smallcompany - 5:46 pm on Aug 27, 2012 (gmt 0)
If taken to be true, and I'm not saying it's not, those are all collateral damages, rather than something that was Google's intention at the first place.
I actually think PPC has morphed into predatory pricing, going from innocuous penny clicks to advertise a good or service to eating entire margins, eliminating smaller players. The end result is the same, lesser competition, less choice for consumers, basically a harmful practice (from a regulatory standpoint).
Saying that, I believe G's intention was to use the data it has, and make more money in the given situation (predatory pricing).
Google Analytics, conversion data, everything has been given to G on the plate, so they could see the margins, earnings, etc.
Would anyone think they would ignore such data?
I never agreed with the market driven price per click that ignores lack of competition in the given time and space.
How many times a question was posted about "why I pay so and so while there are no other ads?"
And then a number of wizs would retell what G says about it which I never fully agreed with as long as that ad is still the only one in the space. Preview tool gives options to test it.
In short, yes, Google squeezes out quite a bit by using the situation where there's always something else to be said and explained, so most of the people give up at the end without fully figuring it out.
Google is an animal with no head nor tail you can catch it for. It's more like an amoeba.
Google's algorithm and rules: