Tech

Leaked 'Confidential' Document Alleges Google's Search Monopoly Is Deliberately Screwing Yelp

Read in app
Jeremy Stoppelman, Yelp
Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman  AP Photo/Kathy Willens

Yelp executives prepared this document to show how they believe Google is siphoning off up to 20% of clicks from search traffic that it believes should have gone to Yelp. Techcrunch got the story first, noting "these screenshots and study are what’s being passed around internally at Yelp to demonstrate that Google’s tactics are unfair."

Search clicks are life and death for Yelp, as shoppers and restaurant diners often only visit Yelp when they're in the mood to buy something imminently. Advertisers pay to get in front of those clicks on Yelp, so any clicks that Yelp loses to Google is basically lost revenue. Yelp has been making the case that Google is a monopoly that manipulates the click market for years.

Earlier this year, Yelp recently asked regulators in Europe to curb Google's self-promoting links even further. Google has a 90% domination of search in Europe.

At first glance, the Yelp document appears to be damning. After tracking the behavior of a bunch of web users who were overtly searching for restaurant reviews on Yelp, the survey produces a heatmap of what people actually click on once they get their search results. As Google inserts links to its own review products, like Google+ and Google Local, right under "natural" search results, many people who are searching for Yelp results actually end up on Google's pages, the document suggests.

But there are two underlying issues that complicate the document's apparent slam dunk against Google. The first is that Google does appear to have a conflict of interest between its search business and its newly prominent publishing business. The second is whether the fact that Google takes some clicks obscures the fact that Google is sending a majority of clicks to Yelp — clicks it would not have if Google didn't exist.

Here are the key slides from the confidential Yelp survey.

This slide shows how a user overtly searching for a Yelp review of the Gary Danko restaurant in San Francisco gets Google results ahead of Yelp results. Google shows the restaurant's official site first, as expected.

But under that it has attached "barnacle" links to Google content like Google Reviews and Google +:

Yelp google
Yelp

The Yelp survey shows that nearly 20% of clicks then end up on Google results, not Yelp results, even though the original search contained the term "Yelp":

yelp Google
Yelp

But Yelp's surveyors conclude that although 20% of clicks are siphoned by Google, Google "does NOT appear to have negatively impacted our overall traffic":

google yelp
Yelp

Danny Sullivan on SearchEngineLand has a sophisticated breakdown of the study's complications. The conflict here is that increasingly, when you search for something like a company, you get an info box featuring Google's own results on the topic that competes with a link to the company's official site.

Here's an example. A search for Coca-Cola produces a giant display box for results featuring Google's own material:

coca-cola google
Jim Edwards / BI

So although Google purports to offer the best search results, it also displays its own self-interested search results alongside and — as the Yelp survey makes clear — on top of natural search results.

But Sullivan notes that the clicks on Google results in the Yelp survey are mostly going to the restaurant's official site — a not unreasonable result. And only about 1.4% of clicks are being syphoned into Google Reviews, etc., Sullivan says.

In sum, that's one reason why Yelp's document both complains about Google's self-interested results while at the same time admitting that it has not hurt Yelp's traffic. And at a more basic level, there is the question of what Yelp's traffic would look like if Google didn't exist — because having 80% of people being able to find you easily isn't the worst thing in the world.

Read next

Jim is the former editor-in-chief of Insider's news division.Previously he was the founding editor of Business Insider UK.He has also been managing editor at Adweek, an advertising columnist at CBS Interactive, and a Knight-Bagehot Fellow at Columbia Business School. His work has appeared in Slate, Salon, The Independent, MTV, The Nation and AOL.His investigative journalism changed the law in the US First Circuit Court of Appeals (U.S. v. Kravetz), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (North Jersey Media v. Ashcroft), New Jersey (In Re El-Atriss), and New York State (Mosallem v. Berenson).The US Supreme Court cited his work on the death penalty in the concurrence to Baze v. Rees, on the issue of whether lethal injection is cruel or unusual.He won the Neal award for business journalism in 2005 for a series investigating bribes and kickbacks in the advertising business.Here's a selection of his past stories:    The alleged betrayal in these photos, texts, and emails cost Snapchat $158 million    Inside the conspiracy that forced Dov Charney out of American Apparel    The Evolution of Ev: The creator of Twitter, Blogger, and Medium has a plan to fix the mess he made of the internet    THE "KNOCK-IN SHORT": Nigel Farage and the massive bet against the pound on the night of the Brexit vote    eBay worked with the FBI to put its top affiliate marketer in prison    How Dunkin Donuts ended up hiring a psychotic credit card thief as director of communications    BEJEWELED: The definitive, illustrated history of the most underrated game ever   • The CEO of Publicis told us how he stared down a furious internal rebellion to bet the future of his $11 billion company on artificial intelligence   • FBX: The billion-dollar Facebook business that never happened   • The €150 million check-kiting scam that bankrupted Leo Burnett in Greece   • My Polaroids of the September 11 attacks led me into America's secret court system for terrorist suspects   • YouTube deleted 130 rap videos to help police fight street gangs responsible for thousands of stabbingsDisclosure: I own shares of Twitter (TWTR).