Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline

#51

Post by xiphias » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 10:37 AM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #30

sidcool wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android and GCP seem not to contribute enough yet.

Selling Android isn't generating revenue, but that makes sense because Android is adware and also a platform. Google doesn't want to sell it directly and harm those revenue streams. Many (most?) people primarily search from their phones now, so I imagine Android generates a lot of ad revenue. Android is even more important because most people don't know how to block ads on it, whereas desktop ad blocking has become m…

Google Toolbar, Chrome and Android: all of these were created with the goal to increase the number of searches. If Android wouldn't have been created, Apple could ask as much revenue sharing from Google as they want and slowly destroy Google in the process.

Re: Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline

#52

Post by mahranch » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 10:38 AM UTC

msoad wrote: post #2

As much as people like to consider Google revenu sources very diverse or dream about future of other Google bets, Google is mostly an advertisement company heavily relying on their search business. It's obvious that Facebook has a better position for growth and adding new channels for their ads business. I can see Facebook share of online advertising grow in the next couple of years.

> Google is mostly an advertisement company heavily relying on their search business.

You're right that google is an advertisement company (87% of their revenue comes from their ad network), but I don't think that's entirely from search alone. Google's 3rd party adsense program is absolutely massive. This includes things like youtube ads, as well as ads on other 3rd party websites. Pick a random website with ads, 9 times out of 10, it will be an adsense (google) affiliated website.

Re: Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline

#53

Post by mSparks » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 10:43 AM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #15

yoz-y wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook has infinitely better targeting and signal about their users.

Are banners/sponsored posts more efficient than purchased keyword? I would have thought someone searching on google wants to click, that's why he is on google for. Someone checking what their friends are up to on facebook is merely annoyed by unrelated content.

Sometimes I click on those purchased keywords by mistake. Then get presented with the inevitable "could not connect to server" message because they use tracking servers which are blocked at the router level.

Main problem with advertising in general is more and more people are learning it's best use is as a signal of what not to buy.

Facebook on the other hand. At least can pretend it's something a friend is recommending. Although that is transparent enough to be even worse.

Re: Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline

#54

Post by sjg007 » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 10:47 AM UTC

emilsedgh wrote: post #48

msoad wrote: post #2

As much as people like to consider Google revenu sources very diverse or dream about future of other Google bets, Google is mostly an advertisement company heavily relying on their search business. It's obvious that Facebook has a better position for growth and adding new channels for their ads business. I can see Facebook share of online advertising grow in the next couple of years.

In the Google vs. Facebook discussion, I think people seem to forget a tiny detail: Google has some products that are market leaders with heavy usage, eg: * Search * GMail * Youtube * Android * Chrome * Maps * Docs Its just that Google is unable to monetize many of them. However, Facebook has only Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp. 1) Instagram _is_ what Facebook was 10 years ago. Its not a new product. They just boug…

People spend a ton of time on Facebook.

Re: Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline

#55

Post by mahranch » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 10:48 AM UTC

heisnotanalien wrote: post #45

Say it's not true?! Search ad decline?! How will we survive?!

I really dislike this train of thought and where it leads. Sure, everyone hates ads and would do without them if possible. But people forget; ads subsidize most "free" content. It has been this way for 60+ years, probably more. You know when your grandmother tuned in to watch Howdy Doody? It was always "brought to you by: Palmolive Dish Soap and Ovaltine!". Their ads during commercial breaks paid for that show. Back then there were no dvd sales, no streaming online contracts, advertisers paying for airtime to air entertainment programs was a fairly straightforward affair. Or did you think broadcasting companies created that content, then aired it for free out of altruism?

I do believe this is a big part of why they call us millennials the entitled generation. We literally expect everything for free. From our game of thrones TV shows to our favorite blogs, podcasts and websites. They all exist to entertain us and fuck them for wanting to make a dollar off their hard work. How dare they...

Re: Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline

#56

Post by ohashi » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 10:53 AM UTC

emilsedgh wrote: post #48

msoad wrote: post #2

As much as people like to consider Google revenu sources very diverse or dream about future of other Google bets, Google is mostly an advertisement company heavily relying on their search business. It's obvious that Facebook has a better position for growth and adding new channels for their ads business. I can see Facebook share of online advertising grow in the next couple of years.

In the Google vs. Facebook discussion, I think people seem to forget a tiny detail: Google has some products that are market leaders with heavy usage, eg: * Search * GMail * Youtube * Android * Chrome * Maps * Docs Its just that Google is unable to monetize many of them. However, Facebook has only Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp. 1) Instagram _is_ what Facebook was 10 years ago. Its not a new product. They just boug…

They also neglect intent. When I search for something, I want it, at that moment. When I see an ad on my facebook page, it's trying to guess what I want at that moment, but I'm actually doing something else and the ad is simply trying to distract me and convince me I need something at that moment.

Re: Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline

#57

Post by Maarten88 » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 10:53 AM UTC

Certhas wrote: post #42

Maarten88 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my environment (Netherlands) I'd say that WhatsApp is now the primary social networking tool for most people. I wonder how that is going to work out for Facebook.

Facebook owns WhatsApp. The question is what they are going to do with it. WhatsApp with end to end encryption seems to not allow for the type of monetization people are talking about here.

That's what I mean: how will they monetize it? They'll probably introduce business / bot accounts that they can monetize, but the encryption makes all sorts of monetization schemes hard - which is what I like about it.

Re: Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline

#58

Post by threatofrain » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 10:54 AM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #32

rtuins wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure about facebook - historically social media companies just "run out of fashion".

Until they don't. The past is an unreliable predictor of the future[1]. The only people who care about being on a fashionable network are young people, and Facebook solves that problem by buying whatever platform young people are using. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

rtruin's argument is an intuitive assumption that the same causal factors for other like companies are also present in Facebook, which sets the frame for discussion -- what factors lead to the diminishment of other networks, and why is Facebook resilient against those factors?

You may be identifying that young people set trends and thus the growth rate of different social networks, and you may be arguing that Facebook is resilient because they can buy out companies. But so can Microsoft, Google, Apple, MySpace, or Yahoo. That power is not unique.

One might also say that young people who join some social network like the peculiarities of that network, and so it behooves the parent company to keep that acquisition fairly independent in brand and experience. That means the existing strength of your platform might be a non-factor to the future success of WhatsApp or Instagram.

Re: Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline

#59

Post by AznHisoka » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 10:54 AM UTC

_lbaq wrote: post #29

pixie_ wrote: post #18

Somehow in 18 years and billions of dollars of revenue, Google has not figured out another way to make real money.

They have not figured out how to diversify (in any way that makes the company safe from a decline in search ads), thats their failing, they make boatloads of money.

To their credit, it's incredibly hard to come up with something that shows up as 20% when the whole pie is 100 billion. That just emphasize how successful their search ads not how undiversified they are.

would it make you happy if their search business was originally 20 billion? That would make things more diversified.

Re: Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline

#60

Post by AznHisoka » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 10:59 AM UTC

ohashi wrote: post #56

emilsedgh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Google vs. Facebook discussion, I think people seem to forget a tiny detail: Google has some products that are market leaders with heavy usage, eg: * Search * GMail * Youtube * Android * Chrome * Maps * Docs Its just that Google is unable to monetize many of them. However, Facebook has only Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp. 1) Instagram _is_ what Facebook was 10 years ago. Its not a new product. They just boug…

They also neglect intent. When I search for something, I want it, at that moment. When I see an ad on my facebook page, it's trying to guess what I want at that moment, but I'm actually doing something else and the ad is simply trying to distract me and convince me I need something at that moment.

Yep. Facebook has just as many visitors as Google and makes much less.

Sure they know what age I am, that I'm college educated, live in NY, like anime and startups. But would they know I'm suffering from hemorrhoids and need help? That I'm considering an abortion and need a clinic recommendation? I sure as heck ain't broadcasting that in my timeline.