GoogleReportFlat

Google Inc.
Strategy & Innovation

Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary ....................................................................................4
II. Case Overview ............................................................................................4
History.......................................................................................................................................4
Early Years....................................................................................................................4
Going Public .................................................................................................................5
Leadership ................................................................................................................................6
Strategy & Current Situation....................................................................................................7
Expansion.....................................................................................................................7
Revenue Streams.........................................................................................................7
III. External Analysis ........................................................................................8
Macro-Environment (PESTEL analysis) .............................................................................................8
Political Factors ...........................................................................................................8
Economic Factors........................................................................................................9
Sociocultural Factors ..................................................................................................9
Environmental Factors ................................................................................................9
Technological Factors...............................................................................................10
Legal/Regulatory Factors..........................................................................................10
Industry Dominant Economic Factors ..................................................................................11
Five Forces Analysis ..............................................................................................................12
Competitive Rivalry - Moderate.................................................................................13
Buyer Bargaining Power – Weak ..............................................................................13
Threat of New Entrants - Weak.................................................................................13
Supplier Bargaining Power - Weak ...........................................................................14
Threat of Substitution - Weak ...................................................................................14
Government................................................................................................................14
Driving Forces.........................................................................................................................15
Increasing Globalization............................................................................................15
Advances Technology ...............................................................................................15
Rivals.......................................................................................................................................16
Rivals’ Market Position..............................................................................................16

Strategic Moves Rivals Are Likely to Make..............................................................18
Key Success Factors..............................................................................................................20
Relevance & Accuracy ...............................................................................................20
Speed..........................................................................................................................20
Market Reach.............................................................................................................20
Industry Attractiveness..........................................................................................................21
IV. Internal Analysis .......................................................................................22
SWOT Analysis .......................................................................................................................22
Strengths....................................................................................................................22
Weaknesses...............................................................................................................23
Opportunities..............................................................................................................23
Threats........................................................................................................................23
Financial..................................................................................................................................23
Competitive Strength Assessment .......................................................................................25
Strategic Assessment............................................................................................................26
Strategic Fit................................................................................................................26
Issues......................................................................................................................................27
Revenue Diversification.............................................................................................27
Rising Operating Expenses Relative to Revenue .....................................................27
Facebook Search.......................................................................................................27
V. Conclusions/Recommendations ...............................................................28
Revenue Diversification .........................................................................................................28
Fight Back Against Ad Blockers ...............................................................................28
Diversify Revenue Stream via Acquisition ...............................................................28
Continued Long-term Investment in Research &
Development..............................................................................................................28
Operating Expenses...................................................................................................28
Facebook Search....................................................................................................................29
Google+ ......................................................................................................................29
Google+ Expansion....................................................................................................29
Licensing Facebook’s Online Community................................................................29
Rising Operating Expense......................................................................................................29
Core Competencies...................................................................................................29

A Parent Company.....................................................................................................29
VI. Action Plan ...............................................................................................30
Short-Term: Year 1 - Year 2....................................................................................................30
Medium-Term: Year 2- Year 3...............................................................................................31
Long-Term: Year 3 - Year 5 ....................................................................................................31
VII. Appendix...................................................................................................32
Financial..................................................................................................................................32
Google – Key Figures ................................................................................................32
Yahoo – Key Figures..................................................................................................32
Microsoft - Key Figures .............................................................................................33
VIII. Table of Figures........................................................................................33
IX. Works Cited ..............................................................................................34

GOOGLE INC. - MARCH 2016 4
Executive Summary
Google is an American multinational technology company specializing in internet related
services such as online advertising, search, cloud computing and software. It is headquarters in
Mountain View, California. The company has more than 70 offices scattered through 40
different countries and employs upwards of 50,000 employees.
In 1996, Google was developed by Larry Page and Sergey Brin for a graduate research project,
which led them to be the leading internet search firm by 2012. Page and Brin established
“PageRank”, which determined a website’s relevance by the number of pages and the
importance of those that are linked back to the original site. Google’s mission is to “organize the
world's information and make it universally accessible and useful”.
Google has made a significant growth from when the company was born to 2012. Google is
successful off of its five forces, driving forces, strategic moves, key success factors the
industry attractiveness.
Future plans for Google to continue to grow and succeed include suggestions and an action
plan for Google to follow.
Case Overview
HISTORY
Early Years
While graduate students at Stanford
University in 1995, Larry Page and Sergey Brin
began developing the search technology that
would later become Google. The spark that
ignited Google was a research project that
Brin and Page teamed up on titled “The
Anatomy of a Large Scale Hyper-Textual Web
Search Engine” (Manimala, June 2013). The
goal of the project was to solve the immense
problem of indexing the worlds information.
This later went on to become Google’s
mission statement. The first iteration of the search engine was coined “BackRub”, a reference
to its method of ranking pages according to back-links. Brin and Page further developed and
refined the technology eventually re-naming it “Page Rank”.
WORD COUNT: 6,525
Figure 1 Sergey Brin and Larry Page at Stanford

Aided by one of their professors, the duo pitched Google to several
prominent angel investors
and in a matter of months
collected over $1 million in
capital (VentureGiant.com,
2016). In 1998 Sergey &
Brin dropped out of Stanford to develop Google fulltime.
Google grew rapidly, quickly signing major clients like Red Hat,
AOL/Netscape, and Virgin Net. By midyear 1999, they had risen
another $25 million in venture capital. Over the next few years,
Google was featured on many tech industry “best of” lists and was
highlighted in Time, Forbes, and PC Magazine among others.
Going Public
In August of 2004, Google conducted its initial public offering (IPO).
They sold 19.6 million shares of common stock for $85 each in a
unique Dutch Auction format1
. By the end of the first day of the IPO,
Page and Brin were each worth $3.8 billion. All said and done, Google
issued more than 40 million2
shares and over $4 billion3
in liquid assets. (Pederson)
Google has since become a
technology behemoth
offering over fifty products
and services. As of May
2016, google.com is the
most visited site in the world
with over 229 million
monthly visits. The next
closest site (youtube.com)
is owned by Google as are
many of the other top visited
sites. To run its giant
1 A Dutch auction is a method for pricing shares whereby the price of the shares offered is lowered until
there are enough bids to sell all shares. All the shares are then sold at that price.
2 Includes the secondary offering in 2005.
3 Includes the secondary offering in 2005.
Google’s Mission: To organize the
world's information and make it
universally accessible and useful.
google.com
youtube.com
facebook.com
msn.com
bing.com
yahoo.com
amazon.com
twitter.com
Most Visited Sites
Monthly People
Figure 2 Top Visited Internet Sites
(Quantcast)
Figure 3 Google Search Timeline (Google inc, n.d.)

