By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
SAN FRANCISCO - Yahoo Inc.'s leaders defended online search leader Google Inc. as a more desirable partner than Microsoft Corp. in a Wednesday letter that affirmed the Internet pioneer's commitment to a strategy that has alienated shareholders.
Yahoo embraced its planned advertising partnership with Google amid reports that it had revived talks about a possible deal with Microsoft. The report, based information from unnamed people, surfaced despite Yahoo's repeated rejection of the software maker since their tense mating dance began nearly five months ago.
Although Yahoo's letter didn't completely rule out a Microsoft deal, it stressed that working with Google remains the best option on the table.
The letter is part of Yahoo's campaign to fend off an attempt to overthrow its board at its Aug. 1 annual meeting. The revolt was triggered by Yahoo's rejection of Microsoft's takeover offer of $47.5 billion, or $33 per share.
The Redmond, Wash.-based software maker withdrew the bid after co-founder and Chief Executive Jerry Yang pushed for $37 a share — a price Yahoo's stock hasn't reached since January 2006.
Upset by the board's handling of the Microsoft negotiations, activist investor Carl Icahn has nominated nine candidates to replace Yahoo's current directors, including Yang. If Icahn prevails, he also plans to fire Yang as CEO.
Yahoo is urging shareholders to reject Icahn's slate and give Yang another chance to prove the company is worth more than $47.5 billion.
Icahn didn't return a call seeking comment Wednesday.
Under an agreement announced this month, Sunnyvale-based Yahoo will use Google's superior technology to show ads alongside its search results in the United States. Yahoo estimates the partnership will boost its annual revenue about $800 million and help end the financial malaise that has battered the company's stock.
"This carefully structured agreement strikes the right strategic balance, enhancing our financial results while advancing our strategic objectives," Yang and Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock wrote Wednesday.
After dropping its buyout bid last month, Microsoft returned with an alternative offer of $9 billion for Yahoo's search engine and a 16 percent stake in Yahoo's remaining operations. Microsoft maintains that could have helped boost Yahoo's cash flow about $1 billion annually — much more than the $250 million to $450 million expected from the Google partnership.
But Yahoo disputed Microsoft's estimates Wednesday, saying the deal wouldn't have provided a "meaningful" improvement to Yahoo's cash flow, and it would have precluded a sale to anyone else without the software maker's approval.
The Google partnership allows for Yahoo to be sold, although the escape clause includes a break-up fee of up to $250 million.
Microsoft didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday. The software maker has previously said it remains available to discuss a limited deal with Yahoo while emphasizing it's no longer interested in buying the company in its entirety.
Wednesday's developments seemed to disappoint investors, whose hopes had been raised by the reports that Yahoo might abandon the Google partnership for a Microsoft deal. The reports were published on technology blogs and an online news site owned by CNet Networks Inc.
Yahoo shares shed 26 cents in Wednesday's extended trading after dipping three cents to finish the regular session at $22.01 for a cumulative drop of 16 percent since the Google partnership was announced.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
So, You Think You're A Search Engine Optimization Expert?
by Shari Thurow
A few years ago, I wrote a three-part article series about the different levels of SEO skills: beginner, intermediate, and advanced. I placed copywriters at the beginner level, information architects and interface designers at the intermediate level, and web developers and programmers at the advanced level.
At the time, I was pretty confident at the delineations, because it seemed that is how the perception of search engine optimization had evolved. Now, as I re-evaluate what I wrote, I am not so sure. Instead of seeing a continuum, where a true SEO expert can effectively perform the skills at each level, maybe these three groups represent three unique skill sets. Some of the skills in each set can overlap, of course (I know plenty of people who are both web designers and developers).
So now I stop and try to reassess my perspective, and perhaps the search industry perspective. Is an SEO professional with advanced programming skills truly an SEO expert?
Keyword researchers and copywriters as SEO experts
What inspired my reassessment was a conversation I was in last week. I was showing a usability test participant some early web-page prototypes, and out of the blue, this question popped out:
Question: Would you hire a programmer to write your web site's copy?
Answer: [Expletive] no.
Intrigued, I asked more questions, since this person obviously had a strong opinion about the subject. In a nutshell, she essentially thought my questions were completely absurd because she felt no one in his or her right mind would allow a programmer or web developer to write or edit website copy.
Yet, this happens all of the time in the SEO industry—people who possess very technical skills are also the ones doing keyword research and writing/editing copy. Is this a good or a bad thing?
In my personal opinion, some of the most undervalued SEO professionals are copywriters and keyword researchers. I really do not care that they cannot configure a server or do the latest image replacement workaround. What I care about is that they identify the right keyword phrases and present them in the best possible light to site visitors. Apparently, I am not the only person who feels this way.
And by "identify the right keyword phrases," I do not mean that they know how to calculate KEI (keyword effectiveness index), which sounds like pure programmer jargon to most people. I'm waiting for Scott Adams to write a Dilbert cartoon about that one.
By "identify the right keyword phrases," I mean going beyond the available keyword research tools and really understanding what searchers and site visitors respond to. A truly gifted keyword researcher understands that searchers respond to words that they (the searchers) do not necessarily type as search queries.
Are advanced search-engine friendly copywriters any less advanced because they do not have the skills to implement the latest image replacement workaround? I do not believe so, but I do believe it is a common industry misperception... and not only in the search industry, either.
And that brings me to the next group, whom I often hear state, "Keywords are useless if search engines do not have access to that content." Which can be true, but...
Web developers and programmers as SEO experts
I accept that I might take some heat for this opinion: I have never believed that having advanced IT skills automatically means that a person has advanced SEO skills. I do not believe that having advanced IT skills is a requirement for being an advanced SEO expert.
Granted, the "science" part of SEO certainly requires some technical skills. And a multi-talented SEO professional usually has a combination of creative and technical skills, a union of analytical and creative thinking. But I do not believe an advanced SEO professional is a person who has technical skills at the exclusion of other skills. Just as I do not believe that an advanced SEO professional is a person who has copywriting skills at the exclusion of technical skills.
Even though a search-engine friendly copywriter might not be able to implement a Flash or image replacement workaround, he or she might need to understand what it is and when it is appropriate to implement it.
Believe me, the information architects and interface designers will certainly have more colorful opinions on that subject, and their perspectives might be incredibly valuable. Frequently, the interface designers will tell you not to implement a technology in the first place because users don't want it (because they test this sort of thing all of the time) and because users do not effectively, and successfully, complete desired tasks. Why implement a workaround when your site visitors don't want the technology in the first place? I know, I know. Because management told you to do it, marketing is only responding to industry buzz, and well? Web 2.x (insert current numbers here) is cool.
I hear these statements quite often when it comes to SEO workarounds, "You are against this workaround because you don't know how to do it," or "You are against this workaround because you don't understand it." These types of statements come from SEO professionals and even potential clients, who are usually people in the IT department. For example, one prevailing attitude seems to be: if an SEO professional does not know how to do optimization using Ruby on Rails, then that person isn't an an advanced SEO professional.
Okay, I'll bite. I prefer working with Cold Fusion. Now if I say that an SEO professional who doesn't know how to implement the Cold Fusion URL workaround isn't an advanced SEO,...I hope you get my point. SEO professionals often have a wide variety of skills, and having one skill doesn't automatically make a person more advanced at optimization than having another skill.
Conclusion
So what am I trying to accomplish with this article? Honestly, I would really like the search industry to re-evaluate what they consider to be advanced SEO skills. I do not believe that advanced SEO skills are necessarily "black-hat" skills. Nor do I believe that persons with little or no technical skills are not advanced SEO practitioners.
I do believe that an advanced SEO professional understands how all of these levels are interconnected, the big picture. Who knows? Maybe my opinion has the making of a Dilbert cartoon. I am very interested in what others have to say about this subject. How do you define advanced search engine optimization?
Shari Thurow is the Founder and SEO Director at Omni Marketing Interactive and the author of the book Search Engine Visibility. The 100% Organic column appears Thursdays at Search Engine Land.
A few years ago, I wrote a three-part article series about the different levels of SEO skills: beginner, intermediate, and advanced. I placed copywriters at the beginner level, information architects and interface designers at the intermediate level, and web developers and programmers at the advanced level.
At the time, I was pretty confident at the delineations, because it seemed that is how the perception of search engine optimization had evolved. Now, as I re-evaluate what I wrote, I am not so sure. Instead of seeing a continuum, where a true SEO expert can effectively perform the skills at each level, maybe these three groups represent three unique skill sets. Some of the skills in each set can overlap, of course (I know plenty of people who are both web designers and developers).
So now I stop and try to reassess my perspective, and perhaps the search industry perspective. Is an SEO professional with advanced programming skills truly an SEO expert?
Keyword researchers and copywriters as SEO experts
What inspired my reassessment was a conversation I was in last week. I was showing a usability test participant some early web-page prototypes, and out of the blue, this question popped out:
Question: Would you hire a programmer to write your web site's copy?
Answer: [Expletive] no.
Intrigued, I asked more questions, since this person obviously had a strong opinion about the subject. In a nutshell, she essentially thought my questions were completely absurd because she felt no one in his or her right mind would allow a programmer or web developer to write or edit website copy.
Yet, this happens all of the time in the SEO industry—people who possess very technical skills are also the ones doing keyword research and writing/editing copy. Is this a good or a bad thing?
In my personal opinion, some of the most undervalued SEO professionals are copywriters and keyword researchers. I really do not care that they cannot configure a server or do the latest image replacement workaround. What I care about is that they identify the right keyword phrases and present them in the best possible light to site visitors. Apparently, I am not the only person who feels this way.
And by "identify the right keyword phrases," I do not mean that they know how to calculate KEI (keyword effectiveness index), which sounds like pure programmer jargon to most people. I'm waiting for Scott Adams to write a Dilbert cartoon about that one.
By "identify the right keyword phrases," I mean going beyond the available keyword research tools and really understanding what searchers and site visitors respond to. A truly gifted keyword researcher understands that searchers respond to words that they (the searchers) do not necessarily type as search queries.
Are advanced search-engine friendly copywriters any less advanced because they do not have the skills to implement the latest image replacement workaround? I do not believe so, but I do believe it is a common industry misperception... and not only in the search industry, either.
And that brings me to the next group, whom I often hear state, "Keywords are useless if search engines do not have access to that content." Which can be true, but...
Web developers and programmers as SEO experts
I accept that I might take some heat for this opinion: I have never believed that having advanced IT skills automatically means that a person has advanced SEO skills. I do not believe that having advanced IT skills is a requirement for being an advanced SEO expert.
Granted, the "science" part of SEO certainly requires some technical skills. And a multi-talented SEO professional usually has a combination of creative and technical skills, a union of analytical and creative thinking. But I do not believe an advanced SEO professional is a person who has technical skills at the exclusion of other skills. Just as I do not believe that an advanced SEO professional is a person who has copywriting skills at the exclusion of technical skills.
Even though a search-engine friendly copywriter might not be able to implement a Flash or image replacement workaround, he or she might need to understand what it is and when it is appropriate to implement it.
Believe me, the information architects and interface designers will certainly have more colorful opinions on that subject, and their perspectives might be incredibly valuable. Frequently, the interface designers will tell you not to implement a technology in the first place because users don't want it (because they test this sort of thing all of the time) and because users do not effectively, and successfully, complete desired tasks. Why implement a workaround when your site visitors don't want the technology in the first place? I know, I know. Because management told you to do it, marketing is only responding to industry buzz, and well? Web 2.x (insert current numbers here) is cool.
I hear these statements quite often when it comes to SEO workarounds, "You are against this workaround because you don't know how to do it," or "You are against this workaround because you don't understand it." These types of statements come from SEO professionals and even potential clients, who are usually people in the IT department. For example, one prevailing attitude seems to be: if an SEO professional does not know how to do optimization using Ruby on Rails, then that person isn't an an advanced SEO professional.
Okay, I'll bite. I prefer working with Cold Fusion. Now if I say that an SEO professional who doesn't know how to implement the Cold Fusion URL workaround isn't an advanced SEO,...I hope you get my point. SEO professionals often have a wide variety of skills, and having one skill doesn't automatically make a person more advanced at optimization than having another skill.
Conclusion
So what am I trying to accomplish with this article? Honestly, I would really like the search industry to re-evaluate what they consider to be advanced SEO skills. I do not believe that advanced SEO skills are necessarily "black-hat" skills. Nor do I believe that persons with little or no technical skills are not advanced SEO practitioners.
