ArticleSnatch Blog

You are browsing the search results.

Do the Beijing Olympics have you thinking global? If so, you may be considering whether or not to offer your site content in another language.

Google understands and they have offered up three points worthy of consideration when making the decision to go multilingual.

Site Structure

First, you need to decide if you want to feature other languages because you want to target another country (geo targeting) or because you simply want to reach an audience that speaks a specific language. If geo targeting is the case, then you may want to set up your content on a country-specific TLD (top-level domain, i.e. co.uk).

If you’re focused more on just the language, Google has these two tips:

1. Put the content of every language in a different subdomain. For our example, you would have en.example.com, de.example.com, and es.example.com.
2. Put the content of every language in a different subdirectory. This is easier to handle when updating and maintaining your site. For our example, you would have example.com/en/, example.com/de/, and example.com/es/.

Webmaster Tools for Geo Targeting

In Google’s Webmaster Tools, you can set geographic targets for different subdirectories or subdomains, if you choose to host the multilingual content on your original site.

Content Organization
When it comes to organizing your content, Google says straight out of the gate that the same content in two or more languages is not considered duplicate content.

Moving on from there, keep navigation and content on a subdirectory or subdomain to one language. Mixing up the languages could confuse the googlebot.

What are your tips for creating multilingual sites? Share them in the comments.

With the rise of social networking, employers are left wondering if or how the trend affects their bottom line. Many have decided that Facebook and MySpace in the workplace are not appropriate (for content or productivity reasons) and have banned the sites from being accessed at their offices.

To which I say: Good luck with that!

With the onslaught of iPhones, resisting social media (and I don’t mean for marketing purposes) will prove to be futile anyway. Go ahead. Fire someone for accessing their Facebook iPhone app. But don’t be looking for any “Best Places to Work” awards anytime soon.

And when morale is down, productivity goes down. Call it anecdotal, but the places I’ve worked at with low morale lose productivity to gossip and office politics. What they’re really looking for is support in a difficult workplace. So ban social media all you want, your employees will still find ways to “waste time.” Or as I like to call it, not go completely mental.

On the flip side, social networking more often than not helps your business. Think of all the contacts that your employees have. All those college and high school pals now have careers in a variety of industries. Perhaps there are great partnerships to be had in these vast social networks.

Or when its time to hire a new employee, these networks are a great place to start.

Social media is also a great way to stay on top of your industry - to learn about things that are happening, what’s new. You can’t do it all yourself - or even with just your marketing team. What if a guy/gal in IT catches wind of a new program being implemented at a competitor? Chances are, they’ll find it out via a social network, blog, Twitter, etc.

I say kill those largely unfounded fears and allow social networking in the workplace. Like the rest of business and life, it won’t be perfect. But it can be reasonable.

By the way, one of the new hot things in social media is internal social networking, sometimes referred to as enterprise social media. This can foster genuine channels of good communication among departments across your company.

What’s your opinion? Yay or nay to social media for employees? Leave a comment and tell us how it is!

Related Reading:
Do Social Networks Bring Out the Animal in Us?
Small Business Owners Need Twitter and LinkedIn

In May, Google announced a new initiative called Friend Connect that enables site owners to add social media to their websites, and allows internet users to connect their social accounts more seamlessly. But while Facebook was initally part of the effort, later they banned Google’s Friend Connect from their site, citing issues with privacy and the redistribution of user data.

Instead of waiting for Google to comply, Facebook has announced their own initiative: Facebook Connect. It’s designed to do basically be a FriendFeed - to aggregate information from users’ various profiles on numerous social sites in order to view it all in one place. Here’s the details of what to expect:

• Trusted Authentication - easily authenticate into partner sites using your Facebook account
• Real Identity - leverage your real identity across the Web in a trusted environment
• Friend Linking - take your friends with them wherever they go, enabling trusted social context anywhere on the Web
• Dynamic Privacy - assurance that the same privacy settings users have set up on Facebook will follow them wherever they decide to login throughout the Web
• Social Distribution - share actions on partner sites with your friends back on Facebook through feeds

Straight out of the gate, the following sites will utilize Facebook Connect:

Digg
Citysearch
Twitter
Seesmic (online video conversation tool)
Six Apart (blog publishing platform)
Hulu
CBS.com
CNET
CollegeHumor
Disney-ABC
Evite
Flock (social media browser developed on Firefox)
Kongregate
Loopt (new social network for iPhone)
Plaxo
Radar
Red Bull
Socialthing! (think FriendFeed)
StumbleUpon
The Insider
Uber
Vimeo
Xobni

What do you think of Facebook Connect? Let us know in the comments!

Tel Aviv-based search engine marketing platform provider, Kenshoo, has announced plans to open an office in the United States. The office will be located in San Francisco. Kenshoo has a European subsidiary in London as well.

Kenshoo provides a third generation SEM platform called KENSHOO SEARCH.

“We see North America as a key market and are very happy to hit the ground running. Following our plan, we have decided to take the needed step and establish a local company. This move will help us expand our already solid base of U.S. customers while improving our service.” said Yoav Izhar-Prato, CEO of Kenshoo.

Related Reading:
Online Advertising Shifting from Branding to Direct Response
Local Advertisers Shifting Dollars to Internet
Global Internet Ad Spend to Exceed $106 Billion by 2011
Online Ad Spend Intact Despite Weakening Economy

In a letter that is likely to believed by almost no one, Yahoo regurgitated much of the same old statements about Microsoft and Carl Icahn - and then slipped in something about selling the entire company for $33 a share. Of course, that’s only “if Microsoft will negotiate a transaction that delivers certainty of value and certainty of closing. This is the simplest, most straightforward way to maximize value for you.”

Rumor had it that Yahoo wanted somewhere in the neighborhood of $35-37 per share in the spring when the deal went south. Both sides have accused the other of walking away prematurely.

Then Carl Icahn created a proxy board and subsequently called for Yahoo to sell for $34.375 a share. Now Yahoo says it will go for $33 per share.

If I were Microsoft, I would just sit back, relax and continue to watch the price drop. If I were Google, I’d continue laughing all the way to the bank.

Here’s the full letter:

Dear Fellow Stockholder:

The recently-formed Carl Icahn-Microsoft alliance continues to make misleading statements about their plans for Yahoo!. Your Board of Directors believes strongly that the Icahn-Microsoft agenda -as presented to us jointly last week - will destroy stockholder value at Yahoo!, serving only their very narrow special interests, clearly not your interests.

Your Board continues to work to maximize value for you and is taking the following steps to do so:

– Moving forward with our strategic plan and strategies to lead in online advertising - with both search and display;

– Preparing to implement our recently signed commercial agreement with Google that will increase cash flow;

– Continuing to explore other ways to unlock value and return value to you such as unlocking the value of our Asia assets; and

– Remaining open to negotiating a value creating transaction (including with Microsoft) that provides real and certain value - not just the possibility of value.

In contrast, let’s review Carl Icahn’s brief involvement with the Company to date.

Carl Icahn bought his stock two months ago for an estimated average cost of less than $25 per share. He is well-known as a corporate agitator with a short-term approach to his investments. His short-term approach gives Mr. Icahn a strong incentive to strike any deal with Microsoft that enables him to recover his investment and get back his money quickly, even a deal that does not provide full and fair value to you. Is that in the interests of all stockholders? Clearly, it is not.

Mr. Icahn has severely handicapped himself in his ability to negotiate a favorable transaction with Microsoft. Why?

– Mr. Icahn has made it clear that his only objective is to sell part or all of Yahoo! to Microsoft. That fact, combined with his lack of an operating plan going forward, means that he will have no leverage to negotiate a fair deal with Microsoft. He has set himself up for failure.

