9 ms·

Huh? Something like 60% goes to website - it's in the agreement. If they are going to try and prove google charged $100 and paid $1 - good luck. Google makes e

Huh? Something like 60% goes to website - it's in the agreement. If they are going to try and prove google charged $100 and paid $1 - good luck. Google makes enough money just on their 40%, and can change that % any time. Google could just set their rate to 50% if they wanted if they'd still be competitive. If the DOJ is relying on this type of argument, that google is secretly scamming folks, they are probably toast I think.

cblconfederate 6y ago
No that is not going to be their argument, it will probably be along the lines: google may be skewing the bids towards the $100 high end in order to maximize their own cut. We don't know whether bids should really be $100 because all their competitors have died so there is nothing to compare. I don't think google would violate their agreement with publishers. That said there are many questions to be asked there too : what is that "invalid traffic". Why are inventories not filled , why are some ads not allwed etc etc. Google can claim their agreement is "take it or leave it" , but that is where their problem lies. If both advertisers and publishers are forced to "take it" due to lack of alternatives, it is an admission that they are in a monopolistic position.
- donor20 6y ago
  Let's be 100% clear, google "skewing" the bids to the high end - EVERY person selling ads tries to get as much as they can from the ads they sell. The DOJ is making this a crime now? They are going to lose in seconds. The website hosting the ads and google both want the price they get to be as high as possible. That is what google is selling, ads, and they want as much as they can. Google is not pretending to be a charity. There is no requirement they or websites charge low rates for ads, so yes, google skews the bids as high as they can without losing volume. I'm really worried if this is the strength of the DOJ case, this is horrible and clearly political.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    Again, the issue is the lack of competition (also, google sells to advertisers as well)

cblconfederate 6y ago

No that is not going to be their argument, it will probably be along the lines: google may be skewing the bids towards the $100 high end in order to maximize their own cut. We don't know whether bids should really be $100 because all their competitors have died so there is nothing to compare. I don't think google would violate their agreement with publishers. That said there are many questions to be asked there too : what is that "invalid traffic". Why are inventories not filled , why are some ads not allwed etc etc. Google can claim their agreement is "take it or leave it" , but that is where their problem lies. If both advertisers and publishers are forced to "take it" due to lack of alternatives, it is an admission that they are in a monopolistic position.

donor20 6y ago
Let's be 100% clear, google "skewing" the bids to the high end - EVERY person selling ads tries to get as much as they can from the ads they sell. The DOJ is making this a crime now? They are going to lose in seconds. The website hosting the ads and google both want the price they get to be as high as possible. That is what google is selling, ads, and they want as much as they can. Google is not pretending to be a charity. There is no requirement they or websites charge low rates for ads, so yes, google skews the bids as high as they can without losing volume. I'm really worried if this is the strength of the DOJ case, this is horrible and clearly political.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  Again, the issue is the lack of competition (also, google sells to advertisers as well)