←back to thread

863 points IdealeZahlen | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
crowcroft ◴[] No.43719395[source]
When a media buyer puts $1.00 in on one side of the system, on average only $0.60 makes it to the publisher. In some cases less than $0.50 gets to them.

Advertising is an intentionally complex system so that companies can clip the ticket at multiple stages throughout the process. Google should be broken up, but the whole ad tech system needs to go into the bin if these problems are going to ever get fixed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/augustinefou/2021/02/15/how-muc...

replies(4): >>43719494 #>>43719973 #>>43720688 #>>43724612 #
aiauthoritydev ◴[] No.43719973[source]
As someone who has worked in AdTech I would respectfully disagree. It is indeed complex but it is incredibly efficient. Also it is irrelevant of whether publisher earns 75% or 30% of the total revenue. What matters is how much they are earning compared to the next best alternative.

Some companies like Google are incredible at this. Google is not a "monopoly" in this space. In fact the world has far too many Google equivalents but absolutely no one comes close to Google in generating top dollars for publishers. I am saying this after working for 10+ years competing against Google.

replies(11): >>43720020 #>>43720098 #>>43720244 #>>43720256 #>>43720282 #>>43720308 #>>43721019 #>>43721231 #>>43721424 #>>43725204 #>>43725868 #
crowcroft ◴[] No.43720308[source]
In theory, I agree. In practice the whole system is rotten.

* Google unilaterally changing bid mechanics raising costs 15% https://finance.yahoo.com/news/google-changed-ad-auctions-ra...

* Conversion attribution and cookie bombing fraud from both Criteo and Steelhouse https://finance.yahoo.com/news/criteo-versus-steelhouse-clic...

* Phunware click flooding fraud https://www.forbes.com/sites/augustinefou/2021/01/17/ubers-l...

* A nearly unending list of different mobile ad frauds https://www.fraud0.com/resources/ad-fraud-cases-of-the-past-...

* Viewability fraud https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/31/procter-gamble-chief-markete...

* Session hijacking fraud https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/ad-indus...

This doesn't sound like a healthy and efficient industry. Not only do vendors clip the ticket aggressively, they divert dollars that advertisers are intending to go to quality media/real publishers, and siphon it off to fraudulent sites and apps where they generally take a higher margin.

replies(2): >>43721225 #>>43724716 #
econ ◴[] No.43724716[source]
I was most impressed by a Google Ad that showed up if you searched for the Dutch tax office. It would only show the name "Tax office" with a free to call phone number under it. Only the hyperlink pointed at a paid number 90 cent per minute.

Depending on how busy it is or how exotic your question one can easily be on hold for an hour or two. Then you get the bill and pay 54 euro per hour.

Google thought this was a great way to make money. The ad ran forever.

Makes you wonder which other phone numbers they highjacked.

Would they provide the same service if I copy some website?

replies(1): >>43726088 #
1. throwaway2037 ◴[] No.43726088[source]
Jesus. What a story! Is that even legal in Netherlands?
replies(2): >>43730687 #>>43732023 #
2. luckylion ◴[] No.43730687[source]
Google let similar things run in Germany that were impersonating government offices (which is illegal in multiple ways), and they never lifted a finger when the malicious ads were reported, because they still made money in the end.
3. econ ◴[] No.43732023[source]
They didn't act alone, the paid number had to be approved by someone and the phone provider also had to accept the bill. I don't have numbers but since I know multiple people who got the strange phone bill my guess would be at least hundreds of thousands of succesful click thoughts. Some called the tax office regularly around the busiest time of the year before they got the bill and found out.

There are probably people with large phone bills who didn't notice and ones who thought the tax office was just expensive to call.