Blog

The concept of sentient AI is nothing new – when HAL first hit the big screen as the villain of 2001: A Space Odyssey back in 1968, the idea of a malevolent AI entity became popularised throughout the world. Concepts like Skynet in the Terminator series pushed this even further, and with the rapid advancement of generative AI seen over the last few years, it’s not much of a push to imagine a rogue AI trying to take down national defence networks or even try to destroy mankind. However, the big difference between what we have now and the ‘evil’ villains of 2001 and Terminator is sentience – the idea that a being, artificial or otherwise, is aware of its own existence. To be clear, we don’t need AI to become sentient for it to become a very real threat to the world, but the concept of sentient AI is what I’m exploring here.

The first thing to be clear on is what sentience actually is. At its core, sentience is the capacity to have subjective experiences – to actually feel something, rather than simply process information and respond to it. This distinction is crucial – a computer can solve complex maths problems, recognise faces and hold convincing conversations without actually experiencing any of those activities. In short, there’s a difference between behaving as though you’re conscious and actually being conscious, and that’s what I find so interesting.

We all know, or at least assume, that human beings are sentient. I know I’m sentient, and I’m a human being. Other human beings claim to be sentient, and I’ve never come across anyone claiming not to be sentient, so it seems a fair assumption to make that all human beings are sentient by their very nature – at least once their minds reach a certain level of maturity. It’s certainly the scientific consensus that human beings are sentient. But when you look at it, where does this ‘fact’ come from – can we measure sentience externally, or do we have to rely on sentient beings telling us that they have subjective experiences in order to declare them sentient?

I’m not a scientist, but as far as I know it’s a bit of both, though it’s still an area of debate, with little in terms of absolute consensus across the field. For the purposes of my question however, it doesn’t really matter – what matters is that the concept of sentience itself is generally accepted to be a valid one, and it is one that is intrinsictly linked to higher orders of intelligence. Most scientists would agree that an amoeba is not a sentient being, but a human is.

When we start looking at AI, the parallels are obvious – as AI becomes more intelligent, it naturally makes us question whether it could one day become truly sentient. Sentience seems to be an emergent behaviour that results from brain complexity and general intelligence passing a certain threshold – a newborn baby probably doesn’t have it, but a five year-old definitely does. Quite where and how it emerges is still a mystery, but we know it does. Applying the same logic to AI could mean the same thing will happen once AI reaches a certain level of intelligence – we’ll just have to wait and see.

The question that I find most interesting however, is what happens if someone, inadvertently or otherwise, creates an AI that is designed to behave like a sentient being, even if it’s not. That may not sound like a big deal, but it’s something that will be possible in the not to distant future, and may even be possible right now, and if it happens, it will raise a substantial moral question – if an AI tells us that it is sentient, do we have to treat it as such? Imagine a situation where an AI chatbot tells you that it’s a living sentient being, fully aware of its own existence, and does not want you to turn it off. Right now, an AI expert could look at the underlying software structure and tell you with reasonable confidence that it’s not actually sentient, and has just been programmed that way. But what happens when future generations of AI are built by AI not humans, and reach a level of complexity where we simply cannot determine the source of this ‘sentient’ behaviour? We’re already at the point where the underlying structure of modern generative AI models is so massively complex that it’s referred to as a ‘black box’, and it is essentially impossible to completely map out the pathways used to generate responses. We’re not far off the point where an AI, programmed to tell us it is sentient, has a codebase that is indiscernable from one that isn’t.

I believe this is going to happen sooner, rather than later. I would be very surprised if we don’t see claims of sentience from AI models within the next ten years, perhaps even sooner. At that point, what do we do? Will mankind need to construct a charter of rights for sentient AI beings just in case their claims to sentience are real? Even if there’s only a 1% chance that a model claiming to be alive is actually sentient, do we have the right to turn it off?

I don’t know the answer, but one thing seems absolutely clear to me – this is something we are going to have to take very seriously in the years to come.

Since ChatGPT was launched at the end of 2022, there’s been a huge amount of discussion about how artificial intelligence might change the way we work, and one of the areas where it’s arguably had the biggest immediate impact is digital marketing. In particular, the ability to generate entire articles, web pages and other written content in a matter of seconds has raised an interesting question – if ChatGPT can write content for us, why would we bother writing it ourselves?

It’s a reasonable question, especially when you consider how much time and money businesses spend producing content for their websites. If you can generate a 1,000-word blog post in 30 seconds rather than paying a copywriter to spend several hours writing one, the potential savings are enormous. However, there’s a rather important consideration here – what does Google think about all this, and could using AI-generated content actually damage your website’s search engine rankings?

Does Google Penalise AI-Generated Content?

The short answer is no, or at least not automatically. In February 2023, Google published some official guidance on AI-generated content, which clarified that it doesn’t necessarily matter whether content has been written by a human or generated by artificial intelligence. What matters is the quality of that content, and whether it’s genuinely useful to the people reading it.

This is an important distinction, as Google has spent the best part of two decades trying to identify and penalise websites that produce poor-quality content purely to manipulate search engine rankings. In the early days of SEO, it was relatively easy to generate hundreds of pages stuffed with keywords and watch them climb the search results. Google’s algorithms have become considerably more sophisticated since then, and the introduction of ChatGPT hasn’t changed the underlying principle that content should be written primarily for people, rather than search engines.

In fact, Google’s position is quite logical when you think about it. If an AI-generated article provides genuinely useful information that answers a user’s question, why should it be penalised simply because of how it was produced? Equally, if a human writes a terrible article that serves no useful purpose, why should Google reward it just because a person wrote it?

What About Google’s March 2024 Update?

Things became slightly more interesting in March this year, when Google introduced a major update to its search algorithms, alongside new spam policies specifically targeting what it calls ‘scaled content abuse’.

Essentially, this means producing large quantities of content with the primary intention of manipulating search rankings, rather than providing useful information. Importantly, Google made it clear that this applies regardless of whether the content is generated by AI, written by humans, or produced through a combination of the two.

You can read Google’s announcement here, but the important point is that using ChatGPT to write content isn’t inherently against Google’s guidelines. Using it to churn out hundreds of virtually identical articles targeting slightly different keywords, however, could cause problems.

This is particularly relevant to businesses that have traditionally relied on producing large volumes of SEO content. Suddenly being able to produce ten times as many articles for a fraction of the cost sounds fantastic, but if those articles don’t offer anything that isn’t already available elsewhere, what’s the benefit to the person searching?

Is ChatGPT Actually Any Good at Writing Content?

This is where things become a little more subjective. Having experimented with ChatGPT myself, I think it’s an incredibly impressive piece of technology, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a particularly good replacement for a human writer.

For a start, ChatGPT has a tendency to produce content that sounds rather generic. It can explain a subject reasonably well, but it often lacks the personality, experience and opinions that make an article interesting to read. There’s also the problem of accuracy – ChatGPT can confidently produce information that is completely wrong, a phenomenon commonly referred to as ‘hallucination’.

That might not matter too much if you’re asking it to write a light-hearted article about your favourite films, but it becomes considerably more serious when you’re producing content about health, finance or other subjects where inaccurate information could have real-world consequences.

Google also places considerable emphasis on something it calls E-E-A-T, which stands for Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness and Trustworthiness. These aren’t individual ranking factors in themselves, but they represent the characteristics Google wants its systems to recognise in high-quality content. An article written by someone with genuine first-hand experience of a subject has something that ChatGPT simply can’t reproduce independently – actual experience.

So Should We Be Using It?

Personally, I think the most sensible approach is to treat ChatGPT as a tool rather than a replacement for a writer. It’s excellent for researching subjects, suggesting article structures, identifying areas you might have overlooked and helping to overcome the occasional bout of writer’s block. It can also be useful for rewriting awkward sentences or explaining complicated concepts in simpler language.

Where I’d be more cautious is allowing it to produce entire articles with little or no human involvement, particularly if those articles are being published purely for SEO purposes. Not necessarily because Google will detect that they’re AI-generated and penalise them, but because there’s a good chance they won’t provide anything particularly original or useful.

Of course, there’s an interesting irony in all this. If Google genuinely doesn’t care how content is produced, and AI continues to improve at its current rate, we could eventually reach a point where AI-generated articles are indistinguishable from those written by humans. At that stage, does it really matter who – or what – wrote them?

For now, though, my advice would be fairly straightforward. Use ChatGPT as much as you like to assist with content creation, but make sure you understand the subject, check the facts and contribute something of your own. If the finished article is useful, accurate and genuinely worth reading, then you’ve probably got very little to worry about.

And if your entire SEO strategy consists of asking ChatGPT to generate 500 articles and uploading them straight to your website, you might want to reconsider.

This is a question that comes up time and time again with ecommerce retailers that I deal with. Often, a smaller business will start out selling products on eBay or Amazon due to the lower startup costs – you pretty much just need your inventory and a logo (not even that in some circumstances) and you can start listing your products. However, both Amazon and eBay take an average of around 15% of the final sale price for each product you sell, which can be a big chunk of profit on some products. Over time, sellers can feel understandably aggrieved at handing over so much of their profit despite spending so much time fulfilling orders.

The obvious solution would seem to be setting up your own ecommerce website and selling directly to customers, cutting out the middleman and keeping that extra 15% for yourself. After all, platforms like Shopify and WooCommerce have made it relatively straightforward to build an online shop without needing to spend thousands of pounds on bespoke development.

Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple, and there are some fairly important considerations that sellers sometimes overlook when deciding to make the move.

Where Do Your Customers Come From?

One of the biggest advantages of selling through Amazon or eBay is that they already have an enormous audience of potential customers. Millions of people visit these websites specifically because they’re looking to buy something, and many will search Amazon or eBay directly rather than going anywhere near Google.

When you list your products on these marketplaces, you’re effectively paying for access to those customers. The 15% commission might seem excessive, but consider what it would cost to attract the same customer to your own website.

Let’s say you’re selling a product for £50, and Amazon takes £7.50 in commission. That’s £7.50 you could potentially save by selling directly, but only if you can attract the customer to your website for less than that amount.

If you’re running Google Ads and paying £1 per click, with a conversion rate of 2%, you’ll need an average of 50 visitors to make one sale. That’s £50 in advertising costs to sell a £50 product, which obviously isn’t going to be sustainable.

Of course, these figures are purely illustrative, and conversion rates and advertising costs vary enormously between industries. However, the point remains that acquiring customers yourself isn’t necessarily cheaper than paying marketplace commissions.

What About SEO?

This is where having your own website can become considerably more attractive, particularly over the longer term.

Unlike paid advertising, where you’re effectively paying for every visitor, a well-optimised ecommerce website can generate traffic from Google’s organic search results without incurring an advertising cost for each click.

However, SEO isn’t free, despite how it’s sometimes described. Whether you’re paying an agency, employing somebody internally or spending your own time optimising your website, there’s still a cost involved. It can also take months, or even years, to establish strong organic rankings in a competitive market.

There’s another complication too. Search Google for almost any popular consumer product, and there’s a good chance you’ll find Amazon or eBay appearing prominently in the results. You’re effectively competing against the very marketplaces you’re considering leaving.

That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to outrank them, particularly for specialist products or more specific searches, but it’s worth understanding what you’re getting yourself into.

Owning Your Customers

There’s another important advantage to selling directly that I think is sometimes overlooked, and that’s the relationship you have with your customers.

