Can Google's Popularity Die?

[rustybrick]

This new article (http://www.thisismoney.com/20040608/nm79142.html) came out and was posted at WebmasterWorld (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/24317.htm) by Brett Tabke that said "But 60% of Google users said they would switch search engines if a better service were introduced." Currently, of that study, 48% use Google as their main engine, so for 60% of those people to say they would drop Google if something better came along is huge.

People can compare Google to AltaVista back in the day. Where is AltaVista now? Yahoo bought them and they are cannibalizing its technology to make the new and improved Yahoo! Search. But AltaVista never had the brand name and the reach Google has today. Google is synonymous with the word Web search, just like Kleenex is synonymous with tissues. That is something really hard to change. "I'll Google that word and get you the answer boss." "My home page is Google." "Where would I be without Google?" These are all statements I hear now and then by average Web users.

Ok, so you buy other brands of tissue paper. You buy the generic brand even though Kleenex is synonymous with tissues. But would 60% switch if a new engine came out that was better then Google? Well what is "better"? Less spam? More relevancy? Google isnt bad with either of the two. Plus relevancy is in the eyes of the beholder. I know many people in the education industry use Teoma because Teoma's results and tools are more focused on research. But Google is more focused on the public.

Take Apple computers for example, I know I can buy a more powerful Windows machine but I am a die hard Apple fan. I take the brand, the look, the design and the power of my PowerBook into consideration. I am proud to be an Apple computer user. Are you proud to be a Google user? That is the question.

[seobook]

This new article (http://www.thisismoney.com/20040608/nm79142.html) came out and was posted at WebmasterWorld (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/24317.htm) by Brett Tabke that said "But 60% of Google users said they would switch search engines if a better service were introduced." Currently, of that study, 48% use Google as their main engine, so for 60% of those people to say they would drop Google if something better came along is huge.

People can compare Google to AltaVista back in the day. Where is AltaVista now? Yahoo bought them and they are cannibalizing its technology to make the new and improved Yahoo! Search. But AltaVista never had the brand name and the reach Google has today. Google is synonymous with the word Web search, just like Kleenex is synonymous with tissues. That is something really hard to change. "I'll Google that word and get you the answer boss." "My home page is Google." "Where would I be without Google?" These are all statements I hear now and then by average Web users.

Ok, so you buy other brands of tissue paper. You buy the generic brand even though Kleenex is synonymous with tissues. But would 60% switch if a new engine came out that was better then Google? Well what is "better"? Less spam? More relevancy? Google isnt bad with either of the two. Plus relevancy is in the eyes of the beholder. I know many people in the education industry use Teoma because Teoma's results and tools are more focused on research. But Google is more focused on the public.

Take Apple computers for example, I know I can buy a more powerful Windows machine but I am a die hard Apple fan. I take the brand, the look, the design and the power of my PowerBook into consideration. I am proud to be an Apple computer user. Are you proud to be a Google user? That is the question.

I think the real amazing statistic there is that even if there was a better search engine out there 40% of the people would refuse to change by their own admission. that is powerful brand loyalty right there.

[rustybrick]

I think the real amazing statistic there is that even if there was a better search engine out there 40% of the people would refuse to change by their own admission. that is powerful brand loyalty right there.

Agreed, you had to look at it from the other side of the coin. ;)

[Anthony Parsons]

That coin could just get squashed in a couple of years if Microsoft gets its search capabilities within the software and make a decent job of it producing great results. I have no doubt we will see a Microsoft / Google court battle instead of Microsoft / Netscape when Longhorn happens.

[rustybrick]

But will Microsoft settle out of court and keep Google alive, just like they have been doing for Sun?

[dannysullivan]

I haven't seen the actual study/survey, but that type of question sounds pretty dubious to me. Ask anyone who uses something if they'd switch to another service if it was better. I high proportion are always going to say yes.

So 60% of Google users said they might switch? What percentage of Yahoo users might switch? Or MSN users might switch? It works both/all ways.

[rustybrick]

But what about "brand loyalty". I do not think its black and white with Google. Especially since relevancy is highly subjective.

