Valleywag: New York Post

New York Post's desperate bid for Google relevance keys on ... "Rachel Marsden"?

Owen Thomas — Thu, 29 May 2008 09:20:00 PDT

Google has turned us all into monetizable micromarkets. An ad for everyone, and everyone in an ad. the New York Post is now advertising against the keyword "Rachel Marsden" on Google to attract readers. If you're asking "Marsden who?", then you've gotten the point already. Marsden, the Canadian political commentator (and Valleywag commenter), is best known for having been dumped by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales on Wikipedia. Current Post readers are no doubt more interested in her reportedly unceremonious exit from the Fox News show Red Eye. What this ad buy tells us: That the Post thinks it can profit from attracting the small number of people who have heard enough about Marsden to search on her name. And that if Marsden is worth advertising against in Google's frictionless marketplace, every last one of us is next.

Will Gawker start buying "Julia Allison" ads, to cement its ownership of that unhappy subject? Will Valley entrepreneurs buy their own names as keywords, to prevent rivals from doing so? Will we all eventually pay a tax to Google — advertise our side of the story, or let others tell us for it? All intriguing. While you muse over that, I'm going to start pricing out "Jason Calacanis" ads.

How to read a tabloid newspaper

Nicholas Carlson — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:20:00 PDT

Tabloid newspapers are alien to the Valley. A scandal sheet like the New York Post rarely covers tech — and those are the only days you read it. We understand that it's jarring. Here's how to decode the Post's recent report on Microsoft's attempt to cobble together a Yahoo board.

The Post:

Microsoft has been so cagey about the candidates it plans to nominate to Yahoo!'s board that speculation is mounting that the software giant actually doesn't have anyone lined up.

The invisible footnote: Our once-cooperative sources at Microsoft don't see any reason to keep us updated on negotiations. Here's a reason: Talk or we'll make up things and call it "speculation." We won't make up nice things.

The Post:

The word on Wall Street and in technology circles is that the Redmond, Wash.-based company has had a list of candidates drawn up since early March, but that the company is having difficulty getting people to sign on.

The invisible footnote: See? Because you haven't told us anything, everything is a possibility! Guess which possibilities we're going to emphasize.

The Post:

The deal is seen as a make or break deal for Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, who has staked both his reputation and the company's ability to do battle with Web titan Google.

The invisible footnote: Seen by whom? New York Post readers, now. Some of them on work on Wall Street!

The Post:

Other sources familiar with the matter dispute that Microsoft is having trouble putting its slate together, noting that the company has signed up 10 board candidates and two alternates and is ready to pull the trigger on nominating them if and when it has to

The invisible footnote: Microsoft PR people spoke to us, but refused to have their comments attributed and wouldn't give us the board members' names — so we'll just report that they don't have any, and bury their spin at the bottom of the article.

The Ashley Dupre photos you couldn't find online

Paul Boutin — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:27:04 PDT

Score another one for Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, which nabbed exclusive photos of outgoing Governor Spitzer's $4,300 date. (Click the thumbnail for a bigger, better look.) It's hip to hate on the Post, as Gawker's Alex Pareene does here. But admit it: If the same pics had turned up first on Digg, you'd all be tripping over yourselves to declare it a victory for social something-or-other 2.0. Me, I wanna know if the Post is hiring.

Why the Facebook deal is about more than money

Owen Thomas — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:55:59 PDT

So typical for New Yorkers to think that everything comes down to money. The New York Post's late-to-the-game article on Facebook this morning had just one interesting, unreported tidbit among the rehash: The stakes in Microsoft and Google's race to invest have been raised to as high as $1.5 billion — or 10 percent of the company, valuing it at $15 billion. Frankly, I'm skeptical. While Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg would be stupid not to take all the money he can off the table, his outside investors — a list which includes Peter Thiel, Sean Parker, and Accel Partners — don't want their stakes diluted that much. Selling off that large a chunk of Facebook would shrink their collective holdings — as much as 27 percent of the company, we hear — down to less than a quarter. That's just one reason why money doesn't matter as much as the Wall Street set would have you believe.

Rather, money does matter, but not in the way the Post thinks. As important as the upfront investment is, the terms of a separate agreement to carry ads are just as vital. And the devil here is in the details. Facebook rightly fears that giving Google access to its ad inventory would let it learn the secrets of targeting ads to social networks. Microsoft, on the other hand, is far less likely to figure things out.

Microsoft, however, has the lion's share of Facebook's U.S. banner-ad inventory through 2011. It's a deal that is lucrative in the short term for Facebook, but will handicap it in the long run.

