10 ms·

I’m much more interested in the Ad-tech Monopoly. The Doubleclick merger should have never been approved. “Other states are still considering their own cases r

by redm 6y ago

I’m much more interested in the Ad-tech Monopoly. The Doubleclick merger should have never been approved. “Other states are still considering their own cases related to Google’s search practices, and a large group of states is considering a case challenging Google’s power in the digital advertising market, The Wall Street Journal has reported. In the ad-technology market, Google owns industry-leading tools at every link in the complex chain between online publishers and advertisers. The Justice Department also continues to investigate Google’s ad-tech practices.” [1] [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-to-file-long-awaited-antitrust-suit-against-google-11603195203?mod=djemalertNEWS https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-to-file-long...

scumcity 6y ago
Wherefore? FB and other such platforms are much better at display ads technology, as they don't care about user privacy at all. User tracking is the only real discriminator when it comes to display ads, where as search queries are very discriminating.
- mtgx 6y ago
  I agree, considering how much money they still make with Display Ads, and its potential to make so much more, it's amazing to me how Display Ads are still like 1/10 the quality of Facebook ads as a product for advertisers, and Facebook Ads is also a mess with all the bugs and random algorithm changes they make on a weekly basis, so that's saying something. It's not just about targeting. But the algorithm is also 10x worse and the UX is 10x worse, and often it's on purpose to get as much "dumb money" as they can, while of course shooting themselves in the foot, because the better long strategy would be to actually make it a quality product that gives people results.
- llimos 6y ago
  DuckDuckGo claim to make significantly less money per search than Google does, which seems to disprove that search queries are enough of a discriminator on their own. Source: https://spreadprivacy.com/search-preference-menu-duckduckgo-elimination/ https://spreadprivacy.com/search-preference-menu-duckduckgo-... Despite DuckDuckGo being robustly profitable since 2014, we have been priced out of this auction because we choose to not maximize our profits by exploiting our users. In practical terms, this means our commitment to privacy and a cleaner search experience translates into less money per search. This means we must bid less relative to other, profit-maximizing companies.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - fastball 6y ago
    I should certainly hope that DDG makes less per search than Google, since they are just repackaging a lot of google searches.
    - minerjoe 6y ago
      Bing.
      - fastball 6y ago
        Well yes they're getting "their" search data from Bing, but I meant how a lot of people seem to just use DDG to `!g [search]`.
        krallja 6y ago
        `!g search` isn’t a repackaging - it just redirects you to google.com/search?q=search
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Search queries are generally enough for ads, but DuckDuckGo only makes money on selling those ads, while Google also sells your person information connected to the search.
    - nopeNopeNooope 6y ago
      Where does Google sell personal information? That would literally be selling the crown jewels for some extra pocket money, what makes you think this is the case?
    - nl 6y ago
      This isn't true.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
wannabag 6y ago
Couldn't agree more, the adtech is where the monopoly lies. I worked for a doubleclick / ads 360 competitor and it was so plain that Google used its dominant position not only to squash competitors like us but also to further obscure the auction mechanisms. Today it's a challenge to specify exactly what you want to bid for a given keyword, in part for the better since it dramatically reduces complexity for advertisers but it does remove a lot of the control and hands it back to... Google. Ultimately the auction is completely irrelevant since Google decides which ads will show and by extension whose ad money they'll pocket. In addition to that, Google charges premium for ad space even in non-competitive markets; I'm talking about what you end up paying for a top spot although there are no other actors in the auction for a particular keyword (even in broader matches). While one could argue that it's up to them as a publisher to decide what a spot is worth, this mechanism is completely obscure and you will only ever find out in hindsight through what you pay for the traffic.
- dlp211 6y ago
  > Google charges premium for ad space even in non-competitive markets; I'm talking about what you end up paying for a top spot although there are no other actors in the auction for a particular keyword (even in broader matches). Google uses a Vickery Auction, in other words the top bid pays what the second bidder bid so while I agree with your greater point, this is not based in reality as stated.
  - wannabag 6y ago
    Yes, I didn't express that correctly; I know about the second price auction and what I was referring to is that since Google does everything in their power to get you away from keyword level bidding and into their "smart bidding" solutions you have no _direct_ say in what the traffic costs (AFAIK it's still possible to use keyword level bidding but Google will email you very regularly to try to get you off). This fact is even more obvious in non-competitive markets as I was trying to point out.
    - gscott 6y ago
      I manage a decent size Google Adwords account. The Google adwords "strategist" they have call me is always pushing the Smart Bidding endlessly. So I try it on one campaign. Smart bidding increased the click cost from about $20 to $100. The one click converted but I get conversions on that campaign for about $60 so it was a disaster. Turned off that smart bidding and went back to my own eCpc bidding.
option 6y ago
Exactly, Doubleclick acquisition should not have been approved. I’m wondering if we still have that same approvers still “doing their job”
- billiam 6y ago
  the level of understanding in government of how the Internet was shaping up way back then was really really low; I was around then and felt it was crazy but unless the regulators can understand and measure an industry, they won't every stop an acquisition like Doubleclick.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
I concur, I think this is when Google really jumped the shark. That said I believe it would be relatively easy to break up the company 1) office/mail/maps service as a pay to play 2) cloud service 3) search service. Obviously 1 would have to go to a rival ad platform or freemium to pay the bills, maybe also keep the "non search" ads platform. 2) and 3) should be able to pay for themselves 3) with related ads to the search.
- hannofcart 6y ago
  Also 4) Android.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    I suppose Android can make money from % take of sales. Obviously it works for apple :) . Maybe not 30% though
dcolkitt 6y ago
Probably true, but antitrust law is based on consumer welfare. Let’s say Google uses monopoly power in the ad market to squeeze advertisers. It’s hard to translate that into direct harm to consumers. That argument would either hinge on the cost of advertising being passed along to consumers. Very hard to prove. Or the higher cost decreasing the total amount of advertising, somehow harming consumers. Dubious when ad-free products are generally considered premium and desirable
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  > Probably true, but antitrust law is based on consumer welfare. I don’t believe this is true. The law doesn’t set that criteria, but rather it’s a standard of interpretation known as the Chicago School. This was established far after, but is not law. There’s a lot of debate on whether or not we should continue to maintain the standard. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/reassessing-chicago-school-antitrust-law https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/reassessing-chicago-school... Antitrust legislation was originally established to prevent monopoly power from giving a company influence that could challenge that of government and harm democracy.
  - dcolkitt 6y ago
    It is an interpretation, but one explicitly endorsed by 30 years of Supreme Court precedent. Given the current composition of the court, it's unlikely that we'll ever see the consumer welfare standard overruled in our lifetime.
- otabdeveloper4 6y ago
  The consumers here are the advertisers.
- tripzilch 6y ago
  > Let’s say Google uses monopoly power in the ad market to squeeze advertisers. It’s hard to translate that into direct harm to consumers. Almost as if what harms the ad industry is good for consumers ... Also, "direct harm to consumers" is about the lowest bar you can set. It would be way more responsible to take some preventative action, before the harm to consumers occurs.
emodendroket 6y ago
My read on this is they want to harp on the old "they're not showing conservative sites" theme again. Maybe I'm wrong.

by redm 6y ago

scumcity 6y ago

Wherefore? FB and other such platforms are much better at display ads technology, as they don't care about user privacy at all. User tracking is the only real discriminator when it comes to display ads, where as search queries are very discriminating.

mtgx 6y ago
I agree, considering how much money they still make with Display Ads, and its potential to make so much more, it's amazing to me how Display Ads are still like 1/10 the quality of Facebook ads as a product for advertisers, and Facebook Ads is also a mess with all the bugs and random algorithm changes they make on a weekly basis, so that's saying something. It's not just about targeting. But the algorithm is also 10x worse and the UX is 10x worse, and often it's on purpose to get as much "dumb money" as they can, while of course shooting themselves in the foot, because the better long strategy would be to actually make it a quality product that gives people results.
llimos 6y ago
DuckDuckGo claim to make significantly less money per search than Google does, which seems to disprove that search queries are enough of a discriminator on their own. Source: https://spreadprivacy.com/search-preference-menu-duckduckgo-elimination/ https://spreadprivacy.com/search-preference-menu-duckduckgo-... Despite DuckDuckGo being robustly profitable since 2014, we have been priced out of this auction because we choose to not maximize our profits by exploiting our users. In practical terms, this means our commitment to privacy and a cleaner search experience translates into less money per search. This means we must bid less relative to other, profit-maximizing companies.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- fastball 6y ago
  I should certainly hope that DDG makes less per search than Google, since they are just repackaging a lot of google searches.
  - minerjoe 6y ago
    Bing.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Well yes they're getting "their" search data from Bing, but I meant how a lot of people seem to just use DDG to `!g [search]`.
      - krallja 6y ago
        `!g search` isn’t a repackaging - it just redirects you to google.com/search?q=search
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  Search queries are generally enough for ads, but DuckDuckGo only makes money on selling those ads, while Google also sells your person information connected to the search.
  - nopeNopeNooope 6y ago
    Where does Google sell personal information? That would literally be selling the crown jewels for some extra pocket money, what makes you think this is the case?
  - nl 6y ago
    This isn't true.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

wannabag 6y ago

Couldn't agree more, the adtech is where the monopoly lies. I worked for a doubleclick / ads 360 competitor and it was so plain that Google used its dominant position not only to squash competitors like us but also to further obscure the auction mechanisms. Today it's a challenge to specify exactly what you want to bid for a given keyword, in part for the better since it dramatically reduces complexity for advertisers but it does remove a lot of the control and hands it back to... Google. Ultimately the auction is completely irrelevant since Google decides which ads will show and by extension whose ad money they'll pocket. In addition to that, Google charges premium for ad space even in non-competitive markets; I'm talking about what you end up paying for a top spot although there are no other actors in the auction for a particular keyword (even in broader matches). While one could argue that it's up to them as a publisher to decide what a spot is worth, this mechanism is completely obscure and you will only ever find out in hindsight through what you pay for the traffic.

dlp211 6y ago
> Google charges premium for ad space even in non-competitive markets; I'm talking about what you end up paying for a top spot although there are no other actors in the auction for a particular keyword (even in broader matches). Google uses a Vickery Auction, in other words the top bid pays what the second bidder bid so while I agree with your greater point, this is not based in reality as stated.
- wannabag 6y ago
  Yes, I didn't express that correctly; I know about the second price auction and what I was referring to is that since Google does everything in their power to get you away from keyword level bidding and into their "smart bidding" solutions you have no _direct_ say in what the traffic costs (AFAIK it's still possible to use keyword level bidding but Google will email you very regularly to try to get you off). This fact is even more obvious in non-competitive markets as I was trying to point out.
  - gscott 6y ago
    I manage a decent size Google Adwords account. The Google adwords "strategist" they have call me is always pushing the Smart Bidding endlessly. So I try it on one campaign. Smart bidding increased the click cost from about $20 to $100. The one click converted but I get conversions on that campaign for about $60 so it was a disaster. Turned off that smart bidding and went back to my own eCpc bidding.

option 6y ago

Exactly, Doubleclick acquisition should not have been approved. I’m wondering if we still have that same approvers still “doing their job”

billiam 6y ago
the level of understanding in government of how the Internet was shaping up way back then was really really low; I was around then and felt it was crazy but unless the regulators can understand and measure an industry, they won't every stop an acquisition like Doubleclick.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

I concur, I think this is when Google really jumped the shark. That said I believe it would be relatively easy to break up the company 1) office/mail/maps service as a pay to play 2) cloud service 3) search service. Obviously 1 would have to go to a rival ad platform or freemium to pay the bills, maybe also keep the "non search" ads platform. 2) and 3) should be able to pay for themselves 3) with related ads to the search.

hannofcart 6y ago
Also 4) Android.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  I suppose Android can make money from % take of sales. Obviously it works for apple :) . Maybe not 30% though

dcolkitt 6y ago

Probably true, but antitrust law is based on consumer welfare. Let’s say Google uses monopoly power in the ad market to squeeze advertisers. It’s hard to translate that into direct harm to consumers. That argument would either hinge on the cost of advertising being passed along to consumers. Very hard to prove. Or the higher cost decreasing the total amount of advertising, somehow harming consumers. Dubious when ad-free products are generally considered premium and desirable

ViViDboarder 6y ago
> Probably true, but antitrust law is based on consumer welfare. I don’t believe this is true. The law doesn’t set that criteria, but rather it’s a standard of interpretation known as the Chicago School. This was established far after, but is not law. There’s a lot of debate on whether or not we should continue to maintain the standard. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/reassessing-chicago-school-antitrust-law https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/reassessing-chicago-school... Antitrust legislation was originally established to prevent monopoly power from giving a company influence that could challenge that of government and harm democracy.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  It is an interpretation, but one explicitly endorsed by 30 years of Supreme Court precedent. Given the current composition of the court, it's unlikely that we'll ever see the consumer welfare standard overruled in our lifetime.
otabdeveloper4 6y ago
The consumers here are the advertisers.
tripzilch 6y ago
> Let’s say Google uses monopoly power in the ad market to squeeze advertisers. It’s hard to translate that into direct harm to consumers. Almost as if what harms the ad industry is good for consumers ... Also, "direct harm to consumers" is about the lowest bar you can set. It would be way more responsible to take some preventative action, before the harm to consumers occurs.

emodendroket 6y ago

My read on this is they want to harp on the old "they're not showing conservative sites" theme again. Maybe I'm wrong.