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.

15 of 62 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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."
    4. 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......
    5. 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.

    6. 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

  2. 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 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
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

  6. 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.