5 ms·

Just FYI, search is ridiculously profitable [see "search ads"]

by wrsh07 11y ago

lettergram 11y ago
I agree search is ridiculously profitable, but if you showed up to a meeting in 1998 and said: "Search is going to be a multi-billion dollar industry" the business exec would laugh you out of the office.
- nine_k 11y ago
  In 1998 there was a enough online commerce (in fact, there was a crazy boom of it, the original internet boom) for a good exec to see the potential of the ad market for it. Searching is precisely the moment when an ad can be well-targeted.
  - erikpukinskis 11y ago
    I was alive back then. It was not common belief that search would be a huge money maker. No one thought Google would be bigger than Microsoft until they started doing the ad auctions and people could start to see how the money could actually flow. That Google won the Internet money pot was a bit of a surprise to most.
    - mc32 11y ago
      I think that started with overture. At least I recall overture's business prop being paid search results.
    - nine_k 11y ago
      I was also a user of google.stanford.edu back then. Nobody then thought that Apple would be bigger than MS either.
- jacques_chester 11y ago
  That's because they'd be right to laugh. Search isn't a multi-billion dollar industry. Advertising is. If you don't believe me, name a company making billions of dollars from search engine fees alone.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Would palantir qualify?
    - jacques_chester 11y ago
      You know what? Maybe they do, in the larger sense of "search engine". But if we make the definition too generic then folk will start naming Bloomberg and LexisNexis and you and I, being two guys called Jacques who remember the late 90s, will wonder how these companies wound up in the same category as Alta Vista, Lycos or Excite.
    - bane 11y ago
      Probably not: Nobody knows their current revenue/profit figures, but most public estimates seem to indicate under a billion/year. Their primary sales appear to be consulting and integration services with their software as a minor concern.
fludlight 11y ago
"search ads" == "lead generation" This is the difference between FB and GOOG: one sells an audience that, demographically, is likely to want your product (similar to how TV ads are sold), the other, one that wants to buy it, likely right f*ing now.
- dhimes 11y ago
  I'm not sure which is which in your example- I'm guessing that you mean the person searching GOOG is more likely to buy, but nevertheless I think the only one that applies to entirely is Amazon. The percent of searches in which I am trying to buy something is quite small on Google. Even if I am in the market, I am doing background research on the web. When I'm ready to buy I most often go to Amazon (even if I don't buy from them I still check). On Amazon, when I search I have my wallet out.

Just FYI, search is ridiculously profitable [see "search ads"]

by wrsh07 11y ago

Just FYI, search is ridiculously profitable [see "search ads"]

I agree search is ridiculously profitable, but if you showed up to a meeting in 1998 and said: "Search is going to be a multi-billion dollar industry" the business exec would laugh you out of the office.

nine_k 11y ago
In 1998 there was a enough online commerce (in fact, there was a crazy boom of it, the original internet boom) for a good exec to see the potential of the ad market for it. Searching is precisely the moment when an ad can be well-targeted.
- erikpukinskis 11y ago
  I was alive back then. It was not common belief that search would be a huge money maker. No one thought Google would be bigger than Microsoft until they started doing the ad auctions and people could start to see how the money could actually flow. That Google won the Internet money pot was a bit of a surprise to most.
  - mc32 11y ago
    I think that started with overture. At least I recall overture's business prop being paid search results.
  - nine_k 11y ago
    I was also a user of google.stanford.edu back then. Nobody then thought that Apple would be bigger than MS either.
jacques_chester 11y ago
That's because they'd be right to laugh. Search isn't a multi-billion dollar industry. Advertising is. If you don't believe me, name a company making billions of dollars from search engine fees alone.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Would palantir qualify?
  - jacques_chester 11y ago
    You know what? Maybe they do, in the larger sense of "search engine". But if we make the definition too generic then folk will start naming Bloomberg and LexisNexis and you and I, being two guys called Jacques who remember the late 90s, will wonder how these companies wound up in the same category as Alta Vista, Lycos or Excite.
  - bane 11y ago
    Probably not: Nobody knows their current revenue/profit figures, but most public estimates seem to indicate under a billion/year. Their primary sales appear to be consulting and integration services with their software as a minor concern.

fludlight 11y ago

"search ads" == "lead generation" This is the difference between FB and GOOG: one sells an audience that, demographically, is likely to want your product (similar to how TV ads are sold), the other, one that wants to buy it, likely right f*ing now.

dhimes 11y ago
I'm not sure which is which in your example- I'm guessing that you mean the person searching GOOG is more likely to buy, but nevertheless I think the only one that applies to entirely is Amazon. The percent of searches in which I am trying to buy something is quite small on Google. Even if I am in the market, I am doing background research on the web. When I'm ready to buy I most often go to Amazon (even if I don't buy from them I still check). On Amazon, when I search I have my wallet out.