On the heels of Jon Miller being replaced by Randy Falco… Tech Crunch reports that Jason Calacanis has resigned from AOL.com.
Here is our potential timeline of events:
- Jason Calacanis sold Weblogs Inc. last year in October 2006, he probably had to stick around at least one year, time is up, and he is out. He cashed out and would have stayed had he been considered for a real senior management role.
- Despite saying the contrary in public, a fellow of Calacanis personality probably had sights on being AOL’s CEO. Not anytime soon, but after Jon Miller’s tenure perhaps. When Time Warner’s head office laid Jon Miller off for old media type Randy Falco of NBC, it was clear that Calacanis was never considered CEO-worthy and that Time Warner held absolutely no respect for AOL managers.
- Calacanis was probably not even highly viewed by AOL and Netscape’s employees; that’s not a knock against Jason, just saying that it was a tough spot to be in. You launch a blog network in January 2004 and Mark Cuban backs you, a year and a half later you sell for $25M after boasting of making $1M a year with Google Ad Sense… you walk into a place like AOL which despite its troubled recent past is an icon of the Web.
- Months after the acquisition, you become the GM of Netscape and fix something that is not broken, and the media criticizes it a me-too move that is doomed to fail.
- 13 months after you sell, the Internet Advertising Bureau comes out and says that the Web is bigger, better and badder (in a good way!) than ever, but you have already sold your company to AOL and will now be reporting to a dozen people and earn a salary.
- 13 months and one day after you sell, you see that Time Warner will lie to Jon Miller’s face and then replace him with someone else the next day, meaning that Weblogs Inc. is nice and dandy and it’s time to move on to something else… you also wrote how Jon Miller was one of the few people who would be able to manage you etc., implying that the joyride is over with new head Randy Falco, who hails from old media and would not tolerate you blasting your bosses at AOL too long.
Digg this Blog
Share on Facebook
WatchMojo on Twitter
WatchMojo on YouTube
Add to Favorites
WatchMojo NewsletterInteresting news coming out from Google, taken from Tech Crunch:
Businesses you find in Google Local now have a call link included in search results. That link opens a javascript form to enter your phone number and calls both you and the business.
I love this idea to enter your number and have them call you to connect you with the merchant… that is brilliant.
Great ending in this post from TechCrunch, though someone might want to tell them that choosing the African continent has more to do with its “g” shape than its current telecommunications reach (though who knows, maybe VOIP will do for it what cell phone technology did for Asia and South America).
Jon Miller did such a nice job turning AOL around that yesterday he was sent packing… apparently, Jon Miller is a turnaround artist, and now that AOL is on the right track, they flushed him and replaced him with NBC’s Randy Falco, cause he is a better fit for the company now.
Man, if ever there was a reason to flush a corporate career, now is the time. Actually, on a personal note, the time for me was last year when after playing my part in making my then partners and major shareholders millionaires, the slammed the door on my way out, and to accentuate their tact and class, sued me early this year when I dared start a new company.
Anyway, if Jon Miller is such a turnaround artist, does this mean that David Filo and Jerry Yang are talking to him about taking the helm of Yahoo!
For our previous posts on Yahoo!’s management issues, click here.
Disclaimer: I own Yahoo! stock
Food for though, from Om Malik’s GigaOm:
Just for kicks, in the third quarter about $455 million was invested in Web 2.0 companies. That’s about $4.70 ad-dollars per VC dollar invested in these companies.
That is a pretty interesting number. While Malik is correct to state Yahoo! and Google account for 40-50% of ad dollars and as such leave all of the other first, second, tier and non tier company to share 50-60% of the online ad pie, it should be noted that there is an advertiser flight to quality to the top publishers like Y! and the Big G, this will create rising prices on the top sites, meaning that many advertiers, about 99% of them in fact, will seek greener (read: more cost effective) places to advertise. Over time, sure Y! and G will continue to profit handsomely, but so will many of the others.
Don’t make any mistake about it: many entrepreneurs who are taking an interest in the dot com space again will be squeezed out when they realize there is no such thing as an easy buck on the Web.
From Dave Morgan of Tacoda, in his MediaPost article:
However, I do believe that the company is well on its way to becoming the media industry’s MOST DOMINANT publisher. They certainly aspire to control the distribution, packaging and monetization of the world’s content.
Someone might want to let Mr. Morgan know that for all intents and purposes, Google already controls the distribution, packaging and monetization of content.
In terms of distribution: Google owns 50% of market share in search, and we also know that 8 out of 10 websites are found via search engines. Add these two and you get Google in control of much of the distribution. If anyone doubts this, they have not suffered the Google shuffle.
Packaging: An entire industry of search engine optimization firms package content so that Google favors your pages.
