Compelling Marketing Shows Us Something:
The new Google+ tv commercials are all-of-the-above.
Looks Familiar Doesn't It? And, it's not coincidental how these Google+ commercials resemble the "show us something" marketing philosophy of another successful Silicon Valley company:
I love this recent article, The Great Tech War of 2012 by Farhad Manjoo from the November 2012 issue of Fast Company.
The article provides several insights on how Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google, compete in numerous industries.
Plus, there are a number of great facts and statistics about each company. If you’re looking for an article packed with facts and figures about these companies, read on …
Here are some favorites:
1. 49 Days Before Killing H-P's TouchPad. H-P’s foray into the tablet market with its TouchPad lasted only 49 days.
2. $100 Billion in Revenues by 2015. When Amazon doubled in size from 2008 to 2010, it hit $34 billion in annual revenue. Analysts expect Amazon to achieve $100 billion in annual revenue by 2015, faster than any company ever.
3. 17,000 Motorola Mobility Patents. Google acquired Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion (along with Motorola Mobility’s 17,000 patents).
4. $30 Billion in Revenue. Google’s advertising business is on pace to earn $30 billion+ in 2011, almost double 2007’s revenue.
5. 250 Million Facebook Shares Daily. Facebook members share 250 million+ pictures a day.
6. 800 Million Facebook Members. Facebook has 800 million+ members (as of the article’s publication).
7. 11 Industries. Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google are disrupting eleven (11) diverse industries (and compete against each other in many of these industries):
8. $1.5 Billion from the Cloud. Apple’s iCloud service is projected to generate $1.5 billion.
9. $28.57 Billion in One Quarter. Apple generated $28,571,000,000 or $28.57 billion in the third quarter of 2011 (nearly double the $15.7 billion it booked in third quarter 2010.)
10. $1.6 Billion in Advertising Revenue. Facebook’s ad revenue business for the first half of 2011: $1.6 billion (double the amount during the same period in 2010).
11. 400 Million Facebook Members Log-In Everyday. Facebook’s membership is now 800 million+ users. 400 million+ users log in every single day.
12. 2 Billion Facebook Likes or Comments. 2 billion Facebook posts a day are “liked” or “commented upon.”
13. Apple and Android Rule Smartphones. According to Nielsen, Google’s Android powers about 40% of smartphones; 28% run Apple’s iOS.
14. $368 in Profit Per Phone Versus $10 Per Year Per Device. But, Apple makes a $368 profit on each iPhone. Google, on the other hand, makes less than $10 annually per device for the ads it places on Android phones and tablets.
15. 28 Projects Dead. At the time of the Fast Company article’s publication, Larry Page (Google's CEO) killed 28 underperforming projects.
16. 30% Growth. Google’s traditional ad business is averaging about 30% growth in 2011.
17. 64% Market Share in US Search. Google commanded 12.5 billion of the 19.5 billion total searches in the US in August 2011 according to comScore. That’s a 64% market share in the US.
18. $70 Billion Markets (Domestic Advertising and Cable TV). Two (2) key markets Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google each want a piece of the $70 billion in domestic ad revenue AND $74 billion in cable-subscriber fees.
19. 6,000 Patents from Nortel. A coalition that included Apple and Microsoft spent $4.5 billion to outbid Google for 6,000 mobile-related patents owned by Nortel.
20. 2,000 Patents from IBM. Google paid an undisclosed amount to purchase 2,000 patents from IBM.
21. 21 Years for Amazon Versus 34 Years for Wal Mart. Analysts predict Amazon will hit $100 billion in revenue by 2015. This achievement will result 21 years after the Jeff Bezos founded the company. In contrast, it took Walmart 34 years to achieve this benchmark.
22. Amazon Prime Means $900 Per Year Versus $400 Per Year. Amazon Prime customers spend an average of $900 per year on the Amazon site. In the year before a typical Amazon customer joins Amazon Prime, he/she spends $400 per year. Growth in the Amazon Prime customer segment is 50%+ annually.
23. Will $24 Billion Grow to $200 Billion? Facebook and Google directly compete in the $24 billion online display advertising business. Google believes this market will be a $200 billion per year market in the next few years.
Note: I added numbers 21 thru 23 a few days after I originally published this post.
In February 2011, I wrote a post about how The New York Times exposed J.C. Penney's paid links scheme to improve its Google organic search rankings. Search engine optimization (SEO) experts refer to this gaming of Google rankings as "black hat SEO" practices. Google defines these practices in its Webmaster Central General Guidelines. And, Google looks unfavorably on these practices and describes them as:
The New York Times Reveals Major Florist Brands Paid for Links
Another Linking Scheme Exposed. The New York Times article, Trying to Game Google on Mother's Day Flowers,' says these major florist companies participated in linking buying schemes to improve their organic search rankings during the week of 2011 Mother's Day:
Teleflora's Organic Search Rankings Rose from 7th to 4th. According to the article, Searchmetrics, a seller of analytics software, conducted research showing Teleflora boosted its ranking for the search term "mothers day flowers" which translated into a significant increase in visitors per day to its website.
Teleflora's Site Traffic Per Day Improved 43% Increase. In March 2010, Teleflora received 20,000 to 25,000 visitors per day. The week of May 2nd – May 6th, 2011, the number of visitors improved to roughly 35,000 visitors per day.
Searchmetrics believes Teleflora started its link buying in February 2011. The New York Times quotes Searchmetrics CEO, Horst Joepen: "There is a possible correlation between the backlinks and the increased visibility of the site. But, without more research there is no way to be sure."
Floral Companies' Responses to Inquiries from The New York Times
Makes Me Wonder. Here are direct quotes from the article regarding the floral companies' respective responses:
* ProFlowers: "Did not respond to requests for comment."
* 1800Flowers.com: "A spokeswoman said the company would not discuss the links."
* FTD: "An FTD representative said that the vast majority of its links were on Web Sites owned by FTD, adding 'If any of our practices to have moved outside of Google's guidelines, we will certainly address them."
* Teleflora: "Corporate policy is not to pay for any links that would violate Google's guidelines. After closely reviewing the Teleflora links you provided, we believe are in compliance with Google."
Did Google Punish These Firms For Their Alleged Paid Links?
The Top 5 Organic Search Results for "mothers day flowers." As of Sunday morning, May 15th, the page-one Google search results for "mothers day flowers" are:
Look at Organic Search Result #10. It's the May 6th, New York Times article exposing the alleged paid links scheme for these companies. I'm surprised this story ranks below Google's organic search results for Teleflora, FTD, 1800Flowers.com, and ProFlowers.
Even though the article lands on Google's front page, you'd think the search results for the aforementioned firms would rank in pages where you can't find them (i.e., pages 6 through 10).
Conclusion
Why Isn't Google Penalizing These Firms? The New York Times sent Google representatives a list of 6,000 links to the floral companies that were built in the last month. Jake Hubert, a Google spokesman, replied with the following statement:
"None of the links shared by The New York Times had a significant impact on our rankings, due to automated systems we have in place to assess the relevance of links. As always, we investigate spam reports and take corrective action where appropriate."
Apparently, Google doesn't feel like it has to take any action in this particular case. And, I find their lack of action and consistency perplexing. Here are two other blogs commenting on the New York Times piece:
Is Google Thumbing Its Nose at The New York Times? The placement of the New York Times article as organic search result Number 10 with the offending firms ranking at slots 1, 2, 4, and 5 appears more than coincidental.
Along with the issued company statement, the article's current placement appears to be Google's way of saying, "Whatever."
Or, maybe they're dealing with more important priorities. And, those priorities rhyme with "How to Address the Facebook Threat."
Photo Credit by davidsonscott15 Via Flickr
On February 12th, The New York Times Technology Section released this story describing how J.C. Penney tried to "game the system" with its Google organic search results: Search Optimization and Its Dirty Little Secrets.
Key Highlights from The New York Times Article
* The New York Times investigated how J.C. Penney consistently outranked other competitors for popular retail search terms / keywords in Google organic searches.
* Allegedly, J.C. Penney purchased inbound links for these keywords and these incoming links were hidden in hundreds of web pages (potentially thousands) around The Internet. All of these web pages possessed low PageRank. But, with so many inbound links coming into J.C. Penney's web site, their Google Search Rankings still increased.
* This hidden linking scheme / "link farm" is known in the search engine optimization (SEO) world as "black hat SEO." It's not a illegal but Google makes it clear in specific policies that this type of linking strategy "cheats" the Google Search Algorithm.
* After Google learned and validated the tainted linking strategy, it took "manual action" against J.C. Penney (e.g., it is punishing the firm by burying the results of search queries formerly benefiting the company). In other words, its organic search ranking results now land anywhere from the 60s to 80s for certain keywords / keyword phrases versus one placing in page-one results.
BONUS #1: Here's the best article I've read explaining what happened and the implications for companies' SEO initiatives. Vanessa Fox, author of Marketing in the Age of Google wrote this Search Engine Land article: New York Times Exposes J.C. Penney Link Scheme that Causes Plummeting Rankings in Google.
BONUS #2: This article from The Wall Street Journal explains the overall fallout and how Google modified its search algorithm to counteract this type of SEO gaming: Google Reorders Web's Winners.
BONUS #3: Knowledge@Wharton published their point-of-view in this article: In Search of the Perfect Search: Can Google Beat Attempts to Game the System? The article talks about the J.C. Penney fiasco, the implications of Google's market power, and some thoughts on social search in Google and Bing's search algorithms.
Why Did J.C. Penney Do This?
They wanted to outrank competitors in Google Searches during the 2010 Holiday Shopping Season. By ranking higher than competitors, consumers clicked on J.C. Penney's Google results (versus Bed Bath & Beyond or Amazon).
How Big Is Earning a Page-One Google Result in Organic Search — HUGE. Research proves that the #1 ranking Google search result captures a disproportionately large portion of the click traffic for that keyword / keyword phrase.
Check out the research explaining the implications of page-one Google results.
Nine (9) Resources Explaining the Value of Page-One Google Results in Organic Search:
1. Chitika.com Research: The Value of Google Result Positioning
2. Enquiro.com: Organic Click-Through Rates Not So Elusive Anymore
4. Seobook.com: What is a #1 Google Ranking Worth?
5. eMarketer: Organic Search Still Reigns
6. Accuracast.com: First Page Listings on Google Even More Important
7. Wordstream.com: SERP – Why "SERP" is the Most Important Acronym for Your Business
8. My Blog Post: The Value of Page-One Google Organic Search Results
9. iProspect White Paper: Search Engine User Behavior Study April 2006
Conclusion
What J.C. Penney Did is Just Plain Dumb. Simple as that. And, don't get me started on the public relations debacle.
But, Embarrasing Google in a Global News Story is Worse. And now, they are facing Google's wrath. Google who has the power as trial, judge, and jury to continue burying Penney's search results or remove their search results completely.
Yes, they can do that because they're Google!
Sorry, J.C. Penney. You're Buried! Literally!
May 17, 2011 Update: This list of articles / references grows every day as I monitor news sources. The number of curated articles is now up to 26.
Instead of continuously updating the title and picture to reflect the number of resources, I'll focus on updating the hyperlinks. Enjoy!
Original Post Begins Here: My last two posts provided perspectives on why Facebook poses a threat to Google. If you want to understand why Google views Facebook as a competitive threat, this centralized research should makes things easier. Happy Reading!
