Google Punishing Chrome Results For 60 Days 173
djl4570 writes "'Google is pushing its own Chrome browser down in search rankings for 60 days following reports that the company was involved in an ad campaign that paid for links to bolster search traffic. ... According to Sullivan, it appears that Google contracted its Web ads out to a firm called Essence Digital, which in turn asked a company called Unruly Media to implement the campaign.' I see this as an astute move on Google's part. Rather than circle the wagons they say 'oops' and correct the problem. Google understands that such link pimping is a cancer that undermines the integrity of their search engine. That's why it isn't allowed and now Google is saying we don't support a double standard either."
Re:Good for Google (Score:5, Insightful)
The article that I had read yesterday suggested that they were going to wash their hands of it and blame the bloggers.
Sorry, but with a name like "Unruly Media," wasn't someone keeping an eye on them?
Re:Google still is different from other companies. (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh whatever. This isn't about integrity, this is about putting your hand in the cookie jar and getting caught... now, it's all about damage control, and they chose the smartest way of controlling said damage.
Yes, Google is different than most other companies out there. Not because they're good guys or have any sort of high moral compass ... but because they're *smart*.
Re:Marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Just hang on for a moment. What you're saying is that if Google does something bad they should take the blame but if they try to fix what they did wrong they don't get any credit?
Re:Marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it amazing that by actually doing THE RIGHT THING and accepting responsibility, they gain more press than if they had just said "The bloggers did it." and washed their hands of the situation.
Maybe they, and other companies, can actually learn from this? You know, a) try not to fuck up in the first place and b) when you do, take responsibility and FIX IT.
Uncommon outbreak of good sense, perhaps?
Re:It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' (Score:5, Insightful)
Their revenue comes from displaying advertisements... I don't think that's the same as marketing or creating advertisements.
Re:Google still is different from other companies. (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you even fucking read the story? Google hired a service to promote a video of theirs. That service went and had some bloggers promote the video. ONE of the bloggers didn't abide by the rules and therefore was violating a policy.
So not only was it just one accidental occurrence, but Google was two steps removed from it. Now they're manning up and accepting responsibility even though they by no means have to - they could very easily just say "oh, the marketing company fucked up".
Re:Marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the "RIGHT THING" costs them nothing, as the search term that Chrome is being punished for--"browser"--shows a paid-for Chrome link right at the top of the page, which cost them nothing since they pay themselves!
Really? It costs them nothing? Then they should buy out *all* the ad spaces! They'll make a fortune!
Re:in other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe.
But keep in mind that many corporations don't present a unified face to the public. Or maintain a consistent internal corporate culture. It may very well have been one rogue employee (or department) that got it in their head to bump up their own product's ranking. And someone else stepped in and corrected them. Stuff like this happens all the time. The speed with which they admit and correct their own errors is the sign of a healthy corporate culture (of course, the guilty party might have been transferred to their IE6 [slashdot.org] support group).
Try working for a company where the culture is broken, or co-opted by various internal factions. And management is powerless to fix the problems. That's when the cancer has set in. Pretty soon they aren't fighting for the company any more (ethically or not). Everybody is cutting side deals with vendors, taking their stock options, and otherwise trying to feather their own nest.
Re:Wha? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google contracted its Web ads out to a firm called Essence Digital, which in turn asked a company called Unruly Media to implement the campaign.
Just the same way like JC Penney and others did, but back then [slashdot.org] people were outraged by the seo spam. But now that it's Google it's somehow holier than thou and Google is supposedly acting unlike any other company... by acting the same way those other companies acted!
Re:It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. It's actually a well known fact that Google sucks at marketing their own stuff. A perfect example is their Nexus One phone.
The leader of marketing (and brainwashing) is (IMHO) Apple, because no matter what it is, they can spin it to get people to buy it. Apple could probably find a way to successfully market dog shit if they wanted to.
Re:First post! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wha? (Score:3, Insightful)
Google loses money by placing it's ads as that could have been a paying customers ad in that position that they would have actually had outside money coming in paying for. I'm sure the same happened with JC Penny, their organic search results might have been penalized for a period of time but they were free to advertise in the paid search results.
They took the steps to correct the issue, it was only 1 day after it was even discovered. I don't see how they could of done something about it before they knew anything about it. I'm not saying Google is an angel by any means but I just don't see why they would go through the hassle and take the risk of PAYING for something like this to a third party than doing it themselves internally, for FREE. After all, they control the search engine. It is just not in their DNA, but then again things happen when you "blow-up".
Re:First post! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's Don't be evil, not do no evil.