7 ms·
Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline
- msoad 10y agoAs much as people like to consider Google revenu sources very diverse or dream about future of other Google bets, Google is mostly an advertisement company heavily relying on their search business. It's obvious that Facebook has a better position for growth and adding new channels for their ads business. I can see Facebook share of online advertising grow in the next couple of years.
- aphextron 10y ago>Google is an advertisement company. FTFY
- yoz-y 10y agoFrom what I've read, about 96% of google's revenue comes from advertising. So they are kind of marginally diversified. Some cash comes in from Google Apps I suppose.
- kodfodrasz 10y agoGoggle has some income from cloud business, but yes, it is an ad company in the first place.
- elorant 10y agoHow exactly is Facebook better positioned? CTR for Facebook ads is abysmal compared to that on Google search.
- yoz-y 10y agoFacebook has infinitely better targeting and signal about their users.
- twelvechairs 10y agoThis is reliant on people continuing to use Facebook as their primary social networking tool.
- eva1984 10y agoWhat's done is done. Facebook won't delete your data, once U registered, give your gender/age, you are probably forever screwed, forever becoming a data point that waiting to be targeted.
- Maarten88 10y agoIn my environment (Netherlands) I'd say that WhatsApp is now the primary social networking tool for most people. I wonder how that is going to work out for Facebook.
- reycharles 10y agoFacebook bought Whatsapp two years ago.
- Certhas 10y agoFacebook owns WhatsApp. The question is what they are going to do with it. WhatsApp with end to end encryption seems to not allow for the type of monetization people are talking about here.
- Maarten88 10y agoThat's what I mean: how will they monetize it? They'll probably introduce business / bot accounts that they can monetize, but the encryption makes all sorts of monetization schemes hard - which is what I like about it.
- petra 10y agoMaybe it's possible to do ad-targeting on the client.
- 10y ago
- gpvos 10y agoCTR = click-through rate
- tszming 10y agoPeople spend most of their time on Facebook products, especially on mobile - for example, in HK's public transits, it is not uncommon if you find over 70% of people near you are actually using Facebook products at the same time (FB/WhatsApp/Instagram)
- defenestration 10y agoI reckon if Facebook would add search to WhatsApp, it could hurt Google's ad income quite a bit. Right now you have to close WhatsApp to start a search. And then come back when you have found the answer. There is potential for Facebook for smooth search integration in its products and take bigger piece of the search-ad pie.
- Nullabillity 10y agoNow on Tap does that for pretty much any application though, if you've got Marshmallow.
- muwaisaac 10y agoThat's the thing though, how many android phones are on mashmellow? A very small percentage.
- AznHisoka 10y agoStart a search and use whose API? Google has tens of thousands of people working on a top 5 difficulty problem with a 20 year head start. Facebook would need at least 10 years of trial and error just to make a dent.
- wdr1 10y agoFor the vast majority of advertising, CTR isn't terribly important.
- defenestration 10y agoYes, Google is mostly an advertisement company relying on search. In 2015, Google's revenue amounted to 74.54 billion US dollars. It was largely made up (90%) by advertising revenue, which amounted to 67.39 billion US dollars in 2015. [1] A rough estimation is that 80% of Google's advertisement revenue comes from search. [2] 1: http://www.statista.com/statistics/266206/googles-annual-global-revenue/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/266206/googles-annual-glo... 2: http://www.statista.com/statistics/343191/googles-digital-advertising-revenue-in-the-uk-by-format/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/343191/googles-digital-ad...
- sidcool 10y agoAndroid and GCP seem not to contribute enough yet.
- smt88 10y agoSelling Android isn't generating revenue, but that makes sense because Android is adware and also a platform. Google doesn't want to sell it directly and harm those revenue streams. Many (most?) people primarily search from their phones now, so I imagine Android generates a lot of ad revenue. Android is even more important because most people don't know how to block ads on it, whereas desktop ad blocking has become mainstream.
- xiphias 10y agoGoogle Toolbar, Chrome and Android: all of these were created with the goal to increase the number of searches. If Android wouldn't have been created, Apple could ask as much revenue sharing from Google as they want and slowly destroy Google in the process.
- mtgx 10y agoOracle seems to disagree: http://www.businessinsider.com/oracle-google-generated-42-billion-on-android-2016-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/oracle-google-generated-42-bi... But while we can't take Oracle's statements at face value, how do you know Android isn't making Google money? It's also likely that without Android, Google's revenues would've declined a lot faster. Even if say people would've still used Adsense/Admob on iOS or other mobile operating systems, look what Apple did - it allowed adblockers on its platform. Google doesn't allow them and Chrome, which is the dominant browser on Android doesn't support extensions, so no adblock there either.
- cm2187 10y ago...and what happens to advertising budgets in a downturn? People who would buy google stock now would be very brave or not believe we are close if not past peak of the stock market. Though google's ad revenues are probably more resilient than traditional advertising companies. I would assume a lot of their clients rely on google traffic to survive.
- rtuins 10y agoI'm not so sure about facebook - historically social media companies just "run out of fashion".
- peteretep 10y agoWhich is why they keep buying the latest cool
- smt88 10y agoUntil they don't. The past is an unreliable predictor of the future[1]. The only people who care about being on a fashionable network are young people, and Facebook solves that problem by buying whatever platform young people are using. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
- threatofrain 10y agortruin's argument is an intuitive assumption that the same causal factors for other like companies are also present in Facebook, which sets the frame for discussion -- what factors lead to the diminishment of other networks, and why is Facebook resilient against those factors? You may be identifying that young people set trends and thus the growth rate of different social networks, and you may be arguing that Facebook is resilient because they can buy out companies. But so can Microsoft, Google, Apple, MySpace, or Yahoo. That power is not unique. One might also say that young people who join some social network like the peculiarities of that network, and so it behooves the parent company to keep that acquisition fairly independent in brand and experience. That means the existing strength of your platform might be a non-factor to the future success of WhatsApp or Instagram.
- rituch 10y agoIf you own Facebook Shares, Please add a disclaimer.
- Steeeve 10y agoFacebook has social data. Google knows a whole heck of a lot more than that. Adsense, GMail, Analytics, and hosting fonts for a ton of websites, for example are sources of data that provide a pretty good deal of insight as to who you are and what you are insterested in.
- LoSboccacc 10y agoFacebook pixel is becoming more and more common, so they will shortly have the same data plus verified and not inferred data from their social channels. edit: now that I think of it facebook will be shortly in a position of being able to de-anonimize the internet. imagine selling that ad-space.
- ggggtez 10y agoShortly? You're joking right. They've been able to do that for years.
- LoSboccacc 10y agobut the pixel isn't that much widespread, many are still on google analytics for tracking
- ggggtez 10y agoNo need for the pixel. Facebook like buttons already proliferate the web. Add to that instant articles, and all links from Facebook itself, and you already have a pretty good model for identifying users even when logged out.
- jacquesm 10y agoAll it takes is a 'like' button. Even if you don't have a facebook account that's enough to track you until you re-install your machine, and even then there are ways to re-connect your profile.
- mercer 10y ago
- frik 10y agoFacebook (the website/app) isn't that popular anymore. What's still going strong are FB chat, WhatsApp and Instagram.
- emilsedgh 10y agoIn the Google vs. Facebook discussion, I think people seem to forget a tiny detail: Google has some products that are market leaders with heavy usage, eg: * Search * GMail * Youtube * Android * Chrome * Maps * Docs Its just that Google is unable to monetize many of them. However, Facebook has only Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp. 1) Instagram _is_ what Facebook was 10 years ago. Its not a new product. They just bought it because Instagram was becoming _The Social Network_. 2) Instagram and Whatsapp were bought acquired. What I'm trying to say is that Google is unable to monetize many of its products. And if online advertisement gets doomed, it would have to look for other business models. But it _does_ have a very diverse set of products that people love. What does Facebook have? and when was the last time they created something people loved?
- sjg007 10y agoPeople spend a ton of time on Facebook.
- ohashi 10y agoThey also neglect intent. When I search for something, I want it, at that moment. When I see an ad on my facebook page, it's trying to guess what I want at that moment, but I'm actually doing something else and the ad is simply trying to distract me and convince me I need something at that moment.