But I think Facebook's figuring a way around it. The simple way, of course, is to take Microsoft's money and restucture the advertising deal to make Microsoft a backstop to Facebook's own ad efforts. As Facebook's own ad sales grow, Microsoft's presence on the site will slowly dwindle. I suspect Facebook is seeking similar terms for Google on international ads, so it doesn't make the same mistake it did with Microsoft.

And if that doesn't work?

Facebook recently trademarked "SocialAds," reportedly the name for the system it plans to unveil in New York next month. While Facebook is growing fast, the name of the game in online advertising is running a network. AOL has Advertising.com; Google has AdSense; and Yahoo has its Yahoo Publishers Network. By selling ads on other websites, these players expand their reach, gather more data on which ads are effective, and make better use of their salespeople.

Even if it doesn't wrestle back control of its U.S. ad inventory from Microsoft, and even if it lets Google sell international ads on its behalf, I bet that Facebook will start selling ads on other websites, targeting the users of those sites based on their activity on Facebook. It doesn't need to share private data with those independent publishers to do so; it can just serve up the ads, charge higher rates for better targeting, and lure those websites out of the giants' grasp.

In theory, of course. Facebook's advertising technology is young and untested. And to test it, it needs data; to get data, it needs ad inventory. That's why the Post botched this story. Facebook has a hard choice: Cold, hard cash upfront, or a chance at Google-like riches down the road. It's not as simple as just cashing a big check — even though that's the only kind of story East Coast media seems to understand.

Who am I and why am I here?

Evelyn Nussenbaum — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:53:03 PDT

I'm Evelyn Nussenbaum. It's not an existential question. But in case you're wondering where the lovely and talented Owen Thomas has gone, the answer is Hawaii. With his spouse. Leaving me to fill his extremely large (but stylish) shoes. So who am I? The short answer is that I am a refugee from the late, great Business 2.0 Magazine—ok the October issue is coming out, but it's the last one. This is a collector's item, people! But my stint at the New York Post is probably the most relevant to Valleywag. OK, I was a business reporter, but I sat next to Keith Kelly and across from the King of All Gossip Columnists Richard Johnson—something must have rubbed off. I'll report, you decide. And you don't need to see a picture of me—I look fabulous, especially sitting here in my pj's.

Loose Wires: Crash a VC party tonight

Nick Douglas — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:04:01 PDT

Sources say venture capital firm Bridgescale is throwing a party for over 100 people at the Quadrus conference center on Sand Hill Road.
Note to Alleywag applicants: We found writers for Friday and Sunday, thanks!
Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen sells a chunk of his share in Dreamworks Animation, giving the New York Post a chance to drag up the worst possible photo of him (shown here), even worse than the shot of Yahoo CEO Terry Semel they rant the other day. Really, are they paying a kid with a camphone to sneak into meetings with these execs, or are they just blowing up 16x16 images? [New York Post]
By the way, if you haven't been watching Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder is spending his days saving the world from AIDS. In other news, Mac fanboys still call him a devil because he built a crappy operating system. [Sci-Tech Today]
Another Microsoft exec leaves to "spend more time with his family." Can we get a new alibi already, or has no one in tech actually learned to spend time with their families before they get unpopular at work and are shoved into retirement? [Register]
No tech mogul for prez — Nextel cofounder and former Virginia governor Mark Warner announced today he won't enter the '08 race. [Washington Post]
Dear Motley Fool: Shut up and eat your Grand Slam. [Motley Fool]

The Post camera adds ten pounds

Nick Douglas — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:16:56 PDT

Why's it so great that the New York Post gave writer Sam Gustin a weekly tech column? Because only the Post can dig up the cruddiest image of its subjects, like Yahoo CEO — sorry, "Yahoo boss" — Terry Semel. A tabloid after my own heart.

REALTY BITES FOR YAHOO! [NY Post]

New York Post prints new YouTube self-valuation and old just-got-laid founder photo

Nick Douglas — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:11:42 PDT

The New York Post's tech writer (last seen stalking a Google founder's girlfriend) has Hard! Hitting! News! about YouTube:

INTERNET upstart YouTube, the bane-du-jour of copyright holders everywhere, won't sell itself for anything less than $1.5 billion, The Post has learned.

That's not even an offer, that's the kind of figure you throw out to stop anyone bothering to buy you. Founder Chad Hurley's been saying for months that he's not selling YouTube.

Now the potential buyers play a game of "oh-yeah-well-we-don't-care." A "senior industry source" told the Post, "If they were willing to take $200 million to $300 million, I would buy it tomorrow." Oh man, YouTube got served.

Grr, now I gotta add both to the YouTube valuation voodoo graph.

YouTube's got a fat idea of itself [NY Post]