Questionable Data Sinks Google Stock: Don’t Believe the Hype?

4 comments

Earlier this week, Google shares fell $22 (4.6%) on news that comScore data showed a 7.5% drop in monthly Google paid clicks. As one Wall Street analyst put it, “Though we hesitate to read too much into ComScore data in general and one month’s release in particular, we are incrementally more cautious on our revenue growth estimates for Google sites.”

My reaction to this data (and to the Google stock decline) was mixed. On the one hand, Google’s stock price has seemed really high to me for several months. Indeed, last month I calculated that Google’s market cap was equivalent to the combined value of Yahoo, eBay, Amazon, IAC (Ask, CitySearch, etc), Time Warner (with AOL), SalesForce, Priceline, and Expedia. From that perspective, a decline in Google value seems appropriate.

But on the other hand, I am not a big fan of comScore (or competitor Nielsen NetRatings) data. Indeed, read that analyst’s statement again: “though we hesitate to read too much into ComScore data in general . . .” – that’s pretty weak justification for downgrading a stock.

My personal experience has shown just how ridiculous comScore and Nielsen data is when it comes to online metrics. A few months back, Nielsen produced data that suggested that NexTag was spending around $860 million a year on online advertising. I might have believed this number without question, were it not for the fact that the same report showed my former employer – Adteractive – spending $420 million annually. As I wrote on my personal SEM blog: “I can say with a very high degree of confidence that Adteractive did not spend $420 million, $200 million, $100 million, or probably even $40 million dollars.” That’s right, the Nielsen data was off by a factor of 10X or greater. And I’ve had similar experiences with comScore to make me question their methodology as well. I won’t go into it here, but my original blog posting on this topic has all the lurid details.

So the fact that allegeded stock experts and the overall market in general is using this data to cut billions of dollars of market valuation off Google (or any other Internet stock, for that matter) is concerning. It basically shows that the general public really doesn’t understand Internet advertising well enough to accurately determine an Internet company’s worth. This is a scary scenario for any Internet company currently enjoying the wave of investing exuberance. In particular, I’m talking about Google here. When your stock balloons to $750 a share and a $170 billion market cap, you’ve either got incredible underlying fundamentals, incredible hype, or both.

In Google’s case, I think the answer is “both.” Google is a cash machine and they’ve constantly impressed the market with their quarter after quarter record earnings. But Google is also the darling of analysts and the public, just like so many hyped-up companies in the past (Enron, WebVan, Krispy Kreme, etc). I’m not suggesting that Google is “all hat and no cows” like Enron or WebVan, but I do find it interesting that Google stock can fluctuate so significantly on data that a serious Internet investor would dismiss as meaningless.

Once again, I go back to the analyst who starts his comment by saying ‘the data is worthless’ and ends by saying ‘but we are downgrading nonetheless.’ Maybe that is code for ‘this stock has a lot of hype and any bad news – even fake bad news – could cause the hype to implode so we are downgrading.’

I’ve never owned Google shares, and my track record of stock picking isn’t stellar (yes, I did buy WebVan at $6 a share . . .). But I do spend most of my working hours thinking about online advertising, and it’s troubling to see Internet stock prices influenced by pointless statistics. After all, at the end of the day, the billions invested in stocks and venture capital in Internet technology is what keeps the heat on in my house. The fact that the public could one day be scared off from investing in the Internet – and possibily due to unfounded data – makes me want to stash a few more dollars under the bed for a rainy day.

About the Author

David Rodnitzky is CEO of PPC Associates, a leading SEM agency based in Silicon Valley. PPC Associates provides search, social, and display advertising management to growing, savvy companies. To learn more, visit ppcassociates.com, or contact David at david@ppcassociates.com.

Add Your Comments

  • (will not be published)

4 Comments

  1. I do believe that most of Wall Street does indeed not understand internet advertising. Couple that with "Algorithmic programs" from Comscore - which aren't all that accurate, and you get the slash in Google prices... we'll see what happens when Google releases their next quarter reports

  2. The thought process here is quite off base. You are comparing a media spend projection wherein they guess at the cost of an ad placement versus raw data. That is apples to oranges and not even applicative here. Focus on what data was presented here...click trails of paid search ads. ComScore hasn't projected spend levels, they have presented data that suggests consumer behavior may be changing. If data that suggests consumer behavior is changing doesn't mean something to you, I'd advise you to invest in Treasury Bills rather than risk your retirement funds on the Stock Market.

  3. In an economy that's sketchy to begin with, I think Google is certainly the victim of knee-jerk selling here. Traders like to panic with the slightest provocation and ComScore's data, spurious or not, has the sway it does because people are looking for any performance indicators they can get their hands on. I think even had the ComScore numbers been up, but only slightly, for Google - the sell-off would've been the same.

  4. I used to work for NexTag, and I know the CEO was way too cheap to spend 860million on ads. If NexTag spent that much on ads none of us would have been paid. The Nielson numbers are ridiculously wrong.