Google Antitrust Trial - They manipulated Adwords' reserve prices manually

[Ryuzaki]

Source: https://searchengineland.com/google-quietly-increases-ad-prices-targets-432155

Google admitted and apparently there is an email that is proof that Google was raising prices artificially in their ad reserve prices on Adwords by as much as +5% for the average advertiser and as high as +10% for some in order to meet expected earnings thresholds and keep Wall Street off their back. They justified it by lamenting that they all live in high cost areas. They wanted to "get creative so we could meet our quota". This is during the federal antitrust trial where they're trying to claim they aren't a monopoly and don't do monopolistic things like this.

Factoids:
Google owns 90% of the market share in search.
60%+ of their revenue comes from these search ads.
Search ad revenue was over $100 billion in 2020.

 

[smithy]

So that "Don't be evil" motto seems to be working well.

 

[harrytwatter]

Rand's shared a bunch of this monopoly stuff too, an energy I LOVE to see after cutting my teeth with his Google-prescriptive White Board Fridays back in the day.

I also know people who have been employed as quality raters for what sounds a lot like an Apple search engine.

One can dream...

 

[Ryuzaki]

Source: https://searchengineland.com/google...ctions-in-resurfaced-smx-advanced-clip-432345

In a video clip from SMX Advanced 2015 (8 years ago), Google Ad Executive Jerry Dischler told the audience at the conference:

“Full stop, we are not manipulating search results or manipulating the ad auction in order to increase profits. That’s just not what we do.”

Yet in 2023, Dischler himself told Judge Amit Mehta that they "frequently" do so without telling advertisers, by adjusting the cost of ads and reserve prices by as much as 10%.

Apparently Tinuiti's VP of Research Andy Taylor had made a presentation before Dischler's comment in their keynote Q&A that "showed numerous data points indicationg Google was manipulating minimums and driving up CPC at the time."

Well, well, well!

 

[Zach]

Yea I always thought auction-pricing was ripe for some "home baking" on Google's part. Lots of stuff that doesn't make sense over the years. "I'm paying $X for these clicks with no competitors....hmmmm...if I'm the only buyer in the auction should my bid be .01c?" Not to mention once you turn on 90% of their automated tools your CPCs go way up and your ROAS goes down with little/no more volume. Most media buyers know Google is pretty full of shit with your rep or the UI telling you "best practices".

Looks like it's catching up to them.

 

[harrytwatter]

Just like with all other corporate abuses in this utterly corrupt nation I foresee an inconsequential fine and G being left to carry on as usual.

 

[Ryuzaki]

It's funny how they don't want to let Microsoft buy Activision-Blizzard due to Call of Duty and the possibility of exclusivity on the X-Box over one franchise, but Google can basically own a 90-plus percentage of marketshare in search engines and advertising while owning YouTube and everything else and shoving it all in the SERPs and all that. I'm no legal guy and I've got a very surface level understanding of any of this, but sometimes things don't pass the ole sniff test.

 

[Politico]

Most media buyers know Google is pretty full of shit with your rep or the UI telling you "best practices"

Learned this the hard way myself.

Google can basically own a 90-plus percentage of marketshare in search engines and advertising while owning YouTube and everything else and shoving it all in the SERPs

IMO, Google is the world's greatest intelligence gathering and public manipulation tool disguised as a search engine. The "rules" will never apply to them because the "rules" never applied to their funders either (if you know what I mean). They are a real life Rehoboam.

 

[smithy]

https://www.wired.com/story/google-antitrust-lawsuit-search-results/

This is pretty messed up.

[Mod Edit: Don't post mystery links. Explain what's behind the click. Google has been showing semantically related but different results than the query you searched for in order to display any ads at all or higher paying ads, such as imperceptibly switching your query behind the scenes from "children's clothes" to "big brand name kid's clothes"]

 

[makoloko]

Snippet: It’s also a guaranteed way to harm everyone except Google. This system reduces search engine quality for users and drives up advertiser expenses. Google can get away with it because these manipulations are imperceptible to the user and advertiser, and the company has effectively captured more than 90 percent market share.

Yeah, that's crazy. They're screwing over everyone. Very short sighted strategy. Actually it's just plain ol idiotic, or they are extremely desperate.

 

[Steve Brownlie]

It's funny how they don't want to let Microsoft buy Activision-Blizzard due to Call of Duty and the possibility of exclusivity on the X-Box over one franchise, but Google can basically own a 90-plus percentage of marketshare in search engines and advertising while owning YouTube and everything else and shoving it all in the SERPs and all that. I'm no legal guy and I've got a very surface level understanding of any of this, but sometimes things don't pass the ole sniff test.

I think the really 'clever' thing about it all if it turns out to be true is they seem to have done it in a way that wasn't noticed by users enough to turn them off. If there was the whole 'we don't want this stupid IE thing' heat that MS got I think it would be different but when most users seem happy most politicians don't have an incentive to do much - it won't really win them any votes. I think, worryingly, more voters might be upset if someone 'messed with their Google' given 90% of them are apparently happily using it despite lots of choices that these days give better results. I would be really surprised if this turns out to be 100% true though - it seems too desperate/short sighted for a company that was clearly still winning so well. Attracting this kind of risk just seems mad - but companies have done dumber things so...

 

[Jesse]

Google has been showing semantically related but different results than the query you searched for in order to display any ads at all or higher paying ads, such as imperceptibly switching your query behind the scenes from "children's clothes" to "big brand name kid's clothes

Ahahahahaha.

Okay, that's pretty gangster. I can respect that.

 

[makoloko]

Wired has since removed that article. Here's what it says now:

Editor’s Note 10/6/2023: After careful review of the op-ed, "How Google Alters Search Queries to Get at Your Wallet," and relevant material provided to us following its publication, WIRED editorial leadership has determined that the story does not meet our editorial standards. It has been removed.

 

[CCarter]

Wired has since removed that article.

I have a feeling the secret meeting went a little like this:

Motherfuckers were about to get a "is this truly helpful content??" manual audit.

When Google is your daddy, you don't bite the hand that feeds you. LOL

 

[JOoa0ky]

**Knock Knock**

Wired editorial leadership?

There's an unannounced guest that is here to see you.