homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.72.86
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Yahoo / Yahoo Search Engine and Directory
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: martinibuster

Yahoo Search Engine and Directory Forum

This 85 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 85 ( 1 2 [3]     
Yahoo Capitulates - Gives Up Goal of Being #1 in Search
Brett_Tabke




msg:824060
 1:18 pm on Jan 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

Bloomberg News [seattlepi.nwsource.com] interview of Chief Financial Officer Susan Decker:

"We don't think it's reasonable to assume we're going to gain a lot of share from Google," Chief Financial Officer Susan Decker said in an interview. "It's not our goal to be No. 1 in Internet search. We would be very happy to maintain our market share."

 

BillyS




msg:824120
 1:01 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>That's a poor analogy because Pepsi and Coke are in the same business to a much greater degree than Yahoo and Google are.

The Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) manufactures, distributes and markets non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups, including fountain syrups, in the world.

PepsiCo, Inc. is a global snack and beverage company. It manufactures, markets and sells a variety of salty, convenient, sweet and grain-based snacks, carbonated and non-carbonated beverages, and foods.

The comment still stands. If I worked for Pepsi, I'd be upset.

[edited by: martinibuster at 4:30 pm (utc) on Jan. 25, 2006]
[edit reason] TOS #19 [/edit]

europeforvisitors




msg:824121
 1:57 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

BillyS, you have no idea why I responded to your post, so enough with the mindreading already. :-)

Back on topic: The Yahoo CFO's comment wasn't a big deal. Maybe it would have been better if she'd said something like "We don't feel that search is our core mission," or "We've never been a search company, but we're pleased that we now handle X% of the Web's searches in-house instead of outsourcing that task as we did until recently." But in the end, her comment isn't likely to have any more effect on the company's stock, profits, or employee morale than a remark made by Google's CFO just over a year ago in a talk on click fraud: "I think something has to be done about this really, really quickly, because I think, potentially, it threatens our business model." (For those who haven't been watching Google's earnings reports, the AdWords/AdSense program has been doing just fine since that swoon-inducing warning was delivered.)

TomWaits




msg:824122
 2:04 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yahoo needs to fire this woman. There are tens of millions of people who are laughing at them today. There's only 1 way to turn that around.

hutcheson




msg:824123
 2:12 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

>As a CFO she is responsible for helping to keep the stock's price as high as possible.

Wrong. In the U.S., she is responsible -- legally responsible, with criminal sanctions backing up that responsibility -- for giving accurate information about the state of the business, to all investors as well as the general public. Oxley-Sorbanes may have made a lot of executives more aware of that responsibility, but it has been there for years. The Enron, Worldcom, and Martha Stewart cases were prosecuted under per-OS laws.

randle




msg:824124
 2:29 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Algorithmic search has been nothing but a tin can tied to their tails. Every time they turn around someoneís yapping at them about how bad it is. They have never been able to move on from the mind set of having a hand edited directory, where every webmaster was absolutely scared to death to run afoul of them. The move to a true index, based on an algorithm, devoid of hand editing, is something they just have not been able to master, and they donít need to.

This person has simply stated the obvious, plain truth about the whole situation. People are still going to flock to Yahoo, and they will still be a total money making machine. They would probably love to just be able to ditch the whole thing and just go back to having the directory. The results would be a hell of a lot better thatís for sure.

Itís really not a big deal, and their position for pure search, relative to Google is definitely not news. Admitting it yes, but the fact has been, and remains so, and if you really think about it, trying to catch Google is just an unprofitable goal. I think the honesty is totally refreshing and they should get a lot of credit for it. If they put the money they keep investing in an algorithmic search engine, into other things, they would make more money, and the stock holders would be happier.

steveb




msg:824125
 3:27 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Some strange sentiments in this thread. When you folks do stuff like buy things for your business does being nothing short of #1 for everything make it a miserable failure? Buying Ink and the rest is just a thing a multi-faceted business does. It's like saying a restaurant is a failure because they introduce a new entree and it isn't as popular as another restaurants entree. All that matters is if the new entree adds value to the business.

If Yahoo were to sell all its search properties for twenty bucks, that would be a failure, but if search contributes a positive return in line with the investments made, there is no problem here from the corporate side. Of course as webmasters we can be disappointed that they don't work harder to make a better engine, but that is a whole different angle.

mcavic




msg:824126
 3:41 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

While I agree that Yahoo's statement conveys a bad attitude, there's a certain amount of truth to it. The fact is that it's very unlikely that Yahoo will catch up to Google as a search engine. Now that they've stopped trying to beat Google, they should have more energy to focus on improving their services.

And Yahoo does have many areas to improve on in their finance, chat, and YIM technologies. Unfortunately, those services aren't nearly as profitable as search, but they are services that I as a user would hate to lose.

I think that the idea of "improve what we have" is much better for Yahoo than "beat our way to the top".

Kirby




msg:824127
 4:03 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Drecker


may become a verb ..as in to "drecker" ones share price , company or employees efforts

Then she should familarize herself with the verb "Lerached".

followgreg




msg:824128
 6:07 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)


Finally something official the support my theories :)
Given the little IQ in their engine anyway they better forget it....given their latest updates it's better to confirm that they are not going to fight this battle since anyway IMO THEY CAN'T :)

blaze




msg:824129
 6:11 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

They could be preparing people for bad news.

Still, I'd say something like "Growing market share has been increasingly challenging"

Saying we can't do it .. that's like "we're just dumb and can not compete".

Essex_boy




msg:824130
 7:22 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

I just wish theyd drop that silly zany image.

Cant stand it

percentages




msg:824131
 7:38 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

>"We don't think it's reasonable to assume we're going to gain a lot of share from Google," Chief Financial Officer Susan Decker said in an interview.

Susan, You Are Fired!

What on earth are you thinking? And what on earth are your more senior members of Management thinking?

This is simply a total meltdown. I don't own any Yahoo shares, but I liked them. If I owned their stock it would have been sold already!

Can you Imagine Gates making this type of comment? Bill, I own a lot of your stock, don't do it! However, I really don't think you will make this kind of mistake!

I really don't know what to make of this! It is such a rookie error that either you have to believe that Yahoo is incompetantant or that their employee's are? Ain't good either way for a company that showed promise!

Rogi




msg:824132
 1:54 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

I see it as a strategical move.&#10;&#10;Yahoo announces that it can't catch google.&#10;Yahoo shares drop&#10;Wall Street expectations on Yahoo drop.&#10;&#10;Now the expectations are lower.&#10;&#10;Yahoo releases annual reports&#10;Yahoo profits up FAR BEYOND wall street expectations&#10;Yahoo shares soar to record highs&#10;Yahoo is back where it is today except with a lot more $$$ because of higher stock prices.&#10;&#10;Or then again... they might just be a realistic bunch of people and realise Google is too big to catch

Rogi




msg:824133
 1:56 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

ahh crap. Was writing html just now..... ended up writing it in my post :( I need to go sleep.

TinkyWinky




msg:824134
 2:17 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Haven't read through whole lot of this as going for a plane...

Could this allow MSN to 'perfect' (yes I agree a little way off) their algo and search and power Yahoo then?

I am pretty sure Yahoo would not go back to Google for results - as their's are pretty pony - they have to do something.

With their close collaboration on the IM side, the two teamed together may truely be a match for G. Alone - no chance right now!

Could prove food for thought.

goodroi




msg:824135
 2:43 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

I wonder if Tim or Jeremy will give their POV tonight on their radio show. Should be a good time to find out if this was a slip of the mouth that has been taken the wrong way or if it is the new official position of Yahoo. As usual - kudos to mfishy for a good point.

mfishy




msg:824136
 3:16 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Great example, except you picked the wrong company...

If you worked for Pepsi would you feel bad if your CFO said you had no plans on catching up with Coke's market share?

Nope. Right example. If Y! was "neck and neck" with G, this statement would have been horrific, but they are not.

AS steveb says, why do so many feel that becoming #1 in every area should be a companies goal? Why not be profitable and continue to grow in many areas?

To end the silly argument about the actual statement's significance on the stock market or the business as a whole it has NADA, ZILCH and ZERO - in fact i am putting my money where my mouth is..AGAIN, and reloading on this underpriced Co/

wildbest




msg:824137
 3:39 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>AS steveb says, why do so many feel that becoming #1 in every area should be a companies goal? Why not be profitable and continue to grow in many areas?<<<

Because (as already stated) you have spent billions to purchase prime search technologies as Inktome, AltaVista, AlltheWeb, Overture... to achieve the #1 goal. And now, just a couple of years later, you just say 'Ooops sorry, actually we have made a mistake buying all these search engines and their technologies'. Actually all these billions could have been spent by Yahoo do develop their core portal business and continue to use Google feed. Would have been far more beneficial to the shareholders!

The question is who is responsible for a wrong business decision in the past?

Kirby




msg:824138
 5:17 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Because (as already stated) you have spent billions to purchase prime search technologies as Inktome, AltaVista, AlltheWeb, Overture

They could have just kept Google and saved a ton. Maybe their accountants came up with this idea because they are planning to write of those billions as a bad investment. Nah. It was just plain stupid.

steveb




msg:824139
 9:57 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

"Because (as already stated) you have spent billions to purchase prime search technologies as Inktome, AltaVista, AlltheWeb, Overture... to achieve the #1 goal."

That statement is just wrong.

