Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet The Almighty Buck

Google To Buy Radio Advertising Firm 149

Posted by Zonk from the google-in-your-ear dept.
M3rk1n_Muffl3y writes "According to the BBC Google is buying US radio advertising firm dMarc Broadcasting for an upfront payment of $102m (£58m), rising to a possible $1.14bn by 2009. Interestingly it comes soon after Robert X. Cringely's prediction that Google will soon expand into targetted TV adverts. It looks we are finally beginning to see Google's transition to mainstream media."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google To Buy Radio Advertising Firm More

Google To Buy Radio Advertising Firm

Comments Filter:

  • Radio? When will generic-casting be dead? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @02:47PM (#14492383) Homepage Journal
    I had to stop advertising on the radio last year -- it was declining returns. On my last (contractually required) run of ads, I paid over US$800 per customer earned. Considering I only profited about US$100 per year off of my average customer, radio was a dead form of advertising. This is on a 50,000 watt station in a major metropolitan area. My neighbors in business who kept their ads running this year only do so out of contractual obligation (5 year contracts offered almost 50% discounts). Almost everyone else still advertising on that station is the next batch of businesses ready to fail. The ad-sales people are that convincing.

    Google is probably stupid to get into this business. I don't listen to the radio anymore, and I doubt many kids half my age do anymore either -- the iPod is that strong. The frequencies used for public broadcast radio seem wasted to me -- I'd rather see them deregulated and offered for another WiFi band. More WiFi means more access to streamed content as I need it. Hell, I stream MP3s to my PDA already via my Bluetooth-enabled EDGE-bandwidth cell phone (150kbps low latency all over Chicagoland).

    So what does Google know that I don't? I'm sure a lot, but I can't see them being right in this situation. Maybe they're ahead of where radio will be in 10 years -- is it possible we'll see the large radio cartels end their regime, replaced with smaller stations all over the place? Could Google perform real time contextual advertising on 5000 watt stations, targeting listenes better?

    Google's advertising engines don't work well on pages with too much variety it content. I see 50,000 watt stations having the same problem -- they're targeting too many different customers (and seemingly targeting them with the same generic content on 8 different stations).

    How do Google's ads translate to those without sight? Radio only works as an audio mechanism, so Google's visible advertising campaign won't work here, either.

    I can see Google's future in buying a company like Clear Channel -- they own most of the billboard advertising in Chicagoland, and they are also advertising in nightclub bathrooms and on the doors of toilets in office buildings. Google can find a way to digitize these ads. Is it possible that dMarc Broadcasting does more than radio (like Clear Channel)?

    If it is just radio ads, I don't see it. Wasted bandwidth for a product that can't keep up with what the current customer base needs.
    • My only thought is they are trying to diversify and bring some new experienced talent into their business. Since they are ad driven, this will probably lend itself to pushing into differnet markets. i don't really see where it is going, but i imagine they have other plans for this acquisiton other than radio broadcasting...

      Only thing i can think of is voice ads in podcasts...
    • Actually I think its a great idea that Google is investing in advertising beyond the web. The advertising industry as a whole is in bad need of new ideas. I don't know how many more condescending and annoying car commercials I can stand. If Google can bring a fresh approach to a stagnant industry, I think it will revive radio and other forms of advertising that are currently diminishing in returns. Hopefully they do this right and not only become bigger and more profitable, but also change the face of radio
      • While ads might make advertisers, stations, and Google a lot of money, I don't see how better advertisements could save radio in general. I think radio is the antithesis of recent trends for consumers to want a lot more control of their media and though media such as film and television currently don't provide a ton of control (though TiVo changed this somewhat), they also have the added benefit of good content. Yes, television is mostly crap and there are a lot of bad films, but until very recently the o
    • "Hell, I stream MP3s to my PDA already via my Bluetooth-enabled EDGE-bandwidth cell phone (150kbps low latency all over Chicagoland)."

      Clearly, you're in touch with the same reality that all other US citizens inhabit.

      Granted, not as many people listen to radio nowdays. But it's not completely dead. It's still everywhere, and everyone has access to it. Believe it or not, even having a broadband connection at home puts you in the minority, buddy.
    • I'll listen to the radio for any drive less than ten minutes--it's not worth the hassle to (un)plug my iPod for such short trips. Besides the little news snippets I do get from NPR help keep me from being blind to the world outside of technology. Radio isn't completely dead.

      As one post suggests, perhaps the move to radio is a precursor to ads in podcasts? To take this a half-step further, these ads could easily be targeted, or work on a per d/l model--the episode I download could have different ads from you
    • While I agree that iPods and other personal media players are becoming the norm, I'm 18 and I strongly disagree with the opinion that radio is becoming a dead medium. While I listen to my MiniDisc player at the gym, on the bus, etc, I still listen primarily to the radio while driving to and from work every day. Apart from the music my favorite station plays, I also find invaluable the traffic and weather reports, news, concert info and also the contests they offer. Car radios are basically the only ones I u
      • Interesting.

        Do you have ad-blindness, or in this case, ad-deafness?

        If the radio spectrum was gone, deregulated to increase WiFi bandwidth, would you see yourself using on-demand streaming "radio" if it was available freely and you had the right tuner for it?

        To me, "broad"-casting is a dead mechanism. There are two things holding it back -- the distribution cartels don't want to change (they've invested billions in the current hardware and political arena), and the force cartel (government) is too in bed wi
    • So what does Google know that I don't?

      Who cares? Google doesn't know shit, they never said they did. In fact they really don't even own anything.

      All Google does is downloads freely available information (crawl, spider), organizes it well (database), and quickly and freely gives the important information to people when they ask for it (search). And they use a freely available OS to run the stuff (Linux).

      People simply give Google money for advertising because they have the best real estate on the web. Goo
    • I think Google could probably improve the quality of radio ads by making them context sensitive, and as long as they have a really, really, really nice voice-2-text, they're in business. Even if the radio deal isn't that profitable, it's experience that will be invaluable for them, as they plan to jump into TV, which is the real goal, probably.
    • Also a good point to note, is that with the advent of Satellite radio with no commercials, who's going to put up with radio for that much longer. If you listen to the radio more than 1 hour per day, it's probably worth it. At $15 per month, it comes out to $0.50 per day. I think that most people would gladly eat that cost for the thought of radio without commercials. I don't listen to the radio, but the reasons I stopped is because there was too many commercials, songs were repeated too much, and DJs we
      • Here's the thing though -- no "broadcast" format is good for the new form of contextual user-desired advertising that AdSense is moving towards. AdSense isn't just about being contextually accurate with the website you're visiting, I believe that this year they'll also tie in the browsing user's habits to create truly two-way contextual ads. You can't do this when you're broadcasting to 5 million people.

        Streaming on-demand music and voice has to happen. Podcasting is nice and all, but wireless "podcastin
      • Also a good point to note, is that with the advent of Satellite radio with no commercials, who's going to put up with radio for that much longer.

        Exactly how much longer do you think Satellite radio will be commercial free? Cable started out the same way and now the only channels that are any different than over-the-air channels are the pure premium channels.

        Satellite radio will surely go to this model ,particularly if they're already paying Howard Stern millions upon millions. You don't think other radio
      • How long do you think satellite radio will stay commercial free? Someday they'll realize they can make more money with ads AND paying subscribers. Just like cable.
        • Exactly. Cable started out just this way with people saying the same thing: Content without nasty adverts. Now cable is not much different than broadcast. Sat radio will follow the same route because in the end, it is a revenue stream for profit seeking corporations, not some utopian media experiment...
    • There are a lot of opportunities for radio-like services. Selling ads in podcasts comes to mind.
    • Chicagoland radio is horrible, and getting worse. Thankfully, I only have to work in that area, I commute from a good distance away where there are a handful of decent, small, locally owned radio stations worth listening to. I can understand why you'd pull your advertising from the Chicagoland market... People like me would NEVER hear it.

      Google is probably buying this corp for their contacts and expertise in advertising outside of the "virtual" arena. Makes a bit of sense, really. Why start from the gr
    • Here's my hypothesis.

