You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-10-15 16:10
Most of Google and Yahoo's defense of their ad agreement has been to claim it creates 'efficiencies.' The problem with that defense is that most all of the claimed "efficiencies' -- are negative in nature -- not positive justifications for approval.
New Negative Network Effect:
Cartel/Monopoly revenue efficiencies:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-10-14 19:09
Given the Wall Street Journal's reporting that "Google, Yahoo seek to avoid suit over ad deal" -- what provisions are needed in a court-enforced consent decree between the DOJ and Google-Yahoo in order to protect competition?
Consent Decree Principles to Protect Competition:
Yahoo falls to third in search behind YouTube -- Google-Yahoo is the 'dunking point' for competitionSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-10-14 11:18
Google's three-year-old video subsidiary, YouTube, now generates more searches than any other site or competitor in the U.S. -- surpassing #2 Yahoo in August per Comscore's U.S. expanded search rankings.
The new ComScore August 2008 search rankings spotlight the awesome search cartel reach Google has assembled:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-10-10 19:19
Google's CEO Eric Schmidt had the temerity to suggest that journalism consider becoming a not-for-profit enterprise -- at a recent Google program for magazine executives.
Google's CEO must think journalism-business people are stupid.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-10-10 16:05
The untold story of the Google-Yahoo ad partnership is the exceptional closeness of the founders/leaders of Google and Yahoo -- and whether that exceptional closeness undercuts the credibility of Yahoo's assurances that Yahoo will compete with Google as vigorously after the agreement as before.
Consider how the leading authors who have written books about Google, describe the relationship between the founders of Yahoo and Google.
First, as background, Yahoo founders, Jerry Yang and David Filo, and Google's founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin were all computer science PHDs at Stanford University a few years apart in the 1990's.
Second, as background, Michael Moritz, of Sequoia Capital, was one of the two original venture capital backers of Google, funding $12.5m of the orginal $25m in venture funding in Google.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-10-09 13:33
The best evidence of market power is when a company utterly disregards its customers' best interests -- because they know their customers have no real competitive alternative.
Advertisers/brand marketers who already are concerned that the Google-Yahoo ad partnership is anti-competitive, and that Google's auctions are anti-competitive because they are not in fact true auctions, should be triply troubled by the anti-competitive implications of Google's Chrome browser technology which efffectively disintermediates brands -- by design.
What is in the best interests of Google's advertiser/brand marketers?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-10-08 16:32
As the overall Internet advertising growth rate slows from 26% in 2007 to 15% for IH08, Google is strengthening its relative grip on the overall Internet advertising market in the United States, not just the search market that Google is well known to increasingly dominate with 71% share of searches per Hitwise.
Per the new IAB data on the overall U.S. advertising market:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-10-07 12:35
Just when the DOJ is investigating if the Google-Yahoo ad partnership is anti-competitive, eBay bursts onto the antitrust stage with "investigate us too!" acquisitions of Bill Me Later and more classified ad businesses. (See NYT article and post, and WSJ article for excellent background.)
Why are the eBay acquisitions relevant to the Google-Yahoo investigation?
First, they spotlight how dominant and incestuously interdependent the primary Internet players are.
Google's latest innovation: the customer's not right -- Don't competitive markets listen to customers?Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-10-06 13:05
Google is on the wrong side of its customers -- as aspiring monopolists often are. Isn't it a hallmark of competitive markets that companies are responsive and solicitous of customers, especially their biggest customers? Isn't competition about supply meeting demand?
In a customer-friendly deal that truly offered innovative benefits to customers, customers would be flooding the DOJ with support for it, not flooding it with opposition like they are.
Google's big problem is that they "have met with marketers to seek their support." However, "The Association of National Advertisers said it had not found the companies' arguments persuasive." (per the same NYT article.)
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-10-03 11:20
I wrote a new white paper, Googleopoly III, to answer the core question in the Google-Yahoo deal: Would Yahoo compete as vigorously with Google Post Agreement?
I wrote this white paper now because, there are many indications that the DOJ will decide to bless or block this Google-Yahoo deal next week before the parties' October 11 review deadline.
The abstract of my 10 page White Paper is below: