According to the list FT Global 500 from the Financial Times, Google is worldwide on position 39 from the companies listed in the stock exchange (Financial Times, 2009). Google was founded in 1998 by the software engineers Larry Page and Sergei Brin. Nowadays, only 12 years later, it has grown to one of the greatest international companies which has a huge influence on the daily life in industrial nations. Furthermore with 66 billion US-Dollars Google is the most valuable brand in the world. They started with a search engine which has pushed the former competition like AltaVista out of business.
Google Inc. had in 2008 a turnover of almost 22 billion US-Dollars and it is still growing (Google, 2010). At the beginning they had a positive press but nowadays there are more and more critical voices because of their high market share in the search engine sector of almost 90%. Critics say that Google has too much influence and it is possible that they manipulate data. Google has many current projects where people fear a lack of their own data protection (The Register, 2009; BBC, 2007a). But Google does not have such a success because of a disregard of data protection, they are just more innovative than the competition. They reinvest the benefit they make in innovation and design new products or integrate other innovative companies in their own portfolio. Most of their projects are projects which the world has never seen before (Chaffey et al., 2009, p.3).
This piece of work organizes Google’s major brands in a GE-Matrix in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of them. Furthermore the products are evaluated to prognosticate their future in this company. Finally there is a short outline about the sense and the value of these portfolio models in the 21 century.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Google’s major brands
2.1 Search engine
2.2 YouTube
2.3 Chrome Browser
2.4 Maps, Earth and Street View
2.5 AdWords and AdSense
2.6 Other Google brands
3 Portfolio analysis via matrices in the 21st century
3.1 Why portfolio analysis?
3.2 Portfolio analysis and Google
3.3 Companies like Google
4 Conclusion
Objective and Research Focus
This work aims to evaluate Google's primary brands by applying a GE-Matrix to identify their respective strengths and weaknesses, while simultaneously assessing the ongoing relevance of such portfolio models in a modern digital business environment.
- Strategic classification of Google’s diverse service portfolio
- Evaluation of market attractiveness and competitive positioning
- Critical analysis of the applicability of traditional portfolio matrices for digital companies
- Investigation into the influence of customer interaction on business strategy
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 Why portfolio analysis?
Tools like the McKinsey model or the Boston Consulting Group model are created to make things easier. Managers use them to structure the brands of a company in order to make decisions about whether it is worth investing in those products or if it is better to withdraw them. But they always do this carefully with an analytical mind. One can say that these models are only the starting point for further research. It is useful to compare all brands within the business with each other to see the strengths and weaknesses of the company. A problem within portfolio models is that the results are never objective and can be manipulated. Who defines for example whether a market is attractive? Different managers might have different opinions whether a brand is still a “cash cow” or already a “dog”. The results are very vague and always need many other analytics (Doyle and Stern, 2006, p.107-113).
It is also useful to analyse competitors in putting their brands in the same matrix. With this method companies run for example benchmarking and use these models for a direct comparison to improve their position in the market. The main problem here is that normally the data from the competitor is missing, so it can only be estimated where in the matrix you put in the competition’s brands. Together with the above-named problems arises a very hazy image. But it is still sufficient to make a first overview in order to plan next steps (Kaisers Associates, 1988, p.11).
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Provides an overview of Google's rise as a global brand and sets the foundation for analyzing its business portfolio.
2 Google’s major brands: Examines individual Google services, including the search engine, YouTube, and Chrome, regarding their market position and strategic value.
3 Portfolio analysis via matrices in the 21st century: Critically evaluates the utility of strategic matrices for modern, innovative companies and compares Google's unique market position to traditional frameworks.
4 Conclusion: Summarizes the limitations of portfolio models and emphasizes that strategic decisions must be based on comprehensive individual analysis rather than relying solely on matrix tools.
Keywords
Google, Portfolio Analysis, GE-Matrix, McKinsey Model, Strategic Management, Search Engine, YouTube, Market Share, Data Protection, Innovation, Competitive Positioning, Digital Business, Customer Interaction, Benchmarking, Strategic Decisions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental purpose of this work?
The work analyzes Google’s current brand portfolio using a GE-Matrix to determine the strategic strengths and weaknesses of their various products.
Which central topics are discussed?
The discussion covers Google's key products, the methodology of portfolio analysis, and the challenges of managing innovative, digital-first business models.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine whether traditional portfolio matrices remain effective tools for strategic decision-making in the context of a highly dynamic digital company like Google.
What scientific methodology is utilized?
The author employs qualitative analysis by applying the McKinsey/General Electric (GE) Matrix to visualize and evaluate Google's product portfolio.
What is covered in the main body?
The main body details Google's specific brands, explores the limitations of portfolio models, and contrasts Google’s strategy with traditional corporate structures.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
Key themes include Google, Portfolio Analysis, Strategy, Innovation, Competitive Position, and the GE-Matrix.
Why is Chrome currently considered a weak product in Google's portfolio?
Chrome faces a highly competitive browser market and battles negative public perception regarding data protection, which limits its ability to gain significant market share.
Why does the author conclude that Google does not strictly need portfolio analysis?
The author argues that Google benefits from direct, real-time user feedback, which provides more accurate data on product viability than abstract matrix models can offer.
- Quote paper
- Max Adler (Author), 2010, Google's main brands in a GE Matrix, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/150710
