What Future for Search?

By Rob Watts 2003-11-18

Reading through my weekly subscription of New Media Age I was struck by the amount of advertisements and copy devoted to paid placement in the search engines. As the popularity of SEM (search engine marketing) has increased, it is clear that some search channels are allocating an ever-increasing amount of their search real estate to paid listings, pushing the unpaid stuff further down the page. This raises two immediate questions in my mind; are the days of organic free listings numbered and how should these subtle transitions from (organic majority – paid inclusion minority) serp (search engine results page), to (organic minority – paid majority) serp be regulated.

It certainly can't be right that portals and SE's (search engines) should be able to deliver listings that are deceptively labelled or in the very least, are not clearly demarcated as 'sponsored ads' or 'paid placement'. A quick look at some of the big players shows that that this tightrope is a delicately trodden path. If every other media channel out there has governing rules and laws that dictate how an advertisement should be defined, why should a thing like the internet be any different?

Consider the common search phrase of 'cheap computers'

Freeserve for example, have no qualms with showing so called 'Results from the web' but omits to mention that the results shown are nothing other than Overture PPC ads.

Tiscali does it a little differently again, devoting the whole first page to paid placements under the heading of 'From the Web' with a small attribution of 'Sponsored By' beneath each URL.

MSN UK do things differently still, by putting their paid listings under 'Sponsored' headings leaving the latter half of the page to free listings.

Then there's Google clearly labelled, out in the open with the majority of their page real estate devoted to organic and free listings.

The marketing men make big capital of the fact that people like 'the web', people like to 'explore the web' or 'search the web'. They have latched on to the fact that for many people the whole idea of going out and finding what they need, and deciding for themselves what they will click on is a big draw and a very useful tool in manipulating the concept of search towards paid advertising objectives. When Jeeves says 'We have found these for you', there may be a perception that Jeeves has found a series of documents that has no bearing on who had the biggest wallet, but is based on what the document actually contained. There is little information provided as to how the results are served; the user has the idea of the servile butler doing their bidding and smiles when he comes back with some options.

This may well be ok, and the user may not even care, but the facts are that the user should be informed and in clear and transparent ways. When we get a commercial break on the TV or radio we know exactly what it is; there is no confusion at all. The iTC (Independent television Commission) in the UK has clear guidelines on product placement and they levy heavy fines for transgressors. So why should our new media be any different?

Perhaps it's just a coincidence that Google is the most popular search engine on the planet. People like to think that it is they who are 'searching the web' and that the results shown are based on a set of objective targets algorithmically derived from what they put in to an engine, and not from what some advertiser with a fat wallet wanted them to see. For the user it is clear, the guys with the money in their pockets are those coloured boxes on the right, everything else is there by virtue of 'Google's secret special sauce '.

If Google were to continue with this model, (and in the absence of any other major competitor some might argue there's little reason why they should not) we could reasonably assume that for people who rely on organic search there's still plenty of time for a free lunch. However, with IPO on the horizon and the lure of even bigger profits, combined with inevitable shareholder pressure any existing 'free real estate' could rapidly diminish.

As an international entity, the Internet is a curious beast. The fact that it moves so fast means that it can quickly adapt to any regulatory counter measures, giving great pleasure to the anarchistic non-conformist, whilst causing considerable angst for the legislator grappling to control it. Search itself has been a major driving force in both the proliferation of available documents and the dot.com booms and busts that have ridden their waves; if it had a conscience it would recognise that it has a special responsibility to ensure that the concept isn't corrupted by the ever-present face of commercialism that, left unchallenged, would monetise it all. To neglect this responsibility could lead to a diminished resource for us all.

Whether the big boys can regulate themselves remains to be seen. The FTC may well be looking at how it polices its own backyard, as are a number of other regulatory bodies in most of the developed nations; although, without an international lead its likely to be a torturous path.

About the Author: Rob Watts is CTO at Zoneweb Internet and has delivered high returns for a range of competitive key terms and phrases on a range of websites. He can be contacted via email at robert{at symbol}zoneweb.co.uk