Google-Yahoo: Deal or No Deal?

Will Google and Yahoo come together on a search advertising partnership? The two companies have been discussing an agreement under which Google would deliver some ads alongside Yahoo’s search results. Since Google on average earns much more than Yahoo for every search, the deal, at least in theory, would bolster Yahoo’s revenue. The two companies conducted a two-week experiment to make sure that was indeed true and both companies have called the test a success.

No deal has been announced yet, and the reasons the companies have not come to terms are unknown. But a person with knowledge of the discussions said Google has been thinking about a conundrum: deal or no deal, the company could end up with something of a public relations black eye.

If the companies reach a deal, Google is certain to face antitrust scrutiny. Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said Thursday that he was confident that the companies could structure an agreement in a way to avoid it being blocked by regulators. That may be true. But it doesn’t take a public relations expert to realize that coming under scrutiny as a powerful monopoly, whether or not it ultimately leads to a deal being blocked, is not good for a company’s image.

If Google, on the other hand, pulls away from the deal, it could face some criticism too. Google’s co-founder Sergey Brin said Thursday that Google’s offer of a search ad deal to Yahoo was not an effort to scuttle Microsoft’s takeover attempt, but rather an attempt to give Yahoo options in the face of a hostile takeover attempt. The possibility of a search deal emboldened Yahoo’s board to hold out for a higher price. Rather than fight, Microsoft decided to walk away.

But if Google walks away, essentially cutting off the lifeline it had offered Yahoo, it won’t be seen as playing nice.

Spokespeople for Google and Yahoo declined to comment.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

I was not comfortable when Microsoft was trying to buy Yahoo & I’m not comfortable with this idea either.

Isabella Baumfree May 10, 2008 · 5:57 am

Is there a principle that monopolies are a bad thing or not. Is there a principle that curtailing free speech is a bad thing or not? Is feeding the poor in foreign countries a good thing or not?

Or is it that monopolies that we like are not a bad thing? Or is curtailing the kind of speech we don’t like not a bad thing (e.g. pro Nazi speech in Germany)? And is giving food away a good thing, if it drives the local farmers out of business?

Just as giving away free food drives farmers out of business, Google by this “arrangement” will make Yahoo dependent upon them for revenuer and later on if the “arrangement” continues it may cause entanglements for any deal to purchase Yahoo. This will is a strickly defensive move by Google to protect it’s territory from anyone who might wish to compete with Google and has deep pockets (e.g. Oracle.)

Whatever the motives of Google, this “arrangement” is a bad thing. Google IS a monopoly and needs to be curtailed immediately before it steps on much creativity that could take place outside of Google.

One thing is clear. Google has a monopoly-sized portion of the market for showing ads on sites (both their own and those of independant publishers). During Microsoft’s Yahoo takeover bid, many publishers noticed their income increase as google pumped up the minimum bids placed on various keywords. Google’s and Yahoo’s revenue went up accordingly. This made Yahoo seem more expensive. Essentially, placing ads on search or on websites via Google is a steal BECAUSE of Google’s monopoly. Hopefully, someone will come along with serious competition, raise minimum bids and publishers of all shapes and sizes will begin to earn an amount that is in line with the amount of traffic that they provide to advertisers.

There could be ways to avoid antitrust regulations, and that’s probably what Eric Schmidt is up to. Microsoft and Google both are shrewd market players. Microsoft forestalled Google’s approach to Facebook by overvaluing Facebook’s market value. So did Google to Yahoo. The ongoing war between Microsoft and Google, which is two-dimensional in the desktop PC arena, will soon phase out, as the next big wave will come in the multi-dimensional mobile arena. In view of the shifting market structure, we don’t know yet what is big today will remain big tomorrow and what appears to be benefitable for the public good today will remain so tomorrow. Hopefully antitrust regulators are well aware of that.

Google Monopoly or largest ? Seems the question.
Google and yahoo is terrible mix. Personally , dislike yahoo. Google is not far behind.
Google adds are a blight.
Doing to web what once bill boards did to landscape.
Yahoo isstep down in information.
Question should be:
Who needs ads every where?

P.A. Pointon

If indeed the thoughts in this article are accurate I can see how Google has a problem. When your company slogan, is “do no evil” and your corporate attorneys assail the Microsoft offer as being anti-competitive due to monopolistic reasons it is a bit disconcerting to find yourself as a potential target of a potential regulatory review because of your market share. Likewise if it walks away and yahoo’s share plummet (a likely occurrence)and it is seen as “not playing nice”, it puts a bit of a blemish on that “do no evil” thing. Lastly if the deal does go through, doesn’t this put Google in the position of a street dealer? After all f Yahoo becomes addicted to the revenue stream provided by Goggle, aren’t they pretty much totally dependent on them?

Please stop to think all is monopoly!
Please stop to mix businesses with “Nazis…”
Give to Google and Yahoo! the “freedom” they decide for themselves. Why not?

Google’s motto is not “Do no evil”. It’s “Don’t be evil”. The difference is evidently vast, given their behaviour.

Yahoo’s business strategy is lost. Striking a deal with your number one competitor is an admission of competing for second place. You can’t catch someone you rely on. Second place is search might be an insignificant niche soon.

Bye Bye Yahoo

Yahoo and microsoft? I wanted that deal to go sour and it did because microsoft is microsoft and they try to play hardball all the time. I hope Google Takes Yahoo out of the hole and If Microsoft still wants to buy it they will pay a lot more.

Google is more opensource friendly and rightfully so. Microsoft should be scared because opensource is slowly gaining ground.

Sooner or later Yahoo! is going to vanish from the scene. Neither the Yahoo! management nor the Google people will stop the downfall of Yahoo!. The time is running out for them and in a couple of years, Yahoo! will be a part of Internet history and will be remembered as one of the poineers of Internet revolution.

People saying that MS is playing hardball for walking away after a 75% premium offer are excusing people who were insisting on a near 100% premium. Absolutely ridiculous. The hardball players are the ones who have now turned down a huge equity premium on a former leading company that is stagnating in the market.

Foolish behavior from Yang.

charles in charge May 11, 2008 · 3:15 pm

yahoo is more like microsoft and less like google than they would like to admit. they are highly acquisitive, risk averse and prefer to be fast followers.
which sounds like microsoft. unlike microsoft they havent shown an ability to come from behind and persevere.

the public thinks that just because the founders are all from stanford and both have fun brands that they (google and yahoo) are a good fit. nope.

yahoo needs to a deal with microsoft, not google.

“Google is more opensource friendly and rightfully so. Microsoft should be scared because opensource is slowly gaining ground.
— Posted by Jake”

Then why didn’t google opensource their search core? so that the whole world will benefit and in return the whole world can help them improve searching like in the spirit of gpl?

Google is opensource friendly in attacking Microsoft, not open at all in its own core business.

@Ray–Dude. They didn’t opensource their search core because that is *retarded*.
Let me get this straight. You want them to make their ranking algorithm available to and modifiable by everyone. Can you see *any* problems with that?
Let me help you out. The first 50,000 search results for your “emergency tornado assistance” turn out to be…Britney Spears Naked Nude!! sites. Which coincidentally dump Trojan drive-bys on anyone clicking on them. But hey…the Man no longer controls search.
You’ve fundamentally misunderstood appropriate projects for open source. Too much money is at stake here–a top ranking can be worth millions–and it’s too easy to automate the rank-spamming process.