The founder and CEO of blogsearch Technorati has announced that he's stepping down from his executive position and installing a team of the company's Vice Presidents to serve as President. In his post explaining the move, Mr. Sifrey notes that their search for a replacement CEO has taken longer than anticipated, while others have noted that Technorati has benefited from several influxes of cash and may be headed toward oblivion because latecomer Google has been eating their shorts with a less functional tool.

I've long held that from the outside, Technorati looks like a good acquisition target for Yahoo! because it matches a lot of the criteria they've used in the past and a simple implementation of contextual advertising could be what the doctor ordered. Though I can speak only for myself, but I'd say that one of the big reasons that Technorati's widgets don't litter the web is because there's no back end from the results. Sure, Google hasn't offered an embeddable blogsearch and you're just left with their plain vanilla service, but if you use it or their "search within this site" functionality, the possibility does exist for you to monetize the results with AdSense.

Of course, Yahoo! is also in the business of contextual ads, plus their blogsearch tool was only available for a while and then it disappeared, or at least I can no longer find it. Nonetheless, it wouldn't take much for them to marry advertising to the Technorati widgets, but they have their own problems at this time and though I still think they should consider the purchase, if somebody were to ask me the solution to Yahoo!'s woes, the acquisition of Technorati would be the somewhere around third on my list.

It's still a good idea and the price is obviously ticking down, but since Mr. Sifrey made his announcement another scenario has popped into my head and because they aren't plagued by an infernal internal memo, it may actually be a more realistic option.

( My Suggestion )

When Yahoo! hit the IPO jackpot, they invested a lot of the extra cashflow into other standalone, web startups and as a result, they took a big hit when the bubble burst. The Google IPO has created a lot more liquidity for the younger search company, but they seem to be putting an inordinate amount of their money and effort into questionable in-house ventures which appear to only enhance the brand and which do not provide obvious income opportunities.

Over the past week, two such endeavors have come to light;

• Yesterday, Google announced that the subjects of a news story may now submit a written response and after the author's authenticity is verified, the response will be posted alongside the original story using AJAX, so a new pageview would not be required and no additional advertising would be displayed.
  
  An example of this setup can be found in relation to a story about McDonalds.



• On Monday, Google announced that they'll be recruiting "Business Referral Representatives", who will be independent contractors that will be paid per verified listing for going to local businesses to collect data like phone number and hours of operation, plus take a photo of the business so that this information could be added to Google Maps.
  
  While in contact with these businesses, the contractors, who could be anyone and anywhere are encouraged to talk-up the functionality of Google Maps and Adwords. Though, none of their pay is tied to the contracting for these services. The only way Google would make a return for this effort is if the business were to purchase Adwords and in my opinion, they may get some sales in markets larger than a hundred thousand, but in the smaller cities of this country, Adwords doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for the average brick and mortar business.
  
  For example, if you punch the name of my town, the postal abbreviation for the state and the word "hardware" into Google, the first three listings are from Google: Local. All three of these businesses belong to a national buying cooperative and their phone number and map position are already displayed.
  
  There's the "Ace", the "True Value" and a "Do It Best"; Two of the three do have freestanding websites which lists the kind of data that Google will be collecting, but they're already linked from the initial listing and an additional link to such a limited site would just be redundant. For shopping, specials or price comparisons, all of the businesses redirect to the national chains where the catalog is more extensive and the database is easier to maintain.
  
  If I were the owner of any of these businesses, I don't see how I could justify buying an Adword. My listing already appears at the top of the Google results and though a geographically-targeted Adword would put another link on the page, I don't see how it would benefit me. There's three hardware stores in this town, much like there's three auto parts stores and two laundries. This situation and these numbers are fairly typical for the smaller markets, so why should Google pay somebody up to ten dollars to collect their phone numbers, which are already in Google anyway because of their lookup service?

As a user, I may get some benefit from these efforts, but the hosted responses to news articles raises legal, ethical and competitive questions. I pretty much know what my local hardware stores look like and where they're located, so since the phone numbers are already listed and their hours are a click away, I can't see any value in the second effort for anyone in a small to mid-sized market.

If I were an investor in Google, it may be time to start questioning the reasoning for these and other ventures because I see only limited return, beyond a simple and non-revenue-producing enhancement of the brand.

Though, if I were unemployed and in need of an income, I'd totally bank some of Google's misguided funds.

(Valleywag and Lost Remote contributed links to this post)

As virtually everyone has heard, last week the New York Times and two other newspapers broke a fairly benign story that revealed federal investigators are following the money trail, when it comes to terrorists. I didn't comment on this earlier because for the life of me, I can't see anything too far out of line in the original story. Why wouldn't they monitor the flow of funds? Hasn't this been a part of our arsenal in the Drug War, organized crime and other money laundering investigations for years, if not decades?

In the days following 9/11, we were told that there had been an unusual amount of shorting and put action against the airlines and the insurance companies which were affected by the attacks. Though I didn't really follow the story afterward, a quick search brings up this article from the Chicago Tribune dated September 19th, 2001 which draws attention to the issue and which marks the creation of a task force to aid in the financial investigation.

We've seen testimony on Capital Hill that the post office can't afford to inspect every domestic package shipped, but things originating from outside our borders are given different consideration. When I go to Kroger's and use my frequent shopper card to buy a "participating item", I accumulate points toward an iTune download. This card also keeps up with my purchases of baby and pet items, plus film development and it gives me points toward discounts on a future purchase. Why would anyone expect anything less from an international conglomerate that facilitates global money exchanges?

As Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post and others have pointed out over the past few days, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) has a website, as does the investigative body. They sponsor the largest financial trade show in the world and publish a magazine. SWIFT, a cooperative owned by more than 2,200 organizations and which services over 7,800 financial institutions worldwide makes no secret of their role in interbank communications and their willingness to cooperate with official investigations. Perhaps the most impressive thing that I learned from the piece in the Times, the Belgium group had actually taken steps to pro-actively reduce the scope of the US inquiries.

If all this is known and not a secret, one has to wonder why the administration and their mouthpieces have been batting around words like "treason" and so loudly calling Times to task. I'll admit that though I remember the stuff post-9/11 and I've only assumed that they have remained on the ball, I didn't have a name or direct knowledge of the government's investigative methods. But, I don't have an interest in money-laundering and other than an old company which I considered launching with an English partner and English investors, plus participation in a couple of global money market accounts; I can't say that international money transfers has occupied many of my wakened thoughts. It's just not my business, but I were an international terrorist, I'm sure my priorities would be different and I would've had full knowledge of this non-secret organization and how their structure might effect my efforts.

It's a newspaper's job to investigate and reveal anything that may be of importance which crosses their desk. The only acceptable exception would be if there is real possibility, it could directly put someone's life in danger. Sometimes these stories bear fruit, like the previously revealed NSA wiretapping story or the database of everyone's calling patterns and sometimes they don't amount to much of anything new. To take a step back from the inflammatory idea of national security with another example; Yesterday's Albuquerque Journal had a story below the fold disclosing that Burlington, Northern and Santa Fe Railroad contributed $50,000 to the Democratic Governor's Association, which Bill Richardson is the current chairman. The paper couldn't find any evidence concerning a quid quo pro with the Governor's "train to nowhere" or the "train to the future", however you'd like to look at it and they found that the company had donated similar amounts to both the Democratic and Republican organizations for years and under every chair. This investigation, much like the most recent one undertaken by the New York Times didn't really reveal anything that a random person with an interest couldn't have surmised, but by publishing this information; Freedom was served.

When I first heard that the second richest man was going to give his money to the very richest, it really was all that I could see. Now that they've made the rounds and all three did an extended interview with Charlie Rose, I'll say that I feel slightly better about the decision, but I also can't really see past some of the choices made by the Gates Foundation.

Their pie chart shows that the bulk of their donations have gone to "Global Health", but the overwhelming majority of nickle and dime grants appear to have gone to libraries. I'll say this is a noble gesture because I know of some libraries that have benefited, but I've also heard about places whose applications that may not have been accepted because the donation would not have resulted in the purchase of Microsoft-branded software. I don't know this as the precise reason for some of the rejections, but it is what could be inferred from some of the applications that I know have been refused.

On occasion, I'll have to say that I've taken swipes at both individuals. Warren Buffett is on record as favoring simple, easy to understand investments and I'm somewhat jealous of his ability to effect the market. Most of his wealth has come from the reinvestment of those insurance premiums that I and others pay every month. It's free money that he's turned around and put mostly into old school companies with a straight forward route to profit. I've also never considered Bill to be especially special. I can't really point to any one factor, but his fortune has been built on a degree of ruthlessness, unfair practices, mistakes by his competitors and dumb luck. If IBM had insisted on buying DOS or if Apple hadn't made the blunder of not licensing their OS to clones, Microsoft and Bill Gates would not necessarily be in the driver's seat.

I guess that I can't really fault either of these men for their magnanimous gestures, but I'd hope that we'll see a more strategic plan to be forthcoming. The Gates Foundation is slated to become more wealthy than the gross national product of most nations. They will have the resources to cause real change, but I don't know that Bill Gates has the vision. You have to give him credit for amassing the wealth and for being simple enough for Warren Buffett to understand, but as a citizen of the planet, I can't help but wonder if it's really wise to place so much burden onto his shoulders. Is he really the person whom we'd choose, if our mission was to save the world? Is it just me, or is anyone else wishing that he'd demonstrate more compassion in his day-to-day life and why do I have to wonder if through Mr Buffett's gift, Microsoft may become even more immune to governmental oversight? A seventy billion dollar endowment could go a long ways toward purchasing goodwill and a feeling of indebtedness.

Perhaps you could say that I'm longing for Bono, a bowl full of Bill Clinton and a dash of Ted Turner. Though I can only admire the reality, I wish these people or others of their caliber could have more influence on the result, or that we could hear more of the plan.

In January, the SEC proposed that Hollywood studios and entertainment companies should accurately disclose the top salaries of their non-executive employees (IOW: actors, directors, etc.) and just before the comment period ended, several studios said they would fight the new rule. Now, I haven't been following the story religiously, but most of the press have not been in the studio's favor and several gossip sites joked that some household names would think of it as comparing penis size.

Today, Entertainment Weekly is reporting that star salaries have been coming down as costs have increased and I expect similar stories to appear. To some extent, they may be correct, but also as George Costanza might exclaim; "There's been shrinkage!"

If I'm reading correctly, opening a small to medium-sized Sears Dealer or Associate Store requires an initial investment between $42k and $103k, plus three to six months in operating reserves. Prospective owners are required to have at least $10,000 in cash, along with a positive net worth. While to do a Dunkin Donuts, which could possibly be sold only by territories, you'd be required to have at least $650k in liquid assets and a net worth of at least $1.2 million. To open or buy a single brand, single location Baskin-Robbins licensed by the same parent, prospective owners would need to have at least $125k on hand and a $350k net worth.

I've been watching Carl Icahn's event, where he and his people are outlining his plans to break Time-Warner (formerly AOL-TW) into four separate units. I haven't read the full 350-page report and right this minute, they appear to having database problems on their break-up website, but I've been in favor of re-breaking the company into at least two parts for a couple of years.

Personally, I've always been torn about the company. I've long been a fan of Ted Turner, but I had significant questions when he merged with Time-Warner because of the consolidation of voices. I could see the Steve Case's vision, when he conned the larger company into becoming subservient to his crappy BBS, but either he lost interest or I have always been correct and he's just an idiot. Current management really haven't done a lot, but I don't have the kind of vitriol for Dick Parsons that I just her from Carl Icahn.

I'd like to read the report and I'd like to hear Mr Turner's opinion, but what I found fascinating, possibly even beyond the news value of this dramatic proposal; I'm watching the meeting on Pipeline. Which may just go to prove, the pocketbook will win every time.

In afterhours trading, Google has plunged because they missed analyst's forecasts. Yahoo! faced a similar fate recently, but because Google is so overvalued and overhyped, it has further to fall on a pure dollar basis and average investors may be easier to frighten. Most of what I'm seeing is that the slide will probably continue into or through tomorrow.

The number of shares sold short has been decreasing, but that's because past performance has forced many to cover. Based on Yahoo!'s recent "miss", it's a pretty good bet that the shorts have been jumping back onboard and a quick glance at the message boards show that the screamers are in place to try and shake it, further down. Perhaps, if we wait a couple of days, Google will no longer be worth more than every newspaper combined, or be the nation's 25th largest company based on market capitalization.

Revenues and profits increased. Everything taking place is based on the "miss". The company and it's stockholders are getting hit for not living up to somebody else's expectations. Though in the end, the whole exercise could define the firmness of it's body.

When Bob Iger was first named to succeed Micheal Eisner, I posted how I was a member of the Roy Disney camp and couldn't think of another public figure with the imagination to replace Uncle Walt, other than Steve Jobs. As you are undoubtedly aware, the deal was just finalized between Pixar and Disney which makes Mr Jobs their largest stockholder and gives him a seat on the board.

We know he has Roy's support and many of those for whom he speaks. If you wanted my advice and please keep in mind that I've had mixed results and a vested interest, so take it for what it's worth; But, you might want to wait for the initial euphoria to settle and the shorts to cover, plus see what kind of public statements are made, then buy Disney on a lull. If and more likely when, they either tire of Bob Iger or find a price to buy him out, my money would be for Steve Jobs to move into the corner office and it'll go again.

A newsbreak this morning ended on a lighter note with a story about a Nebraska jewelry store, who is trying to attract male shoppers this holiday season by offering free pizza and beer. When I found a link to a print story, I learned that the particular jewelry store is owned by Warren Buffett's company. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a video, but the tape showed a bunch of guys drinking.

Last night, I saw several ads for holiday shopping at Kay Jewelers. I couldn't help, but think back to a recent conversation and some research materials I've read about the price of gold. If you aren't aware, gold is near a twenty-four year high. The price has been on an upward slope for a while. It started around the time of the last stock market crash and oil prices, currency and inflation fears, plus a bevy of "end-of-the-worlders" have kept it climbing. According to some recent reports, short squeeze is also having an effect.

When I saw the ad and because I'm in the midst of Christmas shopping, I wondered about the price of jewelry. I'll admit that I haven't been in a store and have no intention of buying a bauble, but if I were in the market; I kind of think it'd take more than pizza and beer.