Google Local 7 Pack Now Down to 3 and ZERO

[Ryuzaki]

Today's murmurings involve the Google Local SERP results. The local results used to have 10 results if I recall correctly (could be and probably wrong, I'm not a local guy so I never paid attention that close). They were then reduced to 7, making them more competitive.

Today, Google has rolled out an update that drops the local 7 pack down to just a 3 pack.

That's an example from SERoundTable's discussion of the topic.

Here's what it looked like before the update:

Notice what's missing now? Addresses and phone numbers! To see this info, you have to click on a results horiztonal bar section to be taken to Google Maps, which then also pops up their info and reviews.

Now here's the real kicker that all the Blogs and forums aren't talking about. This originated somewhere on Skype and made its way to me, and I screenshat it.

There's NO LOCAL results on a very local search term. Google has created a set of ads to look just like the local 3-pack. Also, we still have the sidebar jammed full of ads as well. TO make matters worse, for this search term (plumbers in san francisco), Look who takes the top 4 results.

So above my fold we're seeing... *counting* 7 classic ads, 3 "are they ads or not" ads, and four results from ONE domain.
​

There's nothing organic about this SERP... at all.

Fun times for all of you local guys out there. Local before today reminded me of the earlier years of SEO. Instead of spamming links, you could spam citations and rank quickly into the 7 pack. That door is going to close, which is why I didn't chase that shiny object. As of today, once again... money talks, and bullshit walks.

 

[Philip J. Fry]

BBB is constantly ranking top 10 for local results too. //edit: totally obvious

What affect has this have on your sites? I'm guessing most have seen a decrease in traffic but I really want to hear from those who've seen an *increase*.

Thanks.

 

[RomesFall]

This is how the SERPs are going ^ along with the rest of the world.

Corporatism strikes again.

 

[CCarter]

^^ But the organic search engines traffic is free - they aren't obligated to giving you anything...

 

[RomesFall]

^^ But the organic search engines traffic is free - they aren't obligated to giving you anything...

Yeah it's free, that's great. When it comes down to it though they're a search engine that was built on the premise of providing the most relevant results to their users, by organizing information on the web (primary/secondary index). What we've seen for quite some time now, and this is on-going, is their move toward monetizing their search results and this puts their value proposition, their original raison d'etre if you will, at jeopardy. Their unofficial motto was 'Don't be evil'.

Obviously Google have been a public company since 04 so they have a responsibility to continue increasing profits for shareholders. It was probably the most stupid move they could have made if they really believed in the whole 'Don't be evil' shit.

When they keep stacking the deck in favor of those with money for advertising in the way that they are and have been for a while now, you end up with a search engine that is not only compromised in terms of providing the best information to their users, but also in terms of fairness.

Plutarchy is something I feel pretty strongly about, the fact is that it's not in the best interest of the people to have information created, controlled and supplied by a wealthy few for whatever nefarious agendas they have. Google are marching toward that reality... This is precisely what Goebbels did in Nazi-Germany.

Yes, I strongly believe that a company should be able to do as they wish with their company, but that does not mean that we should defend their actions or continue to support them by using their services. I will take all the free traffic I can get from them, because I know when I build a page that I make sure I'm creating the best resource for that particular topic / 'search term'. Am I thrilled about the idea that in a few years that big conglomerates will be able to essentially control the flow of information and that in a 'free market' nobody will be able to compete with them? Hell no I'm not thrilled by that and this is why I've spent the last 6+ months learning to get traffic to my sites that isn't reliant on ANY search engine, especially not Google.

Take a look around, look at who is buying what, who is investing in what... The web is being turned into a monopoly at an alarmingly unprecedented rate. We can defend the rights of companies like Google as we should, but I for one will not defend their actions by focusing on one benefit that exists in the here and now. Especially when that benefit is something that should be inherent to what they claim to be 'about'.

Now I'm not stupid enough to think that of all people, that you @CCarter do not know what I'm on about or that you can't read between the lines of what I'm saying. Nor am I surprised that a marketer through and through appears to be for this 'way of the world', just as people such as Edward Bernays believed that people were too stupid to be trusted to make their own decisions, and people like Ivy Lee were happy to sell their souls to the highest bidder, which by the way I believe is an incredibly short sighted and selfish mindset...

You can make a prison real comfortable with enough money, but don't forget who your masters are and don't forget that by supporting them you're just building those invisible prison bars higher and higher.

It's no joke in my opinion that people are losing their businesses, losing their income and security because of these so called justifiable decisions... Those people are human beings not just statistics, they have spouses, they have children. They have people who depend on them, and it effects a lot more than just one persons life. Google need to make a profit, and they have been for a long time... Yet what we are seeing is a pattern, this pattern shows they are moving further and further away from giving anyone free traffic. So don't deny that what they are already, or what they're becoming, and say THAT system is acceptable because someone somewhere is benefiting from it. Because far more people aren't and that's going to be a trend that continues, until only a few benefit from it and those few will be those with the most money.

 

[CCarter]

No company can survive on providing "free" service only, that's a charity. Google is not a charity. Maybe if everyone in the world paid $10 a year for the option of using Google and they turned into a non-profit then the motto "Don't be evil" would make sense. But do you honestly believe making money is evil? If that is your mentality, how long can you stay in business as a business owner with that mentality?

Google's goal like every company before it, Microsoft, IBM, even Facebook is to create profit. Google was making profit long before Google went public - that's the essence of being a company. Simply because the owners switched to shareholders doesn't make a company's goal, profit, disappear.

If you were getting traffic for free through one avenue, then that avenue is suddenly cut off or had a higher barrier to entry and now are "throwing your hands up" cause you can't get free traffic - wouldn't that mean that you believe Google is entitled to giving you free traffic? What did you do for Google to have them send you free traffic?

"Fairness", When google stops showing relevant results people will stop using Google, that's how it works. There are alternative like Siri for the iphone which is encroaching on their market share. There is Microsoft's Cortana, and tons of people trying to get their niched version of "search". Look at the Firefox switch from Google to Yahoo which boosted Yahoo's market share - that's all encroachment - yet you want to have one of the most successful companies in the world do nothing?

You also have to realize the internet can create some great innovations, and somewhere some kids in their garage can create a new system that could make Google irrelevant. Look at Microsoft, 10 years ago no one thought they would become as meaningless as they are now. Even IBM was thought to be here forever - they aren't really at the forefront of anyone's mind are they. If some group of people come along and create something that's not a "search engine" but just a "decision engine" based on predictive nature and people start flocking to it, Google's market share is going to drop and will make them irrelevant.

Unless there is a huge outcry of people saying the 'experience' is bad, Google is still the go to place to finding things online - doesn't mean it will be forever.

It's no joke in my opinion that people are losing their businesses, losing their income and security because of these so called justifiable decisions... Those people are human beings not just statistics, they have spouses, they have children. They have people who depend on them, and it effects a lot more than just one persons life.

^^ What were those people doing before there was a Google, cause Google only started in 1998. Where there no businesses getting customers before 1998? The problem is Google came along and dropped costs of acquiring customers dramatically for TONS of businesses, now the costs are creeping up BUT they will NEVER BE at the pre-1998 cost of acquisition.

Before 1998 smart businesses never relied on one source of traffic - hell the smart business today still do not. SEO made people lazy, and think that marketing = ranking on Google. They forgot about the thousands of other ways to generating customers - participating online within the industry, web forums, radio, tv, classified ads, all these things still exist AND have online equivalent options as well. Youtube, SoundCloud, Podcasts through iTunes, email marketing, and what's ironic is the online equivalent all cost A LOT less then their offline counterparts. Why aren't these "businesses" that are going out of business participating in those avenues to create customers? Cause they got too lazy and depending on SEO that's why.

It's like the old man that talks to younger people "Back in my day, milk shakes used to cost a nickel." The internet is one of the most dynamic environments for creation made. If you are creative you can make it, if you are NOT you will NOT make it. That's the same for offline businesses. If times are hard, you get creative to find ways to generate business, customers, and profits - that's how businesses are SUPPOSE to survive recessions, by being creative.

The internet allows anyone with $10 or $0 to have an idea, work on the idea, then if they also can figure out how to market that idea, they'll make it. Google isn't responsible for you, your business, or your lack of effort in trying different online marketing avenues. If you are running a business you need a marketing budget - if you think throwing up an MFA (Made for Adsense) site and waiting for Google means you are a "businessman" you are completely mistaken.

All businesses that thrive and survive have marketing budgets and marketing campaigns - their marketing campaigns hit multiple communication channels at the same time. You see a JP Morgan Chase Advertisement on TV, you'll hear it on the radio, and see billboards of the same AD, and see the marketing campaign in magazines. You don't have to be a big business either, local mom and pop stores do the same thing for their local areas. They sponsor little league games, pass out flyers, and put radio spot ads for discounts, etc... But then something weird happens - when they come online, they only do ONE thing... SEO - yet the same hustle they put into their offline marketing campaigns never transfers over to their online efforts, why? Cause SEO is pretty cheap, you can get away with $0 SEO if you do it yourself, or pay someone $1K to $100K and get far MORE customers then any offline campaign since the costs of doing business online are dramatically lower. Even with PPC versus offline marketing is dramatically lower.

Maybe these small businesses don't know anything other then SEO - who's fault is that? Google? Maybe they tried it, but SEO was way cheaper - who's fault is that? Google? Maybe they hired some pretend marketers and it didn't work - who's fault is that? Google?

That's what business is about, competing against your competition and the environment you are playing in. When the playing field changes you have to get creative or mimic what the winners are doing to keep up -that's the essence of competition, the essence of capitalism - therefore the essence of business. If you are a business owner and DO NOT try to compete at the level your competition is competing at you'll go out of business. If the once free traffic is not so free anymore, you'd better start trying something different and look at what your competitors are doing or you'll go out of business.

If you were advertising in yellow pages for ages, then all of a sudden people switched to getting their info off of the internet, and you refuse to create a website or get with the times even though your competition created their own websites, you would go out of business based on your own refusal to see the truth or at least act upon it.

Businesses going out of business is not the fault of Google at any level. The responsibility is on the business owner to understand their environment, how they generate customers, and whether the environment is shift to a new model; if it is, they have to shifting as well, it's up to them to feed their family and put clothes on the back of their children, not Google's. If Google goes out of business tomorrow, would you blame Google for no longer providing you free traffic? Or would you blame the new competitor that destroyed google OR changed the environment to a point where Google could no longer sustain itself? (Recall the yellow page businesses that refused to go online - where are they at now?).

The problem is people aren't taking responsibility for their own lives and want "society" to do the living for them. "Google's not sending me free traffic that I FEEL I am entitled to in order for my business to survive, let me complain to them." - Why not take responsibility for your own business and do additional marketing - cause Google is going to continue changing as the environment changes, if you as a business do not or refuse to, like the people of the yellow pages advertising days who refused to get with the program and create a website, you'll be out of business.

A business owner shouldn't be blaming anyone else on their own situation; they have to come to grips with their own situation and make a change to benefit from the new environment or go out of business - cause that's what being in business is all about.

"All things change in a dynamic environment. your effort to remain what you are is what limits you." - Puppet Master, Ghost In The Shell (1995)

 

[RomesFall]

No company can survive on providing "free" service only, that's a charity. Google is not a charity. Maybe if everyone in the world paid $10 a year for the option of using Google and they turned into a non-profit then the motto "Don't be evil" would make sense. But do you honestly believe making money is evil? If that is your mentality, how long can you stay in business as a business owner with that mentality?

Google's goal like every company before it, Microsoft, IBM, even Facebook is to create profit. Google was making profit long before Google went public - that's the essence of being a company. Simply because the owners switched to shareholders doesn't make a company's goal, profit, disappear.

I never said they shouldn't make a profit I am a capitalist at heart, what I don't like so much is clamoring to acquire more profits when the competitiveness of the markets/customers served will suffer for it. Google have been making profit for a very long time as you've said, when is enough enough? Being profitable and being more profitable have very different ramifications in my opinion. Just look at McDonalds and the quality of their meat and the ramifications of that.

If you were getting traffic for free through one avenue, then that avenue is suddenly cut off or had a higher barrier to entry and now are "throwing your hands up" cause you can't get free traffic - wouldn't that mean that you believe Google is entitled to giving you free traffic? What did you do for Google to have them send you free traffic?

"Fairness", When google stops showing relevant results people will stop using Google, that's how it works. There are alternative like Siri for the iphone which is encroaching on their market share. There is Microsoft's Cortana, and tons of people trying to get their niched version of "search". Look at the Firefox switch from Google to Yahoo which boosted Yahoo's market share - that's all encroachment - yet you want to have one of the most successful companies in the world do nothing?

You also have to realize the internet can create some great innovations, and somewhere some kids in their garage can create a new system that could make Google irrelevant. Look at Microsoft, 10 years ago no one thought they would become as meaningless as they are now. Even IBM was thought to be here forever - they aren't really at the forefront of anyone's mind are they. If some group of people come along and create something that's not a "search engine" but just a "decision engine" based on predictive nature and people start flocking to it, Google's market share is going to drop and will make them irrelevant.

Unless there is a huge outcry of people saying the 'experience' is bad, Google is still the go to place to finding things online - doesn't mean it will be forever.

Very fair points, I suppose a little part of me feels like Google is so ingrained into the consciousness of society now, to 'Google' something, that I felt that they could be exempt to certain normal rules. However it's a good argument you're making and I honestly hope we see them fail (if something better replaces them) or adapt their policies at some point.

^^ What were those people doing before there was a Google, cause Google only started in 1998. Where there no businesses getting customers before 1998? The problem is Google came along and dropped costs of acquiring customers dramatically for TONS of businesses, now the costs are creeping up BUT they will NEVER BE at the pre-1998 cost of acquisition.

Cost-per-acquisition has been reduced by the internet in general, along with the emergence of newer technologies. Pre-1998 the idea of having a computer with 2GB RAM seemed to many as something that wouldn't be affordable for most people with a PC.

However hardware improved and the prices became quite affordable, which allowed people to do more... I think that Google was a major factor, but if Google hadn't of cracked the search engine market someone else would have. I think that it's more due to the technology that cost-per-acquisition fell for businesses within marketing in my opinion.

