[HN Gopher] Google proposes moving ad business to Alphabet to ke... ___________________________________________________________________ Google proposes moving ad business to Alphabet to keep regulators at bay Author : pseudolus Score : 50 points Date : 2022-07-08 20:39 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (arstechnica.com) (TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com) | hassanahmad wrote: | There should be some sort of rules that consider subsidiaries to | be part of the parent company for regulatory purposes. | xhkkffbf wrote: | Absolutely. This doesn't seem like it would be any real change. | charcircuit wrote: | So have a completely separate company and then make a deal with | that company to find them and give them office space in | Google's office and give them access to their intranet. | outside1234 wrote: | do they really think we are that stupid? | rdudek wrote: | Us? No. But regulators probably... | amelius wrote: | Will they keep the data siloed? | lokar wrote: | Depending on the "bet" (alphabet company) there can be little | to zero separation between them and Google (full access to | internal systems, etc) or it can be run as a fully separate | company with no special access. This will depend on the | details. | blibble wrote: | somehow I think they'll be able to see through that one | Willish42 wrote: | Am I missing something here? Ars Technica article from OP is | dated 7/8/2022 but the referenced source is from February 2020 | | > The US Justice Department is gearing up for a possible | antitrust lawsuit against Google's ad business, and a new report | from The Wall Street Journal [1] outlines a "concession" Google | is proposing in response to the investigation. Google might split | up some of its ad business and move it to Google's parent | company, Alphabet. | | Even the archive link [2] shows this is from over two years ago | from when archives were taken | | [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-ramps-up- | goo... [2] https://archive.ph/L9NwY | strongpigeon wrote: | Indeed, I can't seem to find the crucial part from Ars in the | WSJ article, namely the : "As part of one offer, Google has | proposed splitting parts of its business that auctions and | places ads on websites and apps into a separate company under | the Alphabet umbrella, some of the people said. That entity | could potentially be valued at tens of billions of dollars, | depending on what assets it contained." | nojito wrote: | more info at the WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice- | department-ramps-up-goo... | telotortium wrote: | https://archive.ph/L9NwY | gfxgirl wrote: | there are at least two if not 3 or more ad divisions at google | | 1) ads on search results | | 2) visual ads (banner ads), used to be double-click | | 3) ads on Android apps | | personally I want the search ads. If I search for plummer or | doctor or even database or jeans or apple pie, I want to see ads | | I don't think search and ads based on the query should be | decoupled. That will be arguably worse for me, not better | | banner ads and mobile ads can die in a fire | paraph1n wrote: | Why do you want to see ads in your search results? Wouldn't you | rather see results based on quality rather than who can pay the | most? | judge2020 wrote: | Would you be fine to pay for a search engine that does that, | then? Without a direct payment or ads, that search wouldn't | be possible. | | Imagine how many people primarily use Desktop YouTube and | have been watching since 2006, but have always had an ad | blocker and have never seen a single video ad. There's | probably actual hundreds of millions there that have been | 'lost' over the decade. It's basically profiteering with the | only difference being that Google doesn't care because | allowing ad-blockers increases their market dominance. | seydor wrote: | And what will be google 's business? | BbzzbB wrote: | Funnelling customers to Alphabet's advertisers. | etempleton wrote: | I was going to say, isn't 90 percent(ish) of Google's revenue | advertising and 80 percent(ish) of that search advertising? | What is Google's business if not to sell ads? | Zondartul wrote: | Collecting and selling user data is a business. | corrral wrote: | License some kind of IP to Alphabet for a rate that happens to | be exactly what their operating expenses are? | impulser_ wrote: | They would split the exchange side of their ad business from | platform side, which is Google. | | That's the whole reason they are being sued because they run | both sides of the ad marketplace. | | Google's business would be the same. Sell ad space. | strongpigeon wrote: | To add to that, the exchange is specifically for the display | network, so websites and app that aren't Google properties. | | This part of Google, while still worth a couple billions in | revenue, is an increasingly smaller part of the whole. | AnotherTechie wrote: | But if google makes this change, it will likely follow that | other (more self-referential) companies might also follow. | AnotherTechie wrote: | I'm genuinely shocked at the lack of quality discussion here. Did | anyone actually try reading the article? The concept here is not | to obfuscate things but rather to de-couple Google's search | engine and Google's Adwords products. | | Most opinion in this thread is "lol alphabet is google" which is | apparent to everyone. Of course they are functionally the same | entity, but someone whose job depends on it has proposed this as | a solution. Are we really to assume that they just woke up and | decided to turn their brain off? There's clearly going to be some | actual change that attempts to satisfy regulators here. | | We can look at history and possibly speculate how this looks, and | we can also identify a few things. | | 1. Google is a search engine | | 2. Google the company sells AdWords as a product to advertisers. | | 3. Google benefits tremendously from owning both of these things. | | Here's my take: Google wants to decouple their search and ads | teams, move ads to a separate entity that works as an advertising | marketplace, generate revenue there. Search will now sell its | advertising space, likely in a way that can also be taxed, to the | highest bidder rather than itself. | | I also predict that google will want to pressure other platforms, | which will enable them to break into other markets. META is the | second largest advertiser online, but they do all of their | advertising on two platforms, Instagram and Facebook. If google | can push for the forced decoupling, then it will likely also | apply to META. They can then swing their AdsWords product on top | of FB/IG and start to eat back some of the traffic that they have | been losing in recent years[1]. It's a bit of a gamble, but | Google is betting on their AdWords software to be stronger, and a | lot of the history would agree. | | Also, now that I think about it, this has pretty big implications | for user data sharing cross platform. Now you have to formalize | the way that personal information is exchanged for the purpose of | advertising. | | [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/242549/digital-ad- | market... | spaceman_2020 wrote: | You have too much faith in companies that set up elaborate | offshore entities in tax havens just to escape paying any taxes | in the countries they actually operate out of. | | Ever wonder why all these honest and upstanding companies seem | to have their HQs in Ireland of all places? | s1artibartfast wrote: | You say that like it is a bad thing? | | They follow the law. If you find fault with the law fix it. | | If you don't like tax deductions, don't begrudge people for | taking them. Remove them. | blfr wrote: | Yeah, a Chinese wall like that worked pretty wall for | journalism back when it was a profitable endeavor. Google | certainly is. | not2b wrote: | We get it, but many think that this is an attempt to _appear_ | to decouple the search engine and the Adwords projects. People | on both sides of the divide will be partly compensated with | stock in the parent company, so everyone 's financial | incentives will still be to maximize profit for Google plus | Alphabet/AdWords. So the "independent" company may still favor | Google products. | | But I suppose putting AdWords in a separate division might make | it easier for antitrust regulators (US, EU or both) to pressure | the company into a true spinoff (into a truly independent | company). | dylan604 wrote: | yes, because no Alphabet employee will ever talk to a Googs | employee where one happens to work in ads and the other in | search. Those conversations will never happen to discuss things | that could work for the betterment of either/both. | | do you really think that Alphabet would do anything to _lower_ | their profits by making ads less viable and search less ad | driven? | marricks wrote: | Corporations have so much more slack than people. If got caught | serially robbing banks I don't think the justice department | would accept my personal 5 point plan to cut down on heists. | | I think people are understandable my skeptical that a megacorp | with a known history of anticompetitive behavior will propose a | solution that is effective at stopping its only monopoly. | strongpigeon wrote: | > [...] but rather to de-couple Google's search engine and | Google's Adwords products. | | I don't think this is what this is about. From what I | understand, this is specifically about Google Ad Exchange | (which is for display ads _not_ on Google properties). | | The problem that a lot of people have is that Google both runs | the auction for many ad networks, and puts bids in the auction | as part of Google Display Network. The accusations are that | Google's Ad Exchange favors Google Display Network. | | The proposal is about spinning the Ad Exchange as another | Alphabet company. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-08 23:00 UTC)