The European nation is justified in its case against Google because it aims to protect other consumers and ensure the dominant companies do not distort or prohibit competition. Google provides online real-time advertisement information between the advertisers and publishers and uses its open bidding program to operate it (European Commission). On the other hand, Meta has an online advertisement display using its Meta Audience Network, which uses rivals and Googles advertising technology to market them. In 2018, the two companies came together and formed a Jedi Blue agreement whereby they merged the two services of Goggles Open Bidding Programme and Metas Meta Audience Network. This implies that other rivals will have to depend on Google and Meta to publish their advertisements, making them a monopoly in the industry against the EU trade rules in the region.
The EUs action is essential in the market because they avoid monopoly. When there is a monopoly, the two companies will be able to control the advertising services and prices and may use them to their own advantage. These are the effects of absolute advantage theory, whereby if each country produces what they are best in, they may sometimes use the products they produce to influence other counties (Hill 179). Therefore, the EU should ensure competition in the advertising industry to avoid monopoly and ensure that each consumer has an equal chance of advertising their products on online platforms.
EU protects consumers by helping them against extortion by several monopoly companies. For instance, when Google and Meta control the online advertising platform, they can influence some products and the consumers impair their judgement. Therefore, the EU must ensure that consumers have various products to choose from without influence from these dominant corporations (Hill 171). This way, consumers will have the freedom to choose products from different companies that satisfy their needs and at varying prices according to their budget.
Works Cited
European Commission. Press Corner. European Commission European Commission, Web.
Hill, Charles W. L. Global Business Today. 12th ed., Mcgraw Hill Llc, 2022.
The business environment in which companies operate today is always changing, and it is becoming more and more complex. Organizations, both private and public, feel increasing pressures that force them to react quickly to changing conditions and to be innovative in the way they operate. Managers have always directed their focus on information systems (IS) because such investments are deemed to provide real economic value to the business. The decision made by Google to enter fashion e-commerce presumes that there would be high returns in regards to gaining market share and expanding customer experience.
This article (Efrati & Morrison, 2010) elicits several IS strategy issues that are common in any business environment. With its newly implemented e-commerce site, Boutiques.com, Google seeks to widen its market base by offering customers new ways of searching and purchasing clothes and accessories. The site incorporates knowledge based systems such as machine learning to recommend products for buyers. This is an interesting IS strategy because the site helps the company to implement its business strategy of becoming an international search engine. It is also cost-effective since marketing through the Internet is cheaper as compared to traditional media such as television and newspapers.
The move to implement the website is driven by the need to compete with other companies such as Amazon.com Inc and EBay, thus gaining a competitive advantage. Although Amazon and EBay employ full e-commerce capability in their websites, Google seeks to enter the e-commerce market by first acting as an intermediary between the merchants and buyers. Google has been able to conduct research on the need to establish a fashion website. This has been the major breakthrough in embracing Internet and knowledge based technologies towards achieving its business goals (Efrati & Morrison, 2010). In addition, the organizational strategy of the company is to find new ways of serving customers. IS supports this strategy by enabling the company to direct customers to use their newly implemented website. Through the Internet, the company is able to reach its customers directly because the Internet spans the world.
According to Pearlson and Saunders (2009), a proper information system that meets the organizational requirements should be developed or acquired to support a firms business process. Google purchased Like.com in August 2010 for almost $100 million with an aim of improving the IT infrastructure of Boutiques.com. Google integrates managers, websites, employees, network, and data in driving its IS strategy. Managers make planning decisions; websites are the systems that link the company with its customers; employees ensure that strategies are followed; networks such as the Internet enable the company to build customer-driven websites; and data about the company and its customers enhance planning and business processes.
Information systems do not appear randomly in business, their development is time-consuming and cost-bearing experience that should only be undertaken after careful analysis and consideration of the objectives of an organization. In our article of focus, Google was able to analyze the business environment before acquiring its information system. Moreover, Efrati and Morrison (2010) assert that the system implemented by Google does not incorporate all the functionalities of an e-commerce website. It is the companys strategy of weighing the responses of customers so as to establish sustainable requirements for developing an e-commerce model. The Internet supports strategic planning because it enables Google to understand customer needs. By creating interactive web pages, the company can be able to obtain customer feedback relevant to specific requirements.
The goals of an information system are essential in determining the scope, shape and nature of the organization. It is important for managers to embrace information systems in order to achieve the corporate goal of a business strategy. Since an information system is comprised of hardware, software, people, network, and procedures used by organizations to provide information for decision making, the information requirements of a business is based on the managerial decision that has to concur with managerial levers.
Managerial levers that ensure proper implementation of organizational strategy include organizational, control, and cultural variables. Organizational variables encompass things like business processes, informal networks, and decision rights. Control variables include data, performance measurement, and planning. And cultural variables are the values that determine the organizational culture (Pearlson and Saunders, 2009). With regards to Google, the managers are concerned with driving the business processes and making decisions about the new system. Proper planning is also relevant in ensuring that the new site does not succumb to competition from other big e-commerce sites. The company establishes a culture of involving all the interested parties in any decision concerning corporate goals. It is therefore important to note that an information system allows an organization to execute its business strategy.
In essence, companies need to have a clear understanding of their long-term and short-term information requirements through the incorporation of appropriate information systems in their business operations. Business strategies ought to determine organizational and information strategies. As seen in the Google case, the companys business strategy of expanding its search capability determined the way in which it implemented an e-commerce website. The company has been able to focus on customers preferences and thus designing a site that makes customer experience fruitful.
Notably, the report demonstrates HRM decision-making process and practices in Google. The companys creative work environment and effective HR policies have made it a popular employer and one of the greatest workplaces in the world (Shrivastava et al., 2018; Tran, 2017). Additionally, Google is also a pioneer in people analytics, having generated superior business results through its effective use of analytics in the HR area. Google has launched the People & Innovation Lab to infuse data-driven decision-making into HRM (Shrivastava et al., 2018). This centers psychologists, decision scientists, and researchers conduct practical research and development on organizational procedures that manage its personnel.
Mathematical Algorithms
Google has recently created mathematical algorithms that utilize statistics to assist in making less personal recruiting and retention decisions. Shrivastava et al. (2018) state that Googles algorithm helps the recruiting team re-evaluate prospective candidates that were not previously evaluated, ensuring that suitable candidates are not overlooked. Hence, by requiring candidates to complete lengthy online surveys, the algorithm maps workers opinions, behaviors, and personality traits to the organizations skill needs. Applicants are awarded scores based on quantitative algorithms that indicate whether or not a candidateorganization fit will be achieved. Similarly, the retention algorithm uses historical data such as employee salaries, performance evaluations, and promotions to identify individuals likely to leave the company (Shrivastava et al., 2018). Therefore, this novel approach to talent management enables Google management to act before it is too late, and it also assists in tailoring retention approaches.
Oxygen Project
Google launched the Oxygen Project Initiative, a multi-year research project. The Oxygen Project intends to assess the competence of Googles multicultural managers (Shrivastava et al., 2018). It entailed a thorough examination of qualitative responses from employee surveys as well as employees expectations from management. Googles prevailing culture is an open culture where everyone may freely offer their thoughts and feedback to create a more pleasant and welcoming workplace culture (Tran, 2017). Moreover, this project implies that Google has a diverse range of cultures.
PESTEL and STEEPLE Analysis
Google has the potential to grow as Internet access expands in developing countries. When it comes to economic aspects, the corporation benefits from the financial stability of large markets and the rapid growth of developing countries (Rowland, 2020). As a result, worldwide growth aids in attracting top candidates and increasing the variety of Googles corporate culture. Regarding the legal aspect, increased laws for internet privacy are an external issue that provides opportunities to enhance products and raise consumer and employees satisfaction. Google is dedicated to treating all employees fairly, focusing on diversity and inclusion (Google Supplier Code of Conduct, n.d.). The goal is to provide safe working conditions and implement environmentally ethical and responsible processes.
Googles technical character suggests a strategy focus on the technology-related external variables highlighted in the PESTEL/STEEPLE research. The companys activities are linked to the software and hardware, internet services, and on-demand digital content distribution industries through the employment of computing technology (Rowland, 2020). For instance, Google uses mathematical algorithms to enhance its HRM decision-making process. Consequently, Google optimizes its algorithms not just to meet the diversity of consumers and their interests but also to enhance HRM.
Conclusion
To conclude, Google established the People & Innovation Lab to incorporate data-driven decision-making into HRM decision-making. In addition, the organization developed mathematical algorithms that use statistics to assist with less personal recruiting and retention choices. Furthermore, Google initiated the Oxygen Effort Initiative, a multi-year research project aimed at evaluating Googles multicultural management competency. The project also intends to promote an open culture where everyone is free to share their ideas and opinions. Essentially, the company is committed to treating all employees and potential candidates fairly, emphasizing diversity and inclusion.
Shrivastava, S., Nagdev, K. and Rajesh, A. (2018) Redefining HR using people analytics: The case of Google, Human Resource Management International Digest, 26(2), pp. 3-6. Web.
Googles management adopts several techniques to build and implement a human resource strategy. In the first technique, workers are granted stock options for investment, which leads to the inception of millionaires within the companysecondly, the provision of luxuriant benefits: celebrity appearances, exercise packages, and guest lecturers. Finally, the management created performance review techniques through peer reviews to provide appropriate feedback on every employees input. Promotions are based on positive peer reviews from fellow employees, including managers. Samsungs strategy in building an effective human resource strategy entails the development of the Samsung Human Resource Development Center (SHRDC). The management established the centre to administer the Samsung with high potentials vision and advance a cohesive culture through its employees.
Google implements a data-driven approach to human resources to hire the right talents in the market and increase performance. Their philosophy is based on hiring the most skilful talents and handing them the freedom to perform. Leaders at Google speculate that they employ the best people to maintain transparency and safe guard their hiring standards. An analysis of job performance data through goal setting and performance reviews is used to determine individuals eligible for promotions. To retain the best talents, Google offers compensation for exceptional performance.
On the other hand, Samsung fosters human resource through a selective approach in hiring proficient engineers from excellent high schools in South Korea. The company equipped talented recruits with the ideal working conditions and used stimulus packages to entice them to retain and attract talent. Samsung created an extensive recruiting system for hiring employees after dumping the previous approach where they employed individuals through connections and referrals. Byung-Chulls People First strategy was against nepotism. This human resource initiative arose a betrothed group of operators ready to deliver in a competitive environment. When the company noticed that South Korea lacked specialist engineers, they began outsourcing engineers and paid them well. High levels of motivation subsequently led to employee commitment and development.
Google keeps their employees well by rewarding them with exercise packages, free massages and surprise celebrity appearances. At Samsung, Byung-Chull Lee kept their employees by handing gifts, best working conditions and other incentives to retain them.
Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, introduced unit groupings to create development opportunities for employees and majorly because he believed that dividing the business into separate product lines would stimulate the dissemination of information. Department managers reported directly to the CEO, which encouraged information flow and enhanced autonomy. Samsungs global success majorly lies in its significant investment in learning opportunities for staff empowerment. They offered the New Employee Orientation (NEO) program which is a four-week intensive training offered to new employees to adapt to the Samsung culture.
Google promotes empowerment through a consistent approach of maintaining small teams to promote innovation. Executives believe that small groups impart freedom for innovation and ideas. Engineers are encouraged to devote 20% of their working time to individual projects. Through this initiative, creative workers implemented sensible ideas that brought some of the products used in the market. For instance, the 20% time is accountable for creating Gmail and Google maps applications. Samsung fosters empowerment through the Shin In Sa policy. The policy is responsible for the value provided for the company and its workers through imperative alignment. Initially, the company used the SHRDC, developed through the Samsung Business Leader Program, Samsung Shared Value Program, and Samsung Global Expert Program. These programs helped Samsung achieve global competitiveness and maintain a cohesive culture.
Google diversified their hiring system to balance gender and race. They also promoted diversity by upholding consistency on the philosophy serious without wearing a suit. Samsung enhanced diversity by nurturing cooperation within several functional departments. As a result, employees developed a sense of accomplishment.
From the onset it would seem that Google was destined for success from the moment of its inception; there is no doubt that Google tackled and solved a critical issue in the information technology sector that has persisted for long in very ingenious ways. It is this Googles first ingenious innovation that would set the stage for its future successes in the years to come, which is an expectation that it has not failed to deliver.
And as one pundit would aptly observe Google was a Company in a hurry to do great things and the technological innovation of its revolutionary search algorithm provided it with the lucky break that it so much needed (Gladwell, 2011). It is on this backdrop that we can best analyze the major success factors that positioned Google to its present day multibillion Company that it has become.
In a nutshell Googles success factors can be comprehensively summarized in a range of four factors even though they are many and varied, these are; first rate technology, business innovation, core competence & diversity and consumer orientation (Parikh, 2011; Kiran, 2011).
More importantly is the fact that Google has complimented its business model with an effective corporate and governance structure and sought the best human resource skills that it nurtured as the Company continued to grow. So let us now briefly discuss how each of these factors has directly contributed to Googles phenomenon growth.
First rate technology
Googles initial area of business focus was a destiny that it had no choice to alter given that its founders were information technology engineers who were at the time engaged in finding a solution to the menace that search engines presented at the time.
This factor was a blessing in disguise because as the years went by Google not only solved and perfected the search engine but also revolutionized the information technology industry in a way that has been unprecedented in just a short while.
