This is probably one of the coolest "live" music videos I've seen. ACDC and Iron Man 2 came together on a ground breaking architectural projection mapping project, brought to life using the latest 3D animation techniques.
Definitely a great way to promote the upcoming movie.
ACDC Vs Iron Man 2 - Architectural Projection Mapping on Rochester Castle from seeper on Vimeo.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
San Mateo and Santa Clara Search Warrants
I honestly can't believe that the prosecutors in San Mateo and Santa Clara county issued a secret search warrant and raided the home of the writer who found the device. It's an Apple employee who lost the device, and the police twisted very old and outdated rules to suit their needs.
Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be but "appropriates such property to his own use" is guilty of theft. If the value of the property exceeds $400, more serious charges of grand theft can be filed. In addition, a second state law says that any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year. $400 back in 1872 I would have to assume meant a lot more than $400 now.
This isn't the first time the police, judge, and their counterparts stepped out of bounds. And if the police haven't stepped out of bounds of what they can and cannot do, then why aren't they raiding the homes of suspected criminals for every single case of lost or stolen Apple iPhones? Why are they only making an effort when it's Apple on the line?
I seriously wish Gizmodo sues the shit out of San Mateo and Santa Clara county. I'm ashamed I'm a tax payer and wish there was an option where I can select not to fund either one of those defunct organizations. This goes back to my other issue. The police and prosecutor community is fairly inbred. They are mostly unionized and heavily paid. In addition, they don't really add much value to the society they service. They mainly pick on people without the ability to fight back and prey on the public's fear in order to keep their jobs.
In light of this economy, I think we should start doing some cost cutting and lay of a chunk of these guys in order for us to balance our budget. Let them experience what the rest of us are feeling.
Source and here.
Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be but "appropriates such property to his own use" is guilty of theft. If the value of the property exceeds $400, more serious charges of grand theft can be filed. In addition, a second state law says that any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year. $400 back in 1872 I would have to assume meant a lot more than $400 now.
This isn't the first time the police, judge, and their counterparts stepped out of bounds. And if the police haven't stepped out of bounds of what they can and cannot do, then why aren't they raiding the homes of suspected criminals for every single case of lost or stolen Apple iPhones? Why are they only making an effort when it's Apple on the line?
I seriously wish Gizmodo sues the shit out of San Mateo and Santa Clara county. I'm ashamed I'm a tax payer and wish there was an option where I can select not to fund either one of those defunct organizations. This goes back to my other issue. The police and prosecutor community is fairly inbred. They are mostly unionized and heavily paid. In addition, they don't really add much value to the society they service. They mainly pick on people without the ability to fight back and prey on the public's fear in order to keep their jobs.
In light of this economy, I think we should start doing some cost cutting and lay of a chunk of these guys in order for us to balance our budget. Let them experience what the rest of us are feeling.
Source and here.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Superman (it's not easy) sung by Jim Carrey and Conan O'Brien
Jim Carrey and Conan O'Brien sings together on "The Legally Prohibited From Being Funny On Television Tour". One word, awesome!
Friday, April 23, 2010
The Mecca for Panerai Owners
Here is the location of the original Panerai store.
This is where I bought my first Panerai, the Luminor Base Logo.
Everyone in the store spoke perfect English. Yet when I was in Florence, no one knew what a Panerai was. I guess they know their market.
View Larger Map
This is where I bought my first Panerai, the Luminor Base Logo.
Everyone in the store spoke perfect English. Yet when I was in Florence, no one knew what a Panerai was. I guess they know their market.
Piazza di San Giovanni, 16-red, 50129 Firenze, Italy -055 215795
View Larger Map
Monday, April 19, 2010
Google won't search for Chuck Norris because it knows you don't find Chuck Norris, he finds you.
Ah, where was the good old days when the Google engineers were free to joke around and do what they wish?
Obviously, this wasn't programmed into the algorithm.
Obviously, this wasn't programmed into the algorithm.
Chrysler's build and design quality
I just took my Volvo in for service today and received a Dodge sedan (Charger or Avenger, not sure which one but I don't think it matters) as a loaner. After getting into the car, it became pretty clear to me why Chrysler was failing and loosing market share. To be honest, it feels like these manufacturers never bothered to figure out there is a much larger market they have to appeal to besides the American Midwest. Well, that isn't 100% true. Ford has at least made an effort recently.
People vote mainly with their pocketbooks. If you can't figure out why other auto manufacturers are selling better than you are, maybe you should buy one and reverse engineer what they are doing. Even the interior of a base model Honda Accord looks better than the interior of the Dodge loaner I received.
The interior of the Dodge was so poorly and cheaply designed I'm starting to wonder why we even bothered to bail Chrysler out to begin with. They should been put out to pasture just like Oldsmobile.
Yuck.
People vote mainly with their pocketbooks. If you can't figure out why other auto manufacturers are selling better than you are, maybe you should buy one and reverse engineer what they are doing. Even the interior of a base model Honda Accord looks better than the interior of the Dodge loaner I received.
The interior of the Dodge was so poorly and cheaply designed I'm starting to wonder why we even bothered to bail Chrysler out to begin with. They should been put out to pasture just like Oldsmobile.
Yuck.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Nasal Congestion -- continued
I just read from this article that one possible cause of nasal congestion could be from food allergies. I have been suffering from nasal congestion when I'm sleeping ever since I got sinusitis about 8-years back. I wonder if my current cause may be food related. One way of testing this would be for me to stop eating dairy for a couple days and see if my condition changes.
Because my nasal congestion only comes around in the evening when I'm laying down to sleep, this could prove to be a long process.
To be continued.
Because my nasal congestion only comes around in the evening when I'm laying down to sleep, this could prove to be a long process.
To be continued.
Really random sickness contracted from a coworker
I contracted this really weird cold from a coworker during this past week when we had a lot of deals in the pipeline. My coworker came to the office when he probably should have stayed home and we worked on several deals throughout the week, hence I was in close proximity to him.
The week after I started feeling under the weather but because of the urgency of the deals, I forced myself to power through the week but ended up having to take Friday off to rest. The symptoms were something that I have never experienced so hopefully someone (anyone) who reads this has an idea, that would be greatly appreciated.
Symptoms listed in chronological order:
The week after I started feeling under the weather but because of the urgency of the deals, I forced myself to power through the week but ended up having to take Friday off to rest. The symptoms were something that I have never experienced so hopefully someone (anyone) who reads this has an idea, that would be greatly appreciated.
Symptoms listed in chronological order:
- Extremely sore throat (but very little/no coughing)
- Light fever
- Congestion in the evening when sleeping
- Loose bowels / stomach problems / diarrhea
- Congestion during the day
- Sneezing / coughing
This all happened within a 5-day period. What the hell do I have?
I also have this really random (but possibly related) question as well. When I fall asleep, the nostril on the side I'm laying on (so right nostril if I'm laying on the right side of my body) will get congested and stuffy throughout the night. This will cause me to toss and turn as I'm trying to regain "passage" through that nostril. When I turn to the left side of my body, my left nostril gets congested while my right eventually clears up.
What is the cause of that and what is the remedy?
Should I pay off my car or not, that is the question
So as many of you may (or may not) have heard, I recently purchase a new vehicle because my old car died. The vehicle has lasted well over 14-years but due to lack of maintenance as well as several fender benders, the car eventually died and was put out to pasture. I am fairly convinced if I keep up the maintenance and treat my current car well, this Volvo should last well past that 14-year benchmark.
I had to go out that evening and buy another car from the dealer.
After trading the vehicle in as well as putting some money on the credit card, there was still a large amount of money that had to be financed. Because I found out my then current car was defunct earlier in the morning, and needed the vehicle that evening, I did not have the necessary time to transfer money around to buy the car outright.
As part of the negotiation, I got the special rate of 3.45% for 72-months. Now comes the question: should I pay off the car or keep the payments. It is pretty obvious right now I won't be getting anything close to 3.45% return if I just kept my money in a secure investment like a FDIC insured savings account or CD at the bank . On the other hand, historically a 3.45% interest rate is considered extremely low, and some may consider it "free money". Of course, any investment with that money that could potentially create a higher spread would have been way too risky.
I hate having to make investment decisions that require me to be forward looking. Many times I don't feel much different than a tarot card reader.
Thoughts?
I had to go out that evening and buy another car from the dealer.
After trading the vehicle in as well as putting some money on the credit card, there was still a large amount of money that had to be financed. Because I found out my then current car was defunct earlier in the morning, and needed the vehicle that evening, I did not have the necessary time to transfer money around to buy the car outright.
As part of the negotiation, I got the special rate of 3.45% for 72-months. Now comes the question: should I pay off the car or keep the payments. It is pretty obvious right now I won't be getting anything close to 3.45% return if I just kept my money in a secure investment like a FDIC insured savings account or CD at the bank . On the other hand, historically a 3.45% interest rate is considered extremely low, and some may consider it "free money". Of course, any investment with that money that could potentially create a higher spread would have been way too risky.
I hate having to make investment decisions that require me to be forward looking. Many times I don't feel much different than a tarot card reader.
Thoughts?
Who keeps calling me at 678-518-2184
Sometimes I wish there is no way people can fake their number so I can figure out who keeps calling me. I have been getting calls from 678-518-2184 consistently for the past couple of days.
The 678 area code is from Atlanta.
I picked up the phone once and there was an automated response claiming that the call was from Lowe's credit service and they were attempting to connect my call to someone. I never shopped at Lowe's before nor did I ever apply for a credit card there, so this is very concerning.
I wonder if this is a phishing scam. Why else would they have an automated dialer?
The 678 area code is from Atlanta.
I picked up the phone once and there was an automated response claiming that the call was from Lowe's credit service and they were attempting to connect my call to someone. I never shopped at Lowe's before nor did I ever apply for a credit card there, so this is very concerning.
I wonder if this is a phishing scam. Why else would they have an automated dialer?
Saturday, April 17, 2010
F1 - Some thoughts before tonight's race in Shanghai
I'm really looking forward to following via Live Timing and downloading the BBC's coverage of the Chinese grand prix. With Red Bull simply dominating the qualifying sessions for all the races this season and proving in Malaysia that once the reliability issues are sorted out that they do have a winning car with their impressive 1-2 finish with Sebastian Vettel and Mark Webber, I wouldn't be surprised if they pull it off again tonight with the grid starting out once again with Vettel (who won last year's Chinese gp) and Webber in the front row. Funny enough, their qualifying times didn't reflect any sense of loss of pace after the FIA's ruling on any active ride height suspension systems, which Christian Horner has previously denied Red Bull of having. As Vettel goes into the China race with only 25 out of the 75 points he should have, I wonder if the other teams' cars will have caught up come Barcelona. I also find it quite extraordinary how level headed and seemingly happy-go-lucky Vettel seems to be, even after all those issues. It's clear he's an extremely talented driver in an exceptionally fast car, and I can only imagine how frustrating his situations at Bahrain and Australia must have been.
It's also interesting to see how the much anticipated return of Michael Schumacher has panned out. He received the majority of the pre-season attention and interest directed at the Mercedes GP team, but his young team mate, Nico Rosberg has consistently kept faster lap times, qualified and finished better than him. It is noted in interviews that the car is not up to pace with the front runners, but I don't find that an excuse for his pace falling consistently behind Rosberg's. Is this relatively unfamiliar phenomenon of Schumi being out shone by his team mate just an effect of the rustiness accrued by three years of retirement? Or, perhaps, has something changed in the in the seven time world champion? In interviews, he seems much more relaxed and friendly, taking more time to answer questions, and even in his driving, the fierce determination and ability to really push seems to be lacking, with the on board lap at yesterday's qualifying looking very calm and steady. I wonder if the steely drive to win, and the willingness to do anything for that domination will come back with time, or if he plans to make the rest of his F1 career relatively clean and without incident? The days of seeing his parked car around a corner and him accusing others of attempting to kill him may be long gone.
Oh--and, um, Ferrari's engines. That's all I need to say. I'll throw in "reliability" if you're not clear on what I mean. As the race is almost underway, I'm excited for the Chinese GP to inevitably surprise me.
It's also interesting to see how the much anticipated return of Michael Schumacher has panned out. He received the majority of the pre-season attention and interest directed at the Mercedes GP team, but his young team mate, Nico Rosberg has consistently kept faster lap times, qualified and finished better than him. It is noted in interviews that the car is not up to pace with the front runners, but I don't find that an excuse for his pace falling consistently behind Rosberg's. Is this relatively unfamiliar phenomenon of Schumi being out shone by his team mate just an effect of the rustiness accrued by three years of retirement? Or, perhaps, has something changed in the in the seven time world champion? In interviews, he seems much more relaxed and friendly, taking more time to answer questions, and even in his driving, the fierce determination and ability to really push seems to be lacking, with the on board lap at yesterday's qualifying looking very calm and steady. I wonder if the steely drive to win, and the willingness to do anything for that domination will come back with time, or if he plans to make the rest of his F1 career relatively clean and without incident? The days of seeing his parked car around a corner and him accusing others of attempting to kill him may be long gone.
Oh--and, um, Ferrari's engines. That's all I need to say. I'll throw in "reliability" if you're not clear on what I mean. As the race is almost underway, I'm excited for the Chinese GP to inevitably surprise me.
History repeats itself with Magnetar, Liar's Poker sequel
Michael Lewis wrote the cult classic "Liar's Poker", a must read for all budding and inspiring investment bankers. The short, and relatively fast reading, book was very entertaining and did a good job setting up the stage of the 1980 meltdown as well as explaining complex financial transactions in layman terms.
The same cannot be said about "Bonfire of the Vanities". I have yet to finish the book. The book is more of a trashy romance drama and character development than an interesting way of digesting our financial history.
The most interesting part of reading the book is realizing that history does repeat itself. The same housing market crisis, different players. Instead of savings and loans we now have major banks involved, and the stakes are bigger than before. Within the complex financial instruments and the tower of cards that "no one could have foreseen was going to come crashing down", there was a small group of bankers who saw the risk.
Propublica wrote a scathing article of some of these very intelligent individuals who leveraged this knowledge for them to make millions. Individually, the banks that were involved (and we later had to bail out) made millions as well. Although the banks (household names like Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan , Merrill Lynch, UBS, Lehman Brothers, and CitiBank) then the taxpayers, ultimately had to pay the price when they were left with CDOs (Collateralized Loan Obligations) they couldn't sell, the individuals who set up these transactions came away with millions. In other words, although there were many losers in this game of musical chairs, none of them were the individuals who received millions of dollars in bonuses for setting up the transactions. One of the culprits of this was a hedge fund named Magnetar. We have to all understand that what they did was legal, and it shows how vulnerable our financial system is to failure. These individuals saw a weakness in the marketplace that they exploited.
Hedge funds make money by investing and shorting various investments in order to make the most money for their investors. Shorting can be helpful to serve as a counterweight to keep bubbles from expanding. Unfortunately, this tool can also be leveraged in a more malicious manor. Individuals can also short, or best against, the very investments they are helping create. The parallel is like someone marking sure a team makes it to the final four in March Madness only to ensure the whole team gets food poisoning before the final game. These individuals bet against that "food poisoning" to make their money. The transaction was so common towards the end of the real estate boom that it was actually called the Magnetar Trade.
How did the Magnetar Trade work? Magnetar agreed to buy the most risky "equity" part of the CDO that helped facilitate the remainder of the CDO to be created.
Just as they did with mortgage-backed securities, investment banks divided CDOs into different layers, called tranches. As the mortgages were paid, money flowed to investors holding the top tranche. Since they were the first to get paid, and thus took the least amount of risk, they earned low interest rates. Next came the middle levels -- the so-called mezzanine tranches.
Last in line for money were investors in what's known as the equity. In return for being at the bottom, equity investors got the highest returns, sometimes 20 percent interest -- money they would receive only as long as the vast majority of mortgage holders made their payments.
Because the equity part of the CDO is a very small percentage of the overall CDO created, this involved a relatively small investment ($10 million or less). The remainder of the CDO was deemed to be very low risk and investment grade (we later would learn that all CDOs were crap).
So how did the Magnetar Trade work and how did Magnetar expect to make money out of what many consider to be the riskiest part of the investment (so risky was this investment tranche that they were called "sponsors" of a CDO)? They made counter bets, or shorts, by buying credit default swaps betting the exact same investment they helped create was going to go bad. As a "sponsor", Magnetar had the added benefit of influencing how the deal was structured, and encouraged these CDOs to have a higher mix of riskier mortgages.
Credit default swaps work roughly like an insurance policy: You pay a small premium regularly, on any bond you want -- whether you own it or not -- and if it goes bust, you get paid off in full.
By buying the risky bottom slices of CDOs, Magnetar didn't just help create more CDOs it could bet against. Since it owned a small slice of the CDO, Magnetar also received regular payments as its investments threw off income.
With this, Magnetar solved a conundrum of those who bet against the market. An investor might be confident that things are heading south, but not know when. While the investor waits, it costs money to keep the bet going. Many a short seller has run out of cash at the gates of a big payday.
Magnetar could keep money flowing -- via its small investments in CDOs -- and could use that money to pay for its bets against CDOs.
When the housing market started collapsing in 2007 Magnetar was in line to make hundreds of millions of dollar on the CDOs defaulting. All of a sudden, these insurance claims, or credit default swaps, became extremely valuable. Even then, Magnetar wanted to get out of their position for their remaining CDO equity.
They engineered an unprecedented sale of these risky equity assets in a newly bundled CDO to a Japanese bank named Mizuho.
This deal, Tigris, which closed in March 2007, tied together $902 million of Magnetar's risky assets. Magnetar convinced two rating agencies, Standard & Poor's and Fitch, to rate it. Fitch designated $259 million of it as triple A, the highest rating. S&P rated nearly $501 million as triple A. We now know that these were worth as much as junk bonds in the 1980s.
What is the lesson learned here? Investment banks such as JP Morgan, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, CitiBank as well as rating agencies are only the vehicles that facilitate the process. It is not the company's fault, but the individuals who work there that out of greed created the problem we are paying for today. These individuals walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars in their pocket while leaving an empty shell remaining to be rescued.
As far as these individuals are concerned, their pockets are lined, who cares about the company? Good point, huh?
Source.
The same cannot be said about "Bonfire of the Vanities". I have yet to finish the book. The book is more of a trashy romance drama and character development than an interesting way of digesting our financial history.
The most interesting part of reading the book is realizing that history does repeat itself. The same housing market crisis, different players. Instead of savings and loans we now have major banks involved, and the stakes are bigger than before. Within the complex financial instruments and the tower of cards that "no one could have foreseen was going to come crashing down", there was a small group of bankers who saw the risk.
Propublica wrote a scathing article of some of these very intelligent individuals who leveraged this knowledge for them to make millions. Individually, the banks that were involved (and we later had to bail out) made millions as well. Although the banks (household names like Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan , Merrill Lynch, UBS, Lehman Brothers, and CitiBank) then the taxpayers, ultimately had to pay the price when they were left with CDOs (Collateralized Loan Obligations) they couldn't sell, the individuals who set up these transactions came away with millions. In other words, although there were many losers in this game of musical chairs, none of them were the individuals who received millions of dollars in bonuses for setting up the transactions. One of the culprits of this was a hedge fund named Magnetar. We have to all understand that what they did was legal, and it shows how vulnerable our financial system is to failure. These individuals saw a weakness in the marketplace that they exploited.
Hedge funds make money by investing and shorting various investments in order to make the most money for their investors. Shorting can be helpful to serve as a counterweight to keep bubbles from expanding. Unfortunately, this tool can also be leveraged in a more malicious manor. Individuals can also short, or best against, the very investments they are helping create. The parallel is like someone marking sure a team makes it to the final four in March Madness only to ensure the whole team gets food poisoning before the final game. These individuals bet against that "food poisoning" to make their money. The transaction was so common towards the end of the real estate boom that it was actually called the Magnetar Trade.
How did the Magnetar Trade work? Magnetar agreed to buy the most risky "equity" part of the CDO that helped facilitate the remainder of the CDO to be created.
Just as they did with mortgage-backed securities, investment banks divided CDOs into different layers, called tranches. As the mortgages were paid, money flowed to investors holding the top tranche. Since they were the first to get paid, and thus took the least amount of risk, they earned low interest rates. Next came the middle levels -- the so-called mezzanine tranches.
Last in line for money were investors in what's known as the equity. In return for being at the bottom, equity investors got the highest returns, sometimes 20 percent interest -- money they would receive only as long as the vast majority of mortgage holders made their payments.
Because the equity part of the CDO is a very small percentage of the overall CDO created, this involved a relatively small investment ($10 million or less). The remainder of the CDO was deemed to be very low risk and investment grade (we later would learn that all CDOs were crap).
So how did the Magnetar Trade work and how did Magnetar expect to make money out of what many consider to be the riskiest part of the investment (so risky was this investment tranche that they were called "sponsors" of a CDO)? They made counter bets, or shorts, by buying credit default swaps betting the exact same investment they helped create was going to go bad. As a "sponsor", Magnetar had the added benefit of influencing how the deal was structured, and encouraged these CDOs to have a higher mix of riskier mortgages.
Credit default swaps work roughly like an insurance policy: You pay a small premium regularly, on any bond you want -- whether you own it or not -- and if it goes bust, you get paid off in full.
By buying the risky bottom slices of CDOs, Magnetar didn't just help create more CDOs it could bet against. Since it owned a small slice of the CDO, Magnetar also received regular payments as its investments threw off income.
With this, Magnetar solved a conundrum of those who bet against the market. An investor might be confident that things are heading south, but not know when. While the investor waits, it costs money to keep the bet going. Many a short seller has run out of cash at the gates of a big payday.
Magnetar could keep money flowing -- via its small investments in CDOs -- and could use that money to pay for its bets against CDOs.
When the housing market started collapsing in 2007 Magnetar was in line to make hundreds of millions of dollar on the CDOs defaulting. All of a sudden, these insurance claims, or credit default swaps, became extremely valuable. Even then, Magnetar wanted to get out of their position for their remaining CDO equity.
They engineered an unprecedented sale of these risky equity assets in a newly bundled CDO to a Japanese bank named Mizuho.
This deal, Tigris, which closed in March 2007, tied together $902 million of Magnetar's risky assets. Magnetar convinced two rating agencies, Standard & Poor's and Fitch, to rate it. Fitch designated $259 million of it as triple A, the highest rating. S&P rated nearly $501 million as triple A. We now know that these were worth as much as junk bonds in the 1980s.
What is the lesson learned here? Investment banks such as JP Morgan, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, CitiBank as well as rating agencies are only the vehicles that facilitate the process. It is not the company's fault, but the individuals who work there that out of greed created the problem we are paying for today. These individuals walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars in their pocket while leaving an empty shell remaining to be rescued.
As far as these individuals are concerned, their pockets are lined, who cares about the company? Good point, huh?
Source.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Received my tax refund!
Pretty exciting day today, I received my tax refund for 2009. State came in first and the Federal a couple days after.
Took about 15-days to receive both refunds. I love direct deposit.
Time to pay off the new car. Sadly, money never seems to stay with me for very long.
Took about 15-days to receive both refunds. I love direct deposit.
Time to pay off the new car. Sadly, money never seems to stay with me for very long.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Random thought of the day -- Tax returns
I wonder if there is a set amount of time from when I sent off my Federal and State tax returns to when I'll see my refund check in the mail. I find it funny that I get so excited about this money when it really means I way overpaid my tax withholding throughout the year.
I guess it's better to get money back than nothing at all.
I guess it's better to get money back than nothing at all.
My Adsense account got suspended
Well, yeah, my Google Adsense account got suspended.
I was pretty excited when I was surfing the Blogger.com platform and found out that they had created a widget that will allow me to easily integrate Adsense into my account. The way I figured it, no one really reads this blog anyways, but if someone does, and happens to click on some Google advertisement, maybe over the year it will pay for my hosting of $10. So honestly, I wasn't expecting much.
Of course, I got super excited when a couple days ago I finally logged onto my Google Adsense account and noticed that I had actually accumulated over $40. This was only a couple weeks since I activated my Adsense account. I had no idea who was clicking on these ads, but whatever, I didn't really care either.
Today, I got a notice in my email box that Google decided there was fraudulent activity and has suspended my account.
This is what the notice read:
Well... that sucks.
When I followed their link and researched a bit more, this was what was shown:
I went through the process of appealing my suspension and hopefully it will go through. It was a pretty long list of questions asking me things I know nothing about, and making me realize besides for a general understanding of the online industry, I really know nothing at all when the rubber meets the road.
Not like I really need the minimal amount of money I will receive from Google, but what if one day I become this big online publisher? Okay, that is probably never going to happen but on the off chance it does I'm going to have to change my name and Social Security number and get a drug lord reconstructive surgery to be allowed to play with Google Adsense again.
I was pretty excited when I was surfing the Blogger.com platform and found out that they had created a widget that will allow me to easily integrate Adsense into my account. The way I figured it, no one really reads this blog anyways, but if someone does, and happens to click on some Google advertisement, maybe over the year it will pay for my hosting of $10. So honestly, I wasn't expecting much.
Of course, I got super excited when a couple days ago I finally logged onto my Google Adsense account and noticed that I had actually accumulated over $40. This was only a couple weeks since I activated my Adsense account. I had no idea who was clicking on these ads, but whatever, I didn't really care either.
Today, I got a notice in my email box that Google decided there was fraudulent activity and has suspended my account.
This is what the notice read:
Hello,
After reviewing our records, we've determined that your AdSense account poses a risk of generating invalid activity. Because we have a responsibility to protect our AdWords advertisers from inflated costs due to invalid activity, we've found it necessary to disable your AdSense account. Your outstanding balance and Google's share of the revenue will both be fully refunded back to the affected advertisers.
Please understand that we need to take such steps to maintain the effectiveness of Google's advertising system, particularly the advertiser-publisher relationship. We understand the inconvenience that this may cause you, and we thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation.
If you have any questions or concerns about the actions we've taken, how you can appeal this decision, or invalid activity in general, you can find more information by visiting
Sincerely,
The Google AdSense Team
Well... that sucks.
When I followed their link and researched a bit more, this was what was shown:
"Because we have a need to protect our proprietary detection system, we're unable to provide our publishers with any information about their account activity, including any web pages, users, or third-party services that may have been involved.
As you may know, Google treats invalid click activity very seriously, analyzing all clicks and impressions to determine whether they fit a pattern of use that may artificially drive up an advertiser's costs or a publisher's earnings. If we determine that an AdSense account may pose a risk to our AdWords advertisers, we may disable that account to protect our advertisers' interests.
Lastly, please note that as outlined in our Terms and Conditions, Google will use its sole discretion when determining instances of invalid click activity."
I went through the process of appealing my suspension and hopefully it will go through. It was a pretty long list of questions asking me things I know nothing about, and making me realize besides for a general understanding of the online industry, I really know nothing at all when the rubber meets the road.
Not like I really need the minimal amount of money I will receive from Google, but what if one day I become this big online publisher? Okay, that is probably never going to happen but on the off chance it does I'm going to have to change my name and Social Security number and get a drug lord reconstructive surgery to be allowed to play with Google Adsense again.
In addition, it's scary to hear from Google that they have sole discretion determining what to do and no explanation is needed. Goes back to my whole "big brother is watching" theory.
Fingers crossed...
Update
I just remembered today that I did click on some of the Google Ads myself as I was reading through my own post. Because I write quite frequently about cars, naturally a lot of auto related advertisements popped up. During this period I was also car shopping and eventually ended up buying a car through one of the Google Advertisers. I don't think this really counts towards fraudulent activity, considering the Advertiser paid a couple bucks and in turn I bought a $40,000 car from them. In addition, at most I clicked on only a couple ads that advertised for local Volvo dealerships, so I don't think that should have set off anything crazy.
Oh well. To be continued...
Update
I just remembered today that I did click on some of the Google Ads myself as I was reading through my own post. Because I write quite frequently about cars, naturally a lot of auto related advertisements popped up. During this period I was also car shopping and eventually ended up buying a car through one of the Google Advertisers. I don't think this really counts towards fraudulent activity, considering the Advertiser paid a couple bucks and in turn I bought a $40,000 car from them. In addition, at most I clicked on only a couple ads that advertised for local Volvo dealerships, so I don't think that should have set off anything crazy.
Oh well. To be continued...
CODA Automotive -- $37,000!?!?!?!
I was told by a colleague of mine that the CODA will be priced at $37,000 after Federal tax incentives and rebates. Now that, is crazy.
I don't think I can justify buying a $37,000 car that looks more or less like a KIA.
In addition, it will take quite some time for one to break even on their investment in an opportunity cost perspective. For example, if you actually went out and bought a KIA for $17,000 and put the remainder $20,000 in a CD, it will take a while before the cost savings of the CODA catches up. I'm guessing at a minimum it will take 5-years, which is usually around the time most Americans start looking for a new car.
Many companies are coming out with all electric vehicles priced reasonably at $25,000 or less after Federal incentives and rebates.
I don't think I can justify buying a $37,000 car that looks more or less like a KIA.
In addition, it will take quite some time for one to break even on their investment in an opportunity cost perspective. For example, if you actually went out and bought a KIA for $17,000 and put the remainder $20,000 in a CD, it will take a while before the cost savings of the CODA catches up. I'm guessing at a minimum it will take 5-years, which is usually around the time most Americans start looking for a new car.
Many companies are coming out with all electric vehicles priced reasonably at $25,000 or less after Federal incentives and rebates.
Monday, April 12, 2010
CODA Automotive -- electric cars for the rest of us?
Many early adopters of technology tend to be wealthy individuals who was less affected by the going rates for these new technology.
For example, many individuals paid a premium to drive the first mass production hybrid, the Toyota Prius. These individuals love being on the cutting edge and making a political statement. What they failed to realize is the premium they paid to be one of the first to own such vehicles will never be paid back by the fuel savings they would have experienced.
These individuals (as financially unsound as they may seem) are important to the development of any new technology because they help finance the high cost of developing a new technology before it reaches scale. Along with government incentives and tax credits, automotive technology that has virtually remained the same since the first Ford Model T rolled off the assembly line has now in these past few years transformed completely.
Why did the basic engine design, and propulsion technology, for these cars remain so similar since it's inception? The real answer is the infrastructure that supports it. Prior to automobiles, it was mainly horses and carriage. These self sufficient modes of transportation required only oats or hay and water to drink. When the automobile came along it took some time and large government intervention to get it widely accepted. Gas stations had to be built across the United States that were previously not available. In addition, roads had to be built as well. One other advantage of internal combustion was these vehicles can be refueled relatively quickly.
Electric vehicles have been around for a very long time. In fact, one of the first vehicles ever built was an electric vehicle. Because of the weight of the batteries, the duration of the charge (which translates to miles driven), and the time it takes for the batteries to recharge, the electric vehicle quickly fell out of favor. We as consumers were willing to put up with the constant oil change, repairs, and maintenance needed in order to have the longer range and flexibility that comes with internal combustion.
More recently, as the dot com has come and gone as well as the continued evolution of computer technology, and in turn affiliated technology. As gas prices continue to increase and the ability of batteries to hold charges become longer, we have now turned back to looking at electric vehicles to free our dependence on foreign oil. Current electric vehicles are mainly, and structurally, very similar to over-sized R/C vehicles. Benefit of these cars become apparent very quickly. Most of these vehicles only run on 1-gear. Besides for the limitation on range, these vehicles have very little moving parts and therefore have little to maintain.
The Tesla Roadster is a prime example of another take on the electric vehicle to meet the needs of the early adopters. The car was designed to compete with exotics -- mainly because the technology and manufacturing process needed to produce these vehicles at a profit dictated the price range. Electric vehicles do not need to rev up to full power, and has 100% of their torque immediately from 0 (this is also why a Toyota Prius, operating on only it's electric motor, can beat a 911 off the line). Because of this, the basic nature of electric vehicles lend themselves very well in the super car market. The body of this vehicle was subcontracted out by Lotus. The vehicle is gorgeous, fast, and handles well (for it's weight). The power source of the vehicle is a bundle of Li-Ion batteries that takes overnight to charge. At the time of it's introduction, Li-Ion batteries were still fairly expensive to produce and limited to small cell phones and computer appliances.
As production starts to scale and learning were extracted from the initial production (funded partially by wealthy individuals paying over $100,000 per Tesla Roadster), designs were drawn for a much more practical, and cheaper sedan alternative for the more affluent, but not filthy rich crowd. The Tesla S was born. This vehicle was priced at $40,000-$60,000 and is meant to compete in terms of build and quality/ luxury for potential BMW 5-series and Mercedes Benze E-class owners.
Today, I have found a vehicle that may be designed for the rest of us. The CODA.
The design of this vehicle is nothing to write home about. The vehicle looks frankly like a KIA or Toyota Corolla. The benefit to the masses would be the value of the vehicle. If priced appropriately, I believe this vehicle can single handily help us move away from our dependence on foreign oil. This is because not only would the CODA appeal to our political nature, but most importantly our financial nature. People will buy the vehicle because it is cheap to buy, simple to maintain, and cheap to run. It is hard to argue with the numbers.
If this vehicle is priced to be the same as a Toyota Corolla or Honda Fit, why would you buy a vehicle you would have to constantly change the oil, replace worn parts, and fill up with gas vs. a vehicle that you just plug in at night. In essence, this can be the replacement as the commuter for a lot of individuals. Over a period of 1-year, you can save thousands on fuel costs alone. Of course, there is limited range, but 100-miles should be more than enough for anyone's daily commute.
Now if this vehicle is priced at $30,000 or more. We're kind of screwed, again.
Unfortunately, until this technology is scaled to the point where it is readily and cheaply available to the masses, we can only continue to hope our dependence on oil will decrease.
For example, many individuals paid a premium to drive the first mass production hybrid, the Toyota Prius. These individuals love being on the cutting edge and making a political statement. What they failed to realize is the premium they paid to be one of the first to own such vehicles will never be paid back by the fuel savings they would have experienced.
These individuals (as financially unsound as they may seem) are important to the development of any new technology because they help finance the high cost of developing a new technology before it reaches scale. Along with government incentives and tax credits, automotive technology that has virtually remained the same since the first Ford Model T rolled off the assembly line has now in these past few years transformed completely.
Why did the basic engine design, and propulsion technology, for these cars remain so similar since it's inception? The real answer is the infrastructure that supports it. Prior to automobiles, it was mainly horses and carriage. These self sufficient modes of transportation required only oats or hay and water to drink. When the automobile came along it took some time and large government intervention to get it widely accepted. Gas stations had to be built across the United States that were previously not available. In addition, roads had to be built as well. One other advantage of internal combustion was these vehicles can be refueled relatively quickly.
Electric vehicles have been around for a very long time. In fact, one of the first vehicles ever built was an electric vehicle. Because of the weight of the batteries, the duration of the charge (which translates to miles driven), and the time it takes for the batteries to recharge, the electric vehicle quickly fell out of favor. We as consumers were willing to put up with the constant oil change, repairs, and maintenance needed in order to have the longer range and flexibility that comes with internal combustion.
More recently, as the dot com has come and gone as well as the continued evolution of computer technology, and in turn affiliated technology. As gas prices continue to increase and the ability of batteries to hold charges become longer, we have now turned back to looking at electric vehicles to free our dependence on foreign oil. Current electric vehicles are mainly, and structurally, very similar to over-sized R/C vehicles. Benefit of these cars become apparent very quickly. Most of these vehicles only run on 1-gear. Besides for the limitation on range, these vehicles have very little moving parts and therefore have little to maintain.
The Tesla Roadster is a prime example of another take on the electric vehicle to meet the needs of the early adopters. The car was designed to compete with exotics -- mainly because the technology and manufacturing process needed to produce these vehicles at a profit dictated the price range. Electric vehicles do not need to rev up to full power, and has 100% of their torque immediately from 0 (this is also why a Toyota Prius, operating on only it's electric motor, can beat a 911 off the line). Because of this, the basic nature of electric vehicles lend themselves very well in the super car market. The body of this vehicle was subcontracted out by Lotus. The vehicle is gorgeous, fast, and handles well (for it's weight). The power source of the vehicle is a bundle of Li-Ion batteries that takes overnight to charge. At the time of it's introduction, Li-Ion batteries were still fairly expensive to produce and limited to small cell phones and computer appliances.
As production starts to scale and learning were extracted from the initial production (funded partially by wealthy individuals paying over $100,000 per Tesla Roadster), designs were drawn for a much more practical, and cheaper sedan alternative for the more affluent, but not filthy rich crowd. The Tesla S was born. This vehicle was priced at $40,000-$60,000 and is meant to compete in terms of build and quality/ luxury for potential BMW 5-series and Mercedes Benze E-class owners.
Today, I have found a vehicle that may be designed for the rest of us. The CODA.
The design of this vehicle is nothing to write home about. The vehicle looks frankly like a KIA or Toyota Corolla. The benefit to the masses would be the value of the vehicle. If priced appropriately, I believe this vehicle can single handily help us move away from our dependence on foreign oil. This is because not only would the CODA appeal to our political nature, but most importantly our financial nature. People will buy the vehicle because it is cheap to buy, simple to maintain, and cheap to run. It is hard to argue with the numbers.
If this vehicle is priced to be the same as a Toyota Corolla or Honda Fit, why would you buy a vehicle you would have to constantly change the oil, replace worn parts, and fill up with gas vs. a vehicle that you just plug in at night. In essence, this can be the replacement as the commuter for a lot of individuals. Over a period of 1-year, you can save thousands on fuel costs alone. Of course, there is limited range, but 100-miles should be more than enough for anyone's daily commute.
Now if this vehicle is priced at $30,000 or more. We're kind of screwed, again.
Unfortunately, until this technology is scaled to the point where it is readily and cheaply available to the masses, we can only continue to hope our dependence on oil will decrease.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
I can't believe it, but I bought another Volvo
Having owned sports cars for the majority of my life, I was amazed that the car I eventually ended up with was a Volvo.
Now before you say, "well, you just never had a 'real' sports car," let me just mention the laundry list of vehicles I had the privilege of owning (you can find my reviews of them scattered throughout this blog): BMW M Roadster, BMW M3 Convertible, Honda S2000, Porsche 911 Carrera 2. As you can see, I had pretty much owned, driven, and tracked a good demographic of some of the top non-exotic sports cars out there. I personally have never owned a Nissan 350Z or Mitsubishi Lancer Evo (although they are great cars) because by the time they finally made it to the US market I was already in the 911.
The downside of owning vehicles that push the envelope of technology is they break. My M Roadster and M3 constantly had issues. In fact, my M3 engine detonated and the whole engine had to be replaced. The Porsche required constant maintenance and if you're not prepared to spend anywhere from $1,000-$3,000 on average per year on that car, you're probably not ready to own one. Unfortunately, one of my friends failed to listen to my advice and ended up buying an old 911 that for 2-years almost bankrupted him. Fortunately, he sold it and now drives a much more sensible, and reliable Prius.
I love sports cars, and I always will. Someday, I hope I will be fortunate enough to own another Porsche or more likely the Aston Martin Vantage. Until then, I had to consider one very important factor in my car purchase as I reach that big 3-0 mark: practicality.
One vehicle my family always had around was this maroon 1996 Volvo 850 Turbo. That vehicle has served faithfully as my "in between" vehicle or back up vehicle for a good 14-years. My family purchase the vehicle new.
That vehicle was the car my parents donated to me when I first graduated from college as well as the car I drove around town when ever one of my sports cars broke. In fact, when a 70-pound Doberman became a member of my family and accelerated the replacement of my 911, that Volvo served faithfully as my only car until the radiator fell off over 9-month later. I would like to point out that the radiator was cracked and eventually fell off the car because my mother was not paying attention and rear ended a SUV (something City Safety could have prevented) prior to giving me the vehicle, and is not from the construction and/or design of the Volvo itself.
Fortunately, I had been passively looking at replacement vehicles during the 9-month period. As my only car, practicality has factored in greatly in my purchase decisions. Having the Doberman both in my Porsche as well as the faithful Volvo 850, I realized I need a separate compartment, ideally a wagon type trunk, to segregate the dog. Otherwise, the dog has an amazing ability of rubbing off and leaving his fur all over the car. I also did not like big cars, and always preferred vehicles that had a lower center of gravity. Lastly, I have been spoiled by all of my European vehicles -- I wanted a vehicle with a luxurious interior.
Oh, and all that had to be packaged in a vehicle around the $30,000 range. The only car that fit the bill was this new crossover that Volvo recently came out with, the XC60, or a station wagon. Guess which one I chose?
Having had the car for only 3-weeks, my overall impressions of the car has generally been positive. The car isn't a Porsche in handling or performance but it is very luxurious and comfortable. The ride is firm but compared to my 911 as plush as riding on pillows. As long as you're not a lead foot, the car drives very smoothly and the vehicle probably has some of the most massive breaks I have ever seen. I am amused at the pet divider being sturdy enough to possibly hold zoo animals (maybe some bobcats), but it does do an excellent job of keep my Doberman where he should be, in the back. With my previous cars I would of had to fight with him when I needed to shift gears. I am also proud to say I have not yet had to utilize the City Safety feature (though my mom could have used this feature in the 850 to prevent her accident). A couple of things that are annoying about the XC60 are the City Safety feature and the tire pressure monitor. The City Safety feature is guaranteed to set off your radar detector's LIDAR function. The Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) will error randomly while driving at highway speeds for no reason what-so-ever. I already took my car to the dealer once and they had not fixed the problem, so far I have been too lazy to take it back again, but will need to eventually. With a 5-year/60,000 mile free maintenance and warranty, I should have plenty of time.
I did not get the vehicle with any silly "sports package" or the "more powerful" engine. I may be condescending with what I'm going to say next, but I really don't think any sedan, SUV, or minivan really needs a "sports package", 19 inch rims, or 300+ horsepower engine. If you really want an automobile that handles well and goes fast, get a real sports car. I am getting a lot of grief from my girlfriend for not getting the climate package that would have included heated seats. This could be a guy thing, but I never really understood a girl's fascination with seats that keep your butt warm.
Here is a pretty funny review of the Volvo XC60's new City Safety feature on 5TH Gear. One of the announcers actually jumped out of the car... and the car still automatically stopped. Yay to technology!
I would highly recommend the XC60 to young couples (and young newlyweds) that need something safe and stylish as their primary car. If your family is as well endowed as the Brady Bunch, maybe you should consider the 3-row seated XC90, Suburban, or that really cool Mercedes Benz SUV.
Now before you say, "well, you just never had a 'real' sports car," let me just mention the laundry list of vehicles I had the privilege of owning (you can find my reviews of them scattered throughout this blog): BMW M Roadster, BMW M3 Convertible, Honda S2000, Porsche 911 Carrera 2. As you can see, I had pretty much owned, driven, and tracked a good demographic of some of the top non-exotic sports cars out there. I personally have never owned a Nissan 350Z or Mitsubishi Lancer Evo (although they are great cars) because by the time they finally made it to the US market I was already in the 911.
The downside of owning vehicles that push the envelope of technology is they break. My M Roadster and M3 constantly had issues. In fact, my M3 engine detonated and the whole engine had to be replaced. The Porsche required constant maintenance and if you're not prepared to spend anywhere from $1,000-$3,000 on average per year on that car, you're probably not ready to own one. Unfortunately, one of my friends failed to listen to my advice and ended up buying an old 911 that for 2-years almost bankrupted him. Fortunately, he sold it and now drives a much more sensible, and reliable Prius.
I love sports cars, and I always will. Someday, I hope I will be fortunate enough to own another Porsche or more likely the Aston Martin Vantage. Until then, I had to consider one very important factor in my car purchase as I reach that big 3-0 mark: practicality.
One vehicle my family always had around was this maroon 1996 Volvo 850 Turbo. That vehicle has served faithfully as my "in between" vehicle or back up vehicle for a good 14-years. My family purchase the vehicle new.
That vehicle was the car my parents donated to me when I first graduated from college as well as the car I drove around town when ever one of my sports cars broke. In fact, when a 70-pound Doberman became a member of my family and accelerated the replacement of my 911, that Volvo served faithfully as my only car until the radiator fell off over 9-month later. I would like to point out that the radiator was cracked and eventually fell off the car because my mother was not paying attention and rear ended a SUV (something City Safety could have prevented) prior to giving me the vehicle, and is not from the construction and/or design of the Volvo itself.
Fortunately, I had been passively looking at replacement vehicles during the 9-month period. As my only car, practicality has factored in greatly in my purchase decisions. Having the Doberman both in my Porsche as well as the faithful Volvo 850, I realized I need a separate compartment, ideally a wagon type trunk, to segregate the dog. Otherwise, the dog has an amazing ability of rubbing off and leaving his fur all over the car. I also did not like big cars, and always preferred vehicles that had a lower center of gravity. Lastly, I have been spoiled by all of my European vehicles -- I wanted a vehicle with a luxurious interior.
Oh, and all that had to be packaged in a vehicle around the $30,000 range. The only car that fit the bill was this new crossover that Volvo recently came out with, the XC60, or a station wagon. Guess which one I chose?
Having had the car for only 3-weeks, my overall impressions of the car has generally been positive. The car isn't a Porsche in handling or performance but it is very luxurious and comfortable. The ride is firm but compared to my 911 as plush as riding on pillows. As long as you're not a lead foot, the car drives very smoothly and the vehicle probably has some of the most massive breaks I have ever seen. I am amused at the pet divider being sturdy enough to possibly hold zoo animals (maybe some bobcats), but it does do an excellent job of keep my Doberman where he should be, in the back. With my previous cars I would of had to fight with him when I needed to shift gears. I am also proud to say I have not yet had to utilize the City Safety feature (though my mom could have used this feature in the 850 to prevent her accident). A couple of things that are annoying about the XC60 are the City Safety feature and the tire pressure monitor. The City Safety feature is guaranteed to set off your radar detector's LIDAR function. The Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) will error randomly while driving at highway speeds for no reason what-so-ever. I already took my car to the dealer once and they had not fixed the problem, so far I have been too lazy to take it back again, but will need to eventually. With a 5-year/60,000 mile free maintenance and warranty, I should have plenty of time.
I did not get the vehicle with any silly "sports package" or the "more powerful" engine. I may be condescending with what I'm going to say next, but I really don't think any sedan, SUV, or minivan really needs a "sports package", 19 inch rims, or 300+ horsepower engine. If you really want an automobile that handles well and goes fast, get a real sports car. I am getting a lot of grief from my girlfriend for not getting the climate package that would have included heated seats. This could be a guy thing, but I never really understood a girl's fascination with seats that keep your butt warm.
Here is a pretty funny review of the Volvo XC60's new City Safety feature on 5TH Gear. One of the announcers actually jumped out of the car... and the car still automatically stopped. Yay to technology!
I would highly recommend the XC60 to young couples (and young newlyweds) that need something safe and stylish as their primary car. If your family is as well endowed as the Brady Bunch, maybe you should consider the 3-row seated XC90, Suburban, or that really cool Mercedes Benz SUV.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Jim Carrey -- best Dave Letterman's Top 10, ever
Make sure you watch until the end... nice surprise.
DDR for your fingers
This is a new online game I just stumbled upon. Pretty cool game, almost like DDR (Dance Dance Revolution) for your fingers. The full game is controlled by your keyboard arrows (or D-pad) as you listen to the beat of the music for cues on when to type. Very Tim Burton-esque.
Just for fun, try the game on the "dementia" level. Yikes.
Just including the link to the actual gave vs. embedding this time around. The continues music every time the page was loaded drives me crazy. You can find the game here.
If you are serious about beating the game, I would suggest doing a lot of carpal tunnel prevention exercises...
Just for fun, try the game on the "dementia" level. Yikes.
Just including the link to the actual gave vs. embedding this time around. The continues music every time the page was loaded drives me crazy. You can find the game here.
If you are serious about beating the game, I would suggest doing a lot of carpal tunnel prevention exercises...
The big online push and ever increasing content pollution
From my previous blog, you now realize that Google and Yahoo had created this completely new venue for advertisers. This new arena was not limited by the hours of the day, or the pages of a magazine/newspaper.
There are two ways a potential advertiser can make money. They can either pay Google or Yahoo directly to show up for terms the advertiser believes will transact to a sale of their product, or they can try to show up organically (i.e. for free) on the search engine results.
SEO (Search Engine Optimization) is the goal of having one's website rank well organically for terms the owner of the site is interested in. A whole cottage industry has grown around this. As search engines like Google and Yahoo continue to optimize their search algorithm to be more effective at showing relevant results, SEO experts are backward engineering the algorithm and teaching people how to optimize their site to beat the system. This never ending cold war continues through today. As SEO experts find new ways to game the system, these search engines continue to modify their algorithm to either punish or compensate for those that try to game the system.
In many ways, this war is very similar to the never ending battle between computer virus and anti-virus software companies.
One of the commonly agreed upon holy grail of SEO is unique content (the other is back links, which I will talk about some other time).
Unfortunately, a byproduct of both companies and individuals who are continuously optimizing their site through the creation of more content is content pollution. Because no current search algorithm can ascertain the value of an article (as far as the algorithm and the Google bot is concerned, text is text), people have begun to hire very unqualified individuals to blast the search engines with hundreds of thousands of "unique", but very poor quality content per day. Writers are now paid "by the word" and often times just either summarize someone else's article or paraphrase them completely. When one article is created, 100s of similar, but not duplicate content based on that one article is created as well. These new crop of freelance writers have neither the experience, training, or the knowledge to write. Because of this, their articles often lead to very misinformed users.
This has led to millions of sites that have unique content, but add very little value to the user experience. In fact, many of these sites are written by individuals who may not even speak the language they are typing.
Heck, they even allow me to have a blog!
There are two ways a potential advertiser can make money. They can either pay Google or Yahoo directly to show up for terms the advertiser believes will transact to a sale of their product, or they can try to show up organically (i.e. for free) on the search engine results.
SEO (Search Engine Optimization) is the goal of having one's website rank well organically for terms the owner of the site is interested in. A whole cottage industry has grown around this. As search engines like Google and Yahoo continue to optimize their search algorithm to be more effective at showing relevant results, SEO experts are backward engineering the algorithm and teaching people how to optimize their site to beat the system. This never ending cold war continues through today. As SEO experts find new ways to game the system, these search engines continue to modify their algorithm to either punish or compensate for those that try to game the system.
In many ways, this war is very similar to the never ending battle between computer virus and anti-virus software companies.
One of the commonly agreed upon holy grail of SEO is unique content (the other is back links, which I will talk about some other time).
Unfortunately, a byproduct of both companies and individuals who are continuously optimizing their site through the creation of more content is content pollution. Because no current search algorithm can ascertain the value of an article (as far as the algorithm and the Google bot is concerned, text is text), people have begun to hire very unqualified individuals to blast the search engines with hundreds of thousands of "unique", but very poor quality content per day. Writers are now paid "by the word" and often times just either summarize someone else's article or paraphrase them completely. When one article is created, 100s of similar, but not duplicate content based on that one article is created as well. These new crop of freelance writers have neither the experience, training, or the knowledge to write. Because of this, their articles often lead to very misinformed users.
This has led to millions of sites that have unique content, but add very little value to the user experience. In fact, many of these sites are written by individuals who may not even speak the language they are typing.
Heck, they even allow me to have a blog!
Search engines: an online money making organization
Google, Yahoo, MSN, and now Bing are synonymous to online search. Like Facebook.com, this seemly "free" service is offered to users for the sole reason the data provided by the interaction users have with their product produces valuable information that can be monetized.
This isn't something new, we have experienced this for at least the last hundred years with radio advertising as well as television commercials, and before that newspapers. We have gone to accept that we get a general subset of radio stations and television channels for free without realizing that although we do not directly pay for their service, the service is subsidized by their advertisers. The popularity of a certain show and time period dictates the price a client would have to pay to advertising during that time slot. This is why during the Super Bowl, 30-second television advertising slots cost upwards of $1 Million dollars.
Crazy, huh?
Crazy, huh?
The only downside of these types of advertisement is tracking. Although through Nielson (and other similar companies) one can get fairly accurate demographics on users who are using the service at any one time, it is near impossible for clients who advertise there to know how many people who hear their advertisement actually transacted. Precise tracking a competitive advantage online advertising has over more traditional advertisement. Online advertising as pushed ads from impression based or time based to transaction based or lead based. Because people searching online have already taken the initiative to start looking for a product or service, it is very easy for the advertiser to have a seller take the additional step towards a transaction. With this type of precise tracking, advertisers can now very quickly see what campaigns are successful and what are not, and which ones meet their ROI.
Now instead of paying a lump sum up front and hoping the advertisement worked, clients can Pay Per Lead for consumers who indicated interest for a product, or Pay Per Acquisition for consumers who actually already acquired a product. CPA (Cost Per Acquisition) deals tend to be popular with consumer purchasing items online and/ or when an individual signs up for a credit card or savings account online. CPL (Pay Per Lead) is more common with services that may require more involvement of the user through the transaction process, like remodeling your kitchen or refinancing your home.
Most of these advertisement are fairly transparent. If you don't believe me, just look at the right "rail" (column) of this article. You can see Google Adsense/ Adwords at work. In addition, when you search for something through any search engine, you can find advertisement through sponsored listings as well as advertisement on the right rail of the search results.
Even online communities like Facebook.com and LinkedIn.com offer their services for "free" in return for individuals filling out every single detail about themselves. Information is powerful, and monetizable. Demographic data that would have required numerous surveys and telephone calls to produce back in the 1980s now individuals freely and eagerly share and put online.
Facebook.com uses the compiled data to help their clients advertise to you. The fan pages you belong to, the personal data you provided, your age, where you went to school, who your friends are, and where you work. In many ways, they're using the information you volunteered against yourself! With services like Facebook.com, most people are complete "open books" to their potential advertisers.
LinkedIn.com operates and monetizes in a different manner by mainly selling their user's data to their clients (who are mainly headhunters and recruitment firms). Next time you put any personal information about yourself online, just remember, someone is letting you do so for free so they can make money off it.
Even online communities like Facebook.com and LinkedIn.com offer their services for "free" in return for individuals filling out every single detail about themselves. Information is powerful, and monetizable. Demographic data that would have required numerous surveys and telephone calls to produce back in the 1980s now individuals freely and eagerly share and put online.
Facebook.com uses the compiled data to help their clients advertise to you. The fan pages you belong to, the personal data you provided, your age, where you went to school, who your friends are, and where you work. In many ways, they're using the information you volunteered against yourself! With services like Facebook.com, most people are complete "open books" to their potential advertisers.
LinkedIn.com operates and monetizes in a different manner by mainly selling their user's data to their clients (who are mainly headhunters and recruitment firms). Next time you put any personal information about yourself online, just remember, someone is letting you do so for free so they can make money off it.
As our society become more integrated on to the world wide web, we are more and more relying on the various search engines for both news, entertainment, as well as research. We hold that information we read off our search results are "factual". There is a famous saying that "if you can't find it on Google, then it must not be true". But is that a fair statement?
To be continued...
Friday, April 9, 2010
Is Google Search really as unbiased as they claim?
Google is a corporation that manages to an EBITDA for their shareholders, but ultimately there is no oversight to how they operate and screen their search results. In other words, Google and Google alone decides on what results show up and where. So this leads me to another question. Is Google really as unbiased as they claim they are?
Google operates on an automated algorithm that has rules and calculations that dictate how search results rank, but it is also well known that there is a "human" element that can over ride some of these features. That human element is helpful to catch the items that the algorithm missed, and help refine the algorithm as individuals become more clever with their black hat or gray hat SEO.
But what if an individual has a relationship to that human element? You can in theory alter search results and censor items you do not wish to be made public and shape how the public thinks. In many ways this has already been done for decades by radio and television but it is even more dangerous when over 80% of individuals in the United States use Google as their primary search and trust what is shown is factual.
One example of this possibly happening is with my own blog. A prominent SEO expert wrote a scathing blog article about a typical acquisition process that was purely misleading and harmful for the laymen who for lack of a better term wouldn't know any better. Having myself been in the industry, his claims were analogous to him claiming that "pigs can really fly" and if you disagree you burn in hell. In many ways this leads me back to why I dislike forums. Forums never promote a healthy discussion because the "owners" of the forum almost always filter the comments posted on their site.
In return, I found it hard to "bite my tongue" and posted a response on my blog citing line-by-line his blog and why he was mislead and erroneous in his assumptions. Immediately after posting, I noticed that specific blog post showed up at the top of the 2nd page of the Google search results. Quickly thereafter the post moved to the first page of the search result under the same terms one would use to search for his article. Although I disagreed with the SEO expert claiming he was a seasoned M&A adviser, I enjoyed having the two articles compete as this serves as a diverse venue for people who are interested in said topic to see both sides of the story.
Several days later, I went back to see the "rankings" of those posts and realized that the rankings have not only declined, they no longer even show up in the search results at all. My website itself still ranked well, but selective posts relating to this SEO expert all disappeared completely from the rankings. In many ways, it was as though the Google bot never spidered the page. I have to believe this is more than an automated algorithm glitch and there is a human element involved. If that is really the case, then am I to believe that all Google SEO is influenced by these few experts who have the inside contacts? If the SEC prohibits such unilateral information and access exchange, shouldn't the same apply to a search engine that I would dare claim has more effect on this economy and the mindset of American than the stock market itself?
Hopefully this post won't be "erased" and doomed to where my other posts have gone.
Google operates on an automated algorithm that has rules and calculations that dictate how search results rank, but it is also well known that there is a "human" element that can over ride some of these features. That human element is helpful to catch the items that the algorithm missed, and help refine the algorithm as individuals become more clever with their black hat or gray hat SEO.
But what if an individual has a relationship to that human element? You can in theory alter search results and censor items you do not wish to be made public and shape how the public thinks. In many ways this has already been done for decades by radio and television but it is even more dangerous when over 80% of individuals in the United States use Google as their primary search and trust what is shown is factual.
One example of this possibly happening is with my own blog. A prominent SEO expert wrote a scathing blog article about a typical acquisition process that was purely misleading and harmful for the laymen who for lack of a better term wouldn't know any better. Having myself been in the industry, his claims were analogous to him claiming that "pigs can really fly" and if you disagree you burn in hell. In many ways this leads me back to why I dislike forums. Forums never promote a healthy discussion because the "owners" of the forum almost always filter the comments posted on their site.
In return, I found it hard to "bite my tongue" and posted a response on my blog citing line-by-line his blog and why he was mislead and erroneous in his assumptions. Immediately after posting, I noticed that specific blog post showed up at the top of the 2nd page of the Google search results. Quickly thereafter the post moved to the first page of the search result under the same terms one would use to search for his article. Although I disagreed with the SEO expert claiming he was a seasoned M&A adviser, I enjoyed having the two articles compete as this serves as a diverse venue for people who are interested in said topic to see both sides of the story.
Several days later, I went back to see the "rankings" of those posts and realized that the rankings have not only declined, they no longer even show up in the search results at all. My website itself still ranked well, but selective posts relating to this SEO expert all disappeared completely from the rankings. In many ways, it was as though the Google bot never spidered the page. I have to believe this is more than an automated algorithm glitch and there is a human element involved. If that is really the case, then am I to believe that all Google SEO is influenced by these few experts who have the inside contacts? If the SEC prohibits such unilateral information and access exchange, shouldn't the same apply to a search engine that I would dare claim has more effect on this economy and the mindset of American than the stock market itself?
Hopefully this post won't be "erased" and doomed to where my other posts have gone.
Say no to plastic... I mean credit cards
I'm not sure how Funny or Die is able to get all of these current celebrities to volunteer their time to this cause, but here is the video:
Sorry, can't embed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_38Mh9NC-g
Sorry, can't embed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_38Mh9NC-g
Reunion of the Presidents of Comedy
This video from Funny or Die has all of the SNL presidential classics joining forces to advise Barrack Obama on what to do with his first term as the President of the United States. The famous actors donated their time to produce this video and the short clip was directed by Ron Howard.
Probably one of the funniest Saturday Night Live skit... oh wait, it's not, it's from Funny or Die. :-)
CNN coverage:
Full Video (can't embed, sorry):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAfrBr5vbMU
And a little extra for those that hung on through this whole post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya8jeNN2hz0
Probably one of the funniest Saturday Night Live skit... oh wait, it's not, it's from Funny or Die. :-)
CNN coverage:
Full Video (can't embed, sorry):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAfrBr5vbMU
And a little extra for those that hung on through this whole post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya8jeNN2hz0
A Few Warnings When Selling Online Business Websites -- the counter argument
I'm never a big fan of people who know they're wrong so they use underhanded methods to try to hide other people's opinions verses facing the challenge face-to-face. For those that think I'm copying Aaron's article, I'm not, I'm only using it to show point-by-point why his argument is flawed.
Original article that was removed from Google Search here, but summary below.
Because of how offensive it is to have someone talk nonsense about your field of business, I am actually dedicating several posts to this article written by Aaron. I don't attempt to make money by telling people how to improve their site's SEO rankings (which frankly, in itself is trying to game the Google Algorithm). We each have our expertise in this field and I feel it is better to nip this in the butt now than to have it become a bigger issue.
I will address Aaron's article paragraph-by-paragraph and point how where he is wrong. A lot of the items I will be pointing out will be very similar to the message I have preached in the past. Sections in italics are what he wrote.
"if you have a high growth site in a high growth field and there is only one company trying to buy your site then transparency is the opposite of leverage. It can only work against you."
I think it is very obvious that he knows very little about doing a business. Being transparent is the most efficient way of matching supply and demand. A very valuable site will naturally garner a lot of demand for the product, and it will translate to a higher price. If you are very opaque about your data, that will only work against you as it immediately sets off "red flags" for the Buyer. This is only human nature, how suspicious have you been when you have gone to buy something and the car salesmen was evasive answering the questions you asked or information you asked for(i.e. Carfax review, mechanic review, test driving). Even though looking under the hood of the car nowadays don't really reveal much on the condition of the car, many of us still go through the ritual to make ourselves more comfortable.
"The guy said "if that sounds good to you I will get a Letter of Intent over to you." I said sure, and in return they were like "ok now we need access to all your stats for our due diligence document to fill out the LOI."
In this scenario, the Buyer should have been more upfront that he will require the data in order to verify his assumptions before signing and closing the deal. He may have misrepresented what the individual said. You do not need access to all of the site's stats to fill out the LOI. The LOI ("Letter of Intent") is just a word document that lays out the structure, price, and the process both parties will agree to going forward on the deal. Most LOI are non-binding. This means even though both parties sign the document, you can back out of the agreement at any time. The only binding portion of the LOI is exclusivity. Many companies request this because they are at any one time looking at dozens of deals to pursue. For them to mobilize their greater team and use all of their resources for only one deal, they need some sort of guarantee that the deal won't be pulled from under them in the middle of the process. In short, the Buyer is looking for the Seller to agree that both parties will negotiate in good faith towards a final binding agreement ("Purchase Agreement"). It is impossible to infer enough data through only the site's search results to make an accurate offer.
"If they make and offer they make an offer. If they want to steal you data they want to steal you data. But if they already make an offer based on their observations there is no need to grab all the data to reposition the offer - in short it is a scam."
Agreed. Data is valuable, which is why once a price is agreed upon, a Buyer would need the data in order to verify the assumptions they used to justify their offer. Analytics offer no insight to the Seller beyond the overall volume of visitors and page views to the site, the keyword that drives the visitors to the site, as well as who links to your site. Here is a great example of what could go wrong if we all lived in his world. For example, an mortgage company can see that one of his sites rank really well for "mortgage refinance" and reach out to him to buy the site. Let's just say that the company was ignorant enough to buy the site only based on the search results.
Here is what can go wrong for the Buyer if they do not do their diligence.
End of the day, there is something wrong if the seller isn't willing to share information. Large corporations do not like wasting their time and would rather move on than try to work with you to get the data they need to verify their assumptions. Lastly, good, established companies have a "China wall" installed between their acquisitions group and the rest of the company. The information you share with their acquisition group is only for the purpose of evaluation your site. This is why even when deals don't go through, the company isn't immediately implementing the "lessons learned" though diligence on other sites in their portfolio.
"NDA Contracts Are Garbage"
I think this pretty much applies to anything legal. The NDA is generally provided to give general comfort for both the Seller and the Buyer over the acquisition process. You can very well say the same thing about anything you do. You can burn yourself on a hot cup of McDonalds or Starbucks coffee, wouldn't you then have to sue a "large corporation" to get justice? Even with Toyota (just look at the recent debacle), what could the consumers of their vehicles really do when their gas pedal get stuck? End of the day, you just have to trust the party you are dealing with is legitimate. All the legal language in the world, no matter what you are doing, whether buying a new car, signing up for a phone plan, refinancing your mortgage, or even getting a cup of coffee, will not and can not anticipate all of the fringe scenarios. The goal of having legal language both parties agree to is to put in place incentives for both the Buyer and the Seller to behave in the appropriate way.
In general, corporations, especially public ones, are run by attorneys who mitigate risk whenever they can. This means if you have agreed to and signed a NDA with a reputable Buyer, and the deal didn't not go through, the Buyer will follow the terms of the NDA to the "t". They will delete all materials received and wouldn't take any risk of trying to "bend the rules" of their own agreement. The last thing they want is for the Seller to have a "smoking gun" to use against the company. A corporation isn't a "big bad monster", it is run by people. These people would rather follow the rules and not blow any money on any litigation, big or small.
"The point being very few people buy a business based on thinking they can/will keep it exactly the same. Rarely do you buy a raw domain name based on its earnings...you buy it based on the potential for what you can develop on it, and the growth + opportunity you see in that market."
Aaron comparing his website portfolio to WebMD, Amazon, and other full fledged corporations is just a joke. I mean, how big can your head get? Valuations are simply based on the historical performance of the site + any additional synergies the company can attribute to the media going forward. Why would large, public corporations want to take unnecessary risks if they can easily acquire the information from the seller? Would you, as a consumer, go into an used car dealership and purchase a car sight unseen without review the Carfax, acquire a warranty, or at the very least have an expert in the field (your trusted mechanic) look over the car?
"If a company trading at a 30x P/E multiple offers to buy your site for an 6x multiple, then they get a higher revenue cut due to their market position suddenly they have purchased your website for something like a 3x multiple... about 1/10th of what the market is valuing their enterprise at. If they hold back some of the payout for a year then they are paying for a portion of the site out of future earnings, and the real multiple being paid is even less - maybe only 2!!!!"
I'm not even sure where to start here, there is so many holes with Aaron's argument that it's pretty obvious he has never worked in a real corporate environment or really understands the world beyond the comfort of the LCD screen of his computer. Buyers of every single deal, no matter how big or small, look at historical data as an indicator of future potential. If your site has been declining in revenue and traffic month-over-month for the past 2-years, it will likely warrant a smaller valuation than a company doing the opposite, even though as of today both sites generate the same revenue and traffic.
It is also both unrealistic and plain cockiness to think that a website deserves a 30x multiple compared to a full fledged corporation. Does Aaron really think his website portfolio deserves the same P/E multiple of Google? Valuations take into account many variables including growth, synergies, additional investment and adjusted to risk. For better or worse, most websites like the ones Aaron owns are not game changers like YouTube.com or FaceBook.com. They are just websites.
If you want to base your purchase price on some real life multiple, how about the acquisition of Volvo from Ford by Geely for $1.8 Billion? Ford bought Volvo in the late 1990s for over $8 Billion. So based on that metric, you should actually pay us to buy your site? Picking only scenarios that are advantageous to your cause is human nature, but not really a good argument point.
What ultimately gets a deal done is when both the Buyer and the Seller have realistic expectations. If everyone listened to Aaron, we will just have a bunch of mom and pop shops owning websites while the rest of Corporate America moved on.
"But lots of people are stupid enough to give up the data. In the past I was one of them. A person who I mistook as a friend in our industry named a price for a partnership on one project, got as much data as he could, and then pulled out of the deal *at the price he named*!!! They claimed they lacked liquid capital, but at the same time they went on to make offers for other sites we owned (without knowing who owned them)."
Unfortunately, shit happens. I'm sorry to hear about what happened to Aaron in that scenario. In many cases a few bad apples ruins it for the rest of us. What Aaron should have done is ask for a LOI which will obligate the seller to move forward with the deal if the diligence checks out. In addition, if Aaron wasn't so paranoid and actually shared the necessary data with the seller (visitors, page views, keywords, back links), he may not of had this bad experience to begin with.
"If someone tries to tell you that looting your data is part of their due diligence or purchase process send them a link to this post & tell them Aaron says hi. Ask them how they disagree with it. And if they don't disagree with anything in this post, then tell them to give you all their business data. Fair is fair."
The Buyer is asking for access to your analytics because he/she needs to do his/her diligence and make sure you didn't lie to him/her about what you are selling. The Buyer of the site is paying you cash for your portfolio, so the same request doesn't really make sense. If they are paying you Monopoly money, then it is reasonable for you to ask for more diligence. When they are a public company, there is even less reason for you to be fearful. They ultimately have to report their findings to the public, and their filings are readily available for everyone to see. The only real diligence the Seller should do is review the Buyer's financials to make sure they can comfortably afford the agreed upon purchase price.
Having done hundreds of deals, I can tell you what Aaron suggested is completely unreasonable, to the point where I may suggest he wears a tin foil hat to sleep at night. You don't ask your lawyer about a cancerous growth you may have, and you don't ask your doctor for legal advice. I wouldn't ask Aaron for acquisition/ deal advice. Aaron should really stick to what he knows best, SEO. I have pretty much addressed Aaron's article point-by-point. I would love to hear what he has to say.
There will always be suckers who will agree to Aaron's terms, but it is not likely they will be around for long. I have a recent story about a new competitor (who was previously a mortgage prodigy) that entered the online marketing space and bought a site we were negotiating with for a cool three-quarters of a million dollars. I was annoyed because the Seller dragged us along and wasted a lot of our time and resources before jumping ship. Unfortunately for the Buyer, he did not have enough deal experience to really know what he was getting into. The Buyer quickly realized after writing the check that he overpaid for the site. Three-quarters of a million dollars is a lot of money to loose. In all honestly, the Seller should have been a better corporate citizen that to have hung the Buyer out to dry.
Having a methodical, diligent process is what will prevail in the long run. In this case it is very similar to SEO, black hat and gray hat tactics can only get you so far in the short term.
Original article that was removed from Google Search here, but summary below.
Because of how offensive it is to have someone talk nonsense about your field of business, I am actually dedicating several posts to this article written by Aaron. I don't attempt to make money by telling people how to improve their site's SEO rankings (which frankly, in itself is trying to game the Google Algorithm). We each have our expertise in this field and I feel it is better to nip this in the butt now than to have it become a bigger issue.
I will address Aaron's article paragraph-by-paragraph and point how where he is wrong. A lot of the items I will be pointing out will be very similar to the message I have preached in the past. Sections in italics are what he wrote.
"if you have a high growth site in a high growth field and there is only one company trying to buy your site then transparency is the opposite of leverage. It can only work against you."
I think it is very obvious that he knows very little about doing a business. Being transparent is the most efficient way of matching supply and demand. A very valuable site will naturally garner a lot of demand for the product, and it will translate to a higher price. If you are very opaque about your data, that will only work against you as it immediately sets off "red flags" for the Buyer. This is only human nature, how suspicious have you been when you have gone to buy something and the car salesmen was evasive answering the questions you asked or information you asked for(i.e. Carfax review, mechanic review, test driving). Even though looking under the hood of the car nowadays don't really reveal much on the condition of the car, many of us still go through the ritual to make ourselves more comfortable.
"The guy said "if that sounds good to you I will get a Letter of Intent over to you." I said sure, and in return they were like "ok now we need access to all your stats for our due diligence document to fill out the LOI."
In this scenario, the Buyer should have been more upfront that he will require the data in order to verify his assumptions before signing and closing the deal. He may have misrepresented what the individual said. You do not need access to all of the site's stats to fill out the LOI. The LOI ("Letter of Intent") is just a word document that lays out the structure, price, and the process both parties will agree to going forward on the deal. Most LOI are non-binding. This means even though both parties sign the document, you can back out of the agreement at any time. The only binding portion of the LOI is exclusivity. Many companies request this because they are at any one time looking at dozens of deals to pursue. For them to mobilize their greater team and use all of their resources for only one deal, they need some sort of guarantee that the deal won't be pulled from under them in the middle of the process. In short, the Buyer is looking for the Seller to agree that both parties will negotiate in good faith towards a final binding agreement ("Purchase Agreement"). It is impossible to infer enough data through only the site's search results to make an accurate offer.
"If they make and offer they make an offer. If they want to steal you data they want to steal you data. But if they already make an offer based on their observations there is no need to grab all the data to reposition the offer - in short it is a scam."
Agreed. Data is valuable, which is why once a price is agreed upon, a Buyer would need the data in order to verify the assumptions they used to justify their offer. Analytics offer no insight to the Seller beyond the overall volume of visitors and page views to the site, the keyword that drives the visitors to the site, as well as who links to your site. Here is a great example of what could go wrong if we all lived in his world. For example, an mortgage company can see that one of his sites rank really well for "mortgage refinance" and reach out to him to buy the site. Let's just say that the company was ignorant enough to buy the site only based on the search results.
Here is what can go wrong for the Buyer if they do not do their diligence.
- When they close the deal, they realize that only a handful of the keywords were mortgage related, the rest of the 80% of visitors to the site actually arrive on keywords like "cute puppies for free". Now the Buyer realized they should have only paid 20% of what they did for the site.
- They never looked at the traffic trend and didn't realize there was a steep decline in traffic from a year ago. Projected forward, it looks like the site will be near worthless in 2-years time. Again, the Buyer got screwed.
- Lastly, the back links that provide the site the necessary rankings were completely irrelevant and paid. This is a huge SEO risk and even he should realize this.
End of the day, there is something wrong if the seller isn't willing to share information. Large corporations do not like wasting their time and would rather move on than try to work with you to get the data they need to verify their assumptions. Lastly, good, established companies have a "China wall" installed between their acquisitions group and the rest of the company. The information you share with their acquisition group is only for the purpose of evaluation your site. This is why even when deals don't go through, the company isn't immediately implementing the "lessons learned" though diligence on other sites in their portfolio.
"NDA Contracts Are Garbage"
I think this pretty much applies to anything legal. The NDA is generally provided to give general comfort for both the Seller and the Buyer over the acquisition process. You can very well say the same thing about anything you do. You can burn yourself on a hot cup of McDonalds or Starbucks coffee, wouldn't you then have to sue a "large corporation" to get justice? Even with Toyota (just look at the recent debacle), what could the consumers of their vehicles really do when their gas pedal get stuck? End of the day, you just have to trust the party you are dealing with is legitimate. All the legal language in the world, no matter what you are doing, whether buying a new car, signing up for a phone plan, refinancing your mortgage, or even getting a cup of coffee, will not and can not anticipate all of the fringe scenarios. The goal of having legal language both parties agree to is to put in place incentives for both the Buyer and the Seller to behave in the appropriate way.
In general, corporations, especially public ones, are run by attorneys who mitigate risk whenever they can. This means if you have agreed to and signed a NDA with a reputable Buyer, and the deal didn't not go through, the Buyer will follow the terms of the NDA to the "t". They will delete all materials received and wouldn't take any risk of trying to "bend the rules" of their own agreement. The last thing they want is for the Seller to have a "smoking gun" to use against the company. A corporation isn't a "big bad monster", it is run by people. These people would rather follow the rules and not blow any money on any litigation, big or small.
"The point being very few people buy a business based on thinking they can/will keep it exactly the same. Rarely do you buy a raw domain name based on its earnings...you buy it based on the potential for what you can develop on it, and the growth + opportunity you see in that market."
Aaron comparing his website portfolio to WebMD, Amazon, and other full fledged corporations is just a joke. I mean, how big can your head get? Valuations are simply based on the historical performance of the site + any additional synergies the company can attribute to the media going forward. Why would large, public corporations want to take unnecessary risks if they can easily acquire the information from the seller? Would you, as a consumer, go into an used car dealership and purchase a car sight unseen without review the Carfax, acquire a warranty, or at the very least have an expert in the field (your trusted mechanic) look over the car?
"If a company trading at a 30x P/E multiple offers to buy your site for an 6x multiple, then they get a higher revenue cut due to their market position suddenly they have purchased your website for something like a 3x multiple... about 1/10th of what the market is valuing their enterprise at. If they hold back some of the payout for a year then they are paying for a portion of the site out of future earnings, and the real multiple being paid is even less - maybe only 2!!!!"
I'm not even sure where to start here, there is so many holes with Aaron's argument that it's pretty obvious he has never worked in a real corporate environment or really understands the world beyond the comfort of the LCD screen of his computer. Buyers of every single deal, no matter how big or small, look at historical data as an indicator of future potential. If your site has been declining in revenue and traffic month-over-month for the past 2-years, it will likely warrant a smaller valuation than a company doing the opposite, even though as of today both sites generate the same revenue and traffic.
It is also both unrealistic and plain cockiness to think that a website deserves a 30x multiple compared to a full fledged corporation. Does Aaron really think his website portfolio deserves the same P/E multiple of Google? Valuations take into account many variables including growth, synergies, additional investment and adjusted to risk. For better or worse, most websites like the ones Aaron owns are not game changers like YouTube.com or FaceBook.com. They are just websites.
If you want to base your purchase price on some real life multiple, how about the acquisition of Volvo from Ford by Geely for $1.8 Billion? Ford bought Volvo in the late 1990s for over $8 Billion. So based on that metric, you should actually pay us to buy your site? Picking only scenarios that are advantageous to your cause is human nature, but not really a good argument point.
What ultimately gets a deal done is when both the Buyer and the Seller have realistic expectations. If everyone listened to Aaron, we will just have a bunch of mom and pop shops owning websites while the rest of Corporate America moved on.
"But lots of people are stupid enough to give up the data. In the past I was one of them. A person who I mistook as a friend in our industry named a price for a partnership on one project, got as much data as he could, and then pulled out of the deal *at the price he named*!!! They claimed they lacked liquid capital, but at the same time they went on to make offers for other sites we owned (without knowing who owned them)."
Unfortunately, shit happens. I'm sorry to hear about what happened to Aaron in that scenario. In many cases a few bad apples ruins it for the rest of us. What Aaron should have done is ask for a LOI which will obligate the seller to move forward with the deal if the diligence checks out. In addition, if Aaron wasn't so paranoid and actually shared the necessary data with the seller (visitors, page views, keywords, back links), he may not of had this bad experience to begin with.
"If someone tries to tell you that looting your data is part of their due diligence or purchase process send them a link to this post & tell them Aaron says hi. Ask them how they disagree with it. And if they don't disagree with anything in this post, then tell them to give you all their business data. Fair is fair."
The Buyer is asking for access to your analytics because he/she needs to do his/her diligence and make sure you didn't lie to him/her about what you are selling. The Buyer of the site is paying you cash for your portfolio, so the same request doesn't really make sense. If they are paying you Monopoly money, then it is reasonable for you to ask for more diligence. When they are a public company, there is even less reason for you to be fearful. They ultimately have to report their findings to the public, and their filings are readily available for everyone to see. The only real diligence the Seller should do is review the Buyer's financials to make sure they can comfortably afford the agreed upon purchase price.
Having done hundreds of deals, I can tell you what Aaron suggested is completely unreasonable, to the point where I may suggest he wears a tin foil hat to sleep at night. You don't ask your lawyer about a cancerous growth you may have, and you don't ask your doctor for legal advice. I wouldn't ask Aaron for acquisition/ deal advice. Aaron should really stick to what he knows best, SEO. I have pretty much addressed Aaron's article point-by-point. I would love to hear what he has to say.
There will always be suckers who will agree to Aaron's terms, but it is not likely they will be around for long. I have a recent story about a new competitor (who was previously a mortgage prodigy) that entered the online marketing space and bought a site we were negotiating with for a cool three-quarters of a million dollars. I was annoyed because the Seller dragged us along and wasted a lot of our time and resources before jumping ship. Unfortunately for the Buyer, he did not have enough deal experience to really know what he was getting into. The Buyer quickly realized after writing the check that he overpaid for the site. Three-quarters of a million dollars is a lot of money to loose. In all honestly, the Seller should have been a better corporate citizen that to have hung the Buyer out to dry.
Having a methodical, diligent process is what will prevail in the long run. In this case it is very similar to SEO, black hat and gray hat tactics can only get you so far in the short term.
Reasons why I don't do online forums
In the past, I had been extremely active on online auto forums, from 6speedonline.com to TeamSpeed.com and ultimately Luxury4Play.com. The attraction to these forums is meeting people and being friends with individuals with the same interest.
Don't get me wrong. Forums are very useful especially when trying to understand something one is new to. I leveraged the forums to understand my car as well as where to take my vehicle to get it serviced. In addition, the community was very helpful in sharing their experience and advice. All of the "posts" written contributed to the SEO/ organic ranking of the forum and helped the owner of the forum generate revenue, but I didn't mind that considering the service the various forums provided.
What eventually drove me away was the moderators of these forums.
The intent of moderators is to serve as corporate citizens and make sure the forum is running smoothly and everyone gets along. Unfortunately, many individuals who volunteer for these positions are the same individuals who would decide to become police officers. Ironically, some moderators on the forums I belonged to were actually, guess what, cops.
In case you can't tell, I don't have the world's highest opinion of police officers. Based on my experience with them, they thrive on power. Almost feels like individuals who become police officers or detectives were the unpopular kids who were picked on as a kid. The prerequisite for becoming an officer is also just an associate's degree -- not exactly someone I would trust to know the law and protect me vs. being abusive with their power. Most people who work in the government sector are also unionized, this gives even less incentive for them to actually do their job. Sad really.
But I digress. Moderators of forums reminds me of the old online BBS moderators like EOTL ("End of The Line"). They spend all day trolling through the forum and love feeling important. What they don't understand is that in return for them feeling important, they are basically making money for the owner of the forum for free (aka being used). If I was an owner of a forum, I wouldn't mind either, as long as I continue to cash in my checks. Because forums are privately owned enterprises, moderators decisions do not have to go through votes, which makes it even easier for these individuals to go on power trips.
Why do moderators of the forum thrive in that environment? Simple, because in real life, they are nobodies. It is only human nature to want to feel important and think you have a purpose in life. Sadly, some people can online find it online in make believe world. Alas, I have enough interesting things going on in my real life to not bother putting up with them.
Don't get me wrong. Forums are very useful especially when trying to understand something one is new to. I leveraged the forums to understand my car as well as where to take my vehicle to get it serviced. In addition, the community was very helpful in sharing their experience and advice. All of the "posts" written contributed to the SEO/ organic ranking of the forum and helped the owner of the forum generate revenue, but I didn't mind that considering the service the various forums provided.
What eventually drove me away was the moderators of these forums.
The intent of moderators is to serve as corporate citizens and make sure the forum is running smoothly and everyone gets along. Unfortunately, many individuals who volunteer for these positions are the same individuals who would decide to become police officers. Ironically, some moderators on the forums I belonged to were actually, guess what, cops.
In case you can't tell, I don't have the world's highest opinion of police officers. Based on my experience with them, they thrive on power. Almost feels like individuals who become police officers or detectives were the unpopular kids who were picked on as a kid. The prerequisite for becoming an officer is also just an associate's degree -- not exactly someone I would trust to know the law and protect me vs. being abusive with their power. Most people who work in the government sector are also unionized, this gives even less incentive for them to actually do their job. Sad really.
But I digress. Moderators of forums reminds me of the old online BBS moderators like EOTL ("End of The Line"). They spend all day trolling through the forum and love feeling important. What they don't understand is that in return for them feeling important, they are basically making money for the owner of the forum for free (aka being used). If I was an owner of a forum, I wouldn't mind either, as long as I continue to cash in my checks. Because forums are privately owned enterprises, moderators decisions do not have to go through votes, which makes it even easier for these individuals to go on power trips.
Why do moderators of the forum thrive in that environment? Simple, because in real life, they are nobodies. It is only human nature to want to feel important and think you have a purpose in life. Sadly, some people can online find it online in make believe world. Alas, I have enough interesting things going on in my real life to not bother putting up with them.
How Do I Make Money Online? – Want to Know The Answer?
I randomly stumbled upon this really funny, but true article when I was search on Google. Anyone who things they know everything about anything needs to get their head checked. Just because you read how to remove a malignant tumor on Wikipedia doesn't mean you're certified to do it now, those people are called "doctors" and they went to school for over 7-years for a reason. Many nerds/geeks, unfortunately, still have not figured out the difference between confidence and ignorance. Reminds me of a dog that hasn't been properly socialized. They think they're doing the right thing and "acting cool" while everyone else around them goes, "WTF?"
The internet is a great place that gives many people who would otherwise add nothing of value to society to make money, but unfortunately these anti-social freaks also don't know a thing beyond the phosphorescent glow of their computer screens. What they don't quite realize is their "expertise" is controlled like a string to a puppet by Google. It's impossible to win at something when someone else is making the rules. By the way, Google doesn't need to put things to a "vote" before making the change. Quite honestly, they can do whatever they want. In short, all SEO experts are really just individuals who learned to keep running on the "treadmill". Every time Google decides to change the speed on said treadmill, some "experts" fall off.
I have had the honor of spending time with the VP of engineering at Google through various events I attend. Essentially SEO experts are individuals who try to backward engineer what the company decided to do, but never quite figure it out. Someone I know said it best with this quote, "if the website is adding value to begin with, you wouldn't need to worry about SEO."
The article below is a pretty funny interpretation of what really goes on in the "online SEO" internet world.
http://www.youtube.com/wat
The internet is a great place that gives many people who would otherwise add nothing of value to society to make money, but unfortunately these anti-social freaks also don't know a thing beyond the phosphorescent glow of their computer screens. What they don't quite realize is their "expertise" is controlled like a string to a puppet by Google. It's impossible to win at something when someone else is making the rules. By the way, Google doesn't need to put things to a "vote" before making the change. Quite honestly, they can do whatever they want. In short, all SEO experts are really just individuals who learned to keep running on the "treadmill". Every time Google decides to change the speed on said treadmill, some "experts" fall off.
I have had the honor of spending time with the VP of engineering at Google through various events I attend. Essentially SEO experts are individuals who try to backward engineer what the company decided to do, but never quite figure it out. Someone I know said it best with this quote, "if the website is adding value to begin with, you wouldn't need to worry about SEO."
The article below is a pretty funny interpretation of what really goes on in the "online SEO" internet world.
So, over the last seven months, I started reading through thousands of forum posts, and ebooks.
I spent hundreds of dollars on software.
I signed up for three MMO education programs.
And yet, the answer to the question eluded me.
But along the way, I encountered many people who tried to convince me that, if I buy their service, then I could eventually achieve my goals.
Below, i’ve listed just a few of the characters you might meet on your journey to make money online:
Programmers
I’m Peter the programmer. I don’t know much about Making Money Online. But I know everything about HTML, DHTML, XML, C, VB, Delphi, Javascript, PHP, MySQL, Perl, CSS-P, ASP, ASP.NET, Lisp, AJAX, ActionScript, WINS, LAMP, and I usually talk in acronyms. I write computer code all day long. Consequently, I don’t know how to talk to girls. But, when I’m done, your website will be highly functional. Of course it will look ugly as hell. But if you want to make it pretty, you’ll need to hire a Designer. // END job_description
Designers
Hello I am Dan the Designer. I don’t know much about Making Money Online. I’m an artist. Money doesn’t concern me. Though no one has ever bought my paintings. Blame society! I have a lot of existential angst and I get very pissed off if you criticize my designs. So don’t ask for revisions. And, I don’t actually put any text on your website. I just do graphics. So, if you want to know how to write text so your website will rank, you’ll need a Keyword Researcher. Where are my depression meds anyway?? Dammit!!!
Keyword Researchers
Hey there mate, I’m King Kenny the Keyword Researcher. I don’t know much about Making Money Online. But me and my partners are now selling a super super SECRET spreadsheet containing 50,000 keyword phrases that are absolutely certifiably guaranteed to be the top TOP-performing, low competition niches that you need to capitalize on NOW NOW NOW — if you’re going to compete in the competitive world of Internet Marketing. I’m sorry for always repeating myself, but this list is just too important for you to pass up. Of course once you actually buy the list from me, you’ll never see me again. And you’re going to need to write your own unique articles for the keywords. I don’t do that for you. For that, you’ll need a Copywriter.
Copywriters
My name is Sally and I’m a 47 year old Milwaukee housewife with six children. Consequently, I weigh 457 pounds. I don’t know much about Making Money Online hunny. But I can write copy for you. But you’re gonna have to pay a lot of money for it – not because I’m a good writer, but because I was born in the USA and so i’ve been speaking english (and nothing else) my whole life. Now I don’t do article spinning so if you just want some cheap words to put up somewhere (for backlinks), you’ll have to go and hire some other third world article spinner somewhere.
Article Spinners
I am Muhammad Osama Bin Ackbar — a copywriter from bla bla. I don’t know much about Making Money Online. Hell I can barely speak English! But I will write any article you want — on any subject from childcare to atheism. No problem. Of course you will barely be able to understand my work, but not to worry, no no my friend. I only need 10 cents a day, so i’m very cheap. And, search engines can’t judge good copy from bad copy anyway! Search engines can only read keywords. Of course, I’ll just be emailing you the text. If you really want to “optimize” this text – so that it shows up in the search engines, you’ll need aSEO guy.
SEO Guys
I am Sammy the SEO guy. I don’t know much about Making Money Online. I spend most of my time in the SEO forums – arguing about who is the better SEO guy. But I have examined your website and I have found 37 errors in your TITLE tags, DESCRIPTION tags, ALT tags, and the atrocious design of your hierarchical page layout. If you give me money, I will fix these errors for you and guarantee that the search engines will like your website. Of course, onsite optimization only gets you so far. If you really want to rank, you’re going to need backlinks — lots of backlinks. I don’t build those. You’ll need a backlink builder for that. (p.s. Aaron Wall is a douchebag)
Backlink Builders
Hey mate, I’m Billy the Backlink Builder. I’m a 22 year old little shit who just happened to stumble upon the right forum one day – when I was 16 and trying to pickup chicks on the Dawson’s Creek website. I don’t know much about Making Money Online. But I do know a lot about web traffic and search engines. Because of this, I made a lot of money selling links — to other people trying to make money online. Want to see a picture of my new Mercedes? I’ve posted it here 14 times before but you can see it again.
My girlfriend says that brains are sexy. She’s not interested in my money…Really!! But, speaking of money, if you pay me, I can build up a massive deluge of backlinks that all point to your website. But once you get all that traffic coming, you better be ready for it. You’ll need a webmaster to handle your updates and watch that server load.
Webmasters
I’m Willy the Webmaster. I don’t know much about Making Money Online. I usually just say one sentence all day: “I’m working on something else right now, but I’ll get to that soon.” When I say this, what I really mean is: “I am currently watching porn.” God clients are so stupid. They always bug me when i’m busy. And anyway I’ve got a pretty good World Of Warcraft game going. So yeah, I’ll get to your server updates later. By the way, I take no responsibility for most of your server problems. For tough issues, you need to call your hosting company.
Hosting Company
Hello and thank you for calling Technical Support. We appreciate your business. Currently, there are 196 other callers in front of you. We’ll be with you shortly. Until then, please enjoy these great tunes from COOL JAZZ 95.1 FM. <Start Kenny G Music>
Now notice that none of these people “make money online.”
But, really, all of these people “make money online.”
That is to say, all of these people are gears in the great machinery that is the digital age. All of these people hold A PIECE of the puzzle, that makes up a revenue-producing internet empire.
- You can make money online by providing any of the above mentioned services.
- Or, you can make money online by doing all of the above services YOURSELF — for YOUR OWN website.
- Or, you can make money online by being the conductor (the business manager) – who delegates tasks to all of the above people, and combines their skills to build a single profitable website.
Any of these three methods CAN be profitable. And, in my experience, most successful internet marketers do a little of all three.
The trick is in knowing:
- When to sell your services.
- When to buy services.
- And, when to learn to do services yourself.
But there is no one single answer to be had to the question, “How do I make money online?”
The answer is unique to each and every person — as each person has a vastly different skillset.
Ultimately, there is only one person out there who really, REALLY, REALLY knows the best way that YOU can “make money online.”
Ultimately, there is only one person out there who really, REALLY, REALLY knows the best way that YOU can “make money online.”
And that person is…
…
…
You.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)