The AdMonsters team is back for another week of intense courtroom drama in the Google vs. DOJ trial. We’re now deep into week three, and let me tell you, the plot has thickened faster than a bowl of your grandma’s gumbo.

Week 3 Overview

If you’ve been keeping up with the trial, you know we’ve already had heavy hitters taking the stand, spilling the tea on Google’s iron grip over the ad tech ecosystem. But this week? It’s all about the tangled mess of “ad tech spaghetti.” Google came out swinging in its defense, but rather than clearing things up, they managed to tangle themselves up even more. It’s like watching someone try to detangle a pair of headphones — they’re only making it worse.

Check out the AdMonsters Team breaking down the highlights of week 3 of the DOJ vs Google trial in the video below and you can also catch their weekly updates on YouTube.

Key Testimonies

Andrew Byrd jumped into a few polarizing testimonies, particularly from witnesses like Mark Israel. Israel defended Google, claiming regulators focused too narrowly on open web display advertising. He waved off the allegations like, “Look over there! TikTok! Facebook! Amazon!” — and suggested that competition from social media platforms and e-commerce sites like Facebook, TikTok, and Amazon was being overlooked.  He was saying just anything to divert attention from the real issue.

His argument that Google’s share of the online ad market had dropped from 15% to 10% over a decade due to a shift toward mobile and app-based advertising was… let’s just say, an interesting flex. Critics like Ariel Garcia from Check My Ads quickly noted that this defense overlooked the publishers’ plight, focusing too heavily on advertisers.

Publisher Concerns

Andrew further elaborated on testimonies from Kenneth Bloom from BuzzFeed, who, despite some nervous energy, praised Google’s ad display business. The over-reliance on Google’s tools is real, and it’s leaving publishers in a tight spot. There’s a clear tension—while some publishers benefit from Google’s ad tech, it’s a double-edged sword.

A viral LinkedIn post from Ariel hit the nail on the head: publisher revenue losses weren’t fully addressed in Israel’s defense, leaving his argument feeling like Swiss cheese — full of holes.

Eyewitness Accounts

To make matters worse, Yakira talked about when a Google project manager called a prominent ad tech journalist “stupid.” Talk about drama. These actions only underscore the growing tension and contradictions in the testimonies that have been the hallmark of this trial.

Internal Google Emails

One of the most damning pieces of evidence has been internal Google emails, which disclosed strategic advantages gained through acquisitions like DoubleClick. The DOJ used these documents to argue that Google’s market power resulted from deliberate actions to stifle competition, not just from good business practices. Oh no, say it isn’t so. Say it wasn’t a well-orchestrated game of Monopoly with Google holding all the prime real estate.

Judge’s Stance

Judge Brinkema isn’t letting anyone slide either. She’s been giving some Google employees the side-eye, openly questioning their credibility. You know things are getting shaky when the judge looks at you like Hmm emoji. This added yet another layer of drama to the proceedings, leaving Google’s defense team scrambling to keep their narrative intact.

The Complexity of Ad Tech

To wrap up the week, it’s clear the ad tech ecosystem isn’t just complex—it’s like the ultimate Choose Your Own Adventure novel. And guess what? Google isn’t just a chapter; they’re the whole darn book. Their fingers are in every part of the ad tech supply chain, from publishers to ad buyers, and everything in between.

Transparency Issues

Of course, transparency (or the lack thereof) is an elephant in the room. Key testimonies are happening behind closed doors and some trial documents are sealed. It’s giving major “black box” vibes. The public and the industry are left speculating about what’s really at stake.

Implications for the Future

So, there you have it. Week three’s tangled mess of spaghetti — that none of us would want to eat — unveiled a web of power plays and serious courtroom drama. We’ve got Google’s defense team spinning its wheels while the DOJ tightens the net around Google’s ad empire.

