Google And Yahoo May End Deal; Not Worth An Antitrust Lawsuit
from the ouch-for-yahoo dept
With various politicians pushing the Justice Department to slam Google on antitrust charges (it's worth noting, of course, that Rep. Joe Barton, who seems to be leading the anti-Google charge, just so happens to have received an awful lot of campaign money from AT&T -- Google's arch nemesis), it appears that Google and Yahoo's attempt to broker a deal with the Justice Department may be falling through.Reports are coming out that the two companies are ready to announce that they're walking away from their planned deal. This actually represents a bad end result for almost everyone involved. Yahoo will be hurt the most by this, and the last thing Yahoo needs right now is more trouble. For Google it's a loss, but not a huge loss. Microsoft comes out of it happy (and will gleefully watch Yahoo's stock continue to slide). It's still unclear what actual harm it would do to the marketplace to have Google running ads on Yahoo, but since when is politics about reason?
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, deals
Companies: google, justice department, yahoo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yahoo is dead. Bury it and move on.
This is a very good reason why Corporate America should be banned from contributing to campaigns, or at the very least, enact limit caps.
All of a sudden, it seems "bailout" is the catchphrase of the day. Why should we care if Yahoo fails? It's obvious they couldn't compete, so where's the harm in letting them fade into the sunset?
Google obviously built a better mousetrap and ran with it. Isn't this what competition's all about?
Maybe Yahoo didn't give away enough free stuff. ;)
Personally, letting Yahoo go helps make a better market. Instead of a hundred search engines, we now have 99. One less "choice" to contend with which also means....
...one less ad of a search engine to contend with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yahoo is dead. Bury it and move on.
I work in the hospitality business center industry. Believe me, Yahoo is more common than G-mail or Hotmail for an email service. Either that or the people that run into issues anyways are people that mainly use Yahoo....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Strong Survive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unclear?
What is so unclear about placing 89% of the online advertising market into one entity? Or do you just not see how that sort of thing is a bad thing? If so, then I guess you haven't been reading any of the comments to your posts about this deal.
What I find unclear is how the public would benefit from such a merger. A deal that would create a high concentration of market power into one entity would appear to me to do little to help the public and have a good potential to hurt it.
For someone who claims to be so opposed to monopolization, you have a funny way of showing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unclear?
First of all, it is not 89% of the online advertising market, but nice try setting up a false definition of the market.
Second, Google's system works as an open auction market place, meaning that Google isn't influencing that market either way.
Third, the problem with an antitrust situation is when consumers are made worse off due to monopolistic actions. No one has shown where this is making anyone worse off.
Fourth, the problem with a REAL monopoly situation is that the barriers to entry are large. That's not the case here. If Google does something bad, that just opens up an opportunity for someone else.
What I find unclear is how the public would benefit from such a merger.
I don't know... better ads? Cheaper advertising? Better deals? Easier to find what they want?
Oh, the horror.
A deal that would create a high concentration of market power into one entity would appear to me to do little to help the public and have a good potential to hurt it.
Again, that's only true if you falsely define the market as you have.
For someone who claims to be so opposed to monopolization, you have a funny way of showing it.
I'm against real monopolies. Not bogus ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unclear?
Those were the numbers given by articles that you referenced and never refuted. I am just parroting them back to you.
Second, Google's system works as an open auction market place, meaning that Google isn't influencing that market either way.
Which doesn't mean that they can't necessarily do so. As one of your commentors pointed out, Google's system is not as simplistic as you posit:
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080908/0236212197#c128
Third, the problem with an antitrust situation is when consumers are made worse off due to monopolistic actions. No one has shown where this is making anyone worse off.
That's because it has not happened yet. The point of Section 7 of the Clayton Act is to look forward and predict whether such a deal has the potential to suppress competition.
Fourth, the problem with a REAL monopoly situation is that the barriers to entry are large. That's not the case here. If Google does something bad, that just opens up an opportunity for someone else.
Which assumes that there are no barriers to entry. I'm not so sure that's necessarily the case. What is needed in order to get into the internet advertising business?
I don't know... better ads? Cheaper advertising? Better deals? Easier to find what they want?
Oh, the horror.
Really? You think that with one firm holding more of the cards that prices for advertising will drop? How? What makes this cost efficient for Google, the advertising provider? How does such a deal lower Google's costs of providing advertising space?
A deal that would create a high concentration of market power into one entity would appear to me to do little to help the public and have a good potential to hurt it.
Again, that's only true if you falsely define the market as you have.
Then you're going to have to explain to me what is a reasonably interchangeable substitute for Google's internet advertising space.
I'm against real monopolies. Not bogus ones.
So what's the distinction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unclear?
The numbers represent the *search* ad market. That's not the online advertising market by any stretch of the imagination. Considering that the relevant budgets are the ad budgets of companies, and if search ads become too expensive, they'll just move their money elsewhere, this hardly seems like an issue.
We're talking about a small % of overall ad budgets.
Which doesn't mean that they can't necessarily do so. As one of your commentors pointed out, Google's system is not as simplistic as you posit:
Again, if it really becomes more expensive, companies will shift their ad budgets.
That's because it has not happened yet. The point of Section 7 of the Clayton Act is to look forward and predict whether such a deal has the potential to suppress competition.
Gov'ts are notoriously bad at predicting the future. I'd rather they didn't. If they must, then they should be required to show compelling evidence that there is a significant market failure at risk here. I've seen no such evidence.
Which assumes that there are no barriers to entry. I'm not so sure that's necessarily the case. What is needed in order to get into the internet advertising business?
Not much.
Really? You think that with one firm holding more of the cards that prices for advertising will drop? How? What makes this cost efficient for Google, the advertising provider? How does such a deal lower Google's costs of providing advertising space?
Google ends up with more economies of scale and more inventory, both of which tend to drive down prices.
Then you're going to have to explain to me what is a reasonably interchangeable substitute for Google's internet advertising space.
Just look at budget allocations for ad execs.
So what's the distinction?
A real monopoly is where there are extensive barriers to entry and lock-in. A bogus monopoly is one where people just point to the % of a market, rather than looking at the actual impact on the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems to me like a very simple equation. More advertisers on 1 platform competing for less inventory means higher CPC prices.
Over time more money to Google less to Yahoo! This means that Google benefit in the long run and Yahoo! lose out. The only reason Yahoo! took this decision is short term shareholder pressure.
More choice, more competition is a good thing. Not less!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very little. I've seen a number of sites switch from externally managed ads to managing their own ads in order to better serve their customers. In effect, each of those sites became an internet advertising business. None of them seemed to have problems finding companies to sells ads to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]