Is Google Waging War On Branding & Brands?

Google is using its search algorithm to automatically move the branding in competitors’ search listings to the right end of the TITLE metatag, so that brand names appear as far over on the right side of the web page as possible. Read on to find out how this gives Google’s services an unfair advantage

The TITLE tag ploy: Aiming to be the only recognizable face in the crowd?

For non-technical folks, the TITLE metatag is arguably the most important element of a webpage. A well constructed TITLE tag is not only pivotal in determining how well a website ranks, but more importantly it’s the first thing web users will see when looking at search results.

I noticed the TITLE tag ploy in two service segments, SEO services and translation services, both segments which Google has a vested interest in. I’m sure there are other segments; however, I have chosen to base this article on Japanese translation services since it relates to my experience. First, take a look at the screenshot below showing how this manipulation of branding works:

You can check the source code (right click screen & select View Page Source) of the webpage above to verify that Google’s algorithm has automatically moved the branding –“JAPANtranslation”- to the right end of the TITLE tag. The algorithm appears to seek out the “:” (colon), “::” (double colon), and “|” (bar) to determine what to move where.

The result is that the top page on Google search for one of the most competitive keyword phrases in the translation services industry -Japanese Translation Services- has all but been cleared of branding! Now, it could be argued, and I’m sure Google will do just that, that displaying the title text (“Japanese translation company” from the example above) at the head, or left side, of the TITLE tag helps users find more quickly what they are looking for. However, this doesn’t make sense because the purpose of Google’s search algorithm, which by most accounts does a boss job, is to return the most relevant results users searched, anyway. In other words, there’s absolutely no need to re-arrange the TITLE tag from the user’s benefit.

The question, therefore, is what’s the real reason Google’s algorithm is programmed to move brand names over to the far right end of the TITLE tag, where they are less visible?

I believe Google’s strategy by way of banishing the branding of competitors to the right end of the TITLE tag is to neuter the brand marketing efforts of competitors thereby giving its own services and products unprecedented visibility. Imagine for a moment if one of the only visible brands on the top page of search results was Google Translate (Google’s machine translation software product)…In other words, Google’s goal is to be Waldo as in Where’s Waldo -- The only recognizable face in a very, very crowded space. This is quite an ingenious ploy considering the f pattern eye movement of user browsing habits, which is to focus primarily on the left side of a web page.

Quite a statement; however, there is precedent with the FTC concluding Google abused its monopoly power as recently reported by CNN.

Click here to search Japanese Translation Services. Google Translate, ignoring the fact that it’s not a “service” in the strictest sense(see Google Translate “Service” - The Duck Test article bY Translation Services Japan), appears near the top of the first page of search results in prime real estate. As you can see, Google is Waldo -- The only recognizable face in a very, very crowded space!

The TITLE tag ploy, i.e. moving competitors’ branding over to the far right end of the TITLE tag where it is less visible considering the f pattern eye movement of user browsing habits, is very real. Now, if Google’s listing appeared as Translate Google then one could logically conclude that Google really is using the TITLE tag ploy to help user find more quickly what they’re looking for…But, when only competitors’ TITLE tags are manipulated, that’s obviously not the case here, is it?

Do you think Google is waging war on brands & branding to favor its own products and services with an unfair advantage? If so, is there anything untoward about this behavior? Jump in with a comment, share your thoughts and experiences below!