Goggle Getting Slapped!

hatcheck said:

But that qualifies as channeling in my book. Sure, they're then passing it along to the third party, but only after the third party paid them. If the third party doesn't pay for it, then it's just an organic listing. But if the third party DID pay for it, how is that not channeling?

Click to expand...

I guess it comes down to a difference in definition. I don't consider monetizing your traffic by charging for 3rd party ads channeling. I consider channeling when you charge 3rd party ads but then list yourself at the top of the sponsored ads (check out Google Comparison Ads) as channeling.

In any case, our monopoly laws are only applicable when one company has too much control. In the above scenario I wouldn't necessarily say that's illegal but the fact that Google gets such a large majority of the search traffic puts it up in the monopoly range. Our anti-trust laws limit how much you can capitalize on general consumers in order to prevent a monopoly from occurring. Google is very very close if not past breaking these laws.

It must be a strange feeling to have so much control that you find yourself in anti-trust lawsuits.

You know what finally brought this on don't you..... Google bought AdMeld for $400 Million on June 10th...13 days later the subpoena was filed.....

Why are they buying out the competition in a market that they totally dominate??

From AdAge:

Recently an industry peer asked me if I was concerned that Google was diabolical.
My concern is just the opposite -- that Google's peers Microsoft, Yahoo and others -- are not being diabolical enough. We need more diabolical liquidity, otherwise we will have a display advertising monopoly. And that's only fun for one person at the party. Google has been building its dominance in display in plain sight yet few seem to understand how to counterbalance its cunning and impactful moves.
The Admeld transaction will be yet another example of this. Pundits will say Google bought publisher relationships and Admeld's yield optimization service for large publishers. Now Michael and Ben and their team at Admeld have done an excellent job of pulling in top, large publishers such as CBS, IDG Tech Network, NBC, Quadrant One and Weather.com, but this misses the point entirely.
Google bought QPS volume, period. [QPS is queries per second, a measure of liquidity or volume of display ads being offered via real time bidding or RTB.]
It's the QPS, stupid ...
Based on my own estimates, Google represents between 50%-90% of display volume (QPS) being purchased by DSPs, ad networks and agency trading desks on a RTB basis. Incremental QPS volume comes from the SSPs (Admeld, Pubmatic, Rubicon), Microsoft (new to the game via Appnexus), my company Contextweb, OpenX and a few others.
Beyond Google, Admeld (although much, much smaller) is the major contributor of QPS volume to most RTB buyers, although this may soon be displaced by Microsoft with its recent RTB enablement of all non-guaranteed supply by Appnexus.
So why did Google buy Admeld?
QPS volume? Yes.
Publisher relationships? Sorta. But remember, people in New York like relationships and people in California like scale. Google is headquartered in California, and they are winning.
Private exchange? Kinda. I spoke with four large publishers just yesterday active in private exchange area and all are pre-revenue. Not worth $400 million.
Yield optimization? No. RTB makes yield optimization a legacy business. RTB moves the optimization to the buy side. RTB makes all SSPs into ad exchanges (RTB supply enablement).
Now this morning the phones are burning at Yahoo, Microsoft and other companies -- should we buy a SSP (only two left, get 'em while they are hot)? Wrong question.
Here are some of the right questions Yahoo!, Microsoft and others should be asking:

• How do I increase my overall QPS volume share from RTB buyers (ad networks, DSPs, agency trading desks)?
• How can I increase the clearing percentage, clearing price & overall liquidity of my existing QPS volume based on the evolving needs of RTB buyers?
• Where is the vast majority of Google display QSP share coming from? (hint: not SSP-type customers)
• How do I make my RTB monetization offer relevant to large publishers and/or quality supply?

Monrox said:

The point of antitrust laws is to prevent dominance in one niche by using fairly acquired dominance in another one. If someone goes to the top all by himself nuking the competition in the process, that is fine. Nobody pressed MS into having quotas of how many copies of windows to sell per year. They had a problem with pushing a browser which was not having any major advantages over the competition on its own.

If these regulations were missing, a public transport provider could simply make a deal with WalMart and not service any other stops / stations which are close to other competitors.

Or some electricity company being the only one in the vicinity decides to deliver juice only to homes that use a certain internet provider.

The capitalistic spirit does not prevent companies from becoming number one by buyouts, better service, price wars (to an extent) etc., but gaining unfair advantage has always been frowned upon.

If the FTC really wants to see a real evidence that this is actually happening, they can simply build 2 websites, one with AS, the other without and see which one gets indexed first. But why rush things, it's way better to drag this out for years, being so much more productive and stuff

Click to expand...

Exactly. This is the key point I think people are missing here. Its not about Google owning all the search traffic. They earned that fair and square. The problem comes in when they use that to gain unfair advantage and try and monopolize other areas through the use their search engine. IMO they are right on the borderline with this one in many areas. That's where the FTC comes in. They bust some balls and make things difficult for a minute in order to keep the big G in check, that's. They will remain right there at the line and the FTC is just there to make sure they don't cross over. Just keep in mind that it's kinda like keeping illegals from Mexico from crossing into the US. There will always be holes in the border which make ripe opportunities to cross. Just my 2 cents.

I don't understand these Govt stuff. LOL, Google worked it's way out to the top and now the govt is trying to pull its legs down to give competitors some space. If the competitor can't stand upto the standard that Google is serving then they don't have the right to come up. And why are people bringing the "Panda" into this?