– Second, Mr. Icahn and his slate lack the working knowledge of Yahoo! and its Internet business needed to do two things that are required to successfully deliver a value-enhancing transaction for Yahoo! stockholders. First, they do not have the detailed knowledge to negotiate a complex restructuring of a large, innovative high technology company in a rapidly changing environment. Second, they do not have the hands-on experience to manage and lead Yahoo! during the approximately one year period estimated to be required to gain regulatory approval for a deal or to manage and lead the remainder of the Company (non-search) after a transaction is completed. Don’t take our word for that. Mr. Icahn will be calling the shots if his slate wins and yet Mr. Icahn himself told the Wall Street Journal last fall: “Technology hasn’t really been one of the things I’ve focused on too much before” and “It’s hard to understand these technology companies.” That’s why you need a knowledgeable, experienced and independent board to represent your interests vis-a-vis Microsoft.

Mr. Icahn can’t make up his mind about what he thinks will work for Yahoo!. He bought his position believing that he could bring Microsoft back to buy all of Yahoo!, at one point suggesting we publicly offer to sell Yahoo! to Microsoft for $34.375. But he didn’t do enough due diligence to determine what your Board already knew: that it was Microsoft’s decision to walk away and that it had rebuffed repeated efforts by your independent directors to get a whole company acquisition back on the table. Recognizing that a sale to Microsoft might not be an option, Mr. Icahn said as an alternative that we should enter into an agreement with Google (which we were already negotiating and subsequently signed), and that we should walk away from Microsoft’s search-only proposal (which we did after careful evaluation of that proposal). Then, in an extraordinary flip flop, Mr. Icahn teamed up with Microsoft and embraced their latest joint search-only proposal–even though it involved significant execution and operational risks and was fraught with flaws that made the “headline value” asserted by Microsoft and Mr. Icahn more illusion than reality.

How can Yahoo! stockholders trust Mr. Icahn to deliver what he claims he can deliver when his actions have been so contradictory -and when all he has delivered so far is a risky proposal of questionable value from his new friends at Microsoft? Yes, the Microsoft/Icahn proposal is somewhat of an improvement over Microsoft’s last search-only proposal, but no one should confuse a modestly improved offer with a good offer. The Icahn/Microsoft proposal was more “smoke and mirrors” than objective reality.

Now let’s turn to the recent marriage of convenience between Microsoft and Mr. Icahn.

This “odd couple” collaboration - between two parties with keenly different agendas - is indeed perplexing. Why does Mr. Icahn believe he can count on Microsoft to complete a transaction? Certainly Microsoft is a well-respected and successful company and we have been clear that we are fully prepared to do a deal with them. But Microsoft’s flip flops and inconsistencies over the past five months are so stupefying that one can only conclude that Microsoft was never fully committed to acquiring Yahoo! either because:

– Microsoft can’t decide what is and isn’t strategically important to its online business; or

– Microsoft is more interested in destabilizing a key competitor so that it can either enhance its competitive position or buy our highly valuable search business–and the enormously desirable intellectual property associated with it –at a bargain basement price.

Microsoft desperately needs to improve the performance of its online services business (consisting of its search and display assets) which, cumulatively since 2003, has lost money despite billions of dollars of investment. And yet Mr. Icahn would ignore this track record and its implications for his fellow Yahoo! stockholders, swallowing a deal that leaves Yahoo!’s future dependent, in part, on Microsoft’s ability to monetize search. And, as Mr. Icahn has himself pointed out, it would eliminate any opportunity we may have to sell the entire Company for an attractive premium.

In contrast to the conflicting and confusing statements emanating from the Icahn-Microsoft alliance, your Board and management have been crystal clear about our position.

First, we will sell the entire Company to Microsoft for $33 per share or more if Microsoft will negotiate a transaction that delivers certainty of value and certainty of closing. This is the simplest, most straightforward way to maximize value for you.

