twopointouch

So Microsoft has tendered a bid to buy Yahoo! for $44.6bn.

I understand that Microsoft has to do something to build on its web strategy/presence. No-one uses Live Search, Live Spaces, or any of the rest. (OK. About one percent of people do). To build up any future trade for advertising, web services or development platforms, they have to increase market share.

I understand that Yahoo! has to do something. Their share of the search market is pitiful compared to the almighty Google. Their share of the search marketing budget is about 20% compared to Google’s 70%. And they’d just been forced to lay off a load of staff.

So if they combine forces, they end up with a market competitor?

I don’t think so.

Microsoft’s problem and Yahoo!’s has been that they have not been able to identify what they do well. Microsoft used to do operating systems and business productivity software. They were quite good at that. YMMV.

Yahoo! used to have this great directory of editor-approved, quality websites. Then they diversified. They tried to make yahoo.com all things to all wo/men. That failed disastrously because there’s no such thing. They brought on some cool people and acquired a load of cool sites like del.icio.us, flickr and upcoming. But still it didn’t work for them because advertisers don’t buy cool; they buy results. Yahoo! announced 1400 job losses just last week.

Why didn’t it work and why isn’t MS able to make any inroads on the web?

Because neither of them have a core value proposition when it comes to the web. You couldn’t sum up what either of them do on the web in one sentence. If a business can’t do that, then they are in trouble, normally.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bits within both companies’ web presence that have considerable value. Flickr is a cool photo site. Microsoft’s technet is actually very good, IMHO. Live Spaces is arguably a much better platform than Blogger or Vox.

However, for end-users, if you want good search, go to Google. For businesses, if you want SEM, go to Google. What exactly would you willingly go to a Yahoo or MS website for?

Microo! doesn’t appear to me to provide a compelling alternative to any of that.

Update: Had a good chat with Daryl Wilcox, and it looks like we’ve come to a sensible compromise that will allow Tim to do his job and Response Source to maintain its purity. All’s well, etc.

My staff writer at NMK - Tim Hoang - works for the PR company, Rainier, as well. That’s always something we’ve made very clear. I was (and remain I’ve calmed down now - and DW was very charming.) absolutely furious to learn that he has been banned from using the Response Source service today on account of his PR background.

For those who don’t know, Response Source allows journalists to poll PR agencies for help - "do you know any experts on mobile apps?", "got any case studies on businesses making successful use of MySpace?"; that sort of thing, in our case.

One of our key anxieties in the initial decision to employ Tim - who is a paid & taxed employee of the University of Westminster in this role - was making sure that his PR job would not infringe on his duties as a reporter for NMK. It’s an issue we’ve discussed and thought about for a long time, believe me. There are clearly opportunities for abuse, but they’re ones that Tim and I are very well-aware of and perfectly able to execute professional judgement over. Of the dozens of sources he’s used over the last two months, two were Rainier clients - to add differentiation and substance to stories, when he couldn’t find other people keen to comment. (Ironically, getting more of these other voices was one of the reasons he used Response Source). I agonised about both of them for a little while - I edit all his stories - but concluded that the extra comment had justifiable merit. In both cases, Tim informed me freely of the connection; we were transparent about the connection in the stories; and I approved it. After all, I have very little compunction about using people I’ve met in previous roles as sources: that’s what you do as a reporter.

The reason for the ban isn’t known to me in full and was not disclosed, but RS has apparently perceived a conflict of interests, in response to complaints from some other PR agency(ies).

How exactly would this work? Tim polls other PR agencies for input into a story, and that would be a problem for them for what reason? Do they think that he wouldn’t include input from competitors? So why ask the question in the first place? That he would sneak questions like ‘fancy a new agency?’ into his interviews? I think the yellow-pages might be a better source.

One more thing annoys me about this. I am the editor and publisher of NMK. Why didn’t anyone take whatever concerns they have to me, rather than a third-party? Or to my boss, the director of NMK?

F**king infantile. I will not use Response Source again while this situation continues. I have forwarded this info@dwpub.com - if anyone has a better contact, let me know.

Got my mobile phone stolen by some pasty-faced charver who approached me for a cigarette while I was sat outside a cafe in Richmond. Giving fags to the poor and needy is one of the very few charitable acts I regularly engage in. However, it seems my urban outreach programme may need a rethink if they’re going nick your mobile while you’re distracted.

But that’s not who I’m talking about.

I got online straight away to find the phone number for reporting it lost. I bought it from Carphone Warehouse with an O2 account. The phone number published on their sites is wrong. “You bought your phone through a third-party. Please use the number published on your last statement. bleep”.

Got home. Found the statement and phoned the number for lost phones. No answer. Phoned the customer service number. Got through to a nice chap who put a bar on the phone.

“So how long is it since your phone went missing?”

“About three hours.”

“Ah. I’m afraid you didn’t take out the insurance, so you’ll be liable for any phone calls made since then.”

“Oh… It’s quite hard to report your phone stolen when you haven’t got a phone. And the number on your website it wrong.”

“Hahaha. I can see what you’re saying. Anyway the computer system I use is 48 hours behind so I can’t tell you if any calls have been made on the phone. The best thing is that you phone back tomorrow.”

“Why? I can’t do anything about it can I?”

“Hahaha. Well, it’s always better to know, isn’t it?”

O2 generally get quite good press on customer service, and I know this cunning wheeze of charging customers for getting their phones stolen is not unique to them. A friend of mine received a £300 bill from fellow highwaymen Orange after realising his phone had gone missing after a drunken night out.

Mobile networks. Getting robbed is quite unpleasant. Why do you make it so much worse by treating us as potential criminals by charging for calls made with our stolen phones?