Google Too Big or Too Smart? Image -Interactive Google |
I love his opinion and you'd love too! I've also thought of putting Andrew’s opinion on my blog.
Andrew's Opinion......
We are better off
if we ignore what Google is saying and follow one thing: Google wants more
money for Google. When we make this assumption, everything Google does makes
sense. Deception and doublespeak are logical and expected rather than shocking
and upsetting.
When it comes to scale, as pointed out withGroupon, all of these rules go out the
window. If you look at the biggest advertisers, replace their account with one
with no history and the brand "Geico" with "SEOBook auto
insurance" and the campaign will simply not run. You are spam. In some
cases larger advertisers are able to run ads which are clearly deceptive and go
against guidelines which they actively enforce on smaller advertisers. I have a
strong suspicion now that this is in fact institutionalized in Google's rating
process rather than any employee going out of their way to overturn some sort
of penalty.
Google will not
disrupt a site or advertiser that will negatively impact their own quarterly
earnings. When Google does disrupt one, it is because they have a backup in
place. That backup may be their own internal project or a competitor of yours
who sends 95% of their advertising through Google's ad platforms. When Google
claimed they were going after content farms, and Demand Media's properties (which are explicitly spammed) were spared, the reason was obvious, because it
would have visibly impacted their bottom line.
Brand is a
deceptive concept. A hairy, smelly drug addict that compulsively molests women
is not a sex offender but rather a globally famous rock star. Much the same
holds true to many of the biggest brands. As long as a brand spams, that spam
is opaque to Google's customer base and their customers do not bring a negative
association with Google's brand. However, when that same hairy, smelly drug
addict is anonymous he is a nuisance which destroys your reputation when you
publicly associate yourself with him.
Google is like an
oil company which not only dictates the price of oil but also chooses where an
oil field will exist. Google is now "too big to fail" as indicated by the recent DOJ investigation which
could have resulted in a felony charge for their co-founder, and most certainly
would have for a smaller firm without $500m of liquid cash. We should be
thankful that visitors are still directed to our websites when they could
simply receive excerpts of what they are searching for.
My Conclusion: first, I monetize
my existing sites with Google's own products as much as possible. Second: I no
longer invest my time or money in new businesses that require Google's traffic.
Google should expect more walled content gardens in their future. Google's
biggest challengers such as Facebook and Apple recognize this, and their
platforms are very much walled gardens. That is too bad for the web as we know
it today.
As a consumer I
want Google to have the best, most trustworthy experience possible. They can
fight SEOs and affiliates all day long and it doesn't bother me. I fully
expected the innovative waves that helped the web destroy old media do the same
again to itself.
But, when Google lies, and do things that in fact damage that consumers experience no longer can I defend Google (when eHow first started popping up in 50% of the searches I did I was shocked; I am absolutely appalled they still show up on page 1 for anything, the articles are obviously written by authors that re-hashed another article in 10 minutes and often factually incorrect on top of it.)
But, when Google lies, and do things that in fact damage that consumers experience no longer can I defend Google (when eHow first started popping up in 50% of the searches I did I was shocked; I am absolutely appalled they still show up on page 1 for anything, the articles are obviously written by authors that re-hashed another article in 10 minutes and often factually incorrect on top of it.)
---
I agree with Andrew Johnson. What about you?
0 Comments :
Post a Comment