Silicon Valley Watcher

The assertion is 100% correct.

There are other reports out there & some of them do great breakdowns of click volume, click costs, click values & so on ... based on things like: device type (desktop vs tablet vs cell phones, or even across operating systems), branded keywords vs unbranded keywords, text ads vs PLAs/shopping ads, etc.

There are many such reports, but the SEM company which regularly puts out the best report on this front is RKG (which was bought out by Merkle last year http://www.merkleinc.com/news-and-events/press-releases/2014/merkle-acquires-search-digital-marketing-agency-rkg and even after the buyout is still putting out great reports each quarter).

RKG's most recent report is downloadable here http://www.rimmkaufman.com/digital-marketing-report/ & it is something I read (and recommend) every quarter. :)

In the report, they stated they saw Google dramatically increase minimum CPC on own brand keywords over the past year, that brand keyword cost was up 39% YoY, and that Google was now charging brands more for clicks on their own brand terms than Bing does. You can see a quick review of their report here
http://searchengineland.com/us-paid-search-growing-but-at-slower-rate-google-brand-cpcs-surge-report-225348

And there might be multiple factors in Google showing fewer ads. Some general assertions and/or hypothesis on potential drivers...

A rise in minimum CPCs on brand keywords might block out some of the lower value 3rd party arbitrage on the branded…

Thanks for the links, although deleting data from Google doesn't sound like a relief/solution to me because they keep all the data.[1][2] From my experience, after you deleted your gmail account, you are not allowed to register with the same address anymore. They claim it's due to security reasons. Such claim sounds reasonable and I believe them. Anyway, they have the ability to keep the data you think you deleted for whatever reasons, which is enough for me to have doubts. I have no methods to prove that other kinds of data are kept or deleted, i.e. I don't know how to check if they deleted my location history completely, or just archived it for future use. Even the data has been anonymized, it still can be used for statistic purposes, which possibly could be used to influence elections.

I wonder if most of users would read through ToS and support articles before they started using those features. It's just much easier to click on "I agree." I won't call it a trap, but it's pretty close. As a result, users are signing contracts they don't even bother reading. And eventually, users are the ones who get blamed by the company for not paying attention.

And again, we are not sure about how they are actually using our data. Before this FB scandal, some people might still believe FB wouldn't do things like this.

[1]: https://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/google-keeps-your-data-forever---unlocking-the-future-transparency-of-your-past/

[2]:…

"The TV networks already seem, grudgingly, to see where things are going, and have responded by putting their stuff, grudgingly, online. But they're still dragging their heels."

The TV industry is a complicated business, with a lot of buying and selling instruments that technologists outside of the industry generally don't understand. So, the industry is brushed off as a bunch of "laggers" as was describe to me by one VC group.

And because the new media channels (GOOG, etc) brush off the vagaries of the business (selling methodologies, the role that Nielsen plays, service and relationships), they're failing miserably at getting their hands on any significant portion of that 30b annually that TV ad revenue is putting on the books.

If GOOG is supposed to be setting the example for a new media channel penetrating the legacy media industry, so far they're doing a lousy job. TV booked 18b up front during 2008 buying season, while Youtube struggled to clear 200m by year-end. http://www.rbr.com/media-news/advertising/12912.html

And now GOOG flopped on radio: http://www.rbr.com/media-news/advertising/12895.html

The problem is that while the technology is there to change the face of media consumption, traditional media still produces the best content, and content is still king. If traditional media is not convinced that the new channels can protect spot value, there's no way they're going to give up prime content on a first run basis:…

Sure, that'll be the reaction in some quarters, and in breezy superficial mainstream reports. But that's always the reaction in those places: no change here.

But there will also be curiosity that leads people to other more sophisticated takes on Silk Road and DPR's philosophy. Here's an interesting one:

http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2013/10/silk_road_shutdown_be.php

Silk Road was safer and cheaper than the very-violent legacy prohibited-drugs businesses. (Other smuggling cartels with $1.2B in sales likely have a lot more blood on their hands than two fake assassinations.) So here's another potential takeaway worthy of discussion:

• maybe psychoactive drugs ought to be a mail-order business, as a harm-reduction policy. USPS/Fedex/UPS can check proof-of-age on delivery, and people in addiction-recovery could be put (by election or court-order) on no-delivery lists

• if an online drug vendor is being blackmailed by a hacker/disgruntled-employee threatening the release of customer information, that vendor should be able to go to the cops and have the blackmailer arrested under the CFAA. Same for an embezzling employee. No extralegal "street justice" required.

• the taxes on such commerce could be spent to help addicts far more than today, and have some left over for spending on other social benefits

Evidence? Evidence for what? Perhaps it was unclear, but I was suggesting that the people who have been defending Google over this, on HN and elsewhere, have been putting forth a lot of misinformation, so that is what I provided evidence of.

I've seen no official statement from Google saying that other services aren't affected, and clearly they are as this latest statement confirms. Yet just a few days ago people who had had their G+ accounts closed were told on this site that they were wrong to spread the "vicious rumour" that other services were affected. I was baffled by the level of aggression shown towards those who were critical of the policy and those who related their personal experiences (words like "obnoxious entitlement" and so on being used).

My comment was not about contradictions in Google's public statements (which I'm not aware of, except at a broader policy level, for example their statements about Korea's real-name policy [1]), but about the attitudes of those who defend Google on this site and elsewhere.

[1] http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/04/google_tests_th.php

It's like a book tour for physical consumer products. That is, if you write a book then your publisher sets you up to speak in 16 or 18 major US cities, but if you've created a product like Bacon Hot Sauce there is no such thing. That's what we're creating with our events, specifically with an audience of the most-followed bloggers and twitter users in each city. The idea is that in recent years new tech startups have been blessed with a ton of amazing opportunities, and we're trying to bring these same opportunities to everyone else.

From the bloggers' point of view, one of the ways they create value is by writing about interesting new products, and what we're offering is an ethical and transparent way for them to discover these products while at the same time getting to meet and interact with the entrepreneurs behind them.

Here is a good writeup that explains it better than I can:

http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/03/swagapalooza_an.php