• Andrew Goodman

    Google doesn’t break out “revenues from search,” in so many words. But we can definitely guess intelligently from the breakouts provided in quarterly and annual statements.

    Over 60% of revenues come from “Google properties,” but of course YouTube and others increasingly factor into this. That would indicate that “search” makes up somewhere slightly under 50%, but then, if you count the partner search deals (which get filed under partner revenues), that would increase the share from “search” (on other websites).

    About half of Google’s revenues appear to be from search, and certainly the Google Search revenues are the most profitable for the company (YouTube’s costly to run, 68% of revenues on content go to publishers, 51% of revenues on partner search go to partners).

    97%+ of GOOG’s revenues are from ads;
    50%+ are from search;
    and they have dozens of viable product lines.

    Any way you slice it, Bartz’s “fact” is more like a general comment; certainly not factual.

  • http://www.thesearchagents.com Bradd Libby

    Interesting interview, but I can’t find that quote anywhere in the link you provided.

    Perhaps it would help if you could provide an extended quote, with Arrington’s question in it. The snippet: “Google is 90% search. That’s a fact.” is not very helpful by itself.

    Maybe she was implying that Google’s revenue is 90% from search, but she didn’t say ‘revenue’. So, maybe she was saying that, in people’s minds, when asked what Google does, 90% respond ”search” or “search engine” or equivalent.

    The figures you provide about Google’s revenue are very interesting, but I’m willing to give Bartz the benefit of the doubt until I can see her quote in context.

  • btabke

    Sure she might be taking liberties with what she defines as search. Such as:

    > @ag: Youtube.

    You could classify almost 100% of Youtube ads as “search”.

    Where does AdWords stop and AdSense start? I think there is a gray area that you could define as search. AdSense doesn’t work without being powered by search.

    So lets flip it around, if Google lost the search engine, wouldn’t they also lose 90% of their revenue? I think they would.

    If yahoo lost thier search engine, would they lose 90% of their revenue – it would be a small blip on their bottom line.

    What’s with all the apologizing for and carrying water Google for around here lately? So what that she dropped a throw away sound bite!? We could play parse-the-ceo with every major company. Atleast she has the nads to be out in public. The Google founders are holed up in the GooglePlex like hibernating bears. Who knows if they even still work there? When was the last time they were within microphone shot of an independent reporter?

    > Of course, that’s like arguing a television network is a
    > one trick pony for making most of the money off the ads it places against TV shows.

    No no no. It is like arguing that Time Warner gets 90% of it’s income from CNN when they own 40 other networks.

    > http://www.google.com/intl/en/options/

    Seems to be plenty of channels to make money from at Google and they are generating 97% from one channel? Ya, I’d call that a one trick pony.

  • Tim F.

    I don’t see the value in trying to defend against or take away the “one trick pony” moniker. No, it is not the same as calling a business that focuses on its core business a “one trick pony.” The fact is Google is extremely diversified — maybe more so than Microsoft — approaching fields like energy, devices, operating systems, television, etc… You get called a “one trick pony” when you try to learn new tricks but only execute one well. This is Google. The defense against this label that you (and Michael Arrington in this interview) espouse is patently false and not analogous. Google spreading its tenticles into the far reaches of new markets and not generating a new source of revenue is not the same as a company that focuses on a core business.

    One can argue that the diversification is only intended to serve the core market, but that’s neither the argument you are making nor does it allows pan out for Google.

  • Andrew Goodman

    Hey btabke,

    Speaking for myself only, I was not carrying any water for any hibernating bears. Just trying to run through some numbers.

    Parse-the-CEO may be an unfair game. On the other hand, Arrington’s lead question, “What is Yahoo,” sure makes you think, doesn’t it?

    And if a lot of the answer has to do with ad revenue, you then ask “ad revenue against what?”

    And it’s always attached to some service that Yahoo no longer runs, but rather outsources.

    Which brings us back to the puzzling question – “What is Yahoo?”

    I’m sure they’ll be asking the same question of Facebook in five years, as they formerly asked it to AOL. In our space I guess it’s the type of question you ask of an overly diversified company, light on technical innovation with few barriers to entry, that was formerly very successful.

    At least with Google, AOL, and Facebook (all huge *brands*) you could sort of associate them with one *thing* — “Google is the huge brand… of search”; “AOL is the huge brand… and it’s my ISP”… “Facebook is the global powerhouse brand… of my social network / social media app”.

    Yahoo is a big brand of… “we do a lot of everything”.

    Hmm come to think of it, Bartz is right about Google, in that sense. Google both does a lot of everything, and has top of mind positioning in one thing. Yahoo is sort of the opposite of that. Peanut Butter Man was right.

  • http://my.opera.com/rafaelluik Rafael

    Author, I can’t agree on your point, maybe she was referring to search but meant all the things included on search (ads shown in searches, adwords, etc.)

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Andrew, the problem with “Google properties” is that they include both search-related ads as well as contextually delivered ones. Maybe search is 90% of that 60% from Google properties, so puts it under 50% mark you’re suggesting. Maybe search is much less. Maybe it’s more. We just don’t know. All those ads that play these days in YouTube videos certainly aren’t search.

    Bradd, the interview I linked to is TechCrunch’s live blogging of her interview. Below, you can watch the entire interview. They didn’t catch her quote that this story is about. I did, as I watched her interview live. You can hear it at 30:37 into the interview. Actually, watching it again, she says “They are 90% search. That’s a fact” rather than “Google is 90% search. That’s a fact,” as I quoted. Same meaning, of course, but I didn’t catch her words exactly as I jotted down what she said. She was talking about revenue specifically, not about what’s in people’s minds.

    Brett, I disagree. I have no idea what the split is of YouTube ads, but you absolutely cannot classify almost 100% of them as search. At YouTube, I can do a search and get AdWords-like ads along the side of my video results. Those are search ads. I issued a search request, I got ads. If I’m just watching Justin Bieber singing, as I often do? Or Carol Bartz telling Mike Arrington to f off? There’s nothing search-like about those pop-up ads that appear, any more that TV ads are search-like.

    As for Yahoo’s revenues, I think search is around 25% of their revenue. Far from a blip on the bottom line, Bartz called it “critical” to her business last year:

    http://searchengineland.com/yahoo-q1-revenues-down-bartz-says-search-critical-to-yahoos-business-17929

    In terms of apologizing for Google, I don’t know if you mean around here to be Search Engine Land or in general. If it’s the former, there’s no apologizing here. If Google says something stupid, I’ll call them out on it — and do.

    Heck, I mean last week, we had a headline piece on Sergey Brin saying “We screwed up” on data collection:

    http://searchengineland.com/sergey-brin-we-screwed-up-42386

    Throw away sound bite? That was Sergey, by the way, out in public at a press conference, full of independent reporters, including myself. Yes, they do get out, just like Bartz does.

    Also last week, I highlighted the absurdity that Google still wasn’t giving people the share of AdSense payments it kept for itself, something I’ve ripped on them about for ages:

    http://searchengineland.com/google-finally-to-disclose-adsense-split-42221

    This week, they’ve finally decided to share that:

    http://searchengineland.com/google-adsense-revenue-share-42746

    So yeah, I feel like I hold them to the fire when they deserve it. But what also often happens is that because they are so big, sometimes there are claims that deserve some balance. I hope I do that fairly. You might not agree.

    I also have stood up for Yahoo in the same way, such as here:

    http://searchengineland.com/yahoo-the-failure-myth-versus-reality-14242

    As for Bartz, she’s continually trying to position her company as not Google, not search …. oh but we are search, or we’re something else, or we’re going to be competitive even if we don’t own the search engine. She’s charming, nice but quite frankly comes across confused about her own business and what it does. Such as:

    http://searchengineland.com/revisionist-history-bartz-claims-yahoo-was-never-a-search-company-23725

    http://searchengineland.com/whats-yahoos-plan-b-for-search-25669

    She’s been running the place for more than a year. The stock hasn’t really seemed to change. The $8 billion that Microsoft offered for Yahoo search before the DOJ stepped in and took Google out of the competition has gone pfft — and she still has to give up search to Microsoft, just to get them off her back.

    We’ve had a giant ad campaign that did nothing, that Yahoo itself has suggested needs more work — millions spent on that. Bartz hasn’t really had a great year. So when she start talking about what a chief competitor needs to do — which has had a great year — she puts herself out for special attention.

    Hey, give it another year, and maybe I’ll be amazed at what a genius she turned out to be. But right now, I’m just not seeing it.

