Cap’n Ken’s Homespun Wisdom

Apparently today is the day when ESPN rolls out the full-time edition of College Football Live for the season. So my long-dormant DVR timer for it fired off at 6 p.m. Eastern, and what do I get? F*cking Brent Musburger hosting???? Please, God, don’t let this be.

Musburger is the guy who makes me turn off LSU TV audio and listen to Jim Hawthorne incorrectly calling the game on a 10-second delay. That’s how much I hate Brent Musburger. He’s as old as Keith Jackson with none of the charm and the little “snappy” Dick Vitale announcing style he added a few years ago is beyond intolerable. I don’t know if I can watch a season of College Football Live if he’s the host.

What’s more - CFL has apparently added some central-casting young hottie (named Molly Qerim) to anchor the “interactive” portions of the show. And, of course, taking on the expense of bimbo care and feeding means they’ve got to expand the stupid fan “involvement” in the show. So now it’s not just pointless video clips from drunken fans, now we’re going to have things like a March Madness-style fan-vote “bracket” to determine the coolest helmets in college football. I’m not making that up.

ESPN, you had the best thing going with CFL - daily, in-depth coverage of college football all season long. But if this is what you’ve decided to turn CFL in to, I’ll have one less must-see show on my DVR.

Boo.

A couple of months ago, Dish Network flipped the switch and turned on a bunch more HD channels, including CNN HD. And I’m guessing Dish is one of the few TV providers carrying CNN HD, because the network is totally half-assing their HD broadcasting.

The only things actually broadcast in HD are the CNN programs that originate in their New York studio and some things coming out of Washington. Programming originating in Atlanta is not broadcast in HD. I think the folks working on the television side of CNN here in Atlanta ought to take note of that - the lack of HD investment here is another sign that network power and image is shifting rapidly to New York.

So the bulk of CNN HD’s programming comes out of Atlanta and, therefore, isn’t actually in HD. Kind of lame if you ask me. But today I saw that CNN has rolled out a much lamer element of their “HD” broadcast:

Yep, instead of the standard yet ironic “HD” graphic that CNN places in the dead-bar area of their 16×9 image when they’re not actually broadcasting in HD, the network is now placing advertisements for their shows in this area. That is tremendously not cool.

You see, I’m paying extra for HD programming, including CNN HD. But instead of actually broadcasting the majority of your programming in HD, you’re going to put promotional ads in the space that should be this HD image I’m paying extra for? That is just a huge, huge swing from the investment I’m making as your customer and the action you are taking as my supplier. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

If CNN isn’t going to invest in HD broadcasting equipment for Atlanta, that’s one thing. But to actually take advantage of their lack of HD investment to shove more house ads on the air - no.

From The Advocate (the Baton Rouge daily, not the national gay newspaper)

Motorcyclist dies in solo wreck Friday
A motorcyclist traveling with no helmet and no headlights down a dark highway was killed late Friday when he ran off the road and was ejected from his bike, said a State Police news release.

Herman R. Sevario, 24, of Walker, was southbound on La. 449 on a Honda CRF 450R motorcycle, near La. 63 in Livingston Parish, at 11:32 p.m. when the wreck occurred, State Police spokesman Trooper Johnnie Brown said.

The motorcycle left the road to the right, throwing Sevario to the ground.

Sevario was pronounced dead at the scene by the Livingston Parish Coroner’s Office, Brown said.

Alcohol use is not suspected as a factor in the crash.

So no helmet … no headlights … dark road … sounds like a plan. I guess the last line about alcohol not being involved is a surprise, but otherwise, I think Herman might should have known a little better.

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.

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.