5 ms·

Defensive spending to protect otherwise organic traffic could also be called extortion.

earthboundkid 5y ago
Forget about the corporate POV for a second, as a user, if I'm searching for X, I probably want X in my results, no? It's the fundamental contradiction in Google's search ads model. If Google delivers users the thing they want, ads by definition have to be things users don't want.
- fabianhjr 5y ago
  Advertisements are fundamentally not what search service users want regardless of searching for a specific brand or not. (Its what advertisers want others to want)
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    If I’m searching for “Williams Sonoma 12 inch skillet”, advertisements for places selling it are a pretty large subset of what I want.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      Sure, but what about an ad from a competitor for a similar pan at a lower cost? Isn't that what advertising is all about?
      - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
        Yes, i was thinking similarly. The GP wants links, not ads (specifically), but if the trustworthy domains are saying this particular skillet is low quality then you want that first, rather than an ad.
    - wormslayer666 5y ago
      If a search engine encounters the query "Williams Sonoma 12 inch skillet", retail outlets selling it should organically appear in results without the need for ads.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        If it’s $39.99 on W-S.com, I definitely want to see the place that’s willing to sell the same pan for $34.99, the EBay listing for $32.50, and the one selling a competing similar one for $29.99 even if those sites don’t have the organic search SEO juice to land in the top 10. As a Google search user, why wouldn’t I value these? If Google doesn’t serve them and another search engine does, I’d be inclined to switch to the other one.
        lmm 5y ago
        > If it’s $39.99 on W-S.com, I definitely want to see the place that’s willing to sell the same pan for $34.99, the EBay listing for $32.50, and the one selling a competing similar one for $29.99 even if those sites don’t have the organic search SEO juice to land in the top 10. But why would those sites not have the "organic search SEO juice"? If those sites are actually good places to buy that kind of thing, a good search engine should direct a user searching for that thing there.
        sokoloff 5y ago
        I think it's fairly clear that Amazon and Ebay would show up as the top organic results. What wouldn't show up is lmm-cookware.com, launched early October 2021, who is trying to establish themselves as a new destination for cooking enthusiasts. That domain is new, the business is new, no Google reviews, but they've got the pan in stock, are willing to sell it for $30 shipped, and have an advertising budget to reach customers. As a consumer, I want to be able to learn about that offer, make my own decision where to buy the pan, and I'm happy to use a search engine who will show me that offer. lmm-cookware, I, and the search engine all win from this outcome. I don't care whether lmm-cookware has been a good place to buy pans such as these for the last 180 days; I care whether they're a good place to buy it right now.
- computerphage 5y ago
  My "by definition" detector has fired. It says: that's not true by definition. Ads could instead also be things that users want. I do actually think you have a good point.
  - IggleSniggle 5y ago
    I like this pedanticism, but I still think you can even argue the "by definition" piece of it. I suppose it ends up being somewhat tautological in the end. If you really like Skillet X, and I ask you which skillet I should buy, and you tell me, "Skillet X," then it is not an ad. If you really like Skillet X, then somebody gives you $5 to recommend it if anybody asks you what skillet to buy, and then when I ask, you tell me, "Skillet X...I mean you should know that somebody gave me $5 to say that to you but honestly I was going to say that anyway" then is it an ad? It kinda intuitively feels to me like if it doesn't alter the result, it's not an ad, it's just somebody taking advantage of another person's willingness to hand them money and doing nothing in return.
    - aspenmayer 5y ago
      The unstated implicit assumption in the question being asked in both situations is this: you’re being asked for your unbiased opinion. All ads are inherently biased, but by not disclosing your compensation, you’re not answering the question as asked. This bias, even if disclosed, renders your recommendation, and our hypothetical innocent recommendation, suspect.
  - jayd16 5y ago
    I guess the argument is that if google could make the perfect search result, ad spending would, by definition either be exploitative of the advertiser by providing no change, or providing value by changing the results from perfection. In reality, Google is not perfect and you can argue that ads do provide value by promoting relevant content, even if its gameable by our capitalist system.
  - earthboundkid 5y ago
    Yes, it's by definition because the definition is tendentious. The definition: "If Google [meaning Google's organic results] delivers users the thing they want" The consequence: "ads have to be things users don't want" because advertisers whose product is wanted will be included whether they pay or not. Now, you could widen it to say, look Google is still delivering the thing users want, they just sometimes do it by organic results and sometimes do it by ads, but that's a very convoluted reading of the definition, which clearly is using Google as a stand in for "Google's organic results". The problem with my argument isn't that it failed to be a tautology. It's that the definition is questionable, and that's the profitable angle of attack: "users don't know what they want" "there can be multiple equally good options" etc. But saying it's not by definition is just silly. The definition is the whole thing up for debate!
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Right, but you may also be interested in an ad from a competitor for a similar product, especially if they were differentiated by price, no?
- lifeisstillgood 5y ago
  >>> If Google delivers users the thing they want, ads by definition have to be things users don't want. Ben Evans has a tweet something like "half of facebook devs are working out how to code the algorithm to serve you just what you want to see, the other half are working out how to get the algorithm to serve you what advertisers want you to see. " We are doing something wrong
  - inthewoods 5y ago
    Natural outcome of all internet advertising based models imho.
    - earthboundkid 5y ago
      By any definition, a podcast is part of "internet advertising" but there's less conflict there. Sure, I want to hear the hosts and not the ads, but if the ad is relevant, I don't mind the interruption, and hey sometimes it's an interesting product for me. There's a tension between the content and the ads, but not a fundamental contradiction. No, this is the outcome of all interest targeting based models. You're interested in X, and they either don't show you X (to get X to pay) or they show you Y (which you aren't interested in) because Y paid. Whereas with demographic targeting, hey I'm in demographic X and wasn't looking for a Y now, but sure, I'll remember it for when I'm in the market for one later.
- inthewoods 5y ago
  This is the fundamental issue with all advertising-based models. Eventually, they all run into the problem of having to continue to grow. The only way to continue to grow is to display more ads, thus compromising the user experience, which starts the downfall. AOL was a great example of this. Google seems to be heading this way. Google's original values were the ability to provide better search (common answer) and be fast (less common answer) - both of which were a complete contrast to the Alta Vista and other search engines. I could easily see Google facing disruption from a new player - but I don't think it will be another search engine. Probably a paradigm/systemic shift.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  If you search for Hello Fresh, you'll get a Hello Fresh ad offering 14 free meals. If you search for Blue Apron, you'll get a Hello Fresh ad for 16 free meals. Firms are willing to spend more to win incremental business from a competitor, and consumers benefit. Now you could argue that the search engine should show organic results to help the consumer get the best deal, and I would agree with you.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  I don't think it is that clear, actually. If I sell a car that is as good as the Ford one you searched for, but 80% of the cost, wouldn't you want that ad to appear when you searched for ford?
  - evanmoran 5y ago
    Respectfully, I’d want the car you mention included if I search for “full size sedan” or “alternatives to ford”, and not to appear if I search for “ford”. This is a pipe dream of course with the way AdWords works, but that is what I prefer :)
  - earthboundkid 5y ago
    If the discount car is relevant, then I want the search engine to show it to me whether or not you happened to pay them for an ad. And vice versa if it's not relevant. As a user, I don't care who is getting paid by whom; I care about seeing relevant content.
gingerlime 5y ago
Exactly. And it's bad for customers too. My mum (70) just fell for it, and she's pretty clued about computers and technology. She searched for a flight with Ryanair, so entered Ryanair on Google. First result was some scummy reseller, which sold her the same ticket for a higher price with some "extras". Bidding on a competitor's brand name keyword should be banned. But Google can't resist double-dipping.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  I mean.. RTFM? Look at the address bar? The branding of the site? Pay attention and be careful? This stuff only works on 70 year olds. It stands to reason it won't be viable in a few decades.
pradn 5y ago
This should be allowed, because this means smaller competitors have a shot at the customer base of a more established competitor. If we ban it, it's just shoring up established players.
- desmosxxx 5y ago
  +1 this has happened to me before and I've ended up buying from a competitor before. We should promote competition.
matsemann 5y ago
Worst part is that the competitor has nothing to lose, so they basically will spend the whole margin of a sale on the ad. Which means that the original company has to do the same. Where I worked before, Google could get $4 for ever $1 we made. And we actually delivered the service, and people googled our name. Pretty crazy...

Forget about the corporate POV for a second, as a user, if I'm searching for X, I probably want X in my results, no? It's the fundamental contradiction in Google's search ads model. If Google delivers users the thing they want, ads by definition have to be things users don't want.

fabianhjr 5y ago
Advertisements are fundamentally not what search service users want regardless of searching for a specific brand or not. (Its what advertisers want others to want)
- sokoloff 5y ago
  If I’m searching for “Williams Sonoma 12 inch skillet”, advertisements for places selling it are a pretty large subset of what I want.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    Sure, but what about an ad from a competitor for a similar pan at a lower cost? Isn't that what advertising is all about?
    - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
      Yes, i was thinking similarly. The GP wants links, not ads (specifically), but if the trustworthy domains are saying this particular skillet is low quality then you want that first, rather than an ad.
  - wormslayer666 5y ago
    If a search engine encounters the query "Williams Sonoma 12 inch skillet", retail outlets selling it should organically appear in results without the need for ads.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      If it’s $39.99 on W-S.com, I definitely want to see the place that’s willing to sell the same pan for $34.99, the EBay listing for $32.50, and the one selling a competing similar one for $29.99 even if those sites don’t have the organic search SEO juice to land in the top 10. As a Google search user, why wouldn’t I value these? If Google doesn’t serve them and another search engine does, I’d be inclined to switch to the other one.
      - lmm 5y ago
        > If it’s $39.99 on W-S.com, I definitely want to see the place that’s willing to sell the same pan for $34.99, the EBay listing for $32.50, and the one selling a competing similar one for $29.99 even if those sites don’t have the organic search SEO juice to land in the top 10. But why would those sites not have the "organic search SEO juice"? If those sites are actually good places to buy that kind of thing, a good search engine should direct a user searching for that thing there.
        sokoloff 5y ago
        I think it's fairly clear that Amazon and Ebay would show up as the top organic results. What wouldn't show up is lmm-cookware.com, launched early October 2021, who is trying to establish themselves as a new destination for cooking enthusiasts. That domain is new, the business is new, no Google reviews, but they've got the pan in stock, are willing to sell it for $30 shipped, and have an advertising budget to reach customers. As a consumer, I want to be able to learn about that offer, make my own decision where to buy the pan, and I'm happy to use a search engine who will show me that offer. lmm-cookware, I, and the search engine all win from this outcome. I don't care whether lmm-cookware has been a good place to buy pans such as these for the last 180 days; I care whether they're a good place to buy it right now.
computerphage 5y ago
My "by definition" detector has fired. It says: that's not true by definition. Ads could instead also be things that users want. I do actually think you have a good point.
- IggleSniggle 5y ago
  I like this pedanticism, but I still think you can even argue the "by definition" piece of it. I suppose it ends up being somewhat tautological in the end. If you really like Skillet X, and I ask you which skillet I should buy, and you tell me, "Skillet X," then it is not an ad. If you really like Skillet X, then somebody gives you $5 to recommend it if anybody asks you what skillet to buy, and then when I ask, you tell me, "Skillet X...I mean you should know that somebody gave me $5 to say that to you but honestly I was going to say that anyway" then is it an ad? It kinda intuitively feels to me like if it doesn't alter the result, it's not an ad, it's just somebody taking advantage of another person's willingness to hand them money and doing nothing in return.
  - aspenmayer 5y ago
    The unstated implicit assumption in the question being asked in both situations is this: you’re being asked for your unbiased opinion. All ads are inherently biased, but by not disclosing your compensation, you’re not answering the question as asked. This bias, even if disclosed, renders your recommendation, and our hypothetical innocent recommendation, suspect.
- jayd16 5y ago
  I guess the argument is that if google could make the perfect search result, ad spending would, by definition either be exploitative of the advertiser by providing no change, or providing value by changing the results from perfection. In reality, Google is not perfect and you can argue that ads do provide value by promoting relevant content, even if its gameable by our capitalist system.
- earthboundkid 5y ago
