To the Editor:
“Google Dominates a Hidden Market With No Rules,” by Dina Srinivasan (Viewpoint visitor essay, June 25), makes promises about our marketing technological innovation company that we strongly disagree with.
Impartial reviews present that the charges we demand our partners are lower than the business common. In reality, the 100 major information publishers — a lot of of which have in-household gross sales groups that conduct quite a few of the functions offered by Google’s advert sales, trade and brokerage functions — making use of our instruments keep additional than 95 % of the earnings that their advert space earns, a considerably cry from the 50 per cent Ms. Srinivasan cites.
Even though one particular portion of Ms. Srinivasan’s essay refers to advertisement intermediaries in general, our marketing applications do not end result in publishers “selling for up to 50 % much less than what it if not would,” as Ms. Srinivasan implies. In point, our investigate displays that publishers’ income will increase when they use our tools — that’s why they select to use them!
Ms. Srinivasan has ignored the inconvenient truth that this market is very aggressive — with rivalry among family names like Adobe, Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, Facebook, Oracle, Twitter and Information Corp, a organization for which Ms. Srinivasan has consulted. We also experience opposition from a legion of lesser-regarded but rapid-expanding competition like The Trade Desk and Magnite. Many of these rivals also offer you advertisement platforms and tools very similar to ours that cater to the two advertisers and publishers.
Though it could be an inconvenient reality for the lawsuits she is championing, it’s clear that level of competition in on-line advertising and marketing technologies has reduced ad tech charges and expanded choices for publishers and advertisers.
The author is director of financial coverage at Google.