Quick Google check: according to a recent 10-Q, the company is sitting on about $5.5 billion in cash after generating almost $1.6 billion in Q3 2005 revenues. But we knew that already.

Google’s principal source of revenue, of course, is advertising. About 56% of Google’s revenue comes from ads on Google’s own properties; about 43% come from ads on other web sites (eg other publishers, including blogs). The remaining 1% comes from a hodgepodge of sources, including product sales of lava lamps and Google-branded dog leashes (really).

Keyword pricing–the price advertisers pay so that their listing will appear on a relevant search or content page–is an important topic, then, for Google watchers.

According to Fathom Online, keyword prices fell from an average of $1.70 to $1.43 over the past 12 months (via MediaPost). More numbers:

Consumer services and mortgage look particularly unhealthy.

That said, Google’s investors don’t seem worried:

Why is Google’s stock price rising, even though keyword prices (at least by one measure) are declining precipitously? Two reasons:

1. Overall spend in online search continues to rise dramatically.
2. Investors believe Google will eventually develop revenue streams unrelated to search.

In any case, this post isn’t intended to suggest that Google is in trouble. However, if keyword pricing remains weak and overall search spend begins to slow, things may look a lot less rosy.

I’m looking for a few extraordinary people for a new consumer-facing internet startup.

In particular, we’d like to find a chief architect (LAMP expertise important; knowledge of Ruby, Python or Drupal nice to have) and a lead designer (with strong CSS, UI and online graphic design skills). The right candidates will be knowledgeable and excited about emerging media platforms, social networks, syndication and web services–though what we’re doing doesn’t fit neatly into any of these categories.

NYC location preferred but not necessary.

If you’re interested or you know someone who might be, send me an email.

I’m a bit of a Warren Buffet freak. His performance statistics require no commentary: had you invested $1,000 in Berkshire Hathaway when Buffet took control in 1965, you’d have more than $5 million today (had you instead purchased an S&P 500 index fund, you’d have about $500,000–still not that shabby).

Buffet’s mentor was Benjamin Graham, author of a book called The Intelligent Investor. Buffet first read it as a senior at the University of Nebraska. After Harvard Business School denied him admission, Buffet went to Columbia (where Graham was a professor) to earn a masters in economics. Upon graduation, Buffet went to work at Graham’s investment firm. After Graham retired, Buffet launched his own business. Graham, Buffet says, influenced his life more than “any other man except [his] father.”

On that basis alone, The Intelligent Investor is worth reading (I like the fourth edition, which includes helpful commentary by Jason Zweig).

In particular, Buffet partially explains his investment performance as the result of two primary steps: first, developing a coherent decision-making system; second, preventing emotional highs or lows from “corroding” that framework. Graham’s book is the foundation for Buffet’s value investment framework.

To paraphrase Zweig, Graham’s strategy is based on a number of central principles:

• Stocks represent ownership in a business; underlying value is not necessarily directly related to share price.
• Markets constantly fluctuate between periods of excess enthusiasm (where prices rise to unsustainable levels) and irrational cynicism (where prices fall to much cheaper levels). Intelligent investors (a category which hopefully includes venture capitalists) take advantage of this trend.
• The future value of an asset is directly related to its current price. Paying more today, then, guarantees a lower return.
• There is no surefire method of eliminating all possible mistakes. Instead, Graham recommends that investors keep a “margin of safety.” Essentially, this means avoiding overpaying for purchases, regardless of how enticing or alluring the given investment might seem.

Simple enough in theory, but often hard to consistenly apply in practice. That said, the book contains little specific direction for how or when to buy securities; instead, the text is more about Graham’s notions of a proper investment attitude and mindset. If you’d like to become a better investor, it’s worth a read.

Here Buffet’s current portfolio:

Finally, I have copies of all of Buffet’s annual reports from 1957-1970 (originally via Brad Feld–thanks). They’re spectacular; if you’d like a copy, let me know and I’ll send them to you. Unfortunately, I was asked not to post them publicly, though I’m told that emailing is OK.

I’ve posted a list of the blogs I track regularly (apologies to feed subscribers who are seeing this twice–technical SNAFU).

In any case, take a look; if there are other blogs I should be tracking, please let me know.

Update: I just realized that the list I sent is missing a number of the blogs I track. I need to eat dinner so will fix it later…

Software upgrade seemed to go smoothly–everything should be working. If you have problems, please send an email or leave a comment to let me know.

For what it’s worth, the upgrade won’t result in many obvious changes to the site’s front-end (ie interface and layout will stay the same); it’s mostly a reworking of the underlying infrastructure. More details can be found here.

I’m about to upgrade A Venture Forth’s backend software (going from Wordpress 1.5.2 to 2.0). That in mind, please excuse any flaky performance. I’ll post again once things are back to normal.

In the event that you need a 15-minute escape from family–or if you
have to distract a wailing child–you may want to check out The Song Tapper.  Pretty cool and funny, especially if you’re watching someone else give it a try.

As I mentioned earlier, I recently decided to read Getting Things Done (GTD). As most of you know already, the book describes a relatively simple methodology for dealing with the “stuff” (calls, appointments, projects, etc) of daily life.

So far, I’m very impressed. The clearest measurement metric I have is my email inbox: I went from having 200+ messages (and sometimes far more) to zero. Plus, I’m now able to keep my inbox clean, despite getting 200+ new messages each day.

