Posted on 10/21/2012 5:55:10 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Here's Why Google Could Disappear in Five Years: Pro
Published: Friday, 19 Oct 2012 | 12:25 PM ET
By: Cadie Thompson Technology Editor, CNBC.com
Google may be on its way out as the dominant player in search, according to one analyst — and could even "disappear" in as little as five to eight years if the competitive pressures that ultimately claimed other search giants start to take root.
In the wake of a surprisingly weak earnings report, Eric Jackson, Ironfire capital founder and managing member, said Google Google [GOOG 681.79 -13.21 (-1.9%) ] could easily find itself fending off the woes that eventually took hold at embattled Yahoo! [YHOO 15.84 -0.16 (-1%) ].
"They could disappear in five to eight years and disappear in the sense that Yahoo used to be the king of search. Now, for all intents and purposes, Yahoo has disappeared," Jackson said Thursday on CNBC's "Squawk on the Street".
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
There are very attractive marketing opportunities presented by mobile devices but these are limited by a few current realities, the most prominent of them being the structure of many plans being limited as far as data.
In the absence of that limitation and assuming individuals with mobile devices were amenable (another hurdle that could be incented as a positive option), demographic and preference data unique to each individual combined with geographic location could be very lucrative for certain kinds of businesses.
You could literally pull in fairly well qualified sales prospects with a high likelihood of purchase via passing traffic with an offer that is appealing, timely and immediate (think coupon), or market to an obscure interest within a set geographic radius via a mobile blast.
I’m suspicious of Google and don’t particularly like them, but I wouldn’t count them out just yet. It’s just that they’re still stuck in the old static, traditional advertising mindset, counting eyeballs and clickthrough. A lot of fraud there and the medium is not optimal due to the size of the screen as you note.
They need to realize that they are direct marketers. An extremely appealing offer can be created in text alone, it’s been done for close to a century in print. I can assure you that they’ll go down if they fail to realize this. At least one of their primary competitors does.
I've experienced something similar. I don't know that it originated with Google, but for a time I constantly was shown ads about sites I'd recently patronized, or had been ordering from for years. That seems to have slacked off, and it never made any sense.
And now, if I go to WalMart, I soon receive an email showing me additional items I might be interested in "based on the purchases during my recent trip to my local WalMart." Or maybe I knew what I wanted to buy, and bought everything I wanted to buy.
Some of the tracking is comical and some of it irritating, and it can begin to seem pretty intrusive and presumptuous. And more and more tracking and follow-up emails is going on within various online vendor sites.
yes hyper targeted advertizing would work a lot better on smartphones. So a Google or Apple has every incentive to track compile store regurgitate to the right people your internet surfing habits. Just last week it seems Apple could not resist tracking iPhone users again even after it pledged not to.
This shows Apple likes what you have to say about advertizing (just my 2¢ Worth)
Apple controls its smartphone Eco-systsem while google has an inferior position. Google needs to do a real buccaneer partnership with Samsung or LG, putting out co-branded smartphones,then it could be like Apple and do the hyper targeted advertising
If it’s positive option, meaning user permission, and it’s actually products and services that the user likes and wants, the negative connotation is not going to fly. Don’t want it? Decline when you enter a plan.
Google doesn’t have an ecosystem, btw. They have a herd of cats.
Irritating a customer is worse than marketing budget wasted it’s potentially losing a customer. Companies that do this have no concept of timeliness let alone behavioral marketing. They give all direct marketers a bad name.
Cheap medium, plaster the world with a one size fits all appeal, tantamount to e-mail spam. It doesn’t even arise to the level of Sham-Wow or Snuggies. At least they were somewhat fun and targeted, late night low budget media buys notwithstanding. But, there’s design and forethought even there, people viewing tv in the middle of the night as a group are more susceptible, so you get that sort of infomercial, they want to belong, they’re bored and lonely as a group, so they pull out the card and call. Kind of like old folks and collectible kitkat, the direct response ads are almost always in the middle of the day if infomercial.
