This assertion comes from the analysts at Bernstein Research, who I think have been pretty levelheaded about this stuff over the past year or so. From the “stuff you probably already knew” file:

• The ad business is still declining–in the U.S., Web ads will be down three percent for 2009–but should start moving up again next year, when Bernstein thinks they’ll climb 7.6 percent. Remember that those numbers will be off a depressed base.
• Search is improving more quickly than display.
• Google’s (GOOG) grip on search isn’t weakening a bit–if Microsoft’s (MSFT) Bing push is having any effect, it’s at Yahoo’s (YHOO) expense.
• The mobile Web is going to be big, but not that big. Mobile ads may account for seven percent of U.S. Web spending in 2012.

Okay. Back to work.

The company’s organic growth–sales after netting out acquisitions and currency fluctuations–dropped 14.2 percent, just barely better than the 14.5 percent it posted the previous quarter.

That is “less sequential progress in the quarter than we hope to see,” CEO Michael Roth deadpanned. On the plus side, his agencies are having nice chats:

However, it’s fair to say that the tone of our conversations with clients concerning the economy is improving. However, we’ve not seen this yet converted to consistent commitments to new or existing projects. Therefore, it looks as if the pace of the recovery will be gradual and that significantly improving organic revenue performance for the whole of 2009 compared to the first nine months performance will be challenging.

In the end, Roth gave more or less the same report that we’ve seen most other places that aren’t in the search ad business dominated by Google (GOOG): He argued that “the worst is over,” but he thinks any significant improvement won’t show up until 2010.

Alas, that kind of muted hopefulness isn’t nearly enough to save any jobs during this fall’s media layoff season, which kicked off this week as my former employers at Forbes took an ax–yet again–to that company’s payroll. On the schedule: Cuts at the New York Times (NYT), Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc. and at Bloomberg’s newly acquired BusinessWeek.

Anmuth says his research shows an increase in pricing for Google’s search ads over the past few months, particularly in the battered retail and auto sectors. His note comes a couple days after Citigroup’s Mark Mahaney raised his Google estimates, citing a dramatic improvement from mid-August to mid-September.

Other Google bulls: Investors, who have been pushing up the company’s shares since March (they’re now hovering near the $500 mark again), and CEO Eric Schmidt, who declared this week that “it’s clear that the worst is behind us.”

The tempered enthusiasm isn’t limited to Google’s chances, by the way. Mahaney also had good things to say about Yahoo’s (YHOO) chances as the economy recovers. While Yahoo is handing over its search business to Microsoft (MSFT), Carol Bartz and crew still dominate the display ad business, and that should be picking up as well, he said.

It is worth noting that Yahoo executives themselves were more cautious this week when asked to describe market trends: At an Advertising Week press conference, Bartz brought out her “still bumping along the bottom” line, while EVP Hilary Schneider said ad sales had stabilized but that she “wouldn’t go so far as to say as we’re seeing a full recovery.”

Unless I’m told otherwise, I’m only going to do this once. But for the record, Yahoo is going with the following spelling for its new slogan: “It Starts With Y!ou.” I don’t think that’s going to fly with consumers or copy editors, but we’ll see.

Also undetermined: Whether there will be any news unveiled at Yahoo’s press conference to roll out said slogan. But I’ll be here for you just in case. And in the meantime, you can find glimpses of the coming campaign at the bottom of this post.

The event begins: Boilerplate intro remarks from Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Carol Bartz, followed by CMO Elisa Steele. Steele shows off a Venn diagram that shows the intersection of “my world” and “the world.” Yahoo, apparently, is that intersection. “That’s where the yodel is.”

Steele reminds us that this is Yahoo’s first global marketing campaign. That’s old hat for Microsoft (MSFT) and something Google (GOOG) has never done. Ad campaigns will roll out in 10 countries, branding campaign will be in all territories.

Steele runs through some imagery that will be used in campaign. Yahoo users, apparently, comprise many races and creeds. But all of them are buff and/or skinny. Unless they’re pregnant. A video ad, meanwhile features an upgraded yodel.

OK. Time for Q&A:

Onstage: Bartz; Steele; EVP Hilary Schneider; Tapan Bhat, SVP Integrated Consumer Experiences; Penny Baldwin, SVP Global Integrated Marketing and Brand Management.

What’s the budget for the campaign?

Steele: “Over $100 million.”

Status of ad market? Also, what won’t you sell?

Schneider: Starting to see a stabilization. “Wouldn’t go so far as to say as we’re seeing a full recovery.”