portfolio of services, Google is rumored to have more than 1 million servers housed in giant
data centers all over the world. In 2012 Google brought in over $50 billion in revenue and was
ranked as the second most valuable brand in the world, following Apple. (Martin, 2014)
LEADERSHIP
Google is well known for their innovative approach to leadership. Page and
Brin started the company with virtually no organizational hierarchy. To drive
innovation, they insisted Google should operate like a college campus (Levy,
2011). In 2001 concerned with the inherent instability of
the company and its ability to generate revenue, some of the invested
venture capitalists convinced the duo to bring on Eric Schmidt, the former
CTO of Sun Microsystems, as CEO. Together the triumvirate4
instituted a
leadership style that stayed true to the founder’s original ideals while at the
same time satisfying the wary VCs.
Google has, by design, a very flat, distributed organizational structure designed to maximize
employee empowerment throughout the company. Googlers5
are encouraged to fully “own”
their work. Googled is famed for their 80/20 policy which is intended to promote creativity and
innovation by encouraging Googlers to spend 20% of their time on side projects. The 80/20
4 The term “triumvirate” was used by numerous sources throughout the research for this case analysis. In
each case they were referring to leadership team of Page, Brin, and Schmidt.
5 An interesting piece of Google corporate culture, all employees are referred to internally as “googlers”.
Eric Schmidt on Leadership
 Get to know your employees.
 Create new ways to reward and promote your high-performing
employees.
 Let your employees own the problems you want them to solve.
 Allow employees to function outside the company hierarchy.
 Have your employees’ performance reviewed by someone they
respect for their objectivity and impartiality.
Eric Schmidt Summarizes his Leadership Practices using the Following Five Precepts:

policy has spawned some of Google’s most prominent technologies an products
including Gmail, AdSense and Google Talk (Townsend, 2015).
STRATEGY & CURRENT SITUATION
In their early years, Google’s strategy was one of focused differentiation. They
targeted a narrow market niche (internet search) and provided a better search
engine than the competition.
As the company has grown, they have expanded from their original market niche,
adding a wide range of products to complement its search engine. Google
currently employees a corporate strategy of broad-based differentiation. They
compete on a combination of several differentiation factors most notably
innovation and quality.
Their strategy most recently (2015-2016) has been centered around cloud
computing, SaaS (software as a service), and PaaS (platform as a service). The
development of the Chrome OS and Chrome Books, the Google Apps office suite
are some great examples. Moving forward, Google is focused on mobile
technology, the Internet of Things (IoT), and artificial Intelligence/robotics.
(Hoover's, Inc., 2016)
Expansion
Google’s primary expansion strategy has been one of acquisition. Over the years,
Google has acquired over 180 different companies. They have spent upwards of
$24.5 billion dollars just on the top ten. Some of their most notable acquisitions
include Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion, Nest for $3.2 billion, and YouTube for
$1.65 billion. (D'Onfro, 2015)
Revenue Streams
Although Google has managed to diversified their product offering over the years,
their revenue stream remains alarmingly singular. The vast majority of its revenue
comes from its advertising products.
Figure 4 - Google's Most
Expensive Acquisitions
(D'Onfro, 2015)

External Analysis
MACRO-ENVIRONMENT (PESTEL ANALYSIS)
Political Factors
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
At the time of this case net neutrality regulation was still pending. If the FCC not to enforce net
neutrality, internet service providers would be allowed to charge customers differently based on
content and source. In effect this would decrease over internet accessibility and could increase
costs for internet content providers. Both would negatively affect Google.
Government Stability
If a market is stable, government will support businesses (such as Google) instead of hindering
their progress/expansion. For example, Google hasn’t been able to successfully enter the
lucrative Chinese market due to stringent government regulations.
Advertising
AdWords (Google Sites)
Google’s proprietary advertising service and its primary source of revenue.
AdWords ads appear on Google owned sites. Customers bid to have their
ads appear in AdWords real estate.
AdSense Network (Google Member Sites)
AdSense enables non-Google sites to incorporate Google display advertising.
The sites that utilize AdSense are referred to as network or member sites.
Other Revenue Streams
Licensing
Licensing fees paid by enterprise users of Google’s cloud based software
platform.
2011 Revenue (billions)
AdWords Revenue $26.145
AdSense Revenue $10.386
Total Advertising Revenue $36.531
Total Revenue $37.905
AdWords
AdSense
Other

American Corporate Tax Rate
The US is starting to force these US companies, that stash cash in foreign bank accounts to
avoid high American corporate tax rates, to bring that money into the country.
Economic Factors
Inflation Rate
Google carries significant cash reserves, which makes it vulnerable to inflation.
Currency Exchange Rate
With over half of Google’s revenue coming internationally, it makes it very vulnerable to
exchange rates and the currency market. If the dollar is strong, Google could lose a lot of money
if it is forced to bring a lot of cash back into the United States. The company could also lose
money if the dollar is weak because it could be forced to exchange a stronger currency for a
weak dollar.
Economic Stability/Growth
The economic stability of major markets and rapid growth of developing countries create new
momentum that Google can exploit.
Sociocultural Factors
Social Media
Provide activities traditionally done on the Internet, such as search, streaming video, shopping,
and money transfer. This decreases Google’s opportunity of providing more online advertising
services.
Public Opinion
Many people view Google as sinister and too powerful, creating an environment of distrust.
Environmental Factors
Environmental Sustainability
Customers are expecting large corporations to contribute to the protection, preservation, and
longevity of the environment as well as natural resources.

Green Energy
Google’s business model is heavily dependent on data centers and other Internet infrastructure
that use large amounts of electricity. Efforts to control global warming by encouraging the use
of costlier green energy sources to produce electricity could raise Google’s operating costs.
Technological Factors
Mobile Devices
Growing use of mobile devices worldwide to access the Internet. Some of these devices,
including Apple products, have proprietary search engines that compete with Google.
Internet Access
Google can expect higher advertising revenues as developing markets become more connected
online
Search Algorithms
Amazon and Microsoft, have devised search algorithms that are as popular and effective as
Google’s. Amazon has been able to dominate shopping research with its solution. There is a
strong possibility that a competitor could devise a better search solution than Google’s at some
point.
Legal/Regulatory Factors
New Industries
Google is increasingly entering heavily regulated fields such as finance, insurance,
telecommunications and automobiles. This could place severe restrictions on its operations.
Antitrust Action
Successful antitrust action in Europe could give rise to similar efforts elsewhere, particularly in
the United States. This could lead to expensive litigation and efforts to change Google’s
business model. Internet Publishing, Broadcasting & Search Portals
Patient litigation
Google owns a large numbers of patents. This invites litigation because of disputes over
ownership.

INDUSTRY DOMINANT
ECONOMIC FACTORS
Google has a hold on the online advertising
market share owning 72.6% of it. Internet
advertising is growing at a rapid rate and is
expected to overtake TV advertising by
2019. It is growing so rapidly partly because
of the growth of mobile devices with internet and data access. The growth rate from 2011 to
2012 was 16.6% in US online ad spending. In the total advertising revenue segment, Google
competes with Yahoo and AOL mainly. With many companies now doing business
internationally Google can offer their advertising services worldwide.
As more and more countries come “online” Google will be able to come into those new markets.
Google has long been known for its product innovation. This industry is won and lost by being
on the cutting edge and coming up with new and exciting products and services. Google has
economies of scale because of their vast amounts of data centers. This means their
competitors pay more per unit because Google has the most data centers in the world. Overall,
Google must wait until developing countries improve in the technology world to enter but they
have great control of the large market that is already there. Product innovation is key and will
separate Google from the rest if they use their resources correctly.
Google’s Core Industry
Internet Publishing, Broadcasting & Web Search Portals
NAICS Code - 519130

FIVE FORCES ANALYSIS
Threat of New
Entrants
Bargaining
Power of
Buyers
Threat of
Substitute
Products
Bargaining
Power of
Suppliers
Intensity of
Competitive
Rivalry
MODERATE
 Few players
 One player holds a very large market
share.
WEAK
 High start-up costs
 Established market leaders
 Economies of scale
WEAK
 Industry members are major
customers of suppliers
 Users who provide & distribute
information
 Switching costs are low
WEAK
 No practical substitute products.
 (search engine vs. encyclopedia)
STRONG
 Low switching costs
 Readily available alternatives

Competitive Rivalry -
Moderate
There are just a few large players in the
industry, such as Google, Yahoo and Bing.
Buyer demand is growing rapidly. The
products of rival sellers are strongly
differentiated and customer loyalty is high,
which is the reason why the key players
must keep up with consumer demands.
Industry members are still able to earn
adequate profits by differentiation, even
though the rivals have similar products and
services.
To differentiate from the other companies.
Google uses the weapons of innovating to
improve product performance and quality,
increasing customization, and producing
new/improved features. Google’s innovation
and improvement is accomplished by
intensive research and test marketing, and
ensuring customer satisfaction through
research and development. Google strives
to be the perfect search engine and have
the ability to understand each different user.
Google wants to understand exactly what
you mean and give you back exactly what
you want. Google shows this
customization, improvement and innovation
through its different product lines.
Buyer Bargaining Power –
Weak
Google buyers are the companies that
directly generate revenue for Google by
purchasing advertising products.
Buyer bargaining power is strong mostly
because buyers have low switching costs.
Most buyers are not locked into long term
contracts and they have readily available
alternatives. For instance, a buyer could
switch all of their online advertising to
Facebook with very little effort and nearly
instantaneous results. Currently buyers are
staying with Google not because they have
to, but because Google products have such
massive reach and are very high quality.
Threat of New Entrants -
Weak
The competitive pressures coming from the
threat of entry of new rivals is weak. This is
because the few key players in this market
already have a strong brand image with a
high degree of customer loyalty. The costs
for a new entrant is expensive and risky
because the amount of expectations that
need to be accomplished are cost
advantages, ability to meet high capital
requirements (strong reason why it is
limited for new entrants because of the
larger total dollar invested needed to enter
this market), and having strong
differentiation from the existing brands. The
potential new entrants’ outlook is risky and
uncertain because they need to gain
customer loyalty and persuade users to
switch brands. Being a new entrant is
difficult for them to establish clients,
however it is not impossible. The new
Entrant needs to gain customers loyalty &
have the ability to establish brand
recognition, market to the community, and
use advertisements, promotions and
discounts to help them grow against the
main competitors.

Supplier Bargaining Power -
Weak
The supplier power is weak because the
industry members are major customers of
suppliers. Suppliers are those companies
from which Google buys the resources it
needs to operate. “Supplies” include things
like hardware and the power that hardware
consumes. Switching costs are low
because there are many alternatives and
many of the supplies they require are
commodities. In addition, industry players
are generally large companies and as such,
hold considerable sway over the prices the
suppliers can charge.
Threat of Substitution - Weak
The threat of substitution is weak because
substitutes are not readily available, quick
or efficient as product/service consumers
are currently using. The threat of
substitution is weak because the internet is
typically the most popular source to get
information and answers to questions one
might have. However, substitutes that could
consider getting information and answers
from are books, encyclopedias, dictionaries,
newspapers, magazines, word of mouth,
television. The internet and search engines
are not comparable to the same speed and
results one may get through flipping
through several pages of books. The
substitute is not comparable or better than
the product/service of the internet. The
internet’s search engines are easier and
quicker to get answers from not even a few
inches away, ability using the computer,
tablet, mobile phone, etc.
Government
Google encourages the administration to
push the internet regulated by the federal
communications commission to promote
net neutrality. Google has made some
mistakes, admitting the company has
“screwed up” and agreed to pay for their
mistakes. Some believe that the pressure to
achieve revenue and earnings to maintain
Google’s stock price, the management team
made decisions that altered its corporate
philosophies.
Google agreed to a $500 million legal
settlement with the US Justice Department
to avoid prosecution charges when Google
accepted hundreds of millions of illegal ads
from unlicensed online Canadian
pharmacies selling controlled substances in
the United States. Google also agreed to
pay a $22.5 million fine for bypassing Apple
Safari web browser privacy settings to place
tracking files on users who have Apple
products. Between 2008-2012 Google been
under investigation by Canada, Australia,
Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

