Here is an interesting article from BusinessWeek.
Why We Should Mourn Yahoo
The Web giant will probably fall to Microsoft, and that's too bad, because it could have become the model for a new-media empire .
by Sarah Lacy
"To say that a lot has already been written about Microsoft's (MSFT) proposed Yahoo! (YHOO) takeover would be understatement in the extreme. But I'm offering my two cents anyway, from a perspective that's uncomfortably unique.
Starting on Feb. 11, I'll be spending part of my time as the Silicon Valley host of Yahoo Finance's new show, TechTicker. (Not to worry; I'll still be in print as BusinessWeek.com's Valley Girl and as a contributor to Henry Blodget's SiliconAlleyInsider blog). Part live news cast, part video blog, TechTicker will cover the technology industry from Wall Street and Silicon Valley.
One guess as to what's the biggest story we'll be reporting right out of the gate.
It's not like reporters at other outlets aren't placed in similarly awkward positions. Consider The Wall Street Journal reporting on News Corp. (NWS), CNBC covering General Electric (GE), or BusinessWeek writing about The McGraw-Hill Companies (MHP). But the comparison only illustrates what I consider lamentable about Microsoft's irresistible bid for my new employer.
There's plenty not to like about Yahoo's predicament. I agree with those who have said this deal will go through. No, it's not a good thing for Yahoo, the Valley, or the Internet. And no, in the long run it may not do Microsoft much good either. I don't agree with Google's (GOOG) alarmist view that Microsoft will monopolize the Internet, but I am concerned Yahoo won't flourish under its new owner. I'm equally concerned that the best employees won't stay. But Yahoo didn't leave investors any other choice. Former CEO Terry Semel blew it, and current CEO Jerry Yang didn't do enough to help. Yahoo has simply run out of chances.
Snapped Up
Yet given my new role as a television journalist, I can't help but consider this deal from the media angle as well. And it's from that perspective that I find Microsoft's acquisition most troublesome—and tragic. Web companies revolutionized the way we distribute and consume news and information, yet none has been able to emerge as a standalone media titan.
MySpace was snapped up by News Corp. And as much as I'd like to think TechCrunch, Gawker Media, or even Digg could become the model new-media empire, they're more likely to get flogged to old media names. CNET Networks (CNET) may not long be able to resist pressure from the consortium of activist investors agitating for board control, and Time Warner (TWX) is still unraveling the debacle that was its takeover by AOL (BusinessWeek.com, 2/7/08).
Yahoo is (or was) the closest we've come to creating a media empire on the back of the Web. Granted, the bulk of its content is aggregated, not homegrown. Yet that content is a big reason Yahoo draws hundreds of millions of visitors a month. Yahoo Finance is among the biggest personal finance portals on the Web, and some of the world's most prestigious publications depend on Yahoo for a big chunk of traffic. I'd argue Yahoo is the biggest force in media that's not called a media company.
This is one reason I took the job at Yahoo. Sure, I could have joined a hipper startup or a storied print publication. But the traditional media business is disintegrating and in desperate need of a new business model that supports high-quality journalism and makes money. People want the brevity of a blog, the vibrancy of video, and the in-depth reporting of magazines and newspapers—all via the Web. Yahoo was one of the few sites poised to bring those elements together, to put original and aggregated content in front of more eyeballs than a printed paper or TV screen could promise.
As a business, it's hardly Google-sexy, but Yahoo wasn't going to beat Google in search anyway. At least Yahoo was making money and growing. And if that, along with one of the largest audiences online, wasn't enough for Wall Street, will any public company ever have sexy enough numbers to become the next great media empire? Time was, they didn't have to. Media companies were frequently private, there were fewer activist hedge funds demanding over-the-top growth, and empires were often built by families who felt a thriving press was vital to national interests.
Not that I'm letting Yahoo off the hook. But as a reporter, I'm sad to see a media platform that could have been so promising turn into Microsoft's latest conquest."
Sarah Lacy has been a business reporter for 10 years, most recently covering technology for BusinessWeek. Her book, Once You're Lucky, Twice You're Good: The Rebirth of Silicon Valley and the Rise of Web 2.0, will be published by Gotham Books in May, 2008. She is also Silicon Valley host of Yahoo Finance's Tech Ticker.
The business side of the Internet journalism continues to evolve and that could have a major impact on reporters in the future. What do you think of Sarah Lacy's article and the entire corporate mentality of our business?
