Google Debuts Fashion Shopping Site (Boutiques.com)(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Google Debuts Fashion Shopping Site (Boutiques.com)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/fashion/18googlefashion.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all
8 comments
Because celebrities make even more money off selling their own lines.
"an interesting facebook app would allow those wacky kids to easily assemble groups of clothes that they own or want. Wrap those collections in customizable page templates (photos, colors, that sort of thing) and allow them to be shared with their friends"
Sounds like a way to find new paths through product space: http://ycombinator.com/rfs2.html
Seriously, this is a big deal. So big, I'm wondering why I'm typing this because it's the same area I'm working in. :-)
Sounds like a way to find new paths through product space: http://ycombinator.com/rfs2.html
Seriously, this is a big deal. So big, I'm wondering why I'm typing this because it's the same area I'm working in. :-)
similar premise to polyvore http://www.polyvore.com/
Thanks for sharing that link. It's interesting to see what people come up with. It's also a space that I think not many of us startup types are familiar with, if what people were wearing to Startup School was any indication.
Interesting "Boutiques.com charges merchants to include products on this website in most cases." in the footer of the text. Adwords 2.0? Google could roll this out into other leading verticals and run with CPA too. Great to see this innovation from Google.
Basically, Google is creating an advertising tier. Those who can pay get to be displayed in Boutiques.com, those who cannot end up on Google Products, eBay, or any of a thousand other venues. Google is in effect, creating a specialty sub-section of Amazon. Keep in mind that Amazon has restricted the entry of new resellers for clothing. Sounds like the market is getting a bit crowded.
I think this is very interesting and important experiment for Google. I see it as their willing to answer recent "Google cant innovate", "Why google cant build X", "Why Google isnt social", etc challenges. Would be interesting to see if Google could actually build this "instagr.am" :)
If not about us page, one hardly could see that its a Google. Seems like users are even requested to create a new account on that site instead of using google's account.
Very interesting experiment, cant wait to see how it goes.
If not about us page, one hardly could see that its a Google. Seems like users are even requested to create a new account on that site instead of using google's account.
Very interesting experiment, cant wait to see how it goes.
I don't think that Boutiques.com was a departure from what Google is already good at. Boutiques.com contributes to their core product (search).
On the surface, it looks like Google has defined a long list of fashion ecommerce sites to search. Then, they pepper in some Google Images functionality along with a base template designed to encourage engagement.
This sounds a lot a specialized, properly linked version of Google Images more than innovation.
I think that Google should be investing more in startups if they want to increase innovation. Creating products that contribute to their core product is exactly what I'd do if I was the CEO of Google.... which based on my bank balance, I'm not :)
On the surface, it looks like Google has defined a long list of fashion ecommerce sites to search. Then, they pepper in some Google Images functionality along with a base template designed to encourage engagement.
This sounds a lot a specialized, properly linked version of Google Images more than innovation.
I think that Google should be investing more in startups if they want to increase innovation. Creating products that contribute to their core product is exactly what I'd do if I was the CEO of Google.... which based on my bank balance, I'm not :)
The way you talk about "innovation" makes me wonder what your definition is. Is "a specialized, properly linked version of Google Images", especially one with as specific a market as this one, not innovative?
Scoble wrote about Google vs. Instagr.am. I left a comment that answers your question: http://scobleizer.com/2010/11/12/why-google-cant-build-insta...
When you consider Google, Instagr.am and now Boutiques.com, I think that each of these products serves a very different purpose. Google's scrappy startup, innovative days are (and should) be behind it. It's not that Google shouldn't make new products, it's that the products that they focus their core business on should contribute to what has made it successful.
Boutiques.com does contribute to their core product. Instagr.am does not.
In order for Google to keep pioneering, they need to increase their investment in startups. By extending the company through investment rather than core products, the company will allow startups to move quickly while improving their core product incrementally.
When you consider Google, Instagr.am and now Boutiques.com, I think that each of these products serves a very different purpose. Google's scrappy startup, innovative days are (and should) be behind it. It's not that Google shouldn't make new products, it's that the products that they focus their core business on should contribute to what has made it successful.
Boutiques.com does contribute to their core product. Instagr.am does not.
In order for Google to keep pioneering, they need to increase their investment in startups. By extending the company through investment rather than core products, the company will allow startups to move quickly while improving their core product incrementally.
What amazes me the most is the fact that Google decided to brand this as a product of it's own. Nothing on the website seems to indicate this is a Google product.
This seems to be quite a step utilizing the aquisition of Like.com (and Riya with it). Very interested in seeing how this develops and why Google is taking this approach.
This seems to be quite a step utilizing the aquisition of Like.com (and Riya with it). Very interested in seeing how this develops and why Google is taking this approach.
Google needs to refocus on their search, which now sucks and whose results are filled with pages from content stealers and content farms. Instead they're jumping into new markets and wasting their time on UI tweaks (like the new result preview).
Who says they can't do both? They have over 10,000 employees.
They obviously can't do both as evidenced by the poor quality of the results.
I am surprised that they didn't buy boutiques.com too...
I didn't read the article (I went straight to the site) i'm curious why it only has ladies fashion?
Men's fashion is a much smaller segment of the market than women's.
The FAQ through their support (listed in another post here) mentions that they want to get women's clothing working good first and then they will be adding men's clothing in the future.
I figured it was because of the search volumes.
I like the way that Google is aggregating content into one shop. I've often wondered why the marketing geniuses at retail stores like Gap haven't recruited celebrities (or their stylists) to assemble groups of clothing and accessories. Brand celebrity specific micro sites, target trending celebrity keywords, show people clothes that popular people wear sort of thing.
In a different line, an interesting facebook app would allow those wacky kids to easily assemble groups of clothes that they own or want. Wrap those collections in customizable page templates (photos, colors, that sort of thing) and allow them to be shared with their friends.