| 1:01 pm on Jan 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|moved closer to an initial public offering on Monday, as a company-paid audit certified its compliance with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley law, the New York Times reported. |
Also worth noting, is that aside from the private supporters forum, the Google representatives on WebmasterWorld have gone silient. We always said that would be the big sign that a announcement was imminent within 30 days. Rumor has it that it will happen on either the 25th of Feb or 1st of March.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 3:05 pm (utc) on Jan. 29, 2004]
| 5:34 pm on Jan 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Seriously, why do I get the feeling its going to be a cocktail of emotions. :)
I'll have my bottles of port handy incase they need a hand or two.
| 5:42 pm on Jan 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm not silent; I'm just working hard. :) I'll try to post something in the Google News forum, just so people know I'm still around. ;)
| 6:01 pm on Jan 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Unfortunately, having been through listings and delistings, I'd be surprised if the IPO team (or the underwriters counsel) allows you to.
| 9:11 pm on Jan 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<<I'm not silent; I'm just working hard. :)>>
Gee for someone who's working too hard to visit in here you sure picked up on Bretts comment in a hurry :)
Google still rules so how can we get in on the ground floor for some of their stock before Sir Bill pushes the price up? :)
| 10:22 pm on Jan 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The update thread is right over here, folks:
What investors look at is the company's bottom line and future revenue potential, and any possible exodus to find info for Billy's science project doesn't affect that at all.
The fact is that revenue streams will continue to increase as searchers find AdWords listings as satisfying for their buying needs as organic search, some of which are higher quality because of having to meet editorial standards for inclusion.
As the web matures the searching public becomes more sophisticated, and aside from those with a vested interest (aka those among us relying on organic listings), we can expect to see a growing acceptance and understanding that there are two clearly delineated types of search results.
Realistically speaking, we'd have to be naive not to see the growing trend to a shift in balance toward monetizaion of search and growing public acceptance and usage.
The next steps we can look forward to will be a look at the fourth-quarter and annual financial reports and the public statements that follow, and no doubt the preliminary projections for those must indicate that the time is ripe. Investment bankers choose very carefully for the timing of an IPO.
The points on the map are clear, it's a matter of timing and then we can watch to see who eventually comes out on top in the 3-way race between public companies we can look forward to watching.
>>leaves the whole thing in the hands of one SE, Google
Being pragmatic about it, it leaves the search picture in its entirety in the hands of three - MSN, Yahoo and Google. We can be sure that none of them is about to take a step backward toward de-monetization, and being realistic, not only is the public more ready than ever, as proven out by the profitability of paid search, but the public has no choice in the matter.
Bob Dylan: "The times they are a-changin'" The race to win eyeballs for search is now running down the middle of Wall Street.
| 2:54 am on Jan 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>Realistically speaking, we'd have to be naive not to see the growing trend to a shift in balance toward monetizaion of search and growing public acceptance and usage.
I think it's a matter of time before the Adwords moves to the top of the results. As a public company the pressure will mount to increase revenue. I will be very surprise if 12-18 months from now we will see the same results format on Google as we see today.
I actually think that moving Adwords to the top of the results it's not a bad idea. If you are now number one for "insurance" for example, number one today might worth lots of $ every day. If you move all Adwords on top, now your number one is only number 40 or 50 in the results. No so much incentive to spam and the results are still pretty relevant maybe even more.
Better results, less spam, less insentive to manipulate the results. Better search engine and they make more money. How can you say no?
| 3:15 am on Jan 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|as proven out by the profitability of paid search, but the public has no choice in the matter. |
I'm not so sure about that last comment.
I'm sure paid search can be very profitable ... but you have to deliver the goods! Once proud and strong names such as Alta Vista, Excite & LookSmart (in particular) come to mind when I recall past attempts at monetization gone very, very wrong.
In my industry, the rush to buy print advertising has been remarakble in the past few months. The increase in "industry specific" magazine distribution has matched the rush for advertising space as well. Its frightening for people like me who really can't afford it!
I think a substantial percentage of the public are becoming tired and frustrated with ploughing through irrelevant results which require them to search even further once they arrive at the top ranking authority sites ... if the info they desire can be found at all!
Many people are going back to the tried and true, hard copy, industry specific, magazines. Maybe in their rush to monetize, the big three have set internet search back more than a few years.
My site is doing pretty well again on Google, but its lonely at the top. The vast majority of my competitors have been buried by "so called" authority sites and directories. Without too many exceptions ... most have increased their print advertising budgets for 2004 by a substantial amount.
Its a sad state of affairs. What good does it do to be at the top of the results when you are surrounded by spam and poor quality "authority sites"?
Right now, (IMHO and as a search user), Alta Vista, MSN and Alltheweb are displaying much more relevant results than Google. I just don't understand their strategy for an IPO with the search results in such a shambles.
Am I alone in my thinking? How can they make this fly and make potential investors understand what their long term plans are? Can anyone even guess what their long term plans for search really are? I'm at a loss.
| 3:17 am on Jan 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"How can you say no?"
Because they have business sense?
They are where they are from delivering the best product, not the product money can buy.
| 3:37 am on Jan 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Frankly, I am mystified why some independent webmasters treat the upcoming Google IPO as a good thing. At times, I think I'm reading a celebrity fanzine.
My main reaction to the prospects of Google going public is one of apprehension. I'm just a little guy running my online businesses as a DBA who's become highly dependent on a single company. Between AdSense, AdWords, and SERPs, I figure Google is tied in with about 70% of my livelihood.
Once Google goes public and has accountability to shareholders, the SEC, and open scrutiny by the press, things are likely to change. Maybe for the better, maybe for the worse, but certainly difficult to say.
All I know is that my already precarious businesses will have added uncertainty. I prefer parties with punch and pie.
| 3:03 pm on Jan 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>They are where they are from delivering the best product, not the product money can buy.
So Adwords is not a good product? Less relevent? When searching how many sites do you find on Adwords that are not related to the keywords searched? not alot if any. Try the same thing with the free search and you will find alot of non relevent results.
How's that make Adwords less of a product?
| 3:33 pm on Jan 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I actually think that moving Adwords to the top of the results it's not a bad idea. If you are now number one for "insurance" for example, number one today might worth lots of $ every day. If you move all Adwords on top, now your number one is only number 40 or 50 in the results. |
That would give us Google looking like MSN with all the LookSmart up front and the Inktomi backfill pages down. The public moved away from that and went on over to Google en masse for a cleaner, faster site and quality search.
It doesn't compute for me that the others have tried to emulate Google's look and feel and then Google would turn around and emulate what the others have tried to move away from. If it worked why would MSN have dropped LookSmart, unless they've got a replacement for LS of their own planned?
| 10:42 pm on Jan 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"When searching how many sites do you find on Adwords that are not related to the keywords searched? not alot if any."
LOL, you GOT to be kidding.
Adwords are often not relevant to the actual search. C'mon.
In the first place, most people seldom uses the limiters so stuff like Cincinnati hotels show up for "Cincinnati Kid" searches.
Besides that though, many sites use adwords is for terms where they wish they were relevant but really are not. Adwords is the home of misspelled domains trying to pretend they are legit ones.
But you are even missing the point of this, Adwords is not the best money can buy. You can NOT just buy the top adwords slot.
| 3:29 am on Jan 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>Adwords are often not relevant to the actual search. C'mon
Where show me where? I can show ton on the free
>>>many sites use adwords is for terms where they wish they were relevant but really are not. Adwords is the home of misspelled domains trying to pretend they are legit ones.
Whatever you say!
>>>You can NOT just buy the top adwords slot.
Not with links, I think with money you might
| 5:57 am on Jan 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I guess you've never used adwords. You can't just buy the top slot.