Archive for the ‘GOOG’ Category

Google Advertising and Marketing Trends Index

September 11, 2009

The Google Finance blog has announced a new set of tools for analyzing search volumes called Google Domestic Trends on Google Finance.

How Google Domestic Trends works:

Google Domestic Trends tracks Google search traffic across specific sectors of the economy. The changes in the search volume of a given sector on google.com may provide useful economic insight. We have created 23 indexes that track the major economic sectors, such as retail, auto and unemployment. Each index value is baselined at 1.0 on January 1, 2004 and is calculated and displayed on the Google Finance charts as a 7-day moving average. You can easily compare actual stocks and market indexes to these Google Trends on the charts.

The 23 categories available in Google’s Domestic Trends tool are: Advertising & marketing, Air travel, Auto buyers, Auto financing, Automotive, Banking & personal finance, Business, Computers & electronics, Construction, Credit & lending, Durable goods, Finance & Insurance, Furniture, Industries, Investing, Jobs, Luxury goods, Mortgage, Real estate, Rental, Retail trade, Travel and Unemployment.

The Google Advertising and Marketing Trends Index which tracks queries related to “marketing, do not call, advertising, signs, logo, commercials” etc. illustrates both the marketing industry’s peaks and troughs since 2004.

Interestingly, the lowest point in the index was reached in January of this year while the highest point since early 2005 was reached September 4 of this year.

The Advertising and Marketing Trends Index probably peaked as a result of increased advertising and marketing spending by the auto industry on the cash for clunkers program.

Google Advertising & Marketing Index

Google Advertising & Marketing Index

Google’s index data can be compared with actual stocks, the Dow Jones, or Nasdaq by entering the respective tickers in the Compare box.

Below, I have generated a Google Advertising and Marketing Trends chart comparing the performance of the Dow Jones, S&P 500, Nasdaq, Google (GOOG) and the New York Times (NYT).

Google Advertising Marketing Index Stocks Comparison

Google Advertising Marketing Index Stocks Comparison

While the indexes have remained in a relatively narrow trading range, Google and the New York Times stock have not. Google stock has climbed 350% while the New York Times Company stock has fallen 79% over the same time period.

Evidently, now is not the time to be in the content creation business.

Google Insights for Search provides more detailed information about the ten search categories that compose the Google Domestic Trends Index on a country by country or worldwide basis.

Google Insights for Search US Advertising & Marketing Index

Google Insights for Search US Advertising & Marketing Index

Additionally, Insights for Search now also provides a forecast for each of the 23 Domestic Trends.

In the case of the Advertising and Marketing Index, Google forecasts a 47% drop in US Advertising and Marketing activity for December 2009 compared to December 2004.

Google Insights for Search Worldwide Advertising Marketing Index

Google Insights for Search Worldwide Advertising Marketing Index

Google forecasts a 43% drop in Worldwide Advertising and Marketing activity for December 2009 compared to December 2004.

Advertisements

Google Q1 2009 Earnings

April 16, 2009

Techcrunch has notes live from Google’s Q1 2009 earnings call.

Comments about Google’s most recent quarter from CEO Eric Schmidt:

“We’re still basically in uncharted territory” (with regards to the economy).
No company is recession proof, Google is feeling the impact.
Our advertising method is working
“We think Google is well placed for the recovery as it occurs or when it occurs and the shift continues to the Web, continues to give us a great advantage”
The shift online continues to give us an advantage
Advertisers lowering bids
Omid Kordenstani is stepping down. It’s impossible to explain the impact he’s had.
No one is better placed to advise us (Kordenstani will remain an advisor).

Additional comments from CFO Patrick Pinchette:

Google.com up due to traffic growth.
AdSense was down, impacted by clean-up of network partners.
Our advertisers slowed their spend
Lower-labor costs and we reset our company bonus plan
Traffic acquisition costs were roughly flat from Q4
“We’re still hiring” — but only in certain areas.
As previously announced, we’re eliminating 200 positions in sales and marketing, but those weren’t included in the Q1 numbers
Our revenues are seasonally weaker in Q2, so be prepared.

Thanks TechCrunch.

Google Chrome Browser and Comic Book Marketing Communications

September 1, 2008

The Official Google blog has announced they will be launching the beta version of Google’s new Chrome browser tomorrow in more than 100 countries.

Sorry Mac and Linux users – no Google Chrome browser yet developed for your operating systems.

What I find most interesting about this product launch is Google’s use of a comic book to market and communicate their new browsers story and value proposition.

Google Chrome Browser Comic Book

Google Chrome Browser Comic Book

Additionally, they have posted their comic book “tutorial” in Google Book Search which will surely drive more traffic and create more awareness of one of Google’s less visited search properties.

Could comic books become the new preferred marketing communications media for making a case for switching from one technology provider to another?

At a minimum, using a comic book to market a new browser is novel…

Microsoft & Yahoo Vs. Google: The Battle for Local Audience and Mobile Keystrokes

February 9, 2008

Let’s look at two areas where search will play a role in winning new audience and their keystrokes: Local and Mobile search.

Here are how Microsoft, Yahoo and Google web property’s search are performing today.

Its been reported nearly 50% of searches are local in nature. Let’s see how Microsoft’s Live handles a local brand search for Verizon Wireless in New York, NY.

Live is able to locate Verizon Wireless stores in New York and provides five viewing options: Road, Aerial, Hybrid, Bird’s Eye and Traffic. Are their results relevant? Yes. Could we make our way to Verizon Wireless store or reach them by phone with the information Live provides? Yes.

With the Bird’s Eye view we may even be able to see what our destination looks like. Pretty cool.

Microsoft (US) Brand Search: Verizon Wireless New York, NY

Microsoft Live Verizon Wireless NY Road Map

Microsoft Verizon Wireless NY Road

Microsoft Live Verizon Wireless NY Aerial Map
Microsoft Verizon Wireless NY Aerial

Microsoft Live Verizon Wireless NY Hybrid Map

Microsoft Verizon Wireless NY Hybrid

Microsoft Live Verizon Wireless NY Bird’s Eye Map

Microsoft Verizon Wireless NY Bird’s Eye

Microsoft Live Verizon Wireless NY Traffic Map

Microsoft Verizon Wireless NY Traffic

How does Live perform outside the United States? A search for HSBC in London yields similar results. This particular brand search result is for a location near Trafalgar Square. If you aren’t going to be able to stop by a bank branch in London today, you can still take in the sights.

Microsoft (UK) Brand Search: HSBC London, England

Microsoft HSBC London UK Bird’s Eye Map

Microsoft HSBC London Bird’s Eye

Now let’s try the same searches in Yahoo. Yahoo offers similar results. The look and feel isn’t too much different from those we received from Microsoft.

Initially though, I had difficulty locating the results I was hoping to find. Eventually I did find them – must have been my error.

Our options for connecting with one of the stores include: Getting directions, Save for later, Send to phone and Write a review.

Yahoo (US) Brand Search: Verizon Wireless, New York, NY

Yahoo Verizon Wireless NY “Find a Business”

Yahoo Verizon Wireless Find A Business

Yahoo Verizon Wireless New York

Yahoo Verizon Wireless New York

I can get the same type of UK map results from Yahoo however; I have to pull Yahoo’s UK web property up to get London results whereas with Microsoft I was able to get results from their US site.

Yahoo (UK) Brand Search: HSBC London, England

Yahoo HSBC UK Brand US Search

Yahoo HSBC UK US Search

Yahoo HSBC UK London UK Search

Yahoo (UK) Brand Search: HSBC London, England

Now, let’s run searches for the same terms in Google. Like Microsoft, Google returns five types of views albeit under different button terms: Map, Street, Traffic, Satellite and Terrain Views.

The look and feel of Google’s views seem more visually pleasing than both the Microsoft and Yahoo products, however my appraisal is subjective.

Microsoft’s search and map features seem to be evenly matched with Googles’ and beyond those of Yahoo’s. Microsoft’s “Bird’s Eye” view does appear to ahead of its counterpart – Google’s satellite view.

Google (US) Brand Search: Verizon Wireless New York, NY

Google Verizon Wireless NY Map View

Google Verizon Wireless Map View

Google Verizon Wireless NY Street View

Verizon Street View

Google Verizon Wireless Traffic View

Google Verizon NY Traffic View

Google Verizon Wireless NY Satellite View

Google Verizon Wireless Satellite View

Google Verizon Wireless Terrain View

Google Verizon NY Terrain View

Google offers only three viewing options in the UK at this time compared to Microsoft’s five, yet I can fetch the results from Google’s US property unlike with Yahoo.

Google (UK) Brand Search: HSBC, London England

Google US HSBC Brand Search London UK Map View

Google (UK) Brand Search: HSBC, London England

Overall Microsoft, Google and Yahoo each offer their version of both business and brand rich search results.

From what I can tell, businesses and brands have yet to scratch the surface so to speak when it comes to reaching their potential customers in this new geographically rich and fertile target marketing environment.