Second, we remain open to selling only search to Microsoft as long as it provides real value to our stockholders and resolves the substantial execution and operational risks associated with the separation of our search and display businesses.

Third, your Board takes seriously its obligation to examine all value-creating steps it could take and continues to actively examine many of these now, including a potential spin-off of our Asia assets and a return of cash to stockholders. These are steps Yahoo! could take, if we determine they are feasible and in our stockholders’ best interests, without any “help” from Microsoft or Mr. Icahn. But they are complex steps that require care and prudence. These should not be adopted simply because Mr. Icahn and Microsoft are trying to dress up Microsoft’s inadequate search-only proposal.

While your Board continues to evaluate the foregoing avenues, your current Board and management continue to execute on our strategy to grow the value of our unique collection of assets. That strategy is working and we believe it can result in substantial double digit growth in operating cash flow as we move forward. Our recently executed search advertising agreement with Google reflects our commitment to achieving our strategic goals, while preserving flexibility to pursue a sale of the Company or even, on the right terms, a sale of our search business.

Please compare and contrast the straightforward, responsible actions and positions of your Board of Directors with the behavior of Mr. Icahn and Microsoft.

There you have the situation, as we see it, put as simply and clearly as we can. We believe the Icahn slate and agenda present significant risk to your investment in Yahoo!. We believe you cannot count on Microsoft to bail out Mr. Icahn’s misguided agenda, at least not on terms that are in the best interests of Yahoo! stockholders.

In contrast, your Board remains fully prepared to represent your interests aggressively and conscientiously in the effort to maximize value–whether that takes the form of negotiating a transaction that provides full and fair value, with certainty; finding other ways to unlock and return value to you; or moving forward with our accelerated strategies to lead in online advertising.

Your Board of Directors remains committed to maximizing stockholder value. It is–and will remain–our number one priority. Do not be fooled into thinking otherwise by Carl Icahn.

We strongly urge you to vote your WHITE Proxy Card today for your current Board of Directors.

Thank you for your support.

Roy Bostock Jerry Yang
Chairman of the Board Chief Executive Officer

Search engines are the preferred method of researching a product they’re considering purchasing, according to data released by Opinion Research Corporation. 63% of those surveyed say they consult online news, blogs, and consumer feedback before making a purchase. And if you’ve been tempted to abandon organic based on the “SEO is dead” debate, you may want to think again:

• 70% go online to find information on brands, especially for travel, leisure, and recreation
• 83% say online reviews had at least some level of influence in their buying decision

“Businesses today exist in an era in which it’s nearly impossible to escape the likelihood of being evaluated…there’s nowhere to hide,” said Linda Shea, SVP and Global Managing Director of Customer Strategies for Opinion Research Corporation. “Companies must be extremely mindful of the power of proliferating online forums and their ability to shape consumer’s perceptions about brands. Even a single negative review, when posted in a very public forum, can have a significant impact on a prospective buyer’s decision to purchase.”

So when does the internet first enter the decision-making process?

• 38% use the internet from the start
• 27% go online when trying to decide between 2-3 options
• 21% are at the narrowing-down phase

And here’s what’s being researched, along with the percentage of those surveyed who go online to research the various categories:

• Travel/Recreation/Leisure 82%
• Electronic goods 80%
• Household products/services 66%
• Clothing 55%
• Automotive 55%
• Personal care 40%
• Food 24%

What do you think of these numbers? Does it affect your view of how important SEO is? Give your thoughts in the comments.

Related Reading:
Get in on the Conversation about the Future of SEO
What’s In Your Travel Tool Bag?
What’s In Your Travel Tool Bag? - Part 2

Hardly a Friday goes by without a good dose of Microhoo drama leading into the weekend. Today, Carl Icahn released his second letter in a week to Yahoo’s Chairman Roy Bostock. He responded to yesterday’s Yahoo response to his earlier letter ripping Yang. Plus, he suggests that Yahoo publicly offer itself to Microsoft for $34.375 per share.

Hey Carl, just one suggestion. That second paragraph is a doozy. Next time, chop those sentences up into more pretty paragraphs, ok?

Anyway, Icahn also outlined 5 steps his board would take if successfully elected at the shareholders meeting on August 1. Check out the letter in its entirety below.

Carl C. Icahn
ICAHN CAPITAL LP
767 Fifth Avenue, 47th Floor
New York, NY 10153

June 6, 2008

Roy Bostock
Chairman
Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Dear Roy:

While you may take issue with the content of my letter, I take issue with your oversight of Yahoo! Again, I stand by my characterization of your “poison pill” severance plan and I find it humorous to see you attempt to defend it.

Roy, it is you who “misrepresents and misstates the details” of the plan. Much like the rhetoric in many well known political campaigns, you keep repeating misstatements in the hopes that by repeating misstatements enough times it will convince your shareholders that these misstatements are valid. For example, you repeated, “the plan was fully disclosed at the time of its adoption and should be no surprise to anyone at this point.” This is simply not true. The egregious magnitude of the dollar amount cost of the plan was never fully disclosed, nor was the email from your compensation advisor calling the plan “nuts.” While you keep repeating that the severance plan was in the “best interests of shareholders”, you neglect to mention that the financial cost of the plan could be immense. The documents obtained during discovery and released in the shareholder complaint show that Yahoo! estimates the maximum change in control severance expenses to be a staggering $2.4 billion if Microsoft bids $35 per share for Yahoo! You neglected to mention that the true cost to an acquirer may be even higher as the perverse change in control severance incentives may diminish the work effort of Yahoo! employees. In case you do not understand the plan, in addition to the $2.4 billion of severance expenses, I believe the plan will negatively impact employee behavior and degrade the ability of an acquirer to successfully integrate the acquisition. In the event of a change of control, the employee may decide not to work as hard in the hopes of cashing in on a robust severance package that awards up to two years salary and benefits, $15,000 of outplacement expenses, and accelerated vesting of stock options and restricted stock units. To make matters worse, it is not just the acquirer firing the employee that can trigger the severance package but the employee who may decide on his or her own to resign for “good reason” at any point within two years of a change in control. It is quite obvious to me that this plan impacts the price an acquirer would pay. Is it any wonder than an acquirer, once fully comprehending this plan, might not wish to negotiate any further? I again call upon you to honor your fiduciary duty to your shareholders and rescind this “poison pill” severance plan.

You asked, “what exactly would happen to our Company if you and your nominees were to take control of Yahoo!” I will give you my perspective on that.

— First, I would work to have the board replace your “poison pill”
severance plan with an acceptable alternative.

— Second, I intend to ask our new board to hire a talented and
experienced CEO (attempting to replicate Google’s success with Eric
Schmidt) to replace Jerry Yang and return Jerry to his role as “Chief
Yahoo”. Indeed, it was much speculated that Jerry would serve in the
CEO role temporarily until a permanent CEO was hired after the board
asked Terry Semel to resign.

— Third, I intend to ask our new board to inform Microsoft that unless
any alternative transaction can insure a $33 or higher stock price (of
which I am skeptical) all talks of alternative transactions are over.

— Fourth, I will ask our new board to offer publicly to sell Yahoo! to
Microsoft in a friendly and cooperative transaction.

— Fifth, to the extent Microsoft does not want to make a proposal, I will
ask our new board do a deal on search with Google, but only if it
contains termination provisions that would in no way impede a
subsequent acquisition by Microsoft.

Now let me ask you a couple of questions, Roy:

— Why don’t you, now that you have the opportunity, remove the “poison
pill” severance plan that I find to be ridiculous and thereby remove a
major obstacle to a Microsoft acquisition?

