The Noisy Channel

 

Search is Not Advertising

October 9th, 2008 · 11 Comments · General

Thanks to Greg Linden (who in turn thanks John Battelle) for calling my attention to a post by Google VP of Product Management Susan Wojcicki entitled “Ad Perfect“.

We can distill Wojcicki’s post to three principles, each a direct quote:

  1. “advertising should deliver the right information to the right person at the right time”
  2. “help you learn about something you didn’t know you wanted”
  3. “it needs to be very easy and quick for anyone to create good ads, to show them only to people for whom they are useful, and to measure how effective they are”

While Wojcicki does call out the similarity between Google’s mission in advertising and its mission in search, she fails to see a key difference–a difference exposes a fundamental problem with web search today.

Search is all about the user. If you can help me, the user, find what I’m looking for, or to find something I didn’t know I wanted, then I’m all ears (or eyes). Of course, I’d like to understand your motives if you’re offering to help me make decisions, especially if they involve my money or even my health.

Advertising is about selling the user’s attention to the highest bidder. Google has done more than anyone to make that bidding process economically efficient. But any utility that advertising proves to users is a means to an end. Advertising is all about the advertisers, and the advertisers only care about providing value to users in so far as their interests are aligned. Absent alignment, advertisers naturally look out for themselves.

This dynamic is hardly unique to search; it applies to any situation where we allow someone or something to influence our decisions. Indeed, persuasion and critical thinking have been locked in an arms race for millenia. The use of advertising to subsidize content dates back to the early 1800s. Wikipedia offers a nice history of the subject.

But supporting search through advertising is a tricky business. Google insists that it maintains a wall between its search and advertising businesses. But Wojcicki’s post–which is on Google’s official blog–suggests otherwise, at least in spirit. If Google believes that both search and advertising aim to “offer relevant content” and “deliver the right information to the right person at the right time”, then why put up a wall at all?

In any case, it is at best misguided and at worst intellectually dishonest to claim that the main goal of advertising is to inform or help the user. The goal of advertising is to influence the user, a goal whose achievement requires delivering a message to which the user is receptive. But influencing is not the same as informing. I hope we all have the critical thinking skills to appreciate the difference.

11 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Daniel Tunkelang // Oct 10, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Great discussion going on in the comments at http://glinden.blogspot.com/2008/10/google-describes-perfect-advertising.html

    Jeremy puts it succinctly:

    Perfect advertising (and I do mean advertising, not branding or marketing) is advertising that doesn’t exist. If relevance is of such key importance, then the search engine should be good enough to put that relevant information in the natural results.

  • 2 Otis Gospodnetic // Oct 10, 2008 at 4:09 pm

    Of course. But there are dozens other factors involved, and yes, they are not there to help the user but to try to strike the golden middle between the user/potential customer and the advertiser.

  • 3 Daniel Tunkelang // Oct 10, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    I’m not saying that users’ and advertisers’ don’t overlap at all. But I am saying that, when they do diverse, you have to pick sides. And, if you are selling users’ attention to advertisers, your allegiance is ultimately to the latter.

  • 4 Alerting: Push or Pull? | The Noisy Channel // Oct 13, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    [...] other day, I was ranting about how Google is conflating the goals of search and advertising. One of the questions that we [...]

  • 5 Considering a Sponsor | The Noisy Channel // Oct 28, 2008 at 11:48 pm

    [...] some of you may know, I’m not a big fan of advertising, and I made a decision when I started this blog to keep it free of ads. In [...]

  • 6 Opting Out of Ads | The Noisy Channel // Jan 31, 2009 at 2:03 pm

    [...] But she said that she found value in the ads, and wouldn’t opt out of them. Indeed, Google claims that the ads are valuable to users, not just [...]

  • 7 The Internet Is About Freedom | The Noisy Channel // Mar 22, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    [...] my case he’s preaching to the converted, and I don’t see why his arguments should be so controversial. But clearly they are in a [...]

  • 8 Something Jeff Jarvis and I Agree On | The Noisy Channel // Apr 7, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    [...] also appeared in Advertising Age. And they ring true. In fact, they complement my argument that advertising isn’t search. Of course there’s a need to make prospective customers aware that your product or service [...]

  • 9 Professor Eric Clemons: Time for Some New Senior Vice Presidents? // Oct 28, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    [...] paradox is most of the leaders of companies don’t have the right combination of old and new skills to lead this change and the number of people in the world truly qualified to [...]

  • 10 An Ad-Supported Model With Teeth? | The Noisy Channel // Nov 15, 2009 at 9:30 am

    [...] popularity of PPC models in general) is a testament to the success of this approach, my occasional rant [...]

  • 11 Recruiting and a Lesson in Attention Scarcity // Jul 11, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    [...] reading your message. Indeed, search advertising follows a similar principle. I still maintain that search is not advertising, but perhaps this aspect of negotiating a shared interest between messenger and messengee is a [...]

Clicky Web Analytics