Yahoo, Yang and company have escaped their unwanted suitor. Analysts are still trying to force the marriage. But now the only possible thing that could make this union attractive to Microsoft/Balmer is the time it would save them in seeking new alternatives. A task they have probably already begun anyway, but still not a welcome one.

The problem Yahoo! faces is much larger. In their desperation to escape Microsoft they explored myriad alternative mergers/partnerships or sales and for whatever reason; money, control, logo size, either Yang or the other party (AOL, NewsCorp, Google…..) found all of them unacceptable.

Now the stock is stuck, faith in the leadership has evaporated, shareholders are suing and their only option is to stand alone. This really is the classic case of “be careful what you wish for.”

Or call Steve Jobs. Ok, it is a mad idea but I can’t let go.

The Yahoo!/Microsoft saga will no doubt drag on through Yahoo’s 1st Quarter Earnings Report, and then some. When it ends, it will be neither pleasant nor as profitable as it could have been for Yang and company. Balmer will prevail without mercy.

If only Jerry or at least Sue had read a good old Bodice Ripper, say The Flame and the Flower in their well-spent youths. Then they would understand how this type of narrative works. The unwanted suitor appears with a not unfair, if unwanted offer. He will not be refused. But in succumbing, albeit ever so unwillingly, to the first embrace there lies a guarantee, after many plot twists, to a much happier and lasting marriage.

Well we have had the plot twists, but, clearly the YahooCrew never dappled in this particular literary genre. Now they must pay the penalty. They have a very angry, powerful and determined suitor and their ending is more likely to resemble that of the princes in Shakespeare’s Richard III than of a romance heroine.

For the rest of us, it’s just been a winter of discontent.

Comparing the positions of Jerry Yang (today) versus Steve Jobs (a decade ago) is poignant. Then… Jobs took control (again) of a rotting Apple. Now… it’s an iWorld and Jerry is back at the reins of a limping Yahoo without the results that Jobs has been able to pull off.

Initially Yang’s supporters cited Job’s 1997 return to Apple as a precedent for Yang’s future success. Not so much now – as Yahoo! still appears rudderless, ad dollars fail to match the market and none of the many acquisitions pay out.

Jerry Yang is not the solution for Yahoo!. Yahoo! is now too vast with too much potential advertising revenue to collapse. Who has both the guts and credentials to pull it out of its death match with Google? Who has the vision to transform its user experience into a compelling commerce/content experience unlike anything else online. Who can get “A” talent with a phone call?

Steve Jobs. He built iTunes to sell iPods. He built the iPhone to re-define the browsing experience. He’ll need to control content (not just rely on publishers) to take this entire iVision to the next level. Starting from scratch or in a deal with Disney, is possible. Rebuilding Yahoo! may be much quicker, especially given Jobs’ ability to cut through debris and command the attention of new talent.

Some analyst can run the numbers, but this is the love match for 2008.

It is that time of year that is most politically correctly and succinctly called THE HOLIDAYS. Lists of the past year’s best/worst and predictions of the future abound.

The lists and predictions are unavoidable and the politically correct thing has gotten tiresome along with the current fashion for an ironic, emotionally detached attitude. If you aren’t emotionally connected to the world, why are you writing about it? More pointedly, why should anyone read your writing?

The only alternative seems to be the self-obsession of the Twitter set. Twitter is fine for adolescents or junkies, but otherwise just pathetic.

Sad, really that with so much writing going on, myself included – that so little of it really delivers a thoughtful analysis of the times we live in. But then, the same could be true of newspapers in their heyday (when NYC had 13). Quantity and Quality seldom go together.

Perhaps that is something important for us all to aspire to as we continue to write in the year ahead.

Right now as online ad sales rise to new heights and social networking and video sites see double digit monthly visitor growth, the pre-eminence of the Web site as social/commerce/advertising hub appears unassailable. Would-be web entrepreneurs amass eyeballs that can be transformed into impressions and the Holy Grail of advertising dollars.

The metaphor is simple- web sites as destinations with the visitors traveling around, picking favorites but always seeking outward and onward. After all, that is why the software that facilitates this activity is called a BROWSER.

There is however another force at play on the Internet. Diametrically opposite to browsing and all the monetization models it supports. Powered by widgets, RSS feeds and aggregator sites such as digg.com and del.icio.us, they eradicate the need to browse by providing a stream of information to the desktop or in the browser tool bar.

Users configure them as filters to manage the seemingly infinite information the web offers.

Meaning? The value of this whole browsing thing may be overstated. People are busy, people know what they want and, just like in the real world, the fun of searching for it can get a little old. Why not just stay at home and let it come to you?

