News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google Revenue Jumps, But Misses Forecasts by ChuckMcM on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @07:42PM (#7601206)
Interesting results. I've remarked in the past how the decreasing CPC numbers were being papered over by creating massive amounts of inventory (more ads per page to click on) and paid click growth has largely been facilitated by adding distribution "partners" which is code in the search business that shove traffic your way. Early on in Google's history it was all organic but this last quarter they were spending nearly a billion dollars a quarter to have people send them traffic. Looking at the numbers for the last 12 quarters its like this:

          Paid Click deltas (%)     Traffic Spend 
             Y/Y Q   Prev Q        ($m)     y/y    q/q 
   Q1FY2010    15      5           265      --      --
   Q2FY2010    15      (3)         269      --      1.5
   Q3FY2010    16      4           285      --      6
   Q4FY2010    18      11          333      --      17

   Q1FY2011    18      4           337      27      1
   Q2FY2011    18      2           355      32      5
   Q3FY2011    28      13          383      34      8
   Q4FY2011    34      17          442      33      15

   Q1FY2012    39      7           468      39      6
   Q2FY2012    42      1           507      43      8
   Q3FY2012    33      6           556      45      10
   Q4FY2012    24      9           634      43      14

   Q1FY2013    20      3           680      45      7
   Q2FY2013    23      4           706      39      4
   Q3FY2013    26      8           755      36      7
   Q4FY2013    31      13          824      30      9

   Q1FY2014    26      (1)         845      24      3
Who would have thought between Microsoft and Google that sending search traffic artificially to a search engine would be a > $4B/year business? I don't think it is sustainable long term.
Re:Google Revenue Jumps, But Misses Forecasts by guyzero on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @08:14PM (#7601343)
It is possible to think about this the opposite way.

Google is showing more ads than it used to. There are more search queries than ever and more partner sites and partner ad impressions.

There's a marginal return on these extra impressions, they generate relatively fewer clicks. So you end up diluting the metrics.

It's not just more ads per page (although it is that in some cases) it's more page views too.

tl;dr: it's dilution due to marginal gains with the added traffic

Re:Google Revenue Jumps, But Misses Forecasts by ChuckMcM on Thursday April 17, 2014 @01:22AM (#7602108)
That is exactly how I look at it. If they showed no more ads, and got no more searches than the previous quarter, the drop in CPC would be a drop in revenue. But since the increase both ads shown, and buy more traffic, their overall revenue goes up. The question then is when can they not show any more ads (the page is totally ads) and when can they buy no more traffic (everything additional they try to buy is the really crappy robot stuff that comes from some randome armpit of the Interwebs). Then the equation flips, their CPC drops, their searches increase (and costs increase), and they get no more paid clicks than they did the previous quarter. At that point adding money just causes them to reduce profits and they have to start riding the CPC loss down. Given the increase in paid distribution this quarter over last quarter and a loss of 1% in paid clicks, I'm interested to see what next quarter looks like.

If they follow their trends they should pay about 917 to 988M$ for distribution traffic. They will need to get at least a 25% increase in paid clicks over Q2 of last year which would be something like an increase in 5 - 6% in paid clicks over this just finished quarter. If they can't do that then they are going to miss their targets again next quarter. My guess (well what I would do if I were in their shoes) is that they would take it out of the members cut, basically reduce the payout to AdSense for Content and other member sites. Either way, interesting times ahead.

Re:Google Revenue Jumps, But Misses Forecasts by guyzero on Thursday April 17, 2014 @02:35PM (#7605417)
Well at some point they're limited to the rate of organic growth of the internet. If Google gets $X per internet user then they're going to only grow as fast as the internet grows.
Re:Google Revenue Jumps, But Misses Forecasts by ChuckMcM on Thursday April 17, 2014 @06:21PM (#7606856)
I believe they hit that limit several years ago, hence the 100% annual growth rate in what they are paying to buy distribution traffic. My thesis is that they are now in the $X per organic user + $Y = ($Q - $D), where $Y is the amount of money a nominal 'purchased' user brings in ($Q) minus the cost of getting them ($D).
Re:Google Revenue Jumps, But Misses Forecasts by yukichan on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @11:02PM (#7601830)
> Who would have thought between Microsoft and Google that sending search traffic artificially to a search engine would be a > $4B/year business?

