It just boggles my mind that anyone could read nonsense like this and not immediately say "I want nothing to do with that". This is evil corporatist greed along the lines of Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, or Halliburton. Alphabet needs to start getting called out forcefully, especially by their own employees and other tech leaders, whenever they pull this crap.
And really are we any different? Any YC entrepreneur should know how to cold call, and the only way to bring yourself to do it is to believe in your heart that the person you're calling really will be happier with the information you provide, delighted that you called, so you aren't interrupting them at all.
Picture a scummy 20 year old college guy who chases what he wants without considering that the other side has no interest.
"Ask first? Why? They want it. Even if they say they don't, subconsciously, they really do. I'm different, once they get it, they'll see."
The narrative in marketing circles focuses "content" and "engagement" and all kinds of gymnastic descriptors that omit the sections of reality where the answer is "no" and stays no regardless of further pleas. That version of reality doesn't make any money, and so there is no incentive to acknowledge it.
Upton Sinclair nailed it: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
Google's follow up statement after that markety statement:
> This wasn’t intended to be an ad. What’s circulating online was a part of our My Day feature, where after providing helpful information about your day, we sometimes call out timely content. We’re continuing to experiment with new ways to surface unique content for users and we could have done better in this case.
So I'm unfamiliar with how exactly this is evil corporatist greed?
Disney have a new movie out, "Promotional content" doesn't have to explictly say "but tickets here" to be effectively an advert, and I'd be seriously surprised if Disney didn't pay Google for that placement.
What's the difference between "advertisement" and unpaid product promotion the user is likely to be highly interested in knowing has been released?
Also really not sure why you don't think Disney paid for this, Google's wording was ambiguous on that topic at best and the idea they're doing this out of the goodness of their hearts stretches belief more than a little.
Google knows I like Pokémon - just from my search results - would telling me the new Pokémon games are out be an advertisement?
Where do we draw the line?
I'm of the opinion, that based on Google's wording, they were not paid for this placement - which is why they'd be refusing to call it an advertisement.
Google are not generally known for providing free promotional content for other large commercial companies, so whilst you can choose to believe that it was unpaid that, combined with the fact that both news articles referenced and users whe received it referred to it as an advert, would suggest to me that on the balance of probabilities, you are incorrect.
> The Authority will protect businesses from misleading advertising by other companies and establishes the conditions under which comparative advertising is diffused by any means.
> Advertising is misleading when it is able to mislead the undertaking to which it is addressed, jeopardizing the economic behavior, or when it is likely to injure a competitor. The deceptiveness may relate to the characteristics of the goods or services, such as their availability or date of manufacture, the price and conditions of supply.
> Comparative advertising is instead that mode of advertising in which a company promotes its own goods or services comparing them with those of competitors. This type of advertising is permitted only when it is not misleading, compares homogeneous goods objectively, it does not create confusion among businesses, or cause discredit to the competitor.
[https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pubblicità_ingannevole] [http://www.agcm.it/consumatore/consumatore-competenza/4525-d...]
Seems like a nice ground for a lawsuit or a class action.. (at least in EU)