Hacker News Reader

Comment by kwamenum86 | Hacker News Reader

"The company has hired executive search firm Heidrick & Struggles to find the new CEO"

Appropriate firm given Yahoo's recent struggles. Sorry- couldn't help it.

A lot of people blame Yang for Yahoo's troubles. Some say his emotions got in the way of making a rational decision when Microsoft came knocking. The reality is that Yahoo is just not the product it used to be and they are slightly behind the curve now instead of ahead of it. Kind of sad really- Yahoo was my first search engine. I avoided using Google for a long time but eventually, like everyone else, I relented.

Another Web 1.0 Titan struggling to thrive in the new millennium.

View on HN

I have a dream where their developer division comes out with something amazing, reviving the company into Web 3.0 -

http://developer.yahoo.com/

Some brilliant stuff there.

they need to take info and turn it into $$$$

the web is drowning in development tools from appjet to google app engine. web developer tools aren't making anyone money, so its not clear how they would aid yahoo. what yahoo needs is a time machine to go back to the day before adsense and adwords were launched.

That wouldn't help unless they approached things differently this time around.

What do you suggest they should do for their hypothetical second shot?

A lot of people blame Yang for Yahoo's troubles.

So where does the buck stop then, if not with Yang?

Blame Yahoo the product. You can blame him for not selling to Microsoft but not the general lack cool products and the decline of the Yahoo brand.

This is exactly what we can blame him for. Both Semel and Yang have presided over stretches in time where Yahoo products got their asses handed to them by the competition. If the CEO sees that happening, and then doesn't do anything, and then doesn't even sell the company, you certainly can blame him for his vast incompetence. Furthermore, he seemingly sat and watched while Yahoo's talent pool quit to work for Google or startups! What a joke!

What exactly was/is their product?

Well maybe I should have said brand/suite of tools. Yahoo's search engine is their main product but really they collect a lot of data, use it to provide useful services, and then try to monetize it- like Google. They are both really information companies, not just search engine companies.

When I said their product isn't the same I meant they are no longer the main info collectors of the web. When considered on the international stage they are still players, however, they have a downward trajectory right now- Google is gaining on them and has all of the momentum.

Consider this: Yahoo is #1 in the WORLD based on traffic (Alexa.com). But nobody will touch their stock? The writing is on the wall. Like I said, there is a downward trajectory there. Good companies find a way to leverage a #1 ranking into dollars and dominance. Floundering companies find a way to allow their stock to drop below 15 bucks while another company sets the standard for the info collection industry (Google).

BTW, I think they've dipped under $10

to be fair, they have in a sense.

the company is profitable. they have cash in the bank. but the writing is on the wall, google has become completely dominant in ads. yahoo has tried to reverse this but google has just taken more share. web ads are a winner-take-all economy...it doesn't look good for anyone going head-to-head with google

yahoo won't go under, but its days as an independent company are likely numbered

I think there's an obvious business model. It's "fire everyone." #1 in traffic, forget all the web 2.0 stuff, mindshare, and cut costs to the bone. Use the profits to concentrate on more cost cutting, more efficiency. Concentrate on being cheaper at everything. Where stuff is free, use the cost savings to show less ads. In business they call this strategy "low-cost provider."

Would that not be the way to guarantee that they never do anything innovative ever and let other people eat away at there market cap?

How would that be different than what they were doing previously?

Oh boy! Your time at Y! was that bad eh? ;-)

You have no idea.

You can be innovative about cost-reduction.

That must be the most retarded thing I've ever read. If they cost costs everywhere, then where will new income come from?

Ask Walmart. Or Toyota. Or any other number of companies who've used cost as a competitive weapon.

Yahoo is falling behind because it's stagnant, not because its cost are too high. Yahoos products are mostly free, and it's a very different industry from retailing or machine manufacturing.

Yahoo does not need to cut costs. Cashflow is fine in the company. Cutting costs would be silly at this junction - it does nothing at all to address the problem.

It's like a guy who gets his leg cut off, and your solution is to bind the leg. Yes, that helps, but he'll still die if you don't actually fix the wound.

I'm an advertiser and I've spoken at length with Yahoo's display advertising department. Their costs are too high.

Search ads on Yahoo are great, however.

I didn't know "suicide" was a business model.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com