Whitey - 12:57 am on Apr 21, 2013 (gmt 0)
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.
@diberry - an interesting analogy, indeed.
Do you think a mall with, say multiple stores of the same brand is a healthier place than a mall that has different brands in it?
Where I live the localised coffee shops have chased the big brands out of the streets across the country. The evidence is in the people that come in community to sip coffee and chat in a pleasant environment, often with the owners and staff being part of the blend.
The big brands couldn't make a consistently compelling superior experience to overcome that.
In the malls, where the coffee shop brands still survive - small operators are able to function on an equal footing. I'm not sure how it is in the US/Canada/UK and Europe or across other regions - but I'd imagine it's similar. The difference with the US/Canada is the huge scale of the market which acts against a lot of small/medium business'. But big business often delivers a "plastic" experience, with "plastic" ingredients as in supermarkets with rows of poor quality processed foods. It could be that this mindset is spilling over into the arrangement of SERP's by Google.
It doesn't matter what you put there, so long as the people pay to eat it.
In the analogy of the above, perhaps it also reinforces the need to get niche, personal and local if you're a small business trying to enable search results.
[Having said that I do see situations where the opposite has occurred, like mega DYI/Trade/hardware stores with expert assistants].
It also says to me that social has a very strong presence in the greater scheme of things, and Google is not good at enabling this.
Google's brand is in enabling search requests. And because of this sites that appear in the results probably have a low repeat retention rate amongst pure visitors. This probably demonstrates the NEED<>NEED loop.
Does anyone see a different perspective on this?