search-engine

Mary Eileen Williams: Powerful Resolutions for the Savvy Job-Seeker

by Mary Eileen Williams on January 3, 2012

Huffington Post…

As a mature job-seeker contemplating the start of the new year, you’re likely asking yourself how you can maximize your efforts to begin seeing real results in 2012. How can you eliminate some of the more frustrating roadblocks in today’s difficult job market? How can you present your skills and experience more effectively? And how can you take best advantage of the hiring opportunities that abound in January and February? (For more information on opportunities available during this special time of year, see my post entitled ” New Year, New You, New Job! “) Answers to these questions may well be found in evaluating the methods you’ve been using, eliminating those that waste your time and resources, and creating a list of powerful new techniques to move you forward. Just like the beginning of the New Year lends itself to reevaluating goals and creating a list of resolutions for your personal life, this is the time to take a look at how you’ve been conducting your job search. So plan to spend several minutes assessing your successes and failures. Then write up a set of action steps based on the behaviors that work best for you. Here’s a list of three resolutions for “Job Search 2012″ to get you started: 1) Ignore the negative press. Recognize that the media loves to spin bad news. Even more, the statistics they cite are, by definition, generalities. These have nothing to do with you as an individual job-seeker: the ways you’re conducting your job search, how many people are in your network and how you present yourself to others. Your attitude about your viability as a candidate underscores everything you do. In order to be successful, you’ll need to present yourself with confidence, energy and enthusiasm. So rather than feeling discouraged, take pride in the wealth of experience you bring, the challenges you’ve faced and overcome, and the well-honed skills you’ve accumulated over a lifetime. These are just a few of the true assets of age and experience. 2) Use the bulk of your time employing the most direct route to your next position. People get people jobs. Hiring statistics show that close to 75 percent of new positions are obtained through personal referral. This number grows even higher the older you are and the tighter the job market. Therefore you’ll want to plan your time accordingly — at a minimum you should be spending 75 percent of your time and efforts enlarging your network of contacts and making new connections in your field of interest. 3) Learn how to present yourself as a knowledgeable insider. Be sure to research trends in your industry and be able to speak to current developments locally, nationally and internationally. In addition to an enthusiastic, can-do attitude, you’ll need to converse with the knowledge and confidence your research will provide. Preparation is key. Therefore, spending some time educating yourself will pay off, both as you network and as you’re presenting yourself in job interviews. Be certain to check back soon for more tips and resolutions for 2012. With the right attitude, preparation, and connections, you’ll be positioning yourself for success. And, if you’re currently pounding the pavement, you know there’s no better way to start the New Year off than with a brand new job! Mary Eileen Williams is a Nationally Board Certified Career Counselor with a Master’s Degree in Career Development and twenty years’ experience assisting midlife jobseekers to achieve satisfying careers. Her book, Land the Job You Love: 10 Surefire Strategies for Jobseekers Over 50 , is a step-by-step guide packed with tools to turn age into an advantage — providing mature applicants with techniques to successfully navigate the modern job market as well as strategies that give them the edge over the competition. Visit her website at Feisty Side of Fifty.com and celebrate your sassy side! .

Read the original post:
Mary Eileen Williams: Powerful Resolutions for the Savvy Job-Seeker

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

GRAPHIC: The Last Days To Ship In Time For Christmas

by The Huffington Post on December 15, 2011

Huffington Post…

The holiday season can be a stressful time, especially when it comes to making sure grandma’s gift gets in the mail on time. And while Cyber Monday may have broken records for single-day online shopping purchases, expect the usual last-minute mayhem so closely associated with carols and Santa. But now, thanks to this infographic from visual.ly , even the most chronic procrastinator has no excuse for not getting his or her orders to that far-off relative in a timely manner, as the shipping times are shown for a number of popular shippers and online retailers, making sure there won’t be any sad faces come Christmas morning (okay, maybe still a few). Indeed, the holiday time is a heavy-volume shipping period for companies like UPS and FedEx. During the week of Christmas, UPS delivers 300 packages per second, the Washington Post reports . This year it looks like things might be a little less last minute, however, with more than a third of consumers said to have finished their holiday shopping before December 5th . by visually via

View original post here:
GRAPHIC: The Last Days To Ship In Time For Christmas

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Google’s Rivals Say Web Giant Is ‘Trying To Kill Them’

September 20, 2011

This article has been updated Yelp, which has long dominated Google search results, has a new competitor that it’s taking very seriously: Google itself. The prime territory at the top of Google search results that Yelp could once lay claim to is now frequently taken over by Google’s own listings. A search for “Los Angeles restaurants” turns up a link to Yelp — but it’s buried halfway down the page below Google Places , a feature that showcases business listings together with reviews, maps and prices. As federal authorities ratchet up their scrutiny of Google’s practices, accusing the company of antitrust violations, at the center of the action is the company’s use of its dominant position as a search engine to steer users to Google-owned sites. A growing group of critics and competitors assert that Google now uses search to bring traffic to its new sites in travel, shopping and dining that are playing a significant role in Google’s overall business. “Google is not just competing in these verticals, but cheating. They are manipulating the search results,” said Gary Reback, a Silicon Valley antitrust lawyer who was an advocate for the antitrust suit against Microsoft in the 1990s and is now representing several companies, including ShopCity and Foundem, that claim to be affected by Google’s policies. Google maintains on its blog that it does not have a policy of promoting its own content in search results, but strives to “ deliver the best answers to users ” and “ never [takes] actions to hurt specific websites for competitive reasons .” It also notes that it takes only one click for consumers to switch to a competing search engine. “We rank search results to deliver the best answers to users, and that is the only consideration -– not political viewpoints, and not advertising dollars,” a Google spokesman told the Huffington Post. “Every search engine has shifted away from ‘ten blue links’ to embedding answers and different types of information directly in the search results, which helps give consumers the answers they’re looking for.” The valuable real estate Google is handing over to its own products — and the fact that it powers two-thirds of all searches in the U.S. and claims three-quarters of all search ad revenues — has prompted the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether the company unfairly promotes its own offerings or manipulates ads to the disadvantage of other businesses. In addition to the ongoing FTC probe, a Senate panel has convened a Sept. 21 antitrust hearing called “The Power of Google: Serving Consumers or Threatening Competition?” at which former Google CEO Eric Schmidt will testify. The Internet companies that now vie with Google’s own offerings on its site accuse the company of using backhanded tactics to crush rivals and have lawyered up to oppose what they see as anticompetitive behavior. Reback said sites like Nextag, a price comparison site, and Yelp pose “a threat to Google” by competing for users and ad dollars, and accused Google of “trying to kill them” by promoting its own services in search. Travel and review sites such as Kayak, TripAdvisor and Yelp have argued publicly that by putting its own results ahead of others, Google stands to squelch the competition by making it more unlikely that users will have reason to visit these third-party sites. A group of tech companies, including Microsoft, TripAdvisor, Travelocity, Kayak, Hotwire and Expedia formed an advocacy group called FairSearch.org, with the mission to raise awareness about “how Google threatens competition and consumer choice” and to protest using “dominance to foreclose competitors from the search marketplace,” according to the group’s website . “The concern is that Google is in many ways the main street of the Internet,” said Robert Birge, Kayak’s chief marketing officer. “They’ve taken all of the real estate that anyone will ever click on and put a Google product there.” Though many companies do not publicly disclose what share of their web traffic comes from Google, data available from third-party research firms indicate the search engine drives a vital number of users to its competitors — which means they have much to lose if Google bumps them down the page of search results, where the likelihood of getting clicks decreases dramatically. “The whole promise of the web was that you could be a little guy and be the best and people could find you and would find you,” Reback said. “It’s great to get merchants on the Internet, but if no one can find them, they won’t go very far.” In a call with investors earlier this year, Expedia CEO Dara Khosrowshahi described Google as a “big traffic generator for us and something that we always watch.” During the first nine months of 2010, 15 percent of Kayak’s ad revenues and 8 percent of its total revenues came from Google, according to the company’s filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Google maintains that it generates no more than 8 percent of search engine traffic to the top 10 online travel sites. But opponents of Google’s acquisition of ITA Software , a flight information company, claimed that Google sends around 30 percent of all search traffic to travel websites — and could end up directing that traffic internally. Though many competitors may not take issue with the search engine’s policies, some companies allege there is a reluctance to speak out against Google for fear of reprisal. Keeping quiet, they may figure, will keep their Google ranking from going down. “Kayak was initially reluctant ever to speak out against Google because we did not want retaliation by such a formidable company,” Birge said. “They control the algorithm in terms of where we show up on the page and where we show up in paid search ads. They’re very influential in the market.” Yet smaller tech startups expressed few concerns with Google’s search practices, and actually welcomed Google as a rival. Several entrepreneurs said they stood to benefit from Google launching products that would compete with their own. Steve Huffman, the co-founder and CTO of flight and hotel search site Hipmunk, said the debut of Google Flight Search brought considerable media attention and record-setting traffic to his website. “We should be so fortunate that Google launches Flight Search every week,” Huffman said. “We had our best traffic day since we launched on the day that they launched. We got mentioned in almost every story on Google Flight Search. It was a great opportunity for us to grab a lot of users.” For a startup, having Google as a competitor could increase the possibility that it becomes an attractive acquisition target, either for Google or one of its rivals, entrepreneurs say. “I think Google entering your space is viewed as an opportunity for a lot of people to be very successful,” said Justin Kan, the founder of Justin.tv, a kind of YouTube for live streaming video, and Kiko, an online calendar app that went out of business following the launch of Google Calendar. “If your company beats Google, it becomes potentially a very interesting acquisition for Google and for other companies in the Internet space.” While regulators worry that Google’s growth could lead to anticompetitive behavior, these startup CEOs say Google’s enormity actually gives them an advantage and argue that their smaller staff and narrow focus allows them to be more nimble than the 20,000-person Mountain View, Calif., corporation. “We are ten people competing against multiple thousands of people and that’s to our advantage,” Huffman said. “We are smaller and so we’re more agile when it comes to being able to innovate and change direction.” This article has been updated to include a comment from Google.

Read the full article →

Cook County To Foreclosure Victims: Please Come Claim Cash

August 26, 2011

Cook County doesn’t usually have difficulty finding Chicagoans to take its money. Yet two years after launching a search engine to help people with foreclosed homes or businesses claim the profits earned in their property sales, $16 million sits unclaimed in a Circuit Court fund. A mortgage foreclosure surplus fund of profits generated in property sales dating back to the 1990s holds millions that belong to 1,944 property owners, the Chicago Tribune reports . On average, the county owes them about $2,000 apiece, though one business is owed $460,000 it has yet to claim, according to the Chicago Sun-Times . Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Cook County Circuit Court, has been trying to get the word out, urging former property owners to call her office or use the search engine added to her website two years ago to see if they have money coming to them, with only marginal success. “We need to find a better way, even a more effective way to get the word out,” Brown said Thursday at a news conference with other elected leaders, according to the Sun-Times . “We know that these are emotional times for individuals when they lose property so we want to ensure they understand when they lose their property they have not lost all of their rights.” The county has a list of names of residents entitled to some of the surplus, but has encountered logistical trouble connecting with individuals. Brown said during Thursday’s conference that her office contacted one homeowner who was owed a $200,000 surplus, but they never returned their call, according to the Tribune . To expedite the distribution process, Brown has joined forces with Cook County Assessor Joseph Berrios to launch a task force that will focus on connecting the money with its intended recipients. The search engine tied to the database will now be accessible at a kiosk outside the assessor’s office, the Tribune reports. The campaign will also include community outreach at events and bill stuffers with utility companies’ approval. Only $3 million has been disbursed since the clerk’s office introduced the search engine tool in 2009, according to the Tribune . There is no deadline to apply for the funds. “This is not county money … This is foreclosure money and that doesn’t belong in that county coffers, it doesn’t belong sitting in a bank,” Berrios said, according to the Sun-Times . “It’s just sitting there while these people could use the funds.” To see if you are owed mortgage surplus funds, call Brown’s office at (312) 603-5030 or go to the county’s search engine . Flickr photo by twodolla . Watch an overview of the funding distribution problems from ABC 7:

Read the full article →

Paula Berg: Six Reasons Every Brand Should Blog

July 11, 2011

Hubspot’s 2010 ” The State of Inbound Marketing Survey ” found that: 77% of Internet users read blogs Blogs yield an average ROI of 600% Companies that blog have two times the number of inbound links versus companies that don’t 46% of companies with blogs have acquired customers from a blog-generated lead 58% say that they are better-known in their industry because of their blog 56% say that their blog has helped their company establish a positioning as a thought leader within the industry Despite the evidence in favor of blogging, with the rise of Twitter and Facebook, many brands are reluctant to blog. While blogs can be a lot of work, they provide a foundation for information on the web and an owned platform for your social business. And anyone who says blog are dead hasn’t dealt with a corporate crisis in the last three years. When a crisis hits or an issue about your company or brand captures the public’s attention, good luck telling your story in its entirety without a blog. Online searches about your brand will surge, and if you don’t have a blog, you are leaving your reputation in the hands of anyone else who chooses to blog about the subject. Based on my own experiences over the last five years, working with brands that blog and brands that don’t, I’ve outlined six reasons why I think every brand should blog: 1. Brand Identity: A blog provides a low-cost, long-term venue to continuously bring your brand to life. What distinguishes you from your competitors? Brands that clearly define their personality and build an identifiable group for their audiences to connect with find their efforts enhanced by the desire to belong. Brands like Southwest Airlines, Apple and Starbucks don’t just sell products, they create emotional bonds with their audiences that pay dividends. 2. Search Engine Optimization (SEO): A blog provides an informative resource for anyone seeking information about you or issues relating to your brand. Blogging allows you to constantly capitalize on hot topics and popular search terms. SEO helps increase traffic to your site and expose audiences to your brand, services and product offerings. If a customer doesn’t find you when they search for you or your products, you may as well not even exist. 3. Control the Message: A blog provides you with a platform to accurately tell the important brand stories that may otherwise go untold or be inaccurately reported. When someone searches for something related to your brand, you want them to receive that information directly from you rather than an unauthorized, inaccurate and potentially adversarial third-party. In order to lead and shape online conversations, organizations must continuously tell their story. If you don’t have a blog, you are leaving one of your most valuable assets — your reputation — at the mercy of others. 4. Social Media Home Base: A blog provides a long-term home for content that can be continually accessed and pushed through other social and traditional channels. Your blog is the only place where you can continuously tell your story in its entirety without the bias or limitations of a third party. Twitter is limited to 140 characters. Facebook has its own rules and limitations. And, we no longer need to wait for the media to tell our stories — nor should we. While Twitter, Facebook and traditional media are all great resources for promoting your brand, they are temporary, constantly moving streams of information. Your blog provides a stable home for information related to your brand. 5. Lead Generation: A blog can help grow your business. Social media and blogs are the fastest growing category in lead generation, and they continue to be categorized as the lowest cost lead-generation channel. As noted in Hubspot’s 2010 “The State of Inbound Marketing Survey,” inbound marketing-dominated organizations average a 60% lower cost-per-lead than outbound-dominated organizations, and 46% of those using company blogs have acquired customers from a blog-generated lead. 6. Analytics: Blog analytics can help you perfect your online communication strategies and improve ROI. What’s the ROI of your social media efforts? Access to blog analytics will help you to better understand your customers and how they find and consume information online. If you understand the analytics, you can almost predict the future.

Read the full article →

‘.Vegas’ And ‘.Bank’? New Website Suffixes Coming Soon

June 18, 2011

WASHINGTON — Coming soon to the Internet: website addresses that end in “.bank,” “.Vegas” and “.Canon.” The organization that oversees the Internet address system is preparing to open the floodgates to a nearly limitless selection of new website suffixes, including ones in Arabic, Chinese and other scripts. That could usher in the most sweeping transformation of the Domain Name System since its creation in the 1980s. More than 300 suffixes are available today, the bulk of them country-code domains, such as “.uk” for the United Kingdom and “.de” for Germany. Hundreds or even thousands more suffixes could be created, categorized by everything from industry to geography to ethnicity. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers will meet Monday in Singapore (Sunday evening in the U.S.) to vote on its expansion plan for domain names. If ICANN approves the plan as expected, new domains could start appearing late next year. The new system could bring innovative branding opportunities and allow all sorts of niche communities to thrive online. But businesses worry that they’ll have to grab their brand names before others do. New suffixes could also create confusion as consumers navigate a Web with unfamiliar labels. It’s also possible that the new names won’t make much difference because many people these days rely on search engines and mobile applications to find what they are looking for online. Consumers don’t type Web addresses into browsers nearly as much as they did 15 years ago when talk of a domain name expansion began. “Most people don’t pay a lot of attention to website addresses anyway these days,” said Danny Sullivan, editor of Search Engine Land, a website that covers the search industry. From a technical standpoint, domain names tell computers on the Internet where to find a website or send an email message. Without them, people would have to remember clunky numerals such as “165.1.59.220″ for “ap.org.” The monikers have grown to mean much more, however. Amazon.com Inc. has built its brand on its website address, while bloggers take pride in running sites with their own domain names. ICANN has already allowed two major expansions of the addressing system. In 2000, it approved seven new domains, including “.info” and “.biz.” It began accepting new bids again in 2004. It has approved and added seven from that round, including “.xxx” for pornography sites this past March. Under the expansion plan now before ICANN, future applications would be streamlined and open to all companies, organizations and individuals. That has set off a virtual land rush. Organizations that operate new suffixes will be able to collect registration fees from websites that want names. The fees could add up to millions of dollars a year if a website is popular enough. A group of entrepreneurs in Las Vegas is vying to operate a “.Vegas” suffix. They have the city’s endorsement and consider “.Vegas” a way to unify local merchants, entertainment venues, residents and even businesses beyond Sin City. Former professional hockey player Ron Andruff is working with international sports federations to bid for “.sport.” He expects sports leagues, teams, athletes, equipment makers and fans to want websites with a suffix that defines them better. Two groups – one backed by the Sierra Club and the other by Greenpeace and other environmental organization – are separately seeking the right to operate a “.eco” suffix. Big business will stake claims, too. Printer and camera maker Canon Inc. plans to apply for “.Canon”. Trade groups for bankers and financial-services companies are working together to explore bids for “.bank”, “.insure” and “.invest” for their member companies. New domains offer fresh branding possibilities for companies to identify themselves online in “a more relevant or a more localized” way, said Pat Kane, a senior vice president at VeriSign Inc., which operates “.com” and “.net.” Although suffixes added over the past decade haven’t been as popular as “.com,” there has been demand for an expansion because nearly all of the most desirable “.com” addresses have been taken. There are more than 94 million registered under “.com.” The thinking is that new businesses setting up shop online might prefer a simple name that ends in “.bank” rather than “TheBankDownTheStreetFromTheSupermarket.com.” The expansion plan before ICANN had been delayed, however, largely because of concerns that new suffixes could infringe on trademarks and copyrights. There’s also worry that new suffixes could deceive consumers, create new platforms for hate groups or lead to website addresses ending in obscenities. ICANN spent years crafting guidelines and creating procedures for objecting to applications. ICANN already has approved rules for some countries to claim suffixes that spell their names in languages other than English. The new plan opens that up to Chinese and Arabic versions of “.bank” and “.sport” as well. It won’t be cheap to operate a domain name suffix. The application fee is $185,000, and winners will have to pay $25,000 annually after that. Disputes are likely as different groups go after the same domain. ICANN may auction off domains if multiple parties have legitimate claims. Legal fees could also pile up as trademark owners and governments file objections to certain applications. Trademark holders, in particular, fear they would have to register a lot of addresses they don’t need or want simply to keep others from using them. Microsoft Corp., for instance, would not want websites addresses such as “Microsoft.software” and “Microsoft.computer” used to commit fraud or sell pirated goods. Copyright owners, too, worry they would have to devote more resources to fighting online piracy with a proliferation of websites ending in “.movies” and “.music” that distribute copyrighted content illegally. ICANN has crafted rules meant to give trademark owners a first shot at claiming their brands. It would also have a process to quickly disable addresses that are clear violations. But Steven Metalitz, a lawyer for a coalition of movie studios, recording labels and other copyright holders, fears ICANN won’t be aggressive enough in enforcing the rules. Still, supporters of the expansion believe it will create opportunities. Juan Diego Calle, whose company operates the existing “.co” suffix, said that with more alternatives available, more businesses and groups will see that they can set up shop online with a catchy, easy-to-remember website that doesn’t end in “.com.”

Read the full article →

Yippy, Inc. Retains Educational Industry Executive & Consultant Marc Bigelow

May 23, 2011

FORT MYERS, FL–(Marketwire – May 23, 2011) – Yippy, Inc. ( PINKSHEETS : YIPI ), www.yippy.com , the providers of the world’s fastest, family friendly, educational search engine and web portal, reports that it has retained Mr. Marc Bigelow from Vast Resource Group LLC as the primary executive management consultant.

Read the full article →

Microsoft’s Antitrust Saga Finally Comes To An End

May 12, 2011

Microsoft’s historic and prolonged dispute with U.S. regulators over antitrust violations has finally come to an end. And how things have changed. May 12 marks the expiration of a consent decree the software giant signed with the Department of Justice in 2002, an agreement that narrowly saved Microsoft from being broken up after it was found guilty of using its dominant position to stifle competition. On the anniversary of the agreement, the Department of Justice cheered its victory, while Microsoft adopted a more repentant tone. The company said of the thirteen years it spent under the scrutiny of antitrust regulators, “Our experience has changed us and shaped how we view our responsibility to the industry.” The Department of Justice celebrated the Microsoft antitrust case as a vital ruling that fostered competition in the tech industry and said it had paved the way for new products, including “computing services and mobile devices.” It wrote in a statement : The final judgment proved effective in protecting the development and distribution of middleware products and prevented Microsoft from continuing the type of exclusionary behavior that led to the original lawsuit. Microsoft no longer dominates the computer industry as it did when the complaint was filed in 1998. Nearly every desktop middleware market, from web browsers to media players to instant messaging software, is more competitive today than it was when the final judgment was entered. Nine years is a lifetime in Silicon Valley and while Microsoft remains one of the world’s most valuable technology companies, it is a far cry from the industry overlord it was years ago. Critics once derided Microsoft as the “Death Star” and “Evil Empire” bent on the domination of all desktops. Now it has a new nickname: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently deemed it the “underdog.” Microsoft software still powers nine out of every ten computers, but it has lost ground in vital areas. In smartphones, music players, and search, it is struggling catch-up to Apple and Google, two companies that were floundering and yet-to-be-born, respectively, when Microsoft was hit with antitrust lawsuits in 1998. Microsoft’s mobile phone operating system has seen its share plummet from 35 percent in 2003 to 7.5 percent in 2011. Its search engine, Bing, has swallowed billions of dollars, but still claims just 14 percent of the market to Google’s 65 percent. And the same browser that put Microsoft at odds with regulators saw its market share fall below 50 percent for the first time ever. And now, even as Microsoft makes its peace, regulators are turning their spotlight on another Silicon Valley behemoth: Google. Already facing antitrust scrutiny in Europe and South Korea , Google is rumored to be the target an antitrust probe being launched by the FTC . Where antitrust matters are concerned, Google may be the new Microsoft. A law professor told Bloomberg that an FTC investigation of Google “could be on par’ the Department of Justice’s probe of Microsoft. WATCH:

Read the full article →

Video: Sullivan Says Google Disclosed Location Data Gathering

May 11, 2011

May 10 (Bloomberg) — Danny Sullivan, editor-in-chief at Search Engine Land, talks about today’s Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing into Apple Inc. and Google Inc.’s handling of mobile-phone user-location data. He speaks with Cory Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

World’s New Most Valuable Brand

May 9, 2011

Apple has overtaken Google as the world’s most valuable brand, ending a four-year reign by the Internet search leader, according to a new study by global brands agency Millward Brown. The iPhone and iPad maker’s brand is now worth $153 billion, almost half Apple’s market capitalization, says the annual BrandZ study of the world’s top 100 brands. Apple’s portfolio of coveted consumer goods propelled it past Microsoft to become the world’s most valuable technology company last year. Peter Walshe, global brands director of Millward Brown, says Apple’s meticulous attention to detail, along with an increasing presence of its gadgets in corporate environments, have allowed it to behave differently from other consumer-electronics makers. “Apple is breaking the rules in terms of its pricing model,” he told Reuters by telephone. “It’s doing what luxury brands do, where the higher price the brand is, the more it seems to underpin and reinforce the desire.” “Obviously, it has to be allied to great products and a great experience, and Apple has nurtured that.” Of the top 10 brands in Monday’s report, six were technology and telecoms companies: Google at number two, IBM at number three, Microsoft at number five, AT&T at number seven and China Mobile at number nine. McDonald’s rose two places to number four, as fast food became the fastest-growing category, Coca-Cola slipped one place to number six, Marlboro was also down one to number eight, and General Electric was number 10. Walshe said demand from China was a major factor in the rise of fast-food brands. “The Chinese have been discovering fast food and it’s such a vast market — Starbucks, McDonald’s… and pizza has hit China,” he said. “The way McDonald’s has reinvented itself, adapted its menus, added healthy options, expanding the times of day it can be visited, for example oatmeal for breakfast… that allied with growth in developing markets has really helped that brand.” Nineteen of the top 100 brands came from emerging markets, up from 13 last year. Facebook entered the top 100 at number 35 with a brand valued at $19.1 billion, while Chinese search engine Baidu rose to number 29 from 46. Toyota reclaimed its position as the world’s most valuable car brand, as it recovered from a bungled 2010 product recall. The survey was carried out before the March earthquake that caused massive disruption to Japanese supply chains. The total value of the top 100 brands rose by 17 percent to $2.4 trillion, as the global economy shifted to growth. Millward Brown takes as a starting point the value that companies put on their own main brands as intangibles in their earnings reports. It combines that with the perceptions of more than 2 million consumers in relevant markets around the world whom it surveys over the course of the year, and then applies a multiple derived from the company’s short-term future growth prospects. The full report is at www.millwardbrown.com/brandz. (Editing by David Cowell) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

China’s Facebook Copycat Attracts Investors Despite Big Risks

May 1, 2011

* Renren to raise about $690 mln in IPO next Tuesday * IPO would value company at $5 bln vs Facebook’s $70 bln * Censorship, patents, accounting among Renren concerns By Melanie Lee and Clare Baldwin SHANGHAI/NEW YORK, April 29 (Reuters) – When Chinese social networking site Renren goes public next week, investors will likely ignore big risks the company faces, and be lured instead by a combination of the words “China” and “social networking.” Hot Chinese tech companies like Internet search engine Baidu Inc (BIDU.O) and online video site Youku.com (YOKU.N) have risen triple-digit percentages since their IPOs, whetting investors’ appetites for such offerings. And this is in a sector that is hot in the U.S. Facebook, the biggest social network company in the world, has a market value of somewhere around $70 billion, based on a share sale currently being contemplated, making it worth more than companies such as Boeing Co.[ID:nN27185713] The demand for Renren shares was clear on Friday when the company raised the expected price range of its IPO by 30 percent to $12 to $14 per share. “Appetite to invest in China right now is so strong that some investors are willing to ignore factors that they wouldn’t in other markets,” said Mark Natkin, managing director of Marbridge Consulting, a Beijing-based company that advises investors on China’s Internet and telecommunications sectors. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Renren revised filing shows slower growth [ID:nN28228501] Insider on Renren valuation link.reuters.com/zyk39r Breakingviews column on Renren [ID:nLDE73H0EF] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> Renren’s IPO filings do raise a handful of very serious questions. For one thing, Renren doesn’t really seem sure how many users it has. According to its April 27 revised IPO filing, the Chinese Facebook clone’s monthly unique log-in user base grew by only 5 million, or 19 percent, in the first quarter of 2011 — not the 7 million, or 29 percent, it reported in its first filing only 12 days earlier.[ID:nN28228501] Some investors and analysts brush off such red flags — after all China is the biggest Internet market in the world and it is growing rapidly. They justify their cavalier attitude by saying that figures reported by Chinese companies should be used for directional information and not as perfect quantitative measurements. Others say the opaque information is a big problem. “If you can’t validate the numbers or the company proves it doesn’t have a good handle on the numbers, then you’ve got to be concerned,” said Gary Rieschel, founder of Qiming Venture Partners, which is an investor in Renren rival Kaixin001. Another possible risk for investors is the broad government oversight that Renren, and other companies operating in China, face. Chinese authorities keep extremely close tabs on Internet companies, arguing that this is necessary to maintain social harmony. This led to a big bust up between Google Inc. (GOOG.O) and the Chinese government last year that ended with Google curtailing its operations in the country. Renren says in the risk factors section of its IPO prospectus that this means a prohibition against posting content that, among other things, “impairs the national dignity of China” or is “superstitious.” The prospectus doesn’t mention the recent Middle Eastern uprisings, which led to a crackdown on the use of certain words on the Internet in China, but it does say Renren may not post content that is “socially destabilizing.” If Renren fails to comply, the company says that its websites could be shut down. Clearly that could put it out of business. Whether a social network page posting is objectionable is determined by the Chinese authorities. Renren is also required to monitor advertisements on its websites, some of which are subject to special government review before they are posted. Renren must even guard against providing services that may lead to its users finding themselves in “emotionally charged situations.” MATERIAL WEAKNESS The company also said in its filings that while it hasn’t conducted a comprehensive review, it found a “material weakness” and a “significant deficiency” in its internal financial controls: Renren doesn’t have enough people with knowledge of U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. It also lacks a formal policy for investing surplus cash and managing its treasury functions. That’s not unusual for Chinese IPO companies. Neither is the fact that 87 percent of Renren’s leased floor area did not have the proper title documents. But it all paints a picture of a company that is far from risk free. Still, it isn’t difficult to find people who will give it the benefit of the doubt. “Given the investors it has who have board seats and who work closely with it, you would expect any major issues to have turned up by now,” said Nick Einhorn, an analyst at Connecticut-based IPO research and investment house Renaissance Capital. Renren’s investors include private equity firm General Atlantic and venture capital firm DCM. LAWSUIT Renren may also face some heat over intellectual property questions. When social networking website Kaixin001.com started taking off, Renren founder and CEO Joseph Chen launched a matching site with a similar color scheme and layout under the name Kaixin.com. Kaixin001.com won a lawsuit that ultimately resulted in Chen changing the name of another of his social networking sites to Renren, and merging Kaixin.com into Renren. Sources have told Reuters that Kaixin001 is also planning a U.S. IPO. Renren in its IPO filings also said that its social networking platform may be subject to patent infringement claims, and mentions Facebook as one of the potential claimants. Still, while Renren has posted losses in each of the past two years, it could still be a dream growth stock. Its net revenue grew more than fivefold to $76.54 million in 2010 from $13.78 million in 2008. But there will be some who, after reading the prospectus, may wonder whether the risks outweigh the rewards. (Reporting by Clare Baldwin in New York and Melanie Lee in Shanghai, additional reporting by Alina Selyukh and Richard Lee in New York. Editing by Dan Wilchins, Martin Howell) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions

Read the full article →

Eric K. Clemons: The Real and Inevitable Harm From Vertical Integration of Search Engine Providers Into Sales and Distribution

April 20, 2011

This is the second installment in a three-part series on the Department of Justice, Google, and the Consent Decree. Read part one here . A proper discussion of the benefits and limitations of the recent Consent Decree between the Department of Justice and Google, concerning Google’s acquisition of ITA, needs to begin with a discussion of appropriate measures for potential harm to the competitive process and to potential competitors. The Decree attempts to ensure that current users of ITA’s travel industry software will continue to have access to the latest revisions at commercially reasonable prices, and that Google will continue to invest in ITA’s software rather than developing proprietary offerings for itself. Unfortunately, the Decree does not address the greatest danger, which is not that Google will deny competitors like Orbitz and Kayak access to ITA’s software, but rather that Google will deny competitors access to the consumers that they all are seeking to serve. The real danger is that search has become an essential facility, that Google could deny competitors access to this essential facility, and that they could do so in a manner that keeps consumers happy. As we have addressed previously , it is possible to harm the competitive process, to reduce consumer welfare, and to do so in a manner that is not obvious to consumers. What Form Could Harm Take? How can consumers be harmed by search without knowing it immediately? More specifically, how can consumers be harmed by the Consent Decree, which allows Google to integrate into the provision of services, improve consumer convenience, and offers “no-click” rather than one-click solutions? Interestingly, the most offensive examples of potential consumer harm come from Microsoft’s Bing, rather than from Google. Consider the following set of search results. I see four paid search results, still called “sponsored sites” instead of the more accurate and explicit “ads” label now used by Google. I always ignore ads on search, so I go to the first organic result, which is nicely highlighted with a huge basketball. I click on the basketball … and … … I can buy Lakers tickets without even leaving Bing. How convenient is that? Well, yes. And how what chance to competing ticket sellers have to reach customers? Notice that this site actually appears above the Lakers own site; is that the natural organic ranking? Do more customers historically buy Lakers tickets from Microsoft than from the Lakers? Will Microsoft offer this service to the Lakers without charge, now and forever? At its worst, hotels.com was charging hotels a 30% commission. If Bing imposes excessive charges on the Lakers, or on all basketball teams, it can do so in a way that will keep consumers happy; they don’t see need to see these charges anywhere. But a high surcharge on distribution is a form of invisible tax, and it will be passed on to consumers. This is an example of a third-party payer mechanism ; it is expensive, not subject to market discipline, and yet seems to improve consumer welfare because its harmful effects are quite invisible. One click, top organic spot, should direct a great deal of traffic to Bing’s ticketing agency. What faster and more convenient than having Bing’s site come up after a single click? What about having it come up as the only response? The first time I search for flights from Philadelphia to Orlando I am directed to an effectively integrated flight site, much as I was directed to the integrated site for Lakers tickets. But the second time I do the search the only thing that shows up in the search box, even before I finish typing the query, is Bing’s travel site. What if instead of Bing this had been Google, with its 65% of US market share and its 95% of EU market share? What could it do with this integration? Surely, it could keep consumers happy, with convenience, among other things. And surely, it could grow its share. Then, it could use its market power to demand discounts, which it would share with consumers, much as hotels.com did. Ultimately, completing websites would lose importance, and indeed they might fail, further increasing Google’s market power. Then, Google could demand excessive commissions, perhaps as high as the 30% commission once charged by hotels.com. Consumers would not complain; they would be receiving apparent discounts, discounts below hotels and airlines published prices. Indeed, consumers would be happy with the added convenience and lower price. Notice the progression: (1) Consumers are offered increased convenience at no visible cost to themselves and are happy. (2) The competitive process is harmed. (3) Third parties, online travel sites that want to be found, or hotels and other actual travel service providers that want to be found, pay higher fees, although these fees are never directly visible to happy consumers. (4) These higher fees inevitably increase the operating expenses of the entire travel industry, and inevitably increase consumer prices, while remaining invisible to consumers in the third-party payer business model , and while consumers remain content and oblivious to harm. It really would not possible for the hotels’ and airlines’ own direct distribution sites to compete, or for travel integration sites like Kayak or Orbitz to compete, unless consumers were willing to examine and compare the offerings of each URL separately rather than using search at all. Not only is there no limit to what Google could charge travel sites to “not be not found,” which is the problem existed before Google’s move into search; now Google would have a reason to hide some or all of these sites no matter what they are willing to pay. For this reason, we believe that search engines should be forbidden to engage in vertical integration into comparison of goods and services, or into direct sale of goods and services. We feel that this should be blocked irrespective of the mechanism used to create the vertical integration; search engine providers should not be allowed to develop this vertical integration internally nor acquire it through acquisition, regardless of assurances offered to regulators of fair pricing or Chinese walls.

Read the full article →

10 Countries With The Most Billionaires

April 12, 2011

No longer dominated by Americans and Europeans, the members of the world’s billionaire club increasingly hail from around the globe, first and third world countries alike. And while some of the mega-rich might may spend more time on yachts than in their home countries, even billionaires have a place they call home. It’s just becoming increasingly difficult to predict where that home is. According to this year’s annual Wealth Report , published by Scorpio Partnership, a wealth management consultancy firm, on behalf of Knight Frank and Citi Private Bank, new billionaires are increasingly likely to come from emerging economies like India and Russia, the latter of which increased its billionaire count by 30 percent last year, according to Forbes . The world’s total number of millionaires has skyrocketed, too, increasing by 22 percent from one year prior, when the global economy witnessed a drastic drop in millionaires. No country’s elite, however, have benefited more from last year’s rebounding economy than China’s, with the country’s tremendous economic growth raising the billionaire count by 140 percent. At this rate, many economists expect China — ranked 35th in Forbes ‘ billionaires list as recently as 2005 — to soon claim the title of most billionaires in the world. “That growth [in China] may be strengthened,” Scorpio Partnership director Stephen Wall wrote in the rport, “by the range of wealth sources driving economic growth.” Of all their thriving industries, the Internet technology sector has perhaps treated China’s elites the best. And no one better represents that industry better than China’s richest man and Baidu search engine founder Robin Li . Still, Chinese billionaires will continue to face stiff competition from the U.S. in the future, as Facebook alone represents six of America’s billionaires , including the youngest billionaire in the world: 26-year-old co-founder Dustin Moskovitz. See below for the list of countries with the most billionaires according to the 2011 Wealth Report:

Read the full article →

Nathan Newman: Will ITA Takeover Conditions Move Google Towards Becoming Public Utility?

April 8, 2011

The Justice Department announced today (following this Wall Street Journal leak) that Google and the Justice Department have agreement to allow the $700 million takeover of flight-data company ITA Software Inc. The condition is reportedly that federal regulators will continue to monitor Google’s operations to assure the company doesn’t shut out competitors from using ITA’s services and establish a compulsory licensing system monitored by the government. A New Precedent for Accountability: This is a quite dramatic precedent in creating a new vision of Google as a publicly accountable company. As the WSJ writes : The proposed agreement would for the first time allow government antitrust monitoring of a part of Google’s operations to assure that the company doesn’t unfairly use its control of ITA’s airline data to put rivals at a disadvantage. The proposed monitoring could set a benchmark for future Google acquisitions. The company, having once conceded that U.S. regulators could oversee its behavior on a continuing basis, would be more likely to face antitrust enforcers’ demands to accept such terms again. A monitoring agreement amounts to a “recognition that Google has become a dominant firm in certain markets, and restrictions of this kind are almost a matter of course for such companies,” said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust law professor at the University of Iowa. “This merger monitoring actually creates an ongoing investigation of sorts,” said Rebecca Arbogast, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus, in the New York Times . “Anything related to search or travel, the government’s going to be permitted to get information, which looks very much like an investigation.” Arbogast compared the monitoring to early actions in the antitrust case against Microsoft . Sharing Data with Travel Industry: With ITA’s data and technology powering popular Internet airline-ticket search and booking sites,the settlement will require Google to provide ITA’s services to competitors under “fair and reasonable terms.” To prevent Google from gaining an unfair advantage through access to consumer data, the DOJ announced : Google will be required to implement firewall restrictions within the company that prevent unauthorized use of competitively sensitive information and data gathered from ITA’s customers. The proposed settlement delineates when and for what purpose that data may be used by Google. And Google has to share key customer booking data with competitors and is prohibited from “entering into agreements with airlines that would inappropriately restrict the airlines’ right to share seat and booking class information with Google’s competitors.” Making Enforcement Work: Along with Justice Department monitoring the agreement provides for mandatory arbitration under certain circumstances and “for a formal reporting mechanism for complainants if Google acts in an unfair manner,” meaning anyone harmed by Google’s actions will be able to get much speedier resolution in many instances than facing off with Google in endless litigation delays. Forward Looking: Most impressive in some ways is that the settlement is forward-looking, applying to technology that ITA has not even deployed yet: Google will be required to continue to license ITA’s QPX software to airfare websites on commercially reasonable terms. QPX conducts searches for air travel fares, schedules and availability. Google will also be required to continue to fund research and development of that product at least at similar levels to what ITA has invested in recent years. Google will also be required to further develop and offer ITA’s next generation InstaSearch product to travel websites, which will provide near instantaneous results to certain types of flexible airfare search queries. InstaSearch is currently not commercially available, but is in development by ITA. This hopefully means that Google can’t as easily divert future internal R&D to an alternative travel search technology not covered by the settlement. Google as Public Utility: A dominant company monitored by the government that must share its services in an open and regulated manner with the public? That begins to make Google more like a common-carrier utility, which is just about what the behemoth search engine should be. Depending on how tough the conditions and monitoring actually end up being, the conditions could be a model for how much of the rest of Google’s operations should be treated by antitrust authorities. This is actually a recipe for more innovation in the industry, since it will assure that Google technology is widely accessible. It’s worth remembering that it was compulsory licensing of technology imposed on the old Ma Bell in the mid-20th century that led to wide licensing of the microprocessor innovations created by Bell Labs. Silicon Valley was the direct result of not allowing one company exclusive control of key technology. A Step in the Right Direction: Apparently, though, the deal does little to address concerns that Google will use the new technology acquired to steer users of Google search engine to a travel-search service Google plans to build around the ITA technology. The problem of Google using dominance of search to build subsidiary businesses at the expense of competitors may require use of additional tools by regulators and policymakers. And this of course only applies to one slice of online commerce and search, but by giving practical experience in monitoring one sector, it will provide insight and a model for how to extend accountability across the whole Internet commercial search environment. As with any agreement, god is in the details and ultimately in how tough government followup and enforcement ends up being. But at least the Justice Department took public concerns over Google’s monopolistic behavior seriously enough not to giver the merger a free pass and articulated some decent principles of technology and data sharing.

Read the full article →

Controversial Google Deal Approved

April 8, 2011

WASHINGTON — Government officials are letting Google Inc. proceed with its $700 million purchase of airline fare tracker ITA Software, but are imposing significant conditions on the deal. The purchase will establish the Internet search giant as a key player in the online travel market. ITA gives Google control over the technology that powers the reservation systems of most major U.S. airlines and many popular online fare-comparison services, including Kayak, TripAdvisor and Hotwire. But to win Justice Department clearance Friday, Google agreed to license ITA’s software to other companies, and it will be prohibited from accessing any proprietary data or technology of ITA customers that resides on or runs through ITA servers. In addition, the government will monitor Google to ensure it does not engage in anticompetitive behavior. That could include manipulating its powerful Internet search engine to steer consumers to its own services – or bury links to rivals far down in its search results – if it uses ITA to enter the online travel business. The company will be subject to broad requirements to report to government officials on its online travel operations, including travel search and advertising. In addition, the government will establish a forum for complaints about Google’s behavior This could eventually lay the groundwork for a broader investigation by either the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission into Google’s practices as it expands beyond general Internet search into more specialized markets. The company’s search results already highlight some of its own specialized services, including mapping, video and finance. The European Commission and the Texas attorney general are currently looking into whether Google manipulates search results to extend its monopoly into other online businesses. Google has promised it won’t sell airline tickets or book other travel arrangements on its own site. Rather, it has said it wants to use ITA to improve its search results for travel – giving consumers more choices and better ways to search for plane tickets. That would enable the company to command higher ad rates from airlines, hotels, rental car agencies and other leisure services trying to reach travelers.

Read the full article →

Larry MacDonald: Internet Marketing Professional Turns Lead into Gold

April 1, 2011

When it comes to internet marketing, most people think of using search engine optimization to increase traffic to their website for the most general terms that can be used to describe their business. This can result in an increase in traffic but not cause an increase in sales, which is the real goal. You may just work harder, for less money, with more overhead, and have lower job satisfaction through out your company. Most professionals, whether attorneys or dentists, have a hierarchy to their clientele. Each wants business, but prefers certain types of business that may be more profitable, more convenient, reduce stress on limited resources, and provide more and better quality future referrals. Search engine optimization, search engine marketing, internet marketing, whatever you choose to call it can describe a plethora of specific tactics. If you are a professional you want to focus your thinking on selecting the cream, not the milk, and especially not the skim milk. Make a list of the low hanging fruit and give special attention to the most attractive clients. Pick the clients that offer you the most long-term benefits. Which ones will be the most profitable for the effort you expend? Which types will be the easiest to handle for your staff? Which category will give you the most time with your kids? Once you have ranked the types of customers you really would like to work with, you can stop focusing on the entire ocean and focus your your SEO investment using a laser and attract the cream you identified. You will be turning lead into gold. Focusing on narrow niches of highly desirable clients will improve your life and bottom line far faster than attempting to attract everyone who is interested in attorneys, accountants, teeth or construction. Better to build your site to attract estate planning, high net worth individuals, gold bridge work, and luxury contractors. To accomplish this will require sophisticated marketing thinking. You will need an SEO expert who can empathize with your ideal customer. You will need to make major modifications to the content on your site, not just add keywords. It is a marketing approach vs. a technical one. By taking a more focused approach to your internet marketing, you will have far more satisfaction, earn more, have more time for your family, and give your staff greater job satisfaction. Everyone likes to work with the creme de la creme. We know it works because we’ve been doing it for years.

Read the full article →

Naveen Jain: Dear Entrepreneur: Stop Dreaming And Launch That Business

March 18, 2011

Conventional wisdom says that great companies are built by business leaders with the greatest vision. However, the truth is that groundbreaking businesses tend to come from entrepreneurs who were smart enough to out-execute everyone else in their space. That means getting products out there and growing a loyal customer base rather than trying to engineer a product to its supposed perfection. Microsoft is a great example of company that has succeeded by out-executing its competitors. They’ve rarely been first to market with any of their products, but they’ve successfully brought them to market, figured out how to improve them, and reintroduced them again and again. This is the approach that puts you in the Fortune 500. Why do entrepreneurs believe so fervently in the myth that they need to be first to market with a never-before-seen innovation? Because that’s what they’re told in business school. The primary problem with this piece of wisdom is that it encourages business leaders to wait around for a mythical breakthrough idea to fully form. The myth is fed by the public’s perception of groundbreaking companies as having come out of nowhere to rock the world. But companies like Facebook rarely, if ever, spring into being with no antecedents: MySpace and Friendster were in the market first, but Facebook did social networking better than anyone else had done before. Google wasn’t the first search engine ever. AltaVista probably deserves that title. But Google advanced the search experience to the point that we all believe they were the breakthrough innovator. The point I’m making here is that you don’t need to have breakthrough vision to launch your company — you need to have breakthrough execution. Launch your company even if your concept is similar to someone else’s idea, and figure how you will change the business model. When you stall your entry into the market, you run the risk of getting outrun by competition who will have gathered valuable on-the-ground information and solved problems before you’ve even planned your launch party. At a certain point, the ecosystem around your market will have become so strong that consumers will not be willing to accept a new entrant. For example, anyone who launches a Facebook-style social network right now confronts the seemingly impossible task of convincing users to totally rebuild their social network. On the other hand, if you can tweak this idea for a new market — a social network, for instance, that specifically serves the health care community — you can launch without an entirely new concept. Or you can go to a locale where you’re not first in the market, but where there is greater potential to become a player. For example, you can be first to market with widget XYZ in Seattle, where there’s only a moderate interest and market potential for your product. Or you can be tenth to market in Tulsa where there’s a far greater need for widget XYZ, giving you plenty of room to gain customer share. Here’s how to position yourself for entrepreneurial success without playing the waiting game: Follow your heart, but use your head. As an entrepreneur, you should always develop businesses that you are passionate about, since that enthusiasm will keep you pushing ahead when times are tough. But that doesn’t mean you can’t think rationally about how to apply what a competitor is doing to a different market segment or locale. Listen to the market, and tweak as needed. The reason for launching sooner rather than later is to gather feedback from initial customers, so that you can redesign or retool as needed. Without this early feedback, you can only guess as to what customers are willing to pay for. Don’t wallow in brainstorming. Time spent fiddling with a business plan or filling up whiteboards with ideas is time that you could spend actually launching your business and seeing if the idea floats. Launching gives you real, solid feedback, instead of the imaginary “what if” scenarios dreamed up in a conference room. Launch early enough that you’re embarrassed by your first product release . Entrepreneurs are likely to be somewhat off-base about their first launch and what features customers really want, but they won’t make a product better until people are actually using it. LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman says that his co-founders wanted to delay launch until they introduced the professional social network’s “contact finder” feature, but it turns out it wasn’t necessary — eight years later, LinkedIn still hasn’t added that feature. Be your own worst nightmare . Once you do have that toehold in the market, ask yourself how you would outflank your company if you were a competitor. Constantly out-innovate yourself, and determine how to make your product offerings obsolete with each iteration.

Read the full article →

Video: Norvig Says Google Aims to Maintain Start Up Atmosphere

March 18, 2011

March 17 (Bloomberg) — Peter Norvig, director of research at Google Inc., talks about the company’s approach to foster innovation. Norvig also discusses Google’s search engine, company culture and artificial intelligence. He speaks with Emily Chang and Cory Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Tom Doctoroff: Consumers vs. Corporations: China’s Great Digital Divide

March 12, 2011

China’s technologically liberated consumers are ready for a digital commercial revolution. But manufacturers and their communications partners — advertising agencies, both digital and traditional, as well as media companies — are letting them down by not approaching the sector strategically. Liberation for Everyman It is difficult to overstate the impact China’s launch into cyberspace has made for Middle Kingdom’s Everyman. Today, the country boasts 500 million netizens, 150 million of whom have access to high-speed Internet; 200 million bloggers; 100 million micro-bloggers (Chinese “Twitterers”) and 800 million mobile phone users. Digital technology has been secularized. No longer used only by young urbanized hipsters, the sea change epic. Shielded by on-line anonymity, free wheeling surfers broadcast accomplishments, weigh in on current events, download porn, hook up for sex, release rage through violent video games, criticize the government (gingerly), and plug into virtual communities. True, China’s Great Digital Firewall extinguishes hints of collective protest. But Westerners overestimate the constrictive effect of 50,000 net nannies. Denizens of the People’s Republic have more opportunities to explore the world and are freer to express views than any time in history. None of this would have been possible without the Internet. For bargain-crazy consumers, the rise of e-tailers presages an era of commercial Nirvana. According to the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), in 2010, 40 million Chinese booked hotel rooms, airline tickets and holiday tours on travel websites such as C-trip. On-line activity accounted for only an 2% of total 2009 retail spending, up from 1% in 2008; however, rates in coastal cities are already much higher. Alipay, e-commerce behemoth Alibaba’s version of PayPal, has made skittish, reassurance-driven consumers more at ease conducting digital transactions. (China has historically been a “cash is king” society. But consumers are increasingly comfortable spending on-line as long as they can inspect merchandise before transactions are completed.) On-line emporiums such as Taobao have emboldened shoppers to ruthlessly compare prices, realigning the balance of power between buyer and seller. Brand Conventionality For most brands , unfortunately, the digital revolution has not been harnessed. Few have exploited on-line tools to lift profit margins. Virtual consumerism is even more commoditized than in the bricks and mortar world. (Few smart phone users are willing to actually pay money for apps.) As a rule, cyberspace has been carpet bombed with promotional cheap fixes, with zero message consistency or insight into the emotional drivers of netizens. Yes, there are exceptions. PepsiCo’s “Get on the Can” Challenge provided ego-driven youth a platform to shine, literally, by emblazoning faces on cola packages. In the process, the campaign generated 600 million hits. Ford’s “21 Day Excitement” competition employed on-line canvassing to select ten “everyday superstars” to morph from “bland to bold,” dramatizing its “Make Every Day Exciting” proposition. To promote the N-series range, Nokia’s “Bruce Lee Reborn” viral and Ovi app campaign connected surfers to an icon of Chinese masculinity. Most of the time, however, China’s digital landscape resembles a real world bazaar: noisy and clanging, promotion-happy, discount-driven, with the vast majority of on-line advertising slapped onto highly trafficked portals (e.g., Sina, Baidu, QQ) as banner ads. Required: A New Brand Building Vision The communications industry must lift its game to harness the energy released by China’s digital big bang. To do that, we need a North Star. The Brand Idea: Still Sacred. Without the unifying power of the Brand Idea, conceptual chaos erupts. For decades, advertisers’ responsibility has been to forge brand ideas that evolve, but do not fundamentally change, over time. They are rooted in insight, the fundamental motivations of consumers. Through sports shoes, we buck against societal convention to Just Do It on the basketball court. Through engagement rings, we demonstrate enduring passion because “A (DeBeers) Diamond is Forever.” Brand engagement occurs over the airwaves, in the supermarket aisle via blue tooth, through the latest iPhone app, or an on-line loyalty program. And the brand idea, the long-term relationship between consumer and product, is at the center of it all. Apple’s “Think Different,” Kit Kat’s “Have a Break,” Axe’s “Chick Magnet,” Rejoice shampoo’s “Confidence from Softness,” or Pepsi’s “New Generation Choice” is the unifying core, order’s gravitational force. The industry must acknowledge new technological experiences are never, in and of themselves, ideas. Instead, they allow consumers to engage with ideas in new ways. True, marketers are often digitally “clever.” Headlines such as “P&G turns virtual makeover app into Max Factor contest,” “Budlime launch ties into Tudou’s first drama series” and “Unilever links hot steam with warm wishes in Lipton contest” are common. But they rarely reinforce an enduring brand idea. New media titillation has led to digital promiscuity. From Passive Consumption to Active Participation. The fundamental role of the brand will not change as a result of China’s digital liberation. Indeed, as brand options multiply and media costs skyrocket, the need to minimize consumer disorientation is more urgent than ever. However, the one-to-one nature of digital expression provides opportunities to deepen and broaden involvement. “Creative ideas” can become “engagement ideas,” transforming passive exposure into active participation. Advertising agencies should no longer produce work that “interrupts.” Instead, we should “make things” – content -people want to spent time with. DeBeers “Love World,” a microsite where young men express commitment by creating a virtual world of “omnipresent” love, is the shape of things to come. So is Nike Plus, a hi-tech manifestation of the “Just Do It” spirit that enables runners to compete with athletes anytime and anywhere on the planet. Axe’s “sexy wake up call,” an app that brings the product’s “masculine irresistibility” into the bedroom, demonstrates technology’s power to reinforce a core brand proposition. Consumption of communications via digital devices – mobile phones, tablets, computers, etc. – is revolutionary because manufacturers no longer “broadcast” messages. Through a bewildering array of channels, engagement is one-to-one, between marketer and users or between users themselves. “Content” is played with, commented on, expanded upon, competed with and exchanged within “brand communities.” Corporations need to accept their ability to “control” messaging – how a product is positioned, how brands are commented on publicly – will never be the same. (A caveat: broadcast media will never be eclipsed as the primary means of defining propositions. China, a country in which consumers have relatively limited inexperience in digesting brands, requires simplicity. The 30-second television commercial, passively received, is an irreplaceable, albeit expensive, weapon in forging conceptual order. This is why international agencies and media companies operating in the PRC still earn almost all revenue from “traditional” advertising.) The Communications Industry: Change Required The digital engagement imperative presents four fundamental, and interrelated, challenges. Real Time Measurement. First, our industry must hone its ability to measure the effectiveness of digital engagement ideas. Advertising agencies will forfeit legitimacy unless we are able to track, in real time, effectiveness. Broadcast media efficiency is a question of reach and frequency; digital creative, on the other hand, is measured via “stickiness,” “virality,” “click through rates,” “conversion to purchase,” and return on investment (ROI). Any strategic planning department worth its salt must maintain a robust analytics practice. Continuous Engagement. Second, creative agencies must move away from only executing “campaigns” – discrete television and print “bursts” that announce product news – towards “continuous engagement planning.” In an era of technological liberation, there are infinite ways to connect consumers with brands and brand communities. We need to restructure operations to facilitate rapid creative response to real and virtual world developments. We must recruit “story managers” to produce “idea amplifiers,” “or “bite-sized idea sustainers” that maximize the buzz of a given engagement idea. Agencies should operate as “newsrooms,” focused on the big story but flexible enough to cut and thrust as consumer react to creative stimulus. As engagement ideas are manifested in ever-expanding forms, we must plug into a broader array of talent. From bloggers to videographers and on-line performance artists to app developers, we have no choice but to fling open windows and connect with cutting-edge creators. We will never have a monopoly on talent. Employees must survey the Brave New World and forge strategic partnerships with innovators. We must reach into the market for new alliances. We need to embrace expertise wherever it exists, lest we fade to irrelevance. Digital Mainstreaming. Third, it is time to “mainstream” digital creative. Digital is not a “department” or “specialization,” and not a discrete profit center. It is a new media, incredibly potent, just as television was in the 1950s. And creativity remains at the center of the digital ecosystem. Global agencies must integrate digital savvy – genuine technological experimentation — into each account and creative group. Yes, in the interest of a healthy bottom line, certain disciplines – e.g., analytics, technology optimization, digital production, and project management – must reside within a centralized “experience” department. But digital adventurism must permeate the entire organization. Organizational structure must reflect a commitment to media neutrality. Media Innovation. Finally, the “revenue war” between media companies and advertising agencies must end. Media shops will always excel in negotiating low rates with vendors based on volume. They also boast the administrative prowess to plan media across time and geography. But let’s call a spade a spade: the process-driven culture of traditional media companies is incompatible with idea-centric creativity. As the digital universe expands, “ideas” must increasingly “live through” media. In the post-broadcast era, ideas and how consumers experience them are inseparable. If this truth is ignored, investment will evaporate as binary clutter. Advertising agencies need the freedom to establish partnerships with, and derive revenue from, digital media owners. Development of innovative digital solutions must be a strategic imperative of all communications experts, including creative shops. Chinese Enterprises: Vast Opportunity, Structural Limitations The PRC, brand-obsessed and Internet-crazy, is ripe for a digital Great Leap Forward. The Chinese are passionate about social media, highly- developed technology platforms most brands have barely begun to exploit. Through on-line car clubs, digital baby-care communities and a hundred million micro-blogs, Middle Kingdom denizens have embraced social networks on a scale Westerns find difficult to fathom. But these burgeoning on-line communities only tangentially intersect with brands. By leveraging brand ideas, manufacturers can enlist the support of on-line opinion leaders. China is reassurance-driven market in which the importance of personal recommendations is difficult to overstate. It is time to: a) establish common cause with digital influencers to transform on-line communities into virtual brand villages, b) translate SNS affiliation into sustained dialog with individuals, c) monetize one-on-one interaction via on-line loyalty and customer relationship management (CRM) programs and d) elevate the long-term profit contribution of discrete customers. Yes, the opportunity is vast. But the road to digital Utopia will be long and winding. Digital development in the PRC is constipated. Primitive Suppliers. Suppliers are, by and large, unsophisticated. The only large “digital agencies” in China are on-line media agents; the majority place low-end banner ads and television commercials on “mass reach” websites or portals. These companies, many corrupted by rampant kickbacks, treat creative as an add-on “design service.” Revenue is based page views, not click-through. “Depth of engagement” – e.g., time spent with a digital idea – is still an abstruse concept. While investment in analytic tools has grown, few are sophisticated enough to measure or track ROI. Limited Talent. Digital conceptual craftsmanship – the expression of brand ideas through digital media – is undeveloped. Most creative leaders remain tethered to the safety of “traditional” broadcast advertising. Senior digital talent is largely “imported” from abroad. The challenge of inculcating a passion for new technology while remaining faithful to brand building fundamentals is immense. This is particularly true in conservative China, a country that prizes concrete predictability and shies away from the untested – i.e., anything that does not guarantee fixed return. Chronic Short-Termism. Even more critically, Chinese enterprises, like their agency brethren, are not structured to embrace the potential of digital brand building. Digital spending accounts for only 7% of total media activity. Television is still king. To boot, e-commerce is immature given the prevalence of on-line shopping. According to a recent study by Aquarius Asia, approximately one-third, or 142 million, of Chinese Internet users shop on-line. But most companies do not cater to the on-line market. Indeed, per Aquarius’ report, “The top 100 manufacturers of consumer goods are giving away a large share of their online potential. Three out of four major companies do not efficiently use sustainable tools like SEM (search engine marketing) or SEO (search engine optimization) to reach their target groups.” China is a market that reveres scale and volume. Its largest companies are structured, and managed, to drive low-margin sales. Some enterprises, particularly within “strategic” industries, have made progress climbing up value ladders. But few have embraced “brand equity” as the lynchpin of sustainable price premiums. Shoddy corporate governance precludes CEOs from maximizing long-term shareholder return. Panicky marketing executives defer to omnipotent sales barons who enforce short-term promotional pushes; only the most enlightened leaders reject the belief that low price is a competitive weapon. The reign of independent fiefdoms – departmental warlordism – militates against trans-category collaboration for data collection, data base management and cross selling. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) – i.e., maximizing individual customer profit contribution over time – is still an alien concept. The Middle Kingdom’s business culture, therefore, remains antithetical to bold experimentation across digital domains. …… In conclusion, Chinese consumers outpace Chinese corporations and agencies in exploring the new digital ecosystem. There are fundamental structural and cultural barriers that impede idea-centric, media-neutral advertising. Given the potential for digital engagement to redefine the relationship between consumers and brands, new media will transform the commercial and communications landscape. But, as always, progress will be agonizingly incremental.

Read the full article →

WATCH: Google’s Self-Driving Car In Action

March 4, 2011

Google always seems to have a series of interesting projects operating under-the-radar. Back in October, AP reported on Google’s experimentation with cars that drive themselves: Google Inc. is road-testing cars that steer, stop and start without a human driver, the company says. The goal is to “help prevent traffic accidents, free up people’s time and reduce carbon emissions” through ride sharing and “the new ‘highway trains of tomorrow,’” project leader Sebastian Thrun wrote Saturday on Google’s corporate blog. The cars are never unmanned, Thrun wrote. He said a backup driver is always behind the wheel to monitor the software. The New York Times also took a look at Google’s ambitious transportation efforts: Autonomous cars are years from mass production, but technologists who have long dreamed of them believe that they can transform society as profoundly as the Internet has. Robot drivers react faster than humans, have 360-degree perception and do not get distracted, sleepy or intoxicated, the engineers argue. At this week’s TED conference, Search Engine Land caught video of one of Google’s self-driving cars racing around a closed course. Take a look at their video to catch a brief glimpse of the future. WATCH ( via Search Engine Land ):

Read the full article →

Local SEO Agency Adds Experienced PPC Campaign Manager

February 10, 2011

FORT MILL, SC–(Marketwire – February 10, 2011) – Ephricon Web Marketing, a full-service search engine marketing agency, recently added a PPC Campaign Manager to its team of internet marketing experts.

Read the full article →

Top Affiliate Marketer Joins IC Places Board

January 31, 2011

WINTER PARK, FL–(Marketwire – January 31, 2011) – IC Places, Inc. ( OTCQB : ICPA ) ( PINKSHEETS : ICPA ) — IC Places announced today that Affiliate Marketing and SEO guru David Kaye has accepted a two year position on the company’s Board of Advisors. In his role Mr. Kaye will assist the company with enhancing revenues and search engine ranking. Mr. Kaye has the unique ability to understand the psychology of affiliate marketing. His sites, through affiliate programs, send tens of millions of people every month to sites like Amazon and eBay. According to an article on Mr. Kaye in Entrepreneur Magazine he sends as many as 60 million people a month to eBay alone.

Read the full article →

ABN Newswire and AUN Consulting (TYO:2459) Jointly Present a Seminar on PR Distribution and Search Engine Marketing (SEM) in Tokyo

January 12, 2011

ABN Newswire and AUN Consulting (TYO:2459) Jointly Present a Seminar on PR Distribution and Search Engine Marketing (SEM) in Tokyo

Read the full article →

Bing Upgrades Search With A Hand From Facebook

December 16, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — Microsoft Corp. is hoping its Bing search engine can gain more ground on Google with a little more help from Facebook and its other Internet friends. As part of an extensive upgrade announced Wednesday, Bing will feature more recommendations and other information from people’s social circles on Facebook to help distinguish its results from Google’s. Bing also is teaming up with several other Internet companies to make it easier to complete a variety of tasks, such as buying tickets to a sporting event or making reservations at a restaurant, on its site. The changes, which will start appearing during the next few weeks, are unlikely to shift the balance of power in the lucrative search market any time soon. Google Inc. ended November with a 66 percent share of the U.S. search market while Bing remained a distant third at just under 12 percent, according to the research firm comScore Inc. Bing recently started to power Yahoo’s U.S. search engine, whose 16 percent share ranks second to Google. Despite the huge gap, Microsoft has been encouraged by the progress it has made since it retooled its search engine and rebranded it as Bing in June 2009. Bing has about 90 million regular users now, up from 27 million when it made its debut, according to Satya Nadella, a senior vice president in Microsoft’s online services division. Some of the new features unveiled Wednesday provided a glimpse at how Microsoft hopes to capitalize on a competitive advantage that it gained in October when Facebook agreed to give Bing greater access to the 500 million people who have set up accounts on its social network Google Inc. still isn’t able to compile the same volume of Facebook information in its search index. Microsoft has been chummy with Facebook and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, since it paid $240 million for a 1.6 percent stake in the privately held company three years ago. Microsoft believes its Facebook relationship will become an increasingly important factor in the search market as people realize how helpful it is to see the recommendations of their friends when they’re looking for information on the Web. The breadth of those recommendations is rapidly growing as people spend more time on Facebook and become more comfortable sharing their preferences. In one upcoming change, if you are searching on Bing while signed into your Facebook account, some of the links listed in the results might include notation showing that one of your Facebook friends liked the website or a product. Bing also will draw from Facebook when processing requests about people. In some instances, the results will show whether the Bing user making the search request shares any common Facebook friends with the person being researched. Microsoft also is betting it can lure Web surfers away from Google by making Bing a one-stop shop for a range of common online activities. Toward that end, Bing has formed an alliance with a specialty search engine FanSnap to enable people to buy tickets from within the results page. It also is working with OpenTable Inc. to provide more convenient access to restaurant reservations. A variety of other revisions are being made to Bing’s image and mobile search. Google also is constantly tweaking its search engine to make it faster and smarter. In the most dramatic change this year, Google in September started to display search results that change with each keystroke in the request box. It’s also trying to get better data about airline flights , a popular search topic, with a proposed $700 million acquisition of travel technology vendor of ITA Software Inc. Microsoft is among several companies pressing the U.S. Justice Department to block the ITA deal on the grounds that it would give Google too much control over online travel bookings. Google dismisses those complaints as misguided. The Justice Department isn’t expected to complete its review of the deal until next year.

Read the full article →

Francine Hardaway: Corporate Tax Evasion Strategy WIll Irk Middle Class

November 12, 2010

This is a rant. I’ve been taught that in America, we live by the Rule of Law. This is beginning to sound increasingly mysterious to me lately. How come I have to live by the Rule of Law, but others do not? How come I have to put my dog on a leash in the park, when he’s not bothering anybody else? How come I can risk jail for smoking a joint? How come when the IRS calls me, I have to come in for an audit and pay $35,000 in back taxes I don’t have and can’t afford to fight? Because the “other half” does not have to live under the Rule of Law: rather, it makes the law. Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda. Google’s income shifting — involving strategies known to lawyers as the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich” — helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries. “It’s remarkable that Google’s effective rate is that low,” said Martin A. Sullivan, a tax economist who formerly worked for the U.S. Treasury Department. “We know this company operates throughout the world mostly in high-tax countries where the average corporate rate is well over 20 percent.” The U.S. corporate income-tax rate is 35 percent. In the U.K., Google’s second-biggest market by revenue, it’s 28 percent. Google, the owner of the world’s most popular search engine, uses a strategy that has gained favor among such companies as Facebook Inc. and Microsoft Corp. The method takes advantage of Irish tax law to legally shuttle profits into and out of subsidiaries there, largely escaping the country’s 12.5 percent income tax. As a result of these tax strategies, a small number of people make big money as Google investors, and a somewhat larger number are on salaries and free food working for Google. And I’m not picking on Google, because many other countries use the “double Irish” strategy, or the office in the Cayman Islands strategy. The rest of us, about 290 million of us, shoulder both the tax burden and the burden of the service cuts when the tax revenues fall short. All it takes to avoid the “rule of law” is to have the money. Yesterday, the President’s Budget Commission reported that 75 percent of the deficit reduction effort should come from spending cuts and 25 percent from revenue increases. [Erskine] Bowles also called for capping government spending at 21 percent of the overall economy. Government spending now accounts for 24 percent of the economy and could rise to 27 percent, according to Republican Senator Judd Gregg, who is also a panel member. He said he would also like to see a broadening of the tax base and simplifying of the tax code which would require hundreds of individual and business tax breaks to be eliminated. These so-called tax expenditures, such as the mortgage interest deduction, are a popular way for lawmakers to direct economic activity and encourage investment in housing and other areas such as ethanol production. Those tax benefits, however, cost the federal treasury about $1 trillion a year and generally result in higher income tax rates for everyone else. “I would like to see us take a hard look at tax expenditures,” Bowles said, adding that they amounted to government spending by a different name. Bowles said he favors lowering corporate and individual income tax rates and putting in place a tax on consumption. Here we go. The middle class is going to take it in the shorts again. How long before the riots begin in the streets? How long before I refuse to put my dog on a leash while the big dogs in the Caymans run free?

Read the full article →

Video: Meeks Says He `Wouldn’t Touch’ Google Stock at $590: Video

October 15, 2010

Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) — Paul Meeks, an analyst at Capstone Investments, discusses Google Inc.’s third-quarter profit reported yesterday. The owner of the world’s most popular search engine said net income rose 32 percent to $2.17 billion, or $6.72 a share, from $1.64 billion, or $5.13, a year earlier. Meeks talks with Deirdre Bolton from Charleston, South Carolina, on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Meeks Says He `Wouldn’t Touch’ Google Stock at $590: Video

October 15, 2010

Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) — Paul Meeks, an analyst at Capstone Investments, discusses Google Inc.’s third-quarter profit reported yesterday. The owner of the world’s most popular search engine said net income rose 32 percent to $2.17 billion, or $6.72 a share, from $1.64 billion, or $5.13, a year earlier. Meeks talks with Deirdre Bolton from Charleston, South Carolina, on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Fetyko Says Google Non-Search Products Help Growth: Video

October 14, 2010

Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) — Richard Fetyko, an analyst at Merriman Curhan Ford & Co., talks about Google Inc.’s third-quarter profit and outlook. The owner of the world’s most popular search engine says net income increased as businesses spent more on advertising to attract online consumers. Fetyko speaks with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Eric K. Clemons: Time to Wake Up and Smell the Antitrust

September 21, 2010

Introduction The recent House Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on Competition in the Evolving Digital Marketplace raises interesting questions on regulation, on the frameworks needed to regulate emerging digital businesses, and on the applicability of existing regulatory frameworks. Does the high tech sector require additional regulatory attention, or is the Sherman Antitrust Act, at a geriatric 120 years and still counting, sufficiently general and sufficiently frisky to deal with modern online business models as adequately as it dealt with the emergence of smokestack industry monopolies and cartels? Or are there companies, even entire categories of business, that require new regulatory models? If so, of course, it would not be the first time that the intersection of new technology, new economic forces, and new corporate strategies required a significant extension to existing antitrust law. Intent and capability Military analyses focus on both intent (or what you think a potential opponent might want to do to you) and capability (or what you think that opponent would be capable of doing to you if it so chose). Intent changes over time, perhaps quite rapidly and quite without warning. Arming Iran under the Shah was not in America’s best interests, as we discovered when Iran’s intent changed dramatically and instantaneously after the installation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Likewise, arming the Taliban in Afghanistan so that they could defeat the Russians turned out to have surprising consequences when we, not the Russians, were the opponent in the Taliban’s cross-hairs. If the stakes are high enough, and capability is great enough, ” trust me ” is not an adequate way to assess intent or to balance benign present intent against possible future actions. Should we be interested at all? Is current antitrust regulation working or not? I will argue below that it demonstrably is not. Do regulators fully understand how the oft-touted new economics of the internet, beloved by internet and dot-com entrepreneurs , may be impossible to control with regulation designed to enhance competition in the old economy? I will argue, again, demonstrably not. FTD Bureau of Competition Director Richard Feinstein, testifying on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission, said ” Some have argued that there should be different rules for markets characterized by rapid technological development, but Congress drafted the antitrust laws in general terms to accommodate changing markets and new products, and the laws are flexible enough to meet the challenges of the high-tech era .” This was part of his testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy on September 16, 2010. Not only is this statement about the Sherman Antitrust Act not true today, but it was not true almost from the Sherman’s inception. The regulatory regime of the Sherman Act was found wanting almost immediately after its drafting, and almost immediately needed to be extended to deal with the emerging telecommunications industry. Telecommunications technology, network economics, and AT&T strategy interacted in a way not anticipated when Sherman was drafted. In particular, telecommunications offers positive participation externalities or network effects , where a service gains value as the number of users increases, leading to the idea of a natural monopoly. The Government had to go outside Sherman to regulate AT&T, leading to the Kingsbury Commitment of 1913, which created AT&T as America’s first privately owned but regulated monopoly company. Sherman needed a “manual override” because it could not accommodate the market power of AT&T in the new network economy. America wanted the clear benefits of interconnectivity, with everyone able to communicate with everyone else, which given the technology of the time required a single telecommunications company. Although network effects argued in favor of a single monopoly telecommunications service provider, America did not want monopoly power in this critical new industry concentrated in one firm. For the first time, consumer welfare and technology interacted in a way that demanded that telecommunications be provided by a monopoly, and that likewise demanded regulation of that monopoly in a way not anticipated when Sherman was drafted; clearly not one of the drafters of Sherman anticipated that there would be benefits if we all used steel or oil or detergent or canned soup from the same manufacturer. So even in 1913 Sherman was not sufficiently flexible and required a “patch”. Today it is not at all clear that Sherman is up to the challenge presented by third-party payment business models, where users have free access and third parties are billed. Since users pay nothing for service, and indeed are largely ignorant of the cost of service, prices may be effectively decoupled from the discipline of the marketplace. (At present this has been covered only in academic conferences or on YouTube ; we will post on the regulatory challenges of third party payment business models shortly). The Internet economy will almost certainly pose new regulatory challenges to Sherman, and may require solutions not envisioned in the drafting of Sherman. It is easy to dismiss the need for any regulation if you fail to understand the presence or absence of barriers to entry on the Internet. Although entering online appears easy, it is one thing to create a website, and it is quite another to ensure that it has traffic. Ed Black, President of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, spoke at the House hearings and rejected claims that Google has reached a point where its practices are anti-competitive, arguing instead that there are ” few barriers to entry ” in the Internet marketplace. This sounds so plausible, and will be repeated so many times at so many future hearings, that it demands a response. Ease of Entry? Instead of assuming away barriers to entry and therefore assuming away the threat of monopolists, let’s look at the data. One of the tell-tale signs of monopoly power is monopoly profits; a first course in economics assures us that there should be no long-term super-normal risk adjusted profits; high profits not only invite competition, they more or less guarantee it. And Google demonstrably has extraordinary profits in search. Another tell-tale sign of monopoly profits is the presence of cross-subsidies; if a company is earning enough in one market to cross-subsidize other lines of business, then the business providing the cross subsidies enjoys monopoly power in the absence of contestability; once again Google demonstrably is earning extraordinary profits in search, and once again it is clearly using its monopoly power in search to subsidize everything from high speed internet access and mobile phone service to online video (YouTube) and photo sharing (Picasa). Monopoly profits are not inherently evil nor are they inherently illegal; market power legitimately obtained, without intent to monopolize or to restrain competition, is not legally actionable. But it does demand rethinking statements about the absence of barriers to entry. This suggests that we should at least look for the possibility of serious barriers to entry in search, and it’s not hard to see that they exist. Just look at how much Microsoft has spent to develop and promote Bing (hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising alone) and how limited its current market share is, and you get a sense of how severe the barriers to entry can be. How Can There Be Barriers to Entry Online? But how can anyone have monopoly power online? Anyone can build an online website; this is not like building a huge industrial facility, right? And customers are only a click away from switching, right? How can there be barriers to entry online? Build a better and cheaper mousetrap, or a better one, or a cheaper one, or even just a newer one with a catchy name, and customers will flock to you, right? The first and perhaps most important barrier to new competitors is the third party payer model . You search for a hotel in Arlington, Marriott and ArlingtonHotels.com bid for keywords, and if ArlingtonHotels.com bids enough, your search for Marriott Hotels Arlington takes you to ArlingtonHotels, one of dozens of websites operated by Otels.com. You can still book your Marriott, so you don’t care, but the surcharge Otels.com charges Marriott is 30%, so they certainly care! They might prefer to have you go to Bing, to Yahoo!, or to almost anyone else, but since you are not paying for search, the third party is paying, you have no reason to switch search engines. The second barrier is the geometry of the net . Mostly consumers can’t find anything without going through some search engine. That may make search an Essential Facility , and one that enables search engine operators to control what we find, or what we do not find. Even the ” one click away ” argument is misleading; as long as search is free to consumers, and as long as a search engine’s results are good enough for consumers, then consumers have no reason to invest in even that single click. If consumers stay with their existing search engine choices, then corporations have to go where the consumers are. Once again, the geometry of the net and the third party payer model come into play, making it almost impossible for a new entrant to compete, and almost impossible for a corporate customer to drop out of a keyword auction on an existing search engine. Why should we care? There are lots of reasons why we should care about online monopolists. In general, monopolists can and do extend their reach, subsidizing new markets until they are able to obtain monopoly power there, and in general when a “practicing monopolist” obtains new monopoly powers, we can expect these markets to be exploited also. That is, abusive monopolists grow, extend their reach, and abuse their new monopolies. The Sherman Act does not exist to protect poorly run competitors but the Sherman Act does exist to protect competition and to protect consumers from abusive monopolists. But we should worry even more about an online search monopolist, even if it could be shown that the search monopolist had not charged monopoly prices and had no intention of abusing new monopolies. Search has become the principal way in which most of us learn about everything online, from how to book a new hotel or the quality of a new movie, to how China is handling its dissidents or how the Tea Party candidates are preparing for the November elections. The net is a diverse place, and somewhere one can find exactly the right product, or the story that exactly supports or counters any opinion. But what if ” monopoly of search ” can trump ” diversity of source “? If monopoly of search can trump diversity of source, then a dominant search engine has enormous power to promote its own offerings and to stifle innovation in a range of industries. Other problems likewise follow automatically. At present, a dominant search engine can charge almost whatever it wants for keywords, effortlessly switching the balance of power between compliant and uncooperative companies, or compliant and uncooperative politicians. It can promote or stifle points of view by shifting what news stories we find, or don’t find, hiding stories it wants to hide, or allowing companies to pay to alter what we learn about them . I am, of course, not saying that any of this has happened or will happen. But if online monopolies are possible, they are also particularly dangerous. It’s time for Washington to wake up and smell the antitrust If it walks, talks, acts, and smells like a monopolist, odds are it’s a monopolist. And if this monopolist is earning extraordinary profits, and if there is even the possibility that this monopolist might be using those profits to restrain trade, then perhaps the Sherman Antitrust Act is not working. The possibility of online monopolists demands better theory than ” there are no barriers to entry online ” and purported monopolists need better defense than ” trust me .”

