Semel has a rigid and disciplined management approach that is commendable in terms of corporate culture in the likes of Microsoft. However, in comparison to Google’s technologist Eric Schmidt’s approach, it does not allow its employees their own unstructured creative thought.

Furthermore, Yahoo’s management system is said to have a lot of internal flaws in terms of what their priorities are. For instance, two of their departments already had the idea about allowing users to upload their own videos, but due to their internal bickering over who will handle that project they lost ground in launching that innovation. In the

Yahoo’s lack of initiative and management principle has definitely created another prominent gap behind Google in a constantly evolving internet advertising market. Yahoo’s most recent setback as in the recent YouTube scenario illustrates its instability in grasping an opportunity and closing a deal efficiently. In fact, Yahoo was actually on the right track of purchasing YouTube, but the deal somehow did not follow through and Google seized the opportunity with a 1.65 billion all stock purchase. Yahoo, on the other hand, was overly concerned about the price, terms and other legal details. In contrast, Google, known for its ability to grasp new and upcoming technologies, purchased YouTube even though they did not have all the legal details sorted out in terms of copyright infringement.

Tracking back the relationship between Yahoo and Google, we realize the historical rivalry between these two search engine giants. Yahoo and Google’s co-founders both began their search engines from Stanford University as doctoral students working on their first search engines. It was two years after Yahoo that Google’s co founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, started working on their first search engine and even asked for advice from Yahoo’s co-founder David Filo. In fact, Google gained its necessary exposure by providing its search algorithm to yahoo, which was supposedly an extension of yahoo’s own search tactics. However, Yahoo then replaced Google with its own technology and created a split from what was initially a happy marriage. Google, at this point, had already established itself among the World Wide Web surfers as a relevant and efficient search engine. The fact that Yahoo took so long to come up with its own search engine is another indication of their lack in efficiently initiating and acting on an innovation.

In monitoring the corporate culture between the two companies, we notice a remarkable difference in the way they conduct themselves as an internet entity. Google, on one hand, is known for its creativity in bringing out ideas from employees as part of their job. Yahoo, on the other side, has a program called the “idea factory” that encourages staff to participate with creative ideas. Similarly, Google co-founders take an active role in the day-to-day activities of their staff, but Yahoo is not as intimate in its role with staff. Perhaps this difference could mainly be accredited to the culture that is implemented by their management. To illustrate, Yahoo’s chief executive Terry Semel has a rigid and disciplined management approach that is commendable in terms of corporate culture in the likes of Microsoft. However, in comparison to Google’s technologist Eric Schmidt’s approach, it does not allow its employees their own unstructured creative thought.

Furthermore, Yahoo’s management system is said to have a lot of internal flaws in terms of what their priorities are. For instance, two of their departments already had the idea about allowing users to upload their own videos, but due to their internal bickering over who will handle that project they lost ground in launching that innovation. In the m

bility to grasp new and upcoming technologies, purchased YouTube even though they did not have all the legal details sorted out in terms of copyright infringement.

Tracking back the relationship between Yahoo and Google, we realize the historical rivalry between these two search engine giants. Yahoo and Google’s co-founders both began their search engines from Stanford University as doctoral students working on their first search engines. It was two years after Yahoo that Google’s co founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, started working on their first search engine and even asked for advice from Yahoo’s co-founder David Filo. In fact, Google gained its necessary exposure by providing its search algorithm to yahoo, which was supposedly an extension of yahoo’s own search tactics. However, Yahoo then replaced Google with its own technology and created a split from what was initially a happy marriage. Google, at this point, had already established itself among the World Wide Web surfers as a relevant and efficient search engine. The fact that Yahoo took so long to come up with its own search engine is another indication of their lack in efficiently initiating and acting on an innovation.

In monitoring the corporate culture between the two companies, we notice a remarkable difference in the way they conduct themselves as an internet entity. Google, on one hand, is known for its creativity in bringing out ideas from employees as part of their job. Yahoo, on the other side, has a program called the “idea factory” that encourages staff to participate with creative ideas. Similarly, Google co-founders take an active role in the day-to-day activities of their staff, but Yahoo is not as intimate in its role with staff. Perhaps this difference could mainly be accredited to the culture that is implemented by their management. To illustrate, Yahoo’s chief executive Terry Semel has a rigid and disciplined management approach that is commendable in terms of corporate culture in the likes of Microsoft. However, in comparison to Google’s technologist Eric Schmidt’s approach, it does not allow its employees their own unstructured creative thought.

