Assignment - Yahoo vs Google-libre, Porter’s Five Forces

September 9, 2017 | Author: udara_123 | Category: Yahoo!, Google, Web Search Engine, Competitive Advantage, Strategic Management
Share Embed Donate

Short Description

I hereby certify that I understand the nature of plagiarism and collusion, and that I understand the College’s Academic...



6CCYM325- Business Strategy Assignment Yahoo! Vs. Google

Student Name: Santiago Tomas Clausse Student Number: 0918913 Candidate Number: P13986 Date of Submission: Friday 18th of November, 2011

Clausse, S. 2 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

Originality Avowal

I hereby certify that I understand the nature of plagiarism and collusion, and that I understand the College’s Academic Regulations regarding Examination Misconduct. I verify that I am the sole author of this report, except where explicitly stated to the contrary.

Santiago Tomas Clausse

Clausse, S. 3 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

Table of Contents

1. Introduction….………….…....…………………………………………………..…..4 2. Industry Analysis.……………………………………………………………………5 2.1. Porter’s Five Forces Framework……………………………………………...5 3. Analysis and Discussion…………………………………………………………..10 3.1. Core Competencies…………………………………………………………..11 3.2. Competitive Advantage – Differentiation…………………………………...14 3.3. Differentiation Strategies……………………………………………………..16 4. Forecast…………………………………………………………………………….18 4.1. Forecast Performance……………………………………………………….18 4.2. Investment and Recommendations……………………………………..…19 5. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………....20 6. Bibliographies and References…………………………………………………..21

Clausse, S. 4 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

1. Introduction Two very different companies, but still two giants in the ‘.com’ industry and global search engine market, Yahoo! and Google both seek to dominate the cyberspace traffic flow, each with their distinctive strategies. Yahoo! ‘‘focuses on creating a content, communications, and community platform that delivers rich consumer experiences and advertising solutions across the screens of people’s lives’’ (Yahoo!, 2011). On the other hand, Google’s mission is to ‘‘organize the world‘s information and make it universally accessible and useful’’ (Google, 2011). This paper compares and evaluates both Yahoo!’s and Google’s strategies, but first an analysis of the ‘.com’ search engine industry is performed using Michael Porter’s ‘five forces’ framework. Then, Porter’s ‘theory of competitive advantage’ is applied, to appreciate how both Yahoo! and Google grow advantages over each other through their ‘generic strategy’. Subsequently, the strategic capabilities in terms of the core competences and resources of Yahoo! and Google are compared and evaluated to analyse how these strategic capabilities provide sustainable competitive advantage. Lastly, based on the aforementioned, the performance of the two companies is forecasted, and recommendations are given in terms of which company to invest.

Clausse, S. 5 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

2. Industry Analysis To analyse the ‘.com’ search engine industry where Google and Yahoo! compete and operate, Porter’s ‘five forces’ framework is used, which helps identify the attractiveness of an industry in terms of the five competitive forces. 2.1 Porter’s Five Forces Framework Figure 1: Porter’s Five Forces

Bargaining Power of Buyers Bargaining Power of suppliers

Threat of New Entry

Threat of Substitutes Competitive Rivalry

Competitive Rivalry: 

The main competitors in the internet search engine industry are Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft’s Bing, Ask Jeeves, Baidu and AOL. There are other

competitors but they have a negligible amount of traffic flow.

Growing and always improving market.

Numerous numbers of firms creates stronger rivalry.

No customer switching cost between search engines enhances competition.

Clausse, S. 6 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

The following pie chart compares the market share percentage for each company in the internet search engine industry for the last three years. Figure 2: Market Share of Internet Search Engines as of October, 2011 0.04% 0.59%


0.02% 1.41%

4.07% 3.79%

Google - Global


Yahoo - Global Bing Baidu Ask - Global

AOL - Global Excite - Global


Lycos - Global Other

(NetMarketShare, 2011) As figure 2 displays, Google has approximately 83% of the market share, followed by Yahoo! with a market share nearly 12 times smaller than Google’s. Bing and Baidu both have roughly four per cent of the market with the rest of the competitors taking less than one per cent of the market share each. This shows Google’s dominance in the internet search engine industry. Overall, there is high competition between Yahoo! and Google, which keeps both companies busy developing innovative search algorithms and products to attract internet users and gain market share. There is also competitive rivalry with Bing and Baidu, but Yahoo! and Google are the primary competitors.

Clausse, S. 7 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

Threat of Substitutes: 

The threat of substitutes is very low, as there are no real substitutes for internet

search engines.

not present a threat to the search engine industry.

Possible substitutes are online encyclopaedias and libraries; however these do

It is costly for customers to switch alternatives, as encyclopaedias are expensive or there may be an entrance fee for libraries; however internet search engines are free.

Overall, this presents a very positive characteristic of the online search engine industry as there is low or no threat of substitutes.

Threat of New Entry:   

High barriers to entry as current competitors have many years of data accumulated, through servers worldwide. Very difficult for new entrants to gain market share, as it is very hard to gather enough reputation to pull customers off Yahoo! and Google.

Maturing market, requiring more sophisticated search algorithms.

engine being introduced to the market.

There is no perfect search engine, so there is always risk of a better search

Search algorithms can easily be copied by competitors. Yahoo! and Google provide additional services to internet users to establish a strategic lock-in. i.e. Google and Yahoo! provide users with email, and social networking which retains users to their sites.

Overall, there is a low threat of new entry as internet users are locked-in to Yahoo! and Google through additional services. Also, it is difficult for new entrants to gather enough data and reputation quickly. However, it is important to note that when Google started in 1998, Yahoo!, Altavista and Excite were the market leaders, and Google still managed to outrun them (Viney, D., 2007).

Clausse, S. 8 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

Bargaining Power of Suppliers: 

Strong threat of forward integration as search engines may not work as efficiently with new Microsoft or Apple software. These companies can create their own search engines to prevent other search engines from performing

 

well. Online search engine firms can buy their computers and networking devices from many suppliers, lowering supplier power. Software engineers, web developers and programmers are growing in numbers, so internet search engine firms have more available resources to

choose from, decreasing the power of suppliers. Search engine companies rely on advertising companies to provide ads and on users to view the ads, in order to make a profit. Hence firms must maintain a firm supplier-seller relationship to keep the power of suppliers low. (Clarke, C., 2011)

Overall, the bargaining power of suppliers is low as there are many available suppliers and a low switching cost, however, this is always compromised by forward integration as Microsoft’s and Apple’s software can take a search engine firm out of business.

Bargaining Power of Buyers:  

The numerous internet users and no switching cost between search engines lowers power of buyers. Users require and demand more sophisticated search engines and additional

services to remain loyal to a firm.

receive money from advertising companies.

Since search engines are free, firms depend on the amount of traffic flow to

Greater or lower traffic flow implies that advertising firms will pay more or less to the search engine company, respectively. Buyers are not very powerful but firms cannot increase price as there are numerous online search engines available to users.

Clausse, S. 9 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

Overall, the bargaining power of buyers is low because customers have no other option to search the internet than using search engines. However, companies must be always improving their search tools to adjust to the needs of users and need to provide additional services to achieve customer loyalty and gain market share.

On the whole, Porter’s five force analysis identifies the online search engine industry as a worthy industry to be involved in. The high barriers to entry and the numerous competitors make it a difficult industry to enter and survive, although Google has shown how it is possible and how successful and profitable a company can become. Furthermore, there is plenty of room for further innovations and the online search engine is an ever-improving and growing market, making it an ideal industry to be part of.

Clausse, S. 10 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

3. Analysis and Discussion After Porter´s five forces analysis, both Yahoo! and Google should focus on developing a competitive advantage. Porter´s theory of competitive advantage argues that businesses want to grow a differentiation or a cost advantage over its competition in the market. Since the online search engines are free, Google and Yahoo! cannot grow a cost-focused competitive advantage over each other, and hence they must focus on differentiating themselves by providing additional services which are different to each other’s to attract users. Porter introduced Three Generic Strategies as the basic types of competitive strategy for businesses to gain advantage over competitors. Porter’s Generic Strategies are shown in figure 3. Figure 3: Porter´s Generic Strategies

Competitive Advantage Target Scope

Broad (Industry Wide)

Narrow (Market Segment)

Low Cost

Product Uniqueness

Cost Leadership Strategy

Differentiation Strategy

Cost Focus Strategy

Differentiation Focus Strategy

(QuickMBA, 2007)

Yahoo! and Google should follow this strategy As figure 3 shows, Yahoo! and Google should adopt a differentiation strategy. Under this strategy, businesses achieve brand loyalty, and rivals have a hard time competing. By differentiating, Yahoo! and Google would ‘‘develop core competencies and specialized products which can discourage potential new entrants to the industry, and competitors would not be able to meet differentiated customer needs’’ (QuickMBA, 2007), hence growing customer loyalty.

Clausse, S. 11 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

Yahoo! and Google are constantly looking to outrun each other by improving their search engines and providing additional services to users in order to retain customers. A comparison of the core competencies of both Yahoo! and Google is next performed, to evaluate how both companies deliver customer value, differentiate their business, and to evaluate their future potential as the market changes. 3.1. Core Competences Yahoo! and Google are very different companies, each taking different paths to become the cyberspace leader. ‘‘Yahoo! is the premier digital media company’’ (Yahoo!, 2011), whereas Google is primarily a search engine based on technological innovation. Each company however, has their own core competences which help them succeed and deliver qualitative customer value. These competences are next identified, individually for Google and Yahoo!. Google: 

Google has the best programmers and engineers creating superior search engine technology to provide the best and fastest results than any other

search engine. (Google, 2011) Google is all about search engine devoting ‘‘more engineering time to search than to any other product, because search can always get better and faster’’

(Google, 2011). Google offers advertisers ‘‘measurable, cost-effective and highly relevant advertising’’ (Google, 2011), through their advertising technologies such as

‘AdWords’, ‘Display Network’, ‘Double Click’, and mobile advertising. Google’s AdSense advertising technology selects particular ads, and places them on sites with information related to these ads, making them useful to

users and advertisers. (Google, 2011) Google ‘‘offers advertisers the ability to run search ad campaigns on mobile devices with popular mobile-specific ad formats, such as click-to-call ads’’

(Google, 2011). Google has a strong social media, YouTube, which generates a high traffic flow, and Google+ to compete with the social networking giants.

Clausse, S. 12 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

 

Google ‘‘offers software like Google Chrome to help users browse the web quickly and easily’’ (Google, 2011). Google has an extended product line, including Gmail, Google Buzz, Android, Google Earth, Maps, News, Documents, Translators, Google Scholar and

Google Sketch up to name a few. Google is an innovative firm, always improving, developing and inventing new products.

Overall, Google’s main strength is its investment in product development and in its core business. Google’s core business is the search engine, using top level technology to provide with fast and reliable search results. Google’s technology overcomes Yahoo!’s by large margins. Yahoo!: 

Yahoo! is a digital media company not a technological innovator. Yahoo! is one of the most visited and trusted websites because they ‘‘pair innovative technology with a human touch to personalize the digital world’’

(Yahoo!, 2011). Yahoo! focuses strongly on ‘‘creating a content, communications, and community platform that delivers rich consumer experiences and advertising

 

solutions’’ (Yahoo!, 2011). As a media company, Yahoo! is about news, meeting people, chatting, emailing, shopping, travel, games, lifestyle and even search engine. Yahoo! is very successful as a media company presenting and creating content, such as Yahoo! Finance, the OMG celebrity news hub, and it’s

 

content in general. ‘‘Yahoo! News is still the No. 1 news site, and Flickr continues to grow and remain a highly successful photo Web site’’ (Bilton, N., 2010). Yahoo! is very competent as a web portal or content website, hosting news and content in bigger and better than Google. The following figure compares the news page of Yahoo! and Google, where Yahoo!’s is clearly better presented.

Clausse, S. 13 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

Figure 4: Google (left) vs. Yahoo! (right)

Figure 4 shows how Yahoo! is better at content, whereas Google is primarily about searching. Yahoo! presents news like a newspaper and Google is used to search news. 

Yahoo! has a big branded advertising business.

Yahoo! is a very successful company, with its core business focused on the media content and web portal. Yahoo! delivers content, communication, social networking, and advertising through personalized portals and the ‘‘unique combination of Science + Art + Scale’’ (Yahoo!, 2011). However, Yahoo!’s weakness is the ‘‘divergence in investment and development in its core businesses’’ (Cybion, 2008). Yahoo! is not exactly a media company, nor is it a technology company, and hence they ‘‘ended up being something that was neither here nor there’’ (Graham, P., 2010).

