You're free to advertise through other means. Search isn't the only way to be seen. Sadly you'd be better off firing your highly paid SEO staff and paying Google directly for better search results. Sorry SEO is dead occupation, I guess?
You're free to advertise through other means. Search isn't the only way to be seen.
Not only way, but Search IS how consumers find providers on the internet. For example; end users commonly type "Google" in their browser bar in order to find google: and they would type "Basecamp" into their google bar to express their intent to access their Basecamp account.
It seems not only Trademark Infringement or Dilution, but an Unfair deceptive trade practice as well for Google to be displaying A competing company
I tried to see what came up, Ad Block made google look correct based on what I looked for. Lol.
Either way, sorry. Google is free to display whatever it wants on its search results, and you are free to contract with them to manipulate it how ever you want if you pay them enough cash. Ads is how they decided to productize their search. Don't like it? Sucks for you. Implement one better. You don't have a right to force another private entity to display what you want. You can only incentivize them through payment. That's how free markets work. And it works great.
Markets actually work better when there is quite a bit of competition. There are like three players in search and two of them are relegated to niche status. When plenty of competition exists, your argument is valid. But when a single company dominates a market then what would be okay in a competitive market becomes an abuse of that dominate position. The sorry state of U.S. antitrust legislation allows this, but that doesn't mean it works great. Markets only self-regulate with competitive pressures. When yo
When plenty of competition exists in the ad provider market, it means you have to phony up at every relevant competitor to cut off your competition. Same difference. Your idea only works if a third party undercuts Google AND becomes dominant at search. Not gonna happen. If someone gets dominant over Google, they will start to extract the same 'horrendous' prices. Not a single search provider will allow a third party ad network for delivering the ads. The data profiles generated by the searches are too valuab
That's not how free market works. In an actual free market, shipment and road companies could collude to bankrupt any other company.
How would you like to have your company's products undeliverable because the owner of the street in which it's located established a new rule preventing you from unloading your warehouse goods on it? And then all the shipping companies in town decides to refuse shipping any of it? Ditto for railroad operators etc.?
Government interference, by limiting some freedoms, maximize all
The best way to accelerate a Macintoy is at 9.8 meters per second per second.
Forced? (Score:1)
You're free to advertise through other means. Search isn't the only way to be seen.
Sadly you'd be better off firing your highly paid SEO staff and paying Google directly for better search results.
Sorry SEO is dead occupation, I guess?
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
You're free to advertise through other means. Search isn't the only way to be seen.
Not only way, but Search IS how consumers find providers on the internet.
For example; end users commonly type "Google" in their browser bar in order to find google: and they would type "Basecamp" into their google bar to express their intent to access their Basecamp account.
It seems not only Trademark Infringement or Dilution, but an Unfair deceptive trade practice as well for Google to be displaying
A competing company
Re: (Score:0)
Re: Forced? (Score:2)
I tried to see what came up, Ad Block made google look correct based on what I looked for. Lol.
Either way, sorry. Google is free to display whatever it wants on its search results, and you are free to contract with them to manipulate it how ever you want if you pay them enough cash. Ads is how they decided to productize their search. Don't like it? Sucks for you. Implement one better. You don't have a right to force another private entity to display what you want. You can only incentivize them through payment. That's how free markets work. And it works great.
Re: (Score:3)
That's how free markets work. And it works great.
Markets actually work better when there is quite a bit of competition. There are like three players in search and two of them are relegated to niche status. When plenty of competition exists, your argument is valid. But when a single company dominates a market then what would be okay in a competitive market becomes an abuse of that dominate position. The sorry state of U.S. antitrust legislation allows this, but that doesn't mean it works great. Markets only self-regulate with competitive pressures. When yo
Re: (Score:2)
When plenty of competition exists in the ad provider market, it means you have to phony up at every relevant competitor to cut off your competition. Same difference.
Your idea only works if a third party undercuts Google AND becomes dominant at search. Not gonna happen. If someone gets dominant over Google, they will start to extract the same 'horrendous' prices. Not a single search provider will allow a third party ad network for delivering the ads. The data profiles generated by the searches are too valuab
Re: Forced? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not how free market works. In an actual free market, shipment and road companies could collude to bankrupt any other company.
How would you like to have your company's products undeliverable because the owner of the street in which it's located established a new rule preventing you from unloading your warehouse goods on it? And then all the shipping companies in town decides to refuse shipping any of it? Ditto for railroad operators etc.?
Government interference, by limiting some freedoms, maximize all