Before 1998 smart businesses never relied on one source of traffic - hell the smart business today still do not. SEO made people lazy, and think that marketing = ranking on Google. They forgot about the thousands of other ways to generating customers - participating online within the industry, web forums, radio, tv, classified ads, all these things still exist AND have online equivalent options as well. Youtube, SoundCloud, Podcasts through iTunes, email marketing, and what's ironic is the online equivalent all cost A LOT less then their offline counterparts. Why aren't these "businesses" that are going out of business participating in those avenues to create customers? Cause they got too lazy and depending on SEO that's why.

It's like the old man that talks to younger people "Back in my day, milk shakes used to cost a nickel." The internet is one of the most dynamic environments for creation made. If you are creative you can make it, if you are NOT you will NOT make it. That's the same for offline businesses. If times are hard, you get creative to find ways to generate business, customers, and profits - that's how businesses are SUPPOSE to survive recessions, by being creative.

I've worked with a lot of businesses, and not a single one of them has relied on Google / SEO purely. It just so happens that in many cases it provides the best ROI because that's where most of their customers are acquired.

I agree there's a lot of businesses out there who think online marketing = SEO, but these are usually the kinds of people who don't have any business experience and got some hair brained idea after reading one of the sites out there like smartpassiveincome.

Where a lot of the people I worked with started to get into troubled waters was when sites like TheDailyMail, BBC etc started popping up in their SERPs. Okay sure dropping from 1st - 4th may not seem like a big deal, but across multiple SERPs it can be. We actually tracked a lot of this happening via SerpWoo over the last 12 months. I'm sure other people have noticed some of the SEO strategies these high authority news/media sites have started taking as well.

Is is their fault that they don't have the same kind of budget as the BBC? There was simply no way they could recover all those rankings. Instead you go more and more for the long tail, accepting that you take less and less of the pie until those businesses who are slaves to profit come knocking on those SERPs too... Where do you draw the line? Now as for advertising on Google I'm all on board with the same kind of ads they've been serving for years. But where I see it going, is this 'native' approach of as seamlessly as possible integrating ads within the organic positions, and it isn't something that will do anyone any favors in future either.

Yes businesses adapt, but there's a point where if most customers have turned online for finding solutions to their problems and most do this via search engines that they'll still lose a significant portion of new customers per year/quarter or whatever. For some businesses that really is the difference between staying profitable or not.

There's no way that every business out there will ever be a great business in terms of marketing, but it doesn't mean that they're not an important business to their customers...

It isn't Googles fault that those businesses can't innovate, but at the same time in their search for more and more profit, a lot of lives do still get affected... I don't even necessarily think a lot of big businesses are very innovative anymore, but they're big enough that it doesn't matter in a lot of cases.

The internet allows anyone with $10 or $0 to have an idea, work on the idea, then if they also can figure out how to market that idea, they'll make it. Google isn't responsible for you, your business, or your lack of effort in trying different online marketing avenues. If you are running a business you need a marketing budget - if you think throwing up an MFA (Made for Adsense) site and waiting for Google means you are a "businessman" you are completely mistaken.

That's what I love about the internet, and that's precisely why I'm a big advocate against Economic Neoliberalism. Because in the economic model we have right now, at some point there won't be that level of opportunity.

A few years ago I was reading about how there's a clamoring for walling off the internet, only allowing people access via their ISPs to 'packages', those packages including certain sites... If this happens, which is quite possible still then is it going to be small innovators who get included? Or big multi-national media conglomerates and corporate interests that get represented?

All businesses that thrive and survive have marketing budgets and marketing campaigns - their marketing campaigns hit multiple communication channels at the same time. You see a JP Morgan Chase Advertisement on TV, you'll hear it on the radio, and see billboards of the same AD, and see the marketing campaign in magazines. You don't have to be a big business either, local mom and pop stores do the same thing for their local areas. They sponsor little league games, pass out flyers, and put radio spot ads for discounts, etc... But then something weird happens - when they come online, they only do ONE thing... SEO - yet the same hustle they put into their offline marketing campaigns never transfers over to their online efforts, why? Cause SEO is pretty cheap, you can get away with $0 SEO if you do it yourself, or pay someone $1K to $100K and get far MORE customers then any offline campaign since the costs of doing business online are dramatically lower. Even with PPC versus offline marketing is dramatically lower.

Maybe these small businesses don't know anything other then SEO - who's fault is that? Google? Maybe they tried it, but SEO was way cheaper - who's fault is that? Google? Maybe they hired some pretend marketers and it didn't work - who's fault is that? Google?

That's what business is about, competing against your competition and the environment you are playing in. When the playing field changes you have to get creative or mimic what the winners are doing to keep up -that's the essence of competition, the essence of capitalism - therefore the essence of business. If you are a business owner and DO NOT try to compete at the level your competition is competing at you'll go out of business. If the once free traffic is not so free anymore, you'd better start trying something different and look at what your competitors are doing or you'll go out of business.

If you were advertising in yellow pages for ages, then all of a sudden people switched to getting their info off of the internet, and you refuse to create a website or get with the times even though your competition created their own websites, you would go out of business based on your own refusal to see the truth or at least act upon it.

All I hear is play within the system you're in. That's all well and good, but I think you're looking at this through the eyes of a time gone by. The internet still has a lot of opportunity to offer, but that gap in the system is being closed and fast.

In many ways I feel like you're preaching to the choir here, most guys on here are not 100% reliant on SEO. People in say 2007-2012 probably were, and there's a lot of hangers on still, but that gap got closed and it'll never be as easy to make money from SEO again.

As for the time gone by I do feel that there's a reason why most of the largest companies out there have existed for years... Pepsico for example are a young company, 50 years old and they already have a good deal of brands underneath them. The best most companies can hope for is getting acquired or invested in by a bigger fish, or they tend to stay at the same level regardless of innovation.

That's because of the system, and the system we're all operating in is one that is designed for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, yes there are exceptions to the rule, but in general social mobility is incredibly static.

Businesses going out of business is not the fault of Google at any level. The responsibility is on the business owner to understand their environment, how they generate customers, and whether the environment is shift to a new model; if it is, they have to shifting as well, it's up to them to feed their family and put clothes on the back of their children, not Google's. If Google goes out of business tomorrow, would you blame Google for no longer providing you free traffic? Or would you blame the new competitor that destroyed google OR changed the environment to a point where Google could no longer sustain itself? (Recall the yellow page businesses that refused to go online - where are they at now?).

Google is just one part of the bigger problem. While you're right, it's not their fault, as I said earlier they don't help... Sure it's not their responsibility, but that's a bit of a cop out too when they're smart enough to know what this will help create.

The problem is people aren't taking responsibility for their own lives and want "society" to do the living for them. "Google's not sending me free traffic that I FEEL I am entitled to in order for my business to survive, let me complain to them." - Why not take responsibility for your own business and do additional marketing - cause Google is going to continue changing as the environment changes, if you as a business do not or refuse to, like the people of the yellow pages advertising days who refused to get with the program and create a website, you'll be out of business.

A business owner shouldn't be blaming anyone else on their own situation; they have to come to grips with their own situation and make a change to benefit from the new environment or go out of business - cause that's what being in business is all about.

Not sure I agree with people wanting society to do the living for them, I'm not part of that entitlement philosophy. I think given the choice, which most people aren't because of all the propaganda that tells them what to want, how to think and how to act that they'd all take responsibility for their lives.

As for businesses, as I said most I've worked with have pursued other marketing as well as SEO.

