Why Google Opening up AdSense is Important

For some reason the Microsoft-Yahoo! news got a lot more coverage on Monday than an announcement that came out of the Google camp…an announcement that I’d argue is much more significant to all three companies than Microsoft “possibly” buying Yahoo!’s search business.

Google is announced that it would be opening up its content network (AdSense) to display ads from 3rd party advertisers and networks.

That means other advertisers can now tap into Google’s publisher network and start serving up display ads. The advertisers have to be certified by Google, of course, but this is a fantastic move for Google even with a limited number of certified ad networks.

Here’s why:

1. The move diminishes the possible effects of a combined Microsoft-Yahoo! display ad business. Any type of closed ad network Micro-hoo would’ve created has just become much less valuable.
2. By Google giving its publishers more ways to make money the company stands a better chance of being the primary ad platform used by millions of web publishers (why go to the ad networks if the ad networks are already coming to them?). This is makes me think of Warren Buffett’s ideal investment: “a toll booth in a one bridge town”.
3. I haven’t seen any details about monetization yet but this could also be a monster revenue driver for Google, especially when you look at it in the context of the Double Click deal.

In any case, it’s a major move for Google and I think the implications are going to be huge for Google and especially for Microsoft and Yahoo!.

Microsoft's Best Move Yet

A TickerHound member asked:

“If Microsoft can't get Yahoo! then what's next for the company?”

Normally I might’ve shrugged my shoulders, suggested another acquisition candidate and considered the conversation over. Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT), while still a very successful company, hasn’t yet shown me that they really “get” the web.

That is until Tuesday night!

Let me explain…

Now when I first heard that Ray Ozzie was joining Microsoft I was thrilled, to say the least. Ray Ozzie has been innovating in the tech space for decades and has really been one of the few consistent hitters when it comes to emerging technologies.

But after watching (quite frankly) a series of disappointing product launches come out of Microsoft for the last few years, I began to lose faith in Oz.

Had he lost his touch?

Did being stuck in the confines of Microsoft rob him of his mojo?

Well he must’ve taken some notes from Austin Powers, because as of the other night, the “Great and Powerful Oz” has finally gotten his mojo back!

Lately, much of my focus has revolved around web-based services. For example, a couple of weeks ago I wrote about Google’s new web application platform (Why Microsoft Should be Shaking in Its Boots): App Engine.

This is was a HUGE move for Google and one that I think will serve the company very well in the future.

At the end of the article I asked if this was “check or check mate?” for Microsoft. Well, I think Microsoft just answered my question…and it is most certainly NOT the end of the line for the boys in Redmond.

On Tuesday evening Microsoft announced its most ambitious plan since the launch of Windows 95 – Microsoft’s upcoming “Live Mesh” service.

Similar to Google’s application platform, Microsoft hopes developers will make use of its toolset in order to develop robust web-enabled applications. But Microsoft is taking the vision a bit further. Instead of giving people a backbone to host their web-centric software on, Microsoft is providing a fully integrated platform that connects web applications directly to a user’s device(s).

Ozzie’s vision is to have a service in place where Microsoft’s products – and anyone else who wants to develop applications for the platform – can be synchronized across all devices (phones, PDA’s, game consoles, etc.)

How About an Example?

Ok, let’s say you have your trusty camera phone out at a ball game and decide to snap a quick photo of your favorite New York Yankee, Derek Jeter. Instead of just saving the photo to your phone, Microsoft’s Live Mesh will instantly beam it to your PC back home and your online photo album (along with any other connected device).

Then when you get home, you decide you want to edit the photo a bit because it’s a tad blurry (i.e. you can’t see the ball flying over the Red Sox outfielder’s head clearly). So you touch the photo up on your PC and instantly, the photos on your PC, your phone and your online photo album are all updated at the same time with no other action on your part.

And that’s just a silly example with photos…

Now imagine what that means when it comes to calendars, contracts and other business documents?

The array of services and solutions that can be built on top of a holistic platform like this are endless.

Microsoft’s also launching community features into Live Mesh, which in my opinion, makes it dramatically more powerful than anything else taking shape on the web right now.

Imagine you’re working on a team with several other people and you’re trying to edit a Power Point presentation or a Word document.

