Google Needs Mending
April 3, 2011
What a surprise! The San Francisco Chronicle has made it official: Google has some remediation ahead. “Google’s Larry Page Must Mend Image of Firm, Self” targets both the organization and the top dog with a tough love “must”. I had to remind myself that the San Francisco Chronicle wants to sell newspapers. I also think that the publication needs to have its socks darned as well. Nevertheless, I think it is important that a semi-Silicon Valley outfit is preaching to the big dog of online advertising.
Here’s a passage from the article that caught my attention:
The message floating out to select publications is that Page wants to return the company to its entrepreneurial roots; to kick-start its innovation engine. That’s a good thing, of course. But Page and Google may need to recognize that different rules and different lenses apply for a startup in a Menlo Park garage and an almost $190 billion company that dominates the search market. Increasingly, Google might have to seek consensus and partnerships to achieve its goals, rather than simply unleashing disruptive technologies on the world. That may mean Page will have to learn to empathize with, rather than dismiss out of hand, those who don’t see the world the way he and Google do. And it could mean sometimes – and maybe even a lot of the time – he’ll have to plead his case in the court of public opinion, or else the other kind.
What I found interesting in the approach taken in the story was the weird absence of time. The examples are very now, now and go, go. Are Google’s problems recent? I saw a focus on the recent, not the historical, structural problems within Google. In my research, I pegged 2006-2007 as the pivot point for the company. In 2006, Google was on a roll. Then 12 months later the slide began:
- Controlled chaos produced bombs, flops, and failures
- The enterprise division failed to gain significant traction. The once vaunted search appliance became an invitation to competitors to show up where Google Search Appliances were installed to ask, “How is that GSA, customer service, and integration working for you?” Many vendors made sales after the GSA ran aground. One example: Thunderstone.
- Legal hassles began to pile up. There was the $1.0 billion flap with Viacom and then even more significant problems. Every week another legal bombshell was lobbed toward Mountain View. Some important legal matters were lost in higher profile cases. Example: Foundem.
- Google’s responses to problems became increasingly interesting. From Eric Schmidt’s telling publishers to embrace technology when publishers were embracing technology to the odd attempt to freeze out CNet for using Google to report on Mr. Schmidt’s activities. Then there was a day care flap, the deal to build houses along 101, the generally wacky spat about bedroom décor in one of the Google aircraft, etc.
My take on Google is different from the “real” journalist’s report in the San Francisco Chronicle.
First, I think that the management challenges are more significant than many pundits, poobahs, and art history majors now working as consultants reveal or know. From arguments about food to Microsoft jurisdictional spats, the Google is struggling with the effects of controlled chaos. Chaos is tough to convert to a Kia style management set up.
Second, the ad revenue dependence is great now but looking forward, the golden goose could be snared and converted to a Facebook lunch entree. Why? Google ads are being hosed out across more and more “hot points”. The problem is that the newer “hot points” don’t work like the 2002 to 2006 Oingo-fueled text ads. Facebook has an advantage and a lot of Googlers who are working to suck in some ad bucks from disaffected Google advertisers. What’s Google’s response whilst mending?
Third, the legal problems are big but money can deal with lawyers. The giant problem Google has created is a state of conflict with the world’s largest and fastest growing market. Yep, China. Google’s situation in that market may be tough to “mend.” A few more pokes in Chinese chests could result in some quite strong responses from China toward Google. Remember, even though Google often forgets, China is a country. What’s this mean? Well, police, intelligence operatives, and laws. Honking off a country is probably not the preferred diplomatic method when one wants to work in said country.
The good news is that a northern California newspaper is taking a somewhat more realistic view of Google. The bad news is that the editor who decided that now is the time for the story got the message four years late.
Stephen E Arnold, April 3, 2011
Freebie
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
