of photo sharing service Flickr. That step was necessary because Yahoo’s own photo sharing service, Yahoo Photos, simply never caught on with users. “Now you’re going to bring that together with a behemoth like Microsoft and be able to operate in a nimble and innovate way in an industry that really thrives on rapid [change]?” asks Willan Johnson, formerly a vice president at Yahoo and now general manager of SupplyFrame.com. “Many have speculated that if that deal went through, you’d want to buy Google stock.”

In the view of Kim Caughey, a senior investment analyst at Fort Pitt Capital Group, the combined entity would have a hard time hiring the “cool people … to continually create new products to drive people to your web sites and capture eyeballs.” They would find a large-scale company a bad fit. “If they have a really great idea, venture capital will give them money,” she says.

Smaller entrepreneurial divisions might do the trick, but large companies typically don’t have interest in such endeavors because the returns are too small. Scoble found this when he worked at Microsoft and in 2005 urged management to consider purchasing such companies as MySpace, Flickr, or Internet phone service Skype when they were much smaller and less expensive to acquire. “I was telling them to pay attention to something that hadn’t yet sold for $20 million,” he remembers. “I asked, ‘Why aren’t you doing things in this market?’ and the answer was, ‘We’re too busy … running multi-billion dollar businesses.’” By the time large companies see the value, it’s often too late to acquire the truly innovative businesses that are now literally worth billions of dollars.

There still might be sense in a close alliance between Microsoft and Yahoo, even if not for an online consumer market. Caughey says there might be natural synergy for corporate customers – an integration of Microsoft’s commanding presence on desktops with Yahoo’s search technology. The two could become a way to pull together data scattered throughout a large company in the form of word processing documents, spreadsheets, and other files – an area that has caught Google’s eye. Or Yahoo and Microsoft could develop software and systems that would allow others to create the next big thing for consumers. Maybe even Google developers could give the products a test. They probably wouldn’t have to search too hard to find them.