He/She seems to be referring to advertisments in general, making the statement all the more ridiculous. Advertisements are one component of marketing, and without them, all the other--more dishonest--components have all the more power. Most prominently, advertising allows the smallest companies to compete for attention along with massive companies, if only in a targeted way.
identifying ads is relatively easy technically
Oh, you think so? Well, when adblockers become standard issue, I can assure you that advertisements will be very difficult to identify, because they will be incorporated into search results, as in the old days.
I mostly agree with you and Google has already been accused of mixing paid listings into their search results. However, it seems that search engines are really sensitive to being labeled with this stigma. If this becomes common practice again, then it opens the door for someone else to be the new Google.
This is missing something important: ad companies like Google have every incentive to give us the right ads. If you get what you want and Google gets a cut, we're all better off.
It's interesting that the author limits it to Google when a huge number of sites rely solely on advertising for revenue. Where would the Facebook, MySpace, etc. be without ads? I'll bet a good 70% of applicants to YC list advertising as their main revenue model.
If anything I find ads on search results can sometimes be useful and more pertinent than natural search results. For example if I am searching for 'cheap flights to bulgaria' I can be pretty confident that the adwords buyers purchasing those keywords currently have a promotion and the ad could have been updated only minutes before. Compare that to natural search results which could be something 'optimised' several months before.
I especially find the targeted gmail ads useful. I normally ignore ads as a habit, but the links put in the "Web Clip" section are usually quite relevant.
I've never understood why people feel that way. You don't mind a computer scanning your emails to detect spam, why do people mind when it is scanned to select unobtrusive advertising? Maybe I'm just desensitized, which is a scary thought.
The ads on the right side of Google's search results are sometimes helpful. But, the search results are being clogged with made-for-AdSense sites. Google's search results would be much better if they closed down AdSense.
Every weblog with AdSense advertising looks better (design wise) with AdBlock+ turned on; there is more negative space and less visual noise.
Agreed. Adwords are auctioned, which means the top ads have the economic incentive to pay most (the ad may be important for smaller share of population, but to pay off more). In regular searches popularity alone wins, $$$ value is not part of the equation.
I think the author is almost right: Google's vulnerability is its dependence on advertising for its revenue stream, but I don't think widespread adoption of ad blocking software is very likely: most people don't care, and/or don't have the knowledge to install browser extensions. Text-based ads are also harder to block, and it will just lead to an arms race in which only a small portion of users will bother to take the measures necessary to block all/most ads.
But I do think Google is vulnerable to a collapse in the web advertising market. Look at all the pain that was caused the last time this happened (didn't we learn our lesson about building businesses that are totally dependent on advertising income?). If the advertising market were to collapse, what would Google do? (I'm genuinely curious to hear speculation about this...)
oops, accidentally clicked the down bar (making your comment 0 points) while scanning thru the newcomments section. sorry, can't seem to undo it :-(
apologies!!
I know I'll get downmodded for this, but I sure as hell wish this day would come: built-in ad-blockers in all major browsers.
Why? For selfish and honest reasons: For one, I personally don't like ads at all, I prefer the real estate on my monitor much more. Second, I will probably have to start paying (just a little bit) for services I really like. Let's see... I'd pay for google search, flickr, reddit, gmail...
And Internet will be free from all this ad-revenue-fueled noise. And entrepreneurs will be more focused on building things people want to pay for.
And Google will still be #1 simply because people (I believe) will want their services: search, gmail, maps, online docs, etc. After all we've been paying Microsoft for stuff we didn't really need for years.
You might pay for a few services you use frequently, but a lot of your time is probably spent on a "long tail" of various sites you're not going to pay for.
Advertisements are de facto micro-payments and they work really well. We don't even all have to pay (shhh). They're a small price to pay to keep the web growing the way it is. I think an arms race and eventual truce is the most likely result.
I think startups focusing only on things people want to pay for directly would reduce the number of startups dramatically. Having eyeballs as a currency which can be exchanged for money is unbelievably powerful.
All those companies/merchants advertising their products/services through adsense wouldnt want their ads blocked by IE. Google wont be alone in this fight.
I really think we need a good micro payment system. I cannot believe that reading an article should forever be conditioned on having a movie play right in my face. I have no issues with google's text ads. I wouldn't bother to block them. But those flash movies right in the middle of pages are ridiculous. They will be blocked and they should be blocked because that's the only way to make the industry work on better solutions.
As another poster mentioned - guess what happens when you try to block things and the blocking becomes common. Think spam or popups. If there are financial incentives, the advertisers getting blocked will just get more creative. Its the usual arms race. Text ads just haven't gotten annoying enough for most people to block.
I do think Google's advertising model can't last forever. Just like the old "pay per view" model mostly died out on the web, the "pay per click" model will die out too. The obvious next step is pay per sale. Yes, it's hard and has problems. But if somebody finds a good way to make this work, this could potential steal away some of Google's business.
21 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 50.0 ms ] threadthey are never useful or informative.
He/She seems to be referring to advertisments in general, making the statement all the more ridiculous. Advertisements are one component of marketing, and without them, all the other--more dishonest--components have all the more power. Most prominently, advertising allows the smallest companies to compete for attention along with massive companies, if only in a targeted way.
identifying ads is relatively easy technically
Oh, you think so? Well, when adblockers become standard issue, I can assure you that advertisements will be very difficult to identify, because they will be incorporated into search results, as in the old days.
Every weblog with AdSense advertising looks better (design wise) with AdBlock+ turned on; there is more negative space and less visual noise.
I live in Bulgaria, btw ;)
But I do think Google is vulnerable to a collapse in the web advertising market. Look at all the pain that was caused the last time this happened (didn't we learn our lesson about building businesses that are totally dependent on advertising income?). If the advertising market were to collapse, what would Google do? (I'm genuinely curious to hear speculation about this...)
Why? For selfish and honest reasons: For one, I personally don't like ads at all, I prefer the real estate on my monitor much more. Second, I will probably have to start paying (just a little bit) for services I really like. Let's see... I'd pay for google search, flickr, reddit, gmail...
And Internet will be free from all this ad-revenue-fueled noise. And entrepreneurs will be more focused on building things people want to pay for. And Google will still be #1 simply because people (I believe) will want their services: search, gmail, maps, online docs, etc. After all we've been paying Microsoft for stuff we didn't really need for years.
Advertisements are de facto micro-payments and they work really well. We don't even all have to pay (shhh). They're a small price to pay to keep the web growing the way it is. I think an arms race and eventual truce is the most likely result.
I think startups focusing only on things people want to pay for directly would reduce the number of startups dramatically. Having eyeballs as a currency which can be exchanged for money is unbelievably powerful.
I do think Google's advertising model can't last forever. Just like the old "pay per view" model mostly died out on the web, the "pay per click" model will die out too. The obvious next step is pay per sale. Yes, it's hard and has problems. But if somebody finds a good way to make this work, this could potential steal away some of Google's business.