The Old Way:

• You make a change to the file


• You email it to everyone and wait for feedback


• Then you realize that somebody else changed a part of the file that doesn’t quite match yours and now you have to work their changes in on top of your own

The New Way:

• Everybody makes changes in real time, regardless of what type of device they’re using


• Everybody’s copy is synchronized


• There’s a record (visible to everyone in the group) of every change that was made so it’s easy to rollback and clean things up

Think about the productivity gains here! Think about the types of services that can be built on top of this platform. Think about the amount of commerce that this will drive – and not just for Microsoft, but for every web, desktop and mobile application developer out there!

Plenty of people would argue that this isn’t a direct competitor to Google’s platform, but I think if we examine the implications of a universal application platform, that bridges the device-to-internet gap in a seamless way, we’ll see that this is definitely Microsoft’s best move yet!

So even if Google’s platform is the foundation that the cities of the web are built upon, then Microsoft’s Live Mesh will be the roads that bind them together.

Google to Buy Expedia? No Way!

Re-blog from TickerHound Blog:

I saw this question come up on TickerHound the other day and just had to write a post on it.

A member asked, “Expedia’s been up this week on Google acquisition rumors - what do you think?” read more>>

Ok, now I might have to eat my hat on this one but my gut (and plain business logic) makes me think otherwise. Anybody who is saying different, I won’t mention them by name, is probably doing so out of ignorance, desire for attention or a bit of both.

One has to understand that Google isn’t some “dot com” growth engine that’s looking to build at any cost. This company is extremely disciplined when it comes to its finances and it shows in the bottom line – but more on that in a moment.

The point I’m trying to make is that Google is not going to swallow up a company simply to add eyeballs, revenue or whatever else to the Google pie. They’ll only acquire a company when it compliments their core business of search and search advertising.

For example, YouTube.com – Google acquired the company for $1.6 billion last year and hasn’t looked back since. YouTube serves up roughly hal the videos on the web right now and I really believe Google has the wallet, connections, etc. to deal with the copyright issues the service faces. The other thing to recognize is that YouTube wasn’t just some online video site. The service fit within Google’s model of content aggregation, indexing and search – and then monetizing that through advertising.

YouTube doesn’t create content, they aggregate it, index it and make it available to the public…strangely similar to Google’s search engine. The same applies to many of the acquisitions, albeit smaller, that Google has made over the years…

• Writely.com which formed the foundation of Google’s Office applications: users publish documents and Google hosts and indexes them.
• Blogger.com: Bloggers post tons of content which Google indexes and monetizes with advertisements.
• And the list goes on…

Now if Google acquired Expedia they would be entering an entirely new business: E-Commerce.

This might make you say, “Well, why does that matter, money is money, right?”.

WRONG!

Money is always money, but the question is, what does it COST to get that money? In other words, what’s your Return on Capital?

Right now Google has an average Return on Equity of 21%.

Expedia: 5%

Why on earth would Google take on a business that would make its margins worse off?

Answer: They wouldn’t!

Like I said, this is just my opinion and if Google comes out next week and announces that they’ve taken over Expedia, I’ll issue a public apology on TickerHound.com. But, as I said before, my gut and business logic are telling me otherwise.

The one travel company I could realistically see Google taking over would be Kayak.com – it’s a privately held travel SEARCH company. They index and search over 140 travel sites in an effort to find you the cheapest airfares, hotels, etc.

While I “think” this would be a match made in heaven, Kayak is a privately held company and I have no idea what their financials look like. But from a synergistic perspective, Google-Kayak makes a lot more sense than the Expedia story.

Why Buffett Would Never Buy Google

Yesterday on TickerHound.com, a member asked, “Would Buffett really buy Google?”

The question was based on a Fool.com article (click here to read it) that quoted this year’s Berkshire Annual Shareholder Letter where Buffett writes, “It's far better to have an ever-increasing stream of earnings with virtually no major capital requirements. Ask Microsoft or Google.”

I could see why this led some to wonder – and the Fool.com even wrote an article about it – if Buffett could potentially invest in Google. This made me laugh if for no other reason than Buffett mentions Microsoft in the same sentence…a company he knows intimately (considering Bill Gates sits on Berkshire’s board) but has yet to ever invest in.

But let’s leave that part out of the equation for a moment, let’s just look at the “Google angle” and try to answer the question: Would Buffett really buy Google?

For consistency’s sake, I’m going to analyze this in the exact same way the Fool.com article did:

Is The Business Simple and Understandable?

Definitely!

Google is an ad broker – plain and simple.

We can talk about their technology all we want – and believe me, that’s what makes their ability to broker ad dollars so effective – but at the end of the day, the way the company makes 99% of its money is by putting publishers and advertisers together.

That’s a pretty plain vanilla business to me (regardless of all the sophisticated search technology they have on the backend).

Do They Have Favorable Long Term Economics?

I’m going to skip this for a moment and come back to it at the end. You’ll see why below.

Is Management Candid and Competent?

I’d have to give the affirmative answer on this one as well.

The founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, both have the better part of their net worth’s tied up in Google stock. That means management’s interests and the share holders’ interests are certainly aligned – something Buffett always looks for in a company he’s buying.

And in terms of candor and competence – their execution speaks for itself and if you’ve read Google’s annual reports and even their S-1 filing, you’d know that they’re candid and up-front about how they manage their business.

So this item gets checked off the list as well.

Is The Price Right?

Here’s where we run into problems…

Buffett’s brilliance isn’t based on the fact that he knows how to value an asset…I know a lot of folks who can value an asset.

My father knew exactly what we should pay for our home when I was a kid.

I could tell you right off the bat how much I’d pay for new car.

In fact, Finance 101 teaches people basic asset valuation models – more specifically, Discounted Cash Flow analysis.

The ability to value an asset isn’t difficult…you just plug some numbers into the equation and you get your value.

The difficult part is making sure the NUMBERS themselves are the right numbers.

So now you’re probably asking, “How do we know if the numbers we’re using are correct?”

Well, you’ll never be able to tell if the numbers are EXACTLY correct – you’ll have to use your best judgment (and even then you’re probably going to be off, and that’s why in Ben Graham’s infinite wisdom he taught Buffett – and thousands of other value investors – to apply a “margin of safety” approach to business valuation…but that’s another story).

But here’s the caveat (and this goes back to the “Does the business have favorable long term economics?” question)…according to the Fool.com article, because the internet has favorable long term economic characteristics, and Google is by far and away the leader of the internet pack at the moment, they assume that Google will therefore have favorable long term economic characteristics as well.

But that just isn’t so…the tech sector is predicated upon the process of creative destruction. Companies must find new and innovative ways of doing things or they’re destined to become obsolete. I mean, how many times have we seen this happen in the last 10 years?

To argue that Google will ALWAYS maintain a competitive advantage in a space that changes by the hour is foolish (no pun intended).

That’s why Buffett only invests in mature companies that compete in mature industries. It makes the tough part of business valuation (using the right numbers) much, much easier.

So to answer the original question as simply as possible, would Buffett ever buy Google?

In my opinion...Not anytime soon!

Click here to leave your answer to this question.

Google Ads - The Real Story

So the talk of the tape last week was obviously Google (Nasdaq: GOOG). The Mountain View search giant has been on a downward spiral since the end of last year and showed no signs of letting up now.

In fact, the stock is down over 33% in 2 months alone – that’s over $70 billion dollars in shareholder value completely wiped out in a matter of weeks.

Last week was no exception – after a negative report came out from web traffic reporting company, comScore, Google’s stock slid from $505 on Monday down to $471 by the close on Friday. That’s a decrease of over $10 billion in market value in a single week based on a single report.

I can’t begin to tell you how many news articles and blog posts I read that had the, “See we knew Google’s success couldn’t last forever”, feel to them. The basis for this insightful, albeit untimely conclusion: the comScore report. On a side note: I bet the vast majority of the analyst and editors behind those articles were probably the same people who predicted Google would go to $800 per share only 3 months earlier.

In any case, the real issue here is the comScore report.

Was it accurate?

Did the media draw meaningful conclusions from it?

Were the conclusions accurate?

Nobody seemed to bother asking those questions – well, if they did, those weren’t the folks getting all the publicity last week. The only articles making the front page or the “most popular” lists were those calling for Google’s head on a platter, so to speak. So let’s fast forward to the end of the week when comScore published a post on its blog that pretty much read, “Oops, we might’ve given you the wrong impression”.

My favorite excerpt with respect to the report:

“The information triggered a flurry of reactions in the media and the financial community that centered on two concerns: 1) a potentially weak first quarter outlook for Google, and 2) an indication that a soft U.S. economy is beginning to drag down the online advertising market.

While we do not claim that these concerns are unwarranted, we believe a careful analysis of our search data does not lend them direct support.”

If you’d like to read the entire blog post, click here.


The basic gist of the blog post was that while total click-throughs may have been down, it was due to a conscious effort on Google’s part to eliminate ineffective ads. Meaning, there was less opportunity for clicks because Google was proactively displaying less ads, thus increasing the dollar return on the ads that were displayed.

Bear Sterns’ analysts aside, I think most folks realized that this report was overblown – at the end of the day, 3rd party data doesn’t mean everything…money does. And according to many Google clients, some of whom I know personally, Google is still their primary advertising solution and they’re seeing more and more money from the company each month.


Check out this report from Alley Insider which talks about one of the larger ad buyers on Google and why they’ll continue to use Google as one of their primary marketing tools:

Ad Buyer: No Slowdown In Search Or Google

All in all it was a rough week for the company and the stock may not be out of the woods yet, but there’s a valuable lesson to be learned here: It pays to do your own homework!

That’s why I was so happy to see a few TickerHound.com members ask questions on this exact topic…one of the recent questions: “What will happen to Google now? Is the selloff going to continue, or has it bottomed out?”

Click here to weigh in on the situation.

While I couldn’t tell you when Google’s stock will be on the rise again, I can say for sure that this company isn’t going to be another “dot bomb” sob story. I’m definitely a long term bull on this stock.

Yahoo! Rejects Microsoft's Bid

As I’m sure you know these companies have been making a ton of headlines this week. After both found themselves unable to successfully compete against the leader in internet search and advertising, Google (Nasdaq:GOOG), Microsoft (Nasdaq:MSFT) made a $44 billion unsolicited bid for Yahoo! (Nasdaq:YHOO) last week.

Yahoo!’s board was set to meet on Friday to decide what, if anything, they would do about the offer, about Google and just about Yahoo!’s overall problems in general.

Well, as of Saturday morning the Wall Street Journal was reporting that “someone familiar with the matter” (I love how there’s always one of those) stated that Yahoo! would reject the offer and wouldn’t consider anything lower than $40 per share. That would put Yahoo! at a $53.6 billion valuation – a 20% premium to the current offer and 35% premium over Yahoo!’s current stock price.

So that wasn’t an out-and-out, “No, we think this is a bad idea”. It was more of a, “This is a good idea, but only at the right price.”

But the question is, would that price be “right” for Microsoft?

Yahoo!’s stock hasn’t come anywhere near $40 per share in over 2 years which basically means that even though the company has been going on a software development spree – releasing new versions of its ad system, it still hasn’t been unable to come close to competing with Google.

And if I were Microsoft, I’d certainly take that into account. In fact, let’s pretend I am Steve Ballmer for a second (and thank the lord that I’m not), here’s my logic for evaluating the Yahoo! deal:

1. How much more money could we make in online ads by having Yahoo! on board?
2. How much could we save?
3. And most importantly, what would Yahoo! do if we didn’t buy them?

You may be wondering why number 3 is the most important – wouldn’t it be more logical to think of it all in dollars and cents? Well, yeah, I’m sure it would be more “convenient” but here’s my logic in putting so much emphasis on number 3.

Yahoo! as a standalone company cannot compete with Google, or Microsoft for that matter, in terms of capturing greater market share of the search advertising business – the crown jewel of online advertising. Which means the company is destined to become a laggard in this space (assuming lightning doesn’t strike) which will leave it ripe for picking at a later date.

Yahoo! could also decide to partner with Google for its search engine ad technology – which in the short run would definitely bolster the company’s financial situation, but longer term would leave it strategically vulnerable. I mean, what value would this company have as a technology company (one that thrives on innovation) if its most popular division was powered by somebody else? It would be like Budweiser putting Coors into its classic brown bottles and hoping no one would notice – certainly a tough hole to crawl out of.

Neither of these alternatives would give me a warm n’ fuzzy feeling if I were a Yahoo! shareholder.