Bartz: We’re still “bumping along the bottom.” Regarding sales, she dodges/reframes the question, talking about “focus” instead. “We’re just revisiting everything.” Is there anything you won’t sell? “Of course.” But no specifics. Will improve photo, video, “much, much better email.”

Please talk about the launch of Google Ad Exchange and its threat to you.

Schneider: “The reality is that the display marketplace is fragmented.” Our exchange (Right Media) is biggest, but it’s intuitive that there will be other exchanges. “We welcome Google.”

Why do a relaunch at all? Are consumers actually unhappy, or is it just advertisers and press and investors carping?

Bartz: “Advertisers follow consumers” and we need to “build circulation.” By doing this approach, “we get really good micro-insights for our advertisers.” She doesn’t explain how this will happen, though.

Steele: “Consumers want more from online advertising.” They’re asking for it.

What about video plans?

Bartz: “Video snacks” are crucial to consumers and advertisers. “A big emphasis” inside Yahoo. A “big cornerstone of our strategy.”

How long will campaign run? How will you measure success?

Steele: It’s funded for 15 months, and I expect it will run longer than that. Vague answers about management.

Some chat about search, which formally debuts today.

Will there be product-specific ads?

Steele: Launch of the campaign in each market will start with brand, and over time you’ll see more product ads, as “people get familiar with Yahoo again.”

One more time: Is Zimbra being shopped?

Bartz: No comment. But “what I will tell you is that Zimbra technology is very, very important to our mail system, and that’s one of the prime reasons that Yahoo bought Zimbra when it did…[but] the technology is already integrated into our system.”

How is this campaign different than other campaigns? You’ve had a lot of campaigns in the last 15 years.

Steele: I haven’t been here in past, but I’ve reviewed every campaign that has been done and this is radically different because it’s more than a campaign. Carol and Carol’s staff are all behind the concept of “you.” Everyone’s on board. “If this was just a marketing campaign or a slogan, then we’ve really failed.”

Bartz: This should remind you of the past, actually. That’s not a bad thing. On search: Search has evolved from the “10 blue links” days. She views background of search much like an Intel (INTC) chip, which everyone uses. But Dell’s (DELL) experience with that chip is different than HP’s (HPQ) experience, etc. Yahoo is stable at 19 percent of search business because users are on Yahoo and they like Yahoo search. “Yahoo search is great. It’s not Bing, it’s Yahoo search….What’s most important is that we drive upstream and provide a great experience, even though the plumbing is down here.”

Do users really like to customize their search (premise behind overhauled homepage)?

Bhat: Core group of 15 percent of users really into customization. Most other people say they want that but aren’t willing to do the work. So we’re doing incremental customization on the homepage. “This will be something that keeps growing over time.”

Will you be integrating text-messaging and other short messaging services into the homepage?

Bhat: Yes.

How is the antitrust scrutiny going (with regard to Microsoft search deal)?

Bartz: Just as we predicted. We stand by our original prediction that the deal will close early 2010.

Are we too obsessed about what’s new here?

Bartz: Yes. “People just decided to put a cloud over Yahoo’s head”…and decided that if we’re going to remove the cloud we had to show off something shiny and new. “If you get out of New York and Silicon Valley, everybody loves Yahoo.” I travel a lot and everyone loves it. “I just want to transport you guys out of this cynicism you’re in….Why are you so cynical? Why not be cynical about fricking Google? See…you got me…you got me pissed off.”

[Note. Some debate about whether Bartz used "fricking" instead of an actual curse. We'll go to tape later. Update: Apologies (and thanks to Business Insider's Nicholas Carlson, who shared his video with me). Bartz appears to have said "fricking" or "frigging" Google.]

[Sorry about interregnum there. Cursing got me wound up. Back to real-time.]

Where do you want to be in two years?

Bartz: Yahoo is the only site where you when you wake up in the morning and you want to know what’s going on everywhere about everything, you can find it one place. The company is unified around that spirit, “not about technology for technology’s sake, but about what that delivers.”

Why doesn’t Wall Street buy the Yahoo turnaround story even though Google has fared okay during this recession? 

Bartz: “Yahoo and Google are different companies. They are in different businesses…investors are somewhat like you guys, where they’re saying ‘let’s wait and see.’” About this direct comparison with Google: “We aren’t a comparable company. They aren’t us and we aren’t them.”

So whom would you like to be compared to?

