Google Signals “New Reality” as Search Engine Struggles, Critics Claim Revenue Over Quality Focus

Google’s search division is entering a “new operating reality” characterized by constrained resources and growing competition. The tech giant aims to accelerate its responsiveness by tightening project deadlines.

However, critics suggest that under the leadership of Prabhakar Raghavan, Google’s search quality has declined, with allegations that revenue generation is prioritized over providing high-quality results.

According to a CNBC report, Google’s Senior Vice President overseeing Search, Prabhakar Raghavan, recently informed employees that the company’s search division is confronting a “new operating reality” with reduced resources.

This announcement arrives as concerns over declining revenue and user engagement with Google’s core search product grow. In recent quarters, the company has experienced slower-than-anticipated growth in search queries and reduced user interaction. These trends raise uncertainties for SEO professionals and website owners, prompting questions about how these changes might affect their strategies and online visibility.

Google Issues Warning to Employees

At an all-hands meeting last month, Prabhakar Raghavan, the Senior Vice President responsible for Google’s Search, Ads, Maps, and Commerce divisions, acknowledged a shift away from the tech giant’s previous dominance in the industry.

Speaking to a crowd of over 25,000 employees, Raghavan reportedly stated:

“I think we can agree that things aren’t like they were 15-20 years ago—things have changed.” He pointed to heightened competition and a more challenging regulatory landscape as reasons behind Google’s need for increased adaptability. While he didn’t name specific competitors, Google feels the heat from companies like Microsoft and OpenAI in the rapidly changing field of generative artificial intelligence.

Raghavan emphasized that despite new entrants in the market, Google’s reputation for trust remains a critical advantage: “People come to us because we are trusted. There might be new gadgets out there that people like to play with, but they still come to Google to verify what they see because we’re a trusted source, and that becomes even more crucial in this era of generative AI.”

To boost the company’s agility, Raghavan announced plans to shorten project deadlines for his direct reports, saying:

“There’s something to be learned from faster-twitch, shorter-wavelength execution.”

Google Search: From Principles to Profit Machine?

Some critics suggest that Google’s current search engine struggles result from internal leadership missteps and skewed priorities rather than solely external market factors.

Industry analyst Edward Zitron, in an opinion piece, presents a controversial perspective on what ails Google Search. He argues that under the leadership of former ad executive Prabhakar Raghavan, Google deliberately compromised its search quality to boost revenue.

Citing internal Google emails from 2019, Zitron claims that Raghavan, then the head of Google’s Ads division, led a “Code Yellow” emergency mobilization when search revenue fell short of expectations. To address this, Zitron alleges, Google relaxed critical quality safeguards to increase engagement metrics—such as promoting sites that had previously been downgraded due to spamming practices.

Zitron wrote, “The emails tell a dramatic story of how Google’s finance and advertising teams, under Raghavan’s leadership and with the approval of CEO Sundar Pichai, actively degraded Google Search in pursuit of higher revenue.”

Zitron portrays this as a departure from Google’s original ethos, suggesting that the leadership team ignored the company’s foundational mission of delivering high-quality search results. He argues that this shift paved the way for Raghavan’s promotion to Senior Vice President of Search in 2020. This move reportedly met resistance from long-time search chief Ben Gomes, who was reassigned after almost two decades of improving Google Search.

Zitron’s report claims: “Gomes, a key member of the original team that made Google Search effective, was sidelined by a revenue-driven leadership team led by Prabhakar Raghavan, a management consultant in engineer’s clothing.”

Under Raghavan’s tenure, Zitron contends, the search engine has become progressively “less reliable,” “less transparent,” and inundated with low-quality content designed to rank well rather than provide meaningful information to users.

Implications for SEO Professionals & Site Owners

For website owners and SEO professionals who monitor Google’s every move, the internal tension within the company indicates the ongoing challenge of adapting to Google’s changing search priorities. Sudden changes to search algorithms, whether driven by revenue considerations or philosophical shifts, could significantly impact current SEO strategies.

Raghavan’s remarks about embracing a “new operating reality” with shorter timelines suggest that Google Search might start implementing updates more frequently. This means SEO professionals and site owners need to be more agile and prepared to adjust their strategies swiftly as Google evolves.

The heightened scrutiny on Google underscores the potential risks and rewards involved in significant changes to its search algorithms and ranking systems. As Google explores new directions, balancing innovation with high search quality will be crucial. How Google manages this balance could shape the future of search engine optimization and online visibility.

Google’s Response

Google addressed the allegations raised in Zitron’s article by providing the following response to Search Engine Journal:

Regarding the March 2019 core update claim: “This is baseless speculation. The March 2019 core update was designed to improve the quality of our search results, as all core updates are intended to do. It is incorrect to suggest that it rolled back our quality or anti-spam protections, which we have developed over many years and continue to refine.”

Google reiterated that its advertising systems do not influence its organic search results.

Relevant testimony from the DOJ trial provides further context:

Ben Gomes’ testimony: “From my perspective, using queries as a measure of growth has always been tricky. There are changes that can be made that reduce the number of queries but are good for users. So, I never liked using pure query counts as a growth metric, but we also needed to agree on the appropriate metric. This was a discussion about finding the right growth metric.”

“The focus on just queries is not an effective measure for optimization… Like the search team, Ads aim for long-term user engagement.”

“We were dedicating significant efforts to ideas that could improve user satisfaction and search usage, and these goals are not necessarily in conflict.”

“We cannot grow the number of queries unless we improve search quality.”

Jerry Dischler’s testimony: Q: “Do you agree that the search and ads teams are working together to accelerate monetization velocity?” A: “The ads team would be focused on monetization velocity, while the search team’s role in this would be limited to informing the ads team about any research developments.”

Regarding “church and state separation”: “The organic search team does not use data from the ads team to influence its ranking or results. The organic team operates independently.”

If you need clarification, explore our monthly SEO packages and let our experts handle the details.