Can Google magic extend to radio and TV?

Miguel Helft at The New York Times reports that Google is struggling to gain traction in the radio and TV ad market. Google is a powerful web advertising company with a great brand name, but that doesn't impress radio and TV stations, or their advertisers. Not surprising if you think about it.

Google sells tiny text ads for pennies a click to millions of small advertisers. The ads cost nothing to create, are targeted to  small niches of interested buyers, and only cost money if someone clicks on them. Google serves the "long tail" of advertising...the millions of small businesses and web only businesses that don't advertise anywhere else. On the other side of the equation, Google's ads run on their own search site and tens of thousands of web sites in their ad network.

TV and Radio advertising is the exact opposite in almost every respect. Advertisers spend lots of money creating their ads employing actors, celebrities, voice talent, singers, camera crews, directors, etc. Even short radio ads cost lots of money to create and develop. Then the cost of buying advertising time on a radio or TV station is hugely expensive. Lots of money is spent on research to determine which stations to advertise on, which programs, which times of the day, etc.  Naturally only good sized successful businesses advertise on radio and TV.

So, where Google has millions of tiny advertisers, the TV and radio stations have a small handful of advertisers. Where Google uses tens of thousands of web sites to distribute the ads, TV and radio uses just one station...or maybe a small network. Lastly, TV and radio is "broadcast" to a vast faceless audience, while Google ads are targeted to people searching for obscure things.

Google is a phenomenally successful web advertising company with a great business model. Google totally disrupted and changed the web advertising business. It is quite logical for them to think they can extend their reach to TV, radio, newspaper, and magazine advertising. Logical...but maybe not practical.

Google has plenty of time to figure this all out. But my guess is that applying their new successful web formula to the old TV and radio advertising business is not likely to work very well. Time will tell.

Subscribe - To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email go here and enter your email address in the box in the right column.

Comments

[Bob]

Don,

I really like your blog and commentary. But I noticed in my RSS feed filter view today that more of your posts are flagged GOOG (#1 at 35), than MSFT (#2 at 33). Does that say something concerning about who's setting the pace?

[Steve Morsa]

As I've believed since they began entered these new markets, Don, I agree with your concerns about Google being able to transfer their expertise from search PPC to the far different worlds of TV, radio, and print...

In addition to the points you make, one critical question/problem is this:

If I'm a company--really, of any size, revenue, or ad sophistication--why would I compete against others in an auction...for the right to pay more for a print, radio, or TV ad than it would cost me to place that very same ad myself?

[don bosco]

no offense google

i love you still because of your Godly search engine but you have failed to attract customers on several new products e.g. Q&A GOOGLE MOVIES

so moving to TV and radio ?

go straight up your online services first

[Danial Jameel]

As I stated earlier in my Blog that Google like any other major player will start to expand into new markets. The expansion is not the problem but How, where and when are the key questions.

Google primary advertisment has always been directed towards the masses online. It is cheaper, looks very basic and hence attracts the masses. TV advertisment as Don states are a much more complex body where before the advertisment is even created or designed processes such as Marketing strategies, comsumer psychology, Public Relations, placement etc have to be studied and taken into account.

I know this is not the a raw example but Google is more like Toyota compared to the TV advertisments Ferraris. Toyota markets to the masses and is the biggest car institution in the world in terms of value and soon in terms of production and size (it should overtake GM sometime this year accroding to many estimates).

[Brian Despain]

So I guess Google acquiring Doubleclick shows us some insight into that strategy. Doubleclick has a long list of large advertisers it has worked with. The real question Don is why Microsoft got outbid. They can't think they can build a something like Doubleclick for 2 billion can they?

[Tax Lien]

I just hope that Google won't start using his own network to advertise on it as doubleclick is doing. I had doubleclick service on my site www.taxliensecret.com but when adaware started notifying my website's cookies as adaware, I stopped using them. Thanks for info!

[Ad Com]

Well Don,

As constantly one of top 5 copywriters in Europe by AdCom in previous 4 years, I have asked myself that question many times. But, there is actually very simple answer.

most Ads on tv and such are not direct advertizing, I mean, useless, institutional ads. They don't wish, know or want to track their results.

And other thing is that television and radio is kind of medium that can't track how many visitors are watching/listening at the moment. Not technologically possible. Their only statistics are made by surveys.. Because, even if they could implement some software/hardware in new TVs, many people have 10 year old TVs in their homes.

So I think that this pay per click, results only idea will never get alive for television, fortunately for some and unfortunately for others..

Btw. nice thoughts!