Googles Achilles Heel

Google has an Achilles heel that I have yet to see written about and that's Ad Words.  Ninety five percent of their revenue comes from this service.  All other Google technologies do not need to generate any revenue as long as they potentially can give Google advertising or market knowledge reach. 

The Sherman Antitrust act plays an important roll for large companies.  Not in the way most people think.  When the US government goes after a company for antitrust - because they've gotten too big - many people think the government is over reaching.  I think the government is the canary in the coal mine.  The government is telling a company it's time to divest since the company has gotten too big to be managed effectively.  It's important to note that divestiture does not negatively effect stock holders, employees, or customers.  The only person who looses is the President and CEO of the divesting company since they no longer have as large  an empire to rule over.

Just look at the high tech history of antitrust.

Back in the 1980's IBM won their antitrust suit.  The government wanted to break them into two - a large computer and a small computer company.  To fight possible divestiture IBM licensed an operating system for PC's instead of using one they had already developed - thus creating the Microsoft juggernaut. Instead of of using an internally created processor for PC's they used a third party one - thus creating the Intel juggernaut.  By the 1990's IBM realized that small computers and printers were hobbling them, selling these business units.  For the stake holder a more advantages solution would have been to have their stock split into a small computer company - think Lenovo, Microsoft, and Intel as one company, and what's currently left of IBM - a large computer solutions company.

AT&T fought the US government for years finally succumbing to divestiture in the mid 1980's.   They found that divestiture gave them a much better way to manage their company.  AT&T was way too far flung of an empire.  They continued to divest even after the government no longer required them to. 

In the 1990's Microsoft was in the cross hairs of the US government over the Sherman Antitrust act. Microsoft won.  But look at Microsoft today.  They are struggling, mostly because they have gotten too big to manage.  Individual product groups don't make the best decision for their customers or their product since they are being forced to make the best decision for the company.  If they had broken up back in the 1990's I'm sure each of the new entities would be having a much better time flexibly reacting to the changes in technology.

Now back to Google.  Google's issue is that technologically they are into everything and tend to be a Juggernaut in each of these fields - think search, maps, mobile OS ...  The problem is none of these provide revenue since Advertising is how Google makes money.  All of Google's technologies are just  platform for them to present advertising.  So how do you break that up?

Many of us are already Leaning In

Sheryl Sandberg notes that young women come up to her and ask her about home life issues while men ask her business questions.  I find it interesting that her conclusion is that because young women ask her these questions they are not as serious about business as men.  I would guess these same women would ask a man business questions and never think about asking about home/life issues.  Nor would these young women ask Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Ginni Rometty, Hillary Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi about home/life issues. These high profile women either don’t have children or their children are grown.  The young women asking Sheryl Sandberg are trying to understand what it takes to be high profile and balance work/ life issues.

The new class of young, high profile, C level women, with children have a great deal of support available to them as a professional and a parent; Support that is not available to the overriding majority of women.  Sheryl Sandberg talks about leaving work at 5:30 so she can have dinner with her family. In almost every situation  I know of, an individual contributor or middle management women (or man) who leaves the office at 5:30 every day to have dinner with their family has excluded themselves from promotion (we call that mommy track).  Mellisa Mayer has famously stated that her baby is easy.  Any baby is easy when you have 24 x 7 nanny care, someone who cleans your house, does your laundry, grocery shopping, makes your meals, and your company builds a nursery next to your office. 

The real answer to work/life is that there are very few women who can have it all, if it all is a C level job and being an active parent.  If a woman really wants to be a C level executive and have time for her children she has to become a star first; since she will need to dedicate 60 to 70 hours a week to her job before becoming a star.  Once a star she can negotiate leaving early or having a nursery next to her office.  As a star she will have a salary that covers two to three nanny’s at a cost of $50K a nanny.  The rest of us intelligent, educated, career focused women who are already leaning in, need to make choices and set priorities.  Choices on who to marry – will he truly partner in raising the kids; Choices on how we run our households – do you have the money to outsource all the homemaking and child rearing tasks; Choices on raising your children – are you OK missing school events, eating a family dinner, reading to your child, making sure they have completed their homework. 

Many women get off the “C” train because after having a child the sacrifices to a job are just not worth the sacrifices necessary for their family.  Yes, of course as the children get older it is much easier to manage a family from a cell phone.  But, then again that is why you see so few C level mothers with young children and most C level women with older children, grown children, or no children at all.

Feminism Today

This is the best time and we are living in the best place to be women.  Women have more opportunities, more choices today then any time leading up to today.  That said; there still changes we need to make in our culture so that women have equal protection and equal access.  I relate with Melisa Mayer when she says she is not a feminist.  Women in the 1960 did not relate to being a suffragette.  The issues of the 1910’s -- 50 years prior -- were not relevant to the women of the 1960.  Today’s women does not relate to the label “feminist” because the issues of 50 years ago do not relate to their life today.   When I think of feminism I think of burn the bra, anger, and driving for access and having a voice; Access to education, access to women’s health care, and access to jobs.  Today’s issues are different.  The feminism of 50 years ago gave women access to education, child care, medical care, and job availability.  Feminism of 50 years ago changed men.  Today’s man has a very different attitude compared to men of the 1960’s.  Most workplaces today have women at many levels within the organization.  Married men today are much more involved with their children and take on many more chores then the men of the 1960.  This doesn’t mean that for many women and men their work and home life is equal.  The bar has moved, it still needs to move farther. What we need today, is to come out with a new label that helps us to better describe today’s women’s issues without the baggage of the old label feminism.  

Interview with Jim Blassingame

Did Google win against the FTC?

Today's headlines is that "Google won a major victory  when the Federal Trade Commission said the Internet giant did not manipulate search results to promote its own products unfairly, after an 18-month investigation that struck at the heart of Google's business and ultimately endorsed one of its key strategies for maintaining its industry dominance. "

Did they really win? 

Thirty years ago IBM won a major victory with the FTC.  They did this by hiring a small outside company to provide the operating system and using microprocessors from a small chip company for their new Personal Computers .  Today IBM has mostly abandoned the low end computer business. Microsoft and Intel are very large and powerful companies.  When the FTC came calling if IBM decided to split into a large computer company (what they are today) and a small computer company (think Intel, Microsoft put together) there would have been two powerful companies.  Since a companies beholden to the stockholder, having stock in both of these companies would be much better then having stock in only one of them.

Just look at Microsoft.  They "won" their antitrust law suite.  They are now struggling.  Most of the struggles are similar to IBM's struggles.  New, growth technologies are being hamstrung by the big revenue generating technologies.

The canary in the coal mine:

I think that FTC antitrust reviews are a canary in the coal mine.  When the FTC comes calling, it highlights that companies are getting to big to be flexible.  A company that has an FTC review should seriesly consider breaking in two (or as AT&T did, break into eight).  The sum of the parts can be much more flexible then the whole.  Providing a better return for investors and more job opportunities to employees.

Radio with Jim Blasingame - part three

Radio with Jim Blasigame -part two

Radio with Jim Blasingame