Well here we are, days later and no posts. I still have dozens of emails sitting in my Inbox waiting to be answered from my week in Chicago (last) but I felt the need to post today. I’m not going to get a chance to get into great detail on the personalization session in Chicago which I was really hoping to but that will take far more time than I have (hours) and so all I will say on that tangent is that I recommend visiting www.seobythesea.com. Great info on patents. You’ll also want to review my past article on the subject here.
Alright, now on to other news. Let’s begin with today’s radio show on Webmaster Radio. Jim and I discussed the Net Neutrality issues that Roger’s (a Canadian ISP). Rogers is injecting their own content into pages (such as usage warnings) and was caught doing so on the Google homepage. The content they injected mentions Yahoo! Here’s how it looks: Image found with a story on he subject on Wired.com here.
Not cool. Now, who owns the content? Is it Rogers for allowing the data to pass to the user or is it Google for creating the content to begin with? I have a hunch we’ll soon find out.
Jim and I also went on to discuss Google DoubleClick and some of their more recent issues. Ahhhhh, will it never end (I hope not – it gives me something to chat about on the radio).
One of the points of interest is the filing by liberal consumer parties objecting to Deborah Majoras (Chair of FTC) being involved with the voting on the issue given that her husband (John Majoras) works for the Jones Day law firm which represents Google/Doubleclick.
While the defense of this would be that John is no part of the deal (perhaps but would likely having influence nonetheless) and that Jones Day only appeared before the EU in that battle and that they have nothing to do with the FTC. That could be but I’m not sure why their site would read that Jones Day is representing Google/DoubleClick on, “international and US antitrust and competition law aspects.”
Now all this said, I think it’s all silly. Google has every right to the acquisition in my opinion. The reason competition laws were made was to protect the consumer. Google product is free so really, what are we being protected from. Yes yes, if Google has too large a hold on the marketshare they will control the advertising and then they can charge advertisers what they want right? Wrong. Advertisers will pay whatever it takes as long as the money made is higher than the cost paid to provide a product or service. Whether Google controls 55% of the marketshare or 80% this won’t change. They could control 100% of the market – I’m still not going to pay them more than I make to advertise my product. And have you seen what the bids are? This isn’t about cost per click, it’s about scale (they want more clicks) so the consumer won’t really be affected and the advertisers will just have more clicks to choose from which may, I would argue, lower the cost they need to pay.
But moving on …
We had Li Evans on the show to discuss social media and all that it isn’t. She was an awesome guest and a joy to chat with in Chicago as well. I couldn’t do it justice and so I’ll just direct you to read her latest article (it’s what the interview was about). You’ll find it on her site here. Great post, recommended reading.
So that was the show. I’ll give some advanced warning that I’m pretty sure we’re in for a bit of a shuffle on Google this weekend. I’m not sure if we’ll see one on Yahoo! but we likely should within the next week or two. Both engines have had updates recently and not all the effects were beneficial for the searcher (though in some cases the results improved – I’d have to say that overall they declined which means they will be corrected).