If Google has blocked the site, um, what exactly is the story again?
The concept doesn't even begin to make sense - why would Google pay anyone to serve ads on hidden websites? The whole Google ad serving business is based on pay-per-click. Even if they paid for ad serving, they'd notice the absence of clicks pretty quickly.
What do they expect is going to happen if they succed and buy all of Google? And wouldn't Google have some sort of failsafe incase of someone attempting to control all it's stock, and even if that did happen, would they even have to be directly responsible to the guy who holds it?
I don't find anything about the model to be unworkable, but I suspect that # of shares in the hands of the model creators to be a p r e t t y strong incentive to take the money and run (and abandon Google To The People Public Company -currently unavailable due to "technical reasons"). After some uberlawyer begins to fathom the concept and devotes time to ferreting out shares with beneficial ownership, possibly as enumerated according to the counter on GWEI's site, any 1:1 correspondence between share ownership and owners of record will fall under the microscope and I suspect a few more servers will find themselves disengaged.
Google PPC only generates money when someone pays to sponsor an ad. This model is predicated upon the notion that people will click on an ad that takes them to a site where nothing happens, causing the ad sponsor to fork over some cash to Google that in turn facilitates the purchase of shares in Google.
HTF does this goose, Lovink, go about duping people into paying for Google PPC ads that do this? No business owner is going to sponsor such ads.
This is a perpetual motion machine. It falls down at the point where cash is meant to enter the system.
But even taking the fraud out of the scheme, I just don't think it would be possible to buy a public company with the funds you receive as a vendor to that company. Not one worth buying, anyway.
5 comments:
If Google has blocked the site, um, what exactly is the story again?
The concept doesn't even begin to make sense - why would Google pay anyone to serve ads on hidden websites? The whole Google ad serving business is based on pay-per-click. Even if they paid for ad serving, they'd notice the absence of clicks pretty quickly.
What do they expect is going to happen if they succed and buy all of Google? And wouldn't Google have some sort of failsafe incase of someone attempting to control all it's stock, and even if that did happen, would they even have to be directly responsible to the guy who holds it?
I don't find anything about the model to be unworkable, but I suspect that # of shares in the hands of the model creators to be a p r e t t y strong incentive to take the money and run (and abandon Google To The People Public Company -currently unavailable due to "technical reasons"). After some uberlawyer begins to fathom the concept and devotes time to ferreting out shares with beneficial ownership, possibly as enumerated according to the counter on GWEI's site, any 1:1 correspondence between share ownership and owners of record will fall under the microscope and I suspect a few more servers will find themselves disengaged.
Google PPC only generates money when someone pays to sponsor an ad. This model is predicated upon the notion that people will click on an ad that takes them to a site where nothing happens, causing the ad sponsor to fork over some cash to Google that in turn facilitates the purchase of shares in Google.
HTF does this goose, Lovink, go about duping people into paying for Google PPC ads that do this? No business owner is going to sponsor such ads.
This is a perpetual motion machine. It falls down at the point where cash is meant to enter the system.
Exactly.
But even taking the fraud out of the scheme, I just don't think it would be possible to buy a public company with the funds you receive as a vendor to that company. Not one worth buying, anyway.
Post a Comment