To the Editor:
“Google Dominates a Hidden Sector With No Rules,” by Dina Srinivasan (Feeling guest essay, June 25), can make claims about our promotion technological know-how organization that we strongly disagree with.
Impartial studies present that the costs we charge our associates are decrease than the industry typical. In truth, the 100 largest information publishers — numerous of which have in-household revenue teams that execute lots of of the functions furnished by Google’s ad sales, trade and brokerage operations — employing our applications retain much more than 95 percent of the income that their advert space earns, a significantly cry from the 50 % Ms. Srinivasan cites.
Whilst one segment of Ms. Srinivasan’s essay refers to advert intermediaries in standard, our promoting instruments do not outcome in publishers “selling for up to 50 percent a lot less than what it if not would,” as Ms. Srinivasan suggests. In actuality, our exploration demonstrates that publishers’ profits improves when they use our applications — that’s why they select to use them!
Ms. Srinivasan has disregarded the inconvenient actuality that this marketplace is hugely competitive — with rivalry between family names like Adobe, Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, Facebook, Oracle, Twitter and Information Corp, a organization for which Ms. Srinivasan has consulted. We also deal with competitors from a legion of lesser-identified but quick-rising opponents like The Trade Desk and Magnite. Numerous of these rivals also supply ad platforms and equipment very similar to ours that cater to the two advertisers and publishers.
While it may perhaps be an inconvenient reality for the lawsuits she is championing, it is obvious that level of competition in on line promoting technologies has lowered advert tech service fees and expanded options for publishers and advertisers.
The author is director of economic coverage at Google.