| timmah said:
Yes, but he was talking about revenue, which is not directly related to market share. Volume is directly related to revenue in this case, so it was valid for him to bring volume up when discussing revenue (even if the original article is primarily about market share). Market share is only a comparison to competitors, so cannot be used by itself in an equation to determine revenue. It's similar to people coming into a discussion about CPU clock rate and saying something like 'clock rate isn't the only factor in determining speed', then going on to talk about cache, hyperthreading, or architecture. He's expanding the discussion beyond just market share so he can discuss revenue effectively. |
Huh? Market share is absolutely directly related to revenue. Market share * total searches = # of searches * CTR*CPC = Revenue.
You missed the argument, so I'll summarize for you:
Me: LOL MS spin about 0.1% market share increase from Google.
Disol: If you knew how much money 400 million extra searches per month can generate (0.1% marketshare), you'd realise how foolish your post is.
^^^ this is an issue as 0.1% market share is not 400 million searches - this is where he deviates from my argument which is why I was so confused about his math. From here he attempts to argue for total volume increase probably because he realized he mispoke but rather than admitting it he went off on a tangent to support his number.
Me/Him: Just some dick-measuring. Not vital to this really lol.
Me: Reiterate 0.1% market share, do math to show revenue.
Disol: Goes back to his volume point randomly in response to my math claims it's wrong.
etc.
I think you understand now.
