Home Ad Exchange News Monopsony Gets Its Day In Court; Why Theory-First Works In Theory

Monopsony Gets Its Day In Court; Why Theory-First Works In Theory

SHARE:
Comic: Privacy Theater

Here’s today’s AdExchanger.com news round-up… Want it by email? Sign up here.

Who Wants To Play Monopsony?

This week, a US judge blocked a merger between Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster, two major publishing houses. 

You may ask, why is a print publishing merger relevant? 

Partly because it’s another example of legacy businesses merging because they can’t compete with the scale of Amazon, Google or Apple, only to be denied. Outbrain and Taboola were nixed because, apparently, how could anyone compete with that? Lol. 

The Kroger and Albertsons grocery merger will face antitrust review and fits the same mold. 

But the book publisher case is also notable because the Justice Department Antitrust Division won it on grounds of monopsony. (A monopoly is when one company owns the supply of a product, whereas monopsony is control over demand, such as Penguin Random House Simon Schuster controlling book distribution and contract prices for authors.)

The DOJ and FTC are revamping their merger enforcement standards this and next year, and emphasize they want to tackle more monopsony cases. Historically, monopolies are the main attraction for antitrust. 

Google and Amazon are monopsony targets, though, since they channel a high percent of online ad dollars, thus controlling demand in the space. 

Bandying Theories

It is not a new critique of soft-science or liberal arts academic research that professors tend to focus on abstract and theoretical questions. 

Even in marketing research, which is naturally more business-facing than, say, philosophy, the predominant research follows this progression: introduction → prior literature → overarching theoretical framework → hypotheses → empirical test → discussion. That’s the methodology behind “theory-first” research.

But a group of business school professors propose in the latest Journal of Marketing that academics shift to an “empirics-first” approach to marketing. (Check out their summary at the American Marketing Association blog.)

It sounds like a small change – theory to empirics. But it’s a big lift. 

“One possible reason is that TF research is well-represented in PhD education and uses a series of well-defined steps while EF research, which tends to be open-ended and unstructured, appears to lack rigor,” according to the authors. 

They suggest researchers begin not with a theoretical hypothesis but with a real-world issue or instance that can be broadened through empirical study. The research contribution (the attribution, if you will) should be tied to whether the research “advances understanding.” 

The Missing Link

The earnings dynamics for social media influencers often depend on the platform where they have the most engagement.

If you’re big on YouTube, you’re likely making real money from rev shares, either enough to get rich or run a steady, reliable business. If you’re hot on TikTok or Facebook and/or Instagram, you’re making incremental change with an occasional viral post that could pay off hundreds or thousands of dollars (though there’s also that second revenue stream, #sponcon). Twitter, Snapchat and Pinterest don’t signify, I’m sorry to say. 

But what about LinkedIn?

I agree. My first response is to laugh. 

But, apparently, the rise of the LinkedIn influencer who’s banking on their platform status is growing and is very lucrative, Vice reports. 

With content that’s about inspiring people enmeshed in the corporate hustle (cue the anecdote about vulnerability or humble brag), LinkedIn influencers sometimes even gain their status because of how roundly mocked they are by people on Twitter and Reddit, the article notes:

“The joke is perhaps on everyone else, as many of the same people getting ripped apart on Reddit have figured out a relatively easy way to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars by spouting inspirational, if often conventional, wisdom.” 

But Wait, There’s More!

How a TikTok creator’s fake Pepsi ad led to multiple brand partnerships. [Ad Age]

Marketers can’t stop chasing ‘authenticity,’ whatever that means. [Digiday]

A case for empirics-first approaches to academic marketing research. [AMA]

Integrating a Media Mix Model into a digital marketing workflow. [Mobile Dev Memo]

As Netflix dives into advertising, media buyers watch the clock. [Marketing Brew]

You’re Hired!

Mirriad names Karen Magnani VP of sales, US. [release]

Must Read

Why Wall Street Turned Against The Trade Desk

The Trade Desk is less than a third as valuable as it was a year ago. It retains about one-tenth of its high-water market cap from December 2024, when the company was worth almost $70 billion. Why did investors lose the faith?

Garrett McGrath, President, Prebid.org

Prebid’s New President Is Its Former Chairman, Garrett McGrath

McGrath left Prebid in June following five years as board chairman after stepping down as SVP of product management at Magnite. But now, overseeing Prebid will be his full-time job.

TV Manufacturer Telly Touts Programmatic Home Screen Ads

Telly, the startup that gives away free smart TVs in exchange for data and ad exposure, is making its home screen ads available for brands to buy programmatically – and pushing for industry standards to help attract more spend. 

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters

AI Is Helping L’Oréal Brainstorm Unique Ways To Reach Male Audiences

L’Oréal adopted creative AI platform Springboards to generate creative ideas that led to a collaborative, ongoing ideation process.

AdExchanger's Big Story podcast with journalistic insights on advertising, marketing and ad tech

Google Had Its Day In Court. Now, It’s Amazon’s Turn

Google won’t have to break up its ads business after being declared an online monopolist. Meanwhile, Amazon faces a lawsuit from the FTC alleging that it charged advertisers more than necessary for ecommerce ads.

The FTC’s Amazon Lawsuit Is Ad Tech’s History Of Opacity Repeating Itself

Buy-side experts said it’s another example of a Big Tech platform taking advantage of the lack of transparency built into programmatic ad auctions. And they’re not optimistic change is coming.