Google Skimps on Its Own Advertising

I read an article on Wired (I hope that link works), about the fact that Google spends very little on advertising, compared to other companies that have large, recognizable brands. They’re able to get by simply through word of mouth, and by providing services people actually want to use. I thought it was a very good article, pointing out that you don’t have to follow traditional models of advertising.

And then I got to the end, where they started quoting someone who is a “veteran marketing consultant”, who is basically saying “well, it’s all well and good that Google has gotten this far, but they’ll have to start using traditional advertising eventually.” And I thought: “Why?!?”

Hasn’t Google already proven that you don’t need to use traditional advertising methods to be successful? Why would the reporter write an article on Google’s success without resorting to [much] advertising, and then completely undermine their point in the last couple of paragraphs? And use someone from the advertising industry—hardly an objective third party—to do the undermining?

Although I caught the article on Wired, it’s actually an Associated Press story, which means that I can’t blame Wired for it. But man, talk about embedding bias into a “news” story.

I’m getting a desire to go back and re-read Necessary Illusions again…