The End of Google Shopping as a Price Comparison Service

Back in the earlier days of the Internet, a clever guy came up with an idea for a directory made up of nothing but ads, based up a pay-per-click model with advertisers bidding against each other for prime placement. The website and associated patents were acquired by Yahoo!, and were licensed by Google shortly before its IPO for... a ton of money. Google's subsequent history suggests that, as much as it paid, it got the better half of the bargain.

Now it seems that history is coming full circle, with Google transforming its frequently renamed and reinvented price comparison service into what amounts to a directory or search service for ads (and nothing but ads). I have to say... I'm a bit disappointed. Not because I don't see Google as having a right to charge merchants to promote themselves through a shopping service, or that I think such a service is free or easy to run - in fact, I can see how paid inclusion could help ensure that merchants keep their listings current and accurate, diminish the number of fraudulent and misleading entries, and make the service much easier to manage. My disappointment is that I use the product to comparison shop, and if merchants choose not to participate or those offering better deals don't have the budget to compete with better capitalized but more expensive competitors, the service won't fill my needs. Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark.

I don't mind paying a premium for a better product or service, but I don't want to have the good deals hidden behind mediocre vendors with large advertising budgets. I hope that Google's reinvented service turns out to be a lot more sophisticated, and useful, than the announcement and present commentary suggest.

Shopping Safely in the Online World

In terms of customer service nightmares - from the customer side - the recent New York Times story about "DecorMyEyes" is about as bad as it gets. I mean, seriously, when was the last time you heard of an attempt to return merchandise resulting in a criminal warrant for stalking being issued against the proprietor of a business?

Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land quickly pointed out how Google was addressing customer reviews in other areas of search, and suggested steps Google could take to minimize the chance of an online consumer confusing a top result in a search engine results page with the suggestion that the merchant was honest or ethical.

To Google's credit, it appears that by that time they were already on the case, attempting to develop an algorithmic solution that will detect merchants that Google believes "provide a extremely poor user experience", and... presumably prevent them from achieving top search engine rankings. But as Google notes, they won't catch everybody.

But when you're dealing with online merchants, particularly those of which you haven't previously heard, caveat emptor. Check the reviews carefully, keeping in mind that for newer vendors a series of positive reviews may be planted for the purpose of tricking would-be customers. Check the website - not just to see if it looks professional, but to see what it says about the business, its location and phone number. No business name other than the website title? No contact information other than a phone number? Watch out. If you look up the domain name for the store (e.g., through Whois.sc) do you get a real address and contact information, fake information or an anonymous registration? Real stores don't hide.

And if it’s important enough for you to have “designer” handbags, watches, eyeglasses, etc., know up front that a huge percentage of online merchandise is going to be counterfeit or, at best, gray market - it may cost more, but consider shopping through an authorized merchant.

I Haven't Been To One In Years, But....

I still found this faux Trader Joe's ad amusing.

via lies.com.

Doorbuster Sales

Following the death of a Wal-Mart worker, NYC appears poised to require additional security during "major sales". Despite the tragedy, given that security measures appeared to be at least adequate at all stores except the one where the death occurred, it's reasonable to question the necessity of the law.

But if you want to be sure that this won't happen again, is security really the problem? Or is it that the concept of a "doorbuster" sale became too literal. The fact is, when you offer an array of loss leaders designed to attract huge crowds to stores, and offer an additional array of discounts that are only valid for the first few hours of the shopping day, bargain hunters must mass at the doorways at opening time in order to even have a chance for the best deals.

Loss leaders are, of course, quantity limited discounts meant to bring in those big crowds. The idea is that, although few shoppers will be able to take advantage of those discounts, people attracted by the possibility will buy other merchandise. The only thing that differentiates a loss leader from "bait and switch" is that your ads specify that quantities are limited (e.g., "Only 200 available at this price).

If you want to keep crowds from massing at the doorway, classify the advertisement of limited quantity loss leaders as a form of "bait and switch", require issuance of rain checks when quantities run short, and require all specials to be offered through the entire business day. Stores would object, as you would be removing elements that help create the frenzied atmosphere that allows them to clear their shelves of stuff that a calmer crowd would probably leave behind. But you won't have people trampling store clerks, beating up other shoppers, or shooting each other over the possibility of missing that "doorbuster" deal.