randle - 5:34 pm on Mar 24, 2013 (gmt 0)
As I understand what Matt Cutts is saying here, it's that the algorithm does not directly promote "brands", as in building a list of brands and then boosting those sites. However, they are doing their best to measure the qualities that make a good brand, and the algorithm does reward those qualities.
Theres a reason when Tedster speaks, people should listen. Google has been in love with the traits "Brand" sites give off for some time now and its no secret.
Eric Schmidt said this in 2008:
"Brands are the solution, not the problem," Mr. Schmidt said. "Brands are how you sort out the cesspool."
"Brand affinity is clearly hard wired," he said. "It is so fundamental to human existence that it's not going away. It must have a genetic component."
The only thing worth thinking and talking about now is what are these traits, how does the algorithm reward them and where does my site stand in relation to these traits.
It is what it is - Its got nothing to do with size, or Adwords expenditure, or Google trying to stomp out the little guy. In their quest to cleanse the results of what they dont consider quality, and promote what they do, they have studied and essentially reversed engineered the traits of "Brand".
Personally I think its a crutch that resulted in to many great informational sites being pushed so far down no one can ever find them anymore. - But thats just a personal observation from someone who has spent way to many years looking at search engines and has allowed nostalgia to cloud his thinking.
Just get to work thinking about the concept of "Brand" and what types of traits sites like that give off.