Skip to main content

Microsoft and Yahoo - bigger may not be better

I can't resist putting in my two cents on the Microsoft bid for Yahoo.

My take is that it helps neither company. Here's why.

Microsoft has assembled a huge Internet presence. They have done it in a very workman-like way.

They decided the web was important so they started, and eventually won, the browser wars. The misconception on Microsoft's part was that browsers were important when in actuality it was the Internet itself that was important. The ability to be a player that could take advantage of the Internet's reach, its content, its ability to extend communication and community globally turned out to be much more valuable than controlling the on-ramp to the web. The browser was another piece of desktop software, something Microsoft was very good at developing, but the browser meant little in terms of signaling that Microsoft really understood the web.

Content is king, or is it?

Since the browser wars Microsoft has determined that they needed to expand their web presence. They purchased and expanded Hotmail in order to establish a foothold in the free web-based email space. The success of Hotmail ensured a steady stream of users and eyeballs to Microsoft properties. As successful as Hotmail has been, it has not been a particularly innovative concept. The same with their instant messenger offering, something which was done first by AOL.

News and Finance are strong areas in Microsoft's content lineup. Once again, these are not innovations but a response to the success other sites, including Yahoo, have had with this kind of content. To Microsoft's credit, they have done a very good job crafting this content and have been rewarded with strong traffic and solid revenues.

And so it goes with online product after product. MSN.com offers all the same kinds of content Yahoo does including search, shopping, games, etc. In spite of the traffic numbers and billions in revenues, Microsoft still loses money on their Internet initiatives.

The similarities between the two company's web offerings are striking as are the similarities in investors' attitudes toward them. Both are perceived to be in a situation where they offer excellent content, generate huge amounts of traffic but fail to monetize the operations sufficiently. And both are widely considered to have missed the transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. It is looking like Microsoft's investment in Facebook came at the peak of the social networking phenomena. Recent reports suggest traffic to Facebook is beginning to fall off.

Why putting Yahoo and Microsoft together would improve this situation is a mystery to me. I just don't see where greater scale makes a $44B difference.

Fighting it out on the advertising front --

So it is clear that both companies are having trouble wringing profits out of their marquee web properties. Neither one does much with the subscription model so it all comes down to making money from advertising.

Here again we have similarities. Both offer search advertising but neither does it as well as Google. Google's AdWords platform is so simple to use that it leaves all others in the dust. It provides absolutely no impediment to small advertisers and offers large advertisers the scale they need. This ensures a tremendous amount of usage for the AdWords service. And Google has software superiority. Google's ad placement algorithms do a better job to ensure that relevant ads appear on search results pages and their search algorithms ensure that search results are deep and wide-ranging. Users trust Google to return the best search results; hence, Google's market leading performance in the search and search-advertising categories.

Microsoft and Yahoo have both tried to duplicate the success of Google's search-based advertising; however, neither has tried to do much of anything that can come close to competing with Google's AdSense network. Here is another multi-billion-dollar pillar of Google's advertising edifice. Google has enlisted hundreds of thousands of web site owners, large and small, to host ads via AdSense. Web publishers find this system simple and easy to use and it's free to join. It allows even the smallest niche players the ability to make a few cents or a few dollars from users clicking on ads. Those pennies and dollars add up and Google gets a cut from every click.

When it comes to banner ad placement, Yahoo is probably the leader but all three of the companies are beefing up their capabilities in this area by buying online advertising companies. Google bought DoubleClick, Microsoft bought aQuantive and Yahoo bought several players including BlueLithium, Overture and Right Media. All three are working to create sprawling ad networks that work across multiple properties, serve different kinds of marketing partners and bring to bear various methods of smart ad serving.

Conclusion --

What we see is a company having trouble monetizing its web properties (Microsoft) buying a company whose ability to monetize its web properties is eroding (Yahoo). $44.6 billion is a lot for Microsoft to spend essentially to acquire an ad network and duplicate its online offerings. The results will be bigger but they may not be better. What is needed is a visionary leader, something both company's seem to be lacking.

Disclosure: author has no position in MSFT or YHOO

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Brazil - in a bubble or on a roll?

A couple of years ago, no one recognized the real estate bubble even though it was under everyone's nose. Now, analysts and bloggers are seeing bubbles everywhere they look. One of them, they say is in Brazil whose Bovespa stock market index has doubled in the last 12 months. Does the bubble accusation hold water? I don't think so and here are 7 reasons why Brazil is by no means a bubble economy: Exports have held up over the past year thanks to demand from China for Brazil's soya exports and iron ore. This was helped by the the Brazilian government's drive to improve trade links with Asia and Africa. Export diversification, spurred by a more active trade policy and increased focus on "south-south" trade under current president Lula, helped mitigate the decline in demand from OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries A "sensible" economic framework has been in place since the 1990's. This has included inflation

Thursday Bounce: Trend Busters, Swing Signals and Trend Leaders for July 9, 2009

This is a quick post to announce that we have published Thursday's Trend Leaders, Swing Signals and Trend Busters at Alert HQ . All are based on daily data. Today we have the following: 72 Swing Signals -- A couple of days ago we had 35 signals, today we have twice as many. Happily, we now have 65 BUY signals, a mere 4 SELL Signals plus 3 Strong BUYs. Whoo-hoo! 56 Trend Leaders , all in strong up-trends according to Aroon, MACD and DMI. There are 18 new stocks that made today's list and 60 that fell off Tuesday's list. 48 Trend Busters of which 5 are BUY signals and 43 are SELL signals The view from Alert HQ -- Talk about mixed signals. If you look at our Swing Signals list you would think the market was in the middle of a big bounce. BUY signals are swamping the SELL signals and we even have a few Strong BUYs. Yes, there's a good sprinkling of tech stocks and tech ETFs but the distribution is pretty broad-based with a good number of different sectors represented, eve

Trade Radar gets another update

Some of our data sources changed again and it impacted our ability to load fundamental/financial data. In response, we are rolling out a new version of the software: 7.1.24 The data sourcing issues are fixed and some dead links in the Chart menu were removed. So whether you are a registered user or someone engaged in the free trial, head over to our update page and download the latest version. The update page is here:   https://tradingstockalerts.com/software/downloadpatch Contact us if you have questions or identify any new issues.