Cap’n Ken’s Homespun Wisdom

You have to love The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Dying a slow death as the market it serves grows rapidly, the AJC editors can’t help but deride the people in metro Atlanta who should be their target audience.

Case in point is a story in today’s paper about a pilot program at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport that may bring fast-track airport security lines to the country’s biggest airport. Aimed at frequent travelers (most likely business travelers), the concept is that for a fee a traveler can be “cleared” as a non-threat through background checks, and thus be allowed to go through security in a special line for travelers who have all been “cleared” as unlikely security threats.

And despite the fact that today’s story is merely about the airport manager issuing a contract that could bring the pilot closer to reality, this is the headline AJC went with:

Ah, yes, don’t miss the opportunity to drum up a little wealth and class envy in a mundane story about a government contract. And never mind that the likely users of this program are the people who have been flooding in to metro Atlanta for the past 20 years … who you need as customers … and who already despise your product because of exactly this kind of crap. Any chance to throw out “Lexus lanes” and rile up that shrinking part of the metro area’s population who still view you as relevant - go for it. Feels good, doesn’t it?

And I was intrigued by the actual reference (in the 9th paragraph) in the story to “Lexus lanes”:

Proponents of the so-called Lexus lanes say they guarantee a trip through airport security in about five minutes. Opponents say they discriminate against travelers who can’t afford the annual fee and raise civil liberties concerns.

So if they’re “so-called Lexus lanes”, somebody’s got to be calling them that, right? Well, if you do a Google search for airport security Lexus lanes and take out references to HOT lanes on freeways, you get a grand total of 44 results. Several are still referring to freeways when “Lexus lanes” comes up, and a bunch more are tied to the AJC referring to them as such. There’s nothing at all to suggest that “Lexus lanes” is some common way to refer to these things.

I can see the flow in the AJC newsroom:

Reporter: Hey editor, the airport put out a contract for the fast-track security lines. No big deal, really. They have to do that, but it doesn’t mean it’ll happen.
Editor: You mean the rich people are closer to being able to get special treatment? Awesome!
Reporter: Well, I didn’t say that. And this is really just a procedural step.
Editor: OK, let’s headline this thing “Airport ‘Lexus Lanes’ closer to a test run”
Reporter: “Lexus lanes”?
Editor: Hell yeah. Rich people drive Lexuses, you know. So it’s like those rich people lanes on the freeways.
Reporter: We have those?
Editor: Well, no. But other places do. And editors of newspapers in those places call them “Lexus lanes”.
Reporter: This really isn’t the same thing.
Editor: Sure it is. Slap that headline on your story and file it.
Reporter: But the story doesn’t say anything about “Lexus lanes”.
Editor: Lemme see that … OK, change “Proponents of the program say …” to “Proponents of the so-called Lexus lanes say …” down here in the 9th paragraph.
Reporter: Who calls them “Lexus lanes”?
Editor: I do. Thus, they are “so-called”.
Reporter: {sigh} Whatever you say, chief.

So last night Microsoft officially bailed on its offer to buy Yahoo. Jerry’s kids stuck to their guns on acceptable pricing and scared Ballmer away from a proxy fight with talk of a Google alliance. Well done, I say.

The only thing that would have made sense about this acquisition was a really big premium for Yahoo shareholders (I am one), and what Microsoft (I own it, too) was offering was a big premium on a stock depressed by a lot of missteps and the general decline in stocks over the past six months. YHOO was trading above Microsoft’s offer as recently as late October, you know.

It was an opportunistic move by Microsoft to snap up a battered company at its weakest moment. That Yahoo wiggled its way out of the Redmond Death Grip is impressive. In the short term, I’m sure Yahoo stock is going to get hammered, shareholder lawsuits will be filed and the pain of the Microsoft ordeal will linger a while.

But ultimately, Yahoo is much better off not being a subsidiary of Microsoft. Yahoo is a much, much stronger online brand than MSN (as represented by MSN.com, Live.com, Hotmail.com, MSNBC.com and whatever else makes up the mishmash of Microsoft’s online presence), and Microsoft is the poster boy for the futility of just throwing money at the Internet.

Microsoft has been growing its online business of late, and also growing its online losses. In the first quarter of 2008, Microsoft did $843 million in revenue and lost $228 million in their online segment. Yahoo, by the way, did $1.8 billion in revenue and made $121 million in the quarter.