Furthermore, Yahoo’s management system is said to have a lot of internal flaws in terms of what their priorities are. For instance, two of their departments already had the idea about allowing users to upload their own videos, but due to their internal bickering over who will handle that project they lost ground in launching that innovation. In the

lo. In fact, Google gained its necessary exposure by providing its search algorithm to yahoo, which was supposedly an extension of yahoo’s own search tactics. However, Yahoo then replaced Google with its own technology and created a split from what was initially a happy marriage. Google, at this point, had already established itself among the World Wide Web surfers as a relevant and efficient search engine. The fact that Yahoo took so long to come up with its own search engine is another indication of their lack in efficiently initiating and acting on an innovation.

In monitoring the corporate culture between the two companies, we notice a remarkable difference in the way they conduct themselves as an internet entity. Google, on one hand, is known for its creativity in bringing out ideas from employees as part of their job. Yahoo, on the other side, has a program called the “idea factory” that encourages staff to participate with creative ideas. Similarly, Google co-founders take an active role in the day-to-day activities of their staff, but Yahoo is not as intimate in its role with staff. Perhaps this difference could mainly be accredited to the culture that is implemented by their management. To illustrate, Yahoo’s chief executive Terry Semel has a rigid and disciplined management approach that is commendable in terms of corporate culture in the likes of Microsoft. However, in comparison to Google’s technologist Eric Schmidt’s approach, it does not allow its employees their own unstructured creative thought.

Furthermore, Yahoo’s management system is said to have a lot of internal flaws in terms of what their priorities are. For instance, two of their departments already had the idea about allowing users to upload their own videos, but due to their internal bickering over who will handle that project they lost ground in launching that innovation. In the

mpanies, we notice a remarkable difference in the way they conduct themselves as an internet entity. Google, on one hand, is known for its creativity in bringing out ideas from employees as part of their job. Yahoo, on the other side, has a program called the “idea factory” that encourages staff to participate with creative ideas. Similarly, Google co-founders take an active role in the day-to-day activities of their staff, but Yahoo is not as intimate in its role with staff. Perhaps this difference could mainly be accredited to the culture that is implemented by their management. To illustrate, Yahoo’s chief executive Terry Semel has a rigid and disciplined management approach that is commendable in terms of corporate culture in the likes of Microsoft. However, in comparison to Google’s technologist Eric Schmidt’s approach, it does not allow its employees their own unstructured creative thought.

Furthermore, Yahoo’s management system is said to have a lot of internal flaws in terms of what their priorities are. For instance, two of their departments already had the idea about allowing users to upload their own videos, but due to their internal bickering over who will handle that project they lost ground in launching that innovation. In the

Semel has a rigid and disciplined management approach that is commendable in terms of corporate culture in the likes of Microsoft. However, in comparison to Google’s technologist Eric Schmidt’s approach, it does not allow its employees their own unstructured creative thought.

Furthermore, Yahoo’s management system is said to have a lot of internal flaws in terms of what their priorities are. For instance, two of their departments already had the idea about allowing users to upload their own videos, but due to their internal bickering over who will handle that project they lost ground in launching that innovation. In the meantime, YouTube, a startup had launched that idea and had begun to take off. To makes things worse, a lot of their staffers do not appear to have faith in their own company. For instance, Mike Murphy, a former salesman at Yahoo has gone over to Facebook, to take the role as chief revenue officer. Similarly, Yahoo’s treasurer took advantage of the opportunity to become chief financial officer at YouTube from treasurer at Yahoo. In fact, according to Yosseff Squali, an analyst for Jefferies & Co, “a lot of entrepreneurs would rather work for a hyper growth technology company than what they consider to be a stodgy old internet company”.

In addition, even the fundamental issue of what yahoo is supposed to be is not really apparent among surfers let alone Yahoo itself. For instance, some would consider yahoo to be a content company while others think that it is about services. However, Google, in the grand scheme of things is essentially about search technology. Further, the fact that Yahoo wants to compete in so many frontiers does not help in the company staying focused on one given area. For example, they compete in news with CNN, in sports with ESPN, in e-mail with Microsoft, in instant messaging with AOL, in social networking with MySpace and finally, in search with Google.

In essence, if Yahoo wishes to retain its position of dominance in the World Wide Web then they really need to accept their flaws in initiating new innovations and taking risks. They need to gain trust from the public that they are a serious contender and that they are not losing handle on their will to succeed. Yahoo needs to fix its fundamental flaws and once its gathered itself together it can start moving ahead to new frontiers like Google, which apparently seems to have its pieces intact.