Bartz: “Yahoo.” But the closest analog is AOL, actually. Google is a white page with a search box. We’re very personal. When you go to our page in India, it feels like India. Relevance is important. Personalization is important. That’s not Facebook’s strategy. That’s not Twitter. “Not to say we’re not part of the greater tech sector, and you’ve got to find some compares.” But Yahoo is unique. We’re doing okay with the world side; we have to work on the easy personalization that is the core of our product focus.

Please address the stock sale, Carol.

Bartz: “I didn’t sell anything.” I got restricted stock throughout the year; when it vests, it gets recorded as a sale. “I haven’t sold one penny of Yahoo stock. Thanks for asking, because it pissed me off when they said I sold. I wouldn’t do that.”

Q&A ends. More in a bit.

As per Google’s last report card, Wall Street is expecting the company’s revenue to decline from the previous quarter–unthinkable for Google (GOOG) in prior years, but now no longer a shock. But Wall Street will be looking for both numerical and qualitative hints that things are getting better, or at least have bottomed out.

The ever-helpful Mark Mahaney from Citigroup (C) has provided his usual “cheat sheet” to help interpret Google’s results (click to enlarge):

Marketers can buy Google ads instantaneously, without the haggling and lead time that traditional ads require. So conventional wisdom is that the company’s results will work as an early indicator for the general ad market and the greater economy.

But I talked to a search market exec last night who cautioned about reading too much into this afternoon’s results unless there’s a really big upside surprise. This is traditionally a slow quarter for search ads, he argues, so it will be hard to learn much from the results. The real key, he adds, will be the company’s Q3 numbers–if things are coming back, then Google’s September numbers will reflect that.

In the meantime, we can always hope that interrogators are able to get Google executives to provide them with meaningful answers on a wide range of topics, from the performance of Microsoft’s (MSFT) Bing search engine to the never-ending will-they-won’t-they talks with Yahoo (YHOO).

I’ll be covering the call live after the market close this afternoon; check back then for a link to a new post.

UPDATE: Results are in, and they’re okay. If you’re looking for a big vote of confidence in the ad market or the economy, this isn’t it. But it’s not bad, either.

Some of you might see this as bad news, but I’m in a lemonade-from-lemons mood and I’ve found an upside. You can’t plagiarize yourself, right?

Peter Kafka, MediaMemo/All Things Digital, April 14, 2009:

Media giant Zenith Optimedia says the ad market is in worse shape than it had previously suspected.

In the old days, this might have qualified as news. But for the past year or so, Zenith Optimedia, along with just about every other ad forecaster, has been revising its forecasts downward every couple of months as the reality of the financial meltdown sinks in. So it’s hard to get worked up about this stuff.

Peter Kafka, MediaMemo/All Things Digital, July 6, 2009:

Media giant Zenith Optimedia says the ad market is in worse shape than it had previously suspected.

In the old days, this might have qualified as news. But for the past year or so, Zenith Optimedia, along with just about every other ad forecaster, has been revising its forecasts downward every couple of months as the reality of the financial meltdown sinks in. So it’s hard to get worked up about this stuff.

See you in October!

After factoring out one-time charges and write-offs, Bob Iger and company earned 43 cents a share on revenue of $8.1 billion. Wall Street had been looking for 40 cents and $8.15 billion, respectively.

Iger: “We had a difficult second quarter due to the weak economy and other factors.”

The bright spot for the entertainment conglomerate is the same one you see at every media giant these days: Disney’s cable business. Revenue at ESPN and the Disney Channel was up four percent and operating income was up five percent. That’s because those powerhouse channels have locked in payments from cable operators that show up regardless of the economy’s state.

And that’s why you won’t see (much) programming from those channels on Hulu–there’s no way Iger is going to rile up the cable operators who pay for that programming by running it for free online.

Disney’s interactive group, which includes videogames and sites like Club Penguin, but not revenue from ABC.com and sales from Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes store, saw revenue decline 17 percent, and operating income drop two percent.

Here’s the breakdown by segment (click to enlarge):

Write-down watch: Disney took $203 million in “impairment charges”–accountant-speak for “the stuff we bought back then isn’t worth much now.” That includes “$108 million related to radio FCC licenses and $46 million related to an investment in an Indian media company.”

This follows on the heels of a lousy February quarter in which the company didn’t hit expectations.

Disney (DIS) is the first of several big media companies to report this week. News Corp. (NWS) weighs in tomorrow, followed by CBS (CBS) on Thursday.

The Disney earnings call is starting now. I’ll listen in and update as warranted.

