All GOOG All The Time

As much as we talk about Google, we'll still plead that we talk about Google less than we could (every day), and that in itself, is worthy of praise.

This morning we caught an absolutely absurd spot on CNBC, in which an analyst (can't remember his name) was making the bull case for Google.  One of the things he cited was the looming battle between Google and the government over search histories.  Whoa.  Isn't this the news that sent Google's shares southward last Friday?  According to the analyst, and we paraphrase, "A public trial will allow Google to increase exposure, and improve brand image".  Got that?  First of all, there's no way in hell Google's gonna let this go to a public trial, or even the government for that matter.  Second of all, Google doesn't need more exposure, who hasn't heard of them?  And third of all, does Google really want to stand up to the government over an issue that the media will frame as being about pornography and protecting children? 

And since the Google q4 earnings guessing game is full on, here's an interesting analysis from a Yahoo employee Amr Awadallah (via SiliconBeat):

A colleague of mine reminded me that Google did a SERP UI change in early December, they increased the font-size for the East adword listings (i.e. listings on the right rail of the page). We call this type of change an “accelerator change” which is usually done to try and catch up with revenue projections, its another signal that Google’s Q4 quarter is a bit in trouble. Note that they launched this change after the peak of xmas shopping.

It's true, check it out, they've clearly increased the font-size of their ads.

Still, it's too early to be sure of what earnings will look like.  With some complaining that the cost of advertising has gotten too expensive, it's possible that keyword prices will have been off the charts this quarter.

Comments

[Josh]

Trial? Does that analyst have any concept of the subpoena that was actually issued? It had nothing to do with a trial. The Justice Dept. issued it on an investigative basis in an attempt to bolster its appeal of a civil case that overturned an online child porgnography law. There will be no trial, public or otherwise, just a hearing.

In my opinion, Google needed to take this action. Civil subpoenas are issued by attorneys in pending litigation without prior court approval. If Google set a precedent of handing over huge amounts of data every time a civil subpoena was issued, users would be hesitant to keep data on Google servers (gmail for example). Resisting the initial subpoena request was the right move. If there is any legitimacy to the request (and I'm pretty neutral on that subject) the court will order the data turned over and this over-discussed hearing will be put to rest.