Well, it was always going to happen eventually
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/nov/15/google-targets-fashion-market-boutique
They are going after the fashion sector, with a site called boutiques.com. And Sarah Jessica Parker. "Do no evil", my shiny metal ass.... Try putting the domain into your address box for a dose of 401 goodness.
On a (possibly) related note, Ben Edelman is after them for hardcoding themselves on finance and health terms etc, and it will be facinating to see where boutiques.com debuts...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/15/google_accused_of_hard_coding_own_results_into_search/
I think this is about image search and mobile... actually more than that, since Google will incorporate every other signal it can into the algo.
But Google's trying to build a virtual model of the universe and put up ads on it. Every product image, and every single search "query" submitted via an image, is going to be an extra bit of data that Google will use to build and refine the model. I'd be surprised if they mess with that model by becoming an affiliate. That's really small change to them. They get more data and more billboard space when they let you play for free.
I'm also thinking that the boutiques (however they organize them) with the biggest and best product photos are going to be among the early winners in the algo.
I think you may be surprised then, Robert
>> The fashion industry publication WWD reports Google is not itself planning to be a vendor; instead, its fashion-dedicated website will direct customers towards existing retailers such as Net-a-Porter and Asos, or designer's sites. It has also asked mostly American designers such as Tory Burch, Oscar de la Renta and Marchesa to set up virtual shops within the site.
Despite the domain, they aren't interested in haute couture, but rather the high street knock off fashion market, which is a LOT more than small change. I'm not saying they don't want the data and display space too, but selling frocks to silly, fashion concious girls is still a good business model. If SJP says "this is good", millions of wannabes will want one.
G *need* to diversify their income streams, 98% or some such is via ads right now. Same as the rest of us, they want alternatives, in case something happens to that. If nothing else, they already have such a big slice of that pie, it's really hard to get more, and there are limits to how high even G can push CPCs. If they want to maintain 30%-ish growth y-on-y, they need to be getting money from new sources. They have an idea how much afffliates can make, and they control the traffic.
Quote from: TallTroll on November 16, 2010, 10:01:27 AM
On a (possibly) related note, Ben Edelman is after them for hardcoding themselves on finance and health terms etc, and it will be facinating to see where boutiques.com debuts...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/15/google_accused_of_hard_coding_own_results_into_search/
This is interesting. Looks like astute analysis from Edelman.
Some
attempted discussion around this at a travel conference in London last week in an "Ask the Engines" session with regards to the hardcoded Google Finance comparison ads. I can't remember exact figures - but there was a suggestion that moneysupermarket has measured a significant hit to their organic traffic since Google put their own result above the organics.
I say
attempted as naturally the engines weren't motivated - or able - to serve up straight answers to questions not directly related to PPC.
>> moneysupermarket
.... How, exactly, does a G ranking get an IPO? Always confused me, that
*cough*
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/taking-off-with-ita.html
indeed. This video paints a pretty clear picture of their intentions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB606VwC-ik
>> moneysupermarket
.... How, exactly, does a G ranking get an IPO? Always confused me, that
Because Simon, Chris and the guys knew how to package it. I see Chris quite often and he just laughs about the tricks they got upto.....they are theiving scousers who saw an opportunity.....sorry Chris I'll buy you lunch again if you ever read this:):)
Doug
Lol, I ask because I'm jealous, not because I don't really understand. As far as I'm concerned, they deserve all the money for keeping a straight face during investor meetings
TallTroll, rc, etc... points well taken... Here's more detail...
http://www.fashionologie.com/Details-Googles-New-Fashion-Initiative-Boutiquescom-12012112
QuoteThere are at least 19 designers, including Oscar de la Renta, Tory Burch, Cynthia Rowley, Marchesa, Isaac Mizrahi, Tracy Reese, Prabal Gurung, and Erin Fetherston, who have been invited to set up virtual stores on the site. There will also be curated boutiques selling looks worn by celebrities and influencers like Lady Gaga, Victoria Beckham, Emma Watson, Anna Wintour, Rachel Zoe, and Michelle Obama. Sarah Jessica Parker has been asked to set up her own personalized shop, and a handful of high profile bloggers are also said to have been invited to curate their own boutiques in exchange for a low five-figure payment.
All that said, I still think that for Google, this is about image search and mobile, and of course about data.
(Caution! Thread Has Time Warp.)
"Using the QPX search and pricing system it acquired as part of its $700 million purchase of ITA, Google.com/flights allows users to search for flights on almost any airline. And while it lists prices for many flights, only a handful of carriers have signed on to allow users to book flights at launch."
http://consumerist.com/2011/09/google-makes-even-more-sites-redundant-with-introduction-of-flight-search.html
<added>
Hotels are next. If I were Expedia or TripAdvisor, I'd put my head between my legs and kiss my ass good-bye.
This has been a long time coming.
has anyone used it properly yet and have an opinion as to how it compares to your usual flight search site?
We can assume Google will improve it, but pretty unimpressive so for IMO
I'm a little rusty on flight comparisons but I did a quick run-through of a few. It seemed OK, though not quite on par with Kayak. The thing is, the great volume of users aren't particularly skilled at flight comparisons so I doubt it will matter much. What I think IS important is that G intends to inject their flight suggestions into the main serps when they see a search for flights ...probably much like maps comes in when you search on a placename or postal code. This will skim off substantial traffic, I think.
The big three are flights, hotels, and car rentals. Care to guess when hotels and cars come in to the flight data serp inset? I'd say within the year.
I think the google hotel interface is brilliant. Its not exactly rocket science but I like the way it works with maps.
That said, there will surely be a point now they're moving into more mainstream searches where more of the public will realise the impact the portal model will have on companies - if they start taking more business from large employers I wonder if the general tone of google love-fest will change?
Anyone who is trying to make a business out of data aggregation marked up and spit back to the end user is imposing on the Google/Bing business model:
http://www.stonetemple.com/articles/interview-stefan-weitz.shtml (read that and be afraid if you are in that kind of business)