News Blog

Read all 'morality' posts in News Blog
June 11, 2008 5:06 PM PDT

Schmidt: It's Google's duty to help fix ad business

by Stephen Shankland
  • 12 comments

SAN FRANCISCO--Media companies should see Google not as an enemy but as an ally that's trying to make advertising work on the Internet, Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said Wednesday.

Google has a financial incentive to make sure advertising can support companies that supply high-quality content, Schmidt said during an on-stage interview here with Ken Auletta, The New Yorker's media reporter. But Schmidt said there's another dimension to Google's motivation, too, one not often figuring prominently in business affairs.

"It's a huge moral imperative to help here," Schmidt said of publishers' problems making advertising work on the Internet.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt speaks in San Francisco.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt speaks in San Francisco.

(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET News.com)

Happily for Google's moral compass, the company's effort to make money is pointed the same direction. The company is trying to solve the online ad problem in part with DoubleClick, the display-ad company Google bought earlier this year. Google's cash cow is selling text advertisements that appear next to search results, but with DoubleClick, Google hopes to tackle the graphical ad side of the market.

DoubleClick will let advertisers tackle the market for both search and display ads with a unified interface, Schmidt said. "By combining DoubleClick with that (search-ad) architecture, we can provide a single platform for publishers that over time will begin to generate significant revenue for publishers," Schmidt said.

Display ads are a business in flux on the Internet, though. A new study showed that growth slowed for display ads on the Web, hurt by a weakening economy. Revenue increased 8.5 percent annually to $2.9 billion in the first quarter of 2008; the year earlier, the growth rate was 16.7 percent, according to TNS Media.

Viacom has sued Google over copyrighted material on its YouTube site. But, Schmidt argued, media companies attack Google for helping to usher in the digital content era.

"There is a sea change from one model to another. Many of the criticisms I see seem to be merely about the change, and Google happens to be the messenger," Schmidt said. "Those changes are going to occur independently."

Google itself is a publisher, at least in one sense: it offers countless videos through YouTube service. So Google has more incentive than just its DoubleClick division to improve display advertising.

People are consuming more and more media on the Internet but paying less and less, Schmidt said. "That's bad for Google. We are critically dependent on high-quality content," he said.

A key part of making advertising work is making sure ads are targeted at people who are actually interested, Schmidt said. Searching for a subject on a Web site makes targeting easier, because a search engine can infer people's interests through their search queries, but for display ads, it's not so simple. As advertisers figure out how to target ads better, though, they'll curtail spending on general ads, Schmidt predicted.

"Why does my TV show me ads I couldn't possibly be interested in?" he asked, saying it's a waste of advertisers' money.

Schmidt insisted that profitability is only a useful tool that's subordinate to Google's true agenda.

Morality in the driver's seat
Schmidt touched on the company's principled agenda several times during the talk.

Ken Auletta of The New Yorker speaks with Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

Ken Auletta of The New Yorker speaks with Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET News.com)

For example, he said, "The goal of the company isn't to monetize everything. The goal is to change the world." Could you pin that down a little? Sure: "For the better," he said.

In addition, he said Google's "don't be evil" motto is real, though often misunderstood.

"We don't have an evil meter we can apply," he said, but it is a real part of company discussions.

"I thought when I joined the company this was crap--companies don't have these things. I thought it was a joke. It must be a Larry and Sergey thing," Schmidt said, referring to Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. "So I was sitting in a room six months in, and an engineer said, 'That's evil.' It's like a bomb goes off in the room. Everybody has a moral and ethical discussion that, by the way, stopped the product."

In addition to trying to better the world, Google has other motivations that don't necessarily rate highly on Wall Street's priority list.

Criticism from Wall Street is "not the signal we respond to," Schmidt said. "We respond to end-user satisfaction."

But Google can afford to pay less attention to the quarterly earnings imperatives that often drive publicly traded companies, Schmidt added.

"We have enough leverage that we have the luxury of time," Schmidt said. "Most businesses can't invest for scale. They have to make money now. That short-term focus does make people sometimes make the wrong trade-off."

At the same time, money still obviously matters: The company decided to move YouTube into a money-making phase. "In January or February we had a big meeting," Schmidt said, at which he delivered the "Come on, guys" message, Schmidt said in remarks to reporters after the talk. YouTube has been a "huge success," but monetization is now the priority

He didn't elaborate on specific YouTube revenue plans, though. "We have a revenue plan, a usage plan, a scale plan, a bandwidth plan," he said, but wouldn't discuss any of the points besides saying YouTube "is now the majority of outbound bandwidth. We had to retool the network."

August 23, 2007 6:05 AM PDT

A moral dilemma

by Steve Tobak
  • 1 comment

My recent post on dysfunctional workplaces sparked a moral dilemma, of sorts. It goes like this:

You have a choice. On the one hand, you can spend your career playing it safe, hanging back, being a yes man (or woman), and making sure your ass is always covered. We'll call that the "safe path." Or you can take risks, be passionate about what you believe in, speak up, stand up for what's right, and possibly commit political suicide in the process. We'll call that the "risky path."

Which path do you choose?

I, for one, chose the risky path, and it worked pretty well for me. Well, that's not entirely accurate. I didn't so much choose it as it chose me. That path always felt like it was part of me, in my blood. I could no more play it safe than I could change the color of my eyes from brown to green.

Let's assume that, unlike me, you have a choice. As much as I would like to influence that choice by telling you mine was the better way, I can't. The truth is that I have no idea.

For all I know some people aren't meant to rattle cages, challenge the status quo, throw caution to the wind. They either can't or don't wish to live their lives on a razor's edge.

... Read more
Originally posted at Train Wreck
Steve Tobak is managing partner of Invisor Consulting LLC. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About News Blog

Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader



advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right