Google and Its Cost Cutting: More Than Meets the Eye
April 24, 2020
DarkCyber is pleased that CNBC continues to write interesting news stories. In fact, this write up only mentions Covid twice, a new record for news associated with talking head video. “Google to Cut Marketing Budgets by As Much as Half, Directors Warned of Hiring Freezes” reports:
Google is slashing its marketing budgets by as much as half for the second half of the year, according to internal materials viewed by CNBC. One email about the cuts went out to marketing employees this week, noting the budget cuts and a new hiring freeze for full-time and contract employees.
The now standard unnamed sources and no picture of the “documents” the canny CNBC news sleuths were able to read.
Let’s assume that everything in the write is accurate. Let’s ask some questions which are not addressed in the scoop:
- What’s the connection between Google’s giving away free product listings in Google Shopping and this new austerity?
- What is the increase in data center and bandwidth in the last three years? Why has Google’s CFO been unable to trim or stabilize these costs?
- What will Google do to hold back or flatten the ad losses to Amazon and Facebook?
- What are the direct costs associated with Google’s new found sense of responsibility for problematic content in ads and in YouTube videos?
DarkCyber’s analyses suggest that Google is now suffering from more than two decades of mismanagement. My research team calls this style of running a company the high school science club management method of HSSCMM. The idea is that decisions made without context or sufficient wisdom have created a machine that devours available cash.
On the surface, Google is Googley. But beneath the surface are indications of stress. There are employee pushbacks. There is interesting management behavior in the legal department. There is a palpable sense of vulnerability to Amazon and Facebook.
Googzilla is starting to shiver because there are more innovative, aggressive predators sniffing around the happy campus in Mountain View.
The reaction? Innovation, happy employees, bug free services, relevant search results, easy to use products like Google Maps?
Nope.
Fire people in marketing. Once the lawyers were housed in trailers “off campus.” Now another non engineering group is sacrificed to feed the maw of tough to control technology costs. Sacrifice the marketers.
Stephen E Arnold, April 24, 2020
Google: The Laser That Threatened James Bond Creeps Closer to the Private Parts of the GOOG
April 23, 2020
Update: I omitted the link to the actual Googler blog post. Too excited thinking about “integrity.” My bad.
Goldfinger was an interesting film. In 1965, lasers were advanced. Some thought they were death rays. The Hollywood people, sunning around the pool with Technicolor drinks, thought the laser was the ideal way to burn James Bond’s private parts. Goldfinger was the bad actor. Now Google’s integrity weapon may be threatening Alphabet’s private parts. Odd job indeed.
The laser posed a risk to the fictional James Bond’s private parts. The Google integrity verification is a similar risk with one difference: Googlers are steering the destructive beam of actual data toward Alphabet’s secret places.
Flash forward to 2020, “Google to Require All Advertisers to Pass Identity Verification Process.” The word “all” is probably not warranted, but it sounds good. Talking heads enjoy glittering generalities and categorical affirmatives.
Nevertheless, the news story, if accurate, reveals some interesting quasi-factoids. Here’s one example:
Google began requiring political advertisers wanting to run election ads on its platform to verify their identity back in 2018. Now, that program is being extended to all advertisers, the company wrote in a blog post this morning from John Canfield, its director of product management for ads integrity. The change will allow consumers to see who’s running an ad and which country they’re located in when they click “Why this ad?” on a placement.
Advertisers have to “prove” something other than having a mechanism to put funds into a Google advertising account. Second, Google has a job description which includes these words: “Management” and “integrity.” Plus, the information will not help Google. Nope, the winners in knowing who allegedly buys ads is “consumers.”
Google’s integrity person allegedly said:
“This change will make it easier for people to understand who the advertiser is behind the ads they see from Google and help them make more informed decisions when using our advertising Controls,” John Canfield, Google’s director of product management for ads integrity, said in the post. “It will also help support the health of the digital advertising ecosystem by detecting bad actors and limiting their attempts to misrepresent themselves.”
How does one become verified by Google’s integrity people?
Organizations are required to submit personal legal information (like a W9 or IRS document showing the organization’s name, address and employer identification number). An individual from the organization also needs to provide legal identification on the organization’s behalf. Individuals have to show government-issued photo ID like a passport or ID card. Google said it previously had collected basic information about the advertiser but didn’t require documentation to verify.
How effective are Google’s efforts to filter, screen, and verify? We know that human traffickers and others in this line of business have infiltrated videos on YouTube. We know that one can run a query for “Photoshop crakz”:
Apparently Google’s system cannot block listings for stolen commercial software. In fact, the listing for this illegal offering was updated three days ago. DarkCyber knows that some legitimate sites’ content has not been updated for longer periods of time. Notice how Google’s smart autocorrect changed “crakz” into “cracked.” Helpful smart software. Why does Google display the result? Why doesn’t Adobe email Google’s search wizards to have these links with illegal intent filtered? One reason may be that Adobe has emailed Google customer support and is, like many others with questions for the Google, waiting for a response from an informed Googler?
When Corporate and Personal Goals Collide: Efficiency over the Individual
April 23, 2020
I read “Covid-19 and the Welcome Collapse of Professionalism.” The write up has a defeatist quality. Consider this passage:
Over the last few weeks, I’ve navigated my own emotional response to the pandemic while attempting to model the leadership I believe is important in times like these: empathetic, decisive, present.
Empathy, decisiveness, and presentness? Does this sound like a young adult trying to explain what he or she wants to do as a parent. There is a sense of loss and longing in the statement quoted above. “Emotional” comes up short. How about the word “psychological”?
The context of the write up is, of course, the crisis of the Great Pandemic. The assumptions in the essay are that the Organization Man’s definition of professionalism is not right for our times. Interesting, just not professional based on my work experience.
What is professional?
Consider Amazon. “Public Plea to AWS: Give Free Credits to Startups Around the World” explains that a successful online bookseller should have “mom” characteristics; that is, empathy, decisiveness, and presentness—just tailored to the needs of the emotional little people.
The article implores:
I am asking AWS to offer us all additional credits based on the last 12 month’s spend. Help us … based on how much business we do with you. Reward your loyal customers. Offering us all, say, the equivalent of one quarter’s standard usage based on the last 12 months of consumption would be a spectacular way you can help us through this difficult time.
These two write ups are interesting. Both are emotional. Both reveal a keen desire to have a parental intervention make everything all better.
The first wants everyone to redefine professionalism, presumably to make work kinder, friendlier, and chock full of goodness. Maybe like a pre-school daycare with really kind staff, milk, and cookies.
The second wants the world’s richest man to give stuff away for free. The argument is that “everybody wins.”
Reality check:
- Work is generally not like day care. People in groups have a tendency to demonstrate human qualities. These include behaviors not in line with empathy, decisiveness, and presentness. Concepts like “I don’t care if your kid is having a birthday party, the report is due tomorrow.” and “I am not sure what to do. You and your team figure it out.” and “I have a plane to catch. Deal with it.”
- The really rich people like to charge people, get money, and increase their cash reserve as a way to keep score. Giving stuff away free is okay if it hooks the person into spending more and forever.
Several observations:
These pleas for change at a time of pandemic are interesting.
Most of the bleats will be white noise.
Change is likely to arrive, but it may not be what those looking for emotional comfort or a benign corporate Santa will deliver.
Net net: Corona pleading may be a new form of Silicon Valley inspired writing. Worth monitoring but with appropriate empathy, decisiveness, and presentness, of course.
Stephen E Arnold, April 23, 2020
SAP: Management Simplification Because of a Virus
April 21, 2020
SAP is an interesting company. How many years did it take Westinghouse to implement the SAP system? Right, there is no more Westinghouse, and it is possible that the job was never completed.
That’s a minor matter compared to the information revealed in “SAP Breaks Up Co-CEO Role After Virus Brought Leadership Problem.” (Note: A paywall may be in place for this write up because those run-for-president ads have to be paid for.)
The write up asserts:
SAP had been committed to the co-CEO structure, but when the coronavirus hit, it became clear that having two people in charge was no longer tenable, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.
This begs the question, “Was the co-CEO set up tenable in the first place?”
Well, Ms. Morgan, based in the US, was not in Germany. Yeah, okay. Ms. Morgan was not a close pal with the IBM infused Hasso Platnet. Plus, a very minor factor maybe, Ms. Morgan was not a male.
Several observations:
- This SAP move is almost the equal of the some high school science club management methods in use at Silicon Valley companies
- A GM wizard allegedly observed, “Two objectives is no objective.” SAP’s Board of Director’s appears to have ignored this Sloanism.
- SAP’s financial performance tracks IBM’s performance. The apple does not fall far from der baum. So maybe a bum’s rush?
The management principle seems to be blame corona. Innovative.
Stephen E Arnold, April 21, 2020
A Revolution in Management: Efficiency Redefined?
April 14, 2020
I read “How COVID-19 Made Old-School Management Irrelevant: No More Pointless Micro-Management.” I think a more suitable subtitle would have been “A Millennial’s Howl for Me-Ness.”
The essay is interesting for three reasons.
First, it predicts the future. Predictions are easy, but as “now” yields to the future, most are sort of correct. Management changes may be a tough discipline to change. Why? The notion of organizing tasks and orchestrating the completion of those tasks requires responsibility. That’s an old fashioned concept, but remote control may lack some of the intangibles that traditional management principles rely upon.
Second, the notion of irrelevance is a mostly a point of view issue. Who determines relevance? Perhaps shifting from externally imposed obligations or expectations to an individual determining if those obligations or expectations are “relevant.” Reliability, particularly among many colleagues, is a slippery topics. Without reliability, tasks may be difficult to complete. Relevant or irrelevant issue? The answer depends on whom one asks.
Third, the idea of micro management annoys some people. On the other hand, there are individuals who do their best work within structures and expectations about behavior. One can make generalizations about direct interaction in person. The number of exceptions can undermine what one wants to be true. In fact, the generalization may be an attempt to impose what an individuals wants and needs upon others. Arrogance, stupidity, or a certain blindness?
Now the write up. The article asserts:
The need for a manager who “checks on you” has suddenly evaporated.
Interesting but the emergence of new methods for monitoring seem to be a growth industry: Mobile phone surveillance, Slack, and even Zoom meetings are monitoring, control, and directive devices in some ways.
Here’s another interesting mental construct:
In this new world of “work-from-home”, creatives feel free from antagonisms of the old, and the creators of new. Getting people to perform competitively in environments where remote work relies on individual resourcefulness, the in-your-face old school management has died.
The phrase “in your face” reminds me of a bright sprout deeply offended by a grade school teacher’s statement, “Pay attention to the assignment.” The reaction of some people to being told to deliver is rebellion. That’s not a reason to discard some management methods. In fact, I term this type of anti-management behavior as high school science club management methods or HSSCMM. The idea is that a few smart people gather and know what’s better, faster, and cheaper. Does this sound like some of the Silicon bro ethos? It should because this world view has created some interesting challenges; namely, employees who don’t do what’s expected. Employees who protest, leak, strike, and submarine work so it has more flaws than normal.
The write up identifies what has changed since the global pandemic modified some established patterns; for example:
- Work from home will become more common
- We are in a cultural tsunami
- Social distancing is “demolishing age old officer hierarchies”.
These sound ominous or life affirming depending upon one’s point of view. The flows of digital information undermine hierarchies. I addressed this subject in my Eagleton Lecture (sponsored by ASIS and Bell Labs) in the late 1980s. As digital information zips around, the “old” patterns are weakened and some collapse; for example, knowing about a company’s legal problems once easily concealed until ubiquitous “publishing.” The cultural tsunami picked up steam in developed countries as newer technologies and tools became widely available. Change does not speed along when certain capabilities are classified and available to a comparatively small number of individuals. Diffusion of tools accelerates diffusion of behaviors. New ideas flourish in such an environment. The datasphere is a hot house. The work from home or WFH is definitely becoming more common, just not for everyone. It is difficult to create certain products from home. It is difficult to reach some decisions from home when a golf outing, lunch, and one to one sizing up is necessary.
I grant that change is taking place, some good, some bad. I agree that in some sectors, the 19th century approach to business will not be successful. I support the idea that a 9 to 5 workplace of the “organization man” will be the only or best way to build an organization.
However, if one takes even a cursory look at different cultures at different points in the past, interesting commonalities emerge. Examples range from a group’s appointing a leader to provide guidance seem widespread. Specialists perform certain tasks, often working alone or in concert to deliver an artifact that cannot be crafted alone in a different location.
Several observations:
- WFH or work from home is not right for everyone. Multiple methods are needed. Picking the most suitable method to achieve the goal is the job of management. I think a manager from a Roman engineering brigade would agree in part. A stone cutter working in a quarry is of zero value to team in trans Alpine Gaul.
- Management evolves. Take a flip through Peter Drucker’s management books. The ideas seem both in tune and out of step. Why? Individuals organizing resources to achieve a goal have to adapt to the cultural environment. A failure to adapt is the ultimate failure of an enterprise.
- Some people need the structure of an organization and a routine which may involve a commute, annoyances like a cube in a bigger space, and people making noise, suggestions, and waves.
Net net: Generalizations which are focused on a narrow slice of those who need to work are interesting but self centered, not objective, and wishful thinking. Parts of life will be like grade school. Suck it up. Deliver something of value.
Stephen E Arnold, April 14, 2020
The Spirit of HP Management Exists: Quibi Hears an Eko
April 10, 2020
Anyone remember HP’s greatest moments? Paying really, really close attention to some Board of Directors? Buying Autonomy without reading an expert group’s report? Stumbling into the abyss with Alta Vista? Possibly the influence of Meg Whitman and that HP management experience has now challenged the practioners of the high school science club management methods for excellence, judgment, and logical thinking?
I am thinking about HP because I read “Quibi’s Turnstyle Tech Battle Sees Eko Score Accelerated Hearing Date For Preliminary Injunction – Update.” If the write up is accurate, the HP way has found itself into the mechanics of Quibi. Quibi is apparently a short form video service. None of that sitting in one’s pajamas talking about Animal Crossing. These are allegedly pro-grade videos, better than the outputs of TV stars forced to manage their own lighting and audio.
The write up states:
In reality, Eko owns the technology and promptly asked Quibi to cease and desist,” an accompanying flourish filled memorandum of points (read it here) from Eko’s parent company says of the slow-burn confrontation between the parties over the past few months. “In response, Quibi sent an untruthful letter and then filed a declaratory judgment action,” according to the 30-page paperwork submitted to U.S. District Court in California.
I think this means that the HP way allegedly has appropriated a system and method from another firm. That other firm is going to try to obtain justice. Interesting, right. Justice.
The article states that Quibi is free for now. Will the footsteps of Eko’s lawyers echo in the minds of those embracing the sounds of a possible HP anthem “Oh, I’ve Got Hair Oil On My Ears And My Glasses Are Slipping Down, But Baby I Can See Through You.”
Stephen E Arnold, April 10, 2020
Great Moments in High School Science Club Management: Twitter and Zoom
March 30, 2020
Bird is a company with venture money renting scooters. One effect of scooteritis is the desire to throw scooters in ponds, dumpsters, and bushes.
A string of Tweets at this link report an example of the HSSCMM or high school science club management method. The technique is to use the Facebook friendly Zoom video conferencing app to hold a company meeting. (Why not have everyone move their Alexa close to the conference call too?)
Instead of a meeting Bird terminated with HSSCMM 400 employees. The happy news was provided by a pre-recorded Zoom message. Another Twitter service user insisted that the message was delivered by an allegedly human person who “started crying halfway through.”
Okay, Zoom. Firing lots of people. Nifty HSSCMM nevertheless. It will be interesting to see what the next “coming down to earth” high technology company can extend this method.
Efficiency when dealing with those NOT in the science club.
Stephen E Arnold, March 30. 2020
Google Stadia: Google Wood or Just Recycled Cardboard?
March 12, 2020
DarkCyber does not play games. Sure, there are some young-at-heart DarkCyber games, but I ignore them. One of these hard-working individuals spotted “Google Stadia Hits an All-Time Low With This Embarrassing Tweet.” I am not much of a tweeter.
Apparently someone at Google does read tweets and noted one that contained this high school cheer / acrostic thing:
Note that there is no game for I.
A Googler replied, with a tweet, of course: “Why would you bring attention to this?”
I assume the answer is one of these choices:
a. It’s millennial or Gen X, Y, or Z humor
b. Stadia is not performing
c. Someone actually cares about Stadia to try to spell a word using the first letter of games on the service
d. There is a game on Stadia which uses the “what’s up” emoji instead of words.
The write up states:
Clearly, whoever is in charge of the Google Stadia Twitter account has stopped caring. It’s probably for the best since everyone else stopped caring about it months ago.
Google Stadia seemed doomed from the start, and things haven’t gotten much better. It lacks games, has a terrible monetization system, and generally isn’t all that convenient. It even pales in comparison to other similar systems like GeForce Now and Project xCloud. If the state of their social media is anything to go by, Google is already well on its way to just checking out and letting the system die. It’s hard to blame them. So far, Google Stadia seems like it was just a horrible idea.
DarkCyber has little insight to how things work at Google. I would surmise that whoever worked on Stadia has made an effort to catch on with a hot project team. No, not solving Death. Solving Stadia, however, may be a comparable challenge.
Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2020
Tech Experts Branching Out: No Different from MBAs Who Can Manage Any Business
March 9, 2020
Elite or self-perceived elite have some fascinating characteristics.
“The Prodigal Techbro” explores a related idea in terms of those with technical expertise. The subtitle of the article provides a little more color on the idea:
The tech executive turned data justice warrior is celebrated as a truth-telling hero, but there’s something a bit too smooth about this narrative arc.
The article states:
The Prodigal Tech Bro is a similar story, about tech executives who experience a sort of religious awakening. They suddenly see their former employers as toxic, and reinvent themselves as experts on taming the tech giants. They were lost and are now found. They are warmly welcomed home to the center of our discourse with invitations to write opeds for major newspapers, for think tank funding, book deals and TED talks.
The write up explains:
The moral hazard is clear; why would anyone do the right thing from the beginning when they can take the money, have their fun, and then, when the wind changes, convert their status and relative wealth into special pleading and a whole new career?
The reveal in the article is:
Prodigal tech bro stories skip straight from the past, when they were part of something that—surprise!—turned out to be bad, to the present, where they are now a moral authority on how to do good, but without the transitional moments of revelation and remorse. But the bit where you say you got things wrong and people were hurt? That’s the most important part. It’s why these corporatized reinventions feel so slick and tinny…
For the most part, I think the write up is insightful.
OHave you heard the assertion. “An MBA equips a person to manage any business.” Whether the business school accomplishes this depends upon one’s point of view. The more prestigious the business school, the more confidence some MBAs have in their abilities. Accountants and lawyers share this characteristic. If I am correct, there is a challenge facing business and social institutions because tech bros — at least some of them — have the same hubris about “we can do anything.”
What’s fueling this? Maybe three factors:
- Opportunism. Remember the fine leader Martin Shkreli and the 5,000 percent drug price hike. Pushing Daraprim’s price up was logical, and clever, entitled people can just do things.
- Intelligence. Because some people are smarter than others, the thrill of being smart leads to more adventurism. Is that why the Google VP Forrest Hayes took drugs, engaged with an interesting female, and left a family to figure out what’s what. Does smart expand what William James called “a certain blindness”?
- Indifference. When one is logical, facts trump emotions. When Facebook executives evade questions about Cambridge Analytica type activities, perhaps these individuals are indifferent to the impact of their actions or inactions? And Libra? Same VCR tape.
The alleged tech bros, by the way, are not all men. The behaviors of female executives evidence this tendency as well. One recent example is the Sheryl Sandberg NBC interview. Fascinating word exhaust.
Net net: The conversion from high tech superstar to social media mentor is similar to Jonathan Edwards’ Great Awakening; that is, a convenient redemption.Yep, that’s what the elite have delivered: A mindset for the top one percent. Outstanding.
Stephen E Arnold, March 9, 2020
Google and Its Trajectory from Dorm to Domination
February 21, 2020
I read the capitalist’s tool essay/opinion/analysis article called “From Exceptionalism To Unrest: Why Google’s Culture Is Changing.” The idea that Google and its change is an obvious one. The reason for the change, according to the write up, is relative deprivation. Here’s a bit of color on this interesting, MBA-meets-yoga-babble concept:
Insights on relative deprivation shed light on the dynamics Googlers may face in this respect. The research shows that when, for reasons outside of their control, people are denied opportunities that others possess and they desire or feel entitled to and equipped for, they will feel personally deprived, and grow not only dissatisfied, but also resentful.
What happens if a Googler perceives himself/herself/whatever self as being treated unfairly? Here’s the outcome:
The combination of feeling personally deprived as a result of a culture of exceptionalism and that progressive growth of sensitivity to or awareness of fairness components due to sustained uncertainty is an explosive recipe for Google.
You know that most people want an official Google mouse pad. The mouse pad says, “I am beloved by the Google.”
Why aren’t today’s Googlers protesting in front of the building and not doing handstands of happiness?
Googlers don’t want to solely be part of a cool club. They, too, as most humans, are looking for a work environment in which people can enjoy working with others and making a difference without having to think first and foremost about where they fall on the ‘excellence’ curve.
Keep in mind that I am old (75 this year to be exact) and I live in rural Kentucky, which is to some who live in fantasy the epicenter of technology, fair dealing in health care and bourbon, and political acumen. (You know the track record of Senator McConnell perhaps?)
From my vantage point, the write up is like an Instagram story: Selected moments, a filter, and difficult to figure out for those not in the Instagram flow.
The Google has changed and maybe there are a few other factors at work:
- Lack of regulation allowed the company to do whatever it wanted with zero consequences. Google was not quite anything goes, but it was able to deal with issues because everyone wanted a Google mouse pad, work at Google, or wear a T shirt with the Google logo. The Disneyland for the technically adept has aged. Check out theme parks that have been around for more than two decades. Paint doesn’t bring the zing of the good old days. The zero consequence mode has begun to rundown, and Googlers, Xooglers, and others using the company’s services know that the roller coaster is being pulled downhill.
- The management method is what I call high school science club management which I abbreviate to HSSCMM (the final m means method). Science clubs were when I was in high school a place for a small number of people who like science, math, electronics, and mostly one another. It was an “us” versus “them” place. Decisions were made by members who looked at the world through a lens calibrated differently. Prom? Nope, physics. Sports? Nope, statistics. Dates? Nope, derivatives. The HSSCMM tolerated heroin addiction, crazy behaviors like wearing roller blades to a meeting with Sumner Redstone, and sexual fiddling around. Procedures, policies, and a mainstream culture were not part of the game plan. And when these were required, the founders and some original Googlers distanced themselves. The result was a wonky miasma of HSSCMM and what was “required.”
- The arrival of money created an elite among the elite. Google, chock full of interesting people with some interesting ideas, migrated from the intricacies of just being clever to having to make stuff work. Lots of smart people want to come up with ideas and then move on. That’s why products and services disappear overnight. No clued in Googler wants to work on something like enterprise search or a loser social network. Google is less like a real science club and more like a group of people who repair ATMs and set up mobile phones. Google faces class war. Sexual improprieties is just part of the annoyances. Money talks, and in Google’s present position, shouts loudly.
There are other factors as well; for example, Wall Street’s need for more and more financial performance. Also, competition from outfits like Amazon, Apple, and Facebook which make it more difficult to make Google the way it was in its first five years of existence. Plus, the slow realization that advertising is not just annoying, it fuels an approach to information that requires comprehensive data about individual’s conscious and unconscious behavior on a 24/7 basis.
The analysis of Google by a culture architect is, as I suggested, interesting. It is, however, a small part of the Google ethos. Reducing Google to grousing employees concerned about fairness misses the mark. Google’s culture is changing, but the changes pivot on the post IPO world, the lack of government regulation, the lust for colorful tchotchkes, and a failure to look at the distinct phases through which Google moved. The calculus of these data combined with the real time information about the “now” Google leads to oversimplifications and fundamental misunderstandings about what Google set out to do, did, and is now doing.
Stephen E Arnold, February 21, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
