Google Product Search To Become Google Shopping, Use Pay-To-Play Model

Google Product Search is getting a new name, Google Shopping, and a new business model where only merchants that pay will be listed. It’s the first time Google will decommission a search product that previously listed companies for free. The company says the change will improve the searcher experience, but it will also likely raise new worries that Google may further cut free listings elsewhere.

“This is about delivering the best answers for people searching for products and helping connect merchants with the right customers,” said Sameer Samat, vice president of product management for Google Shopping, when explaining that by moving to an all-paid model, Google believes it will have better and more trustworthy data that will improve the shopping search experience for its users.

Perhaps this will be so; perhaps not. We’ll only have a better idea when the transformation is complete. The process begins now with experiments, launches more fully in the summer and will take through the fall to finish in the United States, when the service should be formally renamed from Google Product Search to Google Shopping.

Next year, the change to paid inclusion will happen outside the US, Google says. In some countries, Google Product Search has already been called Google Shopping but without the paid listings model.

Starting Now: Experiments

Beginning today, Google will run a variety of experiments on Google.com, for a small percentage of searchers at first, that merge listings from Google Product Listing Ads and Google Product Search together. To understand better, consider this “before” example:

You can see that Google has its traditional AdWords text ads above and to the right of the main results. Also above are Product Listing Ads, which were launched at the end of 2010 and allow advertisers to show small images next to their ads, as well as purchase on a CPA (cost per action/sale) basis, rather than the more common CPC (cost per click) basis. Product Listing Ads sometimes appear to the right of the main results, as well.

The screenshot also shows the “free” listings that Google provides, those that come from Google crawling the web, as well as those from Google Product Search. The listings from Google Product Search come from Google’s web crawl as well as from data feeds that merchants send to Google.

In contrast, below is an example of how one of the new experiments may look:

Rather than the Product Listing Ads and Google Product Search results being separate, both will be combined into a single Google Shopping box. Here’s another example, with a close-up on the Google Shopping box:

The example below shows how, at times, only one product might appear to the side of the main results:

Again, here’s a different example, with a close-up on the box:

Goodbye Google Product Search & Free Listings

As said earlier, Google Product Search currently gets its listings from Google crawling the web or by retailers submitting product data and feeds through the Google Merchant Center. There has been no charge for either. Indeed, Google has never charged for being in its shopping search engine since it began back in December 2002 and was called Froogle.

That’s ending. There’s no firm date on exactly when the free ride will be over, other than it should happen by the fall of this year.

Merchants may continue to be listed within Google’s free web search results. That’s not changing. But those wanting to appear in a dedicated shopping search engine — and in the Google Shopping boxes that will appear as part of Google’s regular results — will need to pay.

Hello Google Shopping & Paid Inclusion

The forthcoming Google Shopping will operate on what’s been known in the search industry as a paid inclusion model. That’s where companies pay to be listed but payment doesn’t guarantee that they’ll rank well for any particular terms.

In particular, Google says advertisers will provide data feeds or create product listings through Google AdWords, in campaigns that are set to run on Google Shopping. It will work very similarly to how Product Listing Ads work now. Merchants won’t bid on particular keywords but rather bid how much they’re willing to pay, if their listings appear and get clicks or produce sales. Getting a top ranking will depend on a combination of perceived relevance and bid price.

As part of the changes, Google Shopping will incorporate Google Trusted Stores badges into the listings, for those merchants who participate in the program. Google has already been testing the use of these within AdWords.

Google also says the new Google Shopping listings will be able to show if merchants have any special deals or offers — these can also be sent within the merchant’s data feed.

Product Listing Ads as a product will be phased out when Google Shopping takes over, but Google says using the PLA system now is the best way for merchants to prepare for the Google Shopping change. That’s why Google is offering two incentives to get merchants going with them now, if they’re not already:

  • All merchants that create Product Listings Ads by August 15 will receive 10% credit for their total PLA spend through the end of the year
  • Existing Google Product Search merchants will get a $100 AdWords credit if they fill out a form before August 15

Google provides more details about this and the forthcoming transition here. We’ll also be following-up with more transition advice and details as they become known.

Didn’t Google Hate Paid Inclusion?

The paid inclusion model will be familiar to many merchants, who know it’s commonly used with other shopping search engines. But it’s new to Google. In fact, it’s a model that Google once fought against, even to the degree of characterizing it as evil. Those days are over. Google Shopping will becomes the fourth “vertical” or topically-focused search engine from Google to use paid inclusion.

Once Deemed Evil, Google Now Embraces “Paid Inclusion” is my column from yesterday at our sister site Marketing Land. It explains the history of Google’s past opposition to paid inclusion and its reversal over the past year. Of that history, I’ll highlight this part of Google’s 2004 IPO filing, which specifically talked about paid inclusion being bad in terms of shopping search:

Froogle [what's now called Google Product Search and will be called Google Shopping] enables people to easily find products for sale online. By focusing entirely on product search, Froogle applies the power of our search technology to a very specific task—locating stores that sell the items users seek and pointing them directly to the web sites where they can shop. Froogle users can sort results by price, specify a desired price range and view product photos.

Froogle accepts data feeds directly from merchants to ensure that product information is up-to-date and accurate. Most online merchants are also automatically included in Froogle’s index of shopping sites. Because we do not charge merchants for inclusion in Froogle, our users can browse product categories or conduct product searches with confidence that the results we provide are relevant and unbiased.

I bolded the key part. Eight years ago, Google viewed paid inclusion in general as some type of evil the company should avoid and in particular something that could cause shopping search to have poor relevancy or be biased.

What happened to cause such a change?

Reversing Its Stance

For one, Google’s official line seems to be that it hasn’t changed its mind about anything. That’s because it’s changing the definition of what paid inclusion is, to effectively claim that it’s not doing it. This is the statement I was sent after my column appeared yesterday:

Paid inclusion has historically been used to describe results that the website owner paid to place, but which were not labelled differently from organic search results.  We are making it very clear to users that there is a difference between these results for which Google may be compensated by the providers, and our organic search results.

As I did yesterday, I’ll disagree again. Paid inclusion has been historically used to describe when people pay to appear in a search engine’s results but without any guarantee of prominent placement. What’s happening with Google Shopping is classic, textbook paid inclusion. It matches up precisely with the US Federal Trade Commission’s own definition of paid inclusion:

Paid inclusion can take many forms. Examples of paid inclusion include programs where the only sites listed are those that have paid; where paid sites are intermingled among non-paid sites; and where companies pay to have their Web sites or URLs reviewed more quickly, or for more frequent spidering of their Web sites or URLs, or for the review or inclusion of deeper levels of their Web sites, than is the case with non-paid sites.

Again, I’ve bolded the key part, a part that defines exactly what’s going to happen with Google Shopping.

The fact Google considered paid inclusion evil in the past is an embarrassment that some will have a good chuckle about. But companies do change stances. The bigger issue in all this is whether the shift is good for searchers and publishers.

Paid Relationships Can Be Good

When it comes to searchers, Google’s view is that by having a paid relationship, it can better ensure the quality of what it lists in Google Shopping.

“We believe a commercial relationship with partners is critical to ensuring we receive high quality product data, and with better data we can build better products,” Samat told me.

Today’s blog post from Google reflects the same view:

We believe that having a commercial relationship with merchants will encourage them to keep their product information fresh and up to date. Higher quality data—whether it’s accurate prices, the latest offers or product availability—should mean better shopping results for users, which in turn should create higher quality traffic for merchants.

A good example of the potential here is something we covered last November. Google had warned merchants in Google Product Search to include tax and shipping costs in their feeds. But well past Google’s deadline, merchants were still flouting those rules.

Potentially, those merchants risked being kicked out of Google Product Search. But being a free service, it possible the merchants might come back in another way. There was a low barrier to entry. That low barrier also means much more has to be policed.

When payment is involved, it’s harder to be abusive. Merchants risk losing their accounts, along with any trust built up to those accounts. In addition, when they’re paying by the click or by the sale, there’s more incentive to ensure listings are relevant.

But There Was No Other Way?

Still, this is an unprecedented move by Google. The company has never eliminated a search product that had free listings and shifted to an all-paid model.

I couldn’t think of any examples of this in the past, and Google confirmed this was a first. At best, it offered that Boutiques.com — purchased in 2010 and integrated into Google Product Search in 2011 — had a similar pay-to-play model. But Boutiques.com wasn’t an existing service that was shifted from free to fee.

For a company with such a long history of trying to be inclusive, it’s shocking. It’s more so when Bing Shopping accepts free listings. Google couldn’t find a way to do what Microsoft does?

“We’ve looked at a number of different aspects to approach this, but we have to evolve our experience. We believe consumers have a higher expectation of shopping online,” Samat said.

Will It Stay Comprehensive?

One thing I’ve generally loved about Google Product Search is that if I couldn’t find some odd product on Amazon (which tends to be a pseudo-shopping search engine for me), Google seemed able to ferret it out. But with the change to a paid inclusion model, will the ability to get into the nooks and crannies of the retail web be lost?

Google told me that it currently has tens of thousands of merchants listed in Google Product Search for free. I asked if the company had any idea how that might change when payment is required or if there would be an impact on comprehensiveness?

“We really want all kinds of merchants to participate,” Samat said. But he also said, ”It’s hard to speculate on how this will play out. Our objective here is to deliver a better experience. We are doing a number of things to help the users’ experience get better.”

Going Forward

In the end, Google is shifting to what’s been the industry standard when it comes to shopping search, to have a paid inclusion program. The curious can take a look here at SingleFeed for a rundown on who offers paid plans or here at CPC Strategy. Most shopping search engines do. Even Bing, which is listed as being free, also does paid inclusion through a partnership with Shopping.com, saying that doing this will increase visibility.

One thing about the change is that it will probably cause all the shopping search engines out there to better disclose the paid relationships they have. As I covered in my column yesterday, the FTC has seemed to ignore that some don’t have any disclosure at all, as required. Google’s move has the potential to raise the bar here, and that’s sorely needed.

For searchers, Google’s trying to find the balance between having incredibly comprehensive results and the noise that can harm relevancy when there’s too much junk and not enough signal, it seems. As I said, it remains to see if they’ll get that balance right.

For publishers, there’s a whole lot of worry here. If Google can turn one search product to an all-paid basis, nothing really prevents it from doing the same for others. Could Google News only carry listings from publishers that want to pay? Will Google Places, already just transformed into a part of the Google+ social network, be changed to a pay-or-don’t play yellow pages-style model?

Even web search could be threatened. All the arguments about wanting to get better data and filter out noise are just as applicable to web search. The main reassuring thing here is that there’s little likelihood that Google could get hundreds of millions of web sites to do paid inclusion at the risk of not being listed. Pure paid inclusion works better in the world of vertical search, where there are only thousands of companies you’re dealing with.

Meanwhile, with Google Play selling content, will Google eventually decide that Google Shopping should make the next logical step and provide transactions, the way that Amazon does? At some point, Google the search engine that is supposed to point to destinations may turn into too much of a destination itself.

Related Articles

Related Topics: Channel: SEO | Features: Analysis | Google: AdWords: Product Listing Ads | Google: Google Shopping | SEO: Paid Inclusion | Top News

Sponsored


About The Author: is a Founding Editor of Search Engine Land. He’s a widely cited authority on search engines and search marketing issues who has covered the space since 1996. Danny also serves as Chief Content Officer for Third Door Media, which publishes Search Engine Land and produces the SMX: Search Marketing Expo conference series. He has a personal blog called Daggle (and keeps his disclosures page there). He can be found on Facebook, Google + and microblogs on Twitter as @dannysullivan.

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.
  • KramerEdward77

    my roomate’s mom got paid $ 14828 past week. she is making an incom e on the internet and bought a $481700 house. All she did was get fortunate and put into use the guide exposed on this web site ===>> ⇛⇛⇛⇛► http://enternet-Job.blogspot.com

    <

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alen-Jessy/100003854217807 Alen Jessy

     
    very informative keep posting the such a valuable information…

    http://www.jcwhelan.com

  • http://www.webstatsart.com/ Webstats Art

    That is what they have been doing already on google search anyway

  • http://www.discountcleaningproducts.com/ Mike Kawula

    This will unfortunately result in consumers having a price increase as the cost will go up to attract new customers! Great Job in looking out for the Consumer :(

  • http://forge-of-the-ancients.com/ David Brayton

    As a small business owner this is a big kick in the head.  This business was relying on Google Product Search for its traffic as CPC would not be cost effective for the amount of traffic we get compared to sales.  I’m wondering how their CPA model will work, as they stated that a select few will be able to use it.  Not sure how the small business will be able to compete with the mega corps.

  • Troy Olson

    Well, here is your answer: 
    The following products are not allowed on Google Shopping:Vehicles
    Guns, ammunition and knives
    Tobacco and cigarettes
    Traffic devices (learn more)
    Products related to casino and gambling
    Products or digital goods that require additional software installation in order to be purchased.
    Products bundled with service plans. (Note: The only products that are allowed to be submitted with a service plan are mobile devices.)This is really unfortunate considering how many consumers click on these products in the current shopping results.

  • Preston Wily

    Why does everybody think this will hurt small businesses? Have you seen Google Products results lately? They are full of Amazon and Amazon JR’s with razor thin margins and a ton of reviews (which seems to be an important factor in rankings).

    If anything this gives small businesses, who tend to have higher fixed costs and hence have to charge higher prices, an opportunity to buy their way to the top. Amazon is not going to hire somebody to exploit a niche that produces $200k/yr in sales, but a small business owner might be able to spend a lot of time testing bids, prices, etc. for that amount of money.

    To be clear, this change is about Google’s shareholders. It will probably lead to higher prices for consumers, which sucks, but it isn’t necessarily bad for ecommerce companies. It just means you have to adapt to the changes and try to stay a step ahead of your competition.

  • http://www.DaftGadgets.com Jason Scott

    What a lot of people forget is that big companies spend tons of money on advertising not even knowning if it works.  They will lose money on clicks thinking (we’re losing money on clicks, but that click gives brand awareness)  Small companies cannot afford to buy non converting traffic because they don’t make money from buying and selling the time of employees, they only make money from buying and selling products or services.  

    I feel a little hurt by google, but for some reason I still have some faith (or maybe its some desperate form of hope? lol) that they will do something like make it a very small fee for inclusion like $35 per month. 

    With half the merchants accepting the fee it still gives over 1 million dollars a year to manually review each entry. at $100,000 per year for new employees thats 10 people for manual reviews.  At 2 sites reviewed per day that can go over every merchant once per year.  at 8 site reviews per day (assuming it takes an hour to review a site manually) they can do every merchant quarterly.  These seem to be conservative numbers from my perspective, but maybe I’m off.

    They could do all this and still make more money.  If the small businesses can continue to compete, they can then increase their profits by raising the price to $40, etc.

  • http://www.DaftGadgets.com Jason Scott

    Wikipedia is a great resource and it seems to do okay cleaning up junk?  free doesn’t mean bad, nor does orderly mean good.  At least not to me.

  • eTailAlliance

    There has been a proliferation of poor quality listings with misleading prices, it has made Google shopping less useful for the user and whilst Google is a public company and needs to keep making their shareholders fat, I still believe they have one firm eye on the best user experience.

    My concern for independent eCommerce operators will be whether they will be able to compete on the new platform. Plus more price comparison commoditises the marketplace further, with a Google shopping platform, the art of browsing small etailers may start to disappear, with the added value specialists bring getting wiped out by a lowest price, wins mentality.

  • http://twitter.com/flooracle Jim Birch

    Before today in Google Web Search, my best selling product has 6 Paid results, and 10 Organic results (including 2 video results from youtube).  I am on page 2 that has another 5 paid placements.

    Today, with the new Shopping box in the right hand column, they are showing me 6 products, That would be a total of 11 paid results, and 10 organic listings, over 50% of the page.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/LU4GUCLB72OXGLBHHTWUNXGTTA HungT

    Definitely. 

    I agree with Jonathan.  It will increase the price of products sold through the merchants.

    It will also affect how much consumers pay in the end.

    This will in turn hurt the consumers.

    Everything is costing more and more.

  • GilesJuliana

    my friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 every hour on the computer. She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her paycheck was $19177 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more her

    ⇛⇛⇛⇛► (Click At My Name For Link)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000735017863 David Durel

    Sign the petition asking Google not to do this, here: http://www.change.org/petitions/merchant-center-keep-google-merchant-center-part-of-organic-search#

    This change will greatly hurt the economy by negatively impacting small businesses. Further, it will make Google’s product results biased and useless. People use Google Product Search to get the best deals on items. This will force an increase in end user pricing, for any merchant who even dares to compete with the big players. Inevitably, the small businesses which drive the US economy will be squeezed out by their inability to financially compete with the heavy hitters. This change is bad for Google, bad for consumers, bad for small businesses and bad for the US economy.

  • E_Retailer1000

    This is far worse then any one knows becuase they are also restricting the type of products that they will advertise.  No longer will sportsmen be able to shop for ammunition or any gun related item.  They have also banned advertising of all knives and a long list of other item.  This is a lot more then just greed.  They are trying to take control of what they think you should buy or not buy.  We all should be very worried about that.  Where will it stop.  This action will just open the door for some other company to take thier place.

  • http://twitter.com/openmikecafe Mike Stephens

    Thank you for your article. I own a small video store and most of our sales are online and most of those as a result of our google product feed. Because we now have to also do the google adwords thing now in order to keep our products listed, we’ve open an account there as well. Trouble is, for as much as we pay to keep this account going ($200 per month), we’re getting under ten clicks a day. That simply won’t cut it for us. Who knows what will happen when the big change comes this fall. Right now we have pretty good placement in google shopping. I don’t know what we’ll have a few months from now. My guess is that our listings will be buried. I’m too old to find another way to make a living. And I certainly won’t be able to keep on my few employees. So of course I’ve been stressing, trying to figure out how to get more clicks, reading as much I can about these changes, trying to figure out what to do. I’d gladly give Google their pound of flesh to the tune of $200 a month if they’d just leave things the way they are. But this whole pay-per-click idea – a lot of small business owners like myself are going to be hurt by it. I always thought Google had the right idea. But they’ve certainly missed the mark this time… Thanks for listening.

  • http://twitter.com/CPC_Rick Rick Backus

    Wow that was really depressing stuff Mike :(

    My company CPC Strategy helps retailers with data feeds and Google Shopping is one of the main feeds we send out. We don’t know exactly what to expect when Google flips the switch to paid traffic (starting on July 1st) but we are confident in our ability to quickly learn from our 130+ clients.  

    We normally charge $1-2k per month but we would be willing to help you out for free. If you’re interested you can email me – rick at cpcstrategy dot com (sorry you can’t link to direct email addresses in the comments) and I’ll do everything I can to keep your business running. 

    We also created this ebook to help smaller retailers out with the transition - http://ebook.cpcstrategy.com/readyforgoogleshopping.pdf.

  • http://twitter.com/openmikecafe Mike Stephens

    Thank you for your article. I own a small video store and most of our sales are online and most of those as a result of our google product feed. Because we have to also do the google adwords thing now in order to keep our products listed, we’ve open an account there as well. Trouble is, for as much as we pay to keep this account going ($200 per month), we’re getting under ten clicks a day. That simply won’t cut it for us. Who knows what will happen when the big change comes this fall. Right now we have pretty good placement in google shopping. I don’t know what we’ll have a few months from now. My guess is that our listings will be buried. I’m too old to find another way to make a living. And I certainly won’t be able to keep on my few employees. So of course I’ve been stressing, trying to figure out how to get more clicks, reading as much I can about these changes, trying to figure out what to do. I’d gladly give Google their pound of flesh to the tune of $200 a month if they’d just leave things the way they are. But this whole pay-per-click idea – a lot of small business owners like myself are going to be hurt by it. I always thought Google had the right idea. But they’ve certainly missed the mark this time… Thanks for listening.

  • Jon Hawfield

    Google just made the absurd Ebay (7%) and Amazon (8%) fees seem reasonable. My company will no longer participate with Google…nor use ANY of it’s services as we expect they will all become fee-based.

    I guess Google never got the memo of what happened to MSN on October 14th, 2004 when it began charging $20 for some of it’s services. MSN who?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/5VWZC33R6R2HORAP3TMVACMDNI C

    1. Even if merchants pay for this what prevents them from having low quality data — like the example of showing a listing fo $19.95 but when clicking through it is really $24.95?  I really don’t get how this model will “force” retailers to provide higher quality data.  In fact it could do the opposite:  “Hey Google, we spent $500,000 last quarter on AdWords — so you are going to shut us down because we made a few mistakes in our listings?”  Yeah, right.

    2. I wouldn’t mind paying for conversions but paying for clicks is not going to work, especially on low margin items.  I tried AdWords for a while but the analytics showed me that 90% of the clicks I was paying for were coming from two “click farm” websites that were nothing more than collections of SEO content designed to generate AdSense revenue for the owner.

    The only good thing about this is that it opens up the door for someone else to come up with a really good free product listing service.  It would be very easy to create a site that mimics the legacy version of Google Shopping.  Run a couple of traditional AdSense units in the margins and they would make decent revenue.

  • http://www.jlist.com Peter Payne

    Try selling adult products, like I do. It’s going be interesting, definitely the beginning of a “post-Google” era.

  • http://www.theppcindex.co.uk/ Paul Maddock

    If a company is in a position to offer a better and cheaper product, they shouldn’t have a problem making the investment to introduce that on to Google.

    Yes it’s not nice that Google are going to charge for something that was free, but if it cleans up the space and ultimately makes it better for the searcher then what’s the harm?

  • Malky S

    After reading this detailed post, I still am unsure as to what the shopping page look like post transition? will it still have the “compare prices” feature aggregating all merchants who sell the same product, only now they will all be paying and ranked in order of bid? (http://www.google.com/products/catalog….)

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZOGJQDSMMY2VOQF2RLKO6QZG5I cf8

    Well, using Google’s own “define” function to ask it what is meant by “paid inclusion” pretty much sums up that paid inclusion is what it is. Not some “differently labeled” crap.

  • B120703

    I agree with David, Jonathan and Hung.  Google Shopping will go the way of Yahoo Shopping, that at one time was the King of eCommerce.  With time, small merchants will go away (probably to Amazon) and Google will lose variety and price competition, pushing Amazon sales even more.  We are a small merchant and Google Shopping traffic currently lets us sell “long tail” products…very few products sell more than once.  Impossible to make ends meet if we have to pay for clicks.

  • Louis Rossmann

     I disagree. Most of the time prices being wrong(up or down) is because of how god damn slow Magento and Zencart are syncing products with Google shopping. When you finally get it working they come out with some update that makes your plugin outdated. You install the new version only to see it has bugs. It is not bait and switch on many merchants’ part, it is the asinine hoops merchants must jump through to update listings. If you have 3000+ listings it will time out several times during the syncing process which can often take hours to do.

    Retailers like Amazon and eBay use Google shopping feeds and Google Adwords. They have more money then small business owners, even though the small business owner may sometimes have a more relevant product. Who do you think will be able to afford more pay per click ads? This is one step towards separating the rich from the poor on the internet. Good job, Google.

  • Louis Rossmann

     The harm is that products used to be listed on Google Shopping by relevance. Now they will be listed based on who pays the most.

  • mmartin2001

    I am starting to think that a brick and mortar store would require less overhead.  I think if the internet gods continue along this path, you will see a flood back to the low cost or retail space that is out there today.  If I could lock in a lease at $0.50 sq/ft/month for 10 years, I may leave the internet as a primary outlet.

  • http://www.theppcindex.co.uk/ Paul Maddock

    I believe the model is pay per inclusion. And if Google’s other models are to judge by ad rank = cpc x quality score (relevance).

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pancho-Demma/100002577660467 Pancho Demma

    More and more Google is becoming greedy. Sellers should just rebel against Google because if everyone takes a stand they will remove this new policy. Every 5 minutes they are changing things and making the merchants lives a living hell! Every single change they have made has had an impact on my business. And now with the shipping rates they have almost destoryed my business. Now with this BS pay per click, they will illimiate small to medium business. Luckily Im planning on going into a new line of business if this keeps up.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pancho-Demma/100002577660467 Pancho Demma

    Nate sounds like some liberal weed smoking hippy. speak english!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pancho-Demma/100002577660467 Pancho Demma

    Not true at all. With every so called solution there’s always a workaround. How do you think thats going to stop anything. Something new comes up, there’s always someone or a group of people out there that will come up with something to knock that new concept out of the water.

    Hopefully, Yahoo or Bing will take advantage of what Google is doing and drive traffic away from Google. This new so called strategy will hurt Google. What makes an online business successful is making it free for their members and then charge for advertisements in terms of not us merchants but companies that really want to place advertisements. Wilth Google’s stock 600 bucks a share do you think they need th money?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pancho-Demma/100002577660467 Pancho Demma

    I heard somewhere that Google employees could do whatever they felt like that was innovative and helped the company grow. Someone took over and now they act some accounting firm. No more individuals its all corporate.

  • KilledByGoogle

    I am a father of 5 and my website is my sole source of income for my family. We have been trying to get the new product listing ads to work for us, but they are costing us more than we can afford. We are spending money like crazy, but it does not provide the quality conversions we had before. Now we are paying Google to lose money on every sale. This is the beginning of the end for us. THANK YOU GOOGLE! YOU HAVE DESTROYED ME, MY COMPANY, AND MY FAMILY ALL BECAUSE OF YOUR GREED!

    It is unfair that any one company should have the power to completely destroy a company with little more that a push of a button. But that’s what Google did to us.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/VY2Y2ZVKN55NDZQ3JEXGYO7SDI bob

     This is indeed a sad sad day!! the one American company I actually
    believed in has now lost my complete respect!!  Like it’s not hard enough for us small AMERICAN company’s to make small profits in this horrible economy, My best friend Google is now turning its back on me & all us AMERICAN small businesses! & putting another nail in our coffin!!
    WOW whats next Google you have to pay to be included in your regular search engine!! might as well screw with all of the internet & become untrusted by all!
    I am actually heartbroken & seriously want to cry!
    all I can say is shame on you Google for turning on US your fellow AMERICANS! and all internet users abroad.
    Goodbye
    best friend !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

  • Philip Balvanz

     Agreed.  I happen to be one of them.  Before this change I was getting anywhere from 3-10 clicks a day free off of product search.  I know that doesn’t sound like much but if even 1-3% buy it’s an extra few sales a month that I didn’t have to pay for.  Now based on current Adwords rates I’ve been getting I have to pay around $0.15-$0.23 a click just to push them to my site, so about $13.5-$69 extra be month.  It might not seem like much, but I do only about $2000-$4000 a month in sales.

    Did I mention that big box businesses get special privileges when it comes to googles new change?  Like they only pay if someone buys?  Seems rather unfair if you ask me.

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