The One About Search Term Obfuscation & Google Edicts

I think it's important to preface this post with a note on my mental condition in writing this since the medium of writing doesn't communicate that well (you can't see my face): I'm not angry. I'm not stewing. I'm not exploding in reaction to a change.

What I'm going to say next can be better described as concerned (slightly resigned?) plea based on where I see my Paid Search industry headed. It's important to me that you know this, because we can unfortunately all say things in anger at times that we regret. That's just not where I'm at right now, rather this is a post that has come from observation for years in my beloved industry.

So geez, what am I going to say after that build-up?! Well, it is regarding the search term edict. Not simply the edict itself, but more specifically I want to speak to the manner in which it (and other similar major changes in Google) was communicated to advertisers.

In this case, as we have become used to with major policy changes in the Google Ads system, additional clarity and transparency here by Google would be helpful, unlike a clear brush-off with mushy details like “significant” rather than giving hard numbers of the impression threshold in this latest decision, and I think reveal an underlying industry-damaging viewpoint.

Unfortunately, Google no longer communicates (and hasn't for awhile), to its advertisers as business partners with an equal hand in this industry (advertisers are after all where all of the money comes from, so yeah, probably a crucial role in the industry). Rather Google adopts a tone that seeks to obfuscate and control the narrative, as one often sees from those who see themselves as in a position of power. I.e., if they don't think they answer to anyone, why care about how much level of detail is communicated?

What is to be gained (other than a power play) in obfuscating data by not just ripping the band-aid off with transparency in, let's say, the threshold of change: “It’s 100 impressions, that's when search terms will show in reports, there ya go.”? It's possible there is more to this policy than simply a power play (I'm choosing here to walk the line of believing there is information I do not have access to, but also watch broader narratives that have been taking place for years). For instance, Google noted there is a privacy concern here that is driving this, and they certainly do make a lot of decisions (as any large corporation) based on potential for legal action, and certainly there is additional focus on this lately.

But back to the communication style choice, if you were communicating to a business partner about a change that is forced upon you because of an external privacy concern you would in fact, be more likely to be fully transparent here because it's an easy out for you: "this is out of our hands, here is the best we can make of it, here is the situation, I apologize but here it is." This demonstrates the way you see this as a partnership, and therefore how you communicate. Unfortunately, Google yet again chooses the opposite. Obfuscation. Edicts handed down and silence.

By the way, this is nothing new for agencies, but from my experience brands are starting to feel it as well now, and that’s really interesting to me as Google has historically treated brands with greater respect.

I would argue, this demonstrates how Google sees the world of Search: not a true business partnership, but one in which they hand down unclear edicts to those underneath them (authoritatively) for anyone and everyone to deal with.

This has consequently included additional outcry from advertisers, many are very upset (just check out twitter over the past couple of days). Arguably, there is always a contingent (myself dipping in and out of that contingent and doing my best to not live here ;) that dislike change and are frustrated no matter what. But there has certainly been increased frustration by agencies and brands alike, as the volume of significant platform changes moving to automation has increased over the past 12-18 months.

Trust has eroded driven by sweeping changes from Google not communicated in a way that reveals understanding of the true nature of the business relationship they are in with advertisers, that of equal standing.

Google sees themselves as holding the keys to the kingdom. They own the Platform and a good 80% (depending on what numbers you look at) of Search market share, so why shouldn't they hand down edicts from above (as some in the comments of this post are sure to claim... "stop complaining Kirk, and figure out how to adapt, it's their business"?

Here's why: because Google is in a business relationship in which the majority of their revenue comes from advertisers who are being pushed to a precipice. Whether there is a Class Action lawsuit, Government Mandates, or new Competitor/Channel growth at the bottom of the fall (or all three) I can't tell you, but I can say that from what I see, I am concerned for the future of my industry because of Google's continue refusal to see advertisers as an equal part of this.

There may be great reasons Google engineering needs more control from stubborn advertisers sitting in 2008.

There may be opportunities advertisers are missing because of their lack of understanding of how a certain channel works.

But that is where the stickiness of business and partnering with real people and companies comes in, especially when those people who really annoy you..... are the ones paying your bills. They're literally buying the very data you believe needs to be hidden from them. If you see yourself as the final authority, you will ignore the free will and opinions and rights of them, and make those decisions regardless of what they say... and in this case, communicate it as we are seeing.

In that case though, you should be warned that people do not like being treated that way... even if they have to go along with you for a season. I am concerned for my industry, because I see Google's opinion of this channel building an animosity in people who cannot WAIT to shift money away from them. That is the double-edged side of a free market, and I sincerely hope Google sees this and shifts their public communication and opinion before it is too late, if not already so.