{ Tuesday, January 24, 2006 }
I've been watching all the blathering about Yahoo! giving up search dominance to Google, which, I might add, is bullshit*. Quotes taken out of context by company executives do not an overarching business strategy make. This is exactly the kind of thing that most annoys me about blogs (and, I guess, media in general): the piling on, as also noticed by Jeff Clavier and Thomas Hawk, among others. Based on this sensationalistic headline, Steve Rubel says he has stopped using Yahoo! Search.
People!! Try to keep your knees from jerking! Of course, doing the legwork is a lot harder than jumping to conclusions, in the Olympiad of life. Loren Baker, in the comments in Micropersuasion quotes what CEO Terry Semel said in his Q4 Earnings report, which explains what the Yahoo! business priorities are, and is thus worth looking at in the context of the blathering:
"I would like to briefly give you an overview of our key priorities for 2006. Our #1 priority is building and expanding the suite of tools services and solutions for Internet marketers and publishers. In search marketing, our monetization efforts can be grouped into 3 categories.
First, we are expanding our content match services through the Yahoo Publishers Network to take advantage of the growing number of small publishers on the web. We plan to add new features to beta over the coming quarters including search and enhanced ad targeting. We believe the service will ultimately position Yahoo as one of the preferred advertising partners for small and medium-sized publishers.
Second, we are focused on improving RPS to better matching in relevance algorithms. While our matching initiatives will largely benefit coverage, we're also focused on improving tools to drive higher relevance and click through.
And third, we are increasing the number of easy-to-use tools for advertisers and publishers, so they can buy more keywords, touch more creative and add more listings faster."
Etc., etc.
Moreover, I really think people should be paying more attention to what's said by people working in Yahoo! Search. Amr Awadallah, who sits near me at Yahoo!, is typical of the many people who should always be paid attention to at Yahoo! -- he's one of the smartest guys around (I love Amr, he's bold, brusque and brilliant). He predicts Google will miss 2005-Q4 quarter revenue estimates.. He outlines the way Google padded their Q3 earnings a couple months ago, and this quarter too, with what are called in the industry accelerator changes: they added more ads to the top of their pages, and made them wrap when you ensmallen your browser window; they also jumped up the text size for AdWord listings, and Danny Sullivan also notes that Google has apparently embiggened their ads. We'll see what happens in about a week, when the earnings come out.
------------------------
* You'll notice I reserve swearing on this blog for occasions of particular exasperation. :-)
LINK | 11:34 AM | TB
Hmmm... comments on your blog. I think this is new, right?
Good to hear you come out in defense of search at Yahoo! and that it's your opinion that the quote was taken out of context.
I strongly believe that Yahoo! has been for a while positioning themselves to take the next significant step in relevancy improvement by implementing significant social input into their search algorithm. When more pieces are working in harmony here I do believe Yahoo! will be positioned to take the next big step forward in search.
Perhaps poor words by Ms. Decker, perhaps as Danny Sullivan and Henry Blodget suggest more aimed at lowering the bar for the investment community, perhaps totally taken out of context. The word "capitulates" used by the reporter was a particularly poor choice in my opinion.
Whatever the case, Yahoo!'s got some pretty great tools to apply to search going forward and I look forward to the enhancements in relevancy that I expect we'll see.
Keep up the good work.
Thomas Hawk | January 24, 2006 4:26 PMEmbiggen? Emsmallen? Is making up words Y!'s new strategy for search dominance?
The phrase "Yahoo is concentrating on SEM" is what gets me though. SEM is never going to be successful if the execs don't have any faith in their own SE...
Dom | January 24, 2006 5:03 PMEmbiggen is a perfectly cromulent word.
Caterina | January 24, 2006 5:48 PMWe're talking about market share, why Yahoo's losing it, and why Ms. Decker is so complacent about Google eating Yahoo's lunch.
And since each of Mr. Semel's priorities are focused on advertisers and partners, it's hard to see how these initiatives will do anything about Yahoo's deteriorating search market share.
I'm just an ignorant outsider, but it seems to me that the way to improve search market share is to improve the user experience -- relevance, speed and accessibility of search results -- I didn't hear anything about the user on the analyst call or in Ms. Decker's interview.
