Google|YouTube deal announced -- but what about Yahoo!
The deal will certainly create a monster outlet for Google and perhaps copyright issues can be technically addressed at the gateway.
A side story however, interests me more, which was in the piece that appeared in of all places Yahoo! News.
"Google's YouTube coup may intensify the pressure on Yahoo to make its own splash by buying Facebook.com, the Internet's second most popular social-networking site. Yahoo has reportedly offered as much as $1 billion for Palo Alto-based Facebook during months of sporadic talks."
"Yahoo really needs to step up and do something," said Roger Aguinaldo, an investment banker who also publishes a dealmaking newsletter called the M&A Advisor. "They are becoming less relevant and looking less innovative with each passing day."
To that I say, Yahoo! does not need Facebook, it needs a coherent IPTV strategy. Not much has been heard from Lloyd Braun of late and one wonders if Yahoo! has the determination to be a key player in the space? In addition, why is CEO Terry Semel, the former head of Warner Brothers Pictures not pressing the flesh with Studio executives to create on-line synergies?
A. Perhaps he thinks studios will see Yahoo! as competition
B. He does not see IPTV revenues as sufficient over the long term to offset Capex
B. He no longer has the clout to pull off big deals
C. That is what Lloyd Braun is suppose to do
D. All of the above
The New York Times article speaks to many of these and other points.
"Two years ago, Yahoo made an expansion in Hollywood in an attempt to produce new video-focused Web sites, but it later backed off from the plan amid internal bickering."
It is time for bold moves by bold executives, if they still exist.
Comments
Gilbert, I enjoy your blog posts, but am irritated by the disclaimer at the end of each post. I think sticking it in the sidebar would be sufficient.
Posted by: Jonny Goldstein | October 10, 2006 10:46 PM
Jonny, Thanks for your feedback on the content which is primary, the disclaimer to me is somewhat more like layout or design issues and not as important however, point taken and good to get outside perspective..
Posted by: Gilbert | October 12, 2006 11:52 AM
It's going to be really interesting to see how it all plays out. According to the Wall Street Journal, Yahoo! and Facebook are having some difficulties ironing out an agreement. Facebook wants more than 1 billion and Yahoo! says business conditions need to change before that happens. Personally, even with all the copyright issues in hand, comparing YouTube to Facebook seems rather ridiculous as the potential for growth clearly rests with YouTube. YouTube's traffic metrics continue to increase and it's only a matter of time before they start integrating video ads before, after, and everywhere else. Just look at the online TV site Ripe TV. They're expecting more than $5 million in ad revenue this year from some big names and they pale in comparison to YouTube. Now take that and multiple it times the size of YouTube. And I think it's safe to say we all know online video isn't going anywhere but up anytime soon.
In regards to the comment about Yahoo! and innovation by both Roger Aguinaldo and some other sources I read, wasn't it merely a few weeks ago when Yahoo! was receiving kudos for their acquisitions of so many Web 2.0 sites? Oh how the table turns.
Posted by: Curtis Sund | October 13, 2006 2:26 PM
Your points are all on track.., Facebook is not a comparable business model to YouTube or any other on-line video company, which are the white-hot market attracting eyeballs and now advertisers.
Btw, there was a very detailed article in the New York Times recently about the debacle at Friendster worth reading.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/business/yourmoney/15friend.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
What I don't understand, or perhaps Yahoo! does not is that they have had such a platform, i.e. Yahoo! Groups for years and have yet to leverage it, adding Facebook will afford them a great database of names but then Yahoo! would have to execute and my experience have been on the inside is they fail to leverage on their acquisitions.
Posted by: Gilbert | October 21, 2006 9:38 PM