9 ms·

Interesting thing is that GOOG's results which were released several days ago weren't so stellar. It's good to see real competition in advertisement market.

dopamean 9y ago
I'm not trying to be snarky but is it really competition if it's just two players?
- Silhouette 9y ago
  It is competition, but whether it's enough competition to achieve the beneficial effects we usually associate with a competitive market is a different question entirely.
- maneesh 9y ago
  Yes. Isn't a basketball game a competition?
  - everly 9y ago
    Are there any leagues with just two basketball teams?
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      The Harlem Globetrotters towed around a stooge team for a long time.
      - everly 9y ago
        Right, and I don't think anyone would describe the Globetrotters vs. the Generals as competitive.
    - maybeiambatman 9y ago
      It's funny. Anyone following the NBA right now would tell you it's a league with just two teams :P
      - dopamean 9y ago
        Right. And they'd also say the league is incredible uncompetitive.
    - imjk 9y ago
      Touche
    - lmm 9y ago
      I'm not aware for basketball, but e.g. the Boat Race has only two teams, and is very much competitive.
  - NTDF9 9y ago
    There's usually a league with more than 2 teams :)
  - skciva 9y ago
    When two teams easily win unless they play each other, is it a competitive league?
    - Dan_Nguyen 9y ago
      On a tangential note, that might not be the case anymore next year. The Thunder got Paul George, the Rockets traded for Chris Paul, Gordon Hayward is now on the Celtics, and Jimmy Butler is in Minnesota. Meanwhile, there's rumors that Kyrie Irving wants to be traded.
  - elif 9y ago
    Basketball is winner-take-all and is itself part of a larger competition (a season which leads to a playoff), making it a poor analogy. A better metaphor would be 2 people playing golf. They can both achieve personal bests during the same match.
  - dopamean 9y ago
    This is not a accurate comparison as other commenters have pointed out...
  - untog 9y ago
    > Facebook’s formidable ad business, along with Alphabet Inc.’s Google, soaked up 99% of the online ad industry’s growth last year Some sports metaphors really don't work.
- hueving 9y ago
  Competition doesn't have anything to do with number of players. As long as there is more than one party and they are not colluding, they will compete for each others market and push prices down or increase the quality of service. Pro-competition laws aren't about what's fair for other people that might want to compete, they are about what's best for consumers.
- lmm 9y ago
  I remember seeing a paper that in any market where the top 4 players have more than 60% of the market, they'll naturally behave in a cartel-like way in terms of pricing etc.. So it's not ideal. But still, two players seems much better than one in terms of, if nothing else, limiting quite how much customers are soaked for.
fma 9y ago
Not surprised. My wife started a local franchise that provides a service and I've been doing the Internet marketing. I ran local ads on Google...lots of clicks and cost lots of money...but no one came in saying they were referred by Google. Other owners I've talked to told me to use Facebook, it's more effective.
- jug 9y ago
  Google probably saw the writing on the wall, hence Google+...
  - ghthor 9y ago
    This is pretty much it. Since Facebook controls the ENTIRE stack where the serve ads they can almost completely eliminate spam.
    - majani 9y ago
      Also engagement for social media is second to none when you get it right.
- shostack 9y ago
  Respectfully without knowing your background, I hear this sort of anecdotal story a lot. Often times it is from people who ran a tiny amount of spend, didn't have their account properly setup, didn't have solid conversion tracking setting for the areas that matter, and then arrived at the conclusion that it failed because it "drove lots of clicks and cost lots of money" without any mention of whether they reached statistical significance for testing conversion performance, or any of those other things I mentioned. Waiting for people to come in saying they were referred by Google is just a really poor way to go about measuring performance of local advertising on Google with things like the ability to upload offline conversions, promoting coupons with unique codes, click-to-call ads, etc. More often than not I've found the issue is with the advertiser, not Google. And I'm saying this as someone who has done paid search across many verticals, many size clients, and helped lead the paid search group at a top search agency. My take on the reason for this is Google and FB make a genuine effort to make it easy for mom and pop businesses to advertise with them. However they also tend to push them towards things that maximize their revenue and margins in the process (as one might expect) even if it wasn't necessarily in the best interest of the advertiser. For example, when you click to create a new campaign, Google has "Search Network with Display Select" as the first option, and they say "best opportunity to reach the most customers." That is easily the most salesy wording in that entire list. And inexperienced advertisers might think it was the right choice. But it is not. I can't think of a single experienced advertiser I know who would ever mix search and display network traffic. I just can't think of any real reason that could potentially offset the downsides of doing so. But you'd be hard pressed to figure that out just by taking their UI and docs and recommendations at face value. There is a reason that an entire media career path has sprung up around managing search and display, and that's because it is highly technical, extremely complex, and changing at a breathtaking pace--much like engineering.

dopamean 9y ago

I'm not trying to be snarky but is it really competition if it's just two players?