If google would be brought down, let it be done naturally. "Naturally" means through a competitor like bing, yahoo or any other new one to come up and defeat google. Let it not be through artificial ways of the govt interfering in such affairs. The US is always about capitalism - few people ruling and making money while many others remain at their mercy. That is the way I believe things should work. If any other company were to be in the position of google, probably the situation would be worse. What google guys are doing is also trying to protect the future of their company.

Google needs a good slap down, they have become too big to fail like the banks. Let em get a big slap like they do to us affiliates. I hope they get knocked off their high horse.

I bet this is Karma for shutting down my Adsense account! lol

Long Live Google!!! Thousands of people are making a living online through Google Adsense.

Be careful what you wish for.

ScrapeBoss said:

Long Live Google!!! Thousands of people are making a living online through Google Adsense.

Click to expand...

yeah, and thousands people has been banned from adsense.

Google will not go away. It may just be split into smaller companies. Microsoft went through the same thing years ago. Ma Bel before that and now look at AT&T. They were purchased by Southwestern Bell who then bought out all of Cingular Wireless and then BellSouth. The monopoly is growing again. I believe they also bought out another local phone service company befor all that.

Google is being good to me.... Long live my rankings.

Those that are bringing up Panda are probably the ones that got slapped. My sites are doing just fine.

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility!
Nobody should have ultimate dominance... it corrupts.

Google had been moving towards 100% internet-empire dominance and its wings needed clipping.

I won't be crying if G loses a few billions for acting like The Dictator.

mraz said:

The big G need to allow their competitors to be playing in their own ecosystem as well for a fair share of competition. This works both ways.

Click to expand...

How exactly does Google prevent its competitors from playing in its ecosystem?

If you're suggesting that Yahoo and Bing have a right to use Google's organic results in their own searches, then I strongly disagree, because that notion suggests that Bing and Yahoo are entitled to the fruits of Google's labor.

If you're suggesting that Bing and Yahoo are being blocked from advertising on Google, I need to see the proof before I believe it.

If you're suggesting something else, you're going to have to be more clear.

At issue is Google's position in search advertising and whether it is using its results to channel users to its own sites at the expense of rivals.

Click to expand...

This has been a major problem in some of the niches I am involved with. Google promotes their verticals, which places me at a disadvantage because I do not use Google Checkout - just Authorize.net. Preferential placement is given to those that boost Google's bottom line, which is especially prevalent in Google Shopping (Product Search).

I'm surprised it took so long for the government to act, but I'm glad it appears somebody will be putting their practices under a microscope. Those that don't use Google Checkout basically get their jocks snapped, with lower ranks, and that is not good for competition. Basically it's Google using their search monopoly to squeeze other payment processors to boost their own payment solution - in some of my niches anyway.

adbot said:

The problem comes in when they use that to gain unfair advantage and try and monopolize other areas through the use their search engine.

Click to expand...

One of the big objections I have to the way anti-trust is carried out is that the allegations are so vague. Your comment is typical of that. Exactly how is what they are doing unfair? Be specific.

ScrapeBoss said:

If google would be brought down, let it be done naturally. "Naturally" means through a competitor like bing, yahoo or any other new one to come up and defeat google. Let it not be through artificial ways of the govt interfering in such affairs.

Click to expand...

Well said!

ibmethatswhoib said:

Google needs a good slap down, they have become too big to fail like the banks. Let em get a big slap like they do to us affiliates. I hope they get knocked off their high horse.

Click to expand...

No, a bank that is "too big to fail" is one that the FDIC doesn't have enough money to bail out when they get themselves in financial trouble, so their failure would not only bring down the bank, but it would also wipe out the savings of millions of people. There's no parallel case with Google growing their influence at this point.

DamageX said:

Be careful what you wish for.

Click to expand...

Agree completely.

A lot of you all do not realize how business works. Google is responsible to their share holders. If they get a big "slapdown" where the hell do you think the money is going to come from to appease shareholders? It is going to come out of your share of adsense revenue. So instead of you getting 60%, maybe it drops to 40%.

Google makes me money and you all wishing for them to get hurt is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Your sites got hit but it is not your fault that you put up crappy spun content or violated the TOS so they banned your account. Take responsibility for your own shit and quit blaming everyone else. The reason you dropped is because you did not adapt. Evolution and nature have a way of weeding out the weak.

Do I like everything that they are doing? No but then I also do not own 51% so there is nothing I can do about it. Learn to adapt and make it work for you instead of trying to push against it.

I've been saying for a long time that G is going to have a problem with anti-trust issues. Once the govt gets hold of you, they are hard to shake. It probably won't happen right away... but within the next 2 years I think they are in trouble.

They effect other businesses greatly, based on your rank on their search engine... and I think the "ultimate" problem they have is that they keep the criteria a secret. That's where I believe they will run into trouble.

It's like telling your child that they better get to bed on time. And when they ask what time they need to be in bed by you answer them by saying, "well, I'm not going to tell you, but you're going to be punished if you don't get to bed on time."

No one actually knows all of the rules, so they can arbitrarily apply them, or at least that is the insinuation.

I'm making a lot of money from G, so I hope they get by all of this, but my feeling is that its a problem waiting to happen.

You know the real Big G (Government) has got to get a piece of the pie! If you're successful it's only a matter of time before the government steps in and steals from you.

wpbacklinks said:

yeah, and thousands people has been banned from adsense.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and those thousands were retards that violated the TOS in one way or another.

Google should not be banned or something like that, FTC and other authorities just have to make sure that the are doing a clear business, this means: no total ads blinding in organic results, no de-index on legal websites and no manual SERP changes (if websites are not doing anything illegal or offensive).