That's not quite analogous, because in this situation the ad-seller is also claiming to be the teacher. Google's mission is to return the most relevant content whenever you search. If they succeed at that, then every time you search for something, you will get the most relevant stuff as the top few organic search results. The ads will therefore just be noise; the organic search results will be exactly what you want.
Exactly this. Organic search always wins, while ads distract. I've never stopped finding ads to be the not-so-poor-man's way of not bothering to be good at SEO. I tend to view them as a rough analogue to a traffic camera ticket--do nothing to improve the public interest, and basically allow people who can afford it to not bother about playing by or learning the rules.
Not keeping up with the latest fashions is value destroying. Not buying a new car every 3 years is value destroying. If I could modify my vision to not show me billboards, brands and placards I would. While I still have a choice whether to be or not to be the product I intend to exercise that choice. I refuse to be a cash cow for the highest bidder.
That may be true, but that doesn't make it incorrect. In fact, I do believe that it is in fact value-destroyingly cynical for technical people working in the valley; the current upswing in the business cycle (at least here in silicon valley) much like the first dot-com, is largely predicated on the idea that we are building the new advertising industry, and the technologies we are building for that new advertising industry make us dramatically more effective than the old advertising industry. so yeah, if you work in the area, you have a personal interest in others believing that targeted ads deliver a lot of value to the advertiser without subtracting too much value from the consumer. (I personally feel that the 'ads add value for the consumer' viewpoint that many googlers seem to espouse is so transparently self-serving as to be silly and ignorable[1].)
That's like saying teaching in school is useless, because if I need to know something, I'll ask someone.
The difference here is the difference between asking for advice from a disinterested third party, and asking for advice from someone who gets money if you choose one choice over another - a salesman.
It's the fundamental problem with using ads to pay for search; The user of the search wants to find the most relevant answer; the provider of the search wants the user to find the most relevant answer that the provider is getting paid for. This is a fundamental conflict of interest.
I'd compare this with going to a VAR[2] for technical advice. The VAR may be run by someone technically way more competent than you are, but the VAR is paid by the people who sell you stuff. I mean, maybe the SAN that pays the best commission is also the best SAN for your needs... but maybe not, and if not, then that VAR has a conflict between choosing the highest commission for themselves and choosing the best solution for you (which would increase their reputation, and perhaps lead to larger, more profitable sales down the line.)
I mean, I'm not saying the VAR is always going to choose the short-term money over the long-term reputation... but there is a conflict, and most people seem to think that one should usually rely primarily on sources other than the salesperson for information about a big purchase.
[1]absurd claims (in your favor) weaken your position by showing disrespect for the intellect of your counterparty.
[2]In the corporate IT world, there's a 'general salesperson/technical help picking the right product to buy' role, called the VAR... the Value Added Re-seller. The difference between a VAR and a salesman is that a regular salesman works for one company; he can only sell, say, netapp products. The advantage of the VAR is that s/he can sell netapp, emc, and nexentia products, and get a commission for each. The idea is that the VAR will be more likely to steer you to an appropriate product for your needs than a salesman from one manufacturer. But it's still a salesman/woman.
(note, the other VAR role is just plain re-seller... manufacturers offer products to VARs at a discount, so some VARs will just sell you the product at below-list price, without "adding value")
So you are contending that customers are informed of anything with ad targeting?
I worked in the online ad targeting/ad network industry for half a decade and strongly disagree with that premise.
The shadiest of products (penis enlargement, work from home, etc) are advertised with specifically "stupid" ads, because by eliminating the people who would never buy such a bad product in the first place they improve their CTR, screen before the click. That's the far end of the spectrum, but the premise is generally true for all advertising.
Informing your customers and competing on value is an inefficient method of advertising, it's much more profitable to find another, less rational, purchase trigger to exploit. There are many to choose from but traditionally this was still quite difficult and very risky. Now, with detailed analytics and advanced data processing you can just try them all and have the system cluster and optimize each approach.
"Relevant" ad targeting is sold as a method to display ads that will likely appeal to targets but an enormous part of it is screening those users who are informed enough to know that your product is not a wise purchasing decision.
And all of this lives in an auction model, so you either adapt to the more efficient methods or you get outbid on your keywords.
Comments
That's like saying teaching in school is useless, because if I need to know something, I'll ask someone.
This point of view is value-destroyingly cynical.
That's not quite analogous, because in this situation the ad-seller is also claiming to be the teacher. Google's mission is to return the most relevant content whenever you search. If they succeed at that, then every time you search for something, you will get the most relevant stuff as the top few organic search results. The ads will therefore just be noise; the organic search results will be exactly what you want.
Exactly this. Organic search always wins, while ads distract. I've never stopped finding ads to be the not-so-poor-man's way of not bothering to be good at SEO. I tend to view them as a rough analogue to a traffic camera ticket--do nothing to improve the public interest, and basically allow people who can afford it to not bother about playing by or learning the rules.
Not keeping up with the latest fashions is value destroying. Not buying a new car every 3 years is value destroying. If I could modify my vision to not show me billboards, brands and placards I would. While I still have a choice whether to be or not to be the product I intend to exercise that choice. I refuse to be a cash cow for the highest bidder.
Value for who?
That may be true, but that doesn't make it incorrect. In fact, I do believe that it is in fact value-destroyingly cynical for technical people working in the valley; the current upswing in the business cycle (at least here in silicon valley) much like the first dot-com, is largely predicated on the idea that we are building the new advertising industry, and the technologies we are building for that new advertising industry make us dramatically more effective than the old advertising industry. so yeah, if you work in the area, you have a personal interest in others believing that targeted ads deliver a lot of value to the advertiser without subtracting too much value from the consumer. (I personally feel that the 'ads add value for the consumer' viewpoint that many googlers seem to espouse is so transparently self-serving as to be silly and ignorable[1].)
The difference here is the difference between asking for advice from a disinterested third party, and asking for advice from someone who gets money if you choose one choice over another - a salesman.
It's the fundamental problem with using ads to pay for search; The user of the search wants to find the most relevant answer; the provider of the search wants the user to find the most relevant answer that the provider is getting paid for. This is a fundamental conflict of interest.
I'd compare this with going to a VAR[2] for technical advice. The VAR may be run by someone technically way more competent than you are, but the VAR is paid by the people who sell you stuff. I mean, maybe the SAN that pays the best commission is also the best SAN for your needs... but maybe not, and if not, then that VAR has a conflict between choosing the highest commission for themselves and choosing the best solution for you (which would increase their reputation, and perhaps lead to larger, more profitable sales down the line.)
I mean, I'm not saying the VAR is always going to choose the short-term money over the long-term reputation... but there is a conflict, and most people seem to think that one should usually rely primarily on sources other than the salesperson for information about a big purchase.
[1]absurd claims (in your favor) weaken your position by showing disrespect for the intellect of your counterparty.
[2]In the corporate IT world, there's a 'general salesperson/technical help picking the right product to buy' role, called the VAR... the Value Added Re-seller. The difference between a VAR and a salesman is that a regular salesman works for one company; he can only sell, say, netapp products. The advantage of the VAR is that s/he can sell netapp, emc, and nexentia products, and get a commission for each. The idea is that the VAR will be more likely to steer you to an appropriate product for your needs than a salesman from one manufacturer. But it's still a salesman/woman.
(note, the other VAR role is just plain re-seller... manufacturers offer products to VARs at a discount, so some VARs will just sell you the product at below-list price, without "adding value")
So you are contending that customers are informed of anything with ad targeting?
I worked in the online ad targeting/ad network industry for half a decade and strongly disagree with that premise.
The shadiest of products (penis enlargement, work from home, etc) are advertised with specifically "stupid" ads, because by eliminating the people who would never buy such a bad product in the first place they improve their CTR, screen before the click. That's the far end of the spectrum, but the premise is generally true for all advertising.
Informing your customers and competing on value is an inefficient method of advertising, it's much more profitable to find another, less rational, purchase trigger to exploit. There are many to choose from but traditionally this was still quite difficult and very risky. Now, with detailed analytics and advanced data processing you can just try them all and have the system cluster and optimize each approach.
"Relevant" ad targeting is sold as a method to display ads that will likely appeal to targets but an enormous part of it is screening those users who are informed enough to know that your product is not a wise purchasing decision.
And all of this lives in an auction model, so you either adapt to the more efficient methods or you get outbid on your keywords.