And now we know why they call them "Yahoos"... and also why Yahoo has been struggling for years.

She should just get the message and start a blog for Yahoo called "Barefoot and Pregnant."

Nefarious took my comment. No wonder google's kicking their asses and taking their lunch money. True story, I interviewed an ex Y! and when I asked the person's leadership style, the person said, "Oh, I'd NEVER want to be like Jack Welch."

I see sir. And you are proud of this?

Penelope, I believe you had a juicy discrimination case vs. ol' Biz 2.0. I hope you got paid at least semi-mightily.

They never would have fired her if it weren't for her great hair.

@NefariousNewt: I don't get it. So if they kept the low-performing job blog, the company would rise to the stars? If Penelope believes she deserves big bucks for this content, she should get a blogspot account and put up AdSense.

Um, is it now automatically discrimination to suggest a Lifestyles section job to any female journalist? Maybe the boss in question knew there was an opening there? Or thought the CPM would be better there, to both the writers' and the company's benefit?

Would it have been better to just say, "sorry, your column isn't performing well enough; I have no suggestions for another place"?

Why is this so surprising? Y! has been in the midst of some major restructuring over the last 5 months. They're just cutting fat wherever it can be found - and trust me a columnist who draws .83 cents for every 1200 page views is gonna get trimmed off the bone like PRONTO!

Um. She has a really popular blog that she makes a lot of money from:

[blog.penelopetrunk.com]

@ CK209
This seems like a good time to say that I do have a blog, and I support a family of four with it. You should check it out:

[blog.penelopetrunk.com]

@ck209: Low-performing? What makes you think it was low-performing? Because the big Yahoos said so? I think they manufactured an excuse... because the comments made afterward lead me to believe that it was their intention to force her out of the company. That's the only viable explanation for such a callous statement.

I haz a blog. Let me show u it.

A blog's performance is relative, and trying to make money from a centrally managed content play, for a company the size of Yahoo!, is a bad idea.

The purpose of the above post is to tell us that (maybe? please!?) Yahoo! is starting to figure this out and restructure their way out from being an internet business driven by organic demand and not by "Central Committee". Regardless of the talents and prophetic abilities of any such committee, you make money online by helping people read what they want to read, and not by telling them what they should read.

What was my point again?
Anyways, can't see what Trunk is kvetching about. She lost her job, it makes sense, she'll get a better job. Long live the market.

Seriously, the suggestion Yahoo made was a good one. Her "career advice" is terrible, and anyone who follows it would likely be unemployed soon (if not on the outs with their bosses). Plus, she infuses a lot of what she writes with pointless drivel about her failing marriage and lack of a sex life (don't believe me? Check out her blog archives on her own site).

Her column is an example of how easy it is to be called a "guru" these days, and how little background you actually need to back it up.

@PenelopeTrunk: Re-reading my comment, it looks like a personal attack towards you. I apologize. My comment was targeted towards NN's broad extrapolations on what this event means for YHOO.

@PenelopeTrunk: You support a family of four from a blog with only one ad, that being for your book? You give me faith in the model of blog as portfolio.

@NefariousNewt: Yeah, because companies always fire their top performers. Keep up the conspiracy theories.

@DonV: If she's a top performer, then where do they get off saying that her column is dragging down the rest of the financial content?
You're saying one column about career management is going to fell Yahoo Finances's mighty profits? And why the snide comment about the Lifestyles section? If she's a top performer, why dump her in a less profitable area? More importantly, what does her career management have to do with lifestyles?

Before commenting, take some time to ask some critical questions about the whole scenario. Yahoo has been plunging down a cliff for a while, precisely because of back-handed management like this, and frankly until they get rid of dead-weight like this in management, the plunge isn't going to slow down.

@NefariousNewt: I wasn't saying she was a top performer, I was being sarcastic.

Why should a company keep someone on board in an area where they are obviously underperforming and disliked? After reading some of her articles, it seems obvious to me that offering her a position in lifestyles was about the nicest thing they could do.

I'm not disputing that Yahoo is going downhill, but this was a good move.

I read some of her stuff this morning. It's actually quite interesting. Still, if she manages to feed for people from her blog, perhaps Yahoo! should offer her a position in Biz Dev.

This is the woman who suggests losing weight to advance your career. Uh, maybe a bit better suited to lifestyle advice?