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.

If you were a brand manager for an FMCG company - let’s say you look after Bostik, for the sake of argument - what would you be doing when it comes to your online strategy?

Well, you’d probably try to work out how Google works. You want to come top of the search results for things like err.. ‘glue’. You’d probably also want to come at the top or near the top for things like ‘DIY products’ and ‘craft supplies’. You can’t just buy your way to the top - well, you can, but it would be better to be returning top positions in the organic results as well as sponsored positions.

How would you do that? Well, you’d go about making sure that the Bostik site was the best site on the web when it comes to glue. You’d have sections on the history of glue, glue tips and tricks, glue industry news, glue formulae, learned articles on the future of adhesives. It’ll take a little resource, but hey, you’re a brand - part of the Total group in this case - you aren’t short of a few bob. Plus, if you get it right, you’ll be saving a packet on advertising. Depending on your marketplace, you might not have to go overboard here - you just need more, better stuff than those bastards at Copydex.

You’d also get into this whole Web 2.0 thing. It’ll help you generate more content and get linked to. Pay someone to write the best glue blog on the planet for you. Get some message boards on the go about DIY, handicrafts and other glue issues. You’ll get a widget put together - maybe it gives you a DIY tip every day or something. You’ll provide RSS feeds for all your content so it can travel as far as possible.

Google loves all this stuff - pretty soon, you’ll be ranking for as many glue, DIY and handicrafting terms as you’d care to mention. And it’s all relatively easy.

Most brands aren’t currently doing this stuff. That’s because corporations are slow-moving and stupid, not to mention psychotic. Most brands behave like toddlers screaming for attention at the moment; the brands of the future will behave like best mates and learned counsellors - people you actually want to have a relationship with.

They will come round eventually - it’s common sense. If you are a brand you will sooner or later be working as hard as possible to either create or acquire the definitive site on the Internet when it comes to your subject matter.

Anything wrong with this? In some senses, it’s great. Google is rehabilitating corporations in some senses - forcing them to offer stuff that’s useful and interesting rather than the old raping and pillaging shenanigans they used to do.

Well, it’s great if you work in advertising or marketing (hey, kill yourself). Not so much if you are a citizen of the world. Brands are still psychotic underneath, you see. They are being rehabilitated in the same sense that a mass murderer growing flowers in the prison garden is rehabilitated. You know exactly what they’d really like to do with those shears. The problem is brands have been given the means to take control of the message once again, if only they had the sense to realise it.

They don’t want you to consider their competitors; they don’t want you thinking about buying nails instead of glue; they don’t want you to know about the Marvin Medium massacre of ‘37. And it will only take them a very little time and resource to achieve it. And remember, they’re brands - their resources and energy are pretty much limitless. Particularly compared to you, Mister competitor Glue Blogger. They’ll buy you up and shut you down in an instant. Here’s a real example - a search for Mattel Toy Recall takes you straight their consumer relations page as the top result. Potentially more vital information about the results of lead poisoning in young children appear half way down the page, where nobody clicks.

So the next Google. Not only will it be better at searching - we’re only impressed by the current Google because the competition is so absolutely dismal. It will also be about expressing diversity rather than hierarchy. About delivering the truth in all its facets rather than the definitive answer. It won’t produce a list; it will produce a crystal.