Will A Google/Yahoo Ad Deal Really Impact Ad Prices?
from the not-so-clear dept
The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) has sent a letter to the Justice Department opposing Yahoo's plan to hand much of its search advertising over to Google. We've already explained some reasons why this combination shouldn't set off antitrust alarms, but the reasons given by the ANA don't make much sense. It claims that the deal would basically mean that one company would control 90% of the market, which would lead to increased prices for advertisers. However, that doesn't necessarily seem true to follow -- because Google doesn't set prices for ads. Google's ad system is, famously, an auction system where the prices are set by the market. So it's difficult to see why the inclusion of Yahoo's ad inventory would significantly raise the prices -- unless the argument is that the market is artificially depressed right now, and this would just raise it to the proper levels. However, apparently, that might not matter much, as reports are coming out that the Justice Department has already hired a big time antitrust lawyer to use against Google. This is increasingly looking like a political attack on a company that is "big" rather than looking to see if its success actually harms or helps consumers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertising, antitrust, auctions, justice department, monopolies, prices, search marketing
Companies: google, yahoo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Monopoly-Shmonopoly
I'm fairly pro-Google just as far as things go, but I'm not blind to the reality that they're in it to make money. Sometimes the best, most natural way to do that is a monopoly. That's why we have a government -- to limit the eventual excess of capitalism.
Also, your third link provides this:
'Microsoft also has objected to the deal, saying it would unfairly foreclose competition on the Web. In Senate hearings in July, Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith, testified that "if search is the gateway to the Internet, and most people believe that it is, this deal will put Google in position to own that gateway and the information that flows through it."'
I think Microsoft knows a monopoly when it sees one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the demand for adds will remain the same, but more ppl will have to turn to google for there adds and since its an auction system that will create more competition for the add words and so more bids and more bids = higher prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is kind of a sticky situation. On the one hand, the government shouldn't be allowed to come in and tell a business they have to make product X (barring wartime efforts ala WW2) and they shouldn't punish a company for doing too well.
With anti-trust stuff, the whole point I thought was to react to a monopoly. If someone has the full market, that's fine. Just so long as they aren't using unfair business practices to keep any competition from entering the fray.
Blech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Similarly, if they find that the competition in Google Ads is more costly than going with a thrid party service, they will switch to the constant rate third part service. Again, this lowers the consumer base for Google Ads and leads to a lower average auction price. Other companies will find themselves getting more revenue in advertising, and see fit to raise their fixed prices till they are roughly in line with Google's average ad auction.
Ironically, since the cost to transfer, enter, and exit the market is so small for the consumer, and the cost of information almost nil, a 'near monopoly' of Google in AUCTION ADVERTISING will actually be more likely to adjust the market to equilibrium levels.
If that means that smaller companies won't have the revenue to advertise online, then that's simply the result of an open market, and is unattributable to Google.
Fact is, Google is better off NOT shutting out the little players, who offer revenue to Google at nearly ZERO marginal cost. Adopting a high flat fee system will destroy both their reputation and their major source of revenue.
I'm not worried.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Google’s riches rely on ads, algorithms, and worldwide confusion
Eye of newt: Inside Google's AdWords auction
Google remodels top secret money machine
Isaac K’s comment that “the market for advertising isn’t on Google, it’s on the entire Internet” also misses a fundamental point. As Google acquires more and more market share, the more and more Google is the Internet. If you’re invisible to Google, you effectively don’t exist on the Internet. (I know we’re talking about the web and not the Internet as a whole, but, even there, the two terms are interchangeable for most people.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
think about it, they do. they read your email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO MIDDLEMAN REQUIRED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Yahoo Merger
If you would like to learn more about the Google Yahoo Merger, watch this video from Industry expert Dan Savage. Mr. Savage discusses how Google destroyed his business and the impact that a Google Yahoo Merger could have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impact exist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impact exist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]