4 ms·

Can you explain how the public is harmed? I (think) I get the affect on various players in the ad ecosystem. Can anyone quantify the harm to the public?

calibas 6y ago
This affects the whole online ad market, not just Google's competitors. That's a whole lot of "the public" that's directly affected. How do you quantify it? I don't know, how about we look at how much money Google is making?
- pbourke 6y ago
  Is every dollar that Google earns a dollar of harm to the public?
  - inetknght 6y ago
    Why can't it be? Every dollar of harm translates to more than a dollar of knock-on effects
jonahbenton 6y ago
One has to have a theory of (public) harm. There are a bunch of them from a legal perspective, and maybe they will carry the day. They don't necessarily make sense from a non-legal colloquial perspective. From a non-legal perspective, one of the big harms (I would argue) is in the destruction of the business model for small ad-supported publishers. Google was taking 80% of money that should have gone to them, and digital and physical publishers (like local newspapers) have had a mass extinction. That said, out of the ashes, rises the phoenix. Substack and other subscription models owe their opportunity to Google's monopoly, and in many ways they're the mammals in this ecosystem of dying dinosaurs.
- pbourke 6y ago
  > Google was taking 80% of money that should have gone to them This seems to presuppose an alternate universe in which Google doesn’t exist but ad revenue is the same?
  - jonahbenton 6y ago
    No, a universe in which Google exists but wasn't committing fraud as monopolistic mobster middleman, handling both delivery and measurement of delivery. Google did and does what any mobster does- claim the vast majority of the value and let a trickle flow back to the producer, striking deals ordinarily understood to be illegal to maintain their position, while creating reports for producers that conveyed a false view of their role in the middle. Few producers survive with the mob as their distribution.
justinph 6y ago
> Can anyone quantify the harm to the public? Drive down ad rates for non-google content, which severely hurt other digital publishers, like news sites. This made it basically unsustainable for them to survive on advertising. Thus, hurt local reporting and investigation, which in turn allows corruption and ineffective government, eventually hurting democracy.
ballenf 6y ago
Three ways that I can think of quickly: 1. Ads cost more which raises the cost of doing business which raises the cost of goods. 2. It also makes certain borderline businesses infeasible -- there would be a whole class of businesses that don't/can't exist because they become unprofitable if you have to pay the ad monopoly/duopoly piper on top of normal expenses. 3. You could also argue that FB's continued dominance is another societal harm stemming directly from the alleged actions. If there wasn't an ad cartel, it would be easier to start new ad-based social media companies. (Wouldn't it be crazy if Google+ being neglected and then shutdown was a part of the negotiations between Google and FB?) Lots of presumptions in the above, but I think a strong case could be made for each.
- switch11 6y ago
  This is 100% true -> (Wouldn't it be crazy if Google+ being neglected and then shutdown was a part of the negotiations between Google and FB?) Same for Amazon closing down A9 search Google buying up Affiliate Networks and closing one down and basically banning affiliate from most of Google Search and doing @#$#$-all with Google Shopping 100% Division between Amazon - shopping Google - search Facebook - social with outward illusion of 'rivalry' Bezos is 4th angel investor in Google Qunicy Jones in an interview says he used to have a weekly dinner with Elon Musk, Google founders, Bezos It's Qunicy Jones so no idea how reliable. But wouldn't that be interesting - if Google and Amazon founders were doing dinner every week or every other week
  - ballenf 6y ago
    Actually you just kind of convinced me of the opposite -- that there was nothing nefarious with Google+. Clearly these companies have a track record of getting out of non-core businesses where they don't have expertise and/or don't have much to gain. Google buying up affiliate networks and shutting them down is just plain consolidation of monopoly -- not conspiracy to divide up the market like the other actions. (It still deserves antitrust scrutiny, but for wholly different reasons.) And weekly or bi-weekly dinners? Conspirators go to great lengths to have legitimate pretenses for any meetings. Trade shows are/were notorious for where these cartels get business done because everyone has a legitimate interest to be there. You also want plausible deniability.
dkobran 6y ago
Because more competition in the ad space is invariably better for consumers. The alleged practices at play are illegal because they are known to harm consumers. And this is sufficient to demonstrate harm. For example, collusion is illegal not because someone necessarily sues and says “I was harmed by this” but because collusion invariably harms consumers. That’s the whole motivation behind collusion/price setting. Seems clear as day to me though I inquired with my friend who works in antitrust litigation and this was the response: “There’s the broader principal that if they’re setting prices illegally they may not be harming consumers right now but they certainly could. Second, consumers are hurt when innovation/competition is curbed, and that is what they allege the deal’s purpose is. The bottom line is that if there were illegal deals and they can prove there were, those agreements are per se violations and you’re not really looking at consumer harm. This is what the case is alleging.” The brief actually sums this up really well. The claims start at p. 100, which is where they allege harms but they provide good explanations throughout. Edit: Note about the the brief.
- namdnay 6y ago
  The thing is, the “consumers” of the ad space are the advertisers, not end-users. They’re the product So monopolistic practices will harm the consumer (advertisers), but do they really harm end-users? Does a monopoly in farming harm the cows?
  - dkobran 6y ago
    TL;DR Businesses just pass these costs on to their consumers. Businesses have somewhat standard target gross margins, customer acquisition costs (CAC), LTV:CAC ratio, etc. and will determine pricing based on multiples of these variables. Ad spend is often a huge component of CAC and this directly feeds into what companies need to charge their customers in order to use their products. The assumption that businesses will just eat a higher cost as sort of consumer benefactors is quite naive. I can assure you they won’t.
  - kkoncevicius 6y ago
    The end users buy the products of the advertisers. In a monopoly ads cost more and to make a profit advertisers have to increase their product prices. In turn the users pay higher prices for the products that are being advertised.
reilly3000 6y ago
The business has to pay more to acquire customers, which drives up the cost of goods. Indirectly the consumer pays in mobile bandwidth costs, and publishers are forced to show ever-more ad units, refresh every 30 seconds, paginate articles, or add content recommendations, all because AdTech takes 85% of the ad spend that use to flow more directly between publishers and advertisers. Much of that went to the cost of staffing a sales team, but those folks were doing human review on campaigns, so ad quality was high and fraud was low. With unlimited digital ad variations, ad networks have to police a mountain of potential bad ads, which can be directly malicious to the user. I can spin up 1000 banners and text ads, but only spend a dollar. See the problem? They all still need review. Instead, GOOG relies upon AI and user reports, which they promptly ignore. Meanwhile, they serve up so many mobile redirects that publishers have to pay yet another vendor for protection against the crap Google doesn't vet. As a publisher I'm not really interested in showing my audience ads that automatically redirect them away from my content and to a scam $500 Walmart Gift Card landing page. Yet, if I want to have access to Google demand, I have to take the bad with the good. What choice is there? Exist and use Google, or pass on 60-90% of revenue while competing for the same audience? As an advertiser I have to count on Google's reporting to tell me if I'm making positive ROI and they are constantly finding new ways to convince me that they made the sale. They bill for ads that were never seen and clicks that went to nowhere. Occasionally you'll see a discount on your bill for "Invalid Clicks" but you'll never see anything auditable about it. If I don't police my site list, I might end up funding websites run by terrorists and/or money launderers. Honestly how many US citizens who are shopping for cars do so on .ru domains? If you're not vigilant, that will be 20%+ of your ad spend. Yet, if not Google or Facebook, where can I reach a relevant, large audience with a small and variable ad spend? Not with DSPs, not with agencies, not with direct ad buys.

