Author Archive - Debbie Fran
The Google Empire’s Next Strike: Media Organizations?
|
Written By Debbie Frank | May 3, 2007 | Share This
|
|
As Google continues to expand its empire, rumors have surfaced (unfounded or not) that Google may buy a major media organization. Last week, Bloomberg reported that Google might bid on NBC Universal. This week, Bloomberg reported more rumors that Google might also be interested in the Dow Jones (owner of the Wall Street Journal). In response Danny Sullivan at Search Engine Land writes, “Enough… Does anyone seriously think Google would want to end up owning the Dow Jones-controlled Wall St. Journal? That fits with the company how again?”
I’d propose - How does it not?
Last week Google reported $3.6B in revenues for Q1, blowing away analysts’ predictions. The majority of those profits came from search advertising - Google’s semi-transparent auction of ad spots beside search results. The success of Google’s paid search business is largely product of the company’s overwhelming market share as the most popular search engine. But, as NPR forewarned after Google’s earnings call, “There’s always the potential that eventually there’s going to be a saturation point for search ads. You can’t keep growing forever. Some are predicting that it’ll be sooner rather than later.”
With their core business inevitably waning, Google has been building an auction platform for ad sales beyond search. Consider some of Google’s other recent acquisitions: Doubleclick, dMark, and YouTube. Google bought DoubleClick and dMark for their distribution technologies, ad inventory, and powerful clients. Google bought YouTube for its video content and enormous volume of unique users (which, last week helped Google surpass Microsoft in site traffic for the first time since ComScore began recording internet statistics). All three recent acquisitions, however, are related to discovering new sources of ad revenue by venturing into new types of content distribution - DoubleClick for display ads, dMark for radio, and YouTube for digital video.
In addition to these networks, Google is exploring advertising options in television, print, in-game advertising, and outdoor billboards. TV and Print, specifically, have been Google’s most aggressive new ventures. Despite the increased efficiency that Google’s auction platform affords to these traditional markets, Google has had a hard time attracting advertisers to the new products. Thanks to industry aversion to the auction model, scalability issues, and pricing concerns, initial TV and Print ad tests have been reported as substandard.
The problem, however, isn’t Google’s lack of ad clients, it’s their lack of content. Google can’t attract big advertisers to their TV and Print products without premium ad spots, and premium ad spots run next to content owned by major media publishers. Google has already filled its publisher void in radio by partnering with Clear Channel - and in doing so finally reached a point of mass adoption to warrant proper product testing and optimization. Now Google needs to carry forth with TV and Print by acquiring a company that will help Google build a content network in offline media. Down Jones or NBC Universal are two companies that seem perfectly suited to such a need.
Whether this violates antitrust laws, however, is another debate. I’m not qualified to talk about the legal ramifications of a Google-NBC or Google-Down Jones…but I can’t help but wonder, is there a reason, beyond sheer company growth, that Google is aggresively hiring for their legal team?
Politics and Search: It’s All About the Hamiltons (Part Two)
|
Written By Debbie Frank | October 27, 2006 | Share This
|
|
Last month, Eric Schmidt announced in a speech to the Tory party conference in Bournemouth, “The Internet has largely filled a role of funding for politicians . . . but it has not yet affected elections. It clearly will.” He advised them to be aware of how truth emerges on the Internet, and stated Google’s intentions to work more with governments to create regulations and a “truth predictor” to decipher the truthfulness of politicians’ statements.
What news reporters didn’t mention, was that the theme music from the Apprentice was playing in the background as he spoke…”money, money, money… MONEY!” That’s why all the Tories were smiling during his speech.
Don’t get me wrong, I love politics, and as an advertising sales gal, I’ve been trying for years to get political campaigns to spend ad dollars online. But, historically, politicians just don’t do search advertising - and no matter what stories are coming out about Google Bombing, the fact is that they still don’t. Sure, you might see a few ads here or there, but in terms of taking advantage of the huge opportunity that the Internet offers to motivate core consituencies, reach and influence swing votors, and respond to attack ads - politicians are seriously lacking.
Yes, politicians have websites. But the funciton of their websites doesn’t extend beyond a fundraising vehicle. As far as campaigning of actual platforms is concerned, politicians continue to be stuck in the world of radio, TV and direct mail. And when we’re talking about funding TV, radio and direct mail ads, we’re talking big money– nearly $4 billion was spent on the presidential election alone in 2004.
So what do I think when I see Google diving head first into the poltical game? (cue the music) Money! Granted, they’re not overtly making the case for political dollars being spent on paid search, but they’re putting more than a toe in the water. Consider the “truth predictor” - if people are using Google to fact-check what a candidate says, then logic follows that campaigns will advertise to those people, right? More people using Google for political information = more campaigns advertising through Google = more money for Google!
Okay, I’ve been avoiding a fairly large problem with the concept of a “truth predictor”. The public already views organic search results as “objective”, but objectivity is merely in terms of placement, not in terms of purveying the truth. Sites that rank the highest are the ones that are most search engine friendly. I’m extremely skeptical of the alleged “truth” test that Google intends to algorithmically run against the contents of a site, and it seems that with proper SEO techniques, politicians could take advantage of this public misconception. In light of the recent Google Bombing stint, Democrats are already starting wise up to this vulnerability of the public perception of search.
Humoring Google, if a “truth” algorithm was to be created, it seems to me that some form of human editor would have to be involved. But, once human editors get involved, this “truth” algorithm will become an even bigger mess between individual bias, scalability, and inconsistency. And money! Suddenly, in the pursuit of truth, it looks like the Internet would become an even more tangled Web (sorry, that one was hard to resist). Whether or not Google succeeds in building this alleged engine, I can tell you one thing — Google has a financial incentive to encourage politics in search. Call it “truth”, call it bias, but atleast we can all agree on one thing…(cue the music)…