Those guys know what they’re doing. What you describe Walmart as doing is scattershot and borderline damaging. I’m surprised.
The analyst may or may not be correct. However, his reasoning is absurd.
Google is not a search company. Google is an advertising company. Search stopped being their core business years ago. In fact, their search product isn’t demonstrably better than what is probably their closest competitor, Bing. Google’s index is still larger, but their results aren’t superior.
Google is an advertising company.
I was surprised, also, but have now been getting emails after going to a WalMart for about a month. And they're suggestions are usually nothing I'm interested in.
They also track what someone views on their site, then send emails making suggestions based on what someone viewed during previous visits. Those are a little closer to something I might be interested in, but still of no practical use.
Another online vendor now sends out emails if I put something in a 'basket', but don't order it. They send out "Forgot Something" emails, but I didn't forget and put something in the basket to consider the next time I actually place an order.
I think many online vendors and search engine folks are beginning to overdo it and they'll probably begin to experience some backlash because there is just too much of it now and more is being added all the time.
These are very basic, intrusive and potentially offensive blunders. They're comparable to all the stupid "Dear (NAME) in (CITY/STATE) form letters that were mailed out by the millions when database-driven direct mail was in it's infancy fifty years ago. They "worked" in the early days, meaning that response metrics indicated a bump in sales when used, but over time they're going to discover that it's also horrible as far as customer retention.
The use of these tools should be subtle and unobtrusive. Overt use of certain types data retained and tracked internally for external customer contact is disturbing to the customer. Many websites actually seem more like store detectives following you around and going "AHA! Caught you! You picked that up and didn't buy it!" Would you leave the store mortified and never come back? Many would.
Think of large, old-line catalogs that have successfully managed to transition not just online but into retail themselves. They know better, they don't make such stupid newbie mistakes. Data should be used to delight, surprise and reward the customer and remain largely behind the scenes whenever possible, not trap them, shame them or berate them.
Salesmanship 101, really. It's obvious the things you describe aren't being implemented by anyone with a clue about that let alone even interacting with actual customers. They don't have to reinvent the wheel, here. Just admit they don't know everything and that schlocky junk mail people figured it out long ago, lol. A tough thing to do for the IT poobahs, apparently, because the stupidity continues.
They don't care so long as it all remains in their little IT fiefdom, I guess.
“Google is an advertising company.”
Exactly, and a real internet search company would make them valueless in a very short time.
That's exactly what I've been thinking as I typed the posts to this thread. The IT folks do seem to have been turned loose to create all sorts of tracking and customer data to be used in all sorts of supposedly worthwhile ads and emails directed at the customer.
But all too much of it of little use and it justs adds to the volume of junk email to be deleted.
I cut my Google advertising by 70% this year because it hasn’t been cost effective. I blame the economy, more than Google. They might want to reconsider their support for insane communist politicians.
You mean like Yahoo, Bing, Dogpile, Ask.com, and all the others that are doing nothing to Google’s search dominance?
They’re advertising companies too.
Hard to beat Google at advertising. Not so hard to beat it at searching if optimising searches- not optimising advertising dollars- is your goal.
Considering all the US money invested in Google, I’m surprised a competitor government hasn’t built a real search engine and wiped all that money out of our economy.
The reason Google show you the ads of the sites you have already visited is because research has shown them that most folks do not buy an item the first time they visit a site but the reminder of showing you the ad again results in a huge amount of sales. Same goes for recruiting....if I can track you to my applicant tracking system for a job and you fall off and do not complete the application....which happens about 70% of the time.....I show you the job again later or remind you that it is still open say a week later and you go back and fill out the app. and apply.
startpage.com
Good point. I have other concerns with cloud computing.
Google the search engine might be replaced. Google the company has bought so many things that are spread so far and wide on the web they aren’t going anywhere. Their holdings are wildly diversified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.