MediaPost Publications - Did Google Bamboozle Us? - 01/13/2006

MediaPost Publications - Did Google Bamboozle Us? - 01/13/2006: "But, no matter how much you examine all these opinions about Google and its branding effort, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone talking about how Google did it. People always seem to start their dissertations on Google's brand with the notion that the company simply built a better mouse trap. Google's far superior search results made the company indispensable for hard-core Web users, we learn. This helped the company position itself as smarter than the rest. And the lack of advertising made the company's claims of benevolence believable. Somehow, a lot of people still even believe those claims, despite their irrelevance--and growing mounds of evidence to the contrary.
Using this as a starting point in deconstructing the brand is akin to teaching Intelligent Design in schools. It's less about science than it is about faith.
I say this because what's omitted from this starting point is the fact that Google's search results have never been far superior to Yahoo's, and probably haven't been much better than MSN's or Dogpile's, for that matter. (Which may not be completely fair, since Dogpile is essentially a search engine of search engines.) So, wait a second. The very basis of this brand has little or no basis in fact? How can that be?
------------------------------
It didn't care about being first--only "better." And everything its principals said about themselves inculcated their influencers to evangelize this gospel.

Even today, this brand is expressed clearly on the company's main page, especially when it does something clever with its logo. Google speaks to us. Its products speak too, but in a very different voice. "

This is true, but from a user's point of view Yahoo! have indulged into some intrusive advertising models. In addition, their alliances with BT - which forces you to download a Yahoo! application that opens their IM and installs a lot of other stuff. For me, this ruined thier image. If I'm looking for articles, I prefer Yahoo! If I want a meta search then dogpile is the best.

Google's image is their lack of it. You don't mind passing on information if searches are better. Google exceed with providing value at the minimum of risk.

What pies google have not got their finger's into - does worry me - AOL, WIFI etc as a consumer that there should be MORE choice from search engines.

We're not seeing this. Other search engines might team up with an ISP, but on the whole 'google' like 'hoover' is a dictionary word.

As a searcher, it is an engine of choice.

The one thing it does lack is something the genome project has - looking at searches and tries to match it personally, (albeit with music). Then, it's a matter of trust. It always comes down to a matter of trust.