

The human hands behind Google's money machine - alexwg
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/technology/02google.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1212393866-aH/XdgS32CzIlhJe6+Ax6Q

======
josefresco
"Google still earns 60 percent to 70 percent more on average than Yahoo on
every search"

That's bad for advertisers, and good for Google. Yahoo! remains a better
advertising vehicle for my clients, with 20-30% less CAC.

~~~
byrneseyeview
I think it might be good for both, if Google targets better. It may depend on
the industry -- what kind of products do your clients advertise?

~~~
josefresco
How is it good for my client to spend 30% more to acquire a customer? Google
champions the fact that their ads produce more $ for them (than comparable
products from Y!/MS), which is good only for them and their shareholders. I
don't see how the product matters in this regard. It's all about ROI and
unless these Goog customers are more apt to buy again and again it's not worth
it.

~~~
byrneseyeview
That's why I wanted more details. It's implausible to me that so many people
would choose Google over Yahoo if Google delivered worse results for more
money. I'd also be confounded at Google's ability to do so while hiring so
many smart people. Perhaps Google delivers more purchases per click, or more
repeat customers (they are worth something, aren't they?). Perhaps Yahoo is
particularly good at certain kinds of clients (that's why I asked).

~~~
josefresco
I could see people choosing the Goog for the sheer numbers. There's simply
more inventory (impressions). But with clients who have a budget and therefore
aren't maxing the inventory, this advantage is lessened.

~~~
byrneseyeview
How did they choose Google when Yahoo was bigger?

