←back to thread

863 points IdealeZahlen | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.221s | source
Show context
megaman821 ◴[] No.43718617[source]
I don't think this article explains it well. Google sells ad space on behalf of the publishers and also sells the ads on behalf of the advertisers. It also runs the auction that places the ads into the ad space. See this graphic https://images.app.goo.gl/ADx5xrAnWNicgoFu7. Parts of this can definately be broken up without destroying Google.
replies(19): >>43718672 #>>43718693 #>>43718751 #>>43718794 #>>43718938 #>>43719033 #>>43719196 #>>43719219 #>>43719246 #>>43719395 #>>43719429 #>>43719463 #>>43720402 #>>43720461 #>>43720510 #>>43721628 #>>43722559 #>>43723479 #>>43724604 #
hammock ◴[] No.43719246[source]
And crucially, there are leaked emails, other evidence that demonstrate (at the very least historical and occasional) corruption of this dual- (multi?) agency arrangement. Among the allegations:

The Google ad exchange favored its own platforms, limiting the ability of other exchanges to compete fairly in bidding for ad inventory. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...

In limiting the number of bidders, Google inflated the prices for ad inventory. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-26/closing-arguments-giv...

Google engaged in bid rigging where competitors agree on who will win a bid, again to inflate prices. https://www.justice.gov/atr/preventing-and-detecting-bid-rig...

Google entered market allocation agreements to create an unfair playing field. https://www.winston.com/en/insights-news/avoiding-antitrust-...

replies(4): >>43721107 #>>43722743 #>>43723055 #>>43724214 #
andreimackenzie ◴[] No.43721107[source]
> In limiting the number of bidders, Google inflated the prices for ad inventory.

This part doesn't make sense to me. Limiting bidders should drive the price down, because fewer advertisers are competing for the same potential ad impression. The article describes Google's influence as "Google controls the auction-style system," which is a bit more open-ended about the specific alleged practices.

replies(3): >>43721296 #>>43721326 #>>43723454 #
1. sgc ◴[] No.43723454[source]
I think they meant that Google managed to limit the number of bidders for ad placement - they shut out other advertising groups -, so they could then charge what they want to those who need to advertise their business or perish, and take what they want from websites that publish ads as well (take a larger cut from the 'ad inventory' understood either as ad space or ads to be published). In this sense the linked article states:

"The US argues that Google used its financial power to acquire potential rivals and corner the ad tech market, leaving advertisers and publishers with no choice but to use its technology."