Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet

Google Forays into Print Advertising 129

Posted by CmdrTaco from the nothing-else-happening-in-august dept.
dotpavan writes "It's not that if Google farts, it makes headlines, but this move is a smart one, at least for a tech company which was primarily thought of a search-engine company. Yahoo News reports that Google has ventured into print ads (or offline ads as they are called there) by buying pages at PCMagazine and Maximum PC. More interesting is the website adsbygoogle.com which has these images, but the main page is not functional. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Forays into Print Advertising More

Google Forays into Print Advertising

Comments Filter:

  • Finally! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ingolfke ( 515826 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @02:58PM (#13456920) Journal
    I was really becoming concerned that Google may have gone into bankruptcy... without the unending stream of daily Google articles to reassure me of the companies present, future, and hypothetical activities.

    • Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)

      by the_mighty_$ ( 726261 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @03:07PM (#13457025)

      I agree that posting every move Google makes is pretty lame, but I think in this case it is warranted. This is a pretty big move that could have big consequences.

      Although its strange, because they still have some stuff [google.com] on their website bashing offline advertising:

      (quote from linked page) "Offline advertising is not of interest, Schoolcraft says. "It's much more expensive than online advertising, and it's not measurable."

      • Re:Finally! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by op12 ( 830015 )
        Although its strange, because they still have some stuff on their website bashing offline advertising.

        Actually, that's their customer's comment. And if you consider it, Google is solving one of two problems mentioned in that comment. They are reducing the price for "offline" advertising through deals with these publications, and packages for customers to advertise on and offline. What remains to be seen is the second part: reaching a measurable audience on the offline side.

        • Re:Finally! (Score:2, Informative)

          by MmmmJoel ( 26625 )
          Actually, they are also addressing the second part.

          All phone numbers in the ads are actually Google toll-free numbers that are redirected to the advertisers phone number -- click-throughs via phone.

        • Google... Hopefully not just another media buyer (Score:5, Interesting)

          by The-Bus ( 138060 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @05:55PM (#13458850)
          The only problem is that these companies already exist. They're called media buyers, or ad agencies. If Google is going the agency route then they might do well because agencies are (to some extent) known for no results and a high cost. If Google is bringing this to the populace, then that's not a bad idea.

          As an aside, it would be interesting if Google took the AdWords approach to advertising in print magazines and let companies try to outbid each other for spots in different magazines. To take it a step further, imagine if when the magazine is printed, they bind in an ad by Google that is taken to their printers by Google. So Google buys ad space in the middle of the magazine (in the centerfold). Let's say Google does this with Harpsichord! Harpsichord! Harpsichord!, the quarterly for Baroque music enthusiasts. They usually print 50,000 issues. Google partners with them and Google will say, "Just put our centerfold in your magazine, it will be 4 pages of ads."

          Well, now imagine that Google sells this ad space not only size-wise in the page (say, by quarters of a page), but also by chunks (of 10,000). So if you really wanted to advertise in H!H!H! you now have the option of advertising only to 10,000 of those readers, at a reduced cost.

          Let's take this a step further and look at a real example. Say you're a small custom amp manufacturer, and you want to advertise in Guitar World. Take a look at their rate card [futurenetworkusa.com]. If you want to advertise a one-page ad in their magazine, it's going to cost you $11,000 for a single one-page color ad. If you only wanted to spend $2000 you're out of luck.

          But lo and behold, here's Google, who buys 48 pages of ads from Guitar World for $318,000 (the centerfold is 4 pages front and back, so it's 48 x $6625 = $318,000). Now let's say Guitar World prints 50,000 issues per month. Google has bought the centerfold for the magazine and is now letting YOU advertise in it. But Google takes it a bit further. They deliver the pre-printed centerfolds to Guitar World, so now they can put whatever they want on the centerfolds, and have them be as different as they want. Now they come to you and say, "Hey Small Local Custom Amp Manufacturer, how would you like to advertise in Guitar World with a full page ad? I know you don't have $11,000, but what if told you you could spend $0.30 per full page ad in Guitar World, per magazine?" And you think to yourself, you know - that's not a bad idea. I can spend $750 and have 3,000 people see my big, full-page ad... in Guitar World! And you sign up.

          Well, you have 2,500 people see your ad in Guitar World and believe you're a huge big-shot company. Meanwhile, Google spent $318,000 on buying these ads and they get 120 companies just like yours signed up for the first issue, showing their big ads concentrated on a small slice of readers. Google's revenue after one year is $1,080,000. Now imagine this being done in hundreds of magazines, and Google packages this so that your ads can get spread across readers in many different kinds of music magazines. Maybe Rolling Stone, and Spin, and a bunch of others.

          In that way, it ties in very nicely with Ad Words. And it can tie in further if Google goes for a cost-per-call and each of these ads has a custom 800 number where you get charged $X if someone calls. (This is already being done by some of the CPC companies, I believe).

          Hell, if they're not going to do it, I just might. :)

      • Kudos to google, for they are starting to broaden out to give them a foothold against Microsoft. We finally have a viable commonly-used representation of Linux!
    • Until Google adds the ability to convert to chains [google.com], I think we should all be concerned about their falling into bankruptcy.
    • This sounds like pretty mild news compared to their other announcements http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40076 [theonion.com].

  • Yahoo News about Google (Score:4, Funny)

    by varmittang ( 849469 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @02:59PM (#13456938)
    Yahoo News is reporting on something for Google, basically giving them free advertisement for their new service. Am I missing something.

  • What images? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by logik3x ( 872368 )
    [quote]More interesting is the website adsbygoogle.com which has these images, but the main page is not functional.[/quote] I don't see any images... anyone has a mirror?

  • Gooogle (Score:1, Funny)

    by HG Slashdot ( 895363 )
    I gooled my goodle to find a place to google a google and found out it googles $5.

  • Uh oh... (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by MattWhitworth ( 858990 )
    I think we'll soon be facing an integer overflow if someone's been counting the Google stories on Slashdot y'know.

    • Re:Uh oh... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by inblosam ( 581789 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @03:02PM (#13456980) Homepage
      Any company that can make people like us excited about what they do and what they have in the pipeline is going to be in the spotlight time and time again. What else do you expect from those who thrive on tech news and new techs.

      • But are most of "us" excited about Google? I usually don't even read Google articles anymore. This one is a little different, because it's actually news.

        But there's GMail, their IPO, Google Maps, Google Earth, the chat thing, and this. Aren't those the big "OMFG!!!11!" things Google has done lately? At most, that should be 5 or 6 stories. But there are single days where Google gets more articles than that.

        From all the attention they're getting, you'd think they invented all that stuff. They di

      • Normal reporting on an exciting company is one thing, but a lot of Slashdot's articles are "Google Rumored To Be Making OS" or "Google Rumored To Be Making Browser." A ton of it is just filler to get Google on the front page for more page hits.

        What do I expect from people who thrive on tech news? Actual tech news. There is tons going on in the world beyond what's getting posted to Slashdot these days. Five years ago, you saw a lot more great science and technical articles on the front page, but no longe
      • What else do you expect from those who thrive on tech news and new techs.

        Jaded cynicism with a strong infusion of common sense.

    • 334 in the /. searchable archives since last march.

  • Googlefart (Score:4, Funny)

    by slideroll ( 901934 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @02:59PM (#13456947) Homepage
    Now if they could only figure out a way to syndicate farts. Then they'd have something...

  • Less effort and cheaper (Score:5, Interesting)

    by inblosam ( 581789 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @02:59PM (#13456949) Homepage
    Is the main idea, and it is done by Google having a pool of advertisers ready to put in ads, and Google gets a "discounted rate" because they are always giving out ads consistently and easily. Very interesting, reminds me of the Costco (or Sam's Club) of advertising.

    • Re:Less effort and cheaper (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @03:59PM (#13457548) Journal
      This already happens in the magazine publishing industry. Ad agencies can get the 12x or 11x contract rate, and fill the space with ads from different clients each month.

      Ad brokerage is a great way for print media to guarantee revenue, while allowing smaller advertisers to get in print.

      Howver, I don't think this is about cheaper, or easier. This is just Google diversifying how it delivers its services. They can offer a more complete portfolio of advertising solutions to their clients, similar to how many ad agencies manage ad strategies for their clients.

      Don't be surprised to see Google getting into the television advertising brokerage market within the next few years.

  • Yar! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Prophet of Nixon ( 842081 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @03:01PM (#13456961)
    Is everything on Slashdot lately just the stuff that was on Reuters in the morning? I read this hours ago. Yar! I've half a mind to demand that stories copied from big news sites not be accepted, as they are already obvious at other news outlets.

    • Re:Yar! (Score:2, Funny)

      by nuremon ( 791801 )
      Well, some of us are too lazy to use other news sources....
    • Is everything on Slashdot lately just the stuff that was on Reuters in the morning? I read this hours ago. Yar! I've half a mind to demand that stories copied from big news sites not be accepted, as they are already obvious at other news outlets.

      No, but some of it is, at least if it was tech related. SlashDot has no Reporters. It is a discussion board surrounding NerdNews culled from news organizations from around the web.

      What was the discussion like at Rueters?
      Thankfully we have your contribution of

      • The really sad part (at least of the moderation system) is that the only time I actually bother to post a truly meaningless rant, it gets modded "informative" and "insightful"... when normally, informative and insightful comments (largely from people who are not me; I rarely get past a single syllable on most things) get ignored. Frankly, if I weren't me I'd have modded myself "troll" or perhaps "offtopic", had I both mod points and the ability to do so.

        I don't understand Google's plan on this either... t
        • wouldn't that cost more to the customer (the company wishing to advertise) in the long run anyway?

          Traditionally no. Most magazines have different rates for different size ads. Full page ad is expensive but not as expensive as 2 half-page ads. Or 4 Quarter page ads. Some magazines only have full-page. Google works a low-rate deal buying 2 Full pages a month for 24 months in a couple of mags. Google can charge higher rates than mag for 1/4 page ad that may or may not be available through the magazine. Cus

  • I don't get it (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kaede128 ( 911697 )
    Why are the article and summary hyping this "move" up so much? Haven't traditional print-publishing companies been doing this for ages? All Google is doing is buying space in a magazine, and re-selling the ad space, if I am not mistaken.

    • Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Interesting)

      by yopa ( 910943 )
      For big publishers and big advertisers, the print ad market is probably quite efficient. Think of local small publishers, though (e.g. your small-town free weekly, college newspapers, 'zines, etc.) where the ad guy spends hours and hours on the phone cold-calling local businesses. Having a centralized marketplace to buy/sell ad space would be pretty handy, I think. Now think about integration with the rest of the speculative soon-to-be-localized google services.
      • If only it were so easy.
        Unless you're contemplating simple Classifieds (this market, of course, has already been killed by Craig's List), regular ads require a lot of interaction and I don't believe it can be done online the way they do it with AdWords.
  • Re-selling print ad space doesn't seem like the most profitable business. Of course, I have no idea how much advertising space costs in print, or how much of a break Google might get for taking out a full-page ad that it then fills with smaller ads, but it doesn't seem like it would be very efficient. It is an interesting move, though. Anyone have an idea of the size of the ad market in print vs. online (in terms of dollars)?

    • Google it! (Score:3, Funny)

      by bubbaD ( 182583 )
      Your asking something that can be looked up on Google.com!?!?
      Geez, apparently these ads aren't very effective...
      • Um trying googling something like "Ad space prices" or "advertising space prices" and be prepared for a) completely irrelevant information (space.com is number 2?) b) tons of spam wanting you to advertise c) maybe the random irrelevant link to advertising space in one random specific magazine? d) maybe 20 pages in what you are actually looking for.

    • Re:re-selling ad space? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by halcyon1234 ( 834388 ) <halcyon1234@hotmail.com> on Thursday September 01, 2005 @03:49PM (#13457436) Journal
      I think the business model goes slightly beyond just buying and selling ad space.

      Here's how it can work to Google's advantage:

      1) Google buys up a whole bunch of bulk, untargetted adspace. Since they're buying in bulk, they get a nice discount. Since its untargetted, it's also cheaper

      2) Google then sorts all their bulk stuff by catagory/demographic. "Okay, we have X pages of 18-24 year old sports car drivers, X pages of 14 year old makeup girls, X pages of 65+ dental salve, etc...". Chances are, because of GoogleAds, they already have a good chunk of the market research done as to what demo fits where.

      3) Now there are the companies who want to advertise. Normally, these companies pay big bucks to market researchers, who in turn tell the companies "This demographic likes your product, and this is where you should advertise it, because that advert space targets your demographic".

      4) Google approaches these companies, and says "Hey, company Y. We know your demo is this (because of GoogleAds), and we have X pages worth of advertising that targets your demo (and we know that because of GoogleAds). If you want to buy some adpsace, let us know"

      5) Now, Google can sell small chunks of advertising to those companies at a good price, because Google bought untargetted ads in bulk. Those companies in turn save a pretty penny, because they don't have to pay market researches to tell them WHERE to advertise. Also, they don't have to pay the adspace people directly. They save money there because they wouldn't have bought in bulk (more expensive), and would have bought targetted adspace (more expensive).

      So, Google buys up ads cheap, and sells them for a reasonable price to companies, who in turn save money buy not having to pay both marketting and ad firms.

      Profit? {shrug} I guess Google's stocks will tell.

      • Sounds like a decent enough business, but it's awfully hard work compared to the licence to print money that is Google Ads. The online advertisers and the publishers do all the hard work optimising ad positioning, wording, demographics, keywords, etc. Google sit back and take a nice percentage
        • Sounds like a decent enough business, but it's awfully hard work compared to the licence to print money that is Google Ads.

          You're right. It is much easier to make money (for Google, at least) with online ads than with offline ads.

          But...

          If they do both, then that's even more money they're making. They're not doing offline ads to replace their online ones, just to suppliment them.

          So if the offline ads crash'n'burn, then they still have their online ads to fall back on.

      • I'd like to see Google get an advanced copy of the publication (maybe a few hours before it goes to print), run it though their AdSense routines, and have just the right ads put in just the right spots!

        =Smidge=
  • Well, for a technology company that serves up millions of pages daily, that site is already slashdotted (adsbygoogle).

    I would have expected them to configure their server farm to cope with this, depending on demand.
    • If you read the article, you would have noticed it clearly states

      More interesting is the website adsbygoogle.com which has these images, but the main page is not functional.
      • I do not see 404 as disfunctional, that means there is a error on the client side, not server side.

        At least that is how i interpret it.

        Disfunctional would be 'Hello we are google, this page does nothing', or at least along those lines.

        This is a matter of interpretation.

  • We've known they were planning it..... (Score:5, Informative)

    by the_mighty_$ ( 726261 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @03:02PM (#13456983)

    This page [paidcontent.org] dated in 2003 shows that Google has been planning this for quite awhile. I wonder what took them so long?

  • They've become part of the evil mind-manipulating corporate advertising conspiracy! Bastards! Only evil masterminds would think to add "don't be evil" to their mission statement, 'cause its obviously a phoney claim!

    I hope I'm being funny, because I'm not being entirely sarcastic!
  • So, "people doing searches on Google really did not know that they were on an ad network all the time."

    But I think most poeple prefer to think of Google as a search engine, not an ad network.

    • Re:Better Image (Score:2, Insightful)

      by fishmasta ( 827305 )
      It's just the same way people think of TV and radio stations as entertainment companies, rather than using the programming to gain advertising dollars.

  • From the summary... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BlackCobra43 ( 596714 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @03:08PM (#13457036)
    It's not that if Google farts, it makes headlines,

    You must be new here.
  • I can't wait until I'm standing to pee in a bar somewhere and instead of the sports section or the menu for the place there's a Google.com add in there. That'll be the day!

  • Google Ads are good for democracy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ThatGeek ( 874983 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @03:16PM (#13457124) Homepage
    You'll probably think that I am a nut, but I think that Google ads are important for a democratic system. Here's why.

    In the traditional media world (newspapers and TV), content producers are beholden to advertisers. They don't want to say anything that will offend their sponsors for fear of losing revenue.

    Google (online) ads correct the problem. By truly separating producer and advertiser, keeping each fairly anonymous to the other, content producers are not required to pander to advertisers -- it's difficult for advertisers to boycott the web pages on which their ads happen to appear. Content producers can create content as they wish and express the ideas that they wish without fear of retaliation.

    It's too bad a similar system can never be created in the offline (dead-tree) world that Google is now examining.
    • I think it might be possible to at least prevent the advertiser from knowing where they'll be printed.

      One problem I have with this anonymity is that I know for sure that I'll get a flood of ads for bootlegs on my web site should I use Google's ad system. I don't want to be associated with those leeches, and from what I can tell, there's no way to prevent that.
    • Google (online) ads correct the problem. By truly separating producer and advertiser, keeping each fairly anonymous to the other, content producers are not required to pander to advertisers -- it's difficult for advertisers to boycott the web pages on which their ads happen to appear.

      This only happens because one company, Google, controls a large percentage of online advertising. The same thing could happen with traditional advertising if a single media company controlled a majority of the advertising spac
      • How does it advocate a monopoly? If google had only 8 advertisers and 8 producers, they could still keep that anonymity between them, although they could pretty much guess where the ads would end up. In that case, Google just need a large enough sample space of each type of demo to really prevent 'guesses'. They certainly don't need a monopoly.
        • How does it advocate a monopoly? If google had only 8 advertisers and 8 producers, they could still keep that anonymity between them

          Google's size and position allows them to exert control over advertisers. If Google was smaller, a large advertiser could dictate terms to Google. Anonymity is a policy decision by Google, not a technical inevitability.
    • Google has the authority to ban any ad with which it disagrees [google.com], and some of their decisions (like "no gun ads" [worldnetdaily.com]) can be construed to have political overtones. Other stuff you can't advertise using Google [google.com] includes: beer or hard alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and other weapons.

      Google makes a great advertising service, but Google is not wholly libertarian in what it allows. I'm surprised that on Slashdot, a site I'd consider pretty libertarian [slashdot.org] in its own right, Google is so rarely criticized for its policies.
      • I'd imagine that has less to do with politics and more to do with rules about advertising in various districts they might hit. Advertising tobacco, at least, is heavily restricted all over the place. And the rules for alcohol are pretty diverse as well... I'd hate to take a chance that my geo-targeted ad went astray and tried to sell something in a market where advertising that product was restricted or illegal.
      • Why the prohibition on alcohol advertising? Is it a legacy of US puritan/prohibition-era thinking, or concern about the ads being seen by minors? In this regard I was amazed to read that US TV networks still refuse to air ads for spirits.

  • Let's see... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ELProphet ( 909179 ) <davidsouther@gmail.com> on Thursday September 01, 2005 @03:17PM (#13457129) Homepage
    $4B in new stocks... ~$2.5B in print advertising... Yeah, The Onion [theonion.com] seems to have it right.
  • Note to editors: check dates before filling in the dept.

  • Well duh... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Supp0rtLinux ( 594509 ) <Supp0rtLinux@yahoo.com> on Thursday September 01, 2005 @03:19PM (#13457150)
    Google is smart enough to know that there are people out there that don't live and die by the internet. If they see ads for Google, they're more likely to go to a google site when they first encounter the internet. Its like AOL is such a brand name, that many first time internet users naturally just type "AOL" into their browser. Sure, those of us that use the internet all the time won't give a Google ad a second look (except to notice that you don't normally see Google print ads), but for newbs, your grandma that just got her first Linspire PC, etc., knowing where to start is great... and knowing you can start with Google is a great place to start...

    PDA & Smartphone Optimized Sites [mobileoptimized.com]
    Replacing my laptop with a Treo [mobileoptimized.com]
  • Google's been in print for years! [searchenginelowdown.com]

  • The funcional ones, with the ads. (Score:5, Informative)

    by dark-br ( 473115 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @03:20PM (#13457163) Homepage
    More interesting is the website adsbygoogle.com which has these images, but the main page is not functional.

    So let's jump to the funcional links:

    http://www.adsbygoogle.com/pcmag/ [adsbygoogle.com]

    http://www.adsbygoogle.com/maxpc/ [adsbygoogle.com]

    http://www.adsbygoogle.com/pcmag/2005-09-20/ [adsbygoogle.com]
  • Google farts? Is that worse than a Microsoft fart? Or, how many techies die from a /. fart?
  • What I don't understand is why Google can't do a global update of the "Google" logo for the 404 error? Are they that incompetent? :)

  • Google Purge (Score:2, Funny)

    by ValuJet ( 587148 )
    I wonder if this has anythign to do with Google Purge [theonion.com]?
  • this person obviously does not read slashdot
  • CmdrTaco? Did you notice the date?

    Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday September 01, ... nothing-else-happening-in-august dept.
  • Why is anyone suprised? I'm not [redferret.net].
  • I don't see the market here. Google is setting itself up a middleman, but why do we need one? What service is Google actually providing? Saying that Google buys in bulk and then parcels it out misses the point. It's good for the advertisers, but why is it good for the magazine? Why would I as a magazine let Google get a piece of my advertising revenue?
  • Why I like google.

    Adds are text.
    Search screen is clean and minimalist.

    Print adds, in the true spirit of Google will not bug me in the slightest. If I am reading a computer magazine, I am more likeley to be in the mood to look at adds in print. This is opposed to being bombared with emails, popups, and phonecalls at dinner.

    However I doubt their effectiveness.
    - Print adds would target people who have not yet heard of google via word or mouth, or by the net. however tech/computer magazines more than likely
  • Hello!

    What if Google would distribute a free scanner pen, which you could connect to your computer, and would print bar codes with their ads, and if you scan them, your computer would go to an internet page?

    That would be something!
    • Heard of CueCat? The did something like that. They distributed them through Radio Shack. I don't think it worked out well for them though. Plus people modified them to become regular barcode scanners :) -jesse
  • It's not that if Google farts, it makes headlines, but this move is a smart one, at least for a tech company which was primarily thought of a search-engine company.

    Wow, what a rambling, unnecessary sentence. I take it the story submitter is a Wikipedian? Here, I'll revise it:

    For Google, this is a smart move.

    The best revision would be to eliminate the sentence entirely. It's an editorial aside that strays far from the actual story. Leave that to your blog please. The editors alone imbue enough bias in t

  • google wants (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kurtis25 ( 909650 )
    Google wants to learn how to track information and influence. They have to constantly change their plan to do this. They released Gmail by invitation so they could map the connections on the internet in 3 degrees of Kevin Bacon style. Once they figure out how we communicate they can patch that up with how we click ads then how we read ads and compare that to their search data to figure out how to maximize the efficiency of the information control and influence. They can then start printing books with print
  • It's not that if Google farts, it makes headlines

    I'm sorry, but if a corporation, a server farm, or a website farted, I'd really want to read about it. I mean what does it smell like? What causes it? Does it make a loud noise? Inquiring minds want to know!
  • It's not that if Google farts, it makes headlines...

    It's not? Could have fooled me!
  • This only confirms what's been known to smart folks for a long time - Google is an advertising company, not a tech company. If (as is not entirely unlikely) we have an economic crash because of Katrina - Google will suffer, badly.
  • That means that Google is going to start their own newspaper. Duh.
  • Oh, I am sorry it wasn't an ad. It was PBS saying thanks to Google for sponsoring NOVA by playing a clip provided by Google that told how cool Google is.

    Cool ad though. Anyone capture it?

  • Check out the advertisements for September 20th [adsbygoogle.com]. There is one for SubmitFire.com [submitfire.com].

    SubmitFire is the most effective method of generating traffic to your Website and improving your search results.

    Isn't that a little odd, considering Google warns you to "avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings" on their Guidelines [google.com] page?

    Anything to make a buck, I suppose.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close