interesting though there are plenty of "brand" sites that got pandered
11:59 am on Sep 14, 2011 (gmt 0)
I agree with the spirit of Aaron's post. Let us a agree on a few things:
Internet is too important to have one company essentially control the gateway to it and play God with sites: today is fine, tomorrow is nowhere to be found. Their share is as much as 95% in some EU countries, and face it, G can penalize your niche or site tomorrow and you can go out of business or barely make it.
Google is an advertising company. Their stated goal is to keep people that come to the 'search engine' within Google (would you like Local, Travel, Images, News, Books...and YouTube with your fries?) and of course to have as many people as possible click on ads. So the goal is not to send people to the 'best site,' which would be your site in organic search, but to a similar enough one that makes them money. They are entitled to make a living obviously, but WTF? Like a content farm with dozens of ads and content tweaked to make you click on ads.
Google is an advertising company, their clients are big brands. Big money is not in small business, brands spend way more than us in ads each year and you get one, it replaces thousands of small businesses. Any advertising company drools over that. Not that they are giving up small business money by forcing them to compete with those few dollars for adwords.
Google is trying to mold the internet to fit it's financial goals and that means taking quite a few small businesses out.
Notice how Google started talking about brands and then when they did the SERPs were "better". The same will when Google (illegally and unfairly IMO) does that with Google+. The decision has been made upstairs...