  Yes, it's by definition because the definition is tendentious. The definition: "If Google [meaning Google's organic results] delivers users the thing they want" The consequence: "ads have to be things users don't want" because advertisers whose product is wanted will be included whether they pay or not. Now, you could widen it to say, look Google is still delivering the thing users want, they just sometimes do it by organic results and sometimes do it by ads, but that's a very convoluted reading of the definition, which clearly is using Google as a stand in for "Google's organic results". The problem with my argument isn't that it failed to be a tautology. It's that the definition is questionable, and that's the profitable angle of attack: "users don't know what they want" "there can be multiple equally good options" etc. But saying it's not by definition is just silly. The definition is the whole thing up for debate!
thegrimmest 5y ago
Right, but you may also be interested in an ad from a competitor for a similar product, especially if they were differentiated by price, no?
lifeisstillgood 5y ago
>>> If Google delivers users the thing they want, ads by definition have to be things users don't want. Ben Evans has a tweet something like "half of facebook devs are working out how to code the algorithm to serve you just what you want to see, the other half are working out how to get the algorithm to serve you what advertisers want you to see. " We are doing something wrong
- inthewoods 5y ago
  Natural outcome of all internet advertising based models imho.
  - earthboundkid 5y ago
    By any definition, a podcast is part of "internet advertising" but there's less conflict there. Sure, I want to hear the hosts and not the ads, but if the ad is relevant, I don't mind the interruption, and hey sometimes it's an interesting product for me. There's a tension between the content and the ads, but not a fundamental contradiction. No, this is the outcome of all interest targeting based models. You're interested in X, and they either don't show you X (to get X to pay) or they show you Y (which you aren't interested in) because Y paid. Whereas with demographic targeting, hey I'm in demographic X and wasn't looking for a Y now, but sure, I'll remember it for when I'm in the market for one later.
inthewoods 5y ago
This is the fundamental issue with all advertising-based models. Eventually, they all run into the problem of having to continue to grow. The only way to continue to grow is to display more ads, thus compromising the user experience, which starts the downfall. AOL was a great example of this. Google seems to be heading this way. Google's original values were the ability to provide better search (common answer) and be fast (less common answer) - both of which were a complete contrast to the Alta Vista and other search engines. I could easily see Google facing disruption from a new player - but I don't think it will be another search engine. Probably a paradigm/systemic shift.
lern_too_spel 5y ago
If you search for Hello Fresh, you'll get a Hello Fresh ad offering 14 free meals. If you search for Blue Apron, you'll get a Hello Fresh ad for 16 free meals. Firms are willing to spend more to win incremental business from a competitor, and consumers benefit. Now you could argue that the search engine should show organic results to help the consumer get the best deal, and I would agree with you.
tomjen3 5y ago
I don't think it is that clear, actually. If I sell a car that is as good as the Ford one you searched for, but 80% of the cost, wouldn't you want that ad to appear when you searched for ford?
- evanmoran 5y ago
  Respectfully, I’d want the car you mention included if I search for “full size sedan” or “alternatives to ford”, and not to appear if I search for “ford”. This is a pipe dream of course with the way AdWords works, but that is what I prefer :)
- earthboundkid 5y ago
  If the discount car is relevant, then I want the search engine to show it to me whether or not you happened to pay them for an ad. And vice versa if it's not relevant. As a user, I don't care who is getting paid by whom; I care about seeing relevant content.

gingerlime 5y ago

Exactly. And it's bad for customers too. My mum (70) just fell for it, and she's pretty clued about computers and technology. She searched for a flight with Ryanair, so entered Ryanair on Google. First result was some scummy reseller, which sold her the same ticket for a higher price with some "extras". Bidding on a competitor's brand name keyword should be banned. But Google can't resist double-dipping.

thegrimmest 5y ago
I mean.. RTFM? Look at the address bar? The branding of the site? Pay attention and be careful? This stuff only works on 70 year olds. It stands to reason it won't be viable in a few decades.

pradn 5y ago

This should be allowed, because this means smaller competitors have a shot at the customer base of a more established competitor. If we ban it, it's just shoring up established players.

desmosxxx 5y ago
+1 this has happened to me before and I've ended up buying from a competitor before. We should promote competition.

matsemann 5y ago

Worst part is that the competitor has nothing to lose, so they basically will spend the whole margin of a sale on the ad. Which means that the original company has to do the same. Where I worked before, Google could get $4 for ever $1 we made. And we actually delivered the service, and people googled our name. Pretty crazy...