Google Buying Monster.com?

A persistent rumor in Wall Street says that Google is interested in buying Monster.com.

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040824005144&newsLang=en

If true, this is not surprising. After a successful ipo the next phase is called DTA (diversification through acquisitions). Monster.com is a fair and good target.

How do you think this will play into the Yahoo!/MSN/Google fight for market share?

Orion

It's true that G needs to diversify. All of their eggs are now in the advertising basket which leaves them terribly vulnerable. It's too early for much speculation on where they would go with this but whichever direction, they will make waves.

The critical things are that they cannot be perceived to use their clout to go after competitors of any business that they acquire. How suspicious would it be if CareerBuilder suddenly stopped doing so well with Google? The second is that they cannot take their eye off the ball as Yahoo did. Y! got into everything and search shows it. While they acquired much, they virtually gave their search market share to Google.

I find Monster a bit more of a stretch than DoubleClick... persoanlly they should grab a few small engines... 7search, searchfeed and business.com would be smart moves... and blowsearch has great targeting...

First, with all their growth plans that might help them save good money by not paying high shares to headhunters.

Second, they will get a first take/pass to new and available valuable people ready to work.

Third, just think of the value of this database of people with so much information. . . . you know "organizing the world's information and making it universally accessible and useful."

According to this MSNBC story

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5797260/

this is more than a rumor. MSNBC writes

"Jim Treacy, a former Monster senior executive and a current shareholder, told Barron’s he thinks the company could fetch at least $30 per share, if CEO Andrew McKelvey decided to sell. But McKelvey told Barron’s he sees great opportunities ahead for Monster.

“The only reason to sell is if a buyer can get you where you need to go quicker,” he told Barron’s."

The MotleyFool site writes http://www.fool.com/news/mft/2004/mft04082309.htm?source=eptyholnk303100&logvisit=y&npu=y&bounce=y

"Stating that Monster Worldwide might be a possible takeover candidate is purely speculative at this point. Neither CEO Andrew McKelvey, who controls one-third of the voting rights, nor the two largest institutional holders have shown any inclination to sell. However, an offer with a substantial premium attached might be difficult to ignore. As always, prudent investors should first take a hard look at fundamentals before rolling the dice on rumors."

Certainly if Google buys Monster.com they will get a huge database for a different kind of potential ads. Let me elaborate on this marketing idea.

Imagine an ad service consisting of contextual job offers next to your current reading. I can see a lot of potential and opportunities here, not only for those looking for jobs or for job providers but for SEMs as well.

Orion

Correction: I incorrectly attributed the above statement to Jim Treacy. Sorry, I was typing too fast. These were statements attributed to Monster's CEO. I have edited the line and expanded on it. My apologies.

Imagine an ad service consisting on contextual job offers next to your current reading. I can see a lot of potential and opportunities here, not only for those looking for jobs or for job providers but for SEMs as well.

Orion
Or taking it a step further, licensing the content to fledgling job boards or other sites that are looking to add content... DMOZ style! Do that and they would all but own online employment, leaving Y! choking on a bit more dust.

Imagine an ad service consisting on contextual job offers next to your current reading. I can see a lot of potential and opportunities here, not only for those looking for jobs or for job providers but for SEMs as well.
Orion, you're amazing . . . That's Brilliant! :)

Hi, Papadoc.

Good post. Yeah, that's was it was buzzing in the back of my head. Well put. I was typing too fast while that was hitting my brain. Not an excuse, but it may explain why I mistake names, above. I made a correction to who says what.

Whether Google buys or not Monster, I think the above is an interesting marketing goldmine.

Orion

Hey, Nacho.

Gracias, mi amigo.

Orion

some interesting ideas... hopeful someone is listening

I find Monster a bit more of a stretch than DoubleClick... persoanlly they should grab a few small engines... 7search, searchfeed and business.com would be smart moves... and blowsearch has great targeting...
I can't see them wanting stuff that has an editorial directory involved with it like business.com...too much of a conflict of interest with their "completely algorithmic" search approach.

also I think buying up a ton of small search engines is a bad idea.
- when they bought Sprinks they did not immediately incorporate its technology.
- buying a buch of various search sites would remind people that "there are search sites other than Google," and that perhaps could have a negative impact on their branding.


Imagine an ad service consisting of contextual job offers next to your current reading. I can see a lot of potential and opportunities here, not only for those looking for jobs or for job providers but for SEMs as well.

Or taking it a step further, licensing the content to fledgling job boards or other sites that are looking to add content... DMOZ style! Do that and they would all but own online employment, leaving Y! choking on a bit more dust.
completely brilliant!!! (at least as far as I can see)

I agree that making people aware of other engines is not wise... but they can't have an ostrich's view of the industry...
Some of these engines have technology that could improve users and advertisers experiences and improve ROI and results.

I agree with Aussie. Today, I contacted Monster, Careerbuilder, Yahoo and other search engines with the idea presented in post #5; of syndicating job services as contextual ads. It is hard for me to understand why their marketing "gurus" did not provide this service before. There is a lot of money to make for both SEs and SEMs.

Let see if they are listening.

Orion

Since when does Steve Harmon's opinion combined with denials from the Monster CEO and anyone else connected with the company add up to any sort of acquisition rumor? What am I missing here?

And... 7search? Google needs this why?

Since when does Steve Harmon's opinion combined with denials from the Monster CEO and anyone else connected with the company add up to any sort of acquisition rumor? What am I missing here?

And... 7search? Google needs this why? 7search has quietly built a solid base of publishers for the business vertical. Obviously the largest percentage of the advertisers are more than likely doing Google ads as well... but you get some more clients and what appears to be a solid base of search syndication areas.
Ultimately this whole search industry becomes who has the best syndication of sites... and who can provide them at the optimum number.

As the MotleyFool site put it, this is so far a rumor. However, this is a "rumor" in the Wall Street sense.

The way I see it, this is more about how rumors play into Wall Street than about Steve Harmon. Some "rumors" may lead to "whisper" numbers (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-239382.html?legacy=cnet), thus, are important as they often play with forecasts and even pump-and-dump decisions.

McKelvey (Monster's CEO) owns only about 10 % of the shares while two institutional holders, Capital Research and Fidelity Investments, control 30 % of the shares (http://www.financialexpress.com/latest_full_story.php?content_id=66723), so who knows what will happen.

Either way, it is interesting to watch, from a WS sidewalk while having lunch at a kiosk. BTW, Here are some trading figures. Results change over time. Column sequence is Symbol, Time, Trade, Change, % Change, Volume.

MNST || 2:40PM ET || 20.20 || 0.31 || -1.51% || 413,335
GOOG || 2:40PM ET || 107.51 || 1.51 || +1.42% || 2,857,388


Orion

Why buy Monster? They can just put out a version of their own and call it Gjobs. Monster should be frightened by this prospect.

On smaller engines. Why? Their syndication streams are in place with many as in Mamma through Ask Jeeves. As long as this is working I can't see them moving too heavily in this direction.

I do see them buying an ad company. DCLK or VCLK or even a high profile Madison Avenue agency. Off web exposure which will in turn push people to Google. An example would be broadcast and print ads produced by Google which further promotes the brand.

Welcome to this thread, Webvisitor. You have formulated very good questions.

I should have call this thread "Wall Street SE Rumors", ie. to post on how "rumors" -in the Wall Street sense- affect stock trading and SE businesses. This kind of "rumors" are different from the general notion of rumors.

Unlike MNST, DCLK and VCLK themselve are acquiring search-related companies. Consequently, DCLK and VCLK investors are very bullish. Some things to be considered are given below.


DCLK RECENT ACQUISITIONS: Performics, SmartPath and Computer Strategy Coordinators

According to their 10Q, http://biz.yahoo.com/e/040809/dclk10-q.html

"Performics Inc. On June 22, 2004, we completed our acquisition of Performics Inc., a privately-held search engine marketing and affiliate marketing company based in Chicago, Illinois for approximately $58.2 million in cash. Pursuant to the merger agreement, Performics has the right to receive up to an additional $7.0 million based on the attainment of certain 2004 revenue objectives. Performics' search engine marketing solutions are designed to help clients automate their paid placement, paid inclusion, and comparison shopping listings across multiple search providers and publishers. Performics also provides the infrastructure for affiliate marketing, through which marketers manage, track, and report on their offers across multiple affiliate sites.

SmartPath, Inc. On March 19, 2004, we completed our acquisition of SmartPath, Inc, a privately held marketing resource management, or MRM, software company for approximately $24.1 million in cash.

Computer Strategy Coordinators, Inc. On June 30, 2003, we completed our acquisition of Computer Strategy Coordinators, Inc., or CSC, a data management company. In the transaction, we acquired all of the outstanding shares of CSC in exchange for approximately $2.8 million in cash and the assumption of certain indebtedness."


VLCK RECENT ACQUISITIONS: PriceRunner

I haven't check their 10Q, but according to http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/040810/valueclick_pricerunner_1.html they just completed the acquisition of privately-held Pricerunner AB, a provider of online comparison shopping services in Europe, and raised revenue guidance for the third quarter and full year.


MNST 10Q

One good reason for acquiring Monster is this source of information found in their 10Q http://biz.yahoo.com/e/040806/mnst10-q.html

"In January 2003, Monster Government Solutions was awarded a contract by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") to overhaul and operate the USAJobs website. This contract, renewable annually at OPM's option, could potentially run through the year 2013 and be worth up to $62 million. In July 2004, OPM announced that it will hold a new competition for the USAJobs contract. Press reports have suggested that the contract up for bid will be for one year, with the option of four one-year renewals. Press reports have also indicated that OPM simply wishes to re-evaluate the market place and is extremely pleased with our work. We will bid on the new contract and believe that we will remain OPM's partner of choice."

Imagine this database of info in good hands! So, why reinvent the wheel? Again these are WS "rumors". Who knows what Google has in mind.

Orion

Why buy Monster? They can just put out a version of their own and call it Gjobs. Monster should be frightened by this prospect. There are many reasons why one company buys another. Monster isn't afraid of much at this point. Banks, Internet companies, railroads, and phone companies can all, "build their own". But many times, it is more advantageous to buy an existing company.

1) It takes time to develop a technology, get distribution, and there are proprietyar tools and patents involved.

2) Buying the contracts of key employees and having a staff in place.

3) Buying a databased of X number of postings already in place.

4) Buying out a competitor who pretty much has their place in the market secured.

5) Buying their database of current and former clients

6) The value of the free press coverage they receive.

7) Monster would not get beat, much less silently. It would cost both companies a great deal of money. Monster would not keep it all, and Google would not get it all.

8) Sometimes a company is just undervalued at the moment.

9) Monster has a wonderful brand that even people who are not computer/Internet literate know. While G also has such a brand, it is not a brand associated with jobs.

10) Google would not have to buy every piece of stock out there, just a controlling share. There are reasons why you do buy the whole company, but in others, you simply want to call the shots.


The list of reasons goes on and on...

Why buy Monster? They can just put out a version of their own and call it Gjobs. Monster should be frightened by this prospect.

Google mail goes by Gmail...part of that is that they sell the concept "search your email"

as you spread out a brand you lose the strength of your brand.

when Heinz became ketchup they eventually lost the pickle brand to Vlasic.

being known as THE ROADMAP TO THE WEB is branding worth a ton of money, and Google may not want to spread that brand too thin (else they risk damaging that brand position).

Isn't Monster.com and the job boards THE major advertisers on Google (and everywhere else on the net)?

If Google buys Monster.com, would not the other job boards see this as a threat to their businesses and think twice about advertising with a competitor?

Also, I think that there is more "friendship" between google and yahoo.com than seems apparent (I noticed for certain search terms that they don't duplicate each others results).

I see Google and Yahoo.com deciding to SHARE the search market (to keep others out) and not duplicate each other's strategies. Yahoo already owns hotjobs.com and has substantial stock in Google.

I don't know why, but ALL of the major media seems determined to ignore the fact that the government is offering employers job posting for free. At some point, the fact that every city will have a job board where employers in those cities can post jobs for free will have an impact on the major jobs board. I don't see MASS oriented job sites as having a great future since, (as one guy said to me), employment is LOCAL.

Google already has a RELATIONSHIP with about.com and it seems to me that it would be consistent with Google's strategy if it either bought about.com or created some kind of similar GUIDE system.

What has always bothered me about google is that it seems to be a company of very technical people, yet its database is based entirely on POP knowledge (I don't think the average person in American is an engineer).

Google has to see a need to have, let's say, more educated guides/filters that can direct businesses and technical people to more TECHNICAL information on the net.

Isn't Monster.com and the job boards THE major advertisers on Google (and everywhere else on the net)?
they are probably the strongest branded job board on the web.

If Google buys Monster.com, would not the other job boards see this as a threat to their businesses and think twice about advertising with a competitor?
people still advertise on Overture. Once you own the network and the eyeballs you can sell the ads. If people want to not advertise on the largest networks because of the business partnerships of some of those largest networks then they are likely hurting their own profits. If one second tier or niche job board is not advertising there some other one will be.

Also, I think that there is more "friendship" between google and yahoo.com than seems apparent (I noticed for certain search terms that they don't duplicate each others results).
Yahoo! owns some Google shares (and likely wants to get rid of them). Other than that financial interest and the licensing fee for the Overture Patent there is absolutely no friendship.

When you want to purchase a broad array of keyword trigger ads you primarily have either AdWords (Google) or Overture (Yahoo!).

The reasons their search results do not entirely overlap is because they are ran by different technologies.

I see Google and Yahoo.com deciding to SHARE the search market (to keep others out) and not duplicate each other's strategies. Yahoo already owns hotjobs.com and has substantial stock in Google.
Google is synonymous with search. They do not want to lose any of that market. Last year Yahoo! was spending a bunch of money promoting Yahoo! Search specifically. I remember reading posts about huge billboards in downtown Chicago (and other locations) for Yahoo! Search...and I also saw lots of their ad stuff on websites (and a bit on TV but I do not watch much TV).

I don't know why, but ALL of the major media seems determined to ignore the fact that the government is offering employers job posting for free. At some point, the fact that every city will have a job board where employers in those cities can post jobs for free will have an impact on the major jobs board. I don't see MASS oriented job sites as having a great future since, (as one guy said to me), employment is LOCAL.
Employment is LOCAL, but corporations are global. Jobs will continue to shift locations.

Metcalf's Law really applies here. After these huge branded job sites exist (which are spending a ton advertising on other sites and built up these sophisticated proprietary technologies and brands) its not like the government's network is going to be able to step in and market its free solution cheaper or run it smoother than what Monster is doing.

Google already has a RELATIONSHIP with about.com and it seems to me that it would be consistent with Google's strategy if it either bought about.com or created some kind of similar GUIDE system.
This is couter to their brand.

What has always bothered me about google is that it seems to be a company of very technical people, yet its database is based entirely on POP knowledge (I don't think the average person in American is an engineer).
Google is successful because it is impossible to have a central database. You can not create a business that knows more than all other people about everything. NOT POSSIBLE.

If Google tried to bring everything internal it would destroy their brand. If they have a cut in much of the advertising (like with the About network) then why would they want to bring all those content creation costs internal?

Google has to see a need to have, let's say, more educated guides/filters that can direct businesses and technical people to more TECHNICAL information on the net.
Like most search engine sites my site refers to Search Engine Watch...a hub on the topic. Links naturally flow toward quality resources, especially in highly technical fields.

The cost of learning and maintaining propriety knowledge databases increases exponentially as the data becomes increasingly technical.

There are specific search engines for different niches, and search personalization will make it possible for Google to automatically adjust your results to match more in line with what you are looking for.

Google wants to be your roadmap to the best knowledge on the web. The do not want the expenses of creating & maintaining all the best content though.

two important things about government websites and about.com

1. The contract to create and manage the federal government's websites is currently with Monster.com in a $65 million dollar 10 year deal. Some company complained about this arrangement and the contract has been put up for re-bid. But I don't see monster allowing this contract to go to anyone else even if Monster has to do the work for free. Monster has an entire division specifically set-up for creating and managing government websites; this indicates to me that after nailing down the Federal gov't contract again, that monster will then go after each city's contract to manage their one-stop-career website. This is a perfect way to dodge the free government job boards, i.e. by monster having the contract to create and manage them.

2. Last year some time, Google entered into a deal to have all of the ads on about.com changed over to google adsense ads and Google purchased Primedia/About.com's proprietary ad server - I think it is called Sprinks. So, google's interest is about.com is established and on the record. Add to this that Primedia seems to be having some debt problems and needs to raise some cash - selling about.com to google seems the perfect way to do that.

I think that google is already doing work on the way to have "designer" search results tailored to certain audiences. For example, I think the university search filter is a perfect example of how Google recognized that there is a need for specialized and more technical search than the POPULAR CULTURE search results normally available.

My prediction, Google Buys About.com or all of Primedia (although I think google only wants about.com). Is it really that hard to believe that the largest content website on the net should be owned by the largest advertising entity that matches ads to text?

About.com to Serve Google AdSense - http://websearch.about.com/b/a/037474.htm

PRIMEDIA Inc. announced this morning that they had reached a deal this morning to sell its Sprinks Unit to Google. The deal also outlined a four year distribution deal that would see Google AdSense ads running on About.com and over 125 magazine-related PRIMEDIA properties. The potential impact of this move on Google AdWords advertisers is enormous as PRIMEDIA Web properties are among the most highly trafficked content sites on the Web. For more information, see this morning's Press Release.

I don't know why, but ALL of the major media seems determined to ignore the fact that the government is offering employers job posting for free. At some point, the fact that every city will have a job board where employers in those cities can post jobs for free will have an impact on the major jobs board.
Marion, I'd be interested in knowing the source of your information on this. Not saying that you are wrong and I could see some logic behind it, but I just don't see that much out there. If they are, they are keeping them quite well hidden. I've seen a few in Canada, but these are often reserved for charities and then of course most cities have their own job boards for their own HR needs... no big shock there! There could also be some startups. I assume that you have a few examples in mind.

I think there would be some real issues within an awful lot of public sector businesses if cities got into this in any kind of a serious way. Between attacks on the recruitment industry itself, such a move would completely kill classified ad revenue for almost every newspaper in every city where this sprouts up. I'm no political genius, but if I were a mayor or city council member, the last think I am wanting is to vote to stick a knife in the back of the local newspapers that quote me and editorialize about me.

Government does some stupid things and many more that are way outside of its stated pervue, but taking over recruitment for the nation is so far over the top that I have a hard time seeing it happen, much less being successful.

Hi, Marion. Welcome to the thread. You are making some interesting points; eg., that certain company complained about the Monster-USA contract, that Google should buy the entire Primedia company, etc.

There is now a new thread initiated by Nacho, strictly for Wall Street rumors (WS rumors) at http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1348

In this new thread the format is very simple and to the point; ie., WS rumors only, no speculations, predictions or rumors made out of thin air or mere opinions. Statements found in prs are also not good WS rumors as most prs are about promoting products, services or people, not about stock trends or about activities taking place before, during or after a trading session.

To sum up, this means that all WS rumors must be backed by SEC reports, whisper numbers, investment bank forecasts, etc. Samples are given in the thread. I would assume that posts not conforming to the format will be deleted, but ultimately that's up to SEW editors. Please, if you have a solid WS rumor about PRM (Primedia), you and others are welcome to post at the Wall Street rumors thread. Pump-and-dump-ers are also invited as long as they conform to the format.

Orion

Marion, I'd be interested in knowing the source of your information on this. Not saying that you are wrong and I could see some logic behind it, but I just don't see that much out there. If they are, they are keeping them quite well hidden. I've seen a few in Canada, but these are often reserved for charities and then of course most cities have their own job boards for their own HR needs... no big shock there! There could also be some startups. I assume that you have a few examples in mind.

I think there would be some real issues within an awful lot of public sector businesses if cities got into this in any kind of a serious way. Between attacks on the recruitment industry itself, such a move would completely kill classified ad revenue for almost every newspaper in every city where this sprouts up. I'm no political genius, but if I were a mayor or city council member, the last think I am wanting is to vote to stick a knife in the back of the local newspapers that quote me and editorialize about me.

Government does some stupid things and many more that are way outside of its stated pervue, but taking over recruitment for the nation is so far over the top that I have a hard time seeing it happen, much less being successful.

An association of headhunters IS in fact petitioning congress to have the One Stop Career Center initiative scaled back. They claim that the government is costing their members about $18 to $25 million dollars a year.

http://tempingnyc.netfirms.com/talkshop/messages/65.html
""Mike Giuffrida, executive vice president of the Association of Career Management Firms International-North America, estimated that his members were losing $18 million to $25 million a year to the One-Stop Centers." "The act and the regulation that implemented it all say the same thing: the government is supposed to rely on the private sector unless it can provide services more cheaply," he said. "They're supposed to bid this stuff out at the local and state level and they're not doing it. The state is coming in and saying we'll do it for free and as a result our members are losing business all across the board.""
New York Times, "New Jobless Centers Offer More Than a Benefit Check", September 5, 2001

I'm sure what I have to say does not qualify as a Wall Street Rumor because it is just my opinion based on what I know to be fact.

The Workforce Investment Act was past some time ago and this Act approved the reorganization of State Unemployment Departments into so-called One Stop Career Centers , i.e. (The One Stop Career Center Initiative). Every state and almost every major metro has a job board that allows employers to post jobs for free. For example, in new york one of them is http://www.hightechny.com.

Obviously, Monster.com is aware of the One Stop Career Center Initiative, because it snagged the contract to be the back-end of the Federal job boards. However, Craig Newmark, of craigslist, is also fully aware of the threat of the government to his fee-for-job-postings revenue stream as HE is on the board of the one Stop in San Francisco.

I would say that the only way that Craigslist has managed to get as far as it has is BECAUSE the One Stop in San Francisco has done nothing toward creating a job board on which employers in SF can post jobs for free (The State of California has such a board, but not the city of San Francisco). And, low and behold Craig Newmark is on that one stop board.

My theories and links on the whole government job board thing and its impact on Monster.com and craigslist are on my site at http://www.tempcity.com/dramanyc/index.php?showtopic=2676 and they are also expressed on craigslist's special forum on the Ebay 25% investment in Craigslist at http://forums.craigslist.org/?forumID=20040813

in re Google and About.com - I would say that if About.com created some sort of centralized messageboard system, where all of the various boards on About.com were combined and organized al la craigslist, About.com would be a craigslist with better class more educated/credible content.

Also, I think it is clear (from Craig Newmark's attempts to demonize real estate brokers) that Craig Newmark is hoping to morph craigslist into a paid apartment listing service, in an attempt to find an alternate revenue stream to craigslist's current job posting revenue stream (the job posting revenue stream can't possibly last much longer). See I Am The Anti-Craig at http://www.tempcity.com/dramanyc/index.php?showtopic=3142 . On the subject of Apartment/Real Estate Listing Services, take a look at Primedia's list of Apartment Listing Publications at http://www.primedia.com/divisions/consumerguides/apartmentguideslist/

The San Francisco One Stop Board's website is at http://www.picsf.org . If you go there and look at the membership of the "private industry council, you can see that Craig Newmark, of craigslist, is a member of the council. As I said, I personally think that the biggest threat to craigslist current revenue model IS the government's One Stop Career Center initiative

************

www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?a
OPM opens USAJOBS Web site to competition
By David McGlinchey
dmcglinchey@govexec.com

The Office of Personnel Management is seeking contractors who are interested in running the federal government's recruiting centerpiece, the USAJOBS Web site.

Technology contractor Monster.com was originally awarded a 10-year contract to develop and manage USAJOBS, with one base year and nine option years. OPM officials said they are happy with Monster.com's performance, but a market survey earlier this year revealed a variety of interesting new options, according to Ronald Flom, a senior procurement executive at OPM
******************
www.careeronestop.org/aboutus.asp

ABOUT US
Finding a new job? Hiring new employees? Getting ahead in your career? It all starts right here! This is your gateway to job listings, resumes, and career information nationwide -- the biggest and best collection of free employment and career resources on the Internet.

In line with the Department of Labor’s vision for America’s Labor Market Information System, CareerOneStop, is a collection of electronic tools, operating as a federal-state partnership, and funded by grants to states. Each tool offers a unique solution to the overwhelming demands of today’s labor market from the perspective of the job seeker, the employer, and the public workforce community. This powerful suite of tools, accessed through our user-friendly portal, includes:

America's Job Bank
• The biggest and busiest job market in cyberspace. Job seekers can post their resume where thousands of employers search every day, search for job openings automatically, and find their dream job fast. Employers can post job listings in the nation's largest online labor exchange, create customized job orders, and search resumes automatically to find the right people fast...

I conjectured on Goyami (http://www.goyami.com) that Google might consider buying AOL. Everyone knows Time Warner want's to dump AOL, but I think Google needs to buy them before Yahoo! takes over one of their biggest partners.

See Article:
Google's Stock Debut, Will they Buy AOL Next? (http://www.corante.com/goyami/archives/005757.html)

Adam
Editor - Goyami

Marion, thank you for the good insight between Craiglist and Monster. Adam, welcome to the thread. Feel at home. I read your post at Goyami (Corante) and is quite interesting. I know that interlaced topics cannot be avoided. However, this is a focused thread; ie., about the rumor outthere in the sense that Google may buy Monster, no more, no less. Let's not dilute the thread's topic with other possible merges and acquisitions.

One of the SEW moderators, Nacho, has initiated a new thread on Wall Street Rumors and Search Engines. So if someone can back his/her Wall Street rumors on other possible acquisitions (eg., Primedia, TWX's AOL, or any other merge/acquisition), feel free to post at the http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1348 thread.

Orion

I see Google and Yahoo.com deciding to SHARE the search market (to keep others out)
Which is exactly what the licence for PPC keyword thingy did. That pretty much established that Overture's patent is valid. The settlement therefore raised the cost of entry for the next player, as they will have to either challenge the patent, because Google didn't invalidate it for them, or pay for it, neither of which is neccesarily a cost effective decision fora start-up or small company.

There is so much to Yahoo, it is an amazing resource.

Even if Google could actually build a better Yahoo, why would Google want to re-invent the wheel when there is other stuff that can be done.

The latest craze is that it is all about SEARCH. However, as we all know, Yahoo is Yahoo because of its directory. And The Mining Company survived the dotcom meltdown to become about.com because of its Guides filtering the "useless info" on the net.

For example, my website on temping is competing (and losing) in the search results against an abandoned website that hasn't been updated in 10 years, simply because a lot of other websites are still linking to the abandoned website.

The latest craze is that it is all about SEARCH. However, as we all know, Yahoo is Yahoo because of its directory. And The Mining Company survived the dotcom meltdown to become about.com because of its Guides filtering the "useless info" on the net.
if Yahoo! had that much faith in their directory then perhaps they would not have demoted it so much? Perhaps they would not have bought a bunch of search companies?

granted I am just a 24 year old who does not know much about the world, but...

my "useless personal blog" has better info about the origin of the Harvey Wallbanger than the About ****tail guide does. sure I went to bartending school, but the real reason I learned a bunch about that particular topic was because some guys gave me that nickname and I wanted to know all about its origins.

I can go to howstuffworks and tell you that they have some inaccuracies in their description of how nuclear power works. why? I was a nuclear reactor operator for a few years.

paid content networks do not always drive the most interested and knowledgable people to produce content. some of the best stuff comes from "useless personal blogs."

paid content does not guarantee the people love what they are doing and are creating the best stuff out there. some of the things I am most interested in only came into my mind by accident.

thats how the web works though...Ebay was created when Pierre Omidyar wanted to help his wife trade Pez. http://www.ebayauctions.ca/aboutebaycanada.asp

For example, my website on temping is competing (and losing) in the search results against an abandoned website that hasn't been updated in 10 years, simply because a lot of other websites are still linking to the abandoned website.
Sounds to me like you could do a better job promoting your site.

As the information database grows more sophisticated more information mining subnetworks will come of age. search is only going to become more important as the body of information expands.

In any event, If google wants to re-invent Yahoo, then I guess we will see them buying Monster.com. Personally, I think yahoo and Google have divided up the world and have a non-interference agreement.

Frankly, I couldn't imagine creating a business dependent on people being too lazy to use a directory or too dumb to type "www.tempagencies.com" in a browser (preferring instead to type temp agencies on google). I read somewhere that the biggest search term on google is "google".
I dunno, that just makes sense to me. Why type in a URL if you can make a mistake, when Google corrects mistakes for you.

Ok, now I understand what you are talking about and I do think it disconcerting that the U.S. government is in any business. I thought that you were talking about something new. These have been around on the Internet for a long time, and they were around offline for decades before that. This however has obviously not stopped the development of private job boards and head-hunters and I don't see much changing anytime soon. Heck, the government gives this stuff away free and most people still don't want it. As an employer, I've tried using them years ago and found I got mostly garbage candidates. I don't think this is much of a consideration to Google IF they would consider Monster.

Even if Google could actually build a better Yahoo, why would Google want to re-invent the wheel when there is other stuff that can be done.

Exactly! Besides, there is the principle of diminishing returns by extending your brand. And if the idea is to diversify, what is the point in adding yet another feature to host similar ads? Yahoo has added great depth of services, but they are still mostly ad supported.

While Monster looks attractive, an economist would look at balancing the portfolio against economic tides. When things are going north, businesses advertise and they hire people. But when things are heading south, they stop. It's the old margarine/butter economic theory. You just might see Google buffer itself by looking at markets that flourish when an economy goes south, and therefore cover themselves both directions.


Frankly, I couldn't imagine creating a business dependent on people being too lazy to use a directory or too dumb to type "www.tempagencies.com" in a browser (preferring instead to type temp agencies on google). I read somewhere that the biggest search term on google is "google".

Again, nothing new under the sun. Business owners and advertisers hope for intellectually functional, but must plan their offerings and services for idiots. Yet there is still only so far you can go. We get stupid stuff all the time but one from this weekend beats all. We have advertising for retirement homes on our site. We had one lady write in and tell us that she cannot remember which home she put her mother in, and asked us to look it up. Imagine the stuff that Monster gets and ask yourself if you were Google, if you would want to tool up for that.

Again, nothing new under the sun. Business owners and advertisers hope for intellectually functional, but must plan their offerings and services for idiots. Yet there is still only so far you can go.
you are not likely to offend people by making your stuff easy for anyone to use

We get stupid stuff all the time but one from this weekend beats all. We have advertising for retirement homes on our site. We had one lady write in and tell us that she cannot remember which home she put her mother in, and asked us to look it up. Imagine the stuff that Monster gets and ask yourself if you were Google, if you would want to tool up for that.
we all have a few good emails and phone calls.

I have gotten a call from random old lady about the Nigerian email scam she was sent. I also have got many phone calls where people were expecting me to be Google or Kanoodle or other search engines...

call me paranoid, but it sure looks to me like some search results on google are tweaked so as not to offend the big job boards (that are major advertisers).

if the job boards are in fact this hyper about what website shows up first under a term that they pay big bucks for, it seems they would really NOT LIKE the idea of Google OWNING a job board.

Monster Government Solutions announced today (08-30) that its hiring management solution QuickHire is the 1st commercial software to integrate with the new job announcement display on USAJOBS. http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040830/305690_1.html

The new display presents job information to candidates and is now available to all QuickHire customers. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency is the Company's First Customer to Post a Job Vacancy on USAJOBS Through QuickHire Using the New Display. Monster is even more appealing than ever for a takeover. Imagine all that information properly delivered through a search engine or through an enterprise search solution.

Orion

isn't it the government's data in this case? there are more limits on what the gov't can do with personal info than on private entities.

thanks for link. this is rather interesting when you consider that the OPM just put the management of the USAJOBS website up for re-bid

so what? if someone else gets the contract they will have to license this new software from Monster?

It is so evil it is almost funny. As I said, I think Monster will do the USAJOBS website for free rather than let anyone else get it.

Seem to remember Monster doing a load of spamily optimised javascript redirect pages a year or so ago.

That would have been funny for a Google-owned company.

Whether Google buys or not Monster it's a rumor based on Barron's article and analyst comments. I can understand why some don't want to conceed or even conceive this could happen. Nobody can be certain, one way or the other. If it does happen, Google can opt to either buy part or all of Monster Worldwide operations. Rumors say they will go for the throat.

BTW. Monster Worldwide, Inc. is the parent company of Monster (www.monster.com). As of February 2004, the Monster global network, includes complementary job search Websites such as www.flipdog.com and www.jobs.com, 22 local content and language sites in countries throughout North America, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region. The Company also owns TMP Worldwide, a Yellow Pages advertising agency and recruitment advertising agency. Back in May, Monster acquired Tickle (http://www.tickle.com), a career assessment testing company serving more than 18 million suscribers.

Thus, what we are talking is not about the mere possible acquisition of a job site. That's a side show of something bigger.

Sometime during the day I will post some projections in the Wall Street rumors thread.

Orion

Monster (MNST) - A rumor has it that you should buy, as Monster's projections are bright and the risk is low. Another rumor says that today's trading session will end up for Monster (and down for Google). For the third quarter of 2004 the projections are

Revenue growth Projection: To increase and around $214 million
Diluted earnings per share : Around $0.16.

Sources:

1. http://www.investor.reuters.com/StockOverview.aspx?ticker=MNST.O

2. http://www.investor.reuters.com/KeyDevelopments.aspx?rn=A1234&ticker=MNST.O&target=keydevelopments&development=2004-07-27T16%3a05%3a00#2004-07-27T16:05:00


Orion

The Motley Fool site is running an interesting article written by Rick Aristotle Munarriz (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2004/mft04090302.htm). Rick writes "I'm not suggesting that it hit up Monster (Nasdaq: MNST) to compete against Yahoo! and its Hot Jobs site. I'm not suggesting that Google should be scooping up content sites such as iVillage (Nasdaq: IVIL) or TheKnot (Nasdaq: KNOT) to own the billboard space it covets. Well, maybe I am. So what? Is it really that outlandish? The reason that Google was able to rise so quickly and effectively against Overture was that it was the one that refused to remain stagnant."

Now even a MotleyFool guy is pondering the "impossible".

Orion

Ponder this, what exactly is there to prevent companies from posting job vacancies on Google's Adsense network?

So far, I have not seen a job posting on Google's Adsense network (unless you want to count temp agencies advertising). But, it seems to me that it is entirely possible for Google to accept job postings. This fact also makes the case for Google being interested in content sites rather than job boards.

Marion, good observation. I'm more looking at the bigger picture as described in post #40 of this thread. Asides, it's hard to see Google reinventing the wheel or intermixing job offer ads with general topic advertisement. Just my 2 cents. Again, Barron's and the guys at MotleyFool are looking at the bigger picture. I must conceed that with Google, anything is possible.

Orion

My UK based site is gjobs.co.uk. Google should buy me I think I would be one hell of a lot cheaper then Monster.

David