I continue to be amazed at Google’s ability to effectively play the underdog card.  Somehow Google is able to look and quack like Mr. Drysdale and yet get treated like Jed Clampett, pre shooting at some food.

I don’t know if it’s brilliant marketing, Microsoft hate or some combination of the two.  But it seems to be working.

Google has a market cap of $146,000,000,000.00.  That’s $146 billion.  An insane figure for a company that basically has no tangible product to sell.  A company whose revenue stream is closer to media than tech.  A company whose stock price is $470 and whose trailing P/E ratio is above 40.

How does Google pull it off?

Maybe it’s the collective “I can’t believe this is happening to me” effect.

Google went public on August 19, 2004 at $85, via a dutch auction.  I bid 60 something dollars, fully expecting not to get any, but thinking wrongly that anything higher was too much.  Those who bought just 100 shares at $8,500 at the IPO now have stock worth $47,000.  A $25,500 investment is now worth $141,000.  If I had bid higher and gotten a few hundred shares, I probably wouldn’t write anything relating to Google but thank you notes.

Somehow, Google is able to play the little ‘ol me card while simultaneously nipping at the heels of the Fortune 50.  Here are the U.S. companies with a larger market cap than Google: ExxonMobil, GE, Microsoft, Citigroup, AT&T, Bank of America, P&G, Wal-Mart, Pfizer, American International Group, J&J, JP Morgan Chase, Chevron, Berkshire Hathaway, IBM, Cisco and Altria.  Pretty nice company.

Or maybe Google just knows how to throw a pep rally.

Today Donna Bogatin writes about Google’s coach-like fear of the opponent.

Microsoft (DISCLAIMER: I am a Microsoft shareholder) has set its sights on Google’s sacred online ad dollar, buying digital marketing (read advertising) company aQuantive, Inc for $6B.  Plus, Microsoft has lots of money and employees.  And Bill Gates.

Google says it’s worried.  You can almost hear the clanging of locker room chairs as its employees gather round to listen.

“Win one for the Brin-er!”

Meanwhile, in the other locker room, Donna quotes Steve Ballmer, Microsoft’s Gates Lite, talking about how Google puts its pants on one leg at a time:

I don’t really know that anyone has proven that a random collection of people doing their own thing actually creates value.

Maybe not, and Google has certainly had a hard time trying to capture lightning in a bottle the second time.  But Microsoft has products to sell, a ton of cash and application dominance (those who say Office is dead don’t spend much time in corporate offices).

Yet it still trails Google and Yahoo in the race for online dominance.  All that cash and all that structure still hasn’t created decent looking web destinations.  Give Google a computer tariff on virtually every computer sold, and I suspect Google would crush Microsoft and Yahoo.

But the online media game is an away game for Microsoft.

Part of it is that applications and media and online search are different animals.  Dominance in one does not easily translate to the others.  Part of it is scheduling.  While Google and Microsoft dilute their energy by fighting over every possible revenue steam and their bank accounts in the startup rush of ’07, will opportunities arise for a dark horse?  Yahoo perhaps?

I don’t know.  But I do know that playing the underdog role has served Google well.

Even when the lines say it’s not the underdog.

The Wall Street Journal published an interesting article about names and Google ranking- the importance of being findable via a Google search.  Among other things, the article reminds us that Google is not just about web search.  While I haven’t really thought about it like this before, Google is a multi-purpose tool for me.

It is my spell-checker.  I search for the word, and it either confirms I’m correct or asks me if I meant [correct spelling].

It is my direction finder.  I type in the address and it gives me a map, and a link to Google Maps, for a bigger map and directions.

It is my lyrics finder for the lead ins I sometimes use for my blog posts.

It is my dictionary, leading me to the Free Dictionary.

Sometimes, it’s my people finder.

But it’s not as good at finding people as it is other information.  I search for my old buddy Carter Via, and I get to places named Carter via all sorts of routes.  I look for my cousin and get zip.  A search for my old friend Kevin Morris leads nowhere, unless I add our hometown.  Then it returns my failed friend fishing experiment (which was a rousing success compared to my failed Flickr experiment).  It all comes down to how well your name Googles, as the WSJ puts it.  And to Google well, you need an effective platform, which as Scot Karp points out, is not always easy to come by:

The problem for most people is that they don’t have a platform for influencing their identity in Google or other search engines. Anyone can start a blog, sure, but that may not help if your name is John Smith, or even a less common name if you don’t get any inbound links.

Most bloggers Google well, since they generally have a significant online presence.  Earl Moore is number 2, behind a baseball player nicknamed Big Ebbie.  Mathew Ingram is number 1 for both the way he spells it and the way he doesn’t.  Mike Miller is number 13, behind another hoops player and a couple of clowns.  Tom Morris is number 2, behind an institute for human values.

Ken Yarmosh offers a roadmap for putting your name on the Google map.

My name Googles pretty well.  I’m number 1 for both Kent Newsome and Newsome.  My work bio is number 2 for Kent Newsome.  The benefits of a long online presence and a somewhat uncommon name.  My two oldest kids are number 1.  Raina is number 4.  Some odd blog post that seems to mention her is number 1.  Luke is too young and has too common a name to make the boxscore. Yet.

I certainly wouldn’t change my name to Google better, like someone mentioned in the WSJ article, but I do see the benefit of Googling well.

How well does your name Google?

IP & Democracy has a post responding to Mark Cuban’s latest YouTube slam.  Here’s the part of IP & Democracy’s post I found interesting:

Mark Cuban is obsessed with dumping on the idea that YouTube might be worth billions of dollars. He publicly labeled any serious prospective buyer of the site a “moron,” but then along came word that Google, founded by two certified geniuses, is interested in paying $1.6 billion for the video sharing supernova.

While I won’t quarrel that the Google guys are geniuses, at least in hindsight, anyone who has followed Google lately would be hard pressed to argue that Google is the gold standard of spending money wisely.

In fact, Google has been throwing money in all corners looking for the next big thing.  So far, we’re still waiting.

It’s no wonder that Google may be considering making a big play to buy YouTube and its vast advertising space.  While I’m still waiting for a YouTube business plan that makes long-term sense, Google has either decided to become or been relegated to an advertising agency.

Given that happy or sad fact (depending on your perspective), a YouTube acquisition is not surprising.  Note that I said it was not surprising- I did not say it makes sense.

Whether it makes sense or not depends on whether you believe the entire universe can subsist on ad dollars.  Anyone who has read this blog for more than a day or two knows that I do not believe that it can.

But if I’m wrong, it could be a good acquisition for Google.

I just hope it isn’t a short-term plan to ride the ad hype for a few more quarters while Google waits anxiously for more lightning, bottle in hand.

If I were a Google shareholder, that’s what I’d be worried about.

I think if we can just wait our turn, all of us will eventually get some crazy money from Google.

After throwing money at such interesting partners as Dell, Real Networks, Sun and Adobe, today comes word that Google has paid Intuit, maker of QuickBooks, some money to somehow embed some of Google’s services into QuickBooks.

Why? Again, you know why: “so small business users will be able to list themselves on Google Maps, create and manage advertising campaign [sic] with Adwords and post listings on Google Base.”

Of course this feature no one really wants is just another way to toss more ads in people’s faces.  I know I’ve said it before, but permit me to say one more time that people want less ads (satellite radio, TIVO, etc.), not more ads.  It just seems very odd to me that Google’s entire business plan seems to involve collecting data it can use to put ads in front of us that we simply don’t want.

I also wonder who will be the first person to wonder out loud about putting all of their private financial information into an application that has embedded product by a company who seems to want badly to obtain and store all of our information and data?  I don’t think for a second that Google or Intuit would allow any of that data to be collected or misused, but you have to believe that people will get more nervous every time Google steps closer to that data.

In the meantime, Intuit gets some free money, and users get more ads.

As Mike Arrington correctly notes, there better be an easy way to turn this feature off.

Otherwise Microsoft Money’s slogan next year is likely to be “Google Free.”

Tags: google, intuit

Dan Farber reports on tomorrow’s release of Google Apps for Your Domain, a grouping of online applications Google hopes will allow it to compete with Microsoft’s highly entrenched Office suite.

The initial package will contain email, calendar, IM, and web site creation applications. Obviously missing are word processing and spreadsheets, which Google plans to add later this year when Writely and Google Spreadsheets will be added to the mix. Like everything else Google-related, the applications will be ad-supported.

Google is smartly couching its package, at least initially, not as a replacement for Microsoft Office, but as a way to add collaboration features.

While it seems odd that Google would push its package out the door now, without the most important applications, word processing and spreadsheets, the forthcoming upgrade to Office promises better collaboration features. Google probably figured it was better to get its product out the door now and generate a little buzz (and likely a bit of second guessing) than to wait and be drowned out by the buzz that will erupt when Office 2007 is released.

As I have said many times, corporate America is not going to embrace online applications and storage for a long time- privacy, security, fear of a bad decision, and confidentiality requirements ensure that. But the more individuals and small businesses that opt for Google’s free alternatives, the bigger Google’s toehold is- both in the office productivity space and in connection with its master plan to be the keeper of all of our data.

Bold but troubling is word via InformationWeek that “Google’s plans include prompting people who send Microsoft Office documents using Gmail to translate those files into Google’s formats for editing on Google.com, presumably in a forum where ad space is up for sale.” One of the great and valid fears of IT managers is data spread- when your data is spread all over the place, it becomes harder to protect and manage.

Which is not to say that Google’s package won’t one day be a legitimate option for individuals. An open question is whether the almighty ad dollar Google is chasing will be content to hawk its wares to personal users.

The obvious criticism of Google’s offering is its patchwork origins, as the Information Week article points out:

“The Google solution is what I’d call patchwork, or Frankenstein, software,” says Tom Rizzo, a director for Office SharePoint Server at Microsoft. “You have to put it all together yourself.”

Will Google succeed in wrestling the office productivity crown away from Microsoft? Not a chance.

But as Dan points out, there is “disruption in the air.” The unanswered question is whether mere disruption is the goal.

Or something bigger.

Tags: google, microsoft, office applications