All That’s Fit to Google

In what feels like ages ago, yet in actuality occurred only two months ago, NASA and Google publicly announced their intent to work together. Having already conquered cyberspace, a milestone seemingly capped by Google’s successful hiring of the “father of the internet” Vinton Cerf – it might seem only natural that they would put their minds to outer space. Google’s ability to organize data matches well with an entity that produces worlds of it. Not that anyone doubts it isn’t a good fit, but the announcement did lead to more than a few wondering whether Google wasn’t starting to stretch itself too thin…or worse, get its hands into too many things. Then came a story this month that Google might put their computing power to work at better understanding inner space, teaming up with geneticists and other scientists to catalogue and characterize all genomic development. More announcements like this and the company will reach, if it hasn’t already, a tipping point. It has increased the scope of its activities without increasing the transparency, and this could quickly lead to the company facing an uphill battle for future growth as opposed to their experiences, to date, of having the wind at their backs.

From a PR perspective maybe not, but from a product perspective, Google has been right on. A quick glance at this month alone shows off their achievements.

• November 14, 2005 – Google Analytics launched. The free software based off their popular Urchin product had so many requests that the company has had to hold off on new signups, having gone from 0 to 234,725 in less than ten days.
• November 15, 2005 – Google Base goes live. What had been a rumor was officially open for use. Like the typical model for search, Google Base relies on mass amounts of user information, but unlike their marquee search product, Google Base solicits the input of content. It is widely believed to be the foundation for a potential classifieds killer to challenge the dominance of Bay Area neighbor Craigslist.
• November 17, 2005 – Google shares hit $400 for the first time. After hitting $300 and being questioned for potential overvaluation, the stock took one month to match the targets set by analysts for their six to twelve month’s guidance. Will it really take another six months to hit $450 or $500? That’s barely 20% growth as opposed to the 30% it took to hit $400.
• November 18, 2005 – Google allows advertisers to bid directly on a site they visit. In a move that potentially signals a more advertiser needs driven Google, the company matched functionality of text link ad network competitors, Industry Brains and Kanoodle, by making it possible for publishers and advertisers to connect directly. Like their competitors, for certain sites, advertisers can now bid for placement solely for that site rather than bidding on the entire network.
• November 21, 2005 – Google allows separate bidding on search and content. Three days after the announcement that advertisers could buy on specific sites they were visiting, Google did a very un-Google like move by continuing the level of control and happiness they give advertisers. As most are familiar, advertising with Google involves their search traffic (Google search results page and select partners – AOL, AskJeeves, etc.) and distribution on their version of an ad network i.e. contextual ads on web sites. Until this announcement, advertisers that wanted to advertise on content had to advertise on search, and it involved only once price, which Google automagically adjusted using their SmartPricing algorithm based on a particular site’s performance. Now, not only can advertisers run on search and content independently of one another, they can also set different bids. This gives Google parity with Yahoo, which has offered independent channels and separate bidding since launching their contextual content ad product.
• November 23, 2005 – Google tests click to call ads. Greg Yardley broke this story that showed how the company was facilitating the connecting of users to advertisers not just by clicks to a web site but through the phone. They seemed to have beat eBay to the punch who paid $4 billion for Skype, presumably to assist in such activities.

For much of its history, Google has been the anti-Microsoft – democratic and not the least bit idealistic. As their own web grows, the distance between the two companies gets closer, and not just with respect to their market caps. As New York Times op-ed writer Adam Cohen states, both companies give little to no control over how their personal information is collected, stored, and shared, and that the level of data doesn’t seem to be changing. Google has reached a point where “trust us” no longer covers it. The company has proven itself to be, as John Heilemann and John Batelle say “coming close to a ‘worm turning’ moment – a moment when the world realizes that the company is *too powerful* and its ambitions are *too great. “ Google, though, does have the small luxury of being able to learn from Microsoft’s and others’ mistakes, ones that did not hurt sales but did hurt their image and public support.

I hold Google in high regard. Like many though, reality has started to temper that feeling of reverence. Those feelings that helped push the company high up on its pedestal are being replaced by frustration and concern. Like Microsoft, Google might come to a point where they are no longer really liked, just respected, watched, and feared. As Wired magazine writes, everybody is afraid of Google. What this next chapter will bring is how Google handles this role reversal. If this month is any indication, they will continue to push ahead with their great products, and while their areas of focus might lead to some questions about focus, that grandeur of cause will enable them to keep getting the top talent, having something for them to do, and keep them from being seen as merely an ad company. Google truly is a company that we would have a hard time living without. As long as they stay there, Slate’s chronicle of a death foretold might be avoided. This is a story of product and PR no longer showing alignment. They are growing pains that almost all of the most dominant companies have faced, Google just quicker than others.