Feel free to check it out @

http://bit.ly/14QZwY

on a off-topic, the above statement exactly describes what Baidu is doing in China. sites disappear from search results if they don’t buy sponsored listings.

Special Acknowledgments:
*Barack Obama in his spirited aura of change
*Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau who created the World Wide Web at CERN
*James Hendler An artificial Intelligence Researcher
*Nigel Richard Shadbolt founder of the Web Science Research Initiative
*Ora Lassila a Finnish computer scientist
*Computer Science University of Southampton
*Artificial intelligence department @ University of Edinburgh
*Eric Schmidt CEO Of Google
*Doug Lenat Computer Scientist Ceo of Cycorp
*Kevin Kelly Great Mind
If I left anyone out you are not forgotten, but for the sake of time, many more I give thanks to. Thank you all for your research , your time invested in making us better and more efficient economically and environmentally, America and the World thanks you.

A few pioneers of Green Energy who deserve recognition
*Scott mcnealy co founder of sun micro systems say that technology of the Internet is the most planetary efficient way of conducting business
*John Doer partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers
says that Germany is the largest buyer of solar cells around the world
“These are point that should be noticed and implemented in our economic and environmental strategy and conducive to like such recovery” Says Valentino
*MIT chemist Daniel Nocera
*Thomas Hinderling innovator who wants to build solar island to make us more efficient.
*Texas oilmen like T. Boone Pickens started pushing alternative energy
*Steven Chu head the Department of Energy
just to name a few.

“These are a few of the people who have inspired me to offer the Next generation ready platform. I look at their stories and their desire to innovate and to make better. These are things and mindsets I was conceived in. These Great minds gave me the foundation to start myvosi and change the future. So I personally feel they deserve a great deal of recognition” Says The Face Of Web 3.0 Maurice Valentino

I very quickly researched 25 brands and found that Dr. Clemons’ gripe about misdirection doesn’t seem to hold a lot of water. Maybe it’s not the most scientific study but it’s somewhat useful, at least to a point.

At least Google has some Editorial Policies and Guidelines. The affiliate networks have no police other than the vendor. If users are to trust advertisers, then the advertising networks need to be complicit in the trustworthiness of adverts.

What is described as “other methods” of monetisation I’d describe as ‘advertising’. I know you try to address this but I think that’s the weakest part of your argument.

For instance, although it has open comment and reviews, tripadvisor IS an advertising platform.

I’d also argue that this is all a little ‘old hat’ as we all know that some very well known websites (social networks, newspaper sites etc) are sustaining their “land grab” through the promise of future advertising incomes which may not turn-up in time or never come (supported by venture capitial, shares or other parts of their business).

I’d say that there are a number of posts more relevant and insightful than Clemons’ article and I hope this dissuades companies from joining/funding http://www.stopscads.org

Q) Does google allow companies to pass-off as other companies/trademarks/brands?

A) No, it clearly shows which results are natural which are sponsored AND the URLs of each advertiser.

Q) Do consumers get a poor experience from ads on google?

A) Google provides good results incredibly quickly. The results are clearly labelled so the choice is with the user. ‘Wider’ sponsored results are in the customer’s interest.

Q) Are trademark owners ‘bullied’ by google?

A) google and trademark owners have a symbiotic relationship which overall, favours the trademark owner. Google provides oodles of natural traffic to such websites, a great deal from generic terms. If a trademark owner’s competitors are getting value from advertising on their brand then their entire offering isn’t strong enough. Adwords offers a real option for trademark owners to manipulate sales messages to customers real time rather than use their meta tags to do this. The only place where maybe google could be seen to be ‘milking’ this particular cash cow’ would be in the addition of minimum bids (which I think goes against the ‘market’). Protectionism is rarely in the consumer interest.

Q) Are most trademarks really that unique?
A) There are a great many trademarks granted for the most generic terms, which I’d suggest needs an overhaul before google. The same trademarks have been allocated to different product types. It seems that the most successful trademarks actually point the way to how users think… in that the consumer links a brand to a product (when I want scotch/sello tape, ipod, google, coke, lego do I really want the branded product or do I just want sticky-back-plastic, digital music player, search engine, brown fizzy drink, plastic building blocks).

Q) At what point could google’s bid model would NOT be in the consumers interest?

A) Where product prices are pushed-up to absorb PPC costs. This is at a point where marketing managers bid with a lack of information, for vanity, for growth, for market share only.

I’d suggest that this has been going on for years and will get better as reporting, agencies and marketing managers understand more about search marketing and websites improve. This maybe where Clemons could be correct about decreasing spend but that would assume we’re at the zenith now. From a global perspective I don’t think we’re close to the top (considering how ‘far behind’ some countries are in web usage).

Q) Could Clemons be correct in all his assertions?

A) Yes, but only if certain draconian laws are passed that are in the interest of protecting big business, rather than the consumer (or punishing google for the dominant market position it’s achieved by providing users and advertisers with a useful services).

ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCKSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!

They have done an incredible job with the Spanish speakers’ advertising industry.

Jess

Google becomes so successful as a competitor in online advertising that competition all but dissappears.

At the same time Google is hooking millions users on their free and useful apps (consumers develop a dependence on them after years) while their online advertising business matures and starts to decline because brands dont really get enough value and also dont want to be pushed around by a monopoly on the web.

Then Google turns around and begins to charge minimal fees for the apps that were once free.

Result….instant new revenue by force. Anything that fails Google can dump.

I give Danny Sullivan the win by unanimous decision (no knockouts in this one though), as Prof. Clemens backtracked a bit from his initial, vaguely-defined argument that online advertising will fail, now asserting that it would encompass less than 20% of non-eCommerce revenues in five years.

Danny is so passionate about debunking the search “misdirection” accusation that he spent little time addressing Prof. Clemons’ other (and in my view, more core) arguments about users not trusting/wanting/needing ads. I would have liked to see him express his views here.

My more in-depth thoughts on this debate on my blog at http://kketefia.blogspot.com/