- AznHisoka 10y agoYep. Facebook has just as many visitors as Google and makes much less. Sure they know what age I am, that I'm college educated, live in NY, like anime and startups. But would they know I'm suffering from hemorrhoids and need help? That I'm considering an abortion and need a clinic recommendation? I sure as heck ain't broadcasting that in my timeline.
- j1vms 10y agoShit. Hope you get that stuff sorted out, probably deal with the hemorrhoids first. (aside since I assume that was an example! :) [Edit: and in case you aren't, hope you do get that sorted out] Google has better potential for growth, but it still needs to prove it can heavily monetize anything outside of search. That is, find a new business that is competitive with their search revenue, until it's too late. Facebook's first success was monetizing mobile (which Google should have been able to do better than it currently does). Its potential to find new sources of revenue is good but not as great as Google's. Only time will tell if either or both will succeed next. Since potential isn't as good as realized potential of course.
- mahranch 10y ago> Google is mostly an advertisement company heavily relying on their search business. You're right that google is an advertisement company (87% of their revenue comes from their ad network), but I don't think that's entirely from search alone. Google's 3rd party adsense program is absolutely massive. This includes things like youtube ads, as well as ads on other 3rd party websites. Pick a random website with ads, 9 times out of 10, it will be an adsense (google) affiliated website.
- amelius 10y agoIt saddens me that so many smart people work for IT companies like Google and Facebook, while they could make a real difference doing medical or fundamental physics research.
- Theizestooke 10y agoTo quote Jeff Hammerbacher, "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads."
- tim333 10y agoGoogle probably makes quite a difference to medical research/treatment through its search facilities. Also this stuff http://www.forbes.com/sites/leoking/2015/08/24/google-sergey-brin-cancer-diabetes-parkinsons-heart-disease/#1886f3c9269f http://www.forbes.com/sites/leoking/2015/08/24/google-sergey...
- zetaabba 10y agowhy, would you prefer there not to be a search engine that can find (almost) anything you need in less than a second for (almost) no cost to you and then takes the money it earns from you and pours it into major projects with no promise of revenue? Comments like these seem to suggest that Google or Facebook are the worst and one spends their time better somewhere other than IT. I really just don't see it.
- 10y ago
- ThomPete 10y agoI am not so sure that Facebook is in a better position. Aren't most of their revenue also primarily tied to advertising?
- reefoctopus 10y agoMy media company uses facebook because it is very easy to target those who would be interested in our product. We've found it is very difficult to keep our ads running. Despite being told that our ads are in compliance with their "20% text rule" they are regularly disabled. In addition, the initial traffic is always much better than after the ad has been running for several weeks. This makes facebook advertising very costly in terms of labor.
- pixie_ 10y agoSomehow in 18 years and billions of dollars of revenue, Google has not figured out another way to make real money.
- tomglynch 10y agoIt hasn't been an issue until now. Google is an advertising business making real money by advertising. Is this due to the increasing popularity of ad-blockers?
- smt88 10y agoAd blockers are probably an issue, but people blocking ads probably weren't clicking on many ads, either. Other theories might be the economy starting to dip (which would be reflected in trimming of marketing budgets) and competition. Competition is interesting. In 2005, there were tons of online stores, and users found them through Google search. Nowadays, most brands seem to have an Amazon store. If a user wants to buy something, they'll just go straight to Amazon and bypass Google entirely. As Amazon accumulates more stores and more buyers, Google is increasingly cut out of that search/purchase loop, and stores have less reason to buy Google ads at all.
- benologist 10y agoAd blocking now covers ~50% of millennials, iPhones, Asus android phones, and soon more. It is snowballing into a "there is no next generation of ad consumers" problem.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- freyir 10y agoNo, but they found a way to kill off competition and defend their monopoly to the tune of $75B in revenue/year.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- karterk 10y agoI think internally, Google has already seen this coming and are trying to steer the company towards AI-related verticals. Search revenue is going to be always under threat because of the rise in mobile devices and also ad blockers. Interestingly, installing ad blocking is harder in the mobile though (requires a separate browser), than in the desktop browser (just another extension).
- sangnoir 10y ago> Interestingly, installing ad blocking is harder in the mobile though (requires a separate browser) I think this will change soon - at least on iOS if Apple takes ad-blocking to it's natural end. The not-so-subtle Apple v Google (and Google v. MS) strategic corporate warfare has been enlightening and entertaining to me. I had no idea corps would shake hands for the cameras whilst stabbing each other in the back concurrently.
- heisnotanalien 10y agoSay it's not true?! Search ad decline?! How will we survive?!
- mahranch 10y agoI really dislike this train of thought and where it leads. Sure, everyone hates ads and would do without them if possible. But people forget; ads subsidize most "free" content. It has been this way for 60+ years, probably more. You know when your grandmother tuned in to watch Howdy Doody? It was always "brought to you by: Palmolive Dish Soap and Ovaltine!". Their ads during commercial breaks paid for that show. Back then there were no dvd sales, no streaming online contracts, advertisers paying for airtime to air entertainment programs was a fairly straightforward affair. Or did you think broadcasting companies created that content, then aired it for free out of altruism? I do believe this is a big part of why they call us millennials the entitled generation. We literally expect everything for free. From our game of thrones TV shows to our favorite blogs, podcasts and websites. They all exist to entertain us and fuck them for wanting to make a dollar off their hard work. How dare they...
- zetaabba 10y ago" I do believe this is a big part of why they call us millennials the entitled generation. We literally expect everything for free. From our game of thrones TV shows to our favorite blogs, podcasts and websites. They all exist to entertain us and fuck them for wanting to make a dollar off their hard work. How dare they... " Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth. I wholeheartedly agree. I remember talking with a non-technical friend of mine about Bandcamp and how he was annoyed that his popular free album had hit the limit of free downloads on the site. He would have to either pay Bandcamp or start charging for the album. Presumably Bandcamp does this because the cost of their infrastructure and work is not free and this is a way to get some revenue. But all my friend could say was "how greedy they are!" as if one spent their life acquiring a hard skill just to do free work for you and your band. Its a more nuanced entitlement, where we millenials understand that it took hard work to make something, but after all, doesn't Google, Facebook, etc. do it "for free" as far as the end user is concerned?
- 10y ago
- kirkdouglas 10y agoIt would be interesting to know how Google cloud services and other income sources do contribute to company's profits.
- mark_l_watson 10y agoWhen I worked as a contractor at Google it was amazing how much money they apparently spend on infrastructure, buildings, people, food, etc. However, they do sometimes bring in $16 billion a quarter. Except for when I travel, I don't much use gmail and Google search. (When traveling, I like booking using gmail, auto calendar and travel events, notifications, etc.). Otherwise I use my own email, calendar, etc. and DuckDuckGo. I do pay Google about $25/month directly for Google Play Music, renting movies, and extra GDrive storage. If I were a typical customer, would a $25/month average spend per user be enough to pay their expenses and generate sufficient profit? Edit: dividing $4 billion per month by $25 per user per month yields a required 160 million paying users per month to equal ad revenues.
- Retric 10y agoMicrosoft does not get 25$ a month from most people, they just have a billion+ customers. Google is in a similar situation and your probably vastly more profitable than their average customer.
- mark_l_watson 10y agoMicrosoft gets much less money from my family. My wife and I spend $99/year for Office 365 (mostly for the cloud storage, less for the office apps).
- amelius 10y agoBut how much does each user earn them now (with ads only)? If they make $16 billion a quarter, then assuming they have about 1 billion users, that's about $5 per month per user. I just wish I could pay that to get rid of all the ads, and the creepy user-tracking.
- mark_l_watson 10y agoIt is easy to mostly avoid tracking: use a separate web browser for using Google services. I use Chrome for Google, Facebook, and Twitter. For everything else on my laptop I like Firefox with Privacy Badger, and I discard cookies when the browser closes. For iPad and phone, use private browser windows.
- Zenst 10y agoI equally wonder what the impact of Google/Alphabet supporting the TTIP trade agreement that many deem evil will have impact wise. Indeed seen a few people deemed that the straw that broke the camels back for them and dealings with Google/Alphabet and not the other way around.
- kelukelugames 10y agoTitle of the article is "Google’s stock slid today and it might be because of this report on a search ad decline" The post title exaggerates the claim.
- MaysonL 10y agoPost hoc, ergo propter hoc? Typical Wall Street commentary BS. Why did Apple's stock lose almost as large a proportion of its value at the same time?