I think the proper way to look at it is that while Google IS our friend, AdSense and AdWords are our foes.
AdSense by any analysis takes money from publishers. We talk to B2B advertisers every day, and a lot of them now believe that AdSense fully meets all their online advertising needs. While Google may not be explicitly competing with publishers via AdSense, the net effect is the same.
I think publishers, B2B publishers in particular, need to think long and hard about AdWords too. If you're picking up some extra money from advertisers who'd never advertise with you otherwise, that's great. But if AdWords is placing truly relevant advertising on your site, you need to ask yourself why you couldn't/didn't sell that advertiser directly. If these advertisers will only advertise on a PFP basis, maybe you need that technology yourself, rather than in effect renting it from Google. If you like the idea of Google being a commission rep for you, remember always that in Google's eyes, you are a tiny part of a big syndicate. It's very easy for their interests to diverge from your interests, so getting too dependent on them can be dangerous for your business.
Google has been a wonderful boon to the B2B publishing industry in terms of site discoverability and driving traffic, but when they start selling advertising just like we are selling advertising, and we ultimately are bith selling advertising to the same audience, well that by definition is competition, not matter how they try to paper that over with big smiles and friendly words.
First, thanks for calling me "thoughtful." Second, I think Google is showing lots of "doing evil" intentions in things they are doing (i.e., the Google toolbar's insertion of links into the context of website's editorial copy.) But, as I've stated before, the role Google plays in the publishing paradigm with the "Adsense" program is that of an advertising representative. It finds the advertiser, sells the ads, collects the fees, takes a commission, then cuts a check to the publisher for the majority of the money it has collected from the advertiser (I don't know what the percentage of the commission it takes is, but know that it can slide depending on the volume of traffic the publisher generates.) This is exactly the same business model that Industry Brains is playing (in a much smaller way) in the B2B space. I am a big fan of the folks behind Industry Brains and was happy to see the original investors and founders have done well.
As I look at the Google Adsense ads that appear, even on business-to-business sites, I see small businesses that are unlikely to advertise in traditional B2B books. I suspect the self-service, set your limit, pay-per-click model has created incremental advertising revenue growth in a much larger way than it has cut into the B2B pie. It is now time for B2B publishers to go after this new revenue -- either through aligning themselves with Google or Yahoo (in terms of the "sales representative" for keyword advertising) or with smaller, focused rep/technology firms like Industry Brains, or by doing something on their own.
Google is now cutting $1 billion in checks to publishers each quarter. That's money going into the pockets of, in many instances, big media companies that are being characterized as Google's competitors. At the rate of growth they're displaying, those checks could grow to $2 billion each quarter in the next couple of years.
It's going to be hard to convince the numbers guys who run the big B2B media companies that Google is the enemy when those check drop straight to the bottom line of these companies.
I think Rex makes somes good points in his comments but I also love your Finding Nemo reference. It will definitely resonate as I read about Google in the near future and probably beyond that.
I may be misinterpreting your comments about not being able to figure out Google's cpm but I know that some people who don't use Adsense for advertising set up small accounts so they can check out how much is being charged for specific keywords. Then you could compare that to how much you're making.
In any case, Google may not want to do evil, but that recent CNet nonsense says a lot about the fact that how Google defines evil will become a bigger issue as things progress.
Thanks for the comments. I'm not sure if Rex is correct that Google hands over the majority of the money it generates to publishers--maybe it's just the small relative size of the clients I work with, but I do, as Clyde has suggested, have adwords accounts for my clients who use adsense, and so see the cost per click as an advertiser, and the income per click as a publisher. I tend to pay about 2x what I get back, so--at least for my clients--the commission is 50%.
I'd like to see more transparency from Google--the actual % I'm getting.
In any event, Yahoo's resurgent attempt to compete with Adsense should be good for everyone, since it will add an incentive for both to be open and honest about the numbers.
I think everyone that deals with Google would like more transparency. I work with Fastclick, Burst and Amazon and they all tell you exactly what's up. Google's monolithic nature is not a good thing and sets the stage for all sorts of problems ahead.
The do no evil rap has lost its initial freshness and seems increasingly self righteous. As an anarchist I find that rather unsurprising.
Commenting by HaloScan