How Facebook Threatens Google's Search Business
* CNN Technology: How Facebook Eclipsed Google in 2010
* Great Wall of Facebook: The Social Network's Plan to Dominate the Internet — And Keep Google Out
* Singel-Minded: How Facebook Could Beat Google to Win The Net
* Ken Auletta's Googled Interview with Charlie Rose (links to Charlie Rose's Website)
* Fast Company Article: "Underdog Bing Talks Facebook Partnership, Google Rivalry
* My Blog Post Detailing the Ken Auletta-Charlie Rose Interview
* HubSpot's Inbound Internet Marketing Blog: Google Launches a More Social Search
* John Byrne's post from his C-Change Media Blog: What Really is Hurting Google – Social Search
* Wall Street Journal: How Google Wants Search to Be More Social
* Wired: Bing Bumps Facebook Options to Outsocial Google
* Search Engine Land: Bing Ups Ante in Social Search, Adds More Facebook "Likes" to Search Results
How Facebook Threatens Google as an Advertising Platform
* Mashable: Google Versus Facebook – Following the Money
* Fast Company: Facebook-Google Privacy PR Smear is a Campaign in an Epic, Escalating War
How Corporate Bureaucracy Makes Google Vulnerable
* The New Yorker Article by Ken Auletta: Why is Eric Schmidt Stepping Down at Google?
* Google's Facebook-Killer Slowed by Political Infighting
* Wall Street Journal: Chief Seeks More Agile Google
* Wall Street Journal: Power Shifts Atop Google
* New York Times: Google Shake-Up is Effort to Revive Start-Up Spark
* Search Engine Land: Was It Time for a Fresh Face? Thoughts on Larry Page as the New Google CEO
* Search Engine Land: Google Turns to Page — The Day Two Narrative
* Mashable Op-Ed: Why Google Needs Its Own Steve Jobs
How Facebook Threatens Google in The War for Talent
* The Wall Street Journal: Google to Give Staff 10% Raise
* The New York Times: Google Grows and Works to Retain Nimble Minds
* Information Week: Google Co-Founder Larry Page to Replace Schmidt as CEO
* The Street.com: Forget Apple — It's Google's Turn Now
* Fast Company: Engineers to the Valley – Pay Up
How Facebook Threatens Google in Mobile Services
* The Wall Street Journal: Facebook's Web of Frenemies
In light of the recent power shuffle at Google, I think this Saturday Night Live (SNL) clip featuring Mark Zuckerberg is important. Just hang with me for a few moments.
This SNL Appearance Represents an Important and Implicit, Market Signal. Zuckerberg and Facebook are accelerating the public relations momentum leading to the upcoming Facebook IPO. The subtle, market signal Zuckerberg and Facebook are sending:
Mark Zuckerberg Will be a More Visible and More Marketing/Public Relations Savvy CEO than Larry Page.
Here's my short list supporting my market signal hypothesis:
1. Zuckerberg is capitalizing on the the recent, real-time public relations momentum pre-IPO.
Time Magazine selected Zuckerberg as its Person Of The Year. The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (aka The Oscars) nominated The Social Network and Jesse Eisenberg for Best Picture and Best Actor respectively.
Give Zuckerberg credit for putting himself out in a high-profile situation like SNL. And remember, Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal of Zuckerberg in The Social Network is brutal.
Is Zuckerberg noticeably stilted and uncomfortable in the SNL cold open? Yes. Did he know this appearance on a such a high profile stage leaves him vulnerable to significant public scrutiny and criticism? Yes.
But, he had the guts and courage to do it anyway. And, with more practice and exposure to similar situations, Zuckerberg will get better. As a mid-twenties leader and visionary, he'll get more opportunities.
2. This high profile appearance is a subtle public relations shot at Google and Larry Page.
Page is a notoriously private person who historically loathes investing time/financial resources into marketing/public relations. Ken Auletta, author of Googled, reconfirms my opinion in his New Yorker article discussing why Eric Schmidt stepped down at Google. Mr. Auletta's is the authority on the Google mindset. If you're interested in learning more about Mr. Auletta's Google insights, here's my post discussing Mr. Auletta's interview with Charlie Rose about Google and Mr. Auletta's book.