At its heart, this trial isn’t just about Google; it’s setting the stage for the entire ad tech industry. You can bet competitors like The Trade Desk are watching this soap opera unfold, taking notes on what not to do. Will this end with a Google split-up, or will they find a way to wriggle out of this like Houdini? Only time will tell.

Got thoughts on the trial? Head over to our Slack community polls and spill the tea. 

The post Google vs DOJ Trial Week 3: Ad Tech Spaghetti and Courtroom Drama appeared first on AdMonsters.

With testimonies revealing Google’s deep grip on ad tech, we unpacked how this could reshape the industry and finally give publishers their due. Watch the full breakdown and get the highlights of the trial here.

Hey Monsters! We’re back with our coverage of week two of Google on Trial, and let’s just say it’s heating up like a summer block party.

This week, we peeled back more layers of Google’s ad tech dominance — revealing how publishers, once sidelined, finally have their grievances heard in court. If week one was the appetizer, week two served the main course, and the DOJ wasn’t holding back.

Catch the full video recap below…

Publishers: “Just Give Me My Money”

Last week’s testimony made it clear — publishers have been getting the short end of the stick. With Google controlling AdX, the biggest pool of premium advertisers, publishers don’t have much leverage. Even though there’s plenty of demand, publishers aren’t cashing in like they should. Between Google’s 20% cut and their alleged sneaky peeks at competitor bids during the First Look days, it’s no wonder publishers felt like they were being squeezed.

It’s like publishers were throwing the biggest club night, but Google controlled the guest list and took a big chunk of the door charge, leaving publishers with barely enough to cover the bar.

Even U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema bluntly asked: Does Google’s ad tech actually benefit publishers? Spoiler alert: according to the DOJ’s witness, if Google wasn’t meddling in the auction process publishers could’ve walked away with a lot more.

Unified Pricing Rules: A Straitjacket for Publishers

Next up, came the Unified Pricing Rules (UPR). Google sold it as a win for efficiency and innovation, but publishers tell a different story. Matthew Wheatland from The Daily Mail testified that UPR caused a dip in revenue per impression, leaving publishers gasping for air.

Sure, there was an uptick in overall revenue when UPR rolled out, but Wheatland pointed out that this likely came from a surge in web traffic, not from Google’s pricing rules. Without that traffic boost, the hit would’ve been much worse. He also noted that if The Daily Mail tried to move away from Google’s ad server, they’d be staring down a 28% revenue loss. That’s what happens when you’re locked in Google’s ecosystem.

Defense Buzzwords & Bingo Cards: Google’s Shield

Google’s defense team has relied on buzzwords like “brand safety” and “inventory quality” to paint themselves as the good guys.

Our friend Arielle Garcia over at Check My Ads spiced things up with her “Defense Buzzword Bingo,” turning this corporate showdown into a game — literally. But behind all the buzzword smoke, the truth is much harsher. Google’s “innovation” isn’t really about pushing the industry forward — it’s about maintaining an iron grip on ad tech.

Key Testimonies: Behind the Curtain of Ad Tech Monopoly

The courtroom spotlight shone on some big Google players last week. YouTube CEO Neal Mohan stepped in to explain the inner workings of Google’s ad tech strategy, tracing it back to the DoubleClick acquisition. According to Mohan, this acquisition was meant to drive innovation, making life easier for publishers and advertisers.  Sounds great, right? But the DOJ didn’t buy it. They pointed out that Google’s shopping spree — including acquisitions like DoubleClick and Admeld — was more about wiping out the competition than building better tools.

Mohan tried to defend Google’s habit of “parking” acquired companies, saying it was about letting them run independently while syncing up their tech. He swore Google’s rise came from “product innovation and services,” but the government painted a different picture — one where Google’s integrated ad stack turned rivals into roadkill.

