Google Public Policy Blog: September 2007

Our Senate testimony on online advertising and Google-DoubleClick

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Posted by Pablo Chavez, Policy CounselDavid Drummondcomplete testimony here "The online advertising business is complex, but my message to you today is simple: Online advertising benefits consumers, promotes free speech, and helps small businesses succeed. Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick will help advance these goals while protecting consumer privacy and enabling greater innovation, competition, and growth."

"In our experience, our users value the advertisements that we deliver along with search results and other web content because the ads help connect them to the information, products, and services they seek. Simply put, advertising is information, and relevant advertising is information that is useful to consumers. The advertising we deliver to our users complements the natural search results that we provide, because our users are often searching for products and services that our advertisers offer. Making this connection is critical. In fact, we strive to deliver the ads that are the most relevant to our users, not just the ones that generate the most revenue for us."

"Some have asked whether this acquisition raises competition concerns. We are confident – and numerous independent analysts have agreed – that our purchase of DoubleClick does not raise antitrust issues because of one simple fact: Google and DoubleClick are complementary businesses, and do not compete with each other. DoubleClick does not buy ads, sell ads, or buy or sell advertising space. All it does is provide the technology to enable advertisers and publishers to deliver ads once they have come to terms, and provide advertisers and publishers statistics relating to the ads."

"The simplest way to look at this is by way of analogy. DoubleClick is to Google what FedEx or UPS is to Amazon.com. Our current business involves primarily the selling of text-based ads – books in our analogy. By contrast, DoubleClick's business at its core is to deliver and report on display ads."
"Our acquisition of DoubleClick does not foreclose other companies from competing in the online advertising space. Rather, the transaction is just one of several that underscore the strong competition in the online advertising space...Each of the acquisitions following our purchase of DoubleClick demonstrates that there are many sophisticated, well-financed, and competitive companies that believe that the online advertising space merits more investment and remains open to strong competition." "Google's bottom line is this: We believe deeply in protecting online users’ privacy, and we have a strong track record of doing so. We are constantly working to innovate in our privacy practices and policies. Some have asked questions about privacy protections in connection with the DoubleClick acquisition, but for us privacy does not begin or end with our purchase of DoubleClick. Privacy is a user interest that we've been protecting since our inception."
"We make privacy a priority because our business depends on it. If our users are uncomfortable with how we manage the information they provide to us, they are only one click away from switching to a competitor’s services. If you don't believe me, recall that before Google, users clicked on an earlier generation of search engines like Excite, Altavista, Lycos, and Infoseek – each extremely popular in its time. User interests effectively regulate our behavior, and user trust is a critical component of our business model." why we decided to buy DoubleClickrecentstepsrecent flurrybackgroundcommentsUPDATE (6:17 p.m. ET):

The buzz about Google-DoubleClick

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Posted by Pablo Chavez, Policy CounselI've blogged before about Google's view that our acquisition of DoubleClick will lead to better, more useful online advertising for consumers, and more choices for advertisers and website publishers. We have also seen that the acquisition has been followed by significant investment, innovation, and competition in the online advertising world. Just yesterday, for example, Microsoft announced that it had added 20 new advertising clients after closing its acquisition of aQuantive, a DoubleClick competitor. We see this as yet more evidence that companies are competing in the online advertising space and the free market.
With the the Antitrust Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee taking a look at online advertising later this week, we thought you'd appreciate seeing what several independent folks have said about competition in the online advertising space and about the DoubleClick acquisition:

Los Angeles Times - Editorial
"The market for advertising online is still in its infancy… And neither Google, DoubleClick nor anyone else dominate the emerging market for video advertising, which in the broadband era may emerge as the most effective and lucrative sector yet." (Los Angeles Times, Editorial 4/17/2007)

Financial Times - Editorial
“Google and DoubleClick are different kinds of business. Buying DoubleClick does not increase Google's share of the total web audience, a more meaningful measure of the market.” (Financial Times, Editorial, 5/25/07)

James B. Stewart, Columnist, Wall Street Journal
"For starters, Google and DoubleClick aren't direct competitors. Google specializes in online search and accompanying text ads. DoubleClick specializes in so-called web display advertising, especially video. It's hard to see how the combined companies would dampen competition when they don't compete to begin with." (Wall Street Journal, 4/18/2007)

Thomas Eisenmann, Harvard Business School
“If the merger is approved ‘there ought to be room for multiple players’ in the online advertising space…’Natural monopolies are very rare, and this is not one of them.’” (Technology Daily PM, 7/18/07)

Andrew Frank, Analyst, Gartner
"'It seems there is a clear distinction between Google's business and the business it is entering with the acquisition of DoubleClick,'..If so, Google is not acquiring extra market power through the proposed deal." (Financial Times, 4/16/2007)

