5 ms·

It keeps happening with their draconian regulations. After the privacy/data protection bill, I hear that the european market for online advertising imploded try

It keeps happening with their draconian regulations. After the privacy/data protection bill, I hear that the european market for online advertising imploded trying to meet regulations and Google Ads gobbled up some 30-40% more market share in Europe. It came down to the fact that Google was able to meet the regulations fastest, and achieve informed user consent across a wide userbase dramatically faster than small local outlets, so ad buyers flocked to the fastest and widest game in town. One example: https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/image002.png https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/image002.p... Seems more true than ever that big regulations create big business moats that big businesses can easily absorb, but which demolish smaller businesses.

Semaphor 7y ago
The whole GDPR thing was known years in advance and even smaller outfits would have had enough time to make changes. An additional anecdote: we experimentally tried a smaller German ad exchange (used by quite some big-name sites here). Profits went way up compared to AdSense. What also went way up was the amount of stupid, low effort clickbait-bullshit (which as a non-lawyer I sometimes questioned the legality off considering some told outright lies). We stopped using them shortly afterward.
dmitriid 7y ago
Why do you think that advertising business is good and imploding ad business means privacy regulation is bad for small businesses in general? Besides, GDPR is an extension of similar laws that have existed for years.
- criley2 7y ago
  * I didnt say ad business was good or bad, but from the perspective of a European I would want European firms competing against American firms and keeping money and talent in my borders to boost my communities. * I didn't say that imploding ad business means privacy regulation is bad for small business, but I did demonstrate that big regulation chokes out small business and strongly correlates with big business success
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    > I didnt say ad business was good or bad, but... But that's the business you chose for your illustration. > I didn't say that imploding ad business means privacy regulation is bad for small business, but ... ... you specifically talked about ad business alone and drew the conclusion that "big regulations create big business moats ... which demolish smaller businesses." It's a good thing that GDPR destroyed ad business that existed only by selling user data without consent. And there's nothing big about GDPR. It's very small and easy to comply with. If your business is built upon selling and profiting from user data without user's consent, good riddance. If not, GDPR doesn't affect you in the slightest.
bin0 7y ago
I'm really sorry to hear that google ads got even more, and now they're going to complain about a monopoly. Things like GDPR also make it harder to start a competitor, as paperwork and red tape always do; I have not personally worked on GDPR for any thing, but know some one who does and it's a nightmare. If stringent government regulation got you here, maybe it will be less of that, not more, that gets you out.
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  If stringent government regulation got you here, maybe it will be less of that, not more, that gets you out. Yeah, we see how fantastically that one worked with the Boeing corporation and their newest flagship plane, The 737MAX.
  - criley2 7y ago
    Gotta love the uber-intellectual reply that any valid criticism of European regulation brings: "but WHATABOUT <this other unrelated case>" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
    - anoncake 7y ago
      It's not unrelated, it demonstrates that while unregulated markets may be a nice idea in theory, they just don't work in practice. Not that an analogy were necessary. The unregulated ad industry itself shows that an unregulated ad industry is a bad idea.
    - ionised 7y ago
      Accusations of whataboutism are invalid when you are calling out related points or highlighting hypocrisy and double standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Criticism Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair. For instance, in international relations, behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be quite good for a given geopolitical neighborhood, and deserves to be recognized as such. Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy. Others have criticized the usage of accusations of whataboutism by American news outlets, arguing that the accusation whataboutism has been used to simply "deflect" criticisms of human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States or its allies. They argue that the usage of the term almost exclusively by American outlets is a double standard, and that moral accusations made by powerful countries are merely a pretext to punish their geopolitical rivals in the face of their own wrongdoing. The scholars Kristen Ghodsee and Scott Sehon posit that mentioning the possible existence of victims of capitalism in popular discourse is often dismissed as 'whataboutism', which they describe as "a term implying that only atrocities perpetrated by communists merit attention." They also argue that such accusations of 'whataboutism' are invalid as the same arguments used against communism can also be used against capitalism.
raverbashing 7y ago
"Draconian" Yeah I'm sure not letting companies sell all the data about you to the highest bidder is somehow "draconian". Poor them You're right about the market capture, though it seems to me the ad market is in a bubble and that massive retargeting and trying to sell people things they already own is going to get old soon. Good contextualized marketing is less dependant on the profiles and more on what it's being shown right now.
TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
GDPR was supposed to kill surveillance adtech, and it is gradually doing its job. The regulators are not ignoring Google and friends and the enforcement actions will hurt them at some point.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
It might actually turn out for the better. Google is a big target; they can't fly under the radar. As for demolishing small businesses, small businesses aren't an universal, unquestionable good. In this particular case, we need less adtech business in general. It's like dumping toxic waste into rivers - not only lots of small polluters aren't better than few big ones, the desirable thing is just having less polluters.
- ukoki 7y ago
  Totally agree with you. I think also that it's very possible that delivering-adverts-with-minimal-privacy-infringement is a different class of problem to just "delivering-adverts". Maybe it's a type of problem where profit can only be extracted by means of huge economies of scale and well-staffed teams of ML experts? Like deep-sea oil drilling versus drilling in the desert?
- blfr 7y ago
  Yes, monopolies might actually turn out for the better. I can't really think of an example but in principle why not, maybe this time it will be an enlightened monopoly.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    My point was more along the lines: you let Google scoop up all the adtech business and then kill Google. Or at least its adtech activities in Europe. Since the territory is already unsustaining for small adtech businesses, they won't rise back up when Google's monopoly is out of the picture. No more adtech companies in Europe, mission accomplished.
- criley2 7y ago
  I literally cannot imagine supporting monopolies/oligopolies over healthy competition. There really is more than just an ocean between America and Europe, the culture is so dramatically different. How can one honestly believe that a Google data monopoly is better for privacy and innovation? It seems to fly in the face of every lesson learned by every monopoly in history.
anoncake 7y ago
> I hear that the european market for online advertising imploded Good.
magduf 7y ago
Yep, we see this in government contracting too: selling stuff to the government, or bidding on government contracts, means jumping through all kinds of crazy hoops. So small firms for the most part don't bother, and the only companies that do are ones (usually large ones) that are specialized for that task, but can't compete in the private sector, so people wonder why toilet seats cost $600. The only companies willing to sell toilet seats to the government and deal with the regulations are going to charge a fortune for it, and American Standard or Home Depot just don't bother. (With the US government, it isn't just behemoth corporations; there's big incentives for some small firms too, so there's a bunch of tiny companies that are highly specialized in milking that gravy train.)
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  Such as, for instance, a business 51% owned by a disabled, veteran, and Native American woman, that takes a percentage and then subcontracts all their work to a public company controlled by old, able-bodied, and white men. Working the system yields better profit than doing the actual work.

