August 20, 2006
When I was at Epinions, we knew Froogle was coming. Needless to say, this was the source of some consternation. Google had traffic (and lots of it), money (and lots of it) and, well, mojo (and lots of it). So there was some concern that Froogle was going to be a game-changer in ways that would adversely affect Epinions.
That was before we learned that not everything Google touches turns to gold. So when Google recently "demoted" Froogle by removing it from one of the coveted home page/search page links, it was a tacit admission that Froogle hasn't taken over the world. I can only assume that Froogle's traffic is going to drop substantially; and I for one have never found Froogle all that useful. Google's failure to hit a home run is a pretty dramatic development for those in the shopping comparison business.
I do think there's a lesson to take away from this. While a start-up can't ignore the competition, it shouldn't overreact either...and in Google's specific case, it is temptingly easy to overreact when Google moves into a business given Google's spotty history with new projects.
UPDATE: The likelihood of Froogle's demise is growing, with Google saying that it will "de-emphasize" Froogle, eliminate it as a standalone site, and integrate Froogle's results into its standard search results page.
Posted by Eric at August 20, 2006 09:47 PM | Former Employers
TrackBack URL for this entry:
I think that DiSalavatore and Carmody are very different cases. Di Salvatore actually got false reimbursements of over $100K. Carmody did not get (in all likelihood) calls worth $30K using any reasonable retail rate. (5c per minute = $350!!!) How did 129 hours of calls turn into $30K??! $230 ph for the phone. Simply not credible. I agree with another blogger: Willkie may have been criminal and Carmody got wrapped up in it and reported it out of fear. DiSalvatore seems to have let his ego completely overtake him and his firm. I don't think that Carmody's conduct warranted the penalty given but DiSalvatore is lucky not to be in custody unless there is an explanation not apparent on its face here. I suspect this case will come back to haunt Willkie if they were manipulating the phone charges, which the Bar cannot ignore. It might be a good business to go into if it is ignored: setting up an inflationary telephone billing arrangement for law practices!!
Posted by: Scott at August 25, 2006 09:25 PM