EcoCho Apparently Not Green Enough For Google

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

1. Don Wilson
   

   April 22nd, 2008 at 6:18 pm

   You know the best way for them to become a Zero Footprint? Don’t exist.

2. Faramarz Hashemi
   

   April 22nd, 2008 at 6:19 pm

   If all the people trying to come up with the next search destination put their energy and capital into something of value thats NOT search related, they’d probably have a good chance of winning big.

   I can almost sympathize with them wanting to cash in on this ‘green’ frenzy, but not like this. this is crap! How do i get back my 2 minutes? I could have been out planting two trees with that!!!

3. Jim McNelis
   

   April 22nd, 2008 at 6:26 pm

   i think the idea of the site alone, that some of it’s proceeds go towards carbon offsets, encourages people to click on ads, since that appears to be their source of revenue. so i am guessing that google views this entire practice as one big incentive to click on their ads, even though the site isn’t saying “click on the ads and plant some trees”.

4. Peter Cooper
   

   April 22nd, 2008 at 6:33 pm

   This reminds me a bit of Blackle, a site that did the rounds last year. It’s Google but with a black background because supposedly that saves lots of energy (it doesn’t.) It’s amazing how green / eco stuff brings out the opportunists.

5. Peter Urban
   

   April 22nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm

   Funny, we have even a better business model: You get ‘up to’ $ 1,000.00 if you sign up on our beta test list Ridiculous. Bravo Google.

6. lawrence
   

   April 22nd, 2008 at 6:50 pm

   lol - if you’re a startup, you don’t want to loose Google as your ad partner. dumb mistake, whatever move they did to make google want to drop their account.

7. Hendra
   

   April 22nd, 2008 at 6:52 pm

   It’s about time for it to go down (under)

8. Tim
   

   April 22nd, 2008 at 7:05 pm

   I never do business with a company that advertises that they give a portion of their profits to charity. It’s usually nothing more than a cheap marketing tactic and their sincerity always seems suspect.

   If I believe in a charity I’ll give directly to that charity. The one exception I make is Newman’s Own because they give “all” profits to charity (plus their food is tasty).

9. Vinson.Chang
   

   April 22nd, 2008 at 7:34 pm

   “webyidian.cn”(互联网一点) from China ask for a link! Thank you.

10. Marcus
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 7:45 pm

    I can’t believe the cynicism on this blog. From what I can gather, ecocho has the intention of providing exactly the same user experience for Google and Yahoo users, but every time you perform a search, you help contribute to growing trees. They don’t mention about clicking on ads to grow trees, just to search.

    I think it is a great idea. I don’t know if you just enjoy shooting down a great idea or what, but I say good on them. If you actually read around on their site, they say advertising revenue up to 70% will be put back into growing more trees.

    They even say on their blog that they met with Google Australia and they gave the idea the thumbs up. Why does Google stop it now? My feeling is that ecocho has made a great impact and Google is getting rid of it.

11. AW
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 8:00 pm

    @10:

    Google is clearly in league with the Illumanti here.

12. exapted
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    I wish I would have thought of and implemented the idea first.

13. peggy
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 8:09 pm

    IF ecocho s made a great impact, maybe Google wanted some shares of the advertising revenue? And ecocho didn’t want to give it to them? Or maybe ecocho was a nice case study for Google and now they will come up with their own ‘green search thing’ soon? I’m just guessing - havin no clue. Whatever the reason was… It’s business.
    I really don’t know if planting trees in Australia is such a good thing to do. (said that be4) It s pretty dry there. Growing trees needs a bit of water, right? I’d prefer a project that helps saving eco systems, that are already autopoetic, from being destroyed, e.g. the rain forest.

14. Adam
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm

    @ #3/Jim Mcnelis - Yep, it’s all about the encouraging of clicking on sponsoring ads. As top dog, Google has the luxury of being able to focus on long-term value to their advertisers. And people who use a “green” search engine are likely to click on ads 50x in a row if they think it’ll plant a tree. That’s a great way for search engines to give their advertisers crappy ROI.