Semaphor 7y ago

The whole GDPR thing was known years in advance and even smaller outfits would have had enough time to make changes. An additional anecdote: we experimentally tried a smaller German ad exchange (used by quite some big-name sites here). Profits went way up compared to AdSense. What also went way up was the amount of stupid, low effort clickbait-bullshit (which as a non-lawyer I sometimes questioned the legality off considering some told outright lies). We stopped using them shortly afterward.

dmitriid 7y ago

Why do you think that advertising business is good and imploding ad business means privacy regulation is bad for small businesses in general? Besides, GDPR is an extension of similar laws that have existed for years.

criley2 7y ago
* I didnt say ad business was good or bad, but from the perspective of a European I would want European firms competing against American firms and keeping money and talent in my borders to boost my communities. * I didn't say that imploding ad business means privacy regulation is bad for small business, but I did demonstrate that big regulation chokes out small business and strongly correlates with big business success
- dmitriid 7y ago
  > I didnt say ad business was good or bad, but... But that's the business you chose for your illustration. > I didn't say that imploding ad business means privacy regulation is bad for small business, but ... ... you specifically talked about ad business alone and drew the conclusion that "big regulations create big business moats ... which demolish smaller businesses." It's a good thing that GDPR destroyed ad business that existed only by selling user data without consent. And there's nothing big about GDPR. It's very small and easy to comply with. If your business is built upon selling and profiting from user data without user's consent, good riddance. If not, GDPR doesn't affect you in the slightest.

bin0 7y ago

I'm really sorry to hear that google ads got even more, and now they're going to complain about a monopoly. Things like GDPR also make it harder to start a competitor, as paperwork and red tape always do; I have not personally worked on GDPR for any thing, but know some one who does and it's a nightmare. If stringent government regulation got you here, maybe it will be less of that, not more, that gets you out.

