Tag: Competition

Master Google Product Packs: Secrets to Outperform Competitors
When I search for products on Google, I’ve noticed significant changes to the results page. Now, product packs and scrollable carousels appear multiple times within a single results page, reshaping my shopping experience.

As part of my ongoing journey to boost ecommerce visibility, I constantly analyze data. Recently, I’ve tracked searches presenting up to 60 individual organic product listings on one page. These premium placements increasingly mark the beginning of the purchase journey for many users.

This transformation is gradual, and interestingly, I see many brands still adjusting their strategies. It’s crucial to revisit these changes because the opportunity for traffic through product packs is immense, with fierce competition. Today’s leading brands approach this differently.

Thanks to Nozzle, I’ve delved into data from over 63,000 merchants across a wide array of ecommerce keywords from January 2025 to January 2026. Here’s what I discovered that really caught my attention.

Defining Success: Appearances vs. Actual Traffic

I found that just appearing in product packs and actually capturing traffic are two distinct achievements, and the difference between them can be substantial as the data shows.

For instance, in this dataset:
- eBay appears in product results for 874,621 keywords.
- Home Depot has a similar presence, appearing for 831,699 keywords.
However, the estimated traffic paints a contrasting picture:
- eBay garners about 3.2 million visits from these pack appearances.
- Home Depot, meanwhile, generates nearly 28.8 million visits from a slightly smaller keyword range.
The secret? Quality position within the pack. Home Depot’s products consistently snag prime, visible, above-the-fold spots that attract shoppers’ clicks.

For eBay, many keywords involve long-tail marketplace terms that dilute overall impact. Understanding Google’s use of product packs to drive purchase decisions for common goods is crucial for brands aiming to compete effectively in this space.
- For marketers: Dissecting product pack performance means wisely segmenting data, focusing on categories with significant search volumes to optimize visibility within the packs. That’s how to pinpoint where the genuine opportunities lie.
The Critical Gap: Distinguishing Product Pack Visibility

Product carousels scroll horizontally, increasing exposure for the first few slots, while listings tucked further back remain unseen. This distinction is crucial for assessing true reach.

Disparities among major retailers further illustrate this point:
- REI has a massive catalog of 3.8 million products, yet 1.52 million of these require scrolling before they are visible.
- Walmart finds itself in a similar spot, with 1.29 million of its 3.5 million unique products are relegated to non-visible placements.
Even industry titans often miss out on optimal visibility, skewing the perceived benefits of their presence. Analyzing visible versus non-visible appearances is essential for identifying where optimizing product data and feeds can yield substantial returns.
- For CMOs: When using total product pack appearances as a metric, it’s wise to ask how many of those appearances are truly visible. Understanding this ratio better reflects the channel’s contribution to the business.
Does Discounting Drive Product Pack Visibility?

It’s a common belief that discounted items might secure better placement in Google’s product packs. However, data from the top 10 merchants doesn’t necessarily support this notion.
- Amazon.com leads the pack with 49% of its catalog discounted, achieving a 72% visibility rate, placing it squarely mid-tier.
- eBay, on the other hand, discounts only 8% of its products yet matches the highest visibility rate in the dataset at 81%.
- Walmart Seller discounts 24% of its items, reaching 81% visibility, while Walmart itself discounts 27% but ranks lower at 62% visibility.
This irregularity indicates that discounting is just one of many factors. It doesn’t solely determine a product’s chance of securing a prominent spot. Feed quality, category relevance, reviews, and image standards wield greater influence.
- For retail teams: If your strategy for product packs relies heavily on promotions, you might need to pivot. The current landscape favors strategies aligned with where purchasing decisions occur over sheer pricing tactics.
Specialist Brands Competing with Giants and Winning

A refreshing realization from this data is that product pack success isn’t exclusive to the retail giants. Specialist brands, leveraging focused expertise, compete exceptionally well against far larger competitors.
- Camp Chef, for instance, appears in results for 155,299 keywords—just a small fraction of Walmart or eBay’s footprint—yet it pulls in an estimated 2.6 million visits, thanks to advantageous product placements.
- Brands like Fellow, expanding into niches such as high-end coffee makers, find opportunities for growth through strong organic channels.
These brands achieve impressive product pack traffic against much larger rivals because they prioritize category relevance and high-quality product feeds over sheer scale.

For brands traditionally overshadowed in traditional SEO, product packs present a chance to compete on a more level field. Detailed product data, competitive prices, quality imagery, and favorable reviews can supersede a larger competitor for crucial category keywords.
- For agencies: This channel awards dedication and quality over brute scale. Brands with depth in a category can translate that expertise into superior product pack performance, outpacing broader competitors.
Staying Informed on Product Pack Visibility Shifts

Examining the entire dataset, I noticed a consistent pattern: nearly all merchants experience shifts in product pack visibility throughout the year.

Brands holding strong positions during parts of the year sometimes see fluctuations as Google adjusts how it surfaces product results. Some grew steadily midyear only to recede in Q4, while others surged during promotions before reverting to previous levels.

This fluidity is typical of the channel. Google regularly updates its criteria for product pack placements, influenced by factors like feed quality, product availability, review counts, pricing, and images.

The brands thriving are those with sustained visibility into performance, staying agile and responsive to changes before they impact revenue.

With Google’s future announcements and AI integration like Gemini 3 looming, the foundational structure of product packs will shift, influenced by agentic commerce and the Universal Commerce Protocol.

As Google navigates balancing paid and organic visibility, a two-tiered search economy emerges. Securing AI Overview citations becomes vital for brand recognition, impacting both organic and paid product pack performances.

The Bigger Picture

Google’s product packs have morphed from merely supplementary to pivotal touchpoints in commercial searches.

The extensive Nozzle data analysis of over 63,000 merchants reveals that competition is already fierce in this domain. Leaders are distancing themselves, and the gap between attentive and indifferent brands manifests tangibly in traffic and revenue disparities.

The silver lining is that the essentials for success in this space are accessible to most brands: robust product data, strategic pricing, high-quality creative, and vigilant monitoring.

These require not a colossal budget but focus, the right tools, and asking the right strategic questions within the right organizational levels.

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.
May 15, 2026
Is the Digital Markets Act Improving Search Fairness?

Almost two years ago, when the Digital Markets Act (DMA) came into effect, I was hopeful. But today, it’s clear that the user experience has worsened, business metrics have plummeted, and Google’s monopoly is as strong as ever.

As an SEO professional, I’ve joined countless others in agreeing that Google has long abused its dominant position in search to favor its own services over others. The DMA was supposed to be the solution—a regulation promising to level the playing fields in the digital world.

The European Union was hailed for finally taking steps against tech giants with the 2022 passage of the DMA, which came into force in March 2024, aiming to balance competition. Headlines were optimistic, signaling a fair and promising digital era.

Back in 2024, my perspective was captured in an article where I wrote about this legislation being a ‘much-needed piece.’ Fast forward two years, the DMA is doing more harm than good and this is not just speculation—it’s supported by concrete evidence.

The DMA was born from understandable frustration over Google’s well-documented abuses, where it would promote its own services like Google Shopping, often at the cost of others with better offerings.

Years of watching Google rank its own products first while burying competitors ignited the creation of this act, attempting to enforce fairness by having tech giants, the gatekeepers, treat all services equally.

For those like me, who have seen clients lose traffic to Google’s products despite providing superior content, the promise of algorithmic neutrality and fairness was nothing short of intoxicating.

But, as a comprehensive assessment reveals, the reality is different. Findings from a recent survey of 5,000 European consumers indicate that users find the online experience more cumbersome since the DMA was enacted.

It’s disconcerting when users, who previously received services for free, express willingness to pay to regain their prior experiences.

In professional circles, we have to acknowledge a truth: many users favored the integrated Google experience that we spent years criticizing. Now, users must jump through more hoops—and they aren’t pleased with this supposed ‘fair’ competition landscape.