The geniuses at Google recognize this. Just as they are building out Web Apps, they are creating more Gadgets and increasingly robust tool bars. They have publicly stated that they see both of these tendencies, browsing and staying at home, as peacefully co-existing.

I agree, but with a caveat. People will gradually shift to spending a larger portion of time “at home” supported by better tools and content overload. Exploration will decrease, impacting advertisers, marketers and publishers; requiring new monetization models. It will, when the furor over Facebook dies down, require attention.

From AOL to the smallest blog, the need will arise to deal with a web with diminishing returns of visitors and to develop a model to monetize the desktop.

Yesterday Youtube.com announced they would beginning running ads over some videos; you can get most of the details (spreadsheets with potential income, I do mean details) and a taste of the associated controversy here.

This is just a first step for Youtube.com as it searches for model to monetize consumer generated video. Yes, Britecove and VideoEgg have been using this format, but not at the scale or probably precision of the Youtube effort. Nor were they about to share their results.

With this learning, Youtube.com will move on to the next step. In other words, this is an iterative process; not finished tomorrow. Not standardized in a week, a year or even two. And while Youtube.com is focused on the issue of consumer generated content, their work has implications for the effectiveness of video advertising across the Web.

Their method has just clarified what some of us have known for a while: solving the puzzle of what to do with video online wasn’t going to be solved by a simple transfer of 30-second spots, as pre-roll, to the Internet. The interactive experience online is different (egad I am sick after 15 &%*#@ years of saying this) than watching a TV. Not better or worse, just different. Thus it requires different methods for interacting with the consumer using it.

So start thinking different. Or let the Youtube.coms and Facebook.coms of the world do it for you. I prefer the former position.

In the world of consumer electronics it’s impossible to gauge a company’s success by analyzing channels independently from one another. Consumers’ adoption of cross-channel shopping (up an average of 10% from ’04) has complicated the measurement process to the point where online sales cannot be viewed independently from brick-and-mortar sales. In 2006, consumers purchased $111 billion worth of consumer electronics. It would appear that retail stores greatly out performed their online counterparts, selling $85.8 billion and $25.2 billion respectively. However, with more consumers spending time online researching and comparing products, it’s clear that online sites are fueling in-store sales.

Although online sites represent an opportunity for companies to attract customers by offering product descriptions and reviews, retaining consumer loyalty proves to be a more arduous task. 65% of consumer electronic customers claim to conduct online research 12+ times per year (Forrester, “The State of Consumer Electronics Online Lead Referrals” April, 2006). Half of these individuals purchased from different retailers than where they researched. Herein lies the problem. In order for companies to promote consumer loyalty, they must cleverly link their online and offline stores.

Many companies have spearheaded the issue and devised remedies of their own. Best Buy has attempted to eliminate competition between channels by attributing partial credit for online sales to local stores based on proximity to the shipping address. Likewise, their online stores receive credit for any sales made from in-store kiosks. Lowe’s, IKEA, and Circuit City have created interactive design tools that allow customers to design projects online and access their designs in-store, where employees can assist them. Implementing strategies such as these requires foresight; however, for companies to retain loyalty, they must invest in programs that will keep them on par with the changing consumer behavior.

Think of your Brand as one of the other contestants on American Idol and all your competitors, or just the one who matters as Sanjaya. You are watching the worst possible scenario for a marketer who engages with consumers. No Simon Cowl to protect you. INCREDIBLE!

Don’t think it could happen? Maybe not at the scale of the Amercian Idol phenomenon, but big enough to hurt your marketing ROI and seriously damage your Brand.

What’s a marketer to do now that the consumer has been let into the Brand Tool Box and they are mis-behaving badly?

Your brilliant multi-channel and virally driven marketing campaign has just been co-opted by millions of consumers and every media channel is covering it.

First instinct: pull everything. WRONG. You can’t pull “everything,” it’s not possible. Instead reach out to your consumer brand advocates, the customers who always open your emails, are registered and buy on your site and rank highest in your database. Don’t ask them to rally around the Brand, but rather ask them how they would rally around the Brand. The difference is subtle but critical. Empower them to help you and they will. So make it easy for them to be part of your counterattack.

Next there is the scorched earth policy, momentarily rewarding, “the smell of napalm in the morning,” but none too effective. Instead, kill your detractors with kindness; product samples, promotional offers, chances to win the trip of their dreams. Never make it conditional on good behavior, in fact go out of your way to make it unconditional. Then let human nature take over; simple guilt will stop the majority and public opinion will judge the rest rendering them impotent.

Finally embrace your inner Sanjaya. Prepare for next time and figure out how you can be the Sanjaya in your competitors’ race to stardom. All’s fair in love, war and marketing.