Slashdot Mirror
Google To Require Retailers To Pay To Be In Google Shopping Results
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.'"
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.
"Paid" does not imply "higher quality"; in search listings, it's quite the contrary.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
'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
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?
One of my biggest issues with Google shopping is the number of prices that aren't current and inability to tell legitimate new sites from frauds. If they can improve that while charging a marginal fee then I would accept that as a worthwhile deal. Ultimately if Google charges enough that competitive shops stop listing then it'll shoot them in the foot. Also, just about everyone in Google's listings appears to allow affiliate sites and or buyers to use cashback sites. Google would be effectively skimming off some of their profit margin that they are happy to give to others.
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.
Using the shopping function is really a desperation measure - the prices are rarely "good" and the vendor list is exceedingly short. Anything that looks interesting is usually wrong. This is really on loss, since it's one of the few google services that simply isn't worth your time unless you need something obscure and you don't care where is comes from or how much it costs.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Google is also requiring the retailers to pay in Google Dollars which feature a picture of Larry Page at the center of every bill. Beginning in August the new Google Dollars will be the only currency that Google will allow to be used for all transactions with or through Google websites. The new Google Dollars will end the debate over whether the US Dollar or Euro should be the de facto world currency.
Search listings that should be prioritized by popularity and relevance will be heavily skewed by 'paid' listings. But this is a different case, I think. Most of the information is supplied by the vendors. Therefore, it's easy for it to become out of date because the vendors have no accountability for maintaining it. However, if the vendor has to pay a little, then they're more inclined to either keep the values updated, or let the listing expire. It's quite possible that this will do exactly what Google claims: improve the data integrity. Of course, they're gonna put a little in their pockets in the process. But... don't most people expect to get paid in exchange for providing a service? A little revenue means there will be available funds for improvements. It's how things work. Advertisement has always had a cost. Why would Google's listing be ruined by it?
You look for anything that might be a product and you're going to be wading through pages of vendor sites. They should drop the shopping app altogether as it's already integrated with basic search.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
The knee jerk reaction about everything google does has gone from annoying, to numerous and now returning to annoying.
At one time those "knee jerks" were nearly all trash-talking Microsoft astrofurfers, then after Jobs declared jihad I suppose it changed to a mix of Microsoft and Apple astroturfers. But now there is a new class of Google critic... people like me who used to think Google could do no wrong. But I have witnessed just too many examples of Google arrogance getting in the way of what is best for the user. A few examples off the top of my head: 1) Obfuscated search lilnks that spy on me, are stupidly awkward to copy, and often add ridiculous amounts of lag resolving to Google servers instead of to where I actually want to go. 2) Google news. In spite of literally thousands of comments from users that they all hated the beta, and essentially no comments in favor, Google ignored the resounding consensus completely and deployed anyway, causing thousands more negative comments. Today in spite of some window dressing it is still worse than the classic. 3) Android. Open source, closed development. As a result it has a fraction of the developers it could have, progresses more slowly, and sucks more than necessary, especially in areas that Google does not monetize. 4) Changed the search page to look like Bing. Good grief. At least Google had the sense to pull that after a few hours. But why didn't they check to see if everybody would hate it first? Oh, probably they did, and ignored the feedback just like news, the only difference being that this time the negatives cut straight at the core business and somebody with a clue recognized the danger.
Now, the thing that makes it worse is, I still have a lot of respect for Google's corporate culture, unlilke Apple or Microsoft which seem to bent on outdoing each other sinking to new depths of corporate depravity. Google is not that far gone, far from it. That is why I personally tend to react more strongly to (possibly) stupid things that Google does. There is still hope that Google can be shamed into doing the right thing, unlike Microsoft or Apple.
In this case I doubt there is any issue. The point is, I am now conditioned to expect the worst whenever I see a new alarmist article, troll or not, because of the really bonehead moves I mentioned above and others, that are incontrovertible facts.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Pegged to Facebook, Zynga, XBox Live, Wiipoints... And Smurfberries!