« Where am I? | Main | The piecemeal economy »
Competition and ad profits
December 11, 2005
There's been much commentary on Bill Gates's suggestion that Microsoft plans to reward users of its search engine by sharing ad revenues with them. Interesting posts have come from, among others, Doc Searls, Mitch Ratcliffe, Umair Haque, Michael Parekh, Peter Hershberg, and Ratcliffe again. Mitch Shapiro does a nice job of summarizing the various viewpoints.
There are two questions in play here. First (and of lesser importance) is the question of whether Microsoft could actually figure out a way to pay users for using its search engine and, if it can, whether it would be a smart thing to do. Haque argues that such a move would be "strategically meaningless." It would spur fraudulent or valueless clicking, and "Google can imitate it overnight." I think Haque makes good points, but I don't think he's right. Microsoft could probably figure out ways to reward users without encouraging gaming. Amazon, for instance, gives users of its A9 search service a small discount off Amazon purchases. As long as you don't tie rewards directly to the raw number of clicks a person makes, you avoid much of the fraud problem. As for the fact that "Google can imitate it overnight," that's precisely why it would be strategically meaningful for Microsoft. A price war for search would hurt Google much more than it would hurt Microsoft because search-related profits are a sideline for Microsoft but they're everything for Google. One good way to hurt a competitor is to cut off its oxygen supply, a tactic that Microsoft has used with great success in the past.
The second question - and the one of greater importance - is whether the profit margins of serving up online ads will tend to shrink. I've argued that they will, as competition heats up and pricing becomes more transparent, but Haque argues that my reasoning "is fatally flawed." On the transparency side, he says that Google's AdSense program isn't a black box, as I called it, because you can figure out in the aggregate how much of the revenue Google shares with publishers. But the aggregate doesn't matter. The reason it's a black box is that individual publishers can't tell what kind of cut they're getting. That information asymmetry, as economists call it, gives Google a lot of power. Competition, though, will almost certainly bring more transparency to the market, which in turn will weaken Google's hand.
As for competition, Haque also takes issue with my statement that "markets abhor oversized profits." "In fact," he writes, "the opposite is true." He's way off base here, for the simple reason that he confuses market forces with anti-market forces. Markets promote competition, and competition erodes profit margins. That's why companies spend so much effort trying to block the natural, profit-destroying workings of the market - by, say, creating superior products or sexy brands or high switching costs or monopolies or information asymmetries. Google has had weak competition up until now, but the outsized profits it's been earning are (as they always do) attracting strong competitors, like Microsoft and Yahoo, and the intensified competition will squeeze profit margins. That's particularly true in a software-based market, where the marginal costs of executing an additional transaction are basically zero. There's a lot of room for discounting.
Now, the size of the market could continue to expand so quickly that Google reaps higher profits even if its margin shrinks and its competitors gain share. But at some point the worm will turn. Google may also come up with an innovation, in search or in ad-serving, that allows it to once again leap so far ahead of Yahoo, Microsoft, and other rivals that it can avoid competition and, in effect, impede the natural workings of the market. That's certainly possible, but five years ago Google had the luxury of innovating in a market that no one else was paying much attention to. That's far from the case today. There's going to be fierce competition from here on out, and don't expect any holds to be barred.
Advertisement: Are you ready for "The Big Switch"? Nicholas Carr's new book "is the best read so far about the significance of the shift to cloud computing," says the Financial Times. The Independent says it's "lucid and mind-boggling." Order now from Amazon.com.
Comments
why all this concern about Google's roughly $ 6 b in revs? Most CIOs are far more grated by the $ 100b at IBM, similar at Verizon, $ 40 b at Microsoft, 20 at EDS etc...
they would actually like to see results based pricing around so many technology budget categories rather than multi-year, lock in deals.
Posted by: vinnie mirchandani at December 11, 2005 12:19 AM
Microsoft has had many years to innovate, the only major innovations they have been capable of over time is buying someone else's innovations.
They certainly have had innovative business practices for stopping or stifling competition but not significant innovation when it comes to software or especially service.
Posted by: scot at December 11, 2005 12:21 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
Work in progress:
The Shallows
Nick's new book:
"Future Shock for the web-apps era" -Fast Company
"Ominously prescient" -Kirkus Reviews
"Riveting stuff" -New York Post
Greatest hits
Avatars consume as much electricity as Brazilians
The love song of J. Alfred Prufrock's avatar
Flight of the wingless coffin fly
Other writing
The end of corporate computing
Nick's last book:
Order from Amazon
Visit book site