Yes I am a Christian as well, so that may be why it stood up. I actually dont need to know anymore about GOOGLE than I can “google” and find out. The net is so user friendly, what else is there in this busy, let me do it myself world. Um another thing, There is no subtitle that would help, because what I am learning is that your book could be MIS CATALOGED in another settings. God believers have an edge ya know, and maybe they will be excited to locate it in the religious section. Be careful – I would suggest you keep rolling those creative thoughts and you’ll be fine. See ya on Oprah!

On a broader note; I hope you are going to examine survivorship bias in the Google story. When I read (a sample of the many) articles on how Google works, or Larry thinks this or that, I’m never convinced that it would be considered an example of good business practice if the name Google were removed and some other name inserted. I’d be interested in your perspective. Case in point – Mayers is famously metrics driven; if you cant show her metrics that demonstrate that the new feature will lead to improvements, she kicks you out of her meetings. However, this is what I’d call a hill climbing approach – she may find local maxima but miss the summit; another one – every one talks about 20% time and free busses, etc. – these are not concepts invented by Google, but their brand has allowed them to stamp them as ‘reasons why Google is successful.’

A simple technique in examining what Google does is to examine other companies that do the same thing and ask – are they succesful in the same way?

Looking forward to the book!

or

“Indiana Jones and The Temple of Google”

or

“Live Free or Google Hard”

That’s a GREAT title! And marketing people have all the insights of an episode of “The Flintstones.” Keep the title – and toss the marketing people into the tar pits …where they belong!

As The Great Gazoo would say: “What a couple of dumb-dumbs!”

(You’ve got, what, 80 people discussing a book that’s not written — that’s a coup in itself!)

“Google”

…and each edition would have the title in a different font, but otherwise would be the same.

“Seven Habits of a Highly Effective Google” is my new second choice (with your idea remaining as my first choice).

Publishers are bad, in my experience, at most everything except: 1) titling books 2) designing book covers, 3) getting books into physical bookstores.

This is a great exchange, but to me it doesn’t matter what we all think. You should decide based on What Google Would Do, since that is the point of your book (as I understand it). Playing out that logic, here’s how I would arrive at the answer.

What Would (fill in the blank) Do, is a common phrase used when people are trying to project and then emulate the behavior of a well respected entity. So far, your title makes sense.

WWJD was an acronym used when the phrase went viral. Your joke is based on the assumption that WWGD would be spread the same way. I’m not sure it would. Maybe it would be W^2GD, or something much more different.

The point is that when something goes viral, the originator is not usually the one to control it. So, my question to you is, would Google try to control it? Based on what you’re learning for the content in the book, you should have a good sense of what google would do.

Otherwise the choice is subject to personal opinion, and may as well be random in your case.

Hope this helps.

Why not ape Stephen Colbert’s title:

“I Am Google
And You Can Too!”

Just a thought.

If you insist, include it in the cover artwork, but not as the main title. And not with a question mark, either.

Youtube it.

Jeff, you’ve already got WWGD as a tag, which itself is a brand. I say stick to your guns. What Would Google Do? works as subtitle with no parentheses if you have to bend just a little.

And if people don’t get the joke, doesn’t that make the book even more interesting right away? ‘
Hmmm. What’s WWGD? Let me pick this book up. Neat, I’ll buy it.’

I agree with other readers, that WWGD is not funny as a joke. I see it as a major book talking point.

You could milk at least 5 minutes on all upcoming book tour interviews, explaining the title’s relevance. I can envision all of the talking points in your upcoming Charlie Rose interview:

Charlie: I heard you had problems getting this title past the publishers. Why WWGD?
You:
1. Little surprise that old media book publisher doens’t get Internet culture joke.
2. Communication divide between generations. Geeks love acronyms.
3. Self referential: we are going to change the world! ethos.
4. WWW is being morphed to WWGD: Internet for many starts and stops with what google shows them.
5. New world of online business has a “culture barrier” for the rest of world.

Etc. etc. etc. There are just too many ways to spin this for it not to be included. Of course, the only way you should spin it is for its truth for you.

Against advice that everything needs to be cutting edge, it might be more powerful to go with an older (even out-dated) phrase that’s more established: In Google We Trust, or something like that.

Other ideas
- Go Ask Google
- I Am Google
- We Are Google
- All That Googles Is Gold
- Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For Google

Oh, and here’s one your publishers won’t like since it should contain 100 zeros:
Google: The 800,000,000,000…. Pound Gorilla

or 1,000,000…. Pages Can’t Be Wrong

But my advice may not count for much. I used to be a publisher/editor.

But you could hybridize it and make it more transparently obvious:

OMG, WWGD? (Oh My God, What Would Google Do?)

Yes, that’s silly.

How about using the publisher’s title, but highlighting the first letter of each word with another color, such as red? The joke would be visual, rather than textual. People who get it would understand it, but it wouldn’t detract from the saleability, or pronounceability of the book.

So here’s another idea, how about

“Equilibrium: Google’s Reality Equation”.

(If that totally sucks, I am blaming the 3 large coffee’s I’ve had this morning).