Jerry
Jerry in Sri Lanka
Helping bathe an elephant
About Me
- Jerry Renaud
- I am a broadcast journalism professor in the College of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
7 comments:
I actually just got done reading Kevin Sites' book "In the Hot Zone," which was spawned by his reporting for Yahoo News at http://hotzone.yahoo.com/.
Basically, the concept of the project was he'd go to every armed conflict in the world during one year. He went some places twice and others (such as Iran) that weren't necessarily armed conflicts, but were important in world politics, were added.
For each location, he'd write at least one story, take some photos and put together at least one video package.
He did all the reporting as a solo journalist, with the help of three or four Yahoo employees working on the project (research, actually posting videos, etc.) back in the States and the "fixers" (who were natives of the countries he visited) helping him get around and secure interviews.
Personally, I found both the book and the site fascinating. However, he also says (and I agree) that conventional news organizations would never have funded this type of a project.
In this way, Yahoo News set itself up to make a name for itself as an outlet where such nontraditional projects would be possible. Sites' reporting took the approach of seeing the macro-level conflict through the details -- putting real people's faces on these armed conflicts.
I have to agree with Sarah Lacy that it's not a step forward for journalism if an online media outlet that positioned itself as a place where creative newsgathering projects could flourish can't be left alone to do just that.
Does anyone in this blog frequently use yahoo? It's odd...I used to use it pretty regularly as a search engine and yahoo e-mail addresses seemed like the big thing in my high school, but it kind of fizzled after Google. Now I don't really use it that much. I will go occasionally see news stories from Yahoo, but that is about it. How does Yahoo make its money? Through ads?
I did see that they rejected Microsofts offer.
I also found this from the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7249277.stm
I almost feel the same way Kurtis does about who uses Yahoo. Their website is usually a second tier for me (that is after google). But it is interesting to think of Yahoo as a possible media giant. It makes complete sense though.
I was very excited to see she referenced digg.com as a possible new media giant. It kind of makes my presentation last week seem more important. I agree that a good news web site must have everything from news to entertainment and contain articles, photos, and videos.
As for Yahoo being bought out by Microsoft, I don't feel it will make any large difference for the consumer. And I don't agree with Google's statement about monopolizing the internet.
That sounds like a cool book, Emily. That guy sounds like a badass!
I hope Microsoft isn't successful. I hope we're not heading down the road to some monolithic GoogleYahooSoft in a decade or two. Of course, Google's unofficial corporate slogan is "don't be evil." So maybe that wouldn't be so bad *cough cough*.
I don't use Yahoo. Most of my main news just comes from Comcast. And as far as Microsoft buying Yahoo, I don't really think it will make a difference. If it happens, people will freak out for a while, but then, something else will happen that will drag their attention away.
As for Google, the best feature about it is the search. News...didn't even know they did that. haha.
I'm with Trevor on the significance of the digg.com mention. I've always thought that the future of "the media"/information exchange on the Web is in these aggregate sites, especially those that a) provide multiple outlets covering the same story (like Google) or b) have some sort of democratic method of deciding what rises to the top (like digg). I think whether one realizes it or not, that's happening anyway. All of the people I know hit multiple sites for news and have their favorite sites because, over time, they've found them most credible.
And yes, I realize that digg.com doesn't look like it has a sustainable business model, but really, what Web sites do right now? I think a site like that is at least forward thinking and innovative, unlike the reactionary Web sites of the traditional media, which too often feel like they're trying way too hard to stuff an ad in my face (too bad they don't know my Web browser automatically blocks most of those ads).
But that's neither here nor there.
In regard to the business side of things, I think it's impossible to monopolize the Internet, so I'm not too worried about this potential buyout. That's the beauty of the Internet, and just one of many things I think makes it not definable as just another medium. That said, I really don't think there's a reliable business model for Internet media just yet, and I agree that there's lots of change, meaning a lot of people are going to fail. And for all of this gobbling up of media, non-media or whatever you call Yahoo! that's going on, there's inevitably going to be these AOL Time Warner messes. That's ok (to me at least -- I'm not a stockholder). Yahoo! might fail or digg might fail, but eventually, someone will be able to combine the best aspects of what's working and get a reliable and self-supporting model.
If Yahoo was truly poised to give Internet users what they wanted (which, at least in my limited dealing with it, was certainly possible), then yeah, it's sad if Microsoft perverts that model in any way. But it's early in the game, relatively speaking, and I think we'll eventually see Wall Street find a way to make a buck off this thing. It's the American Way, right?
Post a Comment