Silhouette 9y ago
It is competition, but whether it's enough competition to achieve the beneficial effects we usually associate with a competitive market is a different question entirely.
maneesh 9y ago
Yes. Isn't a basketball game a competition?
- everly 9y ago
  Are there any leagues with just two basketball teams?
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    The Harlem Globetrotters towed around a stooge team for a long time.
    - everly 9y ago
      Right, and I don't think anyone would describe the Globetrotters vs. the Generals as competitive.
  - maybeiambatman 9y ago
    It's funny. Anyone following the NBA right now would tell you it's a league with just two teams :P
    - dopamean 9y ago
      Right. And they'd also say the league is incredible uncompetitive.
  - imjk 9y ago
    Touche
  - lmm 9y ago
    I'm not aware for basketball, but e.g. the Boat Race has only two teams, and is very much competitive.
- NTDF9 9y ago
  There's usually a league with more than 2 teams :)
- skciva 9y ago
  When two teams easily win unless they play each other, is it a competitive league?
  - Dan_Nguyen 9y ago
    On a tangential note, that might not be the case anymore next year. The Thunder got Paul George, the Rockets traded for Chris Paul, Gordon Hayward is now on the Celtics, and Jimmy Butler is in Minnesota. Meanwhile, there's rumors that Kyrie Irving wants to be traded.
- elif 9y ago
  Basketball is winner-take-all and is itself part of a larger competition (a season which leads to a playoff), making it a poor analogy. A better metaphor would be 2 people playing golf. They can both achieve personal bests during the same match.
- dopamean 9y ago
  This is not a accurate comparison as other commenters have pointed out...
- untog 9y ago
  > Facebook’s formidable ad business, along with Alphabet Inc.’s Google, soaked up 99% of the online ad industry’s growth last year Some sports metaphors really don't work.
hueving 9y ago
Competition doesn't have anything to do with number of players. As long as there is more than one party and they are not colluding, they will compete for each others market and push prices down or increase the quality of service. Pro-competition laws aren't about what's fair for other people that might want to compete, they are about what's best for consumers.
lmm 9y ago
I remember seeing a paper that in any market where the top 4 players have more than 60% of the market, they'll naturally behave in a cartel-like way in terms of pricing etc.. So it's not ideal. But still, two players seems much better than one in terms of, if nothing else, limiting quite how much customers are soaked for.

fma 9y ago

Not surprised. My wife started a local franchise that provides a service and I've been doing the Internet marketing. I ran local ads on Google...lots of clicks and cost lots of money...but no one came in saying they were referred by Google. Other owners I've talked to told me to use Facebook, it's more effective.

jug 9y ago
Google probably saw the writing on the wall, hence Google+...
- ghthor 9y ago
  This is pretty much it. Since Facebook controls the ENTIRE stack where the serve ads they can almost completely eliminate spam.
  - majani 9y ago
    Also engagement for social media is second to none when you get it right.
shostack 9y ago
Respectfully without knowing your background, I hear this sort of anecdotal story a lot. Often times it is from people who ran a tiny amount of spend, didn't have their account properly setup, didn't have solid conversion tracking setting for the areas that matter, and then arrived at the conclusion that it failed because it "drove lots of clicks and cost lots of money" without any mention of whether they reached statistical significance for testing conversion performance, or any of those other things I mentioned. Waiting for people to come in saying they were referred by Google is just a really poor way to go about measuring performance of local advertising on Google with things like the ability to upload offline conversions, promoting coupons with unique codes, click-to-call ads, etc. More often than not I've found the issue is with the advertiser, not Google. And I'm saying this as someone who has done paid search across many verticals, many size clients, and helped lead the paid search group at a top search agency. My take on the reason for this is Google and FB make a genuine effort to make it easy for mom and pop businesses to advertise with them. However they also tend to push them towards things that maximize their revenue and margins in the process (as one might expect) even if it wasn't necessarily in the best interest of the advertiser. For example, when you click to create a new campaign, Google has "Search Network with Display Select" as the first option, and they say "best opportunity to reach the most customers." That is easily the most salesy wording in that entire list. And inexperienced advertisers might think it was the right choice. But it is not. I can't think of a single experienced advertiser I know who would ever mix search and display network traffic. I just can't think of any real reason that could potentially offset the downsides of doing so. But you'd be hard pressed to figure that out just by taking their UI and docs and recommendations at face value. There is a reason that an entire media career path has sprung up around managing search and display, and that's because it is highly technical, extremely complex, and changing at a breathtaking pace--much like engineering.