So back to Microsoft – here’s a company that’s willing to give Yahoo! shareholders something for their patience. It would give both companies the ability to actually compete with Google for the first time and the scale they would gain in terms of traffic, reach to publishers, etc. would put the combined company in a prime position to increase ad rates and revenue across the board.

Granted Yahoo! employees might not be ecstatic about it, but Microsoft said they’d retain the Yahoo! brand and probably much of the culture. I don’t think regulators will have any problems due to the fact that the combined “Mahoo” (as it’s being called) still wouldn’t completely eclipse Google in terms of traffic or scale.

So if $31 is too low and $40 is too high – what do you say we split the difference, call up Ballmer and Yang and tell them to settle on $35.50? Then everybody’s happy and Google can finally get a run for its money!

Who’s with me?!

Mixed Feelings on Facebook's new Ad platform

So yesterday at ad:tech Facebook announced its long awaited ad platform. Here's a quick recap:

New services:

• Beacon - Beacon gives site owners the ability to integrate a user's actions on their own site into Facebook's newsfeeds. So if you have a customer who is also a Facebook user and they buy something on your site, it'll get displayed in their news feed.


• Social Ads - The social ads tool allows you to take Beacon a step further by having these "social actions" broad casted to people outside of your customer's network on Facebook. It's also highly targeted - you can target by gender, age, location and even political affiliations.


• Facebook pages - Now businesses can set up a page on Facebook where they can recruit fans/customers (new phrase: fansumer), and use FB as a new point of contact. The pages allow you to set up photo areas, discussion boards, a wall and even a messaging center so it's easy to keep in touch with your following. It's basically a souped up version of Facebook Groups.
  


• Insight - Facebook Insight is an analytical tool that helps you measure your reach and penetration into your target market on Facebook.

I must say, it's a pretty comprehensive suite of features and it definitely shows some forward thinking on Facebook's part.

But in light of Google's OpenSocial announcement last week, I don't see this as being a killer app.

If you look at the argument I laid out in my last post, you'll quickly see how Google has the potential to cripple Facebook's ad platform. I mean, all Google has to do is get the rest of the social networks (and it's network of existing publishers and advertisers) to line up behind a new social ad platform, and then POOF, Facebook's value is greatly diminished. It becomes just another site to advertise on as opposed to a category killer like Google's AdWords.

Just as a side note, Google's AdWords is a category killer for a number of reasons. It's ease of use is just one reason, but the real value is in Google's reach (the network effect). The more publishers that serve Google's ads the more valuable the service becomes to an advertiser because they no longer have to reach out to all those publishers individually. The same will apply to any social ad platform that Google creates.

So all in all, Facebook showed some real vision due to the fact that this was a platform that had probably been in development for quite some time (definitely prior to the Google announcement). But they'll have to do a lot more if they want to protect their castle.

Snackbyte: Google's Best Move Yet - OpenSocial

Google's latest move in its fight to dominate all things web is one of its savviest moves yet.

With the launch of the OpenSocial platform Google basically commoditized the online application platform space.

Everyone expected Google to roll out a social network of its own, or make a bigger push for Orkut in the States. But instead Google decided to redefine the value proposition, side stepped the all out battle with entrenched competitors (i.e. Facebook, MySpace, etc.) and instead created a universal platform for all social networks.

Google has effectively become the fabric that will weave all of these networks together. Social networks have effectively become "portable."

Here's how:

If an application can function and reside on all platforms (thus, pulling data from each) then this application can effectively unify a user's social networking experiences. So my data on Facebook will now be accessible on MySpace or LinkedIn. This adds a tremendous amount of value to my web experience without requiring me to become loyal to a new brand - in this case, Google.

Here's where the money comes in:

Let's say Google decides it's going to leverage its reach in the advertising and publishing markets in order to start a type of "product news feed" - similar to Facebook's Porject Beacon, but on a global scale. So if I buy something on Amazon, then all of my friends on Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn will know.

If I'm an influential member of these networks then it might cause other people to buy this book as well. Google can then take a cut of the revenue generated through the sale or on a CPC basis and even decide to cut me in (the same way it does its network of publishers). This would be phenomenal and truly be the first global application to monetize social networking.

I can't wait to see what Facebook's next move is!