×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yahoo Warns of Slowing Internet Advertising Sales

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the i-blame-bush-as-usual dept.

83

narramissic writes "Yahoo chairman and CEO Terry Semel warned that a slowing U.S. economy is starting to impact ad sales, particularly in 'autos and financial services.' But Yahoo was careful to note that it cannot tell whether the current slowdown is a sign of broader trouble or is limited to ads from the auto and financial sectors."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

83 comments

Surely... (1)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146172)

Doesn't a slowdown in sales (implied by advertising) of financial services pretty much directly correlate with a slump in the economy...?

(IANAEconomist)

Re:Surely... (1)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146330)

Well, while I also am not an economist, there are some commonly understood signs of economic slowing. One of the principal leaders or forecasting signs are ad revenues. Others are job postings, initial unemployment indicators, shipping volume through US Postal, and private carriers like Fed Ex, UPS and DHL.

What are the stats? I am not sure, but from my limited reading, it appears that a variety of factors stemming from increased fuel prices and continued international unrest in the middle East appear to be having an effect, resulting in an economic slump.

The slowdown has already started (1)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146436)

Not to mention the absolute horde of economic data which shows that a major US slowdown is not only inevitable but has actually already started. It seems though the government are doing absolutly everything they can to cover this up at least till after november.

What makes me mad though is that US companies need all the info they can get to enable them to ride out this slowdown with minimal losses, yet the government is currently hiding the truth purely for political reasons. Come December when they actually start admitting the strikingly obvious, it may be too late. The big companies know the deal, which is at least partly why advertising budgets are plummeting, but it will be the small companies that rely on government data and advice which may well end up getting screwed!

Re:The slowdown has already started (1)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146510)

But come on, Chicken Little, can't you sound the bugle and warn those small companies before it's too late? No fair hoarding your secret information from the rest of us...

Re:The slowdown has already started (1)

nido (102070) | more than 7 years ago | (#16147180)

You'd be interested in the Shadow Stats [slashdot.org] guy (link in that post).

Just assembled a comment [slashdot.org] in another thread in this story; you might find something interesting there too.

This economic correction will be hard to ride out - think "greater depression". A real 'new economy' is coming our way, but the old one's leaving kicking and screaming...

Re:Surely... (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146688)

I don't know about the other stuff, but if you have ever tried to by a car online you could probably understand why auto-ads may be declining regardless of the economy. I first tried this about 7 years ago, and found it to be a very useful experience. I got the car I wanted, with the features I wanted for a fair price, without ever having to leave my house.

I recently decided I need a 4 door, and had to go through this process again. It was...much changed. Every vendor within 50 miles called me up to quote me the MSRP and ask me to come down for a test drive. Long story greatly shortened, I ended up buying a car, after a lot of footwork, by playing one vendor off against another, just like in the good old days. Ultimately I had to drive 50 miles or so outside of austin (because Honda dealers in Austin are universally delusional).

Given this state of affairs, there really is no value of interenet auto business at all. In fact it's hurtful, because you have to give them a real telephone number, something I'd never do with a car dealer until I was good and ready.

Re:Surely... (1)

hibiki_r (649814) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146792)

In my experience, the problem is not that the entire internet sales industry has changed: it's just the Honda dealers. In my areas, they have enough demand for everyone, so they won't give you anything that resembles a good price. In some models, they won't even bother stocking or special ordering bare bones vehicles. Other automakers, including the rest of the japanese, will actually come to you with much better offers. Just a year ago, I got a starting offer for a japanese car that was $4000 under invoice, 8K under MSRP. The honda equivalent was competitively priced if you only compared MSRPs, but they wouldn't go down more than a grand.

Re:Surely... (1)

lowrydr310 (830514) | more than 7 years ago | (#16148363)

I bought a bare bones 2003 Honda Accord LX Coupe from a dealer in Southern California. I negotiated my price through the internet and was able to get it for $1000 under 'invoice'.

p $8000 under MSRP or $4000 under invoice sounds good, but when you're after a basic no-frills model the reality is that they're not marked up that much and you can only talk the price down so low. I got my Accord for just over $17,000 (not including tax) and even though it has no options, the standard features are sufficient for my needs. For $3500 more I could have gotten an EX model, but that would have only given me a sunroof, wheels (no hubcaps), rear disc brakes instead of drums, body-colored lower side trim, and slightly 'better' interior fabric (though I couldn't tell the difference).

The article doesn't match the summary (1)

wasted (94866) | more than 7 years ago | (#16148846)

The summary states it is a slowdown in sales, while the article states that it is a slowdown in the GROWTH of sales. Sales are still increasing, but not as fast as they once were.

First! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16146179)

For Mercatur!

Boo Hoo (2, Interesting)

DreddUK (255582) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146184)

So everyone sells Yahoo! stock, because the growth is slowing, not because sales are decreasing. So this implies that the growth calculations were agressive, not that there's anything directly wrong with ad sales.
Advertising sales from both sectors have slowed down during the past three to four weeks, although both remain on a growth track. "They're growing, but they're not growing as quickly as we would have hoped at this moment in time," said Semel.
Quicker damn you, grow quicker...

On the other hand... (1)

lightyear4 (852813) | more than 7 years ago | (#16147533)

..this could also be Yahoo! trying to redirect some of its own loss upon Google. Given that they're making such a generalization based only upon short term quarterly data, yet extrapolating into the future..this may just be corporate posturing.

-- Consider:
  Yahoo's projection of advertising growth was a bit over enthusiastic --> Yahoo investors show their disappointment with the purse --> Yahoo attempts to save face by characterizing their own messup as an (exaggerated) general market trend --> Google's investors feel lukewarm --> Google gets hurt too?

Less auto/finance ads ... are bad? (5, Insightful)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146195)

Sorry for being a cynic, but I don't see how a decrease in financial services or car ads are a bad thing.

1) Cars: auto sales are currently a big cartel. Every state has regulations stopping or significantly shackling internet sales of new cars. All that auto dealerships now offer you is the degrading process of "oh, gee, I dunno, I'm gonna have to talk to my boss about that offer you just made" and "here is a payment plan we can offer you in which I'll only talk about the monthly payments and hide the effective 14% interest rate that amounts to".

2) The financial services industry basically revolves around convincing people to invest with them to "beat the market". They thrive on artificially increasing the complexity of investing. I've had a financial advisor tell me that my investment plan is going to look "totally different from the guy in the next cubicle". Yeah, same age, same investment horizon ... whatever, dude. In reality, most of them can't "beat the market" and all you get is the honor of paying them usurious fees for their stock-picking "wisdom".

We really do need less of these ads. Is there something bigger I'm missing?

Re:Less auto/finance ads ... are bad? (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146224)

2) The financial services industry basically revolves around convincing people to invest with them to "beat the market".

Don't forget 14% auto loans. :)

KFG

Re:Less auto/finance ads ... are bad? (1)

homer_ca (144738) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146710)

All that auto dealerships now offer you is the degrading process of "oh, gee, I dunno, I'm gonna have to talk to my boss about that offer you just made" and "here is a payment plan we can offer you in which I'll only talk about the monthly payments and hide the effective 14% interest rate that amounts to".

It's true that dealers will try to funnel all negotiations in that direction, but if you're firm they will negotiate price and finance interest rate separately (firm means be prepared to walk out). Get pre-approved financing from your bank or credit union and walk in prepared to pay cash. They'll still try to sell you their own financing, but if they beat the other rate, it's a bonus for you.

Re:Less auto/finance ads ... are bad? (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146748)

It's true that dealers will try to funnel all negotiations in that direction, but if you're firm they will negotiate price and finance interest rate separately (firm means be prepared to walk out). Get pre-approved financing from your bank or credit union and walk in prepared to pay cash. They'll still try to sell you their own financing, but if they beat the other rate, it's a bonus for you.

I understand all that, but I think you missed the central point:

You shouldn't have to "be firm" or whatever. You shouldn't have to get extensive training from your world-hardened father on how to drive a hard bargain. We have the internet now. People should be able to look at thousands of offers in minutes with ultra slim margins, but state legislatures pass special interest laws to fatten up the pockets of people using an outdated business model. I can get on ebay and look at hundreds of offers for other products and buy them without anyone's by-your-leave.

Believe me -- I wouldn't get my financing from some crook at a car dealership. I was just emphasizing the remaining "service" (and I use that term loosely) that car dealerships now have to offer.

Re:Less auto/finance ads ... are bad? (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146817)

There was a magical moment when you were right, and you could do that, but the bean counters noted a decline in profits. You would be surprised at how many people walk in and pay MSRP, or near it. For items this expensive, I see only ONE way of solving this problem:

Everyone who buys a car mails a copy of their receipt to a central site which puts it in a database, with all relevant information. If you want to buy a car, go to the site, pick the model, and start looking through receipts and figure out what you can get, and refuse to buy for any more. Eventually this will drive car prices to a particular value, and you can skip all the haggling and just buy your car.

What car dealers are relying on is the fact that you don't know what the other guy got, so every vict...customer is a wallet vac candidate.

Re:Less auto/finance ads ... are bad? (1)

homer_ca (144738) | more than 7 years ago | (#16147705)

If you don't want the typical slimy dealership experience, there are ways around that. There are auto broker services like Carsdirect, Autonation, and Costco that will sell cars for a pre-negotiated discount price. Carsdirect even gives you their price right on the website, no need to call for a quote. It doesn't get any easier than that. The reason no-hassle one price doesn't work is because buyers looking for a deal will take the no-hassle price into another dealer and they'll beat it.

Re:Less auto/finance ads ... are bad? (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16147848)

You're still not listening. I'm not talking about, "okay, we'll give ourselves a fat markup -- just to save you from ALL that stress of haggling!" -- the "pre-negotiated discount price" you referred to. Look at what you said: "The reason no-hassle one price doesn't work is because buyers looking for a deal will take the no-hassle price into another dealer and they'll beat it."

Dude, if a dealer will deign to lower his price because you could confont him with the outside offer, he was charging an unjustified markup (in the age of the internet) to begin with! If a dealer was capable of lowering his price merely because you could confont him with an outside offer, that "pre-negotiated discount price" was too high to begin with.

The regulations restricting internet sales need to be lifted. We don't need "pre-negotiated discount prices". We don't need "no-haggle prices". We need to allow the real competition to actually happen.

canary in the coal mine (1, Interesting)

nido (102070) | more than 7 years ago | (#16147043)

Newsflash: U.S. economy is in BIG trouble.

Short history lesson: Federal reserve started to inflate the money supply [aol.com] in early 1995 (blue line in the graph). The 'tech bubble' followed a couple years later. That trend wasn't sustainable, and the dot-coms bombed sometime in 2000/2001. The economy was well on its way to a recession by late-summer/fall 2001. The Federal Reserve responded to "9/11" by cutting interest rates to 1% (over several months), supposedly for the purpose of 'stimulating' the economy.

Newsflash: Mismanagement of the U.S. currency has caused half of the economic equation, production, to move to Asia and Mexico, either in search of lower wages or to flee rising U.S. costs. This is not a new phenomena, and has been ongoing since the 1970's [slashdot.org], though it is only recently (circa-2001) that that trend has accelerated to a completely unsustainable level. Cisco assembled their wireless access points in the U.S., and Intel made motherboards in Silicon Valley up until 1999/2000 or so. What happened to the Americans who used to be employed assembling motherboards and other electronics? Perhaps some of them moved to finance, and some to auto sales. But I digress...

Thus, when the Fed slashed interest rates starting in 2001, instead of entrepreneurs borrowing money to set up new production lines, individuals borrowed money to buy a bigger house. And an investment house. And a condo in the mountains. The widely-proclaimed 'housing bubble' started to take off ... circa 2002/2003, and reached its peak summer 2005. Crashes always follow bubbles, and the current real estate market [blogspot.com] is no exception.

Low interest rates also facilitated GM's 0% financing "keep america rolling" sales campaign. (don't remember what Ford & Chrysler called their corresponding 0% programs). But now Ford [thetruthaboutcars.com] and General Motors [thetruthaboutcars.com] are in trouble, because they can't sell new cars to customers whose credit line is maxed out.

Gonna get ugly, folks. The good news is that this coming transition marks the end of corporate wage-slavery. The economic system that will arise from the ashes will be founded with something along the lines of worker [alternet.org] cooperatives [dominionpaper.ca]. This is the worker benefiting from their own labor. No more slaving away to pay the "shareholders" dividends (mostly rich dudes who sit on their lazy asses and parasitically live off the working class).

John Gatto's book [johntaylorgatto.com] about the 'massification' of America fits in here too. Gatto maintains that the original american ideal was an independent livelihood. Blacksmith, farmer, woodworker, wheelmaker, etc. Mass production / standardization required government schools to produce a populace who would accept working a repetive job where someone else ("shareholder") was the primary beneficiary. Fun while it lasted, right? :)

Also see my recent comment, how the government spins the stats [slashdot.org].

Re:canary in the coal mine (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16147246)

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but could you explain what's stopping you from starting your own worker-owned cooperative *right now*? Remember, removal of this barrier must not *also* significantly help "larger corporations" or else it wasn't much of a barrier. In other words, be careful not to say, "if I were to raise the capital from a large group of friends, they would hit me with $HORRENDOUS_TAX" wihout at least *checking* if large corporations pay the same tax.

I'm not trying to badger you, I would just like more elaboration on this point.

Re:canary in the coal mine (1)

nido (102070) | more than 7 years ago | (#16147431)

could you explain what's stopping you from starting your own worker-owned cooperative *right now*?

I guess there's nothing stopping the formation of cooperatives, so much as that the system is set up to favor the formation of corporations. This includes corporate privledges (for example: no shareholder liablity for corporate fuckups - government picks up the tab if the corporation leaves a big mess after it dissolves), and a school system designed to create worker-drones (see Gatto link in original post).

Also, raising capital typically means borrowing it from a bank/venture capitalists. So, unless one's "large group of friends" includes multiple multi-millionaires, raising capital certainly involves creating corporate shareholders to start any significant business venture. At the very least, the bank parasitically benefits because of its legal privledge to create the money it loaned (via fractional reserve banking), redistributing the loan interest to its shareholders...

I know a guy who created a couple shell corporations (LLCs) to borrow money for a restaurant building, the rational being that if the venture was to fail (get sued/etc), he wouldn't be left holding the entire bag. Typical thinking in the corporate age...

Re:Less auto/finance ads ... are bad? (1)

bughunter (10093) | more than 7 years ago | (#16147244)

Yea, I concur. In fact, I first parsed the /. headline as "Yahoo Warns of Internet Advertising Slowing your Systems."

Because my CPU usage pegs at 100% whenever I leave a browser window open showing one of those inane ads depicting a lactating sow with 50 teats, and a suckling piglet for each state of the USA.

I could easily make do without those kinds of Internet Advertising, TYVM.

hmm (2, Interesting)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146200)

are sales slowing, or moving away from Yahoo? I know they've had a fairly poor showing as of late, is this just an attempt to try and explain that away within a more general setting and keep the share price up, hoping that people will see them still as a good bet? Still, I suppose that buying new cars might be one of the first things to take a hit if the economy was slowing, but wouldn't this spur advertising?...

Anyone have google's ad revenue relating specific to these areas?

Re:hmm (4, Interesting)

Frag-A-Muffin (5490) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146353)


Anyone have google's ad revenue relating specific to these areas?

Here's some data [google.com] you can look at. Google looks to be doing quite well actually :) Maybe Yahoo is just losing to google more than they thought? :)

Re:hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16150212)

Of course, with zero quality control even accepting their cybersquatter to display Google ads.

Yes, you know the deal, you make a typo in domain name and some porn/spyware site opens up. Now, one guy was clever to get "goggle" (not giving URL,spyware injection) and he also has Google ads. Yes REAL ones. Instead of getting sued, he even gets Google ads on his main company site.

Without getting into too much theoretical discussion about who owns Google name/term or not, think about this: The user wanted to go to Google, typed wrong and landed to a spyware (future phish?) site. Lets blame the user for all of this... It still gives no logical explanation to the issue described in this URL

http://blog.opendns.com/2006/09/13/why-pay-interne t-bad-guys/ [opendns.com]

Google's cybersquatter (or whatever called) is also a Google advertiser. Not just that, they run Google ads on their company site (can't dare to give URL,check blog).

The pirates abusing Usenet since Google got into it with ZERO control. They purchased Deja you know. There is every kind of scam coming from Google users in addition to clear pirate "forum" advertisements. People got fed up and started to locally kill-file Google groups. Professional services/Hosts may follow soon. It is highly possible.

What happens if you are running a secure OS and dare to click those pirate forums? I am not speaking about those serial number etc. guys, I am speaking about full BSA software piracy via disk images. How could a person dare and afford such thing? Answer: They all run Google ads.

There were some re-packaged, stolen open source software (not parallels) trying to trick Mac users that they can run Vista even. What they used for advertising? Google! Their disgusting piece of open source stolen code appeared on Mac forums everytime when someone mentions windows.

When you get such an image, big companies prefer quality controlled advertising platforms such as Yahoo.

Re:hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16147384)

our company has stopped! advertising! in yahoo! - their business process for this is just terrible with a small return for the cost.

assume this is lower advertising revenue from yahoo - fault must be with the 'economy'

Adblock? (1)

brunascle (994197) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146204)

could the adblock utilities have any effect on this? i think we've all known that if everyone used adblockers, we'd have a big problem: free sites would no longer have any income. we havent really worried about it because it didnt seem like enough of us were using them to make a difference.

could this be the first sign?

Re:Adblock? (1)

wfberg (24378) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146248)

could the adblock utilities have any effect on this? i think we've all known that if everyone used adblockers, we'd have a big problem: free sites would no longer have any income. we havent really worried about it because it didnt seem like enough of us were using them to make a difference.

could this be the first sign?


No, this is about selling the ads. Getting people to see them is step 2. If too many people use adblockers, you will need to spend a lot more effort at getting non-adblockers to see them, increasing costs (rather than losing sales), preventing you from reaching step 3 (profit).

Re:Adblock? (1)

pigscanfly.ca (664381) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146315)

If a substantial percentage of people were blocking ads [to the point where it substantially impacted on the company], it would be fairly easy from a technical perspective to require people to access the ads. But, I think a lot of places avoid doing this on the basis that the people who block the ads are unlikely to respond to them anyways.

Re:Adblock? (1)

Mprx (82435) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146601)

It's easy to require downloading of ads, but not to require viewing them. The only solution I can think of is embedding a captcha in the ad and requiring the reader to solve the captcha before accessing the page.

Re:Adblock? (1)

The name is Dave. Ja (845139) | more than 7 years ago | (#16147972)

"... embedding a captcha in the ad and requiring the reader to solve the captcha before accessing the page."

You are a sick and twisted individual.
Unfortunately, you have a bright future ahead of you in advertising.

Cheers
Dave

Re:Adblock? (1)

Denial93 (773403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146827)

I don't think car vendors and financial services have much interest in the smart-enough-to-use-Adblock demographic.

auto and finance both subject to rate pressures (5, Insightful)

StandardDeviant (122674) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146208)

Hmm, ad sales slowing down in sectors that are strongly sensitive to interest rate changes, at a time when interest rates have been ramped up by the Federal Reserve (who are only now starting to talk about slowing this rate hike campaign)? Color me somewhat unsurprised. A sharp dip in a few sectors is less worrisome to me than a shallower dip across the board. If the broader ad market begins to slump and does so for a few quarters in a row, yeah, it might be time to rethink all those old-but-new-again ad revenue dependent business models out there.

The Fed does not set interest rates. (1)

RKBA (622932) | more than 7 years ago | (#16148022)

"...at a time when interest rates have been ramped up by the Federal Reserve (who are only now starting to talk about slowing this rate hike campaign)?"

Contrary to popular belief, the Fed has very little latitude in setting interest rates because interest rates are market driven. The government finances a portion of its debts through borrowing (issuing bonds) and must consequently pay whatever the lowest bidder offers. See: How Treasury Auctions Work [treasurydirect.gov]

Two words... (1)

gg3po (724025) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146220)

housing bubble [cnn.com].

For those of you that don't think this can affect the economy across the board, just remember the tech bubble from a few years ago.

Indeed... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146443)

All one has to do to see the consequences of a real estate bubble is look at what
happened to Japan back in the early 90's when the Nikkei took a serious nosedive.
To be sure, it was only one piece of the bubble, but the land being seriously
overvalued (as much as 14 times it's current values, which are still dropping...)
and the sudden cooling of the economy by the government triggered a spiral they're
still trying to recover from- and the land/property bubble made it much, much
worse than it probably ought to have been.

To be sure, we don't have QUITE the bubble in land valuations and housing valuations
that Japan had, but it's going to send things back into another recession if things
don't improve a little quicker to lessen the blow from that bubble bursting. But
this only causes a recession because people do stupid things like base the current
economic health of the country off of things like the stock market valuations- the
stock market does NOT reflect the health of the country, but people keep pulling back
when they should be forging forward when the market takes a small nosedive because
they're terrified of getting caught in the messes that were caused by the Great
Depression. It's sad really. The last recession could have been less severe and
wouldn't have lasted as long as it did if people would have just managed their budgets
accordingly, doing what they would have normally if the bubble hadn't have burst.
It went as long as it did and as deep as it did because people let the stock market
do the decision making for them (What? You're going to let a bunch of gamblers and
manipulators determine what you are going to spend on capital purchases you're
actually needing to do? Tell me again why you're an executive manager?). I fear
the same thing if the ongoing housing bubble brought on by the tech bubble pops instead
of deflates slowly or the economy rises up to meet it.

More accurately... (1)

Skim123 (3322) | more than 7 years ago | (#16148603)

IMO, the problem is a credit bubble, of which housing prices (both in the US and abroad) are a symptom. Too much spending, too little saving. I think we're going start experiencing a global recession/depression starting around 2008... It'll be interesting to see how central banks respond to this upcoming challenge. If the past half decade has been any indication, they'll start handing out cheap money right and left...

Gads, where does one begin? (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146242)

IANAE (and thank Heavens - my social life is geeked-up enough as it is), but why the doom-and-gloom over what IMHO is basically a short-term shift? (the US economy grew at 5+% the first quarter of this year, and 2.5% 2nd quarter)... (ref: here [google.com] . I mean, seriously - if they were relying on year-to-year results to get a trend, okay... but quarter-to-quarter for a long-term forecast? Maybe I just don't grok economics so well, but it seems weird to me, to say the least.

Also, US Economy != World Economy, influences be damned. Is the global economy slowing overall, or no?

After RTFA, I think someone was trying to short some Yahoo stock more than make an accurate forecast...

/P

Re:Gads, where does one begin? (-1, Flamebait)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146270)

Is the global economy slowing overall, or no?

Depends on whether you're an arms dealer or not.

KFG

Re:Gads, where does one begin? (4, Informative)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146537)

Don't take this story for more than it is. Yahoo is adjusting their guidance for the quarter downwards (at the low end of their range, not below it), and they note shortfalls in a couple major advertising sectors. There's nothing long-term about it, and they're tossing up a broader slowdown as a possible reason for their shortfall. That sounds like speculation more than anything else...

And yes, IAAE (at least that's what my degree is in, I don't work professionaly as one).

Re:Gads, where does one begin? (3, Funny)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146627)

Whoever posted the article forgot to add that the terrible economic outlook is Bush's fault.

Re:Gads, where does one begin? (1)

klenwell (960296) | more than 7 years ago | (#16147171)

A joke I realize, but remember when Bush first came to office -- before 9/11 (so you'll really have to think hard) -- and one of the first things he and his spokespeople did was badmouth the economy. They had 2 obvious motives:

1. The economy was slowing down in the wake of dot-com (which was really as much biotech) mania and they wanted to be sure to pin this on Clinton

2. A justification for big top-heavy tax cuts

Then 9/11 came along and solved all those tricky public perception issues (also pre-empted China for a while as the next "Evil Empire to Clash Civilizations with.")

Anyway, to bring this back to topic: now with housing coming back to earth, it looks like a real downturn is in the works. How will this be spun? Maybe Yahoo Ads can take the fall.

My fault (5, Funny)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146251)

Sorry guys, this is all my fault. See, I block all ads. I'm antisocial. Forgive me?

Re:My fault (1)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146935)

Really? I block ads and am anti-social as well. Wouldn't it be great if there was a place on the web where we could all hang out?

Not so fast (1)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146254)

How can they just blame the economy for a slump of impact ads. There could be several other factors that could cause the same effect. As if the slow U.S. economy is only effecting Auto and financial ads. I believe we would see slow down in many other areas. Maybe they just aren't using effective advertising.

NOT a slowdown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16146257)

"They're growing, but they're not growing as quickly as we would have hoped at this moment in time," said Semel.

If I go from zero to 60 in 7 secs and then go from 60 to 80 in the next 7 secs, that isn't a "slowdown". It's a decrease in the rate of increase but NOT A SLOWDOWN. Not that anyone reads the article anyway.

GOOG (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16146264)

Sell Goog ! Quick !!!

Re:GOOG (1)

balsy2001 (941953) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146404)

A couple of quarters ago yahoo gave similar guidance and there was a couple of day slump for google then they beat the street expectations. People are forgetting this could be the economy slowing down or Yahoo just giving market share away to competitors (like google).

64% of the US budget is military spending (1, Informative)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146275)

With that proportion of the economy involved in getting blown up and destroyed it's not entirely surprising the economy is in trouble.

http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/ [thebudgetgraph.com]

Most of it is paid by borrowing rather than taxation, but the increased money supply simply kicks inflation and therefore interest rates into high gear. It'll get worse as the Arabs liquidate their dollar holdings.

 

What? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146439)

Umm, huh?

You really might want to read This [cbo.gov] first... 64% of total sounds more than just a bit too big of a number, 'mano. (the site you supplied may explain why... I'm not Bush's greatest fan or anything, but man - propaganda is propaganda, no matter what side you view it from)

/P

Re:What? (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146670)

It's the discretionary budget. The stuff they can choose to spend your income tax on. Social security, medicare/medicaid are paid other ways. It matches fairly closely with the pdf btw.

 

Re:64% of the US budget is military spending (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146604)

Hi Colin. You don't surprise me. You somehow forgot to include all the entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc.). You know, the stuff that would change the "defense" figure to more like 17%. Oh, that's right -- non-discretionary doesn't count. Because Congress is POWERLESS to cut Social Security benefits (except for hiking the retirement age and starting to tax benefits, which they already did).

(Not to trivialize defense spending of course -- in absolute terms, it's big. But somehow ignoring over half the budget isn't kosher either.)

Re:64% of the US budget is military spending (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146810)

"64% of the US Discretionary budget is military spending" was too big to fit in the subject line and it makes a bigger impact, one proportional to 64% of income taxes being spent on the military. Medicaid/medicare and social security aren't paid through income tax.

That site, and their graphs, tell a lie. (1)

Distan (122159) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146685)

Who on earth would graph federal spending and not show the "non discretionary" portion?

That's like me telling my wife that we have to cut back on groceries and diapers, because they consume 84% of our discretionary spending. Meanwhile, I'm spending 8 times as much on heroin, crack, hookers, and video games and calling it "non discretionary".

Social Security and Medicare are going to bankrupt us a lot faster than tomahawk missiles.

Re:That site, and their graphs, tell a lie. (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146832)

Who on earth would graph federal spending and not show the "non discretionary" portion?


Someone who wanted to show how income tax was spent?

 

Re:That site, and their graphs, tell a lie. (1)

spike2131 (468840) | more than 7 years ago | (#16148372)

Social Security and Medicare are going to bankrupt us a lot faster than tomahawk missiles.

Last year military spending last year, at $494 billion, which exceeded combined Medicare and Social Security spending by $16 billion. Military spending also has a far higher growth rate... and will grow at an even more rediculous pace if George Bush desides to pick a fight with Iran.

At least social security and medicare have thier own dedicated source of funding. To fund all those tomahawk missles, we are borrowing money from the Chinese. So yes, the tomahawk missles are driving us to bankruptcy.

It kills me when people advocate cutting social programs, but wouldn't consider touching the bloated military budget. If we didn't spend so much money blowing things up, there would be plenty of money left over to make sure people aren't destitute in their old age.

Re:That site, and their graphs, tell a lie. (1)

crabpeople (720852) | more than 7 years ago | (#16149296)

No its telling your wife that you have to cut back on guns and expensive cars because you need to pay for your healthcare, save for retirement and take care of your ailing mother. I mean literally, thats exactly what it is. How anyone could consider Medical care and care of the elderly to be "a choice", well thats pretty fucking barbaric.

Why advert with Yahoo when you can MySpace it?! (2, Funny)

wwiiol_toofless (991717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146300)

"Hi Y'all! I'm the Honda Fit. I'm totally spacious and affordable. My fav bands are the Chemical Brothers and O.A.R. Here are some pics of my fam, Uncle Civic, Granny Accord. Y'all, I'm 0.0% APR for 20 months!"

Two options (2, Insightful)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146312)

1) There is a downturn in Auto advertising and FS advertising
2) Yahoo are getting a smaller slice of the advertising pie

If you were the CEO, which option would you talk about?

Old news.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16146453)

Firstly, auto and financial services are directly tied together - when is the last time you paid cash for a car. I'm not talking about the 1989 Doge Omni style either.