Why, then, would Microsoft be a better owner of Yahoo? They wouldn’t. Microsoft just has plenty of cash on hand ($26 billion in cash equivalents) and thought they could pick up a great online asset on the cheap. And it would have been a hell of a nab for Microsoft, but ultimately “Yahoo - A Microsoft Company” would really sell short the Yahoo potential.

Having been a part of the kind of b.s. company outlook presentation Yahoo put together (PDF) to counter Microsoft’s advances, I don’t buy the “look how big we’ll be!” make-believe numbers, but Yahoo is right that the market under-values the company right now.

And the reason is this - all of the focus these days is on search advertising. Yahoo has poured a ton of time and money into their Panama ad platform with little effect against the Google machine, and that failure is what Wall Street has focused on. Microsoft, as well, has failed to put a dent in Google with its Live Search and AdCenter platforms.

Google has won web search as we know it. Period. Fighting that battle has been very bad for Yahoo, and it’s time to wave the white flag. With $50 billion in revenue and net income of $14 billion a year, Microsoft has the ability to continue the fight should they chose, but Yahoo needs to get out.

The logical move for Yahoo now is to syndicate Google AdSense for Search. Not outsource their search engine; just kill Panama and serve AdSense ads instead. An informed hypothetical effect of such a move:

- Say Yahoo now earns $50 per thousand queries (which is probably a high estimate) and their net margin after development costs, administrative costs, etc. of web search and Panama is 25% (what Google nets).

- Say using AdSense, Yahoo would see $80 per thousand queries (a reasonable estimate), get a 75% rev share (also a reasonable estimate) and have administrative expenses at 5% of their Google net. Then spend another 30% of that net on search engine development.

The Yahoo DIY model would net out $12.50 per thousand queries, while the AdSense syndication would net out $39.90 per thousand queries. Throw some conservatism into the estimates and it’s a safe bet that Yahoo could double its net search revenue while getting out of the losing game of chasing Google. Using my hypotheticals and ComScore search data, it seems plausible that Yahoo could add somewhere around $1 billion in net income per year just by getting (back) on board the Google train.

There is, of course, the anti-trust consideration. In a practical sense, Google (through its own site and its many, many syndication partner sites) currently has about 68% U.S. market share for search, with Yahoo probably holding about 23% - 24% with its sites and partners, and Microsoft picking up the remaining 8% - 9%. So if you’re arguing against a Google / Yahoo deal, you’d say essentially that Google would end up with 90+% market share. Of course, if you’re arguing against the deal, you’re probably Microsoft, which holds a 90+% market share in operating systems.

Adding Yahoo would obviously be a huge market share gain for the AdSense platform, but Google is already the ad provider for AOL (No. 4 in web search), Ask.com (No. 5), the web portals for Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cox and most other major ISPs, CNN.com, MySpace, NYTimes.com, LATimes.com, etc. etc. You get the picture - Google is web search advertising.

Would the Trust Busters really block a service agreement (not an equity stake) between Google and Yahoo because of AdSense market share concerns? Maybe, but it seems like a stretch to block a non-equity contract between two companies. Akamai is pretty dominant in the content-serving business, so are they going to be denied big new contracts because of “anti-trust” concerns?

I have to think the anti-trust hurdle is one Yahoo could clear on an AdSense deal with Google. The actual combination of the No. 1 and No. 3 display advertising companies and No. 2 and No. 3 companies in total online audience probably would have been a bigger anti-trust concern. And Yahoo’s long-held position as the king of online content is at the heart of its real value.

Even having lost a lot of luster during its “Hollywood” years, Yahoo is a stellar online content brand. Their future promise lies not in fighting Google, but in building online audience and monetizing well through display ads. If they had been focusing on that instead of chasing after movie deals and search advertising for the past several years, they would be in much better shape today.

When they’ve done smart things (like buying Flickr), they’ve managed to totally screw up integration after the fact. I guess they’re working on that now, but a real sharp focus is needed on re-crafting the Yahoo product set. The company was barely over its Semel Hangover when the Microsoft bid hit, so it’s going to take a while to really right the ship.

Once tightened up, Yahoo will be in a great position to fight the next online revenue battle - targeted display advertising that yields much higher CPMs. Google, of course, has taken note with its DoubleClick acquisition, and AOL is raising eyebrows with its Platform-A program.

Again, had Yahoo recognized earlier that search was lost, its focus could have been put on the next battle - one it was once in a dominant position to win. But Yahoo is about on par with AOL in terms of its display advertising network and dominates inventory on its own sites. Be smart, focus on the right things … and for God’s sake get a real CEO in there. Jerry Yang stopped being CEO the first time a year and a half before Yahoo reported having 155 employees (including 44 “surfers”) and generating $19 million in revenue. And he’s the guy to turn around a troubled $7 billion company? Please.

