Consumer Watchdog Accuses Google of Using Monopoly Power To Squeeze Out Rival Search Results
By Anna Johnson on June 7th, 2010U.S. based Consumer Watchdog has accused Google of using its dominance in online search to unfairly squeeze out rivals in favor of its own web properties in the Google search engine results pages (SERPs).
In its report, ‘Traffic Report: How Google is Squeezing out Competitors and Muscling Into New Markets‘, Consumer Watchdog reckons Google’s ‘Universal Search’ strategy has resulted in Google attaining – and abusing – a monopoly-like presence in search.
Consumer Watchdog points out that, with a market share of almost 80 percent in video alone, Google’s market share meets the U.S. federal court definition of ‘monopoly power’.
Consumer Watchdog, which has sent its report to U.S. Justice Department and European Commission antitrust officials, bases its claims on studying Hitwise Internet traffic data to more than 100 popular websites.
Ostensibly, Google’s Universal Search strategy is aimed at displaying the most relevant search results at the top of the SERPs, regardless of whether they consist of web pages, news, videos, images, books or other types of media.
Consumer Watchdog, however, says Google tends to display links to its own web properties at the top of search results, at the expense of its rivals.
According to Consumer Watchdog, an example of Google misusing its power concerns the decline in visits to the Google Maps’ competitor MapQuest over the past few years.
Consumer Watchdog says AOL owned MapQuest’s drop in market share – from 57.24 percent in July 2007 to 32 percent now – corresponds with a rise in visits to Google Maps, a trend which began when Google started listing Google Maps at top of the search results for generic address searches.
Well, that’s one way of looking at it.
Another is to assume that Google Maps is a much better solution than MapQuest and that the shift in market share is a natural consequence of search engine users preferring Google Maps over MapQuest.
Apart from offering weak proof that MapQuest’s market share decline is due to anything other than being inferior to Google Maps, my concern with Consumer Watchdog’s stance is that it is criticizing Google over how it runs its own proprietary business.
Doesn’t Google have a right to populate its search results with whatever results it wants? Since when did Google owe AOL or anyone else an obligation to be ‘fair’?
If search engine users are concerned about Google favoring its own results over those of competitors, they are free to use another search engine. No one is being forced to use Google.
Let’s not overlook the fact that Google has reached its dominant position in search – where the vast majority of people use it over any other search engine – because it has, to date, delivered a better solution than anyone else.
No, not a perfect solution. And maybe not the best solution of all time (Bing is showing a lot or promise), but a solution that most people prefer.
At the same time, if people feel that Google is delivering inappropriate or irrelevant search results – unfairly favoring its own web properties or otherwise – they can switch over to an alternative with a few clicks of a button.
Consumer Watchdog would have a point if people could not so easily use another search engine… but given how easy it is to use Bing, Yahoo, AOL, and innumerable other search engines, the organization’s argument seems weak to me.
June 8th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Interesting article on how Google monopolizes the search results.
Although I disagree with your comment “Doesn’t Google have a right to populate its search results with whatever results it wants? …” because the users expect the results to be unbiased. Unfortunately they aren’t.
A good example of this is to search for any major conservative talk show host, such as Rush Limbaugh, which has an Alexa ranking of 5,360, but Google’s bigoted search results do not include the site anywhere near its first 10 pages of results.
Google distorts search results and, I believe, also skews results to benefit high paying customers to detriment of the mom-and-pop businesses out there, who are looking for a “fair” shake.
I also disagree with your “fair” consideration. Although google doesn’t have to be fair to the competition, it must be fair to the users. The user expects results that are appropriate to the search, wherever they may come from. google is simply boycotting the best results because it doesn’t want to “support” other sites. That may be fair to them but then advise the customer that search results aren’t “fair”.
Another item I disagree with is your “solution” comment. This has nothing to do with being a solution that lots of users use but a solution that lots of users default to using. Many web users do not know they have other options. google “forces” them, by default, to use it’s search option. It is not because it is the best, of other choices or better than any other but because it is the only choice according to many users.
Google is incredibly biased and continues to skew its results based on whatever individual is behind the search programming.
google should have a “search users beware – Google skews results” warning at the top of every page showing search results. And, hopefully, be fined the hell out so that it can be told to play fair instead of pushing its own agenda on the rest of us.
June 8th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Thanks for your thoughtful response Joe. My view is that if we don’t think Google does a good job, we shouldn’t use it. Use Bing or Yahoo or some other search engine instead. That way, Google will get a direct message from its users to lift its game. At the end of the day, I’d prefer to see unhappy customers and better competitors cause Google to change how it does business, not more government regulation (which is where Consumer Watchdog is heading with its complaint…)
June 8th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
I’m with you on this Anna.
Whenever I can I use a different search engine and am always amazed at the results. The problem is those users who think Google is the only game available and swear by the results.
I have a relative who is a prime example. She cried when she had to decide between a brand of computer to buy because she couldn’t understand basics and would not take the time to learn either. Too confusing. All she wanted was to plug and play. Firefox and IE were not options. She just wanted to click on a button and get it going. URL was not an option. She searched for the websites.
These types of users are the ones that fuel the growth of company monopolies, specially in the tech world, and that is what bothers me.
Companies have the right to make a profit, but would it be too much to ask that they have integrity while doing so?
Anyway, thanks for your comment/feedback, I think we are in the same wavelength, just different ways of expressing the same info. Specially about government intervention, that’s even worse.
By the way, thanks for your work in keeping us abreast of the tech news (internet marketing and so on). Your updates are one of the few emails I read in full.
Good job!
June 8th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Great point Joe – people who aren’t so experienced with the Internet won’t necessarily know that Google is NOT an independent arbiter of search results but a business with its own vested interests. Thanks for the great feedback on the newsletter
June 14th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Thanks for this information; I am sure you have helped many of us online. Looking forward to more great content. Thank You;).