http://www.profy.com/2008/06/15/googhoo/
Well, it is official: Google has now infiltrated Yahoo via ads. Has Google found the back door in to taking over the struggling company, or is it truly only in this for good, not evil, as per the famous Google motto? Google took the time to release a statement about the new ad arrangement with Yahoo on its blog as a kind of preemptive strike against just that kind of speculation.
I could be wrong on this, but I just don't think it is that big of a deal. I think my fellow Profy editor Cyndy probably disagrees with me, but my opinion is that this will not cause Google to have some kind of evil monopoly over search advertising. Perhaps I am too willing to take the deal at face value, but the non-exclusivity of it is a big factor for me in my willingness to believe that Google is not, in fact, trying to take over the world.
The rest of the blogosphere is not so willing to take things at face value. Over the course of the weekend we've seen heavy hitters Michael Arrington of TechCrunch and Tim O'Reilly of O'Reilly Media sparking debates by taking completely opposing sides on the matter (Arrington taking the "world is ending" tack and O'Reilly the calmer "all is well" view). Each of them has a thriving comment debate going about each side of the issue.
The part of this weekend's news that should have gotten people's attention, in my opinion, was the statement by Google CEO Eric Schmidt about Google seeing the most lucrative ad market in mobile phones. I am so not interested in having ads on my cell phone or PDA. That little tidbit of news got drowned out by the overall outrage over the Yahoo ad partnership somehow.
It is true that Google dominates the search market with its ads on YouTube, search ads, and more. However, it is also true that I don't see anyone else stepping up to take Google's place. People seem all too willing to cry foul about Google having the lion share of the search market, without creating anything to take the place of AdSense ads and other Google properties.
I'd love to see more options and more variety to choose from as a content provider who runs ads on my sites. Some companies, like Lookery, are serving ads to closed markets, like FaceBook, but I don't see anyone really innovating. Snap ads drive people away and other ads that take over browsers and force pages just make people angry. Why is no one stepping up to really fill the void with ads that don't make people angry?
Half the reason for Google's success is the ability to make their ads less obtrusive to a site's web visitors. The other half is the company's grasp of usefulness. Google ads are often (not always, but often) as relevant to people as their search results. That is partially why I don't use AdBlocker Plus or another ad blocking solution - I don't see a need. However you see Google's rule in the fight between good and evil online, you can't deny the company's grasp of how to make ads work for them. Whether or not that will destroy the internet, who can say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment