Google has been taking a lot of heat for placing Google Flight Search results above all organic results, but although Bing has largely flown under the radar, it takes preferencing even a step further than Google does.
If you merely enter “JFK to LA” into the Bing search box, then Bing’s auto-suggest feature produces its own Bing Travel result as the first suggested query, like this:
And, if you select that first link, as many users would, it takes you directly to Bing Travel — and thus it bypasses all other sponsored and organic results on the traditional Bing search results page.
Even Google, which has been lambasted by critics, including some US Senators, for the preferential and self-serving way it handles flight search, doesn’t go as far as Bing does in skewing flight results in its own favor.
If you enter “JFK to LAX” into the Google search box, Google Instant immediately produces Google Flight Search results above all organic results, but at least Google also shows organic results on the first screen from Kayak and Expedia, for example. Google handles the flight query like this:
If Bing users ignore the auto-suggestion of navigating directly to Bing Travel and select the “JFK to LAX” query, then Bing displays Bing Travel results as an Instant Answer (as it does for shopping, local, movies, weather and stock quotes) above all other organic results.
Bing’s Instant Answer for flights is similar in some ways to Google’s Flight Search results on their respective search results pages, although Google’s offering is tilted much heavier toward airline websites than is the Bing Travel solution.
Bing Travel flights, which is powered by Kayak, offers results from online travel agencies and airlines while Google Flight Search has shut out OTAs and other metasearch companies, such as Kayak.
Still, Bing, with its auto-suggestion of Bing Travel as the first query, is taking the biasing of flight search results to new levels — even one-upping Google in this regard. With Bing you can bypass the search results page altogether and navigate directly to Bing Travel while Google at least delivers users to a Google search results page, where they can view other companies’ results, too.
Still, Bing has escaped much criticism for the preferential way it treats flight — and other — search results, probably because of Bing’s relatively low search-market share.
And, FairSearch, which has led the protest against Google’s search engine practices, is quick to criticize Google’s practices and its “monopoly power,” but doesn’t seem to be particularly incensed over how Bing processes flight-search results.
Fair or unfair?
It should be pointed out that Microsoft, which operates Bing, is a key member of FairSearch.
On the Bing issue, FairSearch states:
Only Google has the monopoly power in search to tilt the market in an unfair way by steering consumers to its own services and away from all alternative, competing providers, depriving consumers of the benefits that flow from a truly competitive market.
It’s a well established principle of antitrust law that some tactics that are illegal when employed by a dominant power in a market are not when employed by a company that lacks that power in a market controlled by another party. If Google was not the dominant power in search and search advertising, and already found to have monopoly power by authorities who enforce antitrust law, it would not be the subject of scrutiny and investigations around the world.
What’s at stake in online travel is whether Google will be allowed to use its monopoly power in search and search advertising to unfairly get a leg up in that space rather than compete on the merits and give its own search engine users the choice between what Google has to offer and what sites like Kayak, Expedia and Travelocity have to offer.
Consumers win when they get to pick winners and losers, not Google.
And, when pressed again about its silence about Bing’s practices, FairSearch adds: “FairSearch has been focused on the threat to consumers and a well-functioning free market from Google’s abuse of its monopoly power in search and search advertising since day one. If Google lacked monopoly power, it would not have the ability to unfairly distort the market in ways that limit consumer choice and deprive them of the benefits that a free market brings.”
However, despite Bing’s Teflon (nonstick) status so far, the way Bing positions flight search queries and results certainly wouldn’t escape the attention of the US Federal Trade Commission, which is investigating Google’s practices.
Despite Bing’s relatively weak sway in the market, it’s only a matter of time before things heat up for Bing, as well.
Google declined to comment on the issue, and Microsoft didn’t  immediately respond to a request for comments.
Related posts:
Dennis,
Good post. I guess I never noticed Bing’s positioning of it’s own offerings because I never use it, as I studiously avoid using IE at any point (and where else do you get Bing as the default search engine).
But isn’t the core issue with Google based on it’s market power? Isn’t Bing the proverbial tree falling in the forest?
