Playing Among Giants

Earlier today a friend asked what my thoughts were about starting a small online business during a recession. While I was thinking about it, I came up with a larger question, which is, why would anyone start an online business these days? With Google branching out more than ever, it's impossible to become involved in something that they aren't currently involved in or haven't thought of. In fact, a lot of Venture Capitalists commonly ask, "Well, what if Google decides to do 'X'?"

I think there are a lot of ways to answer that question, and the proper way to answer it obviously depends on the product in question. Google is a large company with almost a limitless reach to money and talent. Competing with them on any level is going to be difficult and will take a lot of hard work and money.

Obviously, Google's core product, search (and with it, search advertising) has allowed it to dominate the web. One thing Google has done wrong is expand past their core product offering. By necessity to survive, Google expanded from search (and advertising) to mobile, email, web analytics and more recently video and social networking. Because of this they have become a company that is a 'jack of all trades, master of one'.

So how do you compete with Google? The simple answer would be to find their weakness and exploit it (obviously this is oversimplifying it, but bear with me). In social networking, Orkut has never been big in the United States? Google was not first to market with social networking. It launched in 2004 well after known sites like Friendster and MySpace were dominating. Google knew it could provide a competitive product because of all the people already using Google Search on a daily basis, and all of the information they had access to. Regardless, Facebook launched after Orkut and clearly blew it away.

Another example is video. Google Video and YouTube launched roughly at the same time (for the sake of argument, YouTube may have launched a bit before Google Video). Video on the web was an instant success. With people beginning to have more access to broadband web speeds, the demand for video was growing. Not only that but the product that YouTube built was functionally better than Google Video. The end result was Google purchasing YouTube for $1.6 Billion.

So when one asks "Well, what if Google decides to do 'X'?", the way to answer that question is to say that Google has grown too big to properly develop and execute the strategy that is necessary in the development of the product. The next step in answering that question is to define why Google's product will never be as good as your product.

Thoughts on a Google/Yahoo Search Deal

TechCrunch posted the following article about Google serving ads against Yahoo search results. Everybody seems to have their own opinion about the pros and cons of such a deal. Microsoft will obviously be pushing the Department of Justice to take a nice and steady look at possible monopolistic overtones to the deal.

Because of Google's mammoth ownership of the search advertising market, it's easy to see why anyone inside of Google or Yahoo would be in favor of it. Google is currently spinning the issue saying that the partnership will lower ad prices Really? How? It will essentially direct advertisers to a network that (after the deal is completed) will own upwards of 90% of the search advertising market, taking away competition, and by definition force the price of keywords and keyword phrases up.

The problem with not just search advertising but online ad networks as a whole is the lack of quality competitors in the space. Granted, there are now over 300 ad networks competing for a piece of the $16billion online ad market. The trouble is not one of them has shown the capability or the determination to produce a product capable of effectively competing with Google.

Unfortunately, a good product is only half the battle. Many companies out there have developed good ad networks, it's just that a) the management is under-prepared for a long fight with Google, b) the product they built can't scale, or c) the company lacks the discipline or the expertise to successfully execute putting another product in play with mainstream advertisers.

Facebook Fun

Just in case you've been living in a cave for the past couple of weeks, the big story that everyone is talking about is Microsoft's recent investment into hot social networking start-up, Facebook. First and foremost this has many implications to both Microsoft and Facebook. Microsoft is in essence mortgaging its future placing a big bet on the fact that FB is going to be the next big thing. Facebook, on the other hand, is hoping that Microsoft can show them the ropes on how to become a successful media company (if you think FB is anything but a media company, you're sorely mistaken).

What was interesting over the last couple of weeks is the fact that there were several players who were all trying to buy Microsoft's piece of the pie. Google was perhaps the biggest and most relevant among them and surprisingly lost. Why they lost has yet to unfold. Although in the end it may be pretty smart of FB to have said no to Google, Google sure would have had a lot more to offer them as far as experience and online advertising brainshare.

What's certain now is the gloves are off between the two companies. Today, Google announced that they have established a partnership with several companies to set-up a social networking platform that will be common across the board. While this probably won't make FB co-founder Mark Zuckerberg forget that he's a new billionaire (on paper), it will surely make things more interesting in the weeks and months to come.