| gearburn | twitter | subscribe: email or RSS | about | contact | advertise | headline widget

 memeburn.com   memejobs.com

Why are Google’s new services failing?

email article email article print article print articletip @techmeme
email

Google has had a long string of failures. It encourages its engineers to spend 20% of their time developing side projects but when those projects reach launch stage, their take-off is nearly always very disappointing.

Take a look at some of Google’s failures. Colin Gibbs reporting on GigaOM:

  • Google Lively was a web-based virtual environment that allowed as many as 20 people to sit in a virtual room and chat with each other. The offering debuted in July 2008 only to have Google pull the plug a mere four months later.
  • Google Print Ads was dropped earlier this year after the company’s vision of bringing web-like automation to the world of traditional media failed to materialize. The effort went belly-up just three weeks before the death of Google Audio Ads, which ended a three-year run in February after the company failed to gain traction in the radio ad game.
  • Google Answers spent a year in beta before a full-blown launch in May 2003, but the effort to create a fee-based knowledge market never gained much traction outside a small base of users and the service was dropped in late 2006.
  • The social networking site Orkut launched early in 2004 as an independent project of noted Google developer Orkut Büyükkökten and has caught fire in Brazil, a market that accounts for roughly 50 percent of its membership. The site reportedly claims roughly 100 million users, which is impressive, but Google can’t be happy that its effort is virtually unknown in Europe and North America while Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace and others have gained such impressive traction.
  • Google Catalog Search debuted in 2001 as a way for consumers to go online to check out their favorite print catalogs that had been scanned and uploaded. Of course, retailers were already taking their inventories online themselves, and the effort was put to rest earlier this year.
  • Google Health was released as a beta test in May 2008, but the service has yet to find much of an audience among insurers or the general public. Which may have something to do with the combination of the words “health” and “beta test.”
  • The location-based service Dodgeball was shut down in 2009 after Google had acquired it four years earlier, and while Google continues to operate Jaiku - a social networking service it picked up in 2007 — the company has effectively abandoned the project. The technologies and expertise from both startups is being incorporated into other Google businesses and projects, however.

I can easily add a lot more to this list. Google Video; Google’s acquisition of Jot; Google Wave; Knol; Checkout; Catalogs; Base; Squared; and Google Buzz could be the latest.

Google has tremendous scale so it is puzzling to some why so many of its services should have been such failures. But, it isn’t that surprising if you consider its culture because Google believes that good products will find their users based on their own merits.

What Google fails to recognise is that it needs to assign marketing support. Without marketing support it is wasting the cream of its engineering talent.

Have you seen any marketing for Google services beyond an occasional text ad?

I’ve never been contacted by any PR companies, or Google corporate comms people to talk about a new Google service or product. Yet I receive countless such invitations from smaller companies trying to get media attention.

Google’s failure to recognise the need for effective marketing is deep rooted within its engineering culture. Engineers don’t believe in marketing. Many software engineers will deride a company’s success (e.g Apple) as “it’s just marketing”. It makes it seems as if “marketing” is something that can be easily acquired and put to good use.

But marketing is not easy, and successful marketing is not a commodity (it’s interesting that software engineers are (becoming) a commodity…)

Google’s own success grew out of a non-marketing approach; Google search was simply a better product. Google is proud that it didn’t use marketing to become a success.

But times are different today. There is a tremendous amount of media already on the Internet and this level will rise to a media tsunami as companies and individuals make full use of their media publishing capabilities. The media tsunami will drown less able companies, products, and services.

Effective marketing is going to become ever more important, and more expensive, simply because the media tsunami is raising the bar for everyone to stand out.

Company culture is very difficult to change and it changes slowly and that’s why Google will continue to launch new services, and it will continue to fail because it doesn’t understand the need for follow up marketing and PR.

And that means it will continue to remain a one-trick pony.


email article email article print article print article
[ advertising enquiries ]

Related articles


Topics for this article

[ advertising enquiries ]
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=636851059 Etienne Munnich

    Silicon Valley and most innovation centers have a culture of accepting failure as part of learning what works or doesn't, new business models and the development process.

    Granted marketing and PR are important – Microsoft and Apple have proved this to their own detriment by releasing products that don't work as advertised.

    In times like these – we need stuff that works, not more empty promises.

  • Codist

    … as a soon-to-be-commodity, I'd have to say that possibly, Google's approach is quite refreshing. You have an idea. You work on it. You let it loose. It either thrives or it doesn't.

    If it doesn't, this is accepted, and everybody moves on. Marketing hasn't been involved, so there are few crazy promises to keep and probably no death-march coding sessions or time wasted on rolling out features demanded by management.

    It's a nice way to keep your developers happy.

  • yyyguy

    There are cases where failing quickly is beneficial. I submit that Google has taken this approach to some of their “so called” failures. Admittedly the examples you cite were not successful in the public eye, but they were able to test out the viability of a service to a beta public, or to a preview audience, and see what worked or in many cases what did not work. From these, I hope there are learnings that can be applied to existing services (e.g. character by character updates in Google Docs just like in Google Wave).

    I agree wholeheartedly that Google needs more marketing savvy when it comes to the deployment of their services and products (e.g. Nexus One – superior handset that can't be touched or played with the phone before purchasing it) They cannot just rely on the smart engineering teams. It takes much more.

    Again, if Google is able to fail quickly, learn from their mistakes (with limited exposure – public backlash), and then deploy more successfully in subsequent attempts, and can do this in a timely fashion (either ahead of the competition, or just behind the forefront of their competition), it will be to everyone's benefit. (consumer and their competition)

  • http://mikamai.co.uk Todd

    There are ads plastered all over London billboards and throughout the underground (tube / subway / metro) for Google Chrome. My perspective is that Google will put marketing dollars behind projects which are critical to their long term strategy. The other projects can fail, and fail quickly, and the engineers will move on to their next big dream project. No harm done and once in a while you get a Google Mail or Google Docs out of it. Seems like a good model to me.

MORE HEADLINES

news

VIEW MORE

interviews

VIEW MORE

future trends

VIEW MORE

entrepreneurship

VIEW MORE

social media

VIEW MORE

facebook

VIEW MORE

twitter

VIEW MORE

google

VIEW MORE

advertising & marketing

VIEW MORE

online media

VIEW MORE

design

VIEW MORE

mobile

VIEW MORE