I like the Dark Google metaphor, but SEO agencies being Google's real customers makes no sense to me.
Its kind of like the US hospital system, where doctors are considered by the hospital, if not de jure then certainly de facto, to be the real customers of the hospital. Doctors don't pay the hospital much of anything -- the patients do, usually via their insurance company -- but without the doctors, no procedures happen (i.e., no "traffic.") Hospitals can't bill for room and board, nursing services, therapy, etc., where the hospital makes its operating income without the doctors, and in markets where multiple hospitals exist, doctors drive the patients to the hospital(s) of the doctor's choice. Ergo, the doctor is the "real" customer of the hospital.
The hospitals can and have adapted to get a bigger share of the revenue pie by hiring their own doctors and buying up the clinics that drive a lot of customers to hospitals in the first place, just like Google has introduced products that are more vertically integrated, but the basic dynamic still exists where they are dependent on third parties to deliver customers.
2) I took at look at the most recent CMS data[0] I could find (from 2022,) and out of the top ten owners of hospitals in the United States, zero are payers. I only recognize about half of the parties in the 11-20 part of the list, but of the ones I do recognize, one is related to a payer. I can find no data to support your assertion that insurance companies are purchasing hospitals. They are purchasing physician practice groups, but that only reinforces the dynamic I described where hospitals have to court physicians to drive patients to their facilities.
0 - https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/582de65f2...
To make sure I'm not misremembering, I've asked deepseek in web search mode: "Is it true that hospitals are increasingly owned by insurance companies in US" It says: "In summary, the ownership of hospitals by insurance companies is a growing trend in the U.S. healthcare system, driven by the desire to control costs and integrate care delivery. While this model offers potential efficiencies, it also raises significant concerns about the quality of care and the balance of power in the healthcare industry." I've looked at several links it provided and they are consistent with the conclusion. Try it for yourself.
I posted an analogy about the dynamic that exists between hospitals and doctors. You responded by saying that's a distinction without a difference, when the dynamic I described is a primary difference between the two groups: doctors can practice medicine without hospitals. Hospitals cannot provide patient care without doctors.
I'm not ignoring anything. I posted an analogy about how the US hospital business has some similar incentive structures as Google's search business, in that both are dependent on third-parties to deliver revenue. You, for reasons that are not clear to me, felt the need to post an unhelpful, off-topic, and incorrect rant about the insurance system in the US backed up, apparently, by nothing more than your favorite AI hallucination engine.
I don't think you've even tried to understand what I posted or why, nor do I think you are capable of understanding why your claim is completely irrelevant to what I wrote. Guess what? Even if insurance companies purchased every single hospital in the country, those hospitals would still be dependent on the doctors to operate.
I keep hoping my local university hospital system will offer such a thing.
I've made a mistake of consuming healthcare related content due to the recent ceo assassination. Do not recommend.
In a way, it's the other way around, Google is paying the spammers for providing billboard space for their ad placement services.
The pervese incentive is that the harder it is to find what I'm looking for, the more ads I get served, hence all ad supported products trend towards becoming useless (see also: Amazon.com)