Glenn: One issue with Google is indeed its market power. All in all, though, I think there should be an equal playing field and what applies to Google should pertain to Bing, as well, methinks, antitrust issues notwithstanding.
That is not the issue here, in fact it’s not an issue at all. Google and everyone else can and should present flight results for flight queries (duh!) this whole “preferring their own product” thing is nonsensical, the goal is to serve the best answers and surly displaying these is much more useful than the nested links to some other travel sites.
Disruption is about letting go of the middlemen as they are not longer needed, and Google is not a welfare system for the Expedias and Kayaks of the world.
Sean, to your own point, the goal is to serve the best answers and right now, Google Flight Search doesn’t do that. It will get better for sure, but right now it hasn’t earned the right to be positioned as number one.
Google search has proffered itself as the arbiter of the best results and their updates from the original PageRank to Panda have supposedly been to improve the likelihood that the sites that are most relevant to the query appear first (aside from the ad boxes). My only issue is that they have broken their own rule. Google shouldn’t worry about being good or evil, just consistent and impartial.
I disagree, It’s largely a matter of opinion and that is part of the problem with these classifications. You might consider it not being the best out there but it surly is “good enough” and in my opinion Flights is the best UI implementation for flight search out there, it’s only lacking international data.
As for PageRank and the relatively recent Panda update, these are quickly becoming historic relics, as links don’t strike me as the way of the future. Google should strive to display relevant and useful data visualized either by maps or flight times or stock quoted or function graphs or whatever it is that answers a query as best they can.
Ranking websites isn’t the ultimate form of a search engine but only a step in the concept’s evolution. Sorting blue links isn’t the only method of conveying and visualizing relevancy, it might actually be the least of the possibilities, and it’s already showing it’s age.
I use Yahoo search, because it’s completely neutral. If Yahoo Travel comes up in the search results, it’s usually at the bottom.
Hi Jim,
I diagree with this as yahoo also shows yahoo travel listing on top of organic search results and just because of this we rercived half of traffic in 2011 as compare to 2009. They give preference to their own product and listings.
” it’s only lacking international data.”
ONLY???
Hmmm.
Interesting position to take with this argument, not sure it would pass the Ethics 101 smell test though.
Using the same rationale, one could argue and justify all sorts of unscrupulous behavior, such as:
- Bob cheated on his college exams; therefore, Bill should be able to cheat too
- Jack stole an ice cream; therefore, Jill should be able to steal one too
- Goldman Sachs traded dodgy mortgage backed securities: therefore, JP Morgan should be able to trade them too
As most of us learned early as children, “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Illustrating Bing’s flight search tactics and presenting it as rational justification for Google to, essentially, do the same is, in my opinion, a very hollow argument.
Because of Google’s overwhelming dominance in search, they should absolutely be held to a higher standard and come under increased scrutiny, compared to their much smaller counterparts. Or, are you also suggesting that all the regulatory bodies around the world currently looking into Google’s practices are engaging in a political witch-hunt and don’t genuinely have the interests of society as a whole in mind, but merely their own personal agenda?
According to current laws, anti-trust (competitive) practices are only relevant if the party in question has an overly dominant or monopoly position in the market, which Google clearly has in search. Bing does NOT. I will agree with your supposition that Microsoft isn’t exactly the most credible source to criticize Google via FairSearch.org, given their current comparable tactics and dubious past with Internet Explorer. However, hypocrisy is not a crime, anti-competitiveness certainly is.
In the analogy above, a baby chimpanzee (Bing) is being compared to an 800 lb. gorilla (Google). Not exactly an apples to apples scenario or fair comparison.
Let’s be honest here. Realistically, Bing Travel’s practices will not stifle innovation in travel… Google’s practices will. Bing Travel will not quash competition… Google will (by creating massive barriers to entry due to audience size, scale, influence and resources). Bing’s practices will not eventually lead to higher distribution costs for suppliers, which will ultimately result in higher prices for consumers… Google’s practices will – if left unchecked and unregulated.
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to recognize these eventualities… merely a realistic pragmatist. (A smidgeon of Game Theory knowledge might help one see the light as well)
NB: You’ll have to trust me when I say that I’m no Microsoft advocate or FairSearch fan boy. However, in the interest of full disclosure, transparency and candor, I will say, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
As I’ve mentioned on Tnooz previously, Google is only acting in the most self-satisfying and predictable manner in order to accomplish its only real priority – fulfilling their Fiduciary Duty to maximize shareholder value. Big G will continue to push the limits and skirt the boundaries of the law until the DOJ, FTC or European Commission tell them that they no longer can. As they say, “it’s easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.” That’s simply the nature of all power – and certainly the nature Google.
Until then, manipulating search results or engaging in questionable practices to drive traffic to their own properties is exactly what they’ll continue to do (i.e. the Zagat PPC bidding on Yelp brand name searches). After all, doing so will likely grow revenues, profits and, of course, shareholder value (at least in the short term). Nothing surprising there.
Ironically, Google’s strengths are also its weaknesses, and, I believe, will ultimately lead to their failure in travel (and by failure I mean not realizing its own lofty objectives and overwhelming market dominance). Google is already the biggest and most profitable travel business in the world, even before Flight Search and Hotel Finder were launched. Now they’re just looking to take a much, much bigger slice of the travel e-commerce pie. But like gluttonous pigs at a trough who are too greedy, they’ll eventually end up fat, lazy and unattractive; in this case, unattractive to the constituency who matter most to them… advertisers – NOT CONSUMERS. Google’s pseudo-altruistic “we only do what’s best for our users” rhetoric is total bull-shizzle. If an application or strategy doesn’t first demonstrate it will likely improve Google’s bottom line, it will never see the light of day – nice marketing pitch and justification for their actions when under scrutiny though.
From my perspective, I sincerely hope Google continues its excessive (anti-competitive) ways, because it’s a sure-fire way for a younger, leaner, more agile and more attractive specimen to ultimately steal its lunch. We’re certainly going to step up to take a very big slice of Big G’s over indulgent appetite – we’re pretty hungry too.
And if you’re listening Larry and Sergey (or one of your minions), please keep up the good work because your insatiable thirst to dominate every industry vertical is making our job easier and easier every day. Oink, Oink!
P.S. I hope this comment doesn’t exclude me from the Tnooz Christmas card list next year. As Nietzsche said, “The man of knowledge must be able, not only to love his enemies, but also to hate his friends.”
“In the analogy above, a baby chimpanzee (Bing) is being compared to an 800 lb. gorilla (Google). Not exactly an apples to apples scenario or fair comparison.”
@John – sorry, your comparisons are flawed – you cannot reasonably compare Bing Travel with Google – just like Microsoft is many things, so is Google and “Google travel” has not nearly the dominance Google (all of it) has.
Microsoft’s marked cap is 228.73B, Google is at 215.54B – I think a comparison of the two companies is entirely fair – they are both ‘pretty big’.
It would be interesting to know the size of “Google Travel” and then compare to “Bing Travel” – tnooz posts weekly numbers on web traffic, usually including “Bing Travel” – does anyone have numbers for “Google travel”?
Hey @Fiona,
Market cap is an irrelevant metric in this argument, as you indicated, both Google and Microsoft have very diversified businesses and so we should only be looking at SEARCH.
What is relevant here is both companies market share in search (that’s what the article is comparing). Google’s global market share in search is 79.61%, Microsoft’s (Bing) is 3.28%. So yes, chimpanzee to gorilla is a fair metaphor.
Also, Google’s revenue from search is more than $20 Billion (US) annually, whereas, I believe Bing is LOSING more than $200 Million annually.
Cheers.
The article is comparing travel search – more specifically flight search, not search in general.
I’ll bet you nickle that there is a very strong correlation between the share of travel related search to overall search on Google and every other search engine.
Word of advice: When you get yourself in a hole, stop digging… unless you have lots of nickles!
I raise you and bet you 10 nickles that bing flight search generates a lot more traffic at this point than google flight search does.
luckily I have lots of nickles
P.S. for reference purposes – http://marketshare.hitslink.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx?qprid=4
Oh yah,
With regards to your size of “Google Travel” query. I believe travel related revenue is approximately 9% of Big G’s total annual revenue (total around $24 Billion (US) in 2010). Therefore, Goog’s annual revenue from travel specifically is approximately $2 Billion (US).
I’m guessing Bing’s travel related revenue $60 Million (US).
Voila.
Bings travel related revenues or Microsoft’s?
Hmmm not much in the guessing game myself, but Kayak generated 170.6 million of revenues in the last nine months (ending Sept) – and their traffic numbers look to be similar. Of course kayak now powers bing …
Loving your feistiness @Fiona, wish we were debating this in a coffee shop or conference somewhere.
Unfortunately, I am a guessing man, and so I’m guessing you’re pretty passionate about all this travel stuff and you’d be good to work with.
Come on, tell us more about why you’re so passionate. I, for one, am intrigued. Unfortunately, no link to what you do… shame!
Keep fighting the good fight.
This is non sensical. Have you even clicked on the links?
Google’s Flight Tool takes you directly to carriers thereby eliminating Kayak, Expedia, etc.,
Bing’s Flight Tool aggregates search results from everyone. They include Priceline, Expedia in their search results.
Dear Lord, what’s up with writers these days? Please research before you write articles. In fact, am half certain, this comment will be deleted.
@HB – everyone is entitled to their own opinion, as long as it’s legal from a publishing standpoint. Not sure why you would think we’d delete it, we’re happy to include it here.
Kevin, editor, Tnooz.com.
HB: Amazing…your comment made it through. Tnooz is not afraid of dialogue — despite the fact that you get off-topic and cast personal aspersions.
OK, we are all agreed that Bing does not have the market impact that Google has.
Yes, I have clicked Bing’s links and have been writing about Bing Travel since Farecast first revealed its existence and data-mining attempt years ago.
It is laudable that Bing has links to OTAs, while Google doesn’t.
But Bing is still using its market power to preference its own Bing Travel. Don’t you think that Priceline, Expedia, Orbitz and the airlines would appreciate a level playing field in organic results as their respective websites compete against Bing Travel, despite their frenemy status?
Don’t you think the OTAs, airlines and metasearch players would rather have people click on their respective websites in organic results instead of having to pay marketing and advertising dollars to Bing, which is holding its own Bing Travel out there as the first auto-suggestion in the search box and above others’ organic results?
I don’t think search engines such as Bing and Google, despite their disparate importance, should be permitted to tout their own internal products to the detriment of other players.
Dear Lord, HB, that’s just my humble opinion.
“But Bing is still using its market power to preference its own Bing Travel.”
What is your definition of “market power”? See here for an explanation of the basic concept:
“In economics, market power is the ability of a firm to alter the market price of a good or service.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power
It is completely absurd to suggest that Bing has “market power” only to further the flawed premise of your article, which seems to be: “If Bing can do it, then Google can do it too”.
Here’s a question you may want to think about — Why is it ok for Apple to bundle Safari with Mac OS X with no conditions imposed, but Microsoft has to comply with regulatory restrictions to bundle Internet Explorer with Windows?
Hint: Windows’ market share of computer operating systems has something to do with it.
Fiona: What is “Google Travel?” Is it Google Hotel Finder, Google Flight Search, Google Places, Google Maps, Google’s travel advertising program?
Good question – Google flight search is in its first or second iteration – not nearly as mature as bing travel (farecast, acquired by microsoft, and now powered by kayak) .
But I’d use the same guidelines you use to define “bing travel” if that’s what you measure against. Of course we could compare Microsoft with Google, but since this is a travel related blog, that may not be the right focus (do people use excel or MS money for travel planning?).
Guys If google roll out their flight product in full then it negatively affect the paid advertisers of google and we are facing this on bing itself as bing send whole traffic to their own product and we saw a big decline in traffic from last two years. As i am a paid marketer bidding aggressive on all flight related generic terms but after maintain first position i am still not receiving enough traffic. lets see how google roll out this.