It seems to me from this, and from reading other comments here, that one effect of this change is going to be to drive traffic to the biggest player in each product category.
Could a group of effected advertisers be successful in arguing to a court that Google is fostering the creation of dozens or hundreds of monopolies in specific fields?
While Google may or may not have any monopolistic goal in mind, the end effect could be argued to be against the public good.
Aside from that, let me add that I don't see any way that added value can be determined from the landing page. Let's take the example of a drop-shipper that handles their own customer service. Will the landing page tell Google how quickly they answer the phone, or how satisfied their customers are with the handling of customer complaints? In fact, in the "real world" customer service is the only thing that distinguishes many retailers from other similar retailers.
(Indeed, it is not unusual for completely independent stores to have IDENTICAL advertising with only the name and address changed. This is common, say, for small mom-and-pop grocery stores in the U.S. They buy advertising layouts that are sold identically to other stores in different areas.)
One MIGHT determine this by considering not just the landing page, but the "ordering and policies" section of the site. But, largely, this can be determined only by the customer base itself. And, so, only market forces can truly measure "quality" - not some algorithm.
I think the effect of this change will be exactly the opposite of what Google is trying to achieve. Instead of improving "quality", it's just going to create monopolies, and/or make it absolutely essential to successfully game the system in order to even use Adwords.
Could a group of effected advertisers be successful in arguing to a court that Google is fostering the creation of dozens or hundreds of monopolies in specific fields?
Not likely.
Aside from that, let me add that I don't see any way that added value can be determined from the landing page. Let's take the example of a drop-shipper that handles their own customer service. Will the landing page tell Google how quickly they answer the phone, or how satisfied their customers are with the handling of customer complaints? In fact, in the "real world" customer service is the only thing that distinguishes many retailers from other similar retailers.
OK, so why not write a landing page that makes a convincing case for your business's outstanding customer service? Think of it as an opportunity to tell the prospect about your toll-free Customer Service line, your no-questions-asked returns policy, or whatever it is that distinguishes your customer service from that of your competitors. Be specific--and if you can't think of any characteristics that make your business more attractive than your competitors, then you've got a problem that you need to fix.
(Indeed, it is not unusual for completely independent stores to have IDENTICAL advertising with only the name and address changed. This is common, say, for small mom-and-pop grocery stores in the U.S. They buy advertising layouts that are sold identically to other stores in different areas.)
Your argument might make sense if AdWords were sold and served for specific localities only (as in the brick-and-mortar example that you just gave).
I think the effect of this change will be exactly the opposite of what Google is trying to achieve. Instead of improving "quality", it's just going to create monopolies, and/or make it absolutely essential to successfully game the system in order to even use Adwords.
It seems to me that Google's objective is to reduce gaming and exploitation of the system. Whether the current implementation of the changes does that may be open to question, but the goal of providing a better user experience (as defined by Google, which owns the network and is entitled to set standards for the network) isn't unreasonable.
It seems to me that Google's objective is to reduce gaming and exploitation of the system. Whether the current implementation of the changes does that may be open to question, but the goal of providing a better user experience (as defined by Google, which owns the network and is entitled to set standards for the network) isn't unreasonable.
Its not reasonable to think google have wiped out so many advertisers accidentally - if those advertisers were wiped out its cos google dont care they and their money are gone. I'm a programmer and Ive made my fair share of cockups in coding but this isnt a mistake, its a plan. And the plan isnt get rid of undesirables - its get rid of cheapskates, while pushing the cpc up for those who can afford it. The increased revenue from those at the very top will far outweigh the huge numbers put out the game at the bottom I suspect.
As others on recent threads have said, theres many ways for google to have blitzed those who game the system while leaving real advertisers happily getting by on a positive ROI. Its quite obvious thats not what theyve done.
Google can't be responsible for an anti-trust violation if they create a bunch of individual monopolies. First of all that is not even the side effect. It is highly unlkely that is the case in 99.99% of the circumstances. And you can't have a monopoly just because you dominate a single marketing avenue for a particular product yet competitors thrive in other areas.
Everyone just take it easy. Anti-Trust laws are not really applicable to what is going on in any context. If you are unhappy with Google and think they are screwing you, the appropriate responses are to work with them to enact change or leave the program and spend your money elsewhere.
Personally I think the motivations behind the changes are a good one. It is important that they raise the level fo quality of advertisers, landing pages and advetiser sites. If not, you will have a non-stop degredation over time as people simply stop clicking on ANY Google ads because they don't trust them and their previous experiences were less than satisfactory.
Finally for people who in other threads allege that Google is doing this as some kind of money grab... Where is the money... This is costing Google money in the short-run, so claiming they are doing it to push the stock price or meet quarterly earnings is extremely ignorant. The point of this move is a very long-term one. There are no short-term benefits to their bottom line from doing this, at all.
Their infrastructure and costs are in place, reducing the number of people running ads hurts them, even if they do up the price on some of them.
