The latest in a string of downbeat declarations comes today, via Steve Ballmer’s visit to South Korea, where the Microsoft (MSFT) CEO warned that tech spending would take years to get back to its pre-recession peak. AP:

“The economy went through a set of changes on a global basis over the course of the last year which are, I think is fair to say, once in a lifetime,” Ballmer told a meeting of South Korean executives in Seoul.

Spending on information technology, which accounted for about half of capital expenditures in developed countries before the crisis, was unlikely to rebound fully because capital was more scarce these days, he said.

“While we will see growth, we will not see recovery,” Ballmer said.

Which is pretty much what he’s been saying for some time.

There’s at least one upside to this kind of relentless and sensible negativity, though: If you deliver any news that isn’t straight-up awful, people get ecstatic. As they did last month, when Microsoft posted a downbeat but better-than-expected earnings report (click on graph below to enlarge).

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):

Now we get to find out just how good Google’s (GOOG) growth story is. Read three different analyst reports and you’ll get three different descriptions of Wall Street’s “consensus” estimates for the search giant’s Q3 numbers, out this afternoon. But Thomson Reuters thinks the Street expects earnings of $5.42 per share on revenue of $4.24, so we’ll go with that.

Here’s a more detailed breakdown of expectations, courtesy of Bernstein Research’s Jeffrey Lindsay. Note that per above, his description of consensus differs from the one at Thomson Reuters (click to enlarge):

More broadly, Wall Street expects to hear that U.S. ad dollars picked up in the last quarter, that international markets have as well, and that margins have held up due to cost-cutting, because Eric Schmidt has been saying all of those things out loud in recent days. Schmidt has also continued to talk up YouTube’s prospects for profits, so expect to hear about that this afternoon as well.

For the record: Disney (DIS) says it always intended to move the company, which offers “bite-sized ideas for green living” via email and a Web site, from its corporate strategy group to its interactive division, which will happen later this year. At that point, “it will still continue in some form,” says spokesman Michelle Bergman.

That doesn’t sound good. Disney says it plans to conduct a review of the unit, so it’s not ready to answer some basic questions about the email newsletter company. Like: Are co-founders Heather Stephenson (who lives and works in San Francisco) and Jennifer Boulden (who until this summer lived and worked in Bozeman, Mont.; she’s now in Los Angeles, I’m told) staying on? Will Disney have to take a write-down on the property? Will there be layoffs? “It’s too early to say. I can’t tell you,” Bergman says.

Okay. But If I had to bet, I’d say at least some of the dozen-plus employees will be hitting the job market.

Disney paid a reported $20 million for the property a year and a half ago, and the plan was to create a big green-centered business around it, but that hasn’t panned out, sources said. The company, founded in 2005, is one of the many lifestyle newsletter businesses backed by Bob Pittman’s Pilot Group.

Comcast (CMCSA) bought DailyCandy, the best known of Pittman’s stable, for $125 million a little more than a year ago. That was surely one of the last “pre-Lehman” Web 2.0 M&A deals, but grunts and murmurs out of Philadelphia and Pilot indicate the business has held up during the recession. And Thrillist, a “DailyCandy for dudes” effort that has yet to sell, seems to be booming.

Instead, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said today, you ought to be happy to work at Google…because it’s Google. In that sense, Schmidt said, the recession of the past year has been good for the company since it has highlighted the difference between working at his company and other options–including not working at all.

Schmidt’s comments came during a press conference he and Sergey Brin held today, which was wide-ranging and went down several interesting avenues. I’m reproducing a long chunk of it here from my recording of the chat, because I think it addresses one of the core challenges Google (GOOG) has: How to keep the innovative energy and intelligence the company had from its garage start-up days now that it’s a 20,000-person monster.

Google has been grappling with this for quite some time, but the challenge became more evident in the last year or so as the company began cutting back on perks like free food and low-cost child care, and even made its first-ever layoffs. (The photo at the top of this post is from the 2008 version of the company’s annual “Google Dance,” which was canceled this year).

Those moves were made in response to the economy, but they also did double duty by helping the company “reset the culture,” Brin said.

