Is Google leaving billions of dollars on the table?

During a CNBC interview Wednesday with Mad Money's amped-up Jim Cramer, Google CEO Eric Schmidt was asked about placing ads on the home page of the leading search engine. He said Google wouldn't allow ads on the home page, even though it could bring in "some number of billions of dollars."

Let's say that some number of billions is $2 billion annually, which would be close to a 10 percent bump in revenue for violating the home page with ads.

"People wouldn't like it. We prioritize the end user over the advertiser," Schmidt responded. The simple, unadorned home page has been a hallmark of the search service since its humble beginnings a decade ago.

But would the "end users" really abandon Google if the home page had advertising? How about contextual, targeted advertising for users who opt-in to such a program, similar to Amazon's recommendations, or themed ads such as for the current Olympics. Check out the examples I created below. Are ads on the home page offensive or against the Google credo of "Do no evil"? Shareholders probably wouldn't mind a few more billion in highly profitable revenue.

[Michichael]

Google is 100% right. Don't turn it into another yahoo with the screen cluttered with useless crap.

[satayboy]

Short-sighted shareholders might like it. Everyone else would agree it's a bad idea, I think.

[ideahunter]

I would do anything to drop google as my search engine if they began advertising on their home page.

[tad1214]

I would absolutely positively stop using google if they put adds on their homepage. Even the concept photos look terrible.

[arturotena]

Google take care of his homepage like a baby. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-comes-next-in-this-series-13-33-53.html

[turoa76]

Clean is good. Otherwise it'll turn into one of those messy sites where you can't actually see what the point of it is (i.e. like portals such as Yahoo).

[xhable]

I don't think google are stupid enough to remove the reason people went to google in the first place. All it will do is drive people to use alternatives such as tigoo.com

[rangers641]

Google will quickly lose market share if they make any drastic changes like that. It might raise 2 billion for the first year, but users will quickly find a new search engine if Google "changes its face". This would cost billions in revenue over the next decade.

[rangers641]

Google will quickly lose market share if they make any drastic changes like that. It might raise 2 billion for the first year, but users will quickly find a new search engine if Google "changes its face". This would cost billions in revenue over the next decade.

[limefan913]

Those concepts look like ****. At best. Why in the hell would Google risk pissing off users for a little extra cash? It's a terrible idea. Google is a popular search engine because you're not weighed down by a bunch of crap just to do a search.

Also, Google's ads are done by context. If you search for "shopping" you get sponsored ads by the likes of Amazon and eBay. What context is there for the Google homepage? None. Google provides RELEVANT ads based on CONTEXT. There is no context and nothing to be relevant to on the Google homepage. You could risk offending people by displaying ads about South Park to a Baptist searching for a place to buy a bible, because you don't know what it is the user is looking for.

Summary: Dan Farber doesn't understand Google.

Oh, an added note. Google doesn't collect user data for ads. Ever. In case you missed the memo, you'd need to use it to put ads on a page with no content.

[dnyhan]

The author has completely missed the point.
The reason end users/customers originally used Google and the reason that MSN lost so much of the market, was because even on a dial up connection, Google was fast and efficient, and even on a broadband connection, MSN and Yahoo feel cluttered and sluggish.
People only realized the strength of Google's "search capability" later, when questions were raised about Google's dominance.

Futhermore, in the short term, Google & stakeholders would gain $2 billion.
In the long term, they would lose significantly more than $2 billion.

[ginswizzle]

I never visit the Google home page - always use the search field built into the browser, usually Safari or Flock. So I wouldn't help them generate a single cent if they went down this path.

[dfarber]

It looks like Google will have at least one page uncluttered with advertising based on the comments here....

[arturotena]

You can create a Google widget with advertisments in case you wish. ;-D

[Pete Bardo]

Agreed: Dan you an idiot on this. But I gather you are a Fantasy Football fan! If your draft strategy is as good as your analysis in this point, I want to join your league!

I'm with ginswizzle in that I haven't seen google.com in over a year. My Firefox search box saves that step and ABP would remove any clutter they try to put on there anyway. Ads in my search results I understand, but an ad when I haven't told them what I'm looking for yet would be annoying noise even with an "opt-in" program.

[zelrik]

I would directly switch to another search engine if they do that. I already watching the progress of cuil... putting ads on the the google homepage would decrease it's market share by quite a lot.

With $13 Billion in the bank and nothing really to do with it, making money is Google's top problem.

[siberianmetal]

You have got to be kidding. Suppose only 15 percent of Google users bolted. At least as many would be distracted and forget some of their search terms. Then, when their search results didn't show quite what they wanted, Google would be showing them less targeted, less relevant ads and would get fewer clicks.

Google would lose a fortune. When your revenue depends on targeted advertising, you can't use the old-fashioned strategy of distracting the user at every possible opportunity.

[bluemountain]

Even if they put ads in the start page, if you use Google Toolbar (I only see the start page when they redesign the logo), you won't go to the start page, so this will become moot and useless.