In a recent court filing (pdf), Donald Waitt made these additional declarations in the ongoing lawsuit between Donald Waitt and Tyler Waitt v. Internet Brands. At the heart of the dispute is the contention by Internet Brands that up to 75% of the page views reported by Google Analytics are not “real page views” but are actually bots, spiders, or redirects. In this declaration, Donald Waitt is basically saying the sales agreement made no mention of such exclusions and that both parties agreed to use Google Analytics as a tracking report for the purposes of determining page views. In support of this declaration, Waitt submitted an email from Michael Egan from November 10, 2009 in which Egan clarified how the payments were to be made but made no mention of any exclusions for bots, spiders, or redirects.
For page views, here’s the calculation:
You have a minimum bar of 225,000,000 as an average and a target of 350,000,000 as an average for monthly page views. If the site hits 350,000,000 as an average you get $800K. lf the site is less than 225,000,000 as an average you get $0. If the site is between the 225,000,000 and the 350,000,000 you get the greater of $200K or the following ratio: (Actual Average — 225,000,000) + (350,000,000 – 250,000,000). Right now it’s clear that the site is going to fall somewhere between the minimum and the target of 350,000,000. For the first 10 months of the year the site has been averaging about 290,000,000 [page views]. So you’re likely going to end up above the $200K but below the $800K.
In light of today’s announcement that Internet Brands will be acquired by Hellman & Friedman Capital Partners VI, L.P. for $640 million, it’ll be interesting to know if Internet Brands represented to their perspective buyers that up to 75% of the page views reported by Google Analytics are actually not real.