3 ms·

I don't disagree that a trillion dollar company should be able to prevent this, but to be facetious, do they want to? To your suggestions... 1- who is going to

by giarc 4y ago

I don't disagree that a trillion dollar company should be able to prevent this, but to be facetious, do they want to? To your suggestions... 1- who is going to phone that number? They have millions if not billions of advertisers. Also, don't they want new businesses (with likely newly registered domains) to come and start advertising and paying money? 2. see above but "who is going to review the paperwork" also, easy to create fraudulent documents 3. Most small restaurants probably spend $100 on ads, likely aren't going to advertise if they need to put down a bunch of cash. To Google, this just looks like a restaurant coming to advertise. So what if it has the same name. Two Dominos pizzas in my town could both set up ads and they should accept them. I totally get why this is bad, but I think it would be very difficult for Google to control in a way that the OP twitter user is suggesting. This isn't an old school ad business where you meet with clients. Google is a trillion dollar company because you can run ads in 1 minute of work.

cldellow 4y ago
Yes, this would impose costs on Google and decrease their conversion rate of new advertisers. I agree they wouldn't want to voluntarily do it--but I was responding to the perceived impossibility of it. Another option: deal with it by franchising--small potatoes customers would go through a middleman. The middleman would charge a markup, and be the one whose reputation or money was on the line, and so have incentives to prevent fraud. Google does something similar for AdX relationships currently--big publishers can go direct, midsize publishers go through a third party middleman. Again, I'm just spitballing ideas here. If Google wanted to be a better steward, I believe they could be. I'm not even saying they're obligated to do this, I'm just saying I believe they could try harder to vet advertisers.

by giarc 4y ago

cldellow 4y ago

Yes, this would impose costs on Google and decrease their conversion rate of new advertisers. I agree they wouldn't want to voluntarily do it--but I was responding to the perceived impossibility of it. Another option: deal with it by franchising--small potatoes customers would go through a middleman. The middleman would charge a markup, and be the one whose reputation or money was on the line, and so have incentives to prevent fraud. Google does something similar for AdX relationships currently--big publishers can go direct, midsize publishers go through a third party middleman. Again, I'm just spitballing ideas here. If Google wanted to be a better steward, I believe they could be. I'm not even saying they're obligated to do this, I'm just saying I believe they could try harder to vet advertisers.