Gauging Google's Gaffes 140
conq writes "BusinessWeek has a piece looking at some of the recent faux pas of Google and what implications they might have. The articles's conclusion: They should hire a chief marketing officer to avoid such gaffes. From the article: 'Recent missteps that have whipsawed or irked investors include the inadvertent release of sales projections and an agreement to censor its own search results in China. Then on Mar. 8, Google used a vaguely worded blog on its site to disclose a settlement of as much as $90 million in a case concerning click fraud. That came days after the company said the case was without merit and told investors the impact of click fraud on advertisers is immaterial.'"
Conspiracy (Score:4, Insightful)
And another thing- They may or may not be a great company- I am not here to argue that, but they are made up of people- and as such, mistakes will be made.
The real question is, is it hubris to think that google can do what it wants, instead of what wal street wants, and still stay so valuable (on paper)?
Re:Conspiracy (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Conspiracy (Score:1)
Its this reason that I tend to never become too attached to a publicly traded company. As long as shares are trading, its objectives will be traded with it. So long as its bylaws are what
Re:Conspiracy (Score:2)
Which is why it's lucky that none of Google's shares are vote-thingy (I'm not a stock expert, but I've read here on slashdot enough that Google's shareholders get no say on anything about G
Re:Conspiracy (Score:1)
Re:Conspiracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Conspiracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Conspiracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Stock options are still a popular tool to lure and maintain valued employees within the tech industry. How many of Google's key people will look for greener pastures without proper incentive to stay?
Re:Conspiracy (Score:2)
While your point is well made, and valid for most of the industry, I'm not sure that it (yet) applies to Google. My anecdotal evidence is that people go to work for Google with the knowledge that they are going to make less than they could get at a typical tech company in SF and the surrounding area, yet they
Re:Conspiracy (Score:2)
They might care... I don't know if they'd want to lose their spots at #26 and 27 on Forbes' World's Richest People [forbes.com] list. Of course, I think a hair under $13bn each should keep them covered. That is net worth and not banked funds, but still... Eric Schmidt a
Re:Conspiracy (Score:3, Insightful)
i'm really sick of folks thinking that google is some sort of atruistic entity fighting for superior technical solutions. nothing could be further from the truth. i think we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg here.
Re:Conspiracy (Score:5, Informative)
Not at all. investors, like any other large group of people, have lots of diverse goals. In practice though you can't satisfy all of these goals. Most are mutually exclusive to some extent. So it comes down to the least common denominator - max profits - like you said. It is the nature of corporate law that is the problem here, not the investors.
Re:Conspiracy (Score:1)
You are mistaken. Public corporations can have many goals, and profit is usually one of them -- but there is no law requiring this. It all depends on the articles of the company. There is no legal reason why I could not form a company whose goal was philanthropic works and sell stock on one of the exchanges (there may be practical reasons why this would not work). To tak
Re:Conspiracy (Score:3, Interesting)
Public corporations can have many goals, and profit is usually one of them -- but there is no law requiring this.
people invest in for-profit companies to make money. it's not a law (duh), but that's the whole purpose of a for-profit corporation: to make money. if corporations, as part of their marketing (read: propaganda) make you believe that they have some other interest in mind, well, it worked on you. i have no doubt there are some people on google's board of directors that believe in the free e
Blah, blah, blah, profits, blah. Blah. (Score:2)
The goal of the company may not necessarily be to make a profit, but it may be convenient to define itself as capable of doing so.
Re:Blah, blah, blah, profits, blah. Blah. (Score:2)
It is purely academic though isn't it. The original point was that their far overriding goal is to make money (like 99% of other companies).
Re:Conspiracy (Score:2)
They quite simply put it out to IPO when it would produce the best return for the initial investors, just after what was most likely it's maximum period of growth, with it's best revenues to date, just prior to both MSN and Yahoo both making a big push to r
Re:Conspiracy (Score:1)
Search took... (Score:2, Funny)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Panty Bind (Score:5, Interesting)
I think statements by Google have made it clear that they will not be playing the normal Wall Street Game. What's really going on here is that because of this, Wall Street is getting its collective panties in a bind. I for one am enjoying the show. Google should just keep doing what it wants and ignore the people in New York who seem to think they can't be ignored...
Re:Panty Bind (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh, so they should continue to misrepresent information to shareholders? They should reap the financial benefits of the system but not be held accountable by the same system? Remember, "the investors" aren't just the guys trading in NY, there are tons of folks and organzations that invest other folks money that are also "investors" and they are being just as irked and feel like Google is not operating is a straight forward manner.
It continues to amaze me that crap that Google does is seen as innovative and being a maverick shaking up the establishment, but the same deeds done by other companies would be universally condemned. If M$ did similar stuff everyone would be all up in arms. It's funny what cult of personality will do for you, that and a catchy tag line "do no evil". Reminds me of the schlocky 80's flick where Dolf Lundgren plays the alien that blows people away while stating (quite deadpan may I add) "I mean you no harm". I picture Dolf with the words "Google" tatooed to his head and all the gFanBoys drooling while mesmerized and chanting "I mean you no harm" while Dolf casually blows them into oblivion, all the while the other gFanBoys stating that "he must of deserved it".
Re:Panty Bind (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Panty Bind (Score:3, Informative)
Read the parent post again.
there are tons of folks and organzations that invest other folks money that are also "investors" and they are being just as irked and feel like Google is not operating is a straight forward manner.
I would be too. $90 million dollar settlement is at least noteworthy and should be professionally communicated to the shareholders. Comments like "Guess if I'm talking about revenue or market capitalization" from one of the CEOs is j
Re:Panty Bind (Score:2)
The pri
Re:Panty Bind (Score:2)
Fear and greed? Investors are stupid and irrational? Bubble-mania?
>Google won't play the "markets" game and at the moment it is cashed up and doesn't need to.
If that is true, that would piss me even more as a long-term investor. What happens when Google needs to go back to the market in the future? Don't you think that the people they upset now will make it painful for the company
Re:Panty Bind (Score:2)
How about third party predictions?
"Are they communicating to you, as owners, as you would like them to, in a clear and accurate way?"
Yes, they are just not saying what their revenue is going to be in the future, they left that black art to the market analysts and financial planners.
Re:Panty Bind (Score:2)
Umm.... its alot more complex than that.
>Yes, they are just not saying what their revenue is going to be in the future, they left that black art to the market analysts and financial planners.
Google doesn't predict revenue?
http://google.blognewschannel.com/index.php/archiv es/2006/03/08/google-accidentally-reveals-revenue- prediction/ [blognewschannel.com]
Our ads business... projected to grow from $6bn this year to $9.5bn next year based purely on trends in traffic and monetization growth.
Re:Panty Bind (Score:2)
Yes it is, but the crux of the matter is that the forecasts and growth hype did not originate from google.
"Google doesn't predict revenue?"
Good greif man, that link is not a forcast the pension funds can use to satisfy their risk analyisis! Of course google make internal revenue forcasts, but they are not communicating them to the market. They, like many other smaller publicly owned companies are just not willing to put their balls on the chopping block in
Re:Panty Bind (Score:2)
How in the world is Google considered "small"?
>are just not willing to put their balls on the chopping block in return for investment by pension funds and the like and why should they?
1. Google's orginial investors, before the IPO, are the sort of people who are interested in the bottom-line, ie-putting balls on the chopping block. (see:Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital) So I guess Google are interested in investments from
Re:Panty Bind (Score:2)
Heh, bad grammar.
"Is it acting like a serious business or some hobby run by a bunch of high-school kids?"
I would say "hobby" and google is also saying "hobby" to the investors as it has from the start. They are pushing the responsibilty for investment decisions back on to the fund managers, precisely where it belongs both morally and legally. Have they attempted to insulate themselves from a bubble by cashing in stocks, you bet!
Re:Panty Bind (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Panty Bind (Score:4, Insightful)
I too am enjoying the show. (Score:1)
However, itt will (IMHO) take a lot more bad news and uncertainty before this (great) company's stock is at a valuation commensurate with future cashflows and risks.
Best,
Paul
Re:I too am enjoying the show. (Score:2)
Re:I too am enjoying the show. (Score:2)
On the other hand, maybe it
Best,
Paul
Re:Panty Bind (Score:2)
I really don't think that Wall Street cares either way.
There are loads of companies that don't "play by Wall Street" rules. Sometimes its because the company doesn't think that guidance is worthwhile to the long-term care of the shareholders, other times it because they don't give a flying-crap about anyone including the shareholders.
If Google wanted to not "play by Wall Street" why do they have
Re:Panty Bind (Score:2)
Unlike you and your metal mill, nobody at Google is working there because they can't get a job anywhere else. It's harder to g
Re:Panty Bind (Score:2)
It's also worth me
Google's Hiring (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Google's Hiring (Score:2, Interesting)
I sent her a new computer with a firefox homepage of her shiny new google account. She is seriously computer illiterate and already she has fallen in love with it. (she used to have mail.com - ugh!)
Now she wants all her friends to use gmail. It's kinda cute.
If Google's Hiring it's their new place in Fremont (Score:1)
pay no attention to the marketing folks, they aren't of concern.
It was on one of the Microsoft blogs today. With a news item in the business pages of the soon to be web-only Seattle PI [nwsource.com].
Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationship (Score:5, Interesting)
We're all familiar with the recent news about Google's policies on privacy, finance, and the Department of Justice. And, it has admittedly made a few mistakes. But who are we to argue? Isn't the company successful? Aren't they doing what the set out to do -- change the world? In a nutshell: YES... I may be disappointed that Google does things a little differently than I expected, but isn't the end result that I have cool new and "free" technologies... and isn't their stock still work a lot more than their IPO days?
All of these thoughts are SOMEWHAT comforting... but I've started to develop somewhat of a love / hate relationship with them. Very recently (a few days ago) I fell into some sort of keyword promotion site over optimization scam. There is a company that wrote code that a person can insert into their websites in order to "show the location" of who's browsing their sites. This code had a cleverly embedded keyword in it that made a vague reference to "MySpace.com." As a result of including such code on my site, I was getting A LOT of Google hits.. and people were asking me how they could do the same thing. I answered by posing a copy of the code on my website... and then I got hit by a Google Site Ranking Penalty... something that I did not know even existed! Now, I am trying to recover my site's ranking and I'm not even sure how to do this.
Prior to this experience I thought Google was great... but it appears to me that much of their company is "automated" and that my site somehow tripped some automated flags and hence automatically punished me... for something someone else did. So, in the end isn't it Google's responsibility to protect the small end user from abuses of their automatic systems?
I personally won't suffer any great loss from my sites loss in status, but its just that -- a loss in status... and frankly its quite annoying. Luckily for me there were a few lessons learned:
1. I enjoy posting on Slashdot more than on my blog because people actually read it.
2. I know know how to avoid Search Engine Optimization Errors.
So, there you have it... that's the story of my love / hate relationship with Google.
--Matthew Wong
http://www.themindofmatthew.com [themindofmatthew.com]
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a "love/hate relationship" with Google because you're running a website. My experience is that it's mainly webmasters and advertisers that have any dislike of Google, because they're so relentless at protecting the interests of their users.
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:3, Interesting)
You are right, the only people who really have a "beef" with Google are the stock brokers, web site operators, and anyone whos privacy might be at stake...but in the end, I still love the company.
Matt Wong
http://www.themindofmatthew.com [themindofmatthew.com]
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:2)
Competitors do LOTS of things via google to fuck over your company. They click your ads (this is more prevalant in yahoo, though, where people can see what you pay per click), they get pissed and report you if your webpage is higher on search rankings.
I work for a firm that gets all its business from our Google ran
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:4, Insightful)
Google made compromises which they felt were in the best interest of the Chinese Users. Their options were 1)be banned by the chinese government or 2)censor the results. Now google censors the results, but at the very least tells the users that results are being cesored per Chinese Law. This is information that, as far as I know, other search engines do not reveal. Letting the Chinese people know which information is being censored is the first step in getting that censored information to them, as it will spark curiosity in the rebelious who know that something is wrong with the system, and now have actual evidence.
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:2)
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:2)
google's saying f-u to china? everything google is doing on google.cn is reviewed and approved by china. can you please explain how exactly that is an f-u?
i don't hate googl
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:2)
"google's saying f-u to china? everything google is doing on google.cn is reviewed an
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:2)
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:5, Informative)
Over the years, the company has proven its worth time and time again with technology advancements cool new features
really, like what? web-based email? instant messaging? web-based maps? a search engine? i hate to tell you this, but all of this was done 5-10 years before google existed. granted, google has (mostly) made advancements in these areas, but please, let's not pretend these ideas are "new".
everything google does is available elsewhere, and in a form such that the quality of our lives would not significantly change if google dried up and died.
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:2)
But, don't forget that even if the world would continue on its path...we still enjoy the products the company produces... I mean, after all if we took away cars we still have bikes right?
--Matthew Wong
http://www.themindofmatthew.com [themindofmatthew.com]
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:2)
Not only are they 'new' to Google (very acceptable usage of 'new' by the GP post), they are also new to search engines in general.
everything google does is available elsewhere, and in a form such that the quality of our lives would not significantly change if google dried up and died.
Did anyone come close to claiming such a thing? Certainly not the post you replied to.
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:2)
I don't think either of these examples could be considered features, new or otherwise.
"Google proved that Yahoo, MSN, etc. could do many of the advancements (since now virtually every Google feature is copied)..".
Let's be fair. Google has copied more features from other companies then others have copied f
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:2)
OTOH: If people can't reasonably trust the independence of the slot's answers or privacy of the questions it will eventually loose out to a more trustworthy slot, even if it is hidden by a scree
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:2)
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:2)
Exactly, I choose google over the others because they protest the loudest when it comes to complying with government censorship and snooping. Looking out for their users interests with issues like free-speech and privacy is what gives them a firm grip on market share, protects their revenue stream and ensures long term viability. And yes, they make a shitload of money following that strategy, so what?
I do not for second belive google is run by saints but to be blunt it's not har
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh (Score:2)
Good Google (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides that, what good is a google application which shares as a unwanted side-effect sensitive business documents without the knowledge of the respected companies?
When it comes down to money,some evil stockholders, countries or clients will take on the power game. And I guess it will heappen when google has a real bad financial quarter. So we have to wait for that for a while I guess. We'll see how google will evolve.
Re:Good Google (Score:1)
The convergence of Internet and Advertising is evil.
However, some of the loudest voices on slashdot these days are people who make a lot of money directly or indirectly due to advertising on the Internet. It isn't the old days anymore. . .
Re:Good Google (Score:4, Informative)
If only they would keep promises ... (Score:1)
Google Print (Score:5, Interesting)
CMO? Of course! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm to blame (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm to blame (Score:2)
Stock Investing (Score:2)
I find that as a stock investor as long as you invest in healthy, profitable companies, stocks may falter from time to time, but you will do well in the long run. Google stock may be out of fashion right now (good time to buy), but I have confidence that its continuing profitability will pay off in the long term. BTW, by "long term" I don't mean
Please, they sold out to the Chinese (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember folks, Do No Evil is a marketing slogan, not legal contract.
Re:Please, they sold out to the Chinese (Score:1)
I propose you be added to the 'mindset of a political hack' category, because your knee-jerk reactionary antics aren't helping anything.
You realize (Score:2)
But that will only last as long as the PRC regime decided to allow it. Then, Google will bend over, and sell out again.
Re:You realize (Score:2)
Re:Please, they sold out to the Chinese (Score:2)
Re:Please, they sold out to the Chinese (Score:4, Interesting)
they are required to do as corporation
Typical ignorant statement repeated ad nauseum by Slashdot socialists. It's wrong on so many levels. You guys like to think that a corporation is legally required to do whatever it takes to make a profit, and you're flat out fucking wrong about that point. But you just never let it go. One of these days you should take Economics 101.
Remember folks, Do No Evil is a marketing slogan, not legal contract.
Actually it's a mission statement, which most companies have. Theirs is just succinct. Good and Evil is black and white. Operating your servers in China is a shade of grey. They never said Don't Be Grey, they said Don't Be Evil. Just because you have a problem with something doesn't make it evil across the board.
I think the China move was a smart one, I don't have a problem with it. Then again, I seem to be one of the few that can look past the B.S. and see what they actually did -- added some services for Chinese users, while leaving existing services alone. If that's evil, call me Darth Vader.
Re:Please, they sold out to the Chinese (Score:2)
Actually they do: if google can detect your country, you get redirected to the url of your country. I am pretty sure this is the same in china as it is in my country.
This will also change the results you get: the french google will return results in a different order than the german or the english one, apparently some sort of positive bias for the right language
There are ways around this (very annoying) redirect, but they are not easy to find f
Re:Please, they sold out to the Chinese (Score:2)
Re:Please, they sold out to the Chinese (Score:2)
Could have sworn it wasn't there the last time I had to change this thought. might be my memory.
Oh, a "Google done bad" story. (Score:5, Funny)
Let's change it up then.... (Score:1)
******
Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.
******
Ok, ok - so that was going to be 750...
Google investors should blame themselves... (Score:2)
Regarding click fraud... (Score:4, Interesting)
What I can't understand is how it is legal for Google and Overature to continue downplaying the effects of click fraud.
Here is one such effect: I recently spent $150 on an advertising campaign, without finding a single sale (I usually get 5-10 for $150). Later I found out why: an ex-employee who had since become a competitor already knew all of my "favorite" keywords, and was working diligently to click every ad he could find. But what happens when someone applies a DDoS-technique to click fraud? At what point would Google and Overature have no choice but face this issue head-on?
Using only IP logs and a date stamp, any "PHP-for-dummies" graduate could eliminate 90% of click fraud overnight. With the amount of data Google has, I simply *have* to think they already know the average time "between clicks" for any given keyword/ad placement anyway, and how often the same IP will "normally" click on the same ad. Anything outside those "norms" should go unbilled. It's not as if Google is facing any variable costs per click (nominal at best).
I don't want to believe that Google and Overature are "evil". However, I'm not really sure what alternative makes sense. Consider: Google and Overature currently have the power to (1) bill clients whatever they want (2) settle lawsuits with more ad credits and (3) use "leading technology" to justify absurd market-caps, only to turn-around and plead helpless to stop "click fraud".
Be 100% honest for a second: if *you* were in *their* shoes, would you run to the press and say "something must be done!" or would you walk directly into an attorney's office and ask flat-out: "How much should I take before I retire?".
Re:Regarding click fraud... (Score:2)
>eliminate 90% of click fraud overnight. With the amount of data Google has,
>I simply *have* to think they already know the average time "between clicks"
>for any given keyword/ad placement anyway, and how often the same IP
>will "normally" click on the same ad. Anything outside those "norms" should
>go unbilled. It's not as if Google is facing any variable costs per click
>(nominal at best).
Google already does this,
Eh, I disagree with TFA (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think it's inevitable at all. As long as Google's results are relevant, there is no incentive to switch. Google makes sure you've got no reason to switch, by introducing a million and one free extras to tie you into their web.
G-mail, Google Talk, Google Chat, Google Calendar, Google homepages, Google maps... and they're still innovating.
Re:Eh, I disagree with TFA (Score:1)
Re:Eh, I disagree with TFA (Score:2)
I'll give you chat, Gtalk is pathetic. Calendar I haven't seen yet, so I won't comment. Their mapping tools (Earth and Local) are pretty neat, and I have ye
Selling shares was a mistake (Score:2, Insightful)
Corporations generally behave like psychopaths. The people running them may be wonderful decent people but the corporations still be
Fuck Wall Street. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just be glad, Wall Street, that they even let you in to play.
Re:Fuck Wall Street. (Score:1)
Even the Google fanboy in me would be hard pressed to attempt an argument like that... It's the other way around.
Okkaaaayyyy (Score:1)
Naive (Score:3, Insightful)
The article is saying these gaffes are hurting google, but personally, I'm not seeing google hurt at all... Maybe they are alot smarter than they are getting credit for.
Chief Marketing Officer? (Score:1)
Chief Marketing Officer (Score:1)
As far as I am concerned the people at Google should continue to do the best they can without the help of trained professionals in the art of making stuff sound better then it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Twice revisited (Score:1)
Seems like someone needs a job... (Score:2, Insightful)
I am also looking for a job, but I'm not suggesting new (unnecessary/redundant) jobs to any company's I would like to work at.
You should work for BW (Score:2)
Earlier this week suggestions that Apple needs a Security Czar, now that Google needs a CMO.
You beat me to the punch. I saw this article and thought, "What, is it Backseat Driver Week at BW?" Since you're looking for a job, maybe you could head up their Redundancy Detection Department. Apparently they need one.
Giraffes? (Score:2)
Stop with the chief officers already (Score:3, Interesting)
- Pick a company X;
- Suggest the company has had vaguely defined 'problems' in field Y;
- Therefore, X must hire a chief Y officer!
I look forward to many more of these editorials linked from Slashdot in the future!
Let me get this straight... (Score:2)
...Google has problems, and instead of calling upon Google to fix them, Businessweek suggests they hire a Chief Marketing Officer?!
If even the people who target CxOs admit implicitly that all a Chief Marketing Officer does is try to put spin on problems, then what does that say about Marketing in general?
Mart