NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Google Ads, Antitrust, and Sour Grapes
Google Ads, Antitrust, and Sour Grapes
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000874.html
A couple of days ago, in "'J' is for Jealousy: FTC Investigating
Google" I suggested that the recently announced FTC antitrust
investigation of Google is being largely driven essentially by jealous
competitors, and that plenty of competition -- trivial to quickly
access -- is available if Google is not your choice
( http://j.mp/ms1nQz [Lauren's Blog] ).
Today in part two on this topic, let's look at the issue that
generated a number of angry "But what about Google Ads? That's where
the money is!" retorts in my inbox.
Google's ad serving infrastructure is indeed by far the primary
revenue source for the firm. Google pioneered the entire concept of
automated Web ad auctions, placements, and associated search and
keyword based ecosystems.
So let's explore some of the "popular" accusatory complaints regarding
Google and advertising.
--- Complaint: "Google favors its own products in search results" ---
This actually breaks down into two areas -- paid ("Ad") results and
natural ("organic") results.
When it comes to Ad placements, it seems completely reasonable that
Google would wish to promote its other products and services. The
last time I walked into a Home Depot or CVS, their promotions were all
for their own array of goods and other offerings, not for competitors
such as Lowe's or Walgreens!
So an ad text box at the top of specific, relevant search results
noting that, for example, Google Maps is available, doesn't strike me
as inappropriate or unfair, so long as other well-placed ad slots are
available, and natural search results are honest and fair -- and
Google makes an enormous effort to assure the legitimacy of their
organic results, even in the face of continuous external "black hat"
SEO (Search Engine Optimization) efforts by other firms to manipulate
them.
And as far as natural results are concerned, how can we blame Google
if their products organically rise to the top?
For example, I just did a simple, no Web History, not-logged-in query
for "maps" on Google Search. The top natural result is Google Maps,
followed by Yahoo! Maps and MapQuest, with no paid ad above at all.
If I do the same search on Google News, the top result at the moment
is a political story about North Carolina, with a paid Bing Maps ad
above the natural results.
Now let's go over to Microsoft's Bing and do the same search. The
organic results: Google Maps on top, then Yahoo! Maps, then a Bing
Maps image of Santa Clarita, California (not where I am!), then
MapQuest.
Notably, Google Maps is (at this moment) the top natural result for
both Google Search and Bing Search. Since Bing seems unlikely to
favor Google Maps for any nefarious reason, the conclusion seems clear
that for the rankings right now, Google Maps comes out on top, even as
determined by Google's main search competitor.
Google, Bing, and other major search engines work diligently to assure
the veracity of their organic results. To not do so would be
enormously risky and self-destructive. Claims that natural, organic
results are inappropriately favoring Google (or Bing for that matter)
are just patently unreasonable and untrue.
--- Complaint: "Google collects too much information from their ads
and keeps it forever" ---
The nature of Web and Internet technology dictates that servers are
provided with significant data related to user connections and
activities. Google's services cover a wide range, and so Google does
receive a great deal of data.
Of course, your ISP has access to every unencrypted byte that you send
or receive, including commonly unsecured file transfers, P2P
activities, Voice over IP calls, and everything else, including in most
cases knowledge of every Web site and every URL that you visit.
The few giant, dominant U.S. ISPs have access to vastly more
comprehensive data on most Internet users than any single other firm,
including Google.
Ultimately the issue is, do you trust any given entity to handle your
data appropriately? Finding ISP policies on deep packet inspection
(DPI) and related data retention issues can be a challenge.
On the other hand, Google lays out very clearly how long they retain
various kinds of data, and (in direct challenge to the "they keep
everything forever" meme) their schedules for data anonymization and
deletion, which generally seem to strike a good balance to both
protect users and allow for reasonable use of data for security,
quality assurance, and R&D purposes.
If you want something to worry about, spend some time thinking about
governments' efforts around the world, including here in the U.S., to
mandate non-anonymized data retention for "on demand" access by law
enforcement and other agencies.
For that matter, it's certain large ISPs, not Google, that have been
found in the past to be providing user data to various government
organizations on a "nod and a wink" basis, while Google has openly
battled overly broad and legally suspect government data demands.
Now, if someone is going to simply assert that Google is outright
lying about how they handle data (which would be an incredibly stupid
thing for Google to do, and Google people aren't stupid), I'll gladly
point you at conspiracy-oriented Web sites that you might enjoy,
explaining how the moon landings were faked and the concept of
transistors was stolen from a crashed UFO. Happy paranoia.
--- Complaint: "Google Has a Web Ad Monopoly" ---
Google serves a lot of ads on a lot of sites. But a monopoly? Uh,
no. In fact, even a casual look around the Web, including major sites
of all sorts, shows an incredible array of dedicated and shared ad
availabilities and ad networks that are totally unrelated to Google.
Google doesn't have a gun to anyone's head, forcing them to buy or use
Google ads. The fact that so many Web sites and parties wishing to
place ads have chosen to use the Google ad networks is a function of
the perceived value of those ads and conscious decisions to not
similarly patronize other ad systems and networks. If ad buyers chose
to focus their advertising dollars elsewhere, Google competitors would
grow even larger.
In other words, advertisers perceive the Google ad systems as
providing the most "bang for the buck" and as being the most
desirable, and specifically choose to buy Google ads tied to various
Web sites and/or Google search results, instead of buying particular
ads from the many available Google competitors who can also provide
excellent advertising opportunities on a vast array of sites.
Then, because so many advertisers have made the same choice -- because
everyone naturally wants to be top dog -- we hear loud "sour grapes"
complaints since obviously not every advertiser can have their
listings and ads at the apex of results for any given Google search.
Just as users can instantly switch between the Google and Bing search
services, advertisers can similarly "vote with their dollars" and use
non-Google ad services. Those Google competitors run enormous numbers
of ads and they'll be happy to work with you. If you're concerned
about Google having too large a chunk of the ad market, then support
those alternatives.
I can't help but sense an undercurrent of greed in many of the
complaints about Google that have led toward the current FTC
investigation.
Some Google competitors are upset because users and advertisers have
simply found Google's search, ads, email, and other services to be
superior. Perfect? Of course not. On the scale that Google
operates, even a tiny percentage of users having problems is going to
be noticeable, and Google still needs very significant improvements in
its user communications and support structures.
But to an extent unparalleled in the history of human knowledge and
commerce, the ability of persons to easily and quickly choose among
competing services, literally with a few quick finger movements on a
keyboard and mouse, is a major part of what makes the Internet such a
marvel.
The vast majority of Google users of all stripes are extremely happy
with its services, and those who aren't can switch with ease.
The jealousies and sour grapes of Google competitors, other
adversaries, and in many cases greedy advertisers, are the driving
forces that appear to have been the primary triggers behind the FTC's
new investigation of Google.
That this has occurred in today's toxic political environment is
discouraging, but unfortunately not at all surprising. The weaponry
of economic and political destruction is all too easily wielded now,
with little concern for potential collateral damages.
In the case of FTC vs. Google, we will see if saner heads prevail in
the end.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://j.mp/laurenbuzz
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com