Google's Silent Monopoly

An anonymous reader writes "Isaac Garcia from Central Desktop Blog writes, 'How much does Google pay *itself* to claim the top ad position for searches relevant to its own products? Google holds the top advertisement (Adword) slot for the following key words: intranet, spreadsheet, documents, calendar, word processor, email, video, instant messenger, blog, photo sharing, online groups, maps, start page, restaurants, dining, and books... ...if you are trying to advertise a product that is competitive to Google, then you'll never be able to receive the Top Ad Position, no matter how much money you bid and spend. How different is it than MSFT placing its products (Internet Explorer) in a premium marketing position (embedded in the OS)?'"

Monopoly

[El Lobo]

Two areas of "monopoly" which do concern commentators and commercial organisations are only indirectly commercial. In one sense, although it is a search engine, Google has some of the powers of a major newspaper or periodical. It does and can exercise editorial control and influence.

Secondly, the power and use of on-line purchase is growing. Google, and other search engines for that matter, have more power to influence the selection, availability and immediacy of purchases in the way it sets the so-called algorithms for prioritising and selection of websites, bringing distinct commercial advantage to some and disadvantage to others. Much of that will invariably be determined by the commercial power of advertising revenues. This could trigger investigation by Competition Authorities.

it's so different

[yagu]

It's a lot different, so different it's not a point of discussion, yet. There are so many alternative options for search engines out there.

I've tried many other search engines. I like that there are so many to choose from and try. And try again. But so far Google for most uses is the best first choice (for me). Google isn't forcing me to use them.

When I do use Google, I have no qualms they would ratchet up any ad placement or search results in their favor, it's their widget, and as long as it is giving me results that help me get through my research requirements,... hmmmm, not really the issue. Oh yes, abuse of monopoly.

Google isn't a monopoly. Google is dominant because they are good. They haven't stifled competition, they've created red hot innovation competition. Heck, Google has even gotten Microsoft to look like they're at least now trying to innovate.

Google's behavior is nothing like Microsoft's.... at least not yet, but additionally Google's beginnings look nothing like Microsoft's. Google emerged from a couple of people putting together cool ways of getting to information and grew that into some pretty amazing technology (do a Google and find and check out how their Google File System works -- it's amazing in its elegance, simplicity, and power). Google caught on in a world technology dominated by others and by dint of excellence have taken top spot.

As for the author's claim Google holds the top spot for the words:

• intranet [google.com]
• spreadsheet [google.com]
• documents [google.com]
• calendar [google.com]
• word processor [google.com]
• email [google.com]
• video [google.com]
• instant messenger [google.com]
• blog [google.com]
• photo sharing [google.com]
• online [google.com]
• groups [google.com]
• maps [google.com]
• start page [google.com]
• restaurants [google.com]
• dining [google.com]

I tried a bunch of these -- while I do see google as a top spot ad, it's hardly a dominant position. And there are many other sponsored links. This is nothing like the old Microsoft "don't dare put any icons or links of any competitor on any machine you sell or we won't give you license to sell Windows" fiat.

I don't care if they hold on to the top spot... I just care that the playing field remains level. I'm sure Google plays tough, but in the big picture I still hold faith Google plays fair.

AdSense feature

[El_Muerte_TDS]

In AdSense you can block ads from competitors. Every AdSense client uses it, well most of them anyway, so why wouldn't google use that feature either?

More on this feature: Competitive Ad Filter [google.com]

Re:email keyword

[Irish_Samurai]

We're talking about ad listings, not organic listings. Google is number one in the ads.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Twench]

No, but "the Internet" isn't a product. Google has a near-monopoly on web searches,

You might want to check that again:

Zune: http://seo.zunch.com/search_engine_usage_statistic s.htm [zunch.com]
Pew Internet: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/167/report_displa y.asp [pewinternet.org]
WebSideStory: http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=33 34881 [searchenginewatch.com]

Three independent reports show that while they have a good share, Google accounts for less than 50% of all web search engine usage. Last I checked, that's not really a monopoly

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Irish_Samurai]

1) Cost to the average user. When you decide you want to or need to use Microsoft software, it'll cost you. Non-OEM copies of Windows are quite expensive (~$300?). When you decide to use Google to look for a website, it's free, other than having a few ads on the right side of the screen. I've never sent Google a dime, even though I've used many of their services (search, maps, etc.) for years.

As I, and other posters, have been pointing out. You are not the consumer, nor the customer. You are the product. The advertisers are the customer. They are most definitely charged by Google for their services. Google also has close to 73% world market share for search. [hitslink.com] That directly translates into 73% world market share in search advertising, which is the monopoly.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Irish_Samurai]

That's just Google.com, not all of the other sites they own. Google has more like 73% world share. [hitslink.com]

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[ThogScully]

When the hell was IE 'technologically superior' to Netscape in its heyday? IE 3.0? Netscape Communicator was the 'hotness' in comparison

Not then. IE4 was what turned things around. Netscape 4 was barely better than 3 with more bloat while IE4 was monumentally better than IE3. You're referring to the time when Netscape had the monopoly of convenience because that's what everyone used, what everyone got free (if they were lucky) with their dial-up software, etc.

-N

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[morgan_greywolf]

Agreed. And Google has nothing like a near-monopoly on searches. According to the search engine stats I've seen [searchenginewatch.com], Google hovers somehwere around a 45% viewer share. Sure, that's bigger than anyone else, but it's less than half of total searches.

Hardly a monopoly

[cwgmpls]

Google has a near-monopoly on web searches

44 percent [searchenginewatch.com] is hardly a monopoly. Or a near-monopoly.

Just wrong and sour grapes to boot

[hacksoncode]

Did anyone else actually *check* the assertions of this article? This guy is so full of it I can't even begin to describe it.

But that never stopped a Slashdotter before, so...

Half a dozen of those search terms do *not*, in fact, have Google AdWords, and at least 2 of them have Google AdWords, but Google isn't in the top spot.

What again, is the complaint?

Re:The author does not show Google is a monopoly.

[GigsVT]

In the US at least, there is no marketshare threshold for being a monopoly. To be an illegal monopoly you only have to have the power to distort the market, and be using that power in a way that has been deemed abusive.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

Given it was on Slashdot, I kind of doubt the accuracy of that info...

But if you do it now, results are as follows:

MSN searching "google": 66,259,640 results
MSN searching "microsoft": 81,650,578 results

Google searching "microsoft": 525,000,000 results
Google searching "google": 773,000,000 results

So they both look similarly "biased" towards themselves.

However, if you search for "spreadsheet" on google, there isn't even a link to Microsoft in the first 10 UNPAID links. 4 of the first 10 results link to sites about google spreadsheet, and 3 of the first 10 to sites about Excel

If you search for "web search" on MSN, 4 of the first 10 links are for google, with 1 link to MSN live.

Forget their paid links, I think google's search engine may be coded with some specific biases in mind...

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[Irish_Samurai]

An argument which is invalid, to start with.

How is it invalid? Show me an example of something that invalidates it. NO search engine shows other providers advertisements. Monopoly on search traffic = monopoly on search advertising. A blanket statement of "not true" means jack.

Which is, as stated, false as well, as a monopoly is defined by price-setting power, not marketshare.

And setting your own price for key placement of certain advertisements at zero is not price setting power how?

Also, monopoly is defined by many more facets other than price setting power.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[nacturation]

Slots are not sold individually with a price tag on each. They are being auctioned in batch. Whoever pays most gets 1st, next guy gets 2nd, etc. When Google takes 1st slot for themselves they don't really lose much since they just shift everyone else 1 slot down and still take all their money.

The top slot almost always has the best clickthrough rate. By pushing everyone else down a slot, not only do they push the bottom slot to the next page of results but the others get a slightly lesser clickthrough rate. Because companies pay per click, Google gets less revenue.
 

not the top ad always

[kajumix]

I did a search on the indicated terms.. for the following searches google's ad was NOT the top ad:

intranet
blog
photo sharing
restaurants
dining
books (amazon's ad comes before google)