|
February 27, 2007
This is an interesting concept I hadn't considered before. I don't use Wikipedia for anything other than deciphering acronyms. I don't trust Wikipedia's content. But as this blog post points out, could Wikipedia serve as a decent menu of better content? Are the outbound links the best-of-breed for respective Wikipedia topics? Even if they aren't all best-of-breed, could it serve as a good jumping off point for trustworthy content?
A group of Yahoo stockholders have put together a 9 point plan to present at the next Yahoo shareholder's meeting. The plan calls for, among other things, the firing of Terry Semel as CEO and his removal from the board of directors, the closing of the Yahoo! Media Group, changes in compensation for both Yahoo management and shareholders, and the removal of anti-takeover provisions from the company's management options. It's a pretty radical plan. But you know what? I say go for it! Something radical needs to happen over in Sunnyvale. Because, despite a good search engine, Yahoo continues to stumble and fumble all over the place.
It's good to see that not everyone is jumping ship at YouTube. And I love the idea of soliciting users to post videos of their best basketball moves. You see… this is the perfect blend of "tv" and user video. I think it's awesome to see content owners not only using YouTube to display their videos, but also actively involving their viewers in the process. It creates a truly co-branded community between the NBA and it's audience.
Pretty straight-forward after reading the title. And I'd have thought more common sense than anything. But apparently the plaintiff in the case was a "complainer and griper" (a description I saw on numerous sites). So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he sued. Just to clear things up for anyone else who didn't know this: search engines don't have to display your ads. Can I get a collective "duh" please?
Contrary to what you might be thinking, the "Micro" in this case refers to Microsoft. Some advertisers are complaining that Facebook's ad options have been severely restricted since the social networking site partnered with Microsoft to deliver ads. But from my understanding of Facebook advertising, it's always been limited… much more so than its ad-crazy competitor MySpace (which is literally overrun with ads). Facebook says advertisers need to adapt to its site. Advertisers say Facebook needs to adapt to their needs. What do you think?
Hot on the heels of yesterday's Quigo news comes this - yet another big name advertiser joins forces with the little ad-network-that-could. The deal with Forbes is multi-year… and it's exclusive. That means no Google… no Yahoo… no Microsoft. I wonder who will be next to jump ship? And will they, as Google says, come back? "They always come back", Google told the New York Times. I guess we'll just have to see about that.
He's not saying to ditch Google completely. But he thinks the short term money is to be had with Ask.com and Yahoo. Citing Ask's good management and online properties, and Yahoo's new Panama ad system, Cramer suggests selling a little Google… and buying a little (more) Ask.com and Yahoo. Didn't Matt say something about this happening? That's right! He predicted an increased interest in Yahoo stock following Panama's release. But he's also predicting a short-lived increase. Sounds like Jim Cramer is thinking the same thing.
Post a comment
|
|