How Many Ways Do I Hate Google?

How many ways do I hate Google? Let me see… 1, 2, 3, 4, 5… oh the heck with it. I can’t count that high and I’m sure you don’t have the patience to wait and see how far I can count

Okay, Google has gone and done it again, and more to come this month as well. I don’t know if you’ve been looking at the search results recently, but they’ve removed all the text ads from the right rail. Which in and of itself isn’t a big deal since hardly anyone ever clicked on those ads anyway.

The question is, why didn’t they click on them?

Because most users know they were ads and weren’t looking to have spammy sales pages jammed down their throats.

Well Google’s Matt Lawson’s spin on the subject in an article he wrote at  is so darned funny that it could easily qualify as a comedy skit on Saturday Night Live.

In the first third of the article he wants us to believe that Google made the change in order to help their customers, which they continue to disingenuously declare is the folks like you and me who surf the web for information. However, the last two thirds of the article bear witness to the fact that the only customer satisfaction they are aiming to achieve is directed to their paying customers—AdWords Advertisers, and of course their biggest customer—their profit and loss statement.

Google doesn’t give a rat’s tail (thought I was going to cuss, didn’t you?) about delivering the best content to web searchers.  They have now made certain that organic results have been pushed below the fold, by filling the top four slots with paid ads on every highly commercial intent keyword search term.

If the search term has a high level of CPC competition, rest assured there will be four ads above the fold. And which ads are placed there is a function of who paid the most to be placed there, not who has the best and most useful content for the web searcher.

Now, on search terms with little to no commercial intent (CPC competition) there will be anywhere from zero to perhaps one or two ads above the organic results. But, is that good news for affiliate marketers? Not really. Why? Because they have now made it nearly impossible for most affiliate marketers to ever break into the top twenty organic results.

The top twenty for non commercial intent searches are now crammed full of authority sites like, wikipedia, wikihow, mayoclinic, webmd, healthline, newyorker, menshealth, and on and on it goes.

The only exception for affiliate marketers is in the internet marketing and make money niches. In these niches you still have a chance to rank for keywords because Google doesn’t consider you a competitor…yet. Which is why the really successful IM gurus aren’t in the affiliate marketing game anymore, but instead are IM product creators, aiming their wares at you.

Google is perfectly fine with you trying to make money from IM product launches because there aren’t any PPC advertisers spending their money on them, other than a few IM JV partners.  Google knows that these launches are short lived and even if there are PPC advertisers willing to spend money on them, they won’t last long. So only one or two ads will show up in the serps for those launches since they are low commercial intent for the general web surfer.

And what about affiliate marketers trying to promote physical products like Amazon products? What’s Google’s response to them? You guessed it. Now the very top spot is four high competition commercial intent ads above the organic results, and three ads below. PLUS, now there is the giant image ad on the right rail, with…you guessed it…Google’s own “Shop for xxxxx on Google” affiliate program. Or should I say, Google’s own Affiliate Links???!!! PLUS, PLUS, PLUS—notice any affiliate sites in the organic search results? Nope. Nada, Zip, Zilch. All mega authority sites.  And that is the case for all commercial intent keywords.

I have said it before, and I’ll say it again. Google hates all competitors, including affiliate marketers. We marketers do not put pennies in their pockets, and that is all that Google is interested in. They are not interested in you, me or anyone one else that does not contribute to their bottom line.

So let me give you a snippet from Mr. Lawson’s spin on it and you be the judge.

Over time, we’ve found that text ads on the right rail were simply less useful than we’d hoped. In direct terms, users didn’t click on them as much as other ads — and when users don’t click on things, we take that to mean that something wasn’t what they were looking for.

By showing fewer ads, our search experience matches how people actually engage with Google. And, because ads above the results are generally more useful, we’re expanding them for highly commercial queries. (Interestingly, as an aside, PLAs demonstrate strong user interaction when they’re on the right side, so they’re staying put.)

Our experience on mobile, as well as extensive testing on desktop, led us to the conclusion that this change would benefit our consumers who increasingly search across devices. And that testing has given us lots of data about how this change impacts ad performance. While every advertiser and campaign is different, there are a few things the data show.

Read the entire article here:

So, users weren’t clicking on them and that somehow means they weren’t what they were looking for? As if that’s what we want when we do a search for information. Yeah, that’s right, give us some good ads. Kind of like what we all come to love and expect when we sit down to watch a great show on the tube. Right? Yeah, give us some commercials. Sorry Matt, that ain’t what we were looking for and you know it.

The second paragraph clearly states their real intention.  If you read the rest of the article you’ll see money is all that is important to Google, not user satisfaction, unless that user is defined as a paying advertiser.

End of rant.



This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink.