Google rises at Yahoo's expense

The contrast between the financial results announced last week for the two top search engine companies couldn't have been more stark.

Yahoo's first-quarter revenue was $1.67 billion, less than half Google's $3.66 billion. Google, once again, blew away Wall Street expectations, while financial analysts openly wondered how long Yahoo CEO Terry Semel would stay in the Internet company's corner office.

Contrast those divergent fortunes with two years ago: The companies were pulling in about the same amount of revenue; they looked primed to battle for Internet domination; and the jury was still out on whether Google's largely unproven management had the chops to take on a seasoned pro like Semel, a longtime entertainment executive whose hand prints are on Hollywood's Walk of Fame.

Now few would argue the answer to that management question was, in fact, a resounding "yes."

"Google has a racecar. Yahoo has a Honda," said Stephen Arnold, author of The Google Legacy. "It goes back to the (search) algorithm, the engineering team and this constant improvement the Google people do. And I don't see any way to close the gap quickly."

So what happened? While a wide range of factors from personnel decisions to luck played a role, most pundits think it came down to this: A smart bet on advertising and technology inside the Googleplex and a bad bet on an online media empire, built from scratch, that would be run out of a Yahoo office in Santa Monica, Calif., about 400 miles away from the company's Silicon Valley headquarters but close to the entertainment industry.

"Yahoo did not execute in a couple of key areas for a number of years," said John Battelle, author of The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture and publisher of Searchblog. "They didn't revise, update, and leverage Overture (search advertising technology)," and they failed to improve the search experience and quality for consumers and advertisers, he said.

"They would acknowledge it was a mistake," Battelle added, "and it's proving to be a costly one."

Google, on the other hand, recognized the potential for pay-per-click ads early and has steadily improved its search and advertising technology. And search, of course, is a big deal. Americans conducted 6.9 billion searches online in February and nearly half of those were on Google, according to researchers at ComScore. Google has 48.3 percent search market share in the U.S. compared with Yahoo's 27.5 percent, ComScore said. Nielsen/NetRatings has the gap even wider, with Google at 55.8 percent share and Yahoo at 20.7 percent.

"At the end of the day, what drives value is search and AdSense distribution."

--John Battelle, author and blogger

Google's share is rising at the expense of Yahoo and Microsoft. While Google's share rose 6.1 percentage points last year, Yahoo's fell 0.6 percentage points and Microsoft's dropped 1.1 percentage point, ComScore numbers show.

Not only was Yahoo slow to recognize the importance of search to Web surfers--something that now seems obvious to many--but its ability to turn searches into dollars has badly trailed Google's. It wasn't until Yahoo's new Panama search ad system was launched this February that ads were ordered on the results page based on things like relevancy and not just the advertiser's bid price.

Google's lead in technology pushed it to No. 1 in search market share and attracted the largest number of AdWords advertisers. Meanwhile, its AdSense system--which allows publishers to make money from ads on their Web sites that are contextually related to content--created another revenue stream for Google.

"At the end of the day, what drives value is search and AdSense distribution," Battelle said. "Google has undisputed network effects--huge distribution, leverage and tons of data they can feed back into the system...That is a formidable position to (have) in the market."

How we came to this
Yahoo, founded in 1995, had a three-year head start on Google when it was launched as a human-created directory. Google has always relied on software spiders to crawl the Web and create its index. Hard as it is to believe now, Yahoo invested in Google early on and used its engine to power Yahoo search results until early 2004 when it began using its own search technology.

Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin were unsure what business model they would use when they started their business. After snubbing merger talks in 2001 with Overture, the first search provider to use ads, Google launched its own pay-per-click model in early 2002. Overture sued for patent infringement and the case was later settled. Yahoo acquired Overture in 2003.

Except for one quarter in 2003, Google's revenue lagged Yahoo's. That changed after the first quarter of 2005, when Google posted $1.26 billion in revenue to Yahoo's $1.17 billion. The gap has been growing ever since.

[rexworld]

It's an unfair fight

In many ways this is an unfair fight, for the very reasons you mention in the article--Yahoo thinks of itself as a media company, not a technology company. Unfortunately for them, search advertising is more of a technology business than a media business. At least for now, and the forseeable future.<br /><br />Ultimately though there is room for both companies to grow and prosper. Yahoo just needs to double-down on being a great media company with good technology, rather than trying to become a great technology company that can challenge Google's dominance.

[fellowshipofone]

Poor analysis

This article looks like a very poor analysis of the current market, but it is a good description.<br /><br />Assuming nothing will change in the way Internet is used for business, the author is right, but let's try to learn our lessons here!<br /><br />Google's business model is extremely week and only depends on their capacity to offer the illusion of the best search results. If the Internet evolves toward different content or different interfaces (Mobile?), Yahoo! could take advantage of its portal and media approach.<br /><br />Just look at how Yahoo! News and Yahoo! Go succeed. Google does not stand a chance and I am betting on it!

[virtman]

Bad CEO choice

Terry Semel is a smart guy, but he is not the best CEO for a technology company. Yahoo founder shouldn't have hired him at the first place. They needed some one who understands the technology pretty well, not a media guru. It was quite natural that Semel tried to build a media empire out of Yahoo. I am sure Semel is a great guy, but is not a guy who understand technology (he hadn't sent an email in his life before joining Yahoo).<br /><br />It's not end of life for Yahoo, they need to move a much faster rate in becoming a true technology company. They are not doing bad as a media company, but if they want to stay as a media company they should forget about winning the race with Google.

[t8]

Go Google

They deserve their success because they innovate.

[mr. cynical]

Whatever.

Give it a few more years and more dominance and people will pick another new toy to "challenge" the system.

[mr. cynical]

Whatever.

Give it a few more years and more dominance and people will pick another new toy to "challenge" the system.

[ismetd]

Inspiring Googleplex Factor?

i was in silicon valley few weeks ago, visited googleplex the Google HQ, i was impressed. the secluded green environment, 1-2 story buildings hidden away within forest of green trees and flowery gardens, then i paused for a moment, i said to myself, 'man! i can work in this place for free'. i was inspired, place makes you feel good. now thinking back, i say 'no wander! so successful google is.' <br /><br />that day i also saw yahoo's failure, scattered multi-story buildings that looked so yesteryears', uninspiring.<br /><br />i suspect people go to work at yahoo 'just to have a work' and people go to work at google to do something.<br /><br />that makes all the difference between success and failure.

[mattofasia]

a new topic -architectural design and the desire to actually work

this is something worth looking into.<br />some research is worth doing.<br /><br />maybe one day we can all have better designed more pleasurable places to create in, rather than boxes for drones to stagnate within.<br /><br />alas, I have yet to see googles complex. I am just a mere cog in one of the boxes out in Asia... but without the base of box to begin from, where would evolution of architecture be?