According to AllThingsD the MicroHoo search deal is nearing completion and “definitive agreement” status. Speculation that the deal was in trouble started happening when the two companies failed to meet their self-imposed October 27 deadline to finalize the complex agreement. However it appears the circumstances were just as reported in the parties’ 8-K filing with the US Securities & Exchange Commission:

The Letter Agreement specified that the parties would execute Definitive Agreements by October 27, 2009, but given the complex nature of the transaction, there remain some details to be finalized. The parties are working diligently on finalizing the agreements, have made good progress to date, and have agreed to execute the agreements as expeditiously as possible . . .

On the regulatory front AllThingsD reports that “several sources said, those government approvals are now nearing completion at the Justice Department, even though the Federal Trade Commission might still ask for more assurances on privacy issues related to online advertising and consumer data.” Europe must also approve the deal.

According to the most recent comScore search market share data, the combined reach of MicroHoo search would be 27.9% vs. Google’s 65.4%. Assuming the deal goes through up next for Microsoft would be a decision about whether to attempt to buy Ask, which IAC’s Barry Diller is open to selling, and whether to bid for AOL’s search-ad business when that deal comes up for renewal in 2010.

However a MicroHoo approval would potentially make a later Ask acquisition (or maybe even an AOL deal) harder because it would reduce the number of independent search engines in the market.

Yahoo has smartly launched a Spanish Language version of its mobile homepage. The company cites Census data that reflect a population of 46 million Hispanic people in the US. Yahoo also cited comScore data that show tremendous mobile internet growth among Hispanics, which is “outpacing that of all other groups, with 88% of Hispanics consuming content on their mobile phones.”

Here’s the new Spanish language mobile homepage, which mirrors the look and feel of the English-language version:

Here’s the PC version; note the tile ad en Espanol:

The ad below from the Spanish mobile site is in English but in short order we can probably expect Spanish-language ads, which is one of the big opportunities here that Yahoo is pursuing:

If you visit Google.com today, you will see a special logo for Veterans Day. The logo is less complex when compared to last years, where Google had to fix their Veterans Day logo. Last year, Google placed hats on top of each letter on the Google logo, the hats included Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. But they forgot one, the U.S. Coast Guard, which they added later.

Google also has a logo on Google.co.uk for Remembrance Day:

Bing has a Veterans Day Theme:

Yahoo typically skips adding a special logo for today, which is what they have done today. But you can see more logos, from Ask.com, AOL and others at the Search Engine Roundtable.

Like many people, I misspelled a domain name today when I was trying to visit a web site. I typed Twiter.com (with one T) rather than Twitter.com. I wasn’t surprised to land on a site with ads, as is common when entering typos. I was surprised that both Google and Yahoo were making money off those ads.

Google has a program known as AdSense For Domains, previously known as DomainPark. Got a tasty domain but no content for it? AdSense For Domains will put lucrative ads up on it, for you (really lucrative: see more here and here).

The practice is known as domaining. And before some domainers start working up heated rebuttals, let me make it clear. There’s nothing wrong with domaining. If you were lucky enough or smart enough to land a generic domain like usedcars.com or taxforms.com, my hat’s off to you. It’s well known that people will simply slap words together, tack on a .com and see if they reach a site that has information about a particular topic relating to those words. Domainers earn off that traffic, and no one is misled when visitors directly navigate this way.

So saying domaining = spamming is the same as saying SEO = spamming. Neither is true. But there are spam tactics that happen in both areas along with the legit stuff. In the domaining world, it’s the typo traffic that’s often scummy, in my book.

Typo domains are domains that are nearly identical to the domain name of another well known brand. Here, there is often harm. Someone expecting to reach a particular site instead lands on a different one that’s cashing in on the other brand’s fame.

OK, it’s the person who is entering the domain name wrong in the first place’s fault, right? It’s like they dialed the wrong phone number. Why shouldn’t a domain owner be able to earn off of misdirected calls to their phone? Or, it’s the “real” company’s fault for not registering all the typos out there.

What about companies that have a name in use before another company becomes more famous? Is there really anything wrong with UTube — a well established pipe company — benefiting from a spike in traffic after some upstart YouTube video site came along? Or in the case of Twiter, that domain existed well before Twitter became popular, so why shouldn’t it tap into new found popularity.

