In 2010, a Google’s marketing manager Scott Spencer provided the information interview explaining how Google uses “second-rate” ads to place ads online. In a second-priced auction, the main advertiser wins, but only pays for everything secondly the highest price was. Economists like this setting – man claiming to have won the Nobel Prize – because it encourages participants to donate whatever is most important to them without having to worry about giving back a lot of money. As Spencer explained, “it reduces the need for a ‘game’ system.”
But what if Google was the one playing the game?
That is the case made in a antitrust case brought about by international agreement under the guidance of Texas attorney general Ken Paxton. On Friday morning, a federal judge released the most recent complaint in the case, which was first filed in 2020. more internal information. As one employee pointed out in a recently disclosed internal document, Google’s second-largest advertising campaign was “false.”
Texas story, one of much of what the company is experiencing, looks at Google to monitor the advertising market driven by ads. Google controls every link between advertisers and audiences. It has the largest shopping platform, the largest advertising platform, and the largest publishing platform. So when you see an ad on a page, it is very good that the advertiser used Google to post, the Google exchange provided the site, and the site used Google to make the site available. Google, in other words, runs sales while representing buyers and sellers in that market.
This brings a clear argument of interest. As one employee put it, quoted in an unpublished article, “The analogy could be if Goldman or Citibank had NYSE.” According to Texas, Google has failed to resist the temptation to use market optimization for personal gain. The lawsuit alleges that he secretly sent at least three third-party software to breach two third-party software. Although the availability of these programs was already evident, the unresolved complaint provides a detailed overview of how it works.
The first program, launched in 2013, was wonderfully named Project Bernanke, as did former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. According to a Texas description of Google’s internal content, here’s how it worked. Suppose that the highest price paid through AdX, a trade exchange with Google, was $ 10, and the second highest price was $ 8. In that case, the advertiser who sells $ 10 must win the market and pay the publisher $ 8. Under Project Bernanke, however, Google refuses to pay any publisher third-the main ad was-let’s say $ 5-while paying the advertiser $ 8 total.
What happened to the $ 3 difference? According to the complaint, Google would have put it in the “Bernanke pool” which uses its marketing tool, Google Ads. The quote quotes a 2014 mid-term document in which a Google employee explains the need to make changes to the “worries of 2013”: advertising platforms have won many trades over AdX. According to the complaint, Google used the company’s revenue to increase advertising which would be lower than that offered through other platforms. (This may explain why the program is named after Bernanke, who advocated “cutting back” – pumping money into the economy – to solve a major financial crisis. The internal Google slide uses the term “quantitative easing”.) Much money was hidden from publishers and eventually it returned them. But, according to the complaint, some versions of the program stopped even doing that.