Google, have you forgotten your promise from years ago?

First, I would like to apologize. In my previous article "Baidu has become more commercialized, while Google is becoming more academic," I made some inappropriate descriptions and comparisons regarding Google's commercial advertisements. Although Google is indeed becoming more academic and its academic search will benefit a portion of the population, as a commercial company, advertising remains the foundation upon which Google survives.

Selling ads and making money are beyond reproach. Commercial companies are not saints; pursuing profit is their primary goal and also a way to be responsible to investors. However, advertising is always a double-edged sword. While it brings substantial profits, it also causes some disturbances to users, as most users do not particularly welcome advertisements.

Currently, Google is testing a new ad format: displaying large banner ads at the top of search results. If you don't have an ad-blocking plugin installed, some users may have already noticed this change. Below is a comparison screenshot from Search Engine Land:

It seems there's no problem with this. Although the ads are somewhat prominent, it can be understood. Using Google's services while tolerating some ads is not unreasonable. However, the issue lies in the fact that Google once promised it would never do this. As early as 2005, Marissa Mayer, then a senior member of Google, wrote in a blog post:

"Google will not place banner ads on its homepage or search result pages, nor will there be any crazy, flashy, graphical gadgets running around the site to distract users."

In fact, Google once won numerous praises for its clean and uncluttered pages. This time, Google broke its promise. Was it because Marissa Mayer left, or does the promise of "never" have an expiration date, or did they temporarily forget their creed of "do no evil"? We cannot know for sure.

If there had been no such promise initially, or if people's memories were not so good, Google wouldn't be in such an awkward position. The lesson for ordinary people might be: first, don't make promises lightly; second, don't easily trust those who make promises lightly.

The competition in the advertising business is currently very intense, especially in the mobile advertising sector, where Google is facing strong challenges from competitors like Facebook. Another issue Google must face is that the profit margin from individual advertising businesses is not as high as before. This might have forced Google to break its promise and add more ad content and formats. As long as ads exist, the idea that Google can survive is widely accepted. On the other hand, Google's size and stock prices continue to rise. To maintain the company's development and drive the online advertising market to maturity quickly, Google's actions can be understood from its own perspective.

After this incident, a representative from Google introduced that this ad was part of a "brand image experiment" by Google. There were about 30 advertisers involved, including Crate & Barrel and Virgin Atlantic. According to the test, less than 5% of search pages would display such ads.

In response to this event, Google also made a statement:

"We are conducting a very limited test, exclusively in the U.S., where advertisers can include images as part of ad search results for certain brand-related queries. Advertisers can also add other informative visual elements, such as media ads, product listings, and pictures."

For this ad format still in the testing phase, it is unclear what it will evolve into in the future. Will it be shut down due to pressure? Or will it be widely promoted, disregarding the promise?

Currently, Google holds an absolute leading position in the search field. A relatively small-scale ad update and a promise that most people might not notice will not significantly affect people's use of Google services. However, I am concerned that this marks a bad start. Can a company with few rivals continue to uphold its "do no evil" creed in the face of profit?

Title image source: rapgenius