In the end, it is their advertising space. If they dont want to offer certain spaces to advertisers I guess they dont have to.
Once anything (government, company, group etc.) achieves near monopoly or monopoly status this kind of thing always follows. History speaks all to well in this regard.
I'll have to respectfully disagree with Acrill. Google has a certian responsbility to its clients since it lays somewhere between an Oligopoly and Monopoly. If it taking action to limit competition than it may be illegal. This behavior gives Google an unfair advantage which in turn limits competition. Google's motto is also in question, "don't be evil". I think by not playing by the same rules that they layout for their client, Google is violating their motto.
I'm curious to hear other peoples view on this?
One reason that I only use 3rd party analytics. I really don't trust the Gorg(or others) to not peek at my CPA/ROI and directly compete against me using my own data.
Life isn't fair and nor is Google, that's why for example their quality score rules don't apply to everyone, Ask.com and certain others for instance. Its their adspace, people can complain but it will take many more voices until they care what we think if they ever do.
I specifically moved my smaller accounts to msn since they don't need that much traffic. I'm curious to see how much traffic bing gets once they complete the yahoo transition. I'll move more over because I really don't think Google is treating its advertisers right.
When a business has 10 customers, the value of one customer is 1/10. The more customers a company has, the value per (regular/ordinary) customer usually gets reduced. This never disclosed openly by any company, but welcome to the real world !
Once a business is small, they do not openly say they have 'premium customers.' Once a business becomes really big enough, they will openly differentiate between ordinary and premium and start classifying. Some others may not classify it openly, but do it all the same. In the real world just about everywhere it is there.
Now when it comes to promoting oneself, the rules are even different. It will not be called promotion, but may called by any other name. They can even say it is an experimental mode and soon if it works, will be passed on to other advertisers as well.
The ultimate unwritten rule in business is.... it is my business and I will run in a way most beneficial for me. As far as nobody complains, well and good. If someone complains and it is too small, I will ignore it. If it grows I will notice and do nothing... However only when it starts to shake my business I will think about doing something.
So for them to change things either of the two things should happen...
1. More and more customers like you can complain until they notice.
2. A really good competitor provides with you a better product.
Yes Google's comparison sites seem to be in direct conflict with their own 'rules' that everyone else must follow:
* Arbitrage sites without relevant and original content that are designed for the purpose of showing ads
* Affiliate sites without relevant and original content that are designed to drive traffic to another site with a different domain
So we all must ask ourselves, when they started to remove and suspend affiliate marketers from AdWords, they must have known that they would be releasing their own comparison web sites. Talk about conflict of interest…
Its Google world, we just happen to live in it….
I'm suprised this isn't a greater issue with advertisers.
I know most advertisers haven't experienced google's comparison ads because they are not affected by this particular vertical. However, if they are doing this now in mortgage, I'm sure its not going to be long before they expand to other industries.
Take a look and type in the term "mortgage". Imagine when they do similar stuff with shopping engines, medical services, attorneys, lead generation, etc. Very scary.
I worry about the stuff I can control. Not the stuff I can't.