Microsoft's "Cash Back" Google Search Killer: Great Idea, Won't Work
First, we think this is a smart idea. It's a natural market response to a sector in which one player has suddenly absconded with absolutely fantastic profits (and profit margins), leaving all other competitors flopping in the dust. We think Kevin Johnson was right to describe it as "disruptive," and we're sorry we needled him for that. (Of course, we would have inserted the word "potentially"--see below.)
Second, Microsoft appears to have executed the plan intelligently: 18 high-profit verticals in which searchers get cash back if they buy something from participating merchants.
This announcement will likely create uncertainty in the industry, and we expect Google investors will worry about it for a while (needlessly, in our opinion). At first blush, the plan also sounds as though it will turn the industry on its head, forcing Google to implement a similar plan or go bust. So why won't it?
Three reasons:
* Microsoft will not likely offer enough "cash back" on each purchase to make the service worth using for most users. The search business is wildly and fantastically profitable in aggregate, but it is composed of billions of small-value revenue events. 1 million $1 clicks generate $1 million of revenue for Google, but even if Microsoft gives 50% cash back on each click, that's only 50 cents per user per transaction. If you're buying a $5 item, 50 cents is a nice refund, but if you're buying, say, a $25 item, it's chump change. Folks who clip coupons in the real world will be very excited about Live Search Cash Back and will likely use it religiously. But there's a reason coupons, Discovery cards, etc. haven't taken over the world.
* The program only covers "participating" retailers and "participating" products, at least initially. Although the initial names involved are impressive, right away you have concerns about breadth of coverage and objectivity. If the coverage is super-broad (including Amazon, eBay, and all the online biggies), the objectivity will be less of an issue. But, at least initially, a significant percentage of users will assume they are either seeing only a small portion of the available choices or are getting screwed. Google has built its franchise on comprehensiveness and objectivity, and we suspect that its initial response will be to argue that this is really what consumers want. And unless Microsoft is paying a huge amount of cash back, they're right.
* If necessary, Google can always respond with a similar plan--and its economics will always be far better than Microsoft. If Google really starts to lose share to this plan (which we don't think it will), it will likely launch a similar plan for certain searches. Because Google makes more per search, it will be able to offer more cash back, and it will be able to point out that users don't have to change habits. Google could even offer a hybrid--organic search and special cash-back offers. A response might eat into Google's margins (which would hit the stock temporarily), but it wouldn't upend the industry. And, in our opinion, it wouldn't take long for Google to starve Microsoft out.
Consumers have to 1) register at Microsoft; 2) Change habits by using Live to search; 3) (Possibly) change habits by buying at a limited group of merchants.
That's a lot of stuff to do, and most people just won't do it. Especially for chump change off what is likely to be overpriced merchandise.
My 2 cents, Yahoo! will spin of Search and related business [Digital Advertising] into a separate company for which Microsoft will pay a Hefty premium to Yahoo! Lets call it Ylive
The Big Deal:
Yahoo! will transfer all the engineering talent + Internet infrastructure to YLive including patents etc.
Yahoo & Microsoft portals will promote YLive and rely on Ylive for Digital Advertising needs.
In this way Yahoo! gets cash to re-focus on being a media company. [Direction until Ex-ceo Terry stepped down] and run all its worldwide subsidiaries profitably keeping shareholders smiling.
Yandex IPO:
This Russian company will start competing outside Russia after the IPO, thus kicking off another round of Search wars. Google should be worried about these Russian Developers.
(i) Not enough cashback for the users:
Google's UK ARPU, for example, is $110 per year. If Micrsoft could get scale and distribute those sorts of amounts to users, that would be a compelling proposition
(ii)Lack of depth and objectivity problems:
If users like it, advertisers will join. And why should this pose any problems with objectivity? After all, Google ranks the ads on its site by the amount they get paid...
(iii)Google could always out compete them in cashbacks:
Yes! This is true, and the best part of Microsoft's plan. Microsoft doesn't need to have a profitable monopoly in search, what it wants is to make sure that no-one else has one. By doing this, it can force Google into a price war that reduces their profitability and hence protects Microsoft's core software business.
"Microsoft has tested incentivizing users to try their search product. How far will they go to reward users to default to a MSN toolbar?
Google never will."
I'll stand by this and predict paying users to search and buy from their platform will change the search game forever.
Hard core search fanatics will mock it but mom and pop will sign up!
Also MSFT has tried this earlier on live.com, with a temporary bump of couple of percent points in search traffic, which then reverted back to even less traffic than before the gimmick. Its like hoping that zune will take hold against ipod if only they give couple of bucks back to everyone who buys a zune.
This proves how sad MSFT has really gotten on the engineering front, they are admitting whole-sale defeat. There isn't even a whiff of a claim anymore that they could out-innovate/out-engineer Google.
Realize that also-rans in a category always resort to this sort of stuff to see if they can't gain a little market share, while the category leader gets to command (semi-irrational, but a fact) premium prices.
But in this case it's even worse because Google has out-engineered Yahoo and MSFT to the tune of a 50-90% monetization gap. So there is no parity on what a search is worth to each of them to begin with.
Notice that MSFT search (MSN/Live) just shrank to about a 9% share, while Google for the first time grew over 60%. So MSFT has about 1/6 to 1/7 of Google's QUERIES, but on the monetization front it looks even worse.
[By the way, has anyone seen MSFT's search revenue reported as a separate number, as in a Q1 financial report? I would be very interested in that number.]
It will be interesting to see if there is any movement in search share over the next 3 months as a result of this, I would predict no.
Even if they buy Yahoo's search to ramp up the scale, my guess is that consumers will answer with a shrug. This isn't really news, everyone has seen coupons and rebates before. Plus at a say combined Micro-hoo 30% share, that is suddenly a lot of $ to be subsidizing.
I wonder how long Ballmer could sustain justifying that with the MSFT shareholders. If he spent say $10B to buy another subsidy business...
The funny thing is, the path to them buying innovative Web 2.0 companies with growing mindshare is completely open, they could buy Twitter and about 50 other companies tomorrow for a total of say $5B (at $100M a pop).
I agree with the AOL analogy made by kk above. I started watching AOL just as they were beginning their fall from glory. It's been quite a breathless adventure at times watching them slide into the abyss. Admittedly, it has also been fun. You'd have to disagree with AOL on at least a dozen things, as I do, in order to enjoy that process. I'm sure at least a few people (rightfully) feel this way about Google as well.
Knowing Microsoft and how they will actually entice users into using their cash-back rewards program (that's the correct terminology for it, I hope - almost like using your Discover card) I think it's a sure bet the will have a good deal of success.
Us coupon-clippers are more prevalent and more budget-oriented and more money-conscious than most people in Silicon Valley and the Alley could imagine.
You have to remember the majority of SV/SA entrepreneurs and even their lowest-level employees are just plain rich by the rest of the country's standards. Out here in the non-silicon blessed world we're suffering from a slightly depressed economy, a very real lack of jobs, stagnant pay, inflation that has pushed the price of food, clothing, and other essential commodities through the roof, fuel that has hit nearly $4 a gallon with no end in sight - so most people are struggling, even at middle-class incomes, just to get by.
Any way to save money at all will be embraced by the majority. I think Microsoft is coming up with the right plan at the right time, and that it will become popular.
The "search" press is slamming it but MSFT is not looking to impress or change the search habits of the advanced search nerd.
It's all about luring the masses to the toolbar.
The only question I have is, do they have the will to market this and stick with it?
What's also interesting to me is that users must fill out a complete registration form (with snailmail addy and phone #) to be eligible for cashback.
If this takes off, within a very short time MSFT will have a very valuable list consisting of real people who are real buyers. This is the most valuable kind of DR asset you can possibly obtain. Imagine if this list grows to say, 10 million people.
"I’ll repeat my usual saying: Paying incentives to drive usage is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Arrington in his write-up is in his usual MSFT-cool-aid drinking mood, but here are the facts:
1) This proposal is NOT, I repeat NOT a Cost-per-action (CPA) model for the advertisers.
2) If Live-hoo search remains less relevant (same as now), people would have to switch consciously from Google to Live-hoo once they are done searching for investigative/research purposes and are nearing a buying decision.
3) If you look at the screen-shot of the new Live offering with rebates (and given limited partner sites), you get something that looks like anything but a real search site. And the "check out our prices" thing already exists, it's called Nextag, Pricegrabber, and yes, Amazon (non-book)...
Having a little search bar at the top is not the same as having true search. Google is outpacing both Yahoo and MSN/Live in indexing speed by a mile now. The also-rans don't even have the capacity anymore to keep up. Moving to the proposed model is like going back to a closed site with partner retailers. How is that serving up the internet?!?
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/051227-121401
Somebody wisely said, "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it". Based on failed past attempts, it sounds more and more like an attempt to re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, rather than some truly innovative and disruptive technology. Perhaps folks at MSFT working on this got confused about what disruptive technology means and instead took it literally and decided to disrupt their own already failing model.
The people that are so strapped for cash that this would lure them are already getting their deals - at WALMART. Nothing wrong with that BTW, but how is that a winning business model? (BTW, ff someone can comparison shop for say digital camcorders, they by definition have discretionary income.)
And of course it is predicted that the category leader commands a premium, but as I pointed out, Google also happens to out-monetize Live-hoo by a mile.
That is different from say somebody selling essentially the same laundry detergent as Tide. The consumer in this case had the same buying intent, but they may have chosen Tide and paid more due to the brand association.
But MSN/Yahoo search monetizes far less well because people are there (on a portal) with a different INTENT overall. People doing a search on Google are overall (at least on average by far) in a PROBLEM SOLVING mindset, and that is why they are more open to getting their credit card out. People are more likely to buy things that solve real problems/pains for them.
Hate to knock the wind out of your sails but...the day I can type in my usually very simple queries and pull up the page I actually need, not the only somewhat-relevant one that Google cared to index for my keywords (you know, the page everyone and their mothers were linking to back in 2003, the one that is so irrelevant now it's laughable? - and you know how that pathetic page is still the only page that beats everything in Y's and MSN's index?)
I'll give Google credit for being good the day they do something incredibly useful with that sinking ship of theirs that they call Search. Have you ever tried Google Blogsearch? It's a joke. I don't use it anymore since it gets worse, not better, with time. In their effort to remove blogspam Google also literally removed most of the results - not the smartest move they ever made.
Microsoft's search has a number of advantages: better interface, more thorough and attractive image search, a better overall presentation and similar results. I think Google better had watch out lest MS kick them away from behind when they are least expecting it. The gap MS needs to close in order to lead is smaller and easier to traverse than most people think.
MS will reward you for clicking on Amazon links and buying stuff. Amazon will only pay for clicks that result in purchases under the new agreement. But users will just shop at amazon, then use live.com when they're done to find the same item they already shopped for. So Amazon's costs will rise as they pay MS for click purchases that are actually replacing organic sales.
You can't cheat Google's sales model, because it's a classic self-reinforcing mechanism. You need better search to attract users to attract advertisers to bid against each other. Missing out on that first bit (better search) is just encouraging users to game the system, and then the value of your advertising is decreased and your data is junk - which leads to worse search and less users.
And I'm beginning to think Google's search is better for reasons that have nothing to do with algorithms and everything to do with data center operations.
"The "search" press is slamming it but MSFT is not looking to impress or change the search habits of the advanced search nerd.
It's all about luring the masses to the toolbar."
How is a 60% and rising share the "search habits of the advanced search nerd"??!?!
As far as the luring is concerned, presumably MSFT had all of the opportunity in the world to lure people wherever they wanted when they had 95% browser share with IE. But it DIDN'T HAPPEN (and they still have this "opportunity" through the OS share and the now 70% browser share, and it's still not happening).
Also, MSFT fundamentally doesn't understand how to "lure" anything or anyone, all they know is to grab onto things and squeeze.
@solomonrex excellent points about the market mechanism, and how Live "partners" will not long endure this gimmick. If everybody were so enamored with MSFT, they would already be doing all sorts of friendly strategic alliances with them. Except that it's NOT THE CASE...
And how does e.g. AMAZON want to hand off someone that was already at their site to Live only to take a chance that they'll not buy from them after all?
Multiple steps = no simplicty = unsound business model.
No, Amazon will start offering the same gimmicky discount right on their site if necessary to keep people right where they are. And then of course that undercuts the entire premise of this ramping up Live-hoo search share somehow.
And as for WalMart, no. Just plain no. Walmart's prices have gone up significantly in the last year. I avoid the place like the plague (but I used to live in it years ago). Out here in the real world we've actually resorted to dollar stores and the old standbys such as eBay and local selling/shopping sites to cut our best deals. My last four iPods came from eBay - all in like-brand-new condition (I upgrade almost every week now because I keep running out of space, then I sell my castoffs, or give them to my friends to keep or sell) - does that give you a clue?
"...but the market and the numbers are telling a different story."
The market and the numbers are telling a "different story" for just two reasons: Google's de facto monopoly power and plain old user/consumer inertia. Create something more valuable to the consumer and they will leave Google. As I mentioned in another comment on SAI this morning (it was on a related post) MS is nowhere near an end to the improvements they will be making to search by consolidating branding, increasing relevancy, and attracting new and previous users through ease-of-use and incentives. Don't write them off yet.
So when on Google, they are there with the problem solving mindset more so than on Yahoo's or MSN's brand diluted "portals" where people may start out for any number of reasons.
Read some Ries & Trout on the matter of branding, the psychology of this is pretty clear.
Dollar Stores? Really? That's your argument? I don't know where your "out here in the real world" is, but that's taking it a bit far don't you think?
Uhmmm... buying four iPods would seem to indicate disposable income to me... and BTW, eBay had been advertising on Google aplenty...
Your statement, while mostly true, would then contradict almost everything you said up to this point.
@MarahMarie: "Create something more valuable to the consumer and they will leave Google."
Agreed, I've been saying this all along, MSFT must INNOVATE to so though. And in 13 years on the internet they have still never done so. So I wouldn't keep my hopes up too much...
Hah.
I did hear recently that they were planning on a rebrand [new name] - I would assume it is in the fall because they do a refresh on a spring/fall basis. I think it would be best to disassociate Live Search as much as possible from the microsoft brand; it doesn't ring well with consumers.
"...the difference is that Google = Search in people's minds, hence the common usage "to google something"..."
Fine. Now let's try this analogy on for size:
"...the difference is that [for Earthlink] AOL = The Internet in people's minds, hence the common usage "how America gets online"...
See the power of that? See where that power is now? Lying in ashes and dust. Proof positive that "Nothing gold can stay."
"So when on Google, they are there with the problem solving mindset more so than on Yahoo's or MSN's brand diluted "portals" where people may start out for any number of reasons."
But what in particular are the reasons? In two tries I have not gotten you to answer that question.
I'm of the belief that we're all in "problem-solving mode" when we search regardless of the starting points we choose (be it MSN, Live, Google, AOL, Ask, MetaSearch...whatever).
I want you to give me one good example to the contrary - you haven't yet.
"Dollar Stores? Really? That's your argument? I don't know where your "out here in the real world" is, but that's taking it a bit far don't you think?"
I'm not a good example to point to. Most of the time I have money to throw away on something, and I have habits that cost me a small fortune every year - more discretionary income out the window that kinds of pains me to part with. But I'm not well-to-do by any standard - sometimes I even struggle to get by (my work is essentially seasonal and my income is easily affected by any number of general economic factors).
A better example: I'll point you to the people I bump into in those dollar stores - and don't get me wrong, I seriously think dollar stores are kind of nasty. But they save you tons of money over time with a dollar or two saved here and there on all that name-brand Tide crap you'd just buy anyway at WalMart or Publix or Pathmark (depending on your geographical location) for a much higher price.
