| 2:09 am on Dec 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Die Hard, does scenario #4 mean they would use CJ, BeFree or Linkshare, or is there some other mechanism whereby Froogle could work on a revenue share model with the merchants? As I understand it, the majority of meaningful merchants already have affiliate programs and most of those programs are the with aforementioned three companies.
Don't know what P.I.D. or A.I.D. are; are they some sort of affiliate tracking mechanishm *outside* of these three?
| 8:05 pm on Dec 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
When I said I didn't recall it saying the non-acceptance of affiliates, I meant when it first came out, not now.
If regard to the affiliate idea, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Their revenue from adwords would drop because all of the affiliates that do sell via that means would leave. You cannnot compete with a service that is competing against you. So, if they did that, then it would definately alienate those affiliate marketeers. I am sure they know that. Maybe, we can get someone from Google to step in here and say a few words about the program? Maybe they will can it if there is no way from them making enough money to run the program without alienating their advertisers whould use adwords to sell the product?
Who knows at this point. Just have to wait on the sidelines and see what happens.
| 3:04 am on Dec 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
newsflash - google dumps froogle and buys dealtime/shopping.com. Google is in the process of creating a right-click tools that allows a surfer to highlight any text on a google search result and be taken directly to a shopping.com/dealtime search result. There are also going to be introducing a new search button next to "Feeling Lucky" called "Find it for me".
| 7:30 pm on Dec 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google buying Shopping.com? Is that public? If so, do you have a URL?
| 7:40 pm on Dec 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think he's kidding.
| 8:04 pm on Dec 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Google is in the process of creating a right-click tools that allows a surfer to highlight any text
Ahh...creative brownie points.
yup. he's just kidding
| 5:39 am on Dec 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You are correct I am kidding. However, it won't be long before Google begins to monetive Froogle and position it as a shopping portal against the likes of Shopping.com, NextTag, BizRate, et al. Doing so will only cause these shopping engine giants to spend more $ on adwords in order to get more traffic.
Did you also here about catalogs.google.com? Apparently they pay some unlucky sole to index all of the various catalog oriented sites. Why? Keeping wiht Serge theme to be the organizer of information.
If Google wants to organize something, they should start with my wife's check book.
Prediction for 2004 - Google and eBay merge to form the defacto portal for internet users. Users will be able to do searches from Google that take them directly into eBay. To counter this move Yahoo acquires Amazon and integrates it with Yahoo! Shopping.
MSN then buys Shopping.com.
The end result is that by 2005 there are just 3 primary network channels on the Internet Yahoo, MSN, Google. Everything else is just noise.
Likewise the three major neyworks align themselves with the intyernet portals. NBC = MSN, ABC = Yahoo, CBS = Google. Fox and Turner fealing left out of the equation go after who ever is left and compete as fringe players.
With broadband coming and the advent of PRTV the major TV networks will need to take over internet advertsing.
How do you like them apples?
| 5:50 am on Dec 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> only about 100 or so were affiliated.
Exclude those links from your feed. And resubmit/reapply. They can't just exclude those specific links for you - that's your job.
| 7:56 pm on Dec 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Shopping.com, NextTag, BizRate, et al" These sites are currently not allowed in Froogle, correct?
"The end result is that by 2005 there are just 3 primary network channels on the Internet Yahoo, MSN, Google. Everything else is just noise."
Isn't that what we have now?
| 3:59 am on Dec 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
iblaine, with all do respect, I think your going a bit overboard on that. First off, the US gov't would not allow a company to have that much power over its users. Number two, Amazon.com has a bigger market value than Yahoo, so that is not likely to happen. Mainly due to the fact that Yahoo does not have that type of money for that kind of purchase. Also, Bezos would NEVER allow Amazon to become Acquired. Number three, the Justice Dept. would NEVER allow MSN to acquire Dealtime. So far, everything you had suggested violates the US and EU Anti-Trust laws.
So please, come back to earth in terms of your Perspicuous.
| 1:30 am on Dec 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
No disrespect taken. My point is that as the internet business landscape matures we will see accellerated consolidation of the major players.
From a pure advertising perspective the internet is just another form of media (like TV, radio, print, etc...). The same way in the offline world you have major media conglomorates that consolidated over years of evolution, you will now see the same thing happening in the interent media landscape.
Case in point VCLK acquires CJ, aQuantive acquires GoToast, Yahoo acquire Overture who acquires Inktomi etc..., Google acquires Sprinks. Every CEO/Board of a major internet media company has M&A on their first 2004 corporate goal slide. I do not think we have even begun to see the dominos fall.
| 10:05 am on Dec 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
That might be, but if we take your theory in hand, then the likely acquirer of Google would be MSFT. No company can compete against MSFT, and the ones that try, usually end up either bankrupt or eventually acquired by MSFT. Look at the video game sector. Nintendo, Sega, Atari, 3D0, etc. all out of the game console business all in part of consolation of the market. Some of those companies are know owned in some part by the console manufactures. The video game industry in not as important to every day life as the Internet. If you are correct and the Internet becomes completely monopolized by just two or three companies, I believe the customers will not stand for it, and eventually the DOJ and/or EU will be forced to step in an breakup the companies due to customer outcry and /or price discrimination. If that happens, a new evolution of service provides with arise while the good ole boys start to crumble do to the regulation of the Internet which was in part do to the consolidation of too many companies.
Either way, I do not believe that the governments’ of the world would want to have to regulate the Internet. But, if what you are suggesting does happen, then there would be no other alternative (I.E. AT&T, present day baby-bells, Standard Oil Co., and Microsoft).
I am sorry, but I believe that consumers, governments’ reps, and watchdogs will allow another monopolistic revolution in the Internet. Monopolies do no good, and are eventually dismantled by the governments anyway. Also, this would mean that a lot of companies around the world would also go out of business do too the shear force of these new consolidated companies. This would also trigger the DOJ and/or the EU to get involved and demand regulation or break-ups.
So, with all that said, I hope these CEO's that you are talking about have an alternative plan to make revenue. Because the way you are looking at things does not look to good in any scenario.
| 4:43 pm on Dec 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
3 major internet media outlets does not consitute a monopoly.
eBay for one is already a monopoly on the auction space. I do see uBid or Yahoo Auctions crying foul. Heck, I am sure the US government is already planning on using eBay for government related auctions.
| 5:53 pm on Dec 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
eBay is already under a DOJ probe.
| 6:34 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have to side largely with iblaine on this one. Three major players is not a monopoly situation, and I think there will be more and more consolidation in the space, not less.
I also think consumer watch-dogs and gov't will do little unless consolidation attempts take us from three players to two.
| 9:42 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
We're all talking like we are at the mercy of Google, Yahoo, MSN. There are other ways of getting people to your site.
Sure the search engines are a great source of traffic, but they're volatile. If we are completely reliant on one search engine or even 2 or 3 to survive, maybe we should rethinnk our strategies. It's important to diversify.
Make your site sticky... create users, not just visitors.
The internet is such a great arena because there's nothing between a potential visitor and your site but a browser. There's not the barrier to entry like there is in TV.
I'm just saying... think outside the search box. You can drive traffic by other means.
| 9:44 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
PS - Froogle won't be commercial. They'll use adwords and then sponsored listings at the top.
I'm not sure where they'll get those paid listings, but CJ or other affiliate programs may be an option or perhaps they'll just develop the technology themselves.
I, for one, think froogle is cool. I don't think it's going to take over the world, but it's a cool little tool. I just need to figure out how in the world to optimize for it.
| 10:35 pm on Dec 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I, for one, think froogle is cool. I don't think it's going to take over the world, but it's a cool little tool. I just need to figure out how in the world to optimize for it. |
What I'm afraid of is that the main optimization for Froogle will be lowering prices :(
| 12:20 am on Dec 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Still sticking with my original post. Froogle can and will hurt affiliate marketeers of products, but not services.
| 1:38 am on Dec 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"What I'm afraid of is that the main optimization for Froogle will be lowering prices :( "
I certainly see your point. Very good point.
| 11:41 pm on Dec 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Make no mistake, Froogle will be monetized at a certain point in time.
Froogle will most likely be just another shopping engine like Shopping.com, Nextag, MySimon, et al. Internet users over time will converge on whatever provider they feel best meets there needs. I for one think Froogle is currently crap. If I want to buy something on the internet my first choice is DealTime (i.e. Shopping.com). If I am looking for a product that is out of the ordinary like a tankless water heater or a hot tub, then I just do a Google search and use the AdWords links. My feeling is that if someone is paying to be in a top position for an Adwords, then they are probably a successful online merchant or affiliate that will send me to an online merchant that other people bought from, since the affiliate will only promote Adv that convert.
In regards to the original topic about Froogle being a super affiliate, I do see this happening. There is no reason for Froogle to get SPAM'ed by affiliates the same way their search index is already getting hit hard by affiliates. Froogle will eliminate the middle man affiliate not because they do not like affiliates, but rather do to the Froogle search experience being deteriated. In thr end Froogle will airther be a CPC or CPA based model for Adv to get exposure beyond AdWords and rhe other shopping engines.
| 8:18 am on Jan 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I beg to differ about the pfi Froogle will be making most of its income from the pay per click ad words running now. I feel as a developer working closely with them on many datafeeds that they will continue to move in the direction of a free internet search market. I also believe they will continue to find new ways to make money through pay per click advertising as opposed to pfi. To much of a rat race for Google to handle and the system they currently have in place is left entirely up to the merchants giving them the flexabilty to produce accurate datafeeds. Froogle's concept is simple but pure it gives searchers the ability to find merchants who sell products online that they are looking for with little effort. I cant wait to see them add it to the home page as a button (ie web,froogle,images,directory,news)
| 5:41 pm on Jan 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
MTatem, I think Froogle *will* be PPC-based, but not just by virtue of AdWords on the right; in addition to Adwords, Froogle results will, themselves, be PPC-based, in my opinion.
To not do so would be to forgoe $150-$250M in annual revenue, and that's just in 2004. I just do not see Google, who is angling for the biggest IPO of all time, passing up on the full Froogle revenue opportunity.
| 6:04 pm on Jan 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have to say that would be a big mistake on Googles part as they would now have to go to all the webmasters who have uploaded their feeds and ask them to pay for it? I personally do all of my clients and charge them to do their feeds. Google has given me permission to do multiple datafeeds because of the amount of people I do them for and the relationship I have established with their developers. To date I have thousands of products listed. Not likely to happen. They are more concerned with delivering quality search results and generating their income from pay per clicks on the right. I could see sponsored listing being used in the near future in their search results but the results themselves will remain free. I also believe that eventually they will be powering out all the other SE's that are trying to follow in their footsteps. We've all seen it before that is how they ended up powering so many SE's search results.
| 6:50 am on Jan 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The commercialization of Google assets is a tricky subject and often one conflicting interests.
Froogle is currently an R&D asset that is focussing on providing a web surfer with a high quality shopping search experience. Shopping is different that free info on the WWW. There is a reason that big malls have anchor tenents like Nordstrom and Sears. There is a barrier to entry for any joe schmo to get their product in front of potential shoppers.
Overtime the people heading up Froogle will realize that they will need to have some form of quality control to be listed in Froogle. The easiest way to do this is charge the merchant. Reason being is that if the merchant is willing to pay to be listed, then the merchant will most likely be making money, which means that people are probably buying the merchants products, which means that the product being listed in Froogle is probably of interest to other people.
However, this point is mute. As soon as Google goes public in June 2004, there will be outside pressue for Google to monetize all of their assets. R&D managers will be replaced with Business managers. The Froogle business manager will implement a PPC or mutated CPA pricing model to be listed in Froogle. Merchants and affiliates should get the free gravy while they can.
| This 55 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 55 ( 1  ) |