Zuckerberg carefully selected this particular media appearance (just as Steve Jobs carefully selected his appearances before/after his publicly disclosed illness). Here's Steve Jobs' now mythical 2005 Stanford Commencement Address. Don't tell me Mr. Jobs didn't carefully select this venue / moment at this particular stage in his life:
3. A pre-IPO, Facebook supplants Google as the cutting edge Silicon Valley place-to-be.
Silicon Valley's brightest engineering talent wants a shot at wealth and riches too. They can achieve that by joining Facebook. The opportunity to achieve that once-in-a-lifetime dream shot is gone at Google.
Facebook continues stepping up its efforts to attract/recruit the brightest in Silicon Valley talent – at Google's expense. Here are two articles from The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times:
Furthermore, review this video. Who do you think Facebook wants to attract? Sounds an awful lot like the engineering talent Google used to easily attract and retain:
Conclusion
The Google-Facebook rivalry will intensify. This rivalry will touch every aspect of our online, media lives (desktop, mobile, publishing, entertainment, etc.).
Who do you think it will be?
And, somewhere deep down inside, Steve Jobs must be smiling …
Part 7 of The Business Value Behind Social Media focuses on future opportunities in social media marketing and public relations (e.g., what's the next big thing). Chris Brogan, Charlene Li, David Meerman Scott, and Martin Giles (moderator) discuss future trends such as:
* Opporutunity #1: Responding to Customers and Influencing Business in Real-Time
* Opportunity #2: Giving and Gaining Our Permissions to Use Social Data
* Opportunity #3: Exploring Email Marketing and Online Communities
* Conclusion: The Implications of Gaining Permissions to Our Social Data is Why Google Fears Facebook
The panel's discussion takes place from 58:24 to 1:01:45 of the embedded video:
Opportunity #1: Responding to Customers and Influencing Business in Real-Time
The Real-Time Transformation of Traditional Marketing and PR (58:24 – 59:07). Real-time applications in marketing and PR fascinate David. He notes how social media is transforming the traditional, long-term planning / campaign process by contracting time. Long term campaigns are not going away. However, the future opportunity will be in engaging customers instantly.
Opportunity #2: Giving and Gaining Our Permissions to Use Social Data
Privacy Is Not the Main Issue Because Our Social Norms on Privacy Continue Changing (59:09 – 1:00:09). Our social media activities generate significant amounts of data. What advertisers and marketers can potentially do with this data is what fascinates Charlene. Gaining consumer permissions for what our data will be used for is the hidden opportunitity.
Charlene's Caller ID Analogy and Its Application to Our Social Data. When phone companies first introduced Caller ID, consumers complained the service invaded personal privacy. Now, consumers will only answer the phone if they know who's making the call. Charlene emphasizes our norms for what is private and how our data will be used changes daily. A prime example: Facebook frequently changing its privacy policies.
What Will Be The Accepted Norms for Granting Permissions. The opportunity is working out the accepted norms for granting permissions to our privacy data in social media (analogous to what credit card companies do with our purchasing data). If marketers and advertisers gain our permissions to use our social data, consumers will demand a transparent understanding of how this data will be used.
Opportunity #3: Exploring Email Marketing and Online Communities
Two Technologies Which Can Offer Much More (1:00:11 – 1:00:21). Chris is working on applications of email marketing with online communities. These are two, early 1990's online technologies that haven't gained a lot of traction. Therefore, he thinks these technologies have a significant upside.
Conclusion — Gaining Consumer Permissions to Social Data is Why Google Fears Facebook
Mark Zuckerberg's Power to Grant Advertisers The Permissions to Facebook's Social Data Scares Google. In my opinion, this is why advertisers are clamoring to gain permissions for Facebook's social data. I also contend this underlying phenomenon is what's driving Facebook's current $50+ billion valuation.
Why Advertisers Covet Facebook's Social Data. The data or "friend updates" we disclose in Facebook is information we opt-in to share with Select Consumers: Our Friends and Family. Our relationships and influence with these select consumers may be the more efficient and effective way for advertisers to influence consumer behaviors.
Therefore, Facebook's social data is extremely attractive to advertisers. And, this social data may be more valuable to advertisers than the search behavior data that's the foundation of the Google AdWords Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Model.
Google AdWords drives roughly 90%+ of Google's revenues. As a result, Facebook legitimately threatens Google's core business.
Here are resources I've researched and studied to support and understand why Google fears Facebook:
* CNN Technology: How Facebook Eclipsed Google in 2010
* Google's Facebook-Killer Slowed by Political Infighting
* Great Wall of Facebook: The Social Network's Plan to Dominate the Internet — And Keep Google Out
* Singel-Minded: How Facebook Could Beat Google to Win The Net
* Ken Auletta's Googled Interview with Charlie Rose (links to Charlie Rose's Website)
* Fast Company Article: "Underdog Bing Talks Facebook Partnership, Google Rivalry
* My Blog Post Detailing the Ken Auletta-Charlie Rose Interview
Facebook is Gaining Traction as the Doorway to Consumer Intent (not a Google Search). Facebook Connect allows consumers to login to almost any social networking related application. For the past decade, a consumer's stated online intent almost exclusively began with a search engine (e.g., a Google Search).
Now, Facebook is gaining prominence as the preferred front door for stating consumer online intent (not Google). The fact that Facebook eclipsed Google for the first time as the most-visited U.S. website in 2010 is evidence of this trend.
In my opinion, Facebook's strategic approach is the same but noticeably different: "To organize our personal information and make it selectively accessible and useful." At least for now …
The past 48 hours describing the power shake-up at Google provides the read-between-the-lines-evidence why gaining consumer permissions to social data impacts Google:
* The New Yorker Article by Ken Auletta: Why is Eric Schmidt Stepping Down at Google?
* Wall Street Journal: Chief Seeks More Agile Google
* Wall Street Journal: Power Shifts Atop Google
* New York Times: Google Shake-Up is Effort to Revive Start-Up Spark
* Mashable Op-Ed: Why Google Needs Its Own Steve Jobs
The future of consumer permissions will be a driving force in online marketing's near and distant future. Larry Page's (Google's new CEO) ability to contend with this driving force and the accompanying Facebook competitive challenge is the type of adversity Ken Auletta said that Google's founders had yet to confront.
Stay tuned. Now, it's getting interesting.
Tony Faustino is a marketing and corporate strategist. He writes about how The Internet reinvents marketing strategy for organizations and individuals in his marketing strategy blog, Social Media ReInvention. Follow his tweets @tonyfaustino or circle him on Google+.
Arguably one of the most influential books in the past five years is The Long Tail by Chris Anderson. The book focuses on the economic forces creating thousands of sales niches found in online retailing (i.e., iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, etc.). In the book's 2008 update, Anderson included an additional chapter titled, "The Long Tail of Marketing." Here, he discusses the influence of "incoming links" (e.g., inbound links) and how they are reinventing online marketing strategy because:
* Attracting inbound links drives online word-of-mouth (WOM) and
* Generating online word-of-mouth is what influences 21st century consumer behavior
I find Anderson's analysis intriguing because it's a "plain-spoken" explanation of how Google calculates PageRank. I'll do my best to capture Anderson's explanation here.
The Online Social Impact of an Inbound Link
Anderson makes the case that an inbound link is a measure of influence and the best way to measure WOM. Why?
* When someone or another organization links to your content (i.e., your blog or your product / service webpage), you've received a reference or recommendation — the ultimate act of online generosity.
* A link to someone else's content signals "you should leave my site and go to this other site" because this other site has great content that's worth learning about.
* Providing a link to another site symbolizes "a vote of confidence." In essence, this vote is a "transfer of reputation" from the referring site (aka "the trusted source"). An example of online reputation transfer is what you see in the blogging community when bloggers provide attribution to each other when either linking to other blogs or citing a fellow blogger's work.
