Is Google Really Evil? Or Just Smart?

When Google offered the option for users to block results from particular sites when they searched, content farms were popular blocking targets. Calacanis’s Mahalo was among the most-often blocked sites, demonstrating user dissatisfaction with the content according to Cutts. He also said that Calacanis and Mahalo were not “partners” with Google.

If applause was any indication, the PubCon audience that was fired up by Calacanis’s remarks a day earlier largely accepted Cutts’s explanation. The search-oriented audience was well aware of the content farms that were polluting the search results, and seemed to buy the idea that Mahalo, while somewhat different than the worst content farms, may not have been superb content that was unfairly targeted by Google.

The Bigger Picture
The verbal exchange between Calacanis and Cutts was interesting, but ultimately it can be summarized as, “Owner of slightly suspect content site gets nailed by algorithm update and doesn’t like it.” But Calacanis brought up a deeper issue that could affect any business that depends on Google for traffic.

Google has dominated search for years because of one main reason: they provide searchers with the most useful results. Traditionally, this has meant producing links to the best, most relevant content that meets the searcher’s need. While spammers have occasionally been able to get high rankings, in the long run sites with high quality content and strong visitor engagement tend to win out. Many online businesses depend heavily on Google for new customers, and in particular for organic (free) search traffic. This is particularly true for lightly monetized content sites – they let visitors access their content for free, and advertising revenues rarely justify paying for clicks.

But what if links to really good sites aren’t good enough? What if Google could determine the searcher’s intent and deliver what he wants right on the results page? That’s the direction that Google is heading in with Hummingbird. I searched for “Denver Broncos” while the NFL team was playing a game on Sunday, and much of the information a searcher might want is right there on the results page. There was a real-time game score, team information and stats, and by clicking a drop-down arrow, this year’s schedule and with scores for completed games as well as a team roster.

That’s probably enough to satisfy the needs of many, if not most, searchers – in the past they might have clicked through to DenverBroncos.com, ESPN.com, or other site that has that kind of information. These aren’t content farms or spammy sites – these are high quality, high authority sites with rich and unique content. I expect these sites are already seeing a reduction in traffic from some specific types of searches.

It’s worth noting that on this search the only organic result visible without scrolling is a News link. To see results from traditional content sites, the searcher would have to scroll down.

While a relatively small percentage of searches are seeing this kind of result, there is no reason to believe that Google won’t try to do an ever-better job of meeting user needs without having to refer them to other sites. Eventually, perhaps only the most obscure searches may force Google to send users elsewhere.

While content sites may be immediate losers, lucrative searches like travel and product searches allow Google to profit more when it controls the information. Search for “flights austin to honolulu” and you’ll get a plethora of paid ads (clicks make money for Google) and a prominent box of options from Google Flights, a booking engine that also makes Google money if you click through to book a suggested flight.

The Profit Borg?
I agree with Calacanis on at least one point – Google will continue to find ways to monetize in ways other than pay-per-click ads. I see horizontal expansion into new areas and vertical expansion by moving down the food chain when it makes sense. Why provide just links to travel sites when you can provide the flight information the searcher wants? Why refer the searcher to another site for booking if Google can do a better job?

Some might compare Google to Star Trek’s fictional Borg, a race that “assimilates” others in pursuit of perfection. Google does indeed strive for perfection, at least for its user experience, even as it builds dependencies in its ecosystem and brings more content and profit under its direct control.

But is this evil? If your business relies on Google for traffic and you find they have become a competitor instead of benefactor, it might certainly seem evil. But is the addiction many of us have to free search traffic their fault? If Google can improve user experience, should we be concerned about the impact on unrelated businesses who depended on Google for visitors? Is Google’s domination of web search such an advantage that they should be restrained from entering other businesses, or finding new ways to monetize that make organic results less prominent? These are questions that will be asked more frequently as Google moves beyond a provider of search-driven links to other sites.