The Growth of Google - Research Paper Example

The Growth of Google Google is an international operational company that in the frontline in technological business. The company focuses majorly on enhancing the means by which the people connect all over the world. The company invests in massive innovation in web search as well as advertisements. The firm has immensely grown to become the most popular internet destination in the world. The world’s leading online website indexes and other content undergoes maintenance courtesy of Google, as well as allow free access to information to any person that has an internet connection (Brandt 2011). The Google search machinery is automatic such that the people undertaking search obtain virtually instant access to pertinent information from the company’s vast online directory. This article seeks purposefully to provide a detailed overview of Google's growth, the foundation of the business, development and strategic direction with grave concern in the introduction of IPOs in 2004 (Vise 2005). History of the company The necessity for internet search services grew with the increasing scope and intensity of the World Wide Web. One of the first search engines, Yahoo, was an encyclopedia of sites carefully chosen and structured into classifications by editors. The internet eventually grew to such a massive extent that it overwhelmed the search based on the directory. As the web creators made use of search procedures through repetition of keywords on their pages, searches gradually returned irrelevant programs that did not satisfy the users. Sergey Brin and Larry Page as former students of Stanford undertook the problem. Their website became reliable as it provided more significant searches by approving pages associated with other sites (Brezina 2013). Google’s mission Google’s mission is to shape the global information and make it comprehensively available and relevant. According to Google’s strategy and objectives, it believes that the most operational and profitable means to achieve its mission is to prioritize the interests of its customers. The company according a well-undertaken research, have made conclusions that offering a reasonably high quality services results in enhanced traffic and stable promotion through word of mouth amongst the consumers. With regards to products and service delivery, Google seeks to work tirelessly in order to produce the most relevant, as well as valuable search results possible (Vise 2005). On the other hand, Google aims to try its best to deliver the most relevant and useful marketing. If under any circumstances whereby an element on an outcome page attracts payment, the company will declare it to its users. Under their publication plan, advertisements should not interrupt at all. Google, like any other corporate body or a private entity, envies a bright future; therefore, one of its principles is to work relentlessly in order to improve the user experience. In 1999, an announcement was made by Brin and Page to establish Google, from a couple of exclusive venture principal companies: sequoia and Kleiner Perkins. By 2000, Google’s directory of more than one billion web sites exceeded those of its competitors, therefore replacing Inktomi as Yahoo!’s search instrument. During this time, Google’s focus was primarily on algorithmic search. Up until 1999, Google generated income only by licensing its search machinery to Yahoo and other web sites. Google.com was the only Google site. The page did not carry advertisements, nor did it offer any content other than search outcomes; no communications or private productivity apparatuses (Scott 2008). The Organization of Google As the firm grew, Brin and Page, through proper advice, sought a competent senior executive with massive experience in the field of management to help them to steer the company into a progressive future. In March 2001, an appointment was made; in this instance, Eric Schmidt, who was initially a principal technology officer of Sun Microsystems and CEO of Novell, became the Chief Executive Officer of Google. Brin and Page became the presidents of technology and products respectively (Dickie 2006). By 2003, Google made gross revenues consequent from paid programs of about $1.5 billion and an operational profit totaling $342 million. Through Google.com and licensees including Yahoo! And AOL, Google powered above three-quarters of the 300 million undertaken searches on a daily basis in the United States in 2003 as well as a similar portion of the over 300 million explorations conducted globally. Google.com alone accounted for over 30% of the investigations made in the United States on February 2003 and 73.5 million exceptional guests (Girard 2008). In spite of the accomplishment, the elite administration did not take the company public. Nonetheless, there was massive pressure advocating the provision of liquidity to investors and to recompense the workforce holding options, therefore in April of 2004, the company was forced to establish and announce plans for an IPO(Sangeetha and Sivarajadhanavel 2007). The prospectus for Google’s IPO made announcements regarding plans for double class equity arrangement, therefore, giving ten votes each share to investors belonging to class B Stock, against a single vote per share within class A. If Brin, Page, and the Chief Executive Officer retained their entire class B dividends while other Google administrators who used stock options ultimately sold their own shares, the three Elite Management of Google would own the company’s shares in aggregate of about one-third on the other hand, they would control over 80% of the investors votes. Practically, this strategy gave the trio Administrators immunity from replacement by resentful shareholders who may second-guess