CaptainZapp 7y ago
If stringent government regulation got you here, maybe it will be less of that, not more, that gets you out. Yeah, we see how fantastically that one worked with the Boeing corporation and their newest flagship plane, The 737MAX.
- criley2 7y ago
  Gotta love the uber-intellectual reply that any valid criticism of European regulation brings: "but WHATABOUT <this other unrelated case>" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  - anoncake 7y ago
    It's not unrelated, it demonstrates that while unregulated markets may be a nice idea in theory, they just don't work in practice. Not that an analogy were necessary. The unregulated ad industry itself shows that an unregulated ad industry is a bad idea.
  - ionised 7y ago
    Accusations of whataboutism are invalid when you are calling out related points or highlighting hypocrisy and double standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Criticism Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair. For instance, in international relations, behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be quite good for a given geopolitical neighborhood, and deserves to be recognized as such. Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy. Others have criticized the usage of accusations of whataboutism by American news outlets, arguing that the accusation whataboutism has been used to simply "deflect" criticisms of human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States or its allies. They argue that the usage of the term almost exclusively by American outlets is a double standard, and that moral accusations made by powerful countries are merely a pretext to punish their geopolitical rivals in the face of their own wrongdoing. The scholars Kristen Ghodsee and Scott Sehon posit that mentioning the possible existence of victims of capitalism in popular discourse is often dismissed as 'whataboutism', which they describe as "a term implying that only atrocities perpetrated by communists merit attention." They also argue that such accusations of 'whataboutism' are invalid as the same arguments used against communism can also be used against capitalism.

raverbashing 7y ago

"Draconian" Yeah I'm sure not letting companies sell all the data about you to the highest bidder is somehow "draconian". Poor them You're right about the market capture, though it seems to me the ad market is in a bubble and that massive retargeting and trying to sell people things they already own is going to get old soon. Good contextualized marketing is less dependant on the profiles and more on what it's being shown right now.

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago

GDPR was supposed to kill surveillance adtech, and it is gradually doing its job. The regulators are not ignoring Google and friends and the enforcement actions will hurt them at some point.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

It might actually turn out for the better. Google is a big target; they can't fly under the radar. As for demolishing small businesses, small businesses aren't an universal, unquestionable good. In this particular case, we need less adtech business in general. It's like dumping toxic waste into rivers - not only lots of small polluters aren't better than few big ones, the desirable thing is just having less polluters.

ukoki 7y ago
Totally agree with you. I think also that it's very possible that delivering-adverts-with-minimal-privacy-infringement is a different class of problem to just "delivering-adverts". Maybe it's a type of problem where profit can only be extracted by means of huge economies of scale and well-staffed teams of ML experts? Like deep-sea oil drilling versus drilling in the desert?
blfr 7y ago
Yes, monopolies might actually turn out for the better. I can't really think of an example but in principle why not, maybe this time it will be an enlightened monopoly.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  My point was more along the lines: you let Google scoop up all the adtech business and then kill Google. Or at least its adtech activities in Europe. Since the territory is already unsustaining for small adtech businesses, they won't rise back up when Google's monopoly is out of the picture. No more adtech companies in Europe, mission accomplished.
criley2 7y ago
I literally cannot imagine supporting monopolies/oligopolies over healthy competition. There really is more than just an ocean between America and Europe, the culture is so dramatically different. How can one honestly believe that a Google data monopoly is better for privacy and innovation? It seems to fly in the face of every lesson learned by every monopoly in history.

anoncake 7y ago

> I hear that the european market for online advertising imploded Good.

magduf 7y ago

Yep, we see this in government contracting too: selling stuff to the government, or bidding on government contracts, means jumping through all kinds of crazy hoops. So small firms for the most part don't bother, and the only companies that do are ones (usually large ones) that are specialized for that task, but can't compete in the private sector, so people wonder why toilet seats cost $600. The only companies willing to sell toilet seats to the government and deal with the regulations are going to charge a fortune for it, and American Standard or Home Depot just don't bother. (With the US government, it isn't just behemoth corporations; there's big incentives for some small firms too, so there's a bunch of tiny companies that are highly specialized in milking that gravy train.)

logfromblammo 7y ago
Such as, for instance, a business 51% owned by a disabled, veteran, and Native American woman, that takes a percentage and then subcontracts all their work to a public company controlled by old, able-bodied, and white men. Working the system yields better profit than doing the actual work.