Link – Advertising arrives in Google Earth
ESRI might want to reconsider its position……..How about partnering with Yahoo’s or Microsoft’s search services instead, if ESRI is not planning to enter the search market itself? ESRI could thus fund their free version by letting Yahoo or MSN run their ads in ArcGIS Explorer-initiated searches.
I don’t get it. Why would anyone want to ad advertisements in a product that doesn’t have them? There is no room for Vioxx ads in professional GIS. I mean, who would want MSN ads in every .NET application you created using Visual Studio? No one of course, unless they are Google fans. I don’t get the logic of selling your soul for the ability to use free Google products (disclaimer: I use GMail so I’m in cahoots with the devil also). Google Earth is all about pushing advertising into a new marketplace and ArcGIS Explorer is about disseminate geospatial information to the masses. That is clear to me now.
Click for larger view
19 Comments
Imagine the alternative — just one option, and it involves paying for the bandwidth and the servers and the updates, all of which costs ESRI and Google money. If the only way to use the product is to first pay $20, that instantly reduced the pool of potential users. You’ll keep the dedicated ones, but casual users will slink away.
So how about adding the option of also having an ad-supported version, for those who don’t mind/care/can’t afford to spend $20? Nobody is restricting choices this way, or compelling anyone to look at ads, yet this product also pays for itself. It’s pretty much exactly like how Salon.com provides access to its articles: Buy a subscription, or get a day pass after sitting through a longish-ad.
You’re suggesting that ESRI stick to the first model but avoid the ad model. I on the other hand don’t see how the existence of the ad model makes any difference to those who are willing to pay upfront for use of the product. The only place where it matters is to ESRI and Google strategists, for whom widespread adoption of their product may bring other benefits, such as the ability to introduce new standards, or benefit from the network effect, which can be harnessed by collaborative software.
Imagine the alternative — just one option, and it involves paying for the bandwidth and the servers and the updates, all of which costs ESRI and Google money. If the only way to use the product is to first pay $20, that instantly reduced the pool of potential users. You’ll keep the dedicated ones, but casual users will slink away.
So how about adding the option of also having an ad-supported version, for those who don’t mind/care/can’t afford to spend $20? Nobody is restricting choices this way, or compelling anyone to look at ads, yet this product also pays for itself. It’s pretty much exactly like how Salon.com provides access to its articles: Buy a subscription, or get a day pass after sitting through a longish-ad.
You’re suggesting that ESRI stick to the first model but avoid the ad model. I on the other hand don’t see how the existence of the ad model makes any difference to those who are willing to pay upfront for use of the product. The only place where it matters is to ESRI and Google strategists, for whom widespread adoption of their product may bring other benefits, such as the ability to introduce new standards, or benefit from the network effect, which can be harnessed by collaborative software.
Yep, totally agree with Stefan there.
Ads are more and more becoming a legitimate (maybe even preferable) way of funding software and services. Everybody is getting into the game… Microsoft Live anyone?
You wouldn’t want to pay $1 every time you searched Google would you? Or $1 every time you watched Lost?
I say bring on the ads, like Stefan said it lets the casual user check things out, and you still give the serious user still have the option of no ads by purchasing.
Hope you will forgive me James, but here is a shameless plug for PortlandMaps: We got in the New York Times (see page 2 of this article): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/05/technology/05money.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th
But Stefan is confusing the issue here. ArcGIS Explorer is free. There are no ads. The casual user has free access to check out all functions of ArcGIS Explorer without any fear of seeing a Viagra ad.
The bandwidth required to server the maps up is very cheap in comparison to the cost of ArcGIS Server or even ArcIMS. Much like Microsoft giving away Internet Explorer so that people will develop using Visual InterDev, ESRI views this as a way to drive people into using their tools.
This whole converstaion is moot as there is no way any of this would happen. I think Opera proves that unless you are Google, stay out of the ad-supported software market.
Yes, it’s free now, but I was responding specifically to David Maguire’s quote from his blog that “if we have to pay a lot of money for data/services then we will have to pass this on to users.”
In other words, if demand is such that costs become prohibitive, then they’ll need to finance it somehow. And if they were tp stay free while Google has ads, and this proves sufficient for all the Google Earthlings to move to ArcGiS Explorer, then ESRI’d be hit with Google’s bill.
So either you can hope that ArcGIS Explorer will suck or that they provide multiple revenue models:-) And if they decide to do ads, I humply suggest that it’s in their best interest to go to Yahoo or MSFT rather than Google. In fact, as MSFT is apparently also building something 3D, perhaps Yahoo is the perfect match.
So you want to put all the eggs into Google’s basket rather than let innovation lead the market forward with NAVTEQ, Tele Atlas, DigitalGlobe and GlobeXplorer. To let Google provide these could destroy the market for accurate datasets as the product only has to be good enough for placing AdSense ads all over the place, rather than the accuracy required to perform NEPA analysis.
As you well know, it isn’t ESRI or Google that control the datasets, it is the companies above that do. Google has already shown that they don’t like paying (or can’t sign an agreement) for the best datasets under their current model. If that is the case, then ad supported datasets are doomed. Besides that there aren’t any real datasets in GE now anyway. Wouldn’t you rather have the option to pay for datasets, rather than be limited to the default GE aerial imagery? Right now, you can get better detailed imagery from ArcWeb, than you can get from GE. Sure you have to pay for it, but at least you have that option.
As I said, it is all moot as there is no way ESRI wants or needs to get involved with ad sales. ArcGIS Explorer is not Google Earth. ArcGIS Explorer gives users control over the data. Google Earth is more of a “kiosk” type application, while ArcGIS Explorer is true consumer GIS. A 3D ad viewer isn’t what GIS consumers want, they want the ability to get at and work with the data and the non-standard ad driven interface of Google Earth isn’t it. It is one thing to ignore the ads on Google off to the right, but it is another thing to have it get in the way of the whole reason you opened Google Earth. Ads sure would have been nice during Katrina, looking at all the devastation and get an ad bubble selling timeshares on Bourbon Street.
I don’t think that ArcGIS Explorer will even put a dent into Google Earth for most consumers and personally I could care less. Finally I have a tool to share my information with my clients, the freedom to connect to almost any geospatial server, the freedom to not have to convert data to KML and the freedom from not having Vioxx ads clutter my maps. As soon as ArcGIS Explorer is available, I’m uninstalling Google Earth and you should too.
“Sure you have to pay for it, but at least you have that option.”
But that is precisely what I want: More options. You’re a GIS pro, of course you are going to pay for the best datasets, it’s your job. But for people who want to check out a villa on the Costa Brava or kids who want to track a whale shark in school, crappy but free datasets are indeed good enough.
And I don’t see how ESRI competing in Google’s space puts the content providers in one (Google) basket. If there proves to be no market for good datasets beyond you and your colleagues, then these companies will have the clients they have always had. If there also proves to be a market for cheaper imagery, perhaps not as accurate but pretty enough, then they’ll all grow stronger. If MSFT, Google and ESRI all become bulk buyers of this data, perhaps it will get cheaper and/or better over time. Lay consumers of future geobrowsers, who might want to do a spot of shopping in downtown LA from their dorm in Kansas (I shudder, you shudder, so what) might get annoyed that Google’s dataset has them 20m too far north all the time. In which case they might go to MSFT or the ESRI/Yahoo browser:-)
“I don’t think that ArcGIS Explorer will even put a dent into Google Earth for most consumers and personally I could care less.”
I think ESRI cares, though, and that ArcGIS Explorer is meant to cap Google’s potential invasion into ESRI’s space. If ESRI can leverage its competitive strength (tech prowess) into a geobrowser that prevents Google from going upmarket, by adopting Google’s methods for financing the mass consumption of maps, this will preserve the ESRI on which you rely for the tools you need.
Final point: In the long run, the way to beat google is to try to turn what they do into a commodity, and you do that by becoming modular, so that lots of companies can band together and create a virtual Google. ESRI would have play the geobrowser in any such plan — Yahoo would play the search service.
I’ll let you have the last word, as it’s your blog:-)
Either take the ads or pay for the data. I’m assuming ESRI chose the latter, not sure where that leaves us with base data but it is a more traditional model that many in the community are comfortable with. I personally think they’re between a rock and hard place. If it’s successful, as Stefan points out, they’re servers will get hammered and infrastructure costs will skyrocket. If the base data is inadequate or slow, it will not succeed as a free client in the larger sense and should not be touted as a GE killer (it should do just fine as an ArcExplorer 1.0 replacement). Additionally, if ads are successful, Google (and MS, Yahoo) will continue to improve their base dataset as a means to drive ad revenue and then no one will be willing to pay for base data anymore (I’ve already heard this from clients).
I can see where you are coming from James, for the GIS professional, casual ArcView user or paying client, AGE is the appropriate viewer. However, there are worlds of other potential users that may need to view the data and once you go outside the GIS community, they will all be using GE. Would Phillip expect that every user in the Portland metro area have AGE installed or is it safer to assume they will be using GE?
I’m not a huge fan of ads in the mix but in general, I have to agree with both Stefan and Phillip on this one. GE is just a free viewer for the masses and if the ads are placed correctly, the average user will not care and in some cases, will actually find them useful. If the KML Channel tag is a guide, adSense will kick in based on keywords provided by the publisher. In this regard, I doubt you’ll see Vioxx ads popping up when you click on placemarks. Additionally, and maybe more compelling, this is adSense not adWords we’re talking about here. AdSense allows individuals to share in the profit. AdWords is primarily for the main Google Search page. So as a publisher of data, you could choose to place adSense keywords in your KML and share in the click thru revenue with Google. This is very different then just placing ads on your site, they will now travel with your data, giving you a much larger footprint. (there was some good conversation about including adSense in RSS awhile back, very similar). This is something that could actually improve the quality of data, that is, shared ad revenue could help offset the cost of collecting/maintaining some datasets.
Moving forward, AGE should be far more programmable then GE on the client side. The “Task” infrastructure as I understand it should allow a third party to build a fully compliant KML/KMZ parser and from what I know of the existing ArcGlobe programming model, there is already everything you need as far as 3D drawing primitives. In this regard, AGE could consume all of the GE KML feeds with the big caveat of sub-par base data.
Phillip (and crew) – major kudos for the NYT article
Keep in mind that Google got where they are by using advertising in as minimally intrusive way as possible. When everybody else was building websites filled to the brim with flashing banners and no whitespace to be found, they created a very clean and minimal interface. Result: they succeeded.
It’s in their interest to keep this trend, its what has worked well so far why not continue? If advertising is done in a smart and tasteful enough manner (which Google generally is known for), it might even be, gasp, useful. Though I fear what GE search I might do to trigger the Vioxx scenario. =o)
From our (Portland) perspective we are going to provide data in formats that make it available and useful to as many people as possible. Sounds like AGE supports KML, so it shouldn’t even be a question anyway.
-Phillip
(Cheers Brian and thanks James for the blog entry plug! – The PM Team)
I think a strong negative reaction to the possibility of ads in Google Earth is a bit premature. First, I don’t think there will be ads appearing all over the map. The one example of the current test I’ve seen just shows a tasteful text ad for a hotel appearing in the bottom portion of a description bubble. This is hardly in-your-face type of advertising, and doesn’t at all interfere with normal Earth/map-viewing. In fact, its much more tasteful than almost any web page you visit today.
I think James and other GIS people are certainly right to look forward to a free application to allow access to their very useful and critical GIS data. But, without a revenue stream it simply can not compete directly with what Google Earth is positioned to do. So, either there wil be ads in the ArcGIS Explorer itself or the data it presents, or they will have to charge subscriptions to databases. TANSTAAFL. And, I don’t think they should position themselves as a direct competitor to Google. It doesn’t make good strategic sense. Although, if they teamed up with MS and/or Yahoo, as was suggested earllier, they might could give it a go. One has to wonder what patents Google might have filed related to the GE technology though.
The business models for these two companies are completely different, so the purpose of each free viewer is different too. Google is trying to capture any and all eyeballs. ESRI just wants the GIS community.
ESRI could use AGE as a tool for developers to share data with clients, and not worry about the general public. Happy clients increase revenues for GIS developers/consultants/agencies/etc., which sells more software seats of ArcGIS. And, if ESRI made a core set of ArcObjects free to developers to distribute in their apps, you would see tons of developers jump on board. Then the client falls in love with their custom/free viewer and asks for editing functions. Then ESRI can sell them Arc Engine. I wouldn’t be opposed to seeing ads from GIS vendors in AGE. That could offset some of the infrastructure costs. If TeleAtlas wants to supply some free data in exchange for eyeballs, I’m all for it. I just don’t think that an ESRI version of advertising needs to be the same as Google’s version…different audiences.
I say let Google have John Q. Public. I would rather have a powerful, free viewer that included a chat and drawing/markup tool so GIS developers can more effectively communicate with the folks paying their salaries.
While I’m on my Christmas wishlist, I would also like to see ArcIMS become free. Yes, I said it. I see MapServer, et al, as more of a threat to ESRI than Google. ArcIMS is just a way to publish maps on the web. It’s not a “real” GIS either. When was the last time ArcIMS included new features, and I’m not talking about “improved” symbology. It’s a very focused (and limited) product. And freeing it would create loads of publicity for ESRI. Can you imagine CNN geotagging their stories and letting users search for news via a web map? And all that traffic would see the little “powered by ESRI” logo and click through to their website.
Don’t forget the ever growing amount of data in the public domain. I work for a state agency and we are slowly but surely placing huge amounts of imagery and other data on the web via Web Mapping Services and as time goes on, WFS.
No one is going to pay for our data (if I have anything to do with it). Why? a) It’s already been paid for. b) every time someone hits our WMS it is one less phone call or email that I have to answer. We already deliver data to GIS pros via the “zip and ship” model and it saves us huge amounts of money. This is just an extension of that concept.
Tools like ArcExplorer will let us push that same data out to the more general public. It will make them happy and us happy. It’s a no-brainer for us. Meanwhile ESRI sells more ArcIMS, SDE, and Server licenses.
So, why would ESRI want to allow ads in ArcExplorer? As a way to entice data vendors to put their data online for free? We are already drowning in free data… I don’t see what’s in it for them to allow ads.
By the way, Chris, we are a big MapServer shop as well.
How shameful to see the “made up” image that spawned this thread presented without disclaimer. Think how many people may have seen this and misunderstood that it could possibly have something to do with Google or Google Earth?
It is not an example of the commercial content provided in Google Earth, rather it is a user-created placemark made to look like an obnoxious, random pop-up advertisement–the kind that is never seen on any Google product. That post is Yellow Journalism in the blogosphere.
What are you talking about? Those kinds of ads are available on any Google search page. YOU have no idea what their plans are any more than I do.
I think it was obvious to everyone else that the image included was photoshopped as I can’t imagine why a search for Google HQ would result in Vioxx ads.
From the GoogleEarth Blog >
This type of ad would only appear in the description bubble for businesses you search for in the Local Search, or for certain layers (like “Lodging”).
Seems much less sensational. Helpful even.
Ads are ads.
“What are you talking about? Those kinds of ads are available on any Google search page. YOU have no idea what their plans are any more than I do.”
James, actually, if “Seer” is the same “Seer” from the Google Earth Community, he actually works on the Google Earth team, and he actually does know what their plans are.
It’s obvious James that you do not support ads. Even if that means millions of people can get access to resources that would otherwise cost millions of dollars to provide? Personally, I think tasteful use of advertising is a win-win-win for all three parties (seller of ad, advertiser, and potential customers (who can easily ignore such ads if they choose).
If I got a Vioxx Ad when viewing an unrelated business, I would think that was pretty bad too. But, I don’t think that’s the type of advertising Google is planning.
Google Earth is intended to be a geographically aware 3D browser. As with any browser, I think they intend to allow for advertising. Every browser has this capability inherent in it. I predict even the ArcGIS explorer will be used for advertising (besides the obvious fact ERSI is advertising themselves, and intend to sell more software, by increasing their exposure by giving it away).
I’ve got no problem with ads, I just have a problem with people trying to push the advertising model on software that doesn’t need it.
I can tell you without any uncertainty that ArcGIS Explorer will have no advertising in it. That I do know.
Well, if they allow any type of user input in any reasonable fashion (like description bubbles), then there will be advertisements. That’s what I was saying. If you have a browser of information, you are guaranteed someone will advertise with it. They just may not come from ERSI (besides their own self-marketing).