The other day, I was on a conference panel; the moderator opened proceedings by asking each of us: 'Yes, or no: is Google evil?'
Of course, it's a more complex question than those two answers allow - but I was struck by the interest in this issue and the strength of feeling around it. Clearly, marketers are starting to worry about the power of the search giant as its share of advertising grows. Their concerns manifest themselves in a variety of forms - mostly relating to Google's confident disregard of their interests in pursuit of its own.
Certainly, many marketers were angry at Google's abandonment of brand protection last year. Google argued that it had become judge and jury to endless brand disputes, which cost it time and money, and that it no longer wished to be the industry's arbiter. This was true. Also true is, that with brands bidding on each others' terms, the search engine makes more money. Google had operated this system in the US for some time and understood the yield model well.
While some advertisers claimed Google was guilty of trademark infringement, the UK's law courts ruled last year that it was the searcher - not the engine - that used the trademark. So, as it stands, the law seems to be on Google's side, no matter how many marketers complain.
Another concern was Google's now-abandoned 'best-practice funding'. This skewed auctions and damaged transparency by kicking back different amounts to different agencies, based on the criteria that Google had set. The market-distorting effect became clear as the scheme was abandoned, with several advertisers pitching their search business following the withdrawal of the subsidy.
What characterised both these initiatives was the self-assurance with which they were implemented by Google in the face of opposition from customers.
And what's wrong with that? Google has a clear view of its own interests, and pursues this vision single-mindedly. It is concerned only with what people think of it in so far as this might affect the achievement of its goals. In other words, reputation is purely a means to an end. But is it bad for the market?
Search engines claim that search is different, arguing that market dominance can't lead to exploitation, because their income depends on an auction. The customer sets prices for them - so while Google has a high market share (close to 90%), it can't exploit it.
In fact, there are several ways that Google does manipulate the market.
First, the rules. Now withdrawn, the minimum-bid system allowed Google to push up the cost of entry for advertisers. Its replacement, the snappily titled 'first page-bid estimate', jacks up the premium for visibility.
Second, the algorithm itself - the formula that dictates who ranks and where in the listings - is secret, and under constant development. It is confidential for sound reasons, but this means the search engine can exercise control over costs to advertisers.
Finally, Google periodically reviews its commercial terms, as we can see from the defunct best-practice funding.
It is pretty clear that Google exercises market dominance - and the fear of anti-trust action in the US and EU does sometimes make it look like a big legal practice with a small engineering and media company attached.
This, however, isn't evil. It's pragmatism. It's doing what needs to be done to maximise the return to shareholders. If businesses think that Google's market power adversely affects their interests, the sin is theirs for allowing it to happen.
Andrew Walmsley is co-founder of i-level
30 seconds on Google and contentious issues
- Google's motto is 'Don't be evil', coined by engineer Paul Buchheit at a meeting at the company's California head-quarters in 2001. Buchheit said, 'I wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out.'
- In 2006, when Google agreed to censor Chinese search results, chief executive Eric Schmidt created 'an evil scale', and determined that the censorship was less evil than not serving China at all.
- In 2002, the Church of Scientology asked Google to remove results for anti-Scientology websites, citing copyright infringement. Google removed its direct links, but retained the sites in its cache.
- The company's paid ad policy forbids advertisements that 'directly promote the sale of alcohol and liquor', although ads for alcohol with 'the sole purpose of branding' are permitted. Advertisements for tobacco and tobacco-related products are also banned.
- Google heavily favours dogs in their war against cats, with its code of conduct reading, 'We like cats, but we're a dog company.'