Day 15: Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened.

Day 15: Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened.

The trial is officially over. Google rested, the DOJ rebutted, and we are done. There was a real kumbaya atmosphere in the federal courthouse within the anonymous Virginia office park where a decade of yield management history was examined. I may cry.

Here’s what happened.

Stuff we learned

We didn’t really learn anything today, but oral closing arguments are scheduled for Monday. November 25th. Imagine the stories you’ll tell at the Thanksgiving table!

Last Google Read-Ins

Google read in testimony from Buzzfeed and The New York Times yesterday. Today it was Ryan Pauley of Vox Media and Brian Bumpers of Zulily. None of this testimony seems to matter much. A lot of it reinforces the idea that buyers buy across many channels and many platforms.

The Vox testimony reiterated that it is difficult to negotiate with Google to get lower AdX rates. It also showed a graph illustrating that Vox’s revenue from AdX went up substantially when they turned on Dynamic Allocation. Personally, I think the Google team did not spend enough time illustrating the point that Dynamic Allocation was a new invention that increased publisher yield, well before anyone could say it was a competitive threat.

The Zulily testimony spoke to moving share specifically away from GDN and to Facebook during the pivotal years when that latter was really gaining ground. The amounts moved off of GDN were in the tens of millions of dollars.

The DOJ’s rebuttal case

Just when the sides were being commended by the judge for their civil behavior during this civil case, the last witness turned out to be the most contentious. The DOJ asked for a single rebuttal witness, Matthew Wheatland from The Daily Mail. As soon as his name was announced the courtroom broke into objections, while observers like me and the press, knew what was up.

Basically the Google expert witnesses, especially Dr. Israel from yesterday, had given testimony that had no basis in reality for publishers. Instead of countering this with a different expert witness, the DOJ brought back a practitioner from the publisher side. It was obvious this strategy would be devastating to Israel’s credibility.

Google objected on the grounds that they should not be rebutting an expert with a “fact” witness, and that Wheatland had already provided the needed facts. This went on for a while, and almost every question brought forth objections and discussion. In the end, Wheatland provided the publisher point of view, summarized and paraphrased below:

Question: If advertisers can move ad spend, how does that help you negotiate for better rates with Google?

Answer: Huh, what? No, that doesn’t help.

Question: If users move to viewing your content on apps, how does that help you negotiate for better rates with Google?

Answer: Huh, what? No, that doesn’t help.

Question: Why can’t you just move more of your users to use your apps?

Answer: It is extremely hard. We only have 2% of usage on apps after a lot of effort.

Question: Is there a cost with building and maintaining apps (the expert said it was easy)?

Answer: Yes, we have ten full time engineers on our Apple and Android apps. Also web monetizes better.

Question: Is it possible to substitute DFP-AdX integration with AdX Direct Tags?

Answer: It is not economically viable to use AdX Direct Tags because they don’t provide a bid and can’t be evaluated compared to other bids.

Question: Could you disable Last Look when it existed?

Answer: No.

Question: Did most publishers grow to like UPR after launch?

Answer: No.

Question: Do you have alternatives to using UPR?

Answer: No.

Question: How do you evaluate quality in ads on your site?

Answer: Google has fewer annoying ads, like auto-play audio, while Google has more scammy and fraudulent ads.

Question: Is AdX cheaper than alternatives?

Answer: No. AdX is twice the price of other exchanges.

Question: Do you get a benefit from Google having a full stack?

Answer: No.

What’s next?

I think this Q&A neatly summarizes the DOJ’s entire case, so I’m going to close this newsletter here. I will continue following the case and publishing this newsletter from time to time. Thank you for your support.