When search marketers get together at a pub and talk, the conversation inevitably turns to Google's near-monopolistic share of web search. For many of us that are new to the field, Google has consistently been the market leader and focus of most of our efforts. But this wasn't always the case. Have a look from a historical perspective:
|
Market Share 2002 |
Market Share 2004 |
Market Share 2006 |
Market Share 2008 |
|
|
29.2% |
35% |
43.7% |
63.1% |
|
| Yahoo! |
28.5% |
32% |
28.8% |
20.5% |
| MSN/Live |
28.1% |
16% |
12.8% |
8.5% |
| AOL |
19.7% |
9% |
5.9% |
3.7% |
| Ask |
10.3% |
2% |
5.4% |
4.2% |
sources: (2002, 2004, 2006, 2008)
Even as recently as 4 years ago, the market was far more balanced between the major players, resulting in serious attention by search marketers to different engines vs. today's extreme Google-centric mindset. There's a number of reasons we search folks bring up the problem of the Google monopoly:
- Monopolies can dictate pricing
Google already sets the standard for PPC advertising, but in a future where one engine has 90%+ market share, this power will go up considerably. Even if click fraud rises considerably or Google artificially inflates PPC costs, marketers will have no choice but to pay or go home. - Monopolies control the rules
Don't like Google's stance on paid links, cloaking, data collection, or algorithmic calculations? Too bad. When there's only one game in town, you either put up or get shut out. - Monopolies can (much more easily) impose unfair sanctions
Right now, if you step out of line with Google's guidelines, you can be out of the index or penalized to the back of the rankings. Generally, this power is applied fairly (though not always and certainly not everyone would agree), but a monopolistic environment makes it much easier for Google's web spam team to apply their personal biases & vendettas to websites large and small. - Monopolies can make unreasonable demands
Want to be listed in Google's engine in the future? You might need to provide them with some significant data about yourself or your site in order to be included. Sitemaps & Webmaster Tools are the beginning of a path towards information control (as are data sources like Google Analytics, Toolbar & Desktop). If Google knows more than anyone else about what happens on the web, their monopoloy becomes increasingly impossible to fight against. - Monopolies are less subject to market forces
Nowadays, Google does a fairly good job of staying one or two steps ahead of user demand and feedback, but in a monopoly environment, the incentives to do so are significantly lower. Just look at all the examples of monopolies that, once their market position was secure, became symbols of consumer anger and frustration. - Competition against monopolies is considerably more difficult
Building a great search engine is incredibly hard, and getting market penetration might be even harder - just look at Cuill (who failed badly on both counts). It's not yet as hard as starting a new car company, but it's getting there (and look how broken the US automotive industry is). - Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Journalists, bloggers, SEOs and searchers have been noticing that over the past few years, Google has gone from sunshine and rainbows to a corporate, for-profit entity. While, as a capitalist, I believe that's not necessarily a bad thing, it does mean that Google's path towards corruption is on a far more precarious slope. Your data, search history, site analytics and privacy are respected now not just because Googlers think it's the right thing to do, but because it's the right thing for their business. As monopoly looms, those goals diverge and the incentive to "do the right thing" dissipates.
As an SEO who values not only my personal professional development, but the overall landscape, I'm worried. I believe in innovation, in the power of startups and entrepreneurship to change the status quo and in the value that comeptition brings to any market. Maybe new players can gain a foothold, but with the barrier to entry so high (trust me, building a fresh web index and usable metrics is unbelievably challenging), will there be a chance to break Google's increasing stranglehold? And if not, how do we handle the challenges of a Google-only world?
Am I the only one that prefers being #1 on Google and knowing that I don't have to give a crap about Yahoo and MSN?
I'm with you on that one!
Until someone else steps up their game...I'm with you too
It's nice to not worry about fighting on three fronts, but at the same time if Google continues to tailor its results pages person by person, our jobs may become much more difficult.
Also, with every new Google acquisition/product we run up against a new competitor who will almost always win, ie Youtube videos ranking on the first page of the SERPs regardless of link strength or Google services outranking competing sites simply because of their PR10.
Still, I'm trying to be hopeful.
