Yahoo!’s problem is that it never knew what it was

In the post, What Happened to Yahoo, legendary programmer Paul Graham dives into how Yahoo! fell from grace. I was at Yahoo! around the same time as Paul, we even worked on a few projects together and I agree with much of his post. The availability of easy money allowed Yahoo! to truck along without ever actually defining what it was.

But what Yahoo really needed to be was a technology company, and by trying to be something else, they ended up being something that was neither here nor there. That’s why Yahoo as a company has never had a sharply defined identity.

Yahoo! still doesn’t understand what it is. It’s almost comical how to this day they still try to hedge around actually defining themselves. Even a 100 million dollar ad campaign can do little for them.

Lack of identity meant it was impossible to be strategic

Paul explains Yahoo!’s other mistake was to not take programming seriously. Unlike Google where they are manic about hiring the best Engineers, Yahoo! was content to take on mediocre Engineering talent. As Paul says, the Product Managers were in charge. I of course was one of those annoying Product Managers and while I never felt we had mediocre Engineers I certainly felt the lack of direction all stemming from Yahoo!’s inability to define itself.

I liken corporate strategy to football. Say it’s been a tough game, we’ve played our hearts out and we’re still tied going into halftime.  In the locker room we’re all looking to our coach for direction, for a plan that can ensure us the win. But all too often the senior executives lack a clear actionable plan, they may think they have one (ala Yahoo!) but all it amounts to is, “Play harder and we’ll win”. It can be heart felt and emotional but if there isn’t a strategy it falls flat the minute we retake the field. What we need to hear in the locker room is a plan, “we’re a running team so we’re going to run the ball down their throats until they leave our star receiver open, then we’ll get it to him in the in zone”.

As Paul pointed out, all Yahoo! knew about itself is that it was winning in 1999. When things turned ugly they’re locker room speech came up hollow – I know, I was there. Paul believes Yahoo! might have still saved itself if it had been a home for the best and brightest Engineers. Another way to look at it is to expect the players to come up with their own strategy, for the star player to take it on their shoulders to pull out the win. I don’t disagree but I doubt they could have pulled out the win. Google is a good example, their Engineers have done some great things but they’ve also come up short a few times as of late – Google Wave and the privacy fiasco around Buzz come to mind.Google has a mission – to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. The closer their Engineers execute toward that the better, the farther they stray the more questionable the results. Anyone remember Google Lively?

In the end it’s a team sport. If you don’t have a strategy you can hope some star players manage to pull out a hat trick. I for one would rather have the coach come into the locker room at halftime with a plan.

5 thoughts on “Yahoo!’s problem is that it never knew what it was

  1. Interesting post. I was speaking to an executive at AOL recently who detailed their strategy tooth and nail, and whilst I almost completely disagreed with the strategic direction they had chosen, I was impressed with the level of internal penetration they’d received with their strategy. later that day, I spoke to a developer who recited the strategy with the same vigour and gusto as the executive. I guess having a strategy is better than not having one!

    http://www.PuristProductManagement.blogspot.com

  2. Pingback: Tweets that mention Yahoo!’s problem is that it never knew what it was -- Topsy.com

  3. AOL is an interesting case, there is a lot of excitement there however I have never been impressed with their chances of pulling it off. I’ve read more than a few business books that explain how everyone from your receptionist to janitor should be able to repeat your business strategy. Sounds like AOL is on the right track and just might prove me wrong about their chances of a turnaround.

  4. Great point. This is a problem with any business, not just Yahoo! Success stems from doing something really well, but you can’t do that if you don’t know who you are. I think there are other factors too, not just one. How about their stupid mail program? They still support the “classic” version because the new one sucks. Or, as leaders in the IM market why do they still use the same, tired ideas? They had video chat long before Skype but have done absolutely nothing with it. I guess my point is that even if they knew who they were, there are other factors (like evo-freakin-lution) that would prevent them from from losing market share.

    It seems like Yahoo! is now turned into the Internet version of the E! channel, with a few bells and whistles.

  5. Great point. This is a problem with any business, not just Yahoo! Success stems from doing something really well, but you can’t do that if you don’t know who you are. I think there are other factors too, not just one. How about their stupid mail program? They still support the “classic” version because the new one sucks. Or, as leaders in the IM market why do they still use the same, tired ideas? They had video chat long before Skype but have done absolutely nothing with it. I guess my point is that even if they knew who they were, there are other factors (like evo-freakin-lution) that would prevent them from from losing market share.

    It seems like Yahoo! is now turned into the Internet version of the E! channel, with a few bells and whistles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>