The Social

If Google's rumored $500m acquisition of Yelp goes through, the search giant may finally get a solid lock on the "hyperlocal" Web. But it'll also be acquiring a big community site--and those are notoriously hard to wrangle.

Restaurant industry blog Eater might have put it best: "One can only assume that with Google's muscle behind the site, the millions of users who log on to complain about restaurants would be able to say stupid stuff faster, and with more efficiency," editor Amanda Kludt wrote on Friday.

All snark aside, it's the same sort of issue that arose a few years ago amid persistent rumors that Google was going to acquire Digg, another site reliant on heavy participation from a loyal and extremely vocal community. The questions are more or less similar: What would Google change, and how much would they change it? Does Google's massive scope make it untrustworthy?

Yelp's official word: "Yelp is approached frequently by numerous entities to discuss partnerships, investments and more, and the company does not comment on private discussions that may occur."

Truth be told, the state of Yelp's forums on Friday indicated that many were more interested in talking about "Why are NYC apartment brokers such d-bags?" and "The official 'Jersey Shore' on MTV thread" than about whether Yelp might get sucked up by the Google monster. But a few threads did emerge, and the gist seems to be pretty much the same: They better not change too much. And please keep throwing parties.

"I wonder how this will effect Elite parties as well as Yelp Talk?" one Yelper asked in a Bay Area-centric thread about the acquisition. Another said, "So long as it's not Rupert Murdoch buying it." Some Yelpers were optimistic, suggesting that maybe there would be better integration with Google maps or additional technical improvements.

But others were concerned about quality control. "It means more trolls and fake reviews," one Yelper griped.

"Anyone ever look at the comments on YouTube videos?" another asked. "That is what is gonna happen here."

There were a few threats of account deletion, like "If this happens, I'm deleting my profile" and "Yelp is big because of us. Let's demand money or delete our accounts en masse." Generally, those aren't any real indicator of community revolt, but they're a reminder that it's extremely possible for a big buyer of a community site to mess things up big-time. LiveJournal users weren't thrilled about its Six Apart ownership, which ultimately failed. Likewise, when News Corp. acquired social network MySpace, mismanagement and a lack of innovation were likely what led to a drop in traffic and the eventual dominance of Facebook.

Worth a read: Yelpers' reviews of Google HQ in Mountain View, Calif. Choice bits range from "Google has lots of yummy, organic snacks and drinks" to "They have way too many skunks after 7 p.m. nightly and raccoons living on the Google campus."

This post was updated at 10:48 a.m. PT with comment from Yelp.

Onetime social-networking pioneer Friendster unveiled a new design on Thursday, and it's focusing on the demographic that has kept it afloat for the past few years: the Asian youth market. And according to Reuters, Friendster may also be sold to a buyer in Asia by the end of the month for at least $100 million.

Yes, Friendster still exists. The first big social network to take off, it was surpassed by the likes of MySpace and Facebook, and its popularity in much of the world quickly faded. Now, it says it has 75 million registered users (no word on how many are active), and that 90 percent of its traffic comes from the Asia-Pacific region. It started offering translated versions of the site two years ago.

New to the revamped Friendster are a suite of features designed to capitalize on the social-gaming craze: a virtual currency, an array of games, and virtual gifts.

Friendster CEO Richard Kimber confirmed to Reuters that the company was shopping itself to buyers, and that investment bank Morgan Stanley had been hired to handle the sale and that the company is working with "a shortlist" of potential suitors. It won't be the first time it's been looking to sell: CNET reported in 2005 that investment bank Montgomery & Co. had been hired for the same purpose.

Kimber, a former Googler, joined Friendster last year right around the same time that it raised $20 million in venture funding in a round led by IDG Ventures.

If you stepped in late, it sounds awfully dull.

An announcement Tuesday tells us all that "certain assets" of a "white-label" online video service called Joost have been acquired by Adconion Media, which calls itself "the largest independent global audience and content network." The acquisition "will be able to provide advertisers, content owners, and Web site publishers with an end-to-end global video platform and cross-channel video and display ad-serving solution," according to a statement from Adconion CEO Tyler Moebius. Financial terms were not disclosed. Yawn.

But really, it's an exceptionally anticlimactic ending for Joost, a company so secretive and hyped that it was once known, James Bond-like, as "The Venice Project," and which was supposed to kill YouTube and that dastardly Cold War villain known as your cable company. It was a scrappy start-up with roots in lawlessness--founders Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstrom had built onetime file-sharing hub Kazaa--but major street cred, too, as they'd also founded Skype and sold it to eBay. There were impressive backers, too, including CBS (which owns CNET).

What went wrong?

Well, there was a big issue with Joost's downloadable peer-to-peer app. By the time it was released, Web-based video was advanced enough so that a required download was a barrier to entry, not a technical leg up. Some of the big-name content partners seemed to be putting in a halfhearted effort with Joost, offering up reruns and esoteric programs instead of the new programming that people actually wanted to watch.

But perhaps what really doomed Joost was something that was itself supposed to be a flop: When NBC Universal and News Corp. announced their plans to create an online video hub that would rival YouTube and address the rampant issue of piracy, it was referred to disparagingly as "Clown Co." We all know how that one turned out. The finished product, Hulu, was extremely well-received and continues to expand its video library.

There was, briefly, a time when it looked like there was a slight chance that things might turn up for Joost. It did, after all, beat most of its competitors to the release of an iPhone app, and a focus on niche content like Japanese anime seemed like a viable business choice as Hulu increasingly placed an emphasis on the mainstreamiest of the mainstream. Unfortunately, that didn't work either.

There was "a major retrenchment" as Joost reined in its lofty plans. Then it switched business models altogether to the far less glamorous "white-label video solutions" modus operandi.

And then the management debacles became evident. CEO Mike Volpi resigned and then was ousted by shareholders from his role as chairman. Oh, and then the company sued him. Nasty.

Sometimes hype plays out well. Sometimes it just doesn't, and Joost was one of those cases. In spite of the founders' prior successes, truckloads of venture capital dollars, and a few early and impressive content deals, it flopped. The end. Now, per Tuesday's release, it'll be "(adding) many dimensions to Adconion's existing video services and further will solidify its position in the online video and content syndication market."

That's a pretty nice way to put it.

Sold!

Auction site eBay has, as long anticipated, sold off the Skype telephony service to a group of investors that includes Marc Andreessen's new Andreessen Horowitz group, Silver Lake, and the Skype co-founders' Joltid Ltd. The investor group now holds about 70 percent of the company; eBay retains the rest in a minority stake. Joltid was brought into the investor group as part of the settlement of a copyright suit that the Skype co-founders, Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstrom, filed against eBay over Skype's technology. At one point, that dispute was looking so ugly that eBay was reportedly considering rebuilding Skype's technology altogether.

The sale amounted to approximately $1.9 billion in cash and a note from the buyer in the principal amount of $125 million, for a total of $2.025 billion.

eBay's plans to get rid of Skype, a purchase that had never fit quite well into its auction business, had been well-publicized. Last spring, the company formally announced that it planned to spin off Skype as a publicly traded company in the first half of 2010.

The final $2.75 billion valuation is only slightly higher than the $2.6 billion that eBay originally acquired Skype for in 2005.

The tractors, fuzzy pets, and mobster ambushes might be virtual, but the past few weeks have shown that the battle for social-gaming market share is very, very real.

Monday saw the long-rumored announcement of gamemaker Playfish's big-ticket sale to Electronic Arts, a big win for a product niche some had dismissed early on as faddish and silly. But it comes at a time when there's ongoing press blitz over how much social-gaming companies rely on lucrative but potentially misleading means of advertising in the form of lead-generating offers.

Both of these developments have changed the course of an industry moving at hyperspeed--but was anybody really sure where it was going in the first place? Playfish, arguably, was the safest buy in the space. Headquartered in the U.K., its revenues were solid--one analyst estimates it'll pull in $100 million this year--and it was less reliant on controversial third-party offer companies than many of its competitors.

Social-game manufacturer Playfish announced its acquisition by Electronic Arts on Monday.

(Credit: Playfish)

"I'd say hats off to EA," said Jeremy Liew of Lightspeed Venture Partners, which has invested in social-gaming firms like Serious Business and RockYou. "It's a much lower-fidelity product (meaning cheaper to produce) that appeals to a much simpler consumer (than the traditional gamer), but they recognized the risk that it poses to their business and they were willing to take a decisive action."

Playfish had a great exit, as they say in the venture capital world. Things might not go quite as smoothly for other social-gaming companies.

Here's some background. The social gaming craze grew out of an array of new time-wasters that involved neither a significant commitment nor a complicated set of rules. Companies like Zynga, Playdom, and SGN attracted millions of investor dollars, and word has it that former MySpace CEO Chris DeWolfe wants to roll up a bunch of smaller companies into another powerhouse. And now that EA has a big social-gaming company in its arsenal, other older video game manufacturers might push fast-forward on investments or acquisitions in the space.

Playfish, manufacturer of games like Pet Society and Restaurant City, was at the time of its buy either the second or third biggest company in the space--behind Zynga, but neck-and-neck with Playdom. Like most of its competitors, it makes money through a combination of advertising and the sale of virtual goods, which players can either purchase with real-world cash or can earn by completing offers and surveys from third-party companies like Offerpal Media or Super Rewards.

The industry common wisdom is that Playfish's revenue is less reliant on those offer companies than some other social-network gamemakers. That's a good thing, considering the bad press the likes of Offerpal have been pulling in recently. In a highly-publicized confrontation with Offerpal CEO Anu Shukla (who resigned from her post in a matter of days), TechCrunch blogger Michael Arrington launched a full-on assault against the business of social-game offers. They're no more than scams, he alleged, since many offers actually have hidden costs attached for consumers: entering your cell phone number to receive the results of a quiz you took, for example, may actually tack a charge onto your phone bill.

"The industry hasn't done, in general, as good a job as it could have of maintaining the offers' integrity to users," Jason Oberfest, a former MySpace executive who recently joined the executive team of iPhone and social-network gaming company Ngmoco. "(Playfish was) way more conservative in how they've used offers, and I'm sure, frankly, that their revenue per user has probably suffered a little as a result, but it's clearly played out well for them."

Even without the offers controversy, social gaming is a volatile industry: few if any of the companies in the space are older than five years. It's a hit-driven business, with companies needing to work around the clock to keep audiences playing and push out new games lest the current sensations grow stale. There's already a history of lawsuits and legal threats, often over rival gamemakers' extremely similar products. When bloggers started their keyboard assault on the likes of Offerpal, it was only adding to the sector's reputation for fast money, cutthroat competition, and occasionally shady business practices.

Playfish may have exited just in time. Some of the small to medium-size social-gaming companies are undoubtedly hunting for buyers, and Zynga has gotten so big that rumors suggest it may be looking to file for an IPO. With all the controversy over offers and whether social-gaming companies' revenues were inflated by misleading ads, there's a chance that their profits--and hence, their valuations to prospective investors or buyers--may take a significant hit.

Still, venture capitalist Liew doesn't think that will make a huge difference. "Zynga said 30 percent of their revenue comes from offers, and I think that's pretty representative of the industry," he estimated. "Let's say 20 percent of the offers are scammy, so that's 6 percent of the revenue of these companies that's at risk. It doesn't change the answer as to whether this is a valuable company."

Maybe so, but there are other complications. Facebook, the biggest destination for social games, continues to make alterations to its developer platform. Most recently, the massive social network announced some changes that limit games' and other applications' appearance in members' news feeds, a move that may make it more difficult for start-ups to enter the space as well as drive already-big companies to purchase more advertising space in order to get the word out about their latest games and keep acquiring new customers.

Social-gaming companies are already some of the biggest advertisers on Facebook, with the biggest one, Zynga, spending as much as $50 million this year on Facebook ads alone, according to estimates from industry insiders. If revenues are potentially going to decline (and no one can quite agree on how much) as a result of a crackdown on offers, but advertising costs may go up as companies attempt to increase their reach on Facebook, that makes their balance sheets look less sunny.

For all the ugliness of the Offerpal mess, it could have been much less pleasant if the scrutiny was coming from lawmakers rather than industry bloggers--like the several state attorneys general who were particularly vocal about stamping out misleading offers in display ads, but haven't yet targeted social networks. And changes appear to be imminent. Zynga CEO Mark Pincus announced Sunday that the company has blocked all cost-per-action offers until the situation calms down and it's easier to weed out scams. Playdom, too, says it is continuing to make its business less reliant on offers.

"Offers are an important industry issue, and particularly important for our players," CEO John Pleasants, a former high-ranking EA exec who left for the fast-growing company this summer, said of Playdom in an e-mail to CNET News. "When I joined as CEO, Playdom began a company-wide effort to deliver a quality user experience on our offer walls...We've dropped more than 1,500 offers that don't meet our standards. In tandem with these efforts, we have actively grown the direct payment portion of our business; offers, otherwise known as CPA advertising, currently account for less than 20 percent of our revenue and continue to shrink."