Clausse, S. 14 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

3.2. Competitive Advantage - Differentiation To analyse the competitive advantage that Yahoo! and Google grow over each other, firstly, a direct comparison of certain features is performed. This is show in the following chart. Figure 5: Comparing Yahoo! vs. Google Features/Services Video/Voice/ IM Chat


Yahoo! Google Talk

Yahoo! Messenger


Partnership with Twitter

Google Toolbar and Google

Yahoo! Companion

Personal Search Tool Email Social Network News Toolbar

Desktop Ad Network

AdWords and Display Network

Yahoo! Network and Right Media Exchange

Web Browser

Google Chrome

Video Content Pictures/Images Storage



Checkout and

Partnership with eBay and

Google Product Search

Yahoo! Shopping

Google Documents and Google

No Yahoo! Documents


Babel Fish translator

Google Games and games on

Yahoo! Games

Calendar Maps Shopping

Business Software Mobile Apps Mobile Software Mobile Hardware Home & Office Tools


Google chrome TV eBooks


Clausse, S. 15 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

As figure 5 shows, Yahoo! and Google have very similar features and provide mostly the same services. Based on figure 5, there are four features that Google has that Yahoo! does not: eBooks, mobile hardware and software, and a web browser. This is mainly because Yahoo! is not a technology company; it focuses mainly on media content, whereas Google is purely a technological innovator always seeking to take the lead with new technological features. Yahoo! and Google are always trying to grow a differentiation advantage over each other. In 2006, Google bought YouTube to increase its social content, and Yahoo! reacted by engaging in a partnership with well-known selling company, eBay. Later in 2009, Google launched its own web browser, Google Chrome. Not to stay behind, Yahoo! formed a partnership with Microsoft to have Yahoo! as the main portal for Internet Explorer. Then, in 2010, Google developed a social networking service, Google Buzz, while at the same time, Yahoo! partnered with Twitter to expand Yahoo! into the social networking services. Yahoo! gains competitive advantage with its media content and especially with Yahoo! mail. Yahoo! reported statistics having 302 million mail users worldwide. Research from Return Path reported that Gmail finished 2010 with roughly 193 million mail users. Overall, Yahoo! aims to ‘‘keep more than half a billion people connected’’ and to ‘‘connect advertisers to the consumers’’ (Yahoo!, 2011) through its web portal. On the other hand, Google’s goal as a search engine is to provide fast answers, so it aims ‘‘to have people leave our website as quickly as possible’’ (Google, 2011). Clearly Google’s search engine is the best internet searching tool, giving Google a competitive advantage, but the search engine directs users out of Google’s pages, hence why Google also focuses on developing other technologies such as Google Chrome, mobile software and hardware which keep it at the top of the market.

Clausse, S. 16 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

3.3. Differentiated Strategies Undoubtedly, Yahoo! and Google have different strategies. Google’s strategy is ‘‘built on a strong foundation of broad differentiation of complementary products’’ (Morrow, B., 2008), whereas Yahoo! ‘‘instead of competing with the social media, believes in partnering with them so as to generate traffic through them’’ (Ahmedzai, M., 2011). Back in 1999, Yahoo! focused on getting users to see their ads, because that’s what at the time generated the most profits. Yahoo! considered itself a ‘portal’ not a ‘search engine’ because they were more interested in having large traffic so their ads would be seen, rather than passing traffic to other destinations like search engines do. ‘‘Search was only 6% of traffic’’ (Graham, P., 2010) for Yahoo!, who had not yet realized that ‘‘search traffic is worth more than other traffic’’ (Graham, P., 2010). Now Google, on the contrary, was always a search engine, and only focused on getting search traffic. As time progressed and search traffic grew, Google started profiting more than Yahoo!. Nowadays Google has a market capital of 199.7 billion British Pounds, while the Yahoo! market capital is 19.76 billion, roughly ten times smaller (Yahoo! Finance, 2011). At its early stages, Yahoo! considered itself a media company not a technological innovator. Yahoo! made money by selling ads, but what Yahoo! ‘‘really needed to be was a technology company, and by trying something else, they ended up being neither one nor the other’’ (Graham, P., 2010). This unclear strategy left Yahoo! behind while Google with its clear and defined strategy to become purely a search engine outpaced Yahoo! and grew to become the current market leader of the search engine industry. Yet another failure in strategy for Yahoo! was that Yahoo! ‘‘didn’t take programming seriously enough’’ (Graham, P., 2010). Companies in the software and internet business must strive to have ‘‘hacker-centric cultures’’ (Graham, P., 2010), so that user-facing software works efficiently and qualitatively. Google always ‘’had hackercentric cultures’’ focusing on developing the best possible search engines and software. Google’s search engine and user-facing software is more qualitative and efficient than Yahoo!’s because Google has always had better programmers.

