Some news organizations like people reformatting their content to the duplicative & proprietary AMP format. That’s wasteful, but necessary “In theory, adoption of AMP is voluntary.
In reality publishers that don’t want
To see their search traffic evaporate have little choice. New data from publisher analytics firm Chartbeat shows just how much leverage Google has over publishers thanks to its dominant search engine.”
It seems more than a bit backward
That low margin publishers are doing duplicative work to distance themselves from their own readers while improving the profit margins of monopolies. But it is what it is. And that no doubt drew the ire of many publishers across the EU.
And now there are AMP Stories to eat up even more visual real estate.
If you spent a bunch of money to
Create a highly differentiated piece of content, why Telemarketing Final Expense Leads would you prefer that high spend flagship content appear on a third party website rather than your own?
Google & Facebook have done such a fantastic job of eating the entire pie that some are celebrating Amazon as a prospective savior to the publishing industry. That view – IMHO – is rather suspect.
Where any of the tech monopolies
Dominate they cram down on partners. The New York Times acquired The Wirecutter in Q4 of 2016. In Q1 of 2017 Amazon adjusted their affiliate fee schedule.
Amazon generally treats consumers well
But they have been much harder on business partners with tough pricing negotiations, counterfeit protections, forced ad buying to have a high enough product rank to be able to rank organically, ad displacement of their organic.
Search results below the fold
(even for branded search queries), learning suppliers & cutting out the partners, private label products patterned after top sellers, in some cases running pop over ads for the Pioneering the Future of Mobile Technology private label products on product level pages where brands already spent money to drive traffic to the page, etc.
They’ve made things tougher for their partners in a way that mirrors the impact Facebook & Google have had on online publishers:
Boyce’s experience on Amazon largely
Echoed what happens in the offline world: competitors entered the market, pushing down prices and making it harder to make a profit. So Boyce adapted. He stopped selling basketball hoops and developed his own line of foosball tables, air hockey tables, bocce ball sets and exercise equipment. The best way to make a decent profit on Amazon was to sell something no one else had and create your own brand. …
Amazon also started selling bocce
Ball sets that cost $15 less than Boyce’s. He says his products are higher quality, but Amazon gives prominent page space to its generic version and wins the cost-conscious shopper.”
