Google's fatal flaw

Google's fatal flaw

Summary: Google is struggling. Google has succeeded mightily in capitalizing off of another company’s innovation; Online pay-per-click ads pioneered by Overture. Google is well aware, however, that its AdWords enhanced PPC formula is not sufficient for indefinite Wall Street rewards.

TOPICS: Google

Google is struggling.

Google has succeeded mightily in capitalizing off of another company’s innovation; Online pay-per-click ads pioneered by Overture. Google is well aware, however, that its AdWords enhanced PPC formula is not sufficient for indefinite Wall Street rewards.

Google’s future growth and market performance are dependent upon offline diversification, or, bringing "targeted, measurable advertising" to “old-school” radio, print, TV…in the U.S. and beyond.

Just as Google seeks to sell ads against all the “world’s information,” it seeks to sell its ads to all the world. 

To date, Google’s diversification accomplishments do not match its grandiose ambitions, as I discuss in: “Google to Madison Ave: Buy from us too”:

"Madison Avenue” will not be displaced by Google any time soon. “Madison Avenue” knows it and Google knows it. 

Nevertheless, Google persists in public cheerleading campaigns about how it is on the cusp of revolutionizing the decades old worlds of print, radio and television advertising…

I put forth that Google’s principal sales pitch to Madison Avenue is currently an AdWords presentation:

Google’s unwavering mission to continually increase monetization of includes convincing marketers that a Google AdWords spend is essential for enhancing the effectiveness of a brand campaign's entire advertising and marketing spend, both online and offline.

Google’s bottom-line message?  No marketing campaign works without a (big) Google AdWords component.

Advertise in print? Readers search for you at
Advertise on radio? Listeners search for you at
Advertise on TV? Viewers search for you at

Dare not buy Google AdWords? Readers, listeners and viewers will search for you at, but click on your competitors' Google AdWords!

Madison Avenue may be willing, at present, to earmark Google an interactive portion of integrated marketing campaign spends, but it will not readily concede its core offline advertising agency business. 

Newcomer Google has exploited a first-mover advantage in the still relatively small online advertising market, but it is floundering in its attempts to crash the decades old party of print, radio, television…advertising. 

Google is on a fourth stab at the print advertising pie and it has significantly lowered its objectives: The small scale brokering of remnant, unsold newspaper ad inventory (see “Google’s $48 billion Print Ads test: Fourth time’s the charm?”).

Google’s radio play also targets not-so-lucrative “remnant avails” (see “Google $20 billion radio chatter”). Google can’t afford multiple, unsuccessful stabs at radio advertising, however, it acquired dMarc Broadcasting earlier in the year for $100+ million.

Google in the television advertising market (see "Google CEO wants $74 billion TV ad market")? Some are portraying its impending $1.65 billion, in Google stock, acquisition of YouTube as a nod to TV. Google has not made a satisfactory go of its own Google Video, hence the acquisition; A large (but fickle) user base was the main attraction of YouTube.

While Google may eventually come up with compelling products for offline advertising markets, Google may end up being its own worst enemy. 

Although Google derives all of its $144 billion market cap from the sale of advertising to others, it does not want to advertise with others, as I point out in “Google trumps Microsoft” and “Google: “The Anti-Microsoft”:

Is it not hypocritical for a company which derives all of its $144 billion market cap valuation by selling advertising to other companies to proudly proclaim that it does not believe in advertising for itself? 

Google, in fact, aims to sell its advertising to every single company in the world and wants every single company in the world to buy all of its advertising through Google: video, radio, print, television…SO, why does Google dismiss advertising itself?

The entire Google $144 billion riddle is a study in hypocrisies. 

Beyond hypocritical, Google’s anti-advertising stance looms as a fatal flaw in its growth and diversification plans.

For example, how will Google ever be able to sell TV ads with a straight face when it proudly declares “Our (anti-television advertising) Philosophy”: 

Google has built the most loyal audience on the web. And that growth has come not through TV ad campaigns, but through word of mouth from one satisfied user to another.

Google users may be satisfied, but prospective Google clients will undoubtedly be hard pressed to heed a Google pitch for ad products Google doesn't want to invest in for itself.

ALSO: "Why Google can't make it in the 'real world'"

Topic: Google

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


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Donna Bogatin is a KoolAide drinker for the Anti-Google league.

    With the professional advice Donna Bogatin gives to internet companies to win strategic advantage over other companies and Google having 'that' very strategic advantage over other companies, it doesn't make any sense why she is so adamantly against Google. Hey Donna, maybe if Google took your so called 'strategic advantage' advice they might be performing like the real struggler as you see last quarter, Yoohoo. Why would anybody take your advice when you are against the success of such a company as Google? I really do hope companies seeking "strategic advice" do read this article and do get the common sense to beware of the advice of Donna Bogatin which seems to be nothing more than a bunch of bloated fart gas and that she has all intentions of doing nothing more then to run a KoolAide drinking anti-Google smear campaigne. Donna, you may talk the talk but in the end Google walks the walk, baby, all the way to the bank!
  • Bogustin at it again

    Hey Donna, not bored yet with your useless and consistently unfounded and never proven theories on how bad Google is?

    Does anyone else feel like she is simply milking the name "Google" just for search engine rank with negative articles? No one cares what you think Donna, we just get tired of you talking about yourself and popping up in our daily Google searches.

    ZDNet, wake up and get someone with a brain in here.
  • RE: Google's fatal flaw