• Doc Sheldon

    Admittedly, I’m not intimately familiar with online paid advertising programs, having studiously avoided them in favor of more comprehensible methods. However, I do converse, on a daily basis, with several colleagues that are quite proficient in paid advertising, and I also stay abreast of nearly everything else that can affect my clients, especially originating in Mountain View.

    Like most of us, I’ve seen a lot of whining about Google’s results, as pertains to competitive products/services, but I have yet to see one instance that seemed to have even a hint of validity.

    A fanboy, I’m not, and I’ve got some complaints of my own about how Google runs some of its business, but I would think that the FTC would be embarrassed by having even launched this investigation. Even a cursory glance should have told them there was no basis for any action.

    My bet would be that the FTC was simply a victim of pressure to do “something”, simply because Google has gotten so big that it makes people nervous.

  • Durant Imboden

    The NY Times has published an op-ed titled “Is Google like gas or steel?” that’s more illuminating than the usual press releases by anti- or pro-Google lobbyists. It examines the FTC-Google settlement’s roots in First Amendment law, which faced a similar test in a case involving the Associated Press back in the 1940s:


  • http://twitter.com/AdamRYP Adam Thompson

    Hmmm, all of these responses are from Google’s direct or indirect competitors (even the two platform providers are indirect competitors, as they compete against using Google’s Adwords management interface) – so these reactions are nothing more than outgrowths of how this development impacts their revenues. I’d be more interested in hearing what slightly less biased parties think.

  • http://www.barryadams.co.uk/ Barry Adams

    Your phrasing “an even more absurd analysis” implies Politico’s analysis of Google’s lobbying efforts is absurd, though less so. That is a value judgment that is rather untenable, Greg. Might want to rephrase that, lest it become embarrassingly clear where SEL’s loyalties lie.

  • Matt McGee

    Barry, the loyalty that SEL has is to our readers and to call things as we see them as individuals. We don’t have a corporate loyalty or corporate policy about favoring any company that we write about. You, as a longtime reader, should know that by now.

    Totally respect your right to disagree with Greg here, but if you’re suggesting that it’s based on some loyalty toward Google or any other company, that’s an “even more absurd analysis” than anything else. :-)

  • http://www.barryadams.co.uk/ Barry Adams

    Oh I think SEL’s entirely voluntary pro-Google stance is not a particularly well-kept secret, Matt. After all, SEL enjoys almost unparalleled access to Google sources, and you won’t do anything that might jeopardise that access. It’s not even a matter of editorial oversight – it’s a self-selected, subconscious bias inherent in your reporting.

    That’s not a conspiracy theory, that’s simple knowledge of how the media works.

  • Matt McGee

    I wish you were right, Barry. Unparalleled access would be nice and very helpful in getting all our questions answered. Maybe someday.