it should read: "According to Nielsen's Magic 8-Ball, Google...."
I'll go out on a limb here and bet that Live drops 2% next time these ratings are published. ;)
On the other hand, Hitwise claims that Google's market share increased in December, to a new high of 66% in the U.S. market for the month and 64% for 2007 as a whole. (See report. [hitwise.com])
Nielsen and Hitwise do agree on one thing: Google has an overwhelming share of U.S. search.
There are pretty reliable "rumors" in the last couple days in the financial markets that Yahoo is considering outsourcing search again to either MS or Google. Im betting MS will be powering Yahoos search for hefty fee as they used to years ago with Google.
This year should be interesting.
Not from where I'm standing, MSN search counts for a tiny fraction of most of my sites. But then again, apparently MSN search cannot handle 301 redirects from example.com to www.example.com.
Even if the rumor was true, I'd think Yahoo would outsource to Google - for a couple of reasons:
1 - Live.com is clearly still struggling with even the basics like 301s.
2 - MSN and Y! compete heavily in the portal space, while Google does not.
3 - Live would viewed as a step back for Y! while Google would be perceived as an improvement.
I have to admit, that it would be a shame for Y! to give up.
Well according to the "rumors" with my financial buds they will be announcing the layoff of 1500-3000 folks at the end of this month at Yahoo and there is serious rumor of outsourcing search again as was in the old days.
Also there is a much closer relationship with MS within Yahoo then Google, there always has been. I love speculation...
|Even if the rumor was true, I'd think Yahoo would outsource to Google - for a couple of reasons: |
Wouldn't the right financial arrangement trump each and every one of those reasons?
|Wouldn't the right financial arrangement trump each and every one of those reasons? |
When our company evaluates an opportunity like this we use a scoring matrix. Money is one factor, but it is certainly not the deciding factor - especially with a deal like this one. That would be pretty short-sighted.
[edited by: BillyS at 3:38 am (utc) on Jan. 21, 2008]
> Im betting MS will be powering Yahoos search for hefty fee as they used to years ago with Google.
how much do you think they will have to pay Yahoo to use Live? I was thinking something like a $1 billion might do it.
Slash 20% of the workforce and outsource to Microsoft Live for a few billion per year cutting costs and growing revenue. Scoring matrixs are great but golf course handshakes by powerful people are better.
I was wondering when this "rumor" was going to start being talked about more in public. It is an interesting concept. Is it more cost effective for Yahoo to stop running its own PPC engine and outsource to Google?
On the savings side:
Workforce reduction (development, sales, support)
On the loss side:
Controlling their own destiny
Controlling their click costs and splits
Yahoo Publishers Network
Relying on a competitor for a large source of income (Didn't they buy Overture and Inktomi because of this?)
It does come down to what is best for their stock price. Is it more attractive to strip down part of the company and replace part of that income with minimal overhead?
If Yahoo does shutter their PPC dept and switch to Adwords, it could be a very serious indicator that we are in a recession... not just an economic downturn.
um. does anyone actually believe hitwise data? I've never found it better than ballpark, sometimes right out of the ballpark
There is a new topic in the Yahoo forum pointing to a NYT article containing the following:
|Company executives have said that to achieve its “starting point” goal, Yahoo would continue to invest in areas like Internet search, e-mail, the Yahoo front page and the personalized home-page service MyYahoo, as well as news, finance and sports. |
So it looks like Y! considers search core, so MSN will have to find market share elsewhere.
|um. does anyone actually believe hitwise data? I've never found it better than ballpark, sometimes right out of the ballpark |
Nielsen/NetRatings isn't perfect, either. For one thing, sites can assign their traffic to other sites, which is legitimate for purposes of advertising sales ("Our network deliver an audience of XX zillion readers") but creates confusion and inaccuracy if you want to compare the real-life rankings of Site A (which assigns its traffic) and Site B (which doesn't).
Even in the print world, traffic figures can get fuzzy. If the WIDGETVILLE POST distributes a million free copies per month via a sponsorship deal, is it legitimate for the POST to claim those million copies as paid circulation (as some metropolitan newspapers have done and maybe still do)?