Commentary
The Bigger You Are, The Nicer You Have To Play
- by Kaila Colbin , Featured Contributor, January 12, 2010
When you possess extraordinary size and power, you have two options: you can use it to smash anyone who gets in your way, or you can make a conscious effort to be gentler than others. You may disagree, but I believe the latter option is a better long-term strategy -- especially, as Googlers themselves have pointed out, when your competition is only a click away.
But, really, why should Google care? After all, they've got an unparalleled dominance of our dinosaur brains. When I want to visit a search engine, my habit of going directly to Google is so ingrained it's virtually impossible to overturn. I'd have to find out that they were torturing fluffy bunnies or something.
advertisement
advertisement
But the future of search -- or where search has its greatest growth potential -- isn't on the Web site. It's contextual. It's mobile. It integrates real time and the social graph, and it means you're the de facto choice when someone launches their browser or right-clicks on a phrase in a blog post.
Most important, the future of search relies on partnerships. And potential partners seem to be thinking they'd be better off teaming up with a dog that's not quite so big.
Yelp walked away from a deal with Google at the end of December. The CEO of AOL is hinting about a switch to Microsoft as search partner is in the foreseeable future. Every Hewlett-Packard sold henceforth will use Bing as its default search engine. And we may not know the details of why contract negotiations broke down between Google and the Associated Press, but apparently the disconnect was big enough that the AP would rather not appear on Google News at all.
These partners are tiny compared to Google, some of them getting smaller all the time. But they're important, because the future of search is in online omnipresence.
We are growing to expect functionality on tap: we want to access our search results from any screen, any app, any site, any text box. I gave up using the search bar on the browser once I realized I could just type my query into the address bar. So when I can search from anywhere, and when enough of those anywheres have partnered with Microsoft instead of Google, then there's a problem in Mountain View.
Google will never be unseated by a competing search engine trying to attract traffic. It will be unseated because they forget that when you're the biggest dog around, you make people nervous, and when you make people nervous, they might not want to play with you.
And here's your pseudo-Facebook poll of the day: What kind of dog do you see Google as?
Google has bitten me several times with unannounced changes. What Google wants, Google does. They are a powerful monopoly and the government powers that be are on their doorsteps.
So, would we all rather play with li'l ole Microsoft?
The buzz this week about Google trying to rule the world is striking to me when you think about the way Microsoft has tried to monopolize the PC market.
It's true. Google and the "powers that be" do play together quite often. But to quote Eric Schmidt, "I'm an optimist" when it comes to technology. Yes, the search giant IS omnipresent - which translates to all powerful. Yes, they do hide behind a rouse of law subjectivity; they tell us everyday they are subject to the laws and regulations that govern every able business "body." (We all know better.) But remember, usability wise this is what we wanted.
"We are growing to expect functionality on tap: we want to access our search results from any screen, any app, any site, any text box." Maybe what we want is personal relevancy over universal bipartisanship?
So my advice as an ULTRA LIBERAL - I expect Google to be tempted and corrupted by absolute power; with conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory running through my head thinking "OMG I gotta do something to stop Google from taking over the world." (Sarcasm.) But then I take a deep breath, I sit down, and log onto my Facebook. (Another PI Giant.) I start talking to my friends and colleagues, and I keep asking questions. My imagination wants to connect various dots together about the "Bilderburg Wiki debacle" and the CIA and Google aggregating information about etc. But the econ side of me wants to remember that Google isn't DUMB. It's in their best interests to look out for little blue collar nobodies like me. Because unlike incumbent Fortune 500 of the past, Google is smart enough to calculate value past the bottom dollar. Usability, adoption, and efficiency gains over the 20 dollar uptick in stock.
Yes, I like to be an optimist and say Google is smart enough to realize there is a direct correlation between doing right by both consumer & stock holder.
BTW - SUSAN definitely has a point there.
I really enjoyed this article. I am a grad school professor and one of the things I teach is about the way people receive and store communications messages. Google has become so habitual that they could become a monster. So far, however, I think we have all somehow benefited by their presence. It'll be interesting to see how corruptible they become, if at all.
I see Google as a lovable yellow lab. That's how strong the brand is. And based on that strength is why they'll continue to dominate the space, period.
Partnerships are negotiable, branding is not.
I enjoyed this article pointing out how even the smallest decisions by Google have huge ramifications. In one recent example, Google decided to pilot inserting pictures into the paid search ads in November. Google only invited the biggest retailers to participate giving an enormous advantage to these retailers from Black Friday through Cyber Monday. Google justified this limited release by saying it was only a pilot – but a pilot providing enhanced and exclusive functionality during the best 5 shopping days of the season.
Missed the pooch reference - I concur on the yellow lab. So far, everyone seems to play well together!
Thanks for your comments! I agree that Google's pretty switched on to the correlation between doing right by both consumer and stock holder... it's the alliance/partnership/B2B thing they seem to be struggling with!
If I had no moral sense, I would invest heavily in Google stock. There is no doubt in my mind that they will continue to mine customers bank accounts as well or better than they mine data. Is this evil? Prehaps not. But I have seen what I would consider evil acts on their part, and I am no longer the huge fan I once was. The lines that separated them from say Microsoft, have grown thin and faded to my eyes.
To me the difference between Google and Microsoft is that while MS wanted to rule the world by any means, we are happily allowing G to do it.