Secondly - has anyone botherd to Ask Jeeves? Sure, Google is your friend, but sometimes you need a buttler, espically when you want a beer.

http://www.ask.com/web?q=yahoo+advertising+slump&q src=1&o=0&l=dir the #1 result for the search 'yahoo advertising slump' and this was back in '01. Sounds to me like someone may be looking to give some people the good ole' heave ho, but wanted people to warm up to the idea in a nice PR sort of way.

Weak economy is a weak excuse from Yahoo! (2, Insightful)

dougman (908) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146529)

While there are always "signs" that point to "weaknesses" in the economy, most of what is out there is FUD spread by the mainstream media. The reality is that the current administration picked up the pieces of the .com crash and 9/11 and has done a remarkable job energizing the US economic engine through tax cuts. I encourage you to read the following piece by respected economic advisor Lawrence Kudlow: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/ the_bigbang_story_of_us_privat.html [realclearpolitics.com]

Here's a few points:
  - Did you know that just over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent?
  - In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy. (so much for the "China is going to surpass us anytime soon theory - ed.)
  - Since the 2003 tax cuts, tax-revenue collections from the expanding economy have been surging at double-digit rates while the deficit is constantly being revised downward.

Housing MAY cause some short-term pressures (though I think this will be more isolated than is being reported) but it certainly isn't going to cause the economy to come to a halt. Maybe Yahoo should take a look at Google's numbers which, if I'm not mistaken, are doing just fine on the ad revenue side. Perhaps Yahoo should take a look in the mirror before proclaiming this is a US economic problem. When all the indicators show that online advertising rates industry-wide are down for multiple quarters I'll listen. Until then, this looks like short-term CYA by a CEO to help explain why his SG&A and EBITDA are not meeting the numbers the analysts want to see next quarter.

Re:Weak economy is a weak excuse from Yahoo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16147371)

Since the 2003 tax cuts, tax-revenue collections from the expanding economy have been surging at double-digit rates while the deficit is constantly being revised downward.

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. Wake me up when the national debt (not just the deficit) is actually going downward (not just being "revised" downward).

In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy.

Well, if things are all so rosy, let's just pay off the national debt and correct the trade imbalance and lift all the poor people out of poverty. I mean, these are obviously such small insignificant little things that we might as well just do them to make things a little neater.

With the Republicans in control of the presidency and both houses of congress and more or less the supreme court, they ought to be able to do whatever they want. Given that the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility, if nothing else they ought to be doing these things for aesthetic reasons.

Housing may cause short-term pressures? (1)

Hap76 (995519) | more than 7 years ago | (#16150175)

I don't know if this is discussed in the reference, but the housing market (and the increase in housing prices correlated with it) might be a substantial problem. A significant number of people have pulled value from their homes via home-equity loans, and if the loan rates are variable, increased interest rates simultaneously increase their payments and decrease the value of their house (by decreasing the market for their houses). Salary increases have not increased much more (if at all) above inflation, so that people make no more money in real terms than thirty years ago - so the increases in consumer spending have to come from somewhere, likely from their houses which no longer have the value they have drawn down on (like finding out the "extra" money you had and spent wasn't really extra, and now you owe it all and then some). In addition, some people have either interest-only mortgages or other variants, all of which have a grace period but all of whose payments will drastically increase at some point in the next year or two. These events would seem to pull lots of money out of the economy, worse if any of the mortgage lenders go under as well.

The other problem - do the tax cuts return more in taxes than they cost in direct lost income? Tax cuts are like a loan to spur growth - but if they don't return enough money, you have lots of debt and no way to pay it off, unless you cut spending (which means people have to pay for what the government no longer does) or raise taxes again.

This is a weak excuse, but it's never the CEO's fault if the company does poorly, so the excuse-making should be no surprise.

Re:Weak economy is a weak excuse from Yahoo! (1)

mutterc (828335) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154378)

over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent

Huh. That kind of makes me wonder where the money goes. I don't personally know anybody who is better off (especially taking inflation into account) as they were then.

I wonder what is included in "Financial Services" (2, Interesting)

Distan (122159) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146579)

I wonder what is included in the "Financial Services" category. Some posters seem to assume this is just all the online brokers. I bet it is more than that.

One of the most frequent (and annoying) class of advertisers I see on Yahoo are the seedy mortgage brokers, with all their ads for "teaser rate" interest only adjustable rate mortgages.

Now that the bottom is falling out of the mortgage industry, the brokers are getting more desperate for new suckers, er I mean "clients". There are less of those to go around and naturally the advertising is going to fall off.

Maybe Yahoo should just lift their prohibition against advertising porn. I bet they are leaving a lot of dollars on the table by not being willing to have a crotch shot on their home page. At least that industry is more ethical than the people who have been selling negative amortization adjustable rate mortgages on over assessed homes to people who least understand (and can least afford) what they were being set up for.

Slowing business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16146815)

The company I work for, a courier service, has seen a decrease in business for the past several months. And while I hear the summer is the slow season, business has not picked up to its normal level since the start of September. Other people in the business we have talked with have also been slow as of late.

