You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-06-02 15:30
Does Google warrant the current exceptional leap-of-faith in the integrity of its dominant ad auction model, given its near total lack of openness, transparency, independent auditability, or third party oversight? There is a growing body of evidence that Google does not.
Why a lack of openness sullies the integrity of Google's ad auctions.
First, it is widely accepted that public markets operate best when open and transparent.
Google's ad auction model has become one of the world's most important public markets. Google is increasingly becoming the world's primary public information broker. Google brokers:
Google is also not open or transparent.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-05-28 17:10
In monitoring Google as closely as I do, it has become increasingly clear that Google does not believe it has to obey the rules, standards, regulations and laws, that others routinely obey and respect. Google increasingly operates like a self-declared, virtual sovereign nation, largely unaccountable to the rules and mores of the rest of the world.
Is Google accountable to anyone?
First, can public shareholders hold Google accountable?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-05-27 18:53
I would be remiss if I didn't link to my own, differently spelled, www.googleopoly.net website which includes some of the most in-depth and serious analysis of Google's growing market power.
For those who wonder -- why should I care:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-05-22 18:34
Microsoft's resumed interest in Yahoo's search business, suggests that Yahoo is close to outsourcing some of its search to Google. The antitrust implications of the world's #1 and #3 online advertising competitors, Google and Microsoft, fighting over the #2 competitor, Yahoo, has finally attracted serious media attention.
Now that the antitrust implications of this issue are beginning to get heightened media scrutiny, let me lay out my case of why a new Google-Yahoo search partnership is anti-competitive collusion and not benign collaboration.
First, one must look at the competitive impact of a Google-Yahoo partnership.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-05-16 18:21
The new 2008 Internet Advertising Revenue report just came out from the Interactive Advertising Bureau.
It has U.S. Internet advertising revenues for 2007 at $21.2b, up an impressive 26% from 2006 revenues of $16.9b, but nowhere near as impressive as Google's 56% overall revenue growth in 2007.
With the pending Google-Yahoo outsourcing pact reportedly being negotiated, I thought it might be iluminating or instructive to see what share of U.S. Internet advertising revenues Google and Yahoo each have, and what they would have on a combined basis.
At a minimum, the domination of these two players in the U.S. Internet advertising market, combined with Google's incredible momentum in taking share from all its competitors signalling powerful network effects, must concern both the DOJ and FTC.
If Google and Yahoo partner to not compete as fully as they did before... where is competition going to come from?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-05-15 11:58
With respect and affection to the memory of the late great Dr. Seuss....
Googlehoo mocks all the boo hoos over their ballyhooed Googlehoo coup.
Get a clue.
Googlehoo pooh-poohs a collusive coup between their crews.
It's no glue to screw you.
But, who knew it would be true, that Googlehoo would rue, that Justice could see through, Googlehoo's collusion boo-boo, and eventually sue?
Can we construe Mr. Icahn's Yahoo debut, and shareholder kung fu, as a rejection of the Googlehoo view?
Will Yahoo bid Googlehoo adieu, overcome the Microsoft taboo, and renew the review of the Microsoft view?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-05-15 11:44
As Google and Yahoo continue to negotiate their search outsourcing pact, pesky competitive facts keep arising that suggest that such a deal is likely to eventually be found by antitrust officials to be illegal anti-competitive collusion.
The operative question is not whether Google and Yahoo can craft an acceptable search advertising outsourcing pact that can pass antitrust muster, but whether the DOJ wants to encourage such intimate and important business "cooperation" between Google, the dominant #1 in the market, and one of the only two companies that most consider to be Google's primary competition in multiple market segments.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-05-14 18:47
I had to grin when I saw that two of net neutrality top supporters of net neutrality, eBay and Craig Newmark of Craig's list are reportedly in an legal fight and Craigslist is actually accusing eBay of anti-competitive behavior.
I have to point out two ironies here:
Second, it is both Craigslist and eBay, who are eviserating one side of the newspaper industry's two-sided business model (ads and subscriptions), while at the same time promoting net neutrality, which is a clever scheme by online monopolies like Google and eBay to effectively prevent broadband companies from evolving into a two-sided marketplace with both subscriptions and advertising.
Bottom line: It seems as if eBay defines anti-competitive as what others might do to eBay, not what eBay actually does to others. Ask Craig.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-05-14 12:54
It is getting harder and harder for Google to continue to pretend to be the little vulnerable upstart -- Google is now the dominant incumbent in search and increasingly the market power in online advertising.
The numbers in Silicon Insider's analysis are quite compelling.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-05-13 12:04
Kudos to Richard Waters of FT for his insightful analysis "Google triumphant."
Let me highlight some key takeaways: