Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Winning By Losing?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the brilliant-if-deliberate dept.

eldavojohn writes "The CEO of a small search company wrote an interesting piece for Search Insider about Google's unique strategy. It notes that Google has yet to become a leader in any technology other than search — but that its mostly unsuccessful attempts to branch out all end up bolstering its brand, and thus its search ad revenue. Is the new recipe for success to do one thing unbelievably well and several other things indifferently? Does this remind you of strategies from any other companies?" From the article, "Some of Google's non-search projects are really extensions of its search monetization, and are likely to succeed. But others projects mean entering areas where Google doesn't have much experience, and is taking a risk. With regard to those riskier areas, the key question for Google's future is whether it can realize that losing is really one of the best assets the company has."

9 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Indifferently? by RedWizzard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Is the new recipe for success to do one thing unbelievably well and several other things indifferently?
    Indifferently? I hardly call Google Maps, GMail, Sketch-Up, or Google Earth doing things indifferently. They're all better than average applications, IMO, and certainly Maps and GMail have sparked major changes in competitor's products. Just because they're not dominating market share doesn't mean they're not doing well.
  2. Looking for strategy where there is none.. by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most companies have some MBA types sitting at the top working out how "the street" is going to respond to their every action and pushing that advice down the tree to tell developers what to do. As such, analysts (like this guy) are always trying to figure out what these MBA types are thinking, and why they are doing certain actions. This isn't how Google works. The developers are basically set free to do whatever the hell they want and they get rewarded when the company does well from it. Is it any surprise to find that the analysts are confused by Google?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  3. Give them time by caitsith01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My experience of Google's non-search applications so far suggests that they are far from mediocre. It's inevitable that it will take them longer to really come to the fore in fields which are more mature that the search engine market was when they first rose to prominence.

    In addition, they have an excellent ability to fill niches in the market that are not being filled adequately (e.g. Picasa, Maps, News), and their products are differentiated by being ad-supported but otherwise free, which is a devastating approach for any competitor relying on a micropayment or subscription model. They seem to have the leverage to do things no other company could do at the moment, such as the book search system they are building and the Scholar academic journal search engine. This means that even if the implementation is 'indifferent' the sheer usefulness of the actual data being delivered still sets them apart.

    In other news, why do we really need more Google news? Wake me up when something new actually happens. Some guy writing some vague opinions about some company is not 'news' in any sense.

    --
    Read Pynchon.
  4. Buzz is where it's at by Salvance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google is trying to maintain the appearance of being innovative, and doing a good job of it. Every time they release a new product, even if they downgrade its importance or ditch it later, it gets tremendous buzz. Buzz is where it's at, and everytime they generate more buzz they drive more advertisers, searchers, and AdSense publishers to their site.

    Another advantage to developing TONS of new products is that it keeps their folks busy on cool/fun new products. Most software engineers want to be able to go home to their families and have something fun to show them as an example of what they do. Showing your kid GoogleMaps or GoogleEarth will impress the heck out of them, and they'll think you're a genius.

    If Google didn't have the 70/20/10 development principal, these engineers would be going home and answering their friends' prompts with "Ummm...if you want to know what I do, check out the results of searching for Mexican Pizza now vs. 2 years ago, the results are so much more relevant". Fun.

    --
    Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
  5. Well that's funny by The+Bungi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Google does it it's an interesting and enigmatic experiment that everybody likes to watch, but when it's Microsoft (and we're talking about exactly the same thing here, except that they started 10 years ago) then they're "stumbling in the dark" and it's just "a matter of time before they fail". XBox, MSN, Encarta, most of their server products, etc. That's just too funny.

  6. Why the obsession with winning? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yah goota be number one or you're nothing? This leads to competition focus rather than customer focus which is ultimately a short-term strategy.

    Sure, being number one goes back to primeval days. However, various research has shown that while the alpha male chimpanzees slug it out, the next guy down is getting more sex.....

    Perhaps Google are just not stupid enough to be pouring their energy into alpha-male business tactics.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Why the obsession with winning? by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nah. You don't get it. The people buying shares in companies are looking for growth. If there's no growth, they make no profit. So how do you maintain consistent growth? It's not enough to keep your current customers happy, you have to get more customers, and to do that you have to play silly games like aquiring other companies and running advertising compaigns and blah blah blah. If you don't do all that crap people will sell their shares.. they can't afford to hold onto shares that are not increasing in value as fast as other shares, and without their money, you don't have a company.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Why the obsession with winning? by dangitman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Nah. You don't get it. The people buying shares in companies are looking for growth. If there's no growth, they make no profit

      No, you don't seem to understand. A company does not have to grow to be profitable on the stock market. They just have to make a profit. And, the people buying shares look for many different qualities, it's called diversification. Along with a potential growth stock, many willalso buy a mature company that isn't growing but pays dividends, to balance out the portfolio.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  7. Search? Mail? Maps? eh? You're all wrong. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're what bring you to Google's product.

    Google's product is adsense and adwords.

    --
    Deleted