Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

Is the number of searches on Google rising just because more people are using Google? I am not sure if Google Trends controls for that natural rise in Google searches...

I wonder how many fathers came home and told their kids to stop whining about getting a puppy any time soon when the market started tanking?

Yep, I've heard alcohol, like lipstick, is an inverse indicator. People apparently drink more and invest in better lipstick in bear markets. I can only imagine the Donatella Versace bar scene. There's no emoticon for a cold shudder.

This is fantastic. I'll take puppies over lipstick, hemlines and the cinema anyday. ( see http://www.theolympian.com/living/story/637098.html )

Maybe not beer, though. That's also said to be a pretty reliable economic indicator, no matter where it's being drunk, though it would be nice if these things could *predict* trends instead of just reflecting them.

( http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2008/11/7/boozing-away-the-economic-blues)

This is intriguing. Puppies as economic indicators. I just had to do a deeper dive on this. Not having access to daily PuppyCam view statistics, I used Google Trends to get the volume of searches for "puppies" over time. What I found is that, while adorable, puppies are no better than your average Wall Street quant at predicting financial meltdowns.

As proof of this, you can check my graph over on Swivel (http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/30542160). This compares DJIA closing prices vs puppy searches for 1/4/04 - 11/9/08.

Now, of course this seems counter-intuitive. Searches for "puppies" should be inversely proportional to major market indices, right? Who wouldn't seek out the reassuring eyes of a puppy while their 401k turns into a pumpkin?

Perhaps we're looking at the wrong indicators. I wonder how the GDP fares against bunnies, or consumer confidence against kittens.