    Looks like they’ve already moved on to Yahoo powered search. Yahoo kinda has a pressing need to boost short-term profits right now, so they’re less likely to care about that whole “long term interest of our advertisers” thing “You say your users click on lots of ads? Partnership application approved”.

15. Igor The Troll
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 8:23 pm

    If I were a company I would not want to go to TechChrunch’s DeadPool.

    That is like going to Dante’s Purgatory!

16. marble
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 8:35 pm

    to Yahoo

17. Chris
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    “I made fun of them last week when they launched”

    http://www.officesnapshots.com.....echcrunch/
    Mike, your office is in your house. How can you make fun of a search engine?
    I understand about the write off, but still. I don’t think they should feel bad about it. At least they tried to do something good for the environment. Even if it does fail.

18. Chris
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    I see your point about inaccuracy as per the tree planting, but you have to figure, if they were really good programmers or engineers, they would have built their own search engine instead of just doing a skin.

    It looks like a couple of well meaning entrepreneurs. I doubt they will make enough revenue to do much tree planting anyway unless they do it out of pocket.

19. Roger J
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 8:58 pm

    Re: “this thing is doing a belly flop into the deadpool” -

    What was all that stuff about “loving the community” and participating respectfully in “the conversation” last weekend at Startup School, Michael?

20. Jim McNelis
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 9:15 pm

    @17 Chris,

    what’s wrong with running a business out of your home?

21. Matt
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    ripple.org had exactly the same problem with Google

22. peggy
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm

    so what did they do then? they are still powered by google…

23. Frank Church
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 9:46 pm

    @Jim (#3), I agree.

    This also idea rank in “green-washing”. Intentions uncertain; there is little way out of this without proof alongside daily videos (an attractive female planting the daily “offsets” would be best). Jim’s point remains, however.

    The schills in comment #’s 10 and 13 not withstanding.

24. Alex P
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 10:15 pm

    This is how you milk the fad.

25. peggy
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 10:47 pm

    # 23 you might explain to me, if you like:
    “The schills in comment #’s 10 and 13 not withstanding”

26. Steve W
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 10:55 pm

    # 14

    Surely Google Smart Pricing will discount the clicks if they don’t convert, thus saving the advertiser’s budget.

    And they’ll detect someone continually clicking ads from the same IP address and call it click fraud too - also saving the advertiser’s budget.

    Go the ‘Cho, I hope Google gets back on board soon, guys!

27. Anthony
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 11:04 pm

    Michael Arrington,

    So far from what we can see, ecocho has done nothing for you to “laugh” at them at their launch, and has presumably good intentions.

    What are you, some sort of sadist? You sound like one of those “global warming is a myth, I don’t care” people.

    Lately it seems you are all to eager to throw things into the deadpool. Perhaps it’s time you remember where your roots came from.

28. Michael Arrington
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 pm

    #19 - I reserve the right to make fun of startups that fail the smug test.

29. Anthony
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 pm

    Yes, or perhaps you hold yourself in to high of a self regard.

30. AJ Arora
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    Seriously people “up to two trees”. That’s somewhere between 2 and zero.

    Maybe it’s not all that hilarious…my girlfriend heard me laughing and I couldn’t explain the humor to her…

31. Michael Arrington
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 11:50 pm

32. Michael Arrington
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm

    Smug! {seesmic_video:{”url_thumbnail”:{”value”:”http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/aaYRz4VYU7_th1.jpg”}”title”:{”value”:”Smug! ”}”videoUri”:{”value”:”http://www.seesmic.com/video/msfN6pg5wJ”}}}

33. Anthony
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 pm

    How very anti-climatic of you, Michael! Ever thought of a color change for TechCrunch?