Social-gaming companies don't want to look like criminal operations, nor do they want to look like they're turning a blind eye to questionable third-party activity. While Zynga and Playdom are big enough to sacrifice that revenue, some other companies that are likely hunting for buyers might not fare so well. As a result, future acquisitions in the space could easily be much smaller. Price tags could be lower if revenues deflate, and now that EA's made its buy, the list of potential buyers who could actually pay $300 million is now one company shorter. There's a legitimate question as to who would actually be buying; even optimistic insiders say that this could get in the way of another Playfish-like exit.

"I think the more important question is who can pay. Because if you want to buy Zynga, it's way more than Playfish. If you want to buy Playdom, I think it's going to be equivalent, if not a little bit more than Playfish," Liew said. "There are a lot of people who want to get into social gaming that don't have the ability to write a check of that size, and so they are going to be looking at the next tier of companies. That's where I think we're going to see some action."

In other words, we still don't know who the next real winner will be.

Amazon's acquisition of shoes-and-more retailer Zappos is complete, the e-commerce giant said in a release Monday. The company in July had announced its intent to make the purchase, for about $850 million in cash and stock.

Zappos, which made a name for itself based on outside-the-box customer service principles, will stay independent from the Amazon.com brand and will continue to operate out of its Las Vegas headquarters.

Numbers released by J.P. Morgan Research in conjunction with the acquisition announcement predict that Zappos will post moderate, single-digit growth for the 2009 fiscal year after raking in $635 million in revenues last year.

Citizen news site NowPublic has been sold to another company in the "hyperlocal" space, Examiner.com, the two companies announced Tuesday.

The two sites will operate independently, but Examiner will integrate NowPublic's technology into its site and will encourage NowPublic's contributors to also write for Examiner--right now, the buyer says it has grown 200 percent since the beginning of the year (it launched in April 2008) and has 15,000 active contributors, hoping to hit 30,000 by year's end.

NowPublic's executives, including CEO Leonard Brody, will join the management team of Clarity Digital Group, parent company of Examiner.

"Every day, we hear discussions about whether hyperlocal content will ever be scalable, sustainable, or profitable as a business entity," Examiner CEO Rick Blair said in a release. "With the acquisition of NowPublic, we have the technology to further engage our community of more than 17 million unique visitors per month, and distribute our stories in new and innovative ways."

Was this a bargain-basement acquisition? The companies did not disclose financial terms. But an insider in the space told CNET News that NowPublic had been shopping itself to some pretty big media companies for some time at a higher price than potential buyers were willing to pay. The company had raised about $12 million in venture funding.

Many media companies have simply been launching their own "citizen journalism" initiatives, like CNN's iReport and blogging experiments from newspapers like the Washington Post, which could make an exit tougher for the smaller players.

Digital-media companies like AOL and InterActiveCorp have also made plays to dominate the local-news market--AOL recently acquired local-focused start-ups Patch and Going, the former of which was already a personal investment on behalf of CEO Tim Armstrong, and the Barry Diller-run IAC has been placing a big emphasis on business directory Citysearch.

Was there an unexpected rush of Facebook employees looking to cash out their stock? Yes, says BusinessWeek's Sarah Lacy, who said that the $100 million buyback orchestrated by investor Digital Sky Technologies has been oversubscribed. Which means that a fair number of employees have been looking to cash out some stock even though it may be worth far more down the road when (and if) Facebook goes public. It's the sort of thing that would've left pre-IPO Googlers feeling awfully sheepish.

But what's more surprising, Lacy found, is that the high demand for Facebook cash-outs seems to run contrary to Silicon Valley's characteristic idealism.

"What has happened to the start-up work ethic in Silicon Valley?" she asked. "Time was, the region was teeming with believers--be it believers in a company or believers in the sometimes naive, lottery-ticket hope that options would make them billionaires. People who work at the most highly valued startup in Silicon Valley and rush to sell for a smaller valuation--just as an IPO is starting to look likely--aren't believers. They are mercenaries."

Not at all, I would argue.

