Yahoo boss steps down, but what’s wrong with the company?
by Paul Wallis (Guest contributor/Digital Journalist)
Super un-competitive former Internet pioneer Yahoo is still in the cellar-dweller class after the ignominious departure of CEO Scott Thompson. Thompson’s departure may be just a further humiliation but it’s not the whole story. That’s much worse.
You have to wonder how much more embarrassment is possible. Thompson’s departure was based on a false claim of qualifications. The most basic review of any resume includes checking information. Apparently the world’s former top search engine couldn’t or wouldn’t check that information.Yahoo’s saga of irrelevance started with the rise of Google, but Google wasn’t the problem. It was Yahoo’s culture.
Yahoo’s stock price since 1996 is a rather graphic illustration of what happens when a major internet company becomes a minor. The price peaked at $120 in the midst of the tech bubble and is now staggering along at a truly sad $15.19.The fact is that Yahoo has been cutting its own throat by every means possible. Not only could it not make any impression on the Google juggernaut, it couldn’t even hold up its own individual performance. The “Google generation” since may not even know it exists.
Yahoo’s market share, in fact, barely goes above the unavoidable Bing, which was added on to Windows and does almost nothing as a search engine. Yahoo’s revenue has been hit by a market which uses Google as a verb and apparently uses Yahoo as a way of introducing themselves to consenting cattle at rodeos from what I’ve seen on the news.
Yahoo’s coma hasn’t necessarily been good for the Internet. Strong search competition might make searches a bit less ridiculous. It might make the internet a more efficient place. Who knows? It hasn’t happened.
So what’s wrong with Yahoo?
Theories, unkind and otherwise, abound: The corporate culture crashed and burned in the dot-com frenzy. Yahoo developed the fatal factions which often destroy companies and fragment market initiatives into “my little friend has an app” type ventures at absurd costs. The market killed Yahoo by default as Google’s price soared. Talent left and took the intellectual capital with it.
These are theories, but there’s definitely an unholy smell of some legitimacy in some of them. Why would a good tech company, and Yahoo definitely was one in its heyday, turn into a turkey which plucks itself?Yahoo’s big problems are:
1. Very low visibility in its core market.
2. No strong unique products.
3. No drivers for participation for consumers.
4. An apparent lack of ideas in all these areas.
These situations happen also to be the exact opposite of the case with Yahoo’s competitors. Yahoo is theoretically capable of matching Google in several areas, including having its own browser/cloud/etc., and it’s not doing any of these things. Why not?
The best thing that could happen to Yahoo is a new dynamic, however that’s achieved. A buyout is the most likely scenario. A miracle is the other. You can only downsize something that doesn’t work so far. After that, you need to get results.
The markets no longer expect much from Yahoo. It’s seen as a loser company, a company which lost its way and isn’t much of an option even for day traders. Until that changes, the question “What’s wrong with Yahoo?” is a valid one.One more thing, for what it’s worth: The points 1-4 are the full spectrum of a company which can’t win. Until Yahoo delivers on all points, it’s game over.
This article originally appeared on Digital Journal [Link]
Facebook testing new feature Highlight to let you pay to promote status updates to more friends
Social media giant Facebook is testing a new tool called Highlight, letting users pay a small fee to make sure their status updates reach more friends, it’s been reported by TechCrunch.
Highlight lets the average user, not Pages or businesses, select an “important post” and make sure friends see the update, the blog explains.
Highlighted posts could appear higher in the news feed, stay visible for longer, and display in front of more friends and subscribers. “However, they’re not colored differently to make them stand out. And to be clear, this is not like Twitter’s Promoted Tweets which is designed for businesses. Facebook Highlight is for the end-user.”
New Zealand is reportedly a testing ground for this new feature, which hasn’t been rolled out officially yet. Facebook wrote to TechCrunch: “We’re constantly testing new features across the site. This particular test is simply to gauge people’s interest in this method of sharing with their friends.”
A New Zealand report states “The trial appears to mark Facebook’s first attempt to make money from postings by regular users and comes as it is gearing up for a public listing which is expected to value the company at about US$90 billion.”
The experiment is playing with different fees for this feature, including a free option. A screenshot of the feature shows a screen asking for $1.80 US to use Highlight.
Judge rules ‘Like’ button not protected under First Amendment
by Leigh Goessl (Guest contributor/Digital Journalist)
A U.S. judge has recently ruled Facebook’s popular ‘Like’ button is not protected under the First Amendment as a form of expression.
The social integration of Facebook has changed the dynamics of society in many ways. From refining what a “friend” is, to privacy issues, its impact on social skills and almost everything in between, Facebook’s reach has had a profound effect on many key factors in life.
Now there is one more issue to add a new notch to the proverbial belt. This one is related to the social network giant’s popular “Like” button and how it fits into freedom of speech.
An interesting case has been transpiring in Norfolk, Va. Six employees are suing their former employer saying their First Amendment rights were violated. The group of people have been battling it out in court, saying they were fired over clicking Facebook’s “Like” button.