Yahoo is full of potential, but given their miscalculations and missteps over the last five years, their potential remains just that. The company could be the Google of Display Ads 2.0 if they start doing things right, or it might get picked up by Microsoft next year for half the offer they just turned down. I’ll be interested to see what the fate of Yahoo is now.

You pissed it away, son.

It’s impossible to know what’s going on in the head of Ryan Perrilloux, but suffice it to say - that kid ain’t right. Perrilloux finally reached the breaking point of Leslie’s “10 strikes and you’re out” rule on Friday and was un-invited to the LSU football program. Was it just the inevitable outcome for a kid so cocky he came into college talking about “four Heismans”? One has to think that cockiness is at the root of Perrilloux’s sense of invincibility - tied up in counterfeiting, getting onto gambling boats with a fake ID, getting in fights, being an asshole all around town, not going to team meetings, not going to class … hey, “I’m Ryan Perrilloux” - but his degree of delusion is just staggering.

There’s also the factor of his father’s death in February, and I think it’s quite possible that any chance he had of getting right was sunk with that. The kid wasn’t prepared to just do what’s asked of all football players, so toss in the death of a parent and it’s not surprising he flamed out.

So Plan B for Ryan Perrilloux is transferring down to a I-AA program to redeem himself. That will require that he finishes the Spring semester at LSU, though, and there’s still a week and a half to go. If he can’t keep himself straight with the promise of being the starting QB at LSU, he many have a hard time just not killing somebody between now and May 13.

The book is now closed on Ryan Perrilloux. Career stats:

- 52 for 79 (66% completion)
- 704 yards
- 8 TDs
- 2 INT

And now we move on. I wouldn’t have put money down on the idea that Perrilloux would actually play this fall, but it’s more than a little troubling to face the reality now. It didn’t help that I heard this news in Athens yesterday morning from a Gator fan. Maybe Nick Saban coming over to my house to tell me would have been a worse circumstance, but just barely.

Whether it’s Harvard Boy, Jarrett Lee or Jordan Jefferson behind center, “untested” is a huge understatement for LSU’s QB prospects this season. The Tigers have enjoyed an incredibly strong thread of quarterback progression since the emergence from our Dark Days, and you can’t overestimate the significance of that. Consider this history:

2001 - Rohan Davey takes over for the Booty Who Shall Not Be Mentioned, Matt Mauck (pressed into service in the SEC Championship Game because of Davey injury) as backup, Marcus Randall in the wings.

2002 - Matt Mauck takes over for Davey, Marcus Randall (pressed into service for the second half because of Mauck injury) as backup.

2003 - Matt Mauck is the second-year starter, Marcus Randall as backup. JaMarcus Russell, Matt Flynn redshirted. Lester Ricard, Rick Clausen flee the program for lack of opportunity.

2004 - Marcus Randall takes over for Mauck, JaMarcus Russell challenges for the starting job, Matt Flynn as No. 3 QB.

2005 - JaMarcus Russell takes over for Randall, Matt Flynn as backup (pressed into service for the Peach Bowl because of Russell injury). Ryan Perrilloux redshirted.

2006 - JaMarcus Russell as second-year starter, Matt Flynn as backup. Ryan Perrilloux as No. 3 QB.

2007 - Matt Flynn takes over for Russell, Ryan Perrilloux as backup (pressed into service twice because of Flynn injury). Transfer Andrew Hatch is No. 3 QB. Jarrett Lee redshirted.

That was some serious continuity and progression to develop quarterbacks. And *poof* - it’s gone now. I don’t remember who Perrilloux may have chased off in the 2005 signing class, but having the chain broken is a huge potential for program disruption. Davey, Mauck, Randall, Russell and Flynn all had time to develop, and only during the Randall era was there much pressure to rush a young guy into the role. And, of course, during this stretch LSU has claimed two national championships, three SEC championships, four SEC West titles and six bowl wins.

At this point, I’m assuming Lee will be the starting QB come August 30. Somehow the Andrew Hatch bio page doesn’t scream “this guy’s a starter”, and unless Jordan Jefferson is truly special, I’d think Leslie would go with the redshirt QB.

So the question becomes, is Lee a four-year QB like Tommy Hodson … or like Jamie Howard?

