Google hit a billion unique per month in May of 2011 and they've spent $21 billion in the last 7 years. Assuming no growth (which is absolutely not the case) they've spent an average of $3 per user per year.
there are 2.5B internet users. since google is more than a search engine(android, gmail, adwords and so on) we can assume that most of these users somehow interact with google services, so just adding other expenses and deviding the number to 2.5 billion would give a quite accurate result.
...and did they improve the fortunes of their advertising client base, or merely suck the wind out the prevailing sail without offering anything in return?
It is a valid question. As a 'brand building' advertiser, I never felt like most of the google products delivered as much value as they claimed; they all seemed to be targeted at products people will buy after the first impression (which is... not, generally, how products in my sector are sold. People buy because they have heard of me. The 'hearing about me' is important, not the last click.) and the tracking mechanisms all seemed... naive. (now, that last part might just be the effect of them dumbing it down to the point where a small business owner, like me, can understand whats going on, but man... in that case, we advertisers trust google a lot.)
Of course, I'm small, cynical, stupid, and don't spend much effort on advertising, so it's possible my impression is wrong.
Comments
I wonder how much money Google has spent per user. $10? $50?
Google hit a billion unique per month in May of 2011 and they've spent $21 billion in the last 7 years. Assuming no growth (which is absolutely not the case) they've spent an average of $3 per user per year.
according to here: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
there are 2.5B internet users. since google is more than a search engine(android, gmail, adwords and so on) we can assume that most of these users somehow interact with google services, so just adding other expenses and deviding the number to 2.5 billion would give a quite accurate result.
...and did they improve the fortunes of their advertising client base, or merely suck the wind out the prevailing sail without offering anything in return?
It is a valid question. As a 'brand building' advertiser, I never felt like most of the google products delivered as much value as they claimed; they all seemed to be targeted at products people will buy after the first impression (which is... not, generally, how products in my sector are sold. People buy because they have heard of me. The 'hearing about me' is important, not the last click.) and the tracking mechanisms all seemed... naive. (now, that last part might just be the effect of them dumbing it down to the point where a small business owner, like me, can understand whats going on, but man... in that case, we advertisers trust google a lot.)
Of course, I'm small, cynical, stupid, and don't spend much effort on advertising, so it's possible my impression is wrong.
You're thinking of Groupon.