Many toolbars make all their money that way. Ask Partner Network, Conduit. Mozilla makes their money this way, in fact I bet a huge chunk of that cost you see there is the Mozilla deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Re:Google Revenue Jumps, But Misses Forecasts by ChuckMcM on Thursday April 17, 2014 @01:10AM (#7602087)
I am really curious if they consider the money they pay to support the Mozilla foundation as "paid distribution." I could see how it would come out like that, but I could also argue from an accounting standpoint that it should be part of the 2.39B$ they paid to "Network Members". It might be a good question for their next earnings call though.
Re:Google Revenue Jumps, But Misses Forecasts by foobarqux on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @09:02PM (#7601475)
What do you think of Yahoo's traffic acquisition and the fact that they like to state their financial figures excluding them?
Re:Google Revenue Jumps, But Misses Forecasts by ChuckMcM on Thursday April 17, 2014 @01:07AM (#7602081)
Yahoo (aka Bing since all their search traffic is handled by Bing at the moment) also spends heavily on acquisition. We (Blekko) did too for a while (although we could never afford to pay hundreds of millions of dollars doing so), there are a lot of people who will sell you traffic. The interesting take away is that search it not nearly so differentiated as it once was. That is hurting CPC (16th straight quarter of declines for Google) and it is hurting loyalty. Lots of people on HN for example use DDG as their search page. That is a huge change in the search business and a source of worry for Google (as the leader) and a source of hope for people breaking into the market. As search becomes commoditized, Ad CPC becomes a race to the bottom. That doesn't bode well for a company depending on Search Advertising to fund multi-billion dollar investments, per quarter, in data centers and other infrastructure.

Its kind of like watching the Pacific ocean erode the cliffs along Malibu, slowly but surely really pricey real estate is turning into tide pools.

Re:Google Revenue Jumps, But Misses Forecasts by whoismua on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @07:53PM (#7601259)
Why isn't Google suffering a backlash and lost share due to this http://digitalgrowth.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/googl... ? I cannot use them without ad blockers, I suppose I'm not the only one ;)
Re:Google Revenue Jumps, But Misses Forecasts by branciforte on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @09:30PM (#7601565)
What did you expect? The VAST majority of people who type "london hotels" are looking to BUY a hotel room in London for the night.

Try a search like "Albert Einstein". No ads.

Are you doing research on hotels in London? Then you'll need to add some more keywords. Google Search is not setup specifically for London hotel researchers.

Re:Google Revenue Jumps, But Misses Forecasts by whoismua on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @09:53PM (#7601622)
What's you point?

The VAST majority of people who type "london hotels" are looking to BUY a hotel room in London for the night.

And extremely expensive ads are the only way to help users???? The advertiser and Google don't have the user's interests in mind.

>>Then you'll need to add some more keywords. Google Search is not setup specifically for London hotel researchers. Of course not, because this was is more profitable to Google. They'll change the setup and display to increase their profits when necessary.

Re:Google Revenue Jumps, But Misses Forecasts by dave809 on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @08:24PM (#7601370)
Because the ads are usually relevant and useful. in your example, the second card is a nice summary of hotels with all the relevant info right there
Re:Google Revenue Jumps, But Misses Forecasts by whoismua on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @08:38PM (#7601419)
Relevant and useful is a nice buzzword. People will also want unbiased and cheapest.
Re:Google Revenue Jumps, But Misses Forecasts by waps on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @10:32PM (#7601747)
Well that may be true, but unbiased information is just not available in commercial settings (even the government "which solar panel is best" information is politically influenced, plus it doesn't even list correct pricing). I usually book hotels on kayak, but what hotels are listed there ?

The ones that pay 5% of the booking price to kayak.

Face it, without commercial incentives you'd never get accurate pricing, making finding the cheapest hotel VERY hard. Finding a 5% cheaper hotel costs me the better part of the day, and that will generally be worth far more than the 5% of the price that I might save (ie. 15-20 bucks). Also, sites like kayak may not get volume pricing, but they do seem to get lower prices than I can get myself.

Re:Google Revenue Jumps, But Misses Forecasts by raldi on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @09:20PM (#7601536)
What links should show up when a user does that search, and why do you feel they would better serve the user than what's in the screenshot?