Devin Piotrowski
Essay Unit II
How Does Cross-Promotion on the Behalf of Google Affect the Social Aspects of Our Lives?
The Google Company is certainly large and in charge in its current business ventures, but
how does the colossal reach of this company affect worldly society? The marketing techniques
of Google including the company’s heavy reliance on cross-promotion allows their users to
access all of their internet needs in one location. In one instance, Google knew that the ways in
which India’s users were retrieving their information was inefficient (Keswani and Unni 1). It
believed it could provide a solution to this problem using Google Search (1). Because of its
ability to dominate a market so effectively, one must ask if Googles endeavors are legal or
qualify as a monopoly. Google is seen as one of these new companies whose digital business
concepts may cause new regulation extensions as a result (Clemons and Madhani 1). It is due to
innovations by businesses such as Google, that extensions will be made to regulatory policy to
refrain from a total monopoly (1).
Google affects society through its ability to be everywhere. But how is it able to be so
large with so little regulation? According to Eric Clemons and Nehal Madhani, “Google
provides an example of a company whose innovative digital business model is difficult to fit into
any current regulatory framework, and may provide examples of the issues that might require an
extension to regulatory policy” (1). Eric Clemons is the Professor of Operations and Information
Management at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Google’s innovative
business plans directly allow for its control over the markets in which it is active. The Journal of
Management Information Systems, in which the article is located, focuses on the legal issues
regarding the limits of regulatory policies on digital businesses.
Because of the limited regulation on Google, it is allowed to grow exponentially faster
than most businesses. In return, this increasing growth allows the company to connect with more
people all over the world. Its markets are forever expanding through different ventures and
investments all connected by the same network, therefore creating opportunity for crosspromotion throughout itself. This results in profit for Google because they are eliminating a host
of advertisement now that the company is large enough to provide a host for its own products
and still be able for the two to be unrelated. This example shows how large the Google network
really is. Norbert Haring is a correspondent for “Handelsblatt,” the leading German business
newspaper and is also the cofounder of the World Economics Association and an editor of the
World Economics Journal. Niall Douglas is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at
Harvard University and was named as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by
Time magazine. According to Haring and Douglas, making a larger profit than what is
considered “worthwhile,” can be seen as monopolistic because it implies that competition is
scarce (142). Googles profit is made from the amount of searches that are made which are over
40,000 every second (Keswani and Unni 1). The issue of where these profits are going, whether
given back to the work force, or kept as capital, is particularly important when discussing
monopolistic profiting companies (Haring and Douglas 155). It is evident that Google’s profit is
going into other ventures and investments to continually expand to bring the most efficient
experience possible to the internet user.
Although society may not notice the use of cross-promotion everyday by Google, does
not mean it is not there. Any institution that connects with as many people as Google does, has a
significant impact of that society. When society is mentioned, it is referring to societies around
the world because Google has no borders. Therefore, Google has had a lasting impact on
societies around the world including India and Israel. Two excellent examples of Google’s
influence and social impact around the world are India and Israel. Google knew that the ways in
which India’s users were retrieving their information was inefficient (Keswani and Unni 1). It
believed it could provide a solution to this problem using Google Search (1). The company’s
strive for the most efficient, single source of all internet needs plays a huge role in India.
India’s growth in internet users did not reflect an increase in profit for Google (Keswani
and Unni 1). Therefore, it was evident that an opportunity to increase search growth rested in
India’s rapidly increasing internet users (1). Google is able to locate which markets it is not
profiting from. As a result, they create a campaign to affect the people in order to increase
profit. In the case of India, Google appealed to the emotional side of the Indian people to
promote Google Search as a single provider of information over ones being used in India at the
time. Google’s Reunion campaign allowed the audience to realize what Google Search had to
offer through a heartfelt journey into the reconnection of long-lost friends (Keswani and Unni 1).
This affects the people by teaching them that they need to depend on Google for all internet
needs. Narmata Keswani and Madhavi Unni’s focuses on the impact of Google on India’s
internet users and the motives of Google in creating Google Reunion and the state of the Indian
internet search market at the time that provoked such an endeavor. In addition, the 2014
publication date of the article suggests that it represents recent scholarship. Madhavi Unni works
for Ogilvy & Mather, one of the largest marketing communications companies in the world.
Unlike India where Google needed to increase profit because of its limited presence,
Israel is completely dominated by Google which is affecting other sources of information within
the country. “1 in 15 Internet entries by Israel users is on a Google Inc. site” (Goldenberg 1).
This statistic puts into perspective the active role Google plays with Israelis every day. For the
last three years Roy Goldenberg has covered the internet and digital industry in Israel for the
leading business daily newspaper in Israel, Globes. He also had four years of experience as an
editor at Globes, responsible for the telecom, career, health and education desk. Prior to that, he
was a reporter in a local TV news broadcast for two years. According to Goldenberg, it is the
relationship that Google holds with other companies in Israel that allows it to be so successful in
country (1).
Googles domination of the internet market is nothing new for stateside competitors in
Israel (1). These national sources for information have been dominated in the internet market by
Google for years. Therefore, Google is able to narrow the competition exponentially as it grows
larger. With the startup of Google News, strong opposition arose within other companies in
Israel (Goldenberg 1). News providers such as Walla and ynet attempted to stop Google’s use of
their information by reason of unlawful copyright infringement (1). This is where politics and
legislation come into play in a business market.
If strong intervention involving law or regulations such as this is needed, the government
can assist with innovations to relieve the issues at hand Clemson and Madhani 1). In a perfect
world the government can step in with an unbiased outlook and implement the correct
innovations in a situation such as this one involving private Israeli companies and Google’s
corporate empire. However, by offering up goods to those in power, institutions with money can
earn privileges outside the reach of others (Haring and Douglas 215). It is because of this that
Google is able to make the connections it needs to and assimilate itself comfortably in any
society whether it is in the United States, India, or Israel.
In various ways Google will adapt to what is needed by each individual society and
dominate that market through their use of a large network of ventures and techniques of crosspromotion and advertising. Its innovative digital structure deflects any current regulation which
in turn promotes its inconceivable exponential growth. Google and its ventures cast a shadow
over competition worldwide in multiple markets. It is through its size that Google is able to
reach and connect with so many people every day. As a result, its constant exposure to society
affects how society values efficiency when using the internet, and also the success of competitive
corporations within the same market as Google. Overall, the network that the Google
Corporation has built is used to facilitate cross-promotional advertising for itself, ridding the
company of a host like others. Although this discourages internet users from experiencing
multiple information websites, it does promote total efficiency within society and change how
people see the internet.
Annotated Bibliography
Clemons, Eric K., and Nehal Madhani. “Regulation of Digital Businesses with Natural
Monopolies or Third-Party Payment Business Models: Antitrust Lessons from the
Analysis of Google.” Journal of Management Information Systems 27.3 (2010): 43-80.
Web. 9 Oct. 2014.
This journal article was found using a VCU Libraries (Journal Search), using the search
term “Google Monopoly”. [Devin Piotrowski]
Goldenberg, Roy. “Google Rules the Internet in Israel.” Globes-Israel’s Business Arena. 1 Oct.
2013: n. pag. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
This journal Article was found using LexesNexis Academic using the search term
“Google Power”. [Devin Piotrowski]
Haring, Norbert, and Niall Douglas. Economists and the Powerful: Convenient Theories,
Distorted Facts, Ample Rewards. London: 2012. ProQuest. Web. 9 Oct. 2014.
This book was found using a VCU Libraries (Book Search), using the search terms
“Google Monopoly”. [Devin Piotrowski]
Keswani, Normata, and Madhavi Unni. “How Google Search Brought Hope to 1.4 Billion
People.” Warc. (2014): n. pag. Warc. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
This case study was found using Warc through VCU Library Research Guides using the
search term “Google Society”. [Devin Piotrowski]