I dont think Google can be ruined by marketers. Marketered didnt invent adwords and adsense, etc.., Google did. They embrace marketing - that is the difference between them and social sites.

Remind me of the "death of bla bla bla... " trend..

The OP's analogy is seriously flawed.

People go to google looking for something specific. They type
in key words in the hope of finding that information. If you've done
an adequate job of positioning your site properly they will find you.

I doubt that anyone joins Twitter or My Space or Facebook
because they're hoping some amateur marketer will be in their face
constantly with spam.

Tsnyder

Google can't really get compared to twitter, facebook, myspace or any of the purely social web 2.0 platforms.

The difference? People tend to go to google search because they are looking for a solution to a problem; ie. trying to find an answer, looking for information about a product, ect.

In the social platforms like myspace and facebook...and now twitter, they traditionally aren't looking for answers...they are looking for some form of entertainment.

And in the rare case that they are looking for information, they rarely want something in the form of long ad copy.

This is something that pure marketers don't get. Think about it this way, for those of you who are active on Facebook for social purposes (you are using it to connect to friends)....do you want to be sold to when you are using it?

As far as twitter is concerned, I love it. But then again, other than the url of a blog that write at, I don't use it to sell to my "followers" (which appears to be people who are only interested in selling to me....for the most part).

Unlike Google search which has a relatively low signal to noise ratio and is used for a direct purpose (most of the time), The social networks are supposed to be fun places. IMers tend to abuse and mistreat the social platforms solely for their own end. The two don't match very well. And social networks aren't meant to be used that way.

Just my opinion anyway. I know that a lot of IMers here in the crowd will disagree b/c most see these platforms as opportunities and try to exploit them through blatant advertising. There are opportunities but they aren't so direct.

Google and marketers have a symbiotic relationship. It's foolish to assume Google would even be here without marketers. There's no way they could afford the volume of searches that go through there on a daily basis.

And because Google relies on marketers to even exist. It only makes sense that marketers get what they need from google to exist.

Google was founded as a marketing tool just like television and radio.

TL

Ram has this right.

This is one of those philosophical debates that REALLY gets me 'going.'

I'll boil it all down for you -- the KEYSTONE that supports ALL capitalism is... (insert drum roll here)... INTRUSIVE ADS.

If you take away intrusive ads, the entire economy would soon cease to exist.

The web was built upon a socialist foundation (everything CAN be free, so everything SHOULD be free).

Capitalism, on the other hand, was built on this: "the money has to come from somewhere."

This difference produces huge FAULT LINES. It's like oil and water. The two do not mix. The tragedy is, most people cannot tell the difference (more accurately, they cannot RECOGNIZE the difference). Example: When napster was big, supposedly WELL-EDUCATED people seemed not to understand why napster could not be allowed to exist. They didn't even realize the BASIC tenet of capitalism, "the money has to come from somewhere!"

...and what generates the vast majority of transactions (all else being equal)?...

INTRUSIVE ADS.

The web will, sooner or later, have to DISMANTLE it socialistic underpinnings, and go MORE intrusive (w/ the ads), not less intrusive.

Just look at the evolution of the "ads" on PBS to get an idea of what the trend MUST become.

There is no other way.

I could go on about all the reasons for this, but I won't here.

Cheers.

-- TW

Ram,

You've got to be kidding right?

People use Google to find infomation about what they are searching for. Marketers provide that info. Yes, we get a little competitive about our ZSE listings, but that's part of getting noticed or recognized as a primary source for that information.

If I'm not mistaken, Google is trying to clean up a lot of the nonsense sites that need to be sandboxed or listing in other areas then where they are. Each update that goes by we here about more sites getting deindexed, snadboxed, etc...

To me, they are doing their job, and we are doing what we need to do to gain authority in the SEs.

So yes, Tynsder is right. Your OP is flawed in your recognititon of what the Google is used for.

Having stated the above, I want to be clear that this isn't to say that marketers don't flood certain medias as they market like Twitter, Myspace, Facebook, other SB sites, etc ... And after they get done abusing one place where it is no longer useable, they do have a tendency to move on to the next until it is put to a hault because it's lost its edge.


Roger,

I was thinking the same thing.
I don't think Google is ruined at all RAM. They're just getting the cleanup process underway.


Mary

Not every marketer tries to trick Google, you might not be saying that, but seems kind of implied. Some marketers do try to play by the rules because they know they will have a better chance of keep ranks. Just my three cents.

What you seem to be concerned about is more of an issue of how the internet itself has transformed into a market. This is not something that google is responsible for, as google entered the arena with the market already in place. However, whose to say that the market system's tendency to keep things competitive isn't positive for the internet and google. I have just as much success as ever with trying to find relevant search results.

htweed,

Prcisely, and well stated!


Ram,

No, I don't think anyone misunderstood your thread title. I know I posted about your content mainly. You seemed to have a different view then I do as stated in my prievious post. Your assessment of how Google, other Search Engines, and the Internet as a whole work is what I was saying is faulty. Specifically this line here:

This line of thinking has a glitch for example:
You are assuming people are annoyed, and possing as something based on your own preferences or opinions.

Do you honestly think or believe any commercial site that displays a product review isn't giving honest reviews, or comercial blogs aren't real blogs?

In this case who's to say what is a "real site" and what is not? They are all real to an extent, including comercial sites. These comercial sites are businesses, and we are a part of that business group.

Btw I never mentioned anything abouth ethics or people being ethical or unethical.


Mary

Hey Ram,

You are still missing my point here:
It's part of doing business on the internet. The owner of Amazon for instance started small just like many of the ones you mentioned in your last post. He got a ton of help from Internet Marketers if I'm not mistaken, and many of them are the ones you are talking about who produce products or tell people to put up the "Not so real blogs and sites".

Some people are marketers who grow, learn, and expand their business. Just because some marketers don't grow beyond taking noob steps doesn't mean they don't put up real sites and blogs. It simply means their's may not be as big as someone like Amazon, or as polished.

Plus, people like the one you pointed out with having the reviews posted are in business too. They just aren't conducting business the way I would or you would, but they are still in business. And I'd be willing to bet they turn a halfway decent profit at it.

Business is about profit in the end whether you are someone small or large, selling information or a service. Business owners will exploit every means possible to keep and grow their business. Always have and always will.

The same thing happened with radio and TV, but now there is 22 minutes of comercials shown for every 30 minutes of air time. Does this mean they are all fake comercials as apposed to the real shows that are supposed to be airing? No, commercials have become a big part of the income for the networks, and people have become accustomed to seeing them.

Lol after 11:00 pm I see comercials for absolute junk that I would never think about buying. But that is the business these people are in, and what they do to stay in business.


Mary

By that reasoning, Advertising ruined TV, radio, newspapers and magazines.

This isn't true - the ONLY reason TV, radio, newspapers and magazines are produced are because the publishers earn money through advertising.

Google needs advertising revenue to pay its employees, and to pay for servers, etc.

If we don't like advertising, we could go to Pay Per View. Imagine if you paid 5 cents for every web site you visited or every email you received or sent...

Free programming is basically paid for by advertising.

You're missing the point. These sites sell advertising, it's their monetization model. When you use the profiles as your marketing channel instead of the advertising space for sale, you're stealing from them by not paying for the advertising space you're using. When you're doing it, you're in breach of the contract or terms you accepted when availing yourself of their services.

It's why most forums have very strict rules about what is and isn't allowed when it comes to posters linking and promoting things. If you've got something to sell here, pay Allen for a WSO and stop trying to game the system. If you've got something to sell on Facebook, pay for a facebook ad buy and stop trying to be a cheap *******.

Oh, but Seo's are paying Google by creating content that Google can use - quid pro quo. Allen gets the use of our posts, in return you get a .sig within the rules to make your pitch. Moviegoers gets a movie with better special effects in return for seeing the pitch from product placements.

What sort of quid pro quo or equitable trade of my attention for your pitch exists in the blackhat methods of gaming the system?

Oh, BTW: more intrusive ads will always happen? Hmm, so Google Adwords would never work in practice, eh?

You only need more and more disruptive ads if you're doing interruption marketing. Pitch a receptive audience in a buying mood and you don't need to go all Lesko on us with a clown suit and flashing lights as long as the audience you're pitching to is a market for your product.

Interruption marketing is getting a megaphone and going around on Times Square with your pitch. Madison Avenue-style image or brand advertising. Targeted marketing or permission marketing would be putting a PayPal button up top with a sign that says "One hour on the phone with me, $1000 - signed, Allen".

Mm, yes, but I mean, if you're ditching the clown suit and blending in, to network with potential clients and customers or just through something like handing out a useful app with your link or pitch on it - well then, you're not gaming the system are you. You're paying for the opportunity to make your pitch with useful content.

Something like Seth Godin's Permission Marketing concept, IOW. The right advertising to the right audience at the right time enhances the user experience because it provides them with some sort of value. Entertaiment ("drop 10 facebook friends, get a free Burger King burger!") value is still value, yes?

Quite unlike

"If I could have my links or opt-in or flashing widget screaming "CLICK HERE NOW!!!" on every page of Twitter without paying the millions it would take (if they would even consider it), then I would. Same with every other social media site."

where the focus is just on how he can maximally exploit the potential audience for minimal outlay.

It's the difference between Lesko and Frank Kern - you know both are gonna pitch you something, but only one of them needs to dress up like a clown to convince you that what he's got to sell you will be worth your attention.

[DELETED]

i think you have valid point there but marketing is all about reaching to people. considering the immense popularity of social network marketer including internet marketing people are bound to get to such website.

Exactly - I don't mind being pitched to either subtly or overtly as long as it's providing some value in return for my attention. When you're networking in the Rotary Club or - well, here - you're here to build a business brand and to make money. That's kinda a given. What I object to is the ones who give you nothing in return, who move in and take without giving.

Quassia says - "give us content, we'll give you backlinks in return", Squidoo says "give us content, and we'll cut you in for a share of what that content makes". Fair trades, yes? Hop on Facebook and give people something of value in return for your pitches and that's okay too, you're broadly within the offer-value-for-your-attention space that I'm totally fine with. It's when it becomes "gimme, gimme, gimme your attention and money in return for no value of my own" that my hackles go off.

Being a Cheap ******* is not paying the venue the asking price for using their services. It is in short, dealing unfairly by not offering value for value.

Think of an Adsense site - you can either do a content site or a scraper site. Traffic Equalizer made a lot of people a lot of money in its day, but did the TE-generated sites offer any value to anyone besides the owner?

"Next time you watch your favorite TV show, how many ads would you like to see?"

The answer is, of course, zero.

But... just as obviously, the show could not exist without the ads.

Companies must grow or die -- the shareholders (or the owners) see to that. They either expand, or their competition expands instead. This part of capitalism.

The web often stands in contrast to all of that. It implies the following falsehood: The group called "my potential customers" is the exact same group as the one called, "people who are already searching for what I sell." True -- in some businesses that IS so -- plumber, tow truck, lawyer, etc. But in most cases, it is not true. In the customer's mind, this flawed philosophy manifests itself like this: "Back off marketers! If *I* want something, *I* will go out and *I* will find it myself -- your intrusive marketing has NO effect on my buying decisions!"

This is absolute nonsense. If it were true, then...

1) There would be no reason to hire a 'better' copywriter

2) There would be no benefit to MIXING the ads and the news in the newspaper (which makes them more intrusive) -- the EXACT SAME results would happen (in terms of how well the ads SELL stuff) if all the ads were in one section, and all the news was in another section.

3) Items in a supermarket would sell EXACTLY the same amount whether they are placed on the end caps -- or NOT.

4) McDonald's could stop advertising. Bugging people repeatedly (whether they ASKED to be bugged or NOT) would yield the exact same results as NOT bugging them repeatedly.

Etc., etc., etc.

I found it amusing when all the ISP's were touting that they had eliminated pop-ups, etc. It was a very web-like move. Web-like thinking. Sounds good + logical. Keeping 'evil' ads out of the equation. After all "everyone" hates intrusive ads AND they don't influence anybody anyway. They are merely an annoyance.

Again, nonsense.

By killing pop-ups, they killed their own economy.

Just like PBS, the web will eventually cave and realize ad-like ads ("pushy" ads) are like that for a reason. I predict sheer economics will force the web to allow ads that are even MORE intrusive. The same evolution PBS went through. The ones with the gold make the rules -- that is the advertiser. Their ads MUST produce sales - and to do that, they must be intrusive.

The socialistic philosophy that drives the web elitists is bogus at its core -- or at least, not sustainable. Fortunately or unfortunately, it will eventually yield to the bulldozer that is capitalism.

Remember, "the money has to come from somewhere."

-- TW

PS: From much of what I see in IMing, the idea is to somehow exist in the socialistic world of the web (everything can be free, so everything should be free), while, AT THE SAME TIME, figuring out ways to be a wolf in sheep's clothing (ie: SELL STUFF -- the 'evil, nasty' world of capitalism). These methods can be overtly + obviously black hat -- or not. But the overall BATTLE still remains -- how to sell stuff within a socialistic structure like the web. Example: I can get a list broker to give me snail mail names + addresses of any people with almost any criteria I can think of. Doing that in the world of the web (email addresses) is either impossible or illegal. You are trying to advertise in an environment that is fundamentally OPPOSED to advertising (philosophically). A world awash in 'privacy policies' and 'permission marketing' -- and the world-view that goes along with that.

Plus, it seems like another goal is to find "the best FREE way to market stuff," not simply, "the best way to market stuff." Yes, I understand the ROI on free ways is 'infinite.' But really the search should be for the best ROI methods -- whether they are free, or not.

I don't think we really disagree terribly in principle - the market response from your customers will tell you what's most profitable to do, neh? I just think one should do so within the terms set by the venue where you do your pitching

Some great points so far, I think people go to Google to search for something specific by typing in the keywords their looking for and then find or hope to find the information they want. If anybody wants to find your site or find you specifically, if you've optimized your site and profile correctly, people will have no problem finding you and your business or product. People tend to join social networks to socialize with others, so I don't think that they're thinking of getting hassled by internet marketers with products to sell. Just my 2 cents!