34. Michael Arrington
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 pm

    {seesmic_video:{”url_thumbnail”:{”value”:”http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/TUmQlKO5vK_th1.jpg”}”title”:{”value”:” ”}”videoUri”:{”value”:”http://www.seesmic.com/video/Apvj1OoMOb”}}}

35. Michael Arrington
    

    April 22nd, 2008 at 11:59 pm

    {seesmic_video:{”url_thumbnail”:{”value”:”http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/qqzCWMfYl1_th1.jpg”}”title”:{”value”:” ”}”videoUri”:{”value”:”http://www.seesmic.com/video/lz3flsPUCt”}}}

36. Max Gladwell
    

    April 23rd, 2008 at 12:00 am

    these tactics can work. it’s the premise behind the (RED) campaign, which has been successful. we shop and search and spend money every day. why not do these daily activities with companies that specifically exist to be a part of the climate solution or some other worth cause? i agree that “up to 2 trees” is rather ambiguous. i don’t know this company. just defending the model in general.

37. Michael Arrington
    

    April 23rd, 2008 at 12:04 am

    {seesmic_video:{”url_thumbnail”:{”value”:”http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/FdQxMOPr2t_th1.jpg”}”title”:{”value”:” ”}”videoUri”:{”value”:”http://www.seesmic.com/video/6ITVSBaghO”}}}

38. Anthony
    

    April 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 am

    Michael and his toys.

    I agree with Max. I would rather support something which does *something* positive to the environment, than not at all.

    Also - how can we expect any organization to remain “lights on” and continue doing some good things for the environment without turning over a dollar?

    Something, better than nothing.

    Hi from Australia by the way, Michael… and to a previous poster, not all of Australia is dry. We have trees here too (lots of em!)

39. Jenny
    

    April 23rd, 2008 at 12:07 am

    AJ Arora,

    I think they say ‘up to 2 trees’ because 1000 Google searches yielded 1 tree whereas 1000 searches with Yahoo yields 2 trees. And they’re audit by KPMG Australia. They’d have to be accountable?

    Regards,
    Jenny

40. Michael Arrington
    

    April 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 am

    Jenny - yes, they’d have to be accountable to sponsor up to two trees.

41. Maxman
    

    April 23rd, 2008 at 12:33 am

    sydney morning herald rips them a new one. Case closed:

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/web.....15487.html

42. Arona
    

    April 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 am

    they need to swap to Ask -

    see http://www.everyclick.com - another “charity” search engine.

    Fact is, Ask, Yahoo and everyone else is on a click hunt. they don’t care where these clicks come from.

    The result - Advertisers don’t care about them. WebKarma - I call it.

43. peggy
    

    April 23rd, 2008 at 3:33 am

    tryin to post a comment again…

44. Jim McNelis
    

    April 23rd, 2008 at 4:35 am

    @42 Arona,

    Google serves ads on Ask.com

45. fleur
    

    April 23rd, 2008 at 4:45 am

    Not very impressed with this post, you are not saying anything in the video.
    Giving something from your geek business’ profits to charity directly is better then nothing especially as most of our businesses in this climate (hah) seem not concerned at all in these matters.

    Why on earth is everybody slagging them off? Feeling guilty??

46. fleur
    

    April 23rd, 2008 at 4:47 am

    Google’s policy is that publishers running Google advertising must not “compensate users for viewing ads or performing searches, or promise compensation to a third party for such behaviour”. By promising to plant trees, Ecocho broke those rules.

    the compensation is planting a tree!

47. Arona
    

    April 23rd, 2008 at 6:06 am

    ha, didn’t know that - so I assume its one rule for some, another for others??

48. JMac
    

    April 23rd, 2008 at 7:15 am

    What a great idea!

    I’ll save the environment by setting up a bunch of power hungry servers in an A/C controlled area to rip off another search engine in the name of helping the planet.

    The best thing they can do for the planet (and us), is cease operations and go back to hugging trees somewhere.

49. EcoJason
    

    April 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    I’d rather use ww.flock.com/eco instead of using something like EcoCho.com it seems to be a bit more useful and makes quite a few things easier especially for bloggers, and avid surfers of environmental issue sites.