Behind Nearly Every Google Complaint? A Lobbyist And A Flailing Competitor

from the funny-how-the-system-works dept

Tue, Jan 20th 2009 12:36pm — Mike Masnick

Plenty of folks have been sending in links to Wired's article on The Plot to Kill Google, which basically shows how both Microsoft and AT&T -- two companies scared to death by Google, are now working hard not to build better products to beat Google in the marketplace -- but on hiring better lobbyists and marketers to try to destroy public perception of Google. Of course, Google has been doing a bit of the same thing in reverse... pointing out that every bit of critical information just so happens to come from companies or individuals working for (or at least funded by) AT&T or Microsoft. The whole thing has turned into a huge public relations nightmare, with little focus on providing actual value. This is unfortunate. It may be naive in this day and age, but wouldn't it be nice if companies actually focused on creating value, rather than crafting PR schemes directed at politicians and bureaucrats to tear down their competitors?

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, competition, lobbying
Companies: at&t, google, microsoft

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Brian, 20 Jan 2009 @ 12:57pm

Agreed
It does go both ways, though I think this is a tactic taken by older, more experienced companies because (and sadly) it works. And I'm sure Google will get better and better at is as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Wynn, 20 Jan 2009 @ 1:12pm

Inevitable?
Isn't this the inevitable destination of all oligopolies in today's brand-centric economy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Emerson, 20 Jan 2009 @ 1:17pm

SOP for MSFT
This is standard business practice for Microsoft, and now AT&T. It's easier, and less expensive, to try to destroy your competition by being underhanded and sleazy, than it is to try to compete on the merits of your product. And it's worked well for Microsoft, so why not AT&T? It's just not clear to me exactly where AT&T and Google compete. I sure can't remember using an AT&T search engine. Did Google reduce the value of the Yellow Pages? Maybe that's because the (official) online Yellow Pages was a piece of junk -- the damned book was easier to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger, 20 Jan 2009 @ 1:41pm
  
  Re: SOP for MSFT
  AT&T is against Google's opinions on what to do with the leftover spectrum and their stance on net-neutrality. If Google had their way, AT&T would be out a crap ton of free spectrum and they would have to allow people access to the internet without filtering it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Emerson, 20 Jan 2009 @ 2:04pm
    
    Re: Re: SOP for MSFT
    So, AT&T is afraid Google will force them to give customers what they want, instead of force-feeding customers what AT&T wants to give them? That would definitely go against AT&T's SBC DNA.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jan 2009 @ 1:22pm

What is Flalling
for a sec I thought it was a new word
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Another Moron in a Hurry, 20 Jan 2009 @ 1:31pm

Alternatives?
Did Google have an alternative other than to start a counter-campaign? Could they have just let the criticisms go unanswered?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 20 Jan 2009 @ 1:37pm

A bit disingenuous
Lobbying is something all companies do, especially because as you get bigger, more people see a target painted on your back (and your front, and your head, and every appendage). It's also a little bit disingenuous to say that Google's competitors aren't working to bring better products to market--they are. Just because you lobby doesn't mean you don't do other stuff as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Jan 2009 @ 6:16pm
  
  Re: A bit disingenuous
  Ben -> "a little bit disingenuous to say that Google's competitors aren't working to bring better products to market--they are"
  
  For example .... ?????
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corey O, 20 Jan 2009 @ 1:38pm

You would think Microsoft and AT&T would know better. Why because they were attacked for the same reason. Instead of having a defending themselves, they use the same BS tactics used against them on their competition.

This is exactly what happened to Microsoft, so google can only play the victim so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jan 2009 @ 2:05pm

Well, now that The One has been crowned all this will go away right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 20 Jan 2009 @ 2:10pm

Not the full story
Not a big fan of either Microsoft or AT&T ... but ... seems like such a long article on Google might mention them selling out Chinese dissidents (especially when talking about privacy concerns and google).

From the face of the article, it looks like the advertisers have valid monopoly concerns... not sure why those are less valid just because lobbyists were involved... especially since lobbyists are involved in both sides of almost any action in Washington. These concerns only become more valid as more content comes through the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kill Google?, 20 Jan 2009 @ 2:40pm

HA HA HA HA, I love the comment from Association of National Advertisers, Microsoft, WPP Group (in The Plot to Kill Google):

"...But competitors and major advertisers think it's plotting world domination."

There is something wrong with that? Do you pay a penny to Google right now? How are they monopolizing?

Google.com is free...
Chrome is free...
A multitude of other products are free...

What is it in our daily lives that Google has in its hands or wants to have in its hands that would make us pay them money to survive? NOTHING!

I say let the other companies cower in fear.

Google for World Domination! (The good kind)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
illegalprelude, 20 Jan 2009 @ 6:43pm

I dont have much on AT&T but MS stopped making good products a long time. Again, just look back how different the real Bill Gates is to the corporate Bill Gates. MS has not done anything note worthy in the positive side of tech in over 10 years, only failures but when you sit on that much cash, you can afford to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2009 @ 3:26am

Although I agree that lobbying instead of competing is weird, wrong and bad, the whole article is nonsense. First, the Yahoo-Google deal will not had raised prices for advertising. Second, ISP's are not in favor of censoring content (I think they don't really care either way, but net neutrality is less work). Being that the writer is really making that stuff up, I wouldn't be surprised if he was making the MS stuff up too. I mean, it totally makes sense for Microsoft to lobby against Google... but I don't see any proof of that happening in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2009 @ 4:29am

There are two ways to look good. The best way is to actually be good. The worst way is to knock everyone else down around you so you look good in comparison. Unfortunately these days; far to many businesses (and politicians) choose the worst way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2009 @ 12:45pm

Google, and the others, are responsible for how much business comes your way. However none of them allow you to verify the ranking of the products you sell. This is very lame. You can't tell if some competitor is ahead or behind you. I hope Google and the other search engines make such a scene some fair-play rules are put in place to govern this wild-west like game. I don't want to know, but I fully expect it to be the truth, those who pay to play get their rankings moved up across the boards. It may not be obvious but come on... It should be obvious that this is the case given a little common sense and perspective. Let's hope we get some fair use laws put in soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kamran shahkohi, 6 Sep 2009 @ 5:47pm

behind every complaint
its easy to say behind every complaint is a political action, but what about real people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Suite Shoppe, 31 Jan 2010 @ 7:35am

This is my first time to visit your blog and I actually like it. Keep it up! You can also drop by my site if you have time. It's about furnished apartment in Jacksonville Florida. Have fun reading articles about corporate housing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]