Microsoft's search ambitions are its Vietnam

Summary: Updated below: Is Microsoft fighting an unwinnable war with its online business and search obsession?It's a valid question and one that needs to be asked.

Updated below: Is Microsoft fighting an unwinnable war with its online business and search obsession?

It's a valid question and one that needs to be asked. At some point you have to wonder if Microsoft's Google envy is its Vietnam. As Mary Jo Foley noted Microsoft's answer to its online woes is to spend, spend, spend. You have to wonder at the returns. Some analysts have dismissed these online investment worries because the Microsoft's broader business is doing fine. But if these online results become a drag just when Microsoft should be at its peak product and earnings cycle it's an issue.

It's not like Microsoft just discovered the Web. It has been there all along. It had its epiphany to squash Netscape more than a decade ago. Its properties aren't half bad. And Microsoft is a top 5 player on the Web in terms of traffic. Good luck turning a profit though. Microsoft is an afterthought in search. Display advertising is hurting the software giant's online revenue. And Microsoft is hell-bent on conquering a market it knows little about--advertising. Of course, Microsoft wants to know more about advertising and has been acquiring accordingly, but where are those returns?

After Microsoft released its fourth quarter results the online unit stood out for all the wrong reasons. The online services business lost $1.23 billion for the fiscal year ending June 30. I quipped that it's no wonder that Microsoft is so hot for Yahoo. Something has to save this online business.

And what's startling about that figure is that Microsoft only lost $732 million in 2007. Microsoft's online services business was actually profitable in 2005.

osb1.png

Now you can argue that the collapse of Microsoft's narrowband dial-up service was the issue, but even so operating income is headed in the wrong direction. What's the explanation? Microsoft is investing in the future. Microsoft will continue to spend heavily on search. Execs told investors it will compete in search--even if it has to pay people for their queries.

But all that spending may not add up to much. Unless Microsoft buys AOL or Yahoo its online business isn't likely to turn a profit in the current fiscal year. Why? The online business is headed for a dry spell. What does that mean for Microsoft, which has an online business that wasn't profitable even during good times?

Indeed, Microsoft is already seeing a slowdown. It noted that "monetization lagged" because of "tightening advertising budgets combined with a more competitive display pricing environment." Sure Microsoft is investing in more premium online content, but that's also more expensive.

CFO Chris Liddell made it clear the online services business is in investment mode. On a conference call he said:

The online services business has a totally different dynamic and is in a period of significant investment. We do not make these investments lightly, as the loss in this division will be a drag on an otherwise exceptionally good performance. Translation: Microsoft's online business will lose money in fiscal 2009 too.

However, we believe that the additional investments of several hundreds of millions of dollars is worth the short-term cost, given the opportunity to participate in a market where the opportunity is measured in the tens of billions of dollars.

Liddell also talked about improving social networking assets across all delivery vehicles--PC, phone and Web. Microsoft also plans to "invigorate our MSN portal experience" and blow two-thirds of its online investing dollars on improving search.

When asked how Microsoft will compete with Google on search with or without Yahoo, Liddell said:

In the search area, clearly that’s the one where, relatively speaking, we are the most behind and that’s why we’re taking a different approach, which again I mentioned in the prepared remarks where we are focusing in particular on the areas of search where there’s a strong commercial intent, our verticals like retail, travel, real estate, local. We’re looking at different approaches where we might potentially take a disruptive and innovative business model, for example, Cashback, and then looking at winning distribution deals.

Now in the short-term, that isn’t going to make the division profitable and I think clearly from our guidance, that’s not the case. So as I said in the remarks, if you look at the operating margin structure of the company, you really have to look at the three distinct businesses. We feel good about the margin structure for our core businesses in particular growing double-digit revenue on. Entertainment and devices will be broadly flat but online is going to be negative

In other words, Microsoft's online business is the appendage that's going to dilute good gains in its core businesses in fiscal 2009. Microsoft wouldn't address fiscal 2010 or 2011 or make any projections about when the online business would be profitable.

Bottom line: Microsoft's online war will continue with no end in sight.

Update:  This story removed the image that had previously accompanied it. In no way did I intend to offend the fine folks that served in Vietnam and my art selection stunk. My apologies.

Topics: Banking, Microsoft

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

107 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Microsoft's search ambitions are its Vietnam

    The simple answer is no. Microsoft has Google envy? Since when? Google has been in constant decline for a couple of years now. Microsoft on the other hand has been growing. Their interest in search is to diversify the company's offerings and provide a better search engine than their competitors. I don't see why introducing a new and improved service is a bad idea.
    Loverock Davidson
    • So...

      Microsoft missing its estimate and the resulting 6-ish% drop in share price is your definition of growth.
      zkiwi
      • So...

        you always get it wrong? Look up the word diversify.
        Loverock Davidson
        • Does diversify mean...

          Stagnant stock value and missing estimates? Or is that your definition specific to Microsoft?
          zkiwi
          • You had better brush up

            Share price has no direct correlation with a company's growth. In fact, it's the most unreliable barometer of growth, net worth or any other measure. <br> <br>
            Or are you going to argue the entire dot com bust never happened? Companies with negative income having unheard of stock prices or companies with p/e of 5000, while solid companies are being passed over. Yeah, your market analysis is as delusional as you are. <br>
            Explain all the companies that got hammered well below there strong financial standing and outlook. <br><br>
            Also, you've never heard of a company taking losses for multiple years to grow the company?
            <br><br>
            do you really feel good, being a middle aged man thinking more about retirement than anything else, and coming here to make mindless "i hate Microsoft" posts all day long?
            <br>
            What a shame
            xuniL_z
          • Better than Lovey posts

            Which again misses the point that Loverock, as per usual, has no facts at all to back up his assertions.

            He just posts to get responses, preferably flames.

            There's a name for this.

            Troll.

            What I don't understand is why people keep dropping food under his bridge. :-)

            ttfn

            John
            TtfnJohn
          • Hey John

            Thanks for taking the time to point out you think I'm a troll, moreso than another person you mentioned that you obviusly believe is a troll. Thanks, you are a real nice guy. <br>
            Don't forget it's your country that has one of the 2 (the other also in europe) largest Microsoft marketshares...k? Well above the U.S. share. Another way to see this is that over half of those writing MS technology books are from europe, mostly england. <br><br>
            Can you explain this?
            <br>
            person a is a windows user and says something good about their software. <br>person b is a linux user and says something good about the software. <br><br>
            Now you are immediately apt to say person a is a troll or at best....s/he is joking or ignorant. my, what dogma you have John <br><br>
            Me, or most any windows user (i see a fair number here that would never post, let alone a bad post in a linux blog) will simply see that they like linux and that is that. <br>
            If I Ever post differently, I use words directly from a recent baggin of windows and change the names, but they are so caught up in themselves and religion and thoughts that they, their choices and thoughts are God's gift to human knowledge, they never notice. <br><br>
            I'd rather be thought a troll by someone who is totally biased, than not speak up when i see someone being pruposely (or not) misleading. <br>
            As for my posts to zkiwi, who was the first person to respond to me when I first signed up here, and I had asked a question about a windows issue Iwas having (was naive to the fact it's not a professional site but rather the national enquirer of tech, fitting the mentality of many of it's readers) and zkiwi came in and laid a condescending, sarcastic insultive ABMer special on me. <br><br>
            Well it grew into a back and forth thing. I don't really hate zkiwi and it was just playing for the most part, but he's dead serious. <br> Another big difference with laid back windows users who are normally too professional and busy to ever entertain the thought of showing up in this twisted sensationalist hell.
            xuniL_z
          • Paranoid Much?

            He said Loverock is a troll. He didnt mention you. Unless you're also Loverock, in which case, yes, you would then be a troll.
            bmerc
    • Sweet!!!

      Is this what you mean when you say Google is declining and Microsoft is growing? As in their stock prices over the last 5 years?

      http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=MSFT#chart1:symbol=msft;range=5y;compare=goog;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
      NetArch.
      • read...

        ... the post above yours about you better brush up, dingbat.
        evilkillerwhale@...
    • Much before Google they had MSN, they dont know business

      If they can not earn from MSN, they are NOT likely to earn from Yahoo search business takeover. Ballmer have no brains.

      They are 'really' afraid of Google. If they are able to run search business, MSN is not 'technically' lacking anything.

      The M$ tragedy here is, like OS, people can not be FORCED to use any particular search engine with purchase of a system.

      Yang, sell them your search engine. When they made fool of themselves, buy it again at much lower price. In a year.
      Web Smart
    • Man, talk about

      self-shitilization. You personify it to the max.
      sackbut
  • Larry, have you tried advertizing with MS

    I signed up to try Microsoft's on line advertizing and it was a complete waste of time. No matter what keywords were used, how they were arranged or weighted on my web site, my ads simply never got placement in search as they do with Google AdWords.

    I even worked with someone at Microsoft, followed their suggestions and directions and still nada. This went on for a month with three or four communications with the rep every week. Still nada. I finally told them I couldn't spend anymore time on it and it wasn't worth the time I had already invested.

    I will give the rep credit for at least admitting that "the system needs work" and at "this time" she agreed and we were going no where.

    The point in all this is Microsoft can not become a serious player (serious meaning compete for my dollars) in advertizing if they can't place the ads properly. I felt that all I was buying was blue sky and "someday" promices.
    No_Ax_to_Grind
    • Search Engine Placement

      Back before "Pay for Clicks" I did very well using Search Engine Placement methodology. By very well I mean I got and kept page placement at or near the top and very good $$ for my time. But then businesses paid big $$ to get to/near the top. It was after all dot com boom.

      With the advent of "Pay for Clicks" I stopped the "Search Engine Placement" effort and just told people to use the "Pay for Clicks" It was much more cost effective for smaller to mid-sized business. This of course was after the dot com bust.

      For my own SaaS site today I have tried both "Pay for Clicks" and "Search Engine Placement". The data/results were clear now I just use "Search Engine Placement". It's old fashioned however the tools to support it are greatly improved.

      One of my favorite sayings still is...
      There have been several small fortunes made from Internet Advertising, unfortunately most of them started as large fortunes.
      dragon@...
  • The MS search site...

    Looking at how I use search it is apparent there are two ways I do searchs, or more accurately, two differnt "needs".

    Need one is when I am reading something on the web or just surfing and need to find more information. Micrsoft search does ok in this context, probably as good as Google. (In truth I think MS results are every bit as good as Googles.)

    The other need is when I am doing something that is not web related and simply need information fast. That is where Google really shines because their search page is SIMPLE, CLEAN and has one obvious use. (They aren't trying to force a download of Silverlight or anything else.)
    No_Ax_to_Grind
    • The trick

      "They aren't trying to force a download of Silverlight or anything else."

      They do try to sneak a Google toolbar upon you, but instead of shoving it down on their own they do a deal with Adobe and let their Acrobat reader plug-in do it for them. See? Google keeps their shirt clean at the end of the day, sth M$ can learn from.
      LBiege
    • Simple and clean works

      That was one of the plusses of Google when it first appeared.

      It was and has remained a clean and simple results set without display ads or the other stuff that other search engines were using at the time.

      The user can scan the results quickly to see if they've found something or rephrase the query quickly.

      A slow down to load Silverlight or whatever just isn't there.

      There are times when clean and simple is best.

      Web site designers, including ZDNet should take a lesson or two from that as should developers.

      I guess it's back to the old Unix rule: Do one thing and do it very well.

      ttfn

      John
      TtfnJohn
  • Live Mesh

    Is certainly a promising entry point for online services. I can certainly see it being my homepage as more feature are added and with the big giant search bar at the top of the screen it will be more convenient to search there at the same time. Mesh is pretty damn slick.
    LiquidLearner
  • Third reason - Microsoft is a software company

    We hear Microsoft management say over and over, "Microsoft is a software company". I agree with them, that is their strong suit. Trying to be all things to all people usually results in not doing anything really well.

    Google is, has been, and continues to be a search engine based company, its all they do. (Notice thier efforts into the software world is not setting the world on fire any more than Microsoft is the search world.)

    As analogy its like me as a full time engineer with an engineering company who plays a round of golf now and then trying to beat Tiger Woods in a game of golf. Sure I can play, but its not really what I do, its not something I concentrate on day in and out, and my chances of besting the pro is slim and none (and slim went home).

    Now if Tiger wants to try and compete with me in building software I am certain I would hand him his hat, (Much like MS does Google in software) but that doesn not mean I can ever walk in and beat him at golf.
    No_Ax_to_Grind
    • And, MS is failing miserably with the SOFTWARE to order and place ads.

      Meanwhile Google is doing very well with SOFTWARE in this area. Google is also doing very well with what we call SOFTWARE that runs their search platform. Microsoft SOFTWARE running their search platforms is written by a bunch of Masticating Monkeys. Get it???
      DonnieBoy