Disney CFO Tom Staggs on ad market, economy: “While we believe the pace of decline has generally stabilized, we believe ad buyers and consumers remain cautious.”

During Q&A, Iger has a long monologue about online philosophy, Hulu, etc., but my Webcast cut him off before he was finished. Don’t know whether to blame Disney or Time Warner Cable (TWC) for that one….

In any event, here’s my paraphrase of what I could get down, with a smattering of quotes:

“We found that as we move product to the Web…at least [with regard to] piracy that we’re aware of, there’s been a stabilization….We feel that if we don’t put it online…it will be demanded by consumers, and they’ll find ways.”

Research on cannibalization and piracy in general is inconclusive and some research conflicts with other research we’ve seen. “Some of this is instinct, by the way. It’s not all based on research.”

We feel media consumption is moving to the Web and that media consumption may be expanding. We think we’re better being online than not being online. We realize that Web monetization doesn’t exist yet, at least not at TV-like levels, but we believe that eventually it will.

A lot of the consumption that we’re seeing is incremental because it’s a different demographic. The average age of consumers watching ABC.com and itunes is younger than the average age of those watching network TV. The Hulu demographic is generally younger than prime-time network demographics. So we don’t believe it’s cannibalization.

So says ad-tracking firm TNS Media Intelligence, which pegs the slump at 9.2 percent for the last three months of the year, compared to an overall drop of 4.1 percent for all of 2008.

I’m sure that someone, somewhere, will get some benefit from knowing exactly how terrible the ad market was several months ago–we also know, for the record, that ad sales were very bad during the first three months of 2009. But every media person I talk to is consumed with the state of the market right now–and what it might look like six months from now.

The good news: Some of the people I’ve talked to recently actually have good news to report. Or at least, good news as measured by the standards of  the “down six percent–or 20 percent–is the new flat” era.

For instance, execs at big Internet publishers tell me they think the decline in display ad spending may have bottomed out last quarter, which would bode well for restructuring efforts at wounded giants like Yahoo (YHOO) and Time Warner’s AOL (TWX).

Cable executives are even more bullish, and some of them, like Viacom (VIA) CEO Philippe Dauman, will even say so in public: “Signs over the last weeks have been encouraging,” he ventured during the company’s earnings call on Friday.

Let’s be clear: Viacom’s U.S. ad revenue dropped nine percent in the last quarter. So “encouraging signs” doesn’t mean “roaring growth.” And some moribund industries, like the magazine business, are still moribund (and broadcast TV’s day of reckoning is coming this month)

And even this faint optimism may be nothing more than delusion fueled by the stock market’s recent run or the hopes pegged to the notion that people have to start buying cars again, some day. Assuming the recession/depression lasts for another year or so, you can expect the ad market to really recover a good six months after that, since ads are a trailing indicator. But they do have to come back, some day. Right?

But for better or worse, none of that matters to investors, who are trying to figure out what the company’s long-term prospects look like. In the near term, they look terrible.

In the first three months of this year, the New York Times Company (NYT) lost $74.5 million, or 34 cents a share once you factor out one-time charges, on revenue of $609 million. That’s worse than Wall Street’s low expectations of a five-cent loss on revenue of $630.8 million.

The reason, of course, is that the ad market is miserable in general, and even more so for newspapers. The company’s ad revenue was down 27 percent, notably worse than the awful 17.6 percent decline the Times recorded in the last quarter of 2008.

And as in the last quarter, former bright spots like the Internet business have now gone dark as well: Internet revenue was down 5.6 percent, Internet ad sales declined 6.1 percent, and revenue at the Times’s About.com unit dropped 4.7 percent.

Expect more of the same for the second quarter of this year, warns CEO Janet Robinson: “At this time, and it is early in the quarter, we believe the rate of decline in ad revenues in the second quarter will be similar to that of the first.”

The Times has been trimming costs (via salary cuts and layoffs) and has bought itself a bit of breathing room by getting rid of its dividend, taking on a very expensive loan from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim and selling off assets like its Manhattan headquarters. It still has some moves it can make–it is trying to unload its stake in the Boston Red Sox and to find a buyer for the Boston Globe.

But at some point it’s going to have find a way to start selling more ads again. Because awards alone won’t save the paper–Pulitzers can’t even guarantee their winners’ continued employment.

The Times has stopped providing monthly revenue updates, but it has been pretty good about providing detail via its earnings calls. I’ll be on the road during today’s 11 a.m. call, but will check the transcript and get back to you later with the most interesting nuggets.

In the old days, this might have qualified as news. But for the past year or so, Zenith Optimedia, along with just about every other ad forecaster, has been revising its forecasts downward every couple of months as the reality of the financial meltdown sinks in. So it’s hard to get worked up about this stuff.

More stuff you pretty much knew already: Online advertising is doing better than traditional ads.

Citigroup (C) analyst Mark Mahaney summarizes his chat with the CEOs of PubMatic and the Rubicon Project, which help online publishers sell inventory through ad networks. Their takeaway is that while pricing for online display ads has dropped dramatically in the past couple quarters–by as much as 50 percent in some cases–overall spending should remain flat this year. And as we all know, that’s the new up.

If you’d like to see concrete numbers from the ad market, hang tight until Thursday, when we’ll get earnings reports from two companies at the opposite end of the media spectrum: Gannett (GCI) and Google (GOOG).

The latest: An announcement that advertisers who buy AdWords–Google’s main revenue engine–can now automatically buy mobile advertising, too. The company says AdWords buyers can choose to have their AdWords automatically show up on phones that support “real” Internet browsers like T-Mobile’s G1 phone and Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone. Here’s an example:

These ads will reach a relatively small slice of mobile phone users. But that population will increase rapidly, particularly if Apple really does start selling cut-price phones at Wal-Mart (WMT). Which means that Google (GOOG) really may be the first company to make inroads toward the supposedly-huge-but-so-far-mythical mobile ad market.

Release from Google’s Daniel Rubin:

Today, we’re announcing a new campaign-level option that allows you to extend the reach of your text and image ads to show your AdWords ads on the T-Mobile G1, the iPhone, and other mobile devices that have full (HTML) Internet browsers. This new option will now allow you to display your ads specifically on these devices, create exclusive campaigns for them, and get separate performance reporting. We hope this option will help you more effectively reach your audience with the right message at the right time.

G1 and iPhone ads have many of the same benefits as our standard mobile-format ads, such as allowing you to deliver mobile-specific calls-to-action and reaching your audience when they’re on the go. Showing ads on the G1 and iPhone also have additional advantages for your advertising. Users are performing a lot of searches on these devices, and searches are likely to go up during the holiday season. Last Christmas, the iPhone drove more traffic to Google.com worldwide than any other mobile platform.

Unlike standard mobile ads, you don’t need to format your ads for mobile phones to show your ads on the G1 and iPhone. Because the G1 and iPhone has full Internet browsers, you’ll be able to display your standard AdWords ads and landing pages on these devices without having to modify them.

With this new option, you’re opted-in to show ads on the G1 and iPhone, and you’re also eligible to show on additional devices that use full Internet browsers as these devices enter the market. If you want to change your settings to only show ads on G1s and iPhones or to not show ads on these devices, follow these steps.

If you’re running standard mobile ad formats, they won’t be affected, and they’ll continue to run on mobile phones with mobile (WAP) browsers.”

Huffpo’s newest round values the company at about $100 million, which means its investors think it will be worth much more one day. That’s the same value, more or less, that investors place on TheStreet (TSCM), even though it generated some $65 million last year and has about $80 million in cash on hand. McIntyre:

Huffington has several important advantages over TheStreet. For starters, it does not rely on one person for most of its traffic. If Jim Cramer left TSCM, the company would be in real trouble.

Second, Huffington has diversified beyond it political news base. Over the next year or so, it will become clear whether that was a good idea or not. Adding “style” and “entertainment” sections puts it into competition with a lot of other online success stories.

Third, Huffington aggregates a lot of content from around the web. The cost of doing this is remarkably low. The company pays little if anything to most of its bloggers. TheStreet has a relatively large staff and produces most of its own content.

The final difference between the two companies is probably the most telling. At its current rate of growth, which could be hurt by the end of the 2008 election process, Huffington may double in size again over the next year or so, if its efforts to diversify its content works.

It would be hard to find analysts who believe TSCM is going to expand its audience or revenue at a rate of 100%.”

I can think of some counter-arguments to this, but they’re half-hearted: TSCM’s affluent readers should be worth more to advertisers than Huffpo’s; TSCM still has a revenue stream from subscribers to buffet it from ad market turmoil; Huffpo’s aggregation model isn’t unique and could be replicated by anyone who wants to hire some devilishly clever Web editors, etc.

But better to acknowledge that the HuffPo crew have built something very big, very fast. And that anyone who does that gets rewarded for it, even in an econalypse.