Google’s first witnesses: How publishers can sell advertising space and how to counter the DOJ with competition and ad-hoc pricing controls
Julia Tarver Wood of the DOJ said during the opening statements that control is a characteristic of a monopolist. To the government, Google exerts too much control over every step in the way publishers sell advertising space online and how advertisers buy it, resulting in a system that benefits Google at the expense of nearly everyone else.
Google’s attorneys poked at the witnesses’ arguments and credibility during cross-examination, pointing out ways players like Avery would benefit if the court forced Google to share access to its tools. Google will call its own witnesses to counter the DOJ later in the trial.
It could take years for the ad market to shake out, says Adam Heimlich, a longtime digital ad executive who’s extensively researched Google. Competition could lower supply chain fees in the future. That would drive “better monetization of websites and better quality of websites,” says Heimlich, who now runs AI software developer Chalice Custom Algorithms.
Some of the tools used by the internet titan hold about 90 percent of the market according to the government. Google has a publisher ad server called Google Ad Manager (formerly DoubleClick for Publishers, or DFP), which helps publishers sell ad space. AdX is an ad exchange that facilitates transactions. And it owns an advertiser ad network, rounding out its trifecta of major products across different parts of the ad world.
After opening statements, the DOJ began calling its first witnesses, focusing on the tools publishers use to monetize display ads. These are the ads that pop up at the top or side of a page on news websites, usually in the form of auctions that run while the page loads. During the auction, an ad exchange helps match publishers and advertisers based on things like topic and price without active intervention by a human. The process is used by many companies and is known as programmatic advertising. Ryan Pauley, the president of revenue and growth atVox Media, was on a list of potential witnesses but wasn’t called today.
How Google Lost its Two Ad Technology Trials: The Impact on Consumer Experiences and Digital Advertising Competition in the U.S. epoch of Competition
The government wants to take control of a successful business in order to make it deal with rivals on more favorable terms, while ignoring the value of technology and its unique tools that it has put into it.
All depends on the outcome of the case. Over the past year, Google lost its two other antitrust trials—concerning illegal search and mobile app store monopolies. Though the verdicts are under appeal, they’ve made the company’s critics optimistic about the ad tech trial.
Tim Vanderhook, CEO of ad-buying software developer Viant Technology, which both competes and partners with Google, believes that consumers would encounter a greater variety of ads, fewer creepy ads, and pages less cluttered with ads. “A substantially improved browsing experience,” he says.
It is a large amount. A court expert estimated that if the case went against them, they would be receiving up to hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Publishers are put at risk of being forced to cease their businesses or put more ads on their websites if they don’t accept more funding, according to the government. Colorado Attorney general Phil Weiser says that it all adds up to a subpar internet experience for consumers.
The government contends that controlling DoubleClick enabled Google to corner websites into doing business with its other services. That has led to the creation of a situation where only one of the three links in the digital advertising supply chain can be searched by people in the US.