Google's erratic behavior and relevancy declines -- is Google getting greedy?
Here's a great blog post from Tom Pick about Google and its recent erratic behavior. It's something all online marketers should keep an eye on, because many of Google's actions trickle down and affect so many of the things we eMarketers do every day.
Google's entire business model is built on relevancy. That's what got the company where it is today. Back in the late 1990s when the search engine wars were in full combat gear, it was Google's great search relevancy that made it stand out from the pack.
Tom's article contains links to several other articles, a couple offering "conspiracy theories" about Google's erratic relevancy of late. Is Google getting greedy? Personally I don't buy any of those theories. This almost surely isn't an intentional move by Google -- probably just a series of bad decisions and slip-ups that have snowballed. I think Google will correct them and move on.
Google knows search relevancy is its golden goose. Why would it risk killing the golden goose for short-term gain? That doesn't make sense.
Here's an interesting question though: Could Google be dethroned as the "king of search", if its search relevancy slips and someone comes along with a more relevant product?
I think the answer is yes. But it would take a dramatic turn of events. Google would need to make a series of major and sustained mistakes, of which killing the relevancy goose would only be one of several huge strategic errors.
You'd also need a new king. Could Yahoo or MSN (or with all the Microsoft/Yahoo talk in the past few months, the two joined...) take over Google's top spot? Or would it take a new, different, better kind of startup -- a la Google in 1998, with such a huge relevancy advantage -- to take the crown? It's a much more mature search market today than it was a decade ago when Google entered the game. So I think a new player would need Rupert Murdoch kind of money to even make a dent.
Google's entire business model is built on relevancy. That's what got the company where it is today. Back in the late 1990s when the search engine wars were in full combat gear, it was Google's great search relevancy that made it stand out from the pack.
Tom's article contains links to several other articles, a couple offering "conspiracy theories" about Google's erratic relevancy of late. Is Google getting greedy? Personally I don't buy any of those theories. This almost surely isn't an intentional move by Google -- probably just a series of bad decisions and slip-ups that have snowballed. I think Google will correct them and move on.
Google knows search relevancy is its golden goose. Why would it risk killing the golden goose for short-term gain? That doesn't make sense.
Here's an interesting question though: Could Google be dethroned as the "king of search", if its search relevancy slips and someone comes along with a more relevant product?
I think the answer is yes. But it would take a dramatic turn of events. Google would need to make a series of major and sustained mistakes, of which killing the relevancy goose would only be one of several huge strategic errors.
You'd also need a new king. Could Yahoo or MSN (or with all the Microsoft/Yahoo talk in the past few months, the two joined...) take over Google's top spot? Or would it take a new, different, better kind of startup -- a la Google in 1998, with such a huge relevancy advantage -- to take the crown? It's a much more mature search market today than it was a decade ago when Google entered the game. So I think a new player would need Rupert Murdoch kind of money to even make a dent.
