Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 30 Oct 2018.
No longer are they known for the search engine...
Google makes, effectively, no revenue from search; its revenue comes primarily from advertising and secondarily from cloud computing services. Thus: advertising giant.
Most of Googles advertising revenue comes from it's own pages as opposed to it's advertising network though. It's a little bit like calling any advertising funded service provider an advertising company. I think it would be more reasonable to refer to companies by the principle service they provide.
I disagree: Google may have been founded as a search engine, but search is now a tiny part of its business. The bulk of its business serves only one purpose: to put eyeballs on adverts. Google Search, Google Docs, Gmail, Google Maps, Google Calendar, Google+ (RIP)... All to feed eyeballs and data to the revenue-generating advertising division.
Google is an advertising company. Simple as that. It's not solely an advertising company, but that is its biggest business - just like I'd call Microsoft a "software giant" even though it also makes hardware. When it starts making more money from hardware than software, I'll call it a hardware giant; just as if somehow Google started making more money from search than advertising I'd call it a search giant.
Incidentally, I've been calling Google an advertising giant since 2012, with nary a peep of disagreement. This backs me up, too: 'A staggering $24.1 billion of Google's $27.77 billion revenue for Q3 2018 was from advertising' split across its internal AdWords and external AdSense networks.
You can't compare it to 'any advertising funded service,' either, as few other advertising funded services run their own ad networks. Apple does, but the majority of its revenue comes from devices - which is why I don't call Apple an advertising giant.
From Google's own S-1 registration statement, written by its founders in 2004 when it filed for its IPO: 'Advertising is our principal source of revenue, and the ads we provide are relevant and useful rather than intrusive and annoying. We strive to provide users with great commercial information. [...] Even though we are excited about risky projects, we expect to devote the vast majority of our resources to improvements to our main businesses (currently search and advertising).'
Would you call a commercial TV broadcaster or news publisher principally funded by publishing and putting eyeballs on adverts an advertising company?
Anyway, I think more generally these sorts of huge companies are "giants" in multiple areas including those which do not constitute their primary source of revenue. To give a stark example Amazon (AWS) are the biggest cloud computing platform in the world by some margin, yet is by no means constitutes their biggest business in terms of revenue. Moreover if AWS does overtake Amazon retail in size at some point (which is quite possible) then in an article about Black Friday I'm not sure it would be correct to refer to Amazon as a "cloud giant" (albeit that is a cool name).
I think this sort of stuff is why the term "tech giant" became popular.
If their principle business, as defined by the company's founders, is advertising, then yes: who am I to argue with the founders?
I agree that it makes sense to talk about Amazon being a cloud giant in the context of the cloud market, despite it not being the majority of its revenue. Here, too, Google counts as an advertising giant: the company accounted for 15 percent of global ad spend in 2016, according to this Guardian piece. That's one company, accounting for 15 percent of a global market. Pretty giant.
This article wasn't about search, though, so by the above calling it a 'search giant' would have been just as clunky as you're arguing 'advertising giant' is.
The main reason I prefer 'search giant' is to remind everyone that there's a reason Google gives you all these cool free things like Search, Gmail, Calendar, Translate, Maps, and what have you - and it's not because it loves you and wants you to be happy.
And I say that as a guy with a Gmail account and an Android smartphone in his pocket.
But, in the interests of clarity, I'm willing to change the habit of a lifetime and switch from 'advertising giant Google' to 'Google, a company which makes the overwhelming majority of its revenue from its advertising arms,' from here on out. Despite not being paid by the word.
I might use 'advertising divisions,' actually, 'cos 'advertising arms' sounds like one of those guys who gets GoldenPalaceCasino tattooed on himself...
'Google, the advertising arm/division/subsidiary of Alphabet'?
I kinda figured, but that is true for lots of services and content and I'm not sure you would apply that rule consistently.
I think it's fairly clear where the distinction lies with google the advertising company and the advertising funded services company: Adsense and services that use Adwords respectively. And the latter is bigger business
It's not a surprise they themselves would consider prioritising advertising effectiveness their most important job as it is by fair their greatest source of revenue, but like other advertising funded services companies they do that primarily by providing attractive services and content rather than adverts themselves.
I think "tech giant" would probably have been appropriate here, because Google undoubtedly are one and this falls under the broad umbrella of technology better than search/adverting/web services/whatever.
I mean, it's not one of the hills on which I would choose to die (unlike any attempts to remove the Oxford comma, which would end badly, terribly, and awfully for anyone who tried), so if people would be happier with 'tech giant' (or just dropping the filler altogether, given that everyone almost certainly knows Google) it's a change I'm perfectly willing to make.
I'm not actually that fussed. I'd consider it more a hill to build a tennis court on than to die on.
You don't want to do that; you'd have to keep running up and down the hill every time the ball went out of play!
While Google derive almost all their revenue from their ad delivery service, that ad delivery service would evaporate if they did not operate all their other services (Search, Youtube, Gmail, Android, massive amounts of cloud computing, etc). Same as an ad-supported TV channel would not sell many ads if they failed to actually show any programming.
I am in agreement with the statement and really like the description
Separate names with a comma.