Court Exhibit·11 OCT 2015
When Your Own Plumbing Becomes The Problem
If your product's integration advantage forces the market to build ugly workarounds, the workarounds eventually become the market.
Source document — United States v. Google LLC (Ad Tech) — PTX0256: Email Thread on Ad Blocking and Header Bidding · United States v. Google LLC (Ad Tech) · 1:23-cv-00108 (VAED), Doc. 1247-9, filed 2024-08-24 (page 1)
Excerpt · In Scott Spencer & Jonathan Bellack & Scott Cunningham's own words
Google's DFP is the dominant ad server for publishers in the US marketplace. Google has configured the ad server to work in a more integrated manner with its own ad exchange AdX. This has the unintended effect of preventing, technologically, the creation of a truly open RTB marketplace with 3rd party exchanges: the integration of DFP and AdX via dynamic allocation results in Google as the exclusive indirect demand source that can 'see' (and then bid on) booked impressions. These inequities have led other exchanges (and therefore publishers) to develop workarounds that compromise user experience — heavy tag usage, pre-bidding — leading to higher load times, reduced mobile device battery life for consumers, increased data usage for consumer mobile plans. If Google reconfigured DFP to permit open 3rd party auctions on all impressions, including through dynamic allocation, advertisers would reduce the number of exchanges through which it tries to purchase a single impression and publishers wouldn't have to install additional ad tech that worsens user experience just to increase yield on impressions. Is perhaps the solution to ad blocking cured if Google can somehow configure dynamic allocation to service 3rd party exchange systems in a manner comparable to the integration with AdX?
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. 1247-9, filed 2024-08-24
- Date authored
- October 11, 2015
- License
- Public domain
- Original
- View the primary source →
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.