| 6:56 pm on Oct 19, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Destroying business? Really? Those businesses have decided that they want to make money based upon some other company's algorithm. Thats not a business, model that is gambling. |
When you start a business dependent upon the whims of another company, how can you blame them for your failure?
When people generalize and throw all small businesses into that same basket it's not helpful for someone who's trying to understand what's really happening in the real world outside of big business.
A couple site owners that I work for provide holistic related personal services. These people in particular provide their services at a cost much lower than the going rate because they don't want to turn away people who truly benefit from their service, but may not otherwise be able to afford it. They both existed in B&M form for quite a while before they had websites. But during that time they both had to have part time jobs to carry them through because they couldn't get enough traffic through their doors. One was even subsidizing her holistic practice from her part time retail job income because she thoroughly enjoyed helping others in natural ways to get them away from poison pharmaceutical pushing MDs -- for her it's a lifestyle more than a job. The money was a secondary focus.
Through the grapevine I met these ladies and realized the value of their work. I also knew I could help them promote themselves by having websites. They had previously tried locally focused holistic magazine ads but they were ineffective. The ongoing cost of advertising was too steep for the minimal ROI.
In each case, within 3 months of their websites going live they were able to give up their part time jobs and focus on what they loved doing most. They also now have more income as well as more much deserved leisure time (I made sure they wouldn't have to be consumed by social media duties through proper website development).
For many similar small businesses it was a good few years of a symbiotic relationship with google sharing some of their first page for organic results to provide their users with a good experience to help them find what they needed right away, and for these ladies to get the traffic they would not have otherwise been able to afford. Google was equally as well rewarded with click-throughs from other ads. I'm seeing that symbiotic relationship withering away. Greedy google is becoming a leech now. They are forcing small local businesses off of the first page with the hope that they will have to turn to AdWords. They want it all.
I could be making much more money if I worked for a company that charges much more for the same services that I provide. Heck, sometimes I do their sites for free and recoup through long-term hosting fees that are slightly more than they would have to pay elsewhere. But along with that I give them the value added benefit of having a full-time webmaster at the beck-and-call too. For me it's also a passion and lifestyle.
Google also affects me, and many others I'm sure, through their venture with big banks and other large Canadian corporations through their "get your business online Canada" free website program (so they can then sell them advertising). Someone has to give a damn about genuine small business people who are struggling and I do. But if they force me to shut down because I can no longer effectively get people to page one results because of their intentional algorithm tweaks to make page one ads the only real viable choice due to lousy SERPs, then what? Who's going to be left in communities to keep monopolistic corporations from sucking the revenue out of local places and siphoned into greedy pockets who could never spend that money even in 20 lifetimes? Local small businesses put their earnings back into the local communities.
The only type of "business" that I see fitting into "travelin cat's" model is people who build made-for-adsense websites.
As for google, I wouldn't piss on their grave (that would be bad karma), but I wouldn't shed a tear for them either because they haven't demonstrated that they deserve compassion. I don't care if their share prices fall out of the stratosphere -- burn baby burn. I don't know about other countries but I see the middle class here in the last 25 years on the verge of collapse due to corporate greed that is running rampant.
Please, for once and for always, stop making it harder on hard working small business people than it already is with disparaging remarks like the one I quoted.
I'm going out for a coffee, later folks.
| 7:09 pm on Oct 19, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Google have been systematically and knowingly destroying many legitimate businesses with each algo update and with each takeover. They have been celebrating these for years. Isn't this tacky? |
Google simply changes their software to alter the results and only 10 can be at the top. With every change some profit, some do not. Many legitimate businesses also profit with these changes where those previously gaming the system no longer can function.
Collateral damage happens, it happened to me, oh boo hoo. You get up, dust yourself off and move on to either work within the shifting paradigm or find something new to do.
|I don't care if their share prices fall out of the stratosphere -- burn baby burn |
It's the little investors that are getting hurt the most when stock goes down, not the big players who cash out with a million or two less.
Hurting small businesses is bad but hurting small investors is OK?
| 7:30 pm on Oct 19, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Here Larry here: |
monetization per query...
and a few other things every SEO/webmaster should be aware of.
I get a "this video is private" message. Maybe it's an IP address problem (I'm in the UK) but would you care to elaborate?
| 7:42 pm on Oct 19, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|[toasting someone else's misfortune is totally bad karma and just plain tacky. |
After watching what this company has been happy to do to millions of small business over the last few years I am quite happy to be labelled 'tacky' when I rejoice in their self-inflicted misfortune.
Having been in business for around half a century - yes, some of us are that decayed - I have watched many companies soar, and then crash and burn, often because they have arrogantly hacked off everyone they dealt with. This is not the end of Google but, to quote a great man with English/American parentage, it is the beginning of the end.
| 7:45 pm on Oct 19, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Goog's stock dropped because I turned off my Adwords account. ;^)
Seriously though, if they drop millions of previously profitable sites below the fold in favor of a bunch of trash MFA results, what do they expect? When we profit, we share with Google via Adwords, when we stop making money, so do they, simple as that. Hopefully their pain will be a wake up call. I'm a GOOG stock holder, but this drops means little to me since they don't pay dividends. I've however been losing money like crazy since April of this year. Funny how I'm down > 10% and so are they.
| 7:55 pm on Oct 19, 2012 (gmt 0)|
@superclown2..try here..report/transcript on the video..
and here..( audio Google IR ..Larry )
| 8:02 pm on Oct 19, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|I've been losing money like crazy since April of this year. Funny how I'm down > 10% and so are they. |
backdraft, I was thinking the exact same thing.
| 8:14 pm on Oct 19, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Recession of course - it gets everywhere. Pound shops and payday loan sharks don't compensate for the slide in mainstream business.
The 'win-win' relationship between web publishers and the ONE monolithic SE was ok for a while, but all good things come to an end. The one monolithic SE really isn't all that much different to, or better than the various SEs which went before. OK, there's been time to learn from experience and build on the software but the concept is quite similar to the old Altavista/Lycos days.
G has always failed to make a serious go of anything other than pure search. Now G+ is failing in the same way as other efforts which didn't work out. As an external observer, their tenacity with it is starting to look desperate: they know they need something else, but exactly what is far from clear.
In G's favour at the moment, my theory that the public is always 4 to 5 years behind the industry gives them 4 to 5 years breathing space.
My personal use of search has decreased significantly as the web has progressed - I know what's out there and the places I frequent online are bookmarked. SERPS which don't deliver the goods are the coffin's final nail. If I want to find something in the 'Walmarts' of the web (eg Ebay, Amazon) I'd rather use their own search because it gets me there faster. My mostly non-techy friends tend to have a similar take.
We need something new, different and, above all, good. Delivering it will be a tall order. If G can't I expect they will attempt to squeeze the lifeblood out of anything with any left, until there isn't any left at all, making those non-dividend-paying shares pretty undesirable.
| 8:45 pm on Oct 19, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I'm thinking some folks might want to be careful when it comes to what they wish for.
Google didn't spring up over night, and neither will whatever might replace them.
In the mean time, if they slide down that legendary long slippery slope, many of us would suffer right along with them, and probably to a much greater degree in many cases. If they happen to fall off a cliff, well, the welfare line forms on the right.
Has anyone around here noticed the almost total lack of talk, let alone excitement about ANY new alternative to Google?
Are any of you promoting any reasonable alternative search on your websites?
| 9:06 pm on Oct 19, 2012 (gmt 0)|
It's usually too simplistic to think these watershed events occur because of just one or two things.
I suspect Google probably has no idea of the collateral damage they have caused over the years, especially with the latest slew of algo "improvements". The postings of joy and elation in this thread should be made mandatory reading for all Google managers to remind them that with success comes responsibility.
When publishers with genuine (not MFA) sites carrying Adsense see their $100 a day Adsense earnings become $10 a day, then Google's take is also down. They need look no further than the collateral damage flowing from the incessant algo updates for that.
Perhaps Adsense is no longer delivering the ROI that the big advertising clients want. Maybe Adwords conversion rates just don't meet expectations any more, so the spends are being cut back.
Maybe the other opportunities for advertising spend (facebook etc) are starting to draw money away from Adwords.
Maybe its the economy. A lot of internet advertising targets products and services bought with disposable income.... travel is a good example. People who still have jobs are not spending. Here in Australia, the retails sector is looking like the aftermath of a battle between Vlad The Impaler and Atilla The Hun. People are paying out their credit card debt at levels never seen before and also shrinking their mortgages. A major car manufacturer is about to tank... others are on Govt bail-outs. The bottom line is that no-one is spending so they are not responding to advertising. Same story all over the world.
Care to take a bet on Google "adjusting" the break-down rate of each dollar shared with their Adsense partners at some future date.
| 9:52 pm on Oct 19, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Google may like to think that they are pushing webmasters to Adwords, but the opposite may be happening (though I obviously can't prove it). If my site is eliminated from the SERPS, my revenue drops, and my ad budget goes down. Period. This cumulative effect could account for the drop in click prices (despite an increase in actual clicks). |
You are spot on!
The first thing i (and most of my clients) did when revenues started to tank was to review our adwords spending and cut cut cut. I am now spending merely half of what i used to with adwords. There is just not enough revenue coming in.
The smiling panda/penguin pr clown is destroying Google with all them imbecile latest algo twists and its now shows. A real shame really... maybe it is time for him to go.
[edited by: xcoder at 9:55 pm (utc) on Oct 19, 2012]
| 9:53 pm on Oct 19, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Q: Does Google have a monopoly in search? |
A: No. On the internet, competition is one click away.
| 9:56 pm on Oct 19, 2012 (gmt 0)|
The number of clicks to another site isn't a part of the definition of a monopoly.
| 10:07 pm on Oct 19, 2012 (gmt 0)|
| 1:05 am on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I think Google is in a tough position. The Algo and Adwords guys are really pushing for different outcomes. Things like the "Above the fold" algo are going to bite back at them, although they are good for the user.
The push for big brands could also be a threat for them in the long term. If the big guys could improve their internal search, people could probably bypass Google for certain queries. I read somewhere that a large percentage of shoppers are now searching directly on Amazon instead of Google. When looking for info, I'd probably go to Wikipedia and search there if their internal search wasn't so terrible.
| 1:40 am on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I did a search the other day for something I knew my own site would do well for - I had nine of the top ten results. Yes, you read that correctly, NINE of the top ten. Even though I was doing so well, I still mouthed "utterly ridiculous" to myself.
Google are breaking their product. It really is as simple as that.
| 4:51 am on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Why does this seem like bad financial news for Google? Sure the Motorola thing might be a drag but their revenues (you know that cash much of which used to circulate in local economies) went up 45%. FORTY FIVE PERCENT. Gogle is known to invest in their business to the dismay of analysts to generate better long term results. With that much of a revenue increase, Google is still getting more ad dollars from advertisers, not less. The drop in cost per click will be troubling for them if an increase in clicks does not continue to make up for the lower cpc. When they see a decline in revenues, then it may be time to fear (or rejoyce, whichever you prefer) then downfall of Google.
| 6:31 am on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
The stock continues to plunge in after hours, down 1.9% more. I wouldn't be surprised to see a jump just before the opening bell, when analysts can secure stock but joe smith can't, a new corporate buy point so to speak.
| 7:19 am on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Never underestimate the power of an unhappy customer, and their power to influence the market. You never know what of their investments, and friend's investments, that can be influenced by one negative webmaster's opinion. (Sort of like going viral?) A single spark can light a fire, and sometimes it can burn down entire cities.
| 7:55 am on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|and here..( audio Google IR ..Larry ) |
Have you listened to the guy's voice? It sounds as if he hasn't slept for a week. That tells me as much as what he said.
| 8:16 am on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Cost per clicks: Down 15% on a year over year basis, and down 3% on a sequential basis. |
Over the last 13 years I have worked with two other seach sites, both of which were major players at the time. In both cases my earnings, on a commission for click basis, held steady for a while but once the decline started the fall (in both cases over about 2 years) was considerable with final earnings, before I pulled the plug, falling to around 5% of the highest cpc. Now I'm not saying that Google earnings will fall like this, and perhaps it was Google sucking business from these companies that was at least part of their problems, but I will say that in certain sectors I am interested in the cost per click for advertisers (and not just on Google) has been at completely unrealistic levels for years. Large companies have been paying way over a level that could be profitable for them purely to keep out the competition; in effect buying business. This can only go on for so long and who knows, perhaps we have reached a watershed.
| 9:16 am on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Care to take a bet on Google "adjusting" the break-down rate of each dollar shared with their Adsense partners at some future date. |
And this will be the point where a lot of webmasters start trying out other ad networks, which would make Google's problems only bigger.
| 9:46 am on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|The drop in cost per click will be troubling for them if an increase in clicks does not continue to make up for the lower cpc. |
I don't think the increase in clicks will last for long.
Google is attributing the increase in clicks to serving more relevant ads, and doesn't say a word about the increased ad space on Google's SERPs, which is very likely to be a major contributor. This is ridiculous. And the analysts just keep repeating this stuff and never ask tough questions. It is impossible not to notice how much more ads and self-promotion are on Google's pages now comparing to a year ago. And the increase in clicks have nothing to do with that, really?
Anyway, this increase in clicks is unsustainable. You can not increase ad space indefinitely. At some point you have the entire above-the-fold filled with ads. That's already the case with many searches.
| 10:10 am on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Destroying business? Really? Those businesses have decided that they want to make money based upon some other company's algorithm. That's not a business, model that is gambling. |
When you start a business dependent upon the whims of another company, how can you blame them for your failure?
You fail to recognise that for many people there is no option. Google has a virtual monopoly in the UK. They provide greater than 90% of the traffic that I receive. They control search and I need traffic to run my home based business. Yes I am gambling with Google but I have no alternative unless you are proposing that I sign up for benefit?
Internet search is now too important and far reaching for it to be trusted to a commercial company that has been proven to ride roughshod over the laws of just about every country in the world.
I only need Google because it is there and it holds the reins of Internet search. If it disappeared this weekend my business would be more likely to prosper. I hope it does disappear, the sooner the better ... and to answer the question about what happens to all the small investors who lose money, they are the ones who have chosen to gamble, not me.
| 10:35 am on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
What if google started rewarding sites that follow the webmaster guidelines, instead of punishing those that don't? Just sayin.
| 11:46 am on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Couldnt happen to a better company ;)
While Google had amazing growth they still are in fact a one trick pony.
Now that most webmasters I know have been shown the door with search and adsense I suspect that pony is almost out of tricks for wall street.
I will watch the coming collapse and yes it will give me satisfaction.
| 12:12 pm on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
[edited by: TypicalSurfer at 12:20 pm (utc) on Oct 20, 2012]
| 12:16 pm on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|I get a "this video is private" message. Maybe it's an IP address problem (I'm in the UK) but would you care to elaborate? |
This is working now (google Q3 earnings call):
It's a one hour call with financial analysts. If you've never heard one before, I highly suggest it.
If that link goes stale, look around youtube for "google earnings call Q3 2012".
| 1:09 pm on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys!
| 10:57 pm on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|What if google started rewarding sites that follow the webmaster guidelines, instead of punishing those that don't? Just sayin. |
But then who's going to be using Adwords?
| 11:30 pm on Oct 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
The beginning of the end thank goodness. Only way to keep Wall Street happy will be mobile. Invites out for Come out and play and they would want to have something big in their hands to play with.
| This 188 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 188 ( 1 2  4 5 6 7 ) > > |