The business implications have also been damaging. Metrics reveal declines in click-through rates and a drop in direct bookings, highlighting a disconnect between DMA’s objectives and real-world outcomes.

The issue of enforcement is daunting. Without addressing the core monopoly, any attempts to fine or regulate Google amounts to levying cost of doing business fees for them, rather than ushering in real change.

Long term, it raises a pivotal question for regulators: is it time to consider breaking monopolies to genuinely foster competition? Or continue to enforce rules that fail to address the underlying problem?

We need to create conditions that truly allow emerging companies to compete, not just manage monopoly symptoms with ineffective regulations. The DMA had the right intent, but it’s the wrong solution to this complex problem.

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.

March 9, 2026
Google Search Antitrust Appeal: What It Means for Competition

The ongoing battle over default search deals caught my attention recently as critics argue these arrangements exclude competitors and restrict choice for users, advertisers, and rival companies.

The U.S. Justice Department, along with several states, is challenging a federal judge’s ruling regarding Google’s search antitrust case. They plan to appeal the decision made by the judge, which determined Google was illegally monopolizing search but didn’t impose significant changes like breaking up Chrome or stopping default search agreements completely.

What’s happening. Just yesterday, the DOJ and state attorneys general filed their appeals, focusing on U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta’s remedy ruling from September. Reports from Bloomberg and Reuters highlighted these developments.

Judge Mehta, back in August 2024, had found that Google unlawfully maintained its search monopoly through default search deals with companies like Apple and Samsung—deals costing Google over $20 billion every year.

Following a further remedies trial in 2025, Judge Mehta did not enforce the government’s suggestion to split up Chrome or halt payments for default search status. Instead, he required Google to rebid its default search and AI app agreements yearly.

Why we care. This appeal leaves me wondering just how much of a grip Google will retain on search placement. This control plays a crucial role in determining who gets traffic. Should stricter changes be implemented, it could alter default search settings, foster competition among search engines, and shift how we all engage with search across our devices.

Yes, but. So far, the DOJ and states haven’t revealed their exact legal strategies. The court submissions are vague about which aspects of the ruling are under fire, although Chrome and Google’s default deal with Apple are expected to be central points of contention.

What to watch. Later this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will examine the case, and I’m keen to see how it unfolds. For now, Google continues operating as usual, but its key contracts will face annual scrutiny, and the potential for harsher consequences looms.

What they’re saying. David Segal, VP of public policy at Yelp, expressed approval of the appeal. In a statement to Search Engine Land, Yelp criticized the trial court’s remedies as insufficient for reinvigorating competition in search:

“Unfortunately, the measures put forth in the trial court’s remedy decision are unlikely to restore competition — for instance, it allows for Google to continue to pay third parties for default placement in browsers and devices, which was the primary mechanism by which Google unlawfully foreclosed competition to begin with.

Internet users, online advertisers and others who rely on and seek to compete in the industry deserve a level playing field with more, higher quality, and fairer search options — and the need for a more competitive space is all the more clear as Google seeks to leverage its vast power over the web, especially search indexing and ranking, to come to dominate the GenAI space.”

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.

February 4, 2026
Google’s Ad Tech Dilemma: EU Market Test Unfolds

I’ve been following Google’s plan to address its ad tech issues closely, and now their proposed solutions are under the spotlight of an EU ‘market test.’ This is a critical step to ensure they truly bring back fair competition in the industry.

The European Commission is actively seeking feedback from industry leaders, and I’ve noticed that they have reached out to a significant group of stakeholders, including publishers, advertisers, and rival ad tech firms, to gauge their reactions to Google’s latest proposal.

Officials are emphasizing that the feedback gathered will play a key role in determining if Google’s commitments will really ensure fair play in the EU’s digital ad market.

Personally, I’m intrigued by the background of this situation. Google was hit with a hefty fine of €2.95 billion and was instructed to cease favoring its own ad tech services. In an effort to resolve these issues, Google has suggested several changes, which include allowing publishers more control over setting minimum bid prices in their Ad Manager platform.