According to The Atlantic, the situation began in 2009 during an election season. The employees were working for the Hampton Sheriff’s office under B.J. Roberts, who was running for reelection at the time against opponent Jim Adams.
Roberts won the election, and he subsequently fired several employees after he allegedly saw his employees had hit the “Like” button on his opponent’s Facebook page.
For the firing, Roberts gave budgeting needs and poor performance as reasons, and also inferred the employees impacted “the harmony and efficiency of the office.”
The employees viewed it differently and took their issue to court, citing their First Amendment rights. On Apr. 24 a verdict was reached and it was found the rights of the former employees were not violated. U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson ruled that clicking “Like” on a Web page “does not amount to expressive speech,” reported the New York Daily News.
The reason was described as hitting a button is not the same thing as writing or typing out a statement, as a “Like” is not an expression as the other two forms of expression would be considered. Posting statements on Facebook have previously been ruled as protected under First Amendment, such as it was in the cases of Katherine Evans vs. Peter Bayer and NLRB vs. American Medical Response.
Several media reports note the “murky” area in this verdict and the case is likely to go to a higher court in an appeal. At least one of the attorneys said he would appeal.
Marcus Messner, a journalism and mass communications professor at Virginia Commonwealth University who specializes in social media, said, “Going to a candidate’s Facebook page and liking it in my view is a political statement. It’s not a very deep one, but you’re making a statement when you like a person’s Facebook page.”
Facebook, and other social media, have without a doubt impacted how people both communicate and express themselves, and as it evolves, many expressions are short and to the point. The “Like” button many people use in lieu of taking the time to create a post.
“It [the "Like" button] is for sure a thin statement, but it is clearly within what we do all the time as democratic citizens,” Don Herzog, a law professor at the University of Michigan said, reported the Daily News. “This is one of the ways we talk about politics in our society.”
Generally, aside from issues associated with constitutional law, the pace of technology moves progressively fast, and the law is not always as quick to adapt. Facebook’s highly-used “Like” button, however, is the latest in deliberations on exactly how forms of expression fit into the line of the law.
“It’s a somewhat odd decision that a Facebook “Like” is not protected speech,” Jeff Hermes, director of the Digital Media Law Project, Berkman Center for Internet & Society told MSNBC. “The judge was essentially devaluing the ‘Like’ as speech because of how simple it is to do.”
This article originally appeared in Digital Journal [Link]
Photo courtesy Flickr user sofiabudapest
Target to stop selling Kindle products
by Tylor Sweeney (Guest contributor/Digital Journalist)
Target today announced that it will be phasing out sales of Kindle products this spring due to a “conflict of interest.”
The Verge reported yesterday that Target was going to “stop carrying the line of products” due to “conflict of interest,” according to a source. According to an internal memo The Verge received, Target will be “removing Amazon hardware from its locations starting this month.” Certain Kindle accessories, according to The Verge, would continue to be sold, though sales of the core Kindle products would cease.
Today, Target confirmed that they will indeed be phasing out sales of Kindle devices, as well as other Amazon and Kindle branded products, in their retail stores:
Target continually evaluates its product assortment to deliver the best quality and prices for our guests. Target is phasing out Kindles and Amazon- and Kindle-branded products in the spring of 2012. We will continue to offer our guests a full assortment of ereaders and supporting accessories including the Nook.
A cursory search through Target’s online store reveals that the Kindle devices have already been removed, and Target’s Kindle branded page comes up empty, suggesting that Target has already instituted these changes on their online properties.
The source of the “conflict of interest” that The Verge reported on yesterday remains unclear, as Target made no mention of it today, but it is important to note that Apple and Target entered into a partnership in which Apple would open “mini-stores” inside some Target locations.
It is also important to note that Target’s statement affirms the retail chains commitment to other e-readers, specifically calling out the Nook by name.
This article was originally published on Digital Journal [Link]
Digital circulation for U.S. newspapers rose 63%
U.S. newspaper circulation struggled with only a tiny increase in March 2012, compared to a year earlier, but digital circulation surged by 63 percent, according to the latest figures from the the Audit Bureau of Circulations.
Digital circulation now accounts for 14.2 percent of newspapers’ total circulation mix, and note the term refers to tablet or smartphone apps, PDF replicas, metered or restricted-access websites, or e-reader editions. The figure in March 2011 was 8.66 percent.
Average daily circulation increased .68 percent, covering 628 papers.
The Grey Lady was one of the clear winners from this report. The New York Times enjoyed a 73 percent surge in circulation to 1.58 million, with digital readership of 807,026 overtaking print circulation of 779,731. The Times remained the top Sunday newspaper with total average circulation of just over two million, including more than 737,000 digital.
Coming out as one of the top losers, The Washington Post faced a 7.8 percent circulation decrease, a trend closely mirrored by the Detroit Free Press (6.27 percent decrease).
AFP writes, “US newspapers have been grappling with a steep drop in print advertising revenue, steadily declining circulation and the migration of readers to free news online. But more newspapers are developing models for paid online subscriptions or apps for tablets or phones.”