Google is an American multinational technology company founded by Larry Page and Sergey Bin in 1998.

Google LCC analysis

Student’s Name:
Course Name:

Google LCC overview
Google is an American multinational technology company founded by Larry Page and Sergey Bin in 1998. Some of its products include the search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google software comprises Chrome OS and Android mobile operating system. Hardware through partnerships includes Nexus devices and Google Pixel Smartphone. Furthermore, the company portfolio consists of investments in renewable energy and 2010; the firm was granted a go-ahead to purchase and sell power by the energy regulatory agency. Through acquisitions, Google dominance continues with some of its acquisition including Global IP Solution, a company that offers teleconferencing services in addition to the acquisition of Motorola so that it can prevent patent issues with other Android using firms. The firm has chains of products that include Google Docs, email, and Google+. This paper will provide an analysis on Google LLC using the BCG matrix.
BCG matrix
Bruce D.Herderson developed BCG model for the Boston Consulting Group in 1970.This chart helps a company having different products to analyze them. The resultant benefit of this analysis is that the findings will assist in the decision making of the firm. The decision is arrived at by plotting on the company’s product or services in the planning tool. Some of the decision made by a company after plotting in the graph includes whether to keep a product line or sell it for another profitable venture. The BCG graph entails four categories (Shanbhag 2016), which are cows, the dogs, the stars, and the unknowns. For Google, the X-axis of the BCG graph will represent the market share of the company’s product while the Y-axis will describe the rate at which the market is experiencing growth. The model tries to show how a firm can manage its cash flow through key indicators like the market rate and the growth share.
Market share is an essential indication of how the firm’s cash flow is and how strong the company’s brand is compared to other competitors in the market (Hansen 2016). Measurement of this indicator is by comparison with Google competitors for the target market.
Market growth rate indicates the company earnings in addition to the cash outflow experienced to spur growth. Higher growth rate translates into profitability if the company observes its expenses (Sydler 2014). Additionally, high growth rate indicates how the firm has increased its investing activities. Like the market share, market growth provides information on the firm’s brand and the level of competitiveness.
Google products by employing the BCG graphical analysis will fall under, the Cash Cow, the Dogs, the Stars, and the Unknown.
The Cash Cows
Google product line falling under this section is the one that enjoys the significant market share in the slow industry. The benefit of products lying in this segment is that they generate a lot of income in comparison to the investments on them. Google intention of keeping this kind of product line is because it will continue adding up to the company’s revenue even though it is not listed on the mature market. Google’s product line in this segment is the Search-Ad business. The Search-Ad business growth is slower due to the emergence of other cheaper platforms like the Facebook ads that proves to be much successful. However, the Search-Ad campaigns of B2B and B2C is an edge above the other competitors. Nevertheless, Google will not be tempted to sell this product line since it is generating revenues despite little investment. The product may be considered dull but Google is patient with it in anticipation that the product line will outgrow the market forecasting on it by being a profitable venture in the future.
The Dogs
Google product line falling in this segment is the one that constitutes a smaller market share in mature but a slow-growing industry. The product line in this section can generate the return on investment, maintain its market share, and break even early. One of Google dogs is chrome, since it is operating in the browser market that is already mature. This product line does not offer much to Google regarding revenue. However, it provides synergy and employment opportunities. The effect of this product line as shown by Jaiku on of Google’s acquisition it will lose market share at a faster rate with the growth of the competitors’ product. Most Google investors deem this product line worthless, and there are calls that it should be discontinued.
The Stars
A company’s product that dominates the market for a fast-rising industry is the Star products. Google strives to ensure that its product is in this category. Further still, all its acquisition is with an aim that it turns out to be the company’s star products. Google Star product lines include G-mail and YouTube. The two products have curved a niche in the technological market thereby helping to maintain Google’s popularity. The Stars requires a massive investment and company’s keep them waiting for any decline in growth of the industry so that it will convert it into cash cows. This downgrade means the company will still generate revenues from them but at a lower investment cost. Nevertheless, Google’s Star product YouTube has been performing dismally and its existence is solely on subsidies. Even though this product is one of the Google’s Star products, its loss making rightfully relegate it to the Dogs, mainly worthless to Google regarding revenue generation. The Search-Ad business is profitable without additional investment, Google to reap maximum revenues from this product line they are further reducing the investment.
Question Marks
The product line in this in this section has a smaller market share, but has a potential to grow because they are operating in the high-growth market. Most of Google products begin at this stage and with the injection of investments and attention, the business unit, or the product line flourishes to become the Star. A large percentage of Google’s products are introduced to the market after careful analysis of them, regarding their potential. The expectation usually is, with Google’s reputation and massive infrastructure to spur business units to growth, all of them will turn out to be Stars that contribute to revenue generation. Nonetheless, the current business trend of Google shows that the company has been falling short on turning its acquisitions into profitable Stars. The most common scenario is that the product line of the business that was thought to be Star is now turning into Dogs.
The results from BCG help Google LCC to make decision on whether to build, hold harvest or Divest. In build, Google push the products in the question mark section into a Star product line. Thereafter, the technological company turns the Star into a Cash Cow. Furthermore, since Star product lines like YouTube is not making profits despite the investment on it, the company is not investing more in the project, but it has been retained as a Star product.
Backhaus Model
The Backhaus model categorizes four types of business models. This categorization is the supplier to industry, products, system, and Investment. The vertical axis of the model indicates the independent variables while the horizontal axis indicates the dependent variables. With Google product and system, the number of customers is very high. Google sells its services directly to the Android service providers who later offer the services to the customers. Furthermore, Google offers other business space to advertise their products using their platform. The company is gathering many revenues by selling the advertising space to other businesses. Bearing in mind that Dogs are operating in a mature market but its shares is minimal, Google releases amount on products stuck in this segment as the risk of failure is higher if the competitor market share increases.

Shanbhag, M., Dutt, M. L., & Bagwe, S. (2016). Strategic Talent Management: A Conceptual Analysis of BCG Model. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2(7).
Hanssens, D. M., & Pauwels, K. H. (2016). Demonstrating the value of marketing. Journal of marketing, 80(6), 173-190.
Sydler, R., Haefliger, S., & Pruksa, R. (2014). Measuring intellectual capital with financial figures: Can we predict firm profitability?. European Management Journal, 32(2), 244-259.