Dear Friend:

In the following "thought piece", I will try to explain why I believe that other search engines can beat Google, not in a head-on competition, but by using the right positioning.

Many of you, here, veteran marketers, are familiar with the positioning concept.

And my hope is: by posting this, there will be an enriching marketing discussion that will be useful and profitable for the members of this board.

So let's go.

When Google launched Google Videos, some of us thought Google Video would come to rule the Online Video World.

But no, Google Video is a failure. Or at least, Google Video is nowhere close to Youtube.

Why a billion-dollar company such as Google couldn't win against the Youtube guys.

Well, one of the rules of positioning that most big companies ignore is: line extension. The guys at Google thought that they could just use their Google name and they'd be able to dominate the Online video market.

The public saw it otherwise. They didn't choose Google Video as their #1 destination for online videos. They chose Youtube.

Stay with me here, as I am about to explain, why I believe that Google is vulnerable in the Search Engine war.

First, there are two WEAKNESSES with Google today.

1-Google is committing the mistake of putting the Google "brand" on anything, hoping that they can enter any new field on the strength of their "Google brand alone".

As a result of this "crazy line extension" Google is losing its meaning as a search Engine. Today most of us know Google as the " #1 Search Engine".

A few years from now, as Google continues to try to add the Google "brand" on everything they're  involved in, the name Google will NOT stand anymore for "Search". Some people will think that Google is a "Online Video Website". Some will think that Google is a "Navigator: chrome".

Google is diluting its position in the prospect's mind. Google is going from having the brand associated with "search" in the mind of the online user, to having its name "Google" tied to many different products.

And whether the guys at Google want to hear it or not, the "Google brand" can't stand for "online video". The "Google brand" can't stand for some type of "Navigator". If Google means everything online, then Google means nothing.

That's to me: the first weakness in Google.

2-Here's the second area where Google is too me extremely vulnerable. Of course, Google is NOT vulnerable, as of this writing, in a head-to-head combat. But Google is vulnerable if some other NEW search engine is willing to specialize into a specific type of search.

Let me give you an example. One of the weaknesses of Google, as far as being a search Engine is concerned is, Safety. Put simply, Google is not a safe search engine.

Let me explain: A parent has concerns over what his young children will be exposed to online.

For a parent who doesn't want his children to be exposed to certain ideas and images (sexually explicit ideas and images) a search on Google can be a problem. For instance, if you go on Google and type "sex of babies", you're going to see immediately what I am talking about.

You'll see some "appropriate answers" and you'll see some "inappropriate answers" like this this "result for a video on Youtube". If you go to the Images Search on Google, you'll see results for "sim" on the third page of Image Search.

In other words, Google is NOT SAFE FOR KIDS.

And another search engine could come up and take the "Safe Search Engine Position"

There are other areas where I think Google is weak.

I hope that I made a case.

Of course, I welcome all the criticisms I deserve, as long as it focuses on the discussion of finding "Holes in the Search Engine" market.

This "positioning concept" is something that most "copywriting gurus" practice. However, they're too worried about selling the 2000 course, to really dig into it.

Behind every great advertisement, there is a Great Positioining Idea.

If you're unfamiliar with Positioning and you want to join the discussion, here's the book title: Positioning the Battle For Your Mind, by Al Ries and Jack Trout.

One last thing: I am not an affiliate or anything. Just sharing some things that most gurus REFUSE to share.

Sincerely,
Swans Paul
http://www.magazinead.instantresultsadvertising.com/index.html

I respectfully disagree.

Google isn't going to be toppled. It's not even spreading itself too thin. If anything, Google's biggest problem is that it has placed all its eggs firmly in one basket: advertising.

Google's search engine is among the most advanced around, and regularly yields the results I'm looking for.

Further, web developers and web businesses are as accustomed to working with Google as many businesses are accustomed to working with Windows.

Google has one primary objective: increase the likelihood that you will click on their advertisements so that they can make a profit. Therefore most of what you see coming out of Google is an attempt to organize relevant information in a way that is easily accessible and allows them to more efficiently place the right ads in front of the right people.

It has spent more money than any other online company when it comes to research and development for their search engine and advertising platform. It has also invested in (and attracted) the top minds the world has to offer, and has worked its brand to stand for everything "free" and "open". From early on, it coupled itself with Firefox, becoming the default search engine for the only viable competitor to Internet Explorer since Netscape went out.

It killed the idea of paying for extra email storage by providing an unheard of amount at the time: 2gigs! Today we're approaching 8 gigs.

It has not been diluting its brand by a long shot. In fact, though it has made some errors (no one bats 100), Google has created distinct brands or maintained the brands of the companies they have acquired in certain instances.

