Forum Moderators: martinibuster
[huffingtonpost.com...]
there are other ad agencies available offering better deals?
I just don't see how they're suddenly an evil monopoly.
Would the majority of publishers stay with Google or move to Yahoo? Would Google respond (improved their services/behaviour) in order to attract the lost publishers again? Very likely yes.
Do you see what real competition could do? But Google is a near-monopoly and that's why they don't have to improve a single thing the publishers would like them to (even though they occasionally do). The only thing they now really need to care about are their net revenues (not about you).
The advertisers are treated like partners; they are given proper support, etc. Non-premium publishers are not treated like partners. They are treated like something dispensable.
[edited by: true_INFP at 9:23 am (utc) on Mar. 7, 2009]
There are certainly cases to be made for more transparency on Google's side (even though I also see why they can't) - but this one ain't it. This guy lucked out big time.
Instead of banning the publisher completely from AdSense for his lifetime right away, was it that hard to inform the publisher that he was violating the Program Policy and to give him 2 working days to correct it? (If the violations are repeated, then go ahead ban the publisher).
Was that really that hard?
We are just human beings who make mistakes. Even Google often does. That is not a good way to treat business partners.
There are lots of reasons that an agreement might be terminated, and many agreements can be terminated for no reason at all. But money owed by Party A of the first part to Party B of the second part, where the debt was incurred prior to termination of the agreement, isn't cancelled just because Party A of the first part elects to exercise his right to terminate the agreement.
So I think the judge correctly decided that since Google failed to produce any evidence that the money owed to the guy was invalid, and was rightfully Google's to keep, they had to pay him for his earnings up through the termination date of his account.
There could well be a lot more of these types of cases, and Google may have to start producing evidence of fraud if they don't want to pay people what they're owed up through account termination.
Would the majority of publishers stay with Google or move to Yahoo? Would Google respond (improved their services/behaviour) in order to attract the lost publishers again? Very likely yes.
It's still not a real monopoly. They have the greater share of the market because of superior product and services and people prefer them over more inept competition. But people still have a wide variety of choice for their advertising platform, whether contextual, CPM or affiliate based.
A true monopoly is a situation where people have little or no choice but to use the service of one company because of artificial factors that prohibits other companies to compete with them, and if they refuse to do so, they have to live without that product or service completely.
Like Sunshine1, I believe this case is extremely significant, and could be the start of ending G's ability to be secretive in every aspect of their relationship with others. I've always believed that some of G's practices are illegal - contract or not.
I'm no lawyer, but I'm fairly certain some contracts are illegal and can be overturned. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if some aspects of G's contracts fit into that.
And while I would hope that only "good" (for publishers) comes of this, I also worry that in the end, it will be bad for us instead, if one day we wake up to having G dump its adsense program completely for legal reasons.
A true monopoly is a situation where people have little or no choice but to use the service of one company
dazzlindonna, I was referring to another poster saying they were dealing with other companies that were more transparent. I would call their service a better, overall, deal if transparency was such an important issue for you. The percentage google take is not important, what's important is the bottom line. But that poster proceeded to call Google a monopoly. I just don't see how it is so when they apparently were also dealing with "better" competitors.
[edited by: Deno at 9:46 pm (utc) on Mar. 7, 2009]
It looks like the whiny author of the article was putting Adsense ads on a domain without content. I have no sympathy for him. Google should have easily won if the paralegal knew why he was disabled.
But that was the whole point: Google refused to tell him why they terminated the account. If they had, it would have never ended up in court.
Can you set the price on the inventory going to Google?
With Google Ad Manager you can set a minimum eCPM.
With Google Ad Manager you can set a minimum eCPM.
You can? I don't see that anywhere.
You can? I don't see that anywhere.
From the Ad Manager Features Page [google.com]
Yield optimization
Optional AdSense Integration: Use AdSense to fill unsold inventory or compete on price against other ad networks...
From the Ad Manager Features Page
I don't appear to have one of those.
Like Sunshine1, I believe this case is extremely significant, and could be the start of ending G's ability to be secretive in every aspect of their relationship with others.
You're going to be disappointed. It was a small claims case. It sets no precedent. For others even to copy the strategy, they'd have to go file a claim in the same court used by the guy in the article--the small claims court where Google is located. This is not going to set off an avalanche.
I don't appear to have one of those.
Here ya' go [google.com]. ;)
I believe this case is extremely significant...
Purplecape is correct. Small claims cases set no precedents. There is nothing significant about this case. Beyond that, Google has the right to appeal. If Google does appeal then it will be heard in a regular court and they'll likely be heard by a full time professional judge, instead of a pro tem as in the original hearing.
About Pro tem judges
Pro tem judges are attorneys or sometimes retired judges from other counties sitting in as judges. They can (can, but not always) be exceedingly liberal in their judgements, overlooking points of law and evidence to render judgements based on their personal feelings. I know of one pro tem who used to render judgement in favor of the little guy over the landlord or business 100% of the time. She was consistent. Even her attitude toward the businesses was curt, snarling at them and interrupting their testimony. While to the little guy she showered them with the sunshine of her smile and a reassuring tone of voice. It was obvious she had an agenda. Every judge is different, but I have found that once you get bumped up the rulings tend to follow on from actual evidence and legal points.
Searching the Santa Clara County court records online, I was only able to find one other small claims ruling that went against Google. The overwhelming majority were ruled in Google's favor.
The case is significant not from a legal standing but from a psychological one. It shows that Google can lose when placed in a position of equal legal footing with the 'little guy' and that it doesn't cost much to file a claim. Considering the large amounts of monies owed to some booted publishers, $40 and the price of a cheap airline ticket and lodging, are small costs (and nearly all tax deductible for businesses).
Google could appeal a case but doing so could potentially result in a precedent setting ruling against them, which is why probably why they haven't yet chose to exercise that right. Even if Google were to appeal and win, the losing party would only be responsible for $150 for Google's attorney's fees.
[edited by: Key_Master at 8:44 am (utc) on Mar. 8, 2009]
For example, Microsoft. Their Windows is not the only operating system available. Users can choose good alternative systems, like Mac OS X (10% market share) or Linux (1%). Yet, the US government and the EU still treat Microsoft as a real monopoly and have ordered them many times to comply with various anti-monopoly regulations and directives (they were ordered to pay huge fines, to remove the media player and other products, to open and publish API specifications, etc.)
Google is exactly in the same position now and that's why they backed out of the Yahoo Search - AdWords outsourcing deal.
[edited by: true_INFP at 11:32 am (utc) on Mar. 8, 2009]
Yet, the US government and the EU still treat Microsoft as a real monopoly and have ordered them many times to comply with various anti-monopoly regulations and directives
I understand but I still don't see the anti-competitive behavior from Google that got Microsoft in trouble (for example, punishing PC makers that allowed other OS to be installed on their products, etc, it's a long list). Google is at the top because they are the best, not because of some predatory practices or monopolistic abuse of power. Just because some people won't settle for less than the best does not make them the only choice. Yahoo!, Adbrite, Kontera, Chikita, Amazon, just to name a few in the contextual field, are there arms open waiting to steal Google's publishers. So they don't perform as well.. I think that's irrelevant to the discussion.. and certainly not Google's fault.
Is Google behaving unfairly in a way that is detrimental to a healthy free market? No. Are they discouraging competition in the industry? Quite the opposite, as the web industry has very little barriers to entry, "me toos" are springing left and right.
Please promote this story to the front page.
Sunshine1, we got it the first time, chill.
I understand but I still don't see the anti-competitive behavior from Google
It's not about illegal anti-competitive behavior per se. We don't have to worry about that because the authorities watch them (see the recent Yahoo outsourcing case). It's about something else. Read the message #3864954 in this thread to get the idea of what could change if Google had real competition.
monopolistic abuse of power
How do you know they do not abuse their power? How do you know they don't adjust the Adsense payout to publishers as they see fit, to "trim" their bottom line? How do you know they really do pay back the money they received from advertisers for clicks on cancelled accounts? How do you know?
True_INFP: That makes them a dominant player who's maybe too comfortable because the competition is a distant second, not a monopoly. I'm all for Google doing the extra mile, but for now, I'll still take what is the best advertising platform, warts and all. I'm the first one to say, for example, that I wish we had info on sites or channels being smart priced, otherwise, how else can we improve or fix the problem, so I don't think they're perfect. But it's up to competitors to catch up, not Google to be perfect.
I'll always remember when they decided to give 1 gig of space for the Gmail service while Yahoo and MS made you
Smart company with smart direct marketing its not altruism ;)
Again, I know what the TOS says, however Google’s actions in this case is of an organizations that does not have a high regard for publishers – if any. The argument that they can do anything they want (see article) “"Google can terminate your account for any reason," she told me.” Is incredibly arrogant and reflective of a company not worried at all about their competitive position.
I follow Google’s AdSense TOS to the letter but I doubt that Google will conduct due diligence or treat me with professional (equitable) consideration in any dispute or misunderstanding.
