The technology graveyard is littered with Google ideas
People who know me well (in person) know that I like to talk about Google. In particular, their business model interests me because they have taken a very public, visible approach to R&D. Instead of having developers in secretive, dark “labs” where they are destined to work on projects that will most likely never see the light of day, Google encourages its developers to create visible projects that are showcased (and talked about) on their Google Labs website. This has its good sides (publicity!) and its bad sides (publicity before the apps are ready for prime time.) Most importantly to Google, it makes sure the word “Google” is always on the tip of reporters’ tongues, as Google continually refreshes its product list and finally “releases” products from Labs into the real world.
Google is not only doing this for the publicity aspect, however. Their management team is apparently of the philosophy “Let’s throw 1000 things against the wall and see what sticks.” That is, Google is hoping that eventually, a few of these Labs ideas will pay off and make big money for the company. Google shares this wealth with the employees that create the projects via Founders’ Awards — huge stock option grants for projects that make the company a lot of money. The first two Founders’ Awards were given out in 2005 and totaled $12 million in stock compensation. (reference)
That’s great for the big projects (and believe me, every employee at Google works doggedly to make sure his or her pet project is next in line for one of those awards.) But this blog entry is about those projects that aren’t the next billion-dollar idea. Obviously, by giving employees incentives to create web-based projects of their own accord, Google will have hundreds of these projects going on in a few years. Some of these hundreds of projects will be successful and will integrate with the rest of Google. The truly unsuccessful ones will either languish or be cut entirely. But what about the inevitable projects in the middle?
Let’s say (just using some random numbers as an example) an employee that Google pays $100,000 per year creates a project in his or her “20% time” that is successful. The project, funded by pageview ads, grosses $250,000 per year. That employee does not spend the majority of his or her time supporting the project… perhaps just the aforementioned “20% time”. What does Google do with this project?
“Well, keep it, of course!” you say. “It’s profitable!” Well, not exactly. Now that Google is a publicly-traded company, its shareholders are expecting big things. With annual revenue of $1 billion+ per year and stock prices in the stratosphere, it’s clear that both shareholders and Wall Street are not interested in a project that nets approximately $200K per year after expenses. The question that Google execs will have to ask themselves in the future is, “Is this developer’s time (even part of it) better spent on a project that will never net more than $200-$300K per year, or on a project that has the potential to make millions (or billions)?”
Companies have traditionally solved this problem by creating spinoffs, but at only $200K-$300K revenue vs. Google’s $1B+ bottom line, it’s not worth it to Google to spin a company off, even if it is profitable. The only choices left, then, are to either let that employee continue working on a project that will not substantially improve Google’s bottom line, or to axe the project. It’s the latter I think Google will have trouble with. After all, their roots are in creating a “startup-like culture” for their employees. Google Labs is full of projects that will likely never make the company a dime (except by some marginal publicity), like Google Mars. As long as these projects suck up nothing more than a one-time “develop and showcase” investment of a developer’s time, that’s fine. The problem occurs when these projects continue to suck up more and more time from developers who could be working on “better” (read: more profitable) ideas. It will be a tough call for Google to “prune” less profitable projects, but they will have to in order to continue to be a successful company.
Once Google realizes they have to cut back and only continue development on the projects that did “stick”, inevitably, they will crush a few of their developers’ hearts. I have a feeling some of those developers may even become jaded and go out and start their own companies (sort of like the many software companies spawned by former Microsofties in Redmond.) Those companies may even grow to become quite successful. Hmm…