Is Google Relevant?

And Now, The Answer!

deux — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:40:00 GMT

According to recent research, is Google relevant?

Answer: Not so much.

Here's an article that gives some detail to this Forrester Research user survey.

Oodles Love Google, But Wouldn't Exactly Call It 'Fun'

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=117713

Are Google's Happy Days Really Here Again?

deux — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:37:00 GMT

You might think that Google is back on top, if you read the article in CNET.

Google's Happy Days are here again

How can anyone be sure of this, given that Google was subject to the same troubles as any company, during the downturn.

Additionally, their business model is still the territory-hungry mode that made them the brunt of accusations that they are, indeed, "evil."

"Many of our advertisers would like to find more ways to spend money with Google if our products would allow them to do that," Schmidt said.

Seriously?

Given Google's desire to jump into fields they have no expertise in, how is anything changed? It does, indeed, reek of overconfidence.

All Google has is a big pile of money, and an easily imitated business. Okay, they have a pile of money.

Google Can Do Wrong? Really?

deux — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 06:15:00 GMT

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?

Okay, We'll Bite -- Google + YouTube = What...

deux — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 06:12:00 GMT

Everyone is talking about it, so we might as well quit pretending it didn't happen. Google acquired YouTube, for $1.65 billion in stock options (not hard cash).

The long-standing issue regarding Google is that, even before this ostentatious addition to its many fairly dangerous toys, it has been making a habit of getting sued, prevailing, rolling rough-shod over its opponent, and moving on to the next fit of bombast.

YouTube has its own problems. At its core, YouTube is to video what the original Napster was to music -- a place to facilitate the unauthorized use of copyrighted material. Before anyone jumps to defend the free trade of tuneage, let us all recognize that "copyrighted material" is just a fancy, lawyer's word for "other people's stuff." It sounds so innocent, until it's your stuff. You put your name on that Sprite, put it in the breakroom fridge, and when you come back for it, everyone is passing it around, swigging off your drink. Then one of your co-workers blurts out, between belches, that you should be happy that nobody here is afraid to drink after you. Well, anyway, that's how it feels when someone steals YOUR tuneage, dudes. You can only imagine how it would be if your Sprite cost you $3 million (or $175 million) to make, as many pirated TV shows and films do. Still not impressed? Many people in the film industry work on film projects in unglamorous, difficult jobs with long hours, and when the film doesn't make money, neither do these little peoople. Ultimately, when films are pirated, some little, hard-working somebody somewhere doesn't get paid.

But we're off topic, here.

How about that "user created content"? The copyright-safe material is often silly, amateur stuff that has a short shelf life, and unless you really work the YouTube social networking system, it won't get seen by much of anybody. This component of the suite of videos could become passe´if and when something more interesting comes along. After all, everybody was making personal home pages, until blogging came along.

The truth is, the majority of users of online video content view TV shows, movies, music videos, and other professionally made content. TV networks, movie studios and others have figured this out, and offer content on their sites already. The advantage for viewers is that an NBC show can be found on... NBC. Easy.

Back to Google, the proud new owner of the steaming heap of stolen or worthless clips, haphazardly catalogued in a portal that has yet to make a profit, even though the site sells what looks to be high-dollar advertising. This is what they spent your AdWords fees and their investors' money on.

Google AdWords - Going Broke, Anyone?

deux — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:38:00 GMT

If you feel that AdWords are the saving grace of Google, ask yourself: am I going broke on Google AdWords? If you are getting lots of clicks, and less than 5% of them become sales, you need to take this question very seriously. Many of the visitors to your site could be people paid to run up your AdWords bill, or even competitors clicking your ads to use up your quota.

Now, think about this. Google settled a lawsuit regarding click fraud. Perhaps the $90 million penalty was considered a cost of doing business for this golliath media conglomerate. Perhaps they're just fine with click fraud, knowing they mostly won't be caught, and will certainly have the money to pay off a lawsuit, should you bring one.

Recently, writer Kim Roach posed an interesting question: whether Google is essentially making money from click fraud, as webmasters and business owners become frustrated with rampant bogus click-thrus from Google AdWords and other popular search engine ads.

Anyone can click on your AdWords link, and you get charged for it. That includes clicks from the people who are paid to run up your AdWords bill, to competitors using up your advertising quota by clicking your link over and over.

It might seem a small price to pay for fame and fortune, but consider this: the Internet Advertising Bureau estimates that 20-35% of click-thrus are fraudulent in one way or another. That means for every $1000 you spend, $200 to $350 is probably wasted on fraud. With typical small business expenditures on Google AdWords in the $5,000 - $10,000 per month range, the waste could be as high as $3,500 a month. Google recently settled a class action lawsuit for $90 million in response to click fraud.

Roach writes, "They have certainly paid lip service, indicating that they have systems in place to deter it, but the click fraud numbers continue to rise." (The full article by Kim Roach can be found at SiteProNews, a company connected with ExactSeek.com, which offers an alternative web ad model.)

The Larger Question: Is Google Relevant?

deux — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:22:00 GMT

While we were considering our relevance on Google, we came upon a larger question: is Google relevant to us? I mean, what happens if we did not have to depend on Google for our sustenance? What happens if there are other alternatives that make life, and business, flow easier and less expensively? More important, what if these alternatives end up taking up less of our precious time?

Maybe we're crazy. Maybe cells won't divide, proteins don't synthesize, and life can no longer exist on Earth, without the Google "catalyst."

Are we slaves to an ever-changing algorithm, where the value it places on us is how much money we spend on it? If that's true, then the largest, best financed companies are relevant, and the mom-and-pops, the glue that holds the country together, are, well, irrelevant? Is it right to measure ourselves by this?

Should I have to restrict the highlighting of the text in this sentence to words I want a search engine to see -- not the words I want the reader to focus on?

Let's just assume we've hit a temporary Luddite insanity for the moment, and let you give your opinions on the topic.

Does Google make you feel you are getting pushed out? Do you feel you are spending too much time on pleasing a search algorithm, and too little time saying what you want? Do you feel you are constantly trying to second-guess some "thing" that has no meaning other than an arbitrary, electronic popularity contest, but no soul?