calibas 6y ago

This affects the whole online ad market, not just Google's competitors. That's a whole lot of "the public" that's directly affected. How do you quantify it? I don't know, how about we look at how much money Google is making?

pbourke 6y ago
Is every dollar that Google earns a dollar of harm to the public?
- inetknght 6y ago
  Why can't it be? Every dollar of harm translates to more than a dollar of knock-on effects

jonahbenton 6y ago

One has to have a theory of (public) harm. There are a bunch of them from a legal perspective, and maybe they will carry the day. They don't necessarily make sense from a non-legal colloquial perspective. From a non-legal perspective, one of the big harms (I would argue) is in the destruction of the business model for small ad-supported publishers. Google was taking 80% of money that should have gone to them, and digital and physical publishers (like local newspapers) have had a mass extinction. That said, out of the ashes, rises the phoenix. Substack and other subscription models owe their opportunity to Google's monopoly, and in many ways they're the mammals in this ecosystem of dying dinosaurs.

pbourke 6y ago
> Google was taking 80% of money that should have gone to them This seems to presuppose an alternate universe in which Google doesn’t exist but ad revenue is the same?
- jonahbenton 6y ago
  No, a universe in which Google exists but wasn't committing fraud as monopolistic mobster middleman, handling both delivery and measurement of delivery. Google did and does what any mobster does- claim the vast majority of the value and let a trickle flow back to the producer, striking deals ordinarily understood to be illegal to maintain their position, while creating reports for producers that conveyed a false view of their role in the middle. Few producers survive with the mob as their distribution.

justinph 6y ago

> Can anyone quantify the harm to the public? Drive down ad rates for non-google content, which severely hurt other digital publishers, like news sites. This made it basically unsustainable for them to survive on advertising. Thus, hurt local reporting and investigation, which in turn allows corruption and ineffective government, eventually hurting democracy.

ballenf 6y ago

Three ways that I can think of quickly: 1. Ads cost more which raises the cost of doing business which raises the cost of goods. 2. It also makes certain borderline businesses infeasible -- there would be a whole class of businesses that don't/can't exist because they become unprofitable if you have to pay the ad monopoly/duopoly piper on top of normal expenses. 3. You could also argue that FB's continued dominance is another societal harm stemming directly from the alleged actions. If there wasn't an ad cartel, it would be easier to start new ad-based social media companies. (Wouldn't it be crazy if Google+ being neglected and then shutdown was a part of the negotiations between Google and FB?) Lots of presumptions in the above, but I think a strong case could be made for each.

switch11 6y ago
This is 100% true -> (Wouldn't it be crazy if Google+ being neglected and then shutdown was a part of the negotiations between Google and FB?) Same for Amazon closing down A9 search Google buying up Affiliate Networks and closing one down and basically banning affiliate from most of Google Search and doing @#$#$-all with Google Shopping 100% Division between Amazon - shopping Google - search Facebook - social with outward illusion of 'rivalry' Bezos is 4th angel investor in Google Qunicy Jones in an interview says he used to have a weekly dinner with Elon Musk, Google founders, Bezos It's Qunicy Jones so no idea how reliable. But wouldn't that be interesting - if Google and Amazon founders were doing dinner every week or every other week
- ballenf 6y ago
  Actually you just kind of convinced me of the opposite -- that there was nothing nefarious with Google+. Clearly these companies have a track record of getting out of non-core businesses where they don't have expertise and/or don't have much to gain. Google buying up affiliate networks and shutting them down is just plain consolidation of monopoly -- not conspiracy to divide up the market like the other actions. (It still deserves antitrust scrutiny, but for wholly different reasons.) And weekly or bi-weekly dinners? Conspirators go to great lengths to have legitimate pretenses for any meetings. Trade shows are/were notorious for where these cartels get business done because everyone has a legitimate interest to be there. You also want plausible deniability.

dkobran 6y ago

Because more competition in the ad space is invariably better for consumers. The alleged practices at play are illegal because they are known to harm consumers. And this is sufficient to demonstrate harm. For example, collusion is illegal not because someone necessarily sues and says “I was harmed by this” but because collusion invariably harms consumers. That’s the whole motivation behind collusion/price setting. Seems clear as day to me though I inquired with my friend who works in antitrust litigation and this was the response: “There’s the broader principal that if they’re setting prices illegally they may not be harming consumers right now but they certainly could. Second, consumers are hurt when innovation/competition is curbed, and that is what they allege the deal’s purpose is. The bottom line is that if there were illegal deals and they can prove there were, those agreements are per se violations and you’re not really looking at consumer harm. This is what the case is alleging.” The brief actually sums this up really well. The claims start at p. 100, which is where they allege harms but they provide good explanations throughout. Edit: Note about the the brief.

namdnay 6y ago
The thing is, the “consumers” of the ad space are the advertisers, not end-users. They’re the product So monopolistic practices will harm the consumer (advertisers), but do they really harm end-users? Does a monopoly in farming harm the cows?
- dkobran 6y ago
  TL;DR Businesses just pass these costs on to their consumers. Businesses have somewhat standard target gross margins, customer acquisition costs (CAC), LTV:CAC ratio, etc. and will determine pricing based on multiples of these variables. Ad spend is often a huge component of CAC and this directly feeds into what companies need to charge their customers in order to use their products. The assumption that businesses will just eat a higher cost as sort of consumer benefactors is quite naive. I can assure you they won’t.
- kkoncevicius 6y ago
  The end users buy the products of the advertisers. In a monopoly ads cost more and to make a profit advertisers have to increase their product prices. In turn the users pay higher prices for the products that are being advertised.

reilly3000 6y ago

The business has to pay more to acquire customers, which drives up the cost of goods. Indirectly the consumer pays in mobile bandwidth costs, and publishers are forced to show ever-more ad units, refresh every 30 seconds, paginate articles, or add content recommendations, all because AdTech takes 85% of the ad spend that use to flow more directly between publishers and advertisers. Much of that went to the cost of staffing a sales team, but those folks were doing human review on campaigns, so ad quality was high and fraud was low. With unlimited digital ad variations, ad networks have to police a mountain of potential bad ads, which can be directly malicious to the user. I can spin up 1000 banners and text ads, but only spend a dollar. See the problem? They all still need review. Instead, GOOG relies upon AI and user reports, which they promptly ignore. Meanwhile, they serve up so many mobile redirects that publishers have to pay yet another vendor for protection against the crap Google doesn't vet. As a publisher I'm not really interested in showing my audience ads that automatically redirect them away from my content and to a scam $500 Walmart Gift Card landing page. Yet, if I want to have access to Google demand, I have to take the bad with the good. What choice is there? Exist and use Google, or pass on 60-90% of revenue while competing for the same audience? As an advertiser I have to count on Google's reporting to tell me if I'm making positive ROI and they are constantly finding new ways to convince me that they made the sale. They bill for ads that were never seen and clicks that went to nowhere. Occasionally you'll see a discount on your bill for "Invalid Clicks" but you'll never see anything auditable about it. If I don't police my site list, I might end up funding websites run by terrorists and/or money launderers. Honestly how many US citizens who are shopping for cars do so on .ru domains? If you're not vigilant, that will be 20%+ of your ad spend. Yet, if not Google or Facebook, where can I reach a relevant, large audience with a small and variable ad spend? Not with DSPs, not with agencies, not with direct ad buys.