A recent piece in The Wall Street Journal had a grim headline: "Extinction Threatens Yellow Pages Publishers." As should be no surprise, consumers are moving away from traditional yellow-pages and instead using the internet, going to places like Google (NASDAQ: GOOG). In fact, it looks like spending on yellow pages advertising will plunge by 39% over the next four years, according to research from Borrell Associates.

This makes it all the more important that you have a strong web presence.

These days, there are good hosting services, such as Web.com, that help you take care of the basics. But it can be expensive to add dynamic elements to your website. Often, it means hiring a web consultant.

But there are alternatives. Take Caspio, which provides a web-based system that makes it easy to create your own web applications. Its latest offering is called the "Website Marketing Suite." With it, you can add such capabilities as:

Many of today's "investors" place their bets on the stock market's wheel of fortune. They hope that their number will come up. I have news for those stock players: the majority of their ranks are no longer true investors. They are gamblers, plain and simple.

Would those gamblers like a hot tip? Here's one in keeping with today's economic defeatist attitude. I suggest that they immediately dump shares they hold in anything that's associated with motor racing. The reasoning for my saying this is simple: NASCAR has a measurable carbon footprint.

Please understand that I'm playing the devil's advocate here. I myself have nothing against motor sports.

NASCAR has already made one move towards a green future by introducing a new hybrid pace car. However, that's not going to cut it for the peak oil crowd. Additionally, this week the government announced its disdain for corporate America, with the curt dismissal of Detroit executives by a Pelosi-led crowd. We must also consider that advertising money is drying up, and with that, may go some sponsorships. NASCAR is in dangerous waters, and I believe that the sharks are circling.

Get ready, Mouse fans. Disney (NYSE: DIS) will be letting Wall Street know this Thursday if its fourth quarter was a good one or not. A lot of eyes will be on the company. Shareholders will want to know the outlook for the theme parks and how the advertising marketplace is treating the company's media holdings. So far, things haven't been too bad at Disney, but many on Wall Street are expecting the recession is to catch up to the company. I expect this myself. So I'll be perusing the conference-call transcript for such items as guest spending at the parks and the quality of the scatter advertising market at ABC. I'll also be keeping my eye out for comments about the consumer-products segment and the company's investments in the video-game division. Disney is spending a lot on the latter, and I think shareholders need to have an idea of how the portfolio of games to be released during the holiday season is expected to perform. In terms of the former, I want to know if the Disney brand is working its magic in the retail channels.

In terms of the bottom line, Earnings.com says that income should be about $0.49 per share. That would represent growth of roughly 17%. I'd be happy with that double-digit number. And I'm pretty sure that estimates will be beat by a penny or two, knowing the company's reputation. But as a shareholder, I tend to be more interested in the cash-flow statement. I like to see how much free cash has been generated, and how the company is using it. In fact, we'll get the cash-flow number for the last twelve months this Thursday. I'll want to see how many shares have been repurchased, and I'll be interested in attempting to gauge what the next dividend increase is likely to be. Disney likes to take shares back as a way of rewarding shareholders, but management really needs to do a better job with the dividend, as I think it could be higher. I would expect that Disney will deliver a decent cash-flow statement.

And how are the Disney Channel franchises faring? Is Hannah Montana wearing out her welcome? Somehow, I don't think that will be the case; someday soon, sure, but not just now. And will the next High School Musical movie be released on the big screen with a new cast? I would appreciate one of the analysts out there inquiring about that. The whole Disney-Channel-incubator thing has been a powerful force for both the company and the brand, and I'm sure CEO Bob Iger will be crowing about it. But I'd love to know what his spreadsheets are saying about the longevity at this point for the current franchises. Will Disney know when it's time to sell out of one fad and invest in another? For that matter, how are the Jonas Brothers doing? We do hear about them, but they don't have the same iconic value of a Miley Cyrus, do they? They don't to me, at least, but maybe I'm just out of the loop. Iger should explain what plans the company has to turn them into the next truly big thing.

Not a day goes by that the market is not obsessed with the latest move or product launch at Google (NASDAQ: GOOG). Most recently, the media has been all over the company's energy initiatives and its Android smartphone launch. To a large extent, the coverage takes attention away from the fact that the recession is slowing the company's size growth. But very few people seem to spend a lot of news cycles on that.

Google is currently having an internal debate about whether it should spend money to advertise its own brand and products. It is probably a waste of money because the company is already in a number of businesses that drive up its expenses without bringing in a dime.

According to The Wall Street Journal, "The search giant has recently held discussions with several Madison Avenue agencies, including Wieden + Kennedy and the boutique firm Taxi New York, about new efforts to promote some products, according to people familiar with the matter."

The question is what does Google have worth promoting? It already owns the search business, so marketing that product would seem to be a waste of money. Its other major products for searching images, news and maps don't bring in any revenue, so advertising them would appear to be burning money.

A lot of corporate advertising is meant to make management feel good. Google does not need name recognition and it is hard to see why the search company would want to promote one of the most famous brands in the world or any of its free offerings.

But Google does have cash to spare, and that usually drives a temptation to spend it.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Google (NASDAQ: GOOG)'s shares closed down at $381 Monday. That is against an all-time high of over $747. They may have much further to fall.

According to Thomson/First Call, analysts expect Google's revenue for the calendar fourth quarter to rise 32% and EPS to go from $4.43 last year to $5.30 in the quarter that ends in December.

Google's stock price early this year was fueled by a 51% increase in revenue in Q4 2007. EPS per diluted share rose from $3.29 to $3.79.

Can Google grow well over 30% again in the teeth of a recession that could badly hurt many of the companies large and small who use Google's AdSense marketing program to drive business? In the current credit crisis, Google could be hurt much more than many investors imagine. There is already talk that companies that cannot get credit may miss payrolls and begin layoffs. That would certainly curtail marketing and spending for the holiday season.

If the present liquidity crisis gets worse, many companies will badly need cash just to keep their doors open. That makes finding money for advertising tough. Could Google's revenue growth rate fall below 20%? Or 15%? It is easier to imagine that with each passing day.

Google last traded below $300 in October 2005. The economy was OK then.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Science-fiction has proffered worlds where advertising is instantaneously and specifically delivered to individuals, sometimes through such wondrous devices as brain implants. As we move along the timeline, it's interesting to see how much of that isn't actually fiction anymore, but indeed, science. Take the following article, for example. It discusses a cafe that has screens next to cash registers that attempt to increase sales by displaying images of appropriate add-on items. One of the examples given was of a pastry suddenly appearing on the screen upon the order of a coffee.

That doesn't sound so bad, but what about the following? The article mentions that an Israeli business, YCD Multimedia, has a technology that can scan the faces of customers and then utilize algorithms to reveal demographical information about them, such as gender and a rough idea about age. The rest becomes obvious: advertising can then be matched to the demographic, yielding the ultimate in instantaneous targeted marketing. There apparently are some trials underway in this country, but they seem to be on the lowdown.

Now, we all know the problem here. Do you really want to walk into a retail store and be scanned? Do you want a piece of software converting you into zeroes and ones for the sole purpose of extracting money from you in the form of promotional advertising and/or offers? Maybe a big needle should extend out of the cash register and poke you in the finger so that a DNA sample can be taken and analyzed so that, a nanosecond later, it'll know exactly what your likes and dislikes are and go from there. Actually, I'm just being funny on that last one, I put that in a short sci-fi story I wrote a while ago about the dark side of retail and customer service.

Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) and General Electric's (NYSE: GE) NBC have struck a partnership in which the search-engine juggernaut will sell some commercial inventory on a few of GE's cable properties. Examples of cable channels in this initiative include Sci-Fi and MSNBC.

This is a win-win situation for both Google and NBC. As the article states, Google gets to expand its ad-brokering universe by having access to cable inventory and reaching beyond its very successful web paradigm. For its part, NBC leverages the expertise of Google and its relationships.

