Category: Department of Justice

Google Policy Blog Fails to Address Yahoo! Deal & Threat to Competition & Privacy

Google’s post today by Tim Armstrong on why its proposed deal with Yahoo! isn’t a competition problem attempts to weave and spin this critical issue. It’s very revealing as well about Google’s own failure to develop into a company which honestly engages in self-examination and reflection. As one can see from the current melt-down of the financial markets, making money shouldn’t be the sole motivation for behavior. Google should have been able to acknowledge that a major deal with its leading search competitor raises serious questions worthy of broad debate and critical analysis.

The failure of Google to respond to the concerns raised by the World Association of Newspapers this week is reflective of this. Newspapers and content publishers are rightly worried about ensuring a diversity of funding sources for the production of news and other information necessary for a democratic society. It’s not as simple as Google’s Tim Armstrong (who wrote today’s post) suggests, that this deal with give consumers “relevant ads” and help keep Yahoo afloat as a robust competitor. In fact, Armstrong and Google, we believe, aren’t being candid here. When an online ad company dismantles (or turns over) a core part of its search function to its leading competitor, it becomes fatally wounded. As Google knows all well, search and display (and online content) are all intertwined. Yahoo’s future, in my opinion, as a full service online ad company is endangered, as more businesses realize that its search ad business relies increasingly on Google.

There are many troubling privacy issues with this deal, something Mr. Armstrong tries to dismiss by saying that [our emphasis]: “[W]e have taken steps in the Yahoo! agreement to make sure that neither company has access to personally identifiable user information from the other company.” But that leaves open an array of personal data collection points, such as cookies, IP addresses, and other statistical analysis online related data. (The failure, by the way, for the privacy issues of the proposed deal to be investigated by the FTC and Congress, is also disturbing).

Mr. Armstrong is Google’s “President, Advertising and Commerce, North America.” He directs their online ad sales. In responding to concerns about competition in the online advertising market–given its links to broader societal concerns–more than just assurances from the sales department is required.

World Association of Newspapers Tells DoJ What CDD Has Been Saying: Google/Yahoo Combo Deal Threat to Newspapers and Online Content Diversity

Last July, my CDD wrote to the Department of Justice Antitrust Division raising a number of concerns about the proposed consolidation between Google and Yahoo! In particular, we were concerned about the impact the deal melding together the two leading online ad companies for newspapers would have on that imperiled business. Now, the World Association of Newspapers has issued a statement opposing the deal, citing many of the same issues. Here’s a link and the first few graphs of their important communique:

For over 60 years, the World Association of Newspapers [W.A.N.] has vigorously defended the freedom of the press. From its beginning, W.A.N. has recognized that newspaper journalism can be truly free only if newspaper publishers are economically independent. This means having the freedom to decide what news to publish, where to publish it, and the ability to build sustainably profitable businesses around it. As newspaper publishers endeavor to adapt to the Internet, their independence increasingly hinges on their ability to monetize news through online advertising.

  

In this pursuit, one company – Google – has emerged as the significant market power in online advertising. Google has built a very impressive business in 10 years, generating billions of dollars by indexing and linking to online content, then profiting from it through Google’s own ads. However, of the very impressive $48 billion in online advertising revenue that Google has amassed since 2001, less than one third of that has been returned to online publishers (1), and a much tinier fraction has benefitted the news and content generation industries. As such, most publishers are acutely aware that Google’s ever-tightening grip on internet traffic, its unbridled use of online content, and its dominance in online advertising poses a very real threat to the continued viability of the independent content generation industry.

It should be pointed out that most of W.A.N.’s 18,000 newspaper title members are, in fact, regular customers of Google (and to a lesser extent, Yahoo). These publishers depend on Google (and Yahoo) for a significant portion of their online advertising revenue and rely on each company’s respective search engines (both their paid search ads and their natural search results) to drive traffic to their websites. To date, competition between both these two search companies has provided a necessary check to any potential market abuses, and has helped to ensure that publishers and content generators are capable of earning an equitable and fair return on their content.

It is in that context that W.A.N. believes that the competition that currently exists between Google and Yahoo is absolutely essential to ensuring that our member titles receive competitive returns for online advertising on their sites, and for obtaining competitive prices when they purchase paid search advertising. In our view, the proposed advertising deal between Google and Yahoo would seriously weaken that competition, resulting in less revenues and higher prices for our members. W.A.N. is also concerned that this deal would give Google unwarranted market power over important segments of online advertising.

While Google and Yahoo have stated that their proposed agreement is limited in scope to North America, W.A.N. believes it will have a significant and adverse effect on all newspaper publishers worldwide, as it could have the potential of reducing the incentive for Yahoo to vigorously compete against Google across the globe.

A Few Thoughts on Google, Data Collection, and Privacy: The Search Giant Blinks as Regulators Review

Google’s announcement today is a classic case study on how modern media companies deal with pressure from regulators and advocates. The company announced it would “anonymize IP addresses on our server logs after 9 months.” First, this would not have occurred without the extraordinary pressure brought by EU officials, especially data protection commissioners. [We should also thank numerous privacy and consumer advocates]. Nor would it have happened so readily if Google wasn’t trying to appease policymakers to ensure it can continue unfettered its online advertising shopping spree–such as DoubleClick and the pending joint venture with Yahoo! (and soon perhaps Verizon). Google blinks a bit on privacy when its corporate plans are under the regulatory cross-hairs (such as precisely this moment by the U.S. Department of Justice).

Google still needs to really limit its data collection practices, and become the global leader in privacy protection. It needs to become fully transparent about the myriad–and ever-growing–ways it collects, analyzes, and utilizes consumer data. It shouldn’t take regulatory review, policy pressure, or an attempt to blunt the outcome of a review from competition authorities, for Google to do the right thing. More coming.

Google/Verizon Deal: will increase “Google’s stranglehold on the mobile search market”

That quote in the headline comes from a new analyst note written by ad agency Avenue A/Razorfish. It explains [our emphasis] that: “[T]he deal will most certainly increase Google’s stranglehold on the mobile search market, and will be another blow to Yahoo and Microsoft, who are rapidly losing browser search share as well. Google currently owns 61% of the mobile search market, and already has deals in place with Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile. A deal with Verizon would give the search engine access to the current no. 2 wireless provider – but soon to be no. 1 once Verizon’s acquisition of Alltel closes.”

Regulators need to examine this deal on both competition and privacy grounds. The current review of the Google/Yahoo combination underway by the Department of Justice would be remiss if it didn’t address the mobile marketing issues. After all, Yahoo! mobile is a significant part of that company’s ad serving business. We still want to know whether Google will also be serving up mobile ads on Yahoo! as part of its forthcoming alliance.
source: Issue No 112 | August 27, 2008. SMTrends. Ave A/Razorfish.

Google/Yahoo deal raises competition and privacy concerns: the redacted SEC filing

The proposed deal where Yahoo turns over to Google a great deal of its search ad function is available via the SEC. Although it’s the redacted version, there’s enough detail to raise questions. Policymakers, consumer advocates, competitors, and the public should be concerned. The document underscores how competition has eroded in the online ad marketplace for search. The agreement first graph has this phrase [our italics]: “WHEREAS, Yahoo! desires to obtain the right to utilize Google’s monetization services in connection with certain web sites and Google desires to make these services available to Yahoo!.”

In other words, Yahoo! simply can’t make it on its own. Google gets to “conduct a review of each Prospective Yahoo! Partner Property” for the deal–which means Yahoo!’s relationships are now also Google’s. Google controls the ad copy–which Yahoo! can’t touch. Yahoo! becomes a mere licensee of Google services [“Google grants to Yahoo! a limited, nonexclusive and non-sublicensable license during the Term to access and use the Google Materials solely for the purpose of implementing and receiving the Services…”].

Beyond the deal’s threat to competition, there are privacy issues. Policymakers must ensure that we understand what data is being collected and shared by the two leading search firms. What information is to be obtained in what the agreement terms as a “client ID” [“Client ID” means a unique alphanumeric code or other designation or identifier that is provided to Yahoo! by Google to be used by Yahoo! as a Client ID in accordance with the Documentation…Yahoo! must assign a separate Client ID to each category of [*].”] The * indicates a redacted portion of the agreement.

We believe this deal will further undermine competition in a key online ad sector,  and only further strengthen Google. But beyond competition, consumers need to know how the deal will involve their data. Both Google and Yahoo should make it clear what data and analytics will be developed and shared.

Why did Yahoo Tell SEC in 2007 that Google was biggest competitor, but now–with proposed new deal–it becomes its partner?