DRIVING FORCES
Increasing Globalization
Globalization, a phenomenon which affects many industries, is itself driven by advances in
communication technology. As internet use becomes ubiquitous across cultures, people
become increasingly dependent on internet search. Globalization is exposing emerging
markets like Brazil, China, and India. In order to compete in these markets which are attractive
because of high populations and rapid growth rates, companies like Google are forced to adapt.
Advances Technology
Semantic Search
Semantic search is an emerging technology
in which searches are contextual to the user
the system is able to recognize the implicit
intent of the user.
At the time the case study was published, semantic search was
a hot topic among industry analysts. There were a lot of
companies racing to develop the technology and there was real
potential for major industry change, if some could beat Google
to the punch.
Alas, staying true their MO, Google out-paced, out-maneuvered,
and out-innovated all the competition.
In May of 2012, Google introduced The Knowledge Graph which paved the way for all of the
semantic search capabilities they offer today.
In August of 2013, Google announced Hummingbird, the most comprehensive and ambitious
update to their search algorithm since 2001.
Semantic Search is a data searching technique in a which a
search query aims to not only find keywords, but to determine the
intent and contextual meaning of the words a person is using for
search. (Techopedia, 2016)
The Google Knowledge Graph is a propriety search mechanism that searches,
relates, assembles and delivers search results from many different knowledge bases and
information sources. Knowledge Graph uses pre-sorted relations between data and related
values for its search query. It is based on the semantic search technique. (Techopedia, 2016)

In addition to the major advancements, The Knowledge Graph and the Hummingbird update,
Google has developed numerous other technologies which has placed them solidly at the top of
the pack in terms of semantic search technology today.
Cloud Computing
Another primary force driving change in this industry is the rise of
cloud computing. Google identified this trend very early on. Cloud
computing centers around the idea of moving processing power
and storage capacity from a user’s machine to a network of
servers which together make up the “cloud”.
RIVALS
The following companies are the major competitors of Google Inc.:
 Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN)
 AOL Inc. (AOL)
 Microsoft Corporation (MSFT)
 Yahoo Inc. (YHOO)
Rivals’ Market Position
Microsoft
Microsoft’s Bing is 2nd place in the global search engine market with a 12.12%
market share compared to Google’s 72.26% as of April 2016. Microsoft has
managed to stay fairly competitive in a market that is heavily dominated by Google
while at the same time other search engines are being pushed out of the market.
For example, Ask.com and AOL have a combined market share of 0.34%. ( Net
Applications.com,, 2016)
Google Hummingbird was a major update to Google search that sought to improve the
Google search engine experience for users by going beyond keyword focus and instead taking
into account the context and all of the content in the entire search phrase to provide more of a
natural-language, or conversational, approach to search queries. (Techopedia, 2016)

Yahoo
Yahoo is currently 3rd place with a 7.06% share in the global
search engine market even though in the year 2012, it was the
third-most-visited Internet destination worldwide with nearly 500 million unique visitors each
month. Yahoo used to leverage Google’s search engine appliances since 2000, but in 2004,
Yahoo came to the decision of replacing Google with its own search engine and capabilities. It
proved to be a big mistake from Yahoo’s part and even though they tried to renew its
relationship with Google, it currently has an agreement with Microsoft that makes Bing Yahoo’s
embedded search engine.
Amazon
Eric Schmidt once said that their biggest search competitor is Amazon. He mentions
how “people don’t think of Amazon as search, but if you are looking for something to
buy, you are more often than not looking for it on Amazon. They are obviously more
focused on the commerce side of the equation, but, at their roots, they are answering users’
questions and searches, just as we are.”
Facebook
Facebook knows much more about most individuals than Google does, and thus
has the potential to create an advertising strategy that takes huge market share
from Google. Yes, Google knows an individual’s location as well as his/her search
terms. However, Facebook knows an individual’s name, location, friends,
relationship status, birthday, and tons of their interest. The potential to place ads on other
websites that target both the nature of the site and everything Facebook knows about an
individual is worth a big chunk of Google’s online advertising market share.

Strategic Moves Rivals Are Likely to Make
Microsoft
Microsoft’s Bing is 2nd place in the search engine market. They are doing good
enough compared to the other competitors, but due to Google entering the market
first and leading it for many years, it has created an immense space between them
that Microsoft hasn’t been able to come even close and catch up. Their strategic
move is to continue increasing market share by taking it away from Google in order to become
the dominant leader in this industry.
In addition, they acquire semantic search engine Powerset in 2008 but had to stop using its
search algorithms due to its slow speed of producing results. However, if they manage to
dominate this semantic search algorithms, then they have created a whole new section within
the search engine industry. Expansion via acquisition as well as internal growth is the key.
Yahoo!
Yahoo will most likely exit the search engine industry by spinning-it
off as a separate company or selling to potential buyers such as
Alibaba and Amazon. Yahoo is still one of the most popular sites
in the world due to its news and media website, which has over 7 billion readers per month. As a
result, Yahoo will eventually be focusing on its core business.
Competitive Scope: Global
Strategic Intent: Industry Dominance
Market Share Objective: Aggressive expansion via both acquisition and internal growth
Competitive Position: Struggling; losing ground
Strategic Posture: A combination of offense and defense
Competitive Strategy: Pursuing differentiation based on relevancy of search results
Strategic Intent: Maintain position
Market Share Objective: Hold on to present share
Competitive Position: Retrenching to a position that can be defended
Strategic Posture: Mostly defensive
Competitive Strategy: Focused Differentiation

However, Yahoo’s will try to maintain its position in the search engine and online advertising
industry by focusing on its loyal users and defending them from Google’s and Bing’s aggressive
targeting.
Amazon
Product searches are naturally among the most lucrative and thereby highly important
from a business perspective. It is uncommon to believe how Amazon has become
somewhat of a search engine itself as it continues to add more products and services
each day. Amazon will most likely be making its own push into the online advertising
business, potentially competing more aggressively with Google on its home turf. As a result, it
will be on the offensive to move and become one of the leaders in the online advertising industry
through growth and expansion internally. (SOPER, 2014)
Facebook
Facebook has matured enough to create a search engine that pioneers the concept
of Social Search. Google recognizes that it needs Facebook’s social data if it is to
evolve towards Social Search. As a result, Google can become a place to do
research and look up objective facts, whereas Facebook will become a place of
choice for social recommendations, including entertainment, health, dating, beauty, fitness, etc.
Losing search engine market search will have a negative impact on advertising revenue.
Strategic Intent: Move into the top 5
Market Share Objective: Expansion via internal growth
Competitive Position: Getting stronger; on the move
Strategic Posture: Mostly offensive
Competitive Strategy: Quality Based Differentiation
Strategic Intent: Industry Dominance
Market Share Objective: Expansion via internal growth
Competitive Position: Getting stronger; on the move
Strategic Posture: Mostly offensive
Competitive Strategy:
Pursuing differentiation based on the quality of information and services
provided

