If you believe all the press, if you drink all the koolaid, you'll be all set to believe Google can do no wrong.  

Wait.  There's one place of note where the press about Google isn't exactly flattering.  Take a look at the ZDNet blog of Donna Bogatin.  http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/index.php?p=654

Her November 12th posting, based partially upon previous posts, blows away the PR fog to lay bare a different reality.  Of course, the Google acolytes, loyalists and incognito minions are taking pot shots at her assertions.  Here, summarized in our words, are some thoughts we came away with from Ms. Bogatin's post, "Google's fatal flaw," and you can decide for yourself, "is Google relevant?"

1.)  Despite mighty success in capitalizing on the innovations it originally bought from Overture, Google can only go so far with AdWords in impressing Wall Street.

2.)  In its hubris, Google has not taken advantage of the rich variety of advertising-supported media that existed before it, to tap into the offline marketplace and pull in what could be a significant customer base.  

3.)  In a seemingly hypocritical stance, Google proudly states that it derives all of its income from advertising (while claiming not to be a media company. M'-kay...), yet it does not believe in spending advertising dollars to promote itself.

4.) Google's future growth now depends on diversifying into other media - the very same media that Google has striven to suck market share away from.  As Google diversifies into other media, their anti-TV, anti-print, anti-radio posturing will come back to haunt them.

5.)  In a fit of confusion, apparently Google has convinced itself that buying YouTube is an entrance into the TV sphere.  NBC is TV; heck, the Jewelry Channel is TV.  YouTube, not so much.  As we've mentioned before, they're just buying them on paper; it was a purchase made via a trade of stock, not cash.  It's like buying ego with hubris.  

Even if Ms. Bogatin is simply reacting to her own feelings about this corporate giant, whose purpose seems to be deciding if other people's websites are "relevant," there's a fundamental premise that something so big simply cannot sustain perpetual good intent.  One has to ask if Google is "not-not evil," but, in fact, is a devil who has the power to assume a pleasing shape -- especially when it looks in the mirror.  

In the end, the fatal flaw in the Google model could be that the bulk of its worth is measured in hubris, selfishness, and greed.  A few short years ago, when Microsoft was the unquestioned leader of the software industry, people were appalled at its wielding of absolute power, and its ability to swallow up or punish competitors.  The general public, though nearly powerless to buy competing products had, nevertheless, a healthy negativity about Microsoft.  The same feelings are stirring up about another once-benevolent giant, Wal-Mart.  Can the public and businesses get such clear vision about Google today? 

 

What did you think of this article?

Liked
Disliked
No Opinion