July 26, 2005
Why are they focusing on Maps & Local Search?
I was discussing Virtual Earth at work today and then we got onto the topic of why everyone is putting so much effort (read: $$Money$$) into Maps.
Coincidentally, I came across this post shortly afterwards which seemed to cover many of our discussion points. I’ve seen and run numbers similar to this such as at Kelsey Conferences and some may even call the numbers conservative.
Here’s what the article may imply but doesn’t say: the advertisers simply represent one side of the equation. You need eyeballs looking and clicking on the ads…you need traffic. Building compelling products helps gain that traffic…even if it is at a loss (for now). It’s all about capturing market share and/or building a killer app that increases overall usage (increase total market size). Yahoo!, MSN, and Google have all provided developer APIs which allows their maps to be utilized on others’ sites. Check out what Google states:
Google reserves the right to put ads on the map in the future, and you may not alter or obscure these either.
…and Yahoo’s API basically works by providing them an XML page and they host the end-user page on their own site (which means they control everything surrounding the map as well…including ad placements.
Think about how many sites you visit that are not (at least overtly) local (standard web search, dictionaries, product review sites, and other online/virtual sites). Now think about how many of them are local (especially before these maps products were created) such as maps/driving directions, movie times, etc. How often do you visit each. In my opinion, they are much more heavily weighted towards non-local sites. More traffic needs to be captured by local ad engines in order to deliver locally-targetted ads.
There are many sites out there choosing to accomplish this in different ways. In this case, they want to do this with killer map applications. There is also the possibility of trying to decipher non-local traffic into local traffic…if you search for “chicago weather” in Google, for example, although you have gone to a web search, you have added a location modifier. This could, however, prove to be challenging since location modifiers can be almost anything: cities, postal codes, landmarks, “quasi-cities” (a term I am using to signify a non-official place name such as “west side”), etc. Most search engines have already begun doing this by deciphering city names and providing you weather, for example, in the “chicago weather” search.
This lack of consumer traffic is why you see things like this.








Emad Fanous » Blog Archive » Google buys into IM + Local said,
August 8, 2005 @ 4:56 pm
[…] Interesting that this would happen on the heels of a Marketwatch article that spoke to the “stickiness” provided by IM services for others such as Yahoo and AOL, which Google is greatly missing out on. Couple that with the fact that they belive in local and you have some good reasons why they bought them. […]
Emad Fanous » Blog Archive » Marchex Launches zipcode domains said,
August 9, 2005 @ 9:18 am
[…] Seems as if Marchex is also trying to get a piece of the local CPC action. […]
Emad Fanous » Blog Archive » Speculation: GoogleNet = Free WiFi for everyone said,
August 15, 2005 @ 8:25 am
[…] In the article, Om states that Google may want to set up WiFi for everyone and use technology to identify where everyone is accessing it from. This may allow them to focus on more local products/services. […]
Emad Fanous » Donnelley acquires Dex said,
October 6, 2005 @ 8:16 am
[…] I’ve mentioned before that you can look at it mainly from 2 perspectives: 1) those with local customers; and 2) those with local consumers. Neither one has a huge user base (but have good ones relatively speaking) and both have some customers (Dex has done a great job transitioning their customers online while most old-school YPs have been struggling and formulating different business models that make online advertising ancillary to the core advertising product). […]
Emad Fanous » AOL and the other Major Players said,
October 13, 2005 @ 6:24 am
[…] When that happened, Google must have been concerned that they could lose all the ad revenue from the AdSense revenue on all of AOL’s properties, including those from its subscriber base as well as high traffic sites it owns such as Mapquest, Digital Cities, and others. (Mapquest and DCI are both good sources of local content…not to mention having a subscriber base implies you have a billing address so ads can also be targeted to them locally). If MSN pulled this off, it would have been a big deal for their ad product, still in its infancy. […]