I think that has always been the goal of advertising online. Knowing what I, as a consumer, do and where I've been and how I surf, so you can better advertise at me. Business Week, http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/..., has a story about Right Media, which Yahoo bought, about how they are trying to create more highly targetted advertising online. It'll be interesting to see if this purchase pays off for Yahoo.
RBA
· 2 years ago
Does it make sense to say that perhaps - just perhaps - ad agencies fear Google in a similar way the RIAA & cia. fear p2p? Of course a big difference is that Google is also a business, but I see some similar pattern here. What do you think?
colin
· 2 years ago
Interesting.
While there's only one Google, and many agencies, they are in a position to demand nothing unless they group together. If M+Y could provide more then they'd be a strong position perhaps and Google would likely need to follow to keep advertisers.
There is the issue of course of the consumer revolting about giving up all that tracking data. That being said, it seems like teenagers will give up a lot of personal data to stay in the social mix.
TK
· 2 years ago
I don't fear google. Don't put all your eggs in one basket! I use various search engines and email service providers. =O) Also, I don't click on ANY ads.
macbeach
· 2 years ago
I don't fear them (yet) because they have yet to do anything that locked my data into their own proprietary warehouse. Yes, my email is on their system, but it was also on Yahoo's system and Microsoft's and some local ISPs for a while too. Any of them could have snooped it without my knowledge.
I am not a privacy nut, but I generally turn off "tracking" options when given the choice, and Google, Firefox, Debian all have such check boxes that I can use. I'm more concerned with software that doesn't give you the option, and doesn't bother to even tell you that it is contacting the mother-ship every so often. Now what big company would do that hmmm?
Google's marketing lead could evaporate almost overnight. Suppose Microsoft set out to make everything Google does cause mysterious crashes on Windows systems with the latest update? Suppose Yahoo kept my photos on their servers, but hid them from me after a while requiring a $25 fee for me to get at them again?
I reserve my fears for companies that have already played fast and loose with my stuff, and worry less about what some new company MIGHT do in the future. Google has pledged not to engage in lock-in, I haven't heard similar pledges from Yahoo or Microsoft, who both in fact have a track record that is quite the opposite.
Should Google (and MS and Yahoo) scare the dickens out of print and TV advertisers? You bet. Because print and TV advertisers never could (or wanted to) provide accurate metrics on how many people either saw, or acted on their advertising materials. The Internet can and does do that, even if there is a bit of cheating in the process.
I got a renewal call from one of the well known trade publications Friday. They literally BEGGED me to keep my print subscription even though I assured them I never even open the plastic wrap it comes in. Doesn't there seem like there is something not quite honest about that?
If left up to the journalists and technical people I'm sure many of these publications would be Internet-only by now. But the owners of these printing presses won't come to terms with the real world. In the 90s maybe I could feel a bit sorry for them, but at this point they are playing a con game with their customers, they deserve whatever they get at this point.
John C. Welch
· 2 years ago
Why did the stock market drive shares of Yahoo up so fast on total rumors that Microsoft was buying Yahoo? Easy, we wanted it to happen. “We” being journalists who are living in FOG land. Bloggers who’d like to see Microsoft be interesting again (which is why I linked to it).
Anyone who would think that is ignorant or living in a fantasy world. That would have the exact opposite effect.
Christopher Coulter
· 2 years ago
Fantasy world, for sure, plus all the Social Media Internet 'desktop marketers' that want the world in nice easy little-pretty-boxes. Hey, let's jet to Cancun and talk about it all, wouldn't that be fun, invite all the cool 'they get it' people. Flag up blogs, feeds, and doooo some video, pay off some hip bloggers, and then track your every move, plotting out strategy from Googleish print-out sheets. Wheeee. Most marketing types, are really just Advertising Managers, as it's the rare marketer that actually markets.
Gerbil activity really, shop talkers, talking shop talk to other shop talkers.
John
· 2 years ago
Scoble, you are getting very good in FUD.
If Fear of Google is bad, just imagine what would be Fear of Microsoft Live (all of your digital lifestyle belong us).
It's a kind of crazy Robin Hood - take away from the rich and give it to the even more rich.
paul
· 2 years ago
Did you know that at Forbes they all digg their own stories?
Rick
· 2 years ago
Sorry, but I can't get a case of the FOG. In fact I love to see Google get bigger and bigger.
Why? For over a year now I've been working in the field of old school media (print and broadcasting). Walking with dinosaurs so to speak. These were, and still are, big, powerful international companies.
Google operates in the same market as they do. The advertising market. The attention economy. But unlike traditional media, Google uses Information Technology. Media companies hate IT. They don't like it, they don't understand it and what's more, they refuse to either invest in it, or change their business practices and organisations to accommodate it. When they talk about investing in IT they talk about buying software and hardware as a commodity, like some new tv-studio equipment. The value of knowledge, and people with knowledge is completely unknown to them.
In other words: even though they have the money and the crucial relationships with both audience and advertisers, they simply refuse to get into the game if the game is called IT.
If the only company standing between Google and the advertising market is the IT company that has already shown it has no scruples about abusing its power, and has shown a blatant disregard for a healthy and open internet in which all can compete equally (the Silverlight monstrosity, however technically ingenious, being the latest example of this arrogant and destructive mentality), god help us. Why doesn't Microsoft bother to make decent competitive online services instead of their "Live" crap?
Right now, I'd rather have a company dominate the industry that actually makes the effort to a) build decent products, and b) knows the meaning of the word "ethics".
Google doesn't have any major competitors because those who should compete with them never even bothered to try. Not because Google is so powerful, but because they simple didn't want to, long before Google got this big. And they still don't.
It's not Googles fault that they are the only ones even trying hard enough. When Google starts to squash potential competitors with MS-like tactics, then there is a reason to get FOG.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
#9 (Paul): do you have some evidence of such an assertion?
#8 (John): heheh, I'm getting good at "FOGging" -- FUDing is so 1990s.
Kermit Croaked
· 2 years ago
Scoble, you did *notice* the Coca-Cola umbreally, right? I don't even notice Google ads. I do question whether advertisers are getting their money's worth with them.
Also, note that Google's earnings reports are among the most opaque in business, with very little guidance as to future earnings, and the actual reported earnings lacking a detailed breakdown. Shades of Enron.
Feitag
· 2 years ago
Worse that Google are the eyeball tracking advertising signs.
If you think that web travel is invasive you can use an anonymizing proxy, but you can't hide your eyes...
What about the free market and competition? New technology comes out all the time. Like ours for example. Innovation has always been the key.
The Baldchemist
· 5 months ago
Interestingly Robert, the fears of a Google monopoly are the same that the world had about Microsoft a few years back. Mozilla moved in. Google countered with Chrome and it seems Mozilla has won an audience of faithfull users. The latest information I have is that Microsoft now have around 70% market share opposed to 95% ten years ago. But percentages don't mean too much when more and more PCs are bought as the market size grows. I'm interested in where Apple, Mac and <Steve Jobbs may be heading. Watch this space. Thanks for your article. I'll keep my eyes open for more.
All Comments
While there's only one Google, and many agencies, they are in a position to demand nothing unless they group together. If M+Y could provide more then they'd be a strong position perhaps and Google would likely need to follow to keep advertisers.
There is the issue of course of the consumer revolting about giving up all that tracking data. That being said, it seems like teenagers will give up a lot of personal data to stay in the social mix.
I am not a privacy nut, but I generally turn off "tracking" options when given the choice, and Google, Firefox, Debian all have such check boxes that I can use. I'm more concerned with software that doesn't give you the option, and doesn't bother to even tell you that it is contacting the mother-ship every so often. Now what big company would do that hmmm?
Google's marketing lead could evaporate almost overnight. Suppose Microsoft set out to make everything Google does cause mysterious crashes on Windows systems with the latest update? Suppose Yahoo kept my photos on their servers, but hid them from me after a while requiring a $25 fee for me to get at them again?
I reserve my fears for companies that have already played fast and loose with my stuff, and worry less about what some new company MIGHT do in the future. Google has pledged not to engage in lock-in, I haven't heard similar pledges from Yahoo or Microsoft, who both in fact have a track record that is quite the opposite.
Should Google (and MS and Yahoo) scare the dickens out of print and TV advertisers? You bet. Because print and TV advertisers never could (or wanted to) provide accurate metrics on how many people either saw, or acted on their advertising materials. The Internet can and does do that, even if there is a bit of cheating in the process.
I got a renewal call from one of the well known trade publications Friday. They literally BEGGED me to keep my print subscription even though I assured them I never even open the plastic wrap it comes in. Doesn't there seem like there is something not quite honest about that?
If left up to the journalists and technical people I'm sure many of these publications would be Internet-only by now. But the owners of these printing presses won't come to terms with the real world. In the 90s maybe I could feel a bit sorry for them, but at this point they are playing a con game with their customers, they deserve whatever they get at this point.
Anyone who would think that is ignorant or living in a fantasy world. That would have the exact opposite effect.
Gerbil activity really, shop talkers, talking shop talk to other shop talkers.
If Fear of Google is bad, just imagine what would be Fear of Microsoft Live (all of your digital lifestyle belong us).
It's a kind of crazy Robin Hood - take away from the rich and give it to the even more rich.
Why? For over a year now I've been working in the field of old school media (print and broadcasting). Walking with dinosaurs so to speak. These were, and still are, big, powerful international companies.
Google operates in the same market as they do. The advertising market. The attention economy. But unlike traditional media, Google uses Information Technology. Media companies hate IT. They don't like it, they don't understand it and what's more, they refuse to either invest in it, or change their business practices and organisations to accommodate it. When they talk about investing in IT they talk about buying software and hardware as a commodity, like some new tv-studio equipment. The value of knowledge, and people with knowledge is completely unknown to them.
In other words: even though they have the money and the crucial relationships with both audience and advertisers, they simply refuse to get into the game if the game is called IT.
If the only company standing between Google and the advertising market is the IT company that has already shown it has no scruples about abusing its power, and has shown a blatant disregard for a healthy and open internet in which all can compete equally (the Silverlight monstrosity, however technically ingenious, being the latest example of this arrogant and destructive mentality), god help us. Why doesn't Microsoft bother to make decent competitive online services instead of their "Live" crap?
Right now, I'd rather have a company dominate the industry that actually makes the effort to a) build decent products, and b) knows the meaning of the word "ethics".
Google doesn't have any major competitors because those who should compete with them never even bothered to try. Not because Google is so powerful, but because they simple didn't want to, long before Google got this big. And they still don't.
It's not Googles fault that they are the only ones even trying hard enough. When Google starts to squash potential competitors with MS-like tactics, then there is a reason to get FOG.
#8 (John): heheh, I'm getting good at "FOGging" -- FUDing is so 1990s.
Also, note that Google's earnings reports are among the most opaque in business, with very little guidance as to future earnings, and the actual reported earnings lacking a detailed breakdown. Shades of Enron.
If you think that web travel is invasive you can use an anonymizing proxy, but you can't hide your eyes...
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070510-e...
I'm interested in where Apple, Mac and <Steve Jobbs may be heading. Watch this space.
Thanks for your article. I'll keep my eyes open for more.