It's kind of ironic when you stop and think about it -- media companies want to go beyond TV and stake a claim on the web, and Google wants to do the opposite, namely grab a piece of a more traditional pie. Nevertheless, the synergy here is quite clear, and if the slowing economy continues to challenge the advertising marketplace (as it undoubtedly will), a partnership like this one can only help the companies involved.

Yet, there's a side to this story that goes beyond the partnership itself that I find very interesting. Google can actually measure metrics that describe how a commercial is received by the public. It can do this because of a hook-up between it and DISH Network. Google can capture data from set-top boxes and analyze the stats behind broadcast-ad campaigns. This represents a great benefit for the industry as a whole.

This post is part of our Ads Gone Bad series. Share your thoughts and memories of this ad in the comments, and be sure to check out our other posts on marketing gone wrong.

No doubt you've heard the expression, "You're setting a bad example." Perhaps the most interesting application of the concept that I've ever witnessed was the strict scolding received by General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM) in regard to a $5 million television ad . In that television advertisement, which was intended to promote GM's quality obsession, a cute but ill-fated assembly line robot imagines itself committing suicide by jumping from a bridge after making a slight error.

This post is part of our Ads Gone Bad series. Share your thoughts and memories of this ad in the comments, and be sure to check out our other posts on marketing gone wrong.

Verizon made an ad this summer showing a guy scaling a junkyard fence to get his hands on an LG Dare phone, only to run into two junkyard dogs -- chained and snarling pit bulls. Pit bull lovers didn't like the casual depiction of animal neglect and cruelty. Animal rights groups have been working for a long time to stop people from chaining up dogs in their yard, abusing them and generally using them as a street weapon.

Verizon at first insisted that it would keep running the ad. Then concerned dog owners got the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals involved. PETA first tried to talk with Verizon and explain why the ad annoyed people: the dogs in the commercial had ears docked in a "fight crop" and pit bulls are the most abused breed of dogs.

Verizon refused to meet to discuss the situation, PETA says. So they put out an action alert. After Verizon got 7,000 e-mails from angry animal lovers, they took down the ad.

See other examples of Ads Gone Bad.

This post is part of our Ads Gone Bad series. Share your thoughts and memories of this ad in the comments, and be sure to check out our other posts on marketing gone wrong.

In 2005, CKE Restaurants Inc. (NYSE: CKR) outraged both social conservatives and lovers of music at the same time when its Carl's Jr. chain hired Paris Hilton to shill its new Spicy Burger. It set a new standard of tastelessness that will be difficult to equal.

Conservatives -- most Americans actually -- find the fact that Paris Hilton is famous at all to be a offensive. Her main claim to fame comes from her appearance in a now-infamous sex tape. The appeal of her one-time hit show The Simple Life eluded me, but hey, I was not the target demographic. I am a 40-year-old married guy so I can't speak to her numerous other enterprises, such as the perfume Heiress. Her single "Stars Are Blind" was not as awful as I thought it would be, but maybe I have gone tone deaf listening to too many Elmo songs. Parents of toddlers will understand.

This post is part of our Ads Gone Bad series. Share your thoughts and memories of this ad in the comments, and be sure to check out our other posts on marketing gone wrong.

Mars Inc., has made not just one, but two ad campaigns for its popular Snickers bar seem to sneer at gays. Mars, one of the biggest privately held, family-owned companies, makes many of the world's most popular candies: Snickers, M&Ms, Twix, Starburst (along with Uncle Ben's Rice and pet food like Whiskas), but both of the ads gay rights groups found offensive were for the Snickers bar.

The first gay-themed Snickers ad made a big splash in Super Bowl XLI in 2007. Two mechanics get so wrapped up in eating the opposite ends of Snickers bar that their lips touch, prompting them to decide to "do something manly" lest they accidentally catch gayness -- so they pull their chest hair out.

According to this article, advertisers who use the Internet to get their message across may not like Microsoft's (NASDAQ: MSFT) Internet Explorer 8 beta. That's because the software giant is incorporating technology into the browser that will make it harder for data collection that could be used to target ads. In addition, the browser will be able to block some ads entirely, as well as block content from another website from appearing on the current site a user is viewing. The rationale for the latter is that the outside website could be capturing data on the user's habits.

