The average cost-per-click rose approximately 12%, compared with the same period last year, as aggregate paid clicks rose 18%. Sequentially, the average cost-per-click and paid clicks fell 2% and 6%, respectively.

I'm not quite clear what that last sentence means, other than I'm suspicious that their growth in revenue isn't coming from organic growth in business or market share, but instead is the result of them charging hire prices and paying out publishers less. And there's lots more room still available to them in milking that spread.

Hmmmm...just hmmm....

"the core search businesses, they're all doing well" [bbc.co.uk...]
Panda would have helped, better click throughs on advertising , significant shift of spend. All as i expected - we saw the lift starting late in the previous quarter. More to come , but needs to be applied in line with market expectations so as not to over perform.

More to come , but needs to be applied in line with market expectations so as not to over perform.

Yp, pandalize a new sector each quarter and screw those already pandalized. There was a feeling here that Goog was doing Panda based on principles, even though their earnings would suffer.

Now, which engineer is going to ruin GOOG's earnings for the next quarter by bringing 'low quality' sites back ?

Yes, it was timed and measured pefectly from a business point of view. But there are other areas of performance. As the press release / Schmidt indicates , they are not " a one trick pony ". It will be good to read the financial analysis distilled through the key stockbrokers as it comes to hand.

Here's google's statement

Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) today announced financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

“We had a great quarter, with revenue up 32% year on year for a record breaking over $9 billion of revenue,” said Larry Page, CEO of Google. “I'm super excited about the amazing response to Google+ which lets you share just like in real life.”

Google reported revenues of $9.03 billion for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, an increase of 32% compared to the second quarter of 2010. Google reports its revenues, consistent with GAAP, on a gross basis without deducting traffic acquisition costs (TAC). In the second quarter of 2011, TAC totaled $2.11 billion, or 24% of advertising revenues.

[investor.google.com...]

Now I know where my adsense cents went...

They have 30B+ cash on hand too...

I'm not quite clear what that last sentence means, other than I'm suspicious that their growth in revenue isn't coming from organic growth in business or market share, but instead is the result of them charging hire prices and paying out publishers less. And there's lots more room still available to them in milking that spread.

Maybe its been there but I just recently noticed that Google is publishing the rates that they are paying websites. It's in the account settings section of the homepage.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Active products
AdSense for Content 68% publisher revenue share

AdSense for Search 51% publisher revenue share

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I'm not quite clear what that last sentence means, other than I'm suspicious that their growth in revenue isn't coming from organic growth in business or market share, but instead is the result of them charging hire prices and paying out publishers less. And there's lots more room still available to them in milking that spread.

The way I read it there as a 12% price increase and 18% more clicks. That probably includes new advertisers and tricks to make people click. But whoever is responsible for this at Google sure saved Page's @ss, and be sure that whatever they did for this will be repeated.

Never knew those %s were there - same figures for me. They don't give any figure against YouTube though, wonder why not?

The average cost-per-click rose approximately 12%, compared with the same period last year, as aggregate paid clicks rose 18%. Sequentially, the average cost-per-click and paid clicks fell 2% and 6%, respectively.

I'm not quite clear what that last sentence means, other than I'm suspicious that their growth in revenue isn't coming from organic growth in business or market share, but instead is the result of them charging hire prices and paying out publishers less. And there's lots more room still available to them in milking that spread.

@wheel

The sentence doesn't make sense because the Fox News article misinterprets the data.

If you look at the actual investor report[investor.google.com ] on Google's site it says aggregate paid clicks in Q2 2011 increased 18% over Q2 2010 but decreased 2% over Q1 2011.

It also says avg cpc in Q2 2011 increased 12% over Q2 2010 and 6% over Q1 2011.

So basically, they are comparing Q2 2011 to Q2 2010 and also to Q1 2011.

Never knew those %s were there - same figures for me. They don't give any figure against YouTube though, wonder why not?

Good question, there are other categories with no % showing. Of these I do have paying youtube clips and mobile content. I'm not sure what "AdSense for Content - host " is.

I always wondered about the rate but never squawked because I am completely ad funded and they pay better than the rest except for an occasional targeted campaign.

Here's the whole list.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

AdSense for Content 68% publisher revenue share

AdSense for Search 51% publisher revenue share

Referrals

AdSense for Mobile Content

YouTube

AdSense for Content - host

Google instant... lower everyones CTR, forcing them to pay 20-30% more.