4 ms·

Fb could disrupt google because it had the impressions first, so that is the dimension to think about. Adspend and advertiser pool is a by product. Disclaimer:

Fb could disrupt google because it had the impressions first, so that is the dimension to think about. Adspend and advertiser pool is a by product. Disclaimer: current fb, ex google employee.

philipov 6y ago
Fb is also a problem, so relying on them isn't going to solve anything. A cartel or oligopoly is not a better situation than a monopoly. For there to be a healthy market, it needs to be possible for small business to compete. If that's not possible in a market, then it needs to be regulated like a public utility.
- indigochill 6y ago
  > If that's not possible in a market, then it needs to be regulated like a public utility. What I don't understand here is does this not just hand Google the monopoly but now with government protection? Because they're already in place, so who's gonna offer this public utility? We see similar situations with, e.g. cellular carriers in the states, where wherever you live, you only get not-even-a-handful of choices. And how does a country regulate an international "utility"? For Google to maintain its global position, it needs to consider not just local regulations, but also those in international markets. Public utilities so far have always had a limited area of operation.
  - 411111111111111 6y ago
    I could imagine ads being run like a utility from a purely technological pov. I'm not sure I like that image however, nor do I think it has any chance of happening as all major companies would sabotage it. but back to the original idea of it being a utility: Ads are imo user hostile and harmful to a society. They do work, which make them invaluable in capitalism... But they're effectively mass manipulation. I don't think we will ever be rid of them, but a world in which this is considered a utility is extremely dark imo
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Regulation like a utility doesn't mean their has to be only one gatekeeper. It could just more rules once one becomes so dominant they are a defacto gatekeeper. Doubtful this would be done in the same way everywhere. Though big markets like the EU or US may regulate at the federal/union level to ease the burden on interstate commerce.
  - toast0 6y ago
    It really depends on what the regulation is. If it's something to the effect of making a siloed company for AdWords that needs to offer FRAND terms to everyone, plus Alphabet is bared from doing its own ads, and has to contract it out, then AdWords Inc could gather more of the market and become even more dominant. This would still be a win, because the new, more dominant, advertising platform would not have any other businesses to anticompetitively promote. Maybe you would get competitors offering different terms, but that's probably wishful thinking. A company that operates in a jurisdiction is regulatable by that jurisdiction. In this case, if Google weren't physically present, you sanction advertisers and local sites that use the ad service. In cases where there's no economic connection, the option is to force ISPs not to carry that traffic (and all the cat and mouse that entails). Also, a lot of mobile carriers are international companies. In each country, they follow the local regulations. They have some economies of scale that may make it easier to compete with a network that's only in one country, but it depends on the size of that country how big the effect is.
yholio 6y ago
Facebook has the impressions because in many countries they have a de-facto monopoly in social networking, which has become a large part of all web trafic. Google will cover the rest of the net almost unchallenged. So it's not even a duopoly, it's a segmented monopoly.
yellowstuff 6y ago
I'd think that if someone has the intention to buy but doesn't have a site in mind, they'll usually use Google: like "best mortgage rates" or "american girl doll clothes". I can see FB ads being better for raising interest in a product to a targeted demographic, but I'd assume that the Google ads that are very close to the point of sale are much more valuable. What am I missing?
- dylan604 6y ago
  It's 2 different things to me. Buying an ad on Facebook is an attempt to get a specific ad campaign in front of specific users without the user specifically requesting it. Buying an ad on Google means getting your advertised item in front of a user as a result from a user's search. Either way, the user is now just one click away from getting to your advertised product, so I'm not seeing how Google is any closer than Facebook is. Facebook is passively placing your ad in front of a user, where Google's is active from the point of view of the user's actions. That's just for ad placement within the Google Search. I'm sure Google is doing the same passive ad placement in its other ad distribution arms.

Fb could disrupt google because it had the impressions first, so that is the dimension to think about. Adspend and advertiser pool is a by product. Disclaimer: current fb, ex google employee.

philipov 6y ago

Fb is also a problem, so relying on them isn't going to solve anything. A cartel or oligopoly is not a better situation than a monopoly. For there to be a healthy market, it needs to be possible for small business to compete. If that's not possible in a market, then it needs to be regulated like a public utility.

indigochill 6y ago
> If that's not possible in a market, then it needs to be regulated like a public utility. What I don't understand here is does this not just hand Google the monopoly but now with government protection? Because they're already in place, so who's gonna offer this public utility? We see similar situations with, e.g. cellular carriers in the states, where wherever you live, you only get not-even-a-handful of choices. And how does a country regulate an international "utility"? For Google to maintain its global position, it needs to consider not just local regulations, but also those in international markets. Public utilities so far have always had a limited area of operation.
- 411111111111111 6y ago
  I could imagine ads being run like a utility from a purely technological pov. I'm not sure I like that image however, nor do I think it has any chance of happening as all major companies would sabotage it. but back to the original idea of it being a utility: Ads are imo user hostile and harmful to a society. They do work, which make them invaluable in capitalism... But they're effectively mass manipulation. I don't think we will ever be rid of them, but a world in which this is considered a utility is extremely dark imo
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Regulation like a utility doesn't mean their has to be only one gatekeeper. It could just more rules once one becomes so dominant they are a defacto gatekeeper. Doubtful this would be done in the same way everywhere. Though big markets like the EU or US may regulate at the federal/union level to ease the burden on interstate commerce.
- toast0 6y ago
  It really depends on what the regulation is. If it's something to the effect of making a siloed company for AdWords that needs to offer FRAND terms to everyone, plus Alphabet is bared from doing its own ads, and has to contract it out, then AdWords Inc could gather more of the market and become even more dominant. This would still be a win, because the new, more dominant, advertising platform would not have any other businesses to anticompetitively promote. Maybe you would get competitors offering different terms, but that's probably wishful thinking. A company that operates in a jurisdiction is regulatable by that jurisdiction. In this case, if Google weren't physically present, you sanction advertisers and local sites that use the ad service. In cases where there's no economic connection, the option is to force ISPs not to carry that traffic (and all the cat and mouse that entails). Also, a lot of mobile carriers are international companies. In each country, they follow the local regulations. They have some economies of scale that may make it easier to compete with a network that's only in one country, but it depends on the size of that country how big the effect is.

yholio 6y ago

Facebook has the impressions because in many countries they have a de-facto monopoly in social networking, which has become a large part of all web trafic. Google will cover the rest of the net almost unchallenged. So it's not even a duopoly, it's a segmented monopoly.

yellowstuff 6y ago

I'd think that if someone has the intention to buy but doesn't have a site in mind, they'll usually use Google: like "best mortgage rates" or "american girl doll clothes". I can see FB ads being better for raising interest in a product to a targeted demographic, but I'd assume that the Google ads that are very close to the point of sale are much more valuable. What am I missing?

dylan604 6y ago
It's 2 different things to me. Buying an ad on Facebook is an attempt to get a specific ad campaign in front of specific users without the user specifically requesting it. Buying an ad on Google means getting your advertised item in front of a user as a result from a user's search. Either way, the user is now just one click away from getting to your advertised product, so I'm not seeing how Google is any closer than Facebook is. Facebook is passively placing your ad in front of a user, where Google's is active from the point of view of the user's actions. That's just for ad placement within the Google Search. I'm sure Google is doing the same passive ad placement in its other ad distribution arms.