Help Wanted
Media Center
About Us
"Ask The Expert"
Need An Estimate?
Free Newsletter
| In the News |
  |
ClickZ Today
http://www.clickz.com/feedback/reader/article.php/1022771
Readers Write in About:
Would You Pay for Google? by Adam Posman
I couldn't agree more. Have you ever thought how (online) marketing would be revolutionized if Google convinces users to register (and/or pay) for its search service?
Google could personalize results based on age, gender, location, past searches, etc. To take it a step further, when a user lands on the destination site, Google knows who that person is -- it's not just an IP address anymore.
The destination site's marketing team would pay through the nose for that information, and Google could create yet another revenue stream.
Imagine the destination site's follow up: "Dear John Smith, did you find what you were looking for on our Web site yesterday?" The sales pitch can start -- via email, phone, snail mail, etc. -- with whatever profile information Google sells to the marketer.
I image this will cause some privacy concerns, but if Google is smart, they'll convince all users to register in exchange for more targeted search results (based on profile) and protect the privacy of those who pay -- since that group will be far less.
Rick Costello
The Web Site Profit Doctor™
Two thoughts regarding charging for content on the Web:
If you're going to charge me, you'd better offer me something more or different than what I was getting for free. You use the example of Blue Mountain charging for e-cards, and it is a good one. Blue Mountain offers more and better cards then it did when it was free, and now it also offers make-your-own cards, interactive cards, and calendar services. Even if having the paid service means you won't receive pop-ups when visiting their site, that may be all they'll need. That's certainly all I'll need.
Second, if you're going to charge someone make it worthwhile and give them some payment options. I am the kind of guy who would like to pay the fee once (or once per year), and get unlimited use, instead of frigging with "pay-per-search" or "get 50 searches for $5" offers. Some infrequent users may prefer the other option. I also think the difference between charging between $5 and $20 is minimal. The initial hurdle is getting the person to pay, enter payment information (name, address, credit card...), and set up yet another password.
Google's biggest hurdle is going to be the latter. The signup process for Blue Mountain is necessary; they need a bunch of information to send a card to begin with (name, email...). It is not necessary from a user's perspective to enter personal information into Google.
Thank you for the article. It should be interesting to see what happens.
Tom Campbell
Boston, MA
If I were doing important research, say as a media planner and buyer, I might. If I were one of the millions of idly curious browsers who typed in "fly fishing" because I wanted to know a little bit more, I might not. I predict a tiered model will emerge, offering levels of "pay per view" from free to $50.00 or more per month. What's to stop a major ISP from using an AOL business model that offers a tightly controlled search engine? What's to stop Google from merging/acquiring a major ISP? What's to stop AT&T/Comcast (merger pending) from buying Google?
I can assure you as someone who spends six-plus hours a day on the Internet researching and marketing, that makes sense to me.
I have always espoused my own standard -- Anything, Anytime, Anywhere (AAA). That takes a big pipeline, universal standards for wireless, and access using a variety of platforms. "Last mile" infrastructure owners like Comcast and the Bells are reconfiguring business models to account for package pricing including telephone service, Internet access, and a whole bunch more.
There must be competition at all levels, requiring infrastructure owners to grant reasonable cost access to all competitors. Not the situation now. Congress was bought off by cable and the telcos, and there is still virtual monopoly in all cable markets, same for competitors wanting to offer competitive local service.
Imagine the type of competition that's existed in long distance service being part of the cable and packaged services marketplace on the Internet. Whoa, Nelly!
Consumers better wake up before the opportunity for virtually unlimited access, with many competitors offering a variety of product packages, is gone forever.
Barry Dennis
Netweb, LLC
If it would mean keeping the info unbiased, I would pay up to $30 a year without wincing. However, I would expect pay-per-placement ads to disappear.
Marie-Claude Perras
Marketing Communications Manager
Groupe AGI
Yes. I would pay a small fee ($5-10) for a good service. Problem is, most of these folks want to switch to a fee schedule that starts too high. I might pay as much as $10 per year for something but not $30 per year. Google is definitely worth a small annual fee.
Brian Johnston
Customer Information Services
Kingston Technology Company
Sure, but it's the classic where-the-lines-cross question of optimizing return without alienating the users. SEs are a very competitive arena. Price goes up, goodwill and ROI ultimately go down. I already pay $10 a year for a premium newsletter (Langa.com) that's still issued in a free version. The paid is better. But I wouldn't pay $50. The murky in-between is anyone's guess.
Steve Goodale
http://www.goldrecord.com
Full Article: http://www.clickz.com/media/agency_strat/article.php/1013901
Print friendly version | Forward article to a colleague |
Back to: In the News Index
| ~ | Related Pages |
|
News Releases |
|
| Best Practice Articles | |
| In the News | |
| Web Tools | |
| Announcements |
