This Just In…”Sponsored Clicks Increasingly Important in Search Results”
location based services
The Center For Media Research has just released a report that comes to what many will agree is an alarming conclusion; Sponsored Clicks (or the likelihood of a click that generates revenue for the search engine) are having an increasingly significant bearing on search results.
Among the statistics cited in the report: Google had 1.4 billion searches in March of 2006 that included a sponsored ad. This is a 50% increase vs. a year ago.
942 million searches on Yahoo included a paid ad in March of 2006 representing a 30% increase when compared to the same period last year.
This has enormous implications across all segments of search, both fixed and mobile. If the search engines realize that their bread is being buttered better (try saying that three times fast), by weighting the results to favor links that are likely to be revenue producers a whole new form of bias will suddenly become a dominant factor in search and one that clearly will skew results away from what the searcher is trying to find, and towards what the search engine algorithm is hoping they’ll consider buying.
This presents something of a dilemma; if all the search engines choose to take this tack (and it’s unlikely that they’ll veer AWAY from making more money) than the consumer has little option but to suffer with the inevitable degradation in the quality of natural search results save to not search at all. Hardly a viable choice.
Of course the siliver lining in this particular cloud would have to be the opportunity that this could create for new and better search engines or tools. Personally, I like the idea of highly specific search widgets that can be easily customized by the consumer to conduct any search imaginable with or without advertising.
I’m curious if the readers of Mobilecrunch agree that this is a terrible trend for search and if so, what kinds of initiatives would you like to see in the upstart companies that we will ultimately flock to should we notice a real degradation in the quality of our searches.
Categories: Mobile Applications, Analysis |
Bookmark this post with del.icio.us 9 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Oliver,
I only read the brief, but I’m not sure that I agree with your take on this. The report merely states that a larger percentage of total searches are showing a paid result as well as organic results. To me, that indicates the continued rise of paid keywords as an advertising tool. I imagine what is happening is that, as players new to keyword advertising enter the space, they’re buying new keywords that have not been bid on before, with the result that searches that only returned organic results previously now return both organic and paid results. Since the paid results are clearly segregated in the sponsored results area, I don’t see how this is bad for those of us interested in only organic results - we can ignore the paid ads.
Incidentally, new search engines would not necessarily help unless they created revenue in some other way - they still need to make money, and the clearest way to do that as a search engine is to have paid ads.
Comment by rick gregory — May 5, 2006 @ 9:08 am
Rick,
I actually am not surprised by your opinion, that’s what I thought too until I saw that a large part of the increase was “in line” ads, or those that aren’t on the sidebar but distributed through the natural results.
Also, you might have noticed the trend towards keywords within results that are themselves sponsored links. (think cellphone, tv, mobile, etc.).
Clearly ads that have a preponderance of these paid keywords are going to get precedence in essence making all the results adwords enabled.
Sad to say but if this trend continues we are assured a degradation in search until it is basically navigating adverts.
OF course Microsoft could come in and save the day by offering a truly free product that has no advertising.
Shoot they could play it nasty and require that you’re running one of their verified authentic copies of Windows or Office to deliver the results to you…
that way you’re really paying for the search subscription as part of your Windows or Office purchase price and MSFT can argue that they are simply selling subscriptions (plus get more tax breaks most likely)…
Comment by Oliver — May 5, 2006 @ 9:33 am
People powered tagging, RSS, etc will quickly fill any deficiencies of corrupt search engines:
http://www.wink.com/
Nice to see that the supposedly altruistic people at Google are as corrupt and greedy as anyone else.
Comment by Todd — May 5, 2006 @ 10:22 am
Oliver,
(Note: the comments below apply only to Google, which is the only search engine I use regularly.)
I found your analysis to be very naive and not in keeping with your normal posts.
First of all, what are “in-line” ads? Google has no ads that are distributed through the natural results. All ads on Google.com are clearly marked as such.
Secondly, a simple increase in the number of searches that include a sponsored ad means absolutely nothing - during the periods you cite, the total number of searches also went up dramatically. A slightly more meaningful metric would be the % of pages on which sponsored links appeared, but even that means nothing in isolation.
All in all, this was very disappointing - I hadn’t pegged you for one of the sky-is-falling, Google-is-evil alarmists who fail to understand that Google’s is single-mindedly focused on the user, and on winning in the long term. That always, always, always means doing right by the user, no matter what the revenue impact.
Comment by Sam — May 5, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
Dear Sam, thanks for reading and for commenting. I am always interested in dissenting view points, however I certainly take strenuous exception to your use of the term naive in regards to my commentary.
First of all, have you examined the report in question? I have. All of it. I didn’t bother to pull out all the data since I provided the link.
Secondly, I am not a sky is falling alarmist, however I am decidedly pro-sumer and believe that there are certain things that simply shouldn’t be done under the guise of fact.
Third, I have had additional private communications that I am not at liberty to reveal (however the person who provided the information is welcome to come forward and post if he so chooses) that both Google and Yahoo have been weighting revenue generating links more heavily than their respective algorithms would otherwise have done in order to maximize exposure of certain ads to generate additional revenue.
Fourth, I hardly think that Google of all companies, needs to resort to any deceptive practice to wring some additional revenue out of their users; they’re wildly profitable to such a degree that it seems profoundly greedy to manipulate core search results to generate more coins for the coffer.
Fifth, Google has indeed begun to occasionally use in line ads. That does not mean that they aren’t identifiable as advertising, but they are interspersed amongst natural search results.
Further, as stated here Google does in fact accept fees to weight results by crawling sites that pay them more frequently thus generating a boost in ranking basked upon fresher content.
All in all I hardly think my reporting on this issue was shoddy. In fact, I think your off the cuff assault is the one that probably needs to be better vetted…
Oliver
Comment by Oliver — May 5, 2006 @ 7:47 pm
Oliver,
I didn’t see a link to the entire report. I’ll look again, but:
1) I’ve see the inline add tests Google’s done and this simply is not showing up in the vast majority of search results. I can’t see how this could have affected the report results. And, in the interface tests I’ve seen, the results are clearly marked as sponsored. They’re not deceptive in that sense.
2) What’s your evidence for the statement that Google accepts fees to weight search results? I’ve been intimately involved in PPC campaigns using Google and this is simply not an option I’ve ever seen or heard of. If you’re talking about paid inclusion, it’s true that Yahoo does this (though it’s unclear that it affects the ranking of a page it does guarantee that the page will be included in the index).
If you’re relying on the ZDNet article there are two issues with it. First, it is 2.5 years old. Second, it directly contradicts your assertion, to wit:
“In contrast, Google delivers unbiased search results from a vast index of Web sites; the company does not accept fees for cataloging sites.”
Sorry, Oliver, but I think this post is not only alarmist, but also flat our wrong.
Comment by rick gregory — May 5, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
I do know that Yahoo DOES have paid placement in ‘natural’ search engine results. I have a friend who sold SEP for a Yahoo reseller for about a year.
Now as to Google all I can say is that the company that was selling SEP on Yahoo was talking about doing Google but I’m not sure what transpired.
I do have some industry contacts and I’ve asked them to comment on this topic. They have more direct information than I do and I would rather them post it directly than have me post what they have told me.
Comment by William Volk — May 5, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
Additional note:
Some of the compaines paying for paid placement in the search results may also be paying for SEO via content. There are now companies dedicated to tweaking websites to generate higher placements in true ‘natural’ search via specific content tricks.
I am also seeing a number of websites who’s entire purposes seems to be to generate links to other websites.
Comment by William Volk — May 6, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
Oliver,
I appreciate your considered response to my comments.
To address each of your points in the order you presented them:
1. I have not examined the report in question, although I did review the data here (http://www.centerformediaresearch.com/cfmr_brief.cfm?fnl=060505) carefully. In summary, total search volume increased 35% while volume of searches on which at least 1 sponsored link (SL) appeared increased by 50%. Nominally speaking, that means searches with SLs increased a bit more than overall search volume. Given that the total value of transactions being executed over the internet is also skyrocketing, isn’t this perfectly natural? You and I and everyone in the world are simply much more inclined to go to the web and search for things that are commercial in nature today than we were 3, or 5, or 10 years ago because we all know we’ll get good information, good prices, and good transaction capabilities. Clearly, there is a natural level of commercial vs non-commercial searches which represents an equilibrium. Apparently, we’ve not reached that point. As consumers grow more comfortable with the internet, they’ll transact more and more on the web, which means that their commercial searches may increase relative to their non-commercial searches. Clearly, people are also using the web for ever greater non-commercial use as well. What all of this means to me is that commercial vs non-commercial searches (and hence growth of results which contain SLs) is a function of how consumers are behaving, not a function of manipulation by search engines. If I type “ipod warranty info” and google spams me with overly commercial results, I’ll simply use another engine which, much like google did when it arrived on the scene, uses better relevancy algorithms instead of commercial value to determine what to show. It simply is not in the interests of Google (or even Yahoo, though they are less consumer-oriented) to ever show you anything but what you want (to the best of their ability). It is too easy to switch.
2. I am pro-sumer as well. So we’ve finally found something on which to agree!
3. Your claims of inside, confidential information leave me helpless to discuss, refute, or even analyze the information at hand. It is clearly impossible for me to make an intelligent remark regarding your “private communcations”. However, given that Google is wide-open and available 24/7 on the web, I invite you to demonstrate any sort of search that validates your claims. Keep in mind that showing commercial information is not an evil in and of itself - many consumers WANT commercial information online, just as they want catalogs in the offline world (which, after all, is nothing more than an entire book full of ads).
4. I agree that Google is wildly profitable. I don’t understand your point here - you seem to be saying that they have little motivation to do bad things in the short term, like manipulate search results. I fully agree with you. I thought your post was arguing that Google and others ARE manipulating results for short-term commercial gain.
5. You claim Google is using in-line ads. Would you please send me a link to a google.com search results page that shows inline ads (whether or not they are marked as such)? For the sake of clarity, an in-line ad to me is a google.com search results page in which an ad appears in any location traditionally reserved for editorial results. Currently, Google carves out the right side for ads, as well as the top two lines of the page for highly commercial queries like “DVD rental”. I will be eager to see ads in any other location.
6. You cited an article. I read it. First off all, it is THREE years old, Oliver. That’s a long time in absolute terms, and an eternity in internet terms. Secondly, I am again confused by your argument - one or the other of us is not reading well. Here’s the one relevant quote I pulled from the article which you cited: “In contrast, Google delivers unbiased search results from a vast index of Web sites; the company does not accept fees for cataloging sites.” This quote, taken from the article you cited, is in direct contradition to what you said, which is “Further, as stated here Google does in fact accept fees to weight results by crawling sites that pay them more frequently thus generating a boost in ranking basked upon fresher content.” Can you please explain what you are trying to say? Your citation seems directly contradictory to your assertion.
Oliver, I appluad your courteous and measured response to my admittedly hostile original posting. While I maintain my strong disagreement with your post and your conclusions, I very much respect the dialogue you engage in with your readers and I remain a fan.
Regards,
-Sam
Comment by Sam — May 6, 2006 @ 1:46 pm