Search guru Danny Sullivan joined the Gillmor Gang yesterday for a long debate on Microsoft’s new search initiative, Live Search Cashback. After seeing the product launch at Microsoft earlier this week and testing it driectly I took a mostly positive position. Sullivan, not so much.
Will Cashback help Microsoft’s search market share, which is less than 10% and falling? Is this a serious threat to Google? What else must Microsoft do to get into the search game? Listen to the debate here.
they possibly could do it this way…
If user is brought to say Amazon for X product then there will be a live.com discount on product, that would not be seen if Google brought them there.
It seems to me that this will work best if Microsoft attacks this from the angle of creating value for the low-income user. IMO, they should partner with value-brands to provide incentives for that demographic since they are the ones clicking on ads anyway:
http://www.smvg...ash.asp?pr=1643
Anytime you start bribing users to use your product or service is just noise created to drown out the death rattle…
Mike, your undefeated run on the Gan ended – you got your ass kicked this time
I agree fully with Danny.
There were definitely points where Danny could have simmered down and let a real discussion occur.
After testing cashback for few hours, but could not find any good deal, I believe this program will not help Live Search much. There are still a lot work needed to be done in Search, e.g., the search term “remove windows and install linux” was posted on:
http://blog.sea...ives/139341.asp
Try it on Live Search:
http://search.l...=&form=QBRE
and Google Search:
http://www.goog...G=Google+Search
to see what the results will be today. From Monday Factory Tour of Search, I think Google is trying to solve this kind of problems, but not sure what Microsoft will do about this…
hey guys.
for my simple $0.02 worth…
the real battle that’s being fought now, ie. the search/advertising is one that’s open for slaughter.
if you figure out a way to separate the search from the ad, then google is ripe for being (as a friend of mine used to say” shark bait!!!
but this is as they say, an exercise left to the reader!!
peace.
Less than 10%?????
I see, optimistic way of writing 3% share!!!
think auto rebates… would you buy a ford even for 500 bucks off? no way
intellectual bankruptcy is my first and las thought about this release
This debate was lame, and all sides kept changing the subject. For example, when the context was talking about how to attract users to search, Danny was arguing people use Google because of better technology. Michael asserts it’s purely inertia/branding. And the other guy says it’s because of the Ad monopoly. Then the discussion degenerates into debates over ad productivity, which was completely IRRELEVENT to the discussion of how to attract and RETAIN search traffic.
The fundamental facts, that Danny was unable to articulate, is that Google has a technological advantage over other search players. They just do it BETTER. Yes, Live is catching up, but in order to get someone to switch, you have to be DRASTICALLY better, not equal, or marginally better.
Why did one switch from Infoseek or Altavista or Altavista to Google? Nothing to do with ads, everything to do with quality of results.
What Arrington et al can’t seem to get through their heads is that a cashback smokescreen will not result in long term user retention unless Microsoft can actually deliver better search results. It will result in a blip, with no loyalty. I’ve used shopping comparison sites for a long time, and never with any loyalty, I just pick the ones with the best deals. That constitutes less than 1% of my search activity. 99% of my search activity is for information, not products.
Microsoft cannot win with this strategy, at best, they’ll force Google to do the same thing, and with such a huge lead in ad inventory, search, etc, I’m sure they can get better deals than MS. At best, it lowers Google’s margins, temporarily, until Microsoft folds (ala Books and all of their other short lived attempts)
If someone makes a better search engine than Google, I will switch in a heart beat. Not because they pay me.
I really don’t understand the hype about this.
Even though I would probably side with Danny Sullivan on this, I don’t even think this argument needs to be made because even if we make abstraction of Sullivan’s valid point, the model is still not going to work… My view on why: http://traackr.com/blog/?p=38
I’ve tried using Zotspot, but their SERPs are not good at all, and getting paid for searching info is not a value proposition that makes a lot of sense.
It seems like Live Search Cashback is more of a PR stunt than a serious project.
“Why did one switch from Infoseek or Altavista or Altavista to Google? Nothing to do with ads, everything to do with quality of results.”
Yes, I said that. Sorry if that wasn’t clear to you.
You were saying it Danny, but you kept letting Arrington and the others side-track you by bringing up the monetization/ads issue, you even brought it up yourself. There are two issues:
1) how do you attract and retain search users? Answer: provide good results
2) how to you launch a company that compete with the likes of google? When Google started, the fruit was hanging low, and no one owned the business model. Now Google has raised the bar and owns the business model, therefore for any player to displace Google in the next ten years, they have to do two things: a) provide dramatically/easily recognizable better search than Google and b) have a way to scale the business (and not get bought by Google before you can get big)
I agree with your prediction that a displacement of Google is not likely in 10 years. Infoseek, Altavista, et al, were not focused enough and had no business model. Google has solved the business model problem and is LASER focused on Search. It was easier to “pull a Google” back in the early days when Google first arrived. Much harder these days. Any potential startup threats to them in the future are going to be bought quickly, or cloned.
The only danger is MS or Y! buying some disruptive technology, but even they have the issue of scaling the business in the face of Google’s huge marketshare, and it would be a long long battle. Google is simply not sitting still and waiting for someone else to improve search, and they have hired and continue to hire the world’s best minds.
Arrington et al are wrong. The dream of some garage startup creating a disruptive new search technology, and then living long enough to launch a site and ad network that can compete with Google, without being bought up, is a pipedream.
And that’s why $600 is still cheap for Google, because no one is going to seriously challenge them in the next 5 years atleast. (And no, Facebook is not a challenge, to even compare FB to Google is a non-sequitur)
Leopard Dog has the best and most accurate description for MS paying search users: “it’s just noise created to drown out the death-rattle. ”
What happens if this takes off? Keep paying? Stop paying?
If MS had good search they wouldn’t have to beg. And once your brand starts begging…”it’s just noise created to drown out the death-rattle”.
Is MS actually paying people or is it the merchants? I thought it was the latter, and that seems like an interesting search model.
A pay-per-acquisition model would be an interesting option to the current pay-per-click model for a lot of merchants I would think. Offering a discount on an actual sale seems like it would be easier for some types of merchants to justify over paying just for clicks.
Doing pay per acquisition introduces its own fraud problems, but it would reduce or eliminate click fraud.
A friend of mine compared Live Search Cashback to an Internet-size coupon book rather than Google’s Internet-sized Yellowpages. Both analogies and options seem to be appropriate.
Of course, the viability of this all depends on getting traffic – which Live Search isn’t doing a very good job on. If they do improve their traffic, it seems like it would make paid search competitive.
Thanks,
Eric.
Read = Desperate
It surprises me that nobody mentioned the click fraud problem. This is surely a major achilles heel for Google. It is rampant, and judging from my recent experiences Google encourages it. Microsoft should go after them on that issue using every trick in the book.