Was it really as simple as that? Google CEO Eric Schmidt took to the blogwaves after the Super Bowl yesterday to explain Google’s surprising decision to purchase an ad thusly:
We didn’t set out to do a Super Bowl ad, or even a TV ad for search. Our goal was simply to create a series of short online videos about our products and our users, and how they interact. But we liked this video so much, and it’s had such a positive reaction on YouTube, that we decided to share it with a wider audience.
If there’s one thing Google’s consistent about, it’s the company’s approach to PR: it always sounds reasonable and intellectually defensible, but it’s never really the whole story. Google didn’t set out to run a Super Bowl ad, that’s for sure. But somewhere in the last five or so years, it became the kind of company that would. And that’s the point. I mean….is Eric serious when he implies somehow he needs television to find a “wider audience.” I mean, seriously?!
I’ll have more thoughts on Google the Super Bowl ad runnin’ company after the Monday hoo-ha of meetings ends. Er….stay tuned.
Meanwhile, some other news worth grokkin’ as you sip your Monday morning beverage:
Enhanced Cooperation with Facebook on Search (Bing blog) – Or, put another way, Facebook and Microsoft Cancel Display Ad Relationship (ClickZ).
Moms on Facebook Are Savvy to Marketers [STATS] (Mashable) Well what do you know, Moms and marketers are a match, and what do you know, Facebook Emerges as News-Content Provider (Marketing Profs). Facebook is ubiquitous, folks. The question now, is what they do with that fact….perhaps a Super Bowl ad? Meanwhile, there are now books on the company (NY Review).
How To Get Our Democracy Back (Larry Lessig, the Nation) A rather outrageous proposal from one of technology’s best policy minds.
Plentiful Content, So Cheap (NYT) Carr marvels at Demand’s model.
FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited (Cnet). Watch this story. I will be (and have been for years).
Physicist Discovers How to Teleport Energy (Technology Review) Just cool.
I don’t get it – do you think everyone who watches TV uses Google? And do they all know how to use Google the way the ad showed how Google can be used?
Can’t wait to have your thoughts on this…
Maybe Google views Yahoo / Bing market share as being up for grabs?
Maybe Google is worried about losing market share?
Maybe ego is involved when it comes to the Superbowl?
Well, he said ‘share’ with a wider audience.
Someone like an 80-something year old father, who does not compute. Grandparents, kids, grandkids, who may gather for the Bowl… perhaps not all having a clear understanding of Google’s breadth
The scary thing about the FBI initiative is that it would be relatively easy for anyone operating an illegal Website to inject code into multiple sites that send visitors to the illegal content — all without the visitors’ knowledge.
What the FBI wants to do would essentially destroy their ability to track people who are really engaged in visiting illegal Web content.
The FBI is not ready to take on the responsibility of policing the Internet. They have demonstrated the grossest incompetence in this field with that one request.
I usually appreciate your Google analysis, but I’m not sure where you’re going with this. As far as I can tell, the video got just under 2 million views on YouTube. The Super Bowl was viewed by about 98 million, and I’m sure it’s driving tons of additional people to view the ad online. Whether it’s a good use of money is debatable, but it’s a no-brainer that the Super Bowl still gets you much broader exposure. And as you know, this isn’t about awareness but about branding. So yeah, Google’s a brand advertiser now – I don’t think they need to issue a statement to that effect.
Yine harika bir konuya değinmişsin dostum eline koluna sağlık.
Amazing. After ten years, Google finally discovers that advertising works!