KEY SUCCESS FACTORS
Relevance & Accuracy
In order to be relevant in the internet search industry, a search product overall must correctly
answer the questions asked of it. Google invests in a great deal of research and development to
ensure their technology is as relevant and accurate as possible. A company’s profitability
depends on its ability to deliver relevant information to advertisers’ target market. (Hoover's, Inc,
2016)
Speed
Even the smallest drop in the return speed of an internet search can be crucial to customer
retention. According to Google’s research team, a 400 millisecond delay leads to a nearly 1%
drop in search volume. It seems like minutia but when you do 54,000 searches a second, almost
5 billion a day (you can check live google search stats here) if you lose 1% that boils down to 50
million less searches a day. (Google Search Statistics, 2016)
To keep their internet queries as fast as possible, Google has instituted what they refer to as the
“Google Gospel of Speed” (yup, they’re a bunch of nerds). According to the “Gospel” nothing
can be added to Google’s product mix that will slow down their search results. As Google’s
search guru and SVP of Infrastructure puts it; “you might invent a time machine but if it slows
down our queries, you have to either forget it, fix it, or invent something else that offsets the
slowdown.” (Hoelzle, 2012)
Market Reach
Google’s internet Search has become ubiquitous. For another player to become a real
contender, they would need to achieve the same level of ubiquity either by directly taking market
share from Google (a difficult proposition) or via some form of drastically disruptive innovation.
(Reisinger, 2009)

INDUSTRY ATTRACTIVENESS
Strength Measures Weight Google Microsoft Yahoo Amazon Facebook
Market size and projected
growth rate
0.10 10/1.0 1/0.1 1/0.1 5/0.5 5/0.5
Intensity of competition 0.25 10/2.5 4/1.0 2/0.5 1/0.25 1/0.25
Emerging opportunities &
threats
0.10 4/0.4 2/0.2 1/0.1 8/0.8 8/0.8
Cross-industry strategic fit 0.20 8/1.6 8/1.6 2/0.4 10/2.0 10/2.0
Resource requirements 0.10 10/1.0 10/1.0 10/1.0 10/1.0 10/1.0
Seasonal and cyclical
influences
0.05 0 0 0 0 0
Social, political, regulatory,
& environmental factors
0.05 2/0.1 2/0.1 2/0.1 2/0.1 2/0.1
Industry profitability 0.10 10/1.0 2/0.2 1/0.1 4/0.4 4/0.4
Industry uncertainty &
business risk
0.05 1/0.5 1/0.5 1/0.5 1/0.5 1/0.5
Sum of weights 1.00
Strength rating 8.1 4.7 2.8 5.55 5.55
Based on the industry attractiveness scores, we can clearly see the search engine/online
advertising industry is attractive to Google, Amazon, and Facebook as their scores are above 5.
However, it is highly attractive to Google as it has the highest attractiveness score. On another
hand, the industry is far less attractive to Microsoft and Yahoo whose scores are far lower.
Because 60% of the organizations in this industry score above 5, the industry itself is fairly
attractive. For Google, with a high score of 8.1, it is doing extremely well as a substantial
portion of its revenues and profits must come from businesses with relatively high scores.

Internal Analysis
SWOT ANALYSIS
Strengths
● Google is the most widely used search engine in the world with a 69% desktop market
share and more than 90% of the mobile segment.
● Google has one of the most well-known brands in the world, it is currently ranked second
in value only to Apple.
● Diversified product offering
● Extremely high skilled workforce.
● Android is the most used mobile operating system in the world. Android currently holds
82.8% of the mobile OS market globally.
● Patented portfolio
STRENGTHS
 Web Search
 Brand Value
 Financial Performance
 Diversified Product Mix
 Human Resources
 Android OS Growth
WEAKNESSES
 Declining Operational Efficiency
 Undiversified Revenue Stream
 Foreign Market Penetration
OPPURTUNITIES
 Mobile Technology
 Semantic Search
 Underserved Foreign Markets
 Moonshot Projects
THREATS
 Antitrust Issues
 Foreign Currency Fluctuations
 Social Search
 Semantic Search
 Declining Online Advertising Sales
SWOT

Weaknesses
● Dependence on the internet: Google must wait for internet coverage to improve in
developing countries before it can expand most of its operations.
Opportunities
● Tap into more mobile users: Google can use the current trend of increasing mobile
device usage by offering mobile-friendly products
● Expand Google Fiber: Google can expand coverage to generate more revenue.
● Successful expansion into underserved emerging foreign markets such as China, India,
and Brazil.
Threats
● Tough competition: Yahoo and Apple as well as start-ups offer similar products.
● Imitation of some products
The company’s product portfolio is very diverse and includes both related and unrelated
hardware and software products and services. Google dominates in online advertising and web
search. It also has a strong android mobile operating system and has a very strong brand image
that is known throughout the world. Google has a chance to exploit the current trend of
increasing mobile device usage by offering more mobile friendly services and products. Google
has a few competitive rivals offering similar products.
FINANCIAL
Google has large amounts of cash that is explained by their increasing revenues each year all
the way up to 74.989 billion in 2015. Yahoo reported a loss in net income in 2015 along with a
negative earnings per share. They have been reporting that they Google overall has very
favorable financials while its main competitors, Microsoft and Yahoo, are doing okay. Microsoft
has positive financials for the most part and Yahoo has fairly decent financials.
Google’s stock price has risen since 2010 and made a big jump from 2012 to 2014. This has
resulted in Google having a stock price much higher than Yahoo’s and Microsoft’s.
Nevertheless, Yahoo and Microsoft have had steady numbers in term of stock price over the
past few years even though Google has been innovating, growing, and expanding its product
mix where clearly their stock price has followed.

Google does not offer dividends, but this
has not shied people away from their
stock because of their past success.
Yahoo does not offer dividends either, but
they have a weaker stock growth.
Microsoft has paid small dividends to their
shareholders that have increased every
year since 2010.To conclude with stocks,
Google’s shareholders are earning much
more per share than those who hold Yahoo
and Microsoft stocks.
Google has large amounts of cash that is explained by their increasing revenues on a year to
year basis which has resulted to 74.989 billion in 2015. Yahoo reported a loss in net income in
2015 along with a negative earnings per share. They have been reporting that they are trying to
sell, but with this negative reporting they are going to lose money and someone will eventually
be able to buy them at a discount. Microsoft however has a steady income, but mainly due to its
other core businesses such as its Windows operating system, its software and services
provided to individuals and businesses, and the sale of other devices such as Xbox and
Microsoft Surface.
The industry average for return on equity is 15.3%, where Google in 2010 had a return on equity
of 20.68%. Google has a high EBT Margin compared to the industry because of its great use of
economies of scale and good contracts.
The industry’s quick ratio has been around 1.5 the past few years, whereas Google’s has been
around 4 to 5. The industry current ratio is around 2, but Google’s sits around 4 to 5. This means
Google excels in its assets and has a stockpile of them compared to their liabilities.
In terms of operating expenses, Google has been increasing steadily over the past few years,
from $32,205 million in 2012 to $55,629
million in 2015. This is mainly due to
technology development, new business
units, and acquisitions, which basically
consume a lot of capital from Google’s core
business itself. At the same time, Microsoft
had a lot more operating expenses in 2015
than Google and in its previous three years
as well. It increased from $51,960.00 million
in 2012 to $75,602.00 million in 2015. On the
other hand, Yahoo has very little operating
Figure 5 Income Statement 1 (Google, 2016)
Figure 6 Income Statement 2 (Google, 2016)

expenses compared to the other two, with $9,716.80 million in 2015, since they are cutting back
on their spending as they continue lose market share.
In summary, Google is doing extremely well in respect to financial performance compared to its
two main competitors. Google revenue as well as stock price are increasing fairly quickly on a
quarterly basis while Microsoft is growing on a slower pace and Yahoo is actually on a
decreasing trend.
COMPETITIVE STRENGTH ASSESSMENT
Strength Measures Weight Google Microsoft Yahoo Amazon Facebook
Relative market share 0.15 10/1.5 4/0.6 2/0.3 1/0.15 1/0.15
Costs relative to competitor’s
costs
0.20 10/2.0 5/1.0 2/0.4 8/1.6 9/1.8
Ability to match/beat rivals on
key service attributes
0.05 10/0.5 4/0.2 1/0.05 8/0.4 1/0.05
Ability to benefit from strategic
fit with sister businesses
0.20 6/1.2 6/1.2 4/0.8 10/2.0 10/2.0
Bargaining leverage with
suppliers/customers
0.05 10/0.5 5/0.25 2/0.1 10/0.5 10/0.5
Brand image and reputation 0.10 10/1.0 9/0.9 5/0.5 10/1.0 10/1.0
Competitively valuable
capabilities
0.15 5/0.75 5/0.75 5/0.75 8/1.2 8/1.2
Profitability relative to
competitors
0.10 10/1.0 4/0.4 2/0.2 10/1.0 10/1.0
Sum of Weights 1.00
Strength Rating 8.45 5.30 3.05 7.85 7.70
Based on the Strength Competitive Assessment above, we can clearly see Google is currently
strongly positioned in the search engine/online advertising industry. Nevertheless, Amazon and
Facebook are strong market contenders with a strength score of over 6.70. Microsoft has a
moderate competitive strength vis-a-vis rivals with a strength rating of 5.30 while Yahoo is in a
competitive weak market position with a 3.05 strength rating.
In addition, even though its chances for industry success in the near future continue to be high,
competitors Amazon and Facebook have a high probability of taking some market share away
due to their ability to closely match Google on certain key services as well as to leverage
competitively valuable resources and capabilities at their disposable.

STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT
Strategic Fit
The Goodness of Fit Test
Does Google’s strategy fit it’s “situation”?
External Fit - Yes
Googles strategy is in sync with the prevailing industry, market, and macro-environmental
conditions.
Internal Fit - Mostly
In general, Google’s strategy is aligned with their resources and competencies. However, their
rapid growth has produced a number of business units which significantly differ from the core
competencies.
Dynamic Fit - Yes
For the most part Google’s strategy has evolved along with the rest of the company and
environment. However, they have had some trouble adapting their global strategy when
attempting to enter foreign markets.
The Competitive Advantage Test
Google’s strategy has enabled them to achieve a sustainable competitive advantages. Google’s
brand name recognition is certainly a company attribute which is the product of their strategy
and is difficult for competitors to duplicate or surpass. Google’s massive technology
infrastructure, their patent portfolio, and their highly skilled workforce are some other
sustainable competitive advantages.
The Performance Test
As seen in the figure to the right, year on
year increases in total operating expenses
are outpacing revenue growth over the same
time period.
Aside from poorly utilized excess cash and slipping control over their operating expenses,
Google financial performance is outstanding.

Strategic Assessment
Does Google have a winning strategy? Yes.
ISSUES
Revenue Diversification
Although Google has made a concerted effort diversify their businesses and product offerings,
the vast majority of its revenue still come from advertising. The online advertising market is not
going to dry up overnight, but it does face several significant threats. Ad blocker software has
been a concern in recent years. The shift from desktop to mobile limits the number of ads
advertisers can display simply because there is less physical space to display it. If the online
advertising market were to drastically decline, Google would be severely impacted.
Rising Operating Expenses Relative to Revenue
In their attempt to diversify, Google has pushed itself to the edge of an identity crisis. As Google
rapidly expands through acquisition and internal development, they continually add products
and business. Over the years these ventures have strayed further and further from Google’s
core competency; search technology. This is not inherently detrimental however the vast
majority bring in very little or no revenue. This has created a situation of rising operating costs
relative to revenue overtime.
Facebook Search
A new sub-industry within the search engine industry has recently come into existence that can
potentially take away a lot of Google’s Internet trafficking. Known as Social Search, it is a social
search engine with capabilities to search user-generated content such as news, videos, and
images based on the human network or social graph of the searcher. In other words, its search
results are based on content (news, videos, images) that was created or touched by other users
who are within the searcher’s social/online human network.
The retrieved results would be more relevant to the user and the needs because the results are
culled from the content streams of human beings in the
individual’s social groups. Also, Social Search provides results
which are current, relevant, and up-to-date with even recent
changes because there is a constant feedback loop involved.
Facebook is the pioneer and leader in these sub-industry even
though it is still currently working on its Beta version known as
Graph Search.

