Does breaking up Google make sense?
News Corp has called for Google to be broken up in its latest submission to the ACCC’s Digital Platforms Inquiry. Mumbrella’s Paul Wallbank questions if that’s feasible, or if dismantling the online giant might actually backfire.
As the responses to the ACCC’s digital platforms inquiry roll in, probably the most audacious – and predictable – is News Corp’s call for Google to be broken up.
News Corp Australia’s executive chairman Micheal Miller added to the calls to break up Google in an opinion piece for The Australian
In its submission, News Corp correctly pointed to Google’s dominating 85% share of the ad tech market, saying: “The layers of the Google ad tech stack have been built through successive acquisitions, internal restructuring and merging of businesses/product lines.”
That share is growing. Last year, Group M reported Facebook and Google took 135% of new digital advertising spend.
So can someone explain how you can get 135% of new digital advertising spend
It’s all inflated percentages. When you are the player and scorekeeper you can keep score any way you like…
Google, FB, influencers its all good until the economy stumbles then the weakness is exposed, destroys business and ultimately jobs of people associated.
It’s explained there:
Facebook and Google took 135% of new spending in the digital advertising – meaning they gobbled up all of the new available growth, plus taking share from other digital media companies.
Time you learned the difference between compliment and complement in the above article.
Thanks Anthony, we have fixed that now.
Even if News Corp get there way it doesn’t matter. The majority of advertisers aren’t ever going back to their way of doing things.
Like it or not, Google revolutionized advertising forever. Customers/clients demand a model like that (a pay what you can afford model) and that’s where Google really changed things – especially for SME’s who could never take advertising seriously in the past.
If News Corp would like to be taken seriously they need to drop these minimum spend ($30K + or whatever it happens to be that week) requirements from their responses. Guys your digital offering just isn’t that good.
Look at ad formats as well. Every News digital publication is a hellscape of mastheads, takeovers, roadblocks, auto-play videos and anything else you can possibly imagine to annoy the reader and distract from the content.
Newscorp have content now?
Paul, asserting that news media readership remains very strong across channels. Newspapers remain a significant element in the cross channel news mix, they represent a terrific creative canvas and reach huge trusting audiences. Finally both newspapers and digital news media subject themselves to industry accepted measurement, unlike Google. Newspaper and digital media – very much alive and fighting old son.
Do not go gentle into that good night, Pete.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
This is the best comment I’ve seen on Mumbrella in awhile. Well done.
These businesses scream and shout when Google takes all their money, but when it comes to ad stacks they crumble and use Google cause it is easier.
Why don’t we implement a rule about common sense. You pay peanuts you get Google using and loving monkeys.
People joke that you can’t get fired for buying on Google, but you also can’t get fired for choosing to use Google tech.
The point of divestment is that competition is increased, and monopoly power is decreased. All your examples of previous divestment support this point. Your conclusion that ‘a broken up Google would prove to be more powerful and lucrative than the current behemoth’ is a red herring, since a broken-up Google would not be Google. Each part might be stronger as a separate business, but they would be separate businesses, with their own management and business models. That’s the point.
135%? That’s a a novel idea…
It’s explained there:
Facebook and Google took 135% of new spending in the digital advertising – meaning they gobbled up all of the new available growth, plus taking share from other digital media companies.
Pretty hypocritical of the News Corp behemoth to whinge about monopolies. Their poisonous reporting has negatively impacted every country they have been a dominant force in.
Exactly what I was thinking… Newscorp have been rigging elections since way before Facebook and Russia made it cool. Pretty rich to come crying poor now.
Paul – can you substantiate the claim that News Corp had a near monopoly on newspapers and classified advertising ? Fairfax dominated classified advertising – the famed rivers of gold – and had leading daily and weekend mastheads in Sydney and Melbourne.
Hey Gezza, I didn’t say News had a near monopoly on newspapers and classified advertising. I said it dominated the nation’s newspaper and classified industries – as it did and continues to do so.
Sorry I must have misinterpreted the bit where you wrote “That near-monopoly gave News Corp dominance over Australia’s metro and local print advertising and classified industries”
Trust Rupert and his redneck kids who are ruining the USA with the horrific Fox News?
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/380060-maher-fox-news-is-running-the-country
Yep, well, Newsdoch sat all-powerful – and possibly smug – for decades, wielding unheard-of and unwanted, let alone unwarranted power over all-and-sundry including yourself, myself and said Keating
Having not recognised the value in investing in the growing interweb and digital, its influence and power have progressively declined
So… complain-while-you-still-have-some-influence, eh?
Alphabet splits out to a number of competing units, the recipients of the enormous, resultant funds free-for-few buy up Newscorp for a song, close it down… or offer free newspaper subscriptions via a most-rewarding licensing link-up with NewGoogle and New Android, over both of which they retain majority control, the ‘free’ subs coming with amazing, amazon-beating shopping offers and Netflix-killing deals bannered on every second page, with every alternating page giving free club memberships for one’s favourite code club to every 100th reader
Paul, you say that tyhe Australian newspaper market has been in decline since the 1990s. But it has been much longer than that … indeed back to the 1950s. While there has been growth in circulations the decline in the market on a per capita basis has been particularly evident (mainly in the capital cities) given population growth. To some extent the Sunday Blatts were insulated, but now they are on a downward trajectory. The dailies ignored potential growth markets, namely immigrants—Greeks and Italians in the first instance and, later, those from Middle East and Asian cultures. A perfect example of legacy White Australia.
Way to make this article an argument about race when it clearly isnt!