John Deighton, Professor, Harvard Business School
"Google has had a long history of resisting the impulse to exploit individual surfing histories. I think they understand that it's even more important to show that restraint now." (Los Angeles Times, 4/17/2007)

Gene Munster, Senior Research Analyst, Piper Jaffray
“Fears that advertisers are worried about sharing info [between Google and DoubleClick] are likely overblown.” (Note, 4/23/07)

The FTC's close look at online advertising

Monday, September 17, 2007

Posted by Pablo Chavez, Policy Counselflurry of acquisitionsTown Hallcommentsquestions

The rapidly changing business landscape of online advertising, and the role it plays in providing free, accessible, user-friendly, and high-quality content to consumers. Since 2000, annual online revenue in the U.S. alone grew from $8 billion to over $17 billion. The growth in online advertising has also spurred innovation, competition, and investment in the online advertising space – all of which produce consumer benefits in the form of more online resources and more relevant information. In our experience consumers value the advertisements that we deliver along with search results and other web content, which connect them to the information, products, and services they seek. Simply put, advertising is information, and relevant advertising is information that is useful to consumers.

The ways in which online advertising is contributing to a healthy and vibrant small business community. We know that many website owners can afford to dedicate themselves to their sites more fully – and sometimes full-time – because a significant percentage of the revenue we earn from advertising ends up in their hands as publishers of blogs and other websites and our advertising partners. In 2006, Google paid $3.3 billion in revenue to our partners. Our advertising network helps small businesses connect in an affordable and effective manner with otherwise unreachable consumers, including consumers in small, remote, or niche markets. An advertiser decides exactly how much money to spend on advertising, and can tie its spending directly to the response of a potential customer.

Of course, we continue to focus our attention on the privacy of our users, and privacy ought to be an important component of the Town Hall. We recognize that user, advertiser, and website publisher trust is critical to the success of our business, and we've taken a number of recent steps to help bolster our already strong privacy policies. We also think our acquisition of DoubleClick provides an opportunity for us to bolster privacy even further.We're looking forward to talking more about these issues at the Town Hall.

Australia's elections on Google

Friday, September 14, 2007

Posted by Andrew McLaughlin, Director of Global Public Policy and Government Affairs

kangarooskoalaswombatsemuskookaburrasGreat Barrier ReefSydney Opera HouseGo-Betweensshirazfootyelection websiteAustralia Votes YouTube channelPicasa Web AlbumUggsGoogle Australia blog

Call for global privacy standards

Friday, September 14, 2007

Posted by Peter Fleischer, Global Privacy CounselI've noted beforefair information principlesAPEC Framework

Consumer choice is always the right answer

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Posted by Chris Sacca, Head of Special Initiativestook some significant stepsFCC airwave auction rules to give consumers more choice," said USA TodayWashington Postfiledlawsuit

The economic value of "fair use"

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Posted by Johanna Shelton, Policy Counsel and Legislative Strategistfair useinteresting new study released yesterday

Continuing the Internet tax moratorium

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Posted by Pablo Chavez, Policy CounselDon't Tax Our Webextending the current moratoriumcurrent moratoriumOne WeekPresident Clintonmembers of Congress championing this issue

Reforming patents, promoting innovation

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

by Johanna Shelton, Policy Counsel and Legislative Strategist
and Michelle Lee, Head of Patents and Patent StrategyBen FranklinArticle I, Section 8 of the U.S. ConstitutionGoogle Patent SearchNational Academy of Sciencesseveral patent casespatent reform legislationSenateCoalition for Patent Fairness

Damages apportionment. Damages should be calculated based on the fair share of the patent’s contribution to the value of a product, and not on the value of a whole product that has many components. So for example, a windshield wiper found to an infringe a patent should not spur a damage award based on the value of the entire car.

Restricting forum-shopping. Certain district courts have become notorious for rarely invalidating a patent, and have tilted the balance too often in favor of plaintiffs. We support judicial venue provisions to ensure that patent lawsuits are brought only in district courts with a reasonable connection to the case.

Post-grant review. The patent system should include a meaningful second chance for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to review potentially problematic patents in a timely way, thereby promoting high-quality patents.

Willfullness. Patent infringers can be forced to pay triple the damages in cases where they are found to have "willfully" infringed a patent, but that standard has been devalued. Punitive triple damages should be reserved for cases of truly egregious conduct.

have argued

Public Policy Blog

Our Senate testimony on online advertising and Google-DoubleClick

The buzz about Google-DoubleClick

The FTC's close look at online advertising

Australia's elections on Google

Call for global privacy standards

Consumer choice is always the right answer

The economic value of "fair use"

Continuing the Internet tax moratorium

Reforming patents, promoting innovation

Labels

Archive

Feed

Company-wide

Products

Developers