Above the Crowd

Google’s Acquires ITA: Will Deeper Vertical Integration Lead to Higher Revenues?

July 8, 2010:

“It’s funny how fallin feels like flyin,
for a little while…”

– Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart Soundtrack

On July 1st, Google announced its intention to acquire ITA Software. ITA owns a primarily B2B airfare search and pricing system called QPX. Several of the leading online travel sites, like Orbitz, Kayak, and Bing Travel, use information from QPX to power their airfare search. Many in the industry view this move as a seminal event in Google’s history, as the company makes a decisive step from being a general search engine, into more structured vertical search. Certainly, Google already offers vertical search in Images, Videos, Maps, News, and several other categories. Despite that, ITA feels different. Perhaps the difference is that this is a step into a vertical where many independent incumbents, like Priceline and Expedia, who are material customers of Google, have large established businesses.

There are two reasons mentioned for why Google feels compelled to dive deeper into verticals. The most straightforward explanation is competitive pressure. Following its own acquisition of Farecast, Microsoft has subsequently launched Bing Travel, a much richer travel search product than offered on Google today. The second argument given for the move is that by moving deeper into verticals, and closer to the actual transaction that Google can actual make more money per visit. This argument suggests that CPA (cost-per-action) is a fundamental improvement over Google’s current business model, CPC (cost-per-click). The competition argument seems obvious and accurate. However, it is not at all clear that going deeper in verticals will raise Google’s revenues. In fact, there are several scenarios where they could actually go down.

Let’s first address the easy part – competition. Bing buys Farecast and Google needs to respond. This make sense, but it is not the whole story. If you are searching for a book or an author you go to Amazon, or at the very least you do a search like “Man in Full Amazon” so that you go directly to the page you want on Amazon. The same is true for hotels with TripAdvisor and for restaurants with OpenTable. These sites offer deeper and richer experiences for a vertical searcher precisely because they incorporate deep meta-data, faceted search, transaction connectivity, and typically a form of community or UGC (user generated content). These things simply do not exist in the simple but limited Google user interface that Om Malik affectionately refers to as “10 blue links.”  So Google has competition in verticals not just from Microsoft, but also from best of breed vertical sites offering users a richer, deeper experience.

Some have suggested that Google’s move into a deeper vertical experience is more about greed (more money) than fear (competitive) response. The argument voiced by Barclay’s analyst Douglas Anuth and others, is that by moving closer to the transaction, Google can ask for CPA fees, which naturally carry higher margin. Clearly, a single CPA fee will be much higher than a single CPC fee, but you will also have much fewer of them. The variable that links the two is conversion. One can certainly argue that Google can drive higher conversion if they can help drive the customer closer to the actual result they need. This will require a materially better product. Even then, however, there are two key reasons Google may not see higher revenue with deeper vertical integration.

Reason #1: Irrational CPC Pricing on Google Today, “Uber-Optimization”

Some might argue that Google’s current bid-based CPC model results in “optimal” pricing. The argument would be that the market-clearing price settles out at the precisely rational price for each and every keyword pair. A market-place model naturally results in efficient pricing. While this makes logical sense, we all know that there are companies participating in the CPC purchasing game who simply are less sophisticated than others. Moreover, many of these buyers win bids and have huge CPC budgets. The point is that there are plenty of startups, arbitragists, and even large companies “experimenting” with CPC purchasing in an attempt to gain an edge. The winner in this bidding game isn’t the most rational, but simply the one with the highest price. Certainly, over the long run if a company irrationally pays too much for CPC ads, they will eventually go out of business. But the key word here is eventually. For a long period of time, they are paying an “uber-optimized” price for their keywords.

If there are enough of these players in the market, then Google’s CPC prices aren’t economically rational. Rather, they live slightly above that level driven by irrationality and experimentation in the market. If you have a hard time with this theory try typing a search term like “laser treatments” in Google and look through the list of CPC purchasers on the right side of the screen. Would you put money in these companies?  Do you have confidence they will be around in ten years?  Have you ever heard of them? It gets even better. Many believe that Google uses a low quality rating score on these “middle-men” to force them to pay a higher fee for a single CPC, thus getting an even higher price than previously discussed. That’s right, for certain CPC buyers, Google has a mechanism for extracting an even higher price, even if the buyer is already the high bidder!

As Google moves past its “10 blue links” model and connects directly to airlines, hoteliers, etc, it will be removing the irrational and arguably temporary middle-man from the system. This fleeting but determined participant, very likely has a negative long term ROIC, and Google, riding the brilliance of the CPC model, stands as the beneficiary. With this player out of the system, and with the connections directly to the service provider, the model will naturally trend to a more efficient pricing.  You will have fewer larger players, who are all more rational, and all more experienced. As such, you would have to expect more rational, and therefore lower, pricing. Building a better product could actually result in less lead-generation revenue.

Reason #2:  Moving from a Marketing Channel to a Transaction Channel

If you have ever sold anything on the Internet, ask yourself the following question. What is the maximum amount you would want to pay for a transaction fee?  5%?  10%? There is data in looking at typical affiliate fee percentages, which can range from say 4-15%. Amazon charges 6-15%. Ebay charges about 11% (with Paypal).  Comparison shopping engines make even less. When an etailer assumes they are “always going to pay” for something on every single transaction, they are very sensitive to the % of revenues, as this payment will always reduce their margin. One could assume the general average for all affiliate fees or similar distribution type arrangements is around 10%.

Now, ask someone in your marketing department how much they are willing to pay to “acquire a customer.” While I don’t pretend to support this logic, the Lifetime Value of the Customer (LTV) model depicted herein mesmerizes many marketing managers. Using this simplistic but highly regarded model, many marketers justify “acquiring a customer” not as a percentage of revenue, but as a percentage of life-time value. The key to reaching this Zen state of marketing awareness is to believe that Google is sending you this customer only this one time, but for here ever after this customer is going to come directly to your own site, bypassing Google. This logic supports a much larger denominator, known as LTV. With LTV, ad buyers are easily willing to spend 25-50% of a first purchase in order to “acquire a customer.”

We could talk forever about the LTV formula, and we could argue back and forth about its efficacy, but that would miss the point. Consider the following assertion. People that are buying CPC ads are frequently marketers, and marketers are much more likely to think in terms of LTV. When you enter into a CPA deal it feels very transactional. When you do deep integration it feels very transactional. And, if Google is building a deep vertical site in travel that will pass leads to companies like American Airlines it will feel very transactional. It will be harder and harder to assume that you are “acquiring a customer,” and it will feel more and more like you are paying a distribution fee to a channel. As such, it may turn out that moving deeper into a vertical will puncture the illusion that marketers are “acquiring a customer” from Google, and get them in touch with the fact that they have a permanent CPA “transaction fee” they need to “pay” to Google. The end result is a lower overall rake for Google with the per transaction model.

Could this be wrong? Absolutely. Perhaps conversion rates will triple due to the incredible design, implementation, and ease of use of the Google’s new product, more than offsetting the two points we just mentioned. Or perhaps, Google will have such a powerful place in the travel ecosystem that travel companies will simply be “price-takers.” If this is the case then Google will once again find the exact right way to optimize their business model. It is equally likely, however, that Google’s current business model is highly, highly optimized and tweaking it may have as much risk as upside.

18 Comments

  1. Joseph Sunga July 8, 2010

    This is definitely an interesting move for Google. Turning attention to a CPA model with the ITA acquisition, it’ll be interesting on how they will capitalize on it. As a person who’s worked in the online advertising world (i.e. CPC, CPL, CPA, etc.), I totally agree with you on the value of acquiring a customer. Although, in the end it has to work on both sides — eventually companies do that CPA calculation.

    I really love the breakdown, and working at company that does vertical search in learning (TeachStreet.com) — I look forward to seeing what happens in this space.

    Reply
  2. Spencer Rascoff July 8, 2010

    Bill,
    Great post. I think your point that moving further down the transaction funnel might harm GOOG’s revenue by changing the way marketers think about their GOOG ad spend is quite interesting. I suspect that most of Google’s big SEM advertisers are rational though and can do the math to flip back and forth between CPA and CPC. For example, I think the big travel advertisers on GOOG (e.g., EXPE, OWW, PCLN, TVLY, Kayak) will just adjust to a CPA model if goog moves in that direction, so it shouldn’t matter much. However, you make a good point that there’s another class of less sophisticated SEM advertisers who bid more than the marginal benefit of that keyword, and make the market clearing price higher than it should be. Those advertisers might go away, or just advertise less, if goog moves further down the funnel and becomes more cpa than cpc.

    Personally, I think goog’s rationale for the ITA purchase is pretty simple and smart (though the price seems rich): goog’s current search experience in travel just isn’t very good. If you use google to query a travel term (“San Francisco to New York flights”), you don’t really want to see ten blue links; you want to see prices and availability. ITA can provide that. That having been said, I think they could have also improved their travel search results dramatically *without* paying $700M by simply asking the OTAs (EXPE, PCLN, TVLY, OWW) to provide them an API which returned prices and availability, and then goog could have surfaced that at the top of the organic results. They could then decide whether to make those links paid (CPC or CPA), or not. They’d basically be recreating kayak within goog, without buying anyone.
    The problem with this strategy, as travel veterans like me know full well, is that it’s hard to provide real-time price and availability info in this manner. That’s where ITA’s technology helps google dramatically. This is an especially acute problem for air; less so for hotels. Still, I wonder whether google searchers might forgive google for imperfect pricing info, and/or perhaps goog could have just said something like “from $269” instead of a specific price (and use cached pricing to do this). Seems like $700M is a steep price to pay for slightly better pricing and availability information…

    Your post didn’t discuss the impact that goog’s move in the travel space will have on the other market participants. Curious about your thoughts on that — impact on the meta companies (kayak), the OTAs (expe, pcln, tvly, oww) and the travel suppliers themselves?

    Reply
  3. Pingback: After ITA, Where Might Google Look Next for Structured Data?

  4. Pingback: After ITA, Where Might Google Look Next for Structured Data? | iPhone, iPad Weblog

  5. Yann Ngongang July 9, 2010

    @Bill: good post and insightful analysis about the optimal pricing on goog not being the most economically rational. I agree with you that at best, CPA, reduces revenues and as such vertical search is a tough game to play.

    Online/search advertising has been good at helping marketers figure out which half of their offline dollars were wasted. Similarly, CPA helps you determine which half of your online dollars are wasted. In the end, we get continuous pressure on ad spend.

    @Spencer: Good point about Goog thinking well beyond just replicating Kayak. They could have simply done a B2B deal with ITA. As a travel veteran, you know that margins in the space are not in air, but everything that comes afterwards. Hotels and cars of course.

    But there is a lot of other high margins, somewhat irrational expenses we have on travel, and Goog knows flight search is the best data proxy for who’s about to spend high margin bucks on car service, restaurant, theatre tickets, museum tickets, activity supplies, etc, etc.

    I think the search ad revenue lift they might get from better targeting through deeper insights about travelers could indeed justify paying what they paid.

    Reply
  6. Pingback: Who Will Google Buy Next for Structured Data? | iPhone, iPad Weblog

  7. vishi gondi July 9, 2010

    Its not about greed, its protecting turf.

    Travel agencies are running on razor thin margins and are willing to sell valuable customer data to any marketer.

    Money will move to “demand side” platforms and open audience data markets will end-up killing Adwords.

    Wish I could condense that to a tweet.

    Reply
  8. Pingback: Who Will Google Buy Next for Structured Data? | Newsroom News

  9. Vik M July 11, 2010

    Great Analysis — Isn’t Google simply going after the OTA space in a slightly more technology oriented Google manner? In 5 years, 99% of retail reservations will be done online and the suppliers could hope that 90% is done on their web sites. Google’s role is simple – provide the consumer all the information they need to make an intelligent decision before they end up at the supplier site. Paying $700m to enter the OTA space is inexpensive. Its unclear to me why the OTAs have such fat % of gross revenue margins (hotel) and also high operating margins considering they don’t really take inventory risk… Google’s entry should change that landscape.

    I’m sure bankers are already working on OTA consolidation and proforma models in their pitch books 🙂

    Reply
  10. aaron wall July 11, 2010

    Great post!

    One thing that offsets the above stated losses is the disappearance of organic search results. So if paid search results were capturing 50% of the search generated traffic, but now the organic results quite literally disappear as they are replaced by a vertical experience … then Google only needs to generate half as much revenue per click to have the same overall revenue *while* increasing their dominance/control over the channel & collecting more data.

    Further, Google can still sprinkle the CPA experience with CPC or CPM brand targeted ads around the perimeter of the page…thus effectively still having AdWords ads on the page & just replacing the free/organic search results with the new CPA results.

    It is a way for Google to avoid the paid inclusion debate while requiring paid inclusion. 🙂

    Reply
  11. Iggy July 22, 2010

    Boy… this analysis brings back memories

    Reply
  12. Glenn Kelman September 7, 2010

    Great essay. If Google’s revenues are irrationally high, how long can that last and don’t you think the company needs to cannibalize itself anyway?

    Reply
  13. Pingback: 赞助邮编:垂直搜索,消费者剩余与逆向选择 « My China – 我的中国

  14. Steve Lewis December 26, 2010

    Bill
    At what point does Google threaten it’s own top line when it’s actions become clearly detrimental to the very interests of those businesses who are paying Google to drive revenue their way? In this case why would Bing Travel et al continue to use ITA when they know full well that Google will utilize their new vantage point to competitively advantage themselves at the expense of their customer. Great piece by the way.
    Steve

    Reply
  15. Pingback: Thoughts On Consumer Web » Why Google needs to build a vertical experience in Travel and also acquire ITA

  16. Satish Mummareddy April 8, 2011

    My post on why google needs to build a vertical search experience and acquire ITA. http://www.thoughtsonconsumerweb.com/why-google-needs-to-build-a-vertical-experience-in-travel-and-also-acquire-ita/

    Reply
  17. Murat Ozsu June 4, 2011

    I’m a little late to the discussion, so I apologize.

    Over 1 billion hotel rooms will be sold this year in the US alone, and globally 6x that. The average OTA 20% of the revenue of a hotel booking and OTAs in total account for about 30% of all bookings. That leaves about $7b of value to be unlocked for hotel suppliers in the US market alone by finding a way to pass the OTAs.

    I suggest that Google & Bing can find a way to make more money in this and other verticals, by cutting out the middle men. Of course, this will just end up in creating all new middle men and the circle of life will continue, just faster.

    Reply
  18. Pingback: Google’s Acquires ITA: Will Deeper Vertical Integration Lead to Higher Revenues? | My Blog

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Prove that you're a human *