Internal Google Emails Presented at Antitrust Trial (msn.com) 16
In the antitrust trial alleging Google had an ad-selling monopoly, "government lawyers have said some of their strongest evidence is in Google's own internal communications," reports the Wall Street Journal:
[In 2010] a new crop of ad-tech companies were threatening Google's bottom line. "One way to make sure we don't get further behind in the market is picking up the one with the most traction and parking it somewhere..." [wrote YouTube Chief Executive Neal Mohan, who previously ran Google's display-ads business]. Google ended up buying one such company, AdMeld, for $400 million in 2011. Google shut down AdMeld two years later, after incorporating some of the startup's technology into its ad exchange, known commonly as AdX.
The Justice Department argued that AdMeld was part of a larger trend: Google acquiring nascent rivals to corner the market and then locking customers into using its products by conditioning access to one software tool on them paying for another... In a 2016 email introduced by the government, Google executive Jonathan Bellack asked colleagues: "Is there a deeper issue with us owning the platform, the exchange, and a huge network? The analogy would be if Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE [New York Stock Exchange]...." The Justice Department also cited a 2018 email from another then-executive, Chris LaSala, who raised concerns internally over the 20% cut that Google takes from many of its AdX customers, saying Google was extracting "irrationally high rent" from users. "I don't think there is 20% of value in comparing two bids," wrote LaSala. "AdX is not providing additional liquidity to the market. It is simply running the auction."
Another former Google executive, Eisar Lipkovitz, testified that Google's omnipresence in ad-tech gives rise to conflicts of interest. Lipkovitz was rebuffed when he tried to get Google to lower the cut it took from AdX, he testified in a prerecorded deposition. The Justice Department finished presenting its case on Friday. Other witnesses included Google customers. One was Stephanie Layser, a former News Corp executive, who said she felt she had no choice but to use Google technology because the search giant has such market power that switching to another ad server would have meant losing out on millions in advertising revenue.
Google's lawyer countered that "There will be no witness in this case who can say with clarity where this industry is going in the next five years."
Or, as the Wall Street Journal puts it, "It makes no sense to focus on display ads, Google argues, when the industry is shifting to apps, social media and streaming services. Far from monopolizing the space, Google is actually losing ground, Google lawyer Karen Dunn said in her opening trial statement..."
The Justice Department argued that AdMeld was part of a larger trend: Google acquiring nascent rivals to corner the market and then locking customers into using its products by conditioning access to one software tool on them paying for another... In a 2016 email introduced by the government, Google executive Jonathan Bellack asked colleagues: "Is there a deeper issue with us owning the platform, the exchange, and a huge network? The analogy would be if Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE [New York Stock Exchange]...." The Justice Department also cited a 2018 email from another then-executive, Chris LaSala, who raised concerns internally over the 20% cut that Google takes from many of its AdX customers, saying Google was extracting "irrationally high rent" from users. "I don't think there is 20% of value in comparing two bids," wrote LaSala. "AdX is not providing additional liquidity to the market. It is simply running the auction."
Another former Google executive, Eisar Lipkovitz, testified that Google's omnipresence in ad-tech gives rise to conflicts of interest. Lipkovitz was rebuffed when he tried to get Google to lower the cut it took from AdX, he testified in a prerecorded deposition. The Justice Department finished presenting its case on Friday. Other witnesses included Google customers. One was Stephanie Layser, a former News Corp executive, who said she felt she had no choice but to use Google technology because the search giant has such market power that switching to another ad server would have meant losing out on millions in advertising revenue.
Google's lawyer countered that "There will be no witness in this case who can say with clarity where this industry is going in the next five years."
Or, as the Wall Street Journal puts it, "It makes no sense to focus on display ads, Google argues, when the industry is shifting to apps, social media and streaming services. Far from monopolizing the space, Google is actually losing ground, Google lawyer Karen Dunn said in her opening trial statement..."
Ah, yes, the Adobe model (Score:3)
It's definitely a slimy, customer-hostile practice that IMO should be tackled by the government, as seems to be happening here. But unfortunately it's also a practice many companies have been allowed to pursue with impunity during the past several decades...
Yeah nah.. (Score:2)
I have ZERO interest in your "Apps" which are only there to information gather.
When I am forced to use them (travel) they get deleted as soon as my need goes.
Re:Yeah nah.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Contrast that with Adwords where you had to dynamically bid on your position on the page, got random click hits that rarely had anything to do with potential closed sales, and cost a fsking fortune. Adwords pretty much destroyed the ability for a small company to maintain a consistent and respectful customer presence.
Re: (Score:2)
made it virtually impossible to track leads.
My experience was the opposite. Use a different landing page for each online ad, and you know exactly where those leads are coming from.
A/B testing is also way easier online.
Back in the day, magazines had "bingo cards" in the back.
I never had good response rates from bingo cards. We had a minimum wage worker apply the sticker to a mailer, but that rarely led to a sale.
At least with online ads, I don't have to pay for the mailer and postage.
The whole operation was civilized and personal
The customer is interested in the product, and the vendor is interested in making a profit. Neither is seeking a "civilized a
Re: Yeah nah.. (Score:2)
Yeah ok, "Eric" (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, as the Wall Street Journal puts it, "It makes no sense to focus on display ads, Google argues, when the industry is shifting to apps, social media and streaming services. Far from monopolizing the space, Google is actually losing ground, Google lawyer Karen Dunn said in her opening trial statement..."
That's the equivalent of "But look! The future isn't in ads, so you shouldn't look at all the illegal things we did in the past!"
Ooops. Maybe think before you email? (Score:2)
Or maybe think before you do evil. I guess arrogance and stupidity are to be had in spades in the "leadership" of something like Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt that would work as soon as you are not only talking to your lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that would work as soon as you are not only talking to your lawyer.
Group emails are still covered.
The email discussions on legal strategies mentioned in TFS are entirely appropriate to be covered by confidentiality.
This is basic legal CYA. Google made amateur mistakes.
Re:Ooops. Maybe think before you email? (Score:5, Informative)
Google already got caught doing that https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't work if you end up using your lawyer to conceal a crime. Just ask Trump.
Re: Ooops. Maybe think before you email? (Score:2)
Eliminate the tracking (Score:2)
... and the rest will fix itself.