<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Marketing Pilgrim - Latest Comments in Google Checkout Promotions Cost Google $58 Million in 2006</title><link>http://marketingpilgrim.disqus.com/</link><description>Internet marketing news and views</description><atom:link href="https://marketingpilgrim.disqus.com/google_checkout_promotions_cost_google_58_million_in_2006/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2008 03:09:05 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Google Checkout Promotions Cost Google $58 Million in 2006</title><link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/03/google-checkout-promotions-cost-google-58-million-in-2006.html#comment-9412642</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The 58 Millions is used to buy time, worth it!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Pin</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2008 03:09:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Checkout Promotions Cost Google $58 Million in 2006</title><link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/03/google-checkout-promotions-cost-google-58-million-in-2006.html#comment-9412641</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think you'll find plenty of arguments for and against Google Checkout, supported by different interpretations of facts and fueled by personal biases and prejudices.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Was Google's strategy to spend $58m to buy market share bad? That depends on what your definition of good is - are we talking about effective, or are we talking about deserving market share based on product quality?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Two different arguments, and if you were to put both up it amounts to hunting for reasons why Google is doing a bad job.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure someone who is a Google fan could bring similar arguments in favor of Google to the table.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nathan, in the above comment, says:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Google could have bought twenty Super Bowl commercials, guaranteeing that the general public would know what Google Checkout is. Instead, theyâ€™ve spent $58 million, and most people have still never heard of it!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;SuperBowl commercials? Where were you during the effective vs ineffective advertising debate? :)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Google is relying on the power of free stuff combined with good old word of mouth to promote Google Checkout. They pushed a product out in beta and will be working to improve it as market share builds.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Like Andy said, wait and see the impact and eventual quality of the service.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Or you could go on a rant about how good / bad Google is :)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ahmed Bilal</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:18:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Checkout Promotions Cost Google $58 Million in 2006</title><link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/03/google-checkout-promotions-cost-google-58-million-in-2006.html#comment-9412640</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I tried out Google Checkout and it's a bit tedious to use. I'm selling advertising, and it's to people who are members of my site. However I'm not allowed to put the code on a page that requires a login, so I don't know which user is buying the advertising package. Instead I get to email them and ask them. No thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(And when I asked if I could pass a username, the support person basically said "Why in the world would you want to do that?")&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Tim Linden</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:02:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Checkout Promotions Cost Google $58 Million in 2006</title><link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/03/google-checkout-promotions-cost-google-58-million-in-2006.html#comment-9412639</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Google isn't chasing PayPal's market.  This is widely assumed but weak on the supporting evidence.  Google has a bigger plan for Checkout and it's all about the Small to Medium Enterprise market.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jeff Molander</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:40:26 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Checkout Promotions Cost Google $58 Million in 2006</title><link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/03/google-checkout-promotions-cost-google-58-million-in-2006.html#comment-9412638</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Andy, think about it:  $58 million in advertising would have brought Checkout more dedicated users than the coupons did (which just brought bargain shoppers).  Google could have bought twenty Super Bowl commercials, guaranteeing that the general public would know what Google Checkout is.  Instead, they've spent $58 million, and most people have still never heard of it!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Nathan Weinberg</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:13:16 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Checkout Promotions Cost Google $58 Million in 2006</title><link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/03/google-checkout-promotions-cost-google-58-million-in-2006.html#comment-9412637</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I agree, this is a very good strategy by Google.    Google certainly could use some (or at least a) revenue streams that are not ad based.  And it seems like a market in which Google could very well succeed.  Google can afford to invest some money today for a long term payoff.  What could Google buy outright for $68 million - not much probably?  Investing in this strategy to gain a significant share of a profitable market seems very wise to me.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John Hunter</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:45:42 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Checkout Promotions Cost Google $58 Million in 2006</title><link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/03/google-checkout-promotions-cost-google-58-million-in-2006.html#comment-9412636</link><description>&lt;p&gt;That's not to mention the hundreds of new Google accounts that people are opening up to conduct transactions.  I'm sure that Google will be happily tracking and pushing personalised results at all these new account holders.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Dave Beck</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 05:27:43 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Checkout Promotions Cost Google $58 Million in 2006</title><link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/03/google-checkout-promotions-cost-google-58-million-in-2006.html#comment-9412635</link><description>&lt;p&gt;If it is not successful, it was still money well spent - it is just market research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Google also has some nice leverage, for instance their conversion tracking could in the future require Google Checkout, by linking in to what was actually paid for each order in some proprietary way.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Andy Beard</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:33:41 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Checkout Promotions Cost Google $58 Million in 2006</title><link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/03/google-checkout-promotions-cost-google-58-million-in-2006.html#comment-9412634</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Now there's a post I've seen before. Nice to see BlogNC posts covered here. Whether the Google money was well spent will be decided by whether visitors return.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jason Schramm</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:34:48 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>