Chris woke us up with a bang, delivering a highly insightful session at AdExchanger’s Programmatic IO. He shed light on bidstream congestion, a major issue complicating digital advertising today. Bidstream congestion occurs when the same ad impression opportunity is offered multiple times through different supply paths. 

It leads to discrepancies, increased cost, and complexity in the bidding process. Chris addressed this by walking us through the intricacies. His emphasis on “deepening the dependencies” was vital to understanding the financial flows within the supply chain, urging the audience to think beyond surface-level transactions. From the open internet share shift to the nitty-gritty of auction duplication, Chris provided a deep dive into how advertisers, publishers, and intermediaries interact in such a crowded space.

The explosive growth of the industry catalyzed an arms race among publishers competing for attention in an overly saturated market, leading to challenges for advertisers and media agencies alike.

The Big Players and Their Influence

Chris started his session with a detailed analysis of open internet ad spend over the past eight years. Over this timeframe, we saw Google’s gross ad spend take off in 2021, with them dominating the market from 2020 to 2024. Google leads open internet gross ad spend projections for 2024, with The Trade Desk and Amazon DSP right behind them.

Walled gardens like Google, Meta, and Amazon operate closed systems that significantly influence market dynamics. Google’s non-search advertising is projected to hit $35 billion, Meta commands between $100 billion and $120 billion, and Amazon is at $45 billion. In contrast, the open internet still retains a significant share of the market, valued at $70 to $75 billion, providing an alternative to these walled gardens.

What’s also interesting is how these platforms reshape how the industry allocates spending.

According to Chris, LinkedIn, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, Snapchat, and Pinterest are rising challenger gardens. But things are shifting. While these platforms may not match the spend of the giants, they are creating their own lane. This share shift could totally reshape the competition. In his overview, Chris highlighted just how huge the Walled Gardens’ influence is over market activity. This was the central theme of his discussion as he dove into detail about the various aspects of the ad tech supply chain.

While walled gardens offer a streamlined approach with integrated services, the open internet is more flexible. Navigating between these two requires a nuanced understanding of each platform’s strengths and limitations. Enterprises must strategically balance investments to optimize their advertising reach and efficiency.

The Anatomy of Bidstream Congestion: The Bloat

Bidstream congestion happens when multiple publishers send the same ad impression through different supply paths, resulting in redundant auction entries that DSPs need to sift through.

DSPs process approximately 30 million bid requests per second, a number that grows as publishers try to ensure their inventory gets noticed by the right buyers. Each publisher competes fiercely to make its inventory attractive to DSPs, who ultimately decide which auctions are worth pursuing.

Chris emphasized how ads.txt bloat has become symptomatic of this congestion. The average number of authorized supply paths for top RTB-traded websites, mobile apps, and CTV apps has skyrocketed from January 2020 to January 2024.

This means more paths for advertisers and more complications for DSPs drowned with duplicate and redundant opportunities. Despite publishers initiating numerous auctions, DSPs often listen to the same bid requests. This disparity reveals a harsh truth: initiating more auctions doesn’t necessarily improve a publisher’s chances of being selected.

Auction Duplication: A Path to Efficiency or Chaos?

One huge contributor to bidstream congestion is auction duplication. In this process, publishers engage multiple SSPs to re-auction the ad inventory, aiming to increase the likelihood of being selected by DSPs. While this strategy may seem rational for publishers seeking higher demand, the more SSPs involved, the harder it is to trace each dollar of ad spend. 

“When it comes to rebroadcasting supply chains, four out of every ten bid requests are duplicative options that take multiple fees and expose problems in the supply chain. Today 40% of the midstream is multi-hop resale.” Chris said when illustrating rebroadcasting. In terms of direct paths and monetizing sites and apps the median across the full web, mobile app and CTV supply is 16. 

“The average total impression is presented 16 times through direct supply chains, 41% of bidding requests are rebroadcasted and 59% are direct supply chains. With each impression made available 16 times through direct supply chains, plus another 14 times through rebroadcasted supply chains there is a 30x auction duplication.”

Yet, despite the congestion and duplication, this structure is seen as a necessary evil to maximize monetization potential, raising questions about whether the duplication ultimately serves or hinders the industry’s long-term growth. While it’s a way for publishers to ensure their inventory gets more eyeballs, this duplication creates inefficiencies that the entire industry must grapple with, inflating bid streams and increasing the overall cost of ad placements. 

In simpler terms, rebroadcast paths mean that bid requests go through multiple hops before they reach a potential buyer. “DSPs who do not take advantage of rebroadcasting opportunities will go out of business,” Chris pointed out. The industry is evolving, and those who don’t evolve with it — whether they’re buyers, sellers, or intermediaries — could be left in the dust.

A Look to the Future: Will Duplication Save the Day?

Chris closed by exploring whether auction duplication is an efficient solution to bidstream congestion or a stopgap for masking deeper issues. On one hand, duplication is a great opportunity for publishers, providing them multiple chances to get their inventory seen, thus maximizing potential revenue. On the other hand, it adds layers of complexity that make the supply chain inefficient and opaque, driving up costs for everyone involved.

“Understanding the programmatic supply chain is no longer optional for stakeholders in the ad tech space. It requires the operational mindset of an insider — someone willing to get their hands dirty in the technical details of how inventory is auctioned, sold, and bought. You have to deepen the dependencies to really understand how money moves in the supply chain,” Chris said.

The ad tech ecosystem is changing rapidly, and bidstream congestion is but one symptom of the evolution. Whether auction duplication can effectively mitigate congestion or add more fuel to the fire is still a debate. But for those in the trenches of ad tech, understanding these dynamics is essential to navigating the future — and making sure they come out on top.

Industry leaders must innovate and adopt new practices to mitigate the detrimental effects of bidstream congestion. Auction duplication, while currently the norm, requires reevaluation.

Publishers and advertisers need to explore ways to streamline the bidding process, perhaps by improving the transparency and efficiency of SSP-DSP interactions or implementing more advanced targeting algorithms to reduce unnecessary bid requests.

The post Bidstream Congestion: Cracking the Ad Tech Supply Chain Code appeared first on AdMonsters.

 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.

Technology is evolving faster than we can blink and it’s becoming clear that it’s time creativity and control were reclaimed. As monopolies and walled gardens dominate and limit access, the balance between innovation and content creation is more crucial than ever. In a rapidly changing ecosystem,  publishers are exploring strategies to navigate an open internet increasingly challenged by distribution obstacles and signal loss.

Once a beacon of free and open access, the open web faces an identity crisis. Media companies that once thrived on direct consumer connection are struggling with the rise of walled gardens. Marketers, for their part, acknowledge their role in building these silos as they increasingly funnel media budgets into tech giants. Reclaiming control of data, creative strategies, and audience engagement is critical to preserving the future for both sides.

Publishers should not look at these shifts as threats but as opportunities to develop new strategies that align with consumer behavior and market demands. 

From the rise of social-driven search and FAST channels to Google’s ongoing antitrust trial, ProgIO spoke to many of the challenges facing publishers today. As the industry continues to push for transparency, fairness, and a more open ecosystem, the path forward depends on innovating while maintaining trust with consumers and each other. 

Here are our top takeaways from Day 1.

Breaking Free: How Marketers Can Reclaim Creativity in a Tech-Driven World

Eoin Townsend, Chief Product Officer at Cadent, talking about convergence at programmatic IO. Photo by Donna Alberico.

Eoin Townsend, Chief Product Officer at Cadent, walked us through industry shifts driven by audience, inventory, optimality, and privacy. He says, “The technology we have today is not the technology we’ll have tomorrow.”

Let him tell it: marketers need more control to move away from monopolies and hone in on new technologies to transform their roles in the industry. Eoin emphasized that marketers spend too much time on tech rather than creative marketing. We are evolving from scale, automation, and walled gardens to a new phase focused on integration, alignment, and collaboration. 

More highlights from his talk:

• Let AI automate the hard stuff.
• Take advantage of multi-faceted solutions that integrate third-party data and work across walled gardens.
• Adopt new technology and legal frameworks to ensure compliance and consumer trust.

Eoin’s main argument is: “Let marketers be marketers” free them from technological constraints!

The Future of the Open Internet Is?

Allison Schiff, Managing Editor at AdExchanger, Ben Hovaness, CMO at OMD, Cavel Khan, Chief Growth Officer at Group Black, and Ari Paparo, CEO & Contributor of Marketecture Media discuss the future of the open internet. Photo by Donna Alberico.

What is the open web? The term has gotten lost in the mix, and AdExchanger’s Allison Schiff ensured the panelists revealed the definition from their perspectives early in the session. According to Ari Paparo, CEO & Contributor at Marketecture Media, if you can access a website for free and buy ads freely, it is part of the open web. 

Media companies are losing distribution channels and struggle to connect directly with consumers. What are the biggest challenges of the open web? Walled gardens and signal challenges. Can marketers blame consumers for this mess? Not exactly. Marketers helped create the walled gardens by continuing to invest in and work with them.

“The open internet lost the resources to create the content and do a lot of things that it did to keep the communities it had built,” revealed Cavel Khan, Chief Growth Officer at Group Black. “That’s why we are all seeing the decline over the last three years. Big publishers are going out of business or restructuring.”

More key points from this session:

• The cloudiness around Chrome’s plan for cookies makes it difficult for publishers to determine the best strategy to combat signal loss. 
• Publishers have great tools like WordPress, Beehiiv, and Ghost, along with podcasting, as new solutions for reaching people and monetizing those connections. 
• When asked what the future of the open internet was, the panelists responded bright, sleek, diverse, and changing. 

TikTok, The Latest to Step In the Search Game

AdExchanger’s Executive Editor Sarah Sluis sits down with Blake Chandlee, President of Global Business Solutions at TikTok, to talk about the platform entering the search business. Photo by Donna Alberico.

TikTok is the app beating Google as the number one search engine. With data showing significant search activity on the app, we’re learning that rich, social media-driven search results are key for connecting with consumers and influencing their discovery and purchase intent. It’s no surprise the company is investing in bringing advertising to search. 

“There are two key data points that triggered this for us. One is that independent research proves that 55% of people get their search results from social media and video,” said Blake Chandlee, President of Global Business Solutions at TikTok. “It was just a very good box of rich examples. An example might be if you’re planning to travel to Singapore when you visit a traditional search engine, you’d find links to guide you through that process. On the other hand, you go on to TikTok or some other platforms where you’ll get really rich videos of people like you going through the same decision-making with their experience. It’s a very different experience in the back end of this.”

