T-Error

Two entities square off in Canada.

Wal-Mart Canada Corp. is squaring off against a union — in cyberspace. According to a story on Dow Jones Newswire, the retailer filed an injunction against United Food and Commercial Workers union (UFCW) to try to stop them from using the domain name walmartworkerscanada.ca.

UFCW Canada national president Wayne Hanley said the injunction request is an assault on freedom of speech and its ability to communicate with Wal-Mart workers.

Maybe so, but UFCW apparently doesn’t have a problem using the same tactic to squash opposition. In 2005 the union lobbed a lawsuit at four former union members that left and formed a reform group. The reform group used the domain name ufcw.net for its cause, and the union prevailed in its fight.

© DomainNameWire.com 2009.

Review and rate domain name parking companies at Parking Judge.

Related posts:

1. Wal-Mart fights for domain names

View Original post

Share This

Help fix an improper redirect.

In a post earlier this month, several commentors pointed out that Wikipedia redirects the terms “Domainer” and “Domaining” to cybersquatter on its site. Although some of these people tried to remove the direct, it keeps popping back up.

The entry for “cybersquatter” on Wikipedia starts with:

Cybersquatting (also known as domain squatting), according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price.

This is an accurate description of cybersquatting, but not domaining.

It should come as no surprise that a site mostly controlled by self-righteous techies would try to pull this one. But getting it changed is difficult if you don’t understand the nuances of Wikipedia. A discourse has started (thanks to Max Menius) on the site to try to change it, and another Wikipedia user said that proof from reliable sources is required to show that domainer does not mean cybersquatter. In a common sense world, you’d turn that around and say “where’s the proof that they are the same”. But not on Wikipedia.

It looks like some proper advice has been provided on how to get this fixed. But if there are any Wikipedia experts out there, I’m sure your help would be welcome.

© DomainNameWire.com 2009.

Review and rate domain name parking companies at Parking Judge.

Related posts:

1. Wikipedia in Domain Name Spat
2. Any Wonder Why Domainers Get a Bad Name?
3. Microsoft Has Success Against Cybersquatters

View Original post

Share This

This weeks video is sponsored by inForum.in. With 3,100 members and almost 15,000 posts inForum is THE place to talk .in domain names.

Links:

T.R.A.F.F.I.C. Brooklyn Show - Price goes up after today!
RickLatona.com Submit your domains for Rick’s August 21st auction.
DomainNameWire.com Wikipedia says Domainers are Cybersquatters.

If you did not catch last week’s video episode you can check […]
View Original post

Share This

Adam Stetzer of HubShout discusses domaining and SEO, and how they fit together.

By Adam Stetzer, Ph.D.

[Editor’s note: It always amazes me how far apart the SEO and domainer worlds are. The two combined could have tremendous power. All traffic - whether type-in or organic - is valuable. Adam Stetzer, president and co-founder of SEO firm HubShout, explains the basics of SEO and how it can be applied to the domain industry.]

Guest-writing for DomainNameWire is a departure from my usual audience. Coming to the domainer world as an outsider, I like to think I can bring a fresh set of eyes and observations to those knee-deep in domain name parking. From what I’ve learned, the market for domain names has seen ups and downs. With the economy as a whole in a severe recession, the market for domain names is also currently soft. I’ve also learned that the majority of traffic for domainers comes from “type-in” traffic – a term that didn’t exist in my lexicon before Andrew educated me. It’s called “type-in” because people literally type it into the URL address window of their browser. I know, this is old hat for those reading this. But it’s sometimes refreshing to remember that information you may take for granted is completely foreign to those on the outside.

The current issue for domain name parkers is one of dropping ad revenues. Specifically, lower earnings-per-click and tighter rules from the large advertising companies (i.e., Google). Again, this is what I’ve gathered from the little research I’ve done. Intuitively, I would think another issue currently facing domainers is the finite number of words. The dictionary is only so-big. Really. First we ran out of single word .com domains. Now two-word phrases are becoming hard to find. Unless some the newer suffixes really take-off, I would think that domainers will hit an issue related to long names. I have a hard time believing that the type-in traffic is any good for a three-word domain name.

My trade is SEO. And of course, when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. So my first reaction is that domainers should be embracing SEO as the next-generation of domain name parking strategies to increase revenue. As I understand it, people who buy domain names as an investment tend to do so in bulk. They then hold these assets with the hopes of appreciation as well as some level of revenue for the years while they hold ownership. The parked domains I have visited usually have very simple content structures and are really not built for SEO. To me this seems like a huge missed opportunity.

A little history on SEO

In the late 1990’s, SEO was firmly in the charge of the technical crew. The clever webmaster soon learned that if they stuffed keywords in all the appropriate places on their sites, the search engines dutifully categorized their sites and sent free traffic. As in all free markets, an easy lunch doesn’t last long as new players are attracted to new revenue opportunities. As more and more websites were brought live on the Internet, the on-site SEO techniques were discounted by the major search engines due to heavy manipulation. Google, in particular, lead the charge to redefine the rules of SEO in pursuit of the highest-quality user-experience for their searchers. And this has been a game-changer.

In a similar fashion to the domain name parking industry, the scale of SEO has grown exponentially. There are currently between 45 and 80 million active domains on the Internet (depending on who you ask). There are approximately 250,000,000,000 (billion) links on the Internet. By now everyone within a stones throw of Internet marketing knows that links reign supreme as the core ingredient for good search engine rankings. Several high-profile SEO analytic shops have developed tools to help the search engine optimization community understand why certain sites rank better than others and which links are most helpful. There are copious websites that purport to offer you the secret to great rankings – some of them are even useful. Here are a couple bottom line conclusions about the evolution of SEO:

1) SEO is no longer a one-time event. The days of saying “my site is optimized” are over. SEO has earned a position in the ongoing marketing efforts of most major websites.

2) You are but a drop in the ocean. The scale of the Internet is so huge that the notion that a site can be put up and traffic will just appear from the search engines, even with great content, is fairly laughable.

3) Off-Site SEO is now as important as on-site SEO. While unique, end-user-focused content will always be king, even my lawnmower needs a prime before it will start. In this analogy, the content of my website is the fuel that will create the user-experience, but SEO is the prime that allows the entire mechanism to start by bringing traffic.

4) Link acquisition is a critical component of SEO. There is wide acceptance that the number and quality of the links to your website drive performance in the search engines.

How can SEO help Domain Name Parkers?

If you digest the current state of affairs for domain name parking and SEO, there seems to be a mutually beneficial marriage brewing. The domain name parkers are facing declining revenues and, I believe, will have to reconsider the content they put on their websites. The days of a single-page, adsense-heavy, pages are probably numbered. On the flip side, the SEO guys are out there trying to hustle as many links for their customers as humanly possible. They especially want links from sites that are related to their client’s business as these are much more powerful for search rankings. I know that I see the world through SEO-shaded glasses, but these two components seem to fit together wonderfully. The domain name parkers should think seriously about putting useful content on their sites and the SEO guys should start offering content to the parkers.

© DomainNameWire.com 2009.

Review and rate domain name parking companies at Parking Judge.

Related posts:

1. Develop Domains, Then Submit to Directories
2. The .Tel Search Engine Factor
3. Highlighterz: Helping to Kill Off Domain Parking One Click at a Time

View Original post

Share This

Google’s Marissa Mayer said the Yahoo-Microsoft search deal will not be good to industry competition. Specifically, she says that it will hamper innovation. But the Yahoo-Microsoft camp claimed that the recently announced search and advertising deal said other otherwise - that the deal will accelerate innovation, aside from generating efficiencies and create a stronger business than either company could create on their own.

But what will be the benefits of the Yahoo-Microsoft search and online advertising deal really to advertisers, web publishers, Yahoo and Microsoft, and most especially to us - consumers? Here’s a recap of the official documents released to the public outlining the benefits of the Yahoo-Microsoft Search Deal to consumers, advertisers, web publishers and to both companies.

