This week I’m at NASA’s Green Flight Challenge in our new home town of Santa Rosa, California. It’s a contest for efficient flight using alternative energy that I’ll be writing more about later in the week. Much of the $1.65 million in prize money comes from Google, the subject of this column. I’ve been giving a lot of thought to Google’s strategic path under once-and-future CEO Larry Page and think I’ve got a couple things figured out. Google is right now in the process of changing, well, its process. Page is rebuilding the company but not doing a very good job of explaining himself, so I’ll just have to handle that here.
The image we all have of Google is that of a money machine based on PageRank and AdWords with a huge number of other products and projects thrown-in, hardly any of which make the company any money. Some of these projects, like Android and GMail, have enormous followings and significant market shares, but they still do little better than break-even. Many of the eternal beta projects seem to be more experiments or simply larks. Google under Page’s predecessor CEO Eric Schmidt seemed to be a hodge-podge company lacking a sure hand at the tiller.
This was, I think, by design. Schmidt (and Page and Google co-founder Sergey Brin) were smart enough to know in those early hyper growth days that the next big thing for Google could just as likely be something they didn’t see coming, so they supported rampant experimentation. Well companies mature and the second coming of Larry Page represents a change in that policy.
The old idea was to let a thousand flowers bloom then throw big money behind the most promising of those flowers. And that worked for awhile, yielding products like GMail, but the maturing of Google as a company and the Internet as an industry is forcing the company into a new business model. This is not to say that engineers won’t still be allowed to spend time on their own projects, but that the company realizes now that it can no longer rely on serendipity to provide its next hits.
If you have no constraints, no limits, then all ideas are welcome and can be equally promoted, at least for awhile. But that’s not the situation faced by Larry Page earlier this year when he again became Google’s CEO. What Larry saw was Facebook’s dramatic success in a market segment where Google had been notably unsuccessful. That’s why Page led with making all Google bonuses partially dependent on the company’s success with social networking products. Larry led with the carrot, then slowly added some sticks.
What we’ve seen is a huge conceptual change in Google with the demise of formerly high-flying divisions like Google Labs and even closing down profitable acquisitions like Slide. The end of Slide, which appeared to happen precipitously a couple weeks ago was actually five months in the making.
Google is cutting all the projects that look like they’d at best peak with $20-50 million in annual profit and concentrating on those that are either bet-the-farm strategic priorities like combating Facebook or promise to yield billions in profits. Gone are the five-man teams operating in separate digs, replaced by thousand-man teams dedicated to specific and well articulated goals.
Think about it. A lot of the criticism of Google here and elsewhere has been about lack of focus, lack of standardized interfaces, oddly positioned products that sometimes conflict with or oppose each other. Google was run as an insurgency. And now Larry Page is determined to turn Google into an army. Each conflict to come will be approached with a Manhattan Project development effort.
Social is the first battle to be fought this war but I am sure Larry has others planned. He’s promoting a new class of generals (vice presidents, I guess) and giving them the power and resources to get their jobs done with thousands of developers and billions of dollars each. Instead of doing a hundred things and making money from two of them, Google will soon be doing a dozen things and making money from 10 of them, or at least that’s the plan. And it’s a good one, because even geeks grow up sometime.
But they are keeping the free food, right?
What are your thoughts regarding continued support for Google SketchUp and Google Earth? SketchUp seems to have established a foothold in 3D software, and its integration with Google Earth is very interesting. But are both projects big enough for Google?
Just pulling this out of… Somewhere. But I have to assume Google Earth/Maps has:
a) Done well with licensees using the services in journalism.
b) Added to their advertising revenue by adding to appearance of (and maybe even measuring) locality. I can’t count how often I’ve Googled places to see where the nearest place for X was.
Google Earth is /big/ in the Government space.
Even Google has a finite number of resources, I doubt that anything that doesn’t directly contribute to their major strategy in search and social has much of a future at Google. Google Earth is big and strategic enough to be actively developed, but things like Sketchup are probably nothing that Google wants to devote more developer resources on. Right now, Google is all about social as any intelligent observer has to realize how threatened Google has to feel by Facebook’s rapid and continuous growth and influence with advertisers. By way of example: Facebook has gotten so important that dozens of companies are emerging at http://buyfacebookfansreviews.com that do nothing other than help businesses get Facebook fans. This is an extremely important space for the future of advertising which Google has to dominate to be THE major player. Google is trying to dominate this space (a pretty hard challenge) and is going to have to devote an extremely large percentage of its resources to this task if it has any chance of trying to catch up with Facebook. Google doesn’t even have business profiles yet and Facebook is continuously innovating with their Timeline and other new features, and I think that Google has to be very focused if they’ve got any shot of catching up within the next decade because Facebook also has an extremely talented crew that is going to be stomping on Google’s turf pretty soon IMO.
Even then, getting that next great idea will be hard. Challenge facebook? My wife, who was a major facebook user, burned out on it and turned it off a feew weeks ago. Why? If you do social networking for a while, you realize that knowing all that stuff about others and getting their opinions on everything isn’t what its cracked up to be. I think Facebook will plateau, and I can’t really see much that Google can bring to the table. Kinda smells like Bing! to me.
Everybody points to Apple whn they say you can just innovate regularly. Anybody remember when the iPod and iTunes were products made to keep Macs relevant in the MP3 ripping craze? Apple was making great products back then but nobody but the faithful and the creative cared. A few million in profit in a quarter was a win. The iPod was a fluke that made people see Apple in a new light.
The new strategy will bear fruit, but the “put an infinite amount of monkeys” approach isn’t gonna be much better than the previous approach. If it were the case, Microsoft would have already owned search and social.
The iPod got Apple noticed, but the decentralization of computing (aka, the internet era) is what turned an army of educated-but-tethered-to-software computer users into Mac fan-boys. Or maybe it was the jump to a *nix kernel that made software developers endeavor to write for the platform. Or maybe it was the fabulous displays. Or maybe it was the industrial design of their products. Or maybe it was the hundreds of millions of dollars in marketing.
Anyway, Google grows to epic proportions, and now attempts to change from a profitable think tank to a hugely profitable “real” company. Maybe that opens up a market for a new think tank, so long as that think tank can resist the urge to be bought out while avoiding getting crushed.
Or, back to caves with the lot of us! Devolution never looked so promising.
I just hope Google destroys Facebook.
I just hope Oracle destroys Google
I just hope IBM destroys Oracle.
I just hope The Bleat destroys IBM.
There’s this homeless guy down the street. I hope he destroys Apple.
That homeless guy has no health insurance. Even if he destroys Apple, it’s going to be a bad deal for him.
lol. Good job, guys.
Diese körperliche Gewalt Funktionen reichten von Drive-by-shootings, billig mbt schuhe , um Bombenanschläge mit Enthauptungen. Das in der Regel Ziele Buddhisten und Muslime dieser besonderen Thai geltend zu machen, zum Beispiel Polizei verhaftet, Militär-, Bundes-Beamten zusammen mit den Kursleitern. Nach Erreichen zusammen mit White Sox Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf am Montag, riet Guillen ihre Teilnehmer das Online-Spiel gegen den Orange Jays könnte ihre letzte sein. Die eigentliche ausgesprochene Guillen genossen jede Achterbahn Erfahrung im Umgang mit den Bright Sox, die Flare-ups beteiligt zusammen mit Schiedsrichter-, Marketing-sowie die vorderen Arbeitsplatz. Auf der anderen Seite, wenn er gerufen wird, er wird zu gegebener Zeit oft geschätzt in Bezug auf ihre interessanteren Gestaltung zusammen mit primären der eigentlichen Franchise, werden mbt sapatu weißen frauen schuhe , um ihre 1. Meisterschaft in 88 Jahren.
In mehr als 5, 900 Menschen heute tatsächlich in sieben ausgelöscht, mbt sandalen , zahlreiche Unruhen, wenn Malai Kampf im Hinblick auf die Autonomie von Thailands buddhistischen die große Mehrheit innerhalb der Kreis nur ein paar Stunden durch Auto anreisen von ein paar von Thailand zu den bekanntesten touristischen Stränden. Gemeinschaft Muslime weitgehend gegen die Existenz von Dutzenden, frauen mbt schuhe Tunisha blau , der 1000 von der Polizei verhaftet, schützt militärische zusammen mit state-bewaffneten Buddhist in Gummi-reichen Lage, das hat Komponente Ihres Malay Muslim Sultanat wurde, bis schließlich im Anhang durch Thailand Ihre Jahrhundert in die Vergangenheit. In Bezug auf 50 Prozent mit Thailand verbunden sind ein paar nördlichen Provinzen mit Pattani verbunden, Yala und Narathiwat sind in der Regel Muslim.
I just hope Voldermort destroys the Bleat and the rest of the world.
Mutmaßliche muslimische Aufständische genommen nutzlos einige, mbt frauen , Militär zusammen mit schmerzen nicht eine, sondern zwei Personen, sowie ein Jugendlicher, mit einem starken Hinterhalt für eine Universität mit Thailands restive sth zu Donnerstag, erklärte Verbrecher verhaften, die neueste Schaden innerhalb der unruhigen Lage an der Grenze Malaysia. Defense Kraft innerhalb eines Modells, das Lehrer Wachen, in der Regel Ziele aufgrund ihrer eigenen Verbindung, wenn Sie den thailändischen Staat, landete gebissen durch so lang wie 20 bewaffnete Männer in der Rue sor Abschnitt mit Narathiwat Domain-, Straf-Festnahme erklärte verbunden. Ein sechs-jährige muslimische Schülerin hatte unter den Menschen innerhalb, verletzt worden mbt karani schuhe , diesen Schaden zu, die nur wenige Stunden direkt nach dem mutmaßlichen Rebellen verwendet 29 geschlossen-circuit TV DSLR-Kameras mit Pattani Land passiert ist. Es gab sehr wenig Bewertungen mit Verletzten als schaden.
Your viewpoint makes no sense to English speakers.
Your viewpoint makes no sense to German speakers.
I just hope Zombies take over the world. They can’t messed it up any more then it is already!
diagnostiziert muslimischen Aufständischen getroffen leblos mehrere, mbt sandalen , Soldaten neben ein paar Personen, die ein kleines Kind enthält, innerhalb eines großen warten auf die Klassen in ganz Thailand ist verletzt unruhigen südlichen Region am Sonntag berichtete die Polizei, die moderne Infiltration in den dunkleren Ort grenzt Malaysia. Soldaten aus einer Komponente dieser verteidigt Professoren, in der Regel Stellen aufgrund ihrer besonderen Bekanntschaft mit dem Thai auszudrücken, war einfach durch bis zu zwanzig Bewaffneten in der Rue sor-Center mit Narathiwat Provinz zerkratzt, berichtete die Polizei. Ein neues Sechsgang-jährige muslimische Gelehrte zu sein schien über diese ganzen, verwundet mbt karani schuhe , die insbesondere Folge, die stattgefunden haben nur Stunden unmittelbar nach dachte Aufständischen niedergebrannt Twenty Nine Closed-Circuit-Fernseher Camcorder in Pattani Domäne. Es gibt keine Informationen mit Verlusten in die, anzugreifen.
Dass körperliche Gewalt bietet reichten von Drive-by-shootings, mbt sandalen , um Bombenanschläge und Enthauptungen auch. Diese Regel Flecken Buddhisten und Muslime aus dem thailändischen Staat, zum Beispiel Polizei, Soldaten, Offiziere govt neben Professoren. Sobald sich gemeinsam mit über White-Sox farbigen Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf bei Mon, erklärt Guillen, seine Spieler die Tatsache, dass Abenteuer gegen die Zufalls-Welt Jays würde seine letzte sein. Die besondere ausgesprochener Guillen genossen eine neue Achterbahn Kreuzfahrt mit der White Sox diese eingearbeitet Flare-ups mit Schiedsrichtern, den Medien und auch der Eintrag Geschäftsstelle. Dennoch wird er auf lange Sicht am Ende als Erinnerung an seine / ihre überzeugende Art sowie die wichtigsten der jeweiligen Franchise erhalten mbt schuhe karani , um die ersten leuchtenden rund 88 eine lange Zeit.
Google is an marketing/advertising company with a CEO from a computer background. Microsoft is a computer company with a CEO from an marketing/advertising background. They should swap CEOs.
With a little variation, it sounds like Larry drank the Micro$oft model cool-aid.
I just hope anything destroys Oracle.
I think one thing here is that Google has grown so big & so powerful that’s it’s starting to look a lot like Microsoft – the heavy handed Gorilla – & that scares me more than a little.
Googlr needs to soften the touch a lot – or they will simply drive people away.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I hear ya!
Aren’t you describing Microsoft’s MO? For years, Microsoft spent billions on Bing to challenge Google and spent billions on Xbox to challenge Sony. etc.
And while Microsoft was playing those away games, Apple came up with iOS and iPhones and iPads. Microsoft still hasn’t made a dent in Google’s dominance and XBox is marginally profitable.
One can argue that Google needs to refocus on search and not fight these uphill battles with Facebook and twitter.
Google hates any domain that generates natural traffic without them getting the opportunity to display search results ads. If that domain is also serving billions of ad impressions and Google’s not making any money on that, you bet they’re going to go after that site’s market.
Google survives on ad revenue. They’re reigning in the side projects because their bread and butter is in trouble, and they know it. In a world of smartphones and Facebook, they’re losing ad impressions.
Ironically, Android was probably acquired to address the smartphone issue but they really haven’t figured out how to monetize it but I can be done. Chasing social is just waste of resources.
isn’t this just an example of what happens to a company when it goes public? It becomes accountable to the stock holders. Trying thousand little projects isn’t a good strategy for short term stock gains (games?). It’s a long term gamble.
It’s a shame too, as biological evolution has proved that only diversity can win in any chaotic system over the long run, google was a great example of that for a long time, but now it’s aligning itself with the other industry players in maximizing profits and streamlining process.
but in today’s world it’s generally easier & more profitable to let individuals be your diversity, and just buy up that diversity. That’s the philosophy behind your whole MS conglomerate argument, isn’t it? The trick is to find the right things early enough (Applied Semantics 4 google) and not at the end of the train (FLIP 4 cisco). Google seems to have some good skill at this so far (like ignoring skype in favour of gtalk, going for youtube, even though they had google video), so they should keep on, keepin on, right?
“…biological evolution has proved that only diversity can win in any chaotic system over the long run…” Brilliant and succinct, and I’m not just sucking up. It’s the principal reason I’m so troubled by the news from economic researchers: “…a mere 147 companies controlled nearly 40 percent of the monetary value of all transnational corporations….” That’s out of 43,000 corporations in the study. Can you say “monoculture”? Are we headed for the economic equivalent of the Irish Potato Famine? The article is here: https://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/333389/title/Financial_world_dominated_by_a_few_deep_pockets
i prefer the term “culture ghetto” i feel forced into it. monoculture makes me think there’s only 1 available to me
There’s growing up and then there’s growing old. The Labs projects keep Google young, they give at least the impression of energetic innovation. Spending a small fraction of the budget to keep the organization feeling youthful is money well spent, IMO. There will be plenty of money left over for your grown up army.
It’s a good, simple, plan, but look at where it got Microsoft . . . So you pick a segment worth billions (And how do you know that? Because another more creative company has developed and validated that segment for you) and then you throw the mongol hordes at it in a “take no prisoners” attack and make it yours.
Now don’t get me wrong, this strategy will work for a while (humm, maybe I should buy some google stock). But, as the saying goes “sure as there’s sh*t in a dead cat” the Justice Department will come knocking.
But more than that, long before then, google will no longer be a cool place to work. Because it will be an IT bully, and geeks, abhorring authority by nature, would rather work for the underdog than the bully. The true engine of this industry is Aperger’s driven brainpower, not money and mongol hordes. The real magic will then leave google and find its home some other place. And google will become Microsoft.
Yes, it makes sense to change modus operandi because unless you have the next great idea, changing the way things are otherwise done is the only way a company can grow and innovate.
I’m not sure Google+ challenges anyone but rather brings a new player to the table. I doubt it has the tick-box which makes the millions of FB users want to switch, but it does attract the patron who likes to “think” a little more. The burn-out of social-media users mentioned above is surely going to grow because even in my little corner of the world people are telling me they are stopping using FB or Twitter for one reason or another. And all the kids at work use their Blackberry’s to chat. My other colleagues, who all wanted me to be their FB ‘friend’ and still continue to post, just churn out an endless stream of tedium that makes me wonder what the point is? Where can all this possibly go?
For a quick message to a friend I just send an SMS or two.
Perhaps we expect too much from early innovators. Google did well, giving us a search engine second to none and found an efficient way of funding future development. The latest “live search” or whatever it’s real name is, works incredibly well and it’s a new twist others will struggle to catch up with – but they will eventually. Bing maps now gives a very good alternative to Google Maps and their innovative Bird’s Eye view a new slant on the technology (sorry ;-D)
If search isn’t sufficient Google have to reinvent themselves in someway, not simply absorb. Or maybe they can just lumber along as the richest and biggest etc…
Would Google select Oppenheimer to run a project[1]?
Groves, in turn, selected Oppenheimer to head the project’s secret weapons laboratory. Groves’ choice surprised many, as Oppenheimer was not known to be politically aligned with the conservative military, nor to be an efficient leader of large projects. The fact that he did not have a Nobel Prize, and might not have the prestige to direct fellow scientists, did concern Groves.[92] However, he was impressed by Oppenheimer’s singular grasp of the practical aspects of designing and constructing an atomic bomb, and by the breadth of his knowledge. As a military engineer, Groves knew that this would be vital in an interdisciplinary project that would involve not just physics, but chemistry, metallurgy, ordnance and engineering. Groves also detected in Oppenheimer something that many others did not, an “overweening ambition” that Groves reckoned would supply the drive necessary to push the project to a successful conclusion. Isidor Rabi considered the appointment “a real stroke of genius on the part of General Groves, who was not generally considered to be a genius”.[93]
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer
Oppenheimer tried to murder his College professor.
Now a days they would put you in jail, not put you in charge of a super-secret military project.
Did you ever consider that your point WAS the reason why Oppenheimer got selected for the job?
Thanks to your comment I read the Wikipedia article. His violent outburst was explained as a “self destructive” tendancy, since he knew he lacked the strength to be the aggressor.
Google would be really smart if they innovated through creating something NEW (i.e. iPhone, iPod, MacBook Air, iCloud, iPad, iTunes, App Store)…
They haves a fixation on using other people’s proven businesses and ‘innovating’ by tweaking them AND giving their copies away. Not a great way to keep friends.
Apple really does NEW with sparkle, magic, and efficiency. When Apple destroys businesses it is because they SOLD a new product in a new market and swept the competition at their own game. Straight up in your face domination.
Google dominates by copying, tweaking and giving it away freely. I have a problem with that type of ‘competitor’. Seems monopolistically unfair when the product costs $Bs (Android), doesn’t it?
your argument would have much more weight if all your examples didn’t start with i
Larry Page is determined to turn Google into an Android army of sorts.
Why are people so passionately against companies like MS, Apple, Google, Oracle, IBM, and FB, who don’t force anyone to do anything, and in most cases give away free products no one has to take?
Compared to, say, the average pharmaceutical company which actively suppresses innovations that threaten its profit base, even at the expense of public health, and pays off politicians of all parties and buys off the FDA with the promise of cushy jobs later, the average tech company is utterly harmless.
Point
You moved to California? Did I get that right? If you did, are you crazy?
I moved back to California, yes. We left Santa Rosa seven years ago for Charleston, SC so my kids could live next door to their grandparents. But my work required me to travel back to the Bay Area at least 30 times per year. My father-in-law died in May and our reason for remaining in Charleston died with him since Mimi (my mother-in-law) came west with us. We have moved back to Santa Rosa, which is close enough but not too close to Silicon Valley. I prefer it, frankly, and being here has already generated new work for me with lots more to come. We picked the school and then the house and our kids are doing very well, thanks. So no, I am not crazy. Charles Schulz lived here for good reasons — it’s a pleasant and affordable community with great weather and lots of cheap wine.
Yeah, I can see that. The Valley is expensive (and the schools and services degrading because those types of workers can’t actually afford to live there), but just *outside* the valley is actually very nice, so long as you don’t need to commute into it.
No one has to justify moving to California. What’s required is a good reason NOT to.
I think that Google has absolutely become Microsoft. This is annual data from Yahoo Finance. If you ask the people who run any company on earth “Would you like to become Microsoft?” I think the answer is yes. Google’s shareholders need sustainable growth with widely adopted and paid products. Advertising is paying the bills for now but nothing is forever.
Google
Net Income Applicable To Common Shares $8,505,000
# of employees 28,768.00
Net Income per employee $295,640.99
Microsoft
Net Income Applicable To Common Shares $23,150,000
# of employees 90,000.00
Net Income per employee $257,222.22
So the number of employees in both cases just turned out to be an integral number (*.00).
Seems to me that none of those people have any cents.
You know Ronc, I do believe my own part of the workforce here has something like 6.2 employees… I keep looking for this poor diminutive soul but haven’t found them yet 😉
Facebook will be to Google what Netscape was to Microsoft. Sure, MSFT killed Netscape, but it gave us Firefox eventually. Meanwhile it bloated Windows OS to molasses, and IE failed to prevent Google’s rise.
I think both Page and Zuckerberg are already too old to run anything. They are more like Gates or McNealy than Jobs. Look what the old crowd at FB bitch about changes FB’s young engineers want to do. Give another 5-10 years and some college kid will come up with something that Google and Facebook will never have a clue about.
And now Firefox is bloated and Windows 8 is efficient. The cycle continues.
… and as Netscape, Google search, and Facebook were all college incubated, the next new big thing will likely come from a school project and not from any big establishment like Facebook, Google, or Microsoft.
Zuckerberg is too old? Damn, your standards are tough.
In keeping with WWII strategies here, shouldn’t Google just use MacArthur’s leapfrog approach and bypass social media altogether? Social media’s wave has crested, and the only people making money off if it own the social network sites. Businesses are starting to figure out that their Facebook pages are useless without a god website behind it. Further, marketing efforts on Facebook and Twitter might be detracting from their overall marketing effort because not everyone is on social media. I am in exactly this position with an organization which has a website and a Facebook page. We’ve just totally overhauled the website. *IF* we keep the Facebook page alive, it will be for the sole purpose of having website posts automatically re-posted on Facebook. Personally, I’m voting for simply killing the Facebook page altogether.
Just wanted to pass along a correction regarding the Green Flight Challenge. NASA is providing all of the prize money. Google provided funding to CAFE to cover their expenses in conducting the competition for NASA. In return they were given sponsor naming rights which may be the source of confusion on the prize money.
[…] I, Cringely » Larry Page’s Manhattan Project – big bets rather than smaller fast failure model […]
Businesses are starting to figure out that their Facebook pages are useless without a god website
The original Manhattan project was built around implosion. If you’re Larry Page, is implosion your goal for Google?
I think vacuum tubes implode while bombs explode.
Doesn’t sound to me that you understand how nuclear devices work.
May be just as well.
I find it disturbing that to “grow up” means to cease attempting to succeed through innovation with small, nimble teams and instead to attempt success through imitation with huge, lumbering armies.
The whole point is that Google (in this example, it could be any other company) cannot see what is to be the next big thing. It would seem to me that, absent a scrying bowl, the dandelion approach works pretty well. It’s not like Google lacked the money to fund all those potential seeds.
“Me too” worked well for Microsoft for a long time; less so now, to the casual observer. Why chase markets when you can afford to create your own?
Congratulations Pipistrel Team for winning NASA Green Flight Challenge!
At time I write this there are 6+ hours till NASA publishes official results, but based on info published by Ivo Boscarol of Pipistrel, their chances of winning are 97%. However this turns out, it’s going to be a double win for Pipistrel and Slovenia anyway, since the German team e-Genius is using a Pipistrel Taurus production aircraft wings & fuselage front section and a motor by Sineton, same Slovenian company as Pipistrel’s Taurus G4.
Pipistrel’s Virus aircraft already won a NASA PAV Centennial Challenge in 2007.
Congratulations Ivo & team!
PS: I’ve had a privilege of meeting Ivo Boscarol of Pipistrel and Marko Petek of Sineton (electric motor designer) at an airshow in Slovenia.
Google has about as much chance beating facebook at facebook as windows phone has of beating iphone. Nobody has ever won when they started out that far behind.
You’ve got a short window to copy a successful innovator. Once they get too far ahead it’s all over.
[…] into this new market has been critical for Google, which fears search marketing might be replaced by social media advertising — and Google+ is not yet, and […]
You could certainly see your expertise within the paintings you write. The sector hopes for even more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to mention how they believe. All the time follow your heart.
blog. if you interact with your readers…
and you participate in forums to attract people to your blog you can get the traffic that you want. blogging can be fun and exciting of you have a high traffic blog you can have a successful blog with a little…
just put the whole thing on autopilot….
this is a great strategy, and is something that you should be doing today.take these traffic tips and use them to have the kind of blogging success that you’re looking for in your business.good luck with using blogs to market your…
writing their full-time job, and more times…
than not, they will not write quality content you are looking for. bidding websites have thousands of freelance writers who bid low on projects hoping to write for you. there are many writers in third world countries who will write your…