Then we had Nirmal Jayaram, Senior Director of Engineering at Google, in the hot seat. Jayaram did his best to downplay internal documents showing how Google allegedly used AWBid to snatch up publishers from competitors. His testimony was jam-packed with buzzwords like “latency” and “brand safety,” contradicting earlier evidence about Google’s strategy. There was a big gap between what internal emails said and what was claimed in court. Classic Big Tech spin, if you ask us.

Publishers Finally Seen: The Trial’s Turning Point?

For the first time, publishers are stepping out of Google’s shadow, with their frustrations about ad tech monopolization being aired for everyone to see. As our brother from another mother, AdExchanger’s Anthony Vargas called it — publishers are feeling seen. The years of discontent, the quiet side-eye at conferences, the “let’s call up our Google rep” complaints? They’re now front and center. And it’s about time.

Global Implications: What Happens Next?

This trial isn’t just a U.S. thing. The ripple effects are being felt worldwide, from the U.S. courtroom to the EU, where regulators are watching with popcorn in hand. Sure, Google scored a small win in Europe last week, dodging a $1.66 billion antitrust fine. But don’t let them pop the champagne just yet — the global fight against Big Tech dominance is far from over.

Stay tuned as Andrew Byrd, Yakira Young, and Lynne d Johnson return to dive deep into week three of Google on Trial.

The post Google on Trial: Unpacking Week Two of the DOJ’s Case and What It Means for Publishers appeared first on AdMonsters.

“Grouchy” Greg Watkins is the co-founder of AllHipHop.com, a website that has been doing successful business in the music space since its inception in 1997. The site’s mission continues to be the same as it was then, a place to share news, feature articles, and any other pertinent content for people who make and enjoy hip-hop. 

Most importantly, the site has an incredible reach, which it achieves largely thanks to Watkins’ knowledge and expertise in the online advertising space. Leading up to his talk at PubForum in Coronado Island, California, we caught up with Watkins to learn more about his career journey and how he is helping others learn the ins and outs of ad tech. 

Music & Technology Paved the Way for Watkins’ Career

Watkins says he knew he was destined to be a part of the music industry since he was only three years old, listening to tapes on his parents’ tape recorders at home. When he was just a kid, he also began tinkering with technology. 

“My dad had an old reel-to-reel machine in his basement that he listened to music on. He had transistor radios that I would take apart and look at,” he says. 

As he grew up and began getting involved in music, he started a recording studio. Then he went to the Art Institute of Philadelphia, where he received an Associate’s Degree in Music, Business, and Audio Engineering. 

By 1996, Watkins was pressing records and having success selling those online to people worldwide. That’s when he registered AllHipHop.com, which he originally conceived as a way to sell records but quickly morphed into the hip-hop news site it is today, with the help of his long-time business partner Chuck “Jigsaw” Creekmur.

Watkins Was an Early Adopter of & Believer in the Power of the Internet 

Witnessing the evolution of communication through the web via early programs like AOL convinced Watkins that the Internet would be the way of the future. At that time, he began reading trade publications to understand the ins and outs of this new communication tool. 

“By ‘96 or ‘97, I don’t want to say I was a veteran of the internet, but I knew my way around. At that time, I knew HTML, how to code, and how to make websites. I saw it as a logical step when I saw people buying the music online, and how it reduced my overhead by having a direct-to-consumer relationship,” he explains. 

That direct-to-consumer relationship completely changed how Watkins and his team sold music and connected with their audience. He knew then that the internet would change how we share news and information globally. 

Awareness of the Internet’s Advertising Potential 

If you asked Watkins back when he launched his website whether he would be so involved in ad tech today, he says the answer would be both yes and no. 

“I’ve been reading the trades since ‘94, 95. I visited San Francisco. I saw Yahoo in its early days before they were even a worldwide known brand – I saw cabs riding around with ‘Yahoo’ on top and billboards around San Francisco. That blew my mind that an internet company was marketing in that manner. That opened my eyes to see there is an advertising business here,” he shares. 

