5 ms·

I can’t read the article due to the pay wall, but this makes sense. If you own the software to buy, the software acting as the intermediary, and the software to

by soared 5y ago

I can’t read the article due to the pay wall, but this makes sense. If you own the software to buy, the software acting as the intermediary, and the software to sell, you’ll make 3x more than a competitor who only owns one piece. (I don’t use the products and I’m sure the names have changed, but dv360/dcm, whatever they call their exchange, and dfp) I’ll leave the morality/legality/etc of as an exercise for the reader.

HillRat 5y ago
Yeah, it’s worth noting that, roughly speaking, advertising supply chains provide 51% of spend to publishers and 7% to agencies, which means the middle of the chain (supply/demand-sides, DSPs, analytics, etc.) consumes 42%, or what GOOG allegedly takes at the high end. Given that they represent a fully-integrated supply chain, this doesn’t seem unreasonable, especially given how many competing ad networks are just bubble gum and duct tape.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  So, if they have access to more information than their competitors such that they can maximise their own chances of winning proifitable auctions, it's problematic as its unfair competition.
  - HillRat 5y ago
    I think the issue is more around GOOG allegedly using illegal tactics to keep people inside their integrated supply chain — e.g., trying to discourage header bidding.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Making better decisions because you have done a better job collecting and analyzing info is not "unfair competition" a priori. I think there are much more compelling arguments around regulating Google.
    - prepend 5y ago
      It’s unfair if only Google is capable of collecting the data.
      - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
        Yeah, and I believe (based on past reporting) that this may be the case. They are essentially front-running other advertisers.
        doomslice 5y ago
        They sometimes (often) have "last look" -- so a bunch of companies compete to win an auction against each other, and then Google gets a chance to win against the winner of those. This means that Google can essentially maximize the profit they receive if they have a better bid, because they know exactly how much fee they can take without losing. Everyone else on the other hand, has to compete with _lower_ fees so they can win that first round of the auction.
        whimsicalism 5y ago
        If that's the case it is blatantly unfair. I don't think it is any longer though.
      - JAlexoid 5y ago
        Capable and able are not the same. You can start collecting that data right now. It's also not a particularly complex task to collect information about people's habits. I'm not capable of running a mile in 4minutes, that's not unfair for me to loose to someone that trained hard to be able to run that mile in 4 minutes.
kps 5y ago
> I can’t read the article due to the pay wall WSJ charges two to four times as much as my local paper.
liveoneggs 5y ago
don't forget about owning the consumers with -- browser (chrome), the platform (android/chromeOS), google analytics tracking data, and nest devices with microphones/cameras, and who knows what else they buy from 3rd parties

by soared 5y ago

HillRat 5y ago

Yeah, it’s worth noting that, roughly speaking, advertising supply chains provide 51% of spend to publishers and 7% to agencies, which means the middle of the chain (supply/demand-sides, DSPs, analytics, etc.) consumes 42%, or what GOOG allegedly takes at the high end. Given that they represent a fully-integrated supply chain, this doesn’t seem unreasonable, especially given how many competing ad networks are just bubble gum and duct tape.

disgruntledphd2 5y ago
So, if they have access to more information than their competitors such that they can maximise their own chances of winning proifitable auctions, it's problematic as its unfair competition.
- HillRat 5y ago
  I think the issue is more around GOOG allegedly using illegal tactics to keep people inside their integrated supply chain — e.g., trying to discourage header bidding.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Making better decisions because you have done a better job collecting and analyzing info is not "unfair competition" a priori. I think there are much more compelling arguments around regulating Google.
  - prepend 5y ago
    It’s unfair if only Google is capable of collecting the data.
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
      Yeah, and I believe (based on past reporting) that this may be the case. They are essentially front-running other advertisers.
      - doomslice 5y ago
        They sometimes (often) have "last look" -- so a bunch of companies compete to win an auction against each other, and then Google gets a chance to win against the winner of those. This means that Google can essentially maximize the profit they receive if they have a better bid, because they know exactly how much fee they can take without losing. Everyone else on the other hand, has to compete with _lower_ fees so they can win that first round of the auction.
        whimsicalism 5y ago
        If that's the case it is blatantly unfair. I don't think it is any longer though.
    - JAlexoid 5y ago
      Capable and able are not the same. You can start collecting that data right now. It's also not a particularly complex task to collect information about people's habits. I'm not capable of running a mile in 4minutes, that's not unfair for me to loose to someone that trained hard to be able to run that mile in 4 minutes.

kps 5y ago

> I can’t read the article due to the pay wall WSJ charges two to four times as much as my local paper.

liveoneggs 5y ago

don't forget about owning the consumers with -- browser (chrome), the platform (android/chromeOS), google analytics tracking data, and nest devices with microphones/cameras, and who knows what else they buy from 3rd parties