backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 77 comment(s) - last by HeelyJoe.. on Jun 17 at 1:45 AM


Google CEO Eric Schmidt had a lot to say at his latest interview in San Francisco. He says Google is striving to live up to "don't be evil", but is facing some challenges that leave it misunderstood.  (Source: Stephen Shankland/CNET News.com)
Hearing the call of duty to fix the online ad business, Schmidt comments on publisher fears and a broad array of issues

We're not your enemy, we're your friend -- that's the message Google's Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said media companies should take home about Google.  In an in-depth interview with Ken Auletta, The New Yorker's media reporter, Schmidt portrayed that by "fixing" the advertising system and bringing offline advertising online, Google is bringing advertising into the twenty first century and is doing what it takes to save advertising.

Schmidt reaffirmed his claim that Google wasn't out to just make money, but was trying to promote a greater good.  He states that concerning publisher's problems with advertising, "It's a huge moral imperative to help here."

Google will certainly make a lot of money, though in the process if it succeeds.  After growing large business selling text ads, it now is upping its graphical advertisements, thanks to its acquisition of DoubleClick, among the internet's largest and most experienced advertisers.  Schmidt said this unified approach is the key to success, stating, "By combining DoubleClick with that (search-ad) architecture, we can provide a single platform for publishers that over time will begin to generate significant revenue for publishers."

However, Google is fast finding that graphical ads, which command a price premium are much more vulnerable to the economy.  While Q1 2008 did see significant 8.5 percent annual growth, up to about $2.9 billion total annual revenue, this was significantly slower than the early growth rate of 16.7 percent.

Schmidt commented on Viacom's suit against Google for its property YouTube which Viacom contends intentionally allows or condones infringement of copyrighted materials.  He labels the claims as baseless and says that media companies like Viacom are just insecure about Google's role as a leader in the online advertising and media revolution.  He states, “There is a sea change from one model to another. Many of the criticisms I see seem to be merely about the change, and Google happens to be the messenger.  Those changes are going to occur independently."

With YouTube, Google fills the shoes of both being a publisher, like Viacom, and an advertiser.  Thus it's in its best interest, it argues to make graphical advertising work as well as possible.

Curiously Schmidt remarked that he found the fact that internet users were getting more and more while paying less and less to be disturbing.  He states, "That's bad for Google. We are critically dependent on high-quality content."

Schmidt insists that despite this profit first mentality, Google is really only using its profits as a vehicle to achieve great and noble things.  He dropped a number of statements such as, "The goal of the company isn't to monetize everything. The goal is to change the world."

When challenged to provide more detail of what such a lofty and ambiguous goal meant, he quipped, "For the better."

Schmidt says of his company "we don't have an evil meter we can apply," but he says they do apply the line of thought in making their most important decisions.  He says that cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin were responsible for the attitude and at first he was incredulous and thought it was a joke.  He states, "I thought when I joined the company this was crap--companies don't have these things. I thought it was a joke. It must be a Larry and Sergey thing.  o I was sitting in a room six months in, and an engineer said, 'That's evil.' It's like a bomb goes off in the room. Everybody has a moral and ethical discussion that, by the way, stopped the product."

Schmidt says Google doesn't have listen to what Wall Street says, rather, "We respond to end-user satisfaction.  We have enough leverage that we have the luxury of time.  Most businesses can't invest for scale. They have to make money now. That short-term focus does make people sometimes make the wrong trade-off."

While money is not usually the main objective, it is sometimes he admits.  He confirmed reports that Google held an important meeting with the YouTube staff demanding they move the business into profitable, cashing in on its success.  His details on the plan were vague, but he stated, "We have a revenue plan, a usage plan, a scale plan, a bandwidth plan."

YouTube accounts for most of Google's outbound traffic, so it must start making money.

While Schmidt's comments, particularly the amount of service one, may strike some users as a bit odd, it’s hard to deny Google's success and power.  With the internet ruled by Google for now, we can all only hope that it lives up to its motto -- "Don't be evil" -- as Schmidt says it will.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Your best advertising option? Don't.
By Motoman on 6/12/2008 6:35:45 PM , Rating: 1
Note to Google and all other advertisers...

Every time I see an advertisement...whether in print, on the TV, on a billboard, online, wherever...I make a mental note NOT TO EVER BUY THAT COMPANY'S PRODUCTS UNLESS I HAVE NO REASONABLE CHOICE.

The less you put ads in front of my face, the more likely I am to buy your products. When I need something, I go looking for it, and the prospective purchases I could make that come from the most obnoxious advertisers go to the bottom of the list.

The more you put ads in front of my face, the more likely I am to permanently boycott all of your products...and not ever consider anything you put out at all.

And don't even think about telemarketing. If someone calls me up to pitch me something, I don't care if it cures cancer...you're getting NOTHING from me. Ever.




RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By zhaus on 6/12/2008 6:48:28 PM , Rating: 5
Ah but advertising is more subtle than that. The stuff you see on TV, the pictures in magazines; they have a huge influence on consumer thinking.


RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By LumbergTech on 6/12/2008 6:55:16 PM , Rating: 5
thats true, but times are changing....a large segment of the population is getting smarter about advertising..

most ads i see cause me to feel resentment...i dont mind advertising in some places but i do not want to be blasted with ads every goddamn second of the day and it just causes me to feel jaded and refuse to buy the products i see advertised


RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By P4blo on 6/13/2008 5:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
I've blocked many of the main advertising domains at my router. I did it initially so I could remote my PC without it grinding to a hault because of the load web based animated advertising puts on remote desktop bandwidth.

I'm of the opinion if there were no adverts and people simply made use of the wealth of information and reviews available to assess products, much better purchases would be made and rubbish products couldn't cheat there way into market share.

We all know the quality and look of an advert bares virtually zero relevance to the quality or functionality of the product. All it is doing is shouting louder than the other companies from the highest hill and spending more of their profit margin doing so.

I don't want overpriced products simply because companies get into ridiculous advertising exposure wars. It's just stupid and pointless unless you happen to be a combat wearing advertising flunkie.

And dont get me started on the whole lifestyle pushing thing. I just find that offensive, a company who only cares about its profits trying to suggest how I should live my life? Talk about conflict of interests.

I'm of the opinion that advertising is an unnecessary evil and should be kept under control for the good of all. There are plenty of brilliant products that put their budget into product development and dont blow it all on over invasive market research and advertising. Usually the products that get mega marketing are poor/average quality, high profit margin, pile it high junk and they couldn't beat the competition if they depended on word of mouth.

Look at what's happening with TV these days. I rarely watch stuff live and hit the fast forward every time they try and sit me through endless adverts. On the occasion when I do prefer to watch something live (like F1) the adverts just grind and I get up and make a drink rather than feel like another hamster in their wheel. I also resent losing live coverage of the races to pander to their sponsors. Advertisers target F1 viewers and the net result is F1 fans lose up to 20 minutes of race coverage to watch their junk? Another wonderful conflict of interests.


RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By giffypop17 on 6/13/2008 12:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
Um...you do realize that F1 exists essentially for the purpose of advertising, right? Sure, the drivers, crew chiefs, and engineers may be in it for the racing, but the people who front the money? All big companies looking to get their name out.

Advertising is a lot more than just commercials, jingles, and placing a coke can on a desk during your favorite sitcom (which also, by the way, is only free because of...you guessed it: ADVERTISING!!)

I'm not saying I'm a fan of advertising, I can be just as annoyed by the stuff as anyone else. But everyone on here is acting like it's some simple thing we can just remove.


RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By Motoman on 6/13/2008 1:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
As noted elsewhere, I'm sort of pro-sponsorship and anti-advertising...

I like seeing a sponsor's logo on a race car...that is conducive to me buying their products. As opposed to seeing their ad on a billboard, which makes me not want to buy their stuff.

I guess I kind of look at it like I WANT to see F1, for example, and I want F1 to flourish, so I want to support the companies that support F1. I don't, however, want to support the companies that put a 50-foot sign along the highway.

There's a fine line there somewhere...I'm not sure I could define it too well without spending a lot of time thinking about it, but I think most of us get the idea of sponsorship vs. advertising.


By jRaskell on 6/16/2008 12:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
The only fine line there is one arbitrarily drawn by you. My purchasing decisions have absolutely nothing at all to do with how products are advertised and everything to do with the quality and value of the product itself.

Product Marketing and Product Development/Manufacturing are two distinctly seperate entities within the majority of companies. With only a few extreme exceptions, basing your purchasing decisions on advertising models is about as arbitrary and irrelevant as basing them on whether you like the company name or not.


By dever on 6/16/2008 2:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't, however, want to support the companies that put a 50-foot sign along the highway.
If I'm visiting another city, and my kid gets sick, I'll be quite happy if a private hospital or clinic rents a giant sign with an arrow.

Similarly, I look for signs to hotels or restaurants that I find tolerable when I'm driving in an unfamiliar area.

How about the absurdity of government highway signs? You're distracting me from driving with tiny letters to tell me that it's a $100 fine if I litter? And you're using my tax dollars to devise, print and install these distractions? Compare that with the split second it takes to realize there's a McD's at the next exit just by seeing the giant golden arches. Information I might be able to use.

The bottom line is this... if individuals didn't respond to advertising, then companies wouldn't pay for it. There's an implicit benefit to the customer because of the response.


RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By JonnyDough on 6/14/2008 8:42:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But everyone on here is acting like it's some simple thing we can just remove.


Advertising isn't removable?

Mozilla Firefox with pop-up blocker + banner ad blocker add on = thanks.

Why do I need to spend a monthly fee for net service AND get hit with mass advertising. My old tv never charged for broadcast signal. I believe the advertising revenue paid for that as well.

Places that advertise:

Fee-based video games (and not just games online, see "Rainbow Six")

MySpace and other online community sites

Stores

Which one has a right to make me see advertisements?

Only the online community sites. If I buy a video game for $50 that should be enough, I shouldn't have to get pummeled with ads. It detracts from the enjoyment of the game for me. You can thank pirates for the increasing ads and costs of games. These companies are losing money because of it, and stealing isn't justifiable no matter how you want to spin it. The fact is software developers put long hours and a lot of work into making good games, and if we steal it we're essentially telling them thanks for the free labor.

Online stores should earn revenue through sales. They make more money per sale than an actual store would anyway due to not having to display merchandise (except via photographs) and one (or only several per region) location warehousing.

Just my 2ยข.


By jRaskell on 6/16/2008 1:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can thank pirates for the increasing ads and costs of games.


I don't consider that a foregone conclusion. I don't refute the amount of piracy that goes on. I also don't refute the fact that it is stealing.

I have not, however, seen any reasonable attempts to accurately correlate piracy and lost revenue, and I am not convinced that there is any substantial revenue loss that can be attributed to piracy.

As such, I don't see piracy as a valid root of any financially related problem or perceived problem.


By P4blo on 6/16/2008 4:59:31 AM , Rating: 2
Yes I fully appreciate that many of the services and sports we watch are largely paid for by advertising. Where I draw the line though is when the advertising begins to actually detract from the events enjoyment.

Fortunately they're moving our F1 coverage back to the BBC soon so we will have adds removed again just like the good old days.

I wonder if advertisers really do understand how poorly some of their stuff is received, both in content and how it's delivered. People here are right, you piss off the 'buyer' in any way and you can forget your sale.

I think they have much to learn!


RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By Motoman on 6/12/2008 7:37:13 PM , Rating: 3
...you're right - they do. When I see a Coke can in a TV show I'm watching, my consumer thinking goes "I dislike Coke a little more now."

Granted, the vast majority of consumers are completely incapable of thinking for themselves, which is why they buy Monster Cables and Bose products. So yes, sadly, advertising does work...on the average schmuck.

However, I (and I suspect pretty much everyone who would come to DT) am not an average schmuck, and I know what you're doing, and I really wish you would stop. And the more you keep doing it, the less I like you.


RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By MrBlastman on 6/13/2008 11:33:46 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree with your views on excessive advertising - it is very annoying, I disagree with your extreme viewpoint on telemarketing.

I myself am guilty of changing channels on the television, I do it all the time. I usually watch two or three programs at a time, flipping back and forth between them every time commercials come on (I do not watch enough television to justify the cost of Tivo).

But, I must say, you obviously have never, ever worked in a Producing type career of any form that requires you to sell yourself to grow your practice. The type of career where you only get paid if you produce your own revenue and business. This can include your own business or a professional job that requires you to market yourself in a company (where people typically make 200k+).

If you had _any_ idea how hard it is to bring in new clients, put bread in your mouth every month and feed your kids while handling the stress of not knowing where your next piece of revenue is coming from - and repeat this over and over, your attitude might change.

It is NOT easy. It is even harder today than it was 15 years ago with the introduction of Do Not Call. Sure, there was a lot of junk marketing (the phone companies and other low-dollar mass-barrage of trying to get you to buy little products), but there are still many legitimate hard working Americans who due to regulatory measures, can not do things such as:

a. advertise on television
b. advertise on print
c. promote themselves on the radio or in other public means

and are forced to spend THEIR OWN MONEY to send mailings to invite people to seminars, cold call, or try and generate word-of-mouth referrals.

Until you are in that hotseat, please do not trash-talk cold callers. There are a few that are out there trying to make an honest buck and when you have zero money and are trying to start a legitimate, professional career, sometimes picking up that receiver and dialing is literally the most cost effective thing you can do. Not everyone knows somebody, not everyone has lots of money in the bank, not everyone is gifted with a book of clients from the start.

Some of the people out there actually have to start at ground zero and earn everything honestly.


By Motoman on 6/13/2008 11:39:32 AM , Rating: 2
You know, you're right. I had totally only been thinking of "big company advertiser" like credit card companies and the like. My whole mindset on this thread was about "the man" and his "shock and awe" advertising campaigns that seem to bombard us all the time.

Your point is well-taken, and I feel to be totally different from the kind of stuff I'm mad about. You only call businesses who are likely to need your services...not random people at home eating dinner. That puts this in a totally different class.

I don't really have to deal with business-to-business marketing, so I probably can't really form an opinion on it...but by all means, go and find yourself some work.

...just don't get a job as a telemarketer and call me at night trying to sell me new windows ;)


RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By Freddo on 6/12/2008 10:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. It may not affect the consumer goods you know stuff about, be it sodas, computer parts or whatever.

But when one buy stuff that one doesn't know stuff about, like cleaning products or something, then people are more likely to buy a brand they find familiar from advertisement.

And seeing there's always a product X that consumer Y doesn't know about, all ranges are targeted.

And for kids, the commercials are very influencial and the products are usually something that's "cool", and might be something that they stick to for life. Or at least, a very long time.