Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Uses Search To Push Its Products: WSJ (usatoday.com)

Posted by msmash on from the my-way-or-high-way dept.

Ads for Google and related companies were found in the top spot in 91% of 25,000 searches related to items, according to a report on WSJ. For example, a search for "phones" would produce ads for Google Pixel, which the company launched last year. From a report: Similar results were found for searches on "Watches" or "smoke detector," which produced ads for Android smartwatches and Nest devices, respectively. In a statement, Google says their marketing programs are "carefully designed" to not impact outside advertisers. "All our bids are excluded from the auction when determining the price paid by other advertisers, and we have strict rules and processes -- set to tougher levels than our customers -- to govern the use of our own ads products." The auction is a process deciding which ads will appear for users when they type in certain search queries. Strategies such as using relevant keywords give advertisers a better shot at their ad appearing on a search results page.

62 comments

  1. Uh... by PessimysticRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, which drawer of "No shit" should I file this under?

    --
    Consistency is only a virtue if you're not a screw-up.
    1. Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      A for Anti-trust or M for Monopolistic behavior.

    2. Re:Uh... by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 2

      yeah, really. go figure that a company that has multiple products, especially when those products are related to the one you are using, suggest you try their others as well. so crazy. so immoral.

    3. Re:Uh... by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      A for Anti-trust or M for Monopolistic behavior.

      Google Search is a Google service. There's nothing illegal about cross-selling your own products. Furthermore, they are not an ISP held to common-carrier laws when it comes to content. They could close their ad network to all competitors, much like Apple does not stock products in their retail stores from certain companies they are in legal disagreements with.

      People are free to use Bing or some other search engine if they don't like the (lack of) results.

    4. Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Common carrier has nothing to do with antitrust violations. Microsoft wasn't a common carrier but it was illegal for them to use their monopoly position as an OS vendor to push their other products like IE.

      People are free to use Bing or some other search engine if they don't like the (lack of) results.

      People were also free to use other operating systems - Apple, Linux, etc. That didn't stop the government from finding that Microsoft was abusing its monopoly position.

    5. Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A for Anti-trust or M for Monopolistic behavior.

      Google Search is a Google service. There's nothing illegal about cross-selling your own products. Furthermore, they are not an ISP held to common-carrier laws when it comes to content. They could close their ad network to all competitors, much like Apple does not stock products in their retail stores from certain companies they are in legal disagreements with.

      People are free to use Bing or some other search engine if they don't like the (lack of) results.

      Did you REALLY post that in response to a comment that uses a form of the word "monopoly"?!?!!?

      I doubt I've ever seen a better example of "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than it is to talk and remove all doubt."

    6. Re:Uh... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Which is EXACTLY why they split into Alphabet, to avoid anti-trust.

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:Uh... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      When Google first started branching out into non-search, they made a huge effort to declare that they didn't give their own products higher search results. The reason, of course, is because they wanted to defend accusations of abusing their monopoly. Maybe you don't remember that.

      Now they are abusing their monopoly, it seems.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Uh... by whitlocktj · · Score: 1

      False Comparison Microsoft didn't just push IE, they tried to force IE to be THE web browser on Windows machines, something that although was illegal, I find should have been in their rights to do since it's their operating system. Monopolization can get hazy though, so I understand why that wasn't allowed. Regardless, Google isn't forcing people to use Pixel, they're just advertising it. You're comparing apples to oranges.

    9. Re:Uh... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure you should.
      I search Google for "phones", and the first ad that comes up is a refurb iPhone 6 from Telus. In fact, there are 6 ads: 3 of them for various iPhone products, and 3 for Samsung Galaxy products.
      Then, the organic listings are for various carriers, plus the big box stores that sell phones. Nowhere on the entire first page do I see the word "pixel."
      For "watches" I see ads for "Call It Spring" (WTF kind of name is that for a watch company?), Timex, Ashford, Rosefield. Organic listings again are department stores, some big box stores, and a couple of traditional manufacturer listings. No Google watches on the entire first page.
      "Smoke detector" gives me a similar result: Ads for Kidde, First Alert, and organic listings for Home Depot, Consumer Reports, the wikipedia article on smoke detectors, and others.
      Although this page does list Nest, it's not in an ad, and it's not until the 7th organic listing: an ArsTechnica article called "Life with the Nest Protect: Are “smart” smoke detectors a dumb idea?"

      That doesn't sound like Google promoting their products at all.

