Shaddows - 4:57 pm on Jul 19, 2011 (gmt 0)
This is where testing comes in: how much we gain and how much will users tolerate before they leave. And if they leave, what % does leave and what we gain. Losing 1% a year might be deemed acceptable if it gains them an extra $x billion a year, there is more at play than good serps when it comes to users. Plus ads are probably seen as part of SERPS by most, so they matter only to us.
I agree, apart from the 1% loss bit. They need to keep their search volume increasing, or their primary cost (traffic acquisition costs- TAC) increases. When TAC outstrips revenue growth, people get nervous.
Of course Google wants to get as much revenue from their real estate as their content will support- that's what I'm trying to do anyway.
True, but your department boss and the sales team boss both report to the main boss and there's an executive team that makes certain long term decisions that coordinates everything. You run the website but you may get a memo to maybe try this or that. Doesn't have to be direct.
Actually, my primary responsibility is strategy and number crunching (we now have a team focussing on SM, SEO and content and structure- all of which IS co-ordinated). The first goal is traffic acquistion. Traffic, traffic, traffic. Traffic is all. Once we have the traffic, we try to monetise it- but that comes afterwards. We certainly would not sacrafice traffic for some kind of per-head revenue gain. It's against the very notion of scalability.
Look at current IPOs. Valuations are not profit-based.
Good point. That will drive up bidding costs as there is a fixed limit on how many will fit on the screen