Slashdot Mirror
Peak Google: The Company's Time At the Top May Be Nearing Its End
HughPickens.com writes Farhad Manjoo writes at the NYT that at first glance Google looks plenty healthy, but growth in Google's primary business, search advertising, has flattened out at about 20 percent a year for the last few years. Although Google has spent considerable resources inventing technologies for the future, it has failed to turn many of its innovations into new moneymakers. According to Manjoo, as smartphones eclipse laptop and desktop computers to become the planet's most important computing devices, the digital ad business is rapidly changing and Facebook, Google's archrival for advertising dollars, has been quick to profit from the shift. Here's why: The advertising business is split, roughly, into two. On one side are direct-response ads meant to induce an immediate purchase: Think classifieds, the Yellow Pages, catalogs or Google's own text-based ads running alongside its search results. But the bulk of the ad industry is devoted to something called brand ads, the ads you see on television and print magazines that work on your emotions in the belief that, in time, your dollars will follow. "Google doesn't create immersive experiences that you get lost in," says Ben Thompson. "Google creates transactional services. You go to Google to search, or for maps, or with something else in mind. And those are the types of ads they have. But brand advertising isn't about that kind of destination. It's about an experience." According to Thompson the future of online advertising looks increasingly like the business of television and is likely to be dominated by services like Facebook, Snapchat or Pinterest that keep people engaged for long periods of time and whose ads are proving to be massively more effective and engaging than banner advertisements.
In less than five years, Facebook has also built an enviable ad-technology infrastructure, a huge sales team that aims to persuade marketers of the benefits of Facebook ads over TV ads, and new ways for brands to measure how well their ads are doing. These efforts have paid off quickly: In 2014 Facebook sold $11.5 billion in ads, up 65 percent over 2013. Google will still make a lot of money if it doesn't dominate online ads the way it does now. But it will need to find other businesses to keep growing. This is why Google is spending on projects like a self-driving car, Google Glass, fiber-optic lines in American cities, space exploration, and other audacious innovations that have a slim chance of succeeding but might revolutionize the world if they do. But the far-out projects remind Thompson of Microsoft, which has also invested heavily in research and development, and has seen little return on its investments. "To me the Microsoft comparison can't be more clear. This is the price of being so successful — what you're seeing is that when a company becomes dominant, its dominance precludes it from dominating the next thing. It's almost like a natural law of business."
In less than five years, Facebook has also built an enviable ad-technology infrastructure, a huge sales team that aims to persuade marketers of the benefits of Facebook ads over TV ads, and new ways for brands to measure how well their ads are doing. These efforts have paid off quickly: In 2014 Facebook sold $11.5 billion in ads, up 65 percent over 2013. Google will still make a lot of money if it doesn't dominate online ads the way it does now. But it will need to find other businesses to keep growing. This is why Google is spending on projects like a self-driving car, Google Glass, fiber-optic lines in American cities, space exploration, and other audacious innovations that have a slim chance of succeeding but might revolutionize the world if they do. But the far-out projects remind Thompson of Microsoft, which has also invested heavily in research and development, and has seen little return on its investments. "To me the Microsoft comparison can't be more clear. This is the price of being so successful — what you're seeing is that when a company becomes dominant, its dominance precludes it from dominating the next thing. It's almost like a natural law of business."
Maybe I'm crazy, but 20% yearly revenue growth for a company Google's size seems pretty healthy.
"but growth in Google's primary business, search advertising, has flattened out at about 20 percent a year for the last few years"
So if I understand the summary, google only grows with 20% each year and that is a bad thing?
I would start to worry if it was reduced by 20% every year.
Harald
Uh.. Microsoft essentially had a couple of products they thought (the monopoly on which) would last forever. Google (and the other large modern internet companies) are much more aware of the current state of what's going on (because they're responsible for it). Microsoft just panics and throws money at stuff no-one wants. Crappy phone OS, nokia, Zune, silly compromise-heavy tabtops (see what I did there?) etc. They produced an awful OS, held a straight face when everyone else said "meh, no thanks" which cost them a lot. If they've learnt anything it's at the expense of a lot of missed profit. Google have always spent a lot on R doesn't come across as panicking to stay relevant like Microsoft. Now Microsoft is giving away their new OS, open sourcing their dev tools, suffering increasingly against Google Docs (and other free office apps). If I had stock in Microsoft I'd be concerned that they don't have a plan. I don't see Google as being in the same boat as they have a more much stable history in profiting from innovation, even if not every project they attempted turned out 100% positive.
If I'm reading the article correctly, the information that says that ads in the Facebook style are far more effective than Google's comes from...a study by Facebook. Gee, that seems totally unbiased and could in no way be slanted by them to help them convince potential advertisers to sign up. All of this seems very bizarre after reading -- for years -- about how the Facebook ad model is so deeply flawed.
Wood Shavings!
- Godai
It's all a bizarre side effect of the premise upon which the markets now operate. Back in the old days, you bought stock in a company to share in that company's success and reap dividends. Now, you buy stock with the intent to sell it later at a profit. That shift means that to wall street guys, companies with solid business but no growth are effectively worthless. Their entire investment plan is based on growth. Add to that the shift in CEO compensation to stock options, and it becomes a race to see how long they can make the company grow before it collapses under its own weight.
Yes the article says "growth in Google's primary business, search advertising, has flattened out at about 20 percent a year" But a constant growth RATE year after year is not flat. It is exponential growth. It is compounded growth where each 20% increase is an increase over and above the 20% increase of the previous year. Where else can you get a 20% compounded interest rate on your savings?
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
Personally I think that Microsoft has been doing quite well lately, but no matter what they do, people seem to find something wrong with it. I haven't heard anything particularly bad about their current iteration of their phone OS, other than the anemic app selection, but the OS itself is top notch. Everybody I know who has a Surface Pro seems to think they are amazing, the only general complaint being that they are too expensive. But I guess that you have to pay a lot of money if you want a proper digitizer built into the lightest laptop on the market. Microsoft has started to give away their OS on cheap devices because it's really the only option that works. You can't charge $50 or even $25 for a Windows license that sells to the end consumer for under $250. It just doesn't make the product competitive. This is a market that didn't exist 5 years ago, so of course they are going to have to make adjustments.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Show me a company that _only_ reports financial data every T=100 years and I'll bow to your wisdom. Companies report annually, all of them. They are required to do so in fact, so using the Government mandated "T=1" the term "exponential" is absolutely false.
Ok, I'm genuinely curious, how does that have anything to do with it?
If you start with a company revenue of 100 at T=0 then:
1) In additive growth: T0=100, T1=120, T2=140, T3=160
2) In exponential growth: T0=100, T1=120, T2=144, T3=1.728
Merely reporting at intervals of T(n) where n=1 per year doesn't turn #2 into #1. According to their latest 10-K filing their revenue for the last three years was (in millions):
2012 46,039
2013 55,519
2014 66,001
Which is an exponential growth rate of 19.73%, so close enough to 20% for conversational purposes.