Is Google Dying?

**Chris Tradgett** · 30-11-05

Hi,

Just ran across this - which makes interesting reading on Site Reference:
http://www.site-reference.com/articl...gle-Dying.html

The Headline may be a bit over-egging this particular pudding, but still interesting background reading; just in case you have time to kill on a train or plane sometime soon.

**monk-i** · 30-11-05

Great article. I think Google is too big for it boots and is worried that they are a one trick pony. Thats why they are trying to expand the brand to other areas just they are failing with the releases.

I for one think G is too big for its boots and needs to be brought down. Id prefer a level playing field across all SE's so your getting a 1/4 from each then the smaller engines the other 1/4 of traffic. Least then you arent as dependant on one!

**Tyson Pearcey** · 30-11-05

Not a bad read at all mate, hope your well!

All the talk of Google releasing half completed products is more based around them going "Public" (and making the share holders feel their money is being spent on development and looking towards the future) than any thing else.

It certainly doesn't detract from their core offering to the market "SEARCH". If any thing it enhances the users Google (search) experience. Lots of sabre rattling from MS. Microsoft know more about releasing software in beta stages than any one else in the game.

As for advertisers and publishers not being happy with Google........... who cares. ADVERTISERS NEED GOOGLE AS GOOGLE HAS THE REACH. Google works because it has the users, and if for one minute you think advertisers or publishers will stop using G and turn away those potential sales and risk loosing their bonuses because they didn't hit their sales targets (because they chose not to advertise in Google). I think not.

The one part I really liked was how at the very end of the article paid for ads are by sponsored ................... "ads by Yahoo!"

**Dynamoo** · 30-11-05

Interesting article, and it echoes some of the things that I have felt about Google recently. SERPs have been a real rollercoaster ride, even for users (never mind webmasters). The continual algo tweaking sometimes has unexpected results.

OK, I use some of the other Google services and they're OK. Google Groups is useful, Google Maps is very useful, and Google Earth is fun.

But is Google's core product really search? I don't think so.. it's Ads. I churn quite a lot of money through Google every month in this way - and it seems that Google's plan is to get the ads displayed in as many places as possible. And the Ads *work* because they tend to be relevant and they're also sensibly priced. (3p per click at Google, compared to 10p per click at Overture or whatever it's called now).

However, the relevancy of the search results is what's key because that's the only unmitigated success in the Google empire. So, for Google it's vitally important to keep SPAM out of the results, and that's why the algo keeps changing all the time... it's basically a war between SEOs and Google itself, and eventually the SEOs figure out how to game the system.

Another BUT.. accuracy of results doesn't guarantee success. In my view, Alltheweb was always a much better search engine than Google in terms of accuracy and scope, but it never really succeed in the marketplace (and was eventually killed off as an independent search engine by Yahoo/Overture).

What Google *does* have is buzz. It's even entered to language, as in - "to Google something" which is just to search for it on the web. Everything that Google does is news *because* of the buzz. But what happens if Google looses the buzz, or an even buzzier service comes out. Google could go out of fashion overnight, and it would take it's revenues with it.

2006 is gonna be kind of interesting, doncha think?

**Tyson Pearcey** · 30-11-05

"However, the relevancy of the search results is what's key because that's the only unmitigated success in the Google empire."

Which effectively makes search their core product. And adwords the very lucrative by-product. IMO (along with the Brand) its still the reason they maintain dominance.

**Mogga** · 01-12-05

Do you think google will start charging for people using it to search?

**Chris Tradgett** · 01-12-05

Hi Mogga,

I would doubt any average surfer would pay to search Google - they would lose the volume traffic that provides their income from ppc ads. Suddenly - eveeryone justs changes search engine - probably a large part to MSN.

**Mogga** · 01-12-05

I asked very toungue in cheek *but* you look at google at the moment and its full of ads. They want to make more money so the best logical step after convincing everyone that they're the best search engine is to charge.

Maybe they could charge for ad free search results. They could sell it as a "premium service" giving the "best" results without any commerical influence"

They're also getting people to promote firefox which features their search engine - so it'll be the "most convenient" place to search

With them starting to offer other services its clear they'd like total domination of the internet - which for anyone trying to earn cash on the 'net is a scary idea.

**madeinbritain** · 01-12-05

For a longtime ive read webmasters saying they use the others engines for their general searching. I never agreed and thought them bitter at poor ranking etc. But recently I have without a doubt found better results on Yahoo and MSN for my general non-webmaster searching.

**Dynamoo** · 01-12-05

Actually, as an end-user of Google, I *like* the ads. Sometimes they are more relevant than the search results.

The rumour of Google charging to search goes back to 1999 I think. It's not relevant now, they have a business model that works just fine at the moment. What they need to do is keep increasing traffic and increasing exposure to those ads.

**mdaoust** · 02-12-05

Hey guys...thanks for reading the article and providing your feedback on it. Its pretty cool to see others talking about it...

A couple of thoughts:

As for advertisers and publishers not being happy with Google........... who cares. ADVERTISERS NEED GOOGLE AS GOOGLE HAS THE REACH. Google works because it has the users, and if for one minute you think advertisers or publishers will stop using G and turn away those potential sales and risk loosing their bonuses because they didn't hit their sales targets (because they chose not to advertise in Google). I think not.

The one part I really liked was how at the very end of the article paid for ads are by sponsored ................... "ads by Yahoo!"

I actually couldn't agree more. Google works because it has the reach. Although I think we are a far ways off from this, Google's recent foray into other technologies necessarily removes them from the technology that got them their incredible reach. If I saw them launching all their new products without any problems, then we wouldn't have a discussion...but that is not the case.

And yes, I have tested both Yahoo and Google ads, and I make a lot more money with Yahoo than Google. The revenue per click is unbelievable.

But is Google's core product really search? I don't think so.. it's Ads. I churn quite a lot of money through Google every month in this way - and it seems that Google's plan is to get the ads displayed in as many places as possible. And the Ads *work* because they tend to be relevant and they're also sensibly priced. (3p per click at Google, compared to 10p per click at Overture or whatever it's called now).

I definitely disagree here. Google's core competency is search, and their core revenue source is ads. Think about the founders of the company - they are academics and will always be academics. After talking to some people with very close ties to Google, I have learned that the Ads department and search department are kept very seperate.

The only reason Google ads became so successful was because Google had succeeded in providing relevant search results. The ads spring from the search, as every other product Google releases does.

Finally (sorry this is so long), Google will never charge for searching. They have a great product and most of the world uses them. This is a significant advantage and allows them to grow profitable services...charging for search when there are close alternatives such as Yahoo and MSN would be akin to falling on their own sword.

I look forward to your replies.