All this was possible because of its first rate technology, which in this case was rooted in its efficiently designed search engine. These early events, is what steered the Company to focus entirely on the information technology industry and specifically in the search engine business.
This is aptly captured in the Companys mission statement which it still continues to retain despite its diversification business strategies which state Googles mission is to organize the worlds information and make it universally accessible and useful (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010).
Based on this it can be argued that if Google did not venture in the search engine business in the first place, then it wouldnt be the Company that it is today.
In fact, we can also argue that if Google did not have first rate technology that was able to solve the problems of search engines from a different approach it wouldnt have been the Company that it is now. Thus, we can see how first rate technology and creativity was integral to the success of Google.
Business Innovation
The fact that Google was a profit making organization meant that it needed creative business innovation to compliment its technological ingenuity; its probably because of this that Google hired one of the best and most experienced CEOs, Eric Schmidt who took over the responsibilities of the Companys business aspect.
At an early point Google caught up with the business of online paid listings in just about one years time (1999) from its inception and was probably among the first inventors of the cost-per-impression concept of advertisement that was not widespread at the time.
This concept would turn out to be very popular with advertisers since it favored their budgets more than the cost-per-click concept did; in addition, its click-through-rate turned to be also very popular with clients.
Four years later in 2003 it invented a varied method of paid listing which it referred as AdSense, a first of its kind even to date; over the years Google continued to launch new product inventions such as froogle and google maps among others (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010).
Meanwhile, it was strategically positioning itself as a key player in the industry by pursuing significant acquisitions deals key of which included YouTube and DoubleClick. Again if it was not for these business strategies, Google would have missed on a lot of opportunities.
Core Competence and Diversity
Googles greatest strength is on its core competence which Mr. Schmidt aptly observes by stating that it is in the business of making all the worlds information accessible and useful ; and this it has never disappointed (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010).
Because, Google has been very effective and efficient in its core areas of business it has come to perfect its products and consequently making a reputable brand name for itself globally. In fact, even when it has opted to diversify as it has been doing over the recent past, Google has continued to diversify along its core business areas.
This strategy has been very effective in furthering the vision and mission of Google over the years because it means that because of diversity the Company is insulated from risks associated with single business lines.
On the other hand, its core business implies that it is the best in what it does which means that it will continue to dominate the information technology industry as long as it continues to focus on its core competencies and remaining the best.
Consumer orientation
A critical evaluation of Googles strategy indicate that the Company has gone to great lengths to ensure that its products meets consumer expectation right from the moment that the product is being designed. In fact, every single product that Google has invented and projects which it has ventured into involve an element of motivation that is directed in solving consumer challenges and refining consumer usage of the product.
And because Googles products are designed with consumers foremost on mind they are deemed to be successful; an evaluation of its recent cell phone products such as Nexus One for instance would indicate that it has unique features such as voice recognition and touch screen which it states were motivated by a need to reduce dependence on keyboard-style text entry (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010).
Such foresight and consumer oriented products transverse all major Google products from its design of its flagship search engine to its recent invention of online payment option dubbed Checkout which was long overdue because it has finally solved the risks associated with online payment.
Limitations of Googles Organization Structure
From its inception Google made its intention to operate as an unconventional company ; most remarkably is the way that the companys founder Sergei Brin and Larry Page resisted issuing an IPO which would have brought in more shareholders and decision makers into the Company (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010).
However, the pressure to provide liquidity to stock holders and reward its employs eventually forced them to accept an IPO in 2004. During the launch of the IPO the company clearly informed prospective shareholders that the company was not a conventional company and it did not intend to become one (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010).
The top management further explained that the organizations unique organization and corporate structure is what enabled it to perform effectively because employees were not bogged down by the organizations red tape (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010).
In issuing its IPO the company divided its equity into two groups, class A and class B stocks, a rare practice in itself but which effectively insulated the Company from hostile takeovers. The implications were that, though the top management held 30% ownership of the company, they exercised 80% control over the organization.
The unrestricted control of the overall direction of the organization by the founders of the Company has allowed for strategic risk taking because they have control over the overall direction of the company.
It has also given the company stability needed for the company to focus in its core business of innovation and design of new products that continue to strengthen the Companys position in the industry (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010). Googles management was also aware that they operated in an industry where hostile mergers and acquisitions were common occurrences.
In order to insulate themselves from such, a distinctive governance and corporate structure that insulated the Company was the answer especially since it enabled the management to focus their energy on other meaningful areas of building the Company rather than guiding its takeover.
Google Inc is also entirely run by a handful of people and only three of them are responsible for chatting the Companys strategic direction which is very different from what happens in mainstream organizations.
Corporate Values
From the onset the founders of the company adopted and instilled strong and distinctive corporate values in every aspect of its business processes; these values which formed Google philosophy have been integral to its success and include i) do no evil, ii) technology matters and iii) we make our own rules (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010).
These three rules amongst others have had a profound effect on the companys actions and contributed immensely to its performance. The principle of do no evil for instance guides its advertising and search business and forbids the advertising of guns, hard liquor and pornography content (Google.com, 2011).
In addition, Google insists on ethics in its advertising business and does not engage in manipulating results to make a quick profit or misconstrue facts to gain a competitive edge which has served to maintain its integrity.
Its search engine is designed to show only relevant to appear; as a result of its integrity, Google searches are respected by users as the results are reliable, dependable and trustworthy. It is no wonder then that Googles share of the search business was approximated in 2010 to be at 65% in US and 90% in the rest of the world (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010).
Googles unique organizational structure is also seen in other varied ways such as in the way that it claims to make its own rules and does not allow itself to be controlled by limitations placed by the industry (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010).
The company does not comply to all rules especially if they do not contribute to its operations and has over the past indicated its unwillingness to make public all its future strategies among other information.
Managing Innovation
The core of Googles workforce is engineers; naturally engineers are described as brilliant thinkers, competitive by nature and have low tolerance for others who are not as driven or knowledgeable as they are (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010). Googles CEO Eric Schmidt developed a unique and unconventional approach to manage them.
He developed the 70/20/10 rule of managing innovation which stated that 70% of all their time and effort should be spent on an organization core activity which was search business and advertisement (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010).
This rule has not only been unique to most mainstream organizations but is also the strategy behind Googles success in producing very innovative products.
The 20% time spent by engineers on related projects has been the source of virtually all new and major innovations that the company has developed this include Gmail, Google Earth, amongst others (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010). The company acknowledges that most of its innovations come from engineers personal projects rather than from the companys top management (Battelle, 2005).
The company also operates small work teams as opposed to wide departments that are the tradition in large organization such as Google. This is because of what the CEO describes as focused energy because few people working together offer several advantages which he cites as being more productive and allow the company to pursue several hundred projects simultaneously (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010).
Googles has also done away with middle level management personnel and this has served to cut bureaucracy and increases efficiency which is integral to its success of its projects (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010).
Limitations of Googles Organization Structure
While it is clear that Googles unique organization and governance structure as well as its corporate values have been a source of its distinctive competitive advantage, it also places severe limitation on the organization. The absolute control that has been placed on the three top executives demonstrates lack of an oversight body such as a board of directors in controlling and managing risk.
Though the company has not undertaken any project that has resulted in a major loss, we cannot foretell if its smooth run will continue into the future. A board of director that is especially skilled and independent is useful in advising and managing risk in a company but which Google has none courtesy of its unique organizational structure.
Googles unique corporate and management strategy is valuable in attracting brilliant engineers that aspire to work in an environment where they can pursue projects that they desire.
However, on the other hand there is a possibility that such employees egos can make them ungovernable especially when they realize their contribution to the company and it is possible that they might leave the company and take their talent to other competing organizations.
Furthermore as the company grows and mature and its current management naturally becomes more engaged in social and family activities which means they have less time to commit to the Company. Thus, there is need to inject new management which is unlikely to happen under the present governance system that the organization has.
Recommendations
The company should retain its strong, unique and distinctive corporate values and management concept that foster an environment of innovation. The following strategic suggestions can help Google continue to dominate the IT industry in future.
The company should consider breaking down into several strategic business units that are separately managed by professional managers. This is because the company portfolio of products has diversified and each of these products has great potential for profitability and growth independently from each other.
Because some of the products are unrelated for example Google phone, Google books and Google self driven cars, it is not possible to manage all these diverse products under one roof. Instead these products can be developed and exploited fully by separate and distinct companies.
As the company, IT industry and the management of CEO mature, there is need for a new breed of workers to be hired who will take the company forward. Just like the founders Larry page and Sergei Brin recruited Eric Schmidt to strengthen the management team, the company should consider hiring new talent to move the company forward.
The company should also develop new mechanisms to retain its skilled and experienced workers to guard against having them being headhunted by its competitors. The company can reward such employees with senior positions in the company or include them on Googles board.
In addition, Google should consider establishing middle level management personnel in its organization structure; this is because as the organization becomes bigger, its activities increase and the existing management cannot provide adequate oversight to all the organizations activity. Thus, there is need for new management that will supervise and guide everyday job activities of workers.
Due to the increasing popularity and usefulness of social networking media, the company should seek to venture towards that market. The company already has a social networking site Orkut and it can use this effectively to facilitate its entry (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010).
The company should use its superior technological ability and brand power to market this site so as to reach its intended market segment as the opportunity for advertising through social media is immense.
According to the case study (Edelman and Eisenmann, 2010) the bulk of advertising revenue that Google makes is from the US market; the company should thus expand and exploit other regions in the world such Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America as its core business of advertising and search is global.
Finally, the company should continuously and vigorously continue building on its products integrity and upholding of business ethics and thereby safeguard the brand name that it has so far made for itself which has over the recent past been threatened by various suits from its major competitors (Foxnews.com, 2011).
References
Battelle, J. 2005. The 70% Solution: Google CEO Eric Schmidt Gives us Golden Rules for Managing Innovation. Web.
Edelman, B. & Eisenmann, T. 2010. Google Inc. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Foxnews.com. 2011. Microsoft Files Antitrust Suit against Google. Web.
Gladwell, J. 2011. Factors behind Googles Early Success. Web.
Google.com. 2011. Play it safe, family-safe. Web.
Kiran, M. 2011. Key Factors behind Googles Success. Web.
Parikh, J. 2011. What were the key factors behind Googles early success? Web.
Due to the tendency of businesses to develop more quickly than their consumers demands change, most businesses eventually produce goods and services that are too smart, costly, and complex for most of their markets customers. A companys comparative advantage demonstrates how it may differentiate itself from rival businesses. An organization has a comparative advantage if it can produce an item or service at a lower opportunity cost than other businesses. Its standout product, marketing plan, and customer outreach achieve this. Thus, the paper aims to discuss disruptive innovation and the aspects of competitive advantage in the business market.
In economics, a circumstance is said to as having a comparative advantage, which allows for the possibility that one party may create an item or service at a lower opportunity cost. It demonstrates a nations economic edge over other nations when manufacturing a certain commodity or service. Sometimes it is thought that specialization and labor division will lead to comparative advantage. To put it another way, trade between nations may be advantageous for both sides if one nation specializes in producing one item or service. In contrast, another nation specializes in offering a different good or service. Among all technological companies, Google currently has the biggest competitive advantage (Matthews, 2021). This is because they can apply all three elements of Clayton Christensens disruption architecture.
They offer services at no cost, with great performance, such as a continually developing search engine, and little distinction because they provide products not unique (Matthews, 2021). The organizations competitive advantage is primarily its capacity for innovation. The company uses the disruptive innovation principle to learn more about customers desires and how they will utilize a product or service. They then employ this knowledge to develop new products that meet those demands practically and affordably. One of the best disruptive innovation instances is Uber, which has impacted the taxi industry by providing an app-based ride-sharing service that enables customers to book rides from their smartphones (Dooley, 2019). Making it easier for passengers to find local drivers available for pickup or drop-off has changed how people see transportation and move about cities. Another is Amazon which originally served as an online bookshop but has now added eBooks and services for cloud computing (Dooley, 2019). Still, Google has been able to capitalize on its position as a market leader by developing new products and through the open communication channels provided by its flat organizational structure, which fosters innovation and design.
Function-based, product-based, and flatness are the three primary pillars of Googles cross-functional organizational structure. Roles and the organizational function they fulfill are used to arrange the structures function-based branch. As a result, Google is split into the worldwide marketing and financial sections. Top-down communication is made easier by these categories, and they also aid in navigating any disruptive internal or external changes. To maintain its position in the market and find new methods to improve its corporate structure and business strategies, Google continuously assesses its rivals. One of Googles most significant and striking components is flatness, which describes open communication channels between lower and top management levels within a business. As a result of its efficient usage of open communication, Google generates a wide range of concepts and cutting-edge tactics from all parts of the company to accomplish a single objective.
Overall, to assess a firms competitive advantage, it is necessary to use Clayton Christensens disruptive innovation theory because it assists in deciding on a company. They can take advantage of all three elements of Christensens disruption frameworklow cost, high performance, and low differentiation. Google currently has the strongest comparative advantage of any technology company because they provide products that are not unique. Due to this, they are at a disadvantage to larger companies with equivalent resources. Businesses might avoid being disrupted by new technology or products by concentrating on incremental improvements instead of ground-breaking discoveries. However, throughout time, this method frequently results in stagnation or even decline when compared to rivals that emphasize innovation more than little modifications.
Google is a term that almost everyone who uses a computer recognizes both the computer smart and those who are not. Google has grown rapidly since it was founded in 1998 and made huge milestones in the short time since its inception.
The founders of Google Inc are Sergey Brin and Larry Page who met at Stanford University for their graduate studies in computer science. They developed the search engine as a class project and it was called BackRub then. It operated in the Stanford servers. In 1997, they changed the name of the search engine to Google.
The search engine
Millions of users across the globe use the Google search engine. The search engine can be used in a number of languages found around the world. Google is the leading search engine in the United States. It leads the market and by 2006, it had about 48% of all internet searches (Vise, 2006). Its closest rival yahoo came in second with 22% of all the internet searches.
Undoubtedly, it has surpassed major competitors and its rapid speed in developing new technologies has placed it ahead. Vise says that Google is the course of becoming global (2006). However, before it does that it needs to tackle the obstacles it faces in the Asian countries. For instance in China Google has been in tug of war with the China government for quite sometime now which supports the local search engine called Baidu.com.
In Japan Google faces fierce competition from yahoo, which has millions of users. In addition, in South Korea Google penetration is slow as the government supports local search engines, which enjoy a large market share. To gain a holding in such countries Google has had to take an action and market its brand in Korea.
On the other hand, Google has yet to become very successfully in the developing countries not because of government censorship, but due to the inaccessibility of the web to many people. If the web access increases in the developing world Google will certainly do well as the countries have limited technologies and thus cannot afford to develop search engines that would give Google a run for its money yet.
Dwindling fortunes in search
Google may have dominated the search business but the fortunes are dwindling as new competition has come in such as Bing. Bing is gaining popularity as well as other sites that are offering consumers and advertisers alternatives. It therefore means that Googles core business of online search is reducing gradually.
Since its inception, Google has posted impressive growth rates and investors have been very interested in its stocks over the past years. However, the growth has slowed which has left many investors a bit worried. Google faces stiff competition from Microsoft, which has been around longer and has a bigger financial muscle than Google.
Microsoft dominates in operating systems for desktops and Google has been forced to take radical decisions which have impacted on their core business by having to spend money in other ventures such as paying $ billion to own a 5% stake in Time Warners AOL which Microsoft wanted to buy and lock out Google search engine.
Moreover, there are fears Microsoft might embed msn search in its future operating systems and this speculation has seen Google pay Dell- a PC manufacturer to embed Google as its default search engine (Vise, 2006).
The dilemma
Google realizes the new challenge and according to the company is unsure of its next act that goes beyond its core business of search that has most certainly brought it unparalleled success. In a bid to maintain its success, Google has diversified its activities.
For instance, it has purchased YouTube at a cost of $1.6 billion, Admob a mobile advertising platform at $750 million and wager on ad network DoubleClick at $ 3.1 billion. It is important to note these ventures have not yet contributed significantly to Googles $23-billion-a-year revenue stream (Copeland & Weintraub, 2010, p 1). Even Googles successful product of the Android operating system has yet to make a huge impact on the companys revenue.
Googles search business had been growing at between 30% and 40% yearly and the total revenue twice that. Long-term growth for the search business was projected at the range of 17% to 15%. However, analysts estimates about 91% of Googles total income to come from Adsense and Adwords business and about 99% of the profit too (Copeland & Weintraub, 2010).
The projected growth for 2010 was 18% in earnings. That was a third of what Google used to average in about five years ago. Compared to other companies that is an impressive growth but for Google the figures are unimpressive. The company seems to have joined the trend of other companies such as IBM, Microsoft, eBay that had their growth stagnate at some point after a successful takeoff (Copeland & Weintraub, 2010).
Consequently, Googles image has been tainted at the Wall Street from a growth company to that of a cash cow. The companys shares dipped from 4 January 2010. This is a worrying trend considering that when Google first listed its shares in 2004 at the price of $80 and quickly the price doubled attracting many investors (Cusumano, 2004). Investors are worried about the declining share value and the ability of the company to keep up to date with consumers rapid change in their web use.
In addition, the investors are worried because Google has been mum on its plans beyond search. Googles absolute refusal to provide Wall Street analysts with any forward-looking financial guidance only compounds the risk, uncertainty and volatility involved in investing in the company (Vise, 2006, p. 24). The lack of a clear future vision scares the investors because people want to invest in a company that has growth potential (Copeland & Weintraub, 2010).
Current web consumers trends
The way consumers use the web has changed with the advent of face book and twitter. The social networks have attracted massive number of consumers who spend a considerable amount of time in the sites. The people who log onto the social websites can use the sites for various things such as keeping in touch with their friends or even getting information.
Many people will pose questions on the sites about a product they may want or information. Within minutes, their logged friends respond to the queries and thus they do not have the need of going to search the information from a search engine such as Google. Such trends are a threat to the continued dominance of Google.
The search engine is viewed as serious business kind of site for sending email and not for socializing and this can be confirmed by its latest attempt in social networking with their Google Buzz that had people complaining because the sites shared their contact lists information without their permission (Copeland & Weintraub, 2010).
The new products that Google has rolled out in the market are making it a one-stop shop and this can make many consumers hung around sites that Google operates thus increasing its revenue. On the contrary, critics of Google say that as much as it is a force to reckon with in the internet they lack a sense of how people share and collaborate (Copeland & Weintraub, 2010, p. 1).
Moreover, Google has to ensure that its new products retain its initial concept of speed and relevancy (Oser, 2004). Doing otherwise would compromise the brand that many people have come to trust. Google needs to change the way it does business if it is remain relevant for posterity as there is no stopping other people from coming up with a better search engine than Google (Cusumano, 2004).
Conclusion
Google has a bright future ahead, we cannot say that its best years are over yet but it needs to come up with ways of staying ahead of the pack. In the past, the company has done well in capitalizing on other companies ideas and come up with innovative products to meet the peoples needs.
Today, the needs that web users have keep changing and Google must keep pace with the trends so as not to lose consumers who might find other search engines or sites that meet their needs better. It must look for ways of dealing with the obstacles it encounters such as governments censorship. Moreover, it must ensure that as it expands rapidly it does lose its core values or make costly mistakes (Vise, 2006).
The company is seeking a global share it must tailor the search engines and all its other products to the local needs of the consumers who are scattered in many nations across the world. The people have different cultures and needs thus Google cannot ignore that fact and assume that products that fit its core American market will serve other communities just as well by just changing the language.
No, it needs to customize the products to fulfill the needs of diverse people because as much as there is globalization people still long to remain unique. Thus, a one solution for all cannot work for Google in this era.
Reference List
Copeland, M.V., & Weintraub, S. (2010). Google: The Search Party Is Over. Fortune, 162 (3), 1. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier.
Cusumano, M. A. (2005). Google: What It Is and What It Is Not. Communications of the ACM, 48 (2), 15-17.
Oser, k. (2004). Google challenge: growth without sacrificing brand. Advertising Age, 75 (19), 1. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier.
