<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>HipMojo.com</title>
	<link>http://watchmojo.com/web/blog</link>
	<description>Covering Online Video, Web, Search, Investing, Technology, Strategy, Investing, M&#038;A, Financing, VCs</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:53:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Why Google Never Really Wanted Yahoo Search Deal</title>
		<link>http://watchmojo.com/web/blog/index.php/2008/05/08/why-google-never-really-wanted-yahoo-search-deal/</link>
		<comments>http://watchmojo.com/web/blog/index.php/2008/05/08/why-google-never-really-wanted-yahoo-search-deal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 15:04:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ashkan Karbasfrooshan</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Internet &#038; Web]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[M&#038;A]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Search Wars]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Management]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Legal Matters]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News Corp./FIM]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Yahoo!]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Online Advertising]]></category>
<category>Google</category><category>Internet &amp;#038; Web</category><category>Legal Matters</category><category>M&amp;#038;A</category><category>Management</category><category>Microsoft</category><category>News Corp./FIM</category><category>Online Advertising</category><category>Search Wars</category><category>Yahoo!</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://watchmojo.com/web/blog/index.php/2008/05/08/why-google-never-really-wanted-yahoo-search-deal/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[1. Google would have had to pay a large portion of revenues to Yahoo! as TACs (traffic acquisition costs).  This means more revenue to Google, yes, but no significant increase in profits&#8230; meaning that Google&#8217;s profit margins would have shrunk.  Analysts don&#8217;t like that, and as Google&#8217;s growth stalls, it cannot afford that.
2. Adding Yahoo!&#8217;s [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1. Google would have had to pay a large portion of revenues to Yahoo! as TACs (traffic acquisition costs).  This means more revenue to Google, yes, but no significant increase in profits&#8230; meaning that Google&#8217;s profit margins would have shrunk.  Analysts don&#8217;t like that, and as Google&#8217;s growth stalls, it cannot afford that.</p>
<p>2. Adding Yahoo!&#8217;s 30% market share to Google&#8217;s 60% market share would have raised the ire of the feds.  Yes, I know, this would not have been the same thing as if Google owned that 30%, but the fact remains, the partnership would have awoken the feds.</p>
<p>Quite simply: Yahoo! has been <a href="http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/5/uh_oh_google_may_not_want_to_do_search_deal_with_yahoo_after_all" target="_blank">played</a> like a fiddle.  Worse off, by even doing that little test with Google, Yahoo! is now less desirable to MSFT.  In MSFT&#8217;s eyes, YHOO&#8217;s search is tainted, it&#8217;s as if a groom finds out on the eve of his wedding that his wife is not quite a virgin.</p>
<p>Of course, I still think that MSFT has the hots for YHOO&#8230; but it will take its time, deservedly so.  After all, just because a girl tells you she is not interested or plays hard to get to the point of frustrating you does not mean you stop liking her.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s right, MSFT hearts YHOO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://watchmojo.com/web/blog/index.php/2008/05/08/why-google-never-really-wanted-yahoo-search-deal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
