Several months ago Paul Kedrosky lamented the fact that Google was merely a one-hit wonder, with all of its revenue eggs in one proverbial basket based on search-related queries. And the data still continues to be on his side.
He also mentioned that they should move towards releasing polished products instead of merely launching them as soon as they are created (or soon thereafter).
When Seth Godin visited the firm earlier this year, he specifically addressed this point (see the Q&A session). Godin suggested that rather than trying to be the “first mover” in every product category, that they should instead work on creating a stable, robust product that would be more than a flashy, whiz-bang ornament.
At this point I do not think the blame rests on one sole individual. However, based upon the way the firm is currently organized, I think that formally institutionalizing gatekeeper positions like Marissa Mayer actually works against them in the long-run.
The centralized nature of their product manager suffers from, among other things, asymmetrical information — a knowledge problem that curtails effective decision-making and stymies prompt execution.
To that point, last year, News.com put together a good overview contrasting the culture differences between Yahoo and Google. They noted that because Google was leaner, flatter and a more decentralized organization, they were more effective at rolling out creativer (sic) solutions.
However, based upon their recent history, might they become the very Yahoo they supplanted? Today, Steve Rubel posits the same question.
One solution could be a reorganization along the lines of several smaller, confederated start-ups. Example: delegating task-management and dispersing this vaunted focal authority into small cells of semi-autonomous, entrepreneurial units each responsible for their own P/L (see this facsimile of “Unbundling the Corporation”).
Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey
How big is too big? Do the leveraging abilities of traditional public firms (financial resources, clout, etc.) outweigh the long-term costs (e.g. salaries, pensions)?
In an age where you can reliably and securely contract any task to the ends of the earth at a fraction of the domestic cost, do web companies need to go public anymore… let alone receive venture capital? And do you really need to have people from Mensa working for you (see also the seminal works of Jim Collins; in BtL he suggests no)?