Imagine, for a moment or two, that you are a character whom we will call Joe Facebook. You are a software engineer, so it's pretty safe to say that you're a dude (apologies to all the women in computer science out there). You're in your mid-20s, and you've been working for Zuckerberg & co. for a few years now, ever since you graduated from Harvard or Stanford or some other big-name institution with a hefty price tag. You grew up in a small town in the Northeast or Midwest, which is why instead of living in Facebook's hometown of Palo Alto, you've opted to get a taste of the cosmopolitan by living in San Francisco and making the commute in this sweet little Prius you bought last year. Your girlfriend, who's been remarkably tolerant of all those late nights of coding, said something recently about how it's a buyer's market and she's getting sick of her roommates. Maybe you'd like to pay off some of those student loans and stop living like a bike messenger.

This, of course, is a stereotype. But employees cashing out some of their stock after working long hours and living in one of the most expensive cities in the country shouldn't be that shocking.

Facebook's salaries, people in the industry tell me, tend to be a little bit lower than those at many of their Valley counterparts. That's understandable: it's one of the hottest companies to work for, and could have a huge IPO down the line, which would mean that a lower salary now would ideally pay off big-time later. But some of those early employees were probably expecting Facebook to have gone public by now. In this kind of economic climate, there's going to be some hand-wringing.

Facebook's revenues are projected to be about $500 million this year with its current, advertising-based model. But it's just barely started to alpha-test its new "credits" payment system, a potential cash cow that was once rumored to be debuting a year ago.

The Web 2.0 bubble didn't pop suddenly like its late-'90s counterpart. Rather, it's still deflating. This week, it was made official that MySpace had acquired iLike, a social music start-up that had $17 million in venture funding pumped into it during the digital media VC heyday. But revenues didn't roll in as promised, and iLike's final sale price was reportedly just $20 million--news that called into question the profitability of an entire (big) niche of Web start-ups, ad-supported streaming music. Facebook is obviously far beyond that stage, but these reality checks can make a massive, Google-style IPO seem even further away.

Then there are services like Sharespost, an exchange for private stock trades. The fact that these sites are drumming up interest is testament to the current uneasiness of many dot-com employees, especially young ones trying to establish some stability, and more particularly those who might not be privy to the big-picture plans getting painted in the executive boardroom. Given the dreary market for M&As and IPOs right now, their supposed personal wealth might as well be in Monopoly money.

And working at a tech start-up, with its casual dress code, oddball hours (think college-style all-nighters fueled by Red Bull and pizza), and young workforce, can seem like a limbo of adolescence--even if the old dot-com stereotypes of Foosball tables and free beer are kept to a minimum. As short-sighted and greedy as it may seem, swapping in some of that Facebook stock now (not anywhere near all of it, mind you) is an upward move for the quarter-life-crisis crowd. It's a down-payment on that cute Victorian in Noe Valley, the last of those student loans, the extra cash to start building up an investment portfolio while stock prices are low. It's growing up, Silicon Valley-style. Even in the bright and happy Candyland of innovation (literally), cash is still king.

Mercenaries? Hardly. More like average 20-somethings.

MySpace CEO Owen Van Natta has confirmed in a Wednesday conference call that the News Corp.-owned social network has "entered into an agreement to acquire iLike," following rumors earlier in the week.

iLike's co-founders will remain at the company and stay headquartered in Seattle; the service will be "unaffected by the acquisition" in the short term.

Van Natta explained in the conference call that the acquisition is on behalf of MySpace Inc. rather than its MySpace Music division, a joint venture with the major record labels, because the company plans to extend its technology to other areas of entertainment such as gaming and possibly film. He highlighted the "discovery" technology that iLike has built and suggested that MySpace planned to integrate it into some of its other properties.

No terms of the deal were disclosed, but reports have indicated that iLike was sold at quite a bargain--something in the neighborhood of $20 million total--because its ad-supported, streaming music model failed to rake in the profits that investors hoped it would.

Van Natta denied that the deal had been delayed due to iLike board disputes or tax issues, as some reports had suggested.

But it's unclear as to how the deal will affect iLike's relationship with Facebook. The social network's developer platform has been home to much of iLike's activity, and now that it will be owned by Facebook's closest rival, there's a chance that Facebook could restrict or block the app. Van Natta, Facebook's former chief operating officer, said that iLike's apps are part of "a lot of different social networks' experience. We're excited about just continuing to expand that experience to other areas of entertainment that MySpace has assets in."

Meanwhile, Van Natta claimed that MySpace Music is "doing extremely well" and that "we absolutely expect MySpace Music to be an important part of MySpace...for years to come." Several months ago, rumors were swirling around the music industry that its performance hadn't been up to expectations.

This post was last updated at 12:13 p.m. PT.