These are fair objections. In counter to them, some typo domains are often registered after a brand becomes popular, with the obvious intent of riding on someone else’s coattails. For another, it simply violates the policies of some ad networks, Google’s included. In other words, the fault isn’t with the domain owner themselves. It’s with companies supplying ads in violation of their own guidelines or policies.

That leads us to what I saw when I reached Twiter.com, the single “T” web site:

These ads are provided by Google, not that anything on the page tells you this. Domain ads apparently aren’t forced to carry those “Ads By Google” notifications as with contexual ads. That’s a handy way for Google to distance itself.

The first and fifth ad indicates a relevancy issue for Google advertisers. If you’re advertising “Free VoiceXML platform” or “Monitor Server health,” why on earth is someone from Twiter (one T) going to convert for you? They might click out of curiousity, but the probably aren’t going to buy (in fact, there’s a lawsuit against Google over the quality of domain ads pending. Google’s has also been sued over trademark issues with typo domains).

Now look at the second ad, which I’ve pointed an arrow at:

Twitter? Twitter is here Need Twitter? Official Twitter site Twitter lets you share. Its Twitter www.Twitter.com

That ad surprised me. Really, Twitter (that of 2 Ts) decided to buy an ad for its own name via Google? Actually, no. Instead, it’s a Twitter user that bought the ad, driving people to their particular profile which, while indeed being on the official Twitter site, isn’t providing Twitter but rather a pitch for a book:

Clever person, right? Yes, but they also likely being misleading. That would violate Google’s ad guidelines and also may violate advertising laws in various US states, as well as nationally and in other countries.

That ad also shows two flaws in Google’s ad system. Clearly no human being looked closely at this ad, to review it for quality guideline violations. Meanwhile, Google’s requirement that the display URL in an ad match the domain name someone arrives at get exploited. This ad correctly shows a Twitter.com domain, even though the ad itself doesn’t speak with the authority of Twitter itself.

Check out the third ad, with an arrow pointing at the domain (which I’ve also bolded below):

Twitter Looking for Twitter? Find exactly what you want today. Yahoo.com

Why yes, I was indeed looking for Twitter. Glad to know that Yahoo has it now. I guess I missed news of that deal being cut. Let’s go get us some Twitter at Yahoo:

Ah, Twitter, er, shopping results. Maybe that lamp beams out tweets, when you turn it on. The results are kind of crummy. But that’s OK, because right at the top of the page, we get three paid search ads from Yahoo.

Now, it’s not Yahoo doing this directly. Looking at the URL that brings me to the shopping page, I see an affiliate reference. So this is someone earning money by driving Yahoo traffic. But Yahoo takes some of the blame here. It’s their affiliate, getting paid by Yahoo, and Yahoo should be policing this.

Yahoo, by the way, joined a coalition against typo domains back in 2007. They’re no longer listed as a member, which given these type of ads, is probably best.

The rest of the ads are all products somehow related to Twitter, so at least the misleading aspects aren’t there. But there still seems to be a violation of Google’s domain ads program policies:

Domains submitted for the AdSense for domains program may not violate any trademark (and related rights), copyright, trade secret, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party….

Google AdSense for domains is committed to respecting the rights of trademark owners. It is our goal that advertisers, users and trademark owners all be aware of Google’s process for reviewing perceived trademark infringement in the AdSense for domains network. If Google becomes aware of a domain name that contains a trademark (or typo), that domain will be removed from the AdSense for domains network.

At best, Google might argue that Twitter hasn’t submitted a formal complaint, so as far as it knows, there’s no trademark violation happening. That’s still pretty weak. Does Google, which often holds itself out as championing the relevant organization of information, really want to hold its head up about what’s happening on that page?

I don’t think so. That’s especially so when you consider the type of ads that show up on Google’s own site for a search on twitter:

That Twitter user claiming to be the official Twitter site doesn’t show there. Neither does the Yahoo ad promising to deliver Twitter.

If those ads aren’t good enough to be shown on the shining storefront that is Google’s search results page, they don’t get any better being plastered on some dark alley of the internet.

Postscript: After publishing this, I sent these questions to Google.

• Are the ads from that Twitter user and from Yahoo meeting your relevancy guidelines?
• Are they not misleading?
• If they are, were these actually reviewed by a human?
• And does the site violate your guidelines on typo domains or not?

In response, I was emailed this statement:

We don’t comment on specific ads or domains – but our AdSense for Domains policies are here. When we’re notified of complaints, we investigate for compliance with our policy.  We’ve found that advertisers enjoy the benefits of the additional reach that AdSense for Domains offers.  Many advertisers find that ads on parked domains perform as well as or better than ads on more traditional search and content sites.

Today, the site is no longer showing ads from Google. Instead, another company is providing the paid ads.

Today is Halloween and the search engines have logos up for the special day. Before I post the logos, here are some posts from others in the community on Halloween.

Matt Cutts of Google had a holy costume. Google Blogoscoped noticed Google added trick or treat to their robots.txt file. Bing has a special visual search edition for today. Bruce Clay’s team dressed up and PPC Heros added some funk. Finally, the logos you see below is reposted from the Search Engine Roundtable.

Google has four Doodles:

Yahoo (Flash):

AOL (Flash):

YouTube:

Bing:

Ask.com:

Dogpile:

BruceClay’s design:

Search Engine Roundtable:

For the past logos, see 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004 logos.

I got two calls yesterday from people asking what I made of the Yahoo-Microsoft failure to meet their self-imposed search-deal deadline (October 27). I said it was probably just a case of needing more time to work through some of the details rather than a warning sign that the entire deal was in jeopardy.

There’s much at stake for both companies (somewhat less for Bing) in having committed to this deal. The market would punish both if the deal were to fall apart. It would be very hard for Yahoo to recover in the short term, having lost some of its best search people (many of whom are now working for Microsoft). And Microsoft would lose the reach that Yahoo search provides. However, ironically, Bing may be taking share from Yahoo rather than Google if these recently released iCrossing numbers are right.

The companies filed a form 8-K with the US Securities & Exchange Commission extending the time for completing the details of the search deal they announced many months ago. Here’s the text of the filing:

On October 28, 2009, Yahoo! Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Yahoo!”), and Microsoft Corporation, a Washington corporation (“Microsoft”), mutually agreed to extend the period to negotiate and execute a Search and Advertising Services and Sales Agreement and a License Agreement (the “Definitive Agreements”) reflecting and supplementing the provisions of such agreements as set forth in annexes to their binding letter agreement dated July 29, 2009 (the “Letter Agreement”). The Letter Agreement specified that the parties would execute Definitive Agreements by October 27, 2009, but given the complex nature of the transaction, there remain some details to be finalized. The parties are working diligently on finalizing the agreements, have made good progress to date, and have agreed to execute the agreements as expeditiously as possible. The Letter Agreement was the subject of a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Yahoo! on August 4, 2009.

The information in this report shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to the liabilities under that Section and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Yahoo! under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act.

(emphasis added.)

For more on where Yahoo stands, see Danny’s coverage of Yahoo Analyst Day.

There’s more coverage on Techmeme.

When “activist investor” Carl Icahn forced his way onto Yahoo’s board in the middle of last year the company was resisting a takeover attempt from Microsoft. Icahn wanted to see a deal and was trying with all his might to broker one between the two companies.

He initiated a very public bid to oust Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang as CEO and bring a slate of Microsoft-friendly candidates to the Yahoo board. He went so far as to file a shareholder lawsuit against Yahoo. The settlement gave Icahn a seat on the Yahoo board and control of three of 11 total board positions.

After Jerry Yang resigned as Yahoo CEO and Carol Bartz entered as the new chief executive, as you know, a search outsourcing deal was done. And now Carl Icahn believes his work is done; he resigned his board seat at the end of last week:

In a statement about his departure, Icahn said “there was not a need at this time for an activist investor.”

Yahoo’s stock price was hovering around $20 when Icahn joined the board. Now it’s just over $17. Good work Carl. Job well done.

Yahoo just announced quarterly revenues of $1.575 million, which represents a 12 percent decline from the third quarter of 2008 and is basically flat vs last quarter. However the company saw a 19 percent decline in search ad revenue YoY but flat sequentially.

Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz characterized Q3 as “solid” in the press release and said that the business had “stabilized.” Here are the top-level financials:

Other revenue information from the release:

• Marketing services revenues were flat and fees revenues increased 2 percent,compared to the second quarter of 2009.
• Marketing services revenues from Owned and Operated sites were $851 million for the third quarter of 2009, a 15 percent decrease compared to $1,002 million for the same period of 2008. The decrease was primarily driven by a 19 percent decline in search advertising revenue and an 8 percent decline in display advertising revenue.
• Marketing services revenues from Affiliate sites were $526 million for the third quarter of 2009, a 6 percent decrease compared to $561 million for the same period in 2008.

Here are some of the slides from the associated presentation:

And now the call, with prepared remarks (by CFO Tim Morse):

CEO Carol Bartz “came down with something, nothing serious” but she’s not on the call. I’m disappointed.

Morse is going through his remarks in a monotone that is just washing over me. He made statements about search revenues being basically flat sequentially, though they’re down 19 percent vs. last year. He said queries are up slightly (I believe) vs. Q2.  I wish Carol were on the call . . .

Quick update on Microsoft:

We’re not out of search; we’ll continue to innovate and create a “better more personally relevant search experience” without spending on the “arms race.” Search is like an “Intel chip.” The differentiation isn’t at the chip level it’s in the user experience. (Not all that persuasive.)

We expect the deal to close/be approved in early 2010. He cites the letter of support from the American Association of Advertising Agencies from yesterday.

Assuming the deal closes  . . . Morse talks about the transition to the new platform for advertisers (non-substantive remarks). We have experience with Panama, etc., etc.

Q&A session:

Question re display revenues and trends and why is Google doing so much better in search?

Morse stumbles: “It’s tough to compare to Google.” This quarter’s only “down 1 percent, that feels like stabilization.” Queries are up.

Question re vulnerability of affiliate business and increasing TAC rates:

Morse: We know that Google monetizes better so we have to pay more. There’s a “make whole” provision if affiliates defect to Microsoft but not to Google.

There were a range of questions about Yahoo’s display business and future outlook.

Guaranteed placement was strong in the second and third quarters.

Question re margins and cost containment

Morse says that internal teams will control costs and will be rewarded by Yahoo for doing so.

Questions about ad quality on the Yahoo homepage

Among other things, Morse cites the Yahoo homepage relaunch and “acceptance” and “positive reviews.” Homepage growth was in the “double digits.”

Questions re the conclusion of paid inclusion

Morse said shutting down paid inclusion will improve “overall  marketplace” and wouldn’t speculate on direct impact on future revenues.

Question re metrics surrounding the new Yahoo homepage

Up strong “teens” in terms of page views. Not all the US users have switched yet. In eight countries total; fully rolled out in seven of them. Avoids talking about anything more specific. It’s still “early on.”  All the metrics I’ve seen are “quite favorable.”

Question on mobile monetization

Morse: mobile is a focus for our future growth. Reach is really improving. Huge leader in mobile with 35 million users in the US.

Question on search monetization: query growth up but RPS down, why?

All of search was down 1 percent QoQ. Flat sequentially. An awful lot that we’re doing to “invest in these businesses and make them better.” He rattles off search improvements (awkwardly). We’re not “falling down, we’re not falling down at all.”

Question re the branding campaign, why?

It’s very early to assess success of campaign. We definitely expect this to translate into more users over time. About “revitalizing the company.” About getting us to back to where we were. Over the last few years we’d underspent on the brand. We’re also using it as an internal catalyst too. It’s about us and our corporate identity. In the future it will become more product focused. It will become a more or less permanent part of our cost structure.

Bottom line:

Overall the mood on this call was in fairly stark contrast with the mood and outlook on the Google call. In contrast, to the “we’re back” tone there, Yahoo seems to be tentative, uncertain and struggling to maintain its position in display and search (notwithstanding some good news in display). All the talk about innovating in search around the user experience felt unconvincing.

Bartz would have been a somewhat more buoyant presence and been able to inspire more confidence.

I wasn’t in the room but I watched a webcast of Yahoo CMO Elisa Steele’s keynote at the IAB Mixx conference this morning from New York. She introduced the new Yahoo Search but spent more time on the new $100 million (or so) ad campaign: “It’s Y!ou.” Danny live blogged the It’s Y!ou talk by Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz, which also addressed a wide range of other issues.

On the whole I’d have to say the earlier Steele speech was unimpressive and too familiar sounding. Maybe it’s because they’ve been previewing the messaging informally for some time. And maybe because the themes and creative of the new campaign — though impressively polished — are much like the old and unsuccessful “Life Engine” campaign of 2004. But there were also too many cliches and platitudes in the speech and it was delivered without convincing passion. The word “passion” was used repeatedly but not equally evident from the podium or in the audience as Steele spoke to a largely unresponsive group of advertisers and agencies.

One of the major themes of the talk and new campaign is that Yahoo will help you “navigate life.” Steele rejected the distinction between online and offline: “the Web and your world are inseparable.” In parallel there was a discussion of Yahoo’s reach across the three screens: PC, mobile and TV accordingly. There was a lot of emphasis on communications but also on the new Yahoo homepage as evidence of this new personalized approach — a dashboard of sorts to help organize the internet.

I’m sure there have been numerous consumer focus groups leading up to the new campaign. And while many people would argue the $100 million (or more) would be better spent on engineers, I’m not going to deny that advertising helps shape perceptions. Yahoo’s got a stronger and “friendlier” consumer brand than AOL, Microsoft and maybe even Google at this point. So the campaign dollars may be well spent in maintaining that image.

Apple spends hugely on advertising and marketing to support a brand perception in the market, at a company level and on the level of specific products. However Apple’s products deliver and fulfill the messaging. Here that’s not the case to the same degree.

The challenge and the problem is that Yahoo sites and services must actually fulfill the promise of helping people organize and navigate all the information out there. People are overwhelmed by information overload and “the paradox of choice.” They do need trusted sources, they do need simplification, they do need assistance. But I’m not sure that Yahoo delivers as promised.

Yahoo has lots of reach and lots of top traffic destinations: news, sports, mail, finance, etc. But Yahoo needs to actually create best of class tools and it needs to find simple ways to help consumers integrate all the information coming at them. The homepage is a good start, but it’s not enough. Search Pad is useful but not the “kick ass” product it needs to be to really set Yahoo apart.

There is a disconnect between right-sounding rhetoric and the reality of Yahoo today. I hope that the company can close the gap and be the personalized destination that it aspires to be.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the new consumer-facing Yahoo branding campaign is starting to appear in New York, with a personalization theme: It’s You!. According to the article:

Yahoo is planning to reintroduce its battered brand to the public Tuesday with a massive global marketing campaign, according to people familiar with the effort.

The Internet company’s new tagline, according to one of those people: “It’s You!”

The Y in the “You” is the Y from “Yahoo,” and the famous Yahoo exclamation point will pop up too, this person said . . . The global campaign is focused on personalization and how Yahoo can help people navigate all their services and information online.

In the past, Yahoo has run numerous ad campaigns promoting individual services or the company as a whole. The “It’s You!” campaign sounds quite similar to 2004’s “Life Engine” campaign. At the time the press release announcing the latter effort said:

“Our goal is to showcase the multi-dimensional nature of our brand and reinforce how Yahoo! impacts the lives of its users every single day,” said Cammie Dunaway, chief marketing officer, Yahoo!. “One great way to express the idea of consumer impact is to hear it directly from and feature those people who use our ‘Life Engine’ every day.”

I don’t think I’d agree with the WSJ characterization that Yahoo’s brand is “battered,” but it’s not as hip/cool/lustrous as it once was. AOL faces the nearly identical challenge. Facebook, although not a portal, has taken the place of these portals for many people.

There’s always a question about whether advertising can change behavior. Certainly it can generate awareness. But Yahoo’s past efforts to promote its search engine failed to affect market share. The same was true with Ask’s commercials as well. Still there may be an opportunity to reintroduce the Yahoo brand as a way to help organize your life online.

If I were in the CMO role now occupied by Elisa Steele I would also emphasize Yahoo as a trusted source of information. The internet is increasingly noisy and chaotic and there are only a few sites that truly can lay claim to being trustworthy. Yahoo is one of them.