Last but not least, Monetization: were it not for Google Ad Sense, the WWW as we know it would be far different, with a lot less content. Ad Sense adds a considerable revenue solution to advertisers before they are large enough to secure ad dollars from traditional online avenues.
Google is well on its deserved way to become the 21st Century’s answer to Standard Oil and MSFT. For that read this. In just a few years, it could overtake MSFT in terms of market cap. The difference is that thus far, Google has shared the spoils: it shares traffic, it offers tools to create and promote content and obviously, it shares revenue.
I got an email from a reader/fellow blogger worth addressing, it should be noted that we manage the MetaMojo.com domain specific vertical search engine:
A couple of days ago, Josh Kopelman posted this article on his influential Redeye VC blog suggesting that Google could become the next Vertical Search Engine, by utilizing the OneBox feature to provide a jumping-off point into searches of authoritative sites. The idea certainly has merit: OneBox allows the big-G to quickly and easily provide context-driven, authoritative and relevant search results.
On the other hand, Vertical search engines usually offer so much more than pure web content search, as I’ve pointed out in my post here . Vertical search engines can provide additional data sets, related services, domain-specific presentation, parametric search and so on - features that a general purpose search engine like Google or Yahoo would be hard-pressed to match.
How do you see this - what are the big differentiators VSEs have over general-purpose engines, that would make it difficult for the latter to catch up? If you have a position or quote on this subject, I would be happy to blog about it.
Sincerely,
Nitin K
The Software Abstractions Blog
This is a great question, and Mr. Kopelman’s article asks some great questions. For some context, it should be noted that Mr. Kopelman’s Redeye VC fund has investments in two vertical search engines:
- Krugle (a search engine for developers) and
- BiggerBoat (a search engine for entertainment).
Despite this perceived bias, we credit Kopelman for coming out and asking if Google could be the best and biggest vertical search engine out there, essentially making his investment in these two firms somewhat moot.
It’s a good question. To summarize, Kopelman’s argument is that while we are focusing a lot of Google’s custom search engine tool (where anyone can build a vertical search engine), we should be paying more attention to Google’s OneBox solution, which in a nutshell identifies the type of keyword you are querying and points you to specific areas of Google’s search offering: a iPod will offer you a link to Froogle, a city will take you to Google Maps, etc.
It should be noted that in fact, this is actually taking a page from Yahoo!, whose search results frequently offer shortcuts to pages within Yahoo!’s vast arsenal of content, product and services. A search for Britney Spears offers a “shortcut” to Yahoo! Music, for example.
Frankly, I will be the first to state that this is a very user-friendly offering. It is one of many things that will shape vertical search, however, it is unreasonable to assume that someone typing a city necessarily wants a map, that is in fact why Google does not outright redirect you to a Google Maps page but simply adds a link to it off its results page.
It is important to note that Google’s custom search tool is also not something that most amateur and professional users will necessarily outright adopt and deploy. We’ve explained quite in depth here, and other independent, less biased experts have agreed on their own. If you doubt me still, take a look at this article and tell me anyone without a lot of time on their hands and code expertise being interested to master Google’s custom search engine. Sure you can adopt a simpler integration, but doing so results in a poor and frustrating user experience.
The point is: when you walk into a restaurant, you might feel like a steak, but you are not going to walk into the kitchen and tell the cook that you want a given steak, with which spices, what vegetables, cooked at what temperature and what not; you assume that the chef knows what he is doing and trust him.
Publishing and search engines are essentially the same. 1% of the world wide web’s audiences might be do it yourself keeners, 99% want it served. Between the VC blogs, programmer blogs, search engine gurus on blogs, we assume and project a lot of things onto the greater population; those who actually buy our products (and not get them comped), those who actually click on text ads, buy stuff on Amazon.com and what not.
We conducted our study groups with MetaMojo.com, we asked everyone from tech savvy and not so tech savvy if they wanted to build their own search engines, about 2% said yes. The rest said: “why don’t you build it for us.”
Technology vs. Human-Approach
The point is: in an era of Web 2.0 hype, we have lost our marbles and put a premium on pure automation, self-maintenance and user created/generated content and applications. As the dust settles, we see that this engenders a tidal wave of quality issues, spam, and other dubious practices that harm the world wide web (don’t take this last part from me, take it from a certain Tim Berners Lee, the inventor of the WWW, who recently spoke on this topic).
Successful publishing of any kind has always required a human touch. Why should it be any different online? This is why I doubt Google’s vertical search foray will be as successful as it can be. Note that I am not saying it won’t be successful, but for Google: most of its users will be happy with the organic results, some will be happy with the One Box solutions, and few will be excited to build their own custom search. Google will realize that given the war it is involved in against MSFT, Yahoo and Ask, it is better served putting its human resources on mass market search and providing - like it has - automated services to address other areas, such as vertical search.
So, to answer The Software Abstractions Blog’s question: do I think Google will be the next great vertical search engine. Like all questions: it depends.
In terms if size, Google will probably dominate search forever. Sure, the Web is young and search even younger, but like today’s news that MSFT and Yahoo! will essentially be adopting Google’s Sitemap format shows, Google is in the lead and its war chest will ensure that it will remain so. It will take something radical to change the search industry’s dynamics, and seeing other startups get funding or Ask power Lycos are not radical change, they are attempts to be and remain relevant.
Context Is King
I am not a technologist. I understand technology very well to use it, but I am a content guy. My approach to vertical search has been context. My third, upcoming book is called Context is King for a reason. MetaMojo.com’s approach to vertical search is radically different; we think that someone looking for on Berlin during World War II wants one result while a couple looking for travel information on Berlin wants a different set of results, and we strive to offer the same user both. And, we’ll continually scour the Web to ensure that the results are very good. I’ll be the first to admit that sometimes they are off. But, so are regular (non vertical) results. You can’t simply put something out there and forget about it. And, to begin answering the question regarding Google, Google has a history of putting products out and forgetting about them (Google Base anyone?).
But more importantly, unlike Google and other tech companies who have no real desire to invest in and create content, we create contextual content experiences where our vertical search results become highly-targeted with a tremendous amount of quality.
Examples:
- You are on one of our travel sites looking for information on Sydney, you see a link that says: “Find out what Travel Publishers have to say about Sydney” (right above Newspapers).
If you want, you click on it. Where do you go?
Since you are on a travel site - and hence in a travel context - you are taken to a search result with results on Sydney from travel websites, but we take it a step further and limit the choice to best of breed online and offline publishers.
This way we ensure quality of the sites and a positive user experience. We’re not saying that this is the only path to success, we’re saying it’s the path we have chosen and judging by search queries, overall traffic etc., it seems to be working.
Why did we adopt this approach?
We were never going to outspend Google in Traffic Acquisition Costs or outspend Ask in marketing costs, so we thought this would work. It has, slowly but surely. In 1, 3, 5 years, if Mojo Supreme’s overall traffic grows to 1, 5, 10 or 20 million uniques, the search volume on our network will be substantial.
We do this across the board in numerous properties to drive search query volume.
Another example is our TenMojo.com Top 10 List Reference site (the largest of its kind online). If you were to click on the Schindler’s List link, were do you think you’d be taken to?
That’s right, MetaMojo.com’s results page from the Film category for the movie.
We do this in many other ways: stop. Ask yourself, where are you now? You are on a blog covering IT stuff, you see that search box in the upper right side of the page. That lets you search contextual results in IT, say you search for software, it will take you to, you guessed it, the MetaMojo.com search results page in the IT category for software.
All right, I’ll stop there, but you get the idea.
I am biased, allow me to say that, but I personally do not think that vertical search works without a context. I could be wrong: Google’s sheer size ensures that it will succeed in anything it does (well usually anyway).
Do I think that Krugle and Biggerboat will succeed? I do not know. But they will need something unique and additional. That’s not my problem, that’s their problem to solve, and Mr. Kopelman’s.
We have an audience of ever-growing unique users who come across our technology products, in this case the vertical search products. Anyday, we will be launching our video search tool. We have an audience, this reduces our acquisition costs. It works - for us.
From a business model perspective, you win with both display and search advertising revenue.
But, from a user experience, they don’t care about the business model, they just want good results, we control the variables by creating the context in which they conduct the vertical search queries in order to ensure that users get a positive vertical search experience.
Hope that answers your question. Feedback more than welcome.
Disclaimer: Partially because of this blog, we have a lot of VCs who contact us to provide feedback on what is written, occasionally, they inquire about the company at large. While I’d prefer omitting this, having learned from others’ criticism when they fail to disclose everything, I should point out that Mr. Kopelman’s firm First Round actually spoke to us about our company, but ultimately decided to focus on non-content companies. Content, it should be noted, [proudly] makes up half of our DNA. Also, of the companies mentioned above, our video department WatchMojo.com has a working relationship with both Yahoo! and Google. Finally, I own shares in Yahoo!
Standardization continues: Major Search Engines Unite to Support a Common Mechanism for Website Submission
Read more on SiteMaps.org and check out some more information on SEW. Of note:
As part of the announcement, the existing sitemaps protocol from Google gets a version upgrade to Sitemaps 0.9. However, no actual changes to the system have taken place. The new version number was simply done to reflect the protocol moving from an exclusive Google system to one that all three search engines now support.
Anyone already using Google Sitemaps needn’t do anything different. The only change is now those sitemaps will be read by Microsoft and Yahoo, as well.
Guess we know who the undisputed leader of search is…
From BusinessWeek.com:
Verbally bashing YouTube is apparently not enough for billionaire “blog maverick” Mark Cuban. Now the Dallas Mavericks owner and tech entrepreneur is reportedly considering acquiring the independent news agency that’s suing the video-sharing site for copyright violations. The brash move, if it goes through, would undoubtedly escalate Cuban’s war of words with Google, which closed its $1.65 billion stock purchase of YouTube Nov. 13. In fact, it could force Cuban to put his money where his outspoken mouth has been.
Before Google announced it would purchase YouTube, Cuban publicly criticized the company and anyone else thinking of buying it. “Would Google be crazy to buy YouTube? No doubt about it. Moronic would be an understatement of a lifetime,” he wrote in an Oct. 7 blog post. After Google announced it would buy the site, Cuban penned another post titled “I still think Google is crazy.”
If Cuban is seriously considering acquiring the independent news agency that’s suing the video-sharing site for copyright violations, is he as dumb as he said Google was for buying YouTube?
Cuban has considerable financial resources he’s capable of mobilizing in court against Google. He sold his Internet radio broadcast company, Broadcast.com, to Yahoo! for more than $5 billion in 1999 and is reportedly worth well over a billion dollars.
He is also clearly interested in the case. So interested, in fact, that he dedicated a Nov. 14 posting on his blog to a motion for summary judgment filed by Tur’s lawyers. “To say the stakes are huge would be an understatement,” wrote Cuban, who subsequently highlighted an argument made by Tur’s legal representatives.
Still, any court battle with Google would not be easy. With a market cap of $150 billion, Google’s potential legal resources are formidable, to say the least. It also has a reason to fight hard if Tur’s case makes it before a judge. A ruling that simply taking down copyrighted content does not avoid liability could open the floodgates to others suing Google over copyright infringement. Google has a substantial interest in ensuring that platforms such as YouTube and Google Video are not liable for copyrighted videos uploaded to sites provided they make an effort to keep it off. The less required to be considered a good faith effort, the less risk Google assumes when allowing users to post video content.
By becoming involved in a Google fight, Cuban risks exposing himself to embarrassment in addition to costly legal fees. After all, with all the noise he has made on his blog, Cuban is already facing a big “I told you so” from Google if YouTube turns out to be wildly successful. The more invested he becomes in seeing YouTube lose a copyright battle, the more vulnerable to bad publicity Cuban becomes if YouTube wins. The headline is almost too obvious: “Cuban, Who Is Crazy Now?”
I don’t know, but this seems like an expensive and bone-headed PR move gone wrong. Technically, Mark Cuban secured his wealth by shorting Yahoo! - in a proverbial way, he defeated Yahoo! Is taking on Google - who itself beat Yahoo! as well a sign of hubris? Then again, Google itself is guilty of too much hubris…
This morning, Tech Crunch mentioned that YouTube had sent him a Cease & Desist Letter, earlier on we asked if YouTube would have taken this action had Google not bought them.
More interestingly, Tech Dirt raises an interesting point:
YouTube’s lawyers pull out the Grokster “inducement” standard, in claiming that the tool “induces” people to infringe on YouTube’s user’s copyrights. It makes sense, because that’s about the only argument they’d have against the tool, since the tool (or its developer) aren’t actually guilty of direct copyright infringement. However, that’s extremely dangerous territory for YouTube to get into, because there are plenty (Hi, Mark Cuban), who believe that YouTube itself is guilty of “inducing” copyright infringement itself. The decision by YouTube’s lawyers to stretch the definition of “inducement” could very well come back to bite them — especially if whoever sues them points out that the company’s own lawyers seem to have a very broad definition of the term themselves.
Second, YouTube keeps wanting to claim a clear separation between themselves and the actual copyright of the videos that are being uploaded for very sound legal reasons. Yet, here, they’re suddenly sending their lawyers out, not to protect their own copyright, but the copyright of the uploaded videos. That seems to be suggesting that they really do have a closer connection to the legal status of the videos than they’d like to claim to remain untouched by the legal liability.
I can speak from experience to say that in corporate legal matters, sometimes the best tool is what your opponent’s lawyers and the opposition in general submits. Earlier this year when News Corporation’s FIM’s IGN unit sued me and tried to shut my company down, I easily beat them (I repped myself at the time) by picking apart their evidence and exhibits. They said so much to dismantle their own case that I am shocked they have yet to simply drop the matter. Given everything they said, they even left themselves open to a defamation counter-suit…
Point is: YouTube and its parent Google have a lot more to lose than gain in this matter.
As we have said time and time again, before unleashing the lawyers out on someone, make sure you recognize the stakes. Generally speaking, you have very little to gain and quite a bit to lose. In my case, News Corp. had nothing to gain and maybe they figured they had nothing to lose… but with YouTube, this could surely come back to haunt them.
We’ll keep an eye on this for sure, and keep you posted on how our little legal adventure turns out as well.
