Forum Moderators: open
60% of Google users said they would switch search engines if a better service were introduced.The survey also had bad news for Google's planned free email service, with fewer than 25% of respondents saying they would be very likely to use it.
60% Would Leave in a Heartbeat
It happenned to the previous SE leaders - why would Google not be subjected to the same faith if something else better came along.
I forsee MSN taking a big chunk of the market...Google may have most of the searches but MS is already in 95% of desktops....
60% Would Leave in a Heartbeat
I've heard some stupid statements in my time, but this is way up there at the top. It's not the first time someone's come out with a stupid opinion poll like this where the answer is obvious. Here's some similar ones, let's see if they make these public by the end of the week - they're just as valid:
"73% of people would prefer to see something on their television than watch a blank screen"
"62% of people would prefer to go on holiday rather than be mugged"
"91% of people said that they would switch to a better shampoo if their's caused their skin to fall off"
"85% of people said they would prefer having sex to having their left arm removed"
and
"87% of people said that if a better webmaster forum came out they'd go there"
Download the MSN toolbar and get a frequent flyer mile per search!
That would be a great way to get more than 300 million queries a day :) Also by purchasing that many miles you could easily get them for under $0.01 each. Do this for a month, and it would beat any advertising campaign ever.
I've heard some stupid statements in my time, but this is way up there at the top. It's not the first time someone's come out with a stupid opinion poll like this where the answer is obvious. Here's some similar ones, let's see if they make these public by the end of the week - they're just as valid:
How about "50% of all Americans is half"
heh.
As far as Americans are concerned isn't 50% of Americans = double?
How about "50% of all Americans is half"
Now, now, you're just trying to confuse George Bush! So to avoid clarity let me extemporise: "As long as we know which 50% is half we can targetise the other half" ;)
<Time to go home methinks, catch you guys tomorrow>
Remember, AOL is still around.
If my time is better spent optimizing for another SE, then I will.
I was always an Google advocate, even after Florida, but Google has been increasingly dissappointing. From a normal user's POV, I feel that their listings are garbage for alot of search terms, and I've been getting better/more relevant SERPs from Yahoo! as of lately.
From an SEO POV, I have stopped optimizing "for Google". 80% of our traffic now comes from PPC campaigns, Yahoo!-owned sites, AOL, and MSN.
We have never seen better ROI and even though I loath the product that Yahoo! has created to replace the Inktomi paid submission, and refuse to buy into it, we still have a fantastic session to sale ratio.
Google's on it's way out. It was nice while it lasted, but I think we all knew, even if no one wanted to admit it, that as soon as they started acting like a real company - their appeal would slowly dwindle and their "for the people, by the people" attitude would turn more into "by the company, for the money".
Pretty much none of these "surveys" is anywhere close to the truth.
From an SEO POV, I have stopped optimizing "for Google". 80% of our traffic now comes from PPC campaigns, Yahoo!-owned sites, AOL, and MSN.
That doesn't mean users are abandoning Google, though. (From a user's point of view, it would be great if SEOs would stop optimizing for Google, because Google would have an easier time delivering the "organic" search results that users are looking for.)
Download the MSN toolbar and get a frequent flyer mile per search!
loanuniverse,
I hadn't thought about the FF miles angle, but I do think we'll see a major incentivized search player in the next year or so. If they also have excellent results....
MQ
That doesn't mean users are abandoning Google, though. (From a user's point of view, it would be great if SEOs would stop optimizing for Google, because Google would have an easier time delivering the "organic" search results that users are looking for.)
Uh... sure it does. Not only am I a user of Google that has abandoned them - but on a professional level, I am also a former AdWords customer who saw more ROI and control over their listings at Overture abandoning Google's most popular for-profit product.
And although you're all "in the know" - you'd be surprise how LITTLE the world outside of the "frequent user" knows about Google. When three out of eight friends, ages 28-36, have no idea what the hell "a google" is, and one has to be prompted to remember - it shows me that they really aren't as big as we've collectively assumed they were.
I have even uninstalled the Google toolbar since PR has become irrelevant. [And to anyone that would debate this, you're obviously either a.) working with less than three web sites or, b.) not doing your homework very well.]
[edited by: HyperGeek at 9:13 pm (utc) on June 8, 2004]
Users aren't abandoning Google, Yahoo is just becoming more competitive. These are two completely different things.
and to those of us who disagree with you, work on more than 3 sites (quite a few more actually) and have done extensive homework on it?
Keep wasting your time looking at that green bar - Have fun looking at it and basing your reputation on how full you can get it - and hopefully I'll still see you in the SERPs, and in the industry, 12 months from now.
Users aren't abandoning Google, Yahoo is just becoming more competitive. These are two completely different things.