Even so, the urban advertising system was basically nonexistent until the year 2000, which is when AllHipHop.com began to dive into the world of online ads. Watkins notes, “I helped launch our first ad server. I bought it off the Internet, ‘software as a service.’” He began launching ad campaigns, doing the creative, HTML, and tracking codes with a small team of sales reps. 

At first, the advertisers were direct-to-consumer marketers, but AllHipHop.com landed a campaign with the anti-smoking organization The Truth. The money from that campaign helped the website hire more writers and salespeople who did brand cold calling. This eventually led to some big fish advertisers like American Airlines and Pepsi. 

“I did know that the advertising business would be big on the Internet and that this would be a way to directly speak to consumers in a way that possibly had never happened in media history. When you’re dealing with television, it’s usually a one-way transaction. When you’re dealing with the internet, especially at the time, you could develop actual relationships with these consumers, depending on what type of ad campaign you’re running,” he notes. 

Understanding the Supply Chain Leads to Success

Watkins says his biggest advice for publishers looking to succeed in this industry is to understand the supply chain we are all a part of. 

AllHipHop.com started as a direct selling business, then it began dealing with ad networks. When programmatic started, the supply chain became more complicated and less transparent. 

Ten years later, the supply chain has become even more complex and even wasteful, up to the billions of dollars in terms of waste spent by brands and agencies. This is what Watkins says he will be speaking to at PubForum. 

“There are a variety of headwinds impacting our industry right now that will probably be issues for the entire ecosystem in the supply chain for advertising over the next two years. Those are going to be some of the things I’m talking about and telling publishers: what to look out for, and how to avoid bad actors in the space. I’ll also be giving some actual testimonials,” he says. 

Making Ad Tech a More Inclusive Space

The lack of diversity and inclusion in the ad tech space confounds Watkins. “One thing that has always surprised me is the fact that Black, Latin, and other minority-owned businesses still have this difficulty in the 21st century having their audiences respected. We have huge audiences, yet only 1 percent of ad budgets go to Black and minority-owned and targeted websites.” 

For his part, Watkins makes it a point to take time out of his busy schedule to speak to college students and mentor minority owners of small businesses.

“I speak at HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) and colleges, in general to encourage the students to understand ad tech, one for the impact that it has on society and how we see ourselves, but two, there has to be human capital available for these companies to hire for change to happen,” he states. He believes it’s important to make sure these students know how low lucrative ad tech can be.

He also is involved with BOMESI, the Black Owned Media Equity and Sustainability Institute, which assists publishers with resources, grants, and training to help serve diversity, equity, and inclusion in the publishing industry. “I mentor a variety of these brands and some of their executives on what’s happening in the business,” Watkins says. 

To hear more about Watkins’ journey and his advice for publishers looking to succeed, make sure to attend his keynote speech, “Lessons From the Trenches: 25 Years as a Publisher Navigating Ad Tech,” at AdMonsters’ upcoming PubForum in Coronado, California on August 7. 

The post Ahead of His Time: How “Grouchy” Greg Watkins Leveraged the Power of the Internet Into a Successful Publishing Career appeared first on AdMonsters.

AdExchanger published a lengthy explanation of the infamous hidden fees DSPs sometimes charge. It’s common knowledge in the industry that DSPs are often inclined to take a cut off of the transactions they enable, and then add extra fees on top of that. But AdExchanger’s Sarah Sluis has outlined four distinct ways they may add those extra fees: 1) Burdened by the increased volume of queries header bidding has brought, DSPs may limit the number of queries per second each exchange gets, and increase that number if the exchange gives them a rebate. 2) DSPs may control for discrepancies by rounding clearing prices up, to make up for the amount of those discrepancies, or by splitting discrepancy fees with exchanges, rather than rely on the SSP’s accounting. 3) DSPs may take fees from outside data providers, or simply take the rate the data provider charged and mark it up higher for the buyer. 4) DSPs may charge buyers extra for access to curated inventory. The AdExchanger story gets into much more detail and offers some insider-y examples, and it’s worth the read if you have a few minutes.

