RKG Logo 434-978-4300

Yahoo! announced their Q4 ‘09 earnings on Tuesday, making their best effort to portray a 4% year over year decline in revenue as a signal of a turnaround.  While that certainly beats the 12-13% declines Y! saw earlier in ‘09, there are still troubling numbers deeper in the report and in RKG’s data.

The big number that jumps out is a 15% Y/Y decline in search advertising revenue.  From Yahoo:

Marketing services revenues from Owned and Operated sites were $971 million for the fourth quarter of 2009, a 9 percent decrease compared to $1,063 million for the same period of 2008.  The decrease was primarily driven by a 15 percent decline in search advertising revenue and a 1 percent decline in display advertising revenue.

Results from a basket of RKG clients are in line with that figure with a spend decline of 20% across Yahoo and its partners in Q4.  By comparison, RKG’s spending on Google rose 14% Y/Y.

While a general improvement in the economic environment helped all three engines’ Q4 numbers, Yahoo continued to bleed share to Google and Bing at a fairly steady rate according to our data:

Interestingly, Yahoo’s reported numbers were bolstered by a relatively impressive 6% Y/Y lift in revenue from affiliate sites.  While they don’t break out specifics, it stands to reason that a big portion of that revenue is from Yahoo! Partners on search.  It’s unclear if the 15% decline in search advertising revenue includes the partner results; If so, it’s an even more impressive gain, but one with not so obvious costs.

To Yahoo’s credit, they have offered advertisers the ability to block poorly performing partner sites for some time now; however, if most advertisers are not parsing their data this finely, the expansion of Yahoo! Partners with lower and lower quality traffic will continue to drive down ROI and ultimately spend on Yahoo O&O sites where the bulk of their revenue potential is.  Advertisers and agencies taking advantage of Yahoo’s partner exclusions (like RKG) benefit from this scenario through reduced competition in bid auctions and lower CPCs.  Good for our clients, bad for Yahoo.

Fortunately for Yahoo, this effect is likely to diminish over time as more advertisers wise up to just how much money they are throwing away to poorly performing partner traffic.  Yahoo has also made a smart move recently by improving advertisers’ ability to manage bids on their network.  In addition to the existing all-or-nothing exclusions, we can now apply a percentage bid adjustment to partner traffic.  This is a very welcome move and the benefits should flow both ways in the long run.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

If you like this post, consider subscribing to our RSS feed. You can also have new posts sent to you via email.


Related Posts

Comments

  1. Nathan L., January 29, 2010:

    I have thought about advertising on Yahoo! for some time, but news like this makes me want to just stick with Google.

    Good useful information!

  2. Mark Ballard, January 29, 2010:

    I certainly don’t mean to discourage advertising with Yahoo at all as there’s plenty of value to be had there. Healthy competition between engines benefits users and advertisers alike and I’d hope to see the Yahoo/Microsoft partnership strengthen both in the search space and end up greater than the sum of its parts.

Your Comment

Trackback

http://www.rimmkaufman.com/rkgblog/2010/01/29/yahoo-q4-09-financials-and-ppc-share/trackback/

Blogs Citing This Post

  1. Trackback: uberVU - social comments on January 30, 2010

Email Updates

Categories

Recent Comments

  • George Michie: Doesn’t have to be, it can be intra-adgroup as well.
  • Josh: George – I take it you’re referencing a scenario where your exact-match keywords are not listed as negative exact match keywords...
  • George Michie: Melissa, you’re right, it’s always happened to varying degrees, particularly since the advent of extended broad match....
  • Mel66: I don’t think this is a bug. It’s been happening for years. It *is* impossible to manage, and I can’t help but wonder if...
  • George Michie: Thanks Matt, Sometimes humor serves a purpose.
  • George Michie: Ken, sadly, as Jim stated above, too few people look under the hood and raise Cain. We’re very fortunate to have great reps on...
  • Matt: This is great! I started out reading this with the same anger that I feel everyday I spend unnecessary amounts of time optimizing to get...
  • Ken Truman: Right on, George. This is yet another one of the vagaries of broad matching that continues to drive smart advertisers mad. Your post...
  • George Michie: Interesting idea, Mark. The question might be: would advertisers know someone’s Twitter handle? Most require an email, but I...
  • @markthijssen: What if you would ask a consumer about his experience with the product some days/weeks/months after the sale via twitter. This might...
  • George Michie: Thanks Kenny, Another particularly annoying variation on the theme involves flashing the brand ads around on general searches. The...
  • Kenny: I’ve seen this happen too – very annoying, especially when the broad match ad that is served is specific to a particular...
  • George Michie: Jim, I think you’re right on that last piece. To me, Google doesn’t have to see this as either/or, by simply offering...
  • Jim Novo: I’ve also written about this “smart client” problem, the idea that a lot of what Google “suggests” or does...
  • Kathleen Raines: In my letter I did put the wrong month. I said April it should have been May.

Blog Stats

  • Posts: 948
  • Words: 451,089
  • Comments: 2,862

Administration