June 13, 2012

The Google Bamboozle

An interesting article this weekend in the San Francisco Chronicle had me thinking that Google may be heading toward a greed tipping point. They are getting too big and too piggish.

Google makes its money, first and foremost, by misdirection. You type in a word and they serve you listings from people who have bought the right to that word.

Yes, they also serve you "natural" listings, but they don't make any money on that. They only make money on misdirection.

Because it's for sale, their paid search has little credibility. Now they are busy undermining the credibility of their natural search.

Google is getting deeper and deeper into content. This creates enormous opportunities for mischief. Google's natural search is supposed to serve you the most relevant result for your inquiry. But since they've bought Zagat, can you really expect that they will not lean toward Zagat reviews rather than Yelp reviews? And will Hulu get fair treatment compared to the new programming being created for YouTube, which Google owns?

According to the Chronicle, Google will also soon be introducing a new product called Google Shopping which will replace Google Product Search. The difference? Google Product Search allowed you to compare prices of products from many retailers and websites. Google Shopping will charge retailers to be included, so you'll only get results from companies who grease Google.

According to the Chronicle, some clown named Sameer Samat, who is a VP of something at Google, contends that this is not about them making more money. Heck no! You see, they are doing this for us -- to provide us with more accurate information. Shucks, ain't that sweet of them?

But then again...

In 2004 Google said,
"Because we do not charge merchants...our users can browse product categories or conduct product searches with confidence that the results we provide are relevant and unbiased..."
So I guess now that they are charging merchants we have no choice but to assume the results will be irrelevant and biased.

16 comments:

Cecil B. Demille said...

This is the great dichotomy of Google, and really any vapor-based internet "product." The only thing they can sell is information, or in this case, access to it. Google is doing exactly what everyone says Facebook needs to learn how to do. They're monetizing the one thing they have – a search algorithm. 

Do no evil my left testicle. They're in it up to their eyeballs. At least Apple tells you they're taking something and if you don't like it, fine. Google wants to have their cake and eat it too.

Jim said...

So close to  the clothes having no emperor.

Eric said...

Try Bing.. the results are usually more useful anyway...

Tedel said...

Google has been digging its own grave for about a year or so now. First, their abusive terms of service and privacy policy, then the Penguin update, now this. Let's see how much more they will resist on the first place.

Geoff said...

Google does favor ads that are relevant to the search term. If they're relevant they're cheaper and get better placement. So in fairness, you're not frequently seeing  car ads when searching for shoes.

Are TV ads evil if they aren't relevant to what I'm watching?

Geoff said...

 "Vapor-based" ?

They use technology to deliver content. It's no more vapor than CBS,  Clear Channel or Sirius ...

adcontrarian said...

C'mon, Geoff, you know better than that. Sure there is a "relevancy" factor, but when I Google Camry and get Ford Focus, that's misdirection.

TV isn't interactive, remember. It's not supposed to return accurate results.

Finally, please read my post. I didn't say Google was "evil" I said they were greedy.

Nathan Smith said...

... Except when I google "Camry" the first full page returns only Toyota Camry results, and the ads include dealers in my area that are selling Toyota Camry's. So, do you have an actual example? (p.s. big fan of this site. I expect better.)

adcontrarian said...

Really?

Nathan Smith said...

Really. (?)

adcontrarian said...

Do you know what geo-targeting is? In different locations, different ads are served. That's one of the ways Google uses misdirection to make money.

Nathan Smith said...

I wouldn't call one link to a semi-relevant non-result  "misdirection" (clearly marked as an ad -- which we ignore). But it is true that I am not an ad expert. 

Ok, so how is this different than Bing's result where I get an ad for Nissan?

adcontrarian said...

Not different at all.
This is how they make money.

Cecil B. Demille said...

You've missed a forest and hit a tree. My hyperbole notwithstanding, the crux of the standpoint is that the accuracy of their search engine results is being scrapped in favor of profit. I'm saying that the only thing they have to sell is data – information in some form or another – and that's what they're doing. 

I find it odd that people are surprised by this behavior and I find it even more odd that Google itself doesn't find the activity just the least bit evil. Then again, they've never defined evil as far as I know. I suppose as long as they aren't biting faces off over a glass of Chianti, all is well.

Jenn Eustace said...

I somehow find it satisfying that when I misspelled "evil google" as "evil goodle" after reading these comments, Google helpfully displayed the results for evil google instead.

Johnthebrand said...

What happened to "No evil on the net"? Didn't google make this a black and white stance? No grey areas allowed. It's an honest result. Or it's evil. Should have seen it coming when they went all Blackle. Eevle.