      Maybe it's stores in the NYC area that are buying ads trying to sell this shit to the area yuppies and millennials that just have to buy the next big thing, and have more money than brains. But then, the WSJ might just not understand how the Internet, Google, and geolocating works, and manages to completely screw up their reporting as a result, like happens too frequently with traditional media companies...

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    10. Re:Uh... by pregister · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ads are not search results. They never said they wouldn't show you their own ads along with your search results. They said they didn't give their own products higher search results.

    11. Re:Uh... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Tell that to MS who has to offer up a randomized list of browsers to choose from, can't bundle in a media player, etc.

      Google is more guilty of antitrust shit than MS ever was, even if you include MS's tactics for bundling their OS in retail PCs (compare that to licensing Android and Google Play Services and Google's Apps).

    12. Re:Uh... by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 2

      That's a stupid comparison. Using another search provider doesn't require wiping and reinstalling your computer. Using another OS does. In fact, switching search engines doesn't really require anything other than typing in a different URL

    13. Re: Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So.. You admit losing the argument then? No rational retort. Cool. Fuck off.

    14. Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's this randomized list of browsers you speak of? Oh, it was only in Europe and they still cheated. As for Google being more guilty of antitrust, well that's just pure bullshit. One only needs to look at the nefarious deeds Microsoft has committed in its past to see who the real criminal is.

    15. Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sherlock"

    16. Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Telus

      That explains it. Far as I can tell, Google is only doing this massive self promotion to US-based IPs.

    17. Re:Uh... by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 1

      Which "Monopoly" is Google responsible for? Search? Pretty sure Bing and Yahoo (and other even less popular search engines still exist) Android? Lots of companies making Android devices and even forking the Android OS.

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    18. Re:Uh... by rosshalz · · Score: 1

      So, which drawer of "No shit" should I file this under?

      S for Sherlock please

    19. Re:Uh... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      hmmm thought I'd try it so searched for "Mobile Phone" no ads or search results for Pixel Phones were returned so I suspect the article is bull!

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    20. Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This just in! News is no longer news, not it is old. They should call it Olds.

      Also, what did Microsoft do about browsers packaged with the OS? Nothing. They were successfully sued in court. They are criminals. Nothing has changed about the company in the last 20 years.

  2. Nostradamus reporting in by OffTheLip · · Score: 1

    Wasn't this predicted by everyone?

    1. Re:Nostradamus reporting in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't this predicted by everyone?

      Google fanbois will still say it isn't true.

    2. Re:Nostradamus reporting in by PessimysticRaven · · Score: 1

      I never would have guessed an advertising company that branches out into creating goods and services would slant their advertising in favor of their advertised products.

      --
      Consistency is only a virtue if you're not a screw-up.
    3. Re:Nostradamus reporting in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm surprised they didn't use Bing to advertise their stuff like Microsoft does.

    4. Re:Nostradamus reporting in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft fanbois will say this is true.

  3. In other news, Bing puts MS products by billrp · · Score: 1

    in the top results

    1. Re:In other news, Bing puts MS products by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I might notice that more than Google because I actually have Nest products and frequently google for products's interaction with Nest. If Google sees me looking for a thing, it might well assume I'm most-interested in the Google product, because I might be.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  4. this is my shocked face. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .....Wait, people still use google, not startpage? Or no ad bockers? Or no duck duck go? Or not a dozen other options i haven't mentioned?

    1. Re:this is my shocked face. by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2

      Don't be disingenuous. Of course people use Google, Capital "E" Evil or not. And DDG is crap. I really wanted to like it, because I dislike Google, but every time I do I feel like I am test-driving a First Year CompSci student's summer project.

    2. Re:this is my shocked face. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Startpage is awesome. I just ran a search on Google and the top result was for T-mobile followed by other cell providers. No ads for Pixel. Startpage, same results*, but more private!!!!!

      *except for the ads for Pixel.

    3. Re:this is my shocked face. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Strange, I've been using ddg as my main search engine for years now, and while I used to feel the need to either check or doublecheck on Google, I haven't searched anything on Google for, checking history, well over a year. I do use scholar.google, haven't found a decent replacement for that.

    4. Re:this is my shocked face. by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Most people still use Google; and worse, they use it while logged in. Humans are naturally lazy. They're not concerned with the small stuff until it actually costs them time or money. They've thrown privacy out the window.

  5. Maybe it's due to the inauguration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They do the same for news and they make some odd choices.

    I now keep getting random marijuana-focused 'news' sites listed under 'health'.

    1. Re:Maybe it's due to the inauguration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, marijuana is a health issue. It has demonstrated medicinal value despite the DEA's claims to the contrary. Its use among young people can have an impact on their mental health and development. Lots of policy decisions are being debated about it. Anyway, right now on news.google.com's Health section I see one article about marijuana, it's titled "German lawmakers back plan for marijuana prescriptions. No, really" which does sound like news to me.

  6. I Explain This to Millennials Constantly by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nothing on Google is free. Your choices, selections, opinions, cookies, bookmarks, contents of your email, YouTube habits are continually feeding their algorithms. They control your search results, and return to you that which makes the most profit to them. They'll keep it "correct enough" so as to still be useful and not piss you off. How could it be otherwise? And I am inevitably met with disbelief, as if I am telling them their beloved Uncle Bob has been a closet pedophile for years. We have somehow raised a generation of people who really believe there are free lunches and benign global corporations.

    1. Re:I Explain This to Millennials Constantly by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem is most of this stuff SHOULD be so low cost that it should be nearly free. Everyone should have a cheap $100 server at home that all your data flows to and you control. There is no reason for any of this basic stuff to cost so much privacy. It costs money because they want to control and shape it, not because of the technology involved. There is no reason Twitter should be burning so much cash for a TEXTING app. Its text, we solved that issue DECADES ago.

      All of these monstrosities are the result of society's woeful technological ignorance, not actual costs to communicate. WE have established a future where ALL communications have the ability to have ads inserted into them. Its fucking creepy as hell.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:I Explain This to Millennials Constantly by gnick · · Score: 2

      You mean Google isn't a non-profit?

      TANSTAAFL seems to escape some people. If you're using it, you're almost certainly paying for it in one form or another. Fortunately for companies like Google, many people place zero value on their privacy/personal details.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:I Explain This to Millennials Constantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have somehow raised a generation of people who really believe there are free lunches...

      My experience with Millennial relatives leads me to conclude they are getting past this. It seems the new belief paradigm is that you should make them lunch, and pay them for the privilege.

    4. Re:I Explain This to Millennials Constantly by whitlocktj · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with 'control' and everything with big data analysis. If I as a marketer want to know who's more likely to buy my product, Big Bang Theory fans vs Duck Dynasty, I need data analysis, and the best tool to use is to pay data collectors for that data.

    5. Re:I Explain This to Millennials Constantly by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Please don't convince everyone to run their own web crawler. Though a distributed search engine that works a bit like BT might not be a bad idea that I'm too lazy to implement.

    6. Re:I Explain This to Millennials Constantly by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      'Control' as in 'The user cant turn it off, opt out, or present false data.'. Your 'need' should never supersede my right to tell you 'no, you cant have that info from me'. At what point did you assume you had an unfettered right to that data? did it ever occur to you that you should respect your users?

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:I Explain This to Millennials Constantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has nothing to do with data analysis, it has everything to do with clicks, viral videos, morally bankrupt click bate sites, ultimately it has to do with provoking enough meat bags at the other end to look at something so that some other meat bags gets paid after another smart group of meat bags have taken their cut... even if the whole thing is pointless because... you know... marketing gets results? does it? wait!..... I know how to take down teh INterNETs!!!! bwhahahahahhahaa.a.a.1!!vb8y^$%^&*( [threat detected], google kill bot engaged in 3. 2. 1. -----

    8. Re:I Explain This to Millennials Constantly by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      People can't even secure their own PCs or IoT devices. What chance have they got at an internet facing server that needs to be customisable to a users need?

      No doubt such a product will come out. Maybe we should build it with a hard coded version of WordPress.

    9. Re:I Explain This to Millennials Constantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good defaults work. The problem is most software doesn't use sane defaults.

    10. Re:I Explain This to Millennials Constantly by Solandri · · Score: 1

      I used to run my own personal email server, so when the small business I worked for wanted its own domain and email in 2004, I offered my services to set it up for them. The setup part is easy. The PITA is that every time there's a problem, you have to fix it. Server down? Figure out what went wrong and get it running again. Mail being bounced? Contact the spam list to get you removed. Someone not able to access their emails? Walk them through to troubleshoot the problem.

