Keyword purchases are a mature technology - been in heavy use for at least the last 5 years - BP is doing nothing new here. The top "sponsored" spot is available to anyone for practically any search term/phrase. A clever band used this tactic to get their single listened to by a record exec that Googles his own name.

BP is not "controlling" anything with this campaign, and I wish people would stop pushing that meme. There's no "upper hand" : the next results are wikipedia and HuffPo - hardly fertile ground for BP apologists.

There are probably interesting discussions to be had regarding why people don't click past the first page or two of search results, why they trust Google's search returns, etc.

Last thought: people invested in the BP spill, either as participants or observers, are probably not using Google or major media to follow the event: they're using sites like TheOilDrum and Google Reader, and monitoring a mishmash of blogs, etc. Everyone else is content to read Yahoo News or what have you.

As an ad guy, I would be surprised if B did not do this. Companies spend a lot of money to ensure they are not at the mercy of the masses when it comes to Google searches.

Google Adwords (what you describe above) are a pretty common way to do advertising and PR online. Our agency used them last year to try to redirect people to official government info on H1N1 (our client's site) because they were getting a lot of random misinfo and urban legends online.

Of course BP is doing this. It's neither shocking nor reprehensible. It just "is". Truth or fiction, they are desperate to tell their side of the story.

As for searches, most "with it" organizations have adapted their own sites for search engine optimization (SEO) — which involves analyzing searches, identifying relevant keywords, and ensuring that they are well-represented on site content. This brings them up in the searches.

As well, a good online and social media PR strategy brings the corporate site up in the search results by ensuring lots of people visit, reference and link to it.

The more you know...

What I'm interested is the scientists BP is hiring to misinform people, especially communities being affected by the oil; the ex-fishermen who now work for BP as part of the clean up crew who are afraid of complaining about the noxious fumes from the oil; BP's denial of the effects of those fumes; the restrictions placed on people, including the media, to access to the shores affected by this; the framing of this issue as "merely an accident" by BP apologists; and how all of this (mis)information will play out in courts, in shaping public opinion, and the policies that will ensue.

As the commenters above have observed, search word advertising has been around for awhile. For most regular google users, the sponsored links at the top quickly become invisible - we know they're advertising, and we read right past without seeing them.

I personally have learned not to even look at the shaded sponsored links, and I think most internet users know what they are and wouldn't use one as an information source. I guess BP thinks differently.

It irks me, although I can't say I'm surprised or find it unique to this issue per se, is that so much energy is being put into selling what is essentially a lie when so much is at stake. Something about this in particular makes my skin crawl. Maybe in a "this is too much like what happened in Harry Potter when Voldemort came back" sort of way. Yeah, I just lost all my credibility, but you know it's true. :P

Am I the only one who finds the title of this post somewhat misleading, implying something much more than an adwords campaign (regardless if you like it or not)?

I was kind of expecting to see something about Google censoring search results or google news. I'm happy that isn't the case (AFAIK), but this title remains...

Lisa:
Despite being a sociologist (or because of it?), you sure seem to hold some naïve, not to mention insulting, prejudices against the common people's intellectual capacities and critical thinking skills.

Is it a product of being indoctrinated in the whole ‘false consciousness,’ invisible ‘superstructure’ thing? I'm genuinely curious as to why one would hold such an unrelentingly dismal opinion of her fellow man.

Funny... I'm so used to ignoring ads that I stopped seeing the shaded box under the search bar. I've never clicked on them, and usually don't even read them.

Any idea which parts of the BP version of what's going on isn't true? Or how they're making things seem in a more pleasant light, such as referring the amount spewing out in barrels and not gallons?

I know there is plenty of controversy over there algorithm as well. Feel free to discuss that in the comments as well.

I'm not aware of controversy over the google search algorithm. Is this a reference to googlebombing?

Thanks to the AdBlock Plus plugin for Firefox, I don't even see these ads. I'm pretty sure most users without adblockers are still quite aware what "sponsored link" means.

Wow, where did all the trolls come from?

I wonder if I'm the only person who just skips over the sponsored links- I have seen instances where the sponsored link was a keylogger or something similar, so I just skip right over them ALWAYS and click something else.

Only marginally related, but I know that BP has been sponsoring links on YouTube to their company videos as well- and it comes off as SO disingenuous- I'm happy that people are seeing right through it. Even the number of people giving the videos a thumbs down vs. those giving a thumbs up speak to the fact that no one is really falling for it.

I really disagree with the title of this post. It states that BP has the upper hand, but it seems like the information provided by BP through its sponsored links hasn't done anything to aid its image.

Furthermore, if I read one more comment with someone simply stating that they ignore sponsored links, my head is going to explode. I think we all get it. Many people out there may ignore the sponsored links. Such comments really aren't adding much to the discussion, except by further showing that BP's actions with Google really aren't a big deal.

Also, what is so controversial about the algorithm used by Google? I haven't heard criticism about it before?

I love how everyone uses the argument "Well *I* just ignore them and a lot of other people do too". Well guess what? I click on Sponsored Links and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Generally speaking I don't see why someone paying to put their stuff up in a more prominent place makes them any less worthy of my notice than if they were listed further down the page. Sometimes I even find what I'm looking for.

I do realize that people would try to take advantage of that prominence, however. I use just as much caution and skepticism when approaching any other site, but as we all know, there are many people out there who just simply don't know any better. This article was simply pointing that out.

The title was a bit misleading, though, I agree.

As far as the "there vs their" argument. People make mistakes when typing and writing. Because they know what it's supposed to be in their head, they even, a lot of times, will miss those mistakes when proofreading, as any English teacher will tell you. That's why they encourage you to get others to proofread for you as well. To assume that because someone made a typing error, that they therefore must have made a logical error is ludicrous and a juvenile attempt at attacking the article.

Meh. Sponsored Links are included as advertising, so Adblock is removing them from my search results.

Er, I really disagree with you calling them "British Petroleum" - for a sociology blog, that's pretty ignorant. That's not their name, it hasn't been their name for ten whole years, their name is BP, and it implicates Britain in misleading ways.

A few facts for you: 39% of shares in BP are owned by US shareholders. Six of its directors are British, but the other six are Americans. BP employs 22,000 Americans and only 10,000 Britons.

I know it's convenient for your president to keep calling them 'British Petroleum' but it's such a transparent ploy on his part, he's really losing my respect.

I'm not sure about everybody else, but I don't even notice the sponsored links. I know they're ads, and my eyes just kind of skip over them, and go to the first result. I guess there's something about the bold title, and the shaded background that screams "I'm an obnoxious ad trying to sell/lie to you about something!!!"

It might be because google has been around my entire life and I've just adapted to it... So I guess it's the gullible adults we have to worry about.

Okay sorry for my ramblings, that's all.

I did a few searches and noticed that the term "gulf disaster" does not bring up BP-sponsored links. BP links pop up with most other, comparatively more innocuous search terms, but it seems they have deliberately steered clear of the word "disaster." Indeed, there are no sponsored links for this term. Top results (besides Google News) include CNN, Mother Jones, NY Post, Crains, Time, Center for Biological Diversity (a non-profit with which I am not familiar).

Clearly, we see news outlets, PR, et. al, playing on the dialectical relationship between language and thought. Who is calling it a disaster? A catastrophe? A snafu? etc. How does the naming of the incident affect the way we perceive it?