Why Is Google Trying To Be Nice?

Google has been in the press a lot lately after its spat with content providers like newspapers and then there was the launch of Streetview in the UK which did not go entirely to plan. So why is Google launching a 'charm offensive'? Is there something we should know?

When You're No. 1 There's Only Way To Go

It's pretty typical that when a company gets to No. 1 in it's market everyone wants to take a swipe at them. Just as when Microsoft first got there, people have started to get irked by Google's market dominance. There is, for example, an ongoing lawsuit over its efforts to digitise millions of books - a tentative settlement has been reached with cheesed off authors and publishers but anti-trust has raised its head and asked whether Google is able to profit from the arrangement.

Angry authors are not the only irate people. Advertisers are up in arms as they feel they have no bargaining power because Google controls over 70% of the search ad space. Lately there has been a case in New York which complains Google used its market position to destroy competition from rival search providers. It seems like Microsoft all over again - what happened to those squeaky clean nice guys who started this all? Where has the 'Coolness' gone in Google? Does every market leader HAVE to become big and nasty and the object of hate and suspicion?

Nasty By Default

It's a fact that when you're market leader, everything you do in order to maintain that position will in some way affect the competition. It's human and business nature for small players to try to get a share of the market and grow and they have to fight hard often to get some chips in the game. The problem arises though when market leaders become virtual monopolies. At that point, they effectively own the market and, if unrestricted, can dictate terms for all others while locking out new players by changing the rules. Microsoft has become a master of this and over the years it has seen off would-be new companies by bundling in alternative products into their operating system or by buying them out.

What Google has seen is the obvious result of making it big - regulators are ganging up on them and trying to question all that they do. Some of this is over-sensitivity to certain things while other concerns are very genuine. If I were an author struggling to get published and the only way was to use Google, then I can see that I might get a few bob but the lionshare by a mile would go to Google as they have the power to grab eyeballs.

And no matter what anyone says if you don't pay you don't get seen. Just this morning I checked on my website's traffic figures. I have the basic Google traffic package which is nothing and my ranking is 1 out of 10. It has been so for nearly 3 years. The ranking is based on the number of back links into the site. In the last year, I know for a fact that there have been over 500 new back links added on various sites linking to my website, yet the ranking has not moved one iota. You can find me on search if you look carefully, I have this blog which is linked to the site but it makes not a jot of difference.

Thankfully, I am not uptight about it but when I 'Google' other companies in my business it always irks me that the adverts seem to coincide with the 'Naturals' - the common inference is that you rise up the 'Naturals' if you pay. This makes sense - the more you pay for adverts, the greater the traffic to your website and then you will rise up the 'Naturals'. But after 3 years and umpteen thousands of hits and all those back links to my website, I have not moved at all.

Funny that.

Regulators On The March

Google got stymied on an ad tie up with Yahoo! last November. Streetview was taken down in the UK for a few days after complaints about invasion of privacy. There was even a feint rumour that the US Administration should break up Google for the good of the internet but I don't think there was any truth in that. To some extent, Google is a victim of its own success. It can't fund its competitors but it wants to grow. Almost anything it will do will be on a grand scale and almost certainly invoke criticism from one regulator or another.

Google Fights Back

Google has opted to fight back using 'charm'. It has an internal mantra of 'Don't be evil' but sometimes it's so hard not to ruin the business of a competitor because you want your piece of the action and when you control the whole search arena it is not just a piece, it's pretty much all the cake.

So the PR engine is in motion. Company executives are talking to advertisers, reporters, academics, and lawmakers to explain why, even though it's a virtual monopoly, it should be loved not feared. The problem is, as we know with companies like Microsoft, the more they try to charm you, the more you begin to suspect they are up to something nasty.

Google believe that Microsoft did not do much of a job on their charm offensive as they mishandled complaints around 10 years ago. In the big case of abuse of power surrounding Microsoft's browser there was, at one point, talk of authorities breaking up Microsoft as it did not seem to handle the complaints seriously enough. Google thinks it has learnt from this and feels it needs to pay attention and lobby those who are making such policy decisions. 'Have them on your side and there will never be an issue on break ups.'

Google is attempting to 'explain itself better' in the wake of criticism. It's just as well as, in February, a small search company called TradeComet launched a suit against Google. TradeComet, which relies on selling keywords to trigger adverts, purchased thousands of words from Google in order to drive traffic (oh, haven't we all tried that - to get anywhere it costs millions). But, it is claimed, when Google realised that TradeComet was a threat, by spooky coincidence the same keywords shot up in price. You might think that if a word becomes more popular then that makes sense and you would be right - but the price increase was tenfold. Inevitably, within a few months, TradeComet's monthly traffic declined by a staggering 90% and they lost $millions in revenue. It was Netscape all over again. Google's response was that they did not 'Think there was merit in TradeComet's claim'. Ouch.

Copyright

Google's attempts to digitise millions of books is at the heart of a copyright issue. Someone writes the words, Google profits. You might say that so does WH Smith by distribution and selling the books - after all authors would not sell much if all they did was stand on street corners with a pile of their books. But the issue is that Google has such a stranglehold on the content presentation market through its search engine that all authors, if they want to sell their books, must use Google. If that is the case, then every author will be competing to get seen and so the more they pay, the better their chances of being read and selling their books.

It isn't a great deal different to the way books are sold today and everyone is upset by new methods. Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, recently criticised newspapers for being out of touch and that they have to adapt as Google does so much for the presentation of their product. But what it means is that the standard of reporting will be impacted if more of the profit goes to Google just because they have the stranglehold on the distribution.

They could become the modern 'Internet Teamsters' - if you don't pay us a percentage, you don't get read.

In the meantime, by digitising the books and redistributing them, authors lose control of the copyright. They no longer will get paid per view by selling the books but will probably sacrifice the potential gains. Moreover, this could signal the death knell for companies like Amazon.com who have done so much to revolutionise books and decrease the prices as they do not, yet, negotiate directly with major authors.

Google claims that any author is just a click a way and that claims over its search dominance are overstated. They now even dispute independent industry sources on web search when they rate Google with over 70% which is really silly.

In a separate round of scrutiny, Google's policy of allowing advertisers to buy a competitor's brand name as a keyword has been criticised. This is often seen when you 'Google' a particular product by its tradename, then up pops adverts from a competitor as they no longer purchase keywords associated with that industry, they simply purchase the tradename as the keyword. It means they skew their own ratings by doing so. There is also a claim that this is trademark violation.

It's a story yet to play out.

Privacy

Arguably, the biggest area of concern about Google is privacy and personal data. Google has vast quantities of our data gathered through search. It has launched iGoogle and has its GoogleApps which will store all our user-generated content in 'The Cloud', as it is known. The argument is that as Google dominates the market, we will all have less choice on where to store our data.

Many companies who believe their own products or services can keep user data more secure are being pushed out of the picture by Google's dominance. This also means that Google can use the information collected to its own exclusive advantage. What would be stopping it from profiling people and sending customised adverts or following them around on the web and then make personal offers to them? As they bought DoubleClick, the internet ad agency, they have the perfect vehicle for exploiting this. It may not happen - but the fear is unquestionable.

Google For The Future

Nobody doubts how fantastic a company Google is. It has revolutionised search on the web, it has made sure that superior technology has triumphed over Microsoft and we have got the best out of the web so far instead of what Microsoft would give us. But in doing so, it too has become a monopoly.

In answering the cases against it, Google has sought to deflect the suspicions of its activities by saying they are stoked up by its competitors. That's a bad sign as it seems that Google has also acquired the paranoia of a monopoly and lost touch with the world that does care if choice gets limited or data misused.

Big Brother Is Watching You - Hey, It's Good Thing!

'We get sued every day', said Eric Schmidt, CEO at Google. It was a comment worthy of his more bullish rival, Steve Ballmer at Microsoft, and it shows how companies who purport to change the world for the better develop a thicker skin as they mature.

It's a thin line between use and abuse of data in this modern age. So much information on us as individuals is collected and then we lose control over what is done with it. What starts as essential information for a transaction becomes a commodity to be traded itself. The issue of late surrounds Google's Street View service which was launched in the UK this month and got its first formal complaint put to the Information Commissioner (ICO).

In the complaint drawn up by privacy campaigners it cites over 200 reports from members of the public identifiable by the service.

Cool Google

Google has the reputation of being the soft mega-corporation who offers its employees cycles to get around its Bay Area Campus, who brought us the ability to search the web in seconds and who brought cool new applications and gadgets to make the computing dream come alive. It is also a highly profitable corporation and it is hell bent on replacing Microsoft as the dominant player in the future. Google Street View does not seem to be one of those sinister moves by a big company, it seems more like the kind of 'really neat' or 'cool' stuff from a company whose two founders are pleasant multi-billionaires who are ethical, nerdy and general all round cool dudes. Street View, we would like to think, has to be one of their zany ideas for people to try as they could not possibly be any other agenda or money to be made from it.

Street View allows a viewer of Google Maps to actually go and take a look at 25 cities in the UK, and get 360 degree views. As with most things in the computer world many might initially ask 'Why would you want to do that?' But as with Google's satellite views, I could not stop myself taking a look at my own address and seeing that the picture was taken in high Summer and you can see two sunbeds with yellow towels in my garden and my car parked outside the garage. It was way cool and has now become part of everyday browsing. Google Maps is just an amazing service which I even have on my PDA and, yes, I have used it when looking for addresses in London.

My theory is if I use then it has to be simple and useful, believe me.

So What's The Beef With Google Street View?

After the ICO had given permission in 2008 for Google to go ahead there is now a threat due to the complaint that Street View may have to be turned off. Prissy privacy campaigners would tell us that there had been 'clear embarrassment and damage' caused by people being viewed. This was also in breach of the permission granted by the ICO to Google in the first place.

Google had said that they would blur people's faces and car registrations when it was launched.

It sounds just another pathetic attempt by campaigners to spoil our fun. However, there is definitely risk here as one of the complaints received was from a women who was identifiable and had moved house to get away from a violent partner - she was pictured outside her new home. Another complaint came from two work colleagues found to be in a 'compromising position' - the image was subsequently circulated amongst their workmates.

You can see how this can quickly develop.

The Legal Position

Legal Eagles argue that data protection is all about taking reasonable steps and the argument is that if Street View is breaching privacy then almost anything you can do with data is a breach of privacy.

That is one point of view. However, in this instance, the data is being collected without the express permission of those in the pictures to have their images distributed. If you do not have their permission to distribute the data then actually presenting it to millions of potential viewers on the web is pretty irresponsible to say the least, particularly if the images can result in embarrassment or damage.

The same argument can be applied to You Tube and other picture sites which now flourish on the web. In the business world, giving your business card to another person can mean your data can not only become freely available on the web but also sold many times. Services like Jigsaw actively rewards its users for contributing full business card information on contacts made which are then sold as a highly targeted services to other individuals and companies to find contacts and build lists. LinkedIn is similar is some respects but has curtailed access to some information unless of course you pay. There is a very definite implication when you hand someone your card that no permission is granted for the recipient to distribute it and certainly for any third party they should hand it to. But it happens.

The problem here is that already people have proved that they can 'lift' the images from Street View and distribute them and that means that Google really has not taken enough precautions to stop that. But all you have to do is send the link to everyone to achieve the same results, so it boils down to the collection of the data in the first place, how it is subsequently displayed, who has access to it and what might they do with the data once viewed

Will Google Get Around This?

Inevitably they will. They got through to China by taking on board their rules and I guess if they can make sure their blurring technology is more effective then they can re-launch pretty soon. The concept has great merit but as always there is a tendency to trivialise the risks of potential outcomes. We can all point fingers at 'nanny' campaigners but when we are personally affected by it then we suddenly become very indignant - and rightfully so.

The obvious argument goes the other way. If you put yourself in a compromising position, there is always a risk you pay a price. People like Max Mosley have argued successfully that is not true and may even have claim to have 'lost his dignity' because of it and get a large amount of compensation - he was filmed in an orgy with dominatrix prostitutes dressed in strange pseudo-Nazi outfits.

If he can get away with that then Google Street View doesn't stand a chance. As always there has to be a balance. It looks as if Google's first effort got it wrong - but the cool dudes among us hope they put it right as it looks a great tool.