Two Reports Give Yahoo Lots Of Bad News

Written by Evan Schuman
October 17th, 2006

A major Wall Street analyst firm delivered a good news/bad news joke to Yahoo on Tuesday: The good news is that your online advertising space is doing much better than we feared. The bad news is that you’re not.

The Cowen and Company report downgraded Yahoo to Neutral from Outperform after it included that Yahoo’s recent drop in marketshare–attributed by Yahoo to an industry-wide drop in banner ads and paid search–was a Yahoo-only situation.

“While we were initially concerned that the online ad market growth is slowing, checks with advertisers and publishers indicate that Yahoo’s problems are unique to the company,” the advisory said. “We continue to believe that Yahoo is one of the primary beneficiaries of the secular growth in the online ad market. However, we believe near- and long-term expectations are too high and the potential for upside surprise is low.”

Cowen also saw AOL and MySpace eating away at Yahoo’s ad revenues and it further didn’t like rumors that Yahoo might buy Facebook?following Google’s purchase of YouTube?because “the market has fully realized the value of social networking sites and we are concerned that Yahoo could acquire growth at the expense of returns.”

Don’t mean to pile on, but another report today?from eMarketer, which tracks Web ads?also pours HTML unhappiness unto Yahoo’s yodel. The eMarketer report gives Yahoo nemesis Google control of 25 percent of all U.S. online ad spending in a calendar year, which is the first time any company has controlled that big a slice of the Web ad market, according to a story in

An author of the eMarketer report, David Hallerman, said Google’s reputation is making it the initial choice for newcomers to the Web advertising space, which is a very bad sign for Yahoo. This gap has come about very suddenly. “In 2005, Yahoo and Google had virtually the same amount of U.S. ad revenues,” Marketwatch reported. “Yet by the end of 2006, Google is expected to pocket almost twice the amount of U.S. ad revenues as Yahoo.”


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.