Slightly interesting google antitrust article

Bill · 2008-09-13, 04:36 PM

A new article about google's interactions with the justice deptartment over monopolization allegations... Triggered by more talk of a yahoo takeover... Plus a batch of articles coming out about a google antitrust case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/te.../13nocera.html

"Like many Internet entrepreneurs, Mr. Savage built his business model around Google when he started it in late 2005. Using Google’s AdWords program, he planned to make bids on specific search terms — “ball bearings,” say — that would ensure that a Sourcetool ad would be placed high on the right-hand side of the Google page whenever someone searched for places to buy ball bearings. That’s how paid search works.

But because his was a free site, he needed to generate his revenue from advertising. For that, he used Google’s other ad program, AdSense, which placed targeted advertising on the right-hand page of the Sourcetool home page whenever a user “clicked through” to Sourcetool to find a company that would sell him ball bearings.

Mr. Savage estimates that he was paid around 10 cents every time someone clicked an ad on his site. The difference between that and what he paid Google to advertise against search terms — usually around 5 or 6 cents —was his profit.

According to the letter Mr. Savage submitted to the Justice Department, Google at first gave him nothing but encouragement, even naming Sourcetool its AdSense site of the week at one point. By May 2006 — with the company barely six months old — it was making around $115,000 a month on $653,000 in revenue. According to Mr. Savage, his biggest expense was paying Google to advertise against search terms, which was costing around $500,000 a month.

In the summer of 2006, however, Google pulled the rug out from under him. Suddenly and without warning, Google raised Sourcetool’s minimum bid requirement from 5 or 6 cents to $1, and in some cases to as much as $5 or $10. Mr. Savage discovered this was happening only after he saw that Sourcetool’s traffic had dwindled drastically and began looking into the reasons. Because the new Google-mandated minimum bid was so much higher than the maximum he allowed for (usually around 10 cents), Sourcetool’s ads had disappeared from the Google search results page. That’s why his traffic had dropped off.

When Mr. Savage asked Google executives what the problem was, he was told that Sourcetool’s “landing page quality” was low. Google had recently changed the algorithm for choosing advertisements for prominent positions on Google search pages, and Mr. Savage’s site had been identified as one that didn’t meet the algorithm’s new standards. (As Google defines it, landing page quality includes a series of attributes — loading speed, user friendliness, relevancy, originality and dozens of other characteristics — that it deems appropriately “googly.”)

Although the company never told Mr. Savage what, precisely, was wrong with his landing page quality, it offered some suggestions for improvement, including running fewer AdSense ads and manually typing in the addresses and phone numbers of the 600,000 companies in his directory, even though their Web sites were just a click away. At a cost of several hundred thousand dollars, he made some of the changes Google suggested. No improvement.

When he pressed Google to explain why the changes hadn’t helped, he said, the company gave him the brushoff.

“Your landing pages will continue to require higher bids in order to display your ads, resulting in a very low return on your investment,” a Google executive named Nathan Anderson wrote on Jan. 2, 2007. “Therefore AdWords may not be the online advertising program for you.”

Two days later, in another e-mail message, Mr. Anderson told Mr. Savage to “please refrain from repeatedly contacting our team.”

As he stewed about his predicament, Mr. Savage came to believe that there was something more nefarious going on than a subpar landing page. Google, he believed, didn’t like his Web directory because it was a search engine itself — though much more narrowly focused than Google’s search engine — and Google found it a competitive threat. "

A slew of articles popping up about this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/te...html?ref=media

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?.../09/13/1738201

elKabong · 2008-09-13, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill

At a cost of several hundred thousand dollars, he made some of the changes Google suggested.

Definitely sounds like the guy got screwed around by Google, but several hundred thousand dollars to change a landing page???

I think he either got really screwed over by his webmaster/web designer, or he isn't being entirely truthful. |confused|

tickler · 2008-09-14, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elKabong

Definitely sounds like the guy got screwed around by Google, but several hundred thousand dollars to change a landing page???

I think he either got really screwed over by his webmaster/web designer, or he isn't being entirely truthful. |confused|

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill

Although the company never told Mr. Savage what, precisely, was wrong with his landing page quality, it offered some suggestions for improvement, including running fewer AdSense ads and manually typing in the addresses and phone numbers of the 600,000 companies in his directory, even though their Web sites were just a click away. At a cost of several hundred thousand dollars, he made some of the changes Google suggested. No improvement.

Do the math: $200k / 600k = 33¢ per listing

Now myself, I would have done a little PHP script to create "HTML" pages. Computer generated(CRON job), but they don't appear to be dynamic, or database driven.

Google & their over-priced minimum bids have been going for quite some time.

elKabong · 2008-09-14, 04:26 PM

He should have invested a little of that "$115,000 a month" in a decent script and outsourced the data entry to India or the Philippines.

I can see Google's point though: a lot of, if not most, link lists and tgps won't allow submitters to use their outgoing links to go to another link list/tgp instead of sponsors. Google should have just told him upfront and not screwed him around.

2008-09-13, 04:36 PM	#1
Bill Selling porn allows me to stay in a constant state of Bliss - ain't that a trip! Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,914	Slightly interesting google antitrust article A new article about google's interactions with the justice deptartment over monopolization allegations... Triggered by more talk of a yahoo takeover... Plus a batch of articles coming out about a google antitrust case. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/te.../13nocera.html "Like many Internet entrepreneurs, Mr. Savage built his business model around Google when he started it in late 2005. Using Google’s AdWords program, he planned to make bids on specific search terms — “ball bearings,” say — that would ensure that a Sourcetool ad would be placed high on the right-hand side of the Google page whenever someone searched for places to buy ball bearings. That’s how paid search works. But because his was a free site, he needed to generate his revenue from advertising. For that, he used Google’s other ad program, AdSense, which placed targeted advertising on the right-hand page of the Sourcetool home page whenever a user “clicked through” to Sourcetool to find a company that would sell him ball bearings. Mr. Savage estimates that he was paid around 10 cents every time someone clicked an ad on his site. The difference between that and what he paid Google to advertise against search terms — usually around 5 or 6 cents —was his profit. According to the letter Mr. Savage submitted to the Justice Department, Google at first gave him nothing but encouragement, even naming Sourcetool its AdSense site of the week at one point. By May 2006 — with the company barely six months old — it was making around $115,000 a month on $653,000 in revenue. According to Mr. Savage, his biggest expense was paying Google to advertise against search terms, which was costing around $500,000 a month. In the summer of 2006, however, Google pulled the rug out from under him. Suddenly and without warning, Google raised Sourcetool’s minimum bid requirement from 5 or 6 cents to $1, and in some cases to as much as $5 or $10. Mr. Savage discovered this was happening only after he saw that Sourcetool’s traffic had dwindled drastically and began looking into the reasons. Because the new Google-mandated minimum bid was so much higher than the maximum he allowed for (usually around 10 cents), Sourcetool’s ads had disappeared from the Google search results page. That’s why his traffic had dropped off. When Mr. Savage asked Google executives what the problem was, he was told that Sourcetool’s “landing page quality” was low. Google had recently changed the algorithm for choosing advertisements for prominent positions on Google search pages, and Mr. Savage’s site had been identified as one that didn’t meet the algorithm’s new standards. (As Google defines it, landing page quality includes a series of attributes — loading speed, user friendliness, relevancy, originality and dozens of other characteristics — that it deems appropriately “googly.”) Although the company never told Mr. Savage what, precisely, was wrong with his landing page quality, it offered some suggestions for improvement, including running fewer AdSense ads and manually typing in the addresses and phone numbers of the 600,000 companies in his directory, even though their Web sites were just a click away. At a cost of several hundred thousand dollars, he made some of the changes Google suggested. No improvement. When he pressed Google to explain why the changes hadn’t helped, he said, the company gave him the brushoff. “Your landing pages will continue to require higher bids in order to display your ads, resulting in a very low return on your investment,” a Google executive named Nathan Anderson wrote on Jan. 2, 2007. “Therefore AdWords may not be the online advertising program for you.” Two days later, in another e-mail message, Mr. Anderson told Mr. Savage to “please refrain from repeatedly contacting our team.” As he stewed about his predicament, Mr. Savage came to believe that there was something more nefarious going on than a subpar landing page. Google, he believed, didn’t like his Web directory because it was a search engine itself — though much more narrowly focused than Google’s search engine — and Google found it a competitive threat. " A slew of articles popping up about this... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/te...html?ref=media http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?.../09/13/1738201

2008-09-14, 04:26 PM	#4
elKabong And Lord, we are especially thankful for nuclear power, the cleanest, safest energy source there is. Except for solar, which is just a pipe dream Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Kansas City Posts: 225	He should have invested a little of that "$115,000 a month" in a decent script and outsourced the data entry to India or the Philippines. I can see Google's point though: a lot of, if not most, link lists and tgps won't allow submitters to use their outgoing links to go to another link list/tgp instead of sponsors. Google should have just told him upfront and not screwed him around.