All Things Digital

Google calls its latest data portability effort Friend Connect, but a better name might have been AdWords Connect. Because, like most Google (GOOG) initiatives, that’s really what it’s all about, isn’t it? Connecting people to ads? And there’s a lot more opportunity for that when the Web itself becomes a social network. Which is exactly the sort of thing you hope for when those unobtrusive little contextual ads you sell are as ubiquitous as street signs on the Web.

Designed to help Web publishers easily add social-networking features to their sites, Friend Connect requires just a snippet of code to bring social features to a site along with a means of coordinating them with other social networks like Facebook, Plaxo and Google’s Orkut. It’s another in a recent string of data-portability efforts that hope to apply the distributed model to social networking and put an end to its so-called “walled gardens.”

“The distributed model has worked well for the Web,” David Glazer, Google director of engineering, told Outside the Lines’ Dan Farber. “That is what the Web does–many points of light loosely coupled and massively distributed, allowing users to connect to pages of information. Now it is working to connect people to other people.”

And all of them to Google AdWords, of course. More Internet usage. More ad revenue.

This morning, Peter Chernin, the chief operating officer of News Corp. (NWS) (which owns Dow Jones and this site), acknowledged that Fox Interactive Media, which includes MySpace, will fall short of its goal of generating $1 billion in revenue for fiscal 2008. A surprising shortfall for a division that operates the strongest social-networking offering on the Web.

But not to worry, MySpace has a solution for that. It’s just one that lacks an obvious monetization strategy. It’s called Data Availability and it’s a way for MySpace members to share and sync profile data across partner sites–starting with Yahoo (YHOO), eBay (EBAY), Twitter and Photobucket. “The walls around the garden are coming down–the implementation of Data Availability injects a new layer of social activity and creates a more dynamic Internet,” enthused Chris DeWolfe, CEO and co-founder of MySpace, in a statement. “We, alongside our Data Availability launch partners, are pioneering a new way for the global community to integrate their social experiences Web-wide.”

That’s all well and good. But how about pioneering a new way to, you know, make money off that integration? Data portability is wonderfull and all. But so is revenue. And right now, MySpace’s Data Availability initiative doesn’t include any advertising deals.

Good thing so rarely a correlation exists between a company’s public announcements and its corporate actions. Otherwise, it might be tough to parse Microsoft’s recent comments about future acquisitions in light of some rumors floating around Silicon Valley today.

While touring Japan this week, company Chairman Bill Gates told a news conference that Microsoft (MSFT) isn’t likely to pursue other deals following its withdrawal of its ill-starred takeover bid for Yahoo (YHOO). Said Gates, “Now at this point Microsoft is focused on its independent strategy.”

Windows Live General Manager Brian Hall echoed that sentiment at an analyst meeting yesterday: “We’ve withdrawn the offer and moved on, and now are focused on how we grow as fast as possible organically.”

Seems this whole Yahoo debacle has put Microsoft off acquisitions entirely. Or has it? As first reported by BoomTown’s Kara Swisher, Microsoft recently contacted Facebook to gauge the Internet company’s willingness to sell it the 98.4% of the company that it doesn’t yet own. No word on what Facebook’s reply was, although CEO Mark Zuckerberg has long said he’s not interested in selling the company. And even if he were, Facebook doesn’t exactly solve the problems that Yahoo would have. It’s hardly a viable source of online advertising …

Here’s the full text of Microsoft (MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer’s letter to Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Jerry Yang.

Mr. Jerry Yang
CEO and Chief Yahoo
Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Dear Jerry:

After over three months, we have reached the conclusion of the process regarding a possible combination of Microsoft and Yahoo.

I first want to convey my personal thanks to you, your management team and Yahoo’s Board of Directors for your consideration of our proposal. I appreciate the time and attention all of you have given to this matter, and I especially appreciate the time that you have invested personally. I feel that our discussions this week have been particularly useful, providing me for the first time with real clarity on what is and is not possible.

I am disappointed that Yahoo has not moved toward accepting our offer. I first called you with our offer on Jan. 31 because I believed that a combination of our two companies would have created real value for our respective shareholders and would have provided consumers, publishers and advertisers with greater innovation and choice in the marketplace. Our decision to offer a 62% premium at that time reflected the strength of these convictions.

In our conversations this week, we conveyed our willingness to raise our offer to $33 per share, reflecting again our belief in this collective opportunity. This increase would have added approximately another $5 billion of value to your shareholders, compared to the current value of our initial offer. It also would have reflected a premium of over 70% compared to the price at which your stock closed on Jan. 31. Yet it has proven insufficient, as your final position insisted on Microsoft paying yet another $5 billion or more, or at least another $4 per share above our $33.00 offer.

Read more »

As one of the original 13 colonies, you’d think that New York State would have a particular antipathy toward things like “taxation without representation.” And perhaps it does, just not when it’s the one doing the taxing.

The state recently passed a so-called Amazon Tax, a new law compelling out-of-state online retailers to start collecting New York sales tax. The law, designed to recover sales taxes potentially lost to Internet purchases, requires any e-tailer with even a single affiliate site with a New York State address–say, a blog that earns a referral fee for sending customers to Amazon (AMZN)–to collect sales tax on all goods sold in the state, even those not sold through the affiliate.

Its authors say it will contribute about $50 million to the state’s budget, and it might, if Amazon doesn’t get it declared unconstitutional first. Earlier this week, the company filed a suit challenging the law because it imposes tax-collection obligations on retailers, online and off, with no physical presence in the state. Worse, it does so based on nothing more than advertising in New York, a definition that includes retailers with even the slightest connection to the state.

Said Amazon: “This statute was intended to impose tax-collection obligations on out-of-state Internet retailers such as Amazon. Nonetheless, the statute, as drafted, on its face would also impose tax-collection obligations on non-Internet out-of-state retailers who pay New York print media, television or radio outlets to advertise their products and thereby refer New York customers to buy them.”

AOL’s ad revenue may be “falling off a cliff,” according to CNBC’s David Faber, but its traffic’s not half bad. AOL (TWX) said today that page views to its Web sites hit an all-time high in March, according to comScore (SCOR) Media Metrix. Page views grew 28% during the month, and are up 35% year-over-year. Unique visitors rose 11% year-over-year to 56.5 million.

AOL attributes the double-digit growth to a year-long redesign and rebranding effort, which ironically included a de-emphasizing of the AOL brand. “If I call a hip-hop site AOL Hip Hop,” said Bill Wilson, executive vice president of AOL Vertical Programming, “that just won’t resonate with consumers.”

Microsoft may have fallen short of expectations for third-quarter sales, but it met and exceeded them for color commentary on the Yahoo deal.

On a post-earnings conference call this afternoon, Microsoft (MSFT) CFO Chris Liddell said Yahoo (YHOO), which insists Microsoft’s $31-per-share hostile offer “massively undervalues” it, has “unrealistic expectations” about its worth. “Our initial offer was extremely generous, more than a 100% premium for Yahoo’s core business, and our view on value is shaped by the long-term value of the company, and we intend to remain disciplined in our approach,” Liddell said. “The strongest argument that I’ve heard on why we should increase our bid–simply that we can afford to–is not one that I favor. We’ve yet to see tangible evidence that our bid substantially undervalues the company. In fact, we see the opposite. Yahoo continues to lose search share, and profitablity continues to decline year-on-year.”

It sure does. Yahoo’s operating income for the first quarter of 2008 was $121 million–a 28% decrease compared to $169 million for the same period of 2007. But then, Microsoft doesn’t want Yahoo for its profits; it wants it to make its own advertising platform more successful. Is that worth more than $31-per-share? Liddell clearly doesn’t seem to think so. “Unless we make progress with Yahoo toward an agreement by this weekend, we will reconsider our alternatives,” he said. “We will provide updates as appropriate next week. These alternatives clearly include taking an offer to Yahoo shareholders or to withdraw our proposal and focus on other opportunities, both organic and inorganic.”

No big surprise here. Google is the single most powerful brand in the world. Though it did little promotional advertising, the company for the second consecutive year claimed the top spot on Millward Brown Optimor’s annual BrandZ™ Ranking–a list of the top 100 most powerful global brands.

According to the market research firm’s assessment of financial performance and consumer sentiment, Google’s (GOOG) brand alone is worth some $86 billion–$14.6 billion more than GE’s (GE) and $15.2 billion more than Microsoft’s (MSFT). Impressive. Especially since that $86 billion represents a 30% jump from 2007.

That said, Google is not the big winner in the year-over-year increase in the tech brand-value competition. That honor belongs to Apple (AAPL), whose brand grew in value by 123%.

The big losers? No surprises here, either. Yahoo’s (YHOO) brand slipped 13% in value year-over-year, Motorola’s (MOT) 30%.

Google (GOOG) has finally gotten its say about comScore’s (SCOR) “surprising” reports on its lousy paid-click performance. Published on Feb. 26, that report suggested a material weakening in Google’s paid-click advertising business. It sent investors fleeing into the woods and singlehandedly knocked 7% off Google’s share price.

ComScore subsequently backed off its claims a bit, publishing a blog post called “Why Google’s surprising paid click data are less surprising” which explained that the decline in Google’s paid clicks it charted could have been the result of the company’s click-quality initiatives and not a slowdown in its business. But on Tuesday, comScore published another report that showed growth in paid search clicks is slowing. One of its key data points: Google’s paid clicks grew by just 1.8% year-over-year.

Well, Google reported earnings yesterday and according to its metrics, paid-click growth grew by about 20%. And CEO Eric Schmidt did not let that discrepancy between those two figures go unremarked: “The business model continues to work very well,” he said. “It’s also interesting to note that paid-clicks growth is much higher than has been speculated by third parties.”

“Third parties” in this case being comScore. Now, granted comScore’s metrics included U.S. clicks alone, while Google’s included worldwide clicks, so comScore’s estimate, in all likelihood, isn’t off by 18.2%. That said, it’s still off according to Google–which, with that one little quip from Schmidt, sent comScore’s shares down more than 7%, the same decline it suffered at the research outfit’s hands back in February.

The ability to control how much information is available to the public has long been one of Facebook’s core principles. It was this very feature, for example, that Facebook used to distinguish itself from other social networks back when it first launched.

Of course, the ensuing years proved that protecting the privacy of its users was not exactly Facebook’s strong suit–especially when it came to digging up the advertising revenues necessary to justify its fantastical $15 billion valuation. There have been privacy issues with Facebook’s news-feed service, with its controversial Beacon advertising system, and with its terms of service, which granted popular applications access to far more personal user data than is necessary.

And now there’s another. A bug in permission restrictions in Facebook Groups allows members to upload content without first receiving permission from a Group admin. I know this firsthand, because over the past few days videos, photos and blog posts have been appearing on the All Things Digital Facebook Group, and neither Walt, Kara nor I–the only three people with admin privileges to the group–put them there (see screen below). Worse, while I was able to delete the photos and blog posts, I was unable to pull the videos off the page. There was no mechanism to remove them.

Worse still, the bug that makes this possible is not specific to the All Things Digital Facebook Group alone. It affects all Facebook Groups, site-wide.

We alerted Facebook to the issue and the company quickly identified the bug. Said spokesperson Brandee Barker: “Engineering has pushed out a fix that should go site wide shortly.”

UPDATE: Facebook engineers fixed the permissions bug, and we were able to remove the rogue videos from our page.