For consumers, the search deal will:

• promote innovation that will generate better search experience for users, more innovation in search technologies, as well as more meaningful and relevant ads
• a more competitive alternative search that either company can offer if they were doing their search business on their own
• more transparency and choice when it comes to search engine practices including user privacy, security and other issues.

For advertisers, the search deal will”

• provide a single advertising platform that will give them more value for their ad spending; give users more relevant ads and drive more clicks and revenues
• provide a more competitive alternative to search advertising
• make search advertising more cost-effective in managing large-scale search advertising campaign

For web publishers, the search deal will:

• offer more competitive bids fo search syndication deals
• give more compelling advertising avenues to reach more users
• provide greate value and transparency

For Yahoo and Microsoft, the deal will:

• help them to more effectively monetize search investments; generate revenues for Yahoo from its search assets and Microsoft to wring greater efficiencies from its existing search business and generate increased revenue
• create more vibrant, competitive Internet ecosystem, again by providing more compelling and sustainable search alternative to Google.

Interestingly, the benefits outlined by the document was very clear in saying that the Yahoo-Microsoft search deal is aimed at offering  an “alternative” to users. Alternative having reference to Google’s dominance of the search and search advertising market.

Check out the SEO Tools guide at Search Engine Journal.

What the Yahoo-Microsoft Search Deal Means to Everyone

View Original post

Share This

Sachio Search is a new (still experimental) FireFox plugin that lets you add as many search engines to your FireFox context menus:

• Install the addon;
• Select any word on a page;
• Right-click and choose any search engine:

The best thing about the addon is that it is very customizable, so you can really play to your heart’s content. Access the tool options via its toolbar:

• Customize the shortcut to access the tool;
• Set the search results to open in a new tab;
• Add, Remove and Order the search engines;
• Append a shortcut for any search engine:

More tools and tips on combining several search engines as well as making your FireFox search friendly:

• How To Compare Results on Different Search Engines;
• 3 Tools to Combine Bing and Twitter Search Results;
• How to Combine Google Search with Twitter Search;
• Unified Search: Featured FireFox Addon for Search;
• 20+ Must-Have FireFox Search Plugins for SEOs.

The tool was reviewed under SEJ policy.

Check out the SEO Tools guide at Search Engine Journal.

SEO FireFox Plugin: Add Many Search Engines to Your Context Menu

View Original post

Share This

I’ll keep this short since you’re likely approaching Microsoft/Yahoo overload (if you haven’t heard about it yet you’re almost certainly here by mistake, but just in case learn more here, here, here, or pretty much anywhere on the Web), but the thing that struck me is that my knee jerk reaction to the deal as both a paid and natural search marketer was split:

• Happy About PPC
• Slightly Annoyed About SEO

There’s really very little debate about the positive impact of the deal on the lives of paid search practitioners:

• Less interaction with clumsy, frustrating interfaces (there is now at most one)
• Less of a problem for tool providers and in-house dev teams in programming against three APIs (this is a big one for WordStream, as we offer API access to AdWords and compatibility with adCenter and Yahoo!)
• Greater competition amongst paid search platforms will likely mean better ad targeting and more useful and sophisticated tools from both MicroHoo and Google

RKG has a nice summary that offers a similar sentiment. The tricky thing about the merger is the impact on SEO…

Why My Initial “SEO Reaction” Was Annoyance

It seems likely that Microsoft will gain some degree of search share. With additional resources and technology, a more than healthy budget, and an increased amount of data and market share, it seems unlikely to me that they won’t gobble up some degree of search share (as in: the combination of Yahoo!/Microsoft search percentage will be greater than it is currently).
The reason I find this troubling is that the Bing technology gaining ground may result in a significant enough jump in overall traffic that any thorough optimization process will require an SEO to take into account differences and quirks present in Bing’s algorithm. Things like:

• How the engines value different types of links - If Bing loves low quality, old links and Google hates them, that’s an issue.
• How the two engines filter content - What if overly aggressive anchor text is the way to rank in Bing, but a filter in Google?
• The impact of on-page factors – If SEO oriented title tags are a quality signal in Bing but links are dominant in the Google algo, you have an even more pronounced version of the old SEO vs. catchy title headline tight-rope to walk.
• Many, Many More – This is the point: search algorithms are COMPLEX, and that complexity increases by a multiple when you try to appease more than one algorithm.

