So if you slice “the market” granularly enough and squint, then there is a monopoly.
If I had a general consumer business, I would much rather use FB advertising because they know more about their users than Google.
If I had a general consumer business, I would much rather use FB advertising because they know more about their users than Google.
2) As a consequence of #1 (all those Google Analytics install collecting data) and their properties (YT, Search, etc...) they have excellent data on pretty much every one.
As a matter of fact, someone in the industry made a test on Grindr to see what kind of audience quality each player had in the adtech world. Google was the best provider and by a large margin.
The "choice" described in the paper is not between Facebook and Google, it is between Google and nothing. According the the authors, Facebook does not particpate in the business of ads for the "open web".
Assuming the later, academics and people working on these investigations, if the "open web" is the market they are using for their antitrust analysis. If Facebook participated in this market then one could argue that there is some competition.
From a footnote in the PDF:
As for "reality" you would need to be more specific what you mean.
What if someone said, "Who cares if they are slicing a market to fit a narrative?"
Are you saying the authors who are "slicing the market to fit a narrative" are not allowed to do that? Or are you just saying you do not like that they are doing that? Or both?
Facebook's Audience Network allows you to buy ads on 3rd party (open) websites[1] as does VerizonMedia/Oath
[1] https://www.facebook.com/business/marketing/audience-network
The argument that Google is dominant in search is much stronger than the argument made here.
In the CMA report "open web advertising" is referred to as the "open display market".
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dfa0580ed915...
"We have organised our work into three thigh-level themes:
Theme 1 considers to what extent Google and Facebook have market power in search and social media respectively and the sources of this market power;
Theme 2 assesses whether consumers have adequate control over the use of their data by online platforms, by exploring the choices they are given, how easy it is to exercise those choices and whether there is adequate protection for those who do not engage; and
Theme 3 focusses on the business to business digital advertising markets, exploring a range of concerns including a lack of transparency, conflicts of interest and the leveraging of market power to undermine competition."
Not disagreeing with your premise, however the Google response to the CMA report devotes a significant amount of verbiage to explaining and defending their position in the "open display market". On page 4 of the 25-page response to the CMA report you will find the heading "Competition in Digital Advertising". Under this you will see the subheadings "Search Advertising", "Display Advertising on Third Party Websites" and "Our Relationship with Publishers". The "Search Advertising" section is just over 3 pages. The "Display Advertising on Third Party Websites" is 4.5 pages. The "Our relationship with Publishers" section is just over 2 pages.
It is true the CMA did not make precisely the same arguments as the authors of the "roadmap" paper. They are two different jusrisdictions. However the CMA report forms the factual basis for all the arguments in the roadmap paper.
I found the Google response[1] and I'd note that they don't name any other companies at all (at least in a very quick glance through). I suspect this is a policy choice by Google - they don't want to be seen as pointing regulators at competitors.
I would also note that on page 23 footnote 69 they point references showing "the top 100 U.S. advertisers use an average 4 to 7 DSPs according to a 2016-2018 study" and "500 largest U.S. publishers use an average of 6 SSPs"
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d78ba3540f0b...
Not sure I understand what you are thinking regarding the "policy choice" idea. Would need some more elaboration.
Could you refer to page number or something? I'm not going through counting paragraphs. I searched for "publisher ad serving" and didn't find it, and searched for "Facebook" and didn't find anything that seemed to sound like what you are talking about.
I don't understand the gist of your comments here either. You asked me why Google didn't refer to competitors in their response, but now you say that they do?
> Not sure I understand what you are thinking regarding the "policy choice" idea.
"they don't want to be seen as pointing regulators at competitors."
You claimed the authors of the roadmap paper are "wrong". You cited a couple of purported Google competitors, Facebook and Verizon. I noted that in their response to CMA report Google did not mention those two competitors. They mentioned several other ones, none of them as prominent as Facebook or Verizon. Then you said there are "many other" competitors, too, besides Facebook and Verizon. I am wondering why Google did mention any of these competitors you are referring to in their response to the CMA report. Seems like it would be relevant to mention them.
However page 7 does say:
The Market Study will need to take account of the ways in which other players are entering, expanding, or consolidating in the supply of digital ads Examples include Amazon’s growing ads business, Verizon (which purchased AOL and Yahoo!), the integrated AT&T/Time Warner/AppNexus businesses, AdForm, and Alibaba – one of China’s largest digital ad providers that recently...
The reference in that quote include footnote 29. Perhaps you are confusing footnotes/references with the substantive response?
Again, your mileage may differ, but FB knowing more about people didn't seem to matter for me. When it came down to it, a dollar spent with Google was far better than a dollar spent with FB.
Every major tech company’s product has a viable alternative.