As an investor in both Google and Yahoo, I believe in both companies for different reasons. It would have been nice to hear Ms. Decker pound the table and swear to reclaim the share lost to Google through improved advertising tools doesn't seem like a winning strategy.
To cede search to Google while hoping to make it up through "partnerships" seems like a losing strategy.
It's gotta be users first, monetization second.
mahlon | January 24, 2006 9:27 PMWell said Caterina... including the kind words on everyone's favorite optimizer, Amr A. who's never affraid to speak his mind.
Is there an online equivalent of a swear jar?
Joe Lazarus | January 24, 2006 9:29 PMThis is completely off topic, but I find I'm still bothered by your last-comment-at-the-top format, Caterina. Any chance you could change that around to first-comment-first-later-ones-beneath? Pretty please?
marrije | January 25, 2006 1:44 AMGreat post. I think Yahoo's undergoing a kind of renaissance right now and may regain a lot of lost share IF the search peeps get more of a say rather than the suit peeps. The comments by your CFO still confuse the heck out of me though.
Joe Hunkins | January 25, 2006 9:54 AMAmen. I've also predicted that Google will miss their earnings like everybody else, and I'm glad you mention your friend's post on it. It's been an interesting Q4 for everybody. When it comes down to it, most non-techie people see services from Yahoo!, Google, and even products from Intel as luxury items. When discretionary funds dwindle because gas prices went up spending on the cool stuff dwindles, too. It's true of companies and true of people. Over time these services will gain more respect as critical infrastructure, but it isn't that way now with the bulk of the populace.
Nonetheless, I await the sound of all the clueless Yahoo! critics worldwide inserting their feet into their mouths when Google falters a bit, too. They'll probably just proclaim that Web 2.0 is stumbling, though. Mmm... myopic.
Bob | January 25, 2006 11:11 AMCaterina, if Susan Decker's comments were taken out of context as you claim, why hasn't she or Yahoo's PR team went on the offensive over that?
Bloomberg reporters aren't in the habit of pulling that kind of stunt. I'd be very surprised to learn that happened here.
Considering the response today on the Search Blog from a pair of VPs in Yahoo Search, it looks like there's a serious communication problem at Yahoo. When executives are not on the same page, and that conflict gets played out in public, people have to wonder why that is happening.
So when will see it addressed?
David Utter | January 25, 2006 4:19 PMHaving used Overture before Google AdWords existed, I must say I've been disappointed with the Overture product since it became Yahoo! Search Marketing. It used to be the best game in town. The recent decision to shorten ad descriptions from 190 chars to 70 chars (gee, the same as Google AdWords) is clearly a sign of capitulation. But, to say that Yahoo! is giving up on search is ridiculous. Now, was it the CFO's comments that were ridiculous or the spin by the MSM and bloggers? I think that's the real question.
BTW, everyone should just relax and play a game of Flickr TagMan. Ok?
Richard Ball | January 25, 2006 6:57 PMAnd the diggers chime in: http://digg.com/technology/Yahoo_Responds_to_Controversy_about_Not_Being_1_-_Wrong_Wrong_Wrong
Thomas Hawk | January 25, 2006 8:06 PMEmbiggen and emsmallen match perfectly with Simpson-speak where fans are used to episodes where Bart and Lisa need to be rebiggified.
Sharon Schmitt | January 26, 2006 5:24 AMI have no idea what Semel is talking about ... 'content matching services'; 'improving rps to better matching in relevance algorithms'; and 'touch more creative'. Maybe explain where yahoo!is going in a way an ordinary human can understand it.
The is not a guy whose rhetoric is going to lead thousands of investors into battle with google.
"So, no more running. I aim to misbehave."
aceon | May 15, 2006 8:52 PM{ Post a comment }
Hmmm, "embigggened." Good word! Reminds me of "biggering and biggering" from The Lorax by Dr. Seuss. I was annoyed by the Yahoo blathering too, esp. the Rubel comment. What does it matter whether Yahoo aims to be #1 or not in the search space, if you like what's offered?
Anne Zelenka | January 24, 2006 3:34 PM