Googles mission has been to organize the worlds information and make it accessible to every person (Eskesen, 2013, p. 14). The firm embraces the best strategies to provide a wide range of services to its consumers. Some of these services include online advertising, software applications, and Google search engine (Eskesen, 2013, p. 17). Googles leadership strategy continues to produce the best outcomes. However, new strategies are needed to make Google successful. The Board of Directors should analyze the external factors that can affect the firms future performance. This knowledge will make it easier for Googles managers to implement the best strategies. This discussion offers a detailed analysis of Googles external environment. The paper goes further to present specific FRLD behaviors that can support the firms future goals.
Google: External Environmental Assessment
Economic Factors
The global economy has been facing several challenges. For instance, the American economy has encountered a period of recession (Eskesen, 2013, p. 12). This situation is currently affecting the performance of different companies. However, Google has managed to overcome the economic turmoil experienced in the United States. The firm offers powerful services that cannot be affected by such changes. Many people in the world are using different internet-based applications and search engines. Google produces measurable services to overcome the above economic issues.
Global Factors
Google has its presence in over 100 countries. The company offers personalized search engines for most of these countries. The company uses the best language support to improve its market share (Eskesen, 2013, p. 6). Many people in the developing world also have access to the internet. This situation has made it easier for Google to attract more customers. Googles web applications are compatible with various devices. This strength makes such products more admirable in the world. Internet search has become a common practice in every part of the globe.
Socio-cultural Factors
According to Eskesen (2013), more people and cultures in different parts of the globe are using the internet. This situation explains why the world has become connected than ever before. The internet is making it easier for more people to communicate with one another. Studies also show that more people are using the internet today (Sosik & Jung, 2010, p. 46). Different smartphones and mobile devices are making it easier for more people to use Googles products. Many people use Google Maps to locate different restaurants, roads, and towns. Google has produced the best apps to support the needs of these individuals (Eskesen, 2013). The global society is making it easier for more people to exchange their ideas. These factors have been supporting Googles mission.
Technological Factors
The global technology has been changing every day. This development encourages Google Incorporation to embrace modern technologies. Many companies are also producing a wide range of apps that are compatible with different Google products (Sosik & Jung, 2010, p. 62). Google produces powerful devices that can be easily upgraded using modern technologies.
Political/Legal Factors
The political environment has been supporting the performance of different firms. The American government does not interfere with Googles activities and operations. However, the American Department of Justice has been pressuring Google to release its search terms (Eskesen, 2013, p. 19). Google has also been keeping copies of different web-pages and images (Eskesen, 2013, p. 21). This kind of infringement can affect the firms performance.
Demographics
Many technology companies are presently facing a wide range of challenges. However, Google Incorporation targets youth in every part of the world. The company has become the leading provider of different internet-based applications. The company has not been affected by the demands of different baby-boomers (Eskesen, 2013). The company hires the youth because they are usually technology-savvy. The youth also use the internet more frequently. These individuals have been supporting Googles business performance. Internet-use is something that does not target a specific gender. This fact explains why Google will remain a competitive player in the technology industry.
Competitors
Google has been facing a lot of competition from both local and international firms. To begin with, different technology firms such as MSN and Yahoo are providing similar services. Such companies have attracted a large number of customers. Some companies such as Apple, Nokia, Hewlett Packard, and Samsung also produce competitive devices. This practice has been affecting Googles performance (Eskesen, 2013). However, Google Inc. has diversified its services to remain competitive. The company should also consider these issues to come up with a powerful business strategy.
Industry
Google operates in a very attractive industry. The computer technology industry has been attracting many companies. Every newcomer should have adequate resources to emerge successfully (Sosik & Jung, 2010). These requirements have minimized the number of potential entrants. This analysis examines the forces associated with Googles industry.
Power of Suppliers
Google is a leading player in its industry. This situation explains why the power of suppliers has remained low. Googles advertisement system attracts more customers. The advertisers and receivers are Googles customers (Eskesen, 2013, p. 24). The company has established positive relationships with its suppliers.
Power of Buyers
The bargaining power of the buyers is very strong. This is the case because Google has many competitors providing similar services. This fact explains why Google has been lowering its prices.
Competitive Rivalry
Google is currently commanding a lead in the industry. The company has produced innovations such as Street View and Google Earth to become competitive. The smartphone market has also become saturated, thus reducing the level of competitive rivalry (Eskesen, 2013).
The Threat of Substitutes
The internet has become the leading source of data and information. Different search engines are making this information available to more people. Googles search engine is one of the best choices. The internet has become impossible to substitute. These developments will make Google successful in the future.
The Threat of New Entries
The internet technology industry has many entry barriers. Every newcomer requires numerous infrastructures and resources. These requirements explain why the threat of new entries is minimal.
Recommendations for Google Incorporation
The above discussion shows clearly that Google Incorporation commands a lead in its industry. The company markets quality services and products to its customers. The company uses its strengths to survive in its industry. Every manager at the firm focuses on the best practices to achieve the targeted outcomes (Sosik & Jung, 2010). The approach has made it possible for Google Incorporation to achieve its goals. However, Google Incorporation cannot control its external environment. The firm should, therefore, use Full Range Leadership Development (FRLD) behaviors to deal with the external factors affecting its future performance.
To begin with, the above factors show clearly that the global economy is becoming unstable. That being the case, Google should use its resources to produce powerful software applications. The FRLD approach will ensure every employee supports the targeted clients. The company should also use its internal strengths to promote innovations (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). More people and companies are also using the internet. Google should, therefore, produce superior services to support the needs of the global population.
The above socio-cultural factors show clearly that more people are using the internet for communication. Google should monitor this external environment trend (Sosik & Jung, 2010, p. 89). A proper FRLD approach will ensure the firm mentors its stakeholders. Such individuals will reexamine the changing needs of different societies. This knowledge will make it easier for the firm to produce quality services and products. This approach will produce new strategic initiatives to make Google successful (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006).
A proper leadership approach will ensure the company promotes the concept of intellectual stimulation (Sosik & Jung, 2010, p. 83). This FRLD behavior will ensure every worker focuses on new technological developments. The world is embracing new technologies every day. Google Inc. should, therefore, use its resources to produce innovations. The leaders should ensure the firm produces edge-cutting technologies that can reduce the level of competition.
The issue of demographics can influence the performance of every multinational company. Demographics influence the expectations of different companies. Googles managers should examine the needs of every targeted stakeholder. That being the case, the firm should empower its employees to produce innovative products. Such products will fulfill the changing needs of every targeted population. A proper leadership strategy will also attract competent employees who can support the companys goals (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). The political environment also calls for appropriate decision-making strategies. The managers at the company should be able to adapt to the existing political issues (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006, p. 47). This approach will ensure the firm addresses the political challenges affecting its performance.
Finally, the industry has become competitive due to the presence of different players. A powerful FRLD approach will ensure the firm produces new strategic initiatives. Such strategic initiatives will make it easier for the firm to deal with the threat of new entrants. It will also deal with the bargaining power of different consumers. The managers at the firm should support new innovative processes. The practice will ensure the firm produces quality products (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). The company will, therefore, attract more customers and eventually become a leading player in the industry.
Conclusion
Google Incorporation should use the best strategies to increase its overall organizational effectiveness. Proper full-range leadership will examine the issues associated with the above external forces. The proposed FRLD approach will promote various behaviors that can produce the best outcomes. To begin with, the behaviors will ensure every employee is aware of the environmental forces affecting the companys performance. The leaders will promote new innovative processes to make the firm more profitable. The leaders should produce appropriate strategies to cope with competition, rivalry, socio-cultural changes, and political developments (Sosik & Jung, 2010, p. 93). The managers should, therefore, use the best behavior for every challenge affecting the company. The leaders will enhance new strategic initiatives depending on the existing external forces. In conclusion, the Board of Directors should consider the above recommendations to support Googles business model.
Reference List
Eskesen, A. (2013). Google and the Challenges Ahead. Web.
Rafferty, A., & Griffin, M. (2006). Refining Individualized Consideration: Distinguishing Developmental Leadership and Supportive Leadership. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 79(1), 37-61.
Sosik, J., & Jung, I. (2010). Full Range Leadership Development: Pathways for People, Profit, and Planet. New York, NY: Routledge-Taylor & Francis Group.
Define and compare the business strategies and business models of Google and Microsoft
The two giant Information and Communication Technological companies have dominated their expertise fields comfortably. The Google Companys strategy is bases upon the internet technology while Microsoft dominates management of the desktop applications with a wide range of software.
There is high competition between the companies with each having to diversify to other core business units of the telecommunication world. The conflicting competition would probably benefit the users by catalyzing future advancement and promoting different strategies.
The foundation of Googles business model is on the search engine in which it dominates among many core related businesses and user applications. The online search algorithms require bright thoughts, high search speeds and supportive products.
On the other hand, the Microsoft becomes prominent because of its operating system, which is widely used all over the world today, advanced application and utility software. The ever-growing internet broadband connection determines the two companies chances of advancement.
Has the Internet taken over the PC desktop as the centre of the action? Why or why not?
The internet technology has advanced widely and according to the general views, internet based tasks seem to overtake the desktop processing. The concept often referred to as cloud or virtual computing has Google Company advancing to better height.
Today people are interested in virtual working and management where there is freedom over the place of work as well as time to work. Microsoft seems to concentrate on desktop computation as the focus by influencing users on maintaining the desktop as the main strategy for computation.
The ability to maintain such business continuity depends upon cash flow of which both of these companies enjoy.
Why did Microsoft attempt to acquire Yahoo!? How did it affect its business model? Do you believe this was a good move?
The advantage of allowing computers in the data centre settings to work out tasks called cloud computing lies on the ability to offer an array of internet option. Although Microsoft has a huge advantage of stable and well-ascertained popular applications among its users, the internet theories of search engines, real-time advertising, digital conferencing, digital plotting and photo management catalyzes the use of electronic information today.
Virtual networked interfaces offer customers the ability to access information from various servers in a network as opposed working remotely on their desktops. This was the main reason why Microsoft wanted to acquire Yahoo.
It would provide an excellent chance for advancing their clients from the normal offer of tying them to one machine or local network. Todays users need access of wide variety of information, which is only attainable through the networked servers.
I think the move to acquire Yahoo was excellent since Microsoft would give Google a run for their money considering their financial strength.
Today the Microsoft application business model that revolves round the desktop publications is highly threatened, since people face with diverging needs to access and compute information virtually. The Google views majority of its clients needs as being internet based.
If this were the case, then Microsoft would wish to have similar shares of services, thus the need to acquire Yahoo. The Microsoft-Yahoo merge would have been an automatic challenge for Google.
What is the significance of Google Apps to Googles future success?
Some of the significant applications of Google include the ability to maintain data centres, which house all its applications. Google has evident future success abilities considering the increase on the need for internet. Google claim its products to be supplements to other companies products especially Microsofts.
As much as their claim would be significantly right, Googles applications seem to submerge Microsoft desktop applications. Their offers of the web-based services through the internet work out well because servers seem to form a strong establishment and use.
Would you use Google Apps instead of Microsoft Office applications for computing tasks? Why or why not?
I would prefer the Google applications over Microsoft because it already have well established internet search marketplace thus the reason why the services would definitely be better compared to Microsoft. The Google search engine is more sophisticated compared to the competitive companies.
People would wish to have cheaper application suites and Google has tried to incorporate majority of the office applications in its search package. Although much simple compared to Microsofts Applications they are much cheaper for both subscription and premier edition fees.
Most business requires less advanced applications features as opposed to what is on offer by Microsoft for their Business operations.
The security offered by the office product of Microsoft is reliable but eventually every business is profit oriented and as long as the outcome is achieved safely then Google offer all that is required for todays organizations
Which company and business model do you believe will prevail in this epic struggle? Justify your answer.
In this epic struggle between the two companies, the Google Companys struggle to offer better services seems more genuine. The performance of Microsoft online services is way below expectations compared to the ever-improving Google offers. Microsoft has the ability to improve to the status of Google starting from a humble beginning as opposed to merging with Yahoo.
The move to acquire Yahoo is sceptical and seen as a move to fight Google other than a chance to advance.
Microsofts goals of innovating or disrupting search fight to win in displaying advertisements and the aim of reinventing social media experiences and portals faces huge challenges such as technological changes.
Disruptive new technologies affect most business models especially when the goals seem wide and focus is on competition only.
Google is a company which started as a research project for two Ph. D students in 1996. Google is a company that was founded on September 4, 1998. This company was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin who were at that time students at the Stanford University. The company name was derived from a spelling error of the word googol, which means 10100.
This implies that Google is a search engine which is used by the internet users to locate information from the World Wide Web. The companys headquarters are located in Mountain View, California. As a company, Google has grown rapidly since 1998.
This growth has provided the company with capital which has translated in remarkable expansion that has been observed. Currently, Google is a publicly held corporation. As per the records dated December 31, 2008, the company had full time employees totaling to 20,222.
The companys initial public offering took place on august 24, 2004. This resulted in raising $ 1.67 billion, which implied that the companys approximate stood at $23 billion. Currently, the company stands as one of the powerful and reputable brands across the globe. Today, this company continues to grow as it has been indicated by its growth in terms of stock.
Essentially, from an initial price of $100 per share, the share price grew to $500 in 2008. This company is ranked as one of the five most reputable sites on the web. In the US, the company is raked as number one, among other countries. Essentially, this company attracts over 40 million users every month. This company has grown as an advertising company. Essentially, the company generated revenues worth $16 billion in 2007.
Google leadership
Just like another organization, Google depends on its leadership to steer the company in the direction which is in line with the companys vision and objectives. The top leadership is made up of a board of directors and executive officers. The board of directors is made up off the following members;
Larry page
Eric Schmidt
Sergey Brin
Doerr John
Green Diane
Hennerssy John
Otellini Paul
Shriram Ram
Tilghman Shirley.
The executive officers is made up of
Schmidt Eric
Larry Page
Sergey Brin
Arora Nikesh
Drummond David
Pichette Patrick.
Google products and services
Google has established itself as a popular online search engine. Due to rapid technological advancement, the company has been forced to come up with new ideas regarding some of the services and projects that it offers. Essentially, Google has taken up an innovation approach which has evolved it into a software company which has gradually threatened the Microsoft dominance.
The company has quietly been launching products which have gained prominence in the information technology world. Some of the products that Google has successfully launched include desktop search; Gmail; software to manage, edit, and send digital photos; and programs for creating, editing and posting documents.
Googles core business is the internet search engine. As a company, it has established several services which have been used by online users to get their work done. For instance, the Google groups is a service which enables the users to search newsgroups, while at the same time host mailing lists.
The company launched Google video in 2006 which offers the users to search as well as view video content online. In addition, this offers television companies to cast their shows on CBS, NBA music and games. Essentially, videos which are offered through this media are protected by Googles digital management system which monitors operations on the Google site.
Google has also utilized the satellite technology to come up with Google maps which has enabled users to locate their direction anywhere on earth. This service has been accompanied by ad on devices which enable a user to be able to know exactly what happens within a given location for instance, crime rates or specific locations such as gas stations.
The Gmail service generates revenue through or by displaying advertisements. In summary, Google offers the following services, Froogle, Google answers, Google catalogues, Google groups, Google image search, Google labs, Google news, Google special searches, Google university search, Google web directory, Google web search and Google wireless.
The current position
Currently, Google is the search engine leader. Google has been ranked by bodies such as NPD to be the most effective search engine. Among other search engines.
Google approximately 150 million searches per day
Inktomi approximately 80 million searches per day
Alta Vista approximately 50 million searches per day
Direct Hit approximately 20 million searches per day
Fast approximately 12 million searches per day
Galaxy approximately 100, 000 visitors per day
Google has claimed that it has been able to attain its targets through utilizing a unique combination of software and hardware of advanced and superior technology. Currently Google plans to capture more users. This has been exhibited by ensuring that it has been able to penetrate other markets across the globe such as China. Essentially, Google indexes more than 60 languages on its pages.
Google SWOT analysis
A SWOT analysis is a technique which is used to establish the prospects and the potential threats of a company. In this case, SWOT analysis enables an organization to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that it faces. This enables the organization to be able to gain an understanding as to how it can place itself in the market. In the case of Google, the company has got the following strengths.
First, the Google search engine is readily accessible in most places across the globe. The speed of the search engine gives it an edge in the industry against other search engines.
In addition, it has been able to integrate several languages thus enabling users from diverse backgrounds to be able to use it. The strategy which the management has employed at the company has enabled the company to always come up with new projects which have gained market share with time.
Some of the weaknesses which Google has faced include the inability for a user to distinguish between good content and content that may not be good. This implies that the company has faced a major challenge when it comes to verifying the credibility of information that it gets. This has predisposed some of the products and information found to be subject to manipulation by the users.
In addition, despite the fact that the company has come up with many products many of them are not known by the users. Some of the opportunities which this company has include the fact that the technological boom has boosted the companys ability to innovate.
Googles ability to acquire other companies such as YOUTUBE has opened up more opportunities for it to explore. Furthermore, the company has a huge user base which enables it to get a market edge over other competitors.
Lastly the threats which are faced by this company include the fact that it faces stiff competition from other search engines like Yahoo and Bing. Furthermore, it has not been able to fully penetrate in other market areas such as Russia and China. Other emerging threats include the emerging trends which the company has to contend with. Recent new items
As a company which is in the information sector, Google has been working towards establishing links and coming up with new products and services to match the growing demand. From the 2011 financial review Google had outstanding revenue of $ 10.58 billion. The company has expanded its operations by opening new branches in other parts of the world in order to meet the rising demand on quality and innovative products.
As a consequence of opening up new markets, the company has increased its employee base. For instance, in Europe the employee base has grown up to 72 percent. Due to the company culture associated with Google, employees are required to commit 20 percent of their time in coming up with new products.
As a consequence of this, the company has been able to come up with better versions of services such as enhanced ability to get products on the mobile, the ability to translate texts from one language to another and the ability to obtain scholarly articles for the scholars who find it necessary to use Google.
Financial status
As a company, Googles financial status is healthy. This is based on the increased revenue ever since it was listed as a corporate company. It is worth noting that Google has grown financially due to the rising demand of quality internet services.
This has bolstered its capacity to increase its revenue and come up with new services and products. The Google company incomes from 2002 to 2006 indicate a steady growth informs of a promising growth capacity.
Annual Income Statement ($ in Millions)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Sales
$440
$1,466
$3,189
$6,139
$10,605
Cost Of Goods
132
626
1,458
2,572
4,225
Gross Profit
$308
$840
$1,732
$3,567
$6,380
Selling & Administrative & Depr. & Amort Expenses
122
498
612
1,460
2,830
Income After Depreciation & Amortization
$186
$342
$1,120
$2,107
$3,550
Non-Operating Income
0
4
-470
34
461
Interest Expense
2
0
0
0
0
Pretax Income
$185
$347
$650
$2,142
$4,011
Income Taxes
85
241
251
676
934
Net Income
$100
$106
$399
$1,465
$3,077
Depreciation Footnote
Income Before Depreciation & Amortization
215
398
2,401
2,401
4,122
Depreciation & Amortization (Cash Flow)
29
55
148
294
572
Income After Depreciation & Amortization
$186
$342
$1,120
$2,107
$3,550
Earnings Per Share Data (EPS not in millions)
Average Shares
0.00
0.00
272.78
291.87
309.55
Diluted EPS Before Non-Recurring Items
0.00
0.00
2.75
5.21
9.78
Diluted Net EPS
0.00
0.00
1.46
5.02
9.94
References
Busby, M. (2003). Learn Google. Texas: Wordware Publishing, Inc.
Duthel, H. (2008). Google Inc. Services Google Tools What is Google? New York: Lulu.com.
Flamholtz, E., & Yvinne, R. (2011). Corporate Culture:The Ultimate Strategic Asset. California: Stanford University Press.
Stross, R. (2008). Planet Google:one companys audacious plan to organize everything we know. New York: Simon and Schuster.