No, it wasn’t that Glenn Dorsey got himself far enough up into guaranteed-money territory to set himself up nicely even if Auburn’s hit-job on him last season keeps him from realizing his pro potential. It wasn’t Craig Steltz and his fabulous man-mane being matched so perfectly with the Chicago Bears.

It was this:

- Former Evangel superstar QB, USC signal caller and flag-bearer for the big Booty family John David Booty sat around until the 5th round (pick 137).

- Former Evangel work-a-day fullback and LSU football plow Jacob Hester goes in the 3rd round (pick 69).

Yes, I’m happy to see John David get the snub.

I’ve been tinkering around with things on my new Wordpress install, and one of the tweaks I just rolled out was changing the default behavior of the “link” button in my post editor to add ‘target=”new”‘ to the end of URLs I’m linking to. Simple enough tweak (look for quicktags.js in your wp-includes/js directory, kids), but the lack of this as a configuration option hints at the disdain for “target=new” among the Lords of the Internet.

If you don’t know, “target=new” in a link makes that link open in a new browser window, rather than in the window you’re currently looking at. And for many minds absorbed with Internet propriety, that’s just wrong. It’s not quite on the level of “breaking the Internet” (I cherish my freedom …), but it’s widely viewed as “bad user experience”.

But I challenge that notion when it comes to pages referenced in content. Navigational links; links to original sources at the end of an article, blogrolls, etc. - sure, the good user experience is sending folks along and away from your site. It’s been perceived that “bad actors” use “target=new” or “target=_blank” to keep their site alive in your browser even after you’re done with it. And that’s probably the case a lot of times.

Within the context of an article, however, that logic often falls apart. I’ll reference this Wired blog post about Google & ComScore as an example if you’d like to follow along.

Wired links to five outside sources in this rather short article, with each link providing some background or context to the topic at hand. It’s good context and just linking over to previous Wired pieces or outside data or opinion provides quick and easy reference without having to dump a lot of background information, quotes, etc. into the article.

Presumably, the reader has come to the article to read the article. Reference links invite the reader to leave the article and visit the linked content. Having links open in the same window requires the reader to use the “back button” functionality to return to the article they were reading. Using the “target=new” attribute requires the reader to switch back to the original tab or window to return to the article. Neither is an ideal experience, but I would argue that keeping the original page open is a preferable flow. In any case, I don’t think “target=new” is the evil monster some would make it out to be, and in the world of connected content I’d like to see it embraced a bit more.

Ideally, the reference links would appear in such a way as to not disrupt the reader’s flow in the current article. Perhaps something akin to the rather annoying and generally useless Snap Shots functionality some sites such as TechCrunch are in love with is a model, but it’s difficult to display much more than images in a way that makes sense in less than a full-window view.

Not long ago, online content was a series of silos. Newspaper articles republished online would rarely include in-content links, and there was so little original web content out there that linking between pieces wasn’t an issue. That’s changed, of course, so I think more thought is needed on how to best flow users through interconnected content.

I was reading an AJC piece tonight about the post-tornado recovery efforts in Grant Park’s historic Oakland Cemetery. And I was struck by this sentence:

FEMA, which will fund the majority of the cemetery’s renovation and cleanup, has dispatched archaeologists to Oakland for legal, as well as scholarly, reasons.

FEMA - The Federal Emergency Management Agency - is paying for most of the renovation costs of a cemetery and sending archaeologists out to survey the potential artifacts uprooted by the storm. That’s right - FEMA has archaeologists, or at least has contract diggers in its Rolodex.

How is this what happens? The federal agency entrusted to get you food and water after a hurricane, flood, earthquake or whatever is also charged with conducting archaeological surveys and pay for the restoration of non-federal cemeteries? That’s way out of line.

Even if you’d like to make the case that restoring a City of Atlanta cemetery because of tornado damage is a federal responsibility, why in the name of Michael Brown is this a task to fall to FEMA? As I wrote many moons ago, this is not the Federal Problem Management Agency. And I fail to see what is either Federal or Emergency in Oakland Cemetery right now that needs the Management of this Agency.

We’ve given up, I suppose, our responsibility to take care of ourselves and handed it over to FEMA. My sense is that originally, FEMA was called in just for disasters that were truly beyond the scope of local management. But now, any time a stiff wind blows - in rides FEMA. And nobody seems to complain. At Oakland Cemetery, FEMA kept Atlanta officials out until their crews could get by to check things out.

I guess you’ll give up a lot of freedom and independence for those federal checks.