Walt Mossberg just finished interviewing Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and President Sue Decker (my real time notes are here, see Peter Kafka’s notes as well).
The two key topics of the interview were the failed Microsoft merger, and Yahoo’s core focus as a company. And while Yang never actually said the words quoted in the title above, his tone and body language screamed “We’re Done.” He was resigned. Beleaguered, even.
Yang dutifully recited PR-supplied sound bites. He said things like “We didn’t walk away from the Microsoft deal. They did.” At one point he said “I like Google” (he still doesn’t realize that they’re Yahoo’s enemy, not Microsoft). He talked about the future, sometimes stringing together four or five unrelated statements about their how they are coming together as a team and focusing on the future. He talked about how outside perception of Yahoo is very different from what’s actually going on internally (although the execs I’ve spoken with say the outside perception is pretty much right on the money).
Yang was not prepared for perhaps the one question that every CEO should be ready to answer at all times: “What is the business of Yahoo?” He was all over the place. He said their core focus included “home page, mail, search, and mobile.” He also said “We can’t be all things to all people. We have become much more focused,” before taking about other areas of focus at Yahoo, including advertising, social networking and their new open strategy.
Decker stepped in and tried to distill their core message, repeating “we focus on homepage, search, mail and mobile” but then went on to talk extensively about advertising, including a new display advertising product that the company will launch in Q3 this year.
From where I sit, I saw no core focus and no clear product or corporate strategy. Yahoo has no idea what they want to do or who’s going to do it. I saw no charisma, excitement or leadership at all (things I’ve seen regularly from Yang in the past). I saw, simply, failure.
“I will never be a CEO again,” Yang said near the end of the interview. Based on what he’s going through, I can understand how he feels.
How in the world does one think that Microsoft is Yahoo’s best bet. Everything they touch turns into crap, especially when it comes to web apps.
“We can’t be all things to all people.”
Yahoo’s old slogan was “The Only Place Anyone Needs To Go Find Anything, Communicate With Anyone, Or Buy Anything.”
The thing about Yahoo! is that it was a first-mover and did a great job of grabbing a lot of low-hanging ideas, but then got stuck holding the whole big bag of them, while Google only cared about the one which made money - search and search advertising.
I like this site, but you cannot use quotation marks around something Yang didn’t say. It’s extremely poor form, and makes blog-based journalism look bad. The headline needs to be changed, even if the substance of the article is reasonable.
Yahoo! is a media giant. Not sure why he couldn’t just state that and be done with it. They make their money by advertisement spots because of the amount of traffic they receive. Yes, it’s a homepage and a decent one at that. It’s one of mine. Who said that they HAVE to be all things to all people? Not sure why Yang would even feel intimidated or flustered by Microsoft. Yahoo!’s internet presence is far more dominating than Bill and Company.
The smartest thing Steve Jobs ever said was, “We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win Microsoft has to lose.” That, to me, was the turning point of Apple’s recovery.
Yang isn’t willing to say it, Wall Street would be appalled to hear it, and Techcrunch would be terribly upset because it delights in petty rivalries; but Yahoo has to get rid of the idea that Google is the enemy. Most of the lower echelons already realize it; unfortunately, the senior executives still need to rein in their egos and accept reality. Google is not the enemy; their business model is orthogonal to what Yahoo should be doing: leveraging and growing their community. Communities like Facebook and MySpace are the enemy; companies like Microsoft that want to control the user experience on the Internet are the enemy.
I could easily see Yahoo ejecting their search monetization technology. Selling it to Microsoft would allow them to make money on that albatross. The open search service effort is more of a publicity gimmick (but a good one) than a true business strategy, but if they leave the heavy lifting to Google, there is a good chance that Yahoo could actually become the premiere social search service, acting as a reseller for Google’s AdSense to the likes of Facebook and MySpace.
Making money from your supposed competitors: it worked for Google.
The title of this post is completely misleading, and should be changed. I know you love not being a mainstream new source, but please try to maintain some degree of journalistic integrity.
If I wanted to read tabloid news I’d pick up the Enquirer. I’d perfer a little less editorial speculation.
Respectfully,
Rob:-]
Just curious, as an ordinary Internet user, are there anyways to help Yahoo!? I’m now using Yahoo! as the default search toolbar in Firefox, and will try search Yahoo! first place instead of Google. But does that matter?
Of course he would talk about multiple things. Yahoo is approximately a 17,000 person organization - do you really think they are just going to focus on one thing?
More likely: “We’re one.”
Michael, you are definitely a blogger and not a real journalist:
- And while Yang never actually said the words quoted in the title above, his tone and body language screamed “We’re Done.”
well, i’ve been looking for a reason to thin out the ever increasing material to read…and mike just gave me the reason to stop reading his blog.
has he ever disclosed what financial position he may have in yhoo, msft, or goog?
didn’t think so.
Well, technically Arrington never said those words or mentioned Obama by name and I know he is partners with MC Hammer, but it was more through his interpretive dance - nonetheless i saw it and I’m sticking to it! And putting in the headline.
God, you totally lucked out with this blog because you didn’t earn this traffic with skill or the ability to lead. You sir, are no Om.
i don’t see you pioneer in a whole new industry and establish a global brand, and fend off a bully like microsoft. all you do is sit on your behind and spit on others’ intelligence and hard work. sour grapes maybe?
so if you think yahoo should have sold out to microsoft, then tell us in your sharp mind what the focuses should be for yahoo after being bought by microsoft?
I’m sorry to read this - but I have to say, just based on personal experience (I worked there) — it started much earlier than 2008/today. People even stated that the head of HR (Libby) said (unbeknownst to her) that “I don’t care that people are leaving, we are Yahoo - and folks are standing in line to work here”… (paraphrased, 3rd party). However, it makes sense. The incredible havoc they placed on their own people, by not providing guidance and communication at the “floor-level”, showed me that they had no leadership then, and it’s gotten worse. These events happened in 2004, I can’t imagine how it is now. I loved the people though, what a great bunch. Leadership, that’s another story…
Journalism Ethics 101
Michael Arrington, At this very point of time (after this article) - you have lost all your credibility.
Welcome to TechInquirer.com.
Shameful.
Yang & Decker, on Yahoo core biz focus: “we focus on homepage, search, mail and mobile”.
1) HOMEPAGE aka “sell the shit out of [limited] premium web portal real estate”. not really a long-term business, imho. short-term monetization is good, but long-term control is limited & therefore not likely good strategic bet. the “home page” will fragment, become personalized, distributed. Feeds & distributed news flow will be the model. not sure if Yahoo’s display advertising biz fits in this box, but perhaps that could be significant… sounds like what Ballmer wants. not sure it’s the most valuable asset.
2) SEARCH: barely keeping significant #2 market share in search, but still pretty darn good monetization compared to the rest of their biz. on absolute basis, great biz to be in.. tons of cashflow, even their declining market share in overall growing market probably not bad biz. just sucks on a relative basis to look over at GOOG and think what could have been.
3) MAIL: tons of usage, but crappy monetization. see my earlier posts for how to monetize the social graph data in the inbox. this is one of the more interesting assets that currently hasn’t been realized in revenue i think. GROUPS fits in here as well, which is just a travesty that there hasn’t been more attention in past few years. i have a friend there who may pull the bacon out of the fire, but such a big task given how much they’ve squandered over past few years.
4) MOBILE: i don’t really understand this part of their biz. maybe some traction here outside US i’m not aware of. i’ll refrain from commentary here.
anyway, just feels like there could be more being done with using Y! Platform as distribution play to get to all their users. problem is the platform is crotchety & not sure they can really turn the ship around on each of these areas.
sigh…
Arrington went a bit too far with his headline for my taste. I didn’t learn anything from his post. He could have balanced his post with some of the ways Yahoo! could survive on their own. Nope. That’s not his style anyway.
I like your work Arrington, but I am sick of reading the same thing over and over again about Yahoo!. We get it, you think they belong in Microsoft’s hands. You have a good point. Now I want to read a more careful and thorough analysis of Yahoo!’s position.
Misleading title. Shame on you.
Body Language is not something that we usually quote.
OTOH Body Language was largely unconscious until recently.
Michael Arrington, your post is follish.. and u r biased to google and ms
I posted a comment in Chinese at http://cangelor.com/blogs/wei-.....-done.aspx to share with all Chinese readers.
“We focus on homepage, search, mail and mobile”? Whatever happened to their strategic plan?
Bad job reporting Tech Crunch. You cannot use a headline that looks like a quote from someone, when that person did not say it. I’m getting very tired over TechCrunch’s hyperactive bashing of Yahoo, and its sloppy reporting.
I don’t think Yahoo’s done. The company needs to focus more on social networks and mobile services. Take a look at Flickr which is a success. Also they should make some acquisitions to increase their portfolio value. They are not done!
I feel for him. Poor guy.
The headline is a bald-faced lie.
It’s not just a clever joke, it’s a deliberate falsification. It’s an outrageous, flagrant untruth.
The notion of bloggers as journalists is an utter joke, and this pathetic crap is a perfect example.
I won’t miss Yahoo, the name says it all.
Michael
If you’re not going to modify your headline, could you please at least have the courtesy to respond to so many of your readers who are upset about your editorial decision in this article? These people (myself included) are good enough to frequent your blog and in many cases are loyal to you. Is it too much to ask for you to acknowledge the concerns listed here about your decision to knowingly publish a false quote in the title of the posting?