And the people standing on line with me in those dens of low-price repute are often gorgeous women in brand-new high heels, matchy-matchy outfits (can you tell I'm a bit of a tomboy?) with a Gucci handbag casually slung over their shoulder and more makeup on their faces than I can afford to buy (or would ever dare to apply) in a year. They have so much money (and such overflowing carts) I almost want to apologize for being there in my torn-up cutoffs clasping a bottle of Windex and the latest Fitness mag...
Yes, that is the real word these days. Even the well-to-do are feeling the pinch - or at least looking for every way they can to save money...
And as to eBay advertising on Google, when I click those ads most of the time I am not brought to relevant results. When I decide to unblock the ads, I can't use them anyway without disabling my hosts file too (since I have Doubleclick and all the other redirects between Google's ad and eBay blocked computer-wide as well...)
And who uses Google to search eBay? Seriously, I have almost never done it. eBay has superior in-house search. Maybe it's because I've been a seller as a well as a buyer, so I'm more "in-the-know", but all the same Google is the last place I would ever look for what I need on that site....
What is important is not if this, in particular, is successful, but rather that people feel there is enough money in search that they can cut margins and still deliver a nice return.
That is why I would be worried about Google.
In related news:
- MSFT plans to introduce live-pal to compete with paypal. People will get paid to use this service.
- MSFT plans to introduce live-list to compete with craigslist. People will get paid to post ads there.
- MSFT plans to introduce live-bay to compete with ebay. People will get paid to put up auctions there.
Where is all this money going to come from you ask? MSFT is introducing a super-duper-ultra-plush-ultimate-premier version of vista for $499.99, which would be a standard requirement for all future PC buyers that still want to buy XP.
Your assertion that all users everywhere have essentially the same mindset (using search or otherwise) is just simplistic.
It's roughly like this: If someone starts out going to MyYahoo, they went there potentially for any number of reasons. Then when they do type in a query, chances are higher that it's not a commercial intent query but one to just research something, maybe an item that a friend alerted them to. When they go to Google they go there mostly for one reason. It's called (brand) focus.
(Agreed that Google like all large co's is always in danger of diluting their own brand... but, in case of YouTube they were smart enough to avoid this. Unlike MSFT, they can get over themselves...)
Of course the individual case could be anything, but the averages bear this out.
The bottom line is that if commercial intent where the same for Google users vs. Yahoo or MSN, then that would point even more to the latter two's engineering ineptitude (else the monetization would have to be nearly at par).
Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of that ineptitude as well, not the entire 60-90% search monetization gap can be explained from the mindset issue. Google is constantly tweaking the algorithm to perfect monetization, while Life-hoo can't even get the first thing (the basic search) right.
Listen Ballmer, you fool: You can't beat Google without providing markedly superior search technology. EVEN if your search was comparable you'd still lose market share because search is a natural monopoly
Buy GOOG, short MSFT on this news.
Google exists today because it innovated in *monetizing search*, otherwise it wouldn't have been able to grow to keep up with demand and would have imploded, just like so many precious web 2.0 companies (Twitter) are starting to do. I applaud every crazy idea Microsoft, Yahoo, or anyone else tries that changes the game in terms of monetization. This thing is an interesting hybrid of affiliate marketing, mainstream consumer tactics, and chutzpah. Will it work? It does feel too complicated, but if they streamline it a little, I don't see why not. So I say "bravo Microsoft" for trying to innovate the *business of search" and hope that they can fine tune it to make it work.
Anyway, everyone will have their opinion, and Comscores and Q2, Q3, Q4 numbers will tell us who's right... I predict a crappy Q2 for MSFT and Yahoo due to all of the recent and still ongoing diversions.
"strongly disagreeing with everyone above who advocates that Microsoft should be taking a technology approach."
Hahahahahahaha... that is priceless. I couldn't agree more. MSFT taking a "technology" approach, that would be craaaaaazy. Bahahahahahahahahaha
They must have heard you for the last 13 years on the OS side of things as well. Who needs this "technology" stuff anyway, when good old-fashioned robber-baron tactics can work just as well...
By all means, MSFT, do us all a favor and get out of the technology business entirely.
GOOG may suffer from a perception that this may change the game. But reality is that their business model is quite adaptive because the advertisers bid against each other. If a few advertisers leave, there are a lot more, who are currently losing the bids, that can take their place. Meanwhile if you are looking to buy that fancy camera, here's your chance to go live. Take advantage while it lasts. Reminds me of the webvan and pets.com days.
Google still provides a more appealing search for users. They don't even advertise, users just discover this on their own by switching whenever another search engine fails. I don't think Google's search advantage is primarily algorithms anymore. I think the algorithms apply to their advertising scheme, yes. But they're a better search product because they're better at data center operations. And I don't see anyone catching them there. They take it seriously enough to be in the energy industry now. So, eventually we're back to the advertisers picking the most eyeballs, which will still be google.
So it's really about the datacenter.
And $17 back on a camera sounds like a lot, unless the price is higher through that merchant. Which it is! The camera through a google search is $50 cheaper (based on 20*17=340), so that's $23 that a consumer would lose. And Dollar Store people will figure this out and leave and live search will be back at square one. But at least that explains Amazon's willingness to do this - if they're getting a higher selling price on the items, they'll gladly pay MS a lesser fee. Discover card works because we pay the same prices as MasterCard and Visa customers.
[a] Create an account that is neutral to the email service you use i.e. my Gmail, Yahoo! AOL account is also good enough to register, and
[b] Allow me to accumulate PayPal convertible points with a monthly running tab that shows up in a running meter on my gmail, guess what?
When I need to know something, I'll Google it.
When I want to buy something, I'll go Live.
Google shareholders should be worried about this. It can only mean lower margins. Google is technically better at making products but Microsoft when it isn't thinking dogmatically, is a juggernaut in marketing and distribution (of admittedly inferior products). They won with Windows over Mac, IE over Netscape and WM Player over Realplayer. If they get their formula right, and perfect it for mobile, Google stock will never see $900.
You should have actually visited the cashback site before spouting your first reason for failure: Microsoft will not likely offer enough "cash back" on each purchase to make the service worth using for most users.
I hope this is not the standard quality of your research.
Robert J.
http://www.invideas.com/news/microsofts-new-search-model/
I don't see any way that this new product won't have a very serious impact on Google, because it directly undercuts the click model, upon which their entire fortune is based.
In fact, since it is essentially a separate comparative/discount shopping site, will this traffic be separated out from search market share the same way their previous attempts to gain share with "games" that generated search queries? I would, but maybe the data companies will cut Microsoft some slack.
This is seismic, people.
Oh! Wait! No, it's just Steve Ballmer...
there have been many CPA networks out there for a while now, and Google's PPC model has continued to grow.
Also, since MSFT claims that they will return the entire CPA fee to the consumer, what this basically amounts to is the merchants subsidizing MSFT's search, or rather more likely, charging slightly inflated pre-discount base prices since no one with tight margins could afford this for very long otherwise.
As was pointed out above, if you find only a few examples of the Google search base price already being lower than Live price minus discount, that will kill the whole model in a heart-beat. Cash-back is always based mostly on illusion as it is.
How can those vendors, unless they want to undercut their own efforts on Google and elsewhere in one fell swoop for the sake of MSFT, sustain this model, when at least in the first 6 - 12 months, the traffic on Live vs. Google just won't be there?
"FUUUUD FUD FUD FUD!"
Therefore, I think this is a "killer" idea - I also have the domain http://www. responserewards.com for sale to supplement this idea or start a new one - let me know if anyone is interested
When I need to know something, I'll Google it.
When I want to buy something, I'll go Live."
This gets to the heart of the Marah/Alex Schleber debate. People use search for different purposes, as Bill said, for entertainment, commerce, reference/research and navigation.
GOOG will probably always rule in entertainment (btw, what % of revenues come from porn searches?), but when it comes to buying stuff, consumers in a recessionary environment will almost *always* take a little extra time if saves them a few bucks, especially if the funds are easily managed and can be directed any number of ways. Gas coupons would be a big hit for many.
Consider: most US households have _negative net worth_-- and that was before the real estate meltdown. No one's going to lose money betting that US shoppers are about to get a lot more frugal over then next 18 months. Consider that your average exurbanite who drives a clunker or an SUV 300 miles per week is now faced with gas costs alone that amount to maybe a quarter of his aftertax, non-food and -shelter income. Of course these people-- we're talking about maybe 40-50m households, mind-- are going to shift their commerce-related search habits if someone can put $20 or more back in their pocket every week.
As Trevor's shrewd post indicates, there are many ways to skin this cat if you allow/encourage consumers to accumulate funds in an account of some sort-- and not rip them off on the transaction fees a la PayPal. Smarter minds can no doubt envision all kinds of affiliate programs that induce the desired behavior: if you need gossip or naughty photos, or need to do research or locate s.t. on a map, by all means, go ahead and Google it. If you want to (add to your kid's college fund)(shave points off a mortgage)(get cash back on your grocery bill)(book tickets with lower fees)(shave $100 off your next family vacation bill), then Search'n'Save with MS.
That previous cash back web approaches failed doesn't mean they won't succeed this time around. Better tools now, and the economic situation is 180 degrees different for consumers from what it was in 1999-2000.
If I'm a local car dealer, why wouldn't I prefer this model to throwing money into GOOG's rigged auction that has zero transparency? Ditto for any other local retailer.
What am I missing here? Seems a hugely powerful way to finally deliver meaningful local search for geo-specific communities.
The real cash back savings is to buy your home with a real estate broker that offers cash back from their commissions or real estate rebates
cash back real estate is real savings on home purchases.
There are already hundreds of cashback sites across the web, with many offering the entire middle man fee back to the consumer! Some of these sites are dedicated shopping portals that people have bookmarked and are content with!
What is the deal with Microsoft suddenly deciding that they can muscle in?!
a)Will they be able to offer better cashback rates than everyone else? No, not really.
b)Are they more experienced than such portals as Amazon? Nowhere near.
c)What are the motives of Microsoft? Greed.
d)Can they compete with the technology that Google already possess? No chance. They are inexperienced and even the experienced competitors have shown over the past decade that they simply just don't cut the mustard!
e)Integrating search with live? Doesn't sound innovative to me.
I think it is great that other companies are doing their best to keep Google on their toes, but Microsoft just doen't have the technology! They may be able to get the message out there easy enough but you can find everything on Google already! I have lost count of the times I hear my friends call out, "I'll Google it!"
Bill Gates will lose this one... just can't see a big enough threat here in the UK.
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
seo
kamera
kamera
sesli sohbet
sesli sohbet
sesli sohbet
sesli sohbet
sesli sohbet
sesli sohbet
sesli sohbet
sesli sohbet
sesli sohbet
sesli sohbet
sesli sohbet
buy conan gold trackers and the strongest ranged DPS in cheap conan gold, Hunters play an essential role in the dangerous cheapest conan gold land of Azeroth.
Mmoinn.com from where you can buy gold wow and
warcraft gold. we need you to create the best platform
for trading mmoinn.com. You can find these Defias Windmill near the world of warcraft goldandWow power leveling.
Tiffany and co Store provides our customers with various kinds of tastefully, handcrafted replica tiffany and Fake Tiffany which are appealing to their refined tastes and other tiffanys jewelry. In our Tiffany Jewellery online stores, You can chase after every kind of Tiffany & co. silver necklace you want, such as Tiffany Necklaces, Tiffany Rings. The tiffany styles are from classic to modern, and there must be one type to fit you. If you want to view our tiffany jewelry...
痔
視力回復 方法
オーストラリアドル
お見合い
むくみ
プラセンタ
パチスロ 攻略法
ほくろ
replica chanel handbags ;
replica handbags wholesale;
wholesale replica bags ;
chanel replica purses;
gucci replica handbags ;
replica chanel handbags ;
replica handbags wholesale;
wholesale replica bags ;
chanel replica purses;
gucci replica handbags ;
Hi,
Thanks for this good texts oyun - oyunlar We miss your texts