Google knew publishers would dislike ad tech change that helped it profit
By Jody Godoy
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, Sept 12 (Reuters) -Google GOOGL.O knew publishers would balk when it took measures in 2019 to keep them from diverting ad sales to competitors, prompting it to try to make the change look more palatable, according to internal documents shown at the tech titan's antitrust trial on Thursday.
Google's removal of the feature that publishers used to reduce their dependence on Google is a key piece of the case in which the U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of states are seeking to show the company unfairly dominated markets for the technology that facilitates online advertising.
The Justice Department showed emails and documents where Google employees discussed the company losing revenue because publishers were using their ability to set a higher minimum for bids from Google's AdX than for other exchanges.
The result was that when ads were offered through multiple exchanges, publishers often sold to exchanges other than Google's.
The company knew publishers were willing to accept making less money on some ad sales in exchange for the ability to preference other ad tech companies, such as those who charged a lower fee, according to the documents.
"It helps them to keep Google at bay and put pressure on us (similar to any industry)," Google executives discussed on an email thread in 2017.
As Google prepared to terminate the feature in 2019, employees discussed how to mitigate potential blowback from publishers.
Rolling the change out by itself "would be viewed as pure loss of functionality that we're doing for our own (perceived 'nefarious/self serving' reasons)," Nitish Korula, then a research scientist at Google, said in an email.
Google ultimately introduced the change alongside other features publishers favored, including the end of a practice whereby Google's ad selling tools would receive a "last look" that let it outbid other sellers.
The changes were meant as improvements to make the system simpler and fairer, and Google estimated its top 500 publishers saw a median increase of 2.7 percent in ad auction revenue, former Google employee Rahul Srinivasan testified.
But publishing executives, including at the New York Times NYT.N, News Corp NWSA.O and The Weather Company, revolted against the loss of control, according to recordings of an April 2019 meeting played in court.
"You have made it next to impossible for any of us to figure out how to increase our yield with partners outside of Google," Jana Meron, then an advertising executive at Business Insider, said in one clip.
The trial is expected to last multiple weeks. If U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema finds that Google broke the law, she would later consider prosecutors' request to make Google at least sell off Google Ad Manager, a platform that includes the company's publisher ad server and its ad exchange.
Reporting by Jody Godoy in Alexandria, Virginia; editing by Jonathan Oatis
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