Ads have been part of TikTok’s monetization model for a while now, but the TikTok shop shook up the game when it came to fruition last year. Live-streaming allows creators to earn money by getting “tipped” from their audience, while the TikTok shop facilitates seamless transitions within the app. TikTok’s investment in logistics and the closed-loop shopping experience allows it to fully capitalize on the commerce generated by creators.

More interesting insights:

• The social media company’s motto: “Don’t make ads, make TikTok’s” works.
• TikTok caters to its users’ diverse interests, allowing brands to connect with highly engaged audiences.
• Ensuring that ads are native is key; don’t oversaturate because ad fatigue can be real.
• TikTok stands out because it is independent and doesn’t rely on partnerships or external links for e-commerce.

Why The Trade Desk is Winning According to Wall Street

Shweta Khajuria, Managing Director of Wolfe Research shared her predictions for the industry from an investor’s perspective. Photo by Donna Alberico.

With the ongoing regulatory scrutiny of Google and the pending cookie deprecation, scale and first-party data are both emerging as leaders in the industry.

Shweta Khajuria, Managing Director at Wolfe Research, dove deeply into The Trade Desk’s success. Partnering with agencies leads to higher retention rates. Product innovations like CTV and UID2 have kept The Trade Desk at the top of the industry. Also, their independence and omnichannel approach allow them to maintain objectivity and avoid conflicts of interest. 

“Trade Desk saw the potential of bidded programmatic and connected TV before most others in the industry,” said Shweta. “As a result, with the head start that they saw, they saw a step change in their growth rates and trajectory.”

Shweta also predicts that Google will spin off one of its ad tech businesses, which could level the playing field. 

Shweta’s other predictions:

• The Trade Desk’s Open Path and Magnite’s clear line anticipate the convergence of the demand and supply sides.
• Efficiency gains will be necessary, and pricing pressures might arise as DSPs and SSPs merge.
• Larger publishers may develop their yield management systems, leading to supply-side consolidation.
• The demand side might gain an upper hand due to its proximity to ad budgets.

Google on Trial: The Battle for Fairness, Transparency, and the Future

Allison Schiff talked to Claire Atkin, Co-founder & CEO of Check My Ads and Jason Kint CEO of Digital Content Next about the ongoing DOJ vs. Google antitrust trial. Photo by Donna Alberico.

Google’s monopolistic practices have heavily hindered the publishing industry, and we are all standing on our toes, waiting to see the outcome of this decision. Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, explained how Google is extracting value that should go to newsrooms and entertainment companies. 

Jason talked about “dynamic revenue sharing,’ where Google manipulates bid prices to maintain its margins, often behind publishers’ backs. With a press box seat at the trial in Virginia, he says Google’s defense strategy is to confuse the market and redefine it to include more competition, like TikTok or TV. Isn’t this what we’ve all been thinking? Isn’t this a weak defense?

It was great seeing Claire Atkin again doing her best: exposing the real. According to Claire, Google plays a huge role in monetizing misinformation and lacking transparency. Smaller businesses suffer since they don’t receive funds or adequate support from Google when campaign issues arise. Claire argues for log-level data transparency and know-your-customer laws to ensure fair practices. 

Other important highlights:

• Judge Leonie Brinkema is skeptical of Google due to evidence purging, which impacts the credibility of Google’s witnesses. 
• The trial is part of a broader antitrust movement against major tech companies, and breaking them up could lead to more opportunities and fairness in the industry. 
• Both speakers hope to see a future where advertisers can better track and verify their ad placements, leading to more accountability and fewer fraudulent practices.

FAST is Moving Fast

Katie Barrett, Head of Strategic Sales at LG Ad Solutions talks the future of FAST at AdExchanger’s Programmatic IO Day 1. Photo by Donna Alberico.

Several factors are contributing to the rise of FAST, such as subscription fatigue and evolving audience behavior. On a daily basis, consumers are shifting their mindset from avoiding ads to accepting them if they come with free content. 

“We see that 53% of our consumers are spending at least 2 hours a day in FAST, and the average time of the session is 73 minutes,” said Katie Barrett, Head of Strategic Sales at LG Ad Solutions. “Eighty-seven percent of FAST users have free streaming channels they watch regularly. This shows high levels of habitual viewing. Eighty-one percent believe that FAST streaming channels offer high-quality content. This is important because this perception of fast being low quality is being challenged here.”

Contrary to popular belief that FAST viewers are less engaged or loyal, Katie argues they are developing strong followings due to curated content. The stereotype that FAST viewers are solely budget-conscious is false, as the data shows a diverse and affluent audience.

Other Factors of FAST:

• The median income of FAST users is $85,000, with an average of $110,000, and 43% earning over $100,000 annually. 
• FAST is popular among family units, with a high percentage of users owning homes, being married, and having children, underlining its family-friendly nature.
• FAST is a valuable platform for brands aiming to reach key demographics.

On the Horizon: A New Era for Publishers and Marketers

Publishers and marketers are standing on the brink of significant change. With walled gardens tightening their grip and signal loss challenging traditional methods, publishers are redefining their approach to audience engagement, while marketers are pushing for more autonomy in how they reach and connect with consumers. 

From publishers exploring innovative content distribution methods to marketers reclaiming creative control, the next chapter is about pushing beyond the familiar and embracing new opportunities. 

The journey doesn’t stop here. Day 2 included more revelations and strategies, so stay tuned for our Programmatic IO Day 2 wrap-up on Monday. We’ll dig deeper into the discussions, highlighting key takeaways and what lies ahead for publishers and marketers in this fast-moving space. 

The post PROGIO Day 1: The Next Chapter for the Open Internet, Google vs. DOJ Face-Off, and More 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.

We were all at the edge of our seats last week as the entire industry tuned in each day of the DOJ vs. Google antitrust trial. 

The ad tech world is on high alert, gripping the industry with every twist and turn. To help make sense of it all, the AdMonsters editors dive deep into the first week of the trial in our premiere episode of ‘Google on Trial.’ This is more than just a courtroom drama—it’s a potential turning point for publishers, advertisers, and digital media.

In this episode, Lynne, Andrew, and I unpack key moments, testimonies, and implications that could reshape how we think about Google’s role in ad tech. We explore everything from data brokerage and market manipulation to publishers’ challenging negotiations with Google. The discussion even touches on global regulatory impacts, secretive maneuvers by Google, and how small players might be the most affected.

Curious to hear the full breakdown? Watch the video and join us in dissecting this critical moment for the industry.

Lynne’s Takeaways:

Data Brokerage and Market Manipulation – Lynne references an AdMonsters article by Adam Heimlich, arguing that Google’s true power lies in its massive data trove and how it uses it to broker ad placements. Google’s dominance is not just about having better tech but leveraging data to manipulate the ad marketplace in its favor.

Global Regulatory Impact – The trial could have global implications. She mentions fines imposed on Google and Apple in Europe and the UK’s CMA pushing for more transparency in ad tech. This trial could be part of a larger global reckoning against tech giants like Google and Apple, or “GApple.”

Stephanie Layser’s Testimony – Lynne highlights former NewsCorp exec Stephanie Layser’s testimony about publishers feeling held hostage by Google’s dominance. The lack of transparency and the difficulty of finding alternative demand sources means that publishers are stuck with Google, despite the potential for higher costs and complications if they switch away.

Yakira’s Takeaways:

Negotiating with Google Was Never Easy – Yakira emphasizes Goodway Group’s Jay Friedman’s testimony, noting that negotiating with Google is almost impossible due to its dominance. Friedman compared the alternative options to Google’s services as choosing between high-end and budget hotels, underscoring the unrealistic nature of switching away from Google without suffering revenue losses.

Header Bidding Was ‘Not the Answer – Header bidding was supposed to provide an alternative to Google’s dominance, but it actually made things worse for some publishers. Gannett’s attempt to switch to header bidding led to a 15-20% increase in CPMs, illustrating the difficulty of finding viable alternatives to Google’s ad services.

Why Is Google Being So Secretive? – Google’s attempts to exclude certain testimonies and make the switch from a jury to a bench trial by paying the government $2 million. This move highlights Google’s extensive power and raises questions about their transparency and motives in the trial.

Andrew’s Takeaways: 

The Small Player’s Reliance on Google – Small businesses and publishers see Google’s ad tech as a cost-effective and streamlined solution. Breaking up Google’s ad business could complicate ad management and increase costs, negatively impacting their ability to advertise and grow.

Check My Ads’s Two Cents – Ariel Garcia from Check My Ads argues that Google’s monopolistic practices stifle competition and transparency in the ad tech space. The trial could lead to structural changes and more global regulation, and reignite discussions on legislative measures like the America Act for digital media transparency.

What’s Next?

The trial has highlighted the complexity of breaking up major tech monopolies, the potential ripple effects on small businesses and publishers, and the intricate balance between legislative oversight and market self-regulation.

Stay tuned for weekly updates and deep dives as we continue to unpack this monumental trial. We will bring you the latest developments and expert analyses on what it all means for the future of digital media and ad tech.

Bye everyone, and see you next week!

The post Inside the DOJ’s Big Tech Showdown: AdMonsters Breaks Down Week 1 of Google’s High-Stakes Trial appeared first on AdMonsters.

As the US vs Google ad tech trial unfolds, Chalice’s Adam Heimlich explores how Google used data to dominate display advertising, manipulate auctions, and crush competition. Discover the hidden tactics behind its market power and what it means for the future of digital advertising.

Since a broker is an intermediary, and the basis of audience targeting is data, there should be no doubt Google is an enormous data broker — maybe the biggest of all time. That’s the big takeaway from Week 1 of US vs Google, the ad tech case currently in session in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Google’s Doubleclick & Admeld Takeover

Instead of selling consumer data to ad tech companies, Google opted to dedicate its brokerage to the service of Google advertisers. By 2007, these were demanding more cheap clicks than Google search could drive.

In glaring contrast with what an honest broker would do, Google decided to acquire Doubleclick and Admeld, assume the role of a trusted sell-side broker helping publishers monetize, and then use buy-side data against those publishers.

Cream Skimming and Auction Manipulation

Google monopolized the market for intermediary auction software by replacing fair and open auctions with auctions manipulated through Google’s secret use case for consumer data: cream skimming.

It’s relatively easy to predict conversions if you know what nearly everybody has been searching for online lately. But Google wasn’t satisfied with simply bidding to place, say, Proactiv ads in front of people they knew were worried about pimples. Google felt it necessary to place relevant ads without ever paying above market rate on behalf of Proactiv or any other advertiser. Overbidding is a natural consequence of winning a lot of auctions, which is why sellers like them. There’s no way to know what bid price you have to beat to win. Usually!

Secret Projects: Bernanke, Jedi, and Poirot

Acting as a dishonest broker with unique auction privileges, Google implemented a series of secret tactics to place ads in front of future purchasers for prices lower — sometimes much lower — than those placements were worth.

These include First Look, Last Look, Project Bernanke, Project Jedi, and Project Poirot. (It says a lot that only the DOJ was able to uncover these conducts, despite intense publisher scrutiny and dozens if not hundreds of ex-Google employees knowing about them. The amount of power required to keep a secret so big for so many years is immense.) Though auction manipulation is rightly the focus of the federal case, advertising professionals should note it’s data that drove the outsize profits Google reaped from digital display.

Data Power vs. Market Power

There’s nothing illegal about having the most data or using it to win continuously in search. There’s also nothing illegal about selling data, though reputable data brokerages somehow came to be regarded as less ethical than Google (I wonder how that happened). Where Google crossed a line was in exporting its data advantage from search to display.

Cream skimming radically altered what had been thriving competitions for buy- and sell-side ad tech. US law looks askance at market winners crossing into adjacent markets for an excellent reason: success in this sort of “monopoly maintenance” closes off markets from what they need to grow properly. Without a route to success through competition, markets see less investment, a slower pace of innovation, and lower value at every price. This is what happened to display.

The Downfall of Display Advertising

The trial includes a great deal of evidence on CPMs: which way they changed, at which times, and by how much. We who worked in digital display over the last decade can recall what we saw: deteriorating quality, persistent fraud, opacity on fees even when transparency was promised, constant reputational and corporate risk, and routine non-disclosure of even the basic facts about what we purchased or sold. There has been a great deal of finger-pointing at allegedly bad actors, though not enough at the biggest one. Finally, we can be grateful to have reached a moment of accountability, and an opportunity to reset.

A Market in Need of a Reset

Google thrived while the market suffered because it used its data advantage to cherry-pick display opportunities of high value to search advertisers. Besides lowering the overall value of display and rewarding corrupt players, Google’s bias tilted the display market toward direct response advertising, which values last actions over persuasion and sentiment lift. This has been extremely costly to brands, whose use cases for advertising were simply not served by the dominant technology. Also victimized were quality publishers, as monetization was (and still is) determined almost entirely by decision algorithms that ignore quality signals such as ad-to-content ratio, refresh rate, and share of returning readers. No one knows as well as we do what drove the devolution of news toward clickbait.

If Google’s data had been left within its search walled garden or brought to an open market for display advertising, that market would not nearly be so ruined. Google’s case unravels if you doubt that winning an arms race in data should grant a company the right to dominate in AI. If the data world champions hoard what they know about us, and only use it to fuel their own predictions, they will kill competition in many markets. It will be better for America if the world’s biggest data collectors, with their detailed digital dossiers on us all, are forced to be honest brokers.

The post Google Is a Data Broker appeared first on AdMonsters.

Google is in the global antitrust hot seat right now, with all eyes watching the current DOJ trial accusing the tech conglomerate of running an ad tech monopoly. The DOJ argues that Big G operates three monopolies — ad tech, search, and the Android app.

In her opening statement, DOJ attorney Julia Tarver Wood told U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema that Google’s control over multiple areas of the tech ecosystem is particularly harmful, stating, “One monopoly is bad enough. But a trifecta of monopolies is what we have here.”

The DOJ alleges that Google manipulates the ad tech market, and gate keeps tools used by publishers, advertisers, and brokers, allowing it to pocket at least 30% of every advertising dollar. This has led to reduced earnings for web publishers and increased costs for advertisers. 

The trial, expected to last 4-6 weeks, may prove more damaging to Google than previous cases, with the DOJ seeking to break up parts of Google’s ad business, specifically its Ad Manager suite. Experts suggest that if Google loses, it could lead to significant restructuring, possibly splitting the company into separate entities for search and advertising. 

Yet, industry opinions differ about how this should play out. 

On one side of the docket, some small publishers and business owners assert that small businesses rely heavily on Google’s display advertising platform as it provides an effective and cost-efficient way to reach customers. 

On the other hand, opposing opinions, like the organization Check My Ads assert that Google’s harmful practices, prioritizing opacity over quality, are finally being challenged in court, paving the way to restore market fairness and a healthier information economy.

The Plight of Small Businesses: Google Ads as a Cost-Effective Solution 

At a Connected Commerce Council Press Conference about the case, small publishers discussed how breaking up Google’s display ad business could lead to higher advertising costs, more complexity in managing multiple ad platforms, and potentially less relevant ads. This would negatively impact small businesses’ ability to market and grow their companies effectively.

Here’s what some small businesses had to say: 

Lakita Anderson, who runs the recipe website Simply Lakita, emphasized how display ads are now her “main revenue source” and that losing this revenue model would “mess up a system that works well” for her business. She explained that without the easy integration and management that Google’s platform provides, she would have to “bring in a person to manage all the different platforms,” which would be challenging for her small team.  

Pavlo Prannyk, co-founder of olpr. Leather Goods Co., voiced concerns about potentially having to pay more for advertising if the ruling breaks up Google’s display business. He noted that Google ads are currently the best money he can make on his digital marketing spend, and he is worried about not having access to this cost-effective solution. Pavlo stated, “I just don’t want it to be as expensive as it is right now.” 

Salil Gandhi, owner of digital marketing firm SBO Buzz, argued that the DOJ lawsuit needs to make more sense from the perspective of his clients. He explained that most of his small business clients have monthly ad budgets under $500, so “saving an extra nickel or two on your display ads isn’t going to impact you that much.” However, the added complexity and time required to manage multiple ad platforms would far outweigh the cost savings that breaking up Google could provide. Salil emphasized that Google’s integrated tools and free services are crucial for enabling small businesses to effectively advertise online.

The evidence shows that some have benefited from Google’s “dominance,” but dissenting opinions have plenty of criticism for Google’s alleged monopolistic practices. 

Challenging Google’s Image as a Small Business Advocate…and Further Regulations

On the other side of the fence, it’s believed that, for publishers and advertisers, the trial will expose how Google’s dominance has led to overcharges and lost revenues, especially for smaller players who lack alternatives. They argue that Google’s portrayal of itself as a small business advocate will likely be challenged, revealing a history of opaque practices and incentives undermining trust in their platforms. The trial could spark global regulatory changes that demand more transparency and fairness to create a healthier environment for competition.

According to Arielle Garcia, Director of Intelligence at Check My Ads, the DOJ’s case against Google aims to introduce structural changes to the ad tech industry. The first step in remedying this would be to divest from Google’s sell-side tools. Taking away investment from the tools would curb Google’s alleged ad tech monopoly.

“The DOJ understands that controlling user data is at the core of Google’s power. With the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority now addressing similar issues, pressure on Google is mounting,” says Garcia. “The hope is that any remedies will break up Google’s control and address broader industry challenges by rebalancing the market.”

Garcia adds that the trial will also draw attention to Google’s profound control over digital advertising and, by extension, the information economy. Google’s actions have redefined the market, setting a precedent for opacity and a lack of accountability while favoring their platforms over competition.

She argues that “by manipulating the auction process and profiting from conflicting roles as buyer and seller, Google has damaged publishers and advertisers.”

If the DOJ succeeds, Garcia argues that divestiture alone will not be enough. Broader regulations are needed to ensure transparency and competition in digital advertising, particularly for ad placements and pricing. 

Advertisers and publishers must be empowered to know where their ads appear, what they are paying for, and who they are supporting. The trial could also reignite conversations around legislation like the AMERICA Act, further pushing for reforms that dismantle the opaque and often harmful practices that have allowed disinformation to thrive unchecked.

The post Two Sides of Google’s DOJ Trial: Cost-Effective Solutions or Monopolistic Abuse? appeared first on AdMonsters.

The open web has long been the entrance to the internet for consumers, serving as the domains outside the walled gardens of social networks or search engines. However, its perception has evolved in recent years, often framed in a good versus evil context by those battling for advertising dollars. On one side there are the small, but righteous actors who are keeping information free against those on the other side who feel that anything goes and crime and bad behavior rules.

Consumers Don’t Care About Walled Gardens, They Want Seamless Experiences

It’s a complicated situation where small businesses need to work together to get the scale and relevance of the big platforms, while the walled gardens keep growing by creating new closed systems with restricted access, edging the smaller players out. This has become such a clear issue that the original walled garden — Google — faces an advertising antitrust DOJ case this month.

The truth is that the perceptions of both sides are caricatures because they aren’t thinking about this problem from a consumer standpoint.  In reality, consumers don’t distinguish between the content monetized by a platform’s first-party data or through cross-platform tools and technology. They just want a seamless experience.

AI and the Open Web: How Technology is Shaping Digital Engagement

This desire is evolving the open web as most envisage it, as consumers increasingly embrace digital technology to bring convenience into their lives. Today, even the most fundamental and sensitive parts of daily life such as healthcare and personal finance are increasingly happening digitally. The definition of the open web is made even more complicated with the advancement of AI to further that convenience with conversational robots transforming customer service, skills training, financial advice, and even therapy.

With a focus on experience, brands must understand how exactly they can effectively reach consumers who are interacting with these new technologies that add value. For instance, when interacting with an online bank or an AI assistant, consumers might be served an ad appearing next to the virtual agent, or the insights, recommendations, and support provided might include products and services that have paid to be integrated into the conversation. These could be the new sponsored links or content on websites.

The Future of Advertising: Winning by Embracing Innovation

In short, leveraging the open web to increase the perceived value of the inventory you happen to be selling, is missing a trick. There is a way to win in the open web, and those that will be successful are the companies shaping how advertising is received by consumers while removing friction and irrelevance. Those looking backward and fighting over the relative quality of decreasing volumes of traditional inventory will be left behind. Instead, they need to embrace new methods of reaching consumers, whether it be by utilizing new technologies or better using data to ensure that the ads consumers receive are relevant to their interests.

The open web does not need to be a battle among advertisers; instead, it’s time to embrace the opportunities that it presents to better connect with their target audiences.

The post The Open Web Isn’t What Advertisers Think It Is appeared first on AdMonsters.

In what could only be described as a Hail Mary pass, Google has agreed to cough up $250 million over five years to fund journalism and AI research in California. This deal was announced with much fanfare, and some might say a dash of self-congratulation. But before we start throwing confetti, let’s take a closer look at what’s really going on here.

The Big (and Not So Big) Picture

On the surface, this deal looks like a lifeline for local journalism. California’s newsrooms have been on life support for years, hemorrhaging jobs and revenue as the digital era reshaped the media landscape. The fund, administered by UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism, promises to inject much-needed cash into these struggling institutions. 

It helps Google paint itself as the savior of the free press while avoiding a dreaded “link tax” that could have forced the tech giant to pay publishers for linking to their content. This brings to mind California’s Journalism Preservation Act, which proposed to make Big Tech pay for news.

But here’s the kicker: $250 million over five years sounds like a lot until you consider that Google’s ad empire rakes in over $200 billion annually. To put it bluntly, this deal is a drop in the ocean for Google — a PR move dressed up as corporate responsibility.

Why It Matters: The Real Cost of Free News

For years, publishers have watched in horror as their ad revenues dried up while Google and Meta (Facebook’s parent company) turned into digital juggernauts. The relationship between tech platforms and news publishers has always been lopsided. Publishers create the content that drives traffic, but the platforms get the lion’s share of the ad dollars. This new deal doesn’t change that dynamic; it merely delays the inevitable. 

The idea of a “link tax” has been gaining traction globally, with Australia and Canada leading the charge. In those countries, Google and Meta were initially resistant, but eventually, they caved — well, sort of. In Australia, Google opted to pay selected publishers, while Meta briefly blocked news altogether before returning to the table. In Canada, Google agreed to pay $74 million annually to keep news content in its search results, while Meta decided to go the nuclear route and block news links entirely. The global push for Big Tech to pay for news mirrors what’s happening in California.

Google’s deal with the state allows the tech behemoth to avoid the more stringent regulations that would have come with the now-shelved CJPA. The CJPA would have forced Google and other tech giants to hand percentages of their ad revenue over to news publishers. Instead, we get a voluntary fund that’s easier for Google to swallow and far less beneficial for the publishers who need it most. The CJPA could have significantly shifted the balance of power, much like similar legislation in other regions.

The AI Angle: A Trojan Horse?

Then there’s the $62.5 million earmarked for AI research. Let’s not kid ourselves — this deal might seem like a bonus, but it’s worth asking whether it is really about saving journalism. Could it be more about Google bolstering its AI capabilities under the guise of public good?  While the idea of using AI to solve “real world problems” sounds noble, including AI funding in this deal is more about securing Google’s future dominance than helping the news industry.

As Google continues refining its AI-driven search features — like its Search Generative Experience — publishers are experiencing a decrease in traffic from organic search results, directly impacting their revenue. The rise of AI in search is reshaping the landscape, with AI-powered engines like Perplexity.ai offering revenue-sharing models that starkly contrast Google’s approach. 

Google’s move to include AI in this deal is less about journalism and more about maintaining its dominance in the search market. As Scott Messer recently pointed out in his analysis of Google’s latest SEO shake-ups, Google is playing a different game altogether. The company is not optimizing for sending traffic to publishers; instead, it’s focusing on maximizing its ad revenues, often at the expense of the very content creators it claims to support.

Critics, including journalists and labor unions, have called out the deal for what it really is: a backroom agreement that benefits Google far more than it does the struggling newsrooms of California. The Media Guild of the West, representing journalists in Southern California, Arizona, and Texas, was notably excluded from the negotiations, leading them to denounce the agreement as a “shakedown.” This isn’t the first time Google has been suspected of using its financial might to navigate legislative pressures.

Connecting the Dots: What Publishers Need to Know

For publishers, this deal is a double-edged sword. On one hand, any funding is better than none, especially in an industry that’s been in a death spiral for years. On the other hand, this deal sets a dangerous precedent. By allowing Google to dictate the terms of its support for journalism, California has effectively ceded control to a tech giant with little incentive to change the status quo.

Publishers should be wary of becoming too dependent on these kinds of deals. The digital landscape is shifting rapidly, and while Google’s money might keep some newsrooms afloat for now, it won’t fix the underlying issues that have led to the decline of local journalism. With AI companies like Perplexity.ai and OpenAI entering the scene with revenue-sharing models, publishers might need to start exploring these alternative sources of revenue to stay afloat — or, maybe not. The real solutions could lean more towards finding sustainable business models that don’t rely on the whims of Silicon Valley.

The Bottom Line: Google Wins Again

So, what’s the takeaway? Google has once again managed to sidestep regulation while presenting itself as a benefactor of the public good. The $250 million might help some newsrooms in the short term, but it does little to address long-term challenges. This deal is more of a Band-Aid than a cure.

As the dust settles, it’s clear that Google got the better end of this bargain. By agreeing to a voluntary fund, the tech giant has avoided the much larger financial obligations that would have come with the CJPA. Meanwhile, California’s newsrooms are left to grapple with an uncertain future, their fate still largely in the hands of the very platforms profiting from their decline. 

In the end, this deal is a stark reminder of the power imbalance between tech platforms and the news industry. Until that changes, we’re likely to see more deals like this — ones that look good on paper but ultimately fail to address the real issues at play.

The post Google’s $250 Million ‘Gift’ to California News – Is It Really a Gift or Just a Clever Tax Dodge? appeared first on AdMonsters.

Google has had a tough few months.

First, they announced an abrupt about-face in their years-long initiative to remove third-party cookies from Chrome. Barely two weeks later, they were officially declared a Search monopoly by a federal court in one of the most consequential antitrust losses in decades (with another concurrent antitrust case about Google’s AdTech business still pending.) 

As the CTO of Upwave (a Brand Outcomes measurement startup) I’ve spent the last decade doing what everyone in AdTech has to do – navigate cautiously and quietly around Google, for fear of drawing their ire (or simply being toppled by their massive wake.) I have spent years participating in World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) discussions about Google’s Privacy Sandbox, and I’ve watched the cookie saga unfold with morbid fascination. 

One thing became clear very early in the W3C process – a small number of companies (particularly, but not exclusively Google) believed very deeply that they had both the power and the right to exercise pervasive control over the entire digital media and advertising industries. Now, it appears that Google may have finally found the limits of its influence: at the courthouse steps. 

But with or without third-party cookies, the web must go on. So where do we all go next?

The Privacy Paradox

The Privacy Sandbox initiative was Google’s attempt to reconcile irreconcilable objectives: overcoming Apple’s privacy counter-positioning, maintaining ad revenue primarily generated by capturing and applying comprehensive behavioral data about its billion+, and preserving a sufficiently healthy web ecosystem (since what’s the point of maintaining a search monopoly if searchers have nothing to find?) 

However, Google’s approach was fundamentally flawed in its overly simplistic view of privacy, focusing solely on eliminating cross-site tracking. This narrow definition sidestepped uncomfortable conversations about Google’s data collection and use, but also set an unrealistic bar for the Privacy Sandbox APIs by demanding they facilitate effective advertising while rendering cross-site data sharing technologically unfeasible.

Google put a smart, capable team in the Privacy Sandbox, but their mission was impossible from the start.

The Monopoly Question

The recent court ruling confirming Google’s monopoly in search underscores the company’s immense influence in shaping the digital landscape. Google’s control of the most widely used web browser means that its decisions about cookies and privacy reverberate throughout the advertising ecosystem. And Google’s “walled garden” approach to its many interlocking properties has allowed it to build an unassailable flywheel by tightly bundling its proprietary data, unique scaled inventory, and ad tech stack. 

The Privacy Sandbox initiative, despite its stated goals, has always seemed more about protecting Google’s flywheel than about safeguarding user privacy. And whether the ongoing antitrust trial focused on Google’s ad tech business finds that Google’s dominance of the plumbing of ad buying and serving rises to the level of a monopoly, there can be no doubt that the entire ad tech industry still operates in Google’s long shadow.

Forging a New Privacy Path

Google’s announcement that they won’t entirely remove 3rd party cookies doesn’t mean cookies are safe. Industry analysts anticipate Google will likely implement a consent mechanism similar to Apple’s “App Tracking Transparency,” effectively decimating cookie availability without outright eliminating them.

This scenario presents significant challenges:

1. The industry loses momentum in its efforts to move beyond outdated tracking methods.
2. The Privacy Sandbox initiative risks fading into irrelevance without the urgency of imminent cookie deprecation.
3. Uncertainty surrounding the open web’s future continues to accelerate ad spending shifts toward walled gardens, paradoxically giving a few tech giants even more panoptical views of user behavior.
4. Google may decide it has bigger problems than the long-term viability of the open web and simply retreat into its castle, leaving everyone outside its walls to pick up the pieces.

The digital advertising industry stands at a critical juncture. It’s evident that where privacy is concerned, both industry self-regulation and unilateral decisions by tech giants have fallen short. 

So what’s next? In a world where big tech can no longer set the rules, what’s needed instead is a collaborative, multi-stakeholder effort to develop pragmatic privacy standards, practices, and enforceable guidelines.

It’s time for an international coalition to unite regulators, industry representatives, academic experts, and consumer advocates. Their collective task should be to craft a flexible, adaptable privacy framework that embraces a comprehensive view of privacy, acknowledging its contextual nature and the intricate realities of data usage in today’s digital ecosystem.

In the interim, we must prepare for a transitional period where cookie effectiveness wanes, but no clear alternative emerges. Advertisers must explore and evaluate various strategies, including refining contextual targeting, exploring emerging privacy-preserving technologies, and learning to think like marketing economists.

Google’s privacy misstep, combined with its antitrust challenges, presents an opportunity for industry-wide recalibration. By fostering collaboration, diversifying our approaches, and constructively engaging with regulators, we can work towards building a truly user-centric, economically sustainable, privacy-respecting digital ecosystem.

Ultimately, we have no choice. Google and the Privacy Sandbox are not coming to save us.

The post What Happens When Google Can No Longer Set the Rules for the Web? appeared first on AdMonsters.