Honestly, it is highly speculative to say what other people are and aren't doing and how the balance is shifting. I will say, though, that I have seen power shifts like this in the past with other SEs that are now just shells of what they used to be - and that it isn't entirely based on "[this company] becoming more competitive" - it was almost always based on "[that company] went horizontal when they should have gone vertical". (Referring to horizontal/vertical business modeling.)
All I know is what I am doing, what my family is doing, and what my peers are doing (the one's I work closely with).
We have gone from Google addicts BACK to regular Yahoo! users after two years of loyalty.
I'm sure we're not the only ones.
A sample of just a few thousand people will get accurate results that apply to the entire American population ... or the world or the universe for that matter.
The catches?
- 1/20 the times, poll/research questions are absolutely wrong
- The sample of people has to accurately represent the underlying population (e.g. they need to be nearly-homogeneous)
- You can have far fewer people in your sample, and it is still pretty accurate
- Just like a good lawyer, the researcher can formulate the questions to get the answers they want
- The people who take the raw research and write the report? Oh boy can they spin things pretty much anyway they want.
No, I am not a stats nerd, but I managed to just about fail a course at uni one year and became the tutor for it the next year. Gotta love bureaucratic fumbling.
[edited by: Tigrou at 9:42 pm (utc) on June 8, 2004]
now that's loyalty.
It also should silence some of the nellie's about Gmail. It's poised to be the most popular thing since sliced bread. 25% is at least five times higher than they could possibly have hoped.
The MSN dudes just slunk back into the cave to work on a way to FORCE people to switch from the most popular thing of its type the world has ever seen.
===
"I have never been asked to participate in a survey."
Come to my house between 5 and 7pm three nights a week and you can broaden your horizons.
"Hello, how are you tonight?"
<click>
Google results are not as good as they once were.
Word is trickling along the grapevine, from the professionals ( i.e. webmasters ) to critical observers ( the press ).... however it's still contained within the group that makes money from Google.
traffic for webmasters, something to write about for the press.
Um, the correct phrase is "more popular than ever", and the reality is PEOPLE HAVE NOT SWITCHED.
LOL, hello, the article says only 60% of the people will switch when something better comes along, but even these have not switched because there is nothing better out there (in their opinion).
Do you have to get a lobotomy to be a journalist these days? These numbers just made Google a billion or two more dollars.
(Also, talk about shoddy, they don't even ask how many respondents use Hotmail or Yahoo email. Unless you have a ballpark idea of that number as a point of reference the 25% is pretty abstract. Of course the percentage is way below 25%, but without a comaprison within the testing group it's probably misleading. 25% has to be way high.)
60% of Google users said they would switch search engines if a better service were introduced.
When “absolute value” is at issue, an unnamed candidate that is simply “better” wins. As in the case of Bush losing by a 48 - 44 percent margin against an “unnamed” Democratic opponent while doubling all “named” opponents in number of estimated votes. Numbers taken from March 6, 2003 Quinnipiac University poll
The articles conclusion is bizarre. I bet when polled against MSN or AOL, Google - all search results being identical - people would choose Google based on the current public goodwill it enjoys (and since the average man on the street doesn't like AOL or MSN), what we have here is a case in which search result quality is not the issue, but perceived quality.
The survey also had bad news for Google's planned free email service, with fewer than 25% of respondents saying they would be very likely to use it.
Take results presented in USAToday for a United Airlines Ad campaign:
"Of consumers surveyed for Ad Track, USA TODAY's exclusive weekly poll, 21% like the ads 'a lot,' hitting the Ad Track average."
They were happy with this campaign, but imagine their ecstasy if 25% of people said they “are very likely” to use the airline right away (as opposed to “I like their ad”) these numbers (if correct) should be extremely encouraging for Google.
Of course, it's not nice to compare buying a ticket to using a free service. So, lets compare Gmail as a free offering to other free offerings.
Industry standards say that the number of people who will claim their "free coke" from under a bottle cap is significantly lower than 25%. Even Steve Jobs said that iTunes bottle cap promotion wasn't going as well as expected, having actually given away only 5 million songs from its distribution of 100 million winning bottle caps.
I won't mention, that since Google (and any other search engine) does not have exclusivity of use, polling "active, moderately proficient" users across the internet as a whole, wouldn’t yield a huge difference percentage wise with the current poll being discussed. (that just conjecture of course)
Perception of Google’s usability grew from word of mouth, as a result, mass advertisement by another search provider will not be enough to overturn its favored status, news articles and forums have to start increasing the trumpet of "Google is dead" while saying things like "MSN/Teoma is better" for people to change their love of google. With more baseless news articles displaying a HUGE negative spin getting attention here, it might just happen.
I am happy to see that people have not fallen into the trap of a fancy brand name with cutesy little pictures.
Excellent point. They should have asked a follow-up question to that 40% "Why would you stay with Google if another search engine was better?"
