3 ms·

>I also think firms should be able to buy "blank space." For example facebook or amazon could pay NOT to have an ad above their result. Maybe they already do, I

>I also think firms should be able to buy "blank space." For example facebook or amazon could pay NOT to have an ad above their result. Maybe they already do, I dont see an ad when I search facebook, however I do see an ad for amazon above the top amazon result. Backblaze had a competitor who bought ads for the search term "backblaze". The CEO successfully contacted the competitor CEO and they agreed they'd be in a pissing match throwing money at Google if the practice and retaliation (backblaze buying on their search term) occurred. The competitor promptly stopped the ad campaign. https://www.backblaze.com/blog/save-marketing-money-nice/ https://www.backblaze.com/blog/save-marketing-money-nice/

zone411 7y ago
If the competitor was smaller with more money to spend or let's say had higher margins, it was stupid of them to agree to this type of (possible?) collusion.
- froindt 7y ago
  I get what you're saying. It does have an anticompetitive/colluding feel to it. I don't know exactly where my opinion lies in this case. I think the cloud backup space currently has many players and that even if all players agreed to this - the net result would be Google earning less, each of those companies having less ad spend, and therefore greater profitability. Heck, imagine if a 3rd party existed to "bypass" the Google ad auction through collusion on generic terms like 'computer backup'. (I'm not in this space, so some of the feasibility is speculative). Each company puts in their bid parameters for search terms. 3rd party evaluate the bids, submit 2 slightly different bids to minimize ad spend, and since the whole market coluded, Google made less money. It's fragile, it's collusion. It's easily by passable by anyone going to Google directly. Was anyone harmed?

3 ms·

>I also think firms should be able to buy "blank space." For example facebook or amazon could pay NOT to have an ad above their result. Maybe they already do, I

by froindt 7y ago

zone411 7y ago
If the competitor was smaller with more money to spend or let's say had higher margins, it was stupid of them to agree to this type of (possible?) collusion.
- froindt 7y ago
  I get what you're saying. It does have an anticompetitive/colluding feel to it. I don't know exactly where my opinion lies in this case. I think the cloud backup space currently has many players and that even if all players agreed to this - the net result would be Google earning less, each of those companies having less ad spend, and therefore greater profitability. Heck, imagine if a 3rd party existed to "bypass" the Google ad auction through collusion on generic terms like 'computer backup'. (I'm not in this space, so some of the feasibility is speculative). Each company puts in their bid parameters for search terms. 3rd party evaluate the bids, submit 2 slightly different bids to minimize ad spend, and since the whole market coluded, Google made less money. It's fragile, it's collusion. It's easily by passable by anyone going to Google directly. Was anyone harmed?