Cluetrain still makes sense for Doc
Published 5 years, 6 months ago in marketing + advertising
Read this today over at Searls’s weblog, which references this article over at Forbes.com, which contains this paragraph:
“Closely held Google gives out no numbers, but paid search is likely its main source of revenue. Danny Sullivan, who edits SearchEngineWatch.com, estimates that Google, with about 100,000 advertisers, is a “several-hundred-million-dollar” business. He may be guessing low. The newly revived search site Ask Jeeves, which carries ads from Google and pockets a portion of the fees, forecasts revenues of about $100 million this year. It operates around 13 million searches per day, compared with Google’s 200 million. It’s impossible to do a direct comparison, but Google clearly could be a $1 billion company soon.”
Oh, and Cluetrain still makes sense for Doc (and Google) because relevancy and one-to-one communication is what the internet makes it so easy for companies to do (once they decide it’s time to do it).
2 Responses to “Cluetrain still makes sense for Doc”
Leave a Reply
Search
Subscribe
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- May 2002
Categories
- asides (445)
- baby (6)
- design + dev (142)
- for sale (7)
- get a job (11)
- investing (6)
- leadership + management (146)
- life stories (251)
- macintosh (320)
- marketing + advertising (223)
- Moveable Type (52)
- organization (6)
- photography + video (68)
- publishing + content (136)
- random (239)
- Saab (1)
- sales and selling (94)
- small business (147)
- stuff (68)
- sysadmin (40)
- travel (42)
- Video (2)
- windows (69)
- WordPress (13)
What the fsck am I missing here? Count the # of employees and start multiplying by head count to see if these values are reasonable. We’ve seen google sales estimates at 60 meg to 300 meg. If you start to get $ per employee that are out of the norms then you at least have defined a more feasible range than 5x. They claim to be profitable and the fully loaded cost of a silicon valley employee is something like 1.5xSalary so if you assume a baseline of $100K (lot of phds remember then they have a burn rate of 150K * # of staff).
Hasn’t anyone ever thought of counting the damn cars in the parking lot ?
This is long now so I’m going to move it to my blog … Sorry for the rant.
*grumble, grumble* Sorry to be a cynic but the idea of a company w/ 200 odd staff “soon to be a billion dollar company” is a bit odd.
200?
Google has roughly 700-800 employees right now. And I’d wager than < 120 of ‘em are PhDs.