[jbgilbert]

Ok, so you buy other brands of tissue paper. You buy the generic brand even though Kleenex is synonymous with tissues

EXACTLY! Given new products, enough time and the herd ("cattle") mentality of the human race, it is totally possible that Google could be heavily abandoned someday.

But, more importantly, who thinks that far into the future -- Google is currently king, so we go with it.

[David Wallace]

Can Google Die?

Absolutely. All it takes is some bad decisions and a company that looks like it was immortal suddenly becomes very mortal. Can anyone say "Enron?"

As for brand loyalty I only have a few. Jeep for SUV's, Dell for computers, and Right Guard for deodorant. Everything else is up for grabs with me. :)

[polarmate]

Google can die. IR / AI research may bring newer technologies to the fore...so it is entirely possible. The searcher is fickle and will switch to another search engine that provides better results.

But the question in my mind is Will Google die? They maintain their strong links to the research community and the proponents of their innovations have always been drawn from that pool of intelligentsia, where $$ is not always the primary driving force.

[Heather Lloyd-Martin]

Sure, it's possible that Google could die. Any business could. Or get bought out.

One thing that Google has accomplished from a branding perspective is "Google" (or "Googling") is used to describe searching the Web. That is, we "Google" people or companies to learn more about them - and this term has been popularized in print, movies and television. So, even if there are other competitors out there, we don't use Yahoo! as a synonym for searching. That's darn nice branding for Google. :)

Pretty powerful stuff - but I don't think it will guarantee market dominance forever. Search is just like any other industry - new players come and go. Some businesses because mainstays - some burn bright and then flash out after a 5 year run. Will Google die tomorrow - doubt it. However, it will be interesting to see how the corporation matures and rolls with the ever changing times. That will be the main factor in their continued success.

[pleeker]

There's nothing amazing about the fact that 40% of the people surveyed wouldn't switch if told there was a better search engine.

We're not a people that always gravitate to the BEST thing in the marketplace. The generic tissue example is a good analogy. We know there are "better" TV shows on, but we still watch what we like. People (generally speaking) are comfortable with Google, and they trust Google. When you tell them a better search engine has come along, the question has to be "Better how?" If it's not as comfortable for them, not as trustworthy, why switch? For many people, good enough is all that matters ... like the 40% in this survey.

[Webmaster T]

Better is subjective so I don't put a lot of faith in the numbers. Googles brand like most internet brands is fleeting at best. Googles brand goes down the tubes the minute its results aren't generally trusted or perceived as best. I buy a lot of generic food products because in a lot of cases it is "the brand" in a different package. The only difference is I'm not buying/paying for the promotion of "the brand" or getting fancy packaging which only ends up in the rubbish anyway.

If the perception of Google's results changes I doubt people will continue to use Google because they can say "google it". The brand is the "technology" if it is found to be lacking then the brand perception and value is also impacted negatively.

I think it's also safe to say if trust in the results is lost then the brand is also negatively impacted. The recent research papers on how users use and perceive SE results indicates that the trust in MSN and consequently the brand is possibly being impacted negatively by the way they format and use sponsored listings and part of users trust in Google is based on the way sponsored listings are segregated. Google, IMO, is smart to segregate paid results even though it appears to negatively impact CTR.

[St0n3y]

Google *will* die, but may also live on.

What do I mean? I open my refrigerator every day, but I have never purchased a Refrigerator brand Ice Box. Yes, Refrigerator was a brand name. So, Google will die or at least lose its sigularly prominant role in search, but it may also live a long live when we hear phrases like, "I googled you on MSN".

[NetinsertGuy]

Here's another yes it can die vote. Searching the Internet is like playing golf, every shot is a new shot testing your abilities to hit the ball. That round little white ball lying in front of you does not know about your hard earned handicap and it will totally ignore you prior achievements as a golf player. It will plain and simple follow the laws of physics and if you hit the ball badly you will lose the game.

The same goes for a search engine. Every search is a new search testing the abilities of the search engine to show relevant results. The day when the competition shows better results, or more results, the searchers will move on. The only way to stay on top of the search industry is to work hard and play on par or better every day.

[seobook]

There's nothing amazing about the fact that 40% of the people surveyed wouldn't switch if told there was a better search engine.

We're not a people that always gravitate to the BEST thing in the marketplace. The generic tissue example is a good analogy. We know there are "better" TV shows on, but we still watch what we like. People (generally speaking) are comfortable with Google, and they trust Google. When you tell them a better search engine has come along, the question has to be "Better how?" If it's not as comfortable for them, not as trustworthy, why switch? For many people, good enough is all that matters ... like the 40% in this survey.

We tend to believe we are using the best things. We may not be, but we think it is the best reality tv show, the funniest tv show, we tend to think inside a set channel and accept absolutes in our mind that are not true in the world.

Google does not have much better relevancy than most other major engines (and I often use Teoma to find stuff) but as Heather stated Google is synonymous with searching...

if people were convinced that there was a better engine and still not switch then that is pretty darn powerful. I kinda took the original quote as "belived in a better engine" vice "was told something was better." it is all semantics :)

[pleeker]

Every search is a new search testing the abilities of the search engine to show relevant results. The day when the competition shows better results, or more results, the searchers will move on.

Not picking on you NetinsertGuy, but just a general question directed to all the "As soon as something better comes along" proponents: If you believe that everyone will automatically gravitate to the BEST thing, how do you explain the continued success of AOL ... MSN ... Windows as an OS ... etc.? There are better alternatives to each of those, yet millions of people don't switch. (Heck, a lot of AOL users I know hate the service -- and refuse to switch to something better! Go figure.)

I'll stay with my previous comment: being good enough is often more important than being the best. Google will likely continue to be good enough for the majority of its users even if it should stumble from its current perch at the top of the SE popularity rankings. (SEPRs) :)

[St0n3y]

Bottom line is people tend to stick with what they know until they are forced, or curious enough to make a move. Good PR makes people curious enough to change, continuous bad results force peole to move on.

[polarmate]

Switching your preferred search engine is much easier than switching your preferred email client, ISP, OS etc etc. All it takes is getting used to going to a new web site and searching there. The other type of switches take more effort and also cost $$ by their very nature.

[bwelford]

The other aspect is that it's very difficult for the average searcher to be able to say that one search engine delivers poorer results, i.e. less relevant results, than another search engine. Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. It's not scientific. So provided the results are not obviously "wrong", what's to complain about.

... and you do have that theory of "cognitive dissonance". People like to have made the right purchase decision. So other things being equal their minds will try to maintain the vision that they made just the very best choice.

[rustybrick]

... and you do have that theory of "cognitive dissonance". People like to have made the right purchase decision. So other things being equal their minds will try to maintain the vision that they made just the very best choice.

I can relate to that. :(

[NetinsertGuy]

Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. It's not scientific.

Right, and as long as we can not quantify "relevance" as a metric it is not straightforward to define the "best" search engine. There is simply no benchmark defined which can objectively evaluate the performance of search engines. At least not for the SERPs and the ordering of SERPs. A search engine benchmark could possibly count the number of hits for a given keyword and the average response time but those factors are not enough to fully describe what the searcher perceives as "performance".

[BrianR]

"But 60% of Google users said they would switch search engines if a better service were introduced." Currently, of that study, 48% use Google as their main engine, so for 60% of those people to say they would drop Google if something better came along is huge.
I think it's fair to say that for some (perhaps even many??) search queries, Yahoo now produces more relevant results than Google. Far too many Google SERPS force you to wade through a page or two of directory listings before arriving at 'real' listings.

So, has this better search experience at Yahoo persuaded some of the 60% of Google users to abandon Google in favour of Yahoo??

Answers on a postcard to...

BrianR

[TrustNo1]

Google got to where it's at today because of relevant results, basically a search box and relevant, fast loading results. And they hung their hat on that for awhile now and its been working up to this point. But when you hang your hat on that and it starts to take some hits and other engines start producing better results in some people's opinions, it might be time to change. I think this time next year they will be a full fledged portal, they have everything they need to do it, might be time to add a litte more stickiness.

[Daria_Goetsch]

Certainly for the commercial website users a search engine that provides relevant results and free or low cost methods for inclusion in their database may build a loyal following. Enough small businesses get hit by algorithm changes, high cost PPC and paid inclusion, and those users may turn to a new search engine. Google's focus on the user experience will help keep it in the forefront when MSN and Yahoo turn up the heat.

[St0n3y]

Switching your preferred search engine is much easier than switching your preferred email client, ISP, OS etc etc. All it takes is getting used to going to a new web site and searching there. The other type of switches take more effort and also cost $$ by their very nature.

Sure is, but that doesn't mean people are any more willing to do it. Bottom line, change requires thought. Somethign most people do not want to do. Evidence of this is the number of people who search from whatever their browser home page it. It takes thought to go somewhere else and nobody has time for that! :cool:

[polarmate]

Evidence of this is the number of people who search from whatever their browser home page it.
...or they search using whatever their ISP's proprietary software proffers them. Agreed that it is more difficult to get users who fall into this class to switch. The browser homepage, however, is easier to change and, from what I have seen, it usually gets switched by someone who is computer savvy in the immediate surroundings.

[andrewgoodman]

Of course, if someone asked me "would you" use another razor than Gillette "if" there was a better one easily available for a similar price, etc., with all stores carrying the blades, etc., would get an unabashed YES from me.

I *would* switch. But do I?

That's why I'm sort of fanatical about the user search numbers, any we can get our hands on. "Share of searches per month" is a vitally important stat. The folks keeping the statistics have an important responsibility, almost a duty, to question their methodologies and present them as fairly as possible.

And on a micro level, marketers will always look at what happened in their server logs and sales records last month as the most important reality, while keeping one eye on any trends that might change that.

[webwizard411]

Google can (and might) die. If MSN & Yahoo develop something better, then most will go to them. However, if there are many people used to Google search, then they will stick to it, even if it doesn't give them the best results. (a part of that brand loyalty thing) If G gets bought out by some honkin' huge conglomerate, then they're in trouble. Bad things happens to good businesses that get bought out by big conglomerates.

webwizard411

[St0n3y]

I think the trick to getting people to switch is to be part of the hype (not to be confused with good PR (not PageRank, the other kind of PR!)). Google created its own hype and people now want to "Google" something 'cause that's what everybody else is doing. If MSN or Yahoo can create that kind of grassroots hype then they can replace Google. I have to say, MSN's "Its Better With the Butterfly" campaign doesn't do it for me.

[andrewgoodman]

I have to say if that MSN Butterfly was looking over my shoulder while I was enjoying my morning bowl of cornflakes I'd get out the flyswatter! What a creepy character!

[St0n3y]

You'll need an awefully big fly swatter!

[Golgotha]

I think Google's salad days are over - Google may retain somewhere in the top of the most frequently used search engines, but the overwhelming lopsided share it once held is gone. I don't think any one search engine will remain on top for those spands of time that Google once did. This is probably good.

it's become too easy for a newborn search engine to have 'Google-esk' results right from the start.

[steve sardell]

Of Course it is possible for any company to die, business history is riddled with the failed once *golden boy* comapnies like Enron and Misquot Spring. Yet there are the long success stories, and in my opinion G has the opening to join the elite. Currently, G is easily recognized as the number 1 search engine, and it is not likely to shoot itself in the foot anytime soon. At the moment its position appears quite stable. G has not only demonstrated phenomenal growth, but also superior profit margins. Currently it has both a good cash flow and strong balance sheet, and it is about to deposit 2.7+ b. more into the coffers. It employs and highly compensates some of the best technical and marketing minds involved in today's internet industry. It owns some excellent intellectual proprietary rights, and after springing to the top has stayed on the innovative edge. So, in my thinking I see Google getting stronger long before any demise.

Regarding folks switching SEs: IMHO it is going to take some strong marketing to break people away from G. As long as the search is relevant folks are happy. General searchers do not scrutinize the results like those frequenting SE related fora.What we may feel is garbage could very well be the searcher's treasure. Compound that fact with the idea of comfort level (the why folks, though hating Almost On Line, refuse to switch) and it will be a tough marketing job to overtake G.

The only questionble spots in G's immediate path are the future status of the employed instant millionaires, and the capabilities of its management to control a young free reigned fast growing company.

[bwelford]

It isn't just that Google has been consistently good. It's more that the opposition cannot get their acts together.

I read yesterday that the city of Bergen in Norway is moving all systems over to Linux and away from Microsoft. I also read yesterday that the Patent Office is now re-examining the Microsoft FAT patent and may overturn it. Currently there seem to be known security issues with Internet Explorer that have not yet been fixed. Of course, Microsoft has behaved in ways over the years that do not cement friendships. So there is a large black cloud of negativity surrounding Microsoft. Currently their spiders are massively assaulting websites yet their search engine is off somewhere in the future. So I don't think I will instantly switch when it is launched.

The other disappointment is Yahoo! They had a magnificent opportunity when Google created such negative publicity with the Florida update. They already had assembled their stable of search engine favourites, AllTheWeb, Altavista, Overture, etc. They were to launch their new search engine as their deal with Google ended. ... and they have, but with so much confusion about their URL registration packages that the rocket never really got off the launch pad.

I don't see M$ or Y! changing so I think the big G is in pretty good shape. :)

[Bnizzz]

Compairing the Google brand to any other brand where an actual purchase decision is needed does not ring true for me.

Google is free. They built a better mouse trap and got a critical mass of audience when one person would try the site, get great results, then tell their friends about it. That same thing can happen again easily. Google is the hot ticket and on everyones mind but unless they keep up the brand through relevant results and some post IPO advertising, they will loose marketshare to M$ and Y!

It is way to easy to switch to a new favorite website online. When there is no $$ involved on the part of the consumer the brand loyality is not that strong.

[pleeker]

It is way to easy to switch to a new favorite website online. When there is no $$ involved on the part of the consumer the brand loyality is not that strong.

If 40% of Google's users would stay with Google despite knowing there's a better option out there, I would argue the brand loyalty is that strong ... at least in this case.

[steve sardell]

Google is free. They built a better mouse trap and got a critical mass of audience when one person would try the site, get great results, then tell their friends about it. That same thing can happen again easily.
Hi Bnizzz
While I agree G needs to remain proactive with their post IPO marketing, and not become static, I disagree with the above, especially the word easily. There are few companies whose name has become synonomous with their product. Scotch tape, kleenex, coke are a few, but fewer still have their name become a verb. G is in the *cat bird seat*. As long as they pay attention to business, and do not make any internal blunders, it will be difficult for any to knock them from that perch.

[nilyab]

The other aspect is that it's very difficult for the average searcher to be able to say that one search engine delivers poorer results, i.e. less relevant results, than another search engine. Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. It's not scientific. So provided the results are not obviously "wrong", what's to complain about.

... and you do have that theory of "cognitive dissonance". People like to have made the right purchase decision. So other things being equal their minds will try to maintain the vision that they made just the very best choice.

I think you need to look at:

- vertical search -- e.g., see http://www.satirewire.com/news/0006/satire-vearch.shtml;

- deep web search, which access that other 90% of the data on the Internet;

- meta search using flexible search engine categories -- as with Copernic in particular.


These ideas largely overlap. They are discussed in Chapter 1 of my book, overviewed at www.searchhelpcenter.com, and exemplified in great detail along with the details of Copernic, and in the book's 150-page Search Tool Guide.

Such search facilities will either provide competition to search engines like Google and Yahoo, or become increasingly incorporated into them in various ways. Right now, Google, Yahoo, AltaVista, and others have:

- intelligent features that access structured databases -- often called "shortcuts," such as those for lookup of postal codes, phone numbers, vehicle numbers, airline flight data, stock codes;

- specialized search entry interfaces -- e.g., for shopping, travel, local search.

At present, Google, in my opinion, has the most comprehensive system of shortcuts and specialized search interfaces, but Yahoo (along with AltaVista, which it now owns through Overture) is not that far behind.

Ed

[nilyab]

Correction. The URL for vsearch in the above was automatically truncated where you see the dots, and does not seem to work. Anyways, whatever the cause, if you want the link to work, type "/satire-vearch.shtml" as the last part of the URL, and remove the dots.

Ed