theories on Google Offers lead (as of May 2, 2012)

It appears most of the local deals offers are coming from Google lately. Groupon appears second, while LivingSocial is either a distinct 3rd or non-existent.

1) Google is undercutting Groupon's charges on small merchants. Goog has deep pockets.

2) Google sees Offers in bringing more traffic to Goog in general. Ads make more $. Goog has side products [search, maps, youtube, gmail]. Groupon does *not.

3) Amzn is *not encouraging LS bc there's not as much synergy on that 2 businesses: if customers spend $ on local deals, less on amzn. [for Goog, local deals may take away current $ from wallet, but ads may benefit later phase and it's just ideas - advertisers must ascertain that Offers takes away spending power with the increased traffic]

The Internet Space

Accidently or on purpose, the bigs in the internet space have mastered the fundamentals to gain real market dominance:

Here’s how each did it:

*Google - [popularity search] white space/give-u what you want, then ajax maps/1 GB distributed filesystem *Orig [outside of 1st internet dream]

youtube - good name, right place, right time (alike Myspace but ppl tired of having to have something to say, just need friends)

groupon - willingness of stores to cannibalized short-term sales for bigger spotlight (sales team over tech team)

*yahoo - [content] content generation, original info publisher

*Ebay - [used goods] self-propagating used goods market (perpetual cycle since buyers/sellers go there for best price and would prob. get less users elsewhere (except if knowstargeted market))

paypal - piggyback off ebay

craigslist - txt version of ebay (ebay owns 25%)

*facebook - delayed IM (perpetual inertia machine of friends - like ebay but not goods/social) *Orig [outside of 1st internet dream]

twitter - piggyback off FB via SMS (sure follow, name tag, etc but not really)

*amazon - [new goods] books worked, then became retailer in weaken online store space - (successful integration of search and goods)

Some relationships:

ebay & facebook -> inertia machines - ppl don’t want to go to another network fearing less opportunities. Perpetually valued as more ppl use. Only problem w. Ebay is that like China can make things so cheap, goes to Amazon.

Google & Yahoo -> search engines/deals mostly with info

Amazon & Ebay -> physical goods; Amazon is mostly new, Ebay mostly used

Facebook & Twitter -> Fb real names, Tweets pseudo tag names. *Fb with real web client, twitter is SMS. Fb is post-permission, Tweet is notify after.

Goog/Fb & Yahoo - user generated content vs professional content

Google & Facebook -> perennial heavy-hitters. I saw this in 60 minutes so it’s not mine. But both compete on ‘search’. Goog is conceptual (wikipedia like - mental), FB is personal/social. Personally, i think the ‘tact’ ratio between Goog to Fb is 5 to 1. That is, Fb has to deal with infringing on friends (more sensitive) than more inert mental thoughts. In terms of valuation, I dunno, 2 to 1: so if Goog is 150 mil, Fb should be 75 mil.