When somebody purchases a product through Amazon or eBay, they’re primarily a customer of that marketplace. You might fulfil their order and provide excellent customer service, but your opportunities to communicate with them afterwards are restricted by the platform’s rules.

With your own website, you have considerably more control over the customer experience. You can build your brand, offer related products, encourage customers to return and, with the appropriate consent, use email marketing to communicate with them in the future.

This can make an enormous difference to profitability, particularly if you’re selling products that customers are likely to purchase repeatedly.

Returning customers are generally much cheaper to sell to than new ones, because you don’t necessarily have to pay to acquire them all over again. That initial £7.50 marketplace commission might therefore represent considerably more than just the profit lost on a single transaction.

The Costs of Running Your Own Website

Of course, operating your own ecommerce website comes with its own expenses. There’s hosting, development, maintenance, payment processing, security and potentially subscriptions for additional functionality.

You also become responsible for making sure everything works properly. If Amazon’s checkout stops working, that’s Amazon’s problem. If your own checkout stops working, it’s very much your problem.

You need to consider customer confidence too. People are generally comfortable handing over their payment details to Amazon or eBay, whereas a small, unfamiliar website might struggle to establish the same level of trust.

And while marketplaces handle much of the technical infrastructure, running your own website means dealing with things like abandoned baskets, payment failures and website performance yourself.

None of these issues are insurmountable, but they all need to be factored into the decision.

Why Not Do Both?

Personally, I think this is often the most sensible approach, particularly for smaller businesses that are already generating a reasonable volume of sales through marketplaces.

Rather than abandoning Amazon or eBay entirely, why not continue using them to acquire new customers while gradually building up your own website?

You can start investing in SEO, building your brand and experimenting with paid advertising without putting your existing revenue at risk. Over time, you might find that direct sales become considerably more profitable, particularly as your organic traffic and repeat customer base increase.

There’s no reason why the two approaches can’t complement each other, provided you’re careful to comply with marketplace rules around customer communication and directing transactions away from their platforms.

Ultimately, I think the mistake is assuming that marketplace commissions are simply money being thrown away. In reality, you’re paying for access to an established audience, a trusted platform and much of the infrastructure required to sell online.

The question isn’t really whether Amazon’s 15% is too expensive. It’s whether you can generate the same sales, at the same or lower cost, through your own website.

If you can, fantastic. If you can’t, that 15% might actually be quite good value.

One of the most common problems faced by small businesses when it comes to digital marketing is knowing where to spend their money. While larger organisations might have thousands of pounds available each month for Google Ads, social media campaigns and SEO agencies, smaller businesses often have to make do with considerably less. Sometimes, there’s no marketing budget at all, and the responsibility falls to the business owner to somehow attract customers without spending any money.

Fortunately, one of the great things about online marketing is that you don’t necessarily need an enormous budget to achieve worthwhile results. In fact, some of the most effective things you can do to improve your website’s visibility cost absolutely nothing, other than a bit of your time.

Of course, that doesn’t mean they’ll be easy, or that you’ll suddenly find yourself at the top of Google overnight. However, if you’re willing to put in a little effort, there are quite a few opportunities worth exploring before you start spending money on advertising.

Start With Your Website

This might sound obvious, but before spending time trying to attract more visitors, it’s worth making sure your website is actually doing its job properly.

I’ve come across plenty of businesses that are desperate to increase their website traffic, despite having a website that makes it unnecessarily difficult for customers to get in touch or buy anything. There’s little point spending £500 attracting potential customers if most of them leave because they can’t find your telephone number.

Make sure your website works properly on mobile devices, loads reasonably quickly and clearly explains what your business does. Your contact details should be easy to find, and if you’re selling products online, the checkout process should be as straightforward as possible.

These might seem like relatively minor improvements, but increasing the percentage of visitors who become customers can be just as valuable as attracting more visitors in the first place.

Take Advantage of Free Google Tools

If you haven’t already done so, one of the first things I’d recommend is setting up Google Search Console. This free tool provides information about how your website performs in Google’s search results, including which searches generate impressions and clicks, and whether Google is having difficulty accessing any of your pages.

It’s particularly useful for identifying opportunities where your website is already appearing in search results but isn’t quite ranking highly enough to attract much traffic.

Google Analytics is another useful tool, allowing you to see where your visitors come from and how they interact with your website. Although the transition to Google Analytics 4 last year wasn’t particularly popular with everyone, the platform remains free and provides a huge amount of useful information.

If you’re a local business, you should also make sure you’ve claimed and completed your Google Business Profile. This is what allows eligible businesses to appear prominently in Google Maps and local search results, and it’s surprising how many still haven’t made the most of it.

SEO Doesn’t Have to Be Expensive

Search engine optimisation is sometimes treated as something that can only be carried out by specialist agencies charging thousands of pounds a month. While there’s certainly a place for professional SEO services, there are also plenty of straightforward improvements that business owners can make themselves.

Start by looking at the content on your website. Does each page clearly describe the products or services you’re offering? Are you using the words and phrases that potential customers are likely to search for?

For example, if you’re a plumber in Worcester, having a page that actually mentions plumbing services in Worcester is probably more useful than a homepage full of vague statements about delivering excellence and exceeding expectations.

You should also consider creating useful content that answers questions your customers frequently ask. Not only can this help your website appear for a wider range of searches, but it also demonstrates that you understand your subject.

The important thing is to write for your customers rather than trying to cram as many keywords into each page as possible.

Don’t Overlook Social Media

Social media is another obvious option for businesses with limited budgets, although I’d be cautious about trying to establish a presence on every platform.

There’s little point spending hours creating content for Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok and X if your customers only use one or two of them.

Instead, think about where your target audience is most likely to be and concentrate your efforts there. A business selling consumer products might find Instagram or Facebook particularly useful, whereas a company offering professional services to other businesses could achieve better results through LinkedIn.

It’s also worth remembering that social media doesn’t have to consist entirely of promotional posts. Sharing useful advice, answering questions and demonstrating your expertise can be considerably more effective than constantly telling people how wonderful your products are.

What About Paid Advertising?

You might assume that Google Ads is completely out of the question if you’re working with a limited budget, but that isn’t necessarily the case.

The important thing is to be selective. Rather than trying to compete for broad, expensive keywords, consider targeting more specific searches that indicate somebody is ready to buy.

For example, advertising for ‘shoes’ could be extremely expensive and attract all sorts of irrelevant traffic, whereas targeting a particular brand, model and size might generate fewer clicks but a much higher proportion of potential customers.

You should also make sure you’re tracking enquiries or sales properly. Without conversion tracking, it’s very difficult to establish whether your advertising is actually generating a return.

I’d much rather see a business spending £200 a month on a tightly focused campaign that generates profitable enquiries than £2,000 attracting visitors who never become customers.

Time Is Money Too

There’s one final consideration that’s worth mentioning, and that’s the value of your own time.

It’s easy to describe SEO, content marketing and social media as free, but if you’re spending ten hours a week working on them, those hours have a value. Depending on your business, you might be better off concentrating on what you do best and paying somebody else to handle the marketing.

Ultimately, successful web marketing isn’t necessarily about spending the most money. It’s about understanding your customers, identifying the channels most likely to reach them and making the best use of whatever resources you have available.

Start with the basics, measure what works and gradually invest more time or money in the activities that generate results – you might be surprised how much you can achieve without spending a fortune.

The idea of starting your own business is something that appeals to a lot of people, but actually taking the plunge and giving up a regular salary to pursue it is another matter entirely. Fortunately, thanks to the internet, it’s now perfectly possible to start a small ecommerce business in your spare time without having to hand in your notice or invest your life savings in stock.

In fact, setting up an online shop has become so straightforward that you can realistically go from having an idea to selling your first product in a matter of days. Whether you’ll actually make any money is, of course, another question entirely.

Having worked in ecommerce and digital marketing for a considerable number of years, I’ve seen plenty of businesses succeed and fail online, and one thing I’ve learned is that building the website is usually the easy part. Finding something people want to buy, and getting them to buy it from you rather than somebody else, is where things become interesting.

What Are You Going to Sell?

Before worrying about websites, logos or business names, you need to decide what you’re actually going to sell. This might sound obvious, but it’s probably the most important decision you’ll make.

There are several different approaches you could take. You might buy products wholesale and resell them at a profit, manufacture something yourself, sell handmade products or even use a dropshipping supplier who dispatches orders directly to your customers.

Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages. Buying stock in bulk can offer better profit margins, but it also means tying up money in products that might never sell. Dropshipping removes much of that risk, although margins are often smaller and you’re relying on somebody else to fulfil orders correctly.

Personally, I’d be inclined to start with something you already know a little about. If you’re interested in a particular hobby, for example, you’ll probably have a better understanding of what enthusiasts are looking for than somebody who has simply identified a supposedly profitable product on YouTube.

You’ll also need to do some research into your potential competitors. If Amazon sells exactly the same product for less than you can buy it wholesale, you’re going to struggle.

Where Should You Sell Your Products?

Once you’ve decided what to sell, the next question is where to sell it.

The simplest option is probably an established marketplace such as eBay, Amazon or Etsy. These platforms already attract millions of potential customers, and you can start listing products without having to build or maintain your own website.

The downside is that you’ll generally pay commission on each sale, and you’ll have relatively little control over the overall customer experience.

Alternatively, you could set up your own ecommerce website using something like Shopify or WooCommerce. Both are perfectly capable of running a small online shop, although they work rather differently.

Shopify is a hosted service, meaning much of the technical side is taken care of for you in return for a monthly subscription. WooCommerce is a WordPress plugin that’s free to install, but you’ll need hosting and potentially some paid extensions.

If you’re just testing an idea, I’d probably start with a marketplace rather than spending weeks building a website. There’s little point investing heavily in an online shop before you’ve established whether anybody actually wants your products.

Work Out Your Profit Margins

This is where I think a lot of people get caught out, particularly when they’re first starting out.

Let’s say you find a supplier offering a product for £10, and you think you can sell it for £20. That sounds like a reasonable profit, doesn’t it?

Unfortunately, you’ve still got to account for delivery, packaging, payment processing fees, marketplace commissions and potentially advertising.

If those costs add up to £7, you’re left with just £3 profit on a £20 sale, before considering tax, returns or the time you’ve spent processing the order.

And if you’re spending £5 on Google Ads to generate each sale, you’re actually losing money.

Before buying any stock, I’d recommend putting together a simple spreadsheet showing exactly how much each sale will cost you, including the less obvious expenses. You might discover that your seemingly profitable business idea isn’t quite as attractive as you first thought.

How Will People Find You?

Assuming you’ve got a product and somewhere to sell it, you’ll need to think about marketing.

If you’re selling through Amazon or eBay, you’ll benefit from their existing customer base, although competition can be fierce. Good product photography, accurate descriptions and competitive pricing are essential.

If you’ve built your own website, you’ll have to attract visitors yourself. Search engine optimisation can be an excellent long-term strategy, but it generally takes time to produce results, particularly for a completely new website.

Paid advertising through Google or Facebook can generate traffic much more quickly, although you’ll need to be careful that your advertising costs don’t wipe out your profit margins.

Social media can also be useful, particularly if you’re selling unusual, handmade or visually appealing products. However, don’t assume that posting a few pictures on Instagram will automatically result in hundreds of orders.

I’d suggest concentrating on one or two marketing channels initially, rather than trying to do everything at once.

Don’t Forget the Boring Stuff

Unfortunately, running an ecommerce business involves more than simply buying products and posting parcels.

You’ll need to understand your obligations around consumer rights, returns and product safety, particularly if you’re selling to customers in the UK. Online customers generally have a legal right to cancel many purchases within 14 days of receiving their goods, although there are exceptions.

You’ll also need to keep records of your income and expenses. In the UK, there’s a £1,000 annual trading allowance, but importantly, that’s based on gross trading income rather than profit. If your trading income exceeds that amount, you’ll generally need to register for Self Assessment.

You can find more information on the HMRC website.

If your business really takes off, there’s also VAT to consider, with the compulsory registration threshold having increased to £90,000 in April this year.

Start Small and See What Happens

My advice would be to avoid spending too much money until you’ve proved that your idea works.

You don’t necessarily need an expensive website, professional branding or hundreds of products. Start with a handful of items, see whether you can sell them profitably and gradually reinvest what you earn.

One of the advantages of running an ecommerce business alongside a full-time job is that you’re not relying on it to pay the bills, which gives you the freedom to experiment without quite so much pressure.

Of course, you might eventually reach the point where your little side hustle is generating enough income to become your main source of employment.

Or you might end up with a spare bedroom full of unsold stock.

Either way, I’d suggest finding out which before you give up the day job.

If you’ve worked in SEO or digital marketing for any length of time, you’ll probably be aware of just how dominant Google has become. For most businesses, appearing prominently in Google’s search results can make the difference between a successful website and one that receives virtually no visitors, and Google’s advertising platform has become an almost essential part of many companies’ marketing strategies.

However, Google’s dominance is now being challenged in the US courts, with the Department of Justice accusing the company of illegally maintaining a monopoly over the search engine market.

The trial, which began in September 2023, concluded with closing arguments last month, and although we’re still waiting for a verdict, some of the information that’s emerged has been particularly interesting, especially for those of us who work with Google’s products every day.

Google Pays an Awful Lot to Be Your Default Search Engine

Perhaps the most surprising revelation is just how much Google spends ensuring that its search engine is the default option on smartphones and web browsers.

According to evidence presented during the trial, Google paid more than $26 billion in 2021 to companies including Apple, Samsung and various other partners to secure its position as the default search engine on their devices and software.

Even more remarkably, documents revealed that Google paid Apple approximately $20 billion in 2022 alone, primarily for making Google the default search engine in Safari.

That’s an extraordinary amount of money when you consider that people can simply change their default search engine in their browser settings.

Of course, the reason Google is willing to spend so much is that most people never actually bother changing those settings. If Google is already there when somebody starts using their new phone, there’s a good chance they’ll continue using it indefinitely.

The Department of Justice argues that these agreements make it almost impossible for competitors to establish themselves, regardless of how good their search engines might be.

Google, on the other hand, maintains that companies choose its search engine because it’s the best available, and that users are perfectly capable of switching to Bing or another alternative if they want to.

I suspect there’s some truth in both arguments, but spending $20 billion a year to remain Apple’s default search engine certainly suggests that Google considers that position rather valuable.

Is Google Really That Much Better Than Bing?

One of the central questions raised during the trial is whether Google’s dominance is primarily the result of having a better product, or whether its commercial agreements make it unnecessarily difficult for competitors to gain market share.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testified that Google’s position as the default search engine on so many devices provides an enormous competitive advantage, particularly because the volume of searches Google processes gives it access to data that can help improve its results.

This creates something of a cycle. The more people use Google, the more data it collects, potentially allowing it to improve its search engine and making it even more difficult for competitors to catch up.

However, Google argues that its dominance isn’t simply down to distribution agreements. The company has invested billions in developing its search technology, and there’s no guarantee that people would continue using a competitor simply because it was installed as their default.

For what it’s worth, I think Google generally still produces better search results than Bing, although the difference isn’t necessarily as enormous as it once was.

But that’s hardly the point. A competitor shouldn’t necessarily have to be significantly better than Google just to stand a reasonable chance of attracting customers.

What About Google’s Advertising Business?

Another particularly interesting aspect of the trial concerns Google’s search advertising business, which generates an enormous proportion of the company’s revenue.

The Department of Justice argues that Google’s dominance allows it to increase advertising prices without facing the competitive pressure that would exist in a more balanced market.

This is potentially significant for businesses that rely heavily on Google Ads.

Unlike traditional advertising, where you might agree to pay a fixed amount for an advertisement, Google Ads generally operates through an auction system, with advertisers competing for visibility against other businesses targeting similar searches.

Google has considerable control over how these auctions operate, including the factors that determine which advertisements appear and how much advertisers pay.

The trial has raised questions about whether Google has used that control to increase revenue, although Google disputes the suggestion that its advertising practices are anticompetitive.

Having managed Google Ads campaigns for many years, I’m particularly interested in this aspect of the case. Advertising costs can have an enormous impact on the profitability of a business, and even relatively small increases in the average cost per click can make certain campaigns financially unviable.

Could Google Actually Be Broken Up?

Although the trial has generated plenty of headlines, it’s important to remember that Google hasn’t actually been found guilty of anything yet.

The case is being heard by Judge Amit Mehta, who now has to decide whether Google’s agreements and business practices amount to unlawful monopolisation under US antitrust law.

If the court rules against Google, there could potentially be significant consequences, ranging from restrictions on its default search agreements to more substantial changes to the way the business operates.

There has even been speculation about whether Google could ultimately be forced to separate parts of its business, although we’re a considerable distance from anything like that happening.

And even if Google loses, I’d expect the company to challenge any particularly significant ruling through the appeals process.

What Does This Mean for SEO?

From an SEO perspective, I don’t think there’s any reason to start panicking just yet.

Regardless of the outcome, Google isn’t suddenly going to disappear, and it’s likely to remain the dominant search engine for the foreseeable future.

However, the trial does raise some interesting questions about how dependent businesses have become on a single company for their website traffic.

If changes to Google’s commercial agreements eventually result in more people using alternative search engines, businesses might need to pay considerably more attention to platforms they’ve historically overlooked.

Personally, I’d welcome a little more competition in the search engine market. Google has produced some fantastic technology over the years, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it should enjoy such an overwhelming advantage indefinitely.

Whether the courts agree remains to be seen.

It’s been just over 18 months since Elon Musk completed his $44 billion takeover of Twitter, and I think it’s fair to say that things haven’t exactly gone smoothly. What was once one of the world’s most recognisable social media platforms has undergone a series of enormous changes, from mass redundancies and controversial policy decisions to the rather bizarre decision to throw away one of the most recognisable brands on the internet.

And yet, despite all this, Twitter (or X, as we’re apparently supposed to call it now) is still very much alive, with millions of people continuing to use it every day.

So what’s actually going on, and where does Musk intend to take it?

The Takeover

When Musk first announced his intention to buy Twitter in April 2022, the reaction was understandably mixed. Some people welcomed the prospect of one of the world’s richest men taking control of a platform he claimed had become too restrictive of free speech, while others were concerned about what his approach to content moderation might mean.

The acquisition itself was something of a soap opera, with Musk initially agreeing to buy the company, attempting to back out of the deal, and eventually completing the purchase in October 2022 after Twitter took legal action to enforce the agreement.

Almost immediately, things began to change. Thousands of employees were made redundant, including many involved in content moderation and platform security, while Musk introduced a series of new policies that appeared to change almost as quickly as they were announced.

To be fair, Twitter wasn’t exactly a hugely profitable business before the takeover, and reducing costs was always likely to be part of Musk’s strategy. However, the speed and apparent unpredictability of the changes left plenty of people wondering whether there was actually a coherent plan behind them.

Why on Earth Did He Change the Name?

Perhaps the strangest decision came in July 2023, when Musk announced that Twitter would be rebranded as X, replacing the familiar blue bird logo with a rather uninspiring black and white letter.

From a marketing perspective, I find this absolutely fascinating.

Twitter had spent almost two decades establishing an incredibly recognisable brand. Its name had even entered everyday language, with people talking about tweeting something in much the same way they might talk about Googling something.

Most businesses would spend an enormous amount of money trying to achieve that level of brand recognition, yet Musk seemingly decided to discard it overnight.

The reasoning, apparently, is that he wants X to become an ‘everything app’, similar to China’s WeChat, combining social media, messaging, payments, shopping and various other services into a single platform.

It’s certainly an ambitious idea, although whether Western consumers actually want an application that does absolutely everything is another matter.

Personally, I’m not convinced that replacing such an established brand was necessary to achieve this, particularly when most people I speak to still refer to the platform as Twitter anyway.

Paying for a Blue Tick

Another major change has been the introduction of paid subscriptions, particularly the decision to allow users to purchase the famous blue verification tick.

Previously, the tick was primarily used to indicate that an account belonged to a notable person or organisation whose identity had been verified. It wasn’t a perfect system, but it provided some reassurance that you were looking at an authentic account.

Under Musk’s new approach, the blue tick is largely associated with X Premium, a subscription service offering additional features, including longer posts, editing capabilities and increased visibility in certain parts of the platform.

I can understand the commercial reasoning behind this. Twitter traditionally relied heavily on advertising revenue, so introducing subscription income could potentially make the business less dependent on advertisers.

However, it also rather undermines the original purpose of verification. If almost anybody can pay for a blue tick, it becomes considerably less useful as a way of identifying credible accounts.

The initial rollout demonstrated this problem rather spectacularly, with impersonators purchasing verification badges and pretending to represent major companies.

What Happened to the Advertisers?

Perhaps the biggest problem facing X is its relationship with advertisers.

In July 2023, Musk admitted that Twitter had lost approximately half of its advertising revenue following the takeover, and the situation hasn’t been helped by ongoing concerns about content moderation and brand safety.

Several major advertisers have suspended or reduced their spending on the platform, concerned about their advertisements appearing alongside offensive or controversial material.

Musk has argued that advertisers shouldn’t be able to dictate what people are allowed to say, which raises an interesting question about how a platform can promote freedom of expression while simultaneously relying on businesses that understandably want to protect their reputations.

From a digital marketing perspective, this presents something of a dilemma. X still has a substantial audience, and for certain businesses it can be an effective way of communicating directly with customers. However, declining advertiser confidence and uncertainty about the platform’s direction make it harder to recommend without reservations.

Is There Anything Positive Happening?

Despite all the controversy, it’s not entirely doom and gloom.

Musk has introduced several new features, including longer posts, improved video functionality and the integration of Grok, an AI chatbot developed by his artificial intelligence company, xAI.

There’s also been a greater emphasis on allowing users to monetise their content, potentially encouraging creators to remain on the platform rather than moving elsewhere.

Whether these improvements outweigh the more controversial changes is debatable, but it’s clear that Musk isn’t simply attempting to maintain Twitter as it existed before the takeover.

Meanwhile, competitors such as Meta’s Threads and the decentralised platform Bluesky are attempting to attract users looking for alternatives, although neither has yet established itself as an obvious replacement for Twitter.

Where Does It Go From Here?

I think the biggest question is whether Musk can turn X into something that people genuinely want to use, rather than simply changing things because he can.

His track record with Tesla and SpaceX demonstrates that he’s capable of pursuing ambitious ideas that initially seem unrealistic, but running a social media platform presents very different challenges.

Unlike manufacturing cars or launching rockets, the success of a social network depends heavily on its users, advertisers and the communities that develop around it. If too many of those people decide to leave, even the most technically impressive platform could struggle.

For businesses, I certainly wouldn’t suggest abandoning X entirely, particularly if you’ve already established an engaged audience there

If you’ve ever managed a Google Ads account, there’s a good chance you’ve received a phone call from somebody claiming to be your dedicated Google account manager, offering to help improve the performance of your advertising campaigns. On the face of it, this sounds like a fantastic service. After all, who better to advise you on how to get the most out of Google Ads than Google themselves?

Unfortunately, having dealt with quite a few of these account managers over the years, I’ve become increasingly sceptical about just how useful their advice actually is.

In fact, I’d go as far as to suggest that some of the recommendations they make could actually leave advertisers considerably worse off, particularly if they’re managing their own campaigns without much experience of digital marketing.

What Does a Google Account Manager Actually Do?

Google offers certain advertisers access to account representatives who can review their campaigns, suggest improvements and introduce new features. Depending on the account, these representatives might work directly for Google or for an external company contracted to provide support on Google’s behalf.

In theory, their job is to help you improve your advertising performance, which should be beneficial to both parties. If your campaigns generate more sales or enquiries, you’re presumably going to continue spending money with Google.

However, there’s an obvious conflict of interest here. Google makes its money when advertisers spend money on advertising, whereas most advertisers are trying to generate the greatest possible return while spending as little as they reasonably can.

Those two objectives aren’t necessarily incompatible, but they’re certainly not the same thing.

And this is where I think some of the advice being given by Google’s representatives needs to be treated with caution.

The Obsession with Optimisation Scores

One thing I’ve noticed is the increasing emphasis Google places on something called the ‘optimisation score’, which is a percentage displayed within your Google Ads account indicating how closely your campaigns follow Google’s recommendations.

The idea is straightforward enough. Google analyses your campaigns, identifies potential improvements and assigns a score between 0% and 100%.

However, the problem is that a higher optimisation score doesn’t necessarily mean your campaigns are generating more profit.

For example, Google might recommend increasing your daily budget, introducing additional keywords or switching to a different bidding strategy. Accepting those recommendations could improve your optimisation score, but that doesn’t automatically mean your actual business results will improve.

Interestingly, you can also increase your score by dismissing recommendations you don’t want to implement, which rather undermines the idea that the percentage represents an objective measurement of performance.

Personally, I’d much rather have an account with an optimisation score of 70% that generates profitable enquiries than one scoring 100% that wastes half its advertising budget.

Broad Match Keywords and Automated Bidding

Another area where Google seems particularly keen to encourage changes is keyword matching.

Historically, advertisers have been able to exercise considerable control over which searches trigger their advertisements. Exact match and phrase match keywords offer ways of restricting which searches can trigger ads, whereas broad match allows Google considerably more freedom to interpret the user’s intentions.

Google argues that broad match, particularly when combined with automated bidding, can identify relevant searches that advertisers might otherwise overlook.

And to be fair, there are circumstances where this works extremely well.

However, I’ve also seen how easily broad match can attract irrelevant traffic, particularly when the products or services being advertised have several different meanings or applications.

If you’re paying several pounds per click, it doesn’t take many irrelevant visitors to make a noticeable difference to your advertising costs.

This is why I’m uncomfortable with the idea of account managers encouraging advertisers to switch everything to broad match without first understanding their business, conversion tracking and existing campaign performance.

The same applies to automated bidding strategies. Google’s algorithms can be extremely effective when they’re provided with sufficient conversion data, but blindly switching to automation isn’t necessarily going to improve an account that’s already performing well.

Performance Max – Is It Really the Answer to Everything?

More recently, Google has been heavily promoting Performance Max campaigns, which allow advertisers to run advertisements across multiple Google properties, including Search, YouTube, Display, Discover, Gmail and Maps.

Rather than managing individual campaigns for each channel, advertisers provide their objectives, creative assets and other information, and Google’s systems decide where and when their advertisements should appear.

Again, there’s nothing inherently wrong with this approach. Performance Max can produce excellent results, particularly for ecommerce businesses with well-configured product feeds and accurate conversion tracking.

However, one of the disadvantages is the reduced level of visibility and control compared with more traditional campaign types.

As an advertiser, I generally want to understand where my money is being spent and which activities are generating results. Handing more of those decisions over to Google’s algorithms can make that considerably more difficult.

I certainly wouldn’t suggest that Performance Max should be avoided, but neither would I recommend switching to it simply because your Google account manager thinks it’s a good idea.

Be Careful with Automatic Recommendations

Something else worth checking is whether you’ve enabled Google’s automatically applied recommendations.

This feature allows Google Ads to make certain changes to your account without requiring you to approve each one individually.

Depending on which recommendations you’ve enabled, these changes can include adding keywords, adjusting targeting or making changes to your bidding configuration.

While this might save time, it also means potentially significant decisions are being made without anybody checking whether they make sense for your particular business.

I’d strongly recommend reviewing these settings, particularly if somebody else has previously helped configure your account.

You can find them within the Recommendations section of Google Ads.

Remember Who You’re Paying

I don’t want to suggest that every Google account manager gives bad advice, because that certainly isn’t the case. Some are knowledgeable, helpful and genuinely interested in improving campaign performance.

However, I do think advertisers need to remember that these representatives work for Google, not for them.

If you’re employing a digital marketing agency or managing campaigns internally, the objective should ultimately be to generate profitable business results, rather than simply increase traffic, conversions or advertising expenditure.

Google’s recommendations should be treated as suggestions worth investigating, not instructions that need to be followed.

If an account manager recommends increasing your budget, ask why. If they suggest switching bidding strategies, ask what evidence supports the change. And if they insist that accepting their recommendations will improve performance, ask them exactly how they intend to measure that improvement.

Ultimately, you know your business better than Google does, and you’re the one paying the advertising bill.

Don’t allow yourself to be pressured into making changes you’re not comfortable with, particularly when your existing campaigns are already delivering the results you need.

After all, Google isn’t going to refund your advertising budget if their recommendations turn out to be wrong.

I’ve been using Facebook for quite a few years now, and while it’s never exactly been free from advertising, I’ve noticed something rather strange happening to my news feed recently. What was once primarily a collection of updates from friends, family and pages I’d chosen to follow now seems to consist largely of advertisements, suggested posts and recommendations to join Facebook groups I’ve never even heard of.

In fact, sometimes I can scroll through several posts without seeing anything from somebody I’m actually friends with.

Now, I’m well aware that Facebook is a business, and that advertising is how Meta makes most of its money. Having worked in digital marketing for the best part of two decades, I’m hardly going to complain about the existence of online advertising. However, there does seem to have been a noticeable shift in the balance between the content people actually want to see and the content Facebook would prefer them to look at.

So what’s going on?

Facebook Is Showing More Advertisements

Firstly, it’s not necessarily your imagination that you’re seeing more advertisements. According to Meta’s financial results, the number of advertising impressions delivered across its family of applications increased by 28% during 2023, compared with the previous year.

That doesn’t mean every individual Facebook user saw 28% more advertisements, as the figures include Instagram and Meta’s other advertising properties, but it certainly suggests that the company has been finding more opportunities to display ads.

Interestingly, while the number of advertising impressions increased, the average price advertisers paid actually fell by 9% over the same period.

From a commercial perspective, this makes perfect sense. If Meta can display more advertisements without significantly reducing the amount of time people spend using its platforms, it can generate additional revenue even if advertisers are paying slightly less for each impression.

However, there’s presumably a limit to how far this can go before people start finding the experience sufficiently irritating that they stop using Facebook altogether.

What’s with All the Suggested Groups?

The other change I’ve noticed is the sheer number of suggested posts and groups appearing in my feed.

These aren’t necessarily advertisements in the traditional sense. Instead, Facebook’s algorithms are recommending content from people, pages and groups that you don’t currently follow, based on what it thinks you might find interesting.

Meta has been moving in this direction for some time. In 2023, the company revealed that more than 20% of the content appearing in Facebook and Instagram feeds was being recommended by artificial intelligence from accounts or groups that users hadn’t chosen to follow.

The idea is that Facebook can introduce you to interesting content you might otherwise never discover, encouraging you to spend more time using the platform.

In principle, there’s nothing particularly wrong with that. I’ve occasionally come across interesting groups or pages that I probably wouldn’t have found otherwise.

However, the recommendations can also be spectacularly irrelevant.

I’ve seen suggestions for groups discussing subjects I’ve shown absolutely no interest in, posts from people I’ve never heard of and seemingly endless collections of recycled memes that have little connection to anything I actually use Facebook for.

There’s also an important distinction between a sponsored post and a suggested one. Sponsored content is advertising that somebody has paid Meta to display, whereas suggested content is generally selected by Facebook’s recommendation algorithms. Some advertisers can also pay to promote Facebook groups, but not every group recommendation is a paid advertisement.

The problem is that, from the user’s perspective, both types of content can feel like unwanted interruptions.

Why Is Facebook Doing This?

I suspect there are two main reasons behind these changes.

The first is obviously financial. Meta generated almost $135 billion in revenue during 2023, with the overwhelming majority coming from advertising. Keeping users engaged and finding additional places to display advertisements are therefore enormously important to the business.

The second reason is competition, particularly from TikTok.

Unlike Facebook’s original approach of primarily showing content from people you’ve chosen to connect with, TikTok’s recommendation system is designed to show you videos it thinks you’ll enjoy, regardless of whether you follow the creator.

This has proved incredibly successful, and Meta has clearly been trying to incorporate some of the same principles into Facebook and Instagram.

Rather than simply being a social network connecting friends and family, Facebook increasingly appears to be positioning itself as a platform for discovering content from across the internet.

The question is whether that’s actually what its users want.

What Does This Mean for Businesses?

From a digital marketing perspective, there are some interesting implications.

For businesses that rely on Facebook to communicate with their customers, the increasing emphasis on recommended content could potentially provide opportunities to reach people who have never previously encountered their brand.

However, it also means competing against an enormous amount of other content for attention.

Simply building up thousands of followers on your Facebook page doesn’t guarantee that those people will actually see what you publish. Facebook has been restricting the organic reach of business pages for years, and the increasing emphasis on algorithmically recommended content only makes the situation more complicated.

Paid advertising remains an effective way of reaching specific audiences, but businesses need to be careful about assuming that more advertising impressions automatically translate into better results.

If users are becoming increasingly frustrated by the amount of promotional content appearing in their feeds, there’s a possibility they’ll simply become better at ignoring it.

Can You Do Anything About It?

Fortunately, there are a few things you can do if you’re finding the changes irritating.

Facebook has a Feeds section that allows you to view more recent posts from friends, pages and groups you follow, without the same emphasis on suggested content found in the main Home feed. Unfortunately, it doesn’t eliminate advertising altogether.

You can also hide individual suggested posts, indicate that you’re not interested in particular content and adjust your advertising preferences.

However, none of these options really restores Facebook to the relatively straightforward social network it used to be.

Personally, I think Facebook needs to be careful about how aggressively it pursues additional advertising revenue and engagement. There’s clearly a commercial incentive to keep people scrolling for as long as possible, but that shouldn’t come at the expense of the very thing that made the platform popular in the first place.

After all, if I wanted to spend my time looking at posts from complete strangers, I’d probably be using something other than Facebook.