As Google Evolves To Satisfy User Demands, Others Are Necessarily Marginalized

While it might not get off quite as easily in Europe, Google definitely “dodged a bullet” at the FTC, which recently concluded its antitrust investigation and didn’t ask the company to make any changes in the way it presents search results. That was a major disappointment to Google competitors, critics and other third party publishers, which have become alarmed by what they see as a virtual land grab by Mountain View.

The now-familiar lament goes: once Google was simply a way to organize and discover information, to get people from A to B. However, over the past several years Google has become a destination and content publisher, most recently expressed in its acquisitions of Zagat, Frommer’s and ITA Software. Then, of course, there’s Google Maps and related local content.

The FTC didn’t proceed with any formal action against Google on the claim of  ”search bias” largely because it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to show any consumer harm from Google’s conduct. Rather than harming consumers, I would argue Google is giving consumers exactly what they want.

Especially in a mobile context, people are less interested in sorting through links to websites and more interested in just getting information or “answers” to their questions. What’s the weather in Washington DC? What’s the score of the Ravens’ game? What’s the definition of perspicacious? Where in the world are the Maldives? How old is Meryl Streep?

Competitive mobile search imperatives are driving a rapid evolution of the product not only on “post PC” devices but on the PC itself. Do a local search on an Android Jelly Bean device and conventional Web links are totally buried below the map and local listings. Yet, Google is also trying to mirror the mobile search experience on the PC to some degree.

To answer queries, Google is increasingly providing more structured information “cards” (featured in Google Now) and rapidly expanding its use of the Knowledge Graph. The Guardian has a lengthy feature on the development and potential future direction of Knowledge Graph.

Google Now (including Voice Search) and Knowledge Graph are powerful initiatives guiding the evolution of the Google experience. They rely heavily upon structured information and less upon conventional web content. I would argue that this is precisely what consumers want.

In a significant number of cases consumers don’t care about the information source so long as it’s reliable. Don’t give me multiple sites teasing the definition of perspicacious. I just want the damn definition.

What’s the US dollar equivalent of 250 South African Rand? I don’t care which currency exchange site I’m using so long as it’s accurate. Better yet: just give me the answer.

If I get the answer I need from Google, I’m less likely to be interested in or click on any of the links below. In some cases, however, where I’m trying to find the best deal on a hotel or 42-inch plasma TV or the best price for a mattress, for example, I probably do want access to multiple sites for available inventory and pricing.

Yet, there are a wide variety of cases where I just want Google to tell me an answer, especially on a mobile device. I don’t want to take the time to click through to websites not optimized for mobile. If I have a “relationship” with a publisher or brand, there’s a good chance I’ll have their app on my phone: Yelp, Chase, Amazon, TripAdvisor, United Airlines, Kayak, the New York Times, Rotten Tomatoes and so on.

Accordingly, for an elite group of mostly branded publishers and content providers, I will bypass Google entirely in mobile. That’s one of the reasons Google is scrambling to add richness and utility to mobile search: to remain useful and relevant. And in those circumstances where I don’t have a preferred information provider (i.e., app) I want the fastest “answer” I can get — preferably from Google — on the first screen I see.

While publishers are angrily and somewhat arrogantly bemoaning Google’s encroachment onto their turf, I would argue this is precisely what consumers want. People no longer have patience for traditional search results except in a shrinking set of circumstances. They mostly just want quick (and reliable) answers, which is exactly what Google is increasingly giving them.

Related Topics: Channel: SEO | Google: Antitrust | Google: Critics | Google: Knowledge Graph | Google: Legal | Google: Maps & Local | Google: Web Search | Top News

Sponsored


About The Author: is a Contributing Editor at Search Engine Land. He writes a personal blog Screenwerk, about SoLoMo issues and connecting the dots between online and offline. He also posts at Internet2Go, which is focused on the mobile Internet. Follow him @gsterling.

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn



SearchCap:

Get all the top search stories emailed daily!  

Share

Other ways to share:
 

Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion. Comments using foul language, being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion will be deleted. Comments may also be removed if they are posted from anonymous accounts. You can read more about our comments policy here.
  • Ajedi32

    Exactly. Google Search is a service targeted toward consumers; Google doesn’t care all that much what other companies think of their search engine so long as the consumers are satisfied. That’s why I think using governmental intervention to force Google to change their priorities is a terrible idea.

  • http://twitter.com/mediathatsells fruition Media

    While I agree 100 percent with your statement Mr. Schuelke, I believe that the FTC is not making Google accountable for transparency and it’s false brand marketing identity – “Do no Evil.”

    And to Mr. Sterling’s point: “Rather than harming consumers, I would argue Google is giving consumers exactly what they want,” — I beg to differ.

    Some of us are not sheeple and do not want some spider bot (Google) dictating search results based on previous search behavior.

  • Durant Imboden

    Facts are a commodity. Organization, packaging, and presentation are the “value add” that distinguishes Site A from Site B..

    Where I live, the daily newspaper has a meteorologist who knows his stuff and can write, too. I might look at Google or the National Weather Service site for the current temperature and a quickie forecast, but when I want to know what to expect (in terms of weather) for the week ahead or during a storm that’s coming my way, I go to the newspaper’s site and read the weather guru’s blog. Why? Because there are times when basic facts are enough, and there are other times when details and analysis matter.

  • Brian Wood

    Google didn’t get off entirely scott free, and in fact was required to agree to stop scraping sites to display their info in SERPs, along with some other changes: “The evidence the FTC uncovered through this intensive investigation
    prompted us to require significant changes in Google’s business
    practices.” Certainly they did dodge all the big bullets though.

    I agree that most people do want to just see answers to structured data right in the SERPs (I do), but I don’t think that’s where most of the complaints are coming from. The complaints are about things like paid inclusion flight listings, or paid inclusion shopping and such pushing down organic results. And of course things like Google scraping a site’s reviews and showing it in serps (which they now have to stop).

    It’s also worth noting that the role of the FTC is to protect competition — not necessarily to go with what consumers want.

  • http://alexwebmaster.com/ Alex Garrido

    Google’s own search bias should be praised not condemned by publishers. Specially now that they have clearly stated that they want webmaster writing using microdata. The way I see it is “google owns the house” and google gets to make the rules. If we want to continue living and benefiting from the property that we do not own, the very least we can do is to go by the owner rules.
    Just a thought.

Get Our News, Everywhere!

Daily Email:

Follow Search Engine Land on Twitter @sengineland Like Search Engine Land on Facebook Follow Search Engine Land on Google+ Get the Search Engine Land Feed Connect with Search Engine Land on LinkedIn Check out our Tumblr! See us on Pinterest

 
 

Click to watch SMX conference video

Join us at one of our SMX or MarTech events:

United States

Europe

Australia & China

Learn more about: SMX | MarTech


Free Daily Search News Recap!

SearchCap is a once-per-day newsletter update - sign up below and get the news delivered to you!

 


 

Search Engine Land Periodic Table of SEO Success Factors

Get Your Copy
Read The Full SEO Guide