Conclusions/Recommendations
REVENUE DIVERSIFICATION
Fight Back Against Ad Blockers
Google decides to update its Google Chrome browser, which currently constitutes 70% of US
market share while having 57% of the world’s market share, to disallow end users to disable
ads. This will make it mandatory for everyone who uses Chrome to see their ads. In terms of
mobile, include ads between certain amount of paragraphs or pictures instead of eliminating
most of them completely.
Diversify Revenue Stream via Acquisition
Google should actively pursue developing business units or acquiring companies that will
significantly diversify their income. We believe further investment in their self-driving car
technology is one very promising avenue. Google Fiber also shows a great deal of promise; it
not only has the potential to generate a separate stream of revenue it is also highly
complementary to their core search business.
Continued Long-term Investment in Research & Development
We believe further investment in areas outside their core competencies will prove to be
beneficial. For example, a Research and Development center where they will hopefully develop
the next breakthrough technological innovation for society will definitely prove to be a futuristic
sustainable income stream for Google. Along those same lines, creating a venture capitalist
investment unit to provide expertise, seed, venture, and growth stage funding to upcoming
technology companies can have a high ROI where Google can collect another stream of income
as well.
Operating Expenses
Google needs to decide, in fairly short order, what it wants to do and more importantly what it
should not do. The need to eliminate or spinoff business units that are too far away from their
core competency (e.g. Google Life Sciences which develops medical equipment) or are not
contributing to profit (e.g. Google Calico whose mission is to “cure death”). We would
recommend Google reorganize their entire organization, separating differing business units
from their core business. Perhaps the could name the new company something along the lines
of… Alphabet?

FACEBOOK SEARCH
Google+
Leverage its own social media platform and online community Google+. It currently already has
over 300 million monthly active users where it can use as the basis for its social search engine.
Google+ Expansion
Even though it has 300 million monthly active users, it has over 600 million users, where half of
them created an account and haven’t used it all these years. As a result, Google should increase
advertising and add incentives to persuade users to create an account in Google+, if not to
reactivate it.
Licensing Facebook’s Online Community
Due to Facebook 1.5 billion monthly active users and dominance in the online community
industry, if Google+ doesn’t turn out to be a success, they can always pay a licensing fee to
leverage Facebook’s data and used it for their own Social Search purposes. As a result, they can
include Social Search as a new website or even alongside their main search engine to allow
users to reap the benefits of both, personalized searches as well as objective facts searches.
RISING OPERATING EXPENSE
Core Competencies
Google needs to decide, in fairly short order, what it wants to do and more importantly what it
should not do. Business units that are too far away from their core competencies (e.g. Google
Life Sciences which develops medical equipment) or are not contributing to overall revenue
(e.g. Google Calico whose mission is to “cure death”) must be taking into consideration to spin
off or sell them entirely.
A Parent Company
We recommend Google reorganize their entire organization, separating differing business units
based on their core competency. That way Google is only responsible for taking care of itself
without the need to fully support other non-related business units. Perhaps they could name the
new company something along the lines of… Alphabet?

Action Plan
Issues Recommendations
Year1
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year5
Revenue Diversification Mandatory Ads
Diversify Revenue
Diversify even further
Operating Expenses Core Competencies
Parent Company
Facebook Search Google+
Google+ Expansion
Facebook Licensing
SHORT-TERM: YEAR 1 - YEAR 2
In terms of diversifying their revenue stream, they can start by making sure they don’t lose any
potential revenue from their current business. Due to the fact that online advertising is their
biggest revenue stream, making ads mandatory on their Chrome browser is the way to go.
Resourced required for this are a few programmers that can update Google Chrome’s setting
and disallow end users from disabling ads.
In respect to Facebook Search, leveraging their already online community, Google+, is the
fastest approach in creating a social search engine. Resources required for this include a
specialized programming, data scientists, and IT professionals team solely focus on designing
and developing it as well as funding and support from upper management.
For decreasing operating expenses, they should quickly pursue a strategy of spinning-off or
selling those business units that are consuming Google’s capital instead of adding more to it.
Resources needed for this include support from higher executives as well as the Board of
Directors, legal staff to make the official contracts, and salesperson to try to get or convince
other companies into buying one or more of Google’s business units.

MEDIUM-TERM: YEAR 2- YEAR 3
For diversifying their revenue stream, they must develop brand new business units or acquire
companies that are close or similar to Google’s core competencies. Resources for this include
the Board of Director meeting with the CEO to develop a new strategy of rapid growth and
expansion as well as choosing which technology companies or startups have the best
opportunity to creating synergy with Google. For the second part, they need research reports
written by teams of strategic personnel dedicated in concluding the pros of cons of each
technology company that fits the new growth strategy.
In terms of Facebook Search, Google should seek to expand its Google+ network. Marketers
and advertiser are a must in creating an advertising campaign with the goal of attracting new
users and reactivating long lost users. In addition, creating some sort of incentives, such as
raffles to win free Google services or products if you do certain things within Google+, will
increase user tracking on the website.
LONG-TERM: YEAR 3 - YEAR 5
To diversify Google’s income stream even further, the next step would be investing in R&D
centers as well as in other technology startups with the potential to bring a big and steady
income stream. For the R&D center, they need an entire business unit or department solely
focus on creating the next breakthrough technological innovation. Resources include capital,
building development, additional personnel, additional managers, and a think tank environment.
In order to invest in other startups, Google also needs a separate business unit that includes
experts in knowing what to look for as well as having the expertise and resources needed to
help that startup grow.
Due to the fact that Facebook is by far the biggest online community in the world, it has the
privilege of holding immense amount of data for each of its users. Since the vast majority of
people pertaining to online communities have more friends in Facebook compared to Google+,
then Google has no choice but to pay for its data, if that is possible at all. Resources here
include a legal team writing or verifying the licensing contract, capital to pay Facebook for its
data, and additional employees to manage the relationship between them both.
With the current trend of operating expenses rising, mainly from business units outside Google’s
core competencies, Google should reorganize its entire organization, separating differing
business units based on their core competency. Resources needed to create a parent company
with different subsidiaries include again Board of Director and CEO approval, a managing team
supervising all its subsidies, and a separate accounting department.

