| 2:41 pm on Jun 14, 2008 (gmt 0)|
whether you love google, or not...I think them getting yahoo! is bad for everyone in the long run. i don't want, or trust them controlling my advertising costs in any way, shape, or form....nor could i understand anyone else wanting 1 company with this much power.
and the article so said that goog or yahoo doesn't "set the prices, its done by auction." that's a lie. yahoo just recently implimented "minimum bids" which sets the prices for certain keywords. and we all know about the google $10 minimum bid...
this deal clearly restricts competition, and is bad for everyone involved in Internet marketing.
| 3:14 pm on Jun 14, 2008 (gmt 0)|
It is also bad for web publishers who are *fully depend* upon adsense content network. Yahoo already started its own blog like content network targeting all niche. Now this deals...
| 3:49 pm on Jun 14, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Hehehe, I looked at the title of this topic...
|Google Deal With Yahoo Raises Antitrust Questions |
Then I visited the linked resource. The first thing I see is this...
|Google, already the world's dominant Web company, keeps on growing. |
Antitrust? Snicker, snicker, snicker. And then as you read through the article, you see statements like this...
|Google is the runaway leader in Internet search advertising in the United States; Yahoo is a distant second. |
|"There is a lot at stake here," the source said. "If an advertiser wants to find an audience on the Internet, they have to go to Google." |
^ It appears that Google has "already" secured that position, yes?
|Our position has been clear since April that any deal between these two companies will increase prices for advertisers and start to consolidate more than 90 percent of the search advertising market in Google's hands. |
What percentage of that does Google have now? 70%? 80%? Google owns the Internet.
| 6:16 am on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
that's suck. how could millions of small businesses like us depend on just 1 golliath. (can you handle the google's dance recently? not me!) the internet suppose to be for everyone and now it suck to see that 1 company control everything.
Google is like an emperor now (we all make money for him) and you don't want to mess with him or you ask for troubles. Imagine that if you in the market that Big G thinking to enter then you're very much a dead meat.
Google is to big for you to even have a chance!
| 3:12 pm on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
If I get too choose between a Google monopoly (that they might already have somewhat, but without any lock-in) and a Microsoft one (that would happen if they had gotten hold of Yahoo! (that would get loads of lock-in through their Windows, Office, Internet Explorer, Media player, and other illegally (they are convicted) created monopolies), I'd go for Google anytime.
| 3:44 pm on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
swa66, i'm betting the google monopoly will one day make the microsoft monopoly look like a democracy...mark my words.
google is going to do to small businesses online what wal-mart did to them offline.
| 3:49 pm on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The point is that if Google started to abuse its monopoly like Microsoft did, then people would just switch to another search provider like they did when Google first came on the scene. At the time Altavista and Yahoo ruled the web. It is very much harder to switch your OS than to switch your search provider.
Google has no ability to abuse the monopoly so why should they be open to anti-trust investigations? Them owning 70% of search and advertising does not stop me from starting my own search engine so it does not impact competition.
|google is going to do to small businesses online what wal-mart did to them offline. |
How would they be able to do that? Why would they want to do it? Wal-mart actually sells goods, Google is just an advertiser. Why would Google have an interest in closing small businesses?
| 6:48 pm on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
my point is, if you use ppc, and google starts abusing advertisers..where are you going to move? ask.com?
whether you love google, or not, this is bad because advertising costs are eventually going to go up for all, you watch.
ppc just happens to be a big arm of my marketing. i'm sure it is for many online small businesses as well. when prices to advertise via ppc go up, how are we to survive?
look, i'm not saying google wants to put small businesses out of business, but this will certainly happen as how can small business budgets compete with the larger companies?
my bottom line: tell me just ONE good thing for us ppc advertisers that will come of this yahoo/google partnership? I sure can't think of any.
| 7:02 pm on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
You would think that advertisers would get more eyeballs for their ads. Why would that be bad?
| 7:07 pm on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I don't think there is a case for antitrust issue - G and Y are not merging to become one entity (unlike ex-proposed Y and MS deal). This is simply a business deal between two companies...
but I am not a lawyer nor I slept at Holiday Inn last night
[edited by: Tastatura at 7:09 pm (utc) on June 15, 2008]
| 7:20 pm on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|whether you love google, or not, this is bad because advertising costs are eventually going to go up for all, you watch. |
I think you are right. Google controlling everything could not be good.
I wonder, will Yahoo will be allow to display the Google's ads on their wonderful "search partners" network?
| 8:24 pm on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
wow this blows, if you get banned on google, you get a free ticket to one on Yahoo too!
| 8:26 pm on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|You would think that advertisers would get more eyeballs for their ads. Why would that be bad? |
more eyeballs are good....paying more is bad.
over the past few years, my ROI has been increasing. PPC costs are at an all time high. this deal with yahoo/goog goes thru....i forsee ppc costs raising up to 50% within the next 1 to 3 years.
like i said, tell me one good thing this deal does for advertisers. let me rephase: how is this deal going to help our bottom line: ROI?
BTW: i think come august, the yahoo shareholders are going to boot the board, and go to on their knees to mircosoft and make a deal. a window is still open for that. clearly the street thinks this potential partnership is bad for yahoo...i mean, when is the last time google partnered with a company and their stock went down?!
| 8:32 pm on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I think you are right. Google controlling everything could not be good. |
yeah, and appearently many other advertisers feel the same way:
| 8:18 am on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
If this deal reaches the UK, then Google will be responsible for 90%+ of searches where PPC is shown. I can't see how competition regulators will allow this to take place. To give advertisers a better choice of where to spend their PPC budgets, it would be better for M$ and Yahoo to tie up.
| 12:00 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Just to repeat - there is nothing wrong with having 90% or even 100% of a market (lots of companies do).
The competition regulators are looking to see if they adversely affect competition.
I do not see how this would affect competition. Anyone could set up a search engine and an ad serving platform tomorrow and if they provide a good service then everyone would switch straight away. It is not like you are locked in or there are unnatural barriers to entry.
| 12:17 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|You would think that advertisers would get more eyeballs for their ads. Why would that be bad? |
Its not about eyeballs, its about conversions. Yahoo has a different niche market and concept of browser than Google so advertising how you do on google doesn't convert on Yahoo. If they allow me to directly target yahoo through adwords then why go with Yahoo to begin with? (wouldn't they lose marketshare instantaniously?)
| 12:20 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I do not see how this would affect competition. Anyone could set up a search engine and an ad serving platform tomorrow and if they provide a good service then everyone would switch straight away. It is not like you are locked in or there are unnatural barriers to entry. |
False.. the day and age of whizbangery financial wheeling and deeling to make it so just isn't there. The bar is set SO high that you need a 10 billion dollar company to compete or even attempt to compete against google.
The day and age of "Searching 100 million pages" is gone. I can do that on a small cluster of PC's running nutch. Hell, i've attempted to do it on the billions of pages but people are so ingraned to google it didn't get any traffic or traction. (mostly because i couldn't offer them money like google does)
A federalized search where webmasters are compensated and allowed control over their corpus may be the next best thing in search, but another google will never happen.
| 12:35 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|False.. the day and age of whizbangery financial wheeling and deeling to make it so just isn't there. The bar is set SO high that you need a 10 billion dollar company to compete or even attempt to compete against google. |
That is a natural barrier to entry, its nothing to do with anti-trust law. All you really need is a good idea, some prototype code that proves the idea. You will find it easy to get money to fund it.
|A federalized search where webmasters are compensated and allowed control over their corpus may be the next best thing in search, but another google will never happen. |
Formalise this idea, then draw up some POC code and then take it to Microsoft, I am sure they will give you as many billions as you like if it looks like it might kill Google. Google is not another Yahoo or Altavista but that does not mean it is not better than them.
| 5:36 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
mikedee, you still haven't answered my question: how is this deal going to benefit ppc advertisers in any way? bottom line, how is this going to put more money in our pockets?
| 6:27 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Google might also be investing into a free operating system to make vista redundant :-)
| 7:27 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Why would the deal HAVE to benefit PPC advertisers? It probably benefits Google and Yahoo and would bring more clicks to your ads (assuming the CTR remains the same). The benefit to you is probably debatable, but thats nothing to do with anti-trust.
| 4:13 am on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
it doesn't have to benefit adveristers..my point is, its a bad deal for advertisers, ppc advertisers...that's all
| 4:57 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|State attorneys general might also be tempted to look into the arrangement, said a source close to Microsoft's thinking. |
Yes, they might be tempted.
Whether or not this is an anti-trust issue will be relevant to Yahoo's continued desire to compete in the search-marketing industry. The article implies that Google will only be taking over part of Yahoo's search marketing, but begs the question "How much?"
I agree that the immediate financial boost could certainly strengthen Yahoo!, but if they fall out of the market entirely, you can call it YaGoo!
Still, I don't think Yahoo has given up yet. I'm guessing their going to invest the money they make into their community and attempt to solidify their search-base that way; they've seemed sort of leaky. What's their search market (not marketing) share? 25%? Once they take care of that, though, I think we'll see a significant investment into Yahoo! Search Marketing and a termination of the Google deal.
I'm just waiting for Google to create The Singularity. Come ooon December 21st, 2012 baby! Daddy needs a new pair of shoes!
| 5:44 pm on Sep 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The following message was cut out to new thread by engine. New thread at: goog/3742150.htm [webmasterworld.com]
6:36 pm on Sep. 10, 2008 (utc +1)