    And back to Andrew — exactly. She can’t define what Yahoo’s supposed to be clearly, and she hasn’t been able to do this for over a year now. Jerry Yang got slaughtered, laughed at, mocked (and ultimately lost his job) when he couldn’t do it. But when Bartz last year defined Yahoo as:

    “We’re the place where people find relevant contextual information about things they care about.”

    http://searchengineland.com/bartz-continues-torpedoing-yahoo-search-20705

    She got a warm reception despite that saying nothing. What the hell did that mean?

    To me, it’s worth playing parse the CEO when the CEO does something important worth parsing. In this case, Bartz is trying to maintain a fiction that Google is somehow all about search, which is crucial to her argument that Yahoo isn’t search — that Yahoo is a portal that Google can’t match.

    If you’re a web site owner, you want to know this. Because if you believe Bartz, take her at her word, then you understand that Yahoo isn’t likely to be sending you traffic (since it’s not search), so you shouldn’t bother with whatever they pitch your way. Which is a lot easier anyway, since it’s all Bing taking over.

    Or, if you don’t think she has things right, that’s good to know also. She maintains that Yahoo will keep its current search share. She argues that Yahoo’s portal features will be part of this, since Google’s all search (and in the past, she’s talked about this from a product perspective, not just a revenue one). But Google’s not all search. Google competes with Yahoo in many ways on the portal front. If you understand this, then you might realize that Yahoo could go into decline and Google gain from that — which is a whole bag of other worries.

    Personally,I hope Bing picks up some of that Yahoo share that I expect to be lost. That’s what we’ve seen since Bartz has been at the helm:

    http://searchengineland.com/when-losers-are-winners-how-google-can-lose-search-share-still-stomp-yahoo-41779

    We need a counterbalance to Google. It’s not going to be Yahoo, not in my read of how things are.

  • http://www.thesearchagents.com Bradd Libby

    “Below, you can watch the entire interview.”

    I’m sorry, I don’t know which link you are referring to. You give 9 links, all of them to Search Engine Land, and none of which seems to have a video of the interview. Forgive my ADD, or whatever it is – I’m not trying to be a pain, I’d just like to hear the quote in context. (You quote Bartz as saying: “They are 90% search.” How do we know she did not say: “”They are 90% Search.”? ‘search’ is a verb, but ‘Search’ is the name of a specific Google product. Again, I’d just like to hear the quote in context.)

    You suggest that Google’s is “under 50%” search and “Maybe … much less”. Bartz said: “They are 90% search. That’s a fact.” What does Google say? In a post from September 2009 called ‘Now S-U-P-E-R-sized!‘ on Google’s blog, Marissa Mayer said: “Search, that is. For us, search has always been our focus.” (The first word, ‘Search’, is a hyperlink and goes to http://www.google.com) “Google has always been first and foremost about search”. She also wrote a post called ‘Yes, We are still all about search‘ in May 2006.

    Over the past decade, Google’s offerings have come to more and more closely resemble Yahoo’s (a web-based mail system, news, financial information). You can parse Bartz’s words all you like, but the simple fact is that Google makes an enormous amount of money from the text ads they place on their SERPS, the Content Network ads they place when you’re searching around on the web, and so forth. If Mayer claims that “Google is all about search”, then I think its fair for Bartz to claim that Google is “90% search”.

    Given how similar Google, Yahoo and Bing are becoming to each other in offerings (though not necessarily quality), what you should be taking Bartz to task for is not claiming that Google is 90% search, but for claiming that Yahoo’s offerings are substantially different.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Bradd, it was the first link in the first sentence of the story, the word “interview.” Here it is directly:

    http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/24/carol-bartz-talkes-with-michael-arrington-at-techcrunch-disrupt/

    Mayer’s not CEO of Google. She’s VP of Search Product and User Experience. She lives and breathes search, mainly. Which is good, because no one is disputing that Google is a major search player, with a major emphasis on search.

    What I’m saying is that Google is not exclusively search. That’s just simply a fact, unlike what Bartz stated to be a fast.

    We don’t know that 90% of its revenue comes from search. We know 90%+ of its revenue comes from ads. Those ads are placed on search products as well as other products that Google owns or effectively rents from others.

    If you’re going to pit Bartz describing Google against someone at Google describing Google, then she goes up against her counterpart — Eric Schmidt. Ask him what Google does, and he has a short, easy answer: Search, Ads and Apps. Those are Google’s three major product areas.