Aside from that, GTD appeals to me for a few other reasons. First, it describes a complete system–I can use GTD to capture almost all of the things going on in my life in a single, logical repository. In theory, I should then be able to worry less about what I have to do next or what I may have inadvertently forgotten (in fact, this is one of the book’s key premises: productivity is directly related to our ability to relax and, with a usable organizational system, we should be able to keep a clear mind and be more effective). Second, the system describes a reasonable method to manage daily “workflow.” In particular, this involves separating the acts of collecting, processing and acting on information. Before, I didn’t consciously realize that doing so would be helpful. In practice, it’s now much much easier for me to find what I need, stay organized, and generally stay on top of my agenda.

In this post I’ll highlight a few of the tweaks I’ve applied to the basic system. I won’t go into details behind GTD’s fundamental process; for that, you should read the book or check some of resources available elsewhere. In particular, if you’re interested, I suggest you visit the archives of 43Folders (especially the wiki), Lifehack, David Allen’s own site (especially the “free articles” section), and also the comments from my original post–several readers had very good suggestions (thanks to those who left their thoughts).

One more background note: I use Windows. Tempted to switch to a Mac (especially since neither kGTD nor Quicksilver run on Windows) , but haven’t done so yet.

All that in mind, below are a few ideas (note that some of this might not make sense until after you’ve read the book):

• Since I live on email, I decided to use Outlook to run my GTD system. I decided to not use David Allen’s Outlook plugin, for reasons I’ll describe shortly.
• The single best complement to GTD is a desktop search product. I like X1 as it’s fast, has a good interface, and doesn’t hog computer resources. If you aren’t yet using X1 or an equivalent, you should. Doing so will let you easily and quickly find any email or file you have, no matter where it’s stored on your computer.
• Using regular Outlook folders, I’ve set up folders (and subfolders, as shown by the indented entries) as follows:

  @Action
         Agenda/introductions
         Brainstorm
         Calls
         Emails
         Errands
         Home
         Office
         Weekend
  @Projects
  @Someday
  @Waiting For
  @Reviews

• Any and all items get filed as you would expect. If necessary, I write myself an email and file it, as appropriate. I don’t use Outlook Tasks as they aren’t searchable by X1 (this is why I didn’t use Allen’s Outlook plugin).
• If I’m away from my PC, I can access all of the above folders on my Blackberry.
• On a related note, I track a few dozen RSS feeds. I use an Outlook-based RSS reader (my preference is NewsGator, though there is a good freeware equivalent [thanks, Mike]) as I can then find any old RSS entry via X1.
• To track delegated items, I created an Outlook rule that automatically files a copy of emails in the “@Waiting For” folder if they are sent to a certain address (which corresponds to a Gmail account I set up but don’t actually use). For example, let’s say that the name of my Gmail account is WaitingForTrackerAccount@gmail.com. The Outlook rule would look for any emails sent to that address (I have an alias to make it easier to type) and then file a copy of that message in the “@Waiting For” folder. In practice, when I delegate an action, I send an email to the appropriate person and BCC my WaitingForTrackerAccount address. I then automatically get a record of all delegated items.
• I turned off the instant notification feature for new messages and instead set Outlook to check for new messages once every 30 minutes. I don’t need a distraction every time new email arrives.

Some of these practices may work for you; my guess is that most people take bits and pieces of various GTD implementations (rather than using 100% of the methods described in the original book or elsewhere) and form their own system. Also, it’s worth noting that it takes a fairly substantial amount of time to properly go through the initial setup. In the end, I think it’s worth it.

If you’re still reading and are already using the system, I’d appreciate if you leave a comment with thoughts or suggestions. If you’re still reading and haven’t yet read the book, I encourage you to take a look.

Worthwhile reading on other sites…

• Firefox Moves Farther Ahead of the Hunt. For those of you who aren’t yet using Firefox as your web browser, you may want to read this article.
• BlackBerry Picking. Interesting column by James Surowiecki describing significant problems with the US patent system (in particular, too many patents are granted). Especially noteworthy if you have a Blackberry.
• Powers of Ten. Great video describing the relative size of things in the universe–and the “effect of adding another zero.”

In an earlier post, I predicted that MSFT would win a deal with AOL (or buy it outright). Looks like I was wrong–Google appears to have emerged as the victor, as the NYTimes, among others, now reports. According to Saul Hansell’s article, Time Warner will announce tomorrow that AOL will renew its three-year old partnership defining how Google powers AOL’s search functionality.

In particular, the deal highlights AOL’s renewed importance. Just three years ago, most considered AOL to be footnote (albeit a big one); the company had a stodgy user base, lackluster features, and unappealing growth prospects. Obviously, general business conditions have improved. More importantly, however, AOL made a number of smart managment decisions in opening its platform and, at the same time, the team did a solid job nurturing its enormous community. That in mind, to win the AOL deal, Google was apparently willing to provide AOL with much more than cash (though AOL will get $1B in exchange for a 5% equity stake). The real sweetner: (1) AOL gets the ability to display ads on Google’s ad network, (2) AOL gets to offer its existing advertisers a variety of keyword search inventory (which Google controlled before), and (3) AOL gets technical assistance so they “can create web pages that will appear more prominently in [Google’s] search results list” (not clear how potential conflict of issues will be resolved, but that’s a story for another day).

Also, the Google-AOL deal is yet another indication of how Google–not Microsoft–is increasingly the most important technology company of the day.

In any case, all this is pretty amazing considering that just three years ago AOL wrote off more than $50B in a single quarter.