the strategy of the company (Hamen 2011). As a couple of arguments claimed that the double class equity arrangement would inspire tactical risk taking, various potential stakeholders were apprehensive that it would inhibit their influence over the direction of the company. Google became actively competent in order to draw and retain customers of its exploration and communication products and facilities. Most of the merchandises and services available to the customers were free; therefore, Google did not contest on the basis of price. Instead, the firm had to participate in this zone on the basis of the significance and expediency of search outcomes and the features, accessibility, easy usage of Google’s products and services. Neither the Google’s customers nor its promoters were locked into Google. For customers, other exploration engines were one snap away, switching search engines were not costly (Hamen 2011). Google’s proponents typically conducted advertisements in several places, whether online or offline. Google’s capacity to help the associates generated incomes through advertising and the terms of the agreements. As 97% of Google’s profits were as a result of publicity, this positioned the enterprise in an awkward situation if any marketing contracts were to dissolve or weaken in growth. Nonetheless, Google was dependent on solid brand acknowledgment and its brand personality (Schmidtn.d.). Google was vulnerable to threats from unacceptable visits to the advertisements it demonstrated, and has had to repay subscription charges for marketing due to deceitful clicks. In situations where Google was unsuccessful in detecting fraudulent connections, it could lose the assurance of its promoters, which would damage the image of the company, as well as the viability. Furthermore, failure of the information technology and communications systems the firm used could hurt its capacity to efficiently deliver products and services, therefore, injuring the reputation Google worked so hard to maintain, as well as damaging its operating revenue. Google’s IT system was vulnerable to impairment from various sources, for instance, natural catastrophes, infrastructural faults, and computer hackers. Even though the administration had contingency strategies for many of these circumstances, such policies could not shield every possibility. Directory spammers could damage the integrity of Google’s website service by fabricating the search attempts of the users. This could hurt the reputation of the company and lead to operators becoming unhappy with the products and services of Google, leading to a decline in website visits. This may well result in lower marketing profits from its Network associates. Google depended greatly on these affiliates for a substantial portion of its returns, and both parties profited from their association with each other. The loss of the acquaintances may adversely upset the business The future of the corporation relied upon constant and unimpeded access to the Internet for both the firm and its customers. Internet access suppliers may have the ability of blocking, degrading, or charging for access to certain Google products and services, which could lead to extra expenditures and the loss of operators and promoters. As Google extends its operations to the global level, more and more of its receivables underwent denomination in foreign currencies (Graham 2010). If currency exchange rates become adverse, the corporation could lose some profits in the U.S. dollar terms. Even though many global corporations pursued hedging tactics to lower or refute the risk of conducting business abroad, Google had inadequate experience with most of these commercial policies. Prevarication plans were also costly, therefore, reducing the general profitability of the company. Like many prosperous technological firms, Google gave its employees an open and cooperative culture whereby there could be an exchange of ideas and new creations and application concepts were developed. Google’s administration struggled to ensure transparency in their operations, ensuring that the workforces were aware of company publications and new application development to the public. The corporation made use of both technology and regular procedures to deliver information (Hull 2012). In December, 2009, Google had 19,835 personnel, comprising of 7,443 occupying research and development department, 7,338 working in the sales and marketing section, 2,941 in universal and managerial, and 2,113 in operations. Given that Google depended on extremely skilled employees, its constant success was firmly associated with its capacity to maintain and cultivate its robust talent pool (Lambert and Poole 2005). Once the existing recession stops, it could become more challenging to attract and sustain skilled, gifted employees. Google experienced prompt and solid growth with durable employee fulfilment. The company worked to increase a worldwide diverse workforce with varied perceptions in which workers received incentives for performance (Steiber2014). The company pursued its target that was to deliver the finest exploration experience on the Internet by making the globe’s information universally available and useful. Google supplemented new abilities to its existing search engine, together with Google Image Search for obtaining graphic information and Google Catalogue Search for facilitating internet shopping from more than 1,100 mail-order catalogs. The company actively pressed for further expansion of its search machinery: Google's responsibility will constantly be to ensure that each search is a find. As the second pillar of its incomes, Google started AdSense; a keyword-targeted marketing program, which supplied customers commercials to Website operators through Goggling a distinct profile of products or services. In comparison with traditional banner marketing, AdSense amplified the regular click-through frequency by up to five times its initial rate. AdSense clienteles had to compensate for their commercials per click-through, hence facilitating the small companies to use that method of service. By 2004, Google could brag over a global network of over 100,000 promoters (Markham 2005). With regards to Google’s profitability in, 2001, and in 2003 it sent a net profit of $105 million from returns of $962 million. Looking into the future, Google was conscious of growing competition from other companies such as, Yahoo! eBay and Microsoft. Even though Google had taken nearly half of the search industry, eBay and Yahoo! were presenting resilient increases in both returns and profits (Thompson 2004).A particular source of concern was the prospect that Microsoft may create a version of its text-processing software that had the capacity to block the access of Google's search engines to documents. Furthermore, the patent of Google's fundamental search algorithm was detained by Stanford University where Page and Brin initially developed the technology as undergraduates. Google's unique licensing covenant with Stanford was set to expire in 2011. Google had traditionally done a lot in order to maintain a corporate philosophy of invention and performance that affiliated the interests of the company with those of workers. The corporation’s $1,000 cash bonus and 10% increase paid to its entire workforce in 2010 were instances of the depths to which the business acted to maintain maximum talent. This was significant as Google’s stock price had dropped to 4.7% in 2010. The firm considered co-founders Brin and Page to be an excellent corporate resource, albeit their expenditure $15 million for a former Qantas Boeing 767 jet aeroplane in 2006 to use as a corporation plane was scheduled by Bloomberg Business Week as a sample of administrative excess. As the firm continues to grow, organization will be challenged to discover new and inventive ways to uphold a high commercial culture (Mcdowell2011). Although there were certain seasonal effects on Google’s commercial status, it was mostly not as important as in wholesale stores, which made up much of their revenues in the final quarter of the year. In Google’s situation, there had been a rise in business in the final portion of the calendar year as signified by profitable queries. Similarly, the summer months tended to be the gentlest time of the year. Although seasonality may be a matter of Google’s business and income, it was mostly not apparent to the management to be a major issue (Thompson 2012). Google had, therefore, far grown on the Internet exploration engine industry, improving the image and name that, for many, was identical to Internet search. Until this moment, growth had been resilient, signifying a promising future. Google appeared to be grateful to take advantage of what the future had to offer in new machinery by producing new products. In order to carry on doing this, it will need to maintain the finest and brightest minds. For instance, one of Google’s new theories was synthetic intelligence software for use in vehicles that could operate automatically. The corporation’s stock value had gone up vastly in the past, but certain experts now thought that Google was growing as a company and that its capital cost was leveling off (Witten 2007). As Google always grew, it continually bought other businesses, for instance, its acquisitions of YouTube, DoubleClick, and Postini. Nonetheless, development through acquisition may not necessarily end up in increasing the growth in incomes or benefits. For example, YouTube was worth $1.6 billion during acquisition in 2006 that as of 2010 had not produced significant extra revenue for Google, notwithstanding its growth potential. There were certain suggestions that assets could become an increasingly challenging policy in the future(Savoia and Copeland, 2011). In 2010, Google’s attempt to purchase Groupon did not sail through; Groupon is a website that specializes in local shopping promotions. Google’s offer of $6 billion for Groupon was virtually double the compensation for DoubleClick in 2008. Groupon’s denial of the proposal reflected a fear common to website financiers that their trivial ventures may disappear inside Google’s immensity (Valakas 2010). For example, numerous other start-ups, such as Yelp, that had similarly been pursued by Google had chosen to remain under private ownership. Google’s highest management should have decided to consider these and other aspects in order to plan purposefully. Legal matters will probably continue, for instance, allegations that Google uses Wi-Fi networks to obtain private information. Google’s administrative body quick responses on the same with remedial accomplishment and similar future answers to legal encounters will be significant. The future of portable computing was a vulnerable and unfamiliar area. All of these concerns and more were pertinent as CEO Schmidt, and his administrative team contemplated the second decade of the new era and made deliberations regarding Google’s plans (Thompson 2012). With regards to service delivery, Google develops products that allow the customers easy access, create and consolidate data. The company places quality of products that are important to most of the people and have the prospective to develop their day to day activities, particularly in areas where Google’s expertise is significant to the excellence of the company. People use search more frequently, and the outcomes are normally of high relevance to them (Sangeetha and Sivarajadhanavel, 2007). For instance, users seek information on health conditions, market decisions, technical inquiries, people and things that are of a massive importance to them. Delivery of premium results requires substantial computing power, improved software, and intricate procedures. On the other hand, people invariably rely on internet to undertake communications amid each other. Google offer the most efficient email service that provides free storage and communication for each operator. Google’s email service is known as Gmail. Google’s technologies classify through a vast and developing amount of data to convey relevant as well as valuable search outcomes in response to the customers questions. This is an area of constant growth for the company in terms of technology (Gilbert 2009). When Google was established in 1999, its website index contained about 30 million documents. The index today stands at more than 8 billion website pages and even 250 times as much data. The company consistently develops new functionality every day. Google has recently made improvements to its local search offering, which includes Google Maps; they have also enhanced Google Desktop exploration which supports extra file formats, browser, and email customers. In addition, the company also provides convenient links to specific information, for instance, information regarding movies and weather (Sutherland 2011). According to Google, it is important that the results the customers obtain from Google are delivered with only their comforts in mind. Google does not accept compensation for search results. They also do not accept payment for advertising, although it does not influence the generation of search results (Nehls 2011). The advertisements docket remains clearly separated. Individual competitors in the technological market charge websites for addition to their directories or recurrent updating of pages. According to Google, it is important for the user to access the obtainable information and research and not just the information one pays in order to access. Google strives hard to ensure they reach every individual possible in the world. The users visit Google’s destination from around the globe through at Google.com. There are other more than 100 international fields, for instance, Google.co.uk, Google.fr and Google.ca among others. Google's interface is procurable in more than 100 global languages. Through Google News, the company offers an automatic assortment of regularly updated news stories connected to 22 global audiences. Google offers free content translations amid diverse global languages. The company provides localized versions of Google in various developing countries. For the sake of the business’s growth, Google does not recover its costs in these countries, it is their believe that providing products and services in an essential social decency, as well as a valuable lasting investment (Nehls2011). It has always been the company’s find that the most convenient and authoritative search machinery conceals its complexity from the operators and serves them with a simple, instinctive means to obtain the information they need. The company has devoted substantial efforts to develop a streamlined, simple interface based on a spotless search box conspicuously set on a page free of commercial confusion. Multiple features meant to enhance the user's experience have also been developed. Google’s products offer the features only when the usefulness is required, rather than promoting them unnecessarily. For instance, a Google search presents maps when a search indicates that it is for a geographic location. Reference Brandt, R. L. (2011). The Google guys.New York, Portfolio/Penguin. Brezina, C. (2013). Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, and Google. New York, Rosen Pub. Dickie, R. B. (2006). Financial statement analysis and business valuation for the practical lawyer: Chicago, IL, ABA Section of Business Law, American Bar Association. Graham, J. R., Smart, S. B., &Megginson, W. L. (2010). Corporate finance: Mason, OH, South-Western Cengage Learning. Gilbert, S. (2009). The story of Google. Collingwood, Ont.: Saunders Book. Girard, B. (2008). The Google way: San Francisco, Calif, No Starch. Hamen, S. E. (2011). Google the company and its founders: Edina, Minn, ABDO Pub. Co: Hull, J. (2012). Risk management and financial institutions: Hoboken, N.J., John Wiley. Lambert, L., &Poole, H. W. (2005). The Internet a historical encyclopedia: Santa Barbara, CA, ABC-CLIO. Markham, J. W. (2005). A financial history of modern U.S. corporate scandals: Armonk, N.Y. Sharpe. Mcdowell, G. L. (2011). The Google resumes how to prepare for a career and land a job at Apple, Microsoft, Google, or any top tech company. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley. Nehls, E. F. (2011). A business analysis project on Google Inc. München, GRIN Verlag GmbH.. Savoia, A. and Copeland, P. (2011).Entrepreneurial Innovation at Google.Computer, 44(4), pp.56-61. Sangeetha, K. and Sivarajadhanavel, P. (2007).Google's growth. Hyderabad, India: Icfai University Press. Schmidt, E., Rosenberg, J. and Eagle, A. (n.d.).Google. Scott, V. A. (2008). Google: Westport, Conn, Greenwood Press. Steiber, A. (2014). The Google model: managing continuous innovation in a rapidly changing world. Sutherland, A. (2011). Google. London: Wayland. Thompson, S. C. (2004). Citizen's guide to U.S. economic growth and the Bush-Kerry economic debate.New York, I Universe. Thompson, S. C. (2012). The Obama vs. Romney debate on economic growth: a citizen’s guide to the issues. Bloomington, IN, I Universe, Inc. Valakas, A. (2010). Google capitalism emerging. [S.l.]: Mind Commerce. Vise, D. A., &Malseed, M. (2005).The Google story. New York, Delacorte Press. Witten, I., Gori, M. and Numerico, T. (2007).Web dragons. Amsterdam: M. Kaufmann. Read More