Importance of Inbound Links in Google Organic Search Rankings
Inbound links determine how high you rank in organic searches because the Google algorithm values inbound links when determining relevance and authority:
* Online content earning high numbers of inbound links will receive higher placement in Google organic searches. That's why you want your content to provide value to other consumers. That value can take many forms such as providing "how-to" advice in addressing a problem or providing entertainment value. Either way, you want consumers to share your content and link to it in blog posts, Twitter tweets, Facebook discussions, LinkedIn forums, and social networking sites.
* Therefore, if you want to get found in Google, you have to create lots of valuable content generating lots of inbound links. The more inbound links your content earns, the higher your placement in Google's organic search rankings (and hopefully, higher consumer awareness that you can convert into increased sales of your products or services).
Microsoft Says Google Acts Raise Antitrust Issues. When I read this Reuters News headline, I honestly thought it was a prank of some kind. But guess what, it's no joke.
Isn't this incredibly ironic? Remember when it was Netscape and Sun Microsystems who made their case to federal regulators about Microsoft's anti-competitive practices?
Apparently, Dave Heiner (Microsoft's Deputy General Counsel) published a blog post on the company website titled, Competition Authorities and Search. Heiner's post says (among many other things) if you're concerned with antitrust concerns with Google, "we suggest firms talk to the competition law agencies (complaining to Microsoft won't do much good)."
Not surprisingly, a significant portion of the blog post talks about Google's market leadership position in search. Microsoft's Bing recently combined forces with Yahoo, and they want their combined search offering to gain greater market share.
The following text (in italics) is from the "Competition Authorities and Search" blog post:
Both search and online advertising are increasingly controlled by a single firm, Google. That can be a problem because Google’s business is helped along by significant network effects (just like the PC operating system business). Search engine algorithms learn by observing how users interact with search results. Google’s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.
These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up. Microsoft’s well-received Bing search engine is addressing this challenge by offering innovations in areas that are less dependent on volume. But Bing needs to gain volume too, in order to increase the relevance of search results for less common search terms. That is why Microsoft and Yahoo! are combining their search volumes. And that is why we are concerned about Google business practices that tend to lock in publishers and advertisers and make it harder for Microsoft to gain search volume.
Can you actually believe that big and powerful Microsoft is trying to make a case that poor little Bing needs a more level playing field? Who would have thunk it?
I'm looking forward to seeing how Microsoft and Google battle it out in the next 10 years in not only search but also other services (i.e., packaged software vs. cloud computing, Internet Explorer vs. Google Chrome, and the mobile wars). Why? This fiercely growing rivalry will tremendously benefit the global consumer with better technology choices that will continue to reshape and impact our professional and personal lives.
Fast Company recently published its March 2010 cover story: The World's Most Innovative Companies. In this issue, Ellen McGirt wrote a great profile about Facebook. While reading the article, I was struck by the strong similarities between Facebook and Google regarding reinvention and innovation.
Google's Mindset
I've written in a previous blog post what I've learned about how Google approaches innovation / reinvention. Google's attitude is to:
* Question everything
* Ask "why does this have to be the way it is?"
* Encourage engineers to push the envelope, to assume that their mission is to disrupt traditional ways of doing things
Facebook's Mindset
According to the Fast Company piece, "hacking" plays a key role in Facebook's corporate culture. Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook's CEO) explains this process as:
* Being unafraid to break things in order to make them better
* The root of the hacker mindset is "there's a better way"
* Just because people have been doing it the same way since the beginning of time, I'm going to make it better
Here's a Facebook blog post written by Andrew Bosworth (a top Facebook engineer) called Working With Zuck. Bosworth describes four (4) characteristics about working with the famous twenty-something CEO:
* Zuck Expects Debate
* Zuck Isn't Sentimental
* Zuck Experiences Things Contextually
* Zuck Pushes People
This shows how great minds think alike, and it's no surprise that Facebook and Google ranked as #1 and #2 respectively in Fast Company's list of most innovative companies.
I know there's a lot currently being written about future businesses that Facebook and Google may compete in (i.e., vertical search), but I think the fiercest area of competition will be in the war for talent. Check out this recruiting video Fast Company posted as part of the article. There's no question both firms are targeting many of the same talented engineers:
