3 ms·

Google is offering a service, namely a way to connect your customers to your website. Arguably, on brand ads are just a way to pay for that service.

by syrrim 5y ago

tyingq 5y ago
"The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users."
capybara_2020 5y ago
They also have a responsibility towards the person searching. I know more than a few people that have been conned into thinking an Ad provider is the official site for a service. Especially with government websites. Lots of shady companies use ads above the actual search results to drive people to their site. Charge people for a service that is free.
- carbine 5y ago
  Would you prefer a monopoly where only Williams Sonoma can advertise on WS keywords? I’m sure if you wanted to start a little premium homewares brand you’d feel differently. Bidding on competitor keywords allows small and big brands to compete for the same transactions, and allows brands to introduce alternatives to customers who might only have one giant brand top of mind. Defensive branded search is generally only a fraction of budget anyway. I don’t find this practice the least bit onerous or extractive from Google — they’re just allowing for competition, as they should.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tshaddox 5y ago
A way to pay for that service, as well as generate an extra $40 billion a year.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  Sure, most businesses exist to provide a good or service and get some bit extra beyond their costs. This is known as "profit".
  - tekknik 5y ago
    The problem here is it’s not a “bit”, but “a lot”
    - joe_the_user 5y ago
      I don't think Google has a profit rate massively higher than other similar companies (say, Apple or Facebook). It gets a lot of profit because it is large. Compare: https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin Of course, manufacturing companies have a lot less: https://ycharts.com/companies/GM/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/GM/profit_margin
bostik 5y ago
Funny. In any other industry hijacking a business's name and trademark for payment would be considered facilitating fraud. But in marketing, it's somehow fair game?
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  That's not what a trademark is. It's not a right to censor competitive comparisons.
z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
That's not a service, that's a racket... As the previous user described

Google is offering a service, namely a way to connect your customers to your website. Arguably, on brand ads are just a way to pay for that service.

by syrrim 5y ago

Google is offering a service, namely a way to connect your customers to your website. Arguably, on brand ads are just a way to pay for that service.

tyingq 5y ago

"The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users."

capybara_2020 5y ago

They also have a responsibility towards the person searching. I know more than a few people that have been conned into thinking an Ad provider is the official site for a service. Especially with government websites. Lots of shady companies use ads above the actual search results to drive people to their site. Charge people for a service that is free.

carbine 5y ago
Would you prefer a monopoly where only Williams Sonoma can advertise on WS keywords? I’m sure if you wanted to start a little premium homewares brand you’d feel differently. Bidding on competitor keywords allows small and big brands to compete for the same transactions, and allows brands to introduce alternatives to customers who might only have one giant brand top of mind. Defensive branded search is generally only a fraction of budget anyway. I don’t find this practice the least bit onerous or extractive from Google — they’re just allowing for competition, as they should.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tshaddox 5y ago

A way to pay for that service, as well as generate an extra $40 billion a year.

joe_the_user 5y ago
Sure, most businesses exist to provide a good or service and get some bit extra beyond their costs. This is known as "profit".
- tekknik 5y ago
  The problem here is it’s not a “bit”, but “a lot”
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    I don't think Google has a profit rate massively higher than other similar companies (say, Apple or Facebook). It gets a lot of profit because it is large. Compare: https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin Of course, manufacturing companies have a lot less: https://ycharts.com/companies/GM/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/GM/profit_margin

bostik 5y ago

Funny. In any other industry hijacking a business's name and trademark for payment would be considered facilitating fraud. But in marketing, it's somehow fair game?

alisonkisk 5y ago
That's not what a trademark is. It's not a right to censor competitive comparisons.

z3ncyberpunk 5y ago

That's not a service, that's a racket... As the previous user described