PDA

View Full Version : Google's 2004 Financials (Reported with SEC)


Nacho
03-30-2005, 11:09 PM
Gary just blogged "Google Files Annual Report With SEC (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050330-194755)" and here are the numbers:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312505065298/d10k.htm

I was specifically interested in the "Traffic acquisition costs of advertising revenues from Google Network web sites" which are $290.8 million for Q4 and their revenues from "Google Network web sites" (aka Adsese) are $490.0 million, then this would mean that Adsense publishers are making roughly 59.4% or in rounding figures..... 60%

Interesting!

<added>I remmember Jenstar mentioning this number (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showpost.php?p=23638&postcount=4) as a ball park figure. She knows Adsense like no other!</added>

Also Google mentions that there are "Guaranteed Minimum Revenue Share Payments" totalling $462.9 in the next 0 to 48 months. What those minimum revenue share payments mean?

Jenstar
03-30-2005, 11:50 PM
I haven't read this entire filing yet, but I have read all the previous ones. But here are snippets from the AdSense specific parts.

Traffic acquisition costs consist of amounts ultimately paid by the Company to its Google Network members.... Traffic acquisition costs were $94.5 million, $526.5 million and $1,228.7 million in 2002, 2003 and 2004.

That means they paid out $1228.7 million last year to all network members.

At December 31, 2004, our aggregate outstanding non-cancelable minimum guarantee commitments totaled $462.9 million and these commitments are expected to be settled through 2007.

This seems to follow along with their previous filings where Google is liable to make guaranteed minimum payment to some network partners, even if they do not generate that amount in revenue. All those types of contracts will be completed by the end of 2007. Some partners are on a CPM basis, so this could be why. Or it could be they have a set minimum click value, even if the click isn't "worth" that value. And that is why it is listed under "contractual obligations."

Seems I was bang on that 60% figure I said back in November ;) I haven't gone diving into the mathematics behind all the new figures yet.

dannysullivan
03-31-2005, 03:24 PM
Thanks, Jen! Though this started in the AdSense forum, I've moved it over in case others wish to comment on other aspects of the filing, as well.