What is the Traffic Acquisition Cost for Google?

Earlier this year, TechCrunch reported that Google could be paying up to 1 billion dollars to remain the default search engine on Apple's iOS devices. Part of their reasons for doing this might just be that the cost of acquiring traffic is on the increase due to increased competition from the likes of Microsoft's Bing service.

The underlying question is : why should Bing (and others) matter to Google's TAC?

The answer is fairly simple. Google, Bing and others do deals to put their services on platforms as a default search provider. They pay money to be able to do this, and to hit the platforms with the highest penetration (Blackberry, iOS, etc.) they need to have deep pockets.

If they miss out on a platform, they have to work doubly hard (and pay more) to entice those 'lost' customers back to their service, as well as having a smaller customer base to start with. Even if advertising (or R&D) costs stay the same, the TAC would go up if they lost one of the key platforms.

According to TechCrunch, Google's actual TAC for 2013 is estimated at 3.3 dollars per iOS user, and is something like 5% of gross revenue across all platforms, which includes iOS and Mozilla, as well as Chrome/Android.

Now, obviously, the increasing penetration of Android, Chrome, and other Google platforms and products going forward will have an impact on Google's TAC, but unless iOS sales drop, that won't save them from paying absurd amounts to Apple, for the slightly dubious privilege of being the default search provider.

What can other businesses learn from this? Firstly, you need to make sure that your TAC is balanced by lifetime customer value. In other words, knowing your TAC per 100 dollars ratio (or similar) will be vital in helping you to understand if it is as efficient as it could be at retaining customer value.

The forEntrepreneurs website has a great graphic illustrating this key ratio. In essence, you can exchange CAC (cost to acquire customers) with TAC, factoring in your conversion rate as you go along.

It's interesting to note that Google has the R&D investment to increase several areas of the equation without shelling out to third parties (through open source participation, viral effects, and strategic partnerships that don't involve the exchange of real money), but that clearly their management puts a lot of stock in their core offering - the free search engine service.

That service drives the Google engine; and that includes opening up revenue opportunities. So, investing 1 billion dollars in keeping a high flow from established and emerging platforms makes good business sense, whilst also demonstrating the power of free.