I don’t want to coin a phrase like “Schadenfreude Season.” But given the wave of ad tech headlines in recent weeks, it’s a succinct way of summarizing what the open internet is feeling right now.
This is a long overdue moment of reckoning for companies who (still) hold disproportionate control over website traffic and revenue potential. And no, I’m not just talking about Google – DoubleVerify and Integral Ad Science are facing their own reckoning, as well.
Through their control over search queries across devices and browsers and what populates social feeds, today’s tech giants have made and unmade media brands at every turn – and no one has reshaped the world of digital publishing quite like Google.
Even for those media outlets that haven’t gone bust after one of Google’s many abrupt pivots (ahem, 2017’s “Maccabees Update,” for example), the vicious cycle of revenue loss and staff reduction has bled both their talent and their spirits. And while dozens of publishing’s oldest titles have disappeared, grifters have grown media empires by exploiting algorithmic loopholes.
So it’s no surprise that so much of the publishing community is energized by the federal government cracking down on more of Google’s anticompetitive practices.
When I scrolled past the New York Times headline on Thursday morning confirming that Google operates an “advertising monopoly,” it was actually the article’s subhead that hit hardest: “It was the second time in a year that a US court found that the company had acted illegally to remain dominant.”
For those of us who’ve spent countless hours head-scratching over the opaque inner workings of Google’s ad systems – not to mention the myriad platform renamings and UI fumbles – to have it spelled out, ruled illegal in black and white, is surreal.
The prevailing sentiment for over a decade has been defeatist, resigned: “It’s Google. What can you do?” That line of thinking has been an undercurrent of an entire industry.
Since Google’s $3.1B acquisition of DoubleClick in 2007, and the subsequent wrangling of control over the entire digital advertising ecosystem, marketers and programmatic professionals haven’t been able to do their best work or explain every ad serving decision with total certainty.
Unless Google wins on appeal, the federal government and the 17 states that brought this antitrust action against Google are poised to put real control back into the hands of the operators of the open internet.
Let’s not celebrate too early, though. If we collectively sit with palms outstretched, our arms risk tiring. Appeals could drag on for another year or more, and until that process is concluded, publishers and marketers are still subject to the same disadvantaged dynamics.
Google remains both the decision engine and a bidder; it has final say via Google Ad Manager (GAM) over which ads get shown. Even after robust auctions in Prebid and Amazon, Google Ad Exchange can be awarded the win from behind the curtain.
Despite the blatant unfairness of existing auction setups, publishers cannot afford to do without the tranche of Google demand coming from AdX, which exclusively bridges to AdWords demand. This “all or nothing” conundrum has bound media owners to the Google ecosystem, where everyone can see the thumb on the scale.
In her ruling, Judge Leonie Brinkema plainly recognized this dynamic. If perusing a 115-page legal document isn’t in the cards for you, here’s an excerpt from page 29: “Google recognized the unique attractiveness of its extensive advertiser demand, and its employees understood that limiting access to AdWords demand in this way compelled publishers to use AdX and DFP.”
The court’s opinion finds antitrust violations in Google tying its ad server to its ad exchange, but punted on focusing on Google’s ad networks. The subtext here is that spinning off the ad server from GAM could be a satisfactory remedy. This is the game-changer to continue watching for as the appeals process plays out. Should that decoupling occur, Google would no longer be running auctions while also raising its own paddle to bid on a given impression opportunity.
As an ad tech revenue operator with over a decade in the business, I can say this confidently: Power belongs with the publisher. Publishers should demand clarity from all parties on what happens leading up to a given transaction and how each outcome was decided. These are the qualities of a fair auction.
Should these legal proceedings unlock the opportunity for media owners to choose new tools, it will herald in a new era of understanding and expertise across our space. Decoupling Google’s programmatic demand from GAM will enable innovation and entrepreneurial endeavors, the very things that get squashed under monopolistic market conditions.
If AdX demand becomes transactable via OpenRTB in one form or another – and there are no guarantees that Google will cave to the sensibility of offering a Prebid adapter to enable this – there will be a market opportunity the size of GAM to make that demand available to publishers.
With that freedom of choice, power gets put back where it belongs: with the creators of the open internet.
“The Sell Sider” is a column written by the sell side of the digital media community.
Follow Aditude and AdExchanger on LinkedIn.
For more articles featuring Justin Wohl, click here.