      I lasted less than a year before throwing in the towel. I was spending more time babysitting the email server and acting as email technical support than I was doing my actual job. I signed up the company for Google Apps for Business (basically email hosting for your domain using gmail - it was free back then). Google's staff takes care of all these problems now. I did suggest a pay email service as an alternative, but the company wanted free even if it meant they might be giving up privacy.

  7. So google uses it's own advertising? by FeelGood314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a total non-story. This is like complaining when a TV station airs an ad for a show that it will air.

    Google is using it's own advertising to promote it's own products. They aren't using their search results they are using the paid ads on the search page. Now they are paying themselves for the advertisements but they are also being transparent and honest about it. Also since the ad spots are auctioned every ad google uses is an ad spot that could have been used by a paying customer. So the ads are not free for Google.

    1. Re:So google uses it's own advertising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're missing the larger picture. Google's agenda has changed. Apple is also involved with the destruction of the free WWW as we know it.

      Here is verbatum an OT anacdote relayed to me by a friend that can't afford to keep up with the new world of update-until-it's-broken cycles:

      Long time ago, the Apple's YouTube app stopped working, won't load videos or play any videos, other than forward to a default VIDEO that explains the app is no longer supported. It's not like Google needs to do anything for it to work, but rather, Apple pissed Google off due to Apple Maps, and thus, Google preemptively removed the functionality of Apple's YouTube app.

      But I could still see vids in mobile Safari via html5. Google has now intentionally closed that loophole, for no reason, other than they are STILL pissed at Apple. mobile Safari is merely an html5 browser, just like Chrome. So it isn't that the browser is incapable of displaying the html5 content, but instead Google is detecting the client browser, and proactively preventing content download. YouTube is now forever broken for my iOS devices (1@iOS4, 2@iOS5, my newest iOS7 device only still works because it is jb and I am spoofing the browser type)

      Don't bother sending me any more YouTube links. "Don't Be Evil," my ass.

  8. Try this by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

    Try doing a search for Chrome or Firefox on http://bing.com/ while using Windows 10 (using either IE or Edge)...

    This kind of crap really doesn't sit well with me.

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  9. And? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Both searches return the Chrome/Firefox main site as the top entry.

    The Wikipedia article is 2nd below Chrome, followed by Chrome news. The Wikipedia article is below Mozilla news: because they recently changed their logo, the news apparently has higher saliency just now.

    The "People also search for" shows the other browser in first place; IOW, IE is not given top billing in the "also search for" listing.

    This seems cromulent, I'm not sure why this doesn't sit well with you.

    What about any of this is unacceptable to you?

    1. Re:And? by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      On both Windows 10 boxen I have, whenever I do either of those searches on Bing, I get a big box at the top of the results which is basically an ad for Edge which states that is more secure than other browsers.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:And? by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Another Windows 10 Chrome user. Giant video ad above the search results:

      Microsoft Edge is the recommended browser for Windows 10
      Ad by Microsoft microsoft.com/microsoft-edge

      Longer battery life than Chrome / Fastest browser on Windows 10
      Get up to 45% more battery life than Chrome when streaming video with Microsoft Edge.

    3. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys are talking about two different things. Ads are ads. Search results are search results. Ads aren't search results and search results aren't ads. To help you tell them apart, please install an ad blocker. The fact that you guys don't have ad blockers is simply insane.

  10. does it work? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    I've never bought anything that came up in a google search.

  11. Enlighten me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does Google bid on ads? I mean, any money it pays itself is essentially free. The real cost of "winning" a bid is losing money from the top bidder.

    So again, where's the logic on Google bidding on its own ads? Does it set some sort of threshold that says "So long as we lose less than this much money, take over the winning bid?"

  12. Nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just searched for "smoke detector," and Nest wasn't even mentioned until the tenth result. Pixel showed up eleventh on a search for "phones." And I didn't even have a result on the first page for smartwatches of any type when I searched for "watches."

    1. Re:Nah... by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 1

      I got basically the same results. In fact when I searched for phones the only sponsored results were iPhones.

  13. Captain Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    says obvious things..obviously

  14. WSJ Doesn't Run Ads for Competitors by Luthair · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When was the last time a news paper ran adverts for their competitors? I mean, if I'm looking at a newspaper I'm probably interested in news right?

  15. Bull hockey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bull hockey.
    I did the three searches listed and Google products did not come up anywhere on the first page.

  16. apples and oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A news paper gives you the news, google gives you search results. This would be like the wsg tainting their news articles to bad mouth competitors.