A truck load of guns and some followers to boot

It isn't just the Democrats and the fans of Barack Obama who are getting excited about  Twitter the Republicans are at it as well.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal at a recent debate, the candidates to become chairman of the Republican National Committee were asked whether they have any followers. Just to be clear, the person asking the question was not talking about followers back at the compound, but on Twitter – this was of course after they had let people know the important statistics – like how many guns they owned.

Were you expecting a hushed silence? Anything but, Michael Steele, a former lieutenant governor of Maryland, was a little vague, but "Last time I checked, " he said, "300 to 400". Maybe it was his PA who checked.

Another candidate, the paper reported, Katon Dawson, chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, said he would have been Twittering just then, but explained: "I'm just not doing it today because you told us we couldn't."

We all know it's a game of one upmanship. How many posts have you read on Twitter that start "Wow, just got my 500/1000 follower" and Republicans are just the same.

Ken Blackwell, a former secretary of state of Ohio, came out with: "I do Twitter, but let me just say I have 4,000 friends on Facebook, which is probably more than these two guys put together, but who's counting?"

But Ken Facebook is so then, it's not very now (says moi with a paltry 120 friends or the abouts…).

The WSJ reports that after getting its butt digitally kicked in the 2008 US Presidential election (to be fair they still got 46% of the vote), the Republican Party is taking a close look at what it does online and has made "winning the technology war with the Democrats" the No. 1 priority.

This started straight after the election with a Republican party technology consultant starting a site devoted to getting Republicans on Twitter. So far, so far to go.

According to a report on the Hill Republican members of Congress have slowly increased their use of the Twitter, with some Tweeting directly and some being moderated by their staffs. According to the website TweetCongress.org, which tracks lawmakers' Twitter feeds, 29 Republican members are on Twitter, compared to 16 Democrats and one Independent: Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

Overall, around 168 RNC voting-members use Twitter. Both parties have a way to go, but for it to work you need to have the big players involved and actively selling the technology. That's just not the case.

The WSJ revealed in the piece how Mike Duncan, the incumbent RNC chairman up for re-election, was bushwhacked in a recent interview with conservative talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt about the technology gap between the GOP and the Democrats.

After Mr. Duncan, 57, called the gap a "big myth," Mr. Hewitt pressed him.

"Are you on Twitter, by the way, Mike Duncan?" asked Hewitt, himself a heavy Twitterer.

"I do not Twitter," Duncan replied.

Duncan said he did not like to be distracted by Twitter. Mike, I have to tell you I know that problem also.  

Follow me on Twitter

Virgin virals and bloggy legal suits

Virgin is having a strange PR week. First the speculation that the "best letter of complaint ever" is a viral and now a legal suit against ad blog Adrants over a spoof Hudson river crash ad. Is any of that good PR

According to Agency Spy, Virgin America is suing Adrants in the federal court over a spoof ad featuring a picture of the downed US Airways Airbus with the copy: "The Hudson Crash: Just One More Reason to Fly Virgin."

It's alright as spoofs go, kind of obvious (easy to say after the fact, granted), but not earth shattering. Maybe it’s a little in bad taste? Maybe. But the thing is it would have passed pretty much without notice until Virgin got all legal gorilla on Adrants and now the spoof ad is all over the web. We've all seen it and we all know that Virgin is getting mean.

Weird thing is Virgin is always doing spoof ads of its own. It ran for instance the Eliot Spitzer and Hillary Clinton themed ads last year. It usually has a fine sense of humour as brands go. So what's that about?

Apparently it wasn't the picture so much as the copy that offended Virgin. The copy sort of implied that the brand was good at turning ugly situations to its own advantage. The Spitzer ad is just that.

Virgin asked Adrants to take it down. The blog's editor, Angela Natividad, responded by adding this above the post: "UPDATE: Clearly, this ad is fake. A spoof. Virgin America has confirmed this. We were always suspect from the get go and didn't mean to mislead or misrepresent. So we'll clearly state now: the ad is a spoof. It's not real. Virgin America had nothing to do with its creation."

Oh hindsight. It's at that moment you take it down as the clarification was not enough for Virgin who wanted it deleted. I was in this mess myself recently and, well, it is quite scary when lawyers from large corporation send you emails and demand you call them back urgently (tip: leaving your phone on voicemail doesn't really help). At BR we deleted said post immediately and that was it.

Virgin America is suing for punitive damages and fees. That could get expensive. It is a ridiculous suit, clearly Virgin is trying to scare other blogs and websites to ensure people do not post this kind of material again. It could also put the little independent Adrants out of business. Shame.

Which brings us to the "best letter of complaint ever". Well that's what people are calling it. Personally, it goes on and on a little too long for me – I mean who has six pages of complaint in them? Not me.

But that is not to attract from the achievement of Oli Beale at WCRS who wrote the letter. Stand-up job Oli. You're like a web star. Question here though is the letter genuine? I mean really?

It has been so widely covered, spreading across the online world earlier this week and now today it appears as a double page spread in the Sun.

Beale has said it is not a viral. Hmmm. Maybe. Against it being a viral is that the impression it leaves you with is not totally a positive one.

In favour of it being a viral is that it feels like a joke waiting a punch line. I mean everyone knows airport food sucks, which has given rise to the rumour that Virgin is about to sign a top chef. Or something.

Also against it being genuine is that the timing is too good coming as it does in Virgin Atlantic's 25th anniversary. I'm guessing we will know soon enough one way of another.

Vote in BR's poll - Is Oli Beale's six-page letter of complaint giving Virgin Atlantic good PR?

Follow me on Twitter

Martin Sorrell with a dog in Switzerland. No seriously.

We've been sent a picture of Sir Martin Sorrell, the WPP chief executive, at the 2009 World Economic Forum in Davos with a St Bernard dog. Oh and an Obama beanie. This is a picture caption competition waiting to happen - please let's be having your suggestions.

I should say, (as if you couldn't work it out) that the pic is in support of the Financial Times and its Davos coverage. The St Bernard is apparently "heroically emerging from an alpine storm, demonstrating the role played by the Financial Times in these challenging times and importance of reliable, accurate news, comment and analysis". Got it?
 
Sorrell is also blogging for FT.com from Davos, alongside guest bloggers including foreign secretary David Miliband, and Sir Howard Davies, LSE head as part of the FT’s coverage.   

Anyway so captions?

Follow me on Twitter

Thanks for following

Brand Republic has racked up more than 1,000 followers on Twitter, which is a mini landmark for us. Thank you.

The uptake in Twitter over the past couple of weeks has rocketed, both for BR and the wider world. In the last two weeks alone BR added 300 followers - it sort of helps when you have celebs like Jonathan Ross and Stephen Fry (celeb Twitterer in chief) beings so enthusiastic about it all. Thanks to you all. We're trying to follow most people back, it seems only fair.

It's is going to be very interesting to see exactly how big the Twittersphere becomes. For a site like Brand Republic having a good Twitter feed is going to be important. So much more so IMHO than say a Facebook group. Facebook groups came, grew quickly and then? Well, yeah, then there was the "what next?" bit. Still figuring that one out.

We're also trying not to be all bot with our Twitter feed and will endeavour do live Twittering as well mixed in with our news coverage. We'll post when our bloggers have put new material up as well.

Like everyone else, this is still one big on going experiment (so we'll experiment), but we've already learnt a few things along the way. Personally, I like Twitter because it is social and fun, but it is "mostly" work related and it is that "mostly" that makes it valuable.

If anyone has any suggestions for Twitter activity let us know, but we'll definitely try to Twitter interesting stuff when we're out and about and any breaking news we hear on top of our regular RSS like news feed.

We'll also try to interact, retweet stuff we like and reply to any direct messages you might send us.

Follow Brand Republic on Twitter

Follow Gordon MacMillan on Twitter.

BBC made right call over Gaza

The BBC has made the right call over its decision not to broadcast the Gaza appeal. This is supported by Sky News doing likewise. The BBC should stick to the decision it has made and not be brow beaten into changing its mind.

Gaza is a highly emotive issue, everyone knows that, but it isn't the BBC's job to broadcast charity footage seeking to raise funds for the DEC emergency appeal in Gaza. Furthermore it doesn't need to.

Broadcasting the appeal would put the BBC's impartiality at risk and no matter how much groups march and MPs attack it should not back down.

The BBC's job is to report the news and to cover the story in Gaza as it continues to unfold. It will as a matter of its ongoing reporting give airtime to the humanitarian dimensions of what is a complicated and contentious story. That is its job.

That alone gives easy access to information to those who might choose to donate to the DEC appeal. It is not as if the issue is hard to miss. It is everywhere. People can not fail to be informed or find information easily online.

That to me suggests quite strongly that this issue is not really about the appeal itself, but about political bullying which the BBC should not give into.

We can see more of that bullying in the people who are pressing the issue most keenly. These people are themselves not impartial. The Labour MP Richard Burden who is putting forward an early day motion, supported by more than 50 MPs, is chairman of the House of Commons Britain-Palestine All Party Parliamentary group. He campaigns tirelessly and in a one sided fashion on this issue.

Other Parliamentarians supporting his cause include Jewish Labour MP Gerald Kaufman who spends his time, equally tirelessly, attacking Israel at any opportunity. His choice words for this issue? The BBC is worrying about "nasty pressure" from some pro-Israeli lobbyists. He has a history of this and recently compared the actions of Israeli troops in Gaza to the jackbooted Germans who forced his family to flee Poland. He's a man in need of a level head.

BBC director general Mark Thompson has said that the BBC can not give the impression it was "backing one side" over the other. That is exactly right. Many already suspect that this is the case anyway – although I am no one of them.

He is entirely right in doing so. Whatever else you think about the decisions he had made recently this is the right one and he deserves some support for this.

If it is to broadcast the footage of Gaza then what about the victims in Israel as well? Should we also get images of those killed or maimed there? As it is important to remember that there are two sides to this story. It is not the BBC's job to broadcast charity appeals whatever the merits, but particularly when it comes to issues like this that are so divisive. 

I don't believe that he BBC's arm has been twisted by pro-Israeli lobbyists, but then I am not some conspiracy minded loon either. I don't think the BBC would or should bow down to them anymore than it should to the pro-Palestinian lobby.

I also find it entirely bizarre the argument that some are putting forward that the BBC must give in and broadcast the appeal less it give rise to the argument that the corporation will be seen to be under the influence of "Zionists". That is one hell of a slippery slope.

If that argument is used as even part of the thinking for the broadcast to go ahead then that would be entirely shameful as it is nothing short of appeasement and giving into the worst kind of bullying. And that can not be allowed to stand under any circumstance.

The truth of the matter several days into this storm is that the row alone has achieved more publicity than broadcasting the appeal ad ever would. Job done. Now let's move on.

Follow me on Twitter

The great Lenovo Notebook promotion

On Monday I noticed a Tweet about a Lenovo (the old IBM PC business) promotion that was offering up to £200 off of its range of notebook computers. Sounded like one of those things that comes to nothing, but it proved to be anything but.

Lenovo was offering a limited-time online offer for a variable discount on its brand new Lenovo IdeaPad S10. Initially you get a £20 discount off the £300 price tag and are then entered into a daily draw. I did this without thinking I would hear anything.

It's nice to have your preconceptions challenged. I entered on Monday and got a call on Tuesday confirming I had been given a £200 voucher, which I then used to buy an IdeaPad for £99 - £119 with a case. Bargain basement. Thankyou Lenovo.

Someone else in the office also got one and this was before we heard that the campaign was being run by digital agency Underwired, which is promoting the offer exclusively online using the web and social media, including Twitter.

I heard via Twitter (thanks Mike Butcher, btw) and have since passed on the message myself via Twitter, which got retweeted and so it goes. I would say that's a viral success.

If you're interested the offer can be found here on the Lenovo website. I had been thinking of getting an ASUS Eee PC 901 after Ladygeek and others had written so positively about them. Next time.

Follow me on Twitter

Labour Party wakes up to social media

Much has been written about how important social media and online was to Barack Obama's presidential election campaign and now the Labour Party is moving ahead with its own plans with several different initiatives.

The first part of that was unveiled last week by Labour Party strategist, Derek Draper, who unveiled LabourList.org, which is designed to rival the Tory site ConservativeHome.
 
Other elements on the way include a "take to the web" initiative that will ensure that key ministers appear on popular online forums and on the social media front there will be a Labour Party HQ blog and a focus on producing virals and widgets.
 
The ideas were part of a presentation drawn up in December that grasps the real digital opportunity for Labour and that is building new social networks to replace those that have disappeared.

"As old networks (trade unions, branch meetings, etc) decline, we need to find and be involved with the new, online networks that are developing. Being in the community now also means being in the online community."
 
That's exactly what happened in America. Obama and his team helped build new networks that turned into a campaign winning machine. That's what Labour needs to do (in addition to traditional party foot soldiering on the doorstep) as well if it is to win the next election.
 
As that is what social media sites and services like Twitter are; networks small and large.
 
Another part of Labour's online social media strategy was revealed today by Marketing with the launch of Labourspace.com. It's a much needed site. The idea behind Labourspace.com is really simple. People get their own webpage within the Labourspace network where they can tell the party why they think Labour should be implementing their campaign ideas.

On LabourList today the energy and climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, writes about the how the Labour Party must be ready with a vision of the kind of society it wants to see and how Labourspace is part of that.
 
"How many of us know young people who don't have their voice heard and feel that society has nothing to offer them?
 
"The politics and the institutions we build must speak to their lives. We've made real progress in these areas, but there is more to be done.
 
"That's why today I am launching Labourspace.com - the Labour Party's campaign social networking site. I hope it will provide a unique home for organisations and people to host and promote their campaigns - and to bring their ideas to the attention of Labour ministers and the wider Party."
 
“Labourspace.com opens up a dialogue on the internet precisely designed to stimulate ideas on how Labour can build on the progress we have made. Between now and our next manifesto it will be canvassing the best ideas, and, I hope, fostering a two way dialogue between you and me.”
 
Balls says he will be regularly checking out the site. I hope he does and that other ministers do as well and find time to engage at that grass roots level as if they don't building sites like Labourspace is a waste.

 
Follow me on Twitter

Twitter surpasses Digg as it surges on Inauguration day

Did you Twitter your way through Inauguration day? A lot of people did and according to Hitwise Twitter has now surpassed fellow social media site Digg for the first time.

It was pretty cool yesterday to soak it all up. Hitwise says that the market share of visits to Twitter surpassed Digg for the first time since launch and was ranked 84 and one above Digg at 85 in the Computers and Internet category.

No surprise was the fact that a major driver of traffic to Twitter was last week's US Airways plane crash in to the Hudson River, which I blogged about last week with that amazin pic. I was bowled over by the whole thing how the pic was shot on an iPhone and posted on Twitter. It really showed the power and reach of the service.

Hitwise has interesting numbers on the shift in traffic to Twitter from users aged 25-34 as well. Since last year when it was getting just 12% of traffic from that group it is now getting nearly 45% for the four weeks ending January 17. That's an incredible shift and Digg is pulling in less than half of that for the same age group.

I really like Digg and we use it a lot in the office. It's one of the stalwarts of the early social media scene and was one of the examples that people always point to to illustrate how users in Web 2.0 were shaping the news agenda. Digg seems as busy and as much talked about as ever, it's just now being overshadowed by the service of the moment.

The other interesting stat Hitwise had was where Twitter's traffic was coming from. Where as more than a third of Digg's comes via Google, Twitter is getting its from social networks. Pretty obvious reason why as many use it within Facebook and kill two bird's with one stone using Twitter as both their status update and their Tweet. Personally I look at Facebook about once a week and Twitter every hour (okay several times an hour). A year ago my Facebook usage was much much higher. Same for many I'm guessing.

I suppose that reflects the fact that Twitter is content creation, each tweet a mini blog post, as opposed to a service that tags and highlights news like Digg. It is really embeded in the fabric of social media, the way conversations spider off in many directions but all come back to the Twitter stream, rather than bolted onto it.

That seems to underscore the point as to where Twitter's future might lie and it will be one of the big stories this year as to who bags Twitter as I'm sure someone will. Surely, Mark Zuckerberg must have seen the endless Twitter coverage that the service racked in the last few weeks and is thinking "Facebook could really do with Twitter".

There was an avalanche of reports about Twitter covering the Inauguration ceremony as it linked up with Current TV so you could send your Tweets in, which were then featured on screen. The Twitter groundswell is really growing. More evidence of that at the weekend as Dan Wootton the showbiz editor of the News of the World plugged Twitter in the paper.

More and more people are getting it although there was a bizarre report yesterday in Forbes blogged about by Mike Butcher at Techcrunch about how "Twitter is Not Loved in Europe". Apparently it hasn't caught on.

As Mike pointed out "this bizarre attack on European companies seems to ignore a few things. For starters, Twitter was going just fine in Europe until they cut the SMS service, unlike in the US where it remains. But that hasn’t stopped it. We now have celebs galore on Twitter in the UK at least, and some are even conspiring to bring the masses on board. Meanwhile, we like Twitter so much in Europe that we are creating our own versions. Just Ask Shoutem in Croatia and Blip in Poland".

Follow me on Twitter

Anti-semitic thugs smash up Starbucks

It used to be anti-globalisation protectors who would target Starbucks, but with the Israeli move into Gaza strip things have turned more sinister as it is now anti-semitic thugs who are kicking in its windows.

After Saturday's London demo against Israel's invasion of the Gaza Strip Police were outside another Starbucks that had been smashed up. This time it was the branch on Rubert Street and Shaftsburry Avenue in Central London.

They also attacked the Starbucks in Picadilly Circus, which was smashed and looted. That's right looted because that's the way to help the people of Gaza by stealing coffee and (I'm guessing) mugs.

Starbucks is being targeted like other stores because of its links to Israel and by links the moronic protestors mean that CEO Howard Schultz is Jewish. That's as brainless as it comes (oh there is some retarded rumour that Starbucks funds the IDF - but whoever heard such nonsense. I mean seriously, a coffee shop funding the army? lol).

The attack follows one a few days earlier on Starbucks in Whitechapel (where a manager almost died after they set fire to it) and on January 10 the one in Kensington High Street was also smashed up after the demo that day.

It isn't only Starbucks, the same anti-Semitic thugs are also targeting other stores including Tesco.

Last week Asian youths hurled a brick at a Tesco delivery van half-a-mile away from the Starbucks in Whitechapel leaving the driver in need of seven stitches.

That attack followed one on the new Tesco Metro supermarket in Stepney Green's Commercial Road where several windows were smashed and the words "kill Jews" was daubed in paint.

Someone has launched a "Hands Off Starbucks!" group on Facebook. As a protest against the window smashing thugs.". Sign-up.

Follow me on Twitter

Does Channel 4 have a right to exist?

Does it? A god given right? I'm not sure it does. Channel 4 needs to accept facts, embrace the future, and realise with few options left its future lies with Five. 

Looking at Channel 4 what's clear is that you can watch a lot of what it broadcasts on any channel. Think about it: 'Big Brother', 'How to look good naked', 'Property Ladder', 'Location, Location, Location', 'A place in the sun', 'Half ton son', 'Grand Designs', 'Celebrity Wife Swap', ' Come dine with me' and the various food shows headed by prize plonker Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. Oh not to mention the free advertising segments for Sainsbury Oliver. Sorry, maybe it's Jamie Sainsbury I get confused. A lot of this as Sir Jeremy Isaacs, Channel 4's chief executive from 1980 to 1987, said at the weekend is "dross".

Okay, granted I know that many people like these shows and for their type they are well made and, apparently, entertaining, but none of them can even remotely be described as public service. And yet this is the Channel 4 line-up every night of the week (other than the mostly laudable Channel 4 News).

But as Sir Jeremy pointed out, it is because of said dross that the station has left itself open to claims it should be merged with Five. This is not music to C4's chairman Luke Johnson and chief executive Andy Duncan who don't like the idea one bit. They should be so lucky. The duo seems to be under the impression that the station has a god given right to exist and that it should be bailed out by the government. I'm not sure that assumption any longer has any validity if it ever did.

Channel 4 does exist, but there is no reason it MUST exist in the future. The station is a state-owned anomaly. The government has no place in owning the station anymore and has not done so for a long time. Blame it on the last Conservative government (that's my top tip). It sold off everything else (trains, gas, water, electricity – useful stuff), but somehow it hung onto Channel 4 (stuff we don't need). Was John Major a 'Brookside' fan? Who knows.

Okay, so maybe New Labour should have taken its chance five years ago when the station was still worth something rather than the millstone it is now. Sadly it did not.

So where does that leave us? Ideally, Johnson and Duncan want more government money or a bit of the BBC. They should get neither – the BBC has built BBC Worldwide into a thriving business. Channel 4 has dug itself into a financial hole that no amount of celebrity pap will get it out of.

It seems to many that the best (if not the only) way out is a merger with Five. A merger with Five makes perfect sense. They are in the same market (unless I'm mistaken reality shows and American imports are their bread and butter?). Channel 4 might consider Five to be the less attractive sister in this duo, but I'm sure they will come to appreciate each other.

Sir Jeremy is right when he says that "shocking has become a remit in itself" for Channel 4.

Seriously, what else was the justification for the broadcaster inviting Israel hating Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to give its alternative Christmas message?

Sure there might be some good stuff in there somewhere, but it is lost amongst the dross. I mean come on aren't we bored already of year after year of 'Celebrity Big Brother'?

None of this contributes to public-service broadcasting, which is apparently the reason we are trying to ensure its future.  

I'm hoping that when Lord Carter, the communications minister, publishes his report on January 26 including proposals on its future he is brave and bold and takes this opportunity to get shot of Channel 4. Maybe the government will hang onto a stake and when the markets pick up it will be able to realise a better return for the tax payer, but it should definitely go.

Unlike Johnson I don't think many will see a merger with Five as being "a tragedy for Channel 4". It is more like a match made in heaven.

Follow me on Twitter

Hudson air crash bought to you by Twitter

Twitter showed its power again yesterday with the Hudson River US Airways crash off New York City. The picture that has been flashed around the world was taken and then uploaded onto Twitter.

Tourist Janis Krums took the pic on his iPhone and then uploaded it to Twitter via Twitpic with the caption "There's a plane in the Hudson. I'm on the ferry going to pick up the people. Crazy."

The photo of the Airbus operated by US Airways has been flashed around the world as is the frontpage of the day globally. Such a close share and what a pic. I didn't realise the camera was so good on the iPhone it really puts the Blackberry to shame.

Breaking news really shows how useful and powerful Twitter is. The same happened with the China earthquake story last year. It is another compelling reason for those who don't get Twitter to, you know, get it.

Follow me on Twitter

Crunch week for US newspapers

The year is only two weeks old, but it is already carnage out there in the US newspaper industry as two more papers face closure and Gannett takes unheard of steps to ward off more job cuts.

It beggars belief that so much bad news could come in a week, but the industry has managed it without any difficulty whatsoever. The week started off with speculation about the very existence of the New York Times - as commentators asked could the Old Grey Lady go under? It seems like a distant possibility, but as the clouds of doom continue to coalesce it is maybe not so far fetched as first imagined.

Yesterday, was the deadline for bids on the The Rocky Mountain News. If there are no sufficient bids then that paper, with 230 staff could close, or go online only. It is the second time this week that the prospect of a daily US newspaper going online only has been raised.

On Monday, Hearst Corporation said that a digital-only future is one option being examined as it weighs up the future of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer newspaper. Those two papers could find themselves following in the footsteps of the Christian Science Monitor, which said in October it was to scrap the daily print issue of its newspaper and focus on running its website. 

An online only future for a newspaper sounds stark, but really is it so bad? Well the immediate answer on one level is yes as many thousands would lose their jobs and a way of life - of print - would come to an end. Newspapers are about more than producing and publishing content. And it is a sad loss when any major newspaper disappears.

The bad news has not ended there this week. Also yesterday the Star Tribune of Minneapolis, another daily, filed for bankruptcy protection after the paper's owners failed to win a series of concessions on wages with unions. That paper is owned by private equity firm Avista Capital. Pity any newspaper firm owned by private equity. It doesn't bode well for the paper of record for the Twin Cities.

The story of the the Star Tribune of Minneapolis seems to echo on a smaller scale the immense financial problems of Los Angeles Times-owner Tribune, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in December after real estate magnate Sam Zell bought it in an $8.2bn buy-out last year.

If these busy busy two weeks are anything to go by it is going to be a very bumpy ride this year as witnessed further yesterday by USA Today owner Gannett's unprecedented decision to force thousands of its staff to take unpaid leave. Gannett has said this will affect most of its 31,000 staff.

Gannett says the move is keep more job cuts at bay, but this is a firm that has cut around 6,000 jobs in the last two years. It cut 3,500 jobs in 2007 alone way before things got bad.

Follow me on Twitter

Yahoo! plays its safe with CEO appointment

Yahoo! has continued to do exactly what got it in this mess in the first place. It has played it boring and hired a CEO, in Carol Bartz, who is a safe pair of hands for a publicly quoted company, but has little or no Web 2.0 or advertising experience – apparently these are important to Yahoo!.

Please someone get me a rocket scientist. No seriously, as apparently while it isn't rocket science you DO actually need a rocket scientist to make these decisions (I'm guessing he can just walk around the building shouting "MAXIMUM THRUST" like a lot).

I'm clearly not the only one thinking this as investor reaction caused the stock to drop as low as $11.78 before climbing back to $12.1. Needless to remind everyone last year it was trading at around $22 before a year of losing ground.

Prior to Yahoo! Bartz spent 14 years at Autodesk (and was on the boards of Intel and Cisco) and clearly has lots of executive and technology experience running a publicly quoted company. What do you mean you are not familiar with the computer-aided design software firm? To be fair she did increase revenues from $300m to $1.5bn and the company's share price increased nearly ten-fold. Good luck with that at Yahoo!.

Her appointment looks like a total compromise as headhunter firm Heidrick & Struggles, which led the CEO search, has said that Yahoo! would also be looking for a strong No. 2 with more internet and product experience. Why not put someone like that in charge of the company in the first place? Just a thought.

There were a number of candidates out there who could have taken the Yahoo! job, but in the end the once grand search firm seems to have had trouble attracting people to the job – because it is really a tough sell.

One of those people in minor contention, but who really wanted the job was Yahoo! president Sue Decker who has resigned. She was very closely associated with Jerry Yang and look how that worked out. It was probably a smart choice not to give her the job.

Reports have suggested that the Yahoo! board got a lot more knock backs from outside execs than expected for the CEO job because of the challenges and sinking moral. Runners and riders are thought to have included former Yahoo! chief operating officer Dan Rosenweig, who currently runs media private equity firm Quadrangle; Meg Whitman, long-time Ebay CEO; Tim Armstrong, Google's North American head of sales; News Corp's COO Peter Chernin; and current Juniper Networks executive Kevin Johnson. Former AOL chief Jonathan Miller was also linked.

All that seems clear is that Yahoo! will not remain in its current form for much longer. Totally convinced of that. It has lost all initiative and is falling further behind as we type.

I know this because no one talks about it or uses it. The only time it is talked about is that time that Microsoft tried to buy it? Oh and there was that Google deal. Those were the days. That could have been a transformational deal, but now that Window has been firmly shut and it is not a door opening. It looks more like a whole. Hole.

Bartz will no doubt safely steer Yahoo! as a highly competent executive, but it is a firm that desperately needed to be more than safely steered.

Follow me on Twitter

I'm gonig to add my Twitter conversation/ responses on this here as well.

Yahoo has played safe with Carol Bratz for CEO, she's the safe option and little advertising or web 2.0 experience. Stock drops. SNAFU.

[@sushobhan ] @GordonM Carol Bratz is perhaps the most dangerous option they could've chosen, given her supposed ignorance of all that Yahoo needs.

[@sushobhan ] @GordonM Will Carol Bratz do a Mark Hurd?

@sushobhan I think Hurd had more to play with - HP had a strong PC market position. If she can do numbers like he's done. woman is a genius.
 

Could the New York Times go under?

It seems the unthinkable, but some media commentators are speculating whether The New York Times could go under.

A piece in the Observer yesterday put the spotlight on the Grey Lady, which is saddled with debts, a hugely expensive news operation and the cost of an expensive new building on Manhattan's 42nd Street. All of that would be a strain at the best of times, but as the US newspaper industry buckles under the enormous strain of the downturn these problems are all hugely exacerbated.

This all all came on Friday another bad day for North American media as Hearst said might close the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Canada's The Globe and Mail said it was planning to cut its work force by 10% -- at least 80 to 90 jobs.

The paper quoted Michael Wolff, the media writer at Vanity Fair, who thinks the situation is bleak. "There is no point of optimism here. There is no way that this situation gets better for them," he said.

The speculation came after a piece published in Atlantic Magazine by Michael Hirschorn, who argued that changes in the media landscape could happen much faster than expected.

"The thinking goes that the existing brands—The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal—will be the ones making that transition, challenged but still dominant as sources of original reporting.

"But what if the old media dies much more quickly? What if a hurricane comes along and obliterates the dunes entirely? Specifically, what if TheNew York Times goes out of business—like, this May?"

He argues that such an idea is not unthinkable and points to the earnings reports released by the New York Times Company in October, which indicate that drastic measures will have to be taken over the next five months or the paper will default on some $400m in debt.

"With more than $1billion in debt already on the books, only $46million in cash reserves as of October, and no clear way to tap into the capital markets (the company’s debt was recently reduced to junk status), the paper’s future doesn’t look good."

Although the company itself says it is well placed to weather the storm. Last month it was reported the New York Times Company was considering a potential asset sale as it sought to reassure investors that it could "weather the challenges" brought on by the recession.

Janet Robinson, president and chief executive of The New York Times Company, said: "We believe that through our revenue initiatives, expense cuts and the steps we are taking to improve our financial flexibility, the Times Company is well positioned to weather the challenges next year is expected to bring."

The asset sale could see businesses like the Boston Globe and a stake in the Boston Red Sox sold as well as a leaseback deal on the new building. Why on earth did company hang onto the Sox for so long?

But for arguments sake if the New York Times did get into serious trouble and the Sulzbergers sold the paper who would buy it? Rupert Murdoch has already said he wants it as does billionaire New York mayor Michael Bloomberg. There would no doubt be other buyers, but the family unlike the former Bancroft-owning Wall Street Journal clan would never sell.

Follow me on Twitter

The geek endorser in chief

Barack Obama could be the biggest celebrity endorser in the history of endorsements with estimates that his oft expressed love for his Blackberry could be worth as much as $50m dollars to the PDA firm. If only he didn't have to part company with the thing in a couple of weeks.

The New York Times has a report today on the last days of Obama's association with his favourite device, which he was often seen with doing the Blackberry prayer on the campaign trail, as once he takes over the Oval office on January 20 he looks likely to lose it for security and legal issues.

"I’m still clinging to my BlackBerry,” Obama said Wednesday in an interview with CNBC and The New York Times. "They’re going to pry it out of my hands."

Those words are worth a small fortune to Research In Motion, which makes the Blackberry, in terms of free marketing with estimates put at between $25m and $50m. Might seem high, but he's the most talked about man on the planet and his reach is global. Why hire Jerry Seinfeld like Microsoft did for millions of dollars when you luck upon Obama for free?

Doug Shabelman, the president of Burns Entertainment, told the NY Times: "This would be almost the biggest endorsement deal in the history of endorsements. He’s consistently seen using it and consistently in the news arguing - and arguing with issues of national security and global welfare - how he absolutely needs this to function on a daily basis."

He's a natural geek. He's just run the most tech savvy YouTube and Facebook friendly presidential election campaign and he's even this week helping Marvel shift a bumper amount of Spiderman after making the front cover (in some story about two Obamas - and evil Obama? Say it ain't so).

Although I'm not sure it's entirely intentional, of course, Obama and his people must know that being associated with such a product that is at the cutting edge of mobile technology says a lot about the President elect: that not only is he tech savvy (The Whitehouse 2.0), but he has so many friends and people wanting to get in touch with him underscoring his popularity and almost making him seem available and like you and me.

Slate even has a long piece on why Obama should be allowed to keep his Blackberry. There's probably a Facebook group, but it's banned at work still following all the virus stuff last year so really I've no way of knowing. Somone should set up a group. Save Obama's Blackberry - maybe one for RIM's agency.

Sadly, RIM and no one else is ever going to get to write the campaign that would feature Obama. Although some have had a go: "If Blagojevich can pick my replacement, I can pick my device".

If Apple had picked up on it quicker, maybe back on the campaign trail, you could have imagined an iPhone ad suggesting "Time for change Mr Obama - it's an iFuture".

For RIM this has all come as its BlackBerry Bold has been suffering technical problems with Orange talking of pulling the phone because of persistent problems including dropped calls and poor reception. This has resulted in "uncharacteristically high" return rates.

If anyone can fix it Obama can. Maybe someone could ask him if he ever gets a dropped call? I'm guessing not.

Follow me on Twitter