Making Results Better For End Users Isn't Acting Like A Monopolist
from the and-again-and-again-and-again dept
With the Justice Department getting closer and closer to going after Google for supposed antitrust violation, we're going to see more and more articles like the one in the New York Times this weekend that tries to highlight the story of a company "harmed" by Google's market power. In this case, it's the story of a guy who runs a directory site that was based entirely on Google arbitrage. He bought ads on Google's search engine to drive people to his directory page, and then littered the page with AdSense to collect revenue from people clicking through. The NY Times presents this as being somewhat harmful, but I have to side with Jeff Jarvis who doesn't see what Google did wrong.Google arbitrage sites are a problem for the end user. They're based on the simple concept of forcing people to go an extra click to siphon some money away. If I'm looking for a particular site on Google I don't first want to go to a directory -- I want to go directly to the site. That's true for many, many users -- and Google's efforts in punishing arbitrage sites isn't anticompetitive, it's about improving the user experience, which is something that should be praised, not sued. The only problem noticed in the scenario was that the guy chose a bad business model, where he was totally reliant on a single company for both all of his traffic and all of his revenue. He made the decision to base his entire business on a single supplier, and that supplier has every right to change the terms of its deals in an effort to make a better consumer experience. This isn't Google being anticompetitive -- it's Google serving its customers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, arbitrage, monopoly, search results
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
the test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disagree
And of course, whether buddy has a dumb business model is beside the point. It's one thing if he can rely on a competitive marketplace to make that decision. Quite another if he can't. Maybe his index is a better solution for the customer than leaving it to Google. Who knows. And no one will if the market is not competitive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disagree
WRONG!
The issue is whether or not google has the right to maintain it's own products and repair defects in its algorithm.
Of course it does, it's fucking stupid to imply otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disagree
I have to wonder: How long can one expect to profit on a business model which continually costs you $500,000 per month to operate? It's not like that charge was paying off a loan; it was operating expense. He should have quit while he was ahead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NYT chose a poor example
In weeding out that type of site, they helped both their end-users, who don't want to see those garbage sites at the top of the search results, and their advertising clients, who don't want those sites costing them money with bogus or unnecessary clicks. Those sites are not legitimate advertisers, nor are they driving volume to anyone. Rather, they are a slimy and unnecessary middleman trying to get a cut of the pie for doing nothing.
If Google is not allowed to take action to protect customers on both ends of the advertising, how are they supposed to improve their product?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I still agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I still agree
All the same, Google optimizing their own engine to provide the direct links to content instead of returning another site to search for those links is better for both advertising customers and search engine customers. It is not monopolistic. If his site was really valuable, it would still have users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the question they use
"how does this provide more value to the user than simply by searching Google."
A directory doesn't provide anything more than Google, if Google indexes all those sites in the directory.
Original content is the key.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not A Monopolist
Maybe close to a monopoly, certainly a market leader.
I always have the option of Yahoo or Microsoft for search and other things. But to try to live of Google by making those web sites where there are all kinds of crap links to junk sites. Sites that I just don't need to go to. Then this guy starts bitching about it when Google changes things to allow me to not have to see that crap. That's just gall. Very much like the burglar who sues you for a broken leg when he falls through a hole on your porch during a robbery attempt.
Show of hands, who remembers WebCrawler, Infoseek, Excite, HotBot the list goes on and on...... Google is better.
In the olden days I had to search with 2 or 3 different search sites at times to find what I wanted.
Now with Google I often find it on the first page. If this makes Google a monopoly, then thank god for the monopoly.
Now I just want to point out that I never trust the old gray lady when it come to markets and financials, that I turn over to the WSJ and Barons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It may prove valuable if it is presented in a manner that individuals find more intuitive or more pleasing to the eye. It may prove valuable if it presents a key group of advertisers relevant to a more specific search term. If I type in "turtle exuding wax like substance" and google gives me "Turtlewax" links, then it got it wrong. But if this guy recognized "turtle exuding substance" and linked me to veterinarians, then he's providing value.
So maybe he WAS providing something more than google. Maybe not the actual links to content, but maybe in his keyword recognition or his layout.
It's stupid to say that a "directory" doesn't provide more than Google if Google index all those sites in the directory. Someone else can come along and index the same sites and provide value superior to Google - Google did it to Yahoo and Dogpile and Altavista and Webcrawler and AskJeeves.
So he could have been providing value - but I do agree that there is no way for him to provide evidence that Google is being anticompetitive. In fact, how can you be anticompetitive with someone who is using your service? If a manufacturer starts using a different kind of paint for their toys (ahem, Chinese lead paint tastes delicious), then you either stop selling their product or put a warning label on those toy cars. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who else blocks it?
I agree with the first post here. anyone basing their income on a single threaded business model deserves to fail. Especially if it aggravates me as a user. Save the "Click Through" model for the porn sites.
Block all directories and ad servers! Maybe that will solve more issues for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three points
Why can't they just be considered the market leader?
Second, even if Google is a monopoly (which it's not), why is that so bad? Are they "fixing the market"? Are they price-gouging customers or unfairly undercutting their competitors?
It's like if I were writing a software program for use on a Mac: since Apple has a "monopoly" on the hardware and OS, I don't have to worry about users installing bad dll's or using Windows Vista Home Lite or such.
Third, why do site-owner feel the need to sue Google when their "click pass-through" site no longer makes money? How about suing Firefox for allowing users to block ads? How about suing users for having sense to avoid ad-covered sites? How about suing themselves for almost training users to ignore ad-laden sites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three points
Well, here's the thing... In this case, yes. They decided to arbitrarily raise their rates on a paying advertiser by 2000%, stymieing his source of revenue.
If we look at Google as a supplier of information to a searcher, its non-cost structure makes it not a monopolizer threat.
But if we look at the ad business of Google as supplying internet user eyes to advertising sites for a COST (which is HOW GOOGLE MAKES THEIR MONEY) then this form of discrimination is intervening with normal market forces. If people didn't LIKE his site, he wouldn't be getting the CLICKS he got. A person with a poorly constructed site will, by market mechanics, get fewer and fewer traffic clicks. People use the service because the WANT to. He is paying money (same as any other advertiser) to appear on the front page. Denying him that is exerting Google's influence over the advertising sector under the mantra of "doing what's best for the end user."
Let the end user choose - this mantra smacks of "making the internet safe for the children" that congress is so fond of.
and before you start flaming, I have no affiliation with the DoJ, Google, or anyone else. I am just an economist who sees this market a bit differently than Masnick.
Honestly, I can understand in this case how Google can be termed as acting anticompetitive - Mr. Savage paid the same money and bid in the same system as anyone and everyone else, but is now being singled out.
eh. As I said again, let the market deal with him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three points
Third, why do site-owner feel the need to sue Google when their "click pass-through" site no longer makes money? How about suing Firefox for allowing users to block ads? How about suing users for having sense to avoid ad-covered sites? How about suing themselves for almost training users to ignore ad-laden sites?
I agree except for one thing: the sole reason that this person is failing to make money is because Google CHOSE TO RAISE HIS MINIMUM BID in such a manner that he is UNABLE to make money. Google directly acted against HIM personally and HIS MODEL to EXCLUDE HIM from being able to post ads. That is what worries me from an economic perspective, as this DOES smack of monopolistic power.
Honestly; This is similar to the AppStore delisting the iamrich program. It might not DO anything for the user, but if people WANT to use it, then let them. It doesn't harm apple (google) and in fact generates MONEY for them, but they decided to exercise their prerogative for "quality control" and remove it (apple) or modify it's terms (google)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
from the blog you mentioned, Mike
"The first obvious solution is transparency. If we all knew Google’s standards and trusted that they were, indeed, looking out for the end-user and if Sourcetool knew Google’s standards and abided by them, that would blunt Sourcetool’s complaint. Indeed, part of its complaint is that it can’t find out the standards. But then here comes the Google age wrinkle: If Google revealed its standards, it would only be feeding the needs of evil spammers, giving them to manual to game the system."
Basically, you are defending Google's secrecy of standards due to Security through Obscurity?!?
Isn't this EXACTLY the kind of thing you rail against, Mike?
I tend to agree with your opinions pretty closely, but I am truly surprised to find myself disagreeing with you so strongly on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the blog you mentioned, Mike
Only when it suits his purpose but Mike is ga-ga for Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: from the blog you mentioned, Mike
Hmm. So why is it that I have no problem speaking out against Google when I believe they've made bad decisions? I have many problems with Google, but on this, I think they're being unfairly targeted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the blog you mentioned, Mike
Isn't this EXACTLY the kind of thing you rail against, Mike?
A few points:
1. This isn't "security through obscurity." It's got nothing to do with security.
2. I do agree that Google would probably be better off if it weren't so secretive.
3. However, that doesn't mean that it's a violation of antitrust law to be secretive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, that's what I said!
That's the same thing Microsoft said!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lame
Is this the best that the anti-google folks can come with ?
And our esteemed justice dept seems to be bought and paid for.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, the SEC is asleep at the wheel allowing the worst financial meltdown since the great depression to occur and doing nothing to stop it, the justice dept is doing very little to pursue and prosecute the perpetrators running off with the loot ........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google's revenue
Compare this to broadcasting, until-now the dominant ad-revenue model which Google will overtake over time and you can see how a single-source market platform will start to look like a monopoly. Broadcasting never became a monopoly because the justice department kept a close eye on RCA. ABC came into existance when the Feds forced RCA to spin out NBC's "Red" and "Blue" networks into separate entities.
Could that happen with Google? Would it be necessary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]