Microsoft Search: A Brand Problem
April 9, 2009
I love trophy generation simplifications. I don’t think most of these folks know why Google continues to widen its lead in Web search. Sure, the trophy generation perceives itself as expert online searchers and savvy in the ways of electronic information. The confidence, in my opinion, is not based on substance in most cases.
Consider this article: “Microsoft Faces Branding Problem In Effort to Top Google.” This is from the Wall Street Journal Web log machine, and you must read it here. I hope it is online when you click the link. The WSJ is in the forefront of online information success, well, semi-success. The author (Nick Wingfield) simplifies the problem of disabling Googzilla as a “branding problem.” Mr. Wingfield wrote:
Even though Microsoft still finds itself in a distant third-place position in its share of the online search market behind Google and Yahoo, with just over 8% of searches by U.S. users, Mr. Mehdi says the mood in the search group is upbeat. “It’s a very visceral feeling in the hallways,” he says.
I like the “visceral” image. My stomach would be churning too if my search service was losing ground to Google as every newspaper person in the universe is attacking Googzilla for its pillaging of the traditional media.
Let’s think about this:
- Who uses Google? The children of the people who work in traditional companies finding themselves marginalized because their technology and product appeal doesn’t have much magnetism. Google is a lot of things, but it lets users discover Google. In fact, Google’s sales and marketing are pretty terrible, but it makes no difference. The difference is not brand. The difference is that users perceive Google as a problem solver when it comes to electronic information. The brand and the market share are a consequence, not a cause.
- What gives the GOOG an advantage over companies with people as smart or smarter than Google? In my experience, when a Microsoft executive or a Yahoo engineers joins Google, the GOOG keeps on rolling. The company makes the difference. Employees fit in or leave. After a decade, there are plenty of Xooglers working at competitive firms, but as yet, none of these outfits have been able to hobble the Google. What’s the difference? My thought is management and management methods such as they are at Google.
- Whose technology is better? There are some companies who are better at certain technical functions than the GOOG. I think Relegence.com does a better job with mashups. But overall, the GOOG is good at plumbing, automated processes, smart software and programming tools. I think it is tough to be the Google without the Google infrastructure. Most people don’t know what to make of Google’s cost and performance advantages. My research suggests that these factors are important because without a way to scale, the Google can’t keep up with the load. While not perfect, the GOOG is darn good.
The positive spin on Microsoft search is interesting, but it is not going to close the gap between Microsoft and Google any time soon in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, April 9, 2009
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
