Microsoft isn't interested in repeating its bid for Yahoo, if you can believe Steve Ballmer's latest public comments. I hope he means it.It will be hard to resist the new low price of Yahoo's stock, which has fallen to $11 and change from the $33/share cost that Microsoft was willing to fork over in its original offer. We're talking a fire sale. A two-thirds price cut is the kind of thing that makes business titans swoon.

Yet it begs the question of Yahoo's real worth. Great logo and recognition aside, I wonder how many people are actually loyal to the brand. So much of search revenue is driven by routine, not choice; I doubt most folks could specify which engine loads in their browsers. The jury's still out on whether users are actively committed to one social media versus another (Yahoo owns Flickr, for instance), or if they'll survive the inevitable moves to exploit them for profit.

From a branding perspective, isn't Yahoo more of a technology and a distribution channel, and not a consumer brand name like Bud Light or BMW? There are far more similarities between it and Microsoft, come to think of it; neither business brings with it dedicated customers as much as it acquires them via circumstance, and then retains them mostly with benign neglect (or can lose them whenever a glitch, or simply marketing outbound, demands their conscious attention).

Microsoft already has search of its own, and is reportedly close to inking a deal to provide it to Verizon mobile phone customers. This makes far more sense, as it isn't a strategy relying on branding attracting people, as much as taking the business model to consumers, irrespective of logos or labels. The "where" and "when" of search are far more valuable than the "what" of a brand name.

So I hope Mr. Ballmer isn't maneuvering to acquire Yahoo. The brand name might not be worth it, whatever the price.

Jonathan Salem Baskin writes the Dim Bulb blog, and is the author of Branding Only Works On Cattle.