All this adds up, in my mind, to a legitimate fear for advertisers. Look, I'm like anyone else. I don't want a lot of data collection going on. But, there are basically only two ways for companies like Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO) and Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) to make money off web content: engage a subscription model, or utilize ad platforms to monetize eyeballs. The Internet has proven to be very resistant to subscription models. Sure, some do work to great success. For the most part, however, surfers don't want to have to throw a credit-card number into a form to be able to see content. It just doesn't work. They want unfettered access to sites. If this is to be the case going forward, then highly-targeted ads are going to play an increasing role in the solution to monetization challenges. Web sites aren't like cable channels, which have the dual revenue streams of subscriber fees and ad sales.

And, keep in mind that the companies mentioned above aren't the only ones who rely on targeted ads. How about Disney (NYSE: DIS)? News Corp. (NYSE: NWS)? Viacom (NYSE: VIA)? They all have major Internet strategies that utilize ad revenues. And let's not forget the incredible irony here. Mr. Softy has its own Internet strategy that needs ads to survive. I guess it's a tough position to be in: the designers want to enhance the attractiveness of Internet Explorer to users by helping them avoid the very thing that powers, in part, shareholder value for the maker of Internet Explorer. A conundrum, to be sure. I personally hope a solution can be found that will allow advertisers to continue selling their wares. I don't find advertising to be evil. I think it's a great industry that serves an important function in the economy. Microsoft had better consider that.

Disclosure: I own Disney; positions can change at any time.

Advertising revenue at big media companies is being beat up by the economy. Traditional media like newspapers are losing boat loads of money to the internet.

With most large TV network companies showing flat revenue and newspaper chains struggling with double-digit losses, the falloff in auto advertising is likely to make the second half much worse.

According to The New York Times, "In the first quarter alone, the auto industry spent $414 million less on advertising than in last year's first quarter, according to TNS Media Intelligence."

What can media companies do? For one thing, give money-losing companies a discount. For a newspaper or magazine to print extra pages adds only modest expense. Putting extra banners on internet sites costs next to nothing. The same is true with TV ads. They cost money to produce but not to run. In other words, cut-rate car ads are better than no car ads. Media companies may have lower margins, but at least their revenue does not have to drop of a cliff.

From a media standpoint call it the "auto company preservation act.". Detroit may not make it out of its current dilemma alive. Any help it gets increases it chances to become healthy again. If the domestic auto business can recover, so will its marketing spending.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24/7 Wall St.

You might think that corporate train wreck Circuit City (NYSE: CC) would have a lot of things to worry about -- like, oh, I don't know, the fact that it lost $165 million last quarter. Or the stock price, which has gone from $30 to $2 in less than three years. And with fellow wreck Blockbuster (NYSE: BBI) having withdrawn its proposal to acquire the company, Circuit City is even out of the running for the prestigious Stupidest Merger in History That Doesn't Involve the Company Which Owns This Website Award.

You might think that Circuit City management has plenty to keep it busy, but you'd be wrong. Circuit City banned its stores from selling an issue of MAD Magazine that made fun of the company, referring to it as "Sucker City." Hah.

But yesterday the company reversed course and allowed the magazines to be sold, with a PR spokesman blaming "some overly sensitive souls at our corporate headquarters" --

BusinessWeek recently posed the question of how The New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) could be worth so little? The question is worth pondering.

The company has a market cap of about $1.8 billion, roughly the price that CBS Corp. (NYSE: CBS) recently agreed to buy CNET for. Its enterprise value is about $2.85 billion.

Lehman Brothers analyst Craig Huber estimated that the Boston Globe and 15 regional papers could be sold for $575 million after taxes, and valued the company's 17% stake in the Boston Red Sox at $152 million and estimated NYT's portion of its new headquarters at $750 million. About.com, which the Times bought for $410 million three years ago, could fetch a tidy profit if it were sold today.