Some things are easier in a monopolistic world because there is less uncertainty. But that doesn't mean things are better. Monopolies are generally bad for everyone except the monopolist and their close allies and affiliates. Anyone who wants to make a living in search marketing should prefer a world with more competition and less market share concentration in the search industry.
I agree. Easier for us but not sure its better...
Ah yes, the most enjoyable aspect of my work - most clients can not afford to pay me enough to optimize their site well enough for each unique search engine algorithm. Googopoly helps address that issue.
I tend to agree, at least in a long-term sense, and I think we have to be very vigilant about what Google is up to, but I also think that we have to take a deep breath and look at the longer timeframe. Google is barely a 10-year-old company, and we talk about them like they've always existed and always will. Yes, they have a virtual monopoly and an enormous amount of cash, but the internet world is moving at an incredible pace, and the next Google is out there somewhere.
The next Google, like the first one and many other technology companies, is currently in the brain of some grad student or is being built in a garage, IMO. It isn't going to come from an SEO hot-shot (sorry), probably won't be a friend of Guy Kawasaki's or Michael Arrington's, won't get a blank check from Sequioa Capital, and probably won't be created by former Google engineers. It isn't going to be a search engine that's 5% better than Google - it's going to be a concept that changes the internet so radically that we don't know how we survived without it.
Sure, I want to see a lot more diversity and strength with some of the others. No one wants one single dominant company. But some counterpoints:
"Don't like Google's stance on paid links, cloaking, data collection, or algorithmic calculations? Too bad. When there's only one game in town, you either put up or get shut out."
Well, it's not like this is different if they didn't have a monopoly or huge marketshare. Indeed, Google's rules have largely stayed the same or arguably gotten looser (first click free) over time. Didn't like them? You still ran the risk of getting locked out. Of course, maybe the other search engines might have given you some traffic. Then again, they might not have since they often had similar rules. So you could say there's always been one game in town -- the search engines' overall -- and you played or stayed out potentialy. You know, same's true with say the local newspaper in your area. They don't guarantee editorial coverage.
"Right now, if you step out of line with Google's guidelines, you can be out of the index or penalized to the back of the rankings. Generally, this power is applied fairly (though not always and certainly not everyone would agree), but a monopolistic environment makes it much easier for Google's web spam team to apply their personal biases & vendettas to websites large and small."
Actually, the bigger the web site you are, the less control Google has to penalize you. Any number of times a major company has done something wrong and gotten right back in. Google still depends on their content for relevancy, in the end.
"Building a great search engine is incredibly hard, and getting market penetration might be even harder - just look at Cuill (who failed badly on both counts)."
Had little to do with a monopoly issue and more to do with Cuil focusing only on indexing rather than relevancy given the core strengths of their founders.
"Want to be listed in Google's engine in the future? You might need to provide them with some significant data about yourself or your site in order to be included. Sitemaps & Webmaster Tools are the beginning of a path towards information control (as are data sources like Google Analytics, Toolbar & Desktop). If Google knows more than anyone else about what happens on the web, their monopoloy becomes increasingly impossible to fight against."
I found this unfortunate. Sitemaps and Webmaster Tools have been the beginning of a path of allowing site owners more control and input into Google despite it being bigger. They've shown no sign of trying to link inclusion to using these tools. There are good reasons why this would harm relevancy if they did. Yes, potentially they could do this. Potentially, they could decide to employ child slaves, as well. But I disagree pretty strongly with you putting this out there as some Google uber plan to demand information. It's going to scare people away from very good tools that four years ago, they could only dream of having. Then they got their dream, and now we're like "hey, Google, what are you up to?" Maybe doing what site owners had begged for?
I'll just address the last point, as I think the others we somewhat agree on, and you've got good additional points and critiques.
If I were building a search engine 3 years ago, all the information that the major guys used - Google, Yahoo!, MSN, etc. - was available through crawling the web. Today, that's getting to be less and less the case, some through Google's own actions with Webmaster Tools and some through the actions of webmasters and site owners. For example:
Webmaster Tools lets you specify and verify a sitemaps location that isn't in the standard spot. They let you verify/register mobile sitemaps, RSS feeds, etc. All of that could not be found by an upstart engine crawling the web - it's Google's propietary info about millions of sites and it gives them a data and relevancy edge. WM Tools also lets you register subdomains, subfolders and domains and specify geo-targeting and domain canonicalization preferences. Again, both of these make it harder for a new engine that simply has a web crawl to get to the same relevancy/quality level as Google.
I'm not saying these tools aren't valuable - we recommend that all of our clients use them and we do so ourselves. I'm just saying it does hurt the competitive opportunity.
while all of us agree about the problem, what is the solution? An open source search engine, before it is too late?
not sure what you mean by an "open source" search engine - surely if the algorithm was publicly available it would leave huge holes for manipulation and spamming?
You would think that, but look at reddit. It open sourced its algo and that actually helped to fix a lot of its holes.
I like the idea of an open source search engine but am worried that it wouldn't be able to compete with the business deals Google has made.
Honestly, I am not sure what the best solution is.
Rand, for a future post I’d like to hear your suggestions for how Live Search (with which I’m not associated) could improve its market share.
Yeah, it's probably not the search for cash incentives they've been trying.
LOL Jac! Amazing how the big bad Micropoly has stooped to trying to buy it's way into dominance. Proof that all monopolies evenutally fall, either of their own top-heavyness or by the leverage of others.
Maybe it's just me, but I found the tone of this post to be very anti-Google. Sure, the idea of a Google monopoly is scary to us as search maketers, but from a user point of view it's not such a bad thing. Even the most unsavvy internet users are beginning to figure out that Google is the one-stop-shop for everything from search to video to email. It's convenient for them, it gives them familiar interfaces across all products, and they don't have to spend energy tyring to figure out a new system on every site. Google is giving users what they want. If it ever reaches a point where that's not the case anymore, then I'd agree that it is a bad thing.
Also, I agree with evilgreenmonkey above, that I don't mind not having to worry about Yahoo & MSN as much. I can't figure their algos out, but since they supply so little traffic to my sites it's not a big deal.
I'm disappointed that people (here and elsewhere) seem to be OK with Google approaching monopoly status. There's a difference between a clear-eyed view of the market (in which we acknowledge Google is the big fish) and giving up and implicitly endorsing a de facto monopoly. Rand laid out a bunch of reasons why monopolies are generally bad. They are bad for both the industry players and for society overall. Saying: oh, it's better this way because I only have to focus on Google and not worry about other engines – that's short-sighted.
I couldn't agree more. Allowing a search monopoly, especially with a company that isn't a big fan of SEO in general, could be disasterous for our collective employment situation. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday this may come back to bite us.
Dan, I agree with your sentiment, but I think any SEO worth his/her weight knows darn well that we are in a business where are constantly at the mercy of things we don't control. Seriously what am *I* going to do about Google's monopoly? Use MSN? NOPE!
So I might as well get used to it and figure out as much as I can about how they (Google) works so I can be successful.
GrindcoreVlad Yahoo! it is doing something. Since it launched Yahoo! Search BOSS (or BOSS Vertical Lens) the usage of the opened search platform increased dramaticaly. Take a look here https://www.ysearchblog.com/archives/000666.html
and i think this is good news :)
While I agree with you for the large part, you completely skipped over some very positive effects of a monopoly. It might all still be a net negative, but you've got to consider all angles.
Monopolies can also be more efficient. Sure, sure, competition drives innovation... but sometimes a vast and overwhelming amount of resources capable of being thrown at a problem is more powerful. Furthermore, monopolies allow for integrated services.
And lastly, although many of us may not like it, if Google has the power to apply a heavy hand in squishing spam sites, then that itself might pull out to a net positive. This is the flipside to your "don't like it, go home" consequence of a monopoly.
I would much rather see a three pony show than one, however much of the success that Google had, with Keeping It Simple..., giving webmasters more of what webmasters want, making rankings relevent and maintaining this relevency, and exploring new products, has not been accomplished at the other engines. Sure, Y! and Live are beginning to follow suit, but there is much ground to makeup, before they can even start carving out Google's share. Overall, I think the PPC side has the most to lose if Google starts acting like Goliath, based on the information provided here.
I have noticed that in the last few months, and for first time, Google is starting to annoy me with wanting to be everywhere and doing all sorts of things... I have to admit that there are many benefits associated to using google products and services plus the convenience to have them all closely integrated and often free of charge, but somehow I dont feel right about how things are evolving, so I tend to agree with rand's points. In france Google has 90% market share which is irritating particularly because of the PPC ridiculous situation, whereby the organisation where I work has to pay 30% higher prices for the same keywords being purchased in Spain, Italy and Portugal.
If we want to resort to Yahoo Search, with only a 5% of the search engine market share the poor return doesnt justify the investment in time and effort put int to manage the PPC campaign, so we end up subjugating to Google's artificially inflated PPC prices. Google, in my view, is starting to suck.
There are some notable exceptions to Google's monopoly powers. Japan (Yahoo is #1 there) and China. How long before these two major markets fall as well?
In my humble opinion if Yahoo doesn't do something really fast, in...let's say 2 or 3 years no-one can compete against Google.
I remember someone saying that about Microsoft a decade ago.
I disagree.
For one, Yahoo has the best development strategy going forward of all the engines. They've consistently embraced the developer communities, and BOSS greatly improves their chances of spearheading the next evolution in search. Furthermore, their users are more valuable than Google's and anyone still using the service has shown an almost unshakeable loyalty.
Second, betting against Microsoft is almost always a bad idea. They've got tenacity and resources (both human and financial) like no one else, and arguably the strongest development platform/community in the world.
Third, Google isn't hitting a lot of home runs these days. Other than their momentum, they don't have anything on the horizon to be excited about (IMHO).
Don't get me wrong - Google is running circles around Yahoo and Microsoft right now, and Rand has done a great job outlining how hard the fight will be for anyone competing with them. I'm just saying the two competitors they do have are absolutely capable of changing the search environment.
Nice post- its interesting to actually see the breakdown over the last 4 years of how Google has taken over in terms of marketshare.
I agree with your reasons- well said. Even beyond that, I've been saying for years that either Starbucks or Google is going to one day enslave us all, so it looks like they are right on track!
However, the basis of everything that we do in Internet and Search marketing revolves around the fact that search engines need to keep their results as accurate as possible, otherwise we will all go find a search engine that works like we need it to. That force alone is a driving factor for Google to 'play nice' in spite of their monopolisitc status.
Point blank... no. Unless, as Dr Pete said above, something comes along that radically alters the very nature of the internet, nothing will be able to take on Google.
Only when the very essence of how the internet "behaves" changes from its current form would someone else be able to come in and make a stand.
lets watch..we dont have a choice. :)
I think a lot of people (particularly agency side)...controversial...spend far to much time bad mouthing Google, and spreading mythical stories about what their doing, as though they are some kind of evil empire. I don't see that personally.
My only concerns around the monopoly of search would be around the pricing for PPC and in particular the dangers of being dumped from their index. If your an ecommerce business that generates 30%+ of your business from search engine referrals and you suddenly get dumped.....uh oh!!!
As for market share, I was listening to a guy from MSN recently and he was saying that as a company they don't want to market MSN search until they feel their product is as good as or better than Google. As and when they get to this level, expect a huge marketing push to drive acquisition and market share. Unlike previous occassions (i.e., superbowl) they will be hoping that market share remains/continues to grow rather than just migrating back to Google within a couple of weeks.
Competition is going to hot up in the next couple of years, but unless something goes drastically wrong I suspect Google will still be 65%+ at least.
Not to be snarky, but that's the kind of thing people say when they have an inferior product. Microsoft has completely botched the marketing of MSN/Live - by all acounts, Live Search really isn't that bad, technologically, but the renaming was such a screw-up that many consumers don't even know it exists.
Micropoly has been bloodied so bad in their multiple mega-failures related to web. Over and over they've been shamed and embarrassed over the fact that they provide laughably inadequate solutions. The only reason IE has such a foothold is it's pre-installed in their monopolistic computers. And even with that strangle-hold, IE is pitifully failing in usage every year. So I totally agree with Dr. Pete, however I have no problem acknowledging snarkiness in this case.
And eventually Google will face the same thing. They already have with some 3rd tier offerings (think Lively)...
Well to avoid this type of dominating position by Google you have to have competition that actually does something better than Google in search. We dont have anyone even close to that now.
The bigger the giant is, the easier it is for the ice to break from under its feet.
I don't know if you watched that discussion with the government over the internet but the senate? or congress replied to this.
They said because Google is democratic in their pricing, they get a by-pass in this because in essense they don't control the pricing, the market does.
Great post Rand! I agree Monopoly's are bad, no matter how you cut it. Hopefully Microsoft and Yahoo can rummage some things together and kick some Google tail.
This is why I hope the new incoming administration will use this oppurtunity to police monopolies in other industries (and I consider an unholy trinity of companies to be just as much of a monopoly as one company).
Ford GM and Chrysler, in my opinion, are a monopoly on American Cars
Citigroup, Chase and Bank of America, are a monopoly on the commercial banking industry
Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell, not so much, but enough of a stranglehold where they can still raise gas prices and not feel the need to really compete.
Google is the same way, to me. When your only viable options to do business is them, Yahoo and MSN (and I think there is a offer for Yahoo by Microsoft) then we don't really have much of a choice as advertisers.
I am happy with google today as my ranking is up! And I heard a 'rumor' that they were laying off 10K contract employees so they are impacted by the economic issues as well. I think there is still room to compete in a google dominated world but it is not by trying to be another google. There will be something after google. After all it used to be that IBM was king.
I think it's disturbing that some people think that a monopoly (or near monopoly) situation is a good thing, purely on the basis that it makes their marketing work simpler. Competition is any marketplace is important for a number of reasons, some of which were outlined by Rand.
I don't think Google is being evil (yet), but the consequences of following the easy dollars without considering the broader social and economic implications should be a bit clearer to everyone after the events of this year. It's well and good supporting capitalism, but if a company is in thrall to stockholders whose only concern is making profits for themselves in the short term, then significant long-term damage can occur to the entire economic ecosystem.
podcomplex - it's not necessarily about "easier". It's about economics for my company. Most of our clients are small business owners who, especially in this kind of an economy, can barely afford the up-front costs of the optimization work we do now, and would never be able to pay for multi-engine optimization. For those clients who can pay the fees we charge and care about it, we gladly take their money, and get them the resultant position at Yahoo and MSN.
For all the potential negatives of a monopoly, in this scenario it is actually a positive thing. The majority of the SMB market can not bear the costs otherwise. And if anyone thinks it would be good to prevent SMBs from competing in the digital marketplace, well that's a whole different can of worms. Thus, oddly, Googopoly translates to fair market opportunities for our clients.
The user will influence the market share. I watched the presentation in LV and Live search has rolled out a bunch of new features that could be nifty but how do they change the behaviors of the user?Once they are comfortable with a search and its the default setting it'll be hard for anyone to even know what the new features are that the other search engines are offering. Yahoo and MSN still contributes to sales for my clients well enough not to be ignored so I wouldn't discount their value. No doubt Google rules but a little competition and choice for the end user is a good thing.
Imbalance in search engines and PPC costs, however, also allow for arbitrage.
Yey arbitrage :)
If Yahoo! and MSN would stop starting then dropping stuff and stayed a little more consistent perhaps they would be more popular - stopping Y! Music was a pretty stupid move why not tie in with another company?
Also I consistently see dead links on Y and MSN that have been there for months....
One think I find a bit funny is that Microsoft needs a court permission to go to the toilet, while Google seems to be able to do whatever they want. I've read once that Google supported NASA or something with a airbase somewhere (so they could park they own private jets there). I'm not liking how things are going, since I'm not really a fan of monopoly (even thought I'm a capitalist). However, on the upside I only have to worry about Google when I work with SEO.
The various comments about having one goal to manage is very valid. Having clients who have a clear objectives about appearing in Google for specific terms is easier because:
1. Its easier to achieve
2. Its easier to monitor
3. Its easier to report
4. Its easier to manage
However I totally agree that the more control Google has the worse it is for us in total. However a Monopoly of PPC would be a good thing. With PPC becoming more expensive SEO consultants will be able to preach the benefits and cost benefits of their services more.
A great post with some good food for thought.
Good post. Will the UK authorities or possibly the EU break the stanglehold Google have, akin to what they imposed on Microsoft?
