diberry - 3:54 pm on Apr 20, 2013 (gmt 0)
Did the visitors care, or did the mall have enough brands there to keep the visitors happy and coming back? Did the visitors ask for the "unfairly removed" store by name at a high percentage or did most not even notice it was missing?
As a search/knowledge engine is it a better idea to remove Best Buy or "Mom & Pop tv sales" from the results if you want your visitors to keep coming back to you more often so you can show them more ads?
I'm afraid it's just the opposite - they removed busy, KNOWN chain shops and eateries, and in one case a big box store as well-known as Best Buy, and replaced them with the retail equivalent of spam: little one-off shops and eateries no one had ever heard of, that hardly ever seem to have a customer in them.
And yeah, a number of visitors were hopping mad and complained to the mall. The press wrote some articles about the mall's bizarre determination to drive out the big box store, which almost functioned as an anchor store, and replace it with another type of store the mall already had more than enough of.
It's not completely analogous to Google's situation, though. If the mall doesn't have what I want, it doesn't get any money from me. Google, however, can make money even when it doesn't give me what I want, because I might click an ad or 12 before I realize I'm not getting what I want from them. BUT if the Adwords buyers are getting poor conversions for their advertising dollars, they go away, right?
So the most important thing for Adwords is to deliver conversions for the ad buyers. Google's not a shop or a destination. They're more like a real estate broker - they have to match buyers and sellers so everyone's happy with the deal.
Ad buyers here are telling us, they buy ads even when they rank #1 organically, because "dominating the page" results in more conversions. It sounds to me like wherever the brand sites are, they're still going to spend about the same on Adwords so there is no advantage to Google to push them up OR down.