Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google To Require Retailers To Pay To Be In Google Shopping Results

Posted by Soulskill on from the search-neutrality-in-action dept.

gambit3 writes "In a move to squeeze more cash out of its lucrative Web-search engine, Google is converting its free product-search service into a paid one. Online retailers will now have to bid to display their products on Google's Shopping site. Currently, retailers include their products for free by providing Google with certain data about the products. Google then ranks those products, such as cameras, by popularity and price. 'We believe that having a commercial relationship with merchants will encourage them to keep their product information fresh and up to date. Higher quality data—whether it’s accurate prices, the latest offers or product availability—should mean better shopping results for users, which in turn should create higher quality traffic for merchants.'"

8 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Good while it lasted... by raydobbs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, that was a slightly useful tool when it worked... not so much now. Now I will just get a listing of who paid to be there, and who are sure to keep their prices fixed to one another.

    1. Re:Good while it lasted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Honestly, have you used their shopping search that much? You said it all when you said "when it worked." Nearly every time I've used it, I got nothing but junk, dead links, shady websites with suspiciously low prices, etc. The results are pure garbage a lot of the time. I'm not sure if this particular method is the best way to fix it, but they should definitely try something.

  2. Yes indeed. by game+kid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Paid" does not imply "higher quality"; in search listings, it's quite the contrary.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    1. Re:Yes indeed. by nabsltd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you saying that as a retailer you will pay to have products listed which you no longer sell?

      Scammer's might.

      Right now, Google Shopping results hit a lot of places that either have much higher prices once you get to the site, don't have the item in stock (but will "order it" if you pay them first), or have other shady practices (not giving Google the correct shipping costs, price is only good for wholesale volume, etc.).

      Depending on the cost, some of those places might pay Google to keep them in the listing. Other, more reputable stores might have to either increase prices or drop off the Google list. So, it would appear that this change might lead to worse overall results.

      The solution to this is to allow users to mark results as good or bad, and use that as part of the sorting algorithm, but Google hasn't ever had anything like that for shopping results.

  3. Pay-to-Play v. Commercial Relationship by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'We believe that having a commercial relationship with merchants will encourage them to keep their product information fresh and up to date. Higher quality dataâ"whether itâ(TM)s accurate prices, the latest offers or product availabilityâ"should mean better shopping results for users, which in turn should create higher quality traffic for merchants.'

    That is a fine explanation of why you want to have a formal relationship with the retailers that you include in your search engine. Of course, that has nothing to do with it being pay-to-play. The pay-to-play is the part that matters to your users. The quote above is clearly deflecting attention from the change from a search engine (motivated primarily to satisfy the user) to a shopping mall (motivated primarily to satisfy the retailer). That is the part that is significant to users.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  4. Oh yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FTA:

    Google Shopping will empower businesses of all sizes to compete effectively

    I wonder how Google's marketing department managed to rationalize that one. Remind me again how putting monetary barriers to competing in a market empower businesses of all sizes?

  5. Driving customers away by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's the ticket to bolstering your failing shopping program, get just a little more blood from that stone.

  6. and you won't get the cheapest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And if you're shopping for the best price, the retailers with the lowest margins are not necessarily going to be paying to be on Google shopping because that'll eat into they're margins.

    I actually see Amazon not paying google.