Paris, France – June 08: In this photo visualization, Google, Drive, YouTube, Gmail, Gmail, … more
“We could sell you an advertisement page for $ 100,000. Tell you that it will reach many influence and rich people, get you out for dinner. To move an Oscar party invitation, order expensive wine, drunk and hope you forgot to be forgotten. These are the words of Dana Brown, former Vanity Fair Deputy Author, from 2022 autobiography, Amateur.
Brown described how the ad was and how in the dark they were occasionally overwhelmed advertising buyers. Advertising purchases by publishers who were “not data people” set the stage for change. It is the biggest feature of capitalism: competing with high margins.
He evaluates serious thought as the Ministry of Justice (DOJ) inch to complete his antitrust case against Google. The lawsuit was motivated by Google’s supposed “monopoly” for the search, along with its supposed failure to provide advertisers “transparency”. It’s a look back, in consultation with failure to understand how much Google has a lot of improved transparency and sales for advertisers. The speculation here is that Brown would agree.
All we need to understand this is to compare the search results on Google from July 25, 2022 to July 25, 2025. What users see on the basis of any search or question is deeply different.
The difference is a result of intense competition in the search area and in particular the release of the Openai chatgpt. Chatgpt’s release and a multitude of other trained search locations by AI, as it calls into question the case of DOJ. If Google had a monopoly on search, it will be reflected in a lack of evolution of Google search analysis. Why compete when you are a monopoly? Because indeed.
Also, why invest in an uncertain future of AI to parts of $ 85 billion (the amount of Google, the alphabet, invests in AI only in 2025) if your future is already safe. The future born of the control of the present and the future? In the words of lawyer Doj David Dahlquist, “this court has the opportunity to correct a monopoly that has controlled the internet for today’s generation and restores competition for the coming decades.”
Except that there is no monopoly. See the deep evolution of search results in the supposed monopoly on Google. Then see Alphabet’s significant investment in technology itself that promises to do search results today unrecognizable in relation to the future. Or see Dana Brown’s memoirs once again.
While the brown excerpt that opened this piece of opinion has already painted exactly how advertising buyers were in the dark, there is more to know. Brown’s memoirs explain why old advertising modes were destroyed. Google and Facebook Loom are big. In Brown’s words, Facebook and Google “were able to target advertising on very Specific demographics and then show advertising real details of who saw the ad, clicking on it and who made a purchase. ”
On the contrary, the above with the days when advertising buyers were falling with alcohol so that they would not ask difficult questions from people who probably could not answer. Not with Google and Facebook. As Brown recalls, “were data based on data.”
However, doj claims that Google wasn’t transparent enough with buyers? More realistically, its success is the impact of transportation and data on purchases that were previously speculative. This is just a comment that Doj is not just looking back with its treatment, it also examines the past without understanding how much Google has substantially improved the present and the future, ending for the good natural nature of advertising from the past.