— In my opinion, Microsoft does not believe you will ever sell the entire
company on a friendly basis. So why don’t you stop dancing around the
subject and publicly offer to sell the company to Microsoft for $34.375
per share and promise to cooperate completely?

— Why are you still giving hope to Microsoft that there is a possible
“alternative deal”? As long as there is the possibility of an
“alternative deal”, isn’t it obvious that Microsoft will not make a bid
for the whole company?

Sincerely yours,

CARL C. ICAHN

For a whole lot of really good reasons, brands (particularly those with resellers) maintain an ongoing battle to protect their brands. And in the online world, they want to hold search engines accountable. In today’s Searching for Meaning column, “Who Owns the Brand?,” Kevin Ryan notes that even if a group of advertisers did come together and pull their search advertising, all they will really accomplish is losing large amounts of directly accountable revenue by missing placements in top search sites. But Google is going to need the deep-pocketed advertisers currently being alienated by the lack of internal trademark policing. This could be a very large instance of mutual back-scratching, but the outcome will not be decided in court.

» Full story

There seems to be a few cities in Texas that want the online travel industry to ante up millions of dollars in lost tax revenues - and there is a possibility this could move to the other states. Houston and San Antonio - guess Dallas would be next if the decider is towns with NBA teams - have filed suit against online travel companies for not paying the right amount of occupancy taxes dues.

“Hotels in Houston must remit to the city the hotel-occupancy tax of 7 percent, based on the price at which they sell rooms. The city uses the money to promote tourism and to pay off debt for Reliant Stadium, Toyota Center, Minute Maid Park and the Hilton Americas convention hotel”.

‘The city took in more than $57 million in the occupancy taxes in 2007,” a Houston City official told the Houston Chronicle.

“On Tuesday, a federal judge granted San Antonio’s motion for class-action certification in its lawsuit against 16 companies including Hotels.com, Expedia.com, Priceline.com and Orbitz. The San Antonio suit alleges the online companies collect hotel tax at the retail rate but only pay taxes on the bulk wholesale rate they are charged, ” WebProNews reported

Obviously the travel industry is claiming increased costs will have an impact on tourism. That is absolutely true, while the local governement may not collect the taxes and does lose - the money comes in the pockets of those who visit and thus the average spend of the customers will be less. So maybe the local chamber of commerces should think about that and talk to the mayor.

Bookings will be down slightly because of higher prices - even though the prices will just increase across the board so people will not recognize the jump. Either way in a time of high gas prices actions like this will only hurt the travel industry as a whole. There are not many travel agencies left and few would be looking to invest in one right now.

Google Merchant Search has quietly launched as a test program to compare products and services in shopping comparison engine fashion. Google Merchant Search is a test feature, apparently in the UK, and is not available for every search. You may see it when conducting some searches but not others.

Lead gen providers like Bankrate.com in financial services, one of Google’s largest customer segments, can’t be too pleased with Google offering a free service that competes indirectly with theirs.

Our friends over at SearchEngineLand had the story first with “Outing Google Merchant Search” as if GMS were in the closet.

Here’s the view from Google and their FAQ for Google Merchant Search.

What is Google Merchant Search?

Google Merchant Search is an easy new way for you to find products or services from providers who match your needs.

What products or services are supported through Google Merchant Search?

The service is currently only available for secured loans from financial services providers.

How do you choose which providers to show me?

Our search results are based on the criteria you provided in your request; we compare your request with our list of participating providers, and show those that are most relevant for you. Participating providers pay Google when someone requests a quote through this system.

How does Google connect me to the provider?

You submit your contact details and request a time to speak to the provider. A Google operator will call you at the appointed time, then connect you with the provider. Because we do not share your contact information with the provider, they won’t be able to contact you again about your request unless you decide to give then your contact details.

How much does it cost to use Google Merchant?

This service is free for the user (the person searching for services). Please note that when calling the free phone number from a mobile phone, operator or carrier charges may apply.