5 ms·

Genuine question, why don’t publishers stop using doubleclick and build their own?

riku_iki 2y ago
network effect for example: lots of advertisers are deeply integrated into google Ads infra. But there is competition in this space.
bevekspldnw 2y ago
Google has thoroughly rigged the space, including manipulating bid stream data to underpay publishers while overcharging the advertiser. It’s called Project Bernake which is public now. I have it on reliable sources there is a lot more beyond that. The search antitrust suit was garbage, but the coming trials in the ad auction suit is going to hurt a lot more. They total lost their way, it’s actually insane when you’ll see what theyve been doing. Google never stopped “innovating”, they just shifted their innovation to fraud. https://adtechexplained.com/google-project-bernanke-explained/ https://adtechexplained.com/google-project-bernanke-explaine...
- araes 2y ago
  Having never read this, current Texas anti-trust lawsuit. [1] Alleges quite a bit, yet the main four in the article are. 1) Google says it runs a Second Price auction, but really runs a Third Price auction, ignores the 2nd bid, and takes the difference for (shifting purposes). Telling a Publisher they made $8, when they would have made $12.80. 2) Google inflates bids of buyers "to ensure their advertisers beat out bids from competing buying platforms". Artificially making their platform look better economically. Was individual cases, yet now alleged to be a global pool of stolen Publisher money. 3) Gaining access to Publisher's ad-spend behavior with Dynamic Allocation, and then using the info to make sure rival platforms seemed less competitive by manipulating and inflating other bids. Make sure they always seem to lose by $0.01 on every bid. 4) Forcing Publishers to accept Dynamic Allocation by punishing them with the maximum allowed revenue drop for Bernake (40%) while inflating competitors. Notably Machiavellian that there was a known allowed revenue drop. "We're bein nice, we'll only cut you 25%" On a slightly different topic, made me wonder how many investment firms artificially lower rates on funds to scrape a bit of profit off the top. [1] https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/child-support/20220114_195_0_States%20Third%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/... (note, the child-support location is really weird)
- PeterisP 2y ago
  All of what you write is in support of the parent post suggestion "why don’t publishers stop using doubleclick and build their own?" - the larger margin Google is taking (no matter how) between advertisers and publishers, the better deal publishers can offer when telling advertisers "come to our platform directly and get the same ad placements much cheaper"..
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - bevekspldnw 2y ago
    Scale.
- bawolff 2y ago
  > Google has thoroughly rigged the space, including manipulating bid stream data to underpay publishers while overcharging the advertiser That seems an argument for news publishers rolling their own, not against. What you are allegeding is nasty, but it should also make it easier to build a coompeting service not harder.
  - bevekspldnw 2y ago
    I’m not alleging anything, this is internal stuff that came out. It’s impossible to roll your own for a very long list of reasons that go back to the late 90s.
- lupire 2y ago
  This reads like a young adult discovering the world has become corrupt and wondering why it changed so much since their childhood when everyone's good. It's not the world/Google that changed.
swatcoder 2y ago
You know that thing where Google tracks every action you take online, and everything you do on your phone, and everywhere you go with your phone, and every calendar detail you enter, and every contact you keep, and every dumb curiosity you think to look up when you're bored or wanting? Advertisers like that. It's tough to sell them on something else, and essentially impossible to replicate as is.

network effect for example: lots of advertisers are deeply integrated into google Ads infra. But there is competition in this space.

bevekspldnw 2y ago

Google has thoroughly rigged the space, including manipulating bid stream data to underpay publishers while overcharging the advertiser. It’s called Project Bernake which is public now. I have it on reliable sources there is a lot more beyond that. The search antitrust suit was garbage, but the coming trials in the ad auction suit is going to hurt a lot more. They total lost their way, it’s actually insane when you’ll see what theyve been doing. Google never stopped “innovating”, they just shifted their innovation to fraud. https://adtechexplained.com/google-project-bernanke-explained/ https://adtechexplained.com/google-project-bernanke-explaine...

araes 2y ago
Having never read this, current Texas anti-trust lawsuit. [1] Alleges quite a bit, yet the main four in the article are. 1) Google says it runs a Second Price auction, but really runs a Third Price auction, ignores the 2nd bid, and takes the difference for (shifting purposes). Telling a Publisher they made $8, when they would have made $12.80. 2) Google inflates bids of buyers "to ensure their advertisers beat out bids from competing buying platforms". Artificially making their platform look better economically. Was individual cases, yet now alleged to be a global pool of stolen Publisher money. 3) Gaining access to Publisher's ad-spend behavior with Dynamic Allocation, and then using the info to make sure rival platforms seemed less competitive by manipulating and inflating other bids. Make sure they always seem to lose by $0.01 on every bid. 4) Forcing Publishers to accept Dynamic Allocation by punishing them with the maximum allowed revenue drop for Bernake (40%) while inflating competitors. Notably Machiavellian that there was a known allowed revenue drop. "We're bein nice, we'll only cut you 25%" On a slightly different topic, made me wonder how many investment firms artificially lower rates on funds to scrape a bit of profit off the top. [1] https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/child-support/20220114_195_0_States%20Third%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/... (note, the child-support location is really weird)
PeterisP 2y ago
All of what you write is in support of the parent post suggestion "why don’t publishers stop using doubleclick and build their own?" - the larger margin Google is taking (no matter how) between advertisers and publishers, the better deal publishers can offer when telling advertisers "come to our platform directly and get the same ad placements much cheaper"..
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bevekspldnw 2y ago
  Scale.
bawolff 2y ago
> Google has thoroughly rigged the space, including manipulating bid stream data to underpay publishers while overcharging the advertiser That seems an argument for news publishers rolling their own, not against. What you are allegeding is nasty, but it should also make it easier to build a coompeting service not harder.
- bevekspldnw 2y ago
  I’m not alleging anything, this is internal stuff that came out. It’s impossible to roll your own for a very long list of reasons that go back to the late 90s.
lupire 2y ago
This reads like a young adult discovering the world has become corrupt and wondering why it changed so much since their childhood when everyone's good. It's not the world/Google that changed.

swatcoder 2y ago

You know that thing where Google tracks every action you take online, and everything you do on your phone, and everywhere you go with your phone, and every calendar detail you enter, and every contact you keep, and every dumb curiosity you think to look up when you're bored or wanting? Advertisers like that. It's tough to sell them on something else, and essentially impossible to replicate as is.