Skip to main content

Google's Business Model

Mark Cuban appeared on CNBC the other day and succinctly described how Google makes money. He also pointed out a gaping technical hole in their business model that may jeopardize Google's earnings going forward.

According to Cuban, the vast majority of Google's revenue comes from Google AdWords. Google describes AdWords as follows:
"With Google AdWords you create your own ads, choose keywords to help us match your ads to your audience and pay only when someone clicks on them."
Owners and administrators of web sites can allocate space on their pages for Google to place the ads that advertisers create. They receive a portion of the revenue generated when someone clicks the advertising links. Google receives the rest of the "click revenue".

Cuban drew attention to the fact that competitors can game this system. I.e., a competitor to an advertiser can write an automated script that repeatedly "clicks" the link, thereby causing the advertiser to pay huge sums of money to Google for worthless clicks (clicks by a machine that will never purchase anything). If this problem becomes pervasive, companies will no longer want to advertise with Google, and Google's primary source of revenue will dry up.

Comments

Doojie said…
This really isn't a new idea by Cuban as Google as known about this for years. I'm not a big Google supporter, but I've read about how they are continually modifying their software to detect and prevent ghost clicks, so I doubt this will have a dramatic effect on them. Also, anything Cuban says on SqawkBox is most likely stated for a gain of his own.

Popular posts from this blog

Why Spreadsheets Suck for Prioritizing

The Goal As a company executive, you want confidence that your product team (which includes all the people, from all departments, responsible for product success) has a sound basis for deciding which items are on the product roadmap. You also want confidence the team is prioritizing the items in a smart way. What Should We Prioritize? The items the team prioritizes could be features, user stories, epics, market problems, themes, or experiments. Melissa Perri  makes an excellent case for a " problem roadmap ", and, in general, I recommend focusing on the latter types of items. However, the topic of what types of items you should prioritize - and in what situations - is interesting and important but beyond the scope of this blog entry. A Sad but Familiar Story If there is significant controversy about priorities, then almost inevitably, a product manager or other member of the team decides to put together The Spreadsheet. I've done it. Some of the mos

Use Case as a Black Box

Consider the following use case: Purchase Items Actor: Purchaser Precondition: Purchaser types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40. Postcondition: For the average Purchaser acting at full efficiency, the number of seconds elapsed is no more than 30 + 20 * n, where n is the number of items purchased. The name of the use case represents a functional requirement. What does the product do, or enable the user to do? Purchase items. What are we to make of the preconditions and postconditions? What relationship do they have to the requirements for the product? Answer: the preconditions and postconditions are the nonfunctional requirements attached to the functional requirement . Another way of expressing the nonfunctional requirement would be as an attribute and associated constraint: Usability: For a Purchaser who types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40, it shall take no

Henry Ford's "Faster Horse" Quote

You may have heard the ( apocryphal ) Henry Ford quote: If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse". Over at the On Product Management blog , Saeed gives his take on this infamous quote. He "hates" it, and gives some compelling reasons. Saeed is spot on in his explanations. Personally, I think the quote is great, but it's a matter of interpretation. The valid point of the quote is not that it's a bad idea to facilitate a conversation with your market to better understand it. The valid points are: You must ask the right questions to get valuable answers. You must interpret the answers thoughtfully - often outside their direct meaning - to glean reliable information. Asking questions is not always the best way to "listen" to your market. (E.g., sometimes pure observational studies are more reliable.) Nonetheless, I find the quote is helpful to combat "armchair product management" in the