The voluntary layoff program begins Dec. 4, a few days before the company spins off from Time Warner (TWX). If AOL doesn’t get enough volunteers, it will ax people on its own.

This is lousy news for employees, who are faced with a “jump now or wait to be pushed” decision, but it is designed to cheer investors: AOL says the cuts will drop its annual operating expenses by $300 million. Through the first nine months of this year, AOL’s operating expenses ran around $1.8 billion.

Meanwhile, AOL is looking to shed some parts of its business altogether. It has hired bankers to sell off its ICQ messaging service and is considering dumping MapQuest, among other assets.

Armstrong’s (expensive) goodwill gesture: He is giving up his 2009 bonus, which was to be at least $1.5 million. His explanation to employees: “As a member of our team and the person who takes accountability for the results of the company, I am making the decision to forego my 2009 bonus. That decision is a personal one and is not a sign for the future payout of the overall bonus plan for employees.”

Here’s the text of the company’s filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

On November 19, 2009, AOL Inc. (the “Company”) informed its employees of proposed restructuring activities as part of its continuing cost reduction initiatives aimed at aligning the Company’s organizational structure and costs with its strategy (the “Restructuring”). The Restructuring is conditioned upon the successful completion of the Company’s previously announced spin-off from Time Warner Inc. (the “Spin-off”), as well as the approval of the Company’s new Board of Directors that will begin service in connection with the Spin-off. It is anticipated that, if approved, the Restructuring will include the reduction of approximately a third of the Company’s current employee base, which will be conducted on a voluntary and involuntary basis. The goal of the Restructuring is to reduce ongoing annual operating costs by approximately $300 million. If the Restructuring is approved, the Company expects to incur restructuring charges of up to $200 million, substantially all of which is expected to be incurred from the date of the Spin-off through the first half of 2010.

Little by little, AOL is offering investors more and more details about what the company will look like after it spins off from Time Warner (TWX).

The problem: The more AOL discloses, the less attractive the company looks.

The most recent nuggets come from a preliminary prospectus Time Warner filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday. Some, but not all, of this has broken out in previous filings or earnings announcements. In any case, it helps to see it all in one place.

The big picture: AOL’s subscription service, which accounts for the “vast majority” of the company’s operating income, is withering away. But advertising revenue, which was supposed to replace that money, has been declining for nearly two years (see tables below; click to enlarge):

And here’s a closer look at the ad business and its recent performance:

The good news for AOL is that some of this is the result of self-inflicted wounds, and it’s possible to heal some of them. The company’s previous regime seemed to go out of its way to mismanage and dismantle the sales force, for example, and if new CEO Tim Armstrong can rebuild that team, he can make a bit of headway.

The flip side is that some of AOL’s woes may be well beyond Armstrong’s control. Money from a Google (GOOG) search deal, which provided a third of AOL’s $2.1 billion in ad revenue last year–and had been increasing up until this year–is now dropping off, too.

Google dollars fell by $42 million in the most recent quarter, representing more than half the $75 million drop in ad dollars from its AOL Media unit. And Google income fell by $90 million in the last nine months, representing about 40 percent of $197 million decline in that period.

AOL says some of the Google decline stems from its declining subscriber base, which brought down search query volume. The rest is due to lower revenue per search query–that is, Google has changed its algorithm in way that ends up punishing AOL. But Armstrong can’t do a whole lot about either of these variables.

He can try extracting more money from Google, whose search deal expires at the end of next year, or from Microsoft (MSFT), which is trying to gain share any way it can.

Earlier this year, Armstrong turned down a new deal from Google and now says he’ll deal with search after he gets other things in place. But the longer he waits, the less leverage he may have.

AOL shareholders will be paying Armstrong well to figure this out, though. His three-year deal pays him a base of $1 million a year, plus annual cash bonuses of up to $4 million. In addition, he’s getting $20 million worth of stock grants to make up for Google shares he left on the table when he resigned from his old employer. And he’ll get stock options worth as much as 1.5 percent of the company once the spinoff is complete.

That said, AOL will also be paying former AOL CEO Randy Falco, who got tossed out in March. Falco will continue to pull down a $1 million salary through 2010–and he’ll get $7.5 million in bonuses through then as well. Former AOL COO Ron Grant, meanwhile, will earn $750,000 a year, plus another $3.3 million in bonuses.

The funding is an “inside round”–only existing investors participated in the funding–which sometimes, but not always, raises a red flag. In this case, AppNexus says the funding is also an “up round”–its existing investors now think the start-up is worth more than they did the last time they bought in–but didn’t disclose a valuation.

There’s also a bit of fuzziness, still, about what exactly AppNexus does. The company says it provides a “gateway” to ad buyers who want access to ad exchanges like the ones operated by Google (GOOG) and Yahoo (YHOO)–Microsoft (MSFT) will launch its exchange next year–though many industry types think that AppNexus is itself an ad exchange.

The company certainly boasts lots of ad exchange bona fides. Co-founders Brian O’Kelley and Mike Nolet are both veterans of Right Media, the ad exchange Yahoo bought in 2007. And in September, the company brought on Michael Rubenstein, who had been running Google’s exchange.

Comcast did have reasonably good news to deliver this morning. It signed up more new customers than Wall Street expected, though it had to cut prices to do so. We’ll see if that mollifies investors, who really have been salty–look what’s happened to CMCSA shares since news of the GE (GE) transaction broke:

Since Comcast barely addressed the NBCU deal during its earnings call this morning, it had more time to tackle other topics. A recurring theme: How would increased Web video consumption affect the company?

The answer: No one knows, exactly.

On the one hand, there’s the threat that consumers will be less likely to pay for cable TV if they’re getting their shows over the Web, whether it’s through illegal streams or legitimate “over the top” services like the one Apple (AAPL) is trying to assemble.

That’s why Comcast CEO Brian Roberts described his company’s “authentication” efforts, which are in a beta test now but are scheduled to go nationwide next month, as an effort to make sure that people who consume Web video do so “in a way that secures the existing model.”

That is–he’d like them to keep paying Comcast for a TV subscription even though they’re watching shows online. Tough sell.

On the other hand, even if you stop paying for cable TV, you still have to pay someone to connect you to the Web, and it’s very likely that company will be Comcast. And if you’re not paying Comcast for TV, there’s a very good chance you’ll pay more for your Internet connection.

“I’ve been saying for a long time that I think video over the Internet is more friend than foe,” Roberts said this morning. Let’s see if Wall Street agrees.

The publisher said newspaper revenue dropped 20 percent in the third quarter, and print ads dropped by 28 percent; both of these numbers are worse than Q2, which saw revenue drop by 14 percent and print ads by 20 percent.

No relief from Web ads, either: Internet revenue dropped 18 percent, a decline from the nine percent drop in Q2. And online display ads, which had been more or less flat for the last few quarters, fell off a cliff, dropping 14 percent.

Don’t be duped by headlines reporting a drop in the newspaper division’s losses, by the way. That’s due to one-time accounting charges the previous year. If you look at operating revenue and expenses via a less formal, but more practical, lens, the results are very unpleasant: Losses increased by 55 percent (see summary below; click to enlarge).

Want more bad news? Okay: The company’s magazine group says revenue dropped 33 percent, driven by a staggering 48 percent drop in ad sales at Newsweek.

If you’re at, say, Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc. and want to whistle past the graveyard, you can try blaming the drop on the title’s unsuccessful overhaul. But I find it hard to believe that Newsweek’s woes don’t reflect a larger magazine malaise. We’ll see next week.

The good news, as always: The big difference between the Post and many other publishers is that its parent company doesn’t depend on print media. The company’ core education business, which is what has sustained it for many years, continues to do well.

Okay? Okay. Ben Leventhal, co-founder of the influential Eater blog, is headed to GE’s (GE) NBC Universal, where he’ll oversee “lifestyle content” for NBC’s growing local Web unit. More details here from Leventhal himself.

Eater is noteworthy because it’s a great read if you’re the kind of person who’s interested in an exit interview with former New York Times food critic Frank Bruni, conducted over a meal at Mario Batali’s Babbo. And also because it’s part of a larger network of blogs that Leventhal helped build up along with Lockhart Steele, one of the early architects of Nick Denton’s Gawker Media empire.

Steele says his sites, which encompass two other brands beyond Eater (real estate at Curbed, retail at Racked) and local sites in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, pull in a million uniques a month. Two years ago, he raised $1.5 million from a group of investors, including Denton, Spark Capital’s Mo Koyfman, real estate publisher Brad Inman and NetSuite (N) CEO Zach Nelson.

NBC, meanwhile, has been busily staffing up its network of local sites, which it overhauled earlier this year. The idea is to replace the lame extensions of its local stations’ lame newscasts with sites designed for people who actually use the Web–and to help the company break into the local Internet ad market that everyone wants a piece of but that no one has cracked yet.

That works out to less than $15,000 for each of the magazine’s 400+ employees.

That doesn’t exactly synch up with the reporting we’ve seen about the sale. BusinessWeek, among others, has pegged the sale price at somewhere between $2 million and $5 million, plus the assumption of liabilities, which could be tens of millions. Anyone with accounting expertise want to weigh in?

It’s possible that McGraw-Hill will discuss the sale during its earnings call this morning, though I wouldn’t bet on it: BusinessWeek is one of the company’s most visible brands, but it’s barely material to its business.

UPDATE: There was indeed a bit of discussion about the sale. The company confirmed the $5 million sale price, and said Bloomberg “will assume certain liabilities including our unfulfilled subscription liabilities”. I still don’t understand how it gets to the $9.3 million and $5.9 million numbers, but that’s mostly academic at this point.

How will McGraw-Hill fare without BusinessWeek? Pretty well, it seems. The company will lose around $100 million in revenue next year, but still end up saving $20 million to $25 million without having to foot the magazine’s bill, executives said.

That’s the core of Twitter’s pitch, of course, and it has helped the microblogging service raise $155 million, a $1 billion valuation, and forge partnerships with Google (GOOG) and Microsoft (MSFT). Not surprisingly, investors are looking to place money on related bets, from search engines that parse real-time data to location-based social networks with real-time updates, and even real-time photo-sharing sites.

The newest entrant: Hot Potato, a buzzy start-up that’s supposed to let users converse about a particular event, whether they’re attending it in person or watching from afar. When it’s up and running, that is. The five-man crew doesn’t have users or a product just yet.

But that hasn’t prevented the Brooklyn, N.Y-based company from raising about $1 million, sources say, in a round led by First Round Capital and RRE Ventures. A group of smaller investors, including Betaworks, the incubator that specializes in real-time companies, and Ron Conway, the angel investor best known for his Google bet, are also backing the company.

Hot Potato is led by Justin Shaffer, an eight-year veteran of Major League Baseball Advanced Media, pro baseball’s well-regarded Web unit. Shaffer has recruited three other MLB.com employees (one of whom subsequently left to get an MBA at MIT) to join him.

Shaffer wouldn’t comment about his funding round, but was willing to discuss his start-up’s general plans. They are finishing an iPhone app and plan to submit it to Apple (AAPL) in the next few weeks, he said, and will open their doors once that’s approved.

The big idea is an interesting one. People are already using Facebook and Twitter to converse about events in real time–think about Barack Obama’s inauguration, or Balloon Boy, or last night’s Yankees-Angels game.

Shaffer’s critique of those platforms, though is that “they break at scale–there’s no good way to filter the chatter so that  you, your friends, and a group of strangers with something relevant to say can all connect. Hot Potato, he says, will offer a “curated stream” in real time of all the data coming out of the event in real time. What we’re really focused on doing is bringing together the entire audience of an event, whether they’re at the event or watching at home.”

Business model? TBD, of course. But there are a couple of obvious ways to go. For instance, Shaffer thinks people who opt-in to a particular conversation–say, about an NFL game or a U2 concert–would be okay with seeing “in-stream” ads, as long as they were relevant.

But that’s a problem that’s best tackled once the service is up and running. We’ll check back then.

That’s the worrisome conclusion you can draw from Dan Roth’s excellent profile of Demand Media in the new issue of Wired. The piece is well-worth reading, but here’s the very short version: Demand has figured out how to generate a massive stream of low-cost stories designed to extract the maximum dollars from Google’s (GOOG) advertisers.

The company has plenty of competitors that do similar stuff–Associated Content, Mahalo, and About.com, owned by the New York Times (NYT)–but Demand’s secret sauce is an algorithm that helps it figure out the most valuable stories to assign, based on search terms and keyword prices. Which leads to stories like “Where can I donate a car in Dallas?”

Demand currently produces about 4,000 new stories a month, paying the freelancers who create them between $15 and $20 a piece. But CEO Richard Rosenblatt wants to up that to a million per year. At that point, Roth notes, “the payouts could easily hit $200 million a year, less than a third of what The New York Times shells out in wages and benefits to produce its roughly 5,000 articles a month.”

Which is why Demand is constantly floated as a potential acquisition candidate for the likes of Yahoo (YHOO), at price tags of $1.5 billion or more. Investors, who bid up Times stock a bit after the company announced plans to cut its newsroom headcount by eight percent, currently value the publisher at $1.3 billion.

All of that make you queasy? Then you’re going to hate reading paragraphs like this:

Here is the thing that Rosenblatt has since discovered: Online content is not worth very much. This may be a truism, but Rosenblatt has the hard, mathematical proof. It’s right there in black and white, in the Demand Media database–the lifetime value of every story, algorithmically derived, and very, very small. Most media companies are trying hard to increase those numbers, to boost the value of their online content until it matches the amount of money it costs to produce. But Rosenblatt thinks they have it exactly backward. Instead of trying to raise the market value of online content to match the cost of producing it–perhaps an impossible proposition–the secret is to cut costs until they match the market value.

I think there’s an equally worrisome story–worrisome, that is, from the admittedly self-interested perspective of content creators like me–about the pressure from advertisers, armed with their own technology, to push the value of online content down even further. But we’ll save that for later. One downer a day is plenty.

Want to know what the face of new media looks like? Here’s a 2008 interview Kara Swisher conducted with the preternaturally peppy Rosenblatt:

]]> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091020/rise-of-the-machines-why-demand-media-is-worth-more-than-the-new-york-times/feed/ 5 http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091016/nbc-cleans-up-its-act-for-comcast-earnings-up/ http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091016/nbc-cleans-up-its-act-for-comcast-earnings-up/#comments Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:27:57 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=12123 After a couple of miserable quarters, NBC Universal and Jeff Zucker finally have some good news to announce: Earnings actually increased in Q3, even though the entertainment conglomerate’s revenue kept dropping.

The numbers, via parent company GE’s (GE) release this morning: NBCU posted a $732 million operating profit, up 13 percent year over year, on revenue of $4 billion, which is down 20 percent. Important footnote: As GE explained during its earnings call, if you adjust NBCU’s performance for one-time gains, operating profit would actually be down nine percent.

Still, even that result is an improvement over previous quarters. So perhaps those numbers will cheer Comcast investors, who have been beating up the cable company ever since news of its talks to buy NBCU surfaced last month.

GE usually spends very little time discussing NBCU’s performance during its earnings calls, since investors are much more concerned with the rest of the company’s performance, and in particular, its troubled finance arm. But perhaps the pending Comcast (CMCSA) deal will change that this time around.

Some notes from the earnings call: GE CEO Jeff Immelt has joined the “recession is over” crowd, but only mentioned NBCU briefly during his opening statement. He says scatter pricing–ads that marketers buy during the TV season, as opposed to the spring “upfronts”–is “better.”

GE booked a $283 million one-time gain from the sale of some of its stake in the A&E cable channel. And it took charges on write-downs related to its stake in NDTV, its Indian TV investment, as well as the Weather Channel, which it bought alongside some private equity groups for $3.5 billion last year. But the company still ends up $89 million ahead in the one-time events column–the equivalent of a penny per share of earnings.

And as the company explains in the table below, if you take out the one-time gains, NBCU’s quarterly profit increase turns into a loss. This is a reverse of previous quarters, when the company told investors to ignore one-time losses that made horrible earnings look even worse.

More color on the scatter market: CFO Keith Sherin says Q4 pricing is up “double digits” for primetime TV spots, and more than 20 percent for cable TV.

Asked a vague question about the proposed NBCU deal, Immelt gave a vague answer, noting that while “NBCU is a great franchise that’s consistently delivered income growth and cash…we always evaluate our portfolio.” He then suggested that GE doesn’t need to sell NBCU, which is the right thing to say. “We just want to be ready for several scenarios….We don’t have a specific pronouncement, or a specific need for cash.”

Here’s GE’s broad-stroke description of NBCU’s quarter (click to enlarge):

]]> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091016/nbc-cleans-up-its-act-for-comcast-earnings-up/feed/ 0 http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091002/wall-street-to-comcast-no-nbc-for-us-thank-you-very-much/ http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091002/wall-street-to-comcast-no-nbc-for-us-thank-you-very-much/#comments Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:39:45 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=11683 Maybe this is why Comcast rushed to knock down a story that said it bought NBC Universal from GE (GE): It knew Wall Street would hate the idea.

As it is, now that investors and analysts have heard the more plausible deal–instead of buying NBCU for $35 billion, the cable giant kicks in up to $6 billion in cash, plus its cable networks, and gets 51 percent of NBCU–they’ve decided they hate that one, too.

Here’s the story in the graphic form (click chart to enlarge):

The Comcast-NBCU story broke after the market closed on Wednesday, in case that wasn’t clear. As I’m typing this, Comcast (CMCSA) is trading around $15.6 a share, down some seven percent since the talks became public.

Pull back a bit and you see that things could be much worse: As recently as March, Comcast was down below $12, and there wasn’t any multibillion dollar deal weighing down the shares then.

If anything, investors are much more forgiving to Comcast here than the professional chattering class of writers and analysts, who hate the deal. The conventional wisdom: Comcast’s dream of marrying cable programming with its cable service is misguided because media conglomerates like Time Warner (TWX) and News Corp (NWS) have already tried it and concluded that it didn’t work. If the Roberts family spends money on anything, they argue, it ought to be on shareholders, either via dividends or by buying back shares.

Here’s a sampling of today’s sentiments:

Pali Capital’s Rich Greenfield:

Comcast is trying to become a massive player in content…a move that investors should be frightened about, regardless of the initial “math” surrounding the transaction.

Barclays Capital Vijay Jayant:

Press reports of this potential transaction give credence to investor concerns that management has empire-building aspirations in general or that they may not believe enough in their own distribution business over the long term and therefore need to diversify their portfolio holdings…fundamentally, we believe that Comcast shareholders would be better served if the company were to invest in its own shares.

So if this is a trial balloon, you wouldn’t say it has been shot down completely. But it’s certainly sagging.

]]> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091002/wall-street-to-comcast-no-nbc-for-us-thank-you-very-much/feed/ 0 http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090925/early-twitter-backer-union-square-sits-this-one-out/ http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090925/early-twitter-backer-union-square-sits-this-one-out/#comments Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:56:05 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=11408 Twitter CEO Evan Williams thanked a long list of investors in his blog post today formally announcing his newest funding round. Not included: New York’s Union Square Ventures, which has been one of the messaging service’s most prominent backers, but which didn’t reinvest in the company this time.

Union Square was the lead investor in Twitter’s first funding round in July 2007, and participated in subsequent rounds in May 2008 and February of this year. In that last round, Union Square said it was re-upping “to maintain our ownership position.”

What happened this round?

Union Square partner Fred Wilson, who is a Twitter board member and a tireless Twitter advocate (and Twitterer) declined to comment. So I’ll hazard an Occam’s Razor guess: The $1 billion valuation that Twitter achieved in this round priced out Wilson’s fund.

If that’s the case, it’s a high-class problem to have. Union Square is a relatively small venture player (the two funds it manages have a total commitment of $281 million). It specializes in early-round investing in which the bets are comparatively low stakes–a few million dollars here and there. If things go well, those bets are enough to get the company to an exit–in the old days, that meant an IPO, these days, a sale to Microsoft (MSFT), Yahoo (YHOO) or Google (GOOG).

But as the valuations increase, so do the amounts a start-up’s investors need to pay to keep their ownership stake, which is why angels and other early investors usually drop away. A player Union Square’s size can play up to a point, but then has to step aside or it would end up with most of its portfolio invested in a single company.

In order to re-up at this level, Union Square would have needed to make a much larger bet than it is used to making, and perhaps more than it is able to make. The new round, which raised $100 million, is nearly twice as much as the $55 million Twitter had raised to date. Which means Union Square’s bet would likely have to double as well.

[Image credit: Steve Jurvetson]

]]> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090925/early-twitter-backer-union-square-sits-this-one-out/feed/ 2 http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090925/some-more-positive-murmurs-for-web-ads/ http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090925/some-more-positive-murmurs-for-web-ads/#comments Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:01:13 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=11392 More upbeat–but not too ecstatic–chatter about the state of the Internet advertising market this morning from Wall Street: Barclays Capital analyst Douglas Anmuth is raising his estimates for Google (GOOG), citing “improving macro conditions [and] a stronger ad market.”

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.”

]]> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090925/some-more-positive-murmurs-for-web-ads/feed/ 0 http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090924/good-news-t-rowe-price-twitter-users-really-really-love-ads/ http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090924/good-news-t-rowe-price-twitter-users-really-really-love-ads/#comments Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:38:25 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=11381 So now that Twitter has its $1 billion valuation (and another $100 million in cash, not the $50 million that I’d previously heard), how is the revenue-free company going to start making money?

The perennial, and obvious, solution is to incorporate ads into the service, but so far Twitter hasn’t tried it, except for very limited experiments.

The good news for Twitter and its investors is that the service’s user base is pretty receptive to advertising, in general terms, because it’s pretty receptive to just about everything on the Web.

So says research group Interpret LLC, which has a new study out today, conveniently enough. From the release:

Twitter users are twice as likely to review or rate products online (24% vs. 12%), visit company profiles (20% vs. 11%) and click on advertisements or sponsors (20% vs.9%) as those who only belong to traditional social networking websites like Facebook and MySpace. The data suggests that Twitter users uniquely demonstrate higher engagement with brands, not just with “tweets” they post.

These statistics are self-reported, and Interpret doesn’t say how big a sample its survey used, so take them with as much salt as you like. But they seem intuitively and directionally correct: Anyone willing to plug into the waves of information that Twitter pumps out is likely engaged all over the Web.

Note what the Interpret report doesn’t say: That Twitter users are eager to have ads inserted into the service itself.

Doesn’t matter. At some point, they’re unlikely to have a choice about that because it seems hard to imagine that Twitter can ever deliver on its investors’ sky-high expectations without generating some kind of money, somehow, from Madison avenue.

Which is exactly why Biz Stone and crew, who once made a point of expressing their derision for ads, now make a point of saying that ads may not be such a terrible thing, after all.

]]> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090924/good-news-t-rowe-price-twitter-users-really-really-love-ads/feed/ 3 http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090922/yahoos-bartz-microsoft-deal-was-very-clever/ http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090922/yahoos-bartz-microsoft-deal-was-very-clever/#comments Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:35:15 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=11225 Say this about Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz: She promised to answer any and all questions at a New York press conference today, and she delivered! The event, which was meant to highlight Yahoo’s new $100 million marketing campaign, went on for a good hour, and the Q&A covered a wide variety of topics (and a PG-rated F-bomb).

And when that finished, Bartz agreed to answer yet more questions. Video is below, but here’s a synopsis:

• Should press and investors really compare Yahoo (YHOO) to Time Warner’s (TWX) AOL unit? “We aspire higher than that.”
• Bartz explains and defends her Microsoft (MSFT) search deal yet again. Key point: “I never wanted a big upfront payment,” she says. “What I got was revenue, with my expenses covered. I think that’s actually very clever…cash doesn’t help me. But revenue helps me. Revenue without expenses really helps me.”
• Bartz says major Yahoo investors like Gordon Crawford support her tactics and strategy: “They’re fine. I meet with them a lot.”
• Yahoo is interested in M&A, but “nothing on an epic scale,” says Bartz. “Buying interesting sites and content so we can pull in users or smart people, always a great option for us.” Giant joint merger combinations? “That’s really hard. Small and medium-sized opportunities are really what make sense for us.”

]]> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090922/yahoos-bartz-microsoft-deal-was-very-clever/feed/ 0