Clausse, S. 17 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

The overall strategies of each company are next outlined to further distinguish the differences in strategic management. Google:  

Dominate the cyberspace by building and acquiring its own social media (YouTube, and Google +)

Focus on developing and improving technology.

Technological innovator.

Focus on building better and faster search engine.

challenge Apple and Microsoft.

 

Doesn’t spend money on acquisitions, invests in product development.

97% of revenue is from ads out of which 70% is from the search engine.

Looking to expand business horizons by developing own operating system to

Google is working on Smartphones which is the next target for searching.

Yahoo!: 

Partners with major social media, like Tweeter, to drive traffic to its website,

instead of competing with them.

Internet Explorer web browser.

Microsoft operates Yahoo!’s search engine and promotes Yahoo! in the

Focus on partnering with ad agencies.

Content creation to drive traffic.

Receives revenue from mail, ads, and other features.

Content and media company, it’s a web portal not just a search engine.

Spends money on acquisitions and partnerships.

Focus on marketing to build brand. User attractive portal.

Clausse, S. 18 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

4. Forecast By looking into Yahoo!’s and Google’s strategies and considering the previous effects on both, it is possible to forecast their future performance. 4.1 Forecast Performance The internet is a rapidly changing market, where businesses can grow or die out very quickly. The internet has been growing significantly in the last decades, and it will continue to do so, as one cannot imagine the future without it. However, the future of Yahoo! and Google is uncertain. It can be seen from Google’s strategies that they are already envisioning the future and focusing on technologies that will keep them market leaders. The future of search engines probably lies within the mobile phone industry. Google has developed Android and it is working on Google phones and applications. Yahoo! has itself developed applications for mobile use and it has integrated itself with Apple products, but it has not shown any indications of developing their own mobile phone operative system. Yahoo! could succeed by forming partnerships with phone companies to include Yahoo! within the phones, like they are already doing with Apple’s IPhones. The rapidly evolving social networks also should be kept in mind for both Yahoo! and Google. Yahoo! users can already connect via Yahoo! with the main social networks (i.e. Facebook and twitter), and Google has developed its own social network, Google+, which makes ‘‘connecting on the web more like connecting in the real world, sharing thoughts, links and photos’’ (Google+, 2011), taking search engines to a whole new level. Yahoo!’s future performance aims at maintaining users constantly connected through the Yahoo! portal which connects with social networks, search engines and all other services within Yahoo!, creating an unique multifunctional web portal. Google’s future performance is based upon Google producing their own computers and operative systems, with Google Chrome and all Google applications, because ‘‘from Google’s perspective, the more uses a person has for Google’s services, the

Clausse, S. 19 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

more opportunity there will be to show them ads’’ (Morrow, B., 2008). Google could possibly diversify into many technological industries, dominating the cyberspace. 4.2 Investment recommendations Investing in either Yahoo! or Google seems beneficial; however it depends on the type of investment. For advertising firms for example, Yahoo! is a better bet, as Yahoo! aims at partnering with them. Google has been growing tremendously over the last few years, thus investing in Google shares could be profitable as Google has fairly extended product lines and it is expanding into the mobile, social network and web browsers industry. Nonetheless, ‘‘almost all of the revenue Google receives comes from its ad network’’ (Valor, J., 2004), presenting a good reason not to invest in Google stock. Yahoo!’s future appears uncertain as Yahoo! is not developing a web browser or moving into the mobile phone industry, and because the internet market is a rapidly changing market, Yahoo! could easily vanish as a media company. Google, on the contrary, has Google Chrome, Android and Google Phones, as well as other services to diversify itself from the search engine industry. A new and better search engine could be invented anytime soon, causing Google’s search engine to fade, but it is these other features and technologies that Google has which will keep it alive. Furthermore, there’s always the possibility of Google developing its own operative system, to compete with Microsoft and Apple, whereas Yahoo! does not have these technological ‘backups’ to keep it alive in case of a big change in the internet industry. In summary, Google portrays itself as a better investment than Yahoo! as it is already the market leader and it keeps growing with its broad and differentiated product lines. Google currently dominates a ‘‘young, explosively growing market, which has more potential than almost any other market’’ (, 2009), making Google a potentially profitable source of investment.

Clausse, S. 20 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

5. Conclusion The internet market is growing more competitive, where companies cannot be guaranteed success. Every company has to maintain continuous efforts to develop innovative ideas in-order to remain profitable. This is the case in the internet industry with Yahoo! and Google who are constantly striving to develop innovative ideas in order to grow. Yahoo! and Google are both successful, but in different terms. Yahoo! is ‘‘the premier digital media company’’ (Yahoo!, 2011), and is better than Google with its web content. Yahoo!’s news portal is bigger, better structured and better presented than Google’s. Yahoo! owns OMG, a celebrity news hub, which is quite successful and differentiates Yahoo! from Google. Yahoo! is better as a web portal, presenting information and retaining users to their website. On the other side, Google does not write its own news, nor does it present news as qualitatively as Yahoo! because that is not their focus. Google is primarily a search engine, and that is what they are best at. Google’s technology clearly surpasses Yahoo!’s technologies by a great margin. Google has better technological products such as Android, Chrome, Google Earth, and Dropbox to name a few. Google is constantly developing new online tools and services, whereas Yahoo! focuses more on its core business, being a media company, as technology is no longer its strength. Yahoo! should be more ‘‘innovative, flexible/fast to capture/retain the market’’ (Corporate Strategy Forum, 2006). Based on their core competences, both Yahoo! and Google each implement their own strategy to succeed, where ‘‘Google is a search engine and Yahoo! is a portal with a search engine product’’ (Card, D., 2006).

Clausse, S. 21 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

6. Bibliographies and References Bilton, N., (2010) A Big-Picture Look at Google, Microsoft, Apple and Yahoo!. [Online] Available from:!/ [Accessed 14th November 2011]

Card, D., Carlson, N., (2006) Analysts: You can’t compare Yahoo! to Google. [Online] Available from: e+Yahoo!+to+Google.htm [Accessed 14th November 2011] Clancy, C., (2011) How do Search Engines Like Google Make Money? [Online] Available from: [Accessed 16th November 2011] Corporate Strategy Forum (2006) Google Inc Vs Yahoo! Inc - Strategies : Summary of Case Studies. [Online] Available from:!-incstrategies.html [Accessed 14th November 2011] Cybion, (2008) Yahoo! vs. Google. [Online] Available from:!-Google.pdf [Accessed 14th November 2011] Google. (2011) Corporate Information – Company. [Online] Available from: [Accessed 14th November 2011] Google+ (2011) A Quick Look at Google+. [Online] Available from: [Accessed 14th November 2011]

Clausse, S. 22 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

John. Mbtgoogle2. (2008) Porter’s Five Forces for Google. [Online] Available from: [Accessed 11th November 2011]

NetMarketShare. (2011) Search Engine Market Share. [Online] Available from: [Accessed 12th November 2011] Olsem SM. (2011) Internet and Search Engine Industry – Porter’s Five Forces. [Online] Available from: [Accessed 11th November 2011]

Parr, B., (2010) Google vs. Yahoo!: Who Has the Right Social Strategy? [Online] Available from:!-google-social-colum/ [Accessed 15th November 2011]

Valor, J., (2004) Investing in Google: Am I Feeling Lucky? [Online] Available from: [Accessed 14th November 2011] Viney, D., (2007) Search Engine History - Web Search Before Google. [Online] Available from: [Accessed 11th November 2011]

Yahoo! (2011) Company Info - Overview. [Online] Available from: http://pressroom.Yahoo!.net/pr/ycorp/overview.aspx [Accessed 14th November 2011]

Clausse, S. 23 Candidate Number: P13986 Student Number: 0918913

Graham, P., (2010) What Happened to Yahoo!. [Online] Available from: Http: //!.Html [Accessed 1st November 2011] (2009) Why You May Want to Invest In Google Stock. [Online] Available from: [Accessed 15th November 2011]

View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.