The most famous search engine in the world, Google (NASDAQ: GOOG), reported third-quarter numbers on Thursday after the market closed for the day. They were pretty good, all things considered. But hold on before buying the stock. Let's get to the data first.
Google saw its top line increase over 30% to $5.5 billion. On an adjusted basis, earnings per share came in at $4.92 per diluted share. That was good for only a 6% rise in the bottom line, but it did handily beat analyst estimates. According to this source, expectations were for $4.75 per share. Even better, net cash from operations soared just about 34% to roughly $2.2 billion. There's no question that Google has a good advertising model with its search-based technology. Indeed, Google is an innovative leader and a major brand on the Internet. It offers an efficient way for advertisers to target users who might be interested in their products. And it's true that an advertiser can see what it's getting for its investment. Even competing against big guns such as Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT), Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO), and Time Warner's (NYSE: TWX) AOL, Google more than holds its own (although I'd really like to see management make better use of its expensive YouTube acquisition -- check out this article by Sheldon Liber on the subject).
Today might have been one of the more boring options expiration dates. If you pretend that technology stocks weren't a part of the market, today was rather stable considering the major bounces we have seen. Oil stayed under $129.00 per barrel, which didn't give the bears much meat to chew on. We had essentially no government economic data today. Here are today's unofficial closing levels:
Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) is set report earnings after the close of trading. Read a FULL EARNINGS PREVIEW. Shares of Apple were down over 3% at $166.10 in today's final minutes of trading.
First, shares rose this morning as investors gave a thumbs up to Chief Executive Jeff Bewkes' plan to dispose of the media conglomerate's cable television business. Then, they fell after the earnings conference call. Perhaps investors were expecting news on a deal for AOL. Otherwise, the parent of CNN, Time magazine and Warner Brothers posted mediocre quarterly results (pdf).
"We've decided that a complete structural separation of Time Warner Cable Inc. (NYSE: TWC), under the right circumstances, is in the best interests of both companies' shareholders, Bewkes said in the earnings release. "We're working hard on an agreement with Time Warner Cable, which we expect to finalize soon."
The general sentiment is that online advertising is immune from the travails of the economy (obviously, this ignores the depression for the category in the wake of the dot-com bust). The argument is that the consumers' "eyeballs" are moving more to Web-based media.
No doubt, this is true. But, this doesn't mean advertisers won't still get skittish.
As a result, eMarketer is toning down its forecast for online ad spending in 2008. Instead of coming to $27.5 billion, the revised figure is now $25.8 billion.
OK, that doesn't sound like much. However, it could be brutal for many companies (especially small ones that rely heavily on ad spending).
Oh, and social networking sites may come under pressure too. Simply put, these sites are having a tough time getting people to click on ads (even though there are many "eyeballs").
Something else: eMarketer's revision shows how fragile the economy has become. In other words, things can certainly get worse -- and quickly.
Israeli start-up Eyeblaster announced that it has filed a prospectus for an IPO, and though not in the filing, it is believed that it is looking to raise an amount north of $100 million. Eyeblaster operates in the field of online advertising, developing technologies to manage online campaigns.
This is a space that saw seen some big acquisitions recently. Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) bought aQuantive for around $6 billion, and Google (NASDAQ: GOOG), bought DoubleClick for over $3 billion. Eyeblaster has some big customers, two of them are particularly interesting. Both Yahoo (NASDAQ: YHOO) and Time Warner (NYSE: TWX)'s AOL are customers as well as players in this space.
With online advertising growth rates slowing, there is a big need to optimize marketing campaigns, and that is why we have seen consolidation in the industry. Everyone is gunning to take market share from Google and Microsoft. The planned Eyeblaster IPO will raise the stakes even higher, as it will use the money raised to continue to grow both its business and its product suite. If Eyeblaster succeeds, don't be surprised to see an AOL or Yahoo acquisition of Eyeblaster in the near future.
Aaron Katsman is the lead Portfolio Manager and Managing Director of America Israel Investment Associates, LLC. and Senior Editor of IsraelNewsletter.com. DISCLOSURE: Writer's fund has no position in any stock mentioned, as of 3/12/08.
Only eight months old, the Rubicon Project has already raised roughly $21 million. In fact, today the company announced its latest infusion: $15 million. The investors include: Mayfield Fund, IDG Ventures Asia, Stanford University, University of California Berkeley, Matt Coffin (founder and former CEO of LowerMyBills.com) and Clearstone Venture Partners.
Essentially, the Rubicon Project helps companies manage the complexities of online advertising networks. The system is getting lots of traction, with more than 3,000 websites signing up.
"We are seeing huge demand," said Frank Addante, CEO and Founder, in an interview with me on Friday. "Customers also want a way to benefit from advertising networks in global markets."
