Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kids Moved Back In? Franchise 'em

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kids Moved Back In? Franchise 'em


    Tony Uzzi and his stepdaughter Paige Palmer

    By IAN MOUNT

    Late one night in January 2012, Paige Palmer called her mother at home, crying. She was entering her final semester as a communications major at St. Mary’s College of California in Moraga, and neither she nor her friends were finding work. The job market was terrifying.

    “In this culture, your whole life is planned out until you graduate from university,” Ms. Palmer, 22, said. “That time had come, and I didn’t know what was at the end of the tunnel.”

    Ms. Palmer’s concerns found a receptive audience in her stepfather, Tony Uzzi. In June 2010, after 25 years in the pharmaceutical industry, Mr. Uzzi, 55, was laid off from his job as senior vice president for sales at a pharmaceutical company based in Switzerland.

    He spent a year playing golf and trying to start a consulting career, but he grew bored; going back to the corporate world was not really an option. “Not a lot of attractive job offers came my way,” he said. “None. I was 53. I had been making several hundred thousand dollars a year, and no one wanted to pay me that.”

    Eight months later, Mr. Uzzi and Ms. Palmer put down $130,000 of Mr. Uzzi’s money to open in Mission Viejo, Calif., a franchise of Nurse Next Door, a home health care service based in Vancouver, British Columbia.

    With that, they joined a growing number of parent-child partners who have responded to poor job prospects by buying franchises together. During the first month in operation, Mr. Uzzi said, they took in $23,000 in revenue, a first-month record for Nurse Next Door. Six months later, he said, they were averaging about twice that amount.

    Concrete figures on multigenerational franchises are hard to come by. But anecdotal evidence suggests they are becoming increasingly common for job-seeking parents and children who have an entrepreneurial urge but not the experience or confidence to start a business alone.

    Rick Bisio, a franchise consultant in Bradenton Beach, Fla., and the author of “The Educated Franchisee,” said that 10 to 20 percent of the franchisees he places start as parent-child pairs and that the number has risen since the economic turmoil.

    An analysis by The Associated Press found that in 2011, 53.6 percent of those with bachelor’s degrees under age 25 were jobless or underemployed, compared with 41 percent in 2000. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average length of unemployment for workers over 55 has risen to more than a year.

    “In the U.S., the economy has been rough since 2008,” said John DeHart, co-founder and chief executive of Nurse Next Door.

    “You have a lot of seasoned executives getting packages, and they’re looking for new careers. And you have this disproportionately high unemployment in the under-25 group. With that you get the dad/grad trend.”

    Mr. DeHart said that four of the 11 franchises his company has opened in the United States in the past year have combined parents and recent graduates.

    Larry Leonard is one such older worker who turned to opening a franchise with his children after a job loss. Mr. Leonard, 59, had been in the steel business for 38 years when he was “down-sized” from his job as president of a small steel company in Chicago Heights, Ill.

    After an executive search firm told him it would take at least eight months to find another job, he and his family turned to CPR Cell Phone Repair, a telephone- and tablet-repair franchiser. The expected cost for the first store is about $125,000, said Mr. Leonard, who bought the rights to open eight stores over the next five years.

    His wife, Paula, will run the front desk, Mr. Leonard said, while his older son, Russell, 29, will be responsible for marketing; his younger son, Philip, 27, for technology; and his daughter, Carolyn, 24, for social media. That division of labor is common among multigenerational franchisees, with parents typically handling jobs that require local connections and the children taking care of day-to-day operations and online marketing.

    “I thought, I’m going to be 60 and if I could spend the last five to 10 years of my working life building up a company that would help me in retirement and help my children, I would investigate,” Mr. Leonard said from a soon-to-open branch in Orland Park, Ill. “We could make $30,000 to $50,000 per store in profit. It will take a few stores to match my old salary, but I’m building for the future, not just for today.”

    Laid off parents and their unemployed children are often attracted to franchising because it offers easy-to-follow systems. But that guiding hand has a price. The overall cost of opening a franchise can range from roughly $50,000 for a pet-services store to $445,000 for a restaurant, according to data from the industry magazine Franchise Business Review.

    In addition, franchisees usually pay 5 to 8 percent of their revenue in royalty fees to the franchiser, said Eric Stites, chief executive of Franchise Business Review. “While franchising can be profitable, it’s a long-term investment,” Mr. Stites said. “Most franchisees will need seven to 10 years or longer to grow a successful business to a point where they can potentially sell it and make a solid return on their investment, and clearly, there are no guarantees.”

    When Greg Galvez, now 52, took early retirement from his job as general manager of imported beverages at Coca-Cola after a 2011 reorganization, he bought the rights to open Proshred Security document-shredding franchises in Georgia. He operates his first in Norcross, Ga. with the help of his 16-year-old twins, who may join the business full time after college.

    Mr. Galvez said the company’s training and software were helpful — “the operating process is there in a box,” he said — and his work at Coca-Cola, including helping to introduce Mexican Coke to the United States, provided useful experience. But he said his big-company background did not teach him how to find and approach a local market. “The clients’ needs are evolving all the time, and I’m lacking that insight,” he said. “At a large company you can buy research, but in a start-up you can’t. It’s a lot more trial and error.”

    The family dynamic can also be tricky. When Millie Vazquez’s two adult children, Julio, 30, and Alvaro, 34, moved back home several years ago and were looking for work, she decided to open a third Blimpie franchise in Paterson, N.J., not far from her first two.

    She quickly ran into trouble with her sons, who wanted to create off-menu sandwiches and go outside the Blimpie system in other ways. As she fought with Alvaro, who was managing the store, she says his hair began to fall out from stress: “At one point it got so bad, I said to Alvaro, ‘You know what? You’re fired.’ ”

    After leaving briefly, Alvaro returned and the two brothers retook the Blimpie training program; the store is now “a gold mine,” Ms. Vazquez said.

    For Ms. Palmer at Nurse Next Door, moving from the freedom of college to a job that required her to be constantly on call was a difficult transition. “When we’re home for dinner, do we talk about business?” she said. “This isn’t a normal 9-to-5 job.”

    In the end, though, she said that taking on the responsibility had been worth it. The franchise, which opened in September, is on course for $500,000 in first-year revenue, Mr. Uzzi said.

    Meanwhile, many of Ms. Palmer’s college friends have not stopped looking for work.

    “All of my friends have left the area in search of jobs,” she said. “Or they’re baby-sitting.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/bu...gewanted=print

  • #2
    Re: Kids Moved Back In? Franchise 'em

    What percent of people with no business experience who are already up to their eyeballs in debt can afford to take on more debt to bet on a franchise? And what if they find that quick start doesn't happen for them and/or they loath the industry they are in? It probably would have been good to include a success rate statistic in an article pumping a couple edge case quick successes, but then doing so would have been against the principals of unsound journalism. Of course at some point those who have bought what the press has sold them in terms of the dream of education likely deserve what they get if they believe in the dream of owning a franchise as a solution to the last failed dream that was sold to them.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Kids Moved Back In? Franchise 'em

      I've had experience with franchising and even franchising in home health.

      Ultimately the value of a franchise in that field can be very low. The particular franchise I unwisely chose to work with had little to no understanding or interest in the role of the Internet on customer acquisition. It also had very strict 'requirements' on how it expected franchisees to attract business (i.e. the traditional ambulance chasing).

      In return, the franchisee gets to pay 5% royalty off the top of revenues, along with various other fees. One founder was, unsurprisingly, an ADP alumni.

      To be fair, a franchise can make sense in some cases. For many of the ones I've seen both firsthand and subsequently, they're not. The franchisee takes all the business risk, loses significant control over his business, and tithes before eats - all in return for a 'formula' which may or may not work.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Kids Moved Back In? Franchise 'em

        The particular franchise I unwisely chose to work with had little to no understanding or interest in the role of the Internet on customer acquisition.
        The big issue with internet marketing is that having sustained success with it is often challenging beyond the scope of a fulltime profession.

        Even when online marketing was easier some of franchises that I looked at would give people a website full of duplicate content (which would typically be filtered out by the likes of Google, meaning that they would be doomed to fail no matter how hard the person tried).

        4 or 5 years ago it was pretty easy to succeed with a singular focus on SEO (and a few years before that the same sort of focus on PPC yielded great results), but as Google has begun chasing branded ad Dollars (a shift that IMHO came into play when direct marketing ad budgets disappeared with consumers in 2009) they have shifted their "relevancy" algorithms toward becoming corporate whores. Smaller businesses walk on eggshells everywhere while large companies can fall over the finish line in first place.

        The social platforms present another channel/opportunity, but it is select in what types of businesses it is a good fit for.

        To be fair, a franchise can make sense in some cases. For many of the ones I've seen both firsthand and subsequently, they're not. The franchisee takes all the business risk, loses significant control over his business, and tithes before eats - all in return for a 'formula' which may or may not work.
        The bad part with franchises is when the formula stops working they generally don't quickly take it off the market, but rather push it harder with higher referral commissions.

        I was not suggesting that franchises are always rotten, but rather that if a person is already levered up on debt they might not have the flexibility needed to make it through rough patches. When I was dirt poor & broke my solution was to reduce my living costs to essentially nothing until I found something that worked well for me...but then even when it started working I kept living costs way below income so as to build up a cushion for instability...if you are larded up on layers of debt it is hard to have the flexibility needed to really push through the rough patches.

        More than anything, I think this article of a couple edge cases being painted as the norm just reaffirms my view of mainstream media - awful.

        If you graduate college & can't sell yourself well enough to get a job, then it is quite hard to open a business where (with virtually no prior experience or knowledge) you are going to be strong enough at sales in order to build a sustainable business. That's what is so bad about the lack of context behind the success rates in that advertorial the NYT ran.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Kids Moved Back In? Franchise 'em

          To Franchise or Not to Franchise

          as easy as dunkin' a donut . . .



          Franchising is everywhere. There are franchised restaurants, grocery stores, parcel deliveries, online search optimization services, premium out houses, even poop scoop services for pooches.Investing in these franchises has helped hundreds of thousands of small business owners climb up the ladder of economic success and achieve their piece of the American dream.

          But there are big problems with modern franchising.


          Earlier in my career when I worked for a franchisor, my franchisee friends — Wall Streeters, chief financial officers, and other executives — told me in retrospect that they felt woefully uninformed. It is the reason Blue MauMau, a news site that promotes interaction between franchise insiders and small business investors, successfully came into being.


          When I founded Blue MauMau, I had no idea of the magnitude of the problems franchisees faced. My earlier perspective as a franchisor told me that if a franchisee failed, it was because he must not have followed the operations manual. I knew the industry experienced its share of pain, but I didn't realize how much of this pain was swept neatly under the rug.

          The franchising industry has created a marketing machine that for decades has been devoted to convincing investors that the streets in franchising are paved with gold. Books and business journals are packed full of stories saying how wonderful it is to "buy" a franchise. Sales reps routinely make bogus claims of 90 percent success rates and pass over the potential landmines inherent in the legal relationship.What's missing from this franchise selling process is a candid voice from a small business entrepreneur and franchisee who has actually experienced the pitfalls of the industry and is willing to write about it. The good news is that that book has arrived.

          Interestingly, Irwin Barkan was not your typical franchisee. He came to the table with more money, more experience, more information, and better honed entrepreneurial skills than most franchise investors. His story, Dunk'd, is a candid glimpse of franchising from the vantage point of a sophisticated owner of commercial real estate with a 20-year history of buying and operating franchises. While reading Dunk'd, I was struck at the depth of Irwin's business skills. As his financing situations grew more complicated, he kept pulling rabbits out of his hat, negotiating funding deals from astonishing places. But even with his impressive skills, he reached a point where he could do no more.

          Some readers will want to debate who had the best legal case, while others will enjoy second-guessing Irwin, or theorizing what Dunkin' Donuts should have done. But there is something much bigger at work here. Let's say we take Irwin's story in its least positive light and assume the court was correct in its application of the law. Under that scenario, the reader will be struck by how precarious the fate of a franchisee is. If the franchisor likes you, you receive favors. If he doesn't, then this book reveals how the law favors the larger economic entity, the franchisor. Paperwork gets stopped or lost. Candidate buyers of a struggling franchise are not approved. Like Barkan, a franchisee can easily end up with nothing to show for his efforts but debt and bankruptcy.

          British politician Lord Baron Acton once wrote, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It is an itch that even the best intentioned franchisor wants to scratch — pushing certain franchisees out of the system while justifying any action it takes as being for the good of the brand.

          Dunk'd shows how a franchisor can prevent a franchisee from getting on his feet and how a franchisor can easily “churn” a sizeable franchise investment, reselling it to another franchisee for more money to the franchisor while leaving the original owner with nothing. Protecting abusive franchisors, franchise agreements are craftily written to negate societal norms of fair play and even the law, which is the real rub of Irwin's story.

          As a reporter, I wish Barkan would give a little more lattitude and understanding to those on the other side. Those standing against him are sometimes made into a villain or painted two-dimensionally, like the attorney who represents Dunkin'. When he walks into a paragraph, there is an obligatory sneer. But I also understand that when a franchisee has everything to lose, he won't like the instruments bent on his destruction.

          In this book a reader will experience the day-to-day operations and investment decisions that some of the top entrepreneurial franchisees are faced with. It is readable, real and entertaining. Dunk'd provides us with the benefit of hindsight, from which any business person can learn. Franchisees will want to read it so that they can be better informed and can better cope with the realities of their own situation. Investors looking for opportunities will also want to read this book before writing that check because, as Irwin makes clear, if you have signed on with the wrong franchisor and paid the initial fee, all bets are off.




          from a review of Irwin Barkan's
          Dunk'd, A True Story of How Big Money is Corrupting the Franchising Industry

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Kids Moved Back In? Franchise 'em

            Originally posted by seobook
            The big issue with internet marketing is that having sustained success with it is often challenging beyond the scope of a fulltime profession.

            Even when online marketing was easier some of franchises that I looked at would give people a website full of duplicate content (which would typically be filtered out by the likes of Google, meaning that they would be doomed to fail no matter how hard the person tried).
            I quite agree.

            My complaint was that the franchisor had a lower SEO ranking than even just opened, non-franchisee, single operation competitors. I asked for but never saw any form of strategy to leverage the large number of franchisees (and their fees, or even an add-on) into at least a decent presence. Note my franchising foray was well before the 5 year time frame you speak of.

            This is understandable, but it did make me very sad. Target demographic seniors are independent by nature, but many of the 'slam dunk' injuries so sought after by the ambulance chasing model arise due to declining physical capability causing lifestyle changes that lead to physical decline. It was my hope to provide education in recognizing this situation, to de-stigmatize the presence of a short term (4 hour a week or less) home health aide, earlier in the aging process, and so reduce or postpone the types of injuries which force either long term care or entry into a nursing home.

            Originally posted by seobook
            The bad part with franchises is when the formula stops working they generally don't quickly take it off the market, but rather push it harder with higher referral commissions.
            I can't speak concerning other types of franchises, but home health is a very competitive field. There's a wide range of service levels available, and there really isn't much in the way of repeat customers - in the sense that the traditional model is to wait for someone to break a hip or get a major operation.

            However, after that experience, seeing the extreme density of some franchise operations like Subway - makes it pretty clear how various franchises make their profit. Some do it via high volume, successful businesses from which the franchisor gets the franchise cut plus makes money on supply chain. Some do it via sucking in the franchise fee.
            Last edited by c1ue; May 09, 2013, 03:40 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Kids Moved Back In? Franchise 'em

              Originally posted by seobook View Post
              4 or 5 years ago it was pretty easy to succeed with a singular focus on SEO (and a few years before that the same sort of focus on PPC yielded great results), but as Google has begun chasing branded ad Dollars (a shift that IMHO came into play when direct marketing ad budgets disappeared with consumers in 2009) they have shifted their "relevancy" algorithms toward becoming corporate whores. Smaller businesses walk on eggshells everywhere while large companies can fall over the finish line in first place.
              I've been seeing more and more of this lately in Startpage, which uses Google results. In 2005 I started an E-commerce store selling natural perfumes. Wrote my website and found my shop to be 30 pages back in search engine results. So I learned about SEO and re-wrote the site from scratch to be SEO optimized from the ground up. Soon I was on the top of the first page of Google for selected key phrases, where I remained for several years until closing the business in 2011. Mine was a textbook example of David beating Goliath in Google.

              But for the last month I've been trying to find an article or forum post I read last year about what types of glue are used by a certain violin maker in their different models of violins. All I get from Google/Startpage is page after page of links to the major retailer of those instruments, and links to duplicate content on sites of smaller retailers. It's not relevant to my search. Not one of those results mentions the glue used. Google is determined to steer me to merchant sites.

              A few minutes ago I tried Yahoo! and found the information I needed starting with the first result on the first page. Not one link on Yahoo!'s first page took me to a retailer. IMO Google is now c*ap.

              Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Kids Moved Back In? Franchise 'em

                Dunkin' Donuts is a good example of fail city in terms of the owners having incentive structures aligned with the franchisees.
                http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/on-mitt-romney-bain-capital-and-private-equity-20120829
                If you borrow billions to buy Dunkin' Donuts and the firm flourishes post-takeover, that's one way for investors to get paid. But another way is getting Dunkin' to take out a $1.25 billion bank loan to hand its investors $500 million in tribute payments.

                It's hard to imagine anything that's dumber, from the standpoint of trying to grow a business, than taking out a billion-dollar loan to pay a dividend – one buddy of mine on Wall Street used the word "retarded" – but for a private equity firm and its investors, that might very well be a smart way to get your investors paid.

                To offset the ongoing interest payments & make Dunkin' more profitable in the short run to prepare for an IPO, corners had to be cut elsewhere
                http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plan...omney-and-bain
                Katrina Fitzpatrick, in her mid-forties, the oldest of the three workers heading to Tampa, mentioned that because she was earning two dollars above minimum wage when Bain took over, she became responsible for opening the store only to be sent home once a lower-paid replacement could take over later in the morning. She’d get up before four to take a cab to work (the buses weren’t running yet), then work for just three hours. When the company stopped reimbursing her for the ride in, she actually started losing money working the shift.
                What does the "pay to work" sort of behavior do to an employee's loyalty? How likely are they to be in a good mood & push upsells when they realize they are working for a negative wage?

                I experienced the negative wages deal once in my life (on a 2-month sub tour, they offloaded my uniforms & lost them, with me having to replace them at my own expense ... and then when we pulled back into the base they told me the base towed my car a month back and were laughing at me about it ... they towed it into the ghetto where it was broke into & a friend's stuff was stolen out of my car ... that underway lost/stolen/damaged goods & towing costs were more that I was paid pre-tax) & it was one of the most foul things I ever went through. Any sense of patriotism or belonging in the military I may have felt was flushed down the toilet on that my first underway.

                One of the ways some franchisees get leverage back from the core companies is to buy out/own regional markets
                http://www.entrepreneur.com/blog/224380
                but some of these companies are taken private then go public then taken private again, larding up debt wherever/whenever possible.

                Burger King has done this so many times that when they go public there are already discussions of when they will go private again
                http://www.forbes.com/sites/caroltic...private-again/
                the last time they went public they didn't even do an IPO
                http://investorplace.com/2012/06/bur...ithout-an-ipo/
                Burger King is using a convoluted deal structure to pull this off. It is merging with an existing stock that already trades publicly to gain access to Wall Street.

                That stock is Justice Holdings, a U.K.-based investment entity that trades on the London Stock Exchange. Burger King’s private ownership group, 3G Capital, received $1.4 billion from Justice for a minority stake in BKW — and Justice in turn will suspend its stock, change its name to “Burger King Worldwide” and then re-list those shares in New York.
                Many of these companies seem to revolve around almost all the potential profits being extracted by short term investments timed to the debt cycle. I bet when the parent companies finally go bankrupt there is no clawbacks from the financial magicians & the core company is able to renegotiate with franchisees to take more from them in the "shared sacrifices."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Kids Moved Back In? Franchise 'em

                  Originally posted by shiny! View Post
                  I've been seeing more and more of this lately in Startpage, which uses Google results. In 2005 I started an E-commerce store selling natural perfumes. Wrote my website and found my shop to be 30 pages back in search engine results. So I learned about SEO and re-wrote the site from scratch to be SEO optimized from the ground up. Soon I was on the top of the first page of Google for selected key phrases, where I remained for several years until closing the business in 2011. Mine was a textbook example of David beating Goliath in Google.

                  But for the last month I've been trying to find an article or forum post I read last year about what types of glue are used by a certain violin maker in their different models of violins. All I get from Google/Startpage is page after page of links to the major retailer of those instruments, and links to duplicate content on sites of smaller retailers. It's not relevant to my search. Not one of those results mentions the glue used. Google is determined to steer me to merchant sites.

                  A few minutes ago I tried Yahoo! and found the information I needed starting with the first result on the first page. Not one link on Yahoo!'s first page took me to a retailer. IMO Google is now c*ap.
                  What Drives Brand Bias
                  I believe the primary signal driving this is engagement data. If you have a huge ad budget, a bunch of store locations, thousands of employees, etc. ... then a lot of people are going to regularly navigate to your website. When that navigational / brand-related search data is folded in with other usage data for your site, the site that has all that navigational traffic is going to have a better aggregate user metrics driven score (in basically every way possible: clickthrough rates, bounce rate, dwell time / time on site, repeat visits, branded searches as percent of total visits, etc.)

                  This conceptual graphic is certainly oversimplified & just for illustrative purposes, rather than being concretely data driven, but sort of highlights that general trend




                  I was one of the first people to spot the shift toward promoting bigger brands back in 2009. Ironically, most the industry said I was wrong & that I was over-blowing the implications of the "subtle shift," etc.

                  As I was ridiculed, in response I made an Xtranormal video about the absurdity of it & then later an infographic. A half decade later, now what is considered advanced discussion in the SEO sphere is "how you should try to look like a brand" & anyone who debates the perception that "size = quality" notion is offhandedly dismissed as a spammer, a person with sour grapes and/or someone who's view is entirely irrelevant.

                  Most the people making the claims that the bigger company should almost always win were not independent SEOs working on their own sites and/or have already shifted into the corporate consulting game & don't want to speak out against the interests of their prospective clients.

                  In years past, search allowed merchants to insert themselves right near the demand piece of the value chain without having to worry about the rest of the supply chain & building the entire marketing cycle.

                  But as Google gets into display ads, even some of their former employees have described the shift in Google's approach:
                  I can remember the sinking feeling when I realised that success for DoubleClick meant more annoying advertising (both more advertising which is annoying, and advertising which is more annoying - a successful campaign is by definition one which distracts the user from what they are doing), and ran counter to my interests as a user and as a consumer.

                  When I joined Google, I was sceptical about the value of advertising. I have never owned a TV, was an occasional reader of Adbusters and No Logo, and regarded advertising as a crutch for companies who lack good product. I came to understand that search ads fulfil a need both for Advertisers and users, and the story Google tells about this is very effective (and, I believe, true).

                  Display advertising, however, is largely brand-based, and is usually used to create demand rather than find it. In my view, it frequently works against the interests of the user. DoubleClick, in fact, was the first domain I ever added to my hosts file in a primitive form of ad-blocking
                  Google wants to monetize the entire ad cycle: awareness, interest, desire, action, advocacy.

                  Those who want to serve user demand without creating demand are viewed by Google as unneeded duplication in the online ecosystem.

                  Query Reinterpretation
                  Another thing that is butchering Google on some longtail queries them re-interpreting what they think you want. A buddy writes the site johnon.com & sometimes when I search for a navigational purpose with a keyword containing johnon in it, Google auto-corrects my johnon to johnson. The most absurd example I have ever encountered was when I was on YouTube & searched for a Famicom/Japanese Nintendo game named Asmic Land about 6 months ago & they converted the result set to being about Lana Del Ray instead

                  As you said, when you search for that specific glue type you get some recycled or auto-generated mashup goulash of sorts on a branded site.

                  How Penalties Are Handled
                  When a big company is penalized by Google it is often only for a few days to a few weeks at a time. Over the years there were examples with BMW, all the big US flower sites buying boatloads of links, Telaflora, etc.

                  BMW recovered in under 2 days.
                  The US flower sites were never hit because Google claimed their attempts to spam were ineffective (in spite of the fact that those sites had top ranks & with smaller sites Google will penalized perceived intent).
                  Telefora was penalized for 11 days I believe.

                  About the only time some of the bigger brands were hit for an extended period of time (I believe Overstock & JCPenney were penalized for a couple months) was during the time Google was trying to shape the conversation about spam, after Demand Media had their "profitable as hell" article in Wired & journalists expressed outrage about Google subsidizing spam junk content.

                  But smaller sites really have the game stacked against them now with tighter link anchor filters, boatloads of manual penalties, the Panda algorithm that is both likely to hit them AND to boost the rank of larger corporate competing sites, etc. And then there is the wholesale replacement of select categories with paid inclusion verticals like flight search & product search.

                  The Big Differences Between Bing & Google
                  Yahoo! search results are currently driven by Bing (though some in the search industry are shilling for a Google Yahoo! tie up).

                  Bing tends to be more literal & give you more of what you searched for, rather than presuming it knows what you wanted & modifying your search to some other keywords. (Bing does a bit of that query modification stuff, but nowhere near as aggressively as Google does it).

                  And while Bing certainly folds usage data into their relevancy algorithms, they don't have as tight of anchor text filters, they are not as aggressive with handing out manual penalties & they don't have a core algorithm factor like Panda which boosts big brands & penalizes smaller ecommerce players.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Kids Moved Back In? Franchise 'em

                    Originally posted by seobook View Post
                    What Drives Brand Bias...
                    Very interesting stuff. Thanks!

                    Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Kids Moved Back In? Franchise 'em

                      Originally posted by shiny! View Post
                      IMO Google is now c*ap.
                      It’s interesting to scroll through wikipedia's list of search engines and marvel at what a battle it’s been. Pick one of the old ones still around like metacrawler and laugh at how it’s been bought, sold, and folded into other companies over the years. Google long ago stopped being good for scratching below the surface of any non-commercial topic. I’ve even given up searching for recipes on it. It’s amazing how homogenized search results have become. Sites like pinterest start out non-commercial, but quickly flick the switch.

                      All attempts to subvert commercial search engines with a Wikipedia type project seem to fizzle.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Kids Moved Back In? Franchise 'em

                        Originally posted by Thailandnotes View Post
                        It’s interesting to scroll through wikipedia's list of search engines and marvel at what a battle it’s been. Pick one of the old ones still around like metacrawler and laugh at how it’s been bought, sold, and folded into other companies over the years. Google long ago stopped being good for scratching below the surface of any non-commercial topic. I’ve even given up searching for recipes on it. It’s amazing how homogenized search results have become. Sites like pinterest start out non-commercial, but quickly flick the switch.

                        All attempts to subvert commercial search engines with a Wikipedia type project seem to fizzle.
                        I worked for a search engine company during the years of the search engine wars. The company I worked for had the same functionality as Inktomi but our stock languished at $8-$13 while theirs soared to $200 a share. There was some great satisfaction when their stock tanked and we bought their Ultraseek search engine for about 25 cents a share. That euphoria lasted for about a year until Google began taking all the best search engine developers. They've had a nice run but I have to agree, they're not a search company any longer. They're a bank for the solar industry and I'm sure many other things I don't see but they are not a search company unless you want to buy something.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Kids Moved Back In? Franchise 'em

                          All attempts to subvert commercial search engines with a Wikipedia type project seem to fizzle.
                          Blekko is a smaller independent search engine that maintains their own search index. They also received investment from Yandex, which is a Russian search company that also offers a (barely known) English search engine, but has a ~ $9 billion market capitalization based in large part on their success in Russia. Baidu is big in China & has a ~ $33 billion market cap.

                          DuckDuckGo is an editorial layer by a small team on the core Bing index, which includes a lot of interface enhancements, but at this point most of the (non-regional (Baidu / Yandex / Naver) & non-vertical-dependent (Yelp / Amazon / TripAdvisor)) search plays either ride on Google's or Bing's index at the core. AOL Search or Earthlink Search or so many of those other portals are just rewrapped Google.

                          The problem with search that isn't overtly commercial is that it is very hard to gain a sizable marketshare. So many people use whatever is set as the default provider, which is often set by payments. Google runs Chrome & Android, and sponsors default search placement in Firefox + Safari & iOS devices. The flow of funds on these default placement sponsorships are substantial. Firefox is like $300 million a year, Apple is like a billion a year, some of the Android ones have revenue share that is likely both with the device manufacturer & carrier. Then Google also pays to have their Chrome browser & ther own toolbar installed in Internet Explorer on OEM computers. Nikesh Aurora mentioned that half of Google's search queries come from partners. I don't watch too much TV, but I do see Chrome ads on it during NBA playoffs, which I imagine isn't a cheap time to air commercials. In the third world where online ad rates are cheap Google arbitrages their own ad network by buying boatloads of ads promoting the installation of Google Chrome. In addition to that stuff that Google is directly connected to, they also fund some gray area stuff like Ask toolbar installs bundled with other software (through their revshare deal with IAC).

                          In 2005 when Microsoft tried to pry AOL's search business away from Google, as part of Google's deal to keep AOL (& thus block Microsoft) Google made a $1 billion investment into AOL for a 5% equity slice. Google later wrote down that investment by $726 million. AOL also received about $300 million of promotional AdWords credits as part of that deal, so Google was willing to lose nearly a billion to block Microsoft. They also lost their shirts with the $900 million MySpace ad deal.

                          Yahoo! is about the only huge partner Bing was able to sign up, & that was only possible because the DOJ warned that a Yahoo! Google tie up would lead to a lawsuit. And while having Yahoo!'s marketshare is important for gaining a critical mass of advertisers, Microsoft is likely still losing money on that deal. Their initial revenue share guarantee was providing the organic results free and an 88% revenue share on the ads & Microsoft is paying additional minimum revenue performance fees on top of that. Bing is also partnered with Facebook, but Facebook doesn't drive much traditional search volume & is leveraging their own internal graph search for a significant portion of their site search.

                          Google was able to have greater leverage than other search players like Inktomi (organic search index) and Overture (paid search ads) in part by becoming a destination themselves, rather than primarily building something that plugged into other portals. They also had a far more efficient ad auction than Overture, in part due to how they handled keyword matching broader & in part due to them having a quality score system. By the time Yahoo! bought out a bunch of search players (Inktomi + Overture, which by then owned AllTheWeb & AltaVista) Google was already ahead in search marketshare & Overture had issues with click fraud from ad syndication to some sketchy players. Part of the reason Yahoo! continues to complain about the revenue share from Microsoft is not because Microsoft is doing so poorly, rather shortly after Microsoft started serving ads to Yahoo! they used quality-based pricing to gut a lot of the arbitrage and scam players that were whoring out the Yahoo! ad feed. Yahoo! has went public with at least 1 low traffic quality refund request for $4.8 million from a single partner in Tsavo Media.

                          Originally posted by santafe2 View Post
                          I worked for a search engine company during the years of the search engine wars. The company I worked for had the same functionality as Inktomi but our stock languished at $8-$13 while theirs soared to $200 a share. There was some great satisfaction when their stock tanked and we bought their Ultraseek search engine for about 25 cents a share. That euphoria lasted for about a year until Google began taking all the best search engine developers. They've had a nice run but I have to agree, they're not a search company any longer. They're a bank for the solar industry and I'm sure many other things I don't see but they are not a search company unless you want to buy something.
                          Were you guys more of a web index for portals or more of an intranet search & site search provider?

                          Crazy how much consolidation there has been in the search space. And as all that consolidation happened, almost any start up in search over the past decade or so has been vertical rather than horizontal.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Kids Moved Back In? Franchise 'em

                            www.duckduckgo.com has been my search engine of choice since I learned that google will save and give your results to the government if asked or sell them for data mining purposes. I dislike both of those options. Not sure how well it works for violin glue though.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Kids Moved Back In? Franchise 'em

                              Originally posted by brent217 View Post
                              www.duckduckgo.com has been my search engine of choice since I learned that google will save and give your results to the government if asked or sell them for data mining purposes. I dislike both of those options. Not sure how well it works for violin glue though.
                              I like DuckDuckGo in principle, but the results it gives are often paltry. Many times it doesn't give me any results at all. Startpage gives you Google's results, but stripped of the tracking to provide privacy. Like DDG, Startpage doesn't store your search history, IP address, or set tracking cookies. The problem is, the Google results aren't good for much any more unless you want shopping links to Amazon...

                              Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X