      There are two ways to target ads as far as google appears to be concerned initially. The first is search (duh) and the second is locality (almost a duh, see google local, maps, etc). Google's answer to the first is up and running - index everything, then advertise to index users based on their criteria.

      The second answer appears to be to group the index users by locality then tailor advertising to that group. If there were oodles of money in my pocket, here is what I would do:

      1) Lobby to
    • Instead of countering every unfounded assertion in this post, I suggest readers instead perform a simple search on the estimated sale value of a major metropolitan station. Or compare radio listenership against web stream statistics. Or satellite. Like the product or not, radio continues to make obscene amounts of money based solely on listenership numbers generating ad revenue. Sales reps at top stations draw hundreds of thousand in commissions annually on millions in sales. The three properties in the ~mi

  • AdSense (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BushCheney08 ( 917605 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @02:48PM (#14492395)
    I was listening to an episode of This Week in Tech the other day and Leo kept mentioning someone's theory that Google's true goal is to get AdSense everywhere. This move just seems to back up that claim.
    • It's where they make all their money - they have to push it everywhere to be able to have enough income to fund their expansion into everything.

      It'll be interesting to see if anyone is able to compete with adsense as it expands into other mediums.
      • As an AdSense publisher, I've heard from "peers" that they prefer the payouts of Yahoo's contextual advertising program. I personally don't see AdSense being a big income unless you want to work for $1 per hour for 2 years, but its definitely a nice way to get an additional tip for content.

        In the long run, though, Google's aggregation algorithms seem to be getting better every day. In the future, AdSense won't just offer contextual ads based on the site, but also based on the browsing user.
      • But how's it supposed to work on a one-way, push-only medium?

        How is it supposed to sense anything?

        Radio doesn't know that you are listening when it sends out an ad.

        Google is most likely buying a radio-ad company so it can get radio-ad services for opportunity cost, and make a buck as a radio pipelining service for other companies, possibly bundling it with online ads as a value-added feature.

        But anyone thinking that this somehow is a "natural" extension of AdSense...sheesh...
        • But Google knows what people are interested in based upon searches. Google could approach companies with data saying: in this small geographic area, X-thousand searches were performed on this topic related to your business. You can use this information to really target your radio advertising. Radio is another medium. Google also knows what topic is hot instantaneously. Businesses could use this to alter radio advertising. Google knows more about me than my family (kind of worrisome.) Information is power.
          • They still have no idea that you're listening to the radio, ever.

            The correlation is tempting, but not compelling.

            If this is actually worth 10 cents per ad in business creation, I'll be surprised.
    • Another take on this could be that the Google Founders are using their market cap for good, by just controlling more of the advertising space.

      For instance, recently Dean had a billboard all paid for and the contract signed, and it basically just said some republican congressman should focus on winning iraq instead of name-calling murtha/cleland/gore/etc. The ad was refused and the contract canceled, with no reason given other than the company just didn't want to put it up. Who knew it was legal/ethical/mo

  • LOL (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Zebra_X ( 13249 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @02:50PM (#14492417)
    "Google's transition to mainstream media"

    No, we are seeing Google's transition to ALL media.

    Think what you will of such things.
    • No, we are seeing Google's transition to ALL media.

      And in related news, Google has announced its intention to acquire the caves of Lascaux in France, world-famous for their Neolithic cave paintings. Google did not comment when asked about recent bulk purchases of charcoal, red ocher and animal fat.

    • Ditto (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:03PM (#14492531) Journal
      To suggest that the internet isn't mainstream only means that someone is showing their age.

      Watching the Nightly News is simply a chance for me to discuss the day's events with other people. I've already read all the 'big' stories of the day by 6/7 o'clock and I usually get more details to boot.

      The newspaper does a bit better, as they can dedicate more space to details and they have much more local information, but even then, I'd still rather scan two or three online articles to get a variety of viewpoints.

      Because of the internet, I get a much better idea of what's really going on.
      • You also post on Slashdot.

      • Watching the Nightly News is simply a chance for me to discuss the day's events with other people. I've already read all the 'big' stories of the day by 6/7 o'clock and I usually get more details to boot.

        I agree, I think. In my local area at least, the only reason to watch television journalism is to get additional moving pictures of certain events. Anything resembling journalism is dismal. Nightly news contains a few facts combined with large amounts of subjective speculation (stated as fact or n

    • Google IS an advertizing company. It's goal is not to provide cool webmail programs, satelite map programs, or any other free/oss/whatever cool crap. It will only do so to hang on to it's user base. As soon as webmail doesn't do anything for advertizing dollars Google will leave it to die. Same for any other cool tech that people worship Google over.

      Let's face it people, Google doesn't care about anything unless it will help/hinder their ad sales. PERIOD. Just remember, when you use Google every byte of
  • Offtopic, but about google:

    It looks like google opened op gtalk to the other public jabber networks. It's possible to talk server-to-server now!

    afaik the Bitlbee team got the heads up [bitlbee.org].

    • Re:Talking about google (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Posting something on Slashdot about Google is never off-topic, no matter what thread it is being posted to.
  • I read TFA, but im still not clear on how they plan on using the radio to target listeners in a way which would be different from the current advertising schemes. Obviously, when you search on google, they can use your query to deliver targeted relevant advertising results. However, with radio, the only information they have is that a quantity of people are listening to a specific frequency.
    Clearly, I must be missing something. Right?
    --

    http://www.wi-fizzle.com [wi-fizzle.com]
    • Look for Google to make acquisitions in many different sdvertising mediums, so they can offer "one stop shopping" for their advertisers.
    • What you're missing is that every radio station, including NPR affiliates, targets programming at a narrow and very specific demographic.

      They then sell those listeners to their customers: the advertisers.

      Just as AdSense selects ads based on the content on your web page, advertisers buy radio time based on who is listening to your radio station.

      Rock stations may target males 18-32 years old, soft rock may target females in the same age range. NPR sells ears that are well educated and with good incomes.
    • The real "meat" of Google Ads is the auction system. By auctioning off airtime, they'll maximize revenues on off-peak hours and cut out highly paid salespeople.

    • It does make sense if you think about the fact that Google is probably accruing much better statistics about what people actually want (via Google Local searches) without having to rely on guestimations and shaky demographic statistics.

      When Sam's Autobody opens in South San Francisco and wants to advertise, here's how the scenarios would play out:

      Traditional radio logic:

      "Our signal is based in San Francisco, has a radius of 25 miles and covers 900,000 homes and ranks 1st in Arbitron ratings with males

  • I for one would love to see Google get into the tv advertising realm. Imagine having no commercials and just seeing a text ad in the lower right portion of your show. That would make legal issues for PVRs disappear overnight and consumers would be happy. Also, if anyone here rememebers the 'I'nteractive on DirecTv that would allow a consumer to press a button on the remote to get more information for a product. It would be like clicking on a google ad from a tv show :)

    http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

    • Imagine having no commercials and just seeing a text ad in the lower right portion of your show.

      So what do you propose they do with the other 8 minutes per half hour?
    • Advertisers had to come up with something similar before they were willing to broadcast soccer games in the U.S.

      Of course, TV stations have been doing this for a few years to advertise upcoming shows. I've noticed this the most during "children's" programming.

      As distracting as it is, I'd favor the transition if it meant fewer commercials, but I expect profit hungry networks will simply implement both models.
    • Assuming I want a text ad superimposed on the screen while watching a show, which I don't. I get pissed enough as it is when the station puts their logo or heaven forbid, a weather alert or something, blocking out a part of the screen. It's even better when they put that crap on over a sports game, blocking out the score or something. Aarrrgh. I have no idea why we would want to put up with MORE television advertising, whether google is behind it or not. It's still MORE ads. I'm already paying $50+ a
    • Imagine having no commercials...

      You should have stopped there.

      Commercials are a thing of the past. They suck. Product placement is where its at, they just need to be less pushy with it. I'm sure everybody's seen those extended camera focus on a bag of Doritos or whatever, it takes away from the storyline.

      Product placement works well, and pays well for athletic equipment. Nike pays people big bucks to wear their cloths. I have to buy mine.

  • Google.. how long before..... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Da Zeg ( 946564 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:01PM (#14492507)
    It gains the general mistrust and status of any other huge corporation. I love google, it's my gateway to the internet. I've always joked that Google==Research when doing assignments. I find it exciting and I really am happy for those involved in the immense success of Google, but on the other hand I can't help thinking that maybe it's getting too big now.
    • I agree. While Google has thus far managed to maintain a good reputation among people, that generally tends to go away as a company becomes larger and larger. I mean, how many people are going to come out and say "Oh, yes, I love M$, they're pushing the envelope in the computer industry."? If they continue with this, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they start coming under pressure and mis-trust.

  • podcasting... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hsmith ( 818216 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:02PM (#14492517)
    is my guess to the main reason, besides diversification of their services as to why they are doing this. podcasting is going to be here for awhile, it won't remain ad-free for very long. so they are getting into the market...

  • We noticed you like listening to NSYNC! (Score:4, Funny)

    by theurge14 ( 820596 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:06PM (#14492565)
    Click here to visit local "bathhouses" in your area!

  • Magazine Adverts were a No-Go (Score:5, Informative)

    by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:08PM (#14492576) Journal
    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_50 /b3963130.htm [businessweek.com]

    Google tried getting into the glossy advertising business and didn't do so well.
    Google Inc. (GOOG ) this fall purchased about a dozen pages of ad space from niche publications such as PC Magazine and Budget Living. Google then divvied up the space and sold it in small pieces, often four to seven per page, to its network of several hundred thousand advertisers -- most of whom can't afford pricey magazine ads on their own. Now Google says the trial program, dubbed Google Publication Ads, is taking off, with hundreds of publications inquiring about it. The company is expanding the trial from four publications to scores of them, likely to include both niche and general interest titles.

    However, a closer look at Google's foray into magazine ads suggests it could be in for a tough slog. Sure, plenty of publishers are clamoring to snare ad dollars from Google. But a BusinessWeek analysis of Google's pilot, including interviews with 10 advertisers and two publishers, indicates that advertisers haven't warmed to the program so far. Only one of 10 advertisers interviewed by BusinessWeek said their print ad performed well enough to recoup the money it cost. And eight of the 10 were unhappy enough with the results that they say they're unlikely to do further print advertising with Google.
    Magazines are more than willing to sell advert space to Google, but if you RTFA I linked, few of the advertisers are finding it to be worth their money.

    I suspect it is a matter of finding the right format before this takes off. Maybe Google needs to group complementary products together, or simply put fewer small ads per page.
    • One company I worked for found that print advertising did not provide much return. What they did have a good return on was direct mail postcards. They were able to send out hundreds of thousands of post cards to a targetted audience and found the return on those much greater. They used cheap ink jet printers to print the post cards with addresses and postage marks. Run the printers until they wore out and swap in a new one. Bulk rate postage for postcards is relatively cheap. The last set of print ads
    • The interesting thing about this is that Google facilitates a entry for people with little or no understanding of marketing concepts.

      AdSense basically handles all of the targting for you. You just have to choose whatever keywords you want. For alot of people they choose moronic keywords, but get some hits - so they think its working.

      The truth is, they get NO conversions. These people don't really know what their doing, but they do see a number, and the number is BIG!

      Now, translate this behavior to a medium

  • ...you're listening to WGGL, from high atop the world's tallest structure, the Google Building in beautiful downtown Pocatello, Idaho... Coming up, Stevie Jobs and The Apple String Band with their rendition of "I Did It My Way", but first a word from our sponsor, Google!

  • I don't get this. The thing that makes Google ads better than most is that only those who are already interested will see them. And you only pay for the ads that generate a response in the form of a click.

    That makes ads cost-effective for the advertiser and useful for the consumer. What could Google do with radio that would work like that?

    Seems like you'd be stuck going the same old "listener demographics" route. Anybody have a clue how this helps them?
    • Radio has some targetted ads, but if I'm not mistaken a lot of advertisers buy run of the station-type ads, probably cheaper in volume? That means, their ad runs a set number of times per day, at random intervals, which can lead to hearing ads that are out of place (like credit card ads on the Dave Ramsey show [daveramsey.com], or ads for websites for single parents dating on the Dr. Laura show).

      Perhaps Google's idea is to somehow allow more targetted selection from advertisers across a broader range of shows/locations? I d

  • Yep. Google are finally becoming a normal company. There I was living in a fantasy world and thinking that they were going to be different. It turns out that they were different to get market share, that's all. Ever heard the one about power corrupting? (OK, so it hasn't already happened, but doesn't their spidering out into so many traditional markets give people inclinations of what's to come?)
    • Yep. Google are finally becoming a normal company.

      As compared to...?

      See, all companies start by making something new. And Google is still innovative in that it wants targetted ads into the mainstream media. But they never were sisters of charity, i've read comments of people complaining about Google charging them extra for clicks they got (pay-per-click is EVIL!), and similar stuff. If you fantasized about Google being some geek heroes, perhaps you needed to research more.

      Anyway, take a look at this, and se

  • Now the only thing on the radio dial will be (Score:3, Insightful)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:11PM (#14492619)
    Google ads sandwiched by pay-to-play music and infotainment talk radio, sounds like a bad business model to me. But since they have tons of money to spend, what do they have to lose?

    PS anything that says 'targeted' immediately brings up privacy concerns.
    • I'm not sure I mind the targeted, but I really wish they would figure out how to do the ads "plain text."

      The last time I listened to the radio, the bits that made me cringe the most was the horrible attempts at high concept production of many of the ads. That and the volume kick. If they could manage to get the radio ads to be as unobtrusive as the text ads that pop up on the search site, I'd be okay with it...

      I have a credit card, I've already lost the privacy...
  • It seems that Google is taking over the world... at least so far I like what they are doing. --Matt Wong

  • Package Deals. Not all AdSense ads are small biz (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:21PM (#14492709)
    Anyone who spends enough money on Google ads can tell you the first name of their sales rep at Google. You know, the person who helps you fine tune for AdSense keywords, and offers you swell deals. How about if that person, who is already also helping you with localized ad placement through AdSense, could guarantee you some airtime in your local market, as well? Or, how about making sure that people sitting in their cubes at work listening to the radio and typing in some regionally interesting search term ("pizza delivery Sterling, VA") could be shown normal AdSense ads that, for the window of time that Joe's Pizza is running broadcast ads in that ZIP code, give extra weight to his AdSense ads for localized search?

    Come on, folks, there's more to this than meets the eye. And don't forget the side-band stuff that handles traditional pager traffic, too. That can be used for all sorts of exotic ad-related things.
    • Finally someone who gets it...

      Google's big competitive advantage is its knowledge of trends and use of the market as a pricing mechanism. AdWord prices should be close to the "perfect" price, since advertisers compete for the ad spots.

      The "Google way" will improve the margins on radio too. Radio ad rates are mostly determined by ratings -- more eyeballs, more $$$. Realtime adsense-style auctions would render the problems with the ratings system irrelevant and allow advertisers to evaluate what spots are wor
    • Umm you mean adwords. Adsense is for content providers, adwords is for advertisers. They also don't offer deals(least publicly) since its a pay per click system. Higher price your willing to pay insures a better placement. System wouldn't work if lower price(ignoring click through ratio) could get higher spots depending on how much you spend. And localized search in google, its based off IP. But you knew that right? Just like you knew the product name?

      Notice these results are local to you. [google.com]

      • Umm you mean adwords. Adsense is for content providers, adwords is for advertisers

        I use "both" of them. They're really just two faces of the same engine, so the truth is I tend to conflate them when I talk, in general terms, about Google as an advertising vehicle. I should just say "Google Ads" and be done with it. The two different back ends (facing the advertiser, and facing the publisher) are just suited to their appropriate audiences - and I actually find it a little frustrating that Google gave them
  • Somehow I think the Star Wars Imperial March would be appropriate...
  • Over 40 channels of non-stop information overload!

    Streaming straight for your listening pleasure:
    * Goooooogle: Listen to live search terms entered by millions of users around the world. [18 years and above]
    * Geeeemail: Your own personalized channel. In lieu of viewing ad-free pages in your mail account, listen to advertisements targetted at you based upon your recently received mail. [May contain adult and disturbing content. Not advised listening in front of your family, and fiancee.]
    * Boooooks: Call Googl

  • Good fit for Google (Score:5, Informative)

    by rueger ( 210566 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:25PM (#14492744) Homepage
    Actually dMarc is actually a good fit for Google. What dMarc's RevenueSuite [dmarcnetworks.com] does for commercial broadcasters is offer an automated way to fill unsold inventory. At the end of the day the Sales office at a radio station will close the ad logs, and the RevenueSuite software will schedule their client's ads into any unsold spaces in the logs.

    There's no work for the station staff, and everyone makes a few extra bucks.

    That's really not dissimilar to what Adsense does.
    • Another reason this is a good fit:

      dMark has already developed the tech to insert radio ads on the fly. Their web site claims that advertisers can "change entire campaigns on the fly," and the "station engineer installs the Scott Studios or Maestro Com Module" that delivers the ads.

      All the ads are managed from a central repository, and fed to the stations as needed. This is just one step to instant delivery of highly targeted ads.

  • I await the flood of comments about how "Google is evil, they're becoming a super-mega corp, OMG!". I don't understand the sudden animosity towards Google. One day Google was the coolest thing since sliced bread, and now they're evil incarnate. Like Apple, it's cool to hate Google around here. Why? They've innovated a lot, and they're growing as a company - why is this suddenly a bad thing? Is it because of their cross over from a couple of grad students to big company?

    Please enlighten me....

    -thewldis
  • Google to buy chocolate factory for $1.3b this comming May. The intial idea is that with so many Americans eating chocolate, it has to be a fantastic way of advertising to so many people. Instead of just advertising on the wrappers though, Google will surely have something up their sleeve, such as advertising on the chocolate bars themselves, full text ads with edible links!

    Share holders of Google are told to pay no mind to what we do with your money, and stop looking at the man behind that curtain over t
  • *starts remembering Private Parts* Google does seem pretty intent on gradually edging it's way into advertising throughout all forms of media. If they can manage to partner with TW (Unlikely w/ Time Warner liking their vast control), it would be a welcome thing to me, because I for one am sick of ads for female hygine products during non-feminine entertainment (I think Adult Swim/Cartoon Network has had a few).....

  • I savour every dewdrop of news I can find on Google aquisitions, and especially their bold plans to bring more contextually relevant advertisting to both my desktop, car stereo, and hopefully soon TV.

    In just 10 years, if I'm lucky, I'll never have to think about a purchase again, as some 10 hectare cluster of Linux boxes buried under the Siberian tundra already has that stitched up. Perhaps we'll even have Meteorological Adsense! What do people buy on rainy days anyway? Why does your spleen hurt, just s

  • Google is scary (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nicklott ( 533496 )

    In the course of my job I've spoken to quite a few small/medium business owners (all of whom had some online presence) in the last year or so and in the course of conversation quite have few have said that the biggest danger they see to their businesses is not the shop up the road, or even another website, it's Google.

    Google has defacto a stranglehold on the internet. Not just advertising, but as by far the largest search engine it also controls the flow of traffic. They also have a history of taking puni

    • I think that many of your points are interesting and in some cases true. But the statement that Microsoft has no ambitions outside PCs and Consoles ignores the history of Microsoft's iniatives like MSN. Although many of Microsoft's initiatives have not born fruit, they strong desire to expand in many areas outside of PCs and Consoles.

      • yes, "outside computing" would be better. As far as I know they have never tried to buy any media outlets. Though I guess msnbc might be an borderline case.

    • In the course of my job I've spoken to quite a few small/medium business owners (all of whom had some online presence) in the last year or so and in the course of conversation quite have few have said that the biggest danger they see to their businesses is not the shop up the road, or even another website, it's Google.

      Disagree (and I'm a small business owner) ... Google is great for our business, as it brings us lots of traffic - usually traffic of people actually interested in what we're offering. Withou

      • I think you misunderstood. I wasn't saying that google is bad for business; of course it's not, it provides 70-80% of the traffic to most web sites (and me with my income). My point was that it is a double edged sword: what the google giveth it can also taketh away.

        Furthermore, with their "loose cannon" approach the to wielding of their enormous power, they are no doubt drawing attention to themselves from those with a regulatory interest.

  • Google vs. Amazon... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wintermute42 ( 710554 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:53PM (#14492996) Homepage

    Before continuing I should note that I was one of those who (incorrectly) predicted Amazon.Com's demise. Amazon was (is?) carrying $2 billion in junk bond debt. I could not see how they could ever crawl out of that hole. Clearly I was wrong. Looking at Amazon now I see four things:

    1. A direct retailer of books, electronics and other products.

    2. A software company that sells its software and infrastructure to support other vendors retailing.

    3. An internet infrastructure company that can sell time on its computer network "farms" and bandwidth pipes.

    4. A huge "bricks and mortar" distribution chain for books and other products. This distribution chain can also be "rented" in part to support other vendors.

    When you compare Amazon and Google, you can see how weak Google really is. While Amazon is very much a software company, Google is rapidly becoming nothing more than an advertising/media company. However, the problem that Google has is that their business model is easily subject to attack by competitors. While Amazon has a difficult to replicate business because of the cost of it's infrastructure (software, internet and bricks and mortar distribution) Google pretty much has one thing: it's search engine. The search engine is under attack by Amazon (with their A9 search engine) and Microsoft, among others. The only real defense Google has is slightly better results and force of habbit (I use Google because I'm used to using Google). Right now Google has a big pool of cash from the stock market. But they remain vulnerable to competitors and they have no other revinue stream to fall back on.

    Google seems to be attempting to take their pool of cash and diversify deeper into media and advertising. Presumably the objective is to give them a revinue stream like Amazon's, that cannot be easily attacked. But this evolution takes Google farther from being the leading edge technology software company that many Googlistas still seem to think they are.

    Having been very wrong about Amazon, I fear making any predictions about Google's future. But it is tempting to say that they are following an Internet model where everything happens faster. In their case the rise to bloated egos beleiving their own press ("we're all brilliant") to business decline as their revinue growth stagnates and their attempt at expansion gets mired in the difficulty of expanding into advertising and media.

  • It looks we are finally beginning to see Google's transition to mainstream media.

    What it really looks like is our editors are not, you know editing the posts.

  • Big Arsed Wi-Fi (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dausha ( 546002 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @05:25PM (#14494045) Homepage
    Maybe, just maybe they're hopping they can use the radio stations for very wi-fi.
  • For my money, the logic here is that Adsense is solely for visual media. Podcasting and online radio in general are hot tips just now, and not well served by the existing Adsense model.

    When a large company wants to enter a new arena, there's a tendency for them to simply buy a smaller company already specialising in that area. (MS and that AV company, Google and Picasa etc.)

    If you were Google, and felt it was time to move into advertising on podcasts and their ilk, I suspect you'd go and buy a company w
  • I am betting that Google plans to use some secret voice recognition technology and that, for example, if Howard Stern is talking about breasts, then a Hooters add may appear during the next commercial. If a gardening show is on, then lawn care products may appear. This is obvious different from advertising today where an ad is set months before. Google's servers would store the ads and decide when they are played. My feeling is that Google will test on radio first and then quickly roll this out on TV.
  • Used car dealership ads--powered by Google!

    Yeah, I have to pay to listen to my satellite radio, but the lack of advertising alone is worth it in my opinion.
  • Maybe Microsoft should do this as well. They already buy fake reports from Gartnet, Veritest and long time lacky IDC and they own the reviews of ZDNet. It seems that they could do better advertising in house with movie maker than with their current company.

  • Google is already involved in television. They are involved in a cable channel called Current TV [current.tv], in that they have a show on that channel called Google Current [searchenginejournal.com].

    The basic principle, as far as I can tell, for the show is that the stories are chosen not on what some news editor thinks is news, but instead the topics are chosen based on information about which Google queries are most popular. (Kind of based on Google Zeitgeist [google.com].)

    For what it's worth, another notable feature of Current TV is that suppose


  • I'm starting to get the uneasy feeling that Google may be the anti-christ.

    Just a theory.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close