They also promise improved interoperability between their tools and those of competitive ad tech providers, along with broader choices and flexibility for advertisers and publishers alike.

Why does this matter to me and you? The unfolding ‘market test’ could significantly influence how Brussels approaches Google’s offer, potentially ending a pivotal tech rivalry case. If Google’s suggestions are approved, we could see fairer auctions that provide better returns on investment and reduce Google’s inherent advantages in their ad tech operations.

Reading between the lines, this market test represents a potential turning point. If it goes well, the EU could be on the brink of concluding the case, relieving Google of prolonged regulatory pressures. However, Thursday’s developments also highlight the EU’s broader mission to regulate major tech giants while dealing with external pressures from U.S. authorities.

Meanwhile, I’ve noticed that the EU is also setting its sights on Meta, as they’re starting a new examination of its AI features within WhatsApp and examining whether these might skew the competition.

It’s crucial to remember that antitrust breaches can incur penalties up to 10% of global revenue, although such severe fines are uncommon. Meta is now under pressure to present solutions, although WhatsApp insists that the concerns are unwarranted.

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.

December 4, 2025
OpenAI CEO Urgently Enhances ChatGPT, Halts Ad Plans
When I got the news about OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s recent decision, it was clear this was no ordinary update. Sam called a ‘code red’ to overhaul ChatGPT’s performance—an action so crucial that it has temporarily put a stop to any advertising plans.
In an internal memo shared by The Wall Street Journal, it was revealed that our main focus now is on improving the assistant’s personalization, speed, reliability, and its capability to tackle a wider variety of questions. With this focus, daily calls and team reassignments across the company are underway to ensure we enhance ChatGPT swiftly.
Driving the news: During a recent meeting, Sam emphasized the urgency of making ChatGPT better and more intuitive. Nick Turley, who leads the ChatGPT team, also reassured us that user intuition and personalization are top priorities.
- The entire company is now singularly focused on accelerating these improvements.
- We even have temporary team reassignments to keep everyone aligned and focused on this mission.
Why now? The competition is catching up fast. Google’s upgraded Gemini model has recently outperformed us on key benchmarks, contributing to Google’s rising stock value.
- Google: Their upgraded Gemini model has recently outshone OpenAI’s metrics.
- User growth: Gemini’s user base has surged, going from 450 million in July to 650 million by October, thanks in part to new features like the Nano Banana image generator.
- Anthropic: They’re making headway in the corporate sector, gaining a reputation as the ‘safer, more predictable’ provider of language models.
On top of fierce competition, OpenAI faces financial hurdles as well, particularly with plans for massive data-center investments. Remaining unprofitable and reliant on continuous fundraising, the need to hit $200 billion in revenue by 2030 looms large for us.
What’s getting delayed: In our effort to prioritize ChatGPT’s quality enhancements, we’ve decided to postpone:
- Advertising initiatives
- AI agents for health and shopping
- A personal assistant called Pulse
What’s next: I’m excited to share that a new reasoning model, outperforming Google’s latest Gemini release, is just around the corner.
- Not long ago, we also experienced a ‘code orange,’ indicating a pressing need to improve ChatGPT’s warmth and instruction-following capabilities, which has since been addressed in a recent update.
Why we care. Our shift in focus from advertising avenues to product enhancement highlights our commitment to quality. Those waiting to use ChatGPT for advertising will, unfortunately, have to hold out a bit longer.
Flashback. This situation reminds me of past intense moments in the tech industry. Remember when Google considered ChatGPT an existential threat? That led to its own ‘code red,’ with significant internal shifts and rapid advancements.
- Founders returned: Google’s own co-founders re-engaged in product meetings to tackle these challenges.
- Search overhaul: Google accelerated its efforts to enhance conversation capabilities within Search.
- Product surge: A slew of new AI products emerged from Google as part of this initiative.
The report. I found the detailed analysis in the original OpenAI Declares ‘Code Red’ as Google Threatens AI Lead report quite insightful.

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.
December 2, 2025