Google trends is probably not a good way to assess Pinterest.

Want to browse Pinterest? Open the app. Want to get Pinterest? Go to the App Store. Heard someone say 'pinterest' but don't know what it means? Search google.

Your link is only showing that last one.

Google Trends takes advantage of the Google knowledge graph for deeper understanding of entities and companies. This is showing "Pinterest the social network" not just "Pinterest the search term". You can toggle with the menu at the top.

>This is showing "Pinterest the social network" not just "Pinterest the search term"

I believe this is just a broader result set that includes searches for anything that Google deems to be related to 'Pinterest the social network'.

Google doesn't have access to internal Pinterest metrics.

Google also knows how many Android users search/download the app. I don't use pinterest, but if they use Google analytics or ads then Google also has a fair amount of data on usage.

Google is very much a panopticon, I doubt any other single entity has as much knowledge of the internet as a whole. Now whether this reflects in Google analytics I don't know, as I've never really used their analytics for anything serious.

Yet Google Trends exactly reflects (exhibits?) Google Play data of our app that has 37 million registered users.

And for "Facebook", Google Trends shows a 71% drop worldwide over the last 5 years. Their Q2 2019 earnings showed a 20% worldwide growth in monthly users over the last two years alone. "YouTube" shows a 45% drop over 5 years. "Google" itself shows a 60% drop over 5 years.

Google Trends can't reliably tell you anything useful about a site's growth or activity. I'm not denying it correlates with your specific app, but that doesn't mean it will work for everything, and it clearly works very poorly for popular services.

I honestly feel those numbers are correct.

Remember when everyone was sharing youtube videos. Or when you would sit and endless watch. I feel like that faded about 45%.

Google dropping makes sense. I visit less sites and the search results are not that great for discovery. Most sites I visit by typing a letter in the browser and auto completing.

Facebooks earnings raising 20% makes sense as more people are advertising on it. I notice 71% less people less original activity.. photos/status updates more groups/ads filling the gap. I spent 71% less time on and reduced my daily visits.

We're always chasing yesterday's tail. I bet twitter's numbers are down.

Facebook user growth was 20%. You said earnings.

And how do you know this is all wrong? At least I get to look at our app internal analytics and compare. Do you have access to their internal analytics? Also contrast this to https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge... . Instagram is 9 years old

Wow, interesting, that map is really correlated with my (biased) perception of where "percentage of people under 40 who are married" is highest

Idaho’s killer app

Also, cold winters; scrapbooking; applique vests

FWIW (sample size of one) my wife switched from Pinterest to Instagram. Same shit, arguably better interface.

Their finance doesn't look bad. Revenue trended up. Flush with cash. Making money. The 5 year chart look bad, but they've stabilized in the past couple years and it looks like they've found way to actually remain profitable.

I'd think that at P/E of 65 you'd expect some future growth?

That actually looks catastrophic. Stock price doesn't reflect it yet. Shadenfreude isnt my thing but this looks bad and insiders must already be aware.

Can't believe the market is currently valuing Pinterest at 16B

Guess these guys didnt get the memo.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/42...

To be clear, I dont trade stocks and couldn't care less which way this moves. Just seems like the Google trends data is a bit of information asymmetry that the market hasn't caught on to, yet.

From the article you quoted (call me cynical):

"Disclosure: I am/we are long PINS. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha)"

>insiders must already be aware

The lockup period does not expire till mid-october.

I read their 10-Q and found this gem about "user re-authentication":

"Users

MAUs at quarter-end were 300 million, representing growth of 30% year-over-year. This represents an acceleration in user growth, in part due to one-time changes to SEO algorithms and user re-authentication that impacted Q218. International growth drove the majority of global MAU expansion."

I'm sorry, I'm an idiot. Wtf does "user re-authentication" mean?

They're counting MAUs as number of logins and not number of active users?

I can only interpret that they are talking about logged in users with accounts. The users were logged out during the pre-IPO and that resulted in some double counting in their second post IPO 10-Q.

I was researching this because I asked myself a general question: "Why is the stock price of non dividend paying companies correlated to the performance at all?"

Ah.

Amazon is a good case study for you. Didn't pay dividends for a decade or more. Reinvested everything. Pissed off analysts. And killed it.

In that world as long as you can keep delivering growth, you're good. Miss once and you're toast.

> Didn't pay dividends for a decade or more.

Amazon has never paid a dividend.

Looks very similar to the trajectory of Facebook (although very different in scale).

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...

FB owns Instagram

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...

and WhatsApp. I would argue that the market is a bit more rational there.