> Facebook’s formidable ad business, along with Alphabet Inc.’s Google, soaked up 99% of the online ad industry’s growth last year, according to Pivotal Research.
Does that seem crazy to anyone else?
Does that seem crazy to anyone else?
The long tale companies are not worth it. The amount of hassle it takes to reach out to "Glam Media" and start working out your own ad deal is a stupid waste of time. You are smarter investing in monitoring your cpi on google/fb.
Edit: Glam media shutdown. https://www.recode.net/2016/9/15/12936470/mode-media-glam-sh...
Networks are the new monopolies in this new world and Facebook has the largest and most engaged one which makes it damn near impossible for new incumbents to participate in the market. Just look at Snap.
The question is this: how many companies or products were not created or could not sustain due to Facebook's built in monopoly? And of those that were created, how many will thrive? And of those that can thrive, how many can afford to not to be bought by FB?
I don't have the answers, but I'm convinced that these are the right questions. Price as a proxy just doesn't seem to make sense in this context.
I'm wary of introducing regulation without clear evidence of its necessity. However, there is a reasonable argument that if exploiting a monopoly to gain advantage in an adjacent market can be harmful, then exploiting a monopoly to gain an advantage in an opposing market could be harmful too. It therefore seems reasonable to ask whether the traditional applications of anti-trust principles are still appropriate for these huge modern tech markets.
Prices paid by the advertisers more generally, for another. There are only two games in town, and both of them go out of their way to obscure what you're really getting in return for your money.
If Snap starts showing signs of accelerating DAU/MAU growth, then there's a chance that they'll be >1% of the market.