In its most recent 2007 SEC 10K, Yahoo listed Google as its primary competitor: “We face significant competition from large-scale Internet content, product and service aggregators, principally Google, Microsoft and AOL…. Google’s Internet search service directly competes with us for Affiliate and advertiser arrangements, both of which are key to our business and operating results.” But now, with this proposed arrangement, Yahoo’s former principal competitor is its partner. The same 2007 SEC report submitted by Yahoo also cited the development of its “Panama” search ad system as one of its major accomplishments.

When the Senate raises questions this week on the deal, it should ask Yahoo how it could tell the SEC and investors one thing–and then quickly reverse itself.

source: Yahoo Form 10K. Filed February 27, 2008. Available at: http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/sec.cfm?DocType=Annual

Google/Yahoo deal and its impact on newspapers

One of the issues the Center for Digital Democracy has asked the Department of Justice to investigate is the impact of the proposed deal between Google and Yahoo and its impact on the already endangered newspaper business. Both Yahoo and Google provide online search ads or related services for the majority of the country’s newspapers. Analyzing how the pairing of Yahoo and Google may affect payments to newspaper publishers, and whether there may be the potential loss of competition, is necessary. Given the current financial pressure on newspapers, CDD urged ‘DoJ to examine the deal to address whether it will contribute to a loss in revenues necessary to ensure Americans have access to print-oriented news resources.” (It’s also interesting to note that Yahoo was reported in the trade press in February 2008 as seeing the potential of its newspaper ad platform to even compete with DoubleClick–which at the time was already acquired by Google

Google’s online video clout bigger than the TV networks

Just a friendly reminder that the new media world is here–and that it should be the primary focus of public interest communications policy strategies. Via Variety (excerpt):

More signs of the Internet apocalypse for TV’s old guard: U.S. Web surfers viewed some 11 billion online videos in April, a gain of 33% from the same month last year.

According to just-released Web traffic stats from comScore, the most ominous stat is how ardently the next generation has taken to watching video on the Internet.

Online vid viewing is highest among 18- 34-year-olds, who averaged 287 minutes in April…And make no mistake, YouTube is CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox combined on the Internet.”
source: Net traffic signs suggest TV offramp: Web surfers ride YouTube, MySpace wave. Cynthia Littleton. Variety. June 23-29 2008 [print edition. sub required].

Google/Yahoo! Combine also raises questions about Publicis and WPP deals

Officials need to examine the recent deals made both by Google and Yahoo! with advertising agency powerhouses, Publicis and WPP, respectfully. The Google/Yahoo! combine reduces competition in the online ad sector, and these agreements need to be part of the analysis. Google and Publicis completed their deal last January “based on a shared vision of how new technologies can be used to improve advertising.” Last month, Yahoo! and WPP formed a “multi-year strategic partnership” that is connected to the online ad trading Right Media Exchange.

Search should not be considered a “natural monopoly,” as some cynics suggest. Nor should search by viewed as separate from display; increasingly the two are intertwined. Marketers desire cross-platform strategies. Perhaps that’s one reason Google is hiring cross-platform ad specialists. To quote from a Google job posting: “The Cross Platform Solutions team forms partnerships with advertisers and agencies to build brands online. We strive to deliver the most efficient and effective digital platform upon which the world’s leading brands are built. We connect advertiser’s brand messages to their target audience through innovative, precise and accountable online marketing solutions whose reach can extend around the world.”

It’s hard to keep up with the online ad world, so it’s not surprising that regulators have been slow to address the critical consumer and competition issues. But much is at stake in how diverse and consumer-friendly the new media world will become. That’s why the DoJ and the Hill need to look at these ad agency deals, among other issues we will discuss soon.  Btw, privacy is a serious issue in the deal, no matter how Yahoo! may be spinning it.

Google/Yahoo and the relationship between competition in the digital ad business and content diversity

We have long argued that we must focus on the implications to the funding of digital content diversity as fewer companies dominate the core revenue [monetization] apparatus. Google is in a position to become the primary digital gatekeeper for online/interactive publishing revenues. That’s because how revenues are shared, such as TAC (Traffic Acquisition Costs), is a fundamental economic lifeline for content. That’s especially critical as the old media economy of broadcasting and newspapers continues its meltdown.

We think this excerpt from TechCrunch underscores our view: “On the publisher side things are even worse. Google doesn’t share enough revenue with content sites that show their ads. The only thing keeping them even close to honest is the fact that Yahoo and Microsoft will occasionally compete for those partners. Take that away, and Google will go back to keeping the majority of advertising revenue generated at those sites (their only competition will be other types of advertising, which generate far less revenue). That is a terrible outcome when you look at it from the perspective of the health of the Internet.”