Forum Moderators: bakedjake
AOL snatched up Google Inc. executive Tim Armstrong as its new chief executive Thursday, as the Time Warner Inc. unit seeks to revamp its Internet presence.AOL said in a statement that Armstrong, who helped build Google into an online advertising powerhouse, "is the right executive to move AOL into the next phase of its evolution."
"...Armstrong has been credited with pushing the Internet search giant to expand further into graphical display and online video advertising.
MarketWatch Story [marketwatch.com]
edit: adding a quote...
AOL and Google have been partners for years and I look forward to collaborating with [Time Warner CEO] Jeff Bewkes and his team as we explore the right structure and future for AOL
[edited by: JS_Harris at 9:33 am (utc) on Mar. 13, 2009]
after a few quarters, AOLs troubled past will be history and partnerships will open up.
...after a few quarters, AOLs troubled past will be history and partnerships will open up.
Do I sense some sarcasm there?
This looks like a friendly deal between G and AOL. Build up the corporate ties for something else down the road, maybe tighter integration of G's advertising products within AOL.
I also don't think that "sending" an executive to another company, is enough of an indicator that partnerships will occur in the future. By that same logic, we could speculate that G will partner with Facebook, since Sheryl Sandberg is now the COO.
No matter how we analyze it, we can agree that AOL is much better off with Tim.
No matter how we analyze it, we can agree that AOL is much better off with Tim.
Agreed. But, it Tim better off with AOL?
I talk a lot about branding and AOL is an interesting case study for me. (That's consultant talk that means, "I'm clueless here.") The AOL brand is certainly well-known, but well-known for what? It's rep with the general public is not good. My 80-year-old mother even makes jokes about AOL.
Yes, they have traffic I would kill to have. But, what's next? FYI: AOL is currently running ads on sites such as WSJ, but when I clicked on the ad, I just went to the site--there was no, "Here's what you should do here at the new AOL" that the ad suggested. This suggests that they are as clueless as me about their next step.
The big action from where I sit it going after niche audiences with major channel brands, i.e., "The New York Times Flower Gardening" web community. (They haven't done that, yet.)
which email would you trust more - an old aol.com or a hotmail.com address?
I can't remember a time when an AOL email address wasn't a joke. From the beginning, (very early 90s) AOL was the internet for people who didn't understand the internet. If you think otherwise, then you have a short memory. The tech journals have been ridiculing AOL for a very long time.
Oddly, that's not necessarily a bad thing. What other company out there has nearly 20 years experience flogging "internet lite" to people who don't really understand the tech their dealing with?
IMHO, AOL would be better off not trying to be innovative and cutting edge. They should work on being "comfortable and safe".
In this economy, "comfortable and safe" has a lot of brand power.
aim is like that underground networking weapon that can be powerful if put to good use.
While AOL is probably still Platform's A's biggest single site, the roll-up includes thousands of other sites, many of them pretty substantial, and it controls a big piece of the online ad pie.
It's hardly a secret that the old AOL is fading but Platform A -- which undoubtedly delivers a much better margin than the content/telecom-heavy AOL -- has the potential to be a real powerhouse if managed correctly.
As far as the comment about which email to trust more, let's just say if I were in charge of hiring, I would put more stock in applicants with an @gmail.com address than an @aol.com one.
Your email address says a lot about how tech-savvy you are.