I asked Frank about the concerns of a slowdown in online advertising (especially in light of the cloudy economy in the U.S.). His take? Well, he is not seeing a slowdown. "I experienced the downturn in 2001," said Addante. "That was mostly the result of dot-coms running out of money. As of now, things are different because it's traditional companies that are buying online advertising."
Interestingly enough, the genesis of the Rubicon Project's funding came from Frank's trip to Hawaii – which he wrote about it in his blog.
Many top players, such as Google (NASDAQ: GOOG), Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO), and Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT), want to get a piece of the local online sector. But it hasn't been easy.
There are a myriad of smaller players trying to get an edge as well. One up and comer is Yodle, which recently announced that it has raised $12 million in venture capital. The investors include Draper Fisher Jurvetson and Bessemer Venture Partners.
Yodle offers a platform that allows small businesses to purchase local online ads. Keep in mind that roughly 63% of consumers now use the internet to search for local businesses.
So what makes Yodle different? Well, the company has made it possible to measure the return on investment for ad campaigns. For small businesses, this is certainly a big deal. For example, Yodle claims that a $1 ad spend can result in an $8 return.
If true, I can see why a small business wouldn't pass on this kind of thing.
Interested in more cool venture capital deals? Visit DealProfiles.com.
Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer told an audience yesterday that the world's largest software company won't stop supplying its online services with cash in light of continued losses from that business unit -- for fear of ceding the race to rivals. In other words, Microsoft won't close its billion-dollar checkbook and give the world of online advertising and services to Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG).
Is Microsoft this afraid of Google, or does it see a fundamental shift of services moving from the desktop software program Microsoft owns (like Microsoft Word) to web-based replacement services? Or, does Microsoft just want a larger piece of the advertising revenue from web search -- an area that Google dominates completely and where it has made all its money? It's a little bit of both.
Don't put anything past Microsoft, I say. The company in some ways looks like a laggard, but it has the cash (net of a tiny amount of debt) to do anything it wants. Google's cash pile is growing tall as well, so although the Microsoft-Google debate will rage on, both companies will continue sparring inside the field of internet advertising. Both have the fortitude and cash to square off for a long, long time. Ballmer is no wimp by any means, and in 10 years we could have an internet ruled by both companies if this punch-counterpunch competitive strategy continues as it has. Someone call Evander Holyfield and Mike Tyson, please.
Unlike conventional ad delivery companies that track your choices when you log onto a site that is part of its network, NebuAd takes the concept one frightening step further, tracking your browsing via your internet service provider (ISP).
The difference? Think of the typical ad delivery system as a lookout that spots you when you pull into the parking lot of the mall, who then alerts all the merchants that you've arrived, so they can put up the appropriate displays for your tastes.
In this analogy, NebuAd would be a guy staking out your house, ready to tail you, or your children, wherever you go, reporting your comings and goings to anyone willing to pay for the information.
The company claims that it aggregates and anonymizes the information such that it can't be misused, a claim that I view with great skepticism. As the FTC probes privacy issues and internet advertising, this company will probably serve as the stalking horse. If it's allowed to thrive, there will be little left to defend.
Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) recently trading up $15.29 to $609.20.
GOOG is expected to report earnings per share (EPS) on October 18th. GOOG October at the money 580 straddle is priced at $32.10. GOOG October option implied volatility of 38 is above its 26-week average of 27 according to Track Data, suggesting larger risk.
The Gap Inc. (NYSE: GPS) CEO Glenn Murphy hosted a meeting with analysts on October 5th.
Smith Barney says "Mr. Murphy is focused on making the company gets an adequate return on its investments. This includes a focus on the expense of the business. We suspect there will be continued focus on moderating the cost structure and assessing various cost components, including marketing. We think the real estate portfolio is under review." GPS over all option implied volatility of 31 is near its 26-week average according to Track Data, suggesting flat price risk.
Daily options Update is provided by Stock Specialist Paul Foster of theflyonthewall.com.
Hey, just based on my own browsing, I'm not seeing many mortgage banners. So should we be worried?
I had a chance to interview Frank Addante, who is a veteran of the online advertising world. He sold one of his companies to DoubleClick and his latest gig is The Rubicon Project.
Are big-time newspapers going to survive the instant news rush and immediate availability of the internet?
That question gets bandied around so much every day that some tennis balls would be jealous. But, just like other businesses that continue to be upended by the freedom of the internet, newspapers seem particularly vulnerable. The New York Times is losing readers, other big papers hide content behind "paid access" models on their own websites when anyone can get local and national news on laptops, cellphone screens and any other net-connected device, most often for free.
What do newspapers have left to contribute? A lot, actually -- but not morphing with the times is going to be the downfall of many of them. Newspapers will have to give their content away for free to survive (say some), and in return for losing that revenue, they'll have to get with it in terms of online advertising. Ask Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) about this, as the company owns a billion-dollar empire based on that very principle.
As subscribers (paid ones, mind you) leave in droves, what's to become of many newspaper publishers that rehash the same AP wire stories, mix in local color and commentary and pass off this combo to increasingly leery customers? Some will go the way of the dinosaur unless change is made, as in now. Others, like the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, will most likely figure out how to strike a fine balance of excellent, journalistic content and advertising support behind that content.
For others, what value is left to add to the newspaper business that the internet (like Google News) can't destroy? That's the billion-dollar question for the next decade or so. The days of loading up on wire stories while eliminating local, original content to save money are over, and smart publishers knew it years ago. The ones battling with that concept now are already in a world of hurt. Some don't even know it.
The Wall Street Journal [subscription required] reports that Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT), hoping to bolster its legal challenge, is now paying a PR firm to drum up public opposition to Google Inc.'s (NASDAQ: GOOG) $3.1 billion deal to acquire online advertising firm, DoubleClick. Microsoft hired PR firm Burson-Marsteller to drum up opposition to Google's DoubleClick deal. In Europe, Burson urged Internet companies to sign an online petition for a more "transparent and competitive Internet," according to the pitches.
Why does Microsoft oppose the deal and why is it hiding behind Burson? Microsoft does not want Google to strengthen its competitive position in the online advertising industry -- and DoubleClick, which serves online display advertisements, would surely help Google expand its online advertising dominance. Microsoft has been hiding behind Burson in Europe because it has just lost a European Court upheld a ruling that found Microsoft had abused its near-monopoly position in PC computer software.
The irony of Microsoft's efforts to block competition through the courts and the media was not lost on the Journal. In the 1990s, Bill Gates enjoyed tweaking competitors which similar tactics by rivals as it cemented its own power in personal-computer software, and those efforts factored into its run-ins with antitrust regulators.
But current Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer lacks Gates' competitive chops, so he's struggling to use the means of a second rate competitor against the market leader, Google. Those clumsy means will only make Microsoft look bad.
Rupert Murdoch all but said that he would take his new prize, The Wall Street Journal, and offer it online for free, even though he would be giving up almost one million paid online subscribers and about $50 million in revenue.
Murdoch is probably looking at the nearly $400 million that The New York Times (NYSE: NYT) says it will do through its online editions this year. According to Nielsen Net/Ratings, nytimes.com has more than 13 million unique visitors. WSJ.com has closer to 5 million.
Murdoch has hinted that he will add reporting on national and international news to the Journal's financial coverage. That would give him the opportunity to do real damage to the Times and potentially go after much of its consumer advertising revenue base. With internet advertising revenue at newspaper sites still rising at close to 20% a year, Murdoch is after a pot of money that The New York Times Company must know will be close to $750 million three years from now.
It's hard to make sense of what market analysts do sometimes. The stock prices of companies can swoon and sway based on analysts who can be 1) mostly incorrect about the prospects for covered companies, 2) dismal in their track records of earnings predictions and 3) falling into a pattern of some other weird alternative like market influence. I'm not saying all are that way, but some sure seem like it. When Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) has a fantastic quarter but misses over-inflated earnings projections just a tiny amount, the stock price plummets (only to recover shortly thereafter). What is the point? To some, analysts run the market.
The same thing happened to AOL, a division of Time Warner, Inc. (NYSE: TWX). The company that owns this blog performed a fast and well-timed turnaround last year from a subscription-based model to an advertising-based model and the bet paid off from many perspectives. Of course, some analysts thought an immediate gratification of revenue from ad sources would befall AOL the first day this switch started happening. Unless things can be changed 'on a dime,' that generally never happens. Nevertheless, I consider AOL's strategy to morph into an ad-based revenue model to have worked pretty darn well in such a short period of time.
Alas, the double-digit ad revenue growth predictions by AOL execs, which turned into a few quarters of 40% ad revenue growth, set the stage for later disappointment. Although AOL's advertising revenue was less than expected for the second quarter that was reported on August 1st, it still went up a healthy 16%.
The most famous search engine in the world, Google (NASDAQ: GOOG), reported third-quarter numbers on Thursday after the market closed for the day. They were pretty good, all things considered. But hold on before buying the stock. Let's get to the data first.
Investors don't know what to make of 
The general sentiment is that online advertising is immune from the travails of the economy (obviously, this ignores the depression for the category in the wake of the dot-com bust). The argument is that the consumers' "eyeballs" are moving more to Web-based media.
and 
. He also operates 
Only eight months old, 
Many top players, such as 
11-18 note: see 
Google Inc
In a recent piece on C/NET, there's some chatter that the mortgage mess will 
Are big-time newspapers going to survive the instant news rush and immediate availability of the internet? 
The 
Rupert Murdoch all but said that he would take his new prize, 
Closing Bell: Stocks slump as AMD, AT&T, GM and Merck decline
Global Q&A: A rocky road, but profits ahead
Could oil go as low as $40?