Read the full article →

Eric K. Clemons: Time to Wake Up and Smell the Antitrust

September 21, 2010

Introduction The recent House Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on Competition in the Evolving Digital Marketplace raises interesting questions on regulation, on the frameworks needed to regulate emerging digital businesses, and on the applicability of existing regulatory frameworks. Does the high tech sector require additional regulatory attention, or is the Sherman Antitrust Act, at a geriatric 120 years and still counting, sufficiently general and sufficiently frisky to deal with modern online business models as adequately as it dealt with the emergence of smokestack industry monopolies and cartels? Or are there companies, even entire categories of business, that require new regulatory models? If so, of course, it would not be the first time that the intersection of new technology, new economic forces, and new corporate strategies required a significant extension to existing antitrust law. Intent and capability Military analyses focus on both intent (or what you think a potential opponent might want to do to you) and capability (or what you think that opponent would be capable of doing to you if it so chose). Intent changes over time, perhaps quite rapidly and quite without warning. Arming Iran under the Shah was not in America’s best interests, as we discovered when Iran’s intent changed dramatically and instantaneously after the installation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Likewise, arming the Taliban in Afghanistan so that they could defeat the Russians turned out to have surprising consequences when we, not the Russians, were the opponent in the Taliban’s cross-hairs. If the stakes are high enough, and capability is great enough, ” trust me ” is not an adequate way to assess intent or to balance benign present intent against possible future actions. Should we be interested at all? Is current antitrust regulation working or not? I will argue below that it demonstrably is not. Do regulators fully understand how the oft-touted new economics of the internet, beloved by internet and dot-com entrepreneurs , may be impossible to control with regulation designed to enhance competition in the old economy? I will argue, again, demonstrably not. FTD Bureau of Competition Director Richard Feinstein, testifying on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission, said ” Some have argued that there should be different rules for markets characterized by rapid technological development, but Congress drafted the antitrust laws in general terms to accommodate changing markets and new products, and the laws are flexible enough to meet the challenges of the high-tech era .” This was part of his testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy on September 16, 2010. Not only is this statement about the Sherman Antitrust Act not true today, but it was not true almost from the Sherman’s inception. The regulatory regime of the Sherman Act was found wanting almost immediately after its drafting, and almost immediately needed to be extended to deal with the emerging telecommunications industry. Telecommunications technology, network economics, and AT&T strategy interacted in a way not anticipated when Sherman was drafted. In particular, telecommunications offers positive participation externalities or network effects , where a service gains value as the number of users increases, leading to the idea of a natural monopoly. The Government had to go outside Sherman to regulate AT&T, leading to the Kingsbury Commitment of 1913, which created AT&T as America’s first privately owned but regulated monopoly company. Sherman needed a “manual override” because it could not accommodate the market power of AT&T in the new network economy. America wanted the clear benefits of interconnectivity, with everyone able to communicate with everyone else, which given the technology of the time required a single telecommunications company. Although network effects argued in favor of a single monopoly telecommunications service provider, America did not want monopoly power in this critical new industry concentrated in one firm. For the first time, consumer welfare and technology interacted in a way that demanded that telecommunications be provided by a monopoly, and that likewise demanded regulation of that monopoly in a way not anticipated when Sherman was drafted; clearly not one of the drafters of Sherman anticipated that there would be benefits if we all used steel or oil or detergent or canned soup from the same manufacturer. So even in 1913 Sherman was not sufficiently flexible and required a “patch”. Today it is not at all clear that Sherman is up to the challenge presented by third-party payment business models, where users have free access and third parties are billed. Since users pay nothing for service, and indeed are largely ignorant of the cost of service, prices may be effectively decoupled from the discipline of the marketplace. (At present this has been covered only in academic conferences or on YouTube ; we will post on the regulatory challenges of third party payment business models shortly). The Internet economy will almost certainly pose new regulatory challenges to Sherman, and may require solutions not envisioned in the drafting of Sherman. It is easy to dismiss the need for any regulation if you fail to understand the presence or absence of barriers to entry on the Internet. Although entering online appears easy, it is one thing to create a website, and it is quite another to ensure that it has traffic. Ed Black, President of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, spoke at the House hearings and rejected claims that Google has reached a point where its practices are anti-competitive, arguing instead that there are ” few barriers to entry ” in the Internet marketplace. This sounds so plausible, and will be repeated so many times at so many future hearings, that it demands a response. Ease of Entry? Instead of assuming away barriers to entry and therefore assuming away the threat of monopolists, let’s look at the data. One of the tell-tale signs of monopoly power is monopoly profits; a first course in economics assures us that there should be no long-term super-normal risk adjusted profits; high profits not only invite competition, they more or less guarantee it. And Google demonstrably has extraordinary profits in search. Another tell-tale sign of monopoly profits is the presence of cross-subsidies; if a company is earning enough in one market to cross-subsidize other lines of business, then the business providing the cross subsidies enjoys monopoly power in the absence of contestability; once again Google demonstrably is earning extraordinary profits in search, and once again it is clearly using its monopoly power in search to subsidize everything from high speed internet access and mobile phone service to online video (YouTube) and photo sharing (Picasa). Monopoly profits are not inherently evil nor are they inherently illegal; market power legitimately obtained, without intent to monopolize or to restrain competition, is not legally actionable. But it does demand rethinking statements about the absence of barriers to entry. This suggests that we should at least look for the possibility of serious barriers to entry in search, and it’s not hard to see that they exist. Just look at how much Microsoft has spent to develop and promote Bing (hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising alone) and how limited its current market share is, and you get a sense of how severe the barriers to entry can be. How Can There Be Barriers to Entry Online? But how can anyone have monopoly power online? Anyone can build an online website; this is not like building a huge industrial facility, right? And customers are only a click away from switching, right? How can there be barriers to entry online? Build a better and cheaper mousetrap, or a better one, or a cheaper one, or even just a newer one with a catchy name, and customers will flock to you, right? The first and perhaps most important barrier to new competitors is the third party payer model . You search for a hotel in Arlington, Marriott and ArlingtonHotels.com bid for keywords, and if ArlingtonHotels.com bids enough, your search for Marriott Hotels Arlington takes you to ArlingtonHotels, one of dozens of websites operated by Otels.com. You can still book your Marriott, so you don’t care, but the surcharge Otels.com charges Marriott is 30%, so they certainly care! They might prefer to have you go to Bing, to Yahoo!, or to almost anyone else, but since you are not paying for search, the third party is paying, you have no reason to switch search engines. The second barrier is the geometry of the net . Mostly consumers can’t find anything without going through some search engine. That may make search an Essential Facility , and one that enables search engine operators to control what we find, or what we do not find. Even the ” one click away ” argument is misleading; as long as search is free to consumers, and as long as a search engine’s results are good enough for consumers, then consumers have no reason to invest in even that single click. If consumers stay with their existing search engine choices, then corporations have to go where the consumers are. Once again, the geometry of the net and the third party payer model come into play, making it almost impossible for a new entrant to compete, and almost impossible for a corporate customer to drop out of a keyword auction on an existing search engine. Why should we care? There are lots of reasons why we should care about online monopolists. In general, monopolists can and do extend their reach, subsidizing new markets until they are able to obtain monopoly power there, and in general when a “practicing monopolist” obtains new monopoly powers, we can expect these markets to be exploited also. That is, abusive monopolists grow, extend their reach, and abuse their new monopolies. The Sherman Act does not exist to protect poorly run competitors but the Sherman Act does exist to protect competition and to protect consumers from abusive monopolists. But we should worry even more about an online search monopolist, even if it could be shown that the search monopolist had not charged monopoly prices and had no intention of abusing new monopolies. Search has become the principal way in which most of us learn about everything online, from how to book a new hotel or the quality of a new movie, to how China is handling its dissidents or how the Tea Party candidates are preparing for the November elections. The net is a diverse place, and somewhere one can find exactly the right product, or the story that exactly supports or counters any opinion. But what if ” monopoly of search ” can trump ” diversity of source “? If monopoly of search can trump diversity of source, then a dominant search engine has enormous power to promote its own offerings and to stifle innovation in a range of industries. Other problems likewise follow automatically. At present, a dominant search engine can charge almost whatever it wants for keywords, effortlessly switching the balance of power between compliant and uncooperative companies, or compliant and uncooperative politicians. It can promote or stifle points of view by shifting what news stories we find, or don’t find, hiding stories it wants to hide, or allowing companies to pay to alter what we learn about them . I am, of course, not saying that any of this has happened or will happen. But if online monopolies are possible, they are also particularly dangerous. It’s time for Washington to wake up and smell the antitrust If it walks, talks, acts, and smells like a monopolist, odds are it’s a monopolist. And if this monopolist is earning extraordinary profits, and if there is even the possibility that this monopolist might be using those profits to restrain trade, then perhaps the Sherman Antitrust Act is not working. The possibility of online monopolists demands better theory than ” there are no barriers to entry online ” and purported monopolists need better defense than ” trust me .”

Read the full article →

Bill Singer: One Investing Idea: Issue Phony Online Press Releases and Tout Them

July 30, 2010

In a Complaint dated October 22, 2009, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleged that from September 29, 2009, through October 2, 2009, Lambros D. Ballas engaged in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the stock price of multiple publicly traded companies (including Google, Microsoft, and Walt Disney) by disseminating phony press releases and then hyping them on Internet bulletin boards such as Yahoo!. For example, on September 29, 2009, Ballas issued a phony press release announcing that Pennsylvania biotech company Discovery Laboratories had obtained approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for a drug under development. Ballas then posted a message on a stock message board with a link to what he described as the company’s “official press release.” In his post, Ballas claimed to have called his “personal broker” who “says it’s been confirmed.” Discovery Laboratories’ stock price shot up nearly 50%. The next day, September 30, Ballas issued a release falsely claiming that IMAX Corporation had been acquired by Disney. Once again he followed up by posting links to the phony release on a stock message board, telling other potential investors that he had bought 10,000 IMAX shares and that his broker “just called me to tell me at the crack of dawn.” On October 1, Ballas issuing a phony press release stating that California search engine company Local.com was being acquired by Microsoft. Ballas followed this by again posting messages and links to the Local.com release on stock message boards. In one posting he stated: “Local just bought out by Microsoft, at $12.50 per share including patent ownership.” In aftermarket trading, Local.com’s stock price rose over 75%. Later that night, Local.com issued a corrective release saying that the Microsoft release had been false — there was no Microsoft acquisition. Undeterred, the next day Ballas issued another phony release, this time stating that it was Google, and not Microsoft, that was acquiring the company. It would have been bad enough if Ballas were simply another online pumper, dumper, or scammer. What makes this worse is that, Ballas, a 34-year-old resident of Huntington, New York, was a registered representative associated with an SEC registered broker-dealer. This wasn’t just another yutz trying to make a quick, dirty buck. Ballas was a stockbroker. See, SEC v. Ballas Federal Court Injunction On July 8, 2010, Lambros D. Ballas was permanently enjoined from issuing or causing to be disseminated false or misleading press releases and Internet postings, or other public statements regarding publicly traded or quoted companies where such conduct would constitute an actual or threatened violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. See , Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lambros D. Ballas , (Civil Action Number 5:09-cv-05036, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division). SEC Administrative Proceedings On July 28, 2010, the SEC initiated public administrative proceedings pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), against Ballas. In the Matter of Lambros D. Ballas ( Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings, ’34 Act Rel. # 62581, Admin. Proceeding # 3-13981, July 28, 2010 ). Note that Ballas is considered innocent and the above statements are merely allegations until and unless he is found guilty. Bill Singer’s Comment: As one who has been bedeviled by the pumpers, dumpers, and scamsters who haunt the Internet, it’s nice to see that the SEC is finally taking the complaints about such fraud seriously. While many regulators pooh-pooh the seriousness of online fraud as little more than childish shenanigans, the fact is that millions of investors (and potential investors) follow stocks on Yahoo! and other online communities. While we may wish that investors were more sophisticated and did not base investment decisions upon anonymous online postings, the fact is that many folks decide to buy, sell, or hold after reading what they believe is the “truth” on a forum or chat room. Rather than laugh at the stupidity of relying upon such nonsense, Wall Street’s regulators need to root out the fraud and impose severe penalties on the con artists behind the lies. Hopefully, this case is an indication of more to come.

Read the full article →

Video: Paul Meeks Says Google Still Growing at `Very Fast Clip’: Video

July 16, 2010

July 16 (Bloomberg) — Paul Meeks, principal at Winsor Asset Management, talks about Google Inc.’s second-quarter profit reported yesterday, which missed estimates. Google, owner of the world’s most popular search engine, said profit was $6.45 a share. Analysts had estimated $6.52, according to a Bloomberg survey. Net income rose 24 percent to $1.84 billion, or $5.71 s share, from $1.49 billion, or $4.66, a year earlier. Meeks talks with Deirdre Bolton on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Barclays’s Anmuth Says Google `Incredibly Innovative’: Video

July 15, 2010

July 16 (Bloomberg) — Doug Anmuth, an analyst at Barclays Capital in New York, talks with Bloomberg’s Susan Li about Google Inc.’s financial results. Google, owner of the world’s most popular search engine, reported profit that missed estimates as the company ramped up spending to take on social-networking sites such as Facebook Inc. Anmuth also discusses Yahoo! Inc.’s outlook. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Google Wi-Fi Data Collection Discussed by Law Enforcement in 30 States

June 16, 2010

By Karen Freifeld and Joel Rosenblatt June 16 (Bloomberg) — Google Inc. ’s collection of data via Wi-Fi networks was the subject of a conference call among law enforcement officials from 30 U.S. states, according to Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal . “We’re looking to establish where, when, why, for how long and for what purpose there was this collection of information on wireless networks,” Blumenthal said yesterday in an interview. The call included representatives of the states’ attorneys general. The discussion reflects widening concern among law enforcement over the way Google handles user information. The company said last month it mistakenly gathered data from open wireless networks while it was capturing images of streets and houses for its Street View service, a product that lets users view photographs of an area online. Blumenthal has demanded that Mountain View, California- based Google inform his office of any data gathered from his state’s residents and businesses without permission, the attorney general said this month. Google owns the world’s largest search engine . “This was a mistake, but we don’t believe we did anything illegal,” Google said in an e-mailed statement. “We’re working with the relevant authorities to answer their questions and concerns.” Illinois was among the states that joined in last week’s call led by Blumenthal. Illinois in Talks “We did participate in a conference call with other attorneys general regarding Google,” said Robyn Ziegler, a spokeswoman for Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan . Additional information wasn’t immediately available, she said. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission said last month that it is reviewing Google’s data gathering. An Oregon judge has ordered the company turn over similar data collected in that state, including any e-mails, files or digital phone records, according to court documents. Also this month, Google said it was turning over to regulators in Germany, France and Spain data it mistakenly collected from unsecured Wi-Fi networks. Those countries are investigating Google’s data-gathering practices after the company said in May that its cars used to photograph roadsides for its Street View mapping service inadvertently recorded information. Prosecutors in the German city of Hamburg opened a criminal investigation. Authorities in Italy, Canada and the Czech Republic also have begun inquiries. The Oregon case is Vicki Van Valin v. Google, 10-00557, U.S. District Court, District of Oregon (Portland). To contact the reporters on this story: Karen Freifeld in New York at kfreifeld@bloomberg.net ; Joel Rosenblatt in San Francisco at jrosenblatt@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Murdoch’s Offer to Control BSkyB Fits Strategy to Charge for News, Movies

June 15, 2010

By Kristen Schweizer June 15 (Bloomberg) — Rupert Murdoch -controlled News Corp.’s 7.8 billion-pound ($11.5 billion) offer to take over British Sky Broadcasting Plc fits his business model: boosting operations where clients pay for content. Subscription-based businesses such as U.K. pay-TV provider BSkyB, of which News Corp. already owns a 39 percent stake, make it easier to generate secure and rising sales compared with content reliant on a volatile advertising market, analysts said. “There’s definitely a theme here to get people to pay for content,” said Alex DeGroote, a media analyst at Panmure Gordon & Co. in London. “News Corp. has a conviction that getting people to pay will work and Murdoch’s not backing down from that.” The bid for the remainder of BSkyB reflects Murdoch’s ambitions to generate more money from subscriptions at a time when many newspapers, magazines and TV shows are free online and films and music can easily be downloaded illegally. News Corp., which already charges for online access to The Wall Street Journal , will also begin charging for the websites of The Times of London and The Sunday Times this month. BSkyB today spurned the News Corp. offer, asking for the bid to be raised by at least 14 percent. The company’s independent directors said today they may accept an offer of more than 800 pence a share, higher than the 700 pence a share News Corp. offered for the 61 percent stake it doesn’t already own in BSkyB. Value of Customers “The value of a customers to BSkyB is how much they pay for services,” said Paul Richards , an analyst with Numis Securities Ltd. in London. “All evidence shows the more services they have, the less likely they are to leave.” Formed in 1990 with the merger of Murdoch’s Sky Television and British Satellite Broadcasting, BSkyB has about 9.77 million subscribers. Buying exclusive live broadcasting rights in 1992 to popular events such as the Premier League, England’s top soccer league, helped it win clients. It added offerings such as the History Channel and Disney Channel in 1995. Murdoch said last year he would start online subscriptions for all company news sites and even considered blocking Google Inc. ’s Internet search engine from displaying News Corp. news articles. Online news aggregators should pay to distribute his company’s stories, Murdoch said. The Times and The Sunday Times are the first of four U.K. news titles owned by News Corp.’s international unit that will move to an online pay model. Newspaper Access The Financial Times, which also charges readers to access the newspaper online, has no plans to pull its content from Google, even though users are seven times less likely to subscribe to the FT.com when they arrive via Google News pages, Rob Grimshaw , FT.com managing director, said in April. Continuing its quest to charge for content, News Corp. said yesterday it bought e-reading platform Skiff LLC and invested an undisclosed amount into Journalism Online LLC, a venture that helps publishers collect revenue from Internet readers. Journalism Online, co-founded by Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz , runs Press+, a service that provides online readers a universal account to access news. It also helps publishers adjust pricing and offerings for paid access to their content, including managing the so-called meter model, which grants free access until a reader surpasses a certain threshold. News Corp., which also owns the Twentieth Century Fox film studio, said on May 4 that the company is evaluating how to use its $8.18 billion in cash. News Corp. recorded $176 million in earnings from its BSkyB stake in the quarter ended March 31, compared with a $7 million loss a year earlier. The satellite service’s operating profit increased with the addition of high- definition TV subscribers. To contact the reporter on this story: Kristen Schweizer in London at kschweizer1@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Brett King: Bad Service is Killing Bank Share Valuations

May 31, 2010

No one can deny that banks have had a tough time of it when it comes to stock market valuations over the last couple of years. The global financial crisis, massive debt and NPL issues along with punishing public opinion led to a massive collapse in banking stocks and company valuations in recent times. It would be simple to blame the sub-prime and global financial crisis as the sole cause of all the ills of the banking sector, but I have a different theory which explains a large part of the picture. In the last 5 years the S&P 500 has experienced incredible volatility. On October 9, 2007 the S&P 500 hit its all time record of 1,565.15, but it was followed by the biggest annual loss in the S&P’s history, losing 37% in 2008 (the previous record being -22% in 2002 at the end of the dot com boom). As a result you’d expect any participants in the US market to have suffered similarly, and they have. Volatility, or the range/spread of buy and sell trades in the US markets is at an all time high and according to many analysts this volatility is here to stay . The certainty in the market has largely disappeared, and with it, the status quo in respect to valuations. In the last 5 or 6 years, however, a new component has come into valuation metrics for listed companies. We still have revenue, we still have market share, branding and so forth, but innovation is clearly an increasingly significant part of the story. Let me illustrate: Comparative Performance – S&P 500, Tech and Banking Stocks Below is a graph (source: Yahoo Finance , Bloomberg ) showing the comparative performance of a selection of key stocks from the US market, the S&P500 Index being the dotted yellow line. Innovation is being rewarded like never before in market valuations Clearly Apple and Google have differentiated themselves. What has made the difference? Why have Google and Apple performed so much better over the last 5 years in market terms? Let’s examine the facts and see what conclusions we can draw. Microsoft’s Revenue in 2005 exceeded Apple’s by more than 300%, and Google’s by almost 600%. In the last 5 years Microsoft’s Revenue has increased from $39B in 2005 to close to $60B in 2009 , certainly not a bad performance. Google’s revenue certainly has increased, but in the years 2007-2009 it has only jumped from $16.5B to $23.7B. Since 2005 Apple has increased their revenue from $13.9B (2005) to $36.5(2009). Apple has certainly benefited from the popularity of the iPhone (Released June 29th, 2007) and more recently the iPad (Released April, 2010). But if we compare the top 4 US banks we see that their revenue makes the tech companies look fairly ordinary. If revenue was the key driver, then we’d expect to see that the banks would have better comparative valuations. Given that Microsoft’s revenue is still close to double that of Apple’s revenue, and more than double that of Google – if the answer was that ‘tech’ revenue was valued at a premium then we’d expect Microsoft to be fairing better. 2009 data Assets ($B) Revenue ($B) Bank of America (BAC) $2,300 $113 J P Morgan Chase (JPM) $2,000 $101 Citigroup (C) $1,800 $106 Wells Fargo (WFC) $1,200 $51.7 On this basis, revenue, while a critical component of a company’s valuation, would seem to not correlate cleanly with the exceptional performance of Apple and Google recently. Well before the GFC started to impact company valuations, they were already being hurt by something… So is it future revenue potential? P/E Ratios show somewhat the expectation of the market in respect to future revenue potential. For the ‘blue chip’ performers like Microsoft, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo – P/E Ratio (Price/Earnings Ratio) are all performing in the range of 15-17, whereas Apple and Google are at 21.8 and 22.1 respectively. Certainly expectations are that Google and Apple have not yet hit their peak in earnings capability because their valuations show a higher multiple. Indeed, the S&P 500 typically tracks at around 15 – so Google’s and Apple’s performances are something special. Future earnings might account for a higher valuation today, but this is not necessarily the sole factor in their comparative performance which, over the last 5 years, has been much better than Microsoft, the top banks and industrials. In fact, you have to look very hard globally to find better performing stocks in respect to either new or established companies in terms of growth in both revenue and share price over the last 5 years. So future revenue is a factor, but not the sole factor. If it was, then you’d expect Microsoft would get some of the joy too as part of the ‘tech’ clique, but they’ve not received as much optimism as their tech buddies have. What differentiates Apple and Google’s revenue from the rest of the pack? You might attribute Apple’s success in respect to valuations from their great products. But if you compare market share both Google and Apple really still are minority players when compared with Microsoft, purely from a product perspective. While Google’s Android and Apple’s OS-X are taking some share of the mobile market, Windows is still a force to be reckoned with. So where is the differentiation? Google’s strength to date, and Apple’s more recent success with great new device technologies has centered around one key area. Their ability to create great, but simple and intuitive, propositions. Google.com as a search engine is the perfect representation of search (at least for now). When Google launched their search engine in 1997, there was really no one that could touch them in terms of simplicity of experience and validity of results, and today, although many have attempted to copy Google’s formula, (read Bing.com) we still see Google maintaining a 65.6% market share of the SE space. What Google bought to the table, their foundation or core, was innovating the customer experience and making technology really simple to use. The simplicity and user experience differentiate Apple devices Apple has done the same. User Experience is at the heart of why the iPod, iPhone and iPad have captured not only the imagination of the consumer market, but why Apple and its products are increasingly part of the common vernacular. Sure Apple’s stuff looks great, cool and is about as aspirational as branded products get in the Y-Gen/Digital Natives space today. But this stuff just works. Innovating the customer experience is the ‘secret sauce’ Innovating the customer experience is at the heart of why Apple and Google are outperforming the market today. It’s also at the heart of why traditional banks are suffering. As market analysts, consumers and as media commentators we just see more of the same. While there has been pressure on the banking market, bankers seem content to ‘wait it out’ until more sane, normal times return. Banking is an old and traditional industry and it doesn’t take kindly to change. But that is problematic – because right now their lack of adaptability is hurting bank valuations significantly. There’s nowhere for banks to go from here if they can’t innovate around the customer. The lack of innovation means less future revenue and reduced earnings potential. In fact, as of today it’s more likely that a Google, Apple, PayPal or new start up like Square will innovate the customer experience in banking, rather than banks themselves. This is where banks need to take a good hard look at themselves. The lack of capability to innovate the customer experience is costing them, and it’s only going to get worse.

Read the full article →

Consumer Gene Tests Making Health Claims Need FDA Approval, Official Says

May 14, 2010

By Rob Waters May 14 (Bloomberg) — Gene-test kits that promise to tell consumers their risk of Alzheimer’s disease, breast cancer and numerous illnesses must be approved by regulators whether the tests are sold online or in stores, a U.S. official said. The Food and Drug Administration has grappled with how to regulate a growing number of gene-testing companies in recent years, said Alberto Gutierrez, director of the FDA office that regulates diagnostic tests. The agency now believes developers of the tests are making health claims that must be cleared by the government if their products are to be sold directly to consumers, he said in an interview yesterday. To date, no such test has been approved or rejected by the FDA, he said. This week’s demand for information from closely held Pathway Genomics of San Diego, which planned to sell its test at Walgreen Co. stores starting today, shows the agency is ready to be more muscular in exercising its authority, said Ira Loss, a senior health policy analyst at Washington Analysis LLC. The FDA wants “to make sure the public is protected from tests that aren’t accurate or a lack of counseling,” Loss said in a telephone interview. “You don’t have to think very long to see how people could possibly make poor decisions concerning their future because of a test that doesn’t properly explain things to them.” Pathway had been marketing consumer gene-tests online before agreeing to sell the product at Deerfield, Illinois-based Walgreen, the largest U.S. drugstore chain. The retailer halted plans to start selling the home-use saliva collection kit after the FDA released a letter May 12 telling Pathway the product appears to be a medical device subject to agency review. Pathway Comment A spokesman for Pathway declined to comment after sending a statement that said the company respects Walgreen’s decision and is communicating with the FDA. “Pathway works very diligently to ensure that our business is compliant with all applicable regulations and guidelines,” the statement said. Some gene tests offer guidance on the probability that would-be parents will pass certain genes linked to diseases on to their offspring. The American Society of Human Genetics said such tests may affect the choice of whether or whom a person marries, the decision to have children and whether to have an abortion. Navigenics of Foster City, California, 23andMe of Mountain View, California, and DeCode Genetics Inc. of Reykjavik, Iceland, are among the companies that market genetic tests online. Navigenics was invited by the FDA to provide information about its service in May 2009, and believes it complies with all state and federal regulations, the company said in a statement. Other Makers 23andMe, started in 2006 by Linda Avey and Anne Wojcicki , wife of Sergey Brin , co-founder of Google Inc., declined to comment. Google, the operator of the most popular Internet search engine, has invested at least $6.5 million since 2007 in the company, according to regulatory filings . Pathway’s test kits offer to analyze customers’ genes for three purposes: to predict what each individual’s risk is for diseases ranging from Alzheimer’s to prostate cancer, to assess would-be parents’ probability of passing on health problems to offspring and to evaluate how the test-taker will respond to certain drugs. Pathway’s test kit aim to provide information about how customers’ genes affect their risk for developing 26 health conditions and the likelihood of passing any of 37 inherited conditions to unborn children. It also describes how customer’s genes affect their propensity to respond to such drugs as Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. ’s blood-thinner Plavix as well as cholesterol-lowering statins such as Pfizer Inc. ’s Lipitor. Fictitious Patient A 95-page sample report contains some information about a fictitious patient’s risk of Alzheimer’s disease. “There is no singular test that can definitively diagnose Alzheimer’s disease, but your genetics suggest that you may be vulnerable to having this disease at some point in your life.” That kind of information won’t help people, said Joanne Boughman , executive vice president of the American Society of Human Genetics in Bethesda, Maryland. “For a disease like AD, for which there is no intervention or treatment, that isn’t useful information,” Boughman said. “In fact I would consider it info that could be disturbing or distressing and therefore harmful. “The genetics community has been seeking oversight for more than a decade,” Boughman said in a telephone interview yesterday. To contact the reporter on this story: Rob Waters in San Francisco at rwaters5@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Robert Greene: Google and the Napoleonic Model: Business in Revolutionary Times

May 6, 2010

In my book The 33 Strategies of War , I tried to determine what made Napoleon Bonaparte such a strategic genius. After much research, the answer I came up with was not what I had expected. Napoleon was essentially a brilliant organizer. Living in revolutionary times, he determined that what would make an army unbeatable was its speed and mobility–the capacity to adapt faster than the enemy to changing circumstances. To do so he needed a new organizational model, something that had never been tried before in warfare. He would break his large army up into small, fast-moving divisions. He would give the field marshals who led these divisions complete freedom to make decisions in the moment, without having to consult him. This could lead to some chaos, but he enjoyed the room for creativity that came with it. He encouraged soldiers on all levels to show initiative, and gave them the chance to rise from the bottom to the top–as he had done. This army was now fighting for an idea–to spread the French revolution throughout Europe. This mobile, highly motivated fighting force completely overwhelmed its opponents in one major battle after another, utilizing a new strategy–maneuver warfare. Instead of marching to a prescribed place to meet the enemy, Napoleon would throw his divisions into a scattered pattern and depending on how the enemy reacted, he would close in on it from several directions. The gist of the Napoleonic revolution in warfare was not technological, but strategic. He had a superior idea and exploited it to the maximum–until 1806, when age and too much power weighed him down and he came to prefer size to fluidity. I saw in Napoleon a model for success for any group operating in a transitional period in history, where speed and mobility is the key. This means paying supreme attention to how your group is organized and creating a structure that fits the times. While I was doing research for The 33 Strategies of War , I became intrigued by a company that seemed to exemplify–in an almost uncanny way–the Napoleonic model. That company was Google . I initiated an informal study–gathering as much material and contacts within the company as possible. And as I went deeper into this subject, I saw more and more connections. The following is the gist of my analysis: Like Napoleon (who had risen from the bottom of the French army), the two founders of Google, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, came from a radically different background than your average CEO. They were scientists at Stanford, their field being statistics and probability. In founding Google in the late 1990s, based around their innovations in the field of search engines, they came to several important conclusions: the Internet is going to radically alter the business environment. The world is entering a new era–the Information Age. They wanted their company to reflect these changes. They needed to create their own business and organizational model. And so they studied in depth how other businesses operated, particularly in technology, to see if there were lessons to be learned. Most of these companies, like Microsoft, had intense layers of bureaucracy. They would have a giant staff of software engineers to create new products. But before such products could be launched, they had to be integrated with everything else, and they had to be as close to perfect as possible. Once the product was ready, large-scale sales and marketing teams would go into action, making sure they saturated the public. If these companies were creating any kind of content, there was an editorial staff. To keep this all running smoothly, they had to have a very large management staff. To roll out any new product would take years, as this machinery was slow and lumbering. All of the different departments and layers of bureaucracy had to be brought into the process. By the time the product came out, competitors had already appeared, but it was too late to adapt to what was evolving. The sheer size of the company made it difficult to maintain close ties to the public; better to make perfect products and sell them hard than respond to public feedback. Everything was geared towards market domination–using vast resources and muscle to maintain that. All of this bureaucracy created small power bases from within the company, increasing the political games being played and adding to the slowness. A company like IBM once dominated the computer field, but completely lost ground in the 1980s, mostly because it did not believe in the personal computer. There were some from within the company that thought differently, but they could not get their voices heard or influence the entrenched culture. All of the resources that IBM had were useless in the face of such rigidity–proving that structure, strategy and ideas are more important than money and technology. (In war, a similar example would be the Blitzkrieg of 1941 : the French had superior equipment and technology, but their ideas on how to use them were completely outmoded and they collapsed in the face of a superior strategy.) To Page and Brin, a company in this new environment had to be lean and fast, able to stay ahead of the innovation cycle and adapt quickly to trends. They had to build a new kind of structure. This governed most of their key organizational decisions. They would not produce any content; Google would serve as a platform for others to create or move content, enhancing the flow of information. They would have no editorial staff. To make money, they would sell advertising space, but all of this would be automated. Customers would buy through a self-serve platform. This allowed Google to have a minimal sales staff. Any kind of feedback or data on advertising sales could flow directly and immediately to anyone within the company–there were no bottlenecks from within to slow down the flow of information. Google would have a relatively small staff of engineers. They would hire the best but keep the numbers down. They predicated this all on their philosophy of release often, release early. They would not spend months perfecting their latest product–in fact they would release it in a beta version and let the customers help improve it with their feedback. This meant no marketing or sales team to push the new product. This would also help them to develop close ties to their client base and make people feel involved in the process. As a result of all this, the company would need far fewer managers to keep Google running. As far as possible, employees would be self-managed. It is this remarkable lightness of Google that has allowed them to move, adapt and expand at such a rapid rate. This mobility is the foundation of their power, as it was for Napoleon. To ignore this simple truth is to ignore a fundamental principle of strategy. In addition, Google created a completely different culture. The company was broken down into small units that could be self-managed. They created the 20% rule: all employees must devote 20% of their time to creating something of their own–a pet project, an innovative idea that could later fit into Google or, if not, could be taken elsewhere. Periodically small teams of peers would review these projects and critique them. It became possible to rise fast within the company and make a fortune. The culture was centered around the idea that Google was the spearhead of a revolution: this was the company that was going to give the world access to information, to everything going on in the world and allowing people to make what they wanted with it. This sense of being part of a cause created an extremely motivated workforce that does not need to be policed by teams of managers. A degree of chaos is allowed for and even encouraged. With such an organization in place, Google could practice a kind of maneuver warfare. Most companies focus on dominating a particular position in the marketplace, like armies that marched to meet the enemy at a set point. This is old style warfare and business–linear and predictable. In the new environment what matters is putting your company in a position in which it can quickly adapt to the latest trend and get a toehold there before others. To do so, you have to be built for that. As a company that focused on primarily having a search engine as its center, Google could quickly move to other areas– Gmail or Google News , et al–all with the aim of creating a kind of operating system for the Internet. If some new trend appears on the horizon, they are ready to pounce and exploit it. For instance, they saw great potential for YouTube , tried to produce their own version of it and when that failed, they simply bought YouTube. This kind of fluidity is unheard of in business and devastatingly powerful. As opposed to past models, Google does not invent something they think is clever and then figure out how to market it to the masses, with all of the time and money that requires. They work on what is already there–the demand that is palpable. As opposed to the traditional business practice as it evolved in the era of mass consumption, their ideal is to create less and less distance between themselves and their customers. I focus on Google because to me they are the most radical version of a new business model that has succeeded on a large scale. I could also bring in other companies that have experimented as well and had success. A company like Zara, which has adapted brilliantly to the new environment, has based its model on the speed with which it can produce items that respond to the latest trends, giving consumers a much wider choice. The company is structured in a similar loose fashion to Google. There are many other examples as well on smaller scales all around the world. As the tsunami of the global meltdown is receding, these are the companies that are poised to take over. I do not mean to imply that Google is infallible and already we see signs of their limitations. Like Napoleon, they could slowly morph into the enemy, into a slightly more mobile version of Microsoft. This was merely to point out the radical departure they made in the initial structure of the company and the power that brought them. If they are smart, they could dominate the scene for years to come, but nothing is certain. This then is the point that we have reached: What is really changing in the world is not technology, or the globalization of capital, but the relationships between people–relationships that were once hierarchical and based on the force of authority. This has been radically flattened. What matters most now are the connections between people, the interdependencies and networks that can be formed and the unimpeded flow of information. Any kind of obstruction to that flow will be seen as something from the past, someone or some group trying to halt the course of an historic fatality. We are in the midst of a countercurrent. As the new is flowing in, the tide of the old is still there. We see signs of this decrepitude everywhere. Looking at large businesses with their big marketing campaigns, often tied around celebrities, we are simply seeing dinosaurs making a lot of noise before they disappear. The signs of this old order clinging to power are everywhere, and it will be quite a spectacle to see them become extinct in the years to come. Without grasping this wider perspective of what is happening in the world, the crest of a change that began millennia ago but greatly accelerated by the advent of the Information Age, nothing you do will have any kind of lasting effect or power.

Read the full article →

Stocks Rise Most in Two Months on Earnings; Dollar Declines on Fed Outlook

April 29, 2010

By Adam Haigh and Elizabeth Stanton April 29 (Bloomberg) — U.S. stocks rose for a second day after better-than-estimated earnings at companies from Motorola Inc. to Baidu Inc. showed the economic recovery is strengthening. Palm Inc. surged 25 percent after Hewlett-Packard Co. agreed to buy the maker of the Pre and Pixi phones for about $1.2 billion. Motorola Inc., the largest U.S. mobile-phone maker, gained 7.8 percent after reporting an unexpected profit. Baidu Inc. soared 15 percent as the operator of China’s most- popular search engine said profit more than doubled. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index gained 0.7 percent to 1,199.44 as of 9:32 a.m. in New York. The Dow Jones Industrial Average advanced 0.5 percent to 11,105.05. “Earnings season has been spectacular,” said Eric Green , senior portfolio manager at Penn Capital Management in Philadelphia, which oversees about $5 billion. “The recovery has been stronger than most have expected.” Profit for companies in the S&P 500 surged 176 percent during the final three months of 2009, the most in Bloomberg data going back to 1998, and analysts estimate a 44 percent increase for the first quarter of 2010. Earnings estimates for companies in the index rose 9.1 percent on average in April, the largest monthly increase since at least 2006. Beating Estimates Income for the first three months of this year is beating estimates at nearly the fastest rate ever, with 79.4 percent of the companies that have reported topping projections. That compares with 79.5 percent in the third quarter and 72.3 percent in the period before that. The S&P 500 has rallied 77 percent from a 12-year low in March 2009 as earnings returned to growth following a record nine-quarter slump and the Federal Reserve kept its benchmark interest rate at a record low to safeguard the recovery from recession. Stock futures remained higher before trading opened after a report from the Labor Department showed the number of Americans filing claims for unemployment benefits declined last week to a one-month low, a sign the economic rebound is lifting the labor market. Palm surged 25 percent to $5.77 after agreeing to be bought by Hewlett-Packard for $5.70 a share. The deal puts Hewlett- Packard back in contention with the biggest smartphone makers, including Nokia Oyj, Apple Inc. and Research In Motion Ltd. Motorola gained 7.8 percent to $7.46 after posting first- quarter profit, excluding some items, of 2 cents a share. Analysts had predicted a loss of 1 cent on average. The company’s forecast for second-quarter earnings beat analysts’ estimates, signaling demand for models like the Droid is helping to reverse a three-year sales slump. Baidu Gains Baidu rallied 15 percent to $714. First-quarter net income rose to 480.5 million yuan ($70.4 million) from 181.1 million yuan a year earlier. That exceeded the 364.6 million-yuan average of analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Illumina Inc. gained 9.4 percent to $41.18. The maker of DNA analysis equipment reported first-quarter profit of 21 cents a share excluding some items, topping the 19-cent average analyst estimate compiled by Bloomberg. First Solar Inc. advanced 14 percent to $145.54 after the largest manufacturer of thin-film solar power modules said first-quarter profit rose 4.7 percent on stronger demand and increased production. The company also raised its full-year profit forecast. To contact the reporters on this story: Adam Haigh in London at ahaigh1@bloomberg.net Elizabeth Stanton in New York at estanton@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Microsoft Sales Miss Some Estimates in Sign Companies Delaying PC Spending

April 22, 2010

By Dina Bass April 22 (Bloomberg) — Microsoft Corp., the world’s largest software maker, reported third-quarter revenue that missed analysts’ most optimistic predictions, a sign that corporate customers may be putting off computer buying. Sales rose 6.3 percent to $14.5 billion, compared with analysts’ estimates that were as high as $14.8 billion for the quarter that ended March 31. Shares fell in late trading. While Microsoft’s Windows business has benefited from increased consumer demand for personal computers, corporations have hung back, avoiding purchases of new machines and long-term contracts. Investors held out for added evidence of a spending resurgence after chipmaker Intel Corp. last week forecast rising sales this quarter and record profit margins for 2010. “Expectations were for more, given the strength we’ve seen in PC sales,” Brendan Barnicle , an analyst at Pacific Crest Securities, said in an interview from Portland, Oregon. He rates the shares “outperform” and said he doesn’t own them. Microsoft fell $1.02, or 3.3 percent, to $30.37 in extended trading after the report. The shares had risen 6 cents to $31.39 at 4 p.m. New York time on the Nasdaq Stock Market . The stock fell 3.9 percent last quarter, while the Standard and Poor’s 500 Index rose 4.9 percent. Third-quarter net income rose 35 percent to $4.01 billion, or 45 cents a share, beating the average forecast of 42 cents in a Bloomberg survey of analysts. Sales exceeded the $14.4 billion average in the survey, reflecting rising demand for Windows 7, the latest version of Microsoft’s flagship operating system. Putting Off Orders Still, some companies are reluctant to place orders that stretch over years. Unearned revenue, a measure of multiyear contracts, was $12.3 billion. Analysts’ average estimate was $12.8 billion, according to Katherine Egbert , an analyst at Jefferies & Co. In January, Microsoft reported second-quarter profit that beat analysts’ estimates by 15 cents. “The deferred revenue was lower than expected, suggesting that enterprise spending is still just beginning to recover,” said Sarah Friar , a San Francisco-based analyst for Goldman Sachs Group who has a “buy” rating on Microsoft. “Enterprise spending is still making its way out of the downturn.” Microsoft said operating expenses for the year ending June 30 will be $26.1 billion to $26.3 billion, compared with a January prediction of $26.2 billion to $26.5 billion. Microsoft no longer provides forecasts for sales and profit. Mixed Bag “Consumer demand is still strong, but we also saw for the first time growth in business hardware spending,” said Peter Klein , Microsoft’s chief financial officer, in an interview. Yet, it’s still taking longer to close multiyear deals. The company did have growth in billings for multiyear agreements, he said. “We are starting to fill that pipeline,” he said. “I think it will resolve itself over time.” In the third quarter a year ago, net income was $2.98 billion, or 33 cents a share, on sales of $13.6 billion. Technology bellwethers reporting earnings in recent weeks have given a mixed picture of the rebound in technology spending. Oracle Corp., the second-biggest software maker behind Microsoft, last month forecast the fastest sales growth for new software licenses since mid-2008. Intel , the world’s biggest chipmaker, last week indicated that recovery may be gathering steam with a forecast for rising sales this quarter. “People had thought there would be closer correlation between what Intel said about PC demand and PC outlook” and Microsoft’s results, said Sasa Zorovic , a Boston-based analyst with Janney Montgomery Scott LLC. “That doesn’t seem to be the case.” He rates the shares “neutral.” Office Still, International Business Machines Corp. reported a drop in services signings, showing corporate spending on larger technology projects hasn’t picked up yet. Microsoft Business Division revenue, mostly from Office productivity software, fell 5.9 percent to $4.24 billion as some customers held off purchases before Microsoft begins rolling out a new version next month. Server software sales were $3.58 billion, missing estimates from Goldman Sachs and UBS AG. While sales of server computers have started to recover, it will take longer for sales of Microsoft’s related software to come back, Microsoft’s Klein said. Information-technology spending will climb 1.7 percent in 2010, after dropping 3.1 percent last year, according to an estimate from Morgan Stanley. Personal-computer shipments rose 27 percent last quarter, according to Gartner Inc. The PC market bounced back from the year-earlier period, when the recession dragged down shipments almost 7 percent — the worst performance since 2001, according to market research firm IDC. Business, Bing Revenue in Microsoft’s Business Division was reduced as the company deferred some sales to a future quarter. The company gave customers who have purchased older versions of Office the right to upgrade to the new version, Office 2010, which is available to businesses next month. It hits stores in June. Online advertising revenue rose 19 percent as search and graphical display ad markets recovered, Klein said. Sales in the company’s online business rose 11.6 percent to $566 million. Microsoft’s Bing search engine has increased the company’s share of searches by 3.7 percentage points since Microsoft overhauled the product in June, according to research firm ComScore Inc. Microsoft had 11.7 percent of the U.S. search market in March, compared with 65.1 percent for Google Inc. and 16.9 percent for Yahoo! Inc., according to ComScore. To contact the reporter on this story: Dina Bass in Seattle at dbass2@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Microsoft’s Profit Gains 35% as Companies Buy Machines With Latest Windows