Microsoft and Yahoo vs. Google: The Battle for Audience and Keystrokes

February 7, 2008

The Redmond giant has sprung to its feet from its long and comfortable slumber.

Much like the browser business before it, Microsoft has realized it had better get into the search advertising business before its too late.

I think we all know who won the browser war. We also know how they did it.

Even with its proposed acquisition of Yahoo!, Microsoft may have already overslept and thus lost this battle.

On the surface this acquisition looks like a grab for a piece of the search advertising business.

However, just below the surface lie its real targets: the Internet audience and their keystrokes.

Internet Audience?

Keystrokes?

Both beachheads Microsoft has or has had control of nearly since their inception, keystrokes via the personal computer desktop and the Internet audience via browsers – not from birth but before the web’s infancy ended.

Like their importance to Microsoft’s franchise before, both have an equally and even greater importance going forward. Audience begets keystrokes and vice versa. However, It’s hard to control one if you don’t control the other.

Microsoft’s $44 billion offer to acquire Yahoo and its audience is an admission by Microsoft that if they aren’t able to augment their present audience now with an acquisition the size of Yahoo, they won’t ever be able to stem the audience gains being made by Google and their control of the largest and most valuable part of the internet audience – the search audience.

At this point, Microsoft’s not getting control of Yahoo’s audience is the single greatest risk facing their business – hence their offer price and the need to get the deal done. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but let unabated Microsoft faces continued losses in both audience and keystrokes.

Its not a market position Microsoft is familiar with or comfortable.

Why search is the most valuable audience on the Internet.

There are two types of audiences on the Internet. The old and familiar audience type, which is the one served and supported by display advertising.

Advertisers buy ads to reach an audience based on what content a publisher assembles to attract a particular audience. Ads are then priced and sold based on the desirability advertisers have in reaching that particular audience.

At any one time, a large percentage of the publisher’s audience is inactive – not interested in what the advertiser is selling.

Advertisers still have to pay to reach the publishers entire audience regardless of how many people may or may not be interested in the advertiser’s ads or products. Because display advertising is inefficient i.e., reaches more disinterested audience than audience of potential buyers – it sells for less and thus generates less income for publishers.

The other type of audience available to advertisers on the web is search advertising.

Unlike display advertising, search advertising reaches only an active audience – people who have explicitly requested advertisers information about their products or services – by their clicking on ads.

Search advertisers only incur costs to reach their audience when consumers click on their ads. Thus search advertising is significantly more efficient in delivering advertising messages to the exclusively active segment of the Internet audience – people who are actively searching for information.

By definition, search advertising only delivers advertisements to people actively seeking what the advertiser is advertising and selling. Because of this efficiency in targeting and delivery, search advertisers are able to reach more qualified prospects for less than through traditional media.

In turn, search advertising providers like Google are able to charge advertisers commensurate with the value the advertisers receive from reaching a efficiently targeted and active audience.

The result?

By my calculations, Google’s annualized gross revenue from advertising per visitor is roughly twice that of Yahoo’s and nearly four times Microsoft’s (gross advertising revenues divided by web property visits)

At a minimum, a search driven visit is worth at least twice – up to four times more than a non-search driven visit.

This is why Microsoft desperately needs Yahoo’s audience.

Although there are wide discrepancies over what percentage of search each company gets, Google receives between four to twenty times more search traffic than Microsoft and three to five times more search traffic than Yahoo, combined and assuming no market disruption – the two companies would still only generate one fourth to one half the search business of Google.

This acquisition also assumes Yahoo’s ad platform can continue to harvest one half the value Google does whether through Yahoo! or Microsoft’s search product without cultural distraction or interruption from the merger.

Even with their proposed clean room assembly, Microsoft’s acquisition of Yahoo! does not answer how they will make up difference (search volume + gross revenue per visitor).

By doubling their performance (revenue per visit) post merger to meet Google’s present level of performance, a MicroHoo search advertising business gross revenues per visitor would be half of Google’s.

In order for Microsoft to retain Yahoo’s audience, publishers and advertisers- the combined company will also need to produce:

Highly relevant search results for its audience, a functional ad platform for its advertisers, profitable ad distribution for its publishing partners and most importantly: a greater return on its advertisers’ investments.

Without which any new ad platform and search product may grab the attention of a larger audience and gain its keystrokes only to see it lost after they are unable to deliver what the internet audience has already come to expect, find and get from Google.

Of course, this also assumes Microsoft is somehow precluded from using its expanded platform and footprint to reroute ancillary chunks of audience to its new web properties acquired through the proposed acquisition along with their accompanying keystrokes.

In the absence thereof, there may be no stopping Google’s march.