homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.40.166
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: goodroi

Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues Forum

This 122 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 122 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 > >     
AOL Nears Major Deal With Google
engine




msg:1234580
 9:15 pm on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

Time Warner Inc. is negotiating exclusively with Google Inc. to broaden a lucrative advertising partnership with Time Warner's America Online unit, abruptly ending negotiations early Friday with Microsoft Corp., officials close to the negotiations said.


AOL Nears Major Deal With Google
[wap.oa.yahoo.com]

 

TypicalSurfer




msg:1234640
 7:10 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

What is 5% of AOL?

Someone bought air.

No one can say with certainty what percentage of Time Warner is AOL.

texasville




msg:1234641
 7:25 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

A good clue as to what aol is worth is history. aol has been nothing but a drain on time warner since day one. notice that it is no longer aol-time warner.
Time-warner dropped aol from it's name about 11 months ago. notice you don't get those little discs in the mail anymore.
I also am disappointed that msn isn't getting some of this pie. I would have liked to have gotten some placement which I don't get from google or aol.
However, it makes you wonder if Gates wasn't just playing with aol and google the whole time.

fashezee




msg:1234642
 7:33 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

AOL is poison. This is the start of Google's downfall.
You heard it here first folks!
(i just keep hearing the Beastie Boys song in the backround, "it's a SABOTAGE!")

GameMasterM




msg:1234643
 8:23 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Tradervic, MSFT to go after Y? I had the same thought last year and was laughed at, maybe rightfully. Not really a nutty thought from MS point of view but the people at Yahoo will never raise their hand for such a deal.
A point not discussed on this thread is info from the NYTimes this morning that indicates Google will SEO for AOL, and while not guaranteeing top positions this has to be implied to some extent. Is this a sellout to relevancy? No it's just a sellout, after all Google will be making sure the AOL sites comply. They will also place AOL sites on the search pages somewhere below AdWords on the right column effectively sending traffic away.
How long will sophistcated searchers put up with this?
Who here will click away from Google to AOL?
It looks like Google gave up way too much just to keep MS from that 9%.

joeduck




msg:1234644
 8:23 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google, which prides itself on the purity of its search results, agreed to give favored placement to content from AOL throughout its site, something it has never done before.

Yes you read it right Lorenzinho... and I'm simply amazed this is not the centerpiece of the discussion here. The implication is HUGE and NEGATIVE. MSN refused this part of the deal.

This quote is from a NYT story which clarified it to say they'd not change the algo but would provide tech support to help rise in ranks, but that's effectively the same as stacking the serps.

If the story is true, Google agreed to do insider SEO for AOL pages. Incredible.

King of all Sales




msg:1234645
 8:36 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

JKWilson 78-

You are wrong about MSN's apparent lack of focus. On the contrary, Bill Gates has stated that the purpose of the X-Box is to tie hardware, software and search together into one centralized location in the home - as in an entertainment center.

And as far as business goes, don't forget that a whole lot of people search from MSN while at the office, and that will only increase with the new operating system.

tradervic




msg:1234646
 1:26 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Gamemaster, for $60, Semel will be the first to walk and it'll be very hard to not present that deal to shareholders. If I was M, I would do it sooner rather than later to integrate Y into Vista.

Eurydice




msg:1234647
 1:33 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Google, which prides itself on the purity of its search results, agreed to give favored placement to content from AOL throughout its site, something it has never done before."

[nytimes.com...]

So what does that mean? AOL gets top ranking?

larryhatch




msg:1234648
 2:16 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

One B-B-Bi;lion United States Dollars or just a slice of AOL?
I can think of many many better ways to piss away a million bucks,
which says virtually nothing about 9 GIGAbucks.

My solution is to heavily delink and add to my content.

Maybe Mamma.com or Gigablast will go nuts. No fair spray painting muy white garage.

Maybe my gorgeous old French girlfriend will rise from the dead.

It is a well kown fact: 3 minutes before Xmas, trees Are sold for 25 cents per sucker.

Show up aat the very last minute.
Tell he Samoan that 'Larry' sent you.

Offer him/her a cocoanut, or maybe some
iron nails or whatever. Do not endanger
the trading vessel itself.

Best wishes

- Larry Hatch


tto night.

Maybe Google will get back some small fraction of its B-B-B-Billions of bucks.

Maybe all these cigarettes I smoke are dope. -Larry Hatch

oldpro




msg:1234649
 2:55 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

One B-B-Bi;lion United States Dollars or just a slice of AOL?

What is even more amazing to me is the millions of people that choose AOL as their internet provider.

What was the famous saying attributed to P.T. Barnum?

GrendelKhan TSU




msg:1234650
 7:02 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yes you read it right Lorenzinho... and I'm simply amazed this is not the centerpiece of the discussion here. The implication is HUGE and NEGATIVE. MSN refused this part of the deal.

This quote is from a NYT story which clarified it to say they'd not change the algo but would provide tech support to help rise in ranks, but that's effectively the same as stacking the serps.

If the story is true, Google agreed to do insider SEO for AOL pages. Incredible.

I agree and also can't believe this isn't the centerpiece of discussion.

there has got to more to it.
cause that is just straightup incredible.

Freedom




msg:1234651
 10:00 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

This part of the deal is starting to get more press/blog/discussion groups/ attention and some quiet outrage and disbelief is building. It's hard to imagine MSN turning down the deal as "unethical" and Google snaps it up to "sell out".

An executive involved in the talks said Time Warner asked Microsoft to give AOL similar preferred placement in advertising and in its Web index and that Microsoft refused, calling the request unethical.

I'm quoting this from John Battelle's blog who quoted the NYT Update 2 article.

pixel_juice




msg:1234652
 11:16 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

If a user searches on Google for a topic for which AOL has content - like information about Madonna - there will be a special section on the bottom right corner of the search results page with links to AOL.com....

Google will also provide technical assistance so AOL can create Web pages that will appear more prominently in the search results list.
NYT [nytimes.com]

Ouch - not good at all, especially considering AOL's general reputation. Will be interesting to see if the general public pick up on this and what their reaction will be if so.

foxtunes




msg:1234653
 12:18 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Google, which prides itself on the purity of its search results, agreed to give favored placement to content from AOL throughout its site, something it has never done before."

If this is true, bad PR will be all over google like a cheap suit.

walkman




msg:1234654
 12:52 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

sitewide link to AOL from *.Google.com :).

oneguy




msg:1234655
 3:06 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

to the person who said that AOL has most of its content like messageboards, chats, etc internally.....not anymore...AOL has pushed all of that stuff to the public and now anyone can access it.

That was me, and I didn't realize that. I wonder if it's spiderable, or will be. It's been a looooooong time since I've seen an aol msg board.

Itagnc




msg:1234656
 3:28 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

The article says that Google has agreed to skew the organic results (AOL feeds perhaps?).

They've sold their soul on this one. The fact that there is an admission to skewing is huge.

I'm taking bets right now that G will place ads on the front page - just a matter of time.

fjpapaleo




msg:1234657
 4:05 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

<< Yes you read it right Lorenzinho... and I'm simply amazed this is not the centerpiece of the discussion here. The implication is HUGE and NEGATIVE. MSN refused this part of the deal.
This quote is from a NYT story which clarified it to say they'd not change the algo but would provide tech support to help rise in ranks, but that's effectively the same as stacking the serps.

If the story is true, Google agreed to do insider SEO for AOL pages. Incredible. >>

Agreed. This is outrageous. I thought we weren't suppose to try and "game" the serps goog. Whatever happened to "build it for the user" yada yada yada...
And now they're going to use insiders with access to the algo to SEO AOL? Unbelievable.............
What's next, pop-up ads?

tradervic




msg:1234658
 4:05 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>I'm taking bets right now that G will place ads on the front page - just a matter of time.

For 1/3 of a billion a year? Who wouldn't?

NoLimits




msg:1234659
 4:17 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am shocked that this comes as a major surprise to a lot of you.

Google gave up ethics and any form of morals over a year ago.

If anyone was wondering what it would take to start a major shift in market share for search - this is it. The thing is, all of the other shady stuff that Google has been doing hasn't affected its PR too adversely because it hasn't been covered by mainstream media.

This deal WILL make mainstream media, and the public will be keen to the fact that Microsoft backed out of the deal because it REALLY IS UNETHICAL to provide insider information (if that is their intention) to AOL users so that they can rank higher than others... Geee GOOG - why don't we give them some extra weight as well.... and while you're at it - throw your weight around to get all AOL content a DMOZ listing - after all that is owned by AOL already.

Also... Google just sent a message to ALL Spammers - it reads:

Dear Spammer/MFA Extrodinare

We want to show you how to rank higher in our Search Engine - please inquire

I must be sinister... because I am now sitting here grinning at the fact that Google has finally faultered.

Steelbank




msg:1234660
 4:32 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

this is truely dissapointing to all of us here

BillyS




msg:1234661
 4:33 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google is really on the upswing and they are taking advantage of the situation. As previously mentioned, they are a one trick pony right now. There revenue stream is from Adwords.

Their stock is way over valued and they are taking advantage of this fact. Just as AOL did when it acquired TW in the first place. The sorry part here is they are using inflated dollars to buy inflated product (AOL).

It's really quite a shame, they are throwing money away at this point. They are completely diluting themselves with second rate investments. It's almost like their strategists are saying "this might work, so let's throw some money over there."

While there is no doubt some kind of loyalty with AOL users, I think those that have left (as I did years ago) did so for a reason. If Google thinks they can force feed its fans AOL content, they are making a big mistake. Perhaps the real deal is to provide the AOL network with AOL preferred content. To me this is the only way this deal makes sense.

You gotta beleive that the folks over at Microsoft felt this was a bad deal. Remember, they don't have the money to waste like Google does right now. They need to be more efficient in their dealings with others.

ronin




msg:1234662
 4:38 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm with grelmar. My guess is that this deal would be less to do with the AOL content network and more to do with AIM.

skunker




msg:1234663
 4:47 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Quick, how can we get our stuff linked up on AOL's content?

walkman




msg:1234664
 4:50 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> You gotta beleive that the folks over at Microsoft felt this was a bad deal. Remember, they don't have the money to waste like Google does right now. They need to be more efficient in their dealings with others.

Microsoft has to be careful on how they spend money? MSFT adds at least $10 Billion a year to its stash [google.com...] and they love to spend it to crush competitors, so I'm puzzled as to why they didn't jump in this. Something else must have been the deal breaker.

zomega42




msg:1234665
 4:57 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I might be wrong here, but didn't the FCC or FTC or some such 3-letter organization issue guidelines years ago that require search engines to clearly separate ads from organic results?

It may have been just an "advisory", not a requirement, but I think in any case tweaking the serps for money is just a fancy name for advertising. If google really agreed to do that, I predict they'll be forced to back out by bad press.

europeforvisitors




msg:1234666
 5:55 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

This quote is from a NYT story which clarified it to say they'd not change the algo but would provide tech support to help rise in ranks, but that's effectively the same as stacking the serps.

They've been doing that all along at:

[google.com...]

Of course, many site owners and SEOs (including members of this forum) have chosen to ignore Google's free advice.

jkwilson78




msg:1234667
 6:08 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

JKWilson 78-
You are wrong about MSN's apparent lack of focus. On the contrary, Bill Gates has stated that the purpose of the X-Box is to tie hardware, software and search together into one centralized location in the home - as in an entertainment center.

This is a good point but I'm not sure I believe too much in the one box does everything dream anymore. It may well happen one day but the Xbox has been branded as a game machine. All the mania around the xbox 360 has my non gamer friends and family thinking how rediculous and silly it is to get excided over "just another game machine" but those graphics sure are sweet.

In regards to MSN, when I worked as a sys admin I always saw people using Yahoo more than MSN. Who knows :-)

I have to think Google didn't get to where they are by making stupid business decisions and probably have a longer term strategy for this move.

All specualtion at this point.

Funny how Microsoft is being defended. Goes to show no matter what you do if you get too big for people's tastes you are "evil" and make "dumb" decisions.

This will be fascinating to watch unfold.

fjpapaleo




msg:1234668
 6:22 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

EFV, you're so full of it. I love how the ones who get tons of free traffic because they were online before 2003 think Google can do no wrong.

The point is, they're "insiders" giving advice. A little different, don't you think?

Goog is just another prime example of a great idea brought on by two young kids who went public, sold out and let the corporate entities run it into the ground because they never understood what made it great in the first place.

I give 'em two years........tops.

europeforvisitors




msg:1234669
 6:49 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

The point is, they're "insiders" giving advice. A little different, don't you think?

Is it any worse than attending search conferences (such as Brett's) and giving advice to site owners and SEOs who can afford to attend? They've been doing that for quite a while, and I don't see any Webmaster World members complaining.

From Google's point of view, AOL's message boards (or whatever qualifies as "content" on AOL) may be an untapped mine of information that's potentially valuable to users. As long as Google merely helps AOL make its content more crawlable (as opposed to giving a boost to AOL content in organic search results), what's the big deal? And if Google wants to place clearly differentiated AOL content links on its SERPS (along with AdWords), so what? Doing so won't breach any "Chinese wall" between editorial content and advertising.

In any case, it's too early to know that the AOL deal means. The Chicken Little types who cluck over NY TIMES stories need to remember that the mainstream news media hade a poor record of accuracy in writing about search (or the Web in general), and that quotes from Google's competitors are likely to be carefully planted misinformation. (After all, badmouthing one's competitors is a longstanding tradition, especially in the U.S. where business behavior tends to be modeled more on football or hockey than on a Montessori kindgergarten.)

tradervic




msg:1234670
 7:32 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Another thing is, if you just lost AOL to Google, what would you say if you were Microsoft? They beat us fair and square? Yes, we have umpteen billion dollars and we chose not to give AOL 1? No, you'll say they were pushed to do something "unethical". Believe me, Microsoft would have done whatever Google has agreed to do. Further, I don't believe Google will do anything "unethcial". This is just sour grapes crying over spilled milk. Microsoft screwed the pooch on this one, fair and square.

PS - It ain't signed sealed and delivered yet. Anything can happen and the fact that Time Warner has been using the press for negotiation simply means they put the story out there to get one last bid from Microsoft. I'm sure they are working on something as we speak.

This 122 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 122 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
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