April 22, 2010

By Dina Bass April 22 (Bloomberg) — Microsoft Corp., the world’s largest software maker, said third-quarter profit rose 35 percent as companies stepped up spending on computers running the new version of the Windows operating system. Third-quarter net income rose to $4.01 billion, or 45 cents a share, beating the 42 cent average estimate of analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. Revenue increased 6.3 percent to $14.5 billion, the company said today in a statement. Business customers bought machines sporting Windows 7, validating remarks in March by Microsoft Chief Financial Officer Peter Klein , who said the fiscal second half would mark the start of “a return to growth” in corporate spending on software and computers. Personal-computer shipments rose 27 percent last quarter, according to Gartner Inc. “PC sales have been fairly strong — pretty much better than expected,” said Sid Parakh , an analyst at McAdams Wright Ragen in Seattle, who recommends buying Microsoft shares. “A lot of it has been driven by consumers but at the same time there have been indications some businesses are going out and refreshing their PCs.” Microsoft, based in Redmond, Washington, said operating expenses for the year ending June 30 will be $26.1 billion to $26.3 billion, compared with a January prediction of $26.2 billion to $26.5 billion. Microsoft no longer provides forecasts for sales and profit. Revenue Deferred revenue, a measure of multi-year contracts, was $12.3 billion, below some analysts’ predictions. Analysts had projected total sales of $14.4 billion for the last quarter, which ended March 31. A year earlier, net income was $2.98 billion, or 33 cents a share, on sales of $13.6 billion. Net income in that period included severance costs and impairments to investments. Microsoft rose 6 cents to $31.39 at 4 p.m. New York time on the Nasdaq Stock Market. The stock fell 3.9 percent last quarter, while the Standard and Poor’s 500 Index rose 4.9 percent. In the second quarter, Microsoft beat analysts’ estimates for profit by 15 cents a year. Yet the company raised investors’ concerns by saying that gains were fueled by consumer demand as business demand remained sluggish. Shares fell the day after the report. Technology bellwethers reporting earnings in recent weeks have given a mixed picture of the rebound in technology spending. Intel Corp., the world’s biggest chipmaker, last week indicated that recovery may be gathering steam with a forecast for rising sales this quarter. Intel’s View Intel Chief Executive Officer Paul Otellini told analysts corporate executives are starting to replace aging machines. Oracle Corp., the second-biggest software maker behind Microsoft, last month forecast the fastest sales growth for new software licenses since mid-2008. Still, International Business Machines Corp. shares dropped yesterday after the company reported a drop in services signings, showing corporate spending on larger technology projects hasn’t picked up yet. Information-technology spending will climb 1.7 percent in 2010, after dropping 3.1 percent last year, according to an estimate from Morgan Stanley. “It will be a gradual business cycle — it’s not something that happens in a single quarter,” Parakh said. “It will be something that that goes on for a year or two, but it’s important because Microsoft gets significant uplift from the business versions of Windows.” PC Shipments The first-quarter 27 percent jump in PC shipments topped Gartner’s prediction of a 22 percent rise. The PC market bounced back from the year-earlier period, when the recession dragged down shipments almost 7 percent — the worst performance since 2001, according to market research firm IDC. Revenue in Microsoft’s Business Division was reduced as the company deferred some sales to a future quarter. The company gave customers who have purchased older versions of Office the right to upgrade to the new version, Office 2010, which is available to businesses next month. It hits stores in June. Microsoft’s Bing search engine has increased the company’s share of searches by 3.7 percentage points since Microsoft overhauled the product in June, according to research firm ComScore Inc. Microsoft had 11.7 percent of the U.S. search market in March, compared with 65.1 percent for Google Inc. and 16.9 percent for Yahoo! Inc., according to ComScore. To contact the reporter on this story: Dina Bass in Seattle at dbass2@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

U.S. Stocks Fluctuate as Apple, Morgan Stanley Offset Greek Debt Concerns

April 21, 2010

By Rita Nazareth April 21 (Bloomberg) — U.S. stocks swung between gains and losses as better-than-estimated earnings at Apple Inc. and Morgan Stanley overshadowed concern Greece will need to tap an emergency loan package to avoid default. Apple surged to a record after reporting results that soared past analysts’ estimates and Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs promised to release “more extraordinary products” this year. Morgan Stanley rose 3.6 percent, while Boeing Co. led the gains in the Dow Jones Industrial Average after profit topped estimates. Yahoo! Inc. retreated 3.7 percent following sales missing analysts’ projections. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index slipped less than 0.1 percent to 1,206.79 as of 11:01 a.m. in New York, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 15.65 points, or 0.1 percent, to 11,132.71. “Earnings look pretty strong,” said John Carey , a Boston- based money manager at Pioneer Investment Management, which oversees more than $230 billion. “Investors in general are responding to that. Obviously, there’s still some sovereign concern. But fundamentals are good.” Apple surged 5.8 percent to $258.88. Second-quarter profit almost doubled to $3.07 billion, or $3.33 a share, from $1.62 billion, or $1.79, a year earlier, Cupertino, California-based Apple said yesterday. Sales this quarter will be as high as $13.4 billion, topping the $13 billion anticipated by analysts. Boost From the IPad Jobs said the results added up to the best non-holiday quarter in Apple’s history. Sales in the coming months are likely to get a boost from the iPad, a tablet computer that went on sale April 3 in the U.S., and new gadgets that may include an updated iPhone, analysts said. The S&P 500 gets 19 percent of its value from technology stocks, the most among 10 industries. Morgan Stanley rose 3.6 percent to $31.54 after the New York-based company posted earnings that beat analysts’ estimates as fixed-income trading revenue more than doubled from a year earlier. Earnings from continuing operations, including a 21- cent tax benefit, were $1.03 a share, compared with the 57-cent average estimate of 24 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. Boeing led industrial shares to the biggest gain in the S&P 500, rallying 3.6 percent to $73.99. The world’s largest aerospace and defense company reported first-quarter profit of 70 cents a share, beating the 64-cent average estimate of analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. Yahoo slumped 3.7 percent to $17.70 as the second-most- popular U.S. Internet search engine forecast second-quarter sales that missed analysts’ estimates after the company lost market share. The company also reported first-quarter sales excluding revenue passed on to partner sites that totaled $1.13 billion, compared with the $1.17 billion average that analysts had projected. Gilead Gilead Sciences Inc. had the biggest decline in the S&P 500, tumbling 10 percent to $40.52 as the world’s largest maker of AIDS treatments lowered its forecast for 2010 revenue while sales of its drugs Truvada and Atripla fell short of estimates in the first quarter. AT&T Inc. dropped 1.3 percent to $26.31. The largest U.S. phone company said first-quarter sales amounted to $30.65 billion, compared with the $30.74 billion average of estimates in a Bloomberg survey. Greece began talks today on activating a 45 billion-euro ($61 billion) emergency aid package as the International Monetary Fund called the country’s fiscal crisis a “wake-up call” on sovereign-debt risks. Greek Deficit Cuts Greek officials joined counterparts from the euro region, the IMF and the European Central Bank to begin hammering out the deficit-cutting measures the nation will have to accept to be able to tap the funds. The government needs to raise about 10 billion euros before the end of May, and its soaring financing costs are lending urgency to the talks. The yield on Greece’s benchmark 10-year bond surpassed 8 percent today, the highest in more than a decade and more than twice the comparable German rate, while credit-default swaps on Greece surged 25 basis points to a record 488.5, according to CMA DataVision prices at 11:25 a.m. in London. Contracts on Portugal jumped 18 basis points to 219, and Spain climbed 6 to 151.2, CMA prices show. “There’s still concern about a domino effect from the Greece situation,” said Stanley Nabi , New York-based vice chairman of Silvercrest Asset Management Group, which manages $8.5 billion. “Are Portugal, Italy or Spain the next ones? In the U.S., you’re seeing very decent earnings reports. But Europe brings concern about the sustainability of the recovery.” U.S. stocks rose for a second day yesterday as companies from Harley-Davidson Inc. to Marshall & Ilsley Corp. posted better-than-estimated results and energy producers rallied with crude oil. About 83 percent of S&P 500 companies that have reported first-quarter results beat the average analyst earnings estimate, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. When 79.5 percent topped projections in the fourth quarter of 2009, it was the biggest proportion in Bloomberg data going back to 1993. To contact the reporters on this story: Julie Cruz in Frankfurt at jcruz6@bloomberg.net ; Rita Nazareth in New York at rnazareth@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

U.S. Stocks Drop After Goldman Suit, Ending Longest Winning Streak in Year

April 17, 2010

By Lynn Thomasson April 17 (Bloomberg) — U.S. stocks fell, halting the longest rally in a year, after allegations of fraud at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. heightened concern the government will crack down on Wall Street and wiped out the week’s advance. Goldman Sachs sank 10 percent this week, the most since March 2009, after the Securities and Exchange Commission sued the bank and one of its vice presidents for misstating and omitting key facts about a collateralized debt obligation. The 1.6 percent retreat in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index yesterday erased gains earlier in the week spurred by better-than- estimated results at companies from Intel Corp. to CSX Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. The S&P 500 slipped 0.2 percent to 1,192.13. Before yesterday, the index was headed for a seventh straight weekly advance, the longest since May 2007. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 21.31 points, or 0.2 percent, to 11,018.66. The Russell 2000 Index of small companies jumped 1.7 percent. “I was very impressed with the earnings we got and the market was doing so well, but then you get a punch in the gut with these Goldman Sachs issues,” said Don Wordell , who oversees the RidgeWorth Mid-Cap Value Equity Fund, which has beaten 97 percent of its peers during the past five years. “It brings investors back to reality. There’s a tremendous amount of skepticism.” Failure to Disclose Goldman Sachs, the most profitable firm in Wall Street history, erased its advance for 2010 and ended the week at $160.70, the lowest price since March 3. The SEC said the bank created and sold CDOs tied to subprime mortgages in early 2007, as the U.S. housing market faltered, without disclosing that hedge fund Paulson & Co. helped pick the underlying securities and bet against them. Goldman Sachs said the claims are “completely unfounded.” Paulson wasn’t accused of wrongdoing. Google Inc. fell 2.8 percent to $550.15. The owner of the world’s most popular Internet search engine reported profit that missed some analysts’ estimates, underscoring the rising cost of pursuing growth in new markets. Raw-material producers in the S&P 500 collectively dropped 1.9 percent for the biggest retreat among 10 groups. Alcoa Inc. , the largest U.S. aluminum producer, fell 3.3 percent to $13.91 on first-quarter sales that missed the average analyst estimate. “The key question is: Is this the peak quarter in terms of earnings growth as the comparisons get more difficult as the year proceeds?” said Peter Tuz , president of Chase Investment Counsel, which manages $2.8 billion in Charlottesville, Virginia. Earnings Season Microsoft Corp., Apple Inc. , Johnson & Johnson and Coca- Cola Co. are among the 129 companies in the S&P 500 scheduled to report quarterly results next week. Total profit for the stock index rose 35 percent during the first three months of the year, according to average analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Massey Energy Co., which runs a West Virginia coal mine where 29 people were killed in an April 5 explosion, tumbled 9.5 percent to $42.27 after President Barack Obama ordered a crackdown on safety violations nationwide. The decline was the biggest in the S&P 500 after Goldman Sachs. Intel rallied 6.1 percent, the most since December, to $23.92. The world’s largest chipmaker predicted rising sales this quarter and record profit margins for the year, fueling optimism of a strengthening rebound in technology spending. A measure of computer companies in the S&P 500 climbed 1.4 percent for the biggest gain among 10 main groups in the S&P 500. CSX Rallies CSX rose 2.8 percent to $54.44. The third-largest U.S. railroad posted first-quarter profit above the average analyst estimates on increased shipping volumes and more revenue from each carload. “A lot is already baked in,” said Noman Ali , who manages $3 billion of U.S. stocks at MFC Global Investment Management in Toronto. “Unless companies can beat estimates meaningfully and then raise guidance for the rest of the year, I see the market correcting down because of the strong rally we’ve had year-to- date.” JPMorgan ended the down 0.9 percent for the week at $45.55. The bank rallied 4.1 percent on April 14 after beating first- quarter profit forecasts and reporting record fixed-income trading revenue . The gains were erased as concern stemming from the SEC lawsuit against Goldman Sachs dragged bank shares lower. The allegations against Goldman Sachs were announced as Obama tries to pass the most sweeping overhaul of financial regulations since the 1930s. The proposed legislation would mean stronger oversight of derivatives trading and hedge funds, a consumer financial-protection authority and a system for unwinding large systemically important firms when they fail. To contact the reporter on this story: Lynn Thomasson in New York at lthomasson@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Google Profit Misses Some Estimates as Costs Increase to Tap New Markets

April 16, 2010

By Brian Womack April 16 (Bloomberg) — Google Inc. , owner of the world’s most popular Internet search engine, reported profit that missed some analysts’ estimates, underscoring the rising cost of pursuing growth in new markets. First-quarter net income rose 37 percent to $1.96 billion, or $6.06 a share, from $1.42 billion, or $4.49, a year earlier, Mountain View, California-based Google said yesterday in a statement . Excluding some costs, profit was $6.76 a share. Estimates compiled by Bloomberg were as high as $6.91. The company increased hiring, made acquisitions and boosted capital spending as it expanded its display ad and wireless businesses. Google’s costs rose 18 percent, double the increase in the fourth quarter. The company failed to meet the expectations set this week by Intel Corp., a barometer of technology spending, which forecast a surge in sales. “It wasn’t a knock-your-socks-off quarter,” said Ben Schachter , an analyst at Broadpoint AmTech Inc. in San Francisco, who recommends buying Google shares. “The market had been doing better and people expected better.” Google fell as much as $29.90, or 5 percent, to $565.40 in trading before U.S. exchanges opened. The stock had declined 4 percent on the Nasdaq Stock Market this year before today. Aaron Kessler , an analyst at Kaufman Brothers LP in San Francisco, said that to appease investors, Google needed to post profit excluding some items of $6.90 to $7 a share. Excluding revenue passed on to partner sites, sales were $5.06 billion. That compared with the average $4.95 billion prediction. Estimates ranged as high as $5.12 billion. Increased Hiring Google added almost 800 employees during the quarter, compared with fewer than 200 in the fourth quarter. It now has a workforce of more than 20,000. “Posturing that they would continue to ramp up gave investors a bit of a pause,” said Andy Miedler , an analyst at Edward Jones in St. Louis, who recommends the stock and doesn’t own it. Patrick Pichette , Google’s chief financial officer, said the company has a “growth agenda” and must hire to ensure it can address markets such as display advertising and mobile. “We’re bottlenecked on engineers,” Pichette said in an interview yesterday. “We don’t have enough engineers to do all the coding and all the innovation we want.” That doesn’t mean the company is going to be less disciplined in its spending, he said, adding that Google has been telling investors it was going to increase hiring. “You have to stay frugal,” said Pichette, who pointed to the 23 percent sales growth last quarter from a year earlier. Search Share Pichette also answered analysts’ questions on a conference call yesterday. Eric Schmidt , Google’s chief executive officer since 2001, will no longer take part in the quarterly calls, Pichette said. “It was simply an issue of streamlining and making more focus on financial results for this call,” Pichette said during the call. Google, which announced six acquisitions this year, said capital spending rose 8.1 percent to $239 million. While Google has maintained a lead in search, its market share fell to 65.1 percent in March from 65.5 percent a month earlier, according to ComScore Inc. in Reston, Virginia. That’s the biggest monthly decline since January of last year. Microsoft Corp., benefiting from its new Bing search engine, had 11.7 percent, up from 11.5 percent. Yahoo! Inc. reversed six months of declines and posted market share of 16.9 percent, up from 16.8 percent. The two companies signed a 10- year search agreement last year to compete with Google. The number of paid clicks rose about 15 percent during the quarter from a year earlier and about 5 percent from the previous quarter, Google said. The cost per click climbed about 7 percent from the year-ago period, though fell about 4 percent from the fourth quarter. Nexus One Google invested in its mobile-phone business during the quarter. In January, it released its Nexus One phone, which runs on the company’s Android software. Some 6.8 million Android phones were sold last year, accounting for 3.9 percent of the global market, according to researcher Gartner Inc. Last month, Google shuttered its mainland China search site and redirected users to its Hong Kong site — a decision it made after the company’s systems endured cyber attacks. Google competes with Baidu Inc. in China — the world’s largest Internet market. “Even though Google continues to serve mainland China via its HK site, we believe this strategy is not sustainable longer term, and expect advertisers to defect to Baidu over time,” said Youssef Squali , an analyst at Jefferies & Co. in New York. Google will continue to sell ads in China and there are lots of opportunities there, Pichette said on the earnings call. To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Womack in San Francisco at bwomack1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Google First-Quarter Profit Falls Short of Some Estimates; Shares Decline

April 15, 2010

By Brian Womack April 15 (Bloomberg) — Google Inc. , owner of the world’s most popular search engine, reported profit that fell short of some analysts’ estimates, a sign that online advertising may not be rebounding as fast as some had anticipated. Net income in the first quarter rose 37 percent to $1.96 billion, or $6.06 a share, from $1.42 billion, or $4.49, a year earlier, the company said today in a statement . Leaving out costs such as stock-based compensation, profit was $6.76 a share. Estimates compiled by Bloomberg were as high as $6.91. Google shares climbed this week as investors banked on a resurgence in Internet ad spending. Intel Corp., a barometer for the technology industry, reinforced optimism by forecasting a surge in sales and record profit margins. Google’s first-quarter performance didn’t meet expectations, said Clay Moran , an analyst at Benchmark Co. in Boca Raton, Florida. “Strength in the economy and previously reported tech numbers, such as those this week from Intel, may have gotten investors overly excited about the potential for a big beat from Google,” said Moran, who recommends buying the shares and doesn’t own any himself. Google, based in Mountain View, California, fell 4.7 percent in after-hours trading to $567.35. It had climbed $6.30 to $595.30 at 4 p.m New York time on the Nasdaq Stock Market. The shares have dropped 4 percent this year . Excluding revenue passed on to partner sites, sales of $5.06 billion compared with the average $4.95 billion prediction. Estimates ranged as high as $5.12 billion. Search Share The number of paid clicks rose about 15 percent during the quarter from a year earlier and about 5 percent from the previous quarter, Google said. The cost per click climbed about 7 percent from the year-ago period, though fell about 4 percent from the fourth quarter. While Google has maintained a lead in search, its market share fell to 65.1 percent in March from 65.5 percent a month earlier, according to ComScore Inc. in Reston, Virginia. That’s the biggest monthly decline since January of last year. Microsoft Corp., benefiting from its new Bing search engine, had 11.7 percent, up from 11.5 percent. Yahoo! Inc. reversed six months of declines and posted market share of 16.9 percent, up from 16.8 percent. The two companies signed a 10- year search agreement last year to compete with Google. Google, which announced six acquisitions this year, may not be adhering to the same financial discipline it had during the economic crisis, said Colin Gillis , an analyst at BGC Financial LP in New York. More Spending “Their focus has scattered out a bit,” said Gillis, who rates the stock “hold” and doesn’t own it. “They are spending more.” Capital expenditures rose 8.1 percent to $239 million. The company added more staff during the quarter for a total workforce of 20,621 at the end of March, up almost 800 from the end of last year. Eric Schmidt , Google’s chief executive officer since 2001, will no longer take part in the quarterly earnings conference calls, Chief Financial Officer Patrick Pichette said today. Google could face regulatory challenges with its planned acquisition of mobile-ad company AdMob Inc. for $750 million. U.S. regulators vetting the deal have sought sworn declarations from Google competitors and advertisers, indicating the government may challenge the deal, people with direct knowledge of the matter said last month. Google will be challenged to grow in China — the world’s largest Internet market. Last month, the company shuttered its mainland China search site and redirected users to its Hong Kong site. The decision was made after the company’s systems endured cyber attacks. Google competes with Baidu Inc. in China. “Even though Google continues to serve mainland China via its HK site, we believe this strategy is not sustainable longer term, and expect advertisers to defect to Baidu over time,” said Youssef Squali , an analyst with Jefferies & Co. in New York. To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Womack in San Francisco at bwomack1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Google’s Schmidt Says Apple Move Shows AdMob Buy Should Win U.S. Approval

April 11, 2010

By Todd Shields April 12 (Bloomberg) — Apple Inc. ’s move into mobile advertising shows the market is competitive and U.S. regulators should permit Google Inc. to buy AdMob Inc., Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said.      Apple CEO Steve Jobs said April 8 that the Cupertino, California-based company will offer iAd, an advertising platform that would compete with AdMob, on a new operating system for its iPhone. The announcement escalated Apple’s rivalry with Google for customers and application developers as demand for smartphones climbs.     “It’s evidence of a highly competitive market,” Schmidt told reporters after a speech yesterday to the annual convention of the American Society of News Editors in Washington. He said the $750 million AdMob purchase, proposed in November, “should go through.”     U.S. regulators vetting the deal have sought sworn declarations from Google competitors and advertisers, indicating the government may challenge the deal, people with direct knowledge of the matter said last month. The purchase needs approval from the Federal Trade Commission.     AdMob sells ads that appear on Web pages and applications on mobile phones. The Federal Trade Commission is assessing whether the purchase would let Mountain View, California-based Google parlay its dominance in Internet searches on computers to phones. In remarks to the organization led by newspaper editors, Schmidt said mobile devices such as Apple’s iPad and his company’s Android phone will help newspapers better connect with readers. Responding to Murdoch “This is the future,” Schmidt said as he held up an iPad, a Kindle from Amazon.com Inc. and an Android phone. “Technology allows you all to talk directly to your users.”      News Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rupert Murdoch said on April 7 that newspaper publishers should prevent Internet search engines, such as Google’s and Microsoft Corp. ’s Bing, from linking to full news articles for free.     “It’s best to look at Rupert’s comments as in the context of a business negotiation, because he’s a very good businessman,” Schmidt said in response to a question from the audience after his speech to the editors.     Even newspaper companies that demand payment for viewing their content online cooperate with Google “because we send a lot of traffic to their sites,” Schmidt said.     “We want you to have tools and technologies which will allow you to make a lot of money from those users,” Schmidt said “Because ultimately we need more money going into the system.” Option of Subscribing     News aggregators should be limited to displaying the headline and a couple of sentences of a news story, and give the user the option of subscribing to the originating publication, according to Murdoch, whose New York-based company publishes the Wall Street Journal among newspapers in the U.S., U.K. and Australia. News Corp.’s international unit said March 26 it will charge for online access to The Times of London and The Sunday Times newspapers starting in June. News aggregators are led by Google, the most popular Internet search engine, and Yahoo! Inc. To contact the reporter on this story: Todd Shields in Washington at tshields3@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Devereux Chatillon: It’s About Search, Stupid

April 7, 2010

If websites, databases and other content are the landscape of the virtual world, then search engines are the maps. Without search engines, the landscape is confusing and getting lost a certainty. With them, finding one’s way through the dense forest of information is possible if occasionally made difficult with unexpected detours and dead-ends. Disappearing from the results of dominant search engines leads to invisibility. And if one has a website, a blog, an ecommerce site, or a database that no one knows exists, it is useless. Given how critical maps are to successful navigation, having accurate, affordable maps that fulfill the variety of needs of a diverse population is key. So, how would we all feel about giving one for-profit company the exclusive right to map, say, New Jersey or Mexico? If no one else could produce a map of New Jersey, there would be no market incentive to produce the best maps that met all the various needs of the population (shortest route to Delaware from New York, coffee with baby-changing stations). If the mapper wanted to direct traffic to its stores in Toms River, there would be no incentive to produce maps that showed the most direct route to Delaware instead of detouring through Toms Rivers. Yet giving just such exclusive rights to some important internet territory is one of the key issues involved in a proposed settlement between Google and all the book publishers and authors in most of the English-speaking world. Briefly — Google undertook a project to digitize millions of books in the libraries of several major universities such as the University of Michigan and Stanford. Google copied books in their entirety that are in the public domain, as well as those still in copyright. A handful of US publishers and the Authors’ Guild, a not-for-profit organization representing US book authors, sued Google for copyright infringement. Just a few weeks ago in federal court in downtown Manhattan, the judge listened to a day’s worth of objections and support for a proposed settlement agreement that runs over 300 pages. This complex agreement accomplishes several things that would be beneficial to the public, authors, and the scholarly community. Under it, digitized books that are part of Google’s database would be made available in snippets as search results, and, unless the publisher or author objected, the entire book could be part of paid-for library subscriptions or various kinds of ebooks. Previously buried and obscure works would suddenly see the light of day. And, because Google would facilitate text-to-speech functions for this database, all of these some 17 million books (Google has given varying estimates of the numbers digitized) would become available to those who have sight disabilities. Why would Google spend all that money — millions to digitize, more millions to litigate the case it had to know would come, and more millions to settle that case — for what will amount to a library lending and ebook business? Keep in mind that Google’s revenue alone last year was $23.6 billion. This is more than half the $40.3 billion in total revenue generated in the United States by more than 100,000 publishers. And not one dollar of Google’s revenue came from publishing books. It came from the enormous ad revenues generated by Google’s search and Ad Sense business. With a profit margin of approximately 25%, search in 2010 is far more profitable than publishing. If the settlement is approved by the Court, Google will be the only search engine that will serve up search results that include the contents of some 5-10 million books — the books whose authors, publishers, copyright holders can’t be found or don’t want to be found. Because of the intersection of copyright and class action law woven together by the proposed settlement, no one else will be able to do that. What does that mean for Google? It means that the results and experience from a Google search, as opposed to the results from any other search engine, will be richer. It means that Google’s ability to refine its algorithms for search results and its analysis of consumer behavior, interests, and needs will have a depth and a range that no one else can match. A recent article in Ars Technica described Google’s current practice of keeping consumer data for 9 months, much longer than any other major search engine, because it uses the data for a variety of important (and profitable) business needs: “Search data is mined . . . by watching how users correct their own spelling mistakes, how they write in their native language, and what sites they visit after searches. That information has been crucial to Google’s famously algorithm-driven approach to problems like spell check, machine language translation, and improving its main search engine.” Google’s exclusive ability to map these books, and to observe how consumers interact with that map and the content that these books represent, would give Google a significant competitive advantage in the most profitable internet related market in which it is already dominant. Not surprisingly, the Department of Justice has announced that it is investigating. Google has publicly proclaimed that without this settlement these out-of-print books will remain buried in libraries with no ability for most people to find them. But is that necessarily true? If it is indeed a public good for these books to be accessible, then shouldn’t it be public institutions, perhaps with private cooperation and funding where appropriate, that accomplish that result? Couldn’t the Library of Congress start to assemble a digital database that would be used (perhaps for a fee) by all search engines? After all, US copyright law currently requires that two copies of every work registered be deposited with the Library of Congress, unless exempted by regulation. Why not have one of them be digital with appropriate safeguards? Couldn’t (and shouldn’t) Congress finally enact some kind of safe harbor or compulsory license scheme so that digital copies of past work are made available for limited uses such as search with compensation to rightsholders where appropriate? After all, if the goal is to create a library for benefit to the public then a private database won’t cut it. If this settlement is approved and actually starts to operate, Google’s insuperable advantage may well prevent all the other possible players, both public and private, from helping to create something truly public and accessible to all.

Read the full article →

U.S. Softens Tone to China Over Google, Seeking Support for Iran Sanctions

April 1, 2010

By Jeff Bliss April 2 (Bloomberg) — The Obama administration has softened its tone in responding to cyber attacks that may have originated in China, betting that playing down the dispute will help the U.S. obtain the Asian superpower’s cooperation on foreign-policy goals, security experts said. That calculation may yield short-term benefits such as Chinese support for additional sanctions against Iran and reining in North Korea, though in the longer term it could wind up endangering U.S. economic leadership, said Tom Kellermann , a former World Bank security official. “The U.S. is in a very difficult position,” said Kellermann, a vice president at Core Security Technologies Inc., a Boston-based security-software company. President Barack Obama needs “help from China.” Mountain View, California-based Google Inc. , owner of the world’s most popular search engine, disclosed in January that it had been the target of cyber attacks that resulted in the theft of intellectual property and the infiltration of e-mail accounts belonging to people active in Chinese human-rights causes. U.S. authorities began an investigation and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged China to do so, too. The U.S. response falls short of actions that could deter future attacks such as threatening sanctions or at least complaining to the World Trade Organization, Kellermann said. Currency, Trade Complicating the U.S. posture are long-standing issues such as North Korea’s nuclear program, China’s position as the No. 1 holder of U.S. debt, the trade imbalance between the two nations and the U.S. push for a revaluation of the Chinese currency, the security experts said. Still, the U.S. has much to lose if it doesn’t take a stronger stand on network breaches, said John Bumgarner, chief technology officer of the Norwich, Vermont-based U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit , which produces threat assessments for the government and business. “If we don’t watch out, the long-term gains will be enormous for China,” Bumgarner said. Cyber infiltrations over the past few years have resulted in the theft of software code that has allowed the Chinese to avoid research-and-development costs and sell cheaper products, Kellermann said. China has denied involvement in computer attacks. Google officials have said that while they are certain the attacks originated in China, they haven’t determined who was behind them. Hong Kong Move Last week, after a two-month clash with China over censorship, Google shut its mainland Chinese search engine and redirected users to its Hong Kong site. Google on March 31 blamed the Chinese government-controlled firewall for blocking service on the search engine, which has been restored. At a March 24 congressional hearing, Alan Davidson , Google’s director of public policy, pressed for new trade rules for countries that censor the Internet. This week, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued a report saying that the absence of stated Chinese censorship rules has made it difficult for Internet companies to function there. A report released March 25 by Mountain View, California-based Symantec Corp., the biggest maker of security software, said that 28 percent of targeted cyber attacks last month originated in China. Jay Nancarrow, A Google spokesman, declined to comment specifically on the U.S. response. Taiwan Arms Chinese and U.S. ties deteriorated after the Obama administration announced Jan. 29 that it would sell arms to Taiwan, a move Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said March 7 had “seriously damaged” relations. China protested again after Obama met in February with the Dalai Lama , the Tibetan spiritual leader. China viewed the actions as an affront to Chinese sovereignty. More recently, the administration has tried to ease tensions. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg on March 29 reaffirmed the U.S. views that Taiwan shouldn’t be independent and Tibet is part of China. U.S. officials are pressing China to support more sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. Russia and China have used their veto power in the United Nations Security Council to block the U.S.- and European-led sanctions effort. Iran Talks Clinton said last week that China was beginning to ease its policy. Susan Rice , the U.S. ambassador to the UN, said on CNN on March 31 that China would join talks on drafting tougher sanctions on Iran. While Clinton said in a Jan. 21 speech that she expected “Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review” of their Internet policies, she has distanced herself from the Google dispute. “This is really between Google and China,” she said in an interview with Bloomberg Television in Moscow on March 19. The State Department’s role is to promote the “notion of maintaining and expanding Internet freedom,” not to advocate for a specific company, Michael Posner , assistant secretary for democracy, human rights and labor, said on Bloomberg Television yesterday. The U.S. may be disappointed if it is hoping that the soft- pedal approach will compel China to cooperate on Iran, said Carolyn Bartholomew , vice chairwoman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a Washington-based group created by Congress. “In the early 1990s it was we couldn’t push them on human rights because we needed their cooperation on North Korea,” she said. “It took a good 15 years before we started getting any sort of cooperation.” For Related News and Information: To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Bliss in Washington jbliss@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

U.S. Softens Tone to China Over Google, Seeking Support for Iran Sanctions

April 1, 2010

By Jeff Bliss April 2 (Bloomberg) — The Obama administration has softened its tone in responding to cyber attacks that may have originated in China, betting that playing down the dispute will help the U.S. obtain the Asian superpower’s cooperation on foreign-policy goals, security experts said. That calculation may yield short-term benefits such as Chinese support for additional sanctions against Iran and reining in North Korea, though in the longer term it could wind up endangering U.S. economic leadership, said Tom Kellermann , a former World Bank security official. “The U.S. is in a very difficult position,” said Kellermann, a vice president at Core Security Technologies Inc., a Boston-based security-software company. President Barack Obama needs “help from China.” Mountain View, California-based Google Inc. , owner of the world’s most popular search engine, disclosed in January that it had been the target of cyber attacks that resulted in the theft of intellectual property and the infiltration of e-mail accounts belonging to people active in Chinese human-rights causes. U.S. authorities began an investigation and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged China to do so, too. The U.S. response falls short of actions that could deter future attacks such as threatening sanctions or at least complaining to the World Trade Organization, Kellermann said. Currency, Trade Complicating the U.S. posture are long-standing issues such as North Korea’s nuclear program, China’s position as the No. 1 holder of U.S. debt, the trade imbalance between the two nations and the U.S. push for a revaluation of the Chinese currency, the security experts said. Still, the U.S. has much to lose if it doesn’t take a stronger stand on network breaches, said John Bumgarner, chief technology officer of the Norwich, Vermont-based U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit , which produces threat assessments for the government and business. “If we don’t watch out, the long-term gains will be enormous for China,” Bumgarner said. Cyber infiltrations over the past few years have resulted in the theft of software code that has allowed the Chinese to avoid research-and-development costs and sell cheaper products, Kellermann said. China has denied involvement in computer attacks. Google officials have said that while they are certain the attacks originated in China, they haven’t determined who was behind them. Hong Kong Move Last week, after a two-month clash with China over censorship, Google shut its mainland Chinese search engine and redirected users to its Hong Kong site. Google on March 31 blamed the Chinese government-controlled firewall for blocking service on the search engine, which has been restored. At a March 24 congressional hearing, Alan Davidson , Google’s director of public policy, pressed for new trade rules for countries that censor the Internet. This week, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued a report saying that the absence of stated Chinese censorship rules has made it difficult for Internet companies to function there. A report released March 25 by Mountain View, California-based Symantec Corp., the biggest maker of security software, said that 28 percent of targeted cyber attacks last month originated in China. Jay Nancarrow, A Google spokesman, declined to comment specifically on the U.S. response. Taiwan Arms Chinese and U.S. ties deteriorated after the Obama administration announced Jan. 29 that it would sell arms to Taiwan, a move Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said March 7 had “seriously damaged” relations. China protested again after Obama met in February with the Dalai Lama , the Tibetan spiritual leader. China viewed the actions as an affront to Chinese sovereignty. More recently, the administration has tried to ease tensions. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg on March 29 reaffirmed the U.S. views that Taiwan shouldn’t be independent and Tibet is part of China. U.S. officials are pressing China to support more sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. Russia and China have used their veto power in the United Nations Security Council to block the U.S.- and European-led sanctions effort. Iran Talks Clinton said last week that China was beginning to ease its policy. Susan Rice , the U.S. ambassador to the UN, said on CNN on March 31 that China would join talks on drafting tougher sanctions on Iran. While Clinton said in a Jan. 21 speech that she expected “Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review” of their Internet policies, she has distanced herself from the Google dispute. “This is really between Google and China,” she said in an interview with Bloomberg Television in Moscow on March 19. The State Department’s role is to promote the “notion of maintaining and expanding Internet freedom,” not to advocate for a specific company, Michael Posner , assistant secretary for democracy, human rights and labor, said on Bloomberg Television yesterday. The U.S. may be disappointed if it is hoping that the soft- pedal approach will compel China to cooperate on Iran, said Carolyn Bartholomew , vice chairwoman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a Washington-based group created by Congress. “In the early 1990s it was we couldn’t push them on human rights because we needed their cooperation on North Korea,” she said. “It took a good 15 years before we started getting any sort of cooperation.” For Related News and Information: To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Bliss in Washington jbliss@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Adam Hanft: Google Is the New "CorporNation" – Half Company, Half Virtual Government

March 23, 2010

Value judgments aside, Google is meddling. Its decision to redirect its filtered Chinese search engine to Hong Kong (where consumers now get an unblocked Google.com.hk) is a public gesture of uninhibited muscle-flexing — and even, one could argue, of moral leadership. For a company whose famous mantra is “Don’t be evil,” it’s a dramatic step that few companies have the clout or, yes, courage to do. In fact, Google’s size and influence (media and economic) are such that it has transcended the lowly frame of a mere corporation and have turned it into a CorporNation A CorporNation’s vast global influence enables it to function simultaneously in two realms: a for-profit company, and as a force that can shape the geopolitical landscape. Google isn’t the only CorporNation; Goldman Sachs is clearly in that category — as the Greek political crisis has revealed, the company has been a partner in deceit with governments that used financial alchemy to disguise deficits as off-balance sheet baubles. Wal-Mart functioned as a CorporNation during Katrina. CorporNations aren’t new. Indeed, they are as old as capitalism, going back to the Dutch East India Company, which was chartered in 1602, became the world’ s first global company and transformed Holland into a colonial power as it dominated the East. Its reach was astounding: ” Between 1602 and 1796 they sent almost a million Europeans to work in the Asia trade on 4,785 ships, and netted for their efforts more than 2.5 million tons of Asian trade goods.” In more recent history, CorporNations like United Fruit ended up having extraordinary influence on local governments in Latin America, using their money and power to effectively run the show, controlling transportation, taxation and land use policies. Hence the term “banana republic.” China doesn’t want to become a “Search Republic” or a Google subsidiary. Its years of occupation by colonial powers are very much part of China’s present day psychic history. So naturally, they are refusing to crumble, to bow to Google’s visible display of pressure, this global dressing-down which must make them nuts. It’s well-acknowledged that China has been both an economic miracle and a free-speech compromise, a delicate political and economic dance that is controlled by the master string-pullers in Beijing. Is this a problem for the Chinese? I’d warrant that Google cares more about filtered words like “Falun Gong” and “Tibet” than the average Chinese citizen does, given that millions of the latter are racing towards middle class status and are more interested in searching for a spiffy little Geely hatchback than for a couple of provocative terms on the Internet. Of course, it is possible that Google is using this as an opportunity for global grandstanding — a way to build deep depositories of good will and deflect attention from some of their more controversial activities, whether it be the digitization of millions of books, privacy issues, the intrusiveness of their street mapping, or other products bubbling in their Google Labs. But moral or tactical or some New Age-y hybrid of both, Google is able to speak more forcefully — and without diplomatic wobble — than the United States government itself. After all, the Obama administration is playing a complex chess game, a push-pull minuet that needs to balance trade and monetary issues — including the valuation of the yuan — environmental concerns, defense policy, Iran, Korea and a host of other hot potatoes. Compared to this required diplomatic nuancing, the full-throated voice of a CorporNation sounds fresh and fearless. It’s an ironic twist. The United States has become a holding company — owning big chunks of banks and car companies, naming board members — while Google is speaking out about human rights and censorship. And Google doesn’t really worry about the political consequences of destabilizing the Chinese political system — after all, it’s not a real government in the end. What Google is, though, is the end-point of a gradual progression in which brands have grown large in the culture, standing for increasingly meaningful issues, belief systems that stretch well beyond their core functional benefit. We’ve gone from Coke=Refreshment, to McDonald’s=Family, to Nike=Empowerment, to Google=The Bill of Rights. Only a true CorporNation can be a stand-in for government. And sometimes, a stand-out.

Read the full article →