So atleast in my perspective, certain areas of business have slowed down.

Also, I believe the company has also pulled back on its advertising budget as a result, although they have not done any ppc or online advertising.

Getting Real? (1)

jjm496 (1004054) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146816)

Maybe the people buying the advertising space are just catching on to the fact that people don't read yahoo ads? What average person is really going to see an ad on the corner of their screen and say "Damn, that little text ad is so rocking that I think I need to go buy a car from them right now"?

Yep, looks like a definite downturn... (1)

fatboy (6851) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146837)

Yep, looks like a definite downturn in the debt industry, IMHO.

Online ads might not work. (1)

CHK6 (583097) | more than 7 years ago | (#16146883)

Compared to local ads spent by dealers online ads might be missing the mark all together. I've found that local ads are better when focused on local residents. So maybe some advertising and marketing departments are figuring this out.

Also how many ads do you really read online? Take slashdot for example. I can filter out the ads faster than a TiVO skip. It's like they aren't even there. In fact anything animated automatically gets skipped by my eyes. So even national ads are easily skiped. It doesn't take a study from a marketing firm to see people's surfing habits and ability to filter out online advertisement spam.

Take TV commercials. Folks know it's a perfect time to refill a drink or go to the bathroom. Postal mail at least puts the literature in the hands of a viewer and even then I don't even that. So with the internet that had the consumer's full attention, viewers are slowly adpating in ignoring online ads without thinking out it.

Maybe not just the economy (1)

gorbachev (512743) | more than 7 years ago | (#16147052)

Online advertisers are increasingly moving from advertising on large portals to viral marketing and advertising on blogs.

I wouldn't be surprised at all, if that means Yahoo is seeing less ad revenue.

those two industries are.. (1)

zogger (617870) | more than 7 years ago | (#16147510)

...saturated. Extreme low interest rates by the Fed led to an over abundance of "irrational exuberance" part two to try and bring the economy out of the mini recession caused by the dot bomb years, and any one who wanted a cheap mortgage got one, then proceeded to try their hands at flipping to make fast easy money cash. Now that that is about milked out, and a lot of people are now stuck with over priced real estate and ARMS...well...

Cars. Again, saturated with all sorts of vehicles people don't want, and they can't even make enough of what people do want, namely more hybrid options, including plug in hybrids which NO major manufacturer sells yet, more high mileage diesel options, etc. And cars just got way too expensive in the last ten years anyway. Even at zero percent, which I can see at most of the lots around here, they are still way over priced and the lots are slap full, from the street to the back fence. In twenty years we have gone from cars cost what cars should cost to now they cost what HOUSES used to cost not too long ago.

You can throw all the ads you want to at those two problems but it won't help if the fundamental aspects to those problems aren't addressed, so I imagine they are starting to notice that. and just how many-what sort of percentage-of middle man wealth transferers can any economy really take? You have wealth production, wealth service and wealth rearrangement, and only one of those types of jobs actually makes *new wealth* the others just dilute the pool to a great extent. Again, throw all the ads you want to at the non wealth producing part of the economy, it won't make it one bit better.

Ya who? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#16150217)

Yahoo was careful to note that it cannot tell whether the current slowdown is a sign of broader trouble or is limited to ads from the auto and financial sectors.

Or limited to Yahoo's sales of auto/financial ads, perhaps because of a lack of response from Yahoo users. Or maybe online advertising is just ineffective, and those two sectors are simply the first to realize it. Or maybe it's just a completely meaningless fluke. Thanks for clearing that up for us, Yahoo.

Tags... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16150438)

"Yahoo chairman and CEO Terry Semel" alerts about drop in advertising, at result his company shares fall, Google follows the fall, NASDAQ lives one of the worst days in this year...

Some anonymous moron tags it as "FUD".

If it makes perfect sense to you, welcome to Web 2.0. For people like me, it will take a while to get used to it. ;)

The problem is Yahoo (1)

Serveert (102805) | more than 7 years ago | (#16151372)

Meanwhile the likes of Google et al produce record numbers.

The problem isn't the economy, it's Yahoo. I hate it when someone says, "Oh but they're a mature company, their sales are flat." There's no such thing as a mature company, there is only a company that has forgotton how to innovate. Yahoo's advertising system is a disaster. Especially their "ad sense" killer which bombed horribly.

Yahoo's problem is itself, period.

Ha ha ha ha (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 7 years ago | (#16151543)

The slowdown in ad sales for financial services is because of the trashing *cough* overhauling of the finance message boards, thus driving everyone with at least two brain cells FAR AWAY.

The finance boards have turned into a sewer.

If all you have left is the chucks, the 13 yr olds, and the drunken profane bloggers, just _who_ are you going to sell _FINANCIAL SERVICES_ to?

EH? TERRY?

My gawd, someone needs a fr0h slap.

The next Yahoo advertising push is "What would life be like without Yahoo?"

Well, I'll tell ya, Terry, it's just _wonderful!_

--
BMO - I am not a fucking AVATAR!
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...