I respect your philosophical differences from my own in regard to economic theory and such. It's been interesting and you've made me think, for the most part though I do think the system overall is the problem and it's hardly stacked fairly and I don't think that's something that will get any better regardless of innovation etc.

 

[CCarter]

1. I think you may have a philosophical dilemma with calling "yourself a capitalist at heart". I think you are approaching it from a bottom up approach (family >> business >> big business), versus a top down approach at a macro-level. I don't eat at McDonalds cause they provide subpar food. If people choose to eat at McDonalds then McDonalds will continue being profitable, but my own choice is based on not wanting to eat shit, people have a choice, whether they choose to believe they do or don't, ultimately it's up to them. No one is stuffing a Big Mac down anyone's throat. Your statement of "when is enough, enough" means you aren't seeing the whole picture of what Google has done with their "too much" profits. The statement makes an assumption that the services Google provides can somehow be provided for free or without the need for SERIOUS profits . Profits have allowed Google to innovate into areas like Google Maps, Google Earth, and Gmail for example.

Really think about this - those profits that you are quick to question, fueled the ideas of Google Maps where they can take Street-View topical maps of the majority of the developed world. Without those profits they wouldn't be able to hire the scientists/engineers to build the Google Street View car, or the programmers to get everything working seamlessly. They wouldn't be able to hire the people to drive those cars all around the world and then allow you to sit back in your chair, for free, and Google almost any place on the earth and get exact the street view of what's going on on that street. Do you really understand the enormity of that feat alone?

They are giving you what the world looks like for free from the comfort of your chair - without paying for it. The only reason is because those profits have allowed that innovation and allow them to do things that NO GOVERNMENT nor NO OTHER COMPANY in the world has been able to accomplish. Even the US Government uses Google Maps and admits they would never have been able to pull off what Google has done.

So lets say we lived in a world where a corporation is limited to set about of profits - I'm going to round it to $1 billions a year. You have essentially restricted their ability to innovate on a massive scale like they can because you didn't foresee them creating services like Google Street View and Google Earth that have helped spawn thousands of other businesses that rely on their mapping technology. Your small business clients wouldn't have one click to view in Google Maps, nor the ability for their customers to "see" their location so they don't get lost.

When you restrict a company from making "too much profits" cause you can't see past the "search engine" core they run, you would have killed off companies like Yelp, Four Square, and others that have spawn only because Google Maps was around. Google's profits are what have allow thousands of companies to exist and build on top of their foundation.

Restricting profits restricts innovation.

The same thing for Gmail. Before Gmail there were thousands of mailing software like hotmail that did the job "okay", but weren't great to be honest. Now gmail's spam filtering capabilities and clean interface has allowed billions of users to flock to them. That was only possible if they have enough profits to work on that innovation. Yes they've crushed the competition - but that competition wasn't doing a great job in the first place. There would be no Gmail if you had restricted their ability.

I have thousands of ideas I can work on at my own company, but I'm restricted by the amount of profits I have to work with, so lots of ideas have to wait until we get to a certain level to hire smart people, to hire staff to work on them, and to continue innovating. Profits allow companies to grow and move industries forward. You can't grow without investment money or your own capital to make the improvements.

2. Going into the social dilemma of big business versus small business. A lot of people shop at Walmart - the problem is for small businesses, when a Walmart moves into their location all mom and pop stores' revenue immediately drops by 25% minimum and continue to decline. Should we restrict Walmart from coming into locations cause they are too profitable or too big? Remember Walmart started out as a small business, they just had better marketing and were better at competing than that small mom and pop store that has been around since when Walmart started. Maybe Walmart has smarter people - smarter people versus people that aren't so smart - going head to head, it's the law of the jungle. Get smart quickly.

So how do we solve the problem of Walmart. Well the families that shop at Walmart probably are on tight budgets anyways so they see Walmart as a relieve for them. Now they can buy more stuff with the same amount of money. If the mom and pop shop sells a wrench for $15, yet Walmart has the same wrench for $10 - that family is going to go for the $10 wrench SINCE it's simply the SAME product but cheaper. This is an example of what happens when profits are lowered for businesses, they cannot compete on pricing nor move or innovate.

How can the small business survive though - other unique selling propositions have to be employed. This is why it's important to get creative. Having better customer service could be a huge start, or just a better environment for customers. I personally never shop at Walmart cause of their riffraff customers and employees. I prefer to shop at higher end stores that costs a bit more but have better employees and I'm more likely not to get mugged cause I'm running into a "people of Walmart" scenario when shopping. So I'll shop at Target for those products.

Another avenue besides customer services is quality. If I'm buying higher quality items I may want to shop at a higher end store like Nordstroms OR Apple - one of the most successful marketing companies, making an obscene amount of profits, cause I prefer to have higher end products for my computer or phone, versus some $50 cheap phone or whatever. So that small business that's having trouble can increase the quality of their goods to survive the big brand moving in. OR they can become a big brand themselves by getting investors and going the franchising route. Small businesses all around the USA survive Walmart by adapting their message, getting more aggressive with their marketing, and increasing their quality. Do several businesses fail when a big company comes in - YES. When someone comes in and does a better job then you do and you can not even provide better customer service nor provide better prices, you'll be out of business soon no matter how nice or cute your children are. You have to compete smarter and more creatively.

The problem is these small businesses really don't have focus needed nor the education needed to grow a business and weather the storm.

The Walmart versus small business lesson can be translated to the online world. Since the big brands are going to continue encroaching in on the SERPs guess what - that small business is going to have to get creative or die.

Take SERPWoo for example, we don't rank for "Rank Tracker", or several industry terms, yet we are doing more then fine, why? Cause we know marketing. We know where our audience is, we know what they want, what they don't want. We know the SEO industry as a whole sucks at customer service or waits days to reply back to customers if at all. Knowing all these lessons, which some small business owners simply do not know (and apparently nor do our competition), we are able to go after our customer base from a higher quality, extremely responsive customer support, and innovative angle. We are regular members and contribute on forums and in Skype chats where our customers hang out at. If anyone needs to contact us they have several avenues of communication and we take customer's feedback and suggestions seriously. We've at times implemented within days customer suggestions and they've seen it. So the quality of our service is there, the superior customer support angle is there, and we can survive and thrive without ranking for "rank tracker" in the SERPs. The thing is ANY company can use this strategy.

If there is one thing most customers hate in your industry, try taking the anti-establishment angle of that industry. In SEO, people hate people that disappear or stop communicating, or degrade their service over time. We choose to be the exact opposite of that. Has that created problems where we can't accept Paypal or create discounts, YES. But if a person is only looking for discounts there are cheaper solutions out there - (well not really cause we are on par with a majority of our competition), but someone looking for a $10 service - we cannot do anything for. But our competition can, but they also don't answer customer support questions or problems as fast. You probably can't get them to add a new feature as quickly or at all, and they probably are not doing anything to innovate with new ideas to give you insight to your data like we are. So you get what you pay for. There is a certain market I chose not to go after, and maybe SERPWoo doesn't grow AS FAST as other software, but we have the staying power and innovation to keep customers onboard longer, but most importantly when you ask a question we respond. Is that worth a little more? Hopefully if we've shown you enough of our case of going with SERPWoo upfront enough to the customer so they will say yes, if not, we'll be out of business soon, but we aren't.

Now if I had more profits, I could enter other markets and start fixing problems I see there, since I noticed that industry is completely off on innovation and the audience is craving something new or better. I can't do that at the moment, but all things in due time - hopefully I wouldn't be restricted in innovation by limiting my profits, so I can go into other industries and create better solutions.

3. That walling off the internet is never going to happen. Look at the backlash with porn in India - you take away the foundation and openness of the internet, you have AOL, and that model didn't work either. At the same time Google has Google Fiber being laid, so let AT&T and these other clowns try it, Google's got a solution. Even Facebook is working on a solution to bring internet to rural areas - so I'm not worried about that.

However it's a good argument you're making and I honestly hope we see them fail (if something better replaces them) or adapt their policies at some point.

4. You wishing Google fails completely baffles me cause I can't understand it, or rather I refuse to. Google is the best search engine period. Whether it's Google or some other search engine in a parallel universe it really doesn't matter, they are THE search engine. You hate them because they simply are the best. So mentally how would you become the best at something knowing that someone will eventually hate you for it, cause you hate Google for the same thing. The reason I take this comment a bit to heart is there are people out there that hate ME, CCarter, simply because I give great advice. I don't give good advice, I give great advice. But I only give great advice based on my experience, what I've read and studied, and if I don't know something I am honest, I'll tell them I don't know the answer. Unfortunately when it comes to online, marketing, or programming that's rare, so now I've got pockets of people in small Skype chats talking shit about me just cause they hate me for being "successful" in their minds, or at least overshadowing them. What's the difference in those people hating me for being the best, versus you hating Google cause they are the best? There is no difference.

So then take it one step further - if you are in business are you not going to try your absolute best? But subconsciously you will start struggling with the fact that you realize that once you become the best at something, people will simply hate you for it, and you'll be left alone at the top wondering why all these people that you used to call friends hate you? It's because you've become the best - so if you find yourself not working as hard as you can on your business, can it be because you don't want to be hated for being the best at what it is you do? That's a psychology barrier that you've created for yourself and it simply can be seen from your outward detest of Google - which is the best at what they do.

When I have programming problems, I Google it. I thank the gods day and night there is a Google, since back in my day when I was coming up, circa 1995, I had to go to the library and read programming books to solving my programming problems. I had to sit there in appendixes and hope for a day where I can type into a text-box input a simple question, and out pops the answer, or a link to the answer. There was no Google in the library, so I had to memorize whole programming scripts, and I didn't have a light weight macbook pro laptop. I had to write down the code into a spiral ring notebook and then ride my bicycle home and type up the code into the computer from there, or check out the book, but there was like a 5 book max or some nonsense on what you could check out at the library. Things were A LOT tougher in the days before Google that you may not realize, then there are now. Google has single handedly connected billions of people with information they never had access to, at least this speed or level, and they are the foundation of thousands of small businesses and startups that would not be able to exist without Google's existence.

And yet with everything innovative, there are victims. Those publishers that published yellow pages - those are the victims of the internet age. What about their families? Are we suppose to not innovate or move the world forward cause the business owners of the publishing companies refuse to enter the internet age? They have a responsibility to their own customers to bring THEM customers. Yet all the customers are now online, should the customers of the yellow pages go out of business by continuing to throw money at a dying medium? OR should all the customers come back from the internet to yellow pages to reverse innovation? Who should suffer? Innovation? The families of the publishing company? The families of the publishing companies' customers (smaller business owners)? What about the families of the new innovative companies like yelp or foursquare that rely on Google Maps to eat? Should they suffer when you take away the innovation of Google Maps?

It's simple, if you do not adapt or refuse to adapt, you do not deserve to continue in the business you are in, that's how capitalism works. The big guys have been squeezing the small guys for centuries, that's not going to stop on any new medium, either the small guy adapts or he's forgotten.

I love this debate by the way.

5. Most people don't remember, but when Google introduced Map packs into organic search TONS of people were screaming for their blood then. Their argument was changing the organic from top 10, and creating a new section as a divider would move their own rankings down. They screamed about it for weeks then eventually adapted to figuring out how to get into the Map packs for their clients. People inherently do not like changes since when they see change they themselves have to change - even when the change is in the end for their own benefit. Every time Google or anyone makes a change there is an uproar that it's going to kill businesses and so on. Maybe one day it will be true, but let's stop clamoring for the "old days" and start appreciating the innovations and forward movements that we are able to experience within our lifetime. 15 years ago if I went to a new city I would need a map and need to ask for directions for everything. Now I can Google it on my phone or ask Siri for a solution. Has that killed the paper map creator's ability to survived, yes. Do I want to go back to paper maps and no access to the world's information in the palm of my hands... NO.

 

[RomesFall]

1. I think you may have a philosophical dilemma with calling "yourself a capitalist at heart". I think you are approaching it from a bottom up approach (family >> business >> big business), versus a top down approach at a macro-level. I don't eat at McDonalds cause they provide subpar food. If people choose to eat at McDonalds then McDonalds will continue being profitable, but my own choice is based on not wanting to eat shit, people have a choice, whether they choose to believe they do or don't, ultimately it's up to them. No one is stuffing a Big Mac down anyone's throat. Your statement of "when is enough, enough" means you aren't seeing the whole picture of what Google has done with their "too much" profits. The statement makes an assumption that the services Google provides can somehow be provided for free or without the need for SERIOUS profits . Profits have allowed Google to innovate into areas like Google Maps, Google Earth, and Gmail for example.

I think every capitalist has a philosophical debate at heart right now. As I understand it the two economical models of capitalism are Classical and Neoclassical. We're employing the latter now, but I'm more for classical.

I think you have a point about profit being a catalyst for growth, but with the profits Google makes I'm sure they could do it and still have plenty left. I'm not sure when enough is enough, but my capitalist view is that there is only a free market so long as the playing field is equal. In the case of Google's profit I don't believe their profits mean that Bing or any other search engine can't compete with them, rather that their quest for further profit can/will/does effect the playing field for companies vying for SERP real estate.

I think there were times when things were fairer and Google still made the profit to ensure growth was possible. That's what I mean by when is enough enough. I think that there's pros and cons to accumulating vast profits, one of the negatives is the tendency for companies, corporations or banks using those profits to influence legislation to benefit themselves via political means. This is leading us down a road toward socialism, which isn't something that any true capitalist, you or I want.

Restricting profits restricts innovation.

The same thing for Gmail. Before Gmail there were thousands of mailing software like hotmail that did the job "okay", but weren't great to be honest. Now gmail's spam filtering capabilities and clean interface has allowed billions of users to flock to them. That was only possible if they have enough profits to work on that innovation. Yes they've crushed the competition - but that competition wasn't doing a great job in the first place. There would be no Gmail if you had restricted their ability.

I have thousands of ideas I can work on at my own company, but I'm restricted by the amount of profits I have to work with, so lots of ideas have to wait until we get to a certain level to hire smart people, to hire staff to work on them, and to continue innovating. Profits allow companies to grow and move industries forward. You can't grow without investment money or your own capital to make the improvements.

Interesting and yes I agree in theory, the free market encourages innovation and excess revenue / profit allows innovative ideas to be made real. I'm only concerned with sustaining the free market, which I believe is at threat in many industries. When the quest for profit inhibits the free market, if the trade-off is losing some (not all because that just wouldn't happen) innovation, then I think something should be done.

If we're to sustain a democracy, instead of devolving into a plutocracy where the rich rule -- effecting government legislation and policies which then leads to increased government involvement, toward the end of socialism then we've got to make decisions where trade offs are made. I don't think we can be for any one thing, even if something like innovation may be slightly reduced. If we're to maintain the innovation in the first place, we've got to maintain the free market.

During a transition where power is still being shifted we are seeing innovation maintained, this will persist until the free market disappears when all the power is in the hands of a few. Right now our democracy is flawed, but it can be fixed.

Corporations for example, they only exist in the forms they do today because of a technicality that arose due to a law being passed and they took this to court so they could have more power. The power of the corporation was always meant to be limited and for a finite amount of time... This monumental cock up has caused the problems we're having right now where nobody is really sure how to maintain a free market in a neoclassical economical system... One step in the right direction would be capping their power as was intended by the founding fathers in the first place.

Everyone is playing in this system, Google included, so maybe I'm being overly critical when they're just doing what everyone else is doing... I just wanted to hope they were different you know. I was using Google from the age of 8 when it was released and I saw it featured in a magazine I subscribed to... I wanted, well want to believe they are above all of that and a force for good. Over the years I've seen them change and chase profit above almost everything else and that's not something I wanted to see... But yeah, overly harsh I know.

2. Going into the social dilemma of big business versus small business. A lot of people shop at Walmart - the problem is for small businesses, when a Walmart moves into their location all mom and pop stores' revenue immediately drops by 25% minimum and continue to decline. Should we restrict Walmart from coming into locations cause they are too profitable or too big? Remember Walmart started out as a small business, they just had better marketing and were better at competing than that small mom and pop store that has been around since when Walmart started. Maybe Walmart has smarter people - smarter people versus people that aren't so smart - going head to head, it's the law of the jungle. Get smart quickly.

So how do we solve the problem of Walmart. Well the families that shop at Walmart probably are on tight budgets anyways so they see Walmart as a relieve for them. Now they can buy more stuff with the same amount of money. If the mom and pop shop sells a wrench for $15, yet Walmart has the same wrench for $10 - that family is going to go for the $10 wrench SINCE it's simply the SAME product but cheaper. This is an example of what happens when profits are lowered for businesses, they cannot compete on pricing nor move or innovate.

How can the small business survive though - other unique selling propositions have to be employed. This is why it's important to get creative. Having better customer service could be a huge start, or just a better environment for customers. I personally never shop at Walmart cause of their riffraff customers and employees. I prefer to shop at higher end stores that costs a bit more but have better employees and I'm more likely not to get mugged cause I'm running into a "people of Walmart" scenario when shopping. So I'll shop at Target for those products.

Another avenue besides customer services is quality. If I'm buying higher quality items I may want to shop at a higher end store like Nordstroms OR Apple - one of the most successful marketing companies, making an obscene amount of profits, cause I prefer to have higher end products for my computer or phone, versus some $50 cheap phone or whatever. So that small business that's having trouble can increase the quality of their goods to survive the big brand moving in. OR they can become a big brand themselves by getting investors and going the franchising route. Small businesses all around the USA survive Walmart by adapting their message, getting more aggressive with their marketing, and increasing their quality. Do several businesses fail when a big company comes in - YES. When someone comes in and does a better job then you do and you can not even provide better customer service nor provide better prices, you'll be out of business soon no matter how nice or cute your children are. You have to compete smarter and more creatively.

The problem is these small businesses really don't have focus needed nor the education needed to grow a business and weather the storm.

The Walmart versus small business lesson can be translated to the online world. Since the big brands are going to continue encroaching in on the SERPs guess what - that small business is going to have to get creative or die.

This is 100% what I believe too, it's where things get sticky and complicated... The small business that grows bigger because of excellence does deserve it, that's the essence of capitalism. What I worry about as I say is the interests of bigger groups being represented in government policy. That's when the free market will fail.

I think there's plenty of small companies who can survive, but already I feel like there's very few stories of offline businesses growing to walmart level heights without the right backing or complete buyout situations. That kind of sucks, but I can be okay with that since every business needs a helping hand to expand. One argument might be whether they just become another cog in a system at that point and whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. I think it depends on who buys them and what their intentions are, but if everyone has the same idea which is to grow and grow until you can't unless you influence gov't policy, which as we know shakes the very foundations of the democratic-capitalist system then we're screwed no matter what. Is that everyones intention? Probably not to begin with, and either way it's impossible to tell.

3. That walling off the internet is never going to happen. Look at the backlash with porn in India - you take away the foundation and openness of the internet, you have AOL, and that model didn't work either. At the same time Google has Google Fiber being laid, so let AT&T and these other clowns try it, Google's got a solution. Even Facebook is working on a solution to bring internet to rural areas - so I'm not worried about that.

I sincerely hope this doesn't ever happen, but I found it alarming that it was even discussed in the first place. If there's one thing I have faith in it's the ability of good marketers, ad men and PR specialists to manipulate public opinion. With all those profits people have, I wouldn't be surprised if they could change enough minds over time to let this happen.

4. You wishing Google fails completely baffles me cause I can't understand it, or rather I refuse to. Google is the best search engine period. Whether it's Google or some other search engine in a parallel universe it really doesn't matter, they are THE search engine. You hate them because they simply are the best. So mentally how would you become the best at something knowing that someone will eventually hate you for it, cause you hate Google for the same thing. The reason I take this comment a bit to heart is there are people out there that hate ME, CCarter, simply because I give great advice. I don't give good advice, I give great advice. But I only give great advice based on my experience, what I've read and studied, and if I don't know something I am honest, I'll tell them I don't know the answer. Unfortunately when it comes to online, marketing, or programming that's rare, so now I've got pockets of people in small Skype chats talking shit about me just cause they hate me for being "successful" in their minds, or at least overshadowing them. What's the difference in those people hating me for being the best, versus you hating Google cause they are the best? There is no difference.

As I said further up this post, I was being overly critical about Google because I was such a huge fan from day 1. I'm by no means against people or a company being the best and I'd never hate someone for it. I want to be the best in this field if that's possible.

I love this debate by the way.

Me too

 

[turbin3]

I might hate on Google a lot, just because I tend to have an extreme distrust of organizations that want to get as much of my personal data as possible. I'm a hypocrite right now though, posting from Chrome at the moment. That being said, if Google was my company, I would be making all of the same choices. They are goddamn genius when it comes to some of the things they've done in business. Really can't hate on them for that. Long term success is baller and always worthy of admiration. Hating on success is the first step towards becoming a socialist and adopting self-destructive beliefs. I would probably not have wasted time on G+, or simply done it different, however. My intention for the self-driving car would be different, however, and largely focused on trolling the shit out of people stupid enough to use one, while making a buck off them and a few laughs.

Keynesian's gonna Keynesian. Some of you need to study the Austrian School of Economics more. Mises.org is a great start towards enlightenment.

 

[RomesFall]

I might hate on Google a lot, just because I tend to have an extreme distrust of organizations that want to get as much of my personal data as possible. I'm a hypocrite right now though, posting from Chrome at the moment. That being said, if Google was my company, I would be making all of the same choices. They are goddamn genius when it comes to some of the things they've done in business. Really can't hate on them for that. Long term success is baller and always worthy of admiration. Hating on success is the first step towards becoming a socialist and adopting self-destructive beliefs. I would probably not have wasted time on G+, or simply done it different, however. My intention for the self-driving car would be different, however, and largely focused on trolling the shit out of people stupid enough to use one, while making a buck off them and a few laughs.

Keynesian's gonna Keynesian. Some of you need to study the Austrian School of Economics more. Mises.org is a great start towards enlightenment.

Who said we should hate on their achievements? @CCarter proposed his idea that those achievements wouldn't have been possible without the extreme profits made and if that's true then fair game to Google. Google has just been re-shaping their companies under their new parent company they've named Alphabet, probably in part so they can keep Google shareholders out of other Google owned businesses in future. To me this is a very positive thing and does a lot to restore my faith in them going forward overall.

Again, nobody is hating on their success... The deeper lying issue is the economical ones, and the debate Carter and I were having pretty much boils down to the one of Neoliberalism versus Classical Liberalism. I would never argue that success or innovation are bad things because I love capitalism, just don't love the form of it we employ right now...

By the way, as a side note what you're talking about with the Austrian School of Economics is basically Classical Liberalism... Mises was one of the most famous economists to talk out against the Neoclassical model.

Funnily enough the Neoclassical model was the most major reason why we had the 08-09 bailout of the banks... In fact there's numerous negative scenarios that have played out because of Neoliberalism. Many economists who know way more about it than any one of us have said that when that happened America became a country where it was Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor. We could explore that some more, but honestly what we need is to stop operating on a Neoclassical model, stop letting major corporations and big businesses get away with tax avoidance and put in place some kind of system where the banks don't get to basically print money and then demand we create even more debt to bail them out when their fiat system goes tits up (which it always does).

My problems with Google were much deeper and more personal than any of that, but to suggest that I am in any way a socialist is laughable -- let alone trying to tell me the solution is Austrian Economics when it's essentially from the exact same philosophy as the thing that I've been advocating in each of my posts.

 

[RiverStyx]

Ok, I'm not jumping into this entire long debate but one comment really struck me :

Google have been making profit for a very long time as you've said, when is enough enough?

This is business, this is capitalism, there is NO POINT at which Google is EVER going to say 'enough is enough'. That makes no sense at all. They are a company out there to run a business and make a profit and they will adapt and change as necessary to do so. I side with @CCarter on this one in that people should stop thinking that they are entitled to free traffic and run their business as an actual business and adapt and change their marketing strategies to continue to grow.

When is enough enough? - NEVER

 

[RomesFall]

@RiverStyx Most of my responses in this thread have not focused on Google solely at all...

When is enough enough? - NEVER

That mentality is precisely why we see lobbying and the living conditions for billions across the world continue to worsen.

The far-right would have you believe that anyone who isn't wealthy only has themselves to blame. The reality is that social mobility is low, and while there are exceptions to the rule (which is why I think this thought process is pervasive in marketing/entrepreneurial circles), for the most part the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich.

Someone working a manual job doing the 9-5 doesn't work hard? Is it a child's fault that they were born into a poor family? No, so why is it suddenly their fault when they are an adult.

YES we have the world wide web now where information is freely available, but we know full well that this isn't the issue. Mindset is.

Whose fault is it that people are kept distracted by total nonsense, whose fault is it that the majority of the population believe that unless they are gifted wealth through the lottery or unless they're born with some above average intrinsic talent for singing or sport or whatever that they'll never be rich? Is it their fault? Tricky question isn't it...

Is it a coincidence that successful people are often rule breakers who do terribly in the education system? Does being a trouble maker who drops out of school guarantee success? No it doesn't, so there's some common trait there and that's usually down to individuality. Another intrinsic trait in some respects... One thing individuals do well is think for themselves, and so who is telling the people who aren't gifted that level of intrinsic individuality how to think? Come on we know the answer to that, it's the media, and who owns the media companies? The same people who are lobbying, the same people who want to maintain a ineffective form of capitalism that's going to keep returning us to the 08-09 bailout, while successively more and more people are subjugated to a life of poverty.

Now, whether this is by design or by extension of the culture we live in is irrelevant, the fact is that's what's going on and you can't assume that everyone who has failed to make it where you are in life deserves no more because it's an ignorant and uninformed opinion and nothing more.

If there's anyone out there that really truly deep down believes that all men are created equal then they need a reality check... Additionally, come on... Is it fair? Do you really think that pursuing profits at all costs, which includes the lobbying & corruption, which makes living conditions worse for the many is ethical?

Where the quest for more profit makes influencing government decision making, policy or law to push your own agenda, there is no moral argument. By extension this destroys human rights and furthers the gap of inequality... In case anyone thinks this isn't the case take a look at the world around you.

As for the case of Google they're just one company and I'm personally ready to accept that they can only function within the system that they exist in and that regardless of what changes in the economy, yes they will need to make a profit as will every business, this is obvious, that they will continue to grow for as long as they are able to attract the best talent in the world.

 

[c4yrslf12]

I'm not quite sure it's prudent to match MLK and Google.. One is an activist, one is a for profit corporation.

Unless I'm missing something...

 

[Ryuzaki]

I just speed-read this all, and surely missed the details, but I feel like I got the main point, which I can summarize like this:

1) Capitalism is awesome and is precisely what propels us into the future, creating technologies that are better and more efficient through the pressure of competition.

2) At a certain point, there is the danger of stopping innovation and seeing how much more juice you can squeeze out of the same piece of fruit. That's often driven by greed when resources aren't allocated properly because you're trying to siphon profit to keep shareholders happy. When greed creeps in and a misappropriation of resources occurs, corruption also follows.

3) So Capitalism is the bomb but can go astray without some kind of checks and balances. Unfortunately this usually means government interference. Unfortunately, government interference is driven completely by lobbyists who are comprised of agenda-driven competitors or hopefuls.

4) This intervention sucks just as bad as the corruption that inevitably occurs with monopolies.

5) And this is where some hyper intelligent, hard working person can swoop in and change the entire game. Instead of competing, they change the rules and the playing field with their disruptive new product, and the cycle repeats as the biz grows.

6) So in the end, the original goal of innovating while being paid handsomely for it is achieved.

7) The system may have broken parts, but over all it's functioning as intended.


It makes me think of Apple. They stopped chasing the forefront of computing. The most recent Mac Pro (their forefront machine) is now 2 years old. In the meanwhile, they are putting out dumb shit like the iWatch just to cockblock other smart watch makers, instead of focusing on innovation. They are slapping retina screens in everything and focusing on consumer grade stuff because that's where the money is at. The new iPhone is going to have a ton of colors based entirely on the Chinese market's preferences. Innovation has been shelved in order to keep creating planned obsolescence release cycles of toys. iPhones, iPads, iPods, iWatches. The actual computers are barely getting any attention, even though they sell upward to 40 million of them per year. They are letting their guard down, and someone's gonna come in and eat off of their plates.

 

[CCarter]

The thing is Google is not stopping anyone from accessing the internet and starting their own business. Google is not stopping anyone from getting traffic, customers, or sales. The problem is when the businesses solely rely upon Google to generate traffic. You can't blame Google for being the best at what they do, many search engines existed before Google - in the thousands. Google did it better, creating no need for other search engines.

Anyone that has access to this debate we are having has the ability and resources to create a Google competitor or a Google crusher. Maybe you don't have the capital, but you can start small then take on Google - will you succeed? I doubt it, but that shouldn't stop you if you want to take them on. Google is not holding you back from taking them on and becoming the next "Google".

When Microsoft became the dominate operating system it wasn't because other people weren't trying to compete with them, they were pretty good doing underhanded tricks to steal the GUI from Apple which Apple stole from Xerox, and so on, but realistically Microsoft and Google both exist in an environment where a competitor sitting in their garage or basement can get started for less then $0 and within months or weeks overtake their "monopoly" - the options are there, Google nor Microsoft can take that option away - so no I don't think Google is creating a monopoly, they were given one simply because no one else was better at it, if someone wants to take them on, they can, and have the freedom to do so.

As well no one is forcing customers to go Google it, Google is simply the best. When something better comes along, Google will go the way of the yellow pages IF they cannot adapt. That's the sole of capitalism.

Someone working a manual job doing the 9-5 doesn't work hard? Is it a child's fault that they were born into a poor family? No, so why is it suddenly their fault when they are an adult.

How many successful people have risen out of the poverty they were born in though? Thousands, out of sheer determination to change.

"We only make changes for two reasons, desperation or inspiration." - Dan Peña

The Manual labour can save up their money, not party on weekends and get drunk - instead invest on themselves and their own ideas. They work 9 to 5? No problem, grind on your side hustle at night and all weekend long. Don't go out to BBQ and hang out with your friends on the weekend - just grind - IF they REALLY WANT IT.

IF you don't know how to code/program and you REALLY want IT you have access to unlimited resources if you have access to the internet. So you can learn within a weekend, a month, or even 3 months instead of doing what consumerism has taught you to do with your "time-off" work (weekends, holiday, whatever). Maybe that person lacks the motivation, or they simply were imprinted that they will be a manual laborer forever, that's on them.

But what I see more so is these wantrepreneurs that come around and pretend they want to learn to code, or learn to market, or learn to run a business and simply don't put in the work. They aren't willing to go 9 months without a social life to get something off the ground - the people that started from nothing and made something - they are willing. I know this cause that's what I did - several times. I've failed several times as well, and I probably will continue to fail at other ventures down the road, but when I hit rock bottom I know I can re-rise again better then before, and more importantly I'm willing to RISK Everything on betting on myself. Most people aren't willing to risk betting on their own skills, creativity, and abilities so they stay in their safe comfort zone.

That child growing up can't do anything about their childhood but at a certain point has to make a decision when they are young or even in adulthood that they want to change - like REALLY want it. If they don't really want it, they'll figure out a way to mimic their unsuccessful parents. If you have access to a library or the internet - you can learn anything or change whatever IF you want it. All of man's knowledge is at their fingertips, yet most spend it fucking around on Facebook and watching the Kardashians.

Unless you live in a totalitarian government that won't let you leave it - like literally just fucking walk out and leave, you'll be surprised at what happens when you have nothing but your wit to guide you, you'll survive, but unless you are in prison, you can go find another way. And if you are in a first world country, they yeah, you have to take responsibility for your situation cause the options are all around you, especially if you have access to the internet.

A person cannot go their whole life by blaming external forces, invisible walls, or unknown entities for their circumstances, at some point they had a decision - to change or not to change. They chose not to change. If you are not in prison you have the ability to change your circumstances.

1. Will it be painful? Yes.

2. Will there be sacrifice? Yes.

3. Will you lose friends and distance yourself from your family? Yes. (But isn't that the change you wanted in the first place? Not to be sitting around in some bullshit small town, doing some bullshit job, with co-workers, friends, and family that aren't going to get anything better then their current circumstances?)

4. Is there a possibility you will NOT succeed? Yes.

^^ Most people - the 99% aren't willing to, that's the reality. If the 99% got together and took more risks, there would be a Google crusher, a Microsoft crusher, and so on, you know why I know this? Cause Google consists of HUMANS, people that have brains. It is not an artificial intelligent being, so they are smart people that higher smart people - Become smart to compete against them. But that 99% group simply does not want to sacrifice or go through the 4 risks I stated above to change and become better.

"We only make changes for two reasons, desperation or inspiration." - Dan Peña

 

[lion1978]

But what I see more so is these wantrepreneurs that come around and pretend they want to learn to code, or learn to market, or learn to run a business and simply don't put in the work. They aren't willing to go 9 months without a social life to get something off the ground - the people that started from nothing and made something - they are willing.

This reminds me of my old world, where athletes working their A** of day in and day out sticking to a tight training and diet regiem, every day visiulising the competition and knowing they work harder than their competition in order to win the olympic gold medal, only to be asked by idiotic journalists if it is worth the sacrifice, but who really made the sacrifice the one person who did everythin possible to be the best at something, or joe ordinary who had the same potential when he was born but decided to eat kunk get drunk every weekend and get lazy. I kow what I would chose, without a shadow of doubt.

"We only make changes for two reasons, desperation or inspiration." - Dan Peña

Another quote from Dan that I think might be fitting not just for the conversation here but for the essece of this entire forum is "Perception, is reality"

 

[turbin3]

There's an old saying in the military, "You can get smart or you can get strong." IE - learn to work smart, or you're gonna PT your ass off and become the gimp of the unit. Manual labor is hard work, but the fact of the matter is you can find a gimp to do it just about anywhere. Not just any gimp can run a business successfully, let alone one that employs many and becomes an economic producer.

In America at least, one of the major economical issues is one of socialism masquerading as "capitalism" vs. crony capitalism. True capitalism rarely exists anymore, if ever, due to ever-increasing cronyism and/or oppressive government involvement.

The Federal Reserve act was one of the worst crimes committed against the American people in the last century. We will continue paying the price for that for decades to come, if not another century or more.

The truth of the matter is, we live in a period of human history where human beings have a greater degree of access to a greater level of knowledge than EVER before. Quite literally almost the entirety of human knowledge is available practically for free if you just have an internet connection. Worst case, there's always public libraries, if you literally have no money. Quite literally, NO ONE has any excuse for failure anymore. America has had a black president for not just one, but now two terms. We've landed on the moon. We've landed a damn satellite on a passing asteroid for fuck's sake. A person can obtain a college-level education practically for free through universities like UC Berkeley offering much of their course material online for free (minus the degree, that'll cost you). If a person fails these days, it is their own damn fault.

Greed is good, and "too much" is never enough.

The fact of the matter is, not everyone is an equal in terms of their capital potential. This has always, is, and always will be true. Not everyone is willing to put in the work and sacrifice to achieve the success. The last thing we should do is punish those that are willing.

 

[Andrewkar]

My 2c.

1) New local results looks worse than the old ones
2) Google will do what they think is the best for them (and customers)
3) Google isn't the only source of traffic out there
4) Don't want to deal with Google? Use other sources of traffic (there are plenty in EVERY niche)

The good that comes from using other sources of traffic (one of many...) is that Google seems to recognize that

 

[lion1978]

The good that comes from using other sources of traffic (one of many...) is that Google seems to recognize that

Spot on, they've even said it themselfs, they incourage people to promote their site and content but not for seo purposes.
You might say higher serp is a side effect of promoting your site to your taget audience.