
Google buys Zagat - rryan
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/google-just-got-zagat-rated.html
======
aresant
I like this move strategically.

Zagat has recently made moves to expand their ratings from food / travel into
new verticals - eg rating doctors.

Have to assume that Google foresees expanding the Zagat ratings quickly to all
things local.

The Zagat "brand" resonates huge as a trusted consumer brand and having that
rating attached to listings (exclusively) makes Google's search results more
meaningful than competitors (the perception anyways).

Smart.

Reference - [http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wellpoint-taps-
zagat...](http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wellpoint-taps-zagat-survey-
to-help-consumers-rate-experiences-with-their-doctors-58776642.html)

~~~
ansy
I am going to dissent on this one.

This buy is something Yahoo or AOL would do. Google didn't buy a technology or
a business model. It bought content, an address book, and a logo. Very un-
Google.

If Google's technology isn't good to compete with Yelp and Groupon, what makes
it think it will be any better after buying up someone else's operation that
can't compete either.

To quote Vic Gundotra, 'Two turkeys do not make an Eagle'

~~~
potatolicious
I have to disagree. Not everything is about technology - Zagat has something
that is highly coveted and difficult to replicate: a good reputation and
critical mass.

Google (or any of us, for that matter) can spend all day building the
greatest, fairest, most accurate restaurant review system known to man - but
it will still be of utterly no use unless there is a critical mass of
restaurants and customers who are willing to trust it and, more importantly,
_use_ it.

Bootstrapping a trusted content source is _really_ hard (hard in the "nobody
knows how to do it reliably" way, not just hard in the "it takes a lot of
work" way). If you want to break into this market, simply _buying_ said
critical mass is much easier (and much less time-consuming). Whatever crazy
technology you have can be layered on top.

~~~
cracell
Maybe it's my age (currently 23) But Zagat has a good reputation and critical
mass?

I know Zagat as that magazine that fast food places brag about getting high
ratings from (KFC ran commercials for a while claiming a #1 rating from them).

~~~
MrUnknown
I am with you, I am 27 and really had no clue what the heck Zagat is. I knew
they reviewed food places, but why they are trusted or why I should care? I am
more interested in my co-workers opinion.

I don't see this as a great purchase for Google either. They already put
business reviews from other websites on their listing pages. I have seen Zagat
ratings on various pages. Why couldn't they just pull it in also instead of
buying the company?

~~~
salemh
28..always been aware of Zagat. Who knows, travels, what you read, etc. Zagat
rated over the last few years has definitely seemed to not be as indicative,
as before, of the highest quality of restaurant.

------
flyt
The most troubling aspect of Google these days is the shift from passively
indexing the work of others (Google crawler) to deliver relevant ads and
search results, to owning the data itself and granting access (G+, Zagat,
ITA).

~~~
rryan
Doesn't strike me as an apples-apples comparison. Some data is not free. The
web is decentralized and anyone can request a URL and maybe get a response.
Not all data sources are like this. ITA doesn't own the airline data -- it
receives feeds of it from the airlines. That data costs a lot of money. I
would also imagine that Zagat reviews cost money to create and aggregate.

Let's think about it. Instead of buying Zagat, Google could propose a
distributed protocol (or microformat/schema for HTML) to publish a review and
then they could just wait for it to catch on and then crawl that. But that is
not going to help users _today_. Plus they've already scraped reviews from
other sites and that just caused those sites (Yelp) to become very upset that
their reviews are being shown on Google place pages (despite the fact they
could always robot-out Places specifically).

Encouraging high-quality content on the web is not out of vogue at Google --
this would be silly because the #1 reason people still use Google is to find
content on the web. However, it's not surprising to me that given the option
to improve Google local quality _today_ they would make an acquisition like
this. If you were in Marrisa Mayer's position, what decision would you make?

~~~
modeless
The problem is Google is now too big and too much of a lawsuit target to get
away with aggregating other people's data any more. Web Search is the ultimate
aggregation of other people's content, and it's a good thing it's already
invented because it would never get off the ground today. Crawling other
people's content? Lawsuit. Linking? Lawsuit. Cache? Lawsuit. Allowing searches
on trademarked terms? Lawsuit. Snippets in the result page? So many lawsuits!
Using user click/query data for Suggest and/or ranking? Outcry in the EU. FTC
launches investigations; DOJ sues. Congress steps in; Google forced to back
down.

------
zach
Good to see. Zagat's had problems finding a great business model in the
digital world. They've gone through ads, memberships and endless partnerships.
Zagat is still the prestige name in local reviews though. This is a great
resource for Google's efforts in the local business market.

I love Zagat's core business idea — they were a significant inspiration for
our LA Life neighborhood ratings. In fact, I've been looking at opportunities
to do similar capsule reviews but creating them using existing reviews from
other sites instead of survey data. I have to think this is where they're
moving now as a part of Google, but it's not like I'm a Google VP.

This all seems to make sense. The Thomas Bros. map books were ubiquitous in
California when I was growing up but have basically been replaced with Google
Maps. Now the old burgundy Zagat guidebook is going this way. Glad to see Tim
and Nina and their team will have a guiding hand in its replacement.

------
gallerytungsten
Google could out-Yelp Yelp with this move. Zagat is certainly a more trusted
brand than Yelp; and has none of Yelp's unsavory reputation. (All those "don't
buy an ad and get bad reviews" stories.)

------
dmbass
Keep digging that moat, Google. As has been the case throughout history, the
guy with the biggest moat wins, right? Oh wait, nope, that's not it. It's the
guy who figures out how to bypass the moat who wins.

Google, please go back to innovating. People like you because you do new and
exciting things, not because you have your hand in every business sector.
Giant acquisitions like this and MoMo help nobody.

Edit: I'm not trying to say Google shouldn't protect their business, but I, at
least, would prefer them to do it through innovation rather than buying giant
companies.

~~~
thematt
Nonsense. This will help Google users find _more_ information _faster_...in an
easier and more searchable way. This is _exactly_ what Google is about.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _This is exactly what Google is about._ //

I thought Google was about finding more people and opportunities to advertise
to.

~~~
lachenmayer
...which is exactly what they're doing, right? By having let's say a Yelp
competitor, they have an entire market that can be described as "anyone who
eats" out at their fingertips...

------
spicyj
I hope Google can maintain the quality of the Zagat ratings while
simultaneously making them freely available – presumably this will be used to
compete with Yelp, and I'm hopeful that it'll be useful.

~~~
nlh
Agreed. The best part of Zagat reviews (at least the core reviews in their
guides) and what makes users like me rely on them is that they're curated --
the editors collect survey results from a wide variety of (relatively) trusted
diners and summarize them.

The problem with "mass" review sites like Google Places or Yelp is that
they're reactive -- they don't solicit reviews (and in fact discourage that in
some cases). So people generally review only when motivated to do so (either
positively or negatively), giving a relatively unbalanced result.

Hope Google can keep the Zagat spirit alive and well...!

------
alphadog
So was it a good idea for Yelp to walk away from Google's 700 million dollar
offer?

~~~
Lewisham
Only Yelp can say, but I think that Google's acquisition strategy seems to
pretty clear: "If we can't buy you, we are going to buy one of your
competitors." The questions you'll need to ask yourself when Google comes
knocking are:

1\. How much do I respect my competitors? 2\. If Google does get them, will
they do better or worse?

It's not a matter of hoping Google will go away. Once they've signaled intent
to be a part of your business, you can be sure they will, one way or another.

------
joebadmo
I don't really understand why they dropped Google Hotpot. I mean, it's still
there, but there doesn't seem to be much movement or promotion there.

Zagat employs people to actively review restaurants. That's fine for people
who have the same taste as Zagat, but it's only one filter and arguably not
very scalable.

Hotpot otoh is more like Pandora for restaurants. I rate restaurants and it
gives me recommendations for stuff that aligns to my taste as calculated from
others who share my taste. It provides a much better filter and actually gets
better as more people use it, which is the best kind of scalable. This also
seems like a more innovative and Googly way to do this.

~~~
jonknee
> Zagat employs people to actively review restaurants. That's fine for people
> who have the same taste as Zagat, but it's only one filter and arguably not
> very scalable.

It's not like there's one person per city, Zagat uses input from tons of
people. It's also consistent, you don't have to wonder if the glowing review
was written by the owner like you do on Yelp. Zagat gets people to pay for
access to their reviews, that in itself should tell you something. Even
better, Google will surely make them free, likely with some innovative tie-ins
with Maps and Places.

------
dave1619
It's always been confusing to me why Google couldn't come up with a better
ratings and review system for local businesses. Google Maps is great on the
web and mobile, and they've got millions of users. But still Yelp beats them
with reviews, and Yelp isn't that great anyway. But Google buying Zagat means
that they're getting more serious about the space.

~~~
zach
Yelp's unique value and innovation has been in finding ways to psychologically
reward users for submitting reviews.

They work hard to make the user feel like they kick ass at reviewing places.
More recently, they also work hard at crooked schemes to blackmail hard-
working business owners if you believe those reports, which I certainly don't.
But they started with finding every way to make their review writers feel
valued.

These days, people who seek to engage users like Yelp has done for years do it
in the name of "gamification". It should be done just to give people proper
feedback for having written a 500-word review for no money.

~~~
iamjoshua
I absolutely believe the reports of yelps blackmailing actions. I've
personally met 2 business owners that have been contacted by yelp. Both
accounts were very similar. They threaten to remove the businesses current
exposure level if some arbitrary fee isn't paid monthly and they offer to
remove any negative reviews for an additional fee.

------
andrewcross
I like this move for Google, but I'm concerned it will just become a me-too
move.

When I want to find something to eat close-by, Yelp is perfect. Yes, Zagat
integration takes away the need to switch from Yelp to Google Maps to get
directions, but that's not a big pain point for me.

It's definitely something cool to add, but I'm not sure it will be as
effective as they think it will.

------
markbnine
Bad news for some restaurants? If you are not Zagat material, Google has a new
reason to lower your place in search results.

~~~
jrockway
Couldn't they have easily done this before? Couldn't they lower sites for not
using all of Google's colors in their color scheme? Couldn't they do pretty
much anything with their search results that they want to? Why does buying a
company make this more or less relevant?

------
erehweb
Applying Zagat's methodology, HNers generally "like this move strategically",
and think it's "good from the PR perspective" to buy "the prestige name in
local reviews". Some think it's a "me-too" "un-Google" buy of a company with a
"not very scalable" model. HN Rating: 23/30

------
pheaduch
Looks like they are pushing into Yelp territory.

------
arnoldwh
My question is why is Opentable stock down so much on this news? How serious
is Google about getting into reservations? If this is anything like what they
did in NFC payments space with MasterCard, they'll likely just try and ride
Opentable's rails instead of trying to build out their own. Maybe do some sort
of data share agreement to better their idea of how successfully they are able
to close the search/discovery to successful reservation loop.

I just cant imagine Google wanting to go out to each of these restaurants
themselves...a very difficult proposition, even with Zagat's team.

------
rdelk
I think it's a good move. (And congrats to the Zagats for executing the sale
they couldn't make happen a few years ago)

However, I think it'll bring up an interesting point that we'll begin to see
more and more of as Google continues to acquire companies - will they leverage
SEO to make their own constituencies appear higher in search results than
their competitors (i.e. Zagat higher than Open Table, Yelp, etc.)? Where does
that fall in the ethics/morals side of things?

Interesting that if you own the means to information, you can choose what
information people find (and thus, the decisions they make).

------
joshu
Kaygetsu is closing :(

------
arjn
My 2-3 experiences with choosing "Zagat rated" places were not particularly
good. Three years ago I chose a rated restaurant in Philly and took friends
there only to find the place had shut down (the Zagat sticker was still on the
front door). A couple of times in NYC, I found Zagat rated restaurants to be
mediocre. In general, I'm not convinced about these rating organizations,
including Yelp. Maybe Google can improve it.

------
grandalf
When I first heard about Zagat I thought it had potential. However I've eaten
at a lot of lousy restaurants which have had the Zagat logo proudly displayed
in the doorway.

I associate Zagat with mediocre restaurants and a de-emphasis on food quality
in favor of decor, etc. In other words, a Zagat sign on the door is a neutral
or negative signal in most cases.

~~~
ghaff
The problem is that the fact that a place is "Zagat rated" doesn't tell you a
whole lot any more than "reviewed by The New York Times" tells you much. The
Zagat rated logo doesn't tell you what the rating was. In any case, tastes
differ and restaurants change--though overall I find Zagat to be pretty
reliable subject to the limits of a few aggregated numbers and short quotes
from reviewers.

------
EGreg
This makes sense to me. For a company that wants to "organize the world's
information and make it accessible and useful", sometimes it's great to have
the foremost team of experts on restaurants. Who knows what else they'll
branch out to.

Plus the brand is trusted, so it's a good move from the PR perspective alsy.

------
gojomo
I'm expecting Zagat blurbs all over GMaps, and the emergence of black-hat
'ZEO'.

------
warmfuzzykitten
In about 18 months the headline will be Google Kills Zagat.

------
suprasanna
On a slightly unrelated note: I love reading something linked from HN and then
far later receiving a NY Times email alert about the same story. HN FTW.

------
ashrust
I don't think this purchase is the primary 'Yelp-killer'. Yelp's product just
isn't good enough, the iOS app for Google Places vs Yelp is a great example.
Places gives me search and a set of location categories (like restaurants and
gas stations) on its home screen, Yelp offers 'nearby' and a bunch of social
features.

------
pholbrook
FYI, I heard from someone years ago: it's pronounced Zagat like "Da Cat".

------
lean
Zagat still exists? Isn't it a bunch of old reviews written by a handful of
writers?

~~~
eric-hu
"Zagat Survey ... in 1979 as a way to collect and correlate the ratings of
restaurants by diners."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagat#Rating_system>

Admittedly I haven't tried as their site runs off a "pay to see the full
content of this review" model.

The Michelin Guide is actually a 'bunch of reviews written by a handful of
writers', which isn't a bad thing in my opinion. Every restaurant I've been to
that's even been Michelin _rated_ has been superb.

~~~
dsr_
It is interesting to note that the Michelin Guide itself orignated as a
complementary marketing tool -- Michelin makes tires, and wanted people to use
their cars more. So they compiled a list of places people might want to go,
and added the reviews to make them even more attractive.

