Court Exhibit·13 FEB 2009
Don't Compete on Price When You Own the Platform
When a rival slashes prices out of desperation, the answer isn't matching them — it's reminding your customers what game you're actually playing.
Source document — United States v. Google LLC (Ad Tech) — Exhibit PTX0039: Internal Email Thread on Atlas Pricing Competition · United States v. Google LLC (Ad Tech) · 1:23-cv-00108 (VAED), Doc. 1014-2, filed 2024-07-26 (page 1)
Excerpt · In Neal Mohan & David Rosenblatt & Marc Schraer & Sean Downey & Andrew Rutledge & Ruth Kirschner's own words
Neal Mohan to David Rosenblatt: "we have to build this into the display update and also make it really clear to patrick that the strategic battleground in display is publisher platform (ie, inventory). looking at dclk as a separate business and comparing cprd is silly. we should really get this through to patrick."
Marc Schraer (original trigger email): Atlas is offering HP a $0.015 CPM to stay with them for ad serving. Neeraj from GroupM "senses a new level of desperation by Atlas in their desire to win business." Two takeaways: "we'll need to eventually give GroupM or some other agency a response on $0.015 for HP and $0.015 looks to be the new game-changing rate we'll face for all big accounts."
Sean Downey flagged broader renewal pressure: OMD in negotiations at $0.045 baseline CPM; Havas asking for $0.025; WPP at $0.06 with a $0.04 flip incentive.
Ruth Kirschner: "while price compression is something we will have to fight this year, the HP deal is not going to be the reason for moving below our current .025cpm floor... HP is annoyingly telling each shop in the pitch that they need to meet a .015cent adserving rate... below our floor rates. if we can market global capabilities effectively we should be able to maintain price premium."
The daily letter · Free
This edition is for members — but the daily letter is free.
One real corporate email, and the lesson it teaches, in your inbox every weekday morning. Free. Unsubscribe in one click.
How this surfaced
- Source type
- Court Exhibit
- Case / record
- United States v. Google LLC (Ad Tech)
- Citation
- 1:23-cv-00108 (VAED), Doc. 1014-2, filed 2024-07-26
- Date authored
- February 13, 2009
- License
- Public domain
- Original
- View the primary source →
More from Neal Mohan
Scott Spencer & Nemo Semret & Eyal Manor & Craig DiNatali ·Google ·7 FEB 2011
When Your Product Has Gaps, Customers Tell You Exactly What to Build
A competitor winning your best customer is painful — but it's also the clearest product roadmap you'll ever get.
Neal Mohan & Eric Rosenblum ·Google ·20 AUG 2010
Keep New Businesses Focused, Not Merged
When a young business is fighting to establish itself, the worst thing you can do is bury it inside a bigger org chart.
Neal Mohan & Joan Braddi ·Google ·3 SEP 2008
Build the Pipeline First, Then Fill It With Revenue
The smartest strategy documents don't just show where you're winning — they name exactly where the work isn't done yet.
Don ·Google ·14 MAR 2023
Bundle Deals Across Divisions to Save a Weak Position
When one business unit can't justify the check alone, stack the strategic value across the whole company — or lose the partner entirely.
Karen Aviram Beatty & Lawrence Koh ·Google ·11 DEC 2019
Bundling Deals Can Backfire When Your Counterparty Wants Simplicity
When you stack asks to justify a payment, the other side sees complexity — and offers you a simpler exit.
Johan Heurlin & Lawrence Koh & Jamie Rosenberg ·Google ·27 MAR 2019
When a Big Partner Asks for a Discount, Reframe the Deal
The smartest concessions look like co-investment, not subsidies — same money, very different risk.