Forum Moderators: martinibuster
the notes also pointed out that strong competition was squeezing margins for its AdSense syndication network.In a statement filed Tuesday afternoon with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Google said the notes "were not created for financial planning purposes, and should not be regarded as financial guidance."
[edited by: martinibuster at 5:41 am (utc) on Mar. 8, 2006]
Google needs to maintain their predominance among smaller publishers because this is one of the reasons that Yahoo's program doesn't work well. If there were a massive exodus Yahoo would get the momentum that AdSense now enjoys and certainly Google is acutely aware of this.
I'd block eBay from my site but sadly their often ridiculous ads are probably effective and fill in slots that would otherwise go to unpaid public service.
Google's only and the most important obligation is to generate profits for their shareholders.
If Google gets better at targeting, they can pull more out as middleman while both ends remain the same. The ad auction of today works far better than when I joined AdSense over two years ago. They have a substantial pool of resources they can dedicate to improving the efficiency further.
So the key is that Google does not have to stiff a publisher (nor an advertiser) for every additional dollar.
I feel Google will continue to have a monopoly over small publishers especially those outside USA, Canada and Europe. Yahoo (Overture) is not even interested in advertisers (who pay them money) in Asia, so why will they bother about publishers. Large publishers usually have low eCPM
Yahoo wants to keep the jobs in the USA. That's why they are reluctant to accept publishers outside of the USA; they hate international traffic, they focus only on the USA. They are protectionists inspired by CNN's Lou Dobbs.
I love Google because Google is trully international. And Google's employees come from many backgrounds, including Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and others...
[edited by: martinibuster at 8:21 pm (utc) on Mar. 8, 2006]
[edit reason] Removed political reference. [/edit]
I think that trying to judge these big companies along political (or worse yet politically correct) lines is a big mistake.
A corporation's first responsibility is to earn profits for its shareholders. If diversity is indeed a strength, the most diverse should have an advantage.
Let's stick to facts.
YPN is in Beta. You can't make a reference to Yahoo being US-Centric based on a single beta program, just as you can't call MSN US & Singaporean Centric because their beta AdCenter program is restricted to those two countries.Let's stick to facts.
Listen friend, if Yahoo does not want international publishers - it's fine. We will stick to Google and make Google 10x more profitable than ever.
But I hope Yahoo starts accepting international publishers in the near future.
I have to admit having a few good laughs over Google's repeated "oopsies", revealing things that were "supposed" to be internal. This is about the third in the past week. It looks rather purposeful in my mind, and I love it.
Google is not just another Wall Street greed-and-profit driven corporation. I actually don't think the people at the top of the organization think very highly of Wall Street's culture anyway, and that has been evident all the way back to their IPO.
Given Google's corporate history thus far, they have stood up for privacy rights by telling the DoJ to shove their subpeona and they didn't shed a tear when revealing their last quarterly statement though investors lost their shirts. Sure, they went a little overboard on the copyright stuff, but they seem to have backed off on that.
My perception of G is that they aren't afraid to try anything and make mistakes, which is admirable. If only more American companies were willing to risk the bottom line in favor of innovation, maybe all the jobs here wouldn't be headed overseas. Not that I'm opposed to raising the standards of other nations - we just need to maintain some balance.
Getting to the original point, if Google is publicly leaking info saying that their margins are being squeezed, it means they'll likely keep paying out well to publishers. With a little competition, they'll have to in order to maintain their advantage and dominant market position.
What they maybe don't anticipate is an upsurge in advertising revenue. Advertising on the internet is still in its infancy and still recovering from the dotcom bust of 2000-2001. BUT, more companies are tuning to the internet with larger budgets and ideas and that has to benefit small publishers. It's a growing market and that's where you want to be.
On a side note, I saw that the phone and cable operators are needling Congress about raising rates for the use of their "pipes" and talking about improved speed and delivery for premium (read: larger, well-heeled corporate slobs) content publishers.
I say to the pipe owners, yeah, bring it on. Screw with the small, private, intellectually-brilliant internet publishers and you'll have all out war on your hands. As usual, the owneers of the networks (the Bells and the Cables) don't understand that content drives traffic and makes their pipes more valuable. Any attempt to regulate that traffic is suicide.
I'm out of breath...
Me to, great post!
Yahoo wants to keep the jobs in the USA. That's why they are reluctant to accept publishers outside of the USA; they hate international traffic, they focus only on the USA. They are protectionists inspired by CNN's Lou Dobbs.
Most RUBBISH statement in this thread.
