What if google charged us each time we used it?

[Little_Nemo]

@Kedikat

The many billions in advertising that companies spend is recouped from the buyers of their products. We do pay for Google searches.

You pay those costs regardless of whether or not you use Google. So there’s no financial incentive not to use Google.

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

None of those new-fangled sites for me. I’m sticking with Web Crawler.

Wow, an http content search result? Too new-fangled for me.

http://archie.icm.edu.pl/archie-adv_eng.html

[Richard_Pearse]

¢

iPad, hold done the $ button and you get a list of currency related options.

I think I’d be happy to pay a small amount per search. How much? I’m not sure.

[drewder]

It wouldn’t be in Google’s interest, google only has one product, its users. Remember if someone isn’t charging you for something it’s because you’re the product not the customer.

[dracoi]

@Kedikat

With the state of interconnected ownership of companies, it is likely that you are paying in some way. If you use a credit card for purchase then you certainly are. If you have a bank account, you probably are.

No sophistry about it. The interconnected world. It is actually against the law in many places to directly charge a credit card user for the added fees incurred, and less for cash buyers. They must be passed onto all buyers, whatever payment method they use. Business likes communism when it is to their benefit. The more businesses that advertise on Google, the more chance you pay for it. Directly or through a subsidiary.

How is a credit card fee equivalent to public ownership of the means of production?

Anyway, what you’re saying is a fundamental misunderstanding of how businesses work. You think that paying a $10 for advertising means the company has to add $10 to the cost of its products. In the real world, fixed and overhead costs and economies of scale often mean that spending $10 for advertising makes the products cheaper.

[leahcim]

@Kedikat

The many billions in advertising that companies spend is recouped from the buyers of their products. We do pay for Google searches.

There is a persistent belief that companies decide how to price their products by adding up the costs associated with making and selling them, and if there is an additional cost involved in making or selling a product, then that cost is automatically passed on to the consumer.

This belief is incorrect. The price of a product is decided to try to be close to the price that maximizes revenue - (price per unit)*(number of sales at that price) which is determined by the market without reference to any costs of manufacture/marketing. Just because more money is spent on an input (advertising) doesn’t mean that the price can increase.

[k9bfriender]

@Eddie The Horrible

Sure, there’s other search engines out there, does anyone here use them? Me - just googs, probably around 10 hits a day for various shit.
What if google charged, say 50¢ per hit? (buuuuuuuuuuuwaahaahaah! I will never ever say, btw, how I dastardly summoned that cents sign!)
Would that result in a mass exodus to other search engines, or would other search engines think - ‘well, if google wants to go for a money grab, we will too’?
I hate that niggling feeling that I’m totally gapping out here on something super-duper obvious that will be brought to my attention in the first post or two.

As someone who advertises with google, I will say that if they did that, they would lose a lot of money.

I pay them quite a bit. Usually around $1.50 per click, though it varies almost randomly, it is currently set at about $500 a month. If they were charging you instead, then not only would you stop using them for searches, I wouldn’t be using them for advertising either.

For those who feel I am passing the cost onto consumers, well sure I am, but I am also passing them the cost of rent, utilities, labor, equipment, other advertising venues… etc, that’s what a business does.