Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

New Google CEO Larry Page: Here are your top two priorities

By | April 5, 2011, 2:00am PDT

Summary: On Monday, Google officially changed horses as co-founder Larry Page took the reins as CEO. Here are the two top priorities that should be on Page’s mind as he looks to reinvigorate Google.

When you think about how deeply Google is ingrained in the everyday culture of people across the planet and how its brand has become one of the most powerful names in the history of business, it’s easy to forget that the company hasn’t even been around for 15 years yet.

Despite its relatively recent arrival, Google has a preeminent place among the most important organizations on the planet. Sure, Apple and Microsoft make a lot more money than Google, and there are plenty of older companies and even governments that employ a lot more people, and service organizations like the Red Cross and the United Way that outwardly provide greater services to humanity. But, Google’s primary mission “to organize the world‘s information and make it universally accessible and useful” is arguably the most important work of the early 21st century. A hundred years from now, when people look back at this period of time, that’s likely to be the thing they point to as the biggest turning point of this era because of its ability to empower people economically, socially, intellectually, and politically.

On Monday, Google co-founder Larry Page took the reins of the company at a time when it has reached a crossroads. After being laser-focused on information search for its early history, the company has strayed in lots of different directions in recent years with many experiments that have largely ended in failure and a lot of head-scratching (e.g. Google Wave).

As Page takes over the CEO job from Eric Schmidt, who navigated the company through its coming of age, it’s time for Google to refocus on what it wants to be now that it’s all grown up. Here are the top two priorities that should be on Page’s mind.

1. Get serious about product quality

Google became Google for two reasons: 1.) The quality of its search results were so much better than everyone else’s, and 2.) The company refused to use display ads on Google.com and consequently rewrote the rules of Internet advertising. Let’s put the second point aside for now, since Google isn’t having any problems in the revenue department.

However, the quality of Google’s search results are definitely under duress. Entire cottage industries and content farms have developed around gaming Google’s algorithm in order to get their (often worthless) pages to the top of Google’s search results. While Google fights a constant war with these “SEO spam” sites, it’s not doing a very good job of keeping up. Experian Hitwise reported that Google’s search success rate (users who visit a site after a search) dropped by 13% in 2010.

Even long-time Google and Web supporter Tim O’Reilly said, “It’s clear that Google is losing some kind of war with the spammers. I think Google has in some ways taken their eye off the ball.”

Page needs to devote more of Google’s resources to fixing this problem and rally the troops around the idea of attacking this issue since it threatens to undermine everything that Google is trying to accomplish.

However, the quality problem isn’t just an issue in search on Google.com. Google continues to release products into the market before those products are ready and let product problems languish for months or years before fixing them or simply pulling the plug on the product. For example, the first version of Android was a disaster when it was released in 2008 (a year later, the 2.0 version was finally acceptable). Google Apps had badly inconsistent features across its various office products for years after it was first released. And, products like Google Wave and Google Buzz were so badly conceived and poorly executed that they should have never been released to the public.

Page needs to rethink Google’s product development and launch strategy and demand a much higher standard of quality before going to market. That doesn’t mean Google should stop experimenting or running beta programs. Perish the thought. It just needs to get a lot more serious and discriminating about the way it launches products. And, it needs to devote more resources to search.

2. Forget Facebook

The worst thing Google can do right now is to get jealous about the media fawning over Facebook the way it used to fawn over Google. So what if magazines want to put Facebook’s twentysomething CEO on their dead-tree leaflets. Google is 10 times more important than Facebook, which is rapidly devolving into a MySpace-like waste of digital bits.

Every few months there’s a new rumor about Google launching its own social network to compete with Facebook — Google Me, Google Circles, etc. The best move Google could make in social is to not react to Facebook but simply play its own game. Continue to integrate social controls into search. Let the crowds help vote down the spam and worthless content in search. Allow people to connect to friends from their Google profile — if they choose — and allow friends’ searching preferences, votes, and favorites to add a social filter to search results (and let the social filter be toggled on and off).

Google is already doing some of those things, but the point is that is the kind of stuff Google is really good at in the social space and that’s the stuff it needs to focus on. On the other hand, building a social network does not play to Google’s strengths. If you look at what the company created with Google Wave and Google Buzz, it’s abundantly clear that this is not the kind of stuff Google engineers and product leaders should be spending their time doing.

If Google gets distracted chasing Facebook, it risks becoming like Microsoft, which has been so distracted chasing Google in the past five years that its core products have suffered considerably and are in greater danger than ever of losing their primacy.

Bottom line

Page needs to remember the mission that made Google great - organizing the world’s information. He needs to re-energize the troops around that goal, launch an all-out assault on SEO spam, and keep from getting distracted by Facebook. The task of digitizing the world’s data is far from complete — even just the public data. If Google can pull off more private-public partnerships like the one it’s doing in Kansas City, Kansas for high speed fiber broadband than it can help also bring a lot more valuable information to the Web — from libraries to public documents to historical archives to government data, for example. This is a service for the Internet community and it enhances Google’s business model by allowing people to use Google search for even more services.

As my colleague Larry Dignan noted, Google investors are going to be pressuring Page to find a big second revenue source beyond search. However, first Page will need to shore up Google’s core mission and get the company refocused on the right product strategy. If he pulls it off, Google has a shot at solidifying its reputation for doing perhaps the most important work of the early 21st century.

Also read

This was originally published on TechRepublic.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Jason Hiner is the Editor in Chief of TechRepublic. He writes about the products, people, and ideas that are revolutionizing business with technology.

Disclosure

Jason Hiner

Jason Hiner has nothing to disclose. He doesn't hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Jason Hiner

Jason Hiner is the Editor in Chief of TechRepublic, an online trade publication and peer-to-peer community for IT leaders. He is an award-winning journalist who examines the latest trends and asks the big questions about the technology industry. He previously worked as an IT manager in the health care industry.

You can also find him on Twitter, , Facebook, and at JasonHiner.com.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
37
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: New Google CEO Larry Page: Here are your top two priorities
charlesberry6 19th Apr 2011
Larry you have a great company. Jump on those spammers. Keep focused. As for Android, with the right browser, this thing rocks
I liked the Forget Facebook.
I was expecting,
Concentrate in the Android OS with Apple IOS and Windows7 - Smartphones and tablets to better serve facebook...:)
Continue to lead on visual Standards for web 2 applications (map, location, street view, navigation)
is the goign after office paying back?
Julio
I think you are dismissing Facebook too easily. You say it is "rapidly devolving into a MySpace-like waste of digital bits" but that is simply not true. Facebook is not facing a decline in usage at all and is only becoming more and more popular.

If Facebook launched a search service that delivered accurate results, lots of people would use it. Facebook can include social results.

If Facebook offered a program like Adsense (for third party websites) then it would attract a lot of users. (Example: I see an ad for Gilette on zdnet.com and 5 of my friends like it.

Those are just two examples that Google doesn't want happening. They have no choice but to counter attack.
@worthyful I'm not saying Facebook is less popular. I'm saying that the stuff that's on Facebook is increasingly worthless and inconsequential. It's a water cooler and has little value beyond that.
to create something to compete with Facebook, but DIFFERENT, do NOT copy. You are right that Facebook has become a fancy water cooler.
employees are not punished for failures to encourage more risk taking. You can not have innovation without risk taking.
@Jason Hiner
Google remains a one trick pony: they are a spyware company that delivers advertisements tuned specifically to the eyeballs on the page at the moment based upon their extensive knowledge of those eyeballs' owner. Facebook is a *better* spyware company that knows *more* about the people behind the eyeballs and may be able to deliver *better* tuned advertisements. Thus, Google's one trick is in serious jeopardy. I see Google's lack of an answer to Facebook being its undoing more than anything else.

In other words, forgetting about Facebook will be a disaster for them. Just imagine if MS or Apple *buys* Facebook; if the former especially, Google will be in *serious* trouble.
0 Votes
+ -
@Jason Hiner
and Google see the potential in advertising to them while they're there hanging out.

The problem is they don't understand it so they'll never be able to duplicate it or compete with it, no matter how many billions they dump into it.
MS also uses targeted advertising with Bing. In any case, Google is completely open about what it is doing and advertisements are clearly marked as such. They use advertising to pay for free services. To see who is in trouble here, look at stock prices. People are investing billions of dollars in Google, Apple, Microsoft. The stock prices tell you about investor confidence.
can monetize that with advertising. So, Facebook has done a good job there, and Google would do well to think about how to compete without copying, doing something very different. You can not disrupt another company by simply copying.
@Jason Hiner: Events and keeping track of people's birthdays alone make Facebook more than a water cooler.
@jdakula

Absolutely spot on.

And.. Facebook didn't devolve or 'become' a watercooler...it always was one, lol. 99% of the stuff on there has NEVER been of any real significan't meaning... that has nothing to do with how well it can be monetized though. As others have stated, however worthless the stuff on facebook is, the eyeballs are there... LOTS of em, and with more significant information about the eyeballs owner which makes them that much more valuable.
Worthless crap has always been a favorite passtime of people- especially that prized target deomographic... look at MTV! Nothng but worthless trash on there, but definitely valuable to advertisers happy
something different that Facebook, to compete with Facebook. Well, of course they need to make gmail even better.

