Slashdot Mirror
Google's Stomach Pangs - Adjusting to DoubleClick
An anonymous reader writes "C|Net is reporting on some trouble Google is having integrating DoubleClick into their family of products. External problems, like antitrust allegations and privacy concerns, are bad enough. The worst problems might come from within, though, as a division within DoubleClick was essentially created to game the very systems the Google search engine is founded on. '"Google is treading in dangerous waters right now," writes Ross Dunn of WebProNews.com. Google's search results "are supposed to be unbiased and highly relevant," but with Performics, "Google is put into the conflicted position of trying to generate profits by providing result-oriented organic ranking services for its own unbiased organic search results." The worry, in other words, is that Google's search results could be compromised by operating a division with an interest in skewing those results in favor of clients.' The article goes on to say how this Performics division is likely to be sold off to make sure everything stays above board."
Google's $3.1 billion deal for the online advertising firm DoubleClick could put the company at odds with itself.
Internal conflicts often happen in finance, when investment banks find themselves advising both sides in a merger. And it happens in agribusiness, energy and other industries where giant companies with fingers in many pies are both buyers and sellers of the same commodity. But it is particularly common in technology and media.
The DoubleClick deal has prompted Microsoft and IBM and others to ask the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the deal on antitrust grounds. And privacy advocates worry that Google will not live up to its pledge to keep the customer data collected by DoubleClick out of the hands of Google's search managers.
But the thorniest conflicts could arise from DoubleClick's Performics division.
Performics helps its clients get better position in search results. Essentially, it works to game the systems of Google, Yahoo and other search engines.
"Google is treading in dangerous waters right now," writes Ross Dunn of WebProNews.com. Google's search results "are supposed to be unbiased and highly relevant," but with Performics, "Google is put into the conflicted position of trying to generate profits by providing result-oriented organic ranking services for its own 'unbiased' organic search results."
The worry, in other words, is that Google's search results could be compromised by operating a division with an interest in skewing those results in favor of clients.
This seems unlikely. Reliable search results are the core of Google's franchise. Industry-watchers, including Kevin Newcomb of SearchEngineWatch.com, tend to think Google will likely sell off part or all of Performics.
That's an easy choice for the leading company in a growing industry. What about a struggling company in a deeply troubled industry? Warner Music is thought to be preparing to acquire Front Line Management, the nation's largest artist-management firm whose roster includes Aerosmith and Christina Aguilera.
Traditionally, record labels and artist-managers negotiate with one another. Putting them under the same roof is a radical notion. If the deal goes through, it could "offer a new economic model for the major record companies," Tim Arango of Fortune magazine wrote this week. The idea, he added, "has its skeptics."
One of them is Bruce Houghton. "Can two sides that have traditionally been adversaries live under one roof?" he asked on Internet Financial News this week. "How protected is an artist if so much of his career is controlled by a signal entity?"
Ads and Stereotypes The recent promotion of the rice mascot Uncle Ben from chief cook to chief executive prompted Slate this week to offer a fascinating slide-show essay on "the strange history of racist spokescharacters."
"Nasty stereotypes have helped move the merchandise for more than a century," David Segal writes, "and the history of their use and abuse offers a weird and telling glimpse of race relations in this country."
The essay shows that while things have improved since the turn of the 20th century, there is still a way to go. Back then, a maker of rat poison could get away with depicting a Chinese man in Confucian-era garb gobbling up a rat (to "exploit the then-popular urban legend that Chinese people eat rats," Segal explains). But as recently as the early 1990s, Stroh Brewery was peddling Crazy Horse malt liquor -- disregarding the fact that the 19th-century American Indian leader Crazy Horse was a teetotaler who preached abstinence. In 2001, the brewery sold off the brand and apologized.
Well, Duh! A new study has confirmed what most of us already knew: Wealth and intelligence have little to do with each other.
ScientificAmerican.com spoke with Jay L. Zagorsky, a research scientist at Ohio State University, who analyzed the data. There seems to be a correlation between income and intelligence, Zagorsky said, but "for wealth, there is no relationship." H
companies often sell off products after a merger/acquisistion to keep the FTC happy.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
The CNet version looks like it was picked up by a runaway screen scraper, which sucked up two following articles. Then some paragraphs were duplicated. Lame.
Oh, well, never mind then. That only leaves images, iframes, and other embedded crap. Nothing like that here on Slashdot.
you're full of it. Google never accepted money for higher rankings. You could pay to get in the "sponsored links" section. Google in the early days was started based on the idea that you couldn't "buy" popularity, but had to earn it. One of their main differentiators in the early days was exactly this. When Yahoo, Alta Vista, et al were polluting their links with paid ads, Google wouldn't.
I had mod points yesterday, I would have modded you down... but I'll reply instead