4 ms·
The first time you hear it, it sounds surprising. Then someone explains about revenue and it makes sense. So then you want to share the cleverness. Of course,
by arebop 11y ago
The first time you hear it, it sounds surprising. Then someone explains about revenue and it makes sense. So then you want to share the cleverness.
Of course, it's actually a pretty shallow analysis, unsupported by the company's history and inconsistent with some of the company's current behavior. How useful is it really to consider Google as being in the same equivalence class as TBWA\CHIAT\DAY? Well never mind, the meme is sticky!
- CamperBob2 11y agoOK, Google is an ad company with a lot of hobbies. Better?
- duaneb 11y agoHow about Google is a tech company that happens to sell ads. Better?
- oldmanjay 11y agoHmm, no. Considering them an ad company helps to keep what they do for money on the forefront. Trying to push it down as some ancillary activity makes sense if you're marketing for Google, but not in any other situation.
- fwn 11y agoI am not using ads since somewhere mid 2009. For me they couldn't be less related to advertising. This is why I see them as a tech company.
- duaneb 11y agoIt's difficult to tell whether you're a troll or just very attached to a single perspective. Yes, it makes sense to look at Google as primarily an ad company in some contexts--for instance, attempting to understand their business model. In other senses, Google has done a lot to distance themselves from being just an ad company, diversifying in image, product, talent, markets, and company culture. Probably more, but I don't know too much about the intricacies of what Google actually innovated on. Just by doing this, yes, I do think it is inherently dishonest to group them with other entities that do just resell web space. And I do not think that Google would cease to exist if people boycotted advertised products tomorrow, either, because their grasp of tech culture is so strong. People will always need analytics, retargeting, and profiling, so reducing an entire company to advertisers is downright insulting. Just the competition to ios alone has irreversibly changed the future of smartphones, mostly for the better. Hell, just the market value of Google's brand is enough to distinguish them. You cannot buy that trust, you earn it by providing more value than an advertising brand could.
- woah 11y agoI liked the first one.
- IgorPartola 11y agoYou are trolling right? What is Google then? What's the in-depth analysis? Do you consider them some altruistic non-profit that just happens to sell ads in order to fund their "let's improve humanity" efforts? Take a look at these: http://bgr.com/2014/02/06/apple-google-microsoft-revenue-sources/ http://bgr.com/2014/02/06/apple-google-microsoft-revenue-sou... http://www.statista.com/statistics/266471/distribution-of-googles-revenues-by-source/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/266471/distribution-of-go... https://www.wordstream.com/articles/google-earnings https://www.wordstream.com/articles/google-earnings Notice how even last year 89.5% of Google's revenue is straight up advertising. What else would you call them? Or if you don't buy this argument let's try it by comparison. Is Zappos a shoe store? For sure, they did things differently and focuses on happiness of employees and customer satisfaction, but at the end of the day, they sell shoes. They have an interest in people buying more shoes and if they could, they'd certainly do something to make people buy more shoes. Substitute Google and ads in those two sentences. Just because they spend some minute portion of their profits on other projects doesn't make them anything but an ad company, even if they are a much more innovative ad company than the others you mentioned.