For my money: PPC just got simpler, and SEO just got more complex. What do you think? Have you been balancing optimizing for the different types of relevance all along? Am I missing something? Is the paid search community (in being gleeful)? Comments welcome!

Tom Demers is the Director of Marketing at WordStream, a leading provider of keyword discovery and grouping software for PPC and SEO. To get in touch with Tom you can follow him on Twitter or read the WordStream Blog, where he is a frequent contributer.

Check out the SEO Tools guide at Search Engine Journal.

Why I’m Torn on the Bing Yahoo! Deal

View Original post

Share This

With the first step of the much publicized Yahoo-Microsoft search deal already taken, it’s now time to gather up various reactions coming from those who will in a way be affected by the deal. First on the list is of course Google.  And we now have some concrete statements coming from Google’s VP Marissa Mayer saying that the search deal my harm the competition in the search market as well as the consumers.Ms. Mayer’s argument was pretty simple - the deal practically reduces the three major players in the search market to just two.  This in effect will lessen search innovation leaving consumers and the whole search industry with limited choices.

“Everyone runs faster in a race where there are more people,” said Ms. Mayer.

She also added that several groups within Google are currently studying the probable impact of this deal not only to Google but for the whole web search industry.

Expect Google’s official reaction to the Microsoft-Yahoo search deal to come out anytime soon. It would be interesting how Google put its opposition to the deal and could perhaps boosts what trade regulators would say about the deal.

The Microsoft-Yahoo deal would take effect sometime in 2010. So Google has all the time to come up with something substantial that could  be a supporting document to what trade regulators will say about the deal.

Check out the SEO Tools guide at Search Engine Journal.

First Reaction from Google Camp - Search Deal is not Good

View Original post

Share This

Headlines can be powerful.  I think most marketers would agree that a strong headline can be both intriguing and enticing, and can help drive a surge in short term traffic.  However, I’m also sure that most SEO’s would question the long term impact of using creative headlines on their search engine rankings.  There are times I work with a client’s editorial staff to explain and clarify aspects of SEO, including the importance of keyword research, content optimization, the power of inbound links, etc.

It usually doesn’t take long before a shoe is thrown at my head from across the conference room.  That happens when I tell people that creative and clever headlines aren’t great for long-term sustained traffic from natural search.  If I’m lucky, the flying shoe is coming from someone with bad accuracy (or with small feet). 

Being an avid blogger, I completely understand the power of a great headline, however, the SEO in me knows how important search traffic is…  Most SEO’s, including myself, recommend creating descriptive titles based on keyword research.  For example, if you are writing about the features of Google Wave, you should make sure that the keywords Google, Wave, and Features are in the title, even though you could probably come up with several clever titles based on Wave.  For example, Surf the Google Wave, a Tsunami of Google Proportions, Hang 10 with Google Wave, etc.

The reason SEO’s recommend descriptive titles based on keyword research is because many have analyzed traffic across numerous sites and know how important optimized title tags are, which are often pulled from the title of the article or blog post.  I said “often” and not “always” and I’ll explain more about that later.  When natural search can sometimes be a majority of a site’s traffic, it’s hard to ignore optimizing content to attract longer-term, sustained traffic from organic search.  Sure, the clever headline can produce a spike in short term traffic, but it might not generate the long term effect that a well optimized title can.

My SEO Headline Test, Let’s Conduct Some Searches

Going back to the shoe throwing incident mentioned earlier, someone (usually the person championing SEO) calls off the bombardment long enough for me to start showing some examples.  Conducting searches and compiling results based on a client’s industry and focus typically provides some great data that’s hard to ignore.  As I’ve said in previous posts, I’m a big fan of backing your recommendations based on data and not opinion (unless you want to sit in a conference room debating all day).

I decided to conduct searches on several topics and see which pages rank highly in the SERPs.  Specifically, we’ll look at article or post titles to see how well optimized they are.  After which, we’ll reverse it and check the rankings of some posts that I know used clever headlines versus optimized titles (although I won’t show you the actual posts… I’m not here to point out editors who chose to use a creative headline.)  During the test, I checked Google, Yahoo, and Bing, but in order to keep this post manageable, I’ll include notes below from just Google.  In case you are wondering, I didn’t notice any major differences in Yahoo or Bing for the searches I conducted.

Quick disclaimer: There are obviously a number of factors that go into high search engine rankings and optimized title tags is just one of the factors.  Other factors, such as domain strength, on-page optimization, inbound links, anchor text, internal linking, etc. all influence rankings.  For this post, we’ll just focus on analyzing the titles of each article (and title tags). With that out of the way, let’s begin.

For each query, I will provide the number of listings in the top ten organic rankings (excluding blended news) that I believe have creative or clever headlines versus optimized titles.  And yes, “creative” is subjective, but I’m referring to a headline that’s catchy, amusing, funny, shocking, etc. that isn’t necessarily optimized for the keywords the editors would want to rank for.  Note, you might see slightly different results when testing these searches, as rankings are always changing.

iPhone 3GS Video

• The only two listings that didn’t have all three keywords in the title were from Apple!  But, those two listings were for a guided tour of the new iPhone and the technical specifications.
• The other seven organic listings all had the keywords in the title tag.
• The two video results in universal search contained target keywords in the title.
• The three blog posts listed in universal search also had the keywords in the title.
• None of the listings would be considered creative or clever.

Sotomayor Supreme Court Nomination

• All ten listings had at least two of the keywords in each title tag.  Most of the listings had all of them in the title.
• None of the headlines or titles would be considered clever or creative.

Facebook Privacy Settings Changes

• Eight of the top ten listings had the target keywords in the title.
• The two listings that weren’t perfectly optimized were from Facebook! (Similar to what I listed above for Apple.)
• None of the top listings had titles that would be considered creative or clever.

Michael Jackson Dead

• All eight of the organic listings had optimized headlines.
• None of the top listings used a creative or clever headline.
• Both video results showing in universal search had the keywords in the video title.
• The three blog posts listed in universal search also had the keywords in the title.

Google Wave Features

• Seven of the top ten listings had the keywords Google, wave, and features in the title.
• There were three listings in the top ten that were creatively written (although not too far off from being optimized).
• However, the three pages with less than optimized titles are all major players in covering online marketing and technology.

Obama Healthcare Reform Plan

• All ten listings contained target keywords in the title (and were at least partially optimized).
• The only title that wasn’t heavily optimized was for the official health reform website.  Go figure.
• Still, none of the top listings could be classified as using creative or clever headlines.

Compare Bing Versus Google

• All ten results contained target keywords in the title.
• There were definitely a few headlines that mixed creativity with optimized titles.  It’s part of a combo approach that I’ll explain later in my post.

Iran Election and Twitter

• All ten listings had the target keywords in the title.
• None of the listings had titles that would be considered creative or clever.

OK, I think you get the picture.  Not every article title tag was perfectly optimized, but you can clearly see how important title optimization is.

Let’s Reverse It and Check Some Creative Headlines. And yes, there are exceptions to the rule…

During my research, I chose ten articles that clearly used creative and clever headlines versus optimized titles (and they were great headlines.)  Most were on relatively powerful sites from an SEO standpoint.  I analyzed each article and checked its rankings for what I determined to be target keywords.

8 of the 10 articles did not rank in the top listings in Google, Yahoo, or Bing, although they were great articles about the subject at hand (and on powerful sites from an SEO standpoint).  My guess is that if they would have better optimized each post, including writing optimized title tags, the posts would have ranked much higher.  Unfortunately, if you go with a creative title, you risk low rankings… I’m not saying to always go down the path of using an optimized title, but you should understand the risks involved if you don’t.  For example, if a killer headline is important for the task at hand, and long term traffic from search is not critical, then run with it.  However, if you are looking to build sustained traffic from search, then rethink your approach and use optimized titles (or use the combo approach I explain below).

A Few Exceptions to the Rule

There were two articles out of the ten that ranked highly even though their titles weren’t optimized at all.  Both articles were on ultra-powerful sites from an SEO perspective that focus heavily on the verticals covered in each article.  Interestingly, each article didn’t build up a lot of inbound links.  It looked like each site’s SEO strength enabled the articles to rank highly.  Both posts rank in the top ten listings in Google for competitive keywords, while hundreds of other pages that are better optimized for those keywords fail to reach page one.  I’m sure every SEO reading this post has several examples of webpages that they are trying to beat out that also aren’t optimized well!  Welcome to SEO. 

Striking a Balance With Title Optimization, What Can You Do?

By now, you are probably wondering if there is anything you can do that strikes a balance between great headlines and optimized titles.  There are definitely a few things you can try out.

1. Separate Your Headline, Kicker, and Title Tag Using this approach, you can ensure your headline and kicker are creative, but also have a well optimized title tag.  For example, check out the link below.  The headline is Clunker Confusion: MPG Figures, but when you hit the page, the title tag reads EPA Changes fuel economy numbers ahead ‘Cash for Clunkers’.  Your CMS will just need to support breaking apart the post title and the title tag (which not every CMS can do).  Then your editors can have their creative headlines and your SEO manager can have an optimized title tag.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/28/autos/clunker_mpg_switch/index.htm

2. The Combo Approach - Using a 2-Part Title For Your Headline and Title Tag This involves starting your title tag with a creative headline, but ending it with your optimized segment (or vice versa).  Using this approach, you can grab someone’s attention while still having target keywords in the title tag.  A good example is my post about Twitter Account ownership.  I titled it Lawyers, Guns, and Twitter - Who Owns your Twitter Account.  Another example would be a recent post from TechCrunch titled Search Smackdown: Bing Vs. Google. Both are good examples of using a creative first segment followed by target keywords in the second part of the title.

So there you have it. A rundown on how important title optimization is, along with a few recommendations for your own articles and posts.  There’s always a balance between creativity and SEO, and you need to decide if long term, sustained traffic is more important or if a potential short term surge in traffic would suffice.  Based on heavily analyzing website traffic for clients, I’d go with an optimized title or the combo approach I mentioned above.  Search engine traffic is too important to ignore. 

Glenn Gabe is an online marketing consultant at G-Squared Interactive and focuses heavily on SEO, SEM, Social Media Marketing, Viral Marketing and Web Analytics. You can read more of Glenn’s posts on his blog, The Internet Marketing Driver and you can follow him on Twitter to keep up with his latest projects, news, and updates.

Check out the SEO Tools guide at Search Engine Journal.

Great Headlines, Poor Rankings – Why Clever Headlines Don’t Beat Optimized Title Tags for SEO

View Original post

Share This

Well the rumor mill can find new ground to breed in. This morning Microsoft and Yahoo held a conference call to announce their having come to an actual, bonafide ten year agreement to do business in the search arena. Bing will become the search engine that Yahoo uses, Yahoo will be the global sales force for BOTH company’s premium advertising solutions, and everyone will live happily ever after.

Because this is such a monumental (momentus? morbid? anti-climatic?) event, I chose to listen in on the conference call. Something I’ve never bothered to do before. An hour long deal no less.

I live-tweeted & blogged the whole thing. [please excuse short and and typos which are a result of the live blogging]

And here I provide you a ripped out consolidation of my tweets. Pretty much in their raw form, though a bit better grouped, though just as much brevity driven.

And to cut to the chase, Danny Sullivan was also live blogging and after all the big brand people (Citibank, AP Wire service and the rest) got to ask their questions, Danny was able to get in the very last question of the call! (see below).

Microsoft Yahoo Conference Call

Just joined the MSFT / Yahoo conference call about 1 hour ago

Listen only mode to start.

Q & A to follow

Right now blurting out the disclaimers about forward looking statements…

Carol Bartz talking. Great day for Yahoo. Game changer. Yahoo sees help to scale the mrkt, allow them to invest in core future. MSFT wl allow Yahoo to innovate (yeah right)

Yahoo is largest online media property. Extremely compelling opp for advertisers. Deal only impacts search. Yahoo wl be the sales force. Ads will go through MSFT Ad Center. Display will still be split. Yahoo search will now say “Powered by Bing”

Yahoo worldwide sales for both company ad solutions. Scale for rapid improvement, put power back in consumer hands.

Ballmer up now.

Great news for all customers. More innovation, better value for advertisers & real consumer choice. Greater transparency to come. Search scale will provide greater momentum for Bing. Advertisers & Publishers will now have a more viable alternative [than Google]

Back to Carol now…

TERMS - MSFT exclusive 10 yr to Yahoo search technology. YHoo exclusive sales for both companies premium ad services but both will continue to display their own premium ads

MSFT will pay 88% of search revenue during first 5 yrs. YHOO rev wl come down but op income to grow 500 mill a ye
Expect to close the deal by early 2010. Start w/ major markets migrate to Bing by 6 months. Full global transition will take up to 24 months

NOW FOR THE Q & A SESSION

Q from Citigroup

Why not a display ad component? How big is RPS gap currently?

Bartz Answer: display side: wanted to keep it simple as possible, straight forward.

Ballmer answer: taking a big bite here. Search is more well known re: automation. Common data set re: search. RPS gap: both companies close, both lag Google. Some of that is scale. No expectation of negative consequences on MSFT P&L.

Next Q: Jeffries & Co. Carol - you moved from deal w/boatload of cash to boatload of value instead. 41 minutes ago. What would RPS rates be for first 18 months? What is the deal years 6 - 10?

Bartz - Yahoo felt important that cash value up front not as important. More important for significant cap rate so they could invest. After 5th yr evaluate - MSFT may go back and do some of the premium sales

Ballmer: Proposition - current revenue mix gets a certain RPS - MSFT guaranteeing that if everything looks the same over time.

Q - Adam Holt - Steve - specific financial targets in the release. can you speak to that?

Ballmer: in the short run - transaction costs. Couple hundreds of millions first couple years. Upside to MSFT improve relevance of search. & as monetization can improve for both through execution that gets upside.

Q Goldman Sachs - Steve - cost side other than couple hundred mil up front, how should we think of cap x?

Ballmer - will be some additional - nothing that impacts FY 10 for MSFT. Op ex perspective some Yahoo engineers may move to MSFT

Q - Ad Age - describe what if any opposition from Washington?

Ballmer - expect some aggressive opposition from “THE” competitor who won’t like more competition - more effective competition.

It’s good for consumer, advertiser & Pub so will present that case in Washington, Brussels

Brad Smith: - look forward to moving forward quickly to present info to Anti-Trust and around the world. Filing starts next week.

Anticipate advertisers will recognize the better value. Pubs wl recognize the additional innovation.33 minutes ago
“THEY” have 78% of the market.

Q from BBC - Do you envisage Yahoo search people move to MSFT or how will handle redundancies?

Bartz: Certainly many Yahoo search employees that will be asked to take jobs at MSFT

Also search employees to help display at global level. And Unfortunately there will be some redundancies.
Reminder though this is a 2 yr transition. First regulatory approval, hopefully early 2010 - and only then there will be transition

BBC follow-up Q - do you have numbers?

Bartz - no numbers to announce at this time. re redundancy

Q from Tomas Koon - how much does this affect the part that search plays in general to your consumers re yahoo mobile?

Ballmer - We’ll ensure engineers on both sides both companies will be able to continue to innovate & treat all users w/ privacy they expect

We’ll work out issues re: how data gets shared, which APIs wl need to be open to give value add to build on shared tech

Bartz: Very careful & systematic re: data information flow re: privacy & so both could innovate & each have unique experience

Follow up Q - With MSFT the lead on search results, how can Yahoo be innovative?

Bartz - it’s how Yahoo can use the search data on their own

Next Q from Paid Content - mobile & other platforms how will those be impacted?

Bartz - wl be able to use the MSFT tech on other platforms. Only diff is that it’s not exclusive

Q - benefits of using MSFT for mobile?

Ballmer - We don’t know what we don’t know all the areas we will invest in.
This gives Yahoo ability to consider that broadly

Bartz - very interested on doubling down on the mobile experience. Frees Yahoo up to invest in other areas of the mobile experience

Q from JP Morgan :
1. What is the Tac rate for when Yahoo does selling on Bing?
2. Carol, what assumptions for the risk re affiliates?
3. Importance of scale for advertisers - what are expectations for getting Google advertisers?

When buying into the ad market, you’re buying into both networks - U don’t know which you will show up on - whereever you show up - that will get the money to that company.

Bartz - worked w/ MSFT on the affiliates. Expect once relationship ends, they will go to MSFT21 minutes ago
Smaller advertisers need to be sure enough meaningful market and dont want to have to learn 3 platforms
By having one system AdCenter (not Panama), expect we can provide much better experience & win them over

Ballmer - total number of advertisers - highlights issue. US combined share much higher than global vs Google

Q - USA Today 1. Separate teams will remain for display?

Bartz - Yes

2. - Steve - explain 10 yr search deal.

Ballmer - engineers know Bing but theres a lot of code, haven’t looked at Yahoo’s code. MSFT has license to Yahoo code & wl need to review to determine how it will be used or not - burden on MSFT to determine. Not just rip & replace.

Bartz - on paid side, Yahoo is already now the provider for MSFT in the International arena. A lot of respect for both technologies.

Q 3 - give for instances re: innovation

Ballmer - UI innovation - MSFT has access to technology from Yahoo. The more paid ad searches you serve, the more you learn about who clicks on what - the more you learn about customers so you can do more

Bartz - innovation on sales & marketing side of it. How we work together with the large CMOs and agencies is also innovation Yahoo is ready for but also you combined that with the UI and back end …

Q - AP - talk about why this particular deal better than last years’

Bartz - Done exploring - there’s more fiction than fact. Big difference - it was more of an up front deal. That not interesting to us. We are trying to run long term business - this is a true partnership - we have controls over Yahoo user interface. Both now have real skin in the game. Yahoo needed to get focused on what our mission is - to be the center of peoples lives on line.

Ballmer - last years deal was not between YHOO & MSFT management - it was more about investors value 11 minutes ago

This deal is not better, it is different. Less up front, more long term. This is good for the shareholders & Yahoos operating business. Economic perspective - its more similar than different.

Q from All Things Digital - Execution & speed details. & what was the final thing to push the deal?

Bartz - both sides will coordinate transition. Not that diff from Overture to Panama transition. Yahoo has experience in that. Team on both sides.

Ballmer - on the sales side, Yahoo leads. Engineering side, MSFT has execution responsibilities & financials.
Both wll have participation.

Bartz - no one thing pushed it through. More trusting there could be a partnership. That took time.
Made more sense over time. the proverbial snowball down the hill.

Ballmer - didn’t come here with a 2 page term sheet. Well over 100 pages.

Follow on Q - did that cause a distraction? Google is one company - this is a partnership. Is that harder?

Bartz - yes. Dating is one thing - partnership is another. Especially on the Yahoo side.

Q = Danny Sullivan - Explain more re: search - Yahoo news, Delicious, Yahoo directory, Paid inclusion?

Bartz - re: Internal yahoo search - vertical - that is innovation Yahoo looking at doing. Other issues like paid inclusion to be decided later. We have full flexibility on what to do inside our sites. Our properties have value

Ballmer - to the degree possible - anxious to see Yahoo take full advantage of the technology. Exactly where that will play off that will be decided over time.

Conference call now over.

Let the spin, rumors & jokes begin!

Alan Bleiweiss has been an Internet professional since 1995. Just a few of his earliest clients included PCH.com, WeightWatchers.com and Starkist.com. Follow him on Twitter @AlanBleiweiss or read his blog at Search Marketing Wisdom.

Check out the SEO Tools guide at Search Engine Journal.

Microsoft Yahoo 10 Year Search Deal : Live Blogging of Conference Call

View Original post

Share This