People walk past a logo next to the main entrance of the Google building in Zurich. Google, as a search engine, holds all the cards. Let’s be honest, if you were curious about which search engine is the best you would probably just Google it. I mean, wait, there are other search engines? Jokes aside, it appears the EU and Google are working towards some agreement in the antitrust debate which originated back in 2010. As a strategist, this is exactly what Google should be doing. Mitigate the damage in legal costs, avoid being labeled a monopoly, keep your head low and keep making shareholders money. The specifics aside, there are two important questions in the ethics behind monopolies: why did it develop and was competition fought of using unfair means?

Monopolies Historically

Microsoft is the standard example. AT&T is a classic as well. Rockefeller certainly deserves mention, alongside Carnegie in all of the history books. We hear the word ‘monopoly’ and we either think of an evil corporation or that board game where everyone tries desperately do avoid being the ‘banker’ (a good analogy for life in general post 2008). It seems like the development of monopolies is less about being "evil" however, and more about situation. Sometimes markets have the kind of barrier to entry that essentially dissuades new incumbents, like constructing a massive network of railroads for example. This makes all those brave entrepreneurs who take a swing at success turn belly-up, selling their meager progress to the only competitor who can afford to buy it.

In the information age, the barriers to entry are not often about the literal price of entry but instead about achieving visibility (granted, you could put a price tag on this via promotional costs). Sure, local businesses like barber shops and supermarkets still play by the old-school rules, but the big business is now all about showing up in search engine results. Going viral is success for most companies nowadays, and the search engine is how this is achieved. Google has somehow managed to become the go-to for this. This has put it in an impossible position: their algorithms are actively choosing the fate of companies which inevitably must include its competitors. This is absolutely fascinating. We are talking about illegal monopolies here though, and it must be noted that illegal monopolies are ones created through unfair means. This means that Google’s guilt must be measured in the way in which search results misrepresent its competition. Namely, are the algorithms specifically designed to self-promote? Let’s take a look.

Search Engine or ‘Internet Services’?

So I’ve just "googled" the top 5 search engines, and the first link showed a list of the top 10. Take a guess what number Google was? Nope. Wrong. Google was 10th. Now, while this may be viewed as some as shameless self-promotion, I’d have to say if I was Google I might make sure the first link had me at, I don’t know, at least in the top 5. The second link was slightly more representative of the real marketplace, literally a measure of popularity. Google was #1 here, only because 66% of searches as of January 2012 took place on Google. You can’t really argue a number like that. This does not seem like unfair practice within the realm of search engines though.

What makes this case so much more interesting is not the search engine element however, but the way in which Google is branching into other businesses. With two of every three searches being carried out on Google, it’s safe to say that Google could literally enter any business and place itself at the top of the results list (the monetary value of which is enormous). We have Google maps, email, translation, social networking, and the list goes on. What the EU is concerned about is four specific elements of this branching out:

• Does Google display “its own vertical search services differently” than their competitors?
• Does Google copy content from other sites within their services?
• Adwords: Does Google exclusively own traffic generation via advertising?
• Does Google restrict the ease of transferring to competing platforms?

I have phrased them as questions as opposed to accusations, as I personally find it difficult to tell just yet how much abuse is being carried out. What these points say to me is does Google self-promote via controlling traffic, while developing complimentary platforms of itself within other services? If so, is that unethical? Does dominating the search engine industry place pressure on Google to promote competitors before itself? It’s somewhat unfair if you think about it, if I were in a Bose store asking about what the best headphones are they probably wouldn’t hop on Amazon to order me some Sennheisers. The conundrum for Google is that an entire segment of most companies marketing strategy is, well, Google! Can Google use Google to promote Google? If not, isn't it being robbed of an elemental marketing tool? If so, isn't it monopolizing unfairly? I picture Homer Simpson right now from the Simpsons movie when he was being slammed against a rock and a bar called ‘Hard Place’.

More Questions Than Answers

It may appear I am defending Google, and perhaps even defending monopolies. Maybe I am, but only because it seems like Google landed here unintentionally. The primary responsibility of any company is growth and shareholder revenues, and Google dominated the search engine industry (at one point they had 9 of every 10 search!). How else could growth and profits have been achieved aside from some level of integration, be it vertical or horizontal? Google hit what I would deem the "monopolistic ceiling," and once there growth is hard to come by (fairly, that is). Profits are often a product of benchmarking last year to this year, or more simply put, growth. This analysis poses more questions than answers, but primarily focuses on asking one in particular: has Google unfairly leveraged its position? I’m not convinced.