Hacker News Reader

Comment by ransom1538 | Hacker News Reader

Ads.

Previously to buy ads you had to call someone, get dinner with some weird guy, make tons of calls, get crappy click rates, trust the other companies 'reporting', pay for impression ads (wtf). It was a mess. You also had to do this with 23 DIFFERENT companies, which were all different. Google wasn't the first, but they did follow through and make a great way to advertise with self serve.

Selling ads is awesome. No overhead, no rotting inventory, no operations mess. It scales infinitely naturally. It is clean easy cash. Everything else they do is a huge side show to distract people.

View on HN

> Everything else they do is a huge side show to distract people

Or attract more people to use their services to sell more ads

Google didn't invent online ads, not even the auctioned ones. Also, their innovations in the online ad space were generally limited to their search-based ad business.

Its technically true just like its true that they didn't invent online search. Their innovations (either in house or through acquisitions) have fundamentally changed the ad space as the GP mentions. And this is an ongoing process as well as more and more people move off the more mainstream media platforms.

No, but they had the user base, the data, the presence and the focus to do it better than the established ad companies.

And now we're at the point where more than half of all digital ad revenue in some countries are pocketed by Facebook and Google.

And Apple didn’t invent the smartphone, but they reimagined it in a way that basically made things 10X better in UX, just like buying ads on google is 10X better than the process described earlier.

s/better/easier, to be safe

I mentioned some of the history, including the DoubleClick acquisition, in the essay.

I recall one of the questions in my interview at google years ago:

"Do you know what kind of company Google is?"

"Sure, everyone thinks you're a tech company or a search company or whatever - but Google is an advertising company, and thats it. All the other stuff distracts from the fact that youre just the most profitable ad company."

Did you get hired?

I went through a three month-long interview process with them... then they said I did very well and they would be extending me an offer.

THen next day, they called and said I would not receive an offer and would not give a reason.

THey invited me to interview for that position multiple times over the next couple of years and I finally had to ask them to stop recruiting me for that position... they stopped. :-(

Maybe there were additional reasons, but tbh the answer you gave was very bad and probably would have been grounds enough to not hire you.

>"Sure, everyone thinks you're a tech company or a search company or whatever - but Google is an advertising company, and thats it. All the other stuff distracts from the fact that youre just the most profitable ad company."

When given the opportunity to demonstrate nuanced thinking, you've boiled down a really complex and large thing into a simple platitude. "Google is an advertising company, and thats it". Really, is that the full story? You truly think that?

I mean if that were the case and you wanted to be genuine you could at least dive to another level and explain why or how.

And for reference it probably would have been okay to say 'No, I'm not sure what kind of company Google is. I know that you guys do X and Y, but I know there's some other stuff too, but I don't have any insight because I don't work here'

This was ten years ago, so I don't even care about it any longer..

In terms of revenue and profit, Google was and is an ad company. A concise answer to the question couldn't really be much more accurate.

I think you're making the point with your own answer.

You say "in terms of revenue and profit...". Oh! Great point. I'd say you are right. What if you were to frame it in other terms?

I mean if the entirety of Google can be summed up in 3 sentences, what topics in the world do you consider to have depth?

Imo it's looking at a Shakespeare sonnet and saying 'yeah it's fucking poem'

They asked him what kind of company Google is. They weren't asking for an essay on a Shakespeare sonnet or anything close to that end of the spectrum.

You don't think the kind of reply he gave is pretty combative for the interviewing for a job at said company?

You recommend that as a path forward for people who interview at your company or at Google in the future?

Look I understand sometimes people don't want to work at a certain company. But typically it's better to decline the interview than to show up and be smug or righteous about it.

So his options are 1) be delusional about a company's product, or 2) work for another company?

No one at Google has qualms about working at an ad company? No one at Facebook does?

For some people, a job is a job. It doesn't have to be a calling or a mission. I personally wouldn't work in ad-tech for personal reasons, but clearly most of our industry would. Are 100% of those people fine with what their company does? Clearly at Facebook they aren't.

Honesty isn't combative, and if the interviewers say that honest answer in that way, then it would reflect their own misgivings about Google's business model, wouldn't it?

I understand your ideological stance, I really do

But read his reply again: >"Sure, everyone thinks you're a tech company or a search company or whatever - but Google is an advertising company, and thats it. All the other stuff distracts from the fact that youre just the most profitable ad company."

"an advertising company, _and thats it_" (emphasis mine) "your _just_ the most profitable ad company" (emphasis mine)

Really? It's that far in 1 direction

If you really think that, fine it's your opinion and you are entitled to that, but I encourage you to seek multiple perspectives in the future.

I've already conceded that google is an ad company from a rev perspective since it's 87% ads. But you can't concede to me (the interviewer) that maybe there's something else going on and your legit view of the other people at the company is that they are just "distractions"?

Like seriously, you don't have to put up these tough walls. I'm just an internet stranger. Just be real for a moment. Is that what you really think? It's the last time I'll ask.

Well techncially Google is an information company that happens to use ads to fund its mission of making information more accessible and useful.

Spotted the Google employee.

was

Strange, then, that they would bury more useful sites in their search results in favor of their own competing products.

"claims to be", perhaps.

> "Sure, everyone thinks you're a tech company or a search company or whatever - but Google is an advertising company, and thats it. All the other stuff distracts from the fact that youre just the most profitable ad company."

That is pretty much the most anti-google culture perspective statement you could have said. If there was ever an argument for culture fit, this is it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com