Appendix
FINANCIAL
Google – Key Figures
Yahoo – Key Figures
2010 2011 2012 2014 2015
Revenue (in millions) 29,321 37,905 50,175 66,001 74,989
Stock Price 263.98 299.06 288.99 588.28 533.06
Gross Margin % 64.50 65.20 58.90 61.10 62.40
Operating Income (in millions) 10,381 11,742 12,760 16,496 19,360
Net Income (in millions) 8,505 9,737 10,737 14,444 16,348
Dividends
Earnings per share 13.70 14.89 16.17 21.02 22.84
Operating Cash Flow (in millions) 11,081 14,565 16,619 22,376 26,024
EBT Margin 36.82 32.52 26.68 26.15 26.12
ROE % 20.68 18.66 16.54 15.06 14.08
Current Ratio 4.16 5.92 4.22 4.80 4.67
Quick Ratio 4.00 5.70 3.95 4.52 4.50
Debt/Equity 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02
Asset Turnover 0.60 0.58 0.60 0.55 0.54
Google
2010 2011 2012 2014 2015
Stock Price 15.01 16.12 15.47 36.01 43.99
Gross Margin % 58.50 69.90 67.50 71.90 58.20
Operating Income (in millions) 773 800 566 143 (4,748)
Net Income (in millions) 1,232 1,049 3,945 7,522 (4,359)
Dividends
Earnings per share 0.90 0.82 3.28 7.45 (4.64)
Operating Cash Flow (in millions) 1,240 1,324 (282) 897 (2,383)
EBT Margin 16.92 16.60 104.57 227.63 (97.10)
ROE % 9.83 8.36 29.12 29.03 (12.86)
Current Ratio 2.67 2.86 4.38 2.14 5.88
Quick Ratio 2.41 2.56 4.02 1.99 5.71
Debt/Equity 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04
Asset Turnover 0.42 0.34 0.31 0.12 0.09
Yahoo

Microsoft - Key Figures
Table of Figures
Figure 1 Sergey Brin and Larry Page at Stanford.............................................................................4
Figure 2 Top Visited Internet Sites (Quantcast) .......................................................................................5
Figure 3 Google Search Timeline (Google inc, n.d.)..........................................................................5
Figure 4 - Google's Most Expensive Acquisitions (D'Onfro, 2015)..............................................................7
Figure 5 Income Statement 1 (Google, 2016).................................................................................24
Figure 6 Income Statement 2 (Google, 2016).................................................................................24
2010 2011 2012 2014 2015
Stock Price 28.18 27.73 29.53 37.84 40.40
Gross Margin % 80.20 77.70 76.20 69.00 64.70
Operating Income (in millions) 24,098 27,161 21,763 27,759 18,161
Net Income (in millions) 18,760 23,150 16,978 22,074 12,193
Dividends 0.52 0.61 0.76 1.07 1.21
Earnings per share 2.10 2.69 2.00 2.63 1.48
Operating Cash Flow (in millions) 24,073 26,994 31,626 32,231 29,080
EBT Margin 40.03 40.13 30.20 32.04 19.78
ROE % 43.76 44.84 27.51 26.17 14.36
Current Ratio 2.13 2.60 2.60 2.50 2.50
Quick Ratio 1.90 2.35 2.41 2.31 2.30
Debt/Equity 0.11 0.21 0.16 0.23 0.35
Asset Turnover 0.76 0.72 0.64 0.55 0.54
Microsoft

Works Cited
Net Applications.com,. (2016). Search Engine Marketshare. Retrieved from Net Marketshare:
https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-
share.aspx?qprid=4&qpcustomd=0
D'Onfro, J. (2015, 5 2). Meet the man responsible for Google's billion-dollar acquisitions.
Business Insider.
Google. (2016, April 26). Google Finance. Retrieved from Alphabet Inc.:
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG&fstype=ii&ei=BnkpV6nvHMKce
_m6i6gG
Google inc. (n.d.). Google. Retrieved from About: https://www.google.com/about/
Hoelzle, U. (2012). The Google Gospel of Speed. Retrieved from Think With Google:
https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/articles/the-google-gospel-of-speed-urs-hoelzle.html
Hoover's, Inc. (2016, 29 4). hoovers.com. Retrieved from Industries Internet Publishing,
Broadcasting & Search Portals:
http://subscriber.hoovers.com/H/industry360/overview.html?industryId=1904
Hoover's, Inc. (2016, 4 29). Google Inc. Company Profile. Retrieved from hoovers.com.
IDC Research. (2014). Google Inc. - Company Profile, SWOT & Financial Report. Progressive
Digital Media.
Levy, S. (2011). In The Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives. Simon & Schuster.
Manimala, M. J. (June 2013). Distributed leadership at Google: Lessons from the billion-dollar
brand. Ivey Business Journal.
Martin. (2014, Dec 25). Google's Business Model. Cleverism - Business, Industry Insights.
Miglani, J. (2015, June 16). Revenues & Profits. Retrieved from How Google Makes Money?:
http://revenuesandprofits.com/how-google-makes-money/
Pederson, J. P. (n.d.). "Google, Inc.". International Directory of Company Histories. Detroit:
Business Insights: Essentials. Retrieved from
http://bi.galegroup.com.ezproxy.rit.edu/essentials/article/GALE%7CI2501312700/ef27b
0f2c0f441805f6c32111df46f20?u=nysl_ro_rinst

Reisinger, D. (2009, Jan 22). What would it take to beat Google? CNet.
SOPER, T. (2014, Oct 13). Google’s Eric Schmidt: Our biggest search competitor is Amazon —
not Microsoft or Yahoo. Geek Wire.
Techopedia. (2016). Retrieved from Techopedia Definitions:
https://www.techopedia.com/definition
Townsend, C. (2015). ‘Innovate or Die’: Why Google’s 80/20 Rule is a Red Herring. Wired
Magazine.
VentureGiant.com. (2016). The Worlds Greatest Angel Investment: Google. Venture Giant.

GoogleReportFlat

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (16)

Ähnlich wie GoogleReportFlat

Ähnlich wie GoogleReportFlat (20)

GoogleReportFlat