Google Uses Search To Push Its Products: WSJ

Ads for Google and related companies were found in the top spot in 91% of 25,000 searches related to items, according to a report on WSJ. For example, a search for "phones" would produce ads for Google Pixel, which the company launched last year. From a report: Similar results were found for searches on "Watches" or "smoke detector," which produced ads for Android smartwatches and Nest devices, respectively. In a statement, Google says their marketing programs are "carefully designed" to not impact outside advertisers. "All our bids are excluded from the auction when determining the price paid by other advertisers, and we have strict rules and processes -- set to tougher levels than our customers -- to govern the use of our own ads products." The auction is a process deciding which ads will appear for users when they type in certain search queries. Strategies such as using relevant keywords give advertisers a better shot at their ad appearing on a search results page.

Uh...

[PessimysticRaven]

So, which drawer of "No shit" should I file this under?

Re:

[SeaFox]

A for Anti-trust or M for Monopolistic behavior.

Google Search is a Google service. There's nothing illegal about cross-selling your own products. Furthermore, they are not an ISP held to common-carrier laws when it comes to content. They could close their ad network to all competitors, much like Apple does not stock products [mobihealthnews.com] in their retail stores from certain companies they are in legal disagreements with.

People are free to use Bing or some other search engine if they don't like the (lack of) results.

Re:

[Tyler Whitlock]

False Comparison Microsoft didn't just push IE, they tried to force IE to be THE web browser on Windows machines, something that although was illegal, I find should have been in their rights to do since it's their operating system. Monopolization can get hazy though, so I understand why that wasn't allowed. Regardless, Google isn't forcing people to use Pixel, they're just advertising it. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Re:

[ScienceofSpock]

That's a stupid comparison. Using another search provider doesn't require wiping and reinstalling your computer. Using another OS does. In fact, switching search engines doesn't really require anything other than typing in a different URL

I Explain This to Millennials Constantly

[RobotRunAmok]

Nothing on Google is free. Your choices, selections, opinions, cookies, bookmarks, contents of your email, YouTube habits are continually feeding their algorithms. They control your search results, and return to you that which makes the most profit to them. They'll keep it "correct enough" so as to still be useful and not piss you off. How could it be otherwise? And I am inevitably met with disbelief, as if I am telling them their beloved Uncle Bob has been a closet pedophile for years. We have somehow rais

Re:I Explain This to Millennials Constantly

[spire3661]

The problem is most of this stuff SHOULD be so low cost that it should be nearly free. Everyone should have a cheap $100 server at home that all your data flows to and you control. There is no reason for any of this basic stuff to cost so much privacy. It costs money because they want to control and shape it, not because of the technology involved. There is no reason Twitter should be burning so much cash for a TEXTING app. Its text, we solved that issue DECADES ago.

All of these monstrosities are the result of society's woeful technological ignorance, not actual costs to communicate. WE have established a future where ALL communications have the ability to have ads inserted into them. Its fucking creepy as hell.

Re:

[Tyler Whitlock]

It has nothing to do with 'control' and everything with big data analysis. If I as a marketer want to know who's more likely to buy my product, Big Bang Theory fans vs Duck Dynasty, I need data analysis, and the best tool to use is to pay data collectors for that data.

Re:

[spire3661]

'Control' as in 'The user cant turn it off, opt out, or present false data.'. Your 'need' should never supersede my right to tell you 'no, you cant have that info from me'. At what point did you assume you had an unfettered right to that data? did it ever occur to you that you should respect your users?

Re:

[omnichad]

Please don't convince everyone to run their own web crawler. Though a distributed search engine that works a bit like BT might not be a bad idea that I'm too lazy to implement.

Re:

[thegarbz]

People can't even secure their own PCs or IoT devices. What chance have they got at an internet facing server that needs to be customisable to a users need?

No doubt such a product will come out. Maybe we should build it with a hard coded version of WordPress.

Re:

[Solandri]

I used to run my own personal email server, so when the small business I worked for wanted its own domain and email in 2004, I offered my services to set it up for them. The setup part is easy. The PITA is that every time there's a problem, you have to fix it. Server down? Figure out what went wrong and get it running again. Mail being bounced? Contact the spam list to get you removed. Someone not able to access their emails? Walk them through to troubleshoot the problem.

I lasted less than a year

Re:

[gnick]

You mean Google isn't a non-profit?

TANSTAAFL seems to escape some people. If you're using it, you're almost certainly paying for it in one form or another. Fortunately for companies like Google, many people place zero value on their privacy/personal details.

Re:

[sexconker]

Tell that to MS who has to offer up a randomized list of browsers to choose from, can't bundle in a media player, etc.

Google is more guilty of antitrust shit than MS ever was, even if you include MS's tactics for bundling their OS in retail PCs (compare that to licensing Android and Google Play Services and Google's Apps).

Re:

[spire3661]

Which is EXACTLY why they split into Alphabet, to avoid anti-trust.

Re:

[bobmajdakjr]

yeah, really. go figure that a company that has multiple products, especially when those products are related to the one you are using, suggest you try their others as well. so crazy. so immoral.

Re:

[phantomfive]

When Google first started branching out into non-search, they made a huge effort to declare that they didn't give their own products higher search results. The reason, of course, is because they wanted to defend accusations of abusing their monopoly. Maybe you don't remember that.

Now they are abusing their monopoly, it seems.

Re:Uh...

[pregister]

Ads are not search results. They never said they wouldn't show you their own ads along with your search results. They said they didn't give their own products higher search results.

Re:

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

Which "Monopoly" is Google responsible for? Search? Pretty sure Bing and Yahoo (and other even less popular search engines still exist) Android? Lots of companies making Android devices and even forking the Android OS.

Re:

[cbiltcliffe]

I'm not sure you should.
I search Google for "phones", and the first ad that comes up is a refurb iPhone 6 from Telus. In fact, there are 6 ads: 3 of them for various iPhone products, and 3 for Samsung Galaxy products.
Then, the organic listings are for various carriers, plus the big box stores that sell phones. Nowhere on the entire first page do I see the word "pixel."
For "watches" I see ads for "Call It Spring" (WTF kind of name is that for a watch company?), Timex, Ashford, Rosefield. Organic listings

Re:

[Roshan Halappanavar]

So, which drawer of "No shit" should I file this under?

S for Sherlock please

Re:

[Big Hairy Ian]

hmmm thought I'd try it so searched for "Mobile Phone" no ads or search results for Pixel Phones were returned so I suspect the article is bull!

Nostradamus reporting in

[OffTheLip]

Wasn't this predicted by everyone?

Re:

[PessimysticRaven]

I never would have guessed an advertising company that branches out into creating goods and services would slant their advertising in favor of their advertised products.

In other news, Bing puts MS products

[billrp]

in the top results

Re:

[bluefoxlucid]

I might notice that more than Google because I actually have Nest products and frequently google for products's interaction with Nest. If Google sees me looking for a thing, it might well assume I'm most-interested in the Google product, because I might be.

Re:

[RobotRunAmok]

Don't be disingenuous. Of course people use Google, Capital "E" Evil or not. And DDG is crap. I really wanted to like it, because I dislike Google, but every time I do I feel like I am test-driving a First Year CompSci student's summer project.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange, I've been using ddg as my main search engine for years now, and while I used to feel the need to either check or doublecheck on Google, I haven't searched anything on Google for, checking history, well over a year. I do use scholar.google, haven't found a decent replacement for that.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

So google uses it's own advertising?

[FeelGood314]

This is a total non-story. This is like complaining when a TV station airs an ad for a show that it will air.

Google is using it's own advertising to promote it's own products. They aren't using their search results they are using the paid ads on the search page. Now they are paying themselves for the advertisements but they are also being transparent and honest about it. Also since the ad spots are auctioned every ad google uses is an ad spot that could have been used by a paying customer. So the ads are not free for Google.

Try this

[The-Ixian]

Try doing a search for Chrome or Firefox on http://bing.com/ [bing.com] while using Windows 10 (using either IE or Edge)...

This kind of crap really doesn't sit well with me.

And?

[Okian Warrior]

Both searches return the Chrome/Firefox main site as the top entry.

The Wikipedia article is 2nd below Chrome, followed by Chrome news. The Wikipedia article is below Mozilla news: because they recently changed their logo, the news apparently has higher saliency just now.

The "People also search for" shows the other browser in first place; IOW, IE is not given top billing in the "also search for" listing.

This seems cromulent, I'm not sure why this doesn't sit well with you.

What about any of this is unacceptab

Re:

[The-Ixian]

On both Windows 10 boxen I have, whenever I do either of those searches on Bing, I get a big box at the top of the results which is basically an ad for Edge which states that is more secure than other browsers.

Re:

[omnichad]

Another Windows 10 Chrome user. Giant video ad above the search results:

Microsoft Edge is the recommended browser for Windows 10
Ad by Microsoft microsoft.com/microsoft-edge

Longer battery life than Chrome / Fastest browser on Windows 10
Get up to 45% more battery life than Chrome when streaming video with Microsoft Edge.

does it work?

[AndyKron]

I've never bought anything that came up in a google search.

Re:

[silverkniveshotmail.]

I got basically the same results. In fact when I searched for phones the only sponsored results were iPhones.

Captain Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

says obvious things..obviously

WSJ Doesn't Run Ads for Competitors

[Luthair]

When was the last time a news paper ran adverts for their competitors? I mean, if I'm looking at a newspaper I'm probably interested in news right?

apples and oranges

[Anonymous Coward]

A news paper gives you the news, google gives you search results. This would be like the wsg tainting their news articles to bad mouth competitors.