Benjamin Edelman, assistant professor at Harvard Business School, claims Google and partners are inflating PPC conversion rates and increasing advertiser cost via four specific channels, including Google’s own Chrome browser.
Google makes money by charging advertisers every time a user clicks on a Google advertisement, but in the instances described and documented by Edelman, he makes it appear Google and partners are colluding to intercept traffic to websites that would be navigated directly (and for free) rather than by searching.
Edelman’s claims, presented as they are, seem damning at first glance, but at times the connections seem tenuous and would carry a certain amount of deniability on Google’s part for they all involve third party actions, even if they benefit Google end. Google would not comment on third party/affiliate actions or motivations, so the links and proffered proofs are left to us (via Edelman) to consider. Google also declined to comment about the autocomplete feature on Chrome and whether it is designed to encourage search and discourage direct navigtion.
WhenU
Though in 2004 Google apparently banned WhenU.com from its index for cloaking, the domain has since returned, and the company appears to have forged an affiliate relationship with Google. Also known as WhenU Save/SaveNow, WhenU is advertising software that delivers ads, comparison shopping results, and tracks browsing habits, installed by the user in conjunction with other applications.
With WhenU installed, Edelman’s test exhibits a popup screen covering 80% of a webpage he directly navigated to internet access provider RCN. The popup features Google text ads, one of which is for RCN, the rest for competitors. Edelman suspects many users who’ve installed WhenU simply click on the sponsored search result to arrive at the originally intended destination, thus costing RCN for the click and appearing to be a legitimate conversion.
Edelman cites this as a prime example of Google and a partner interceding in the case of direct navigation in order to boost PPC revenue and give RCN the impression of a high conversion rate.
However, it’s possible, as in all of these examples, that the evidence is circumstantial. WhenU has a history of shady behavior and is still unofficially considered by many as malware or “badware.” It is possible Google is unaware of WhenU’s pop-up practices and that this is a tactic designed to benefit WhenU. Google itself wouldn’t comment on WhenU’s practices.
Google Chrome’s Omnibox
Google’s combination of address and search bar, known as Omnibox, made waves in the browser market with fans cheering the efficiency and critics expressing concern about data collected from it. Edelman enters “Expedia” as an example. Before the entire entry is complete, Chrome suggests outcomes for the user, three of which are searches, one of which is the URL for expedia.com, and a third suggestion, “expedia/,” which leads to an error page.
Edelman argues direct navigation is discouraged by placing the intended URL at the third suggestion, after a search result and the suggestion that leads to an error page. “By placing this nonfunctional result prominently in the autocomplete drop-down, above the one working direct link to Expedia, and in the same distinctive green font as the working direct link, Chrome discourages users from exploring direct links,” writes Edelman. “After all, if the prominently-listed “expedia/” link did not work, users are less likely to try the similar-looking link Google ranked lower.”
Because Google designed Chrome this way, this is the most convincing example of Google encouring searching over direct navigation. But proving that motivation is a hard case to make because it involves ignoring all other motivations/ design intentions and requires knowledge of internal engineering directives to which we don’t have access (to which Google won’t grant access, either).
Any determination of motivation on our part involves significant conjecture, and Edelman may have been a bit selective. The argument assumes the user really wants “expedia” and not “expedition” or “expletive” for that matter, and it ignores other stages appearing in the type field, like the “exp” and earlier stage, or other variations of the query/navigation. Google could and would argue the autocomplete feature is intended to get users to their destinations faster. But Google declined to comment other than to note using the “control” key moves suggested queries to the top of the list.
Typosquatting and SmileyCentral
People who register domains a letter or two different from a legitimate domain in order to catch typo traffic when users make a mistake typing a URL directly are called “typosquatters.” Typosquatters often make money via Google AdSense ads, which appear on the page that is not the intended destination rather than an error page, via Google AdSense for Domains. With Google’s matching technology, often the intended destination is featured in the ads, which users click to continue to where they meant to go. In essence, it is another instance where an advertiser pays for traffic it otherwise would have gotten for free if the user had typed correctly.
Edelman also pegs SmileyCentral, a toolbar provided by IAC, which owns Google’s search rival Ask.com, as a way a Google partner manipulates users into clicking sponsored ads by discouraging direct navigation. The toolbar modifies the users’ web browser by pushing the URL bar to the right instead of its traditional position on the left. A forgetful or unsuspecting user typing a domain in that bar will bring up a search with sponsored ads and may click through to the originally intended destination.
“Google’s actions are even worse than opacity: By claiming to have delivered traffic advertisers would have received anyway, Google tricks advertisers into paying for that traffic — and even tricks advertisers into concluding, mistakenly, that the traffic is a good deal.”
Google wouldn’t comment on how IAC designed its toolbar nor what IAC intended by switching the URL and search fields around. But as far as typosquatting goes, where most often squatters target trademarks, a Google AdSense for Domains spokesperson did manage to reiterate the company’s trademark policy:
“We take trademark violations very seriously. When we are made aware of trademarked terms on sites within the AdSense for Domains program we take immediate action including disallowing ad serving. Trademark owners can find more information here: http://www.google.com/tm_complaint_afd.html.”
Third Parties
In all but the Chrome example, Edelman’s arguments hinge upon the actions of partners rather than Google’s direct involvement. While it’s true third party abuse of the system may inflate conversion rates, and that Google may indirectly encourage it, Google retains the ability to disavow actions taken by WhenU, IAC, and typosquatters. But it might be argued Google could be more careful with whom the company associates.
Edelman’s bio lists Google rival Microsoft among his clients. In a world of tenuous links, would that count?
