Login
close
Login is restricted to DCN Publisher Members. If you are a DCN Member and don't have an account, register here.
Search

Digital Content Next logo

Menu

Articles by: "Jason Kint, CEO – DCN"

Featured Post | Policy

5 insights during the intermission between US v Google I and II 

As we approach opening arguments of Google’s landmark AdTech trial on September 9th, it is a good time to reflect on the calendar of events leading to this moment. It is useful to consider the context and critical points at play in the case against Google, particularly given last week’s search antitrust verdict.  

To recap, here is the timeline to date of the four major lawsuits alleging Google engaged in monopolistic behavior:  

  • Dec 11, 2023 | A federal jury found that Google’s app store violated antitrust law  
  • Aug 14, 2024 | Closing arguments on remedies for Google’s app store antitrust violations 
  • Sep 6th, 2024 | Judge Mehta will begin the trial on remedies to Google’s search monopoly 
  • Sept 9th, 2024 Trial begins AdTech antitrust lawsuit brought by DOJ (see more info below) 
  • March 25, 2025 | Google faces Texas court in a second AdTech antitrust lawsuit brought by state attorneys general 

And here is a significant resource for those who seek a fuller picture of the upcoming Google AdTech antitrust trial: 

So, as we look toward the start of the next phase in the antitrust actions against Google, here are five key considerations for media executives, journalists covering these cases, and for the general public—as this company’s anticompetitive behavior impacts almost every person online.   

1. Ending Google’s innocence narratives: The abusive monopoly is confirmed  

The first significant outcome of the search case is the formal acknowledgment of Google’s monopolistic status. It’s no longer a matter of debate whether Google is a monopoly. Given that the court has ruled definitively on this point, I have no idea why The Information is sending out polls asking its subscribers if Google is a monopoly. This is no longer a subject of debate.  

A unanimous jury of Northern Californians last December, and now a D.C. district court judge last week, have decisively found that Google monopolizes four critical markets: general search services, search text ads, Android app distribution, and Android in-app billing. More importantly, the verdicts also found that Google engaged in anticompetitive conduct to maintain these monopolies. The wider Search verdict—a fabulous read—effectively ends any narrative of Google’s innocence and sets the stage for a broader reckoning within the tech industry.  

2. Illuminating Google’s tactics: The truth shines through  

The trial last Fall exposed the extent of Google’s market power and its aggressive, if not illegal, tactics. Under oath, former Google employees (often referred to as “Xooglers”), partners, and even current employees provided testimony that has shed light on the company’s practices.  

Discovery in these cases has revealed much about Google’s internal operations, with documents and testimony uncovering the strategies Google used to maintain its dominance to maximize its benefits. These revelations are crucial not only for the legal proceedings but also for broader public understanding of how big tech companies operate behind closed doors.  

3. A matter of public interest: The stakes for media and society  

The implications of these cases extend far beyond Google’s corporate interests. Google is not just a search company. It is not just a tech giant. Google is the single largest distributor of news and entertainment—as well as the advertising dollars that sustain these industries. With annual revenues nearing $300 billion, the company’s influence over the media landscape is immense.  

Taken together—Google AdTech case, along with the Search verdict—arguably mark the most significant antitrust action affecting the media industry in a half-century. The outcome will have profound implications for how information and advertising are distributed in the digital age. Yet, despite the critical nature of this case, there has been a surprising lack of press coverage and public awareness about the evidence presented.  

Let me try to illustrate not only why the AdTech trial matters, but why it is a story the public needs to hear: 

  • What if I told you the heads of Chrome, Android, and AdTech divisions collaborated via email to maximize ad revenues to hit their quarterly targets?  
  • What if I told you Google’s advertising auctions weren’t always second-price auctions, but that publishers were at times secretly paid the third price while Google pocketed the difference?   
  • And what if the auction bids included another arbitrary, secretive variable determined unilaterally by Google?  
  • What if I told you Google exerted its outsized influence on the very shape of the media ecosystem based on the position that subscription news sites were a threat to the open web?  
  • What if I told you Google’s notorious “Jedi Blue” deal with Facebook is still a part of the evidence in this case and that the key Meta employee who briefed Mark Zuckerberg ahead of his meeting with Sundar Pichai will be testifying this September? 

These cases impact almost every searcher’s ability to access news, entertainment and information. If those stakes aren’t high enough, the cast of players and the Machiavellian twists make for compelling storytelling. The public needs to know.  

4. Converging lawsuits: A unified attack on anticompetitive practices  

The lawsuits against Google, though focusing on different aspects of the company’s operations— app store, search and AdTech—share common themes. Judges have noted that Google allowed employee messages to be purged by default, despite ongoing litigation holds, and manipulated auctions to impact revenues. These findings indicate a pattern of behavior that transcends individual cases. It points to a systematic approach to maintaining its monopoly power.  

The convergence of these lawsuits highlights the interconnected nature of Google’s business practices and the data and queries at scale serving as the core of its business model. It’s becoming increasingly clear that any meaningful remedy must address the chokepoints of Google’s operations that feed the data and query scale. Doing so should also open opportunities for new entrants in the emerging field of generative AI. 

5. Remedies on the horizon: structural changes loom large  

The future of the media industry will be on display in federal court rooms on both sides of the Potomac next month. As the separate remedies trial for the search case gets underway in the DC district court and the AdTech trial starts in the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria), discussions about potential remedies have begun to surface.  

While short-term solutions, such as prohibiting Google’s commercial deals to serve as the default search engine on browsers and operating systems, are being considered, it’s evident that more substantial structural remedies will be necessary. The prosecuting teams, under the leadership of Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, seem to understand the intricacies of Google’s business model just as well as industry insiders. Without structural changes—such as breaking up Google’s control over key gatekeeping assets like Chrome, Android, YouTube, and its AdTech supply chain and data. it will be impossible to mitigate Google’s monopolistic practices in the long term.   

The idea of “Baby Googles,” or the division of Google into smaller, independent entities, is not just a hypothetical scenario; it’s a very real possibility that could reshape the tech and media industry.  

The future of Big Tech and the free market  

The second verdict against Google marks a turning point in the battle against monopolistic practices in the tech industry. The outcomes of these legal battles will not only impact Google but will also set precedents for how other tech giants like Apple, Amazon, and Meta—all currently being sued by either the Department of Justice or Federal Trade Commission or both—are regulated in the future.  

But it is important to remember that this isn’t just about setting the tone for Big Tech regulation. It is about the underlying motivation behind these cases; the very reason America has antitrust laws in place and a framework to enforce them. As DOJ antitrust chief Kanter framed it in an interview on CNBC, actions like these are particularly critical during times of technological change. As AI is poised to reshape search—and impact industries of all kinds—ensuring that the marketplace is a healthy one, where competition and innovation flourish, takes on paramount importance.  

“As we sit here at the next technological inflection point,” Kanter said, “it’s extremely important that we protect the competitive process to make sure that the benefits of technological innovation, the excitement that we’re all feeling from AI… can reach consumers in a fully competitive way.” 

It looks like the era of unchecked dominance by a few tech behemoths may be coming to an end, with far-reaching consequences for the entire digital economy.  

Featured Post | Policy

Google, what big teeth you have  

Google has issues. Lots of them. Unfortunately for our industry, Google’s issues are our issues too.  

Last week, I observed a strange turn of events when an eye-opening HouseFresh blog post titled, “How Google is killing independent sites like ours” quickly evolved into a bizarre critique on the quality of work by and trust for premium publishers. While that may be a subject of debate, one thing we know for sure is that Google’s search experience often puts profits ahead of surfacing quality information—from small sites, independents, or anyone else that isn’t delivering dollars to its bottom line.   

Mind you, this conversation was happening in the very same week in which Google’s outsized role in shaping public perception was on display as their newest product was found to be generating racially diverse Nazis. (Yes, you read that right). Was Google trying to rewrite history? Or just further demonstrating that its product and profit priorities can quickly get dangerously ahead of its historically unique and dominant role in determining how information and value gets distributed to the world.  

Anti-trust me 

Meanwhile, a little-known collective comprised of the United States Department of Justice and nearly every state attorney general was filing its closing briefing for its antitrust trial against – you guessed it – Google. Suffice it to say that this monumental case didn’t get nearly the column inches it deserved despite damning evidence. There’s something almost poignant about an industry undermined by Google for decades lacking the resources, or public interest, to cover a case that rivals other once-in-a-century trials on par with standard oil (likely surpassing AT&T and Microsoft) in its impact on the free market and competition.  

For those new to these details, I would summarize the United States case against Google in three floors of an elevator pitch:  

  1. Google has monopoly power in general search services and the advertising that comes with it.  
  1. Google has systematically captured more than half of this market by paying roughly $30 billion per year for exclusivity on devices (Apple and Samsung) and browsers (e.g. Firefox and Safari). I left out the most popular operating system and browser, Android and Chrome, as Google gets them for free because it owns them. 
  1. The result of this monopoly power is 95% market share on mobile and orders of magnitude advantage in data (aka “signals”) allowing Google to maintain its market dominance through superior data for ranking, local queries, and new queries, along with the all-important ads. And finally substantial advantages in emerging markets like artificial intelligence.  

A case of convoluted logic 

What does Google say about this in its own defense? Well, each of their claims sound weak to those of us who have been around the block a few times in the digital media world. I’ll lay them out here with my own redirect: 

  1. Google spends its first 15 pages arguing it competes in search with Amazon, TikTok, Facebook, Yelp and the list goes on. Have you ever searched Amazon for a local restaurant? Have you ever searched Facebook for a new television? Have you ever searched Yelp for a BBC report? This attempt to throw out the entire definition of general search is a waste of ink. (But, hey: maybe they used Gemini to formulate it.)  
  1. The next chapter from Google is an argument that, even if they accept the market of “general search,” they still don’t have monopoly power in it. To the contrary, a good deal of internal evidence demonstrates Google’s ability to raise prices, lower privacy and weaken consumer experience without missing a beat. An experience utterly degraded, particularly on mobile where it is clearly pay to play and self-preferencing of Google’s own products.  
  1. Finally, Google would like you to believe that all its deals with devices and browsers are not ‘exclusive’ as they merely make Google the default search engine. This may be left to the Court on semantics. But again there are, in evidence, internal decks from Google regarding the power of defaults that explain their significance to maintaining market share along with a damning letter sent to Microsoft claiming it would “deprive consumers of a competitive choice in search” by making Microsoft the default search. That litigation threat was sent by – surprise  – Google. 

Google is not your friend 

I now return to my central point: Google puts the enemy in frenemy. No doubt they are the most significant business partner for nearly every publisher on the planet. They often send the largest monthly revenue checks from their near ubiquitous role in distribution and monetization of the web.  

But as it relates to how they shape its design, the tools we use, the incentives it proffers, and how the welfare gets divided, they are certainly not the friend of media. Nor are they a friend to consumers who seek out quality information and would benefit from an open competitive marketplace.  

Next up, we’ll see the UK Competition and Markets authority flex as it has closely examined Google’s plan for third-party cookie deprecation. The CMA insightfully notes that maybe the solution isn’t further delaying Google’s cookie deprecation – consumers don’t want to be tracked and surveilled – but instead putting limitations on Google’s abuses. A M E N.  

Stateside, Google next faces the US Department of Justice in an adtech lawsuit set to go to trial on September 9th, 2024. The exhibits, depositions and evidence in this case will shine a light on every aspect of how our modern media economy is designed, distributed and dominated by a company that just surpassed $300 billion in revenues. To give that number some relative scale: Google earns the annual revenue of the largest news organizations (be it CNN, The New York Times, FOX News) in the world in just three days. 

Google’s money-making results 

Of course, none of this is to suggest that media endeavors aren’t in the business of making money, if only to support the work of journalists as in the case of non-profit models. Yet again, this week, we learn that Google is reportedly paying “smaller publishers” to use its AI tools. As with other Google News Initiative projects, this one is cloaked in the veneer of helpful benefactor here to support the creation of news. 

Putting the relatively small sums involved aside, publishers are wise to remember that Google is not a friend. There is little doubt that this scheme is intended to benefit Google far more than any of the publishers involved. We may not see it yet, but if the evidence coming to light in the current spate of antitrust trials suggests anything, it is that we can look forward to the revelation of internal documents demonstrating the self (ish) motivation driving this organization.  

Even as we explore the discussion around HouseFresh’s revelations about the questionable quality around the search results for product reviews we can’t forget that the root cause is Google’s profit-first approach. The engine that drives our traffic was really only built to drive revenue for one company. Results that favor commerce favor Google.  

So, as the media allocates resources for courtroom coverage, let’s not forget how high the stakes are here. This goes far beyond the health of the media industry, or the chilling effects of monopolistic power on innovation. Ultimately, it is the marketplace of ideas, the value exchange of information, and the ability to surface essential news and entertainment that suffer in a system so profoundly gamed by one player. 

Featured Post | Perspectives | Policy

Five plain truths about AI 

“The rise of AI is an existential threat for media companies.”  

“The rise of AI is a disruptive opportunity for media companies greater than the Internet itself.”  

I overheard both statements in the last week. How can both be true at the same time? 

While I may not be able to square that circle, I do know that DCN has spent the last decade focused on the future and not shying away from difficult questions like these. And, for the past six months or more, we have been among those immersed in the impending upheaval and unprecedented opportunity heralded by everyone from AI doomsayers to evangelists. 

While the questions about the future of AI in the media are far from answered, there are a few plainly obvious truths emerging as we explore the full potential of AI.

  1. The Large Language Model (LLM) data sets on which generative AI is being trained have been built upon what may well be the most extensive violation of copyright in history. The power and promise of AI to reshape industries is rooted in intellectual property that is a necessary ingredient in the equation. That bad math, that bad faith, must be recalculated and recalibrated in order for AI to evolve in a way that aligns with the true spirit of this extraordinary innovation.
  2. Many challenges of the last decade remain constant in the AI era. Market power and abuse is a profound problem. It would be naive to rely on the generosity of trillion-dollar companies to silo negotiations to train tech companies’ large language models from the impact and the needs of the whole of the media business.

    Consider the way in which Google has historically argued that it doesn’t detract from media sites’ revenue because it drives traffic to them. On the contrary, it is well understood that “search results” have become overwhelmed with advertising and offer “snippets” (scraped and trained by publishers’ sites) that often satisfy the user without having to click through. Generative AI takes this so much further, by allowing the search engine to compile information from a multitude of sites—without necessarily crediting any of them, much less driving traffic.
  3. Privacy concerns around LLMs need more attention. Somehow the excitement and ready access to real-time output has swept this under the rug. Recent history should have taught us better. 

    Clearview AI, infamous for scraping billions of images across the internet without consent to fuel facial recognition, is the subject of a new book, Your Face Belongs to Us. And we learned in unsealed court docs earlier this year that Facebook used data brokers to train its machines to microtarget ads when they were forced to stop buying data outright. LLMs create a deep new well of data that is being opaquely collected and that will inevitably be exploited in ways consumers would not expect—or approve of.
  4. Generative AI will increasingly be used for storytelling, whether in the fields of news or entertainment. However, responsible and successful media organizations recognize its limitations and human hands will still shape the creative output of these tools. As long as this storytelling involves humans at any point in the creative process, this content will require protection under the law. Otherwise, the devaluation of creativity and truth will be inevitable. 
  5. The sustainability of the free press is an essential ingredient for democracy. A free press supports an informed public, which holds the powerful accountable. Healthy competition and capitalism have unlocked opportunities and efficiencies that media companies have benefited from, and there’s no reason to believe that the AI era will be different. However, given the unhealthy dominance of the big technology companies, the last decade has been perilous for the press.

    Therefore, any conversation around the future of AI must be anchored on the needs of an informed public, which starts and ends with an ecosystem that supports professional local and national newsrooms.

Given what we have witnessed over the past decade in the proliferation of mis- and disinformation, which has leveraged technology and vacuums in trust, the generative power of AI must give us pause. With power comes responsibility, and these are tools that we must use, and govern, wisely.

As someone who is listening, reading and thinking about what’s next as a full-time job, the acceleration of AI and its impact on media has got me on the edge of my seat. I’ve witnessed firsthand what media organizations have accomplished with AI for decades, and eagerly anticipate continued innovation. I also respect and acknowledge the efforts of media organizations to defend their work product, their creative output, the reporting, writing, photography, cinematography… as so much more than a mere data set. 

We know our work. We know our worth. And we know our audiences and respect their values, which is why they value us. While the questions and innovations will keep on coming, there are unequivocal truths that should guide us as we continue to build a strong media ecosystem.

Advertising | Featured Post | Perspectives

Will tech’s “signal loss” be our opportunity?

In media, “signals” have long driven the business, whether for must-see entertainment or brand-defining journalism. Unfortunately, these signals, which convey value, meaning and relevance, are becoming harder to distinguish amidst the increasing noise of modern digital media. Yet the ability to distinguish between signal and noise is just as important, if not more so, in the age of digital media given the abundance—and velocity—of information.

Today, there are fewer and fewer high-value signals that can cut through the noise without interference. Brands invest upwards of seven million dollars for a 30-second commercial during the Super Bowl or six figures to run a page in the September issue of Vogue so that they can send a signal to a large and focused audience, not only about their product, but also make a statement about the significance of their market position. In other words, “we have so much confidence in our offering that we can spend this kind of money to tell you about it.” There is very little noise surrounding these types of advertisements. The message is clear. And everyone makes bank.

However, there are also high-value signals that must compete with endless noise. To see this in action, just take a stroll through Times Square in New York City, one of the busiest and noisiest places in the world, with a constant barrage of sights and sounds competing for attention. Amidst all this noise and the tens of thousands of people rushing about their days, one might think it would be challenging for any brand to resonate. Yet countless companies do just that by spending millions to share their message in this hub of entertainment and commerce. With their brand messages broadcast on LED screens hundreds of feet wide, or plastered on buildings that stretch to the sky, they send an unambiguous signal of value and importance.

The Super Bowl offers one of the year’s must-watch experiences—both on the field and in the ad breaks. The pages of September Vogue overflow with lush photos and unparalleled fashion coverage with ads deftly woven into the fabric. Times Square is one of the most exciting, chaotic, and sense-stimulating places on earth. In every case, the context provides a signal boost: What you see here has value.

In the world of digital media, the rise of the tech giants has allowed them to suppress signals and amplify noise. Amidst the endless content scroll are interchangeable commodities and it’s hard to differentiate between much of anything on these platforms. In many ways, they’ve turned the world upside down by turning traditional signals into something else altogether through their black-box algorithms.

Often these secret signals happen below the surface shrouded in mystery, as seen in the case of the Google search engine. This tool was built in a revolutionary way, using “signals” to sort all the world’s information. This grand innovation offered a way to create structure by ranking a site’s ability to collate high value links around the web. Fortunes have been won and lost in how Google values those signals. Over time, Google matured and evolved into using authority and other proxies to value sites across search and YouTube. The signals favored by this search superpower frequently recalibrate, but we know they are there under the surface, controlling what people see.  

Amazon has built the world’s largest retail store where its Prime signal, in a classic flex of monopoly power, has arguably become the most important indicator of whether the customer will buy a product or not. Sure, there may be dozens of vendors offering nearly identical products, but a single signal undeniably tilts the scale.

However, we have also seen that signals can be “lost.” Facebook built what is arguably the most powerful targeted advertising business in history by mining and exploiting data across the web and mobile app ecosystem. Targeted ads have consistently comprised more than 97% of the company’s revenues for more than a decade. This was never clearer than in 2021: When Apple stepped up its privacy efforts, Facebook lost nearly half of its market value, which the company’s CFO attributed to “signal loss.” That loss continues to haunt the company’s fortunes as the company scrambles for a new moat to protect its empire. 

The value of signals amidst the noise is also key to the rapid-fire (and controversial) development of large language models, such as those used by Google’s Bard and Microsoft’s Bing to train generative AI. The value of an answer engine will undoubtedly lie in the quality of its results. Therefore, such models must differentiate between things learned through Financial Times versus Reddit, Washington Post versus Twitter, and so on. Although they may claim to treat all domains generically, there is little doubt the source matters. All content is not equal.

As digital technology continues to advance, distinguishing between signals and noise becomes ever more challenging. Like Times Square, the noisiness of the digital world can be stimulating and provocative. However, with so much noise, signals that can convey meaning and relevance to a broad audience have more value than ever.

Media companies must focus on developing strategies that allow them to differentiate themselves and their messaging, so they can send signals that cut through the noise and resonate with their target audience.  And they must seek out platforms, partners, and technology companies that fully recognize and fairly compensate these valuable signals as they launch, thrive, and grow into maturity.

Amidst the nearly infinite access to content created by anyone and everyone—from influencer-ally or trusted brand to bot armies and monetizers of disinformation, signal has never been more valuable. Ultimately, the ability to differentiate between signals and noise is essential to success in the digital age, and those who can do so effectively will have a significant advantage, and that advantage will be one shared by the audiences they serve.

Featured Post | Innovation | Perspectives

Spilled ink: How to prevent AI from vacuuming up your business model

The many profound possibilities for creators leveraging artificial intelligence have been quietly heating up over the last decade. So, what really changed in the past few months? Certainly, the clever roll-out of ChatGPT only months after DALL-E 2 has thrown gas on the burner. Right now, press coverage and industry chatter are mostly focused on uncovering real-world applications offered by generative AI, which are exciting to be sure. However, wise publishers will heed lessons learned from past experiences in which their data were scraped and take an active role in preserving their business value.

“Scraping the web” is a term as old as the web itself. It’s no secret that Google’s core business was built by crawling companies’ servers to train its search engine to find and deliver satisfying results across the vast world wide web with speed and precision. The result: Google now plays the role of gatekeeper for much of the web.

The reality is that any publisher who made the radical decision not to allow Google’s crawler to do its thing would quickly become almost impossible to find online. Giving Google the free right to crawl your site is the cost of business to exist on the open web today.

Just last week Google began testing blocking news properties in Canada. As Campbell Clark wrote for the Globe and Mail earlier this week, “It’s not a threat, of course. Sometimes people just wake up with a horse’s head in their bed.”

This is yet another stark example of Google’s power. No individual publisher has the bargaining power to opt out and impact Google’s business. So no one does.

It’s not actually that different from the way in which Facebook built its social media platform into a digital advertising juggernaut. After many years scraping and collecting user data across the web and its partners – from far beyond the walls of its garden – Facebook began using AI to leverage its massive data warehouse appropriately named “The Hive” in a manner that is irreversible. Publishers are only now learning how all of this data was used, and abused,  through lawsuit discovery and leaked documents.

Importantly, as was uncovered through one of these leaked documents, Facebook engineers used the metaphor of ink spilled into a lake to describe what happens to a person’s data once it makes its way into the Facebook’s data warehouse:

“We’ve built systems with open borders. The result of these open systems and open culture is well described with an analogy:

Imagine you hold a bottle of ink in your hand. This bottle of ink is a mixture of all kinds of user data (3PD, 1PD, SCD, Europe, etc.) You pour that ink into a lake of water (our open data systems; our open culture) … and it flows … everywhere. How do you put that ink back in the bottle? How do you organize it again, such that it only flows to the allowed places in the lake?”

This brings us to generative AI – 2023’s hot topic. It’s unequivocal that the Large Language Models are being trained by ingesting the work of newsrooms across the web. To better understand this fact, consider that Google disclosed that a whopping 15% of Google’s daily searches are completely new searches.

Now think about that for a moment: The most likely trigger for a novel search is an unfolding news event. That means the simple fact that these searches occur was triggered by the work of news media. And, as we know, Google monetizes answers. Particularly when confronted by a new query, Google’s machine learning algorithms lean into authority brands – those deemed likely to provide a trustworthy response. Guess who those are? You can see by looking at the top results presented by a search around breaking news: the results are called “top stories” and you guessed it: they come from media brands.

No one should doubt that a similar level of interest, intelligence, and impact on generative AI will be instigated—and answered—because of the work product of the news media, particularly given the role of Large Language Models in their training and operation.

So, if the output of newsrooms, writers, artists, and media companies were not available to scrape, what would happen to the quality of 2023’s much-hyped generative AI?

Copious effort and investment go into the creation of premium content. The use of premium content to train AI models is akin to fueling your machine with gasoline you “found” in someone else’s garage. It doesn’t inherently mean that the machine is not powerful, or useful. But that fuel was not free to create. If your machine can’t run without it, something is not quite right with the system.

Given Facebook’s metaphor, the publishing world may need to serve notice to OpenAI and its ilk before they can make the claim that the ink flow can no longer be reverse engineered. Let’s hope it is not already too late.

In November, DeviantArt rolled out an HTML tag so that an artist can inform web robots not to crawl their images to train art-generating AI. Media companies need to consider whether the right course of action is to launch a similar tag, which tells bots not to crawl and train their AI with publishers’ work. Of course, like many technical issues on the open web, this would only rein in the good robots and would not solve for bad bots.

But it is important that we make a start, before too much ink has spilled.

Featured Post | Policy

The cracks in Google’s adtech façade are starting to show

Behind the scenes, Google is flailing – despite its predictably tight control over industry narratives. 

The underlying shockwaves stem from an increasingly widespread understanding of Google’s dominant role over the entire adtech supply chain. Those who have sought to unpack and explain the complexities of the company’s hold on the industry can thank a senior Google employee for providing this apt analogy in discovery: They described Google’s role in adtech as “if Goldman or Citibank owned the New York Stock Exchange.” Now that’s something a jurist can understand. 

The escalation of enforcement 

In the last sixty days, Google has floated three different test balloons in an attempt to head off the intensifying scrutiny: 

  1. The Wall Street Journal reported Google has offered to split off part of its adtech business in an effort to head off the Department of Justice’s filing of a landmark lawsuit – expected this month according to a Bloomberg report. The only problem: Google’s offer was to split the adtech business and put it under a different part of parent Alphabet. To extend the previous analogy, placing the NYSE in a different division of Goldman Sachs would not solve the inherent issue. Hard pass.  
     
  2. Google announced a new feature with the innocuous title of “Confirming Gross Revenue.” They’ve pitched it to advertisers and publishers – and little doubt to enforcers, too – as providing transparency in a “privacy-safe way” as to the money flow in the advertising supply chain. The problem with it is that Google will avoid having to provide insights into auctions, transactional flow, or any real detail as to how Google’s decisions determine revenues across the market. Google’s press announcement crows that “Display & Video 360 is onboard as an early tester.” That sort of says it all, since Google owns DV360.  
     
  3. Google once again delayed its deprecation of third-party cookies, something that they’ve been dragging their feet on for nearly three years. From the very beginning, Google has used misleading Google-authored research of the Google-dominated supply and data system to suggest their delays are only due to their interests in not harming publishers. What is true is that a wrong move by Google (hello Floc, hello Topics) can very well continue the ongoing harm to premium publishers by treating every website as an interchangeable commodity. If there’s any chance that a move will hurt Google’s ad business, it won’t happen. 

Litigation, legislation, and learning 

So why all the flailing? To illuminate what’s going on underneath the surface, let’s take a roll call. Fifteen U.S. states, the U.S. Department of Justice, the E.U. Competition Commission, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority … Netherlands … France … well, suffice it to say that the list is long (and growing) for investigations, lawsuits, and enforcement action underway – all of which are probing Google’s advertising tech business(es).  

The E.U. has been particularly active by fining Google more than $8 billion across three decisions. It also recently passed its new landmark gatekeeper law, the Digital Markets Act, and is ramping up enforcement of its landmark privacy law, the GDPR, by pressing Google-friendly Irish regulators. 

Importantly, enforcers and litigators are studying and learning from each other across issues of competition and data privacy worldwide. And they’re keeping especially close eyes on the Texas-led lawsuit which now counts 15 bipartisan state attorneys general as plaintiffs along with countless private plaintiffs. They certainly won’t have overlooked Google losing much of its arguments last week in attempting to dismiss this case. This blow came at the hands of a SDNY Court which very much seems to understand Google’s business. And that’s a huge problem for Google. 

Full court press 

Although “Jedi Blue” received the most press attention, due to the allegations of Google colluding with Facebook, there are a range of other very serious allegations which the Court has now given the green light for further discovery and trial. And, significantly, they are readily explainable to a jury. Two foremost allegations are the tying of Google’s adtech services and the manipulation of its auctions.  

What if I told you Google required the use of its ad server in order to receive the benefits of Google’s market-leading ad exchange and the fast-growing advertising demand dollars flowing through it?  Some might call this “tying,” which – if proven – is illegal.  Note that Google had about 50% of the ad server market when it acquired DoubleClick (DFP). It has since steadily increased that stake to claim nearly 99% of large publishers. Please allow me to quote the Court:  

 “The States plausibly allege that Google used its monopoly power in AdX to actually coerce publishers into licensing a separate and distinct product, Google’s DFP ad server, and that Google’s actions had anticompetitive effects in both markets, affecting a substantial amount of interstate commerce.” 

Or what if I told you Google had paid its publisher clients based on the third-highest price in an auction while collecting on the second-highest price with the determination it would re-route the variance into more advertising demand for its own services?  Some might call this, “market manipulation,” which – if proven – may well have been an illegal way to protect its monopoly. As the Court again summarized Google’s project “Bell”:  

“In other words, Bell penalized publishers who did not grant AdX preferential access by paying them based upon the third-place bid rather than a second-place bid, while using the difference to increase the bids made to publishers who allowed preferential access.” 

In fact, the only count which was dismissed in the lawsuit is the infamous “Jedi Blue” allegation. Despite Google anchoring its press spin on this win, it’s this single dismissal – one that befuddled many legal experts watching the case. I wager this one will resurface again as the E.U. and U.K. have already announced their own investigations. Also, the “Jedi Blue” allegations are included in a private lawsuit against Facebook that has already been given the green light in the northern district of California. Each of these efforts builds on the others and the subsequent learnings can only aid the U.S. Department of Justice in its work.  

Antitrust is in the air 

It was rightly said nearly three years ago that antitrust enforcement will take significant time. The wheels of justice do indeed turn slowly. Attempting to propose solutions before the investigations and allegations landed would be premature, but Google’s efforts to settle these cases shows they are nervous. And Google’s efforts to manipulate the outcome may be the most transparent thing about its business.  

The reality is many of the charges against Google have now been found plausible and will proceed into deeper discovery just as many other regulators and legislatures attempt to curb its power. Make no mistake, Google is stumbling in a way we’ve never seen in its two decades. Of course, the company will look to proactively lay out solutions for all of us. But we all see through this. No one should settle for anything less than a return to competition and the rebalancing of bargaining power that comes with it. 

Featured Post | Perspectives

Stay the course

Netflix’s earnings report last week sent a chill across nearly every company with a business model tied to a direct-to-consumer relationship. There are real concerns about the global economy and speculation about whether the  massive increase in streaming viewing habits seen during the pandemic will prove to be enduring. However, I wonder whether the insights gleaned from the Netflix situation are unique to Netflix and not a strong indicator for other media companies, most of which are just starting their streaming ventures.

First, let’s acknowledge the macroeconomy. Inflation registering over 8% will impact nearly every consumer market; this is especially true if inflation leads to higher interest rates and the dreaded “R” word. Unfortunately, this will be an ever-intensifying concern.

There has been a great awakening around the globe after two years of Covid, during which we had requirements and excuses to stay home and avoid socializing. There were countless stories in the trade and mainstream press as we witnessed streaming viewership’s outsized growth about isolation’s impact on our insatiable appetite for entertainment – escape. And binge-watching – which was already a trend after Netflix tossed a hand grenade into the linear schedule – only escalated during this period.

Certainly, Netflix finds itself with real competition for digital share of wallet for the first time in its history. Storied media companies have rolled out exclusive offerings that feature everything from hit television programs to blockbuster movie franchises: Batman, Star Trek, Yellowstone, Avengers from HBO Max, Paramount+, Peacock, Disney+, respectively. Many have regained rights to classic television hits that are endlessly bingeworthy.  Meanwhile, Netflix has increased its price, nearly doubling its monthly cost ($15.49 from $7.99 when it first launched) while cracking down on password-sharing as it, impressively, has saturated the market.

But while Netflix may have led the way in streaming, it may not be the best proxy for the subscription market opportunity. The company faces its own issues with stagnating growth and should not be mistaken for marketplace indicators. 

What is really happening

DCN’s 2021 research into the value of direct, trusted consumer relationships, brands as proxies for this trust, the needs and behaviors of Gen Z vs Gen Y, and the subscription market point to this lesson: Ignore Netflix and stay the course.

Most important are the lessons coming from studying the “next” generation. Consumer behavior is radically different in a world where payment and immediate gratification are merely a double tap of the thumb and face scan away on a mobile device. Paying for access to your favorite news or entertainment product, whether podcast, app or website, is no longer a foreign concept after hitting a “paywall.” Rather, it is little more than a friendly nudge along the way associating value with the products you love.

The number of people willing to pay for access to news and entertainment is increasing. In fact, Netflix’s greatest legacy for the market as a whole may have been leading the horse to the water. Netflix also worked with premium providers and helped build an appetite for great content and normalized paying for it.

What publishers seek

Now, distribution platforms from Apple to Google to Facebook are being pushed to finally act as true partners in driving subscription revenues and monetization for premium publishers. At times this nudge has had to come from regulatory threats in an effort to create more balanced bargaining power.

But what are publishers seeking? Publishers expect traffic to their owned and operated platforms and true ownership over the customer journey including the underlying transaction and customer data.

Publishers also want to take back control over the pricing, bundling, and messaging for their services from the distribution platforms. This allows a trusted publisher to extract and retain more subscription revenues by controlling their highly-valued brands and, importantly, the customer data from before, during, and after their subscription relationship. 

Putting things in perspective

For decades, the vast majority of digital content was available for free.

Meanwhile, Netflix built its business on spending (many would say excessively) on licensing and creating content. It helped rebuild the consumer appetite for quality content and experiences worth paying for. However, when we consider the implications of the company’s recent subscriber losses, we should not be so quick to predict a ripple effect across subscription-based businesses as a whole.

While a couple of news publishers, and a handful of other streamers count their subscribers in the tens of millions, the reality is that most publishers count theirs in the tens or hundreds of thousands. Thus, the basis for comparison with Netflix’s 220 million subscribers is specious at best. That’s like comparing a slowdown in Coca-Cola’s beverage sales to my kids’ driveway lemonade stand.

And the behavior of younger consumers points to a healthy appetite for great content and a willingness to pay for it. Now is not the time to panic, pivot, or radically shift your subscription strategy in Netflix’s wake. Instead, trust in the value of quality content well-delivered in trustworthy settings and know that audiences will be right there with you.

Featured Post | Perspectives | Policy

Magic wand meets crystal ball: My digital media predictions

It’s the start of a new year. So, two of the most popular questions I get are: 

“If publishers could wave their magic wand, what would they change about media?”  

“If you look into your crystal ball, what do you see for the future of publishers?”  

You may be surprised to hear this, but I don’t own a magic wand or a crystal ball, although I’d find either quite satisfying.  Despite my lack of magic tools, I do have predictions about the future: Publishers have never been closer to having many of their key needs being addressed in the market. I see a steady march towards meaningful change. And now, publishers only need to maintain the drive to follow through on what they’ve wished for.

All Posts

Market power of the “gatekeepers”  

On both sides of the Atlantic, legislation is emerging that limits the potential for, and real abuse of, market power. This will specifically impact “gatekeepers” like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple. The EU’s Digital Markets Act, which is expected to pass by summer, will put heightened obligations and constraints on gatekeepers. Meanwhile in DC, antitrust reform legislation has gained serious bipartisan momentum. 

In particular, two bills are front and center: the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the Open App Markets Act. These seek to limit platforms “preferencing” – highlighting or promoting – their own products and services, whether in advertising or content discovery and limit app stores in their ability to capture unfair profits. For many years, DCN has played a leading role in documenting the clear imbalance in market power. And now, for the first time, DCN has chosen to endorse legislation in our support of these two bills.  

Prediction #1: By the end of 2022, we will have the first laws passed that limit gatekeepers from abusing their market power.  

The emperor has no clothes  

Years ago, Facebook taught the market that it couldn’t be trusted as a business partner. And it has reinforced this fact again and again and again and yet again.

These days, most publishers treat Facebook as any other marketing channel in which the business value needs to be proved – it’s no longer the new, sexy test bed for marketing ideas. Of late, we see this in the lackluster performance of long-form video on IGTV, causing Facebook to once again pivot to short-form video with Reels. Long gone are the days in which Facebook would say “jump at this shiny new object” and publishers would respond “Yes! How high?”  

Through various lawsuits, Google finds itself in a similar situation. Publishers are finding out that the promises made by Google’s external ambassadors often differ wildly from the company’s internal ambitions. We see this in many ways, from how it conducts advertising auctions to its abuse of consumer data or the way it positioned Accelerate Mobile Pages (AMP). DCN recently surveyed our members to understand their thoughts on AMP and learned that more than half were re-evaluating their use and expect to stop participating because it significantly under-delivered on the revenue and promised value by Google.  

Prediction #2: Google and Facebook feel significant pressure for the first time to truly appease publishers through their commercial deals.   

Value of direct relationships with consumers and advertisers      

Facebook’s record one-quarter-of-a-trillion-dollar stock drop last week should signal optimism for publishers. There is significant movement in technology and public policy to align the value of data and attention with the sites and apps we trust — and actually choose to use. The downturn in Facebook’s fortunes is a sign that their core surveillance advertising business model no longer passes muster. 

Apple has played a leading role by cutting out much of the tracking done by companies with which consumers aren’t even interacting. This move led to a reduction in Facebook’s revenue expectations by $10 billion, a whopping number that represents more than half of our membership’s annual advertising revenues.  

Counter to the sky-is-falling-rhetoric posited by Facebook and Google’s trade bodies, this advertising investment won’t just “vanish into thin air.” Expect further market realignment as regulators flex in the EU and as California’s new law comes into enforcement in January 2023.  

Prediction #3: By 2023, the tracking of consumers and the use of third-party data to target them will have changed significantly under the pressure of legislation, lawsuits, and consumer preferences. 

Premium means premium  

We’ve long established that brands are proxies for trust and, in turn, value for both consumers and advertisers. As the advertising market continues to accelerate away from the 2020 slowdown, there is a noticeable shift appearing – validated in our DCN Benchmark Report – towards premium environments where advertisers can create desire and demand for their products. Often this entails instructing their agencies to be more focused on where their ads appear, a strong advantage for professional media over user-generated content.  

Additionally, consumers are speaking with their wallets louder than ever. DCN members are setting new highs for subscriptions across the board – from streaming services to news brands and from local to international. And as our Gen Z research showed, the kids are alright and more likely to put their money behind services that speak to their own values.   

Prediction #4: Although 2020-21 was an atypical growth period for subscriptions, expect steady growth in 2022 and beyond.  

The future we deserve 

If I did indeed wield a magic wand, I would curb data collection and limit it to the services people actually choose to use. I would also wave away the fear of giant gatekeepers, triggered by the sense that we can’t avoid them. They are not unassailable. What we see in terms of policy and public sentiment suggests exactly the opposite. 

Right now, the battle for a competitive, thriving, and plural publisher ecosystem sits at the integration of data and competition policy. For media brands to retain value and ensure that their news and entertainment isn’t seen as an interchangeable commodity, we must continue to push against unscrupulous data collection. 

Predictions and pressure prevail over magic. I see the power of the progress that has been made from the growing alignment of concerns globally and the education of those charged with regulating and policy making and maybe more importantly consumers and advertisers seeking out the trusted brands of the future.  

Featured Post | Perspectives | Policy

Avoid the hype. Focus on policy for 2022.

From political races to red carpet award shows and global sports competitions, there are very few “franchises” that aren’t being stretched longer and longer to capitalize on the public’s interest. We find ourselves once again at the time of year when industry prognosticators offer their curated lists, social media hot takes, and opinion pieces in an attempt to memorialize the most important events of 2021 and to make predictions for 2022.

In tech and internet policy circles, this cycle seems ironic, given that forecasts are delivered daily – often several times a day, depending on the latest news cycles. But as we head into the final stretch of 2021, I have a few thoughts about how we need to avoid the distractions and stay focused on the one big change likely to occur in the new year.

Reality check 

To start, I’ll set the table on what I am skeptical about focusing on as we move forward: anything “metaverse” or “creator economy.” And I’ve got some good reasons to hope that, as we head into a new year, we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past.

Amidst the current hype around virtual worlds, augmented reality has certainly emerged as a powerful tool. And it is entirely possible that virtual reality will have practical applications beyond gaming (and not akin to never-quite-there 3D TV).

However, I feel compelled to remind everyone how the pivot to video became an industry obsession. That massive shift was not because of consumer demand; it was driven by Mark Zuckerberg’s 2016 prediction that nearly everything on his kingmaker platform would be video within five years.

So much has happened in the ensuing five years, not the least of which has been a steady and escalating series of revelations of how utterly deceiving this particular CEO and his company have been. And, unsurprisingly (at least in retrospect), we learned that this prediction was at least partially built on a Facebook deception. And, while we can ask ourselves why we had so many years when Facebook said “jump” and publishers and marketers blindly responded, “how high?” – perhaps the most enduring and meaningful lessons are learned from mistakes.

Facebook is not alone in the self-serving prophecy business though. Google’s Accelerated Mobile Pages also became an industry obsession, not because it was in the consumers’ best interests as Google claimed. Rather, it was simply a function of another industry-take-all-platform shaping the market to its liking. As we recently learned in unsealed antitrust allegations, it was a means for Google to bolster its advertising interests by slowing down competition. 

Creative control 

The hype cycle is also obsessed with the “creator economy.” There is an absolute flurry of innovation in providing platforms for individual creators. Though this isn’t entirely new. Google’s YouTube, for example, has both inspired and capitalized on it for ages. The same can be said more recently about TikTok.

Yes, it is very exciting to watch. However, these creator models are essentially comprised of typical vendor services: subscriptions, newsletters, distribution and, more recently, audio services. It’s not a coincidence that much of the investment and press hype—bordering on industry obsession—can be tied back to Facebook or its board of directors. Don’t forget that the company has its own Substack-like “creator platform,” Bulletin. Neither the hype nor the investment is surprising, though, given Facebook’s longstanding interest in disrupting media institutions.

What you should really be watching in 2022 

The most important industry story of 2022 will continue to be the at-times dull, but critically important, accountability around antitrust and data policy. We can thank Facebook and Google for adding a sprinkle of excitement to these conversations through whistleblowers, code names (Project NERA, Bernanke, Jedi Blue, and Poirot to name a few) and improperly filed redactions. As an increasing number of privacy laws come into effect, regulators may want to consider more Star Wars-inspired naming conventions to spice things up a bit.

Names notwithstanding, we are going to see regulation continue to intensify next year. In the near term, Europe appears set to finalize two landmark regulations: the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act. If these prevail, Europe will be first to have a purpose-built “gatekeeper” law for the 21st century.

The Digital Markets Act addresses the imbalance in negotiating power in a networked economy that results in both individuals and businesses lacking autonomy and choice, which harms the public at large. It recognizes that no individual publisher or consumer can truly opt-out of Google’s search engine that scrapes the entirety of our lives via the internet. Almost as impossible to avoid are Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, which connect people to communities. And then there’s the binary mobile and app store marketplace, delivered by Apple’s iOS or Google’s Android.

With this level of market power, publishers and consumers have little to no choice in negotiating rights to their data and consent with these powerful gatekeepers. The European approach mirrors the work of Australia’s competition and consumer protection regulator — and it looks like U.S. authorities are headed in the same direction. In a market dominated by superpowers, regulation follows to govern how that market power is used or abused.

The Digital Services Act will then modernize the rules for content liability and possibly how advertising can be targeted when based on surveillance capitalism by companies that, in many cases, consumers don’t even intend to interact with. The DSA and DMA have two main goals: First, to create a safer digital space in which the fundamental rights of all users of digital services are protected. And second, to establish a level playing field to foster innovation, growth, and competitiveness, both in the European Single Market and globally. Not many can argue against these goals, it’s only a matter of whether the legislation will achieve them.

Bringing it home

In the U.S., California’s CCPA is currently the strongest data protection law for digital advertising stateside, followed closely by Colorado’s new law. However, as state and federal laws are negotiated to carry the baton, all eyes and minds are on Europe. There is an acute concern about making sure to address market power and create a sustainable path for publishers going forward, one that isn’t determined for us by industry gatekeepers like Facebook, Google and Apple. This likely requires laws that directly integrate competition and data policy rather than developing rules in the same room as the industry titans, which has failed to result in anything fair if even legal.

So, as we look forward, let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past. When the dominant digital power players press their self-serving agendas, we do not have to buy in. We don’t have to follow their lead. We don’t have to amplify their messages. And for goodness’ sake, we do not need to pivot.

Instead, we should stand our ground, steady on the bedrock of consumer trust and responsible business practices. If 2021 showed us anything, it is that consumers value great content. It’s what we do. And we will continue to do it well. Nothing meta about that.

Advertising | Featured Post | Perspectives | Supporter Spotlight | Video

4 Media industry twists and turns you don’t want to miss

The business of digital media is not dull. It can be a bit like the not-so-well-wish “may you live in interesting times,” though. Keeping up with it all is a big job for digital media executives tasked with keeping their organizations healthy and at the forefront of this industry. A clear-eyed look into what’s next is important in order to keep up with the pace of innovation in this industry. To help, I’ve outlined four trends I’m watching closely during the second half of 2021:

1. Pandemic-era rebound in advertising market

Big takeaway. Knocking on wood, but all digital revenue indicators are trending positive in 2021 through midyear for premium publishers. DCN distributed both its proprietary annual benchmark and first quarter revenue reports in the past month. The reports are only available to participating members. However, I can share the top-line good news: Year-over-year growth was strong. And that’s even prior to the favorable comparisons to the depressed market from the onset of Covid in the Spring of 2020. CPMs have also strengthened in the open market where advertisers are finally putting in more diligence to know where their money and brands are delivering.  

Watch this. The largest challenge to the premium publisher business is keeping pace with the massive consumption in the back-half of 2020 due to a record convergence of captive audiences and riveting news cycles. Putting aside what is good for our business for a moment, it’s nice to see outdoor activities once again competing for attention! And for the booming digital audio market, that has some upside as well.

Surprise twist. The Delta variant looks like it may drive many Americans back to some of our early 2020 habits. Clearly, Covid continues to concern all of us personally and professionally. How it impacts economic and media consumption trends is to be determined as we approach the Fall.

2. Privacy and data protection

Big takeaway. 2021 will be the year that killed “tracking” – regardless of how successfully Google protects the soft underbelly of its surveillance business model. Apple will continue to distance itself from Google in an effort to position itself as the consumer champion by carrying the privacy torch. They pressed forward with iOS 14.5 in Q2 with installations now approaching 75% of the market. Why does this matter? It’s the first major operating platform to require consumers to grant companies permission to track them outside of the apps they’re choosing to interact with.

Watch this. This move better aligns iOS with the tracking prevention values long held by the Safari browser and those increasingly held by consumers. Given the market power of Apple, it has triggered a war with Facebook, the second largest tracker on the internet. In fact, Apple’s impact on Facebook’s future revenues was mentioned repeatedly on Facebook’s Q2 earnings call yesterday with future headwinds dominating the press headlines (despite their efforts to talk about the future “metaverse.”) As global regulators have frequently noted, a majority of Facebook’s data (and with that, their revenue) has long been derived from tracking users.

Surprise twist. The Attorney General of California also announced last week that their office had accelerated sending out warning letters to companies that weren’t properly honoring consumers’ opt-out of tracking requests via the Global Privacy Control. This should send fear through Google and Facebook as California law has defined tracking consumers as a “sale of data.” That definition will be mighty uncomfortable for two empires built on exactly that. And the California AG’s moves will accelerate pressure to create a federal law where Facebook and Google already have multiple regulatory issues to deal with. All of this has forced industry to accelerate its “reality check.”

3. Growing consumer revenues

Big takeaway. After a robust 2020, consumer direct revenues — including subscriptions — continue to grow, albeit at a slower pace. Overall, non-advertising revenues grew in the first quarter of this year. And they are trending up to 30% so far this year.  

Watch this. Although “subscription fatigue” continues to be a topic of discussion, DCN’s prior research and industry trends have shown nothing short of an insatiable appetite for quality programming. Yes, even when it bears the price of subscription. It doesn’t hurt that making a purchase is now as easy as a thumbprint on mobile.

Surprise twist. Gen Z (yes, the kids who grew up with iOS) don’t seem to mind advertising. DCN will be releasing research in September that shows that Gen Z’ers (16-24) actually have something in common with Gen Y (25-40). Both groups are very open to advertising in their programming. Whether they pay or opt for a free service, the existence of advertising doesn’t seem to be a major factor for younger media consumers.  

4. Strong streaming market

Big takeaway. No market has had more of a dichotomy between advertising and subscription-supported models than the red-hot video market. In fact, DCN broke out the “advanced video” segment for the first time in our most recent quarterly revenue report. And it nearly tripled in our first year-over-year comparison. 

Watch this.  Apropos to this heading, America can’t seem to get enough to watch from these trusted brands (and DCN members): Disney Plus, HBO Max, Peacock, Discovery Plus, Paramount Plus, and the many other services that have gone direct to the consumer and are reaping the rewards.

Surprise twist. The 10-ton giant of streaming video, Netflix, missed earnings in Q2. It lost hundreds of thousands of U.S. subscribers in Q2, with metrics that looked more like a traditional cable TV company. Maybe it’s a momentary lapse from last year’s stay-at-home streamers. But it could be a sign of migration to the newest competitors. Either way, I’ll be watching.

Trend watching and trendsetting

As someone whose job it is to promote the value of quality and trusted media brands and to call out those who seek to disintermediate them, monitoring trends can be one of the most fluid and head spinning parts of the job. The team at DCN will continue to champion the trusted providers of content that informs, entertains, and delights because that is what consumers expect and what we believe will ensure a healthy future for our industry.

Rounding up these current trends, I see a lot to be excited about – particularly with the next generation – as we continue to learn the lessons, both good and bad, from the pandemic. It’s never a dull business and I can’t wait to see what’s next.

Advertising | Featured Post | Perspectives | Revenue

Aftershock: What the industry looks like after Apple’s privacy update

The tectonic plates of the internet advertising economy shifted last week as Apple began to push out iOS 14.5 to over one billion devices worldwide. We’re also feeling frequent tremors as various proposals to address Google’s unilateral decision to ban all third-party cookies bubble-up in the industry lava. As we react to this industry tumult, it is important to keep one thing in mind: Pervasive user “tracking” has eroded the advertising opportunities of publishers large and small.

Tech inventory takeover

Just over six years ago, nearly half of the impressions across DCN members’ websites and apps, including both video and display, were sold directly by the publisher. When we receive final 2020 numbers next month, we expect that number will have dipped below 20% for the first time. The driving force here is data.

Third-party adtech firms have a competitive data advantage because they are able to track users without their knowledge across the web and apps. This pervasive audience-targeting, combined with the scale and ease of buying through these large third parties, has significantly shifted sales channels away from publishers and into the arms of data aggregators.

Tech financial takeover

Shifting to a reliance on third parties to sell 80% of publisher impressions didn’t need to be bad. Unfortunately, it is. Very bad indeed.

A majority of these ads are purchased based on microtargeted audiences — often using Apple’s IDFA or third-party cookies as a proxy for real people. In this process, publishers’ apps and websites are treated as interchangeable commodities. These third parties, Google being the largest, extract data and detach it from the inventory. This allows audiences to be targeted elsewhere on the web at the cheapest price available. That’s why advertising purchased directly from a publisher is sold at 5x the rate of inventory purchased through these third-party channels. Publishers are able to monetize the value of their brand, content and user relationships when selling the ads rather than being repackaged into a nameless audience bundle.

Two big winners: the two biggest “trackers”

In the two largest sales channels (Facebook and Google), premium publishers’ inventory must also compete against the two firms’ own inventory, and an insurmountable data advantage.

Between 2015 and 2019, this data advantage allowed the “duopoly” to capture 86% of the incremental U.S. digital advertising growth. Last year, the trend continued with the two taking 87% of the digital advertising market growth in the U.S.

Industry, regulators and, most importantly, the public, have grown to understand the core of the two companies’ business models relies on unbridled data collection. The numbers below clearly back this up. The bar chart on the left shows the change in sales channels of U.S. digital advertising from 2015 to 2019 and the percentage of the growth (right pie chart) captured by only two companies in 2020. 

The privacy and data protection scale is tipping

There is little debate that users overwhelmingly choose privacy over tracking when they are asked which they prefer. The most famous privacy law to date, Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), has yet to fully bare its teeth. However, it is grounded in clear purpose limitations that minimize tracking and other uses of data that fall outside consumer expectations without very specific consent.

This inspired the most significant privacy law in, not coincidentally, the most populous U.S. state: California. Its latest incarnation (CPRA), which allows users to opt-out of tracking, is set to go into effect next year. It has even spawned the Global Privacy Control (GPC) to make this a simpler process which the Attorney General has recently endorsed as legally enforceable. 

Meanwhile, Apple’s restricted use of its universal identifier IDFA, which has long been used for tracking, in the latest push of its iOS. Apple now mandates, for the first time, that apps ask their users to make a choice: They need to either ask the app not to track them or give explicit consent to track them. Unfortunately, this can create collateral damage even when an identifier is only being used by a service provider to the publisher that the user values and trusts.

Early reads on the data are that well over 90% of the users choose not to be tracked. So, Facebook had good reason to predict an earthquake coming its way since it’s not a service provider — but is the poster child of distrust. I can’t endorse a podcast more highly to distill the implications of this battle between Apple and Facebook than NYT The Daily. They elegantly illustrate that this is a high-stakes global war. And it’s patently obvious you wouldn’t want to line up on the side of Facebook in a battle over privacy.

But won’t this hurt ad prices and only make Google and Facebook stronger?

The two key arguments against data protection like Apple’s update are that 1) it will hurt ad prices and 2) make the duopoly even stronger. Indeed, third-party inventory is worth a lot more when it is coupled with third-party data. Unsurprisingly, adtech-funded research likes to tout this.

However, that perspective only looks at prices for a narrow type of targeting. There are very few empirical studies that examine the full marketplace. And these tend to show only modest benefit to publishers from unbridled third-party data. Publishers that have leaned into their first-party data ahead of the market are in a position of strength going forward. And, as the bar gets raised across the industry, they should see the increase in value from other more acceptable forms of targeting. Blunt technical solutions that fail to understand the nuance and trust of the publisher pose a risk to this opportunity.

In terms of Google and Facebook getting stronger, remember that they already have an insurmountable data advantage and their business results back it up. Clearly, Facebook wouldn’t have run national ad campaigns against Apple (even — ironically — threatening an antitrust lawsuit), if Apple shutting down IDFA tracking would have actually helped Facebook. 

And no one actually believes that the Facebook behemoth is the champion of small business. They claim that personalized ads are the lifeblood of small business advertising and that offering consumers the option to forgo tracking would limit these businesses’ ability to effectively reach customers. Apple, however, points out that users are welcome to opt-in to data collection, thereby enabling personalized advertising. And let’s face it: In a privacy first digital advertising environment, those with first party data and trusted relationships with audiences will still reach them.

However, Facebook’s data dominance isn’t based upon a clear exchange of data for services. In fact, U.K. regulators issued a report (figure 2.3, page 50) showing that more than 50% of Google and Facebook’s data is collected when people aren’t actually intending to use a Google or Facebook service. This is the very definition of the kind of unbridled “tracking” that is so damaging to trust and the digital advertising business. That’s a critical data point — and one these companies aren’t crowing about in national ad campaigns. 

Ok, yes, both companies have a significant amount of first-party data. However, shifts towards privacy pose a significant challenge to keeping this data fresh and enriching their interest profiles. This is spelled out in their 10Ks every time they file. Additionally, antitrust lawsuits focused on their data practices, along with new regulations like the Digital Markets Act in Europe, are squarely directed at them. Soon, they will appropriately put heightened data limitations on these powerful “gatekeepers.”

What to do if you’re a premium publisher

These changes are happening with or without us. The timeline, like all tectonic shifts, is unpredictable but the aftermath will be significant. However, publishers who understand the possibilities, see the emerging white space, invest in their direct consumer relationships, and are forthright about user expectations will have an advantage. Risks lie in allowing large tech platforms and lawmakers to define the terms and conversations impacting premium publishers.

I encourage publishers to lean into DCN to make sure we’re properly informed on your plans. We’re here to help you evaluate the risks and face unexpected challenges. DCN has technology supporters that are paving the way for publishers who need help. No doubt, there are elements of Apple’s move which can break core, and expected, functionality as they limit tracking.

Apple has used the definition of “tracking” developed years ago by a multistakeholder group, which included DCN and all sides of the industry. However, blunt technical enforcement always creates unintended consequences. We need to understand these issues so that we can help guide tech firms, lawmakers, and regulators to address consumer interests and the publishers who serve them day in and day out.

We feel the digital advertising landscape shifting. Yes, things will get broken. Some of those will not be missed, however. And, when the dust settles and we take stock of the reshaped landscape, we will see that the crumbling cookie and the fall of pervasive and invasive “tracking” will clear the way for our industry to build better solutions. These will be based upon quality experiences and transparent and in-context data collection. And this, in turn, will build a strong foundation for effective marketing and revenue that rewards companies that truly value their customers.

Featured Post | Policy

Australia’s new media bargaining code: What’s really up down under

“Don’t worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia.”

—Charles M. Schultz

For those focused on where the future of the internet media economy is headed, all eyes turned to Australia in recent weeks. And, despite a last-minute PR spin campaign filled with half-truths and outright deception by pundits around the world vying to influence the debate, the end result is a new law, the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code, which foreshadows the future for Google and Facebook.

We’ve had enough hot takes. It’s time to kill off, once and for all, the disinformation, misinformation, and talking points of the infamous duopoly, which I’ll try to do here by busting 10 myths. (Happy to talk through any of these further. Just reach out: publicly or privately.)

Myth busting

1. The bargaining code resulted from an arbitrary process.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. The Australian government undertook a thorough, multi-year process to establish this new law. Importantly, its competition regulator (ACCC) spent nearly two years investigating the dominance of Google and Facebook. The result was a 600+ page report that clearly demonstrates the imbalanced bargaining power held by the duopoly. At the same time, the Australian government – with support from all political parties – formulated a public policy decision about how to better fund journalism. The only assumption made was that the press is critically important to democracy. This should not be a controversial assumption. 

2. The inventor of the web has called this a “link tax” that will break the internet.

Yes, Tim Berners-Lee wrote a letter rightly expressing his concern that if it was possible to require payment for links throughout the web, it could break the internet. In the letter, he often hedged and clearly wasn’t focused on the specifics of the law, which does not require payment for links. We’ve seen this “link tax” talking point high on Google’s list in the past. And it’s a galvanizing force for defenders of the open web – as it should be. The law does mention linking but only in the context of describing what a digital platform does by publishing, curating, and linking to the news. It’s narrowly focused on the two platforms and in no way does it suggest a platform should be required to compensate for its links to news outlets.

3. Facebook won key concessions at the final hour.

The concessions for Facebook were, in fact, relatively minor. When Facebook pulled news off Australian users’ feeds, their goal was to trigger global outrage, shake up the press cycles, and turn the globe against Australia. Then, by throwing its PR might behind some elegant spinning about a great compromise, Facebook saved face. That’s all they did.

The final concessions included the addition of a couple windows of time (measured in months) in which Facebook will lobby and protest about having to pay for news. The “concessions” also included two changes that clarify the mechanics of the code.

4. This law is a gift to Murdoch and hurts everyone else.

Yes, News Limited has a lot of influence in Australia as its leading news company. In fact, as the ACCC Chairman noted, 80-90% of the journalists in Australia work for one of three companies (News, Nine, ABC). However, the idea that Google or Facebook would negotiate with these three companies and hang the other 10% of the market out to dry seems very unlikely considering the modest amount of additional funds it will take to round out the rest of the industry.

Having spent a significant amount of time on Australia’s 600+ page report, I would suggest that the law is much more clearly in the camp of increasing bargaining power for all journalism. It’s hard to argue that any news publisher with more than $150k in revenue per year isn’t better off with this law in place. Moreover, the law also allows for publishers to collectively bargain if they prefer. That does seem likely if they’re not getting what they need from Facebook and Google.

5. News Corp’s global deal with Google will result in settlements of antitrust lawsuits.

This anti-antitrust argument is the silliest thing I’ve heard. There is no greater fallacy in digital media right now than attributing the global antitrust scrutiny on Google and Facebook to one or even just a few parties. The antitrust lawsuits currently filed have the weight of the U.S. government, in 49 out of 50 states, and both parties in Congress.

The cases are robust, particularly the Texas-led advertising tech case against Google (which mirrors some of the work of the ACCC), Congress. Another is from the CMA, which is the UK’s comparable regulator. It also alleges a Section 1 charge of bid rigging between Facebook and Google. No market regulator walks away from these cases based on the whims of one complainant. The work in Australia has only added weight to these cases.

6. Publishers in Europe should be celebrating.

Globally, there is a lot of positive reaction to the work done in Australia. However, it’s also notable that the European market has been working for even longer on better funding professional content. In successfully passing an updated copyright directive, they’ve taken an approach that establishes additional rights for publishers through a publisher’s “neighboring right.”

Importantly, the European approach is not restricted to just news. It covers all content including snippets offered on Facebook and Google. France was first to bake this new right into law. Google responded by trying to avoid paying for anything that they’ve historically taken for free.

They’ve even invented a new product offering, Google News Showcase, to bury their payments and bundle in all rights needed. This minimizes any increased bargaining power for publishers, which has caused even more scrutiny. This opaque bundling of payment for rights by Google and Facebook keeps popping up wherever they face regulatory threats. If payment for snippets isn’t clearly delineated, and the financial terms aren’t transformative, the EU is likely to view Australia’s new law as a missed opportunity.  

7. Government will set an arbitrary price for platforms to pay for news content.

The reality is that Australia has come up with a solution that uses market forces by requiring negotiated deals with publishers ahead of a mandatory bargaining code or an arbitration process. It uses a clever “final offer” process (also known as “baseball arbitration”) to finalize deal terms. In both cases, the government recognizes its weaknesses in over regulating a fast-growing digital marketplace. Instead, it leverages its antitrust enforcement to create a carrot and then a stick to get companies benefiting from a gross imbalance in bargaining power to the table to properly and quickly negotiate.

8. A straight platform tax would be a better solution.

The simple problem with a straight tax is all content would need to be “treated equally.” A click on Breitbart would have the same value as a click on The Wall Street Journal. The government would then divvy up a pot of money between everyone. This creates all sorts of uncomfortable government leverage over news. And one can only imagine how they would choose to split the loot. Think about the market incentives if they divided it up based on monthly uniques or page views. Better to push negotiations back into the market where intangibles such as brand, heritage, trust, consumer perception, and scoops have significant value.

9.This is unique to Australia and won’t translate to other countries.

Every lawmaker in Canada, Europe, the U.K., and U.S. who is focused on these issues will draft off Australia. Arguably, this was the biggest concern for Google and Facebook. They hoped to limit discussion to an island on the other side of the world. Our global market no longer works this way. Everyone learns from each other. Despite Facebook and Google’s ability to leverage their global dominance to protect their fortresses through trade deals, lobbying, and ducking lawmakers, the whole world is catching up to them.

Also, there are major allies in these fights to support the free and plural press. Microsoft, one of the few companies larger than Google or Facebook, has aligned with publishers on the new policies in Australia and Europe. (Forgive me, as Microsoft’s support evokes the classic “That’s not a knife” scene in Crocodile Dundee.)

10. Facebook and Google have pledged $1 billion each to news publishers so we should be happy.

Together, these two companies will easily surpass $250 Billion in global advertising revenues in 2021 without even participating in China. As of now, they’ve pledged $1 billion each towards journalism over three years. Thus, Google and Facebook are pledging barely 0.2% of their global advertising revenues towards journalism. Facebook’s protesting of payments was evidence in itself for Representative Cicilline to state that the company “is no longer compatible with democracy.” (And I tip my hat to the publisher that flatly stated that Facebook’s offer was not enough.)

These are two globally-scrutinized companies which pride themselves on moonshots. Yet they have failed to properly address how their algorithms help spread misinformation, disinformation. This has led to genocide in Myanmar, an insurrection on our Capitol, and health misinformation causing untold illness and death worldwide … to name just a few “unintended consequences.”

The future is now

The simple fact is that Facebook prefers to pay into journalism no more than it does for fake news from Macedonia, while continuing to grow its nearly $100 billion per year business of surveilling and microtargeting citizens with ads against the cheapest engagement available. They’ve devalued context. They’ve devalued facts. And they’ve devalued journalism for profits. In Australia, we see democracy fighting back.

Australia’s law has been endorsed by all major political parties in a representative democracy as a means to better fund journalism. Importantly, though this was rarely discussed, the code has a one-year review period to see how it’s working. If you listened too closely to American pundits the last few weeks, you would have thought this was the end of the open Internet – hypocrisy considering the closed platforms of those who shaped it.

The law prevailed. The world didn’t end.  In fact, it’s already tomorrow in Australia. They are ahead on this one, and there is a lot we can learn from it.

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.