In a recent earnings call, when asked about the paid inclusion model for Google's newly announced Google Shopping, Google's representative blatantly ignored the FTC's definition of paid inclusion and went on to explain that they don't call it paid inclusion.

This is where I want to chime in just in case this is all news to you. Google Shopping, which has already begun to roll out, is what happened when they took Google Product Search (a previously free service) and switched it over to a service that you have to pay to be included in. The cut off date for free listings is October 1st, where merchants will either have to update and pay to be included or be dropped out completely.

Now back to the 'news'...Google's main argument against being called 'paid inclusion' is that they disclose the fact that the results on Google Shopping are paid. Well, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck - unless Google says it's a cat and then well...

Let's face it - Google is using a paid inclusion model. Companies are paying to be included in the Shopping index. How much more straightforward can this be?

So, why is Google denying that this is a paid inclusion model? Mostly because it makes them look bad. The truth is...

Less than a decade ago Google actually fought against this model and put it under the "evil" label. They also went ahead and openly stated that they would never do it.

Actively participating in something evil would be against the company motto of "Don't be evil" and also make them liars. So in order to save face and rake in a lot of money at the same time, Google has just decided to try to change the definition of paid inclusion to whatever they see fit. Sounds fun - wonder how much it costs to buy that privilege.

To be fair, Google's Shopping service is in fact just another service for businesses that allows them to put their products online for people to buy. Those who pay get the service, and those who don't - aren't on Google Shopping. Google doesn't want the bad connotation of paid inclusion because it usually means that those who pay more are treated better, but in this case, everyone who pays is treated the same...or so we hope.

Google was originally right when they fought inclusion because it allowed users to see products from all over the Web. It made the shopping selection greater and gave everyone a chance to be seen. They've claimed several times that their new paid system will somehow produce better shopping results (the exact opposite position they held as before), but it remains questionable as to how.