Mercedes spends millions on ads and various stuff, but they aren't the #1 car maker, and they aren't trying to be. Should they just go off and die now?

It's such a silly idea. Yahoo bought a bunch of stuff. All they have to do is get a ROI for the acquisitons. They don't have to be first. They don't even have to be tenth as long as the acquisition makes finacial sense. The priority is not to be #1. The priority is to run a successful business in a sensible way.

Kirby




msg:824140
 6:35 am on Jan 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

>That statement is just wrong.

Only with regard to the dollars actually spent. Otherwise it is dead on! In fact, it was their stated goal when they bought INK:

Sunnyvale, CA -- Dec. 23, 2002 -- Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - News), a leading global Internet company, and Inktomi Corp. (Nasdaq:INKT - News) , a leading Web search provider, today announced they have signed a definitive agreement under which Yahoo! will acquire Inktomi for a purchase price of $1.65 per share in cash. The transaction reflects an aggregate purchase price of approximately $235 million, adjusted for Inktomi's expected cash balance net of debt, as of December 31, 2002.

"Yahoo!'s vast reach and its unmatched breadth and depth of services, combined with Inktomi's outstanding engineering expertise and leading search technology, will help us achieve our goal of providing users with the most comprehensive, relevant and highest quality search solutions on the Web," said Terry Semel, Yahoo! chairman and CEO. "The addition of Inktomi's search platform adds both control and flexibility to this important business, thus enhancing our ability to create new and more innovative search offerings for consumers and businesses."

"Since 1996, Inktomi's foundation has been the Web search business and we have grown it significantly with our core customers and new paid inclusion partners while focusing on extending and innovating our technology," said David Peterschmidt, Inktomi chairman and CEO. "Today's announcement matches our premier Web search technology and team with Yahoo!'s global reach and commitment to providing the best user experience on the Web, bringing us closer to achieving our mutual goal of making the Inktomi-Yahoo! search offering the standard bearer for searching on the Web."


steveb




msg:824141
 7:36 am on Jan 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Uh, no.

If someone would have said "we have given up on trying to make our search engine any good", then that would be something.

softwareengineer99




msg:824142
 10:04 pm on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

It just amazes me how Susan can say something like this and even more how Terry Semel can let this go.

You may be a loser, but there is no need to announce it like this.

F

alex_h




msg:824143
 10:26 pm on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Previously, BillyS wrote:
The Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) manufactures, distributes and markets non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups, including fountain syrups, in the world.

PepsiCo, Inc. is a global snack and beverage company. It manufactures, markets and sells a variety of salty, convenient, sweet and grain-based snacks, carbonated and non-carbonated beverages, and foods.

The comment still stands. If I worked for Pepsi, I'd be upset.

I guess that depends on whether you owned stock in your employer... Over the past 5 years, Coca Cola has lost 50% of their value: [finance.yahoo.com...]

On the other hand, PepsiCo has gown by 33% and is on a huge tear... [finance.yahoo.com...]

How did they do it? I was reading about it in either Money Magazine or Fortune this month (I keep them both in the bathroom...)... Pepsi has been rewarding investors by ACCEPTING being #2. While Coca Cola has focused on holding #1 in the soda game, Pepsi realized that the "cola wars" were over and they lost... but still had a nice, profitable business. They focused on snack foods, not soda, and the market shows a clear preference for Pepsi's strategy...

[finance.yahoo.com...]

At this point, Coke has a market cap of 98b and Pepsi has a market cap of 95b, not too shabby. I don't remember what happened with the spinoff of Yum (KFC, Pizza Hut, etc.) from Pepsi, but that has done even better and has another 14b of market cap.

GE under Jack Welch, considered the epitome of modern corporate governance has a strategy of being #1 or #2 in any industry. If they didn't have a strategy for maintaining one of those two positions, they looked for an exit... But GE is one of the world's largest companies, it takes a lot to reach their bottom line... niche markets don't cut it.

Alternatively, look at the automobile market. Would you rather be in the corporate trenches (not the union workers, at corporate) in General Motors or their puny #3 competitor Toyota... The former is constantly persuading the market that they aren't filing Ch. 11, the latter is minting money.

The goal is to earn a positive return for your shareholders in excess of the risk premium, while running your business well. The goal is not, BE #1. For example, Toyota could sell more cars at a loss like GM, that's one way to reach #1, but not the greatest way to maximize shareholder value.

It's about the bottom line, NOT the top line.

hitthedeck




msg:824144
 3:45 am on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

An exercise in the obvious.

Unlikely not pre-approved.

Dont blame her blame their product.

My memory is short are we at the second anniversary yet of Yahoo's own SE and Sitematch.

This 85 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 85 ( 1 2 [3]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Yahoo / Yahoo Search Engine and Directory
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved