I haven't gotten the email yet, but, having never received a "gift" from Google, other than a regular monthly payment without any bother, interference, cajoling, manipulating, etc. from the big G (and who can say that about any regular business client?), I don't feel like I was "stiffed" in any way. Google's numbers are so immense (millions and billions $$) that they hardly register since I'm still in the hundreds and thousands mode of thinking, but their giving to charity is fine, regardless of where the money is spent.
If $20 million goes out of Google's hands into charities, whether to actually help people or pay salaries or expenses or pay bills, it all helps the small publisher in the long run. The money circulates, and eventually some trickles down to us through the economy. That's how it's supposed to work.
Those who feel deprived of some relatively valueless "gift," are really not looking at the big picture. I'd much rather have G spread $20 million around to charities than spend the same amount, or half, or double, on gifts to publishers. Either way, money gets spent and put to work. At least this way, it gets spread around. (It's like welfare, unemployment benefits and other entitlement programs: As a taxpayer you hate them, until, as a businessperson, you learn how to get a sliver of the hand-out pie.)
I was thinking last night of how different things are from when I ran a handful of newspapers back in the 80s (pre-internet). I was younger, then, and a little more foolish, but money flowed back then. People didn't worry about tomorrow, their jobs, paying bills, etc., or at least not very much. There was always more money to be made.
Today it's a different story, but I believe much of it is media-driven. We have three 24-hour financial news networks constantly telling us things are OK, not so bad, horrible, inflationary, the third world is gaining on us, etc., etc., depending on the day, until it becomes a monotonous, boring drone. Everyone's a junior economist with an opinion on how the economy is crumbling, yet, still, we forge ahead, except now, we worry about tomorrow instead of welcoming new opportunities.
I think it's time to get over the remnant gloom from 2008 and get back to thinking about prosperity. Yeah, the banks and the govt. screwed up, screwed us, but don't they always? It's nothing new. What hasn't changed is that if you want to work, start a business or do anything of value, you have to start with yourself and a positive attitude, not a self-defeating one.
Sorry to go so long, but I just needed to respond to this thread. Google didn't "screw" anybody. They did what they thought best. Deal with it and move ahead with your own business. And look forward to a brighter future. You can make it happen.
|This was not about charity, it was about discontinuing a program that vendors had come to look forward too. |
As someone who has bought nice corporate swag and got tons of it as well, I think there is some truth in this. But, that thinking doesn't have to be regarded cynically. It can be a good thing.
"How best can we deploy these dollars?"
"What is the goal here?"
Walk through it...Giving gifts at this time of year is a way of saying many things: you are appreciated, remember me, I'm a player, hello,...
All that is fine.
But, the idea of giving gifts at this time of year is SUPPOSE to be about something else, about something more. It's about community, caring. Thinking of others.
It's about sharing values.*
Likewise, Google is trying to communicate its values. Or, rather, it is trying to say to its customers, we share your values.
I don't purchase much swag at Christmas any more. We take the money and make a donation to the Episcopal Relief and Development Fund's Gifts for Life and send out cards about it, encouraging others to look into the program.
I got my email from Google and I smiled.
(*Sharing values can be on a very simplistic, even tacky level, btw. We give one member of my family a good bottle of wine on Christmas. We're sharing our values regarding wine, which we feel they would benefit from. They typically pour dreck at their dinner table.)
I agree with Brett. Advertisers spend millions of $$ with Google and we get bupkus in return. I never even heard of half the charities they are supposedly giving the money to. They are forgetting those who make it possible for them to have that $20 million.
Weeks: "They typically pour dreck at their dinner table."
Thanks for the laugh and the even-handed approach.
Farmboy: G is sending the payments earlier. PIP has been reported by US publishers already, when the normal payout would be next week, so, expect PIP today or tomorrow if you are an US publisher paid via EFT (I'm lucky, my credit union makes G funds available to me the day after PIP, without fail).
Here's how I read the PIP timing: If the last day of the month falls on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday, PIP occurs the Tuesday or Wednesday preceding that. If the last day is S,M,Tu or Wed., PIP comes in the last FULL week, usually Tuesday or Wednesday. I have never seen PIP occur on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday or Monday.
|Farmboy: G is sending the payments earlier. PIP has been reported by US publishers already, when the normal payout would be next week, so, expect PIP today or tomorrow if you are an US publisher paid via EFT |
My intent was to say early enough that people could purchase some Christmas gifts, pay off some monthly bills early, etc.
What I read in the PIP thread was people getting a "the check is in the mail" notice for those who receive paper checks.
For an EFT, if PIP shows up today, the earliest it would be available is tomorrow, Christmas Eve.
|Likewise, Google is trying to communicate its values. |
Based on the number of times during the year people here complain about not being able to communicate with Google, I think their attempt is going to fall flat.
|Or, rather, it is trying to say to its customers, we share your values. |
How? Google doesn't know what my values are.
And I have no doubt that a number of people took a look at the list of charities and decided, "Google certainly does not share my values."
As I wrote previously, if Google gives money to charity, good for them, regardless of the amount. I just don't see it as some grandiose kumbaya event.
|My intent was to say early enough that people could purchase some Christmas gifts, pay off some monthly bills early, etc. |
I understand and agree, G could have given the economy a lift just by being a week early. However, if you know any rich people, they just don't think like us peons. They always have enough cash on hand to do whatever they want, so a payment a week or a month early of late doesn't actually register with them. I figure the PIP team at Google are all pretty well off and consider the monthy payouts just part of the routine and thus, probably never gave it a single thought.
I don't expect anything from Google and I certainly don't feel "stiffed" because they didn't sent me a Christmas gift. I really don't care if they donate to charity or not (although it's a nice gesture) and I don't care if they announce or not.
This very item is an excellent example of why NOT to ever give out gifts to advertisers and publishers, because if you do it *once* then people come to expect it as though it were owed to them.
I don't know why in the world people expect Google to act differently than almost every other corporation on the planet, but somehow they sure seem to.
Well at least they sent a ecard. Thanks Google.
>> Oh wait.... I have paid for a memebership for... hmmm years and years now from here. Been to a few confrences too. Where is my gift? Wait again, not expecting one. <<
I'm not a fan of the "automatic" renewal aspect of my WW membership (I think that's underhanded) but I did get a gift from WW. $50 off my PubCon registration fee. If you've been to PubCon, a couple of times, I assume you got it too, a couple of times.
> I don't even let my kids put their names on
> books they donate to their own schools.
There certainly is a line between a personal charitable contribution and a "public fund raising" drive contribution. One is between you, your higher power and the tax man. The other is about inspiring others to give.
I am in Mrs. Daisy's camp and believe talking about personal charitable contributions in public is obscene.
>>I don't know why in the world people expect Google to act differently than almost every other corporation on the planet, but somehow they sure seem to.
Agree. And folks act like Google is a person. It's a corporation that answers to shareholders.
>>I figure the PIP team at Google are all pretty well off and consider the monthy payouts just part of the routine and thus, probably never gave it a single thought.
This has been mentioned numerous times in that forum. Google doesn't even have to send out these payments until the 5th of the following month. I did the math in this thread [webmasterworld.com] and Google loses about $10M a month by sending checks two weeks earlier than necessary.
|Agree. And folks act like Google is a person. It's a corporation that answers to shareholders. |
That's a cop out. It's run by people. It's not a borg or faceless entity without controls. There's two people at the top of that company that are responsible for the company's actions either by direct decision or by delegation.
Somebody decided on a 100 year cookie. Somebody decided to ban affiliates from adwords. Somebody decided their policy was to ignore pleas from those banned. Somebody decided not to provide adsense publishers with what percentage they are provided. Somebody made the decision to not send out swag this year. Somebody hand picked the $20 mill amount, and somebody picked the charities. Not the corporation. Employees and owners of the corporation made these decisions. Specific people.
Let me also say that IMO, swag is crap, a waste of time and money (*). So cancelling the swag was fine by me.
(*)420 BOTW shirts being the only exception.
Did Google not donate money to charities in the past? If so, did they donate 20 million more than last year?
Donating to charities is fine and all but I don't like that they need to make a "look how awesome we are" deal about it. I don't get an email from Bill Gates or Warren Buffet about how much they've donated to charities.
>>>420 BOTW shirts being the only exception.
My black 420 BOTW hoody is one of my favorite pieces of clothing, especially in winter.
Receiving Google AdSense gifts was nice, but I don't feel entitled to a gift and understand them not sending one this year. I hope they don't ever send publishers a gift ever again.
I agree with martinibuster. Fun to get, but they were just trinkets and I was always slightly annoyed that they felt rich enough to throw away money in that way.
Also, it seemed that there was always such a random element in who did and did not get the gifts that I doubt they were very motivational.
|I am in Mrs. Daisy's camp and believe talking about personal charitable contributions in public is obscene. |
"Obscene"? Uh, okay, whatever.
I liked the Google gifts, I'll admit it. However I like the monthly PIP even more :-) That's the thing with sending out gifts, if you do it one year, or a couple times people come to expect it and then what happens when they stop.... well we all know ;-)
|That's a cop out. It's run by people. |
Uh -that's obvious.
The point is Bill Gates can give his money away and he does't have to explain his actions to anyone. Google answers to shareholders. When the person at Google decided to give $20M to charity, they are giving someone else's money away.
|If so, did they donate 20 million more than last year? |
What difference does it make what they gave away last year? Maybe they didn't intend on giving any money away this year.
The Google Foundation promised to give away $1B. Their 2008 annual report indicated they gave away $178M in the years 2006 through 2008. Those are published data.
|If it did go to charity in your name, then ask Google for documentation to that effect so that you can take it off your taxes. |
But then you have to report that amount as income as well- a new wash at best.
i have a feeling this has somthing to do with tax or politics rather then
"we are such a wonderful giving company" But they'll sure wrap it up in a bow and sell it to you as such.
The way it is being sold to us via a marketing campaign does stink of PR. On the other hand though, who cares what motivates this latest move by Google. If just some of the 20 mil does help someone in need then it can't be such a bad thing.
[edited by: Scurramunga at 1:48 am (utc) on Dec. 24, 2009]
|Advertisers spend millions of $$ with Google and we get bupkus in return. |
We get 50% to 80% of what advertisers spend in the content network, which amounts to about 100% more than most of us would have gotten without Google.
I routinely ask family and friends to give gifts in my name instead of giving me useless trinkets, ties and gadgets. I'm glad Google did this and commend them for it.
|I routinely ask family and friends to give gifts in my name instead of giving me useless trinkets, ties and gadgets. |
Kudos to you. The less resources we waste as a lack of artificial demand and the less landfill we discard the better.
I always tell my relatives not to worry about gifts and in the event they feel compelled to give me (or my wife and daughter) a gift, that the gift should a response to a genuine need and be as be simple, low cost and practical as possible.
|We get 50% to 80% of what advertisers spend in the content network. |
Finally I got 'the fact' I've been looking for a while, I don't have Adwords account but I assume they have finally updated their system to show how much advertisers get. But it could be discussed in another thread..
"what difference does it make what they gave away last year? Maybe they didn't intend on giving any money away this year." -BillyS
Haha, if you believe that I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
The thing is this: they state they are giving the money that they would have otherwise given to us to charity instead. As BillyS said himself they haven't changed their giving habits one bit in the last three years.
Google, if you want to give to charity then give to charity. If you want to cut the gift program then do that. But DON'T attempt to disguise one of your actions as another, more selfless one.
I'm not really understanding your logic.
I bought a car in 2007 and 2008. Does that mean I was planning on buying a car in 2009? I hope you're going to say No...
zylstra's last sentence was a good one. you've got to hand it to google's PR department -- they've got everyone patting them on the back for scraping their own presents.
they always give money to charity. that is nothing new. they always have, and they probably always will. the only thing that is new here is them scraping our presents.
not that any of us are really bothered about that, i imagine. but it's hardly something to pat them on the back for.
it's like this: you were too tight to fork out for your own kid's presents, so when they woke up christmas morning you informed them that you'd given all the money to charity instead -- which you would have done anyway, regardless. that way they will feel guilty about complaining.
and what's a piddly 20 million dollars anyway? football teams spend that much on one-half (the left leg) of a single football player. your neighbour can win more than that on one lottery ticket. when you think that their third quarter earnings in 2009 were $1.64 BILLION (for just 3 little months), why are we patting them on the back for giving away our 20 million.
My e-mail has arrived at long last! Obviously the postal system is working again, it must have been all that snow:-)
| This 96 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 96 ( 1 2  4 ) > > |