Comments on: Google: Angel or Devil?

By: ryan byrd

ryan byrd — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:31:35 +0000

google is maybe an angel now, but they have a strong possibility of becoming a devil.

http://www.ryanbyrd.net/rambleon/?p=466

By: lisadawn

lisadawn — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:26:45 +0000

If Google isn't a media company, then why are they buying up radio stations?

The reason Google is so powerful is that they found ways of monetizing other people's content and giving them a share of it in a way that is easy to administer. The search technology differences between them and Yahoo is negligible. The main difference is the success of Google's distributed advertising such that every site on the web (including this one) has ads which point back to Google, which increase its page views and advertising revenues.

Frankly I find Google to be one big ego-glorification machine, but one which is not going away anytime soon.

By: Vince

Vince — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:38:01 +0000

It's really funny how companies could beat each other out to remain in the top position. For many years Microsoft has been sweeping the media-technology world. Now here comes Google, bringing in some trendy ideas of its own, which attracts a lot of users. Google is giving, what Microsoft wished it could provide.

By: pub

pub — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:19:07 +0000

Yes, Google was respected because of its reliable services which were not commercial. The same people who revered Google may bring it down. It is better to study what people want than going in unrelated fields just for satisfying its investors.

By: Google SEO Tips

Google SEO Tips — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:46:48 +0000

The core strengths of Google are its resourceful employees and the research which is carried out under the leadership of it founder directors. It is a good strategy for any company to diversify in other fields, but it should do it at a slow pace reviewing the ROI from time to time. Otherwise the same strategy may backfire on Google.

By: hubert gertis

hubert gertis — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 04:41:42 +0000

Businesswise, Google is the PERFECT media company.

Why? Old school media needed content to gather eye balls, or create sales revenues. Unfortunately, this either meant spending lots of time with creative divas wearing funny hats (and paying them small fortunes). Or spending equally ridiculous amounts of money to license content (thereby outsourcing the problem of dealing with the funny hats).

Google, on the other hand, found a way of monetizing royalty free abstracts.
So it's going to be interesting to see, how YouTube will affect this eco system. It's the second almost "regular" media property, owned by the largest media company in the world. Blogger came first, but has been a production/distribution tool. YT is pure distribution, with a grain of search. And there goes the abstracts business, as the licensing troubles already start.

By: Jackie Dooley

Jackie Dooley — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 02:49:30 +0000

"Target people. Not words."

Am I missing something? Isn't it the same thing? I mean, words don't type themselves into the search field...

I think that John's right - Google is a media company. At least, from a media buyer's perspective (which I am). Google has the audience, they have the inventory, they have the network and they offer various different ad formats. If I'm planning media for a client, Google will always be a factor in that plan as long as the audience is there -regardless of whether the "content" they offer consists of relevant search results, full-text articles, image thumbnails, movie clips, product lists, blogs or whatever else Google can dream up to keep people coming back for more.

By: Steve M.

Steve M. — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:40:47 +0000

What could Microsoft and/or Yahoo do to knock media darling Google back on its heels?

Target people. Not words.

Pending patent #11/250,908 shows how.

By: Steve Flinn

Steve Flinn — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:05:06 +0000

Remember back in the 90′s — the term “disintermediation?” That’s what the threat of the Internet has always been to middlemen like the “Media” — especially the bulk of the media that just package other people’s content.

Most content development is a negative economies of scale game simply because it is a creative activity. On the other hand, aggregating and making content available to people is a positive economies of scale game. Problem for the past winners of the positive economies of scale game, the “Media”, is that Google has more scale and scope (and a more efficient revenue model). And of course, they are only one of the models killing “Media” — Craigslist, Apple, etc., will all take their chunks out of them. Take a look at the newspaper business . . . and the music labels, which are in the midst of a dead cat bounce . . .

YouTube is an economies of scale aggregation play — fits right into a Google model. What you won’t see them do is making films.

By: sufiy

sufiy — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:05:37 +0000

All new areas of growth: diffusing into Old Media World with New Technology will mean that growth will not be as explosive as with "clicks" due to:

1. Competition of Old Media.
2. Failure to really innovate outside of search.
3. Copyright nightmare.
4. Becoming Media Company...with much lower multiples.
5. And last but not the least - big Budgets in Old Media World are won not with "clicks" but rather with "ticks".
http://sufiy.blogspot.com/2006/11/google-unrealistic-expectations-of.html