Retargeters Make Moves Toward Gaining Consent for Tracking

When Apple announced it was putting a time limit on the use of third-party tracking cookies in Safari, people wondered how the retargeters would deal. When it became clear how GDPR would require consent for EU users to be tracked, people wondered how the retargeters would deal. Digiday reports Criteo and AdRoll are at least making moves toward gaining user consent to be tracked–serving messages to users while browsing that will allow the user to opt into having their data collected. The catch is in how those opt-ins are presented to the user. AdRoll’s message says, “Click on this page to allow AdRoll to use cross-site tracking,” even though the only options to click are the “x” button (you usually just click an x to close the message box, right, not to allow permissions?), or a link to learn more. Criteo’s message encourages the user to click on any link “to use Criteo’s user-friendly, cross-site tracking technology to get relevant offers from reputable brands,” with a single link to opt out. But instead of saying something like “to opt out of being tracked,” it says “to disable Criteo services.” No doubt what you’re doing when you opt out is disabling Criteo services, but most people on the internet haven’t heard of companies like Criteo and AdRoll, much less what kind of services they offer. Digiday suggests this is going to be a lingering challenge for companies that rely on collecting third-party data. It’s like if a stranger is pounding at your front door–you don’t recognize this person, and you’re not likely to let them in, even if they’re holding, say, a pizza.

Goodbye, Facebook M, Whatever You Were

Facebook is killing off its Messenger virtual assistant M. M never got out of beta, and AdWeek reported all of its users were in California. M was powered by a combination of AI and actual human contractors who “trained” the system. Facebook says they’ll be taking the insights the humans generated and ply them toward future AI solutions. M was supposed to be able to make purchases, deliver packages, book travel, send money, hail rideshares, create polls and handle other day-to-day activities. It could also make suggestions related to daily-life stuff like shopping and entertainment. Why Facebook is putting the brakes on M is not entirely clear. Was it because they offering a free service other companies charge for by the minute? Was it impossible to hire enough humans to make M scale the way it had intended? Whatever the case, it’s interesting that Facebook is apparently pulling the humans off of virtual assistant services, while adding humans to pull the newsfeed algorithm away from recommending fake and incendiary news stories.

New IAB Specs for Automated Guaranteed

The IAB Tech Lab released OpenDirect 2.0, or its recommended specs for automated guaranteed ads. Let’s specify what we mean by “automated guaranteed,” since people in ad tech and media often use similar phrases interchangeably, even when they describe totally different products or strategies. These are not real-time transactions; they’re negotiated ahead of time, directly, between buyer and seller, and the inventory is guaranteed. RFP and ad trafficking are automated, and OpenDirect is a spec for that automated piece (version 1.0 came out in 2015). That’s the final piece of the OpenMedia package. According to the Tech Lab, the updated spec is designed to enable cross-platform order management, to allow publishers to reserve guaranteed inventory for a variety of agencies and advertisers, to enable publishers and buyers to negotiate prices, to allow advertisers to discover new deals on inventory.

Blockchain and the Internet of Things: A Natural Combination?

What’s blockchain have to do with the Internet of Things? Heck, it can feel like blockchain has something to do with almost everything digital, if you know how to angle it. MarTech Today predicts the IoT will bring a change in the advertising/marketing dialogue. Basically, it’ll move us away from being advertised products, and toward being advertised services (for those products, or otherwise). Kaleido Insights has released a report on “The Internet of Trusted Things,” which says blockchain or something like it (a decentralized ledger, in any case) could play a major role in managing signals from all of these devices. According to the report, that kind of system could be really important in tracking device maintenance and managing the supply chain—all kinds of transactions related to the devices.

The post DSP Hidden Fees, Retargeters and Consent appeared first on AdMonsters.