Is Google a Monopoly?

Because of the success of Google,  I often here people likening it to the Microsoft of old. SEOs around the country wait on Matt Cutts’ every word and cry foul over virtually every action Google takes.

But, is Google really a monopoly that needs to be broken up?

Speaking stritcly about the organic results, I believe the answer is ‘absolutely not’.

Here are 3 reasons  I say this:

1. Google has competition and does not restrict their competition as Microsoft did. The key part of Microsoft’s anti-trust issue was that they hindered competition through unfair business practices. Google, on the other hand, simply outperforms and searchers everywhere pick them by choice, not default.

2. Google does not benefit from organic rankings being manipulated. The success of Google depends on the search results they return. Google needs their organic results to be the best or users will not be searching and clicking on those little, paid ads.

3. Websites are not entitled to rank because they are optimized. So many SEOs believe that if they have links, and the page is perfectly optimized, it should rank well. This is totally not true. Google is trying to return the best result, not the one that had the best organic marketing.

The bottom line is that Google’s organic results are entirely unpaid. SEOs need to stop this nonsensical and childish feeling of entitlement they have. If you’re a real businessperson, and not just someone that optimizes websites, you’ll look at yourself the way Google looks at you.

Maybe then you’ll get a clear picture of what your role is, as Google sees it.

Matt Leonard