Android, their mobile OS, is a distinct brand that most end-users don't fully recognize as Google.

YouTube, acquired by Google, has kept its brand and in spite of a rocky start, has managed to maintain its position as the most frequently visited video site. And they're coming up with novel ideas to beat the problem of piracy: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/google_hoping_profit_youtubes_copyright_issues

Beyond that, Swans, your idea of a very specific search engine? Guess what? They exist! And do you know how most people find it? They GOOGLE it.

Many people opt to even Google the sites they know the address for. I can't tell you the number of times I've typed "wikipedia, [key term]" into a Google search box so that I could find the Wikipedia entry, even though I have Wikipedia Search built right into my browser.

Your idea of safe-search for children? Handled at a browser-level. And Yahoo used to have a search engine called Yahooligans.com

Today, it's http://kids.yahoo.com. Ever heard of it? Well click on it and look at the search box at the top. Now try typing in a swear word. You'll turn up nothing. But how is Yahoo doing? Compared to Google, it's nothing. In spite of having gotten to the Internet "FIRST".

Google is far from diluting its brand. It has tried many things, and has made a career out of failed attempts. But are they really failing? Failing according to who?

Google Chrome, for example, is a web browser going up against IE8, Firefox, Safari, Opera and others. But Google Chrome was never about competing with these browsers. At least, not quite.

Google Chrome brought to the table the idea of having each tab represent an individual process, and therefore instead of having a browser crash, you'd have an individual TAB crash. The idea of "Browser-as-operating-system", which is very beneficial to Google. It also brought along with it a host of other ideas that open source communities like Mozilla are incorporating into the development of Firefox.  These developments ultimately benefit Google, because Google has a suite of online applications. It expands their reach.

Google is trying many things, yes. But many of those things are things people have never heard of, and therefore it doesn't contribute to the diluting of their brand.

Microsoft currently does:

X-Box
Video game development
input devices including
-mice
-keyboards
-touch
Operating Systems
Desktop Applications
Development tools
Music Players

Heck, just look at all this hardware that they make:
http://www.microsoft.com/HARDWARE/

The truth is, Google, like Microsoft, can use their Brand to support their other products... provided that they give their products their own specific branding.

XBOX 360 does not sound like "Microsoft Game System"

Zune does not sound like "Microsoft Music Player"

However, it's worth noting that despite the brand names of these products, neither achieved a high level success until they offered (get this) something UNIQUE and WORTH HAVING!

Wow. And that is the REAL secret of positioning.

Have something people want, and have the skill to be able to pick out what those things are and put it in front of the people who want them.

That is what positioning is all about.

In fact, the story about YouTube and Google Video demonstrates a very different, but equally important lesson: Don't waste money on R&D and driving traffic when you can just buy the company outright (along with all their existing visitors). Don't reinvent the wheel. Just buy it and make it better.


Irrelevant and a pointless jab. Many copywriters DO talk about positioning. In fact, I learned the most about positioning from books like "My Life in Advertising" and "Ogilvy on Advertising" and people like Halbert, Bencivenga, Dan Kennedy and many others.

P.S. If you want to see Brand Extension done right, take a look at Virgin. From airplanes to mobile phones, Virgin used its position as a "lifestyle brand" to promote products in line with that lifestyle.

Dear Omar:

You made a point about Virgin being a lifestyle brand.

To me when you say Virgin, I think about Richard Branson. I've seen Virgin mobile. I've heard about Virgin airlines.

What's a Virgin?

Here's what it is to me now:

First, it's an eccentric billionaire from Britain.

Then, Virgin is many things: cheap pre-pay phone that Bestbuy used to sell....cheap airline that competes on price in the US...wine...and whatever.

The brand virgin is over-extended. And as any over-extended brand, Virgin won't survive when real tough competition is encountered in its specific markets.

Example.

I believe you mentioned Virgin Airlines. They opened a Virigin America, or something in the US in 2007.

And what's the news about Virgin America?

Well, it seems that it's bad news.

On Februry 2, a headline from the San Francisco Business Times reads, " Virgin has lost 270M"

Here's a little excerpt from the page, "In its first earnings report in more than a year, Virgin America Inc. said it lost $175.4 million over the first three quarters of 2008"

Well, that's exactly what line extension does to you: losses.

On the strength of the name Virgin alone, they can't enter any highly disputed market and hope to win.

And the more you "slapped" the mother brand on all your new products, the more you "dilute" the position that the "Name" used to have, and the easier it is for better marketers to beat you in speficic markets, because you don't really have a position.

Sincerely,
Swans Paul

if you do figure it out,
you'll be rich because Google will then try to buy you out,
just like they've bought (or tried to) other networks that were growing faster then them.

Good luck.