The exchange kicked off when a reporter asked the duo about a sense of entitlement among Google staff, in reference to a passage in Ken Auletta’s new book about the company.

Brin: I do think there was a period of time where the culture, as it were, was misinterpreted. I certainly remember when we would start, when there were a  few of us working in the garage, and occasionally [co-founder] Larry [Page] would rollerblade in with a few sandwiches for food. And that grew up into everybody’s expectation: “Oh, they should have all the gourmet food they want, at any time.”

I think it’s important to reset the culture from time to time. And I think several years ago we did that. Clearly, people had extrapolated from our past practices what the vision might be. And having actually been there, and knowing the rationale…we decided to, for example, we significantly cut down all the snacks that had been available. [laughter]

[The question is reframed: Isn't the real perk at Google supposed to be stock options, and aren't those much less valuable, now that the company's go-go growth days are over?]

Brin: Well, I don’t know. it depends on where in the graph you look. Certainly it has fluctuated ever since we’ve gone public. Up and down, so…

Schmidt: Let’s say this: It is axiomatic that the best thing to do is to found a multibillion-dollar corporation with free stock, take it public and have the difference between zero and the stock price….That would be the maximum gain possible. For most people, they don’t have the wherewithal and the skills to do that.

Brin: Or the luck.

Schmidt: And luck. Yes, I suppose. In your case, I think, skill and brilliance. People make decisions….The way to state this is that Google pays very well. Google is clearly a growth company, by any metric. And people at Google don’t work for those reasons at Google. We don’t want them to come to Google for those reasons. We want them to come to Google to change the world.

Life is short. And everybody here understands that. Life is short; you should work on the things that are most important. If you want to work on what Google is working on–cloud computing, search, all the things that we talk about all the time–then come to Google and we will pay you well.

That works. We don’t want a different workforce than the one that I just described.

And I would also answer the entitlement question, as I understood your question, as to say that the last year has been very good at solving that problem.

The tightening that [CFO] Patrick [Pichette] in particular did, who I think is the current Google hero, really did change the culture in a much more pragmatic way: “We’re happy to work here. We’re happy to be employed. We love what we’re doing. Our friends, you know, have been laid off.” It’s been a maturing process. And I think a generally good one.

[Image credit: permanently scatterbrained]

That’s because the league’s blackout rule, which shuts off local broadcasts if the home team can’t sell out its stadium, may end up affecting about 20 percent of this fall’s games for fans in up to a dozen cities. No idea why NFL teams thought it was a good idea to raise prices during a recession, but they have. Team Marketing Report says prices jumped four percent, to an average of $75 a head this year, and the consequences have been obvious: Lots of unsold seats.

This week, the NFL announced that fans in blacked-out cities would be able to watch the games online–after midnight on game day after the game ends. So that’s a nonsolution.

My question: How many people who can’t watch their teams on their big-screen TVs will turn to pirate sites, torrents and the likes of Ustream to get their fixes?

All of the above are pretty good options if you have the time and inclination to find something that’s already aired on TV. But you’ve got to be a real devotee to put up with the technical hassle, crummy images, etc., that you get if you’re trying to watch something in real time. Then again, lots of people really, really like football in this country.

The big picture here is that major sports leagues and events are supposed to be the most impervious to the disruptive power of technology like the Web and the DVR. Which is why they command such huge premiums from the TV guys–they’ll pay the NFL alone $11.6 billion between 2008 and 2011.

But what happens when people have absolutely no choice but to use the Internet, no matter how unsatisfying that is? We may find out.

My humble suggestion for Web surfers with gridiron itch to scratch: If you haven’t seen it recently, or at all, go find North Dallas Forty, which remains the best football movie ever made.

The answer shouldn’t be a surprise, but somehow the performance Gamestop reported this morning managed to catch Wall Street off guard anyway.

The company’s revenue of $1.74 billion was in line with estimates, but earnings of 23 cents a share missed consensus by five cents. More worrisome is that the company had to knock down its guidance for the rest of the year and says that comparable store sales will be down between four percent and eight percent through 2009. Now Gamestop (GME) shares are trading down five percent in a flat market.

Did I mention that this shouldn’t be a surprise? Game sales, once thought to be immune to the recession, have been slumping for months. Turns out that a tough economy may indeed prompt more gamers to huddle in the basement in front of their Xboxes, but it won’t prompt them to buy new games (used ones may be a different story).

Gamestop says it’s still optimistic that coming games, like yet another Call of Duty sequel from Activision (ATVI) and yet another version of Halo from Microsoft/Bungie (MSFT), will help perk things up. But I’m interested to note that the company didn’t cite the new Beatles version of Rock Band, from Electronic Arts (ERTS) and Viacom’s (VIA) MTV as a catalyst.

By the way, for fantasists who persist in pretending that the Beatles are coming to iTunes at Apple’s (AAPL) event next month: Stop! It’s not true.

First item: Results from Bernstein’s “Ad Tracker” index that show the rate of decline slowing in the last quarter. Bernstein figures overall ad spending dropped by 16.5 percent in Q2, which is lousy, but it’s still better than the 19.5 percent drop we saw in Q1. (Click chart to enlarge)

Second item: Bernstein thinks online ads are also going to start improving. In the chart below, see how the online ad dollars plummet, then plateau? In this economy, flat-lining like that is progress.

Even better, Bernstein predicts that the chart will start moving up, if just a bit, for the rest of the year. The firm predicts that sales will drop a mere four percent in the current quarter and be flat in the fourth quarter.

Granted, those numbers are against horrible comps, since the economy tanked in the second half of last year. And they’re not going to help everyone equally; for instance, Google (GOOG) is likely to recapture search dollars before Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO) do. But progress is progress.

Top line for Google’s Q2 earnings: Net revenue of $4.07 billion and earnings of $5.36. The Street was looking for net revenue of $4.05 billion and earnings of $5.05.

CEO Eric Schmidt isn’t overly effusive: “Google had a very good quarter, especially given the continued macro-economic downturn. While most of the world’s largest economies shrank, Google’s year-over-year revenues were up 3%. These results highlight the enduring strength of our business model and our responsible efforts to manage expenses in a way that puts us in a good position for the economic upturn, when it occurs.”

Meanwhile paid-click growth was up 15 percent, and the company continues to clamp down on expenses: Google’s headcount actually shrank in the last three months, from 20,164 to 19,786 full-time employees.

I’ll be listening in on the call and occasionally updating here.

• Schmidt: “Youtube is now on a trajectory we’re very pleased with.”
• “Too early to tell when the recovery will materialize.”
• CFO Patrick Pichette: Still hiring, but decrease in headcount came from previously announced layoffs.
• Product SVP Jonathan Rosenberg: We’re focusing more than ever on power users.
• Mobile monetization picked up, driven by smart phones. YouTube’s monetized views have tripled in the last year.
• Sales boss Nikesh Arora: Small advertisers have stayed consistent during downturn, and larger advertisers who have been on sidelines are coming back.
• Schmidt on Chrome OS: We’re talking to manufacturers about designing “products that are very, very exciting.” Will Chrome run on existing hardware? Available for download? Still to be worked out.
• Was June soft? Schmidt: We generally don’t parse interquarter trends. On YouTube: Monetizing “billions of views” per months. [Nothing approaching real numbers or real context].
• Arora: “Significant sellthrough” in markets where Google has YouTube homepage for sale. Next phase of YouTube sales emphasis will be preroll ads on short-form videos.
• Arora on YouTube “trajectory” comment: We’re excited about getting pieces in place to drive this forward [i.e., not talking about numbers]. Customers accepting YouTube ads: “It’s becoming accepted user behavior where they’re going to watch premium content that people have invested in, they’re going to watch pre-roll ads.”
• Is YouTube profitable? Pichette: We don’t give out economics. But in the not-too-distant future, we see it being very profitable.

Here again, per Citigroup’s Mark Mahaney, is a crib sheet for interpreting the results (click to enlarge):

And here are the slides from Google’s investor presentation:

2009Q2_google_earnings_slides –

Spanfeller’s departure comes amid a flurry of bad news for finance publications. In April, Condé Nast pulled the plug on Portfolio, its business magazine and Web site, after a very expensive two-year run. Earlier this week, publisher McGraw-Hill (MHP) announced that it was shopping BusinessWeek, and observers are floating the notion that the company may end up giving the magazine away to anyone who wants to take on its annual losses.

Time Warner’s (TWX) Fortune magazine has also been battered by the recession, which has been particularly hard on the finance, auto and luxury-good companies that business publications have traditionally relied upon. And Forbes itself has gone through multiple rounds of layoffs since last fall.

In a memo to the company’s employees, Forbes CEO Steve Forbes praised Spanfeller for building out the company’s Web property, which says it receives 18 million unique visitors a month.In the aftermath of the dot.com crash, Spanfeller helped turn Forbes.com, which the family-owned company was close to shutting down, into a powerhouse.

But Forbes’s plan to take the Web property public earlier in the decade never panned out. And once Forbes sold a 40 percent stake to private equity investors Elevation Partners three years ago, plenty of Forbes employees, including me, had speculated that Spanfeller would look for a job that promised a big payout. That said, it wasn’t that long ago that Spanfeller was the victor in a power struggle with Jim Berrien, the former publisher of the Forbes print edition.

The news was first reported by AOL’s Daily Finance. Here’s the company memo from CEO Steve Forbes:

To: All Hands

From Steve Forbes

July 16, 2009

Jim Spanfeller, President and CEO of Forbes.com has decided to step down from leading our website after nine years. In the entrepreneurial spirit that Forbes has always championed, Jim will be setting up his own media management company.

Describing his future plans Jim said, “The world of media has changed rapidly in the past 10 years and the velocity of the change promises only to increase going forward. I’ve had a great run at Forbes and have been deeply involved in the breakthroughs and transformations between traditional and digital media.  Now I see a huge opportunity to have my own media management business that will help other traditional media companies make the most of their enormous prospects in digital venues, taking all I have learned here in the past decade and applying on a wider horizon. Forbes.com has truly been a truly wonderful ride and I am deeply in debt to the Forbes family for letting me be a part of it.”

Jim has done a monumental job of bringing Forbes.com to the lead position in business websites, and secured Forbes.com as the must visit site for not only global business leaders but also anyone interested in the finest business reporting and analysis available. At present Forbes.com has 18 million unique visitors a month.

Along the way, Jim has overseen the development and growth of Forbes Digital, which includes Forbes.com, ForbesTraveler.com, Investopedia.com, RealClearPolitics.com, RealClearMarkets.com, Real Clear Sports, and Forbes Business and Finance Blog Network, which together reach 40 million unique visitors a month.

This immense growth on the digital side of the business was spearheaded, pursed, and led by Jim with enormous success. The digital world is still uncharted with few rules, and Jim’s intellect, creativity, and business acumen helped bring us our number one position. For this the Forbes family is very grateful and we wish him all the success in his future plans.

Since Elevation Partners partnered with Forbes three years ago, Jim has worked very closely with them on the growth and development and vision for Forbes.com.  Commenting on Jim’s departure, Roger McNamee of Elevation said, “Jim did a fantastic job leading Forbes.com. In an era when competitors feared it, Jim embraced and evangelized the internet, with huge benefits to Forbes and its audiences. We are grateful for his contributions over the past nine years.”

Jim will be staying through a transition period at least through Labor Day. Please join me and my brothers in wishing Jim all the best in the future, which he deserves.

But that’s the transaction video-chat firm Paltalk and Softbank have completed. Paltalk, which sold off 20 percent of its equity to Softbank for $6 million in 2004, has bought the shares back. No one has spelled out a purchase price, but I’m told the deal will be considered a “single” for Softbank–it gets its capital back, plus a return, which in this economy ought to be a home run.

This is different from the “baby buybacks” we’re seeing as the economy sputters, in which founders reclaim all or part of their companies at distressed prices after their investors give up–think eBay (EBAY) and StumbleUpon (and perhaps Skype) or more recently, ManiaTV.

Paltalk can afford to buy its shares back because it’s an Internet video company that actually makes money, which it does via a “freemium” model. Most users can hop on the service for free, but about five percent pay for some extra features, like virtual conference rooms. People familiar with the company tell me it should be on track to throw off $4 million in cash this year from revenue of $20 million. It also has extra cash on hand these days as a result of a settlement it extracted from Microsoft (MSFT) in a patent lawsuit in March.

There are lots of Web companies–let alone Web video or Web chat companies–that would like those financials. But Paltalk is a steady grower, not a rocket ship. And while the company has supposedly gone down the road with potential acquirers in the past, it’s unlikely to get acquired at a huge premium.

So, it makes sense for Softbank to take money off the table; I’m told Paltalk was its last open investment from an Internet fund it raised way back in 1999. Paltalk CEO Jason Katz says he now owns 80 percent of his company.

A U.S. recovery is likely to begin this autumn, the worst of the crisis has passed and it is “reasonable to be optimistic for 2010,” internet search giant Google’s chief executive Eric Schmidt said on Friday.

Speaking at the Cannes Lions advertising festival in southern France, Schmidt said U.S. jobless claims indicated “the beginning of the bottom.” “The rate of jobless claims is decreasing although the absolute number is increasing,” he explained.

Schmidt also acknowledged that Microsoft’s (MSFT) Bing search engine exists and that his company has looked at what Redmond has done, but refused to say the company was shaking in its boots. Seems reasonable enough.

I’ll add more from Schmidt’s appearance if I can find reports, but I’m not holding my breath. AdWeek’s Brian Morrisey, reporting from France via Twitter, says Schmidt gave even more restrained answers than he typically does at these things.

Mahaney’s argument is simple: 1) Media sales represent half of Amazon’s North American business and 2) They have been slowing consistently for a while. Here’s what the numbers look like (click to enlarge):

Why are media sales slowing down? Mahaney, an Amazon (AMZN) bull, throws out some ideas:

This may well be the most discretionary/recession-sensitive segment of Amazon. That surely explains part of the slowdown. But three other factors may be material. First, this segment includes Books, Music, and Videos (in addition to Video Game Software)–products that have had inherently slow overall retail growth over the last few years. Second, this segment includes products that are over-indexed in terms of Internet penetration. And third, this segment contains products that are being rapidly digitized–even the plain old book, thanks in part to the Kindle.

The last point is the most interesting one to chew on because Amazon bulls usually argue that the company is the best-positioned player to adapt to the digitization of media. And they’re probably right. But it sure does increase the pressure on the company to get it right, which will probably involve charging more for the digital music and books than it does now.

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?

Google (GOOG) has some 20,000 employees, so the scale of the sackings isn’t earth-shaking news. And these aren’t Google’s first cuts: In January the company got rid of 100 recruiters. In February it announced it could cut up to 40 jobs as it folded up its radio group.

But the fact that these cuts come from sales and marketing, which just lost its high-profile leader, Tim Armstrong, to Time Warner’s (TWX) AOL and replaced him with Google veteran Dennis Woodside, is interesting. As is SVP Omid Kordestani’s note explaining the cuts, in which he says Google simply made hiring mistakes as it grew its sales group.

Here’s the complete text of Kordestani’s post:

Google has grown very quickly in a very short period of time. When companies grow that quickly it’s almost impossible to get everything right–and we certainly didn’t. In some areas we’ve created overlapping organizations which not only duplicate effort but also complicate the decision-making process. That makes our teams less effective and efficient than they should be. In addition, we over-invested in some areas in preparation for the growth trends we were experiencing at the time.

So today we have informed Googlers that we plan to reduce the number of roles within our sales and marketing organizations by just under 200 globally. Making changes of this kind is never easy–and we recognize that the recession makes the timing even more difficult for the Googlers concerned. We did look at a number of different options but ultimately concluded that we had to restructure our organizations in order to improve our effectiveness and efficiency as a business. We will give each person time to try and find another position at Google, as well as outplacement support, and provide severance packages for those who leave the company. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone affected for all they have contributed to Google.