Ask HN: Why do Google/App Store search show ads and the real result together?
9 comments
People / Companies who buy ads pay google to get their result to show up. Essentially if a user clicks the paid link its going to make more money for google than if you click the organically produced search result, so they have a financial incentive to show you the paid link, even if it is redundant (points to the same thing).
If they didn't show it, then developers might be confused as to whether the money they are paying for advertising their own app in search results for your app's exact name is working properly.
Which is to say, it's part of the protection racket.
Which is to say, it's part of the protection racket.
How does Google search make money? By having people see or click on ads.
First of all, if company X pays to have an ad published when a search query includes a particular set of terms then they definitely expect the ad to be present more or less prominently, not hidden away where no one can see it, to make a difference, otherwise why bother paying for it.
Now, stop for a second and put yourself in Google's shoes... is there a financially-wise alternative to what they are doing? Where would you put the ad?
You're most certainly not going to push all ads down to the 2nd page and restrict the 1st page to only real/organic/whatever you want to call them results because many users are never going to bother navigating to that 2nd page before clicking out on any of the earlier results.
It also doesn't make sense to order identical results:
link to company X website (organic)
link to company X website (ad)
instead of the other way around because again, the probability that a user will click on the first link is going to be (considerably?) higher than the second one, so it's going to be a less efficient way to make money.
In the end, the search engine survives because of advertisements. If they didn't optimise ad placement in this way (and other less obvious ways) and the ad revenue decreases or completely dries up then the company goes bust, so in my opinion it makes 100% business sense to make said decisions.
So it's not a matter of whether search engines are smart enough to detect that identical scenario, it's whether it conflicts with their monetisation strategies... It would be a really stupid idea (and make for a short-lived company) to make decisions that shrink your ad revenue if that's your main (or only) source of income.
First of all, if company X pays to have an ad published when a search query includes a particular set of terms then they definitely expect the ad to be present more or less prominently, not hidden away where no one can see it, to make a difference, otherwise why bother paying for it.
Now, stop for a second and put yourself in Google's shoes... is there a financially-wise alternative to what they are doing? Where would you put the ad?
You're most certainly not going to push all ads down to the 2nd page and restrict the 1st page to only real/organic/whatever you want to call them results because many users are never going to bother navigating to that 2nd page before clicking out on any of the earlier results.
It also doesn't make sense to order identical results:
link to company X website (organic)
link to company X website (ad)
instead of the other way around because again, the probability that a user will click on the first link is going to be (considerably?) higher than the second one, so it's going to be a less efficient way to make money.
In the end, the search engine survives because of advertisements. If they didn't optimise ad placement in this way (and other less obvious ways) and the ad revenue decreases or completely dries up then the company goes bust, so in my opinion it makes 100% business sense to make said decisions.
So it's not a matter of whether search engines are smart enough to detect that identical scenario, it's whether it conflicts with their monetisation strategies... It would be a really stupid idea (and make for a short-lived company) to make decisions that shrink your ad revenue if that's your main (or only) source of income.
Last week I heard “the answer to 99 of 100 questions is money,” and now I can’t stop applying it.
Because if Coral doesn't buy the ad that shows up when people search for "coral" one of their competitors might. "Looking for Coral? Try our better intimacy app instead!"
Some people will also click on the ad result instead of the actual search result, resulting in Apple/Google earning some money for the click.
Some people will also click on the ad result instead of the actual search result, resulting in Apple/Google earning some money for the click.
So their app takes up the whole screen. Otherwise you would see their competitor's ad second
For easier access, here's the link above: https://ibb.co/fHv6ThK
My guess is due to "ad blindness" a lot of people skip the ads and go straight to the results, so removing it from the results would be penalising the app's creator.
And removing from the ads would mean the App Store gets less money from the app's creator (assuming it's pay for impressions rather than pay for clicks)
And removing from the ads would mean the App Store gets less money from the app's creator (assuming it's pay for impressions rather than pay for clicks)
If someone is spending money to Apple/Google for ads, then getting clicks on ads instead of normal search results is positive feedback that spending on (more) ads is worthwhile.
Example: https://ibb.co/fHv6ThK