A couple of weeks ago I covered Google's response to advertiser's cries that it was competing unfairly by using AdWords to plug its own products.  Google assured advertisers that Google's products were advertised using "the exact same guidelines, principles, practices and algorithms" as any other AdWords advertiser.  They went as far as to say that Google even used the exact same interface that the rest of us use to manage our AdWords accounts.

Because of Google's own stated trustworthiness, we believed them.  And I'd like to think that every word posted in that response was true.  But, as Blake Ross points out in a post on his blog, the entire point may be moot.

Google has recently started posting what it calls "tips" on the top of search results that point to its own products.  And no, I'm not talking about sponsored links or paid advertisements.  These "tips" are completely separate entities.  They look nothing like ads and they even contain the icon for the application or service being plugged.  For example, a search for "blog" returns a list of results… with a "tip" pointing users to Blogger above all the natural results.  A search for "photo sharing" returns a "tip" pointing users to Picasa.

Now I'm usually a fan of Google, but I'm not above calling out a company I like when they do something stupid.  And I agree with Ross:  this is a bad move for Google.

For one, it's a slap in the face to every advertiser that spends money to buy AdWords ads in Google's network.  Google's #1 "truth" is that it resists the urge to make sacrifices just to increase shareholder value.  By throwing what basically amounts to an ad for its own products front and center, Google runs the risk of sacrificing the trust of its advertisers just to increase its user base (which would ultimately increase shareholder value through growth).  The overwhelming majority of Google's revenue comes from the ads it sells to other businesses.  Anyone else thinking "don't bite the hand that feeds you"… or is it just me?

As an advertiser, why would I invest thousands of dollars into ads that will never be featured as prominently as Google's, especially if I'm advertising a product that competes with Google?  Sure, I'll still get traffic from my ads.  But I'll never be able to get the full potential out of my ad because many of the users that might have paid me a visit were redirected to Google's competing service before they even had a chance to see me.  Don't even get me started on the fact that I'm spending thousands of dollars to compete with placement that's free for Google.

Google's #4 "truth" is that "democracy on the web works", meaning that the company prefers to let other users determine which sites get ranked highest in their search results.  Ross points out that Google's new tactic is either an admission that their search has failed or their other products have failed.  I completely agree.  If Google search worked, there'd be no need for Google to shove its products up above the search results because they'd just naturally end up there.  If the product Google is touting was really the best, it'd naturally move up to the top of the search results.  But since they don't, it means the search is broke or the product is broke.

As Ross demonstrates, a search for "photo sharing" places Picasa on page 4 of the natural search results.  Instead of doing what the rest of us have to do to make our products move up the results list, Google bypasses the entire system and drops its links right at the top.  Is it really a surprising business move?  No, not at all.  Above and beyond anything else, Google is a company.  The primary reason it exists isn't to provide search services or photo sharing or blogging software.  It's to make money.

The thing that makes Google different is the fact that they've always pitched themselves as an honest company.  They want to index and catalog all of the world's information.  Should we trust a company with all of that knowledge if it can't even make it past the initial stage of indexing the web without violating its own premises?

I've questioned Google's power before.  And I think this latest tactic is just another sign of future troubles.