GOOG management is not handling it right. The stock is under fire but
they are not responding.

Lower stock price hurts employees and stockholders alike. It dilutes
stock currency and makes it harder to attract/retain talent.

All kinds of reports (ComScore etc.) are reporting but GOOG is not
refuting, so that creates uncertainty and the stock goes down.

Downward spiral is also being caused by insider selling and YouTube
acquisition shares coming on stream for sale. It would be better if
the insiders put a hold their sale plan which is making bad situation
worse.

ComScore clarified their report recently.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/66782-google-ads-and-comscore-the-rea...

http://www.247wallst.com/2008/02/comscore-clarif.html

http://www.comscore.com/blog/2008/02/why_googles_surprising_paid_clic...

Consider the remarks made by Brin and Page when they were just about
to IPO. Essentially, they admire Warren Buffets model of ensuring long
term investors. Google doesn't want rats and temps to run in and
bungle its stock. All this is doing is causing a couple of people to
lose money while rooting out the investors who don't have faith in
Google. Research into the company should be enough to let people see
past these inconclusive and face value analyses. Management shouldn't
have to come out and baby investors, this isn't kindergarten.

How many people have actually bought something from a paid search ad
on Google?  I suspect very few...as business once again realizes that
the ROI on this type of advertising is extremely low, they will cut or
eliminate it...this is very similar to what Yahoo went through in the
dot.com era...I find if I need to buy something on the net the regular
google search does a really good job of finding what I need, hence
eliminating the middle "click" man and corresponding revenue to google.

Hey supreme...are you short goog and aapl?  If not, then can you tell
me how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop?

Here is whats happening to Google, and why the stock will keep going
down.  There is no doubt that Google is a search king and commands
significant market share over its competitors.  However, most
advertisers have figured out that by optimizing for better organic
results, they can drive lots more business then using AdWord.
Advertisers are shifting their dollars to SEO (Search Engine
Optimization) companies that can place any company on the first page
based on specific keyword.  Googles algorithm is constantly being
tweaked by marketers to get favorable possition on their pages.  This
is also true for every other search engine that utilizes same search
paradigm.  Yahoo, MSN, etc., will also see conversion rates fall from
pay per click.  This is probably the end of pay per click business
model as we know it.

thank you filix for putting a technical explanation to what I was
trying to say...pay for click is tantamount to the banner ad....a big
nada/zip/zero

how do you figure andre and filix.  when android comes out, an
entirely new revenue stream will be pouring in.  soon it won't be all
about pay for click as we know it, but they will channel ads to your
cell phone.  If you're in an area you don't know and you're hungry
they'll be able to pin point your position with google maps, and show
you how to get to the restaurant.  do you know how valuable that
service will be to businesses?  They're actually taking people to the
stores.  That's almost invaluable.  How much more would a business pay
for an ad that goes to a person's cell phone?  We're no longer talking
about a person who's looking at menu's on their computer at home.  We
have someone 30 paces from the restaurant trying to figure out what
they want to eat.  Android will not only be a revival, it will change
the ad industry as we know it.

Wookie,

Android is not even a product yet, actually its not even a beta
release.  But above all, theres absolutely no way that Google will be
able to capitalize on mobile ads.
The whole concept is absolutely absurd!  Just imagine, your phone/
blackberry will be filled with ads from Viagra or Video Professor.
Doesnt sound like something anyone would want or use.  This concept
will join all other Googles failed concepts.

filix - think fourth dimentionally.  sumer - I'm not dignifying your
rant with a response.  listen to me now filix and take this in.
seriously think about what you're saying when you respond to my post
this time.  in other words, you don't believe people like google maps
on their iphones?  huh...  news to me - I think they do.  what if
google maps popped up every restaurant in the area?  just like a gps?
well, i think you see where we're going.  except they will make the
application better, quicker, and easier to use than all the others.

By the way - do you know how eigen vectors work?  Well, I had to do
them in my differential equations class way back in the day and to put
it bluntly - they're hard.  Guess what.  That's what google's search
is based on.  They're smart and innovative and I'm sure they have
things in the pipeline that are so complex, you wouldn't even begin to
figure out how they work.  Sure - you can type in www.google.com and
type in a word, but do you really understand how it works?

To clarify, it doesn't matter if they have a beta or not.  They don't
need one yet.  And, if there is a company to make advertising on cell
phones a reality - google is the company to do it.  Quit being so
narrow-minded.  Two years from now you're going to be "that guy"
touting his awesome android applications.

Wookie,

I dont mean to insult you, but your are talking absolute nonsense.  If
you dont know anything about this industry, please dont post idiotic
replies.
Android will die before it even arrives.  Listen, Google is good seach
engines, but thats it!  They are search engines, nothing else.
Maybe one day we will drive Google-Car, drink Google-Cola, use Google-
Phone and live on Google-earth.  Google-Donuts anyone?

or maybe you needed to pay more attention to the clear trend since
November and have shorted or bought Puts instead of wishing it would
go up and hoping for the best....

it's hysterical how wound up you can get filix.  the point you just
admitted is the entire point i'm making you moron.  GOOGLE is good
search.  And if they can start making applications that are
advertising agents on cell phones that are half as good as google...
come on now.  You must see where this is going.  someone walking down
5th ave in NYC wants something to eat.  push a button and 15 places
pop up on the phone.  sort - italian, greek, chinese, burgers, in your
case frozen hotdogs.  A restaurant can't ask for more.  Same with
bars, shops, etc, etc, etc.  You catch my drift?

PS - don't put words in my mouth or you'll be sorry.  Maybe one day
you'll be driving down the street in your G-car drinking G-cola while
stuffing your fat face with G-donuts, while talking on your G-phone to
someone on the other side of G-earth.

Wookie, I bought an Iphone on the 3rd day they were released, I have
an internet business and in my perfect world high speed, 4G, wireless
access would be free...when that day comes, you MAY see some
monetization of cell phone advertising...until then the bumbling
masses are living in a world in which we the technonologically
superior have no idea of how they exist on a day to day basis...

  Are you with me?

technologically superior? Obviously you missed the FCC hearings this
weekend on C-Span where Chief Technology Officer of BitTorrent, Eric
Klinker discussed the US's "antiquated technology infrastructure" when
compared to other countries, even some under-developed ones (that have
faster, cheaper internet and wireless than we do).

Wookiee,

You keep investing based on the fact that "eigenvectors" are "hard",
some boringly ubiquitous and rather depressingly simple and elegant
object in matrix theory, just because it sounds nice to you, and I'll
pop some kettle corn and watch you burn.

I have a strong feeling you're smarter than that.  Is that honestly
the way you invest?  You browse PMOs for mathematical esoterica, point
at the page when you see "Brownian motion" and shout, "EUREKA!  Here's
a check for 20 Gs!"

Burn baby, burn.

I saw that....was really informative. And also don't forget that this
moratorium on taxing the internet will not last forever. It's just a
matter of time before the gov't taxes it to death and companies price
access and/or information out of the range of many Americans (like
everything else).

I assume you are SUMER (the Supreme Being's) alter ego.

Wookiee,

Fail.

Google is paying human spiders to crawl all over Manhattan and
catalogue the restaurants available.  Like Goog's search results, hits
are presented *in addition* to ads, not *in lieu*.  In other words,
the B&N on 5th Ave might pay to be a highlighted thumbtack on a GPS-
like cell phone application but anyone looking for bookstores on 5th
Ave is going to get all the results because Goog does no harm--i.e.
they present accurate and complete results to queries, not just the
ones their advertisers pay them to present.

I don't understand you.  Searching for restaurants on 5th Ave !=
clicking on some ad.  It's just a SEARCH.  Google doesn't make money
off searches, directly.

andre - I agree with you.  at work today i hard of someone still using
a dial up connection at their house.  i don't get it.  however, I must
say, in comparison to other parts of the world, we aren't exactly
"technologically advanced."  Then again, we have more area, more
useless government officials / organizations, and a lot of
infrastructure to support.  Moreso than european countries. it's
easier for smaller countries to adapt to technological change.
However, when the time comes for change, I like to stay current.

wow - i feel like obama with all this change garbage.

Big picture morrongie - big picture.  quit taking a myopic look at
it.  remember - big picture.

Details, wookie - details.  Quit buying on vague notions of
revolution.  Remember - details.

That's not why we're behind. We're behind because the ISP companies
tried to roll out internet and advanced applications on an antiquated
existing infrastructure rather than spend the capital to lay down
"new" better delivery systems (like other countries did) in an effort
to not spend cash, make shareholders happy, and increase earnings and
revenue. It still is not available in many rural areas for the same
reason; it is not cost effective for them to run it out there (the ROI
isn't there). They will pay for this in the long run when other
countries outpace us in the global economy which is increasingly
coming to rely on electronic systems (not just air and sea).

Here's a copy of my letter to the FCC in response to the hearings they
held on C-Span related to Internet Network Management (the hearings
dealt primarily with Comcast's alleged blocking of certain traffic and
applications on their networks without informing consumers. I have
eliminated my personal info from my letter below to them for obvious
reasons):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
 I watched the hearings on C-Span this morning that you held this past
Monday on High Speed Internet Management. It was very informative,
although I would have liked to hear as much from the paying customers
(consumers) and application designers as the ivory tower think tank
talking heads. I appreciate your delving into this matter involving
Comcast and their alleged improper blocking of certain applications.

What alarmed me most during these hearings was the issue that the
Commissioners appeared to not even recognize or acknowledge even
though it was mentioned several times by BitTorrent's CTO Eric
Klinker, and that is the fact that the United States broadband
infrastructure is "antiquated" and "third world at best" when compared
with other countries, even some under-developed countries (compared to
the US). This has been a fundamental problem all along for both
consumers and application engineers. As an example, I had cheaper,
faster internet access from a cable provider in a rural area of NH
back in the late 80's/early 90's than I can currently get now
anywhere. The ISP's delivery system was adequate then for the internet
technology of the day, there were less users on the node, I was
closest to the node, and our town was an experimental test pit for
cable internet. Since then, I moved first to Key West, FL and
eventually left BECAUSE the best access any company could deliver (and
this was in 1999/2000) was ISDN from the phone company which is little
better than dial-up. I moved up the coast to a housing development 30
miles outside both the Fort Lauderdale and Miami metro areas in late
2000 to where I am now and had to wait for nearly a year to get ANY
form of broadband access. I eventually got DSL from Bellsouth. Cable
internet was not even available in my neighborhood at the time.

Notwithstanding the fact that it is shameful to still have areas of
the country with NO access to the internet in this age of Information
Technology and Economy and all the implications that infers to areas
such as education, employment, and the future economic force of
America but it is even worse for consumers to be paying more than
users in other countries for slower speeds and an antiquated system
that has to apply "spit and tissue paper Band-Aid" patches and repair
to accommodate the modern applications and uses.

In an effort to capitalize on the popularity of the internet, grow
their company earnings, and make shareholders happy, ISP's cropped up
like weeds in a garden over the last 20-30 years and routinely
promised more than they could deliver given the antiquated
infrastructure already in place for phone or cable TV delivery that
they insisted on using to provide internet access rather than
investing capital in the deployment of the latest delivery
technologies that other countries have been laying down as fast as
they could roll it out. Simply put, they tried to provide access on
the cheap on old systems while charging consumers a Rolls Royce price
for Chevy Chevette service. Add to this the occasional attempts by
government to lift the moratorium on taxing internet usage and you
have a prescription for insuring that other countries will continue to
outpace the US in internet delivery and applications which will have
the side effect of making it harder and harder for us to compete in
the global internet economy.

These other countries have the advantage of virgin-deployment of these
new information technologies. They do not have to dig up old systems
to lay down the newer ones because many of them have heretofore never
had communications systems in place. That said, the reason they are
outpacing the US in deployment and pricing is because our ISP's refuse
to abandon the antiquated systems for the newer technologies. Why? It
would cost them more to do so, decrease their earnings and revenue
potential in the short term, and make shareholders unhappy. Add to
this the sentiments among the public regarding CEO salaries and
bonuses in light of substandard service to the consumers and you have
a hostile environment growing between users and providers. It seems to
me that beyond the issues of standards and regulations as they pertain
to the Comcast case, the bigger issue looming on the horizon will be
the loss in global competitiveness we will suffer by continuing to
patch our antiquated system to accommodate the advances in
applications and technologies. Developers can only develop what a
system can accommodate.

While it may not be the purview of the FCC to require ISP's to replace
their antiquated infrastructure, it is well within your capacity to
encourage them to do so by whatever means the FCC and other federal
authorities deem appropriate. Innovation going forward will depend
upon this. Do we want to be leaders in the global information economy?
Or do we simply want to accommodate it the best we can and allow other
countries to dominate in that arena?

I must clarify...I meant those of us that embrace technology
personally, not the USa as a whole...