[ad_1]
“Data-driven thinking“ is written by members of the media community and contains new ideas about the digital revolution in media.
Today’s column is written by Mike Shaughnessy, COO at Kargo.
As we step out of the fog of 2020, we need to remember the five insanely important investigations unfolding right now that are affecting how content is discovered, consumed, and paid for.
First, a striking US Federal Trade Commission lawsuit alleges Facebook is a monopoly and demands its dissolution. Second, ten states are suing Google for anti-competitive behavior, including its “monopoly” dominance in advertising markets.
The industry has long called for such regulatory efforts, but let’s not be left out and hope they prove to be in favor of independent publishers. We need to keep our voices strong to remind lawmakers of the importance of fairness to our industry.
The Other Side of the World shows what can happen when publishers lose their voice during these processes. In