I doubt it, at least not until the USA impliments something, we are somewhat behind on legislating for the internet.
And how do you stop people using the search engine that gives them the best result? Even if Google never bought another service, but carried on providing the best search results, they will contiunue to monopolise that market.
I can't see it myself as it's a totally different proposition. Microsoft were (allegdely) exploiting a monopoly to force other products on to consumers (Internet Explorer) - not something I can really see them being able to throw at Google, so long as they don't do anything (such as the Yahoo deal) to put themselves in the firing sights of the Eu or US bodies who might punish them.
This is really interesting, not least because in the UK we are much closer to a monopoly situation, with most information pointing to Yahoo, Msn & Ask having about 3-5% market share each, and Google dominating with over 85% market share.
I think we haven't yet reached the point where Google UK thinkslike a monopoly yet though, as they are still very US focussed, and apply a lot of their rules and initiatives over here too. It will be interesting to see if the way we work with Google will change when it gets monopoly status in the US, compared to how we work now.
I'm in the Netherlands and google is clocking in at 90-95% share average, helped by the fact that other search portals (like ISP start pages) are integrating google search rather than building their own.
As Yoshimi says, that future is here - Hitwise has Google at 89.44%. I think that they're well above this in Germany and a couple of other European countries as well (as Niobe says below).
Some good comments here. Of course trying to optimise for Yahoo and Google could be tricky, imagine if they 50% market share each. Yahoo's algo is a mystery to me it throws up such obscure results so that would be a nightmare.
Equally though a monopoly is inherently bad, especially as it comes at a time when Google is doing everything in it's power to maximise ad revenues.
Maybe an open source engine is the answer - but who is going to fund it? Firefox has gained market share as it is a superior product IMO to I.E (and everyone else who uses it?) - But who is going to build a search engine that is better than or even close to Google?
ppcmanchester maybe you would like Yahoo!'s Search BOSS (BOSS Vertical Lens)
What I dont understand in this whole argument is what is our point of view!! Are we looking at it from an SEO's point of view or are we looking at it from consumers' point of view. If we are looking at it from consumer's point of view, then we should not worry about who is having bigger share in the market. If google starts to have bad results in their SERPs no body will use them. It is as simple!!!!
I agree with this point to some extent, but as someone who depends on SEO to pay my rent I can't really look at it objectively. This is a little like Planet Money on NPR recently saying that "layoffs help the economy." It may be true, but is a little hard to see from the unemployment office.
I'm torn over if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Part of my brain is gald that I won't have to worry about getting websites listed in other engines but then the PPC part of my brain jumps in and tells me that I'll be paying more and more. Oh man, I can't wait to see where it goes!
A monopoly is 100% of market share and I very much doubt that Google will achieve that.
That being said, companies get to that level of market share (or close to it) by providing a lot of value for their customers. So growing market share means they're doing a lot of good.
If they get to a point where they decide they want to stop doing good and start doing all those nasty things that you mentioned Rand, then their market share will drop because people will go elsewhere. Maybe not overnight, but eventually.
Come on, nobody ever has a 100% market share. Monopoly means a market share so high that the competition is mostly powerless and most people don't have a choice.
Monopoly means exclusive control, not "lots of control" or "more than the others." Maybe you are talking about something other than monopoly.
By admitting that there is competition, you admit that people have a choice.
Anyway, even if Google did achieve a monopoly, the threat of competition would always loom and provide a check on their power. Unless of course it was a government monopoly which prevented others from legally competing with them.
Google is successful in search insofar as they provide the best search result. I doubt that their first move after attaining a monopoly would be to degrade the quality or reputation of their search results. That would be a nice invitation for competitors.
Just because they're the biggest now, doesn't mean they will always be.
Actually, back in the day of AT&T, it was about exclusive control. In terms of technology, Microsoft was deemed a monopoly even though Apple was out there, so it's not about exclusive control at all. It's about so big that you can force-manipulate the market.
I was actually just getting annoyed by this the other day as one of my clients just got bumrushed by a seasonal blitz on their products in PPC. There are no other avenues right now that can provide the reach of Google, but the cost is rising pretty quickly for small businesses.
Though, I do think the search market will probably fragment into increasing niche engines, it's just a matter of when.