Comments on: The Google Superbowl Ad: Why Now?

By: Tristan Kromer

Tristan Kromer — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:11:50 +0000

What I’m really curious now is if they’re laying fiber ’cause they realize Wave won’t work without a significant boost in bandwidth capabilities. Please give a hollar if you have any speculation about that.

Frightening really. They’re doing the things I think the government should be taking care of as a common good. Quite a lot of power if they go for a horizontal monopoly.

Thanks,
Tristan

By: Michael Dundas

Michael Dundas — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:21:10 +0000

EFF commented on this ad today from a privacy perspective.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/02/google-superbowl-ad-explains-need-search-privacy

-mike

By: aprildunford

aprildunford — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:56:01 +0000

Hi Tristan,
Thanks for the comment. You make a good point that Google might simply be defending themselves against MS and Bing. As you say, it is extremely difficult to unseat an incumbent (although we have seen it happen without significant marketing spend but it’s rare) but if you happen to have a few billion sitting in the bank, it might not hurt to defend your turf with a bit of marketing, even if you haven’t done it in the past.
April

By: Tristan Kromer

Tristan Kromer — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:59:55 +0000

RT @aprildunford: blog post: The Google Superbowl Ad: Why Now? http://bit.ly/doO6wn

By: Tristan Kromer

Tristan Kromer — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:44:01 +0000

Hi April,

Excellent post and really interesting topic. Steve Blank offers some useful tidbits to analyze this:

- In a monopoly or duopoly where 1-2 companies own >74% of the market a new entry will have to outspend the incumbent’s sales and marketing budget by a factor of x3 to get any traction (chap. 5 of 4 Steps to the Epiphany)
- Google has optimized it’s video ads by optimizing on YouTube and Hulu for weeks if not months now. So they likely have a great understanding of brand impact from their ad and might even be increasing this multiple to 3.5 or 4.
- Bing is, for all intents and purposes, a new market entry.

Combine these facts and I would guess that Google is defending their market share vs. MS by increasing the S&M budget. Basically MS will have to buy more than 3 Superbowl ads for every one Google does to get any traction.

MS is also pursuing a similar tactic to defend against market entry into OS space by Google. Humorously, MS is defending via advertising to consumers in the OS space and Google is targeting developers and hardware manufacturers. In terms of strategy, I do not believe a war of attrition favors MS on those burn terms. They will burn more cash then Google to defend mind share and hurt their bottom line and stock price.

Alternatively Explanation? Google just has waaaaaaay too much money.

Thanks for the article,
Tristan

By: josh duncan

josh duncan — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:45:14 +0000

like @aprildunford 's post on "The Google Superbowl Ad – Why Now?" – http://bit.ly/cRXRkV

By: April Dunford

April Dunford — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 04:08:04 +0000

@Clear2Go @jalperin @kennethdavid @MikeBoudreaux @faisal_q @trevornewell Thanks for the RT on the google ad post! http://bit.ly/aBhGkc

By: Jan Schwartz

Jan Schwartz — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:48:33 +0000

I loved the way they did the ad. It was fun to watch, but then most of them were. Here is another take on the ad that I picked up on my FB page: http://bit.ly/bMrjLc.
Jan

By: Michael Dundas

Michael Dundas — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:28:52 +0000

RT @aprildunford: The Google Superbowl Ad: Why Now? http://bit.ly/doO6wn

By: aprildunford

aprildunford — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:10:06 +0000

LOL – well, it could be more for the stock than anything else. If nothing else it reminds investors that they have a mountain of cash in the bank and if some competitor were to give them some trouble, they have the means to put up more than a good fight.
Thanks for the comment Greg.
April