You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
GOOG worth $30/share? (per Hussman)
- Thread starter mtzianos
- Start date
Quote from vhehn:
how do you replicate the the fact that billions of people have it in their mind that search=google. its not the algorithm that is valuable its the brand name. the phrase "i googled it" isnt going away easily. how does a competitor unseat google? lower prices? wont work, google is free for the consumer.
i am not trying to argue that google isnt overvalued at this time. just that the possibilities are there for growth.
OT., my 1st search is dogpile.com, google is second choice.
Quote from Sparohok:
But it's not free to the <i>customer</i>.
Martin
the customer has no choice in the matter. i used to sell used cars. i hated advertising in my local paper because they were expensive but i had to do it because that is where my customer was looking and my job was to get my product in front of my potential customer. any time i deviated from that idea and tried to go a cheaper route the phones stopped ringing.
Quote from vhehn:
the customer has no choice in the matter.
True for sponsored links, not true for AdWords.
Incidentally, further evidence that Google's brand is not necessarily durable: they didn't pay anything for it. Google has done virtually no advertising. It is a brand that established itself based almost entirely on word of mouth. All they needed was the best search product. So, I would argue that Google's technological advantage and their brand advantage are one and the same.
To play my own devil's advocate: past search transitions occured when most Internet users were highly engaged in the Internet (geeks, in other words). As adoption spreads within the general public, it's possible that conventional brand loyalty may become stronger.
Martin
Quote from Sparohok:
True for sponsored links, not true for AdWords.
Incidentally, further evidence that Google's brand is not necessarily durable: they didn't pay anything for it. Google has done virtually no advertising. It is a brand that established itself based almost entirely on word of mouth. All they needed was the best search product. So, I would argue that Google's technological advantage and their brand advantage are one and the same.
To play my own devil's advocate: past search transitions occured when most Internet users were highly engaged in the Internet (geeks, in other words). As adoption spreads within the general public, it's possible that conventional brand loyalty may become stronger.
Martin
Maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt it true that in terms of queries, YHOO isnt that far behind from GOOG? So the latter's advantage has to do with monetizing those queries? By monetize I mean, ultimately whatever sites GOOG brings up tends to lead to more clickthroughs by surfers and hence a better ROI for advertisers?
If that's the case, then wouldn't it be wiser to wait for clear signs that YHOO's monetization has outpaced GOOG's before saying that GOOG is worth less than what it is currently trading for?
Currently YHOO's search rev growth is 1/3 of GOOGs....
Quote from Sparohok:
I remeber when search=lycos. I remember when search=altavista. If you think Google is unassailable, you weren't around when Alta Vista took over search mindshare almost overnight.
</i>.
Martin
but no one ever said alta vista your name...or lycos your name.....google is now a verb in people's vocabulary. that's always a good sign
Some posters keep offering opinions, without the slightest effort to check their facts and understand the issues.
Sparohok has made some very good comments. I've been around Inet since 1990 and have seen those shifts take place.
Those who really want to understand the intricacies of the Web marketing and SE business should visit WW. There are people handling tons of ad money (mostly as Internet marketing consultants, handling the Internet ad campaigns of customers)
IMO Google has two major advantages:
1/ SE technology
2/ Management/vision to develop innovative products (context sensitive ads) way ahead of anyone else
Currently G controls about 70% of Internet searches (some studies will say less, but I've studied referral logs from over a dozen highly popular websites). In Europe G mkt share is even higher (80+%)
Until now, G has had practically NO SERIOUS COMPETITION in its revenue generating services, with the exception of Yahoo's Overture (O still was quite weak imo, but a "necessary evil" for those Internet marketers who wanted to capture the 15-25% market of Yahoo, depending on industry and demographics) vs SERP AdWords
So, G has had a 2yr lead over the competition, to establish itself as leader and pick the low-hanging fruit.
Yahoo is slowly catching up (just released YPN and improves SE algos) and MS is commited to create a top rate seach engine. Still, both Y and MS have failed in my opinion sofar to offer real alternatives to G.
But over the next 1-2yr they might succeed (since both Y and MS have enough money to throw at this) and get a piece of the pie. And this pie isn't growing as fast as some might think.
Sparohok has made some very good comments. I've been around Inet since 1990 and have seen those shifts take place.
Those who really want to understand the intricacies of the Web marketing and SE business should visit WW. There are people handling tons of ad money (mostly as Internet marketing consultants, handling the Internet ad campaigns of customers)
IMO Google has two major advantages:
1/ SE technology
2/ Management/vision to develop innovative products (context sensitive ads) way ahead of anyone else
Currently G controls about 70% of Internet searches (some studies will say less, but I've studied referral logs from over a dozen highly popular websites). In Europe G mkt share is even higher (80+%)
Until now, G has had practically NO SERIOUS COMPETITION in its revenue generating services, with the exception of Yahoo's Overture (O still was quite weak imo, but a "necessary evil" for those Internet marketers who wanted to capture the 15-25% market of Yahoo, depending on industry and demographics) vs SERP AdWords
So, G has had a 2yr lead over the competition, to establish itself as leader and pick the low-hanging fruit.
Yahoo is slowly catching up (just released YPN and improves SE algos) and MS is commited to create a top rate seach engine. Still, both Y and MS have failed in my opinion sofar to offer real alternatives to G.
But over the next 1-2yr they might succeed (since both Y and MS have enough money to throw at this) and get a piece of the pie. And this pie isn't growing as fast as some might think.