Thank you
Jason
Agreed. This site is become liked f*ckedcompany.com 2.0 and although gossip, etc is interesting and fun, putting quotes around headline like someone said something they didnt is just plain wrong and false. Trust with readership now broken.
Misleading quote aside, I wonder if Yahoo has to regard Google as their number one competitor in the long term… The reality is that as cloud computing and web apps start to converge with traditional desktop only markets like productivity and basic computer operation, Yahoo will find itself more and more directly competing with Microsoft.
Of course Google is their current search competitor, but Microsoft created a operating system and productivity monopoly in their formative years by acquiring or reverse engineering any product that they felt belonged in their “domain”. Maybe to compete with that, we need a firm and friendly relationship between companies based on the internet.
Honestly, having Yahoo fight Google for my ad dollars is less important to me than having someone (anyone) in the online space powerful enough to match Microsoft’s lobbying and political machinations.
I’m going against all this yahoo bashing. Aren’t they #1 or at least #2 in web traffic generating monster in world. That is not a bad spot to be in.
I regularly checkout the movies.yahoo.com, flickr, delicous. They used to have the best blog reading homepage. Who doesn’t have yahoo as a backup email? Not everything has been a success , but the development cost is relatively little so why no try.
Michael Arrington: “I’m not a real journalist.”
While Arrington never actually said the words quoted above, the fact that he fabricated a quote for a story screamed “I’m not a real journalist.”
The content of the article is interesting, and TechCrunch overall is generally fairly insightful…. but man, kicking off an article with a completely fabricated quote? What a stupid thing to do.
Buried
As far as I can tell Yang is a lot more successful than Arrington. TechCrunch is on the rise, but will Arrington become a billionaire?
This is totally irrelevant, but wouldn’t it just be easier for Yahoo to just give in and get bought by Google? Then Microsoft would finally come spiraling down. I’m a full-fledged Google services user, but there are a few Yahoo-provided services I really like: Flickr, Facebook, Yahoo Q&A, etc.. (though I have NEVER used Yahoo Mail). This would ’save’ Yahoo in a sense, and Microsoft wouldn’t buy over Facebook, let alone Yahoo.. [I'm not bashing either Yahoo or Microsoft; just expressing my opinions in an open manner.]
On this article though… the false quote thing.. no. =/
The point of this story is The gaping void between Yang and his shareholders. He does not have a coherent vision of how to make Yahoo count more than it does now.
I hope his sharholders string him up. We need a good no. 2 to play ball against Google. It’s not about beating Google. We just need good competition and consumer choices which a MS Yahoo could offer. As earlier said by Mike it could also be a great focus for a serious brand that Microsoft could pump resources into. Live and MSN are scattered brands, some of Microsoft’s stuff is better than Yahoo’s (Live Maps). That should be part of the new brand. And with the new brand they need to get out and be seen and heard.
I’m hearing lot’s of irrelevant stuff here! 1/. what has Arrington’s non billionaire status go to do with anything… 2/. Mike is biased to Google and MS! Sorry debs, but MS and Yahoo are enemies. You can’t be biased to both. Yahoo has let it’s share price drop because of how it performs and current market conditions. Weak share price means getting bought up by a bigger fish. This is the year of M&A’s. The Yahoo brand is pretty successful. I just think that Microsoft can use it (yeah USE) to get a proper foothold on the web. They need it bad… no matter what they are saying this month
Michael Arrington: “We’re Done”
That headline will be appropriate when Yahoo’s legal team come after you for libel.
This reminds me the Noam Chomsky v. The Guardian impasse with the alledgedly misplaced quotes on Chomsky’s opinions.
But unlike The Guardian debacle, I am afraid to say, Michael, the title kind of cheapens the whole article. I don’t know if I feel comfortable with being led to think Jerry said “we’re done” when in fact that is more your analysis of the guy’s body language, coupled with the analysis of “loose” sentences you mention he said.
I am sure that with a Law background, you wouldn’t write anything that could hook you up legally but thinking at this level, if you did, doesn’t supersede how far from legal technicalities a relationship of trust between writer/publication and readers is built.
I think it is cool you leave your personal notes, but they are still your perception and now that you used this direct marketing technique to call our attention it is really hard to trust that they are conveying anything else but your personal bias/interpretation in raw state.
I suppose you might have the unedited video so that we can settle the case?
Cheers!
Actually this seems to me more of a PR problem, so if a good PR spin falls in the forest and TechCrunch didn’t see it, did it really happen? Enron produced some really jolly, sharp thinking spokespeople and executives before everything fell through.
Sorry mate, as I said above, the direct marketing title really makes me doubt you got anything right here.
Low blow Michael… Your loyal readers await acknowledgment.
very good