
Google Debuts Fashion Shopping Site (Boutiques.com) - frampton
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/fashion/18googlefashion.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all
======
RBr
Web and mobile apps seem to consume most of our days lately. It's nice to be
reminded that there is still a lot of money in straight, simple ecommerce.

I like the way that Google is aggregating content into one shop. I've often
wondered why the marketing geniuses at retail stores like Gap haven't
recruited celebrities (or their stylists) to assemble groups of clothing and
accessories. Brand celebrity specific micro sites, target trending celebrity
keywords, show people clothes that popular people wear sort of thing.

In a different line, an interesting facebook app would allow those wacky kids
to easily assemble groups of clothes that they own or want. Wrap those
collections in customizable page templates (photos, colors, that sort of
thing) and allow them to be shared with their friends.

~~~
dabent
"an interesting facebook app would allow those wacky kids to easily assemble
groups of clothes that they own or want. Wrap those collections in
customizable page templates (photos, colors, that sort of thing) and allow
them to be shared with their friends"

Sounds like a way to find new paths through product space:
<http://ycombinator.com/rfs2.html>

Seriously, this is a big deal. So big, I'm wondering why I'm typing this
because it's the same area I'm working in. :-)

~~~
vlorch
similar premise to polyvore <http://www.polyvore.com/>

~~~
dabent
Thanks for sharing that link. It's interesting to see what people come up
with. It's also a space that I think not many of us startup types are familiar
with, if what people were wearing to Startup School was any indication.

------
processing
Interesting "Boutiques.com charges merchants to include products on this
website in most cases." in the footer of the text. Adwords 2.0? Google could
roll this out into other leading verticals and run with CPA too. Great to see
this innovation from Google.

~~~
cosmicray
Basically, Google is creating an advertising tier. Those who can pay get to be
displayed in Boutiques.com, those who cannot end up on Google Products, eBay,
or any of a thousand other venues. Google is in effect, creating a specialty
sub-section of Amazon. Keep in mind that Amazon has restricted the entry of
new resellers for clothing. Sounds like the market is getting a bit crowded.

------
vgurgov
I think this is very interesting and important experiment for Google. I see it
as their willing to answer recent "Google cant innovate", "Why google cant
build X", "Why Google isnt social", etc challenges. Would be interesting to
see if Google could actually build this "instagr.am" :)

If not about us page, one hardly could see that its a Google. Seems like users
are even requested to create a new account on that site instead of using
google's account.

Very interesting experiment, cant wait to see how it goes.

~~~
RBr
I don't think that Boutiques.com was a departure from what Google is already
good at. Boutiques.com contributes to their core product (search).

On the surface, it looks like Google has defined a long list of fashion
ecommerce sites to search. Then, they pepper in some Google Images
functionality along with a base template designed to encourage engagement.

This sounds a lot a specialized, properly linked version of Google Images more
than innovation.

I think that Google should be investing more in startups if they want to
increase innovation. Creating products that contribute to their core product
is exactly what I'd do if I was the CEO of Google.... which based on my bank
balance, I'm not :)

~~~
primigenus
The way you talk about "innovation" makes me wonder what your definition is.
Is "a specialized, properly linked version of Google Images", especially one
with as specific a market as this one, not innovative?

~~~
RBr
Scoble wrote about Google vs. Instagr.am. I left a comment that answers your
question: [http://scobleizer.com/2010/11/12/why-google-cant-build-
insta...](http://scobleizer.com/2010/11/12/why-google-cant-build-
instagram/#comment-96505351)

When you consider Google, Instagr.am and now Boutiques.com, I think that each
of these products serves a very different purpose. Google's scrappy startup,
innovative days are (and should) be behind it. It's not that Google shouldn't
make new products, it's that the products that they focus their core business
on should contribute to what has made it successful.

Boutiques.com does contribute to their core product. Instagr.am does not.

In order for Google to keep pioneering, they need to increase their investment
in startups. By extending the company through investment rather than core
products, the company will allow startups to move quickly while improving
their core product incrementally.

------
adolfoabegg
<http://www.boutiques.com/> <http://www.google.com/support/boutiques/>

------
arondeparon
What amazes me the most is the fact that Google decided to brand this as a
product of it's own. Nothing on the website seems to indicate this is a Google
product.

This seems to be quite a step utilizing the aquisition of Like.com (and Riya
with it). Very interested in seeing how this develops and why Google is taking
this approach.

------
richcollins
Google needs to refocus on their search, which now sucks and whose results are
filled with pages from content stealers and content farms. Instead they're
jumping into new markets and wasting their time on UI tweaks (like the new
result preview).

~~~
brown9-2
Who says they can't do both? They have over 10,000 employees.

~~~
richcollins
They obviously can't do both as evidenced by the poor quality of the results.

------
zoomzoom
I am surprised that they didn't buy boutiques.com too...

------
clistctrl
I didn't read the article (I went straight to the site) i'm curious why it
only has ladies fashion?

~~~
rms
Men's fashion is a much smaller segment of the market than women's.

