<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Baer Online &#187; monetization</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.baeronline.com/tag/monetization/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.baeronline.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:31:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Should Google wait to make more money?</title>
		<link>http://www.baeronline.com/2008/12/21/should-google-wait-to-make-more-money/</link>
		<comments>http://www.baeronline.com/2008/12/21/should-google-wait-to-make-more-money/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:09:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Baer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monetization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strategy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.baeronline.com/?p=14</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It goes without saying that the economy has been going down the tubes lately, and a lot of tech news coverage has been centered on how Google seems to be trying to monetize everything more. That means ads in places where there weren&#8217;t ads before, etc&#8230; Example, Example2. I remember something on Techcrunch about how [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It goes without saying that the economy has been going down the tubes lately, and a lot of tech news coverage has been centered on how Google seems to be trying to monetize everything more. That means ads in places where there weren&#8217;t ads before, etc&#8230; <a href="http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1864136,00.html?imw=Y">Example</a>, <a href="http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2008/12/google-search-suggest-gets-sponsored-listings-and-more.html">Example2</a>. I remember something on Techcrunch about how there seems to be more experimentation (A/B testing) for new ad types, too.</p>
<p>My question is thus: is Google best served by trimming expenses and trying new types of monetization *now* or *later*? I&#8217;d actually suggest there is a good argument for doing this all later.</p>
<p>Trimming expenses and making more money &#8220;now&#8221; is basically too late. The economy is already sucky. It would have been nice perhaps to get lean before the market started tanking, in order to keep one&#8217;s stock price up as others&#8217; went down with the indices (which might not have worked, besides). But since everyone&#8217;s already down so far, presumably this means that we all missed the opportunity. With all the bad news everywhere, my naive assessment is that it is &#8220;ok&#8221; to have an earnings miss now &#8212; everyone more or less expects earnings misses, and that&#8217;s priced in to everyone&#8217;s stock already. If a company makes or beats estimates &#8212; would their stock really go up that much? Everyone expects everything to get worse before it gets better, so I could imagine that beating estimates has little impact &#8212; why invest now when things probably haven&#8217;t bottomed out yet?</p>
<p>On the other hand, what if Google had a really or sorta poor quarter right now, but then aggressively started making more money &#8220;later&#8221;? We&#8217;d be deeper into the recession at that point, and perhaps Google would start to look like a real star compared to all the other lackluster companies that would still be slumping. Google can afford to wait out the economy for a while, especially seeing as all the original Google gang are already quite rich, and the company has something like $14 billion in cash available &#8212; so convert some of the employee compensation from stock to salary (temporarily) to keep morale up and just wait it out.</p>
<p>The reason I&#8217;m making this argument is because advertising without true innovation (i.e. new markets or a paradigm shift) really only has one way to go &#8212; getting worse over time. Putting &#8220;more ads&#8221; on a page doesn&#8217;t necessarily make &#8220;more money&#8221; even though the user experience deteriorates very rapidly. Advertising tends to get more invasive, more in your face&#8230; and while that might have short term boost to revenue, it certainly won&#8217;t last forever.  (Look at Yahoo search, which has 14 ads served for a search on &#8220;<a href="http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGklwILU9JbYQBIelXNyoA?p=lederberger&amp;y=Search&amp;fr=yfp-t-501&amp;ei=UTF-8">basket</a>&#8221; even with only 10 results given; no wonder the company is dying)</p>
<p>So once Google goes down the path of, &#8220;hey quick guys, let&#8217;s monetize by putting ads where there weren&#8217;t ads before!&#8221; &#8212; you can&#8217;t really do that trick again later. It sounds like Google is choosing to do this now (Q4); it&#8217;s too bad they didn&#8217;t decide to wait and do these same actions some time &#8220;later&#8221;. That could have been a lot more impressive.</p>
<script type="text/javascript">
  addthis_url    = 'http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baeronline.com%2F2008%2F12%2F21%2Fshould-google-wait-to-make-more-money%2F';
  addthis_title  = 'Should+Google+wait+to+make+more+money%3F';
  addthis_pub    = 'baeronline';
</script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/addthis_widget.php?v=12" ></script>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.baeronline.com/2008/12/21/should-google-wait-to-make-more-money/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