I do believe that an advanced SEO professional understands how all of these levels are interconnected, the big picture. Who knows? Maybe my opinion has the making of a Dilbert cartoon. I am very interested in what others have to say about this subject. How do you define advanced search engine optimization?
Shari Thurow is the Founder and SEO Director at Omni Marketing Interactive and the author of the book Search Engine Visibility. The 100% Organic column appears Thursdays at Search Engine Land.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
iPhone pushes Google to early lead
By Michael Estrin
It's still early, but at first blush Google appears to own the wireless search market, according to data from Nielsen Mobile.
Google, which accounts for 61 percent of all mobile searches, bested Yahoo which came in second with 18 percent of the market. MSN accounted for 5 percent of the market.
But much of Google's success can actually be summed up in one word -- iPhone. Earlier this year, Google reported that the iPhone, which represents a mere 2 percent of the worldwide smartphone market, accounted for the bulk of mobile internet searches. But the good news for Google is that it's the default search engine on all iPhones, which is why marketers are closely watching the rollout of Apple's latest 3G iPhone.
So where does this leave the rest of the pack? Well, Yahoo has been working hard to cut deals with other handset makers and telecom carriers around the world. Most recently, the company announced six new telecom partnerships throughout Asia, bringing its total to 60 worldwide.
According to David Ko, managing director and VP of Yahoo's mobile division, the company can offer advertisers global scale to the tune of 600 million users. But while those numbers may sound good, Yahoo will have to offer more in terms of search functionality and ad serving if it's going to chip away at Google's lead. Otherwise, Yahoo may find itself cutting a mobile search deal with Google similar to the one the two companies are currently proposing.
As for Microsoft, it has the most ground to make up both in terms of raw numbers and user experience. While Microsoft is the default search engine on many mobile devices, it seems that fact did little to help it boost market share. According to technology blog Ars Technica, one potentially discouraging piece of information for Microsoft is that mobile users may have opted out of using it as the default search engine in favor of Yahoo, which is bundled in Opera Mini, a browser commonly downloaded by BlackBerry users.
It's still early, but at first blush Google appears to own the wireless search market, according to data from Nielsen Mobile.
Google, which accounts for 61 percent of all mobile searches, bested Yahoo which came in second with 18 percent of the market. MSN accounted for 5 percent of the market.
But much of Google's success can actually be summed up in one word -- iPhone. Earlier this year, Google reported that the iPhone, which represents a mere 2 percent of the worldwide smartphone market, accounted for the bulk of mobile internet searches. But the good news for Google is that it's the default search engine on all iPhones, which is why marketers are closely watching the rollout of Apple's latest 3G iPhone.
So where does this leave the rest of the pack? Well, Yahoo has been working hard to cut deals with other handset makers and telecom carriers around the world. Most recently, the company announced six new telecom partnerships throughout Asia, bringing its total to 60 worldwide.
According to David Ko, managing director and VP of Yahoo's mobile division, the company can offer advertisers global scale to the tune of 600 million users. But while those numbers may sound good, Yahoo will have to offer more in terms of search functionality and ad serving if it's going to chip away at Google's lead. Otherwise, Yahoo may find itself cutting a mobile search deal with Google similar to the one the two companies are currently proposing.
As for Microsoft, it has the most ground to make up both in terms of raw numbers and user experience. While Microsoft is the default search engine on many mobile devices, it seems that fact did little to help it boost market share. According to technology blog Ars Technica, one potentially discouraging piece of information for Microsoft is that mobile users may have opted out of using it as the default search engine in favor of Yahoo, which is bundled in Opera Mini, a browser commonly downloaded by BlackBerry users.
Monday, June 9, 2008
FCC Teases About Free Broadband
By Jason Lee Miller
Would you like free wireless broadband? Sure you would. As you might guess, though, free broadband is bad for the broadband provider business. In a weird twist of logic, broadband providers argue free broadband is bad for consumers, too.
In a move that turned out to be as self-serving as it was beneficial to US citizens – hey, the citizens will take what they can get these days – FCC Chairman Kevin Martin appeared, for about five minutes, to do something on behalf of the people rather than the phone companies by proposing the 2155-2175 MHz-band of spectrum be allocated for 768 kbps wireless access. In terms of capabilities, that's kind of slow, but matches the slowest options of incumbent providers.
It also matched the speed offered up by M2Z Networks, a broadband startup headed by former FCC official John Muleta, whose ad-supported and content-filtered broadband proposal was rejected by the FCC last year. Martin's proposal – if history is any indication – would likely also come with content filtering. Because the FCC was slow to even review M2Z's proposal, Muleta sued the FCC to make a decision, likely not garnering any good will from Martin in the process. Muleta once suggested the FCC was blocking wireless competition, or at least free services--wouldn't it be interesting if this was why?
Why did Martin change his mind about free wireless broadband? Om Malik suggests it wasn't a patriotic, altruistic decision. Martin, after years of lobbying for the telecommunications companies and in many ways continuing his service in that capacity as chairman of the FCC, is ready to begin an elected political career. So, he's suddenly very populist. Martin was to bring the issue to a vote next week.
But his old masters told him to cool it. Malik presents two letters to federal regulators, one from T-Mobile, and one from M2Z, which tell the whole story. T-Mobile, along with Verizon, argued that the spectrum needed to be tested more before launch for fear of interference with blocks of spectrum bought through the federal auction system.
Such interference would "ultimately disserve consumers." Malik was right to translate that as "Let’s delay this sucker for as long as possible." M2Z's letter expressed a similar view of T-Mobile and Verizon's objection, and laid out more detail.
The most telling tidbit: Both companies saved money by purchasing equipment made for foreign markets, which do not block interference within the spectrum, picking up signals from as far away from South America. Bottom line: Because they cut corners (and other reasons), you can't have free wireless broadband.
M2Z called this type of maneuvering "competitive gamesmanship" and an attempt to "squat on spectrum they never won at auction."
Despite M2Z's objections to T-Mobile's objections, telco-puppet Martin called off next week's meeting. Once a shill, always a shill it seems.
Would you like free wireless broadband? Sure you would. As you might guess, though, free broadband is bad for the broadband provider business. In a weird twist of logic, broadband providers argue free broadband is bad for consumers, too.
In a move that turned out to be as self-serving as it was beneficial to US citizens – hey, the citizens will take what they can get these days – FCC Chairman Kevin Martin appeared, for about five minutes, to do something on behalf of the people rather than the phone companies by proposing the 2155-2175 MHz-band of spectrum be allocated for 768 kbps wireless access. In terms of capabilities, that's kind of slow, but matches the slowest options of incumbent providers.
It also matched the speed offered up by M2Z Networks, a broadband startup headed by former FCC official John Muleta, whose ad-supported and content-filtered broadband proposal was rejected by the FCC last year. Martin's proposal – if history is any indication – would likely also come with content filtering. Because the FCC was slow to even review M2Z's proposal, Muleta sued the FCC to make a decision, likely not garnering any good will from Martin in the process. Muleta once suggested the FCC was blocking wireless competition, or at least free services--wouldn't it be interesting if this was why?
Why did Martin change his mind about free wireless broadband? Om Malik suggests it wasn't a patriotic, altruistic decision. Martin, after years of lobbying for the telecommunications companies and in many ways continuing his service in that capacity as chairman of the FCC, is ready to begin an elected political career. So, he's suddenly very populist. Martin was to bring the issue to a vote next week.
But his old masters told him to cool it. Malik presents two letters to federal regulators, one from T-Mobile, and one from M2Z, which tell the whole story. T-Mobile, along with Verizon, argued that the spectrum needed to be tested more before launch for fear of interference with blocks of spectrum bought through the federal auction system.
Such interference would "ultimately disserve consumers." Malik was right to translate that as "Let’s delay this sucker for as long as possible." M2Z's letter expressed a similar view of T-Mobile and Verizon's objection, and laid out more detail.
The most telling tidbit: Both companies saved money by purchasing equipment made for foreign markets, which do not block interference within the spectrum, picking up signals from as far away from South America. Bottom line: Because they cut corners (and other reasons), you can't have free wireless broadband.
M2Z called this type of maneuvering "competitive gamesmanship" and an attempt to "squat on spectrum they never won at auction."
Despite M2Z's objections to T-Mobile's objections, telco-puppet Martin called off next week's meeting. Once a shill, always a shill it seems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)