[HN Gopher] Google Manipulated Digital Ad Prices and Hurt Publis...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Google Manipulated Digital Ad Prices and Hurt Publishers, per DOJ
        
       Author : jlpcsl
       Score  : 110 points
       Date   : 2023-02-03 11:39 UTC (11 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (techpolicy.press)
 (TXT) w3m dump (techpolicy.press)
        
       | mathteddybear wrote:
       | There is an example slide on page 63 of DOJ lawsuit. It shows
       | example two top GDN bids, $1.00 and $0.96, and example two
       | Bernake AdX bids $1.20 and $0.48. Suppose that another ad
       | exchange bids $0.98 and Google wins the auction. What the GDN
       | advertiser pays, $1.00, $0.98, $0.96?
        
       | mesmertech wrote:
       | A lot of concrete allegations compared to the search
       | monopolization case I feel like. But with how slow these cases
       | go, who knows how long it'll take to break up the ad server
       | monopoly even if its successful
       | 
       | "With "Project Bell," Google allegedly penalized publishers that
       | did not give preferential access to AdX's buyers, including
       | Google Ads, by paying those publishers less revenues once an ad
       | was placed. "
       | 
       | "if publishers tried to use a rival source of advertising demand
       | for 'first-look' access to inventory, Google reduced bids by
       | about 20 percent"
        
         | eganist wrote:
         | I'm assuming they weren't trying to be referential, but the use
         | of "Bell" internally for a project that caught antitrust
         | charges made me giggle.
        
       | pelagicAustral wrote:
       | I want to quote Nate Diaz post-fight interview after defeating
       | Conor McGregor on UFC 196 : "I'm not surprised, mother**s!"
        
       | Wistar wrote:
       | I initially interpreted the title with Google as a verb and
       | wondered why the DOJ would ask people to search for manipulated
       | ad prices to hurt publishers.
       | 
       | Just for a moment.
        
       | kderbyma wrote:
       | Digital advertising is the scam. The entire market of it is
       | premised on serving (views which are then corroborated by the
       | same seller) with no independent insight, audits, etc....
       | 
       | I sold 1000 views per second....and guess what it was a real
       | bargain for you....I didn't charge the max for those views
       | because they were not worth it.....no one clicked your stuff yet,
       | but we served the content!!! don't worry, we will retarget those
       | people until they click (how much left to spend?)
       | 
       | ---
       | 
       | oh boy! You got 5% ROI!! profitable!!! (in our platform based on
       | our calcs ahaha)
       | 
       | (how much was the cost per unit? oh ...200% strange....)
        
       | bbor wrote:
       | Great article, which is why it's a shame when they make mistakes
       | like this:
       | 
       | "Google's advertising revenues -- including YouTube Ads -- make
       | up a sizable 80 percent of the giant's total revenues."
       | 
       | This is surely true but super misleading; display ads are a
       | pittance compared to their search advertising revenues. Doesn't
       | mean the lawsuit is wrong, but I've seen this exact mistake in
       | multiple discussions of this suit since it was first announced,
       | leading lay readers to assume the outcome would significantly
       | affect google either way. Sadly/happily, I say as a display ads
       | dev: not the case.
        
       | random314 wrote:
       | Sundar Pichai strikes again!
        
       | joshilaurain17 wrote:
       | Very Nice article. What about the organic search?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-02-03 23:02 UTC)