free html hit counter Google and Monster: A Dumb Idea | John Battelle's Search Blog

Google and Monster: A Dumb Idea

By - January 06, 2006

Maybe this is true. But I hope not. Would Google want to get into this business so directly? Well, perhaps it would want to mimic Yahoo, which bought HotJobs, but really, honestly, this feels totally out of character. Recall my DNA posts way back, about how the two companies are different in their approach to content and community? Should Google buy Monster, well, next stop would be an entertainment guy running the show. I hear Ovitz has some time on his hands….

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

8 thoughts on “Google and Monster: A Dumb Idea

  1. odp says:

    “Maybe this is true. But I hope not.”

    Monster is the correct word! i hope not too.

  2. Adam says:

    That seems like it would be a waste of money. If Craig’s List can make a name for itself providing a no-frills job site, there’s no reason Google couldn’t do the same on a much larger scale.

  3. Chetan says:

    Google has acquired two research entities focused mainly on Classified type backends(Databases)
    Check out http://patil.wordpress.com/2006/01/03/google-base-to-classifieds/

    I googled for “google acquires everyclassified” and didn’t get any result, forgive me if you folks already knew about this. I am speculating something very big out of Google on Base & Classifieds.

  4. ingo says:

    I hope that´s not true google is such a big companie that it destroy all smaller companies.

  5. Hi. I think that the response to this bit of news/speculation has been interesting. It is speculation no doubt, and those of us in the online recruitment and search engine marketing world seem to fall on the side of this move being a definite negative for Google.

    I feel like that is mainly due to our wish for Google to stay true and a company that we look to as the one to emulate. We don’t want Google to “sell out”, especially to Monster – but this is business, and something like a Monster acquisition means becoming an instant real player in the recruitment space and big money. I am not advocating this – but we can’t deny that this would get them immediate job seeker traffic that they currently don’t have. While there is no doubt that the situation will change as time goes on, from a recruitment perspective – job seekers by and large still think first to post their resume on Monster, and search for postings on CareerBuilder and HotJobs. While recruiters are overwhelmed at the big board response that they receive to their postings, and this is a huge problem, it has been interesting to hear recruiters say how they aren’t getting a tremendous response from Google. Google Base is known in HR – but not necessarily by job seekers. As much as we adore Google, they just don’t have the traction here yet.

    I am not convinced that a Yahoo wouldn’t be the likelier Monster Suitor. There are many connections between all of these companies that make thinking about the possibilities and outcomes quite interesting.

  6. Tom Foremski says:

    Monster aside (I agree–GOOG doesn’t nee to buy-to-own) Having a media/ad exec of any kind, in the top ranks–not a bad idea. I’ve been saying for a long, long time GOOG is a media company.

    Why is NYT giving prime location on its online site to GOOG? A media competitor with a business model and margins that NYT cannot hope to match. And, NYT has given up the advertiser relation to GOOG (advertise on this site)…but that’s a seperate rant of mine :-)

  7. Rick says:

    What if they made it free and very open?

    Craigslist kills for tech job ads and most of that is free.

  8. V.Piras says:

    >>What if they made it free and very open?

    Why they should do that ? Every company want to earn money,there is no reason to make it open…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>