Another big thing the author forgot is that they need to give HTML5 all of the support that they can, including more resources for Chrome and ChromeOS to support HTML5.
@worthyful No, just no.

Facebook is devolving into a worthless pile of bits. They lost sight of their initial mission ages ago, and they have dollar signs in their eyes. This is the same mistake that MySpace made years ago, and look at where they are at now.
0 Votes
+ -
The business model was the key
WilErz 5th Apr 2011
The real key to Google's success was that they developed a successful business model around search/advertising. From a technological perspective, DEC's AltaVista is what started the web search/indexing revolution. Google was basically a clone of AltaVista with a moderately better search algorithm (papers I've read suggest Google's results were better, but not dramatically so) and, much more importantly, a successful business model.

In some ways, Google was actually a technological step backwards, e.g. with weaker support for Boolean queries than AltaVista. Unfortunately, building complex Boolean queries is too difficult for most users, so AltaVista's technological edge there was of little help in the market. Google got the economics right: a simpler front-end with smarter back-end algorithms was a better match for what the market demanded. AltaVista's BabelFish is also what spearheaded the now widespread translation of websites, but again, there was no business model.

The vital mistake that squandered AltaVista's early lead was the attempt to transform it from a search site (like Google) into a portal (like Yahoo!). Again, this was driven by economics: AltaVista as a search site was basically a drain on DEC/Compaq resources, whereas a portal (modelled on Yahoo!) was viewed as having some kind of business model. The AltaVista portal was a dismal failure, and without proper investment, the search results declined (with a growing number of dead links).

Web search itself was actually a much more promising business than running a web portal, as Google discovered (either through cleverness or luck). By the time AltaVista's rather inept management came round to realising this too, their early lead had been lost to Google, and they never got it back.

Organising online information is one of the most important turning points of our time, but it started before Google, and would have happened without Google. Nevertheless, by building a business model around it (which I'm rather sceptical of in the long run), Google have made a substantial contribution.
0 Votes
+ -
@WilErz

I'm sceptical as well, I think their mission is better expressed as "to organize the world?s information and make it universally accessible and useful, then to spy on people as they browse it so we can build up profiles of web users to sell to advertisers".
@OffsideInVancouver
As you say. They have taken the notion of spyware and brought it into the light, but they remain a spyware/targeted advertising company at heart. In fact, that is *all they do*.

They just happen to do it extremely well.

However, maybe not *quite* so well as Facebook, which makes the "ignore Facebook" argument so wrong.
I do think Google can do some things better as well, but saying they need to rethink their launch strategy because of Android is insane. Android is already one of - if not the - most widely used operating system on mobile devices.

I would have said the major focus for Google should be sticking to its core and not turning into a giant bureaucratic mess like Microsoft while not being as pretentious as Macintosh. They have earned a lot of user's trust by doing exactly what their mission statement says - not being evil.
0 Votes
+ -
But they are evil, thats the problem
Will Farrell 5th Apr 2011
@vpel729

data mining, wifi snooping, Buzz, their mindset is that it really insn't an issue if it's not an issue to Google.
They've gotten the idea they're above it all.
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
Cylon Centurion Updated - 6th Apr 2011
@Cylon Centurion 0005

I've been using Gmail for over 2 years now and it, as a web application has never crashed.
0 Votes
+ -
Pot Calling the Kettle Black
WebSiteManager 5th Apr 2011
Aren't the ZDNet bloggers the ones who keep whining about how Microsoft is supposedly not able to compete in various areas where Google is strong? If Microsoft actually did what your contributors are saying, they'd be doing the very thing you are now saying supposedly deteriorated the quality of their products.
Google vs the SEO Spammers is like the eternal struggle between the guys who make armor and the guys who make armor-piercing shells.

Letting the users help identify the spam is no solution; that's easily gamed as well. Better answers will lie in natural-language processing and analytics, both things that Google is pretty good at. But you're right: they have to decide to apply resources to fighting that problem.
0 Votes
+ -
Get Real
hillrf@... 5th Apr 2011
Why is it that so many expect Google to take over any and all varied competition (Facebook, et al)? Google is the best information search company in the world. Anyone who argues otherwise is deluded. I think they should continue that role, especially clobbering SEO spammers), and improving Google Earth (though I personally have never had it crash on me). It would be nice if Google and I could agree where my house is actually located though! But then I have seen the Google GPS/Camera/Whatever truck wandering through the county as of late, so perhaps they'll find me.

As for those who constantly rant about better code from Google, you try it. Convince them you can do it better and then all will be well in the world...
Are those Larry Page's words or your own? If it's your own, why do I care?
Uh oh! Sounds like maybe the "baby sitter" left too soon.
0 Votes
+ -
GMail is slower every day.
john.medcalf@... 5th Apr 2011
Lose GMail - lose the app war. My business went with Google apps with integration a benefit. It's not a benefit if some apps (GMail) start taxing our time.
0 Votes
+ -
Too much misunderstanding about Wave
colinnwn 5th Apr 2011
Wave wasn't about social. It was really about an underlying protocol change for email (among other technologies) to bring it into the 21st century. Wave was great, but they didn't fix problems and add features fast enough, while marketing it well.

Android 1.6 was hardly a disaster. I used it every day. I also would clarify that it isn't that Google releases products too early. I love getting in on an early public beta that gives me a peak of the future. It is that they hype it up a little too much (and the media generally runs with it) and then don't iterate and improve fast enough. Google Voice is an excellent example of this.
@colinnwn

I think that was Wave biggest problem the media hyped up. Plus it lack integration with current technologies. I am still expecting Google to hit the market with Wave type Gmail service sooner or later through.
0 Votes
+ -
In simpler words...
NoAxToGrind 5th Apr 2011
Stick to the knitting...
Hi, Jason Hiner,
Thanks for the serious post. no doubt its a good pointer to the new CEO of Google, Mr. Larry Page. Good suggestions are raised here. There is no doubt that Google's style of functioning and the facebook's is totally different, as you said if at all Google wants to jump into yet another social network like facebook they need to think for a different style altogether, as someone said to attract more to the site by offering some kind of somewhat good residual income for their actions. Good suggestions.
Page and his associates need to think on these lines so seriously.
Good Wishes to the New CEO Larry Page.
Keep Going, Keep breaking the records. LOL
Best regards
P V Ariel -pvariel.blogspot.com
"A hundred years from now, when people look back at this period of time, that?s likely to be the thing they point to as the biggest turning point of this era because of its ability to empower people economically, socially, intellectually, and politically."

Remember that it is also radically increasing the ability to disempower and violate people's rights by radically increasing the ease of access to aggregate data and violate privacy.
0 Votes
+ -
Regarding "SEO Spam"
ancientprogrammer 5th Apr 2011
Google created an online world where links are king, not content. Basically, the more external links and the better quality external links you have pointing to your site, the more traffic Google will send to your site. Until this changes due to much more advanced and scalable AI algorithms that can make reasonably accurate human level quality decisions, there will be little Google can do beyond clumsy manual intervention and unpredictably chaotic algorithm tweaks. For example, there are many keywords now where Google is returning more spammy/automated results than before their much ballyhooed "content farm" update (which was mostly a thinly veiled swipe at certain sites that caused them bad press).
0 Votes
+ -
Exactly.
MSFTWorshipper 5th Apr 2011
@ancientprogrammer What we need is a great content search engine. It's the next logical development.
Google as a advertising company should start caring more about privacy and less about social networking. If Google, stops selling products with spyware, and the users privacy is enabled as the same way as Amazon Cloud services do, people will start to trust in Google again and will probably bring back the era where you used Google's search website, today many people are scared because Google with all their money and power doesn't care about users privacy.
" that its core products have suffered considerably and are in greater danger than ever of losing their primacy."

Windows 7 and Office 2010 are excellent. If those aren't Microsoft's core products, I don't know what are.

Microsoft has been chasing Google too much over the past few years though.
0 Votes
+ -
@Jason Hiner
I believe you hit the nail on the head with FORGET FACEBOOK. You make a very strong argument for Google to focus on SEO and how its users access that information, instead of trying to get people to be social. Sure Facebook is better at coaxing personal information out of its users, but how important is that if you slap your users across the face with obtrusive ads once you get their buy-in. I understand that Google wants that personal info to better understand their users so they can sell ads, but I agree that they should stay on their present course of categorizing info/data and yes even the browsing-history advertising (this sort of advertising is generally less aggressive and somewhat more objective) instead of finding out who the user's friends are and try to market with a system of liking and what are the popular kids drinking these days (The Rolling Stone's hit, Satisfaction comes it mind).

If Google does focus on their Information Categorization and SEO, along with increased R&D into apps that help people find the info they are looking for, G-Reader, G-maps, G-calendars, etc, they will remain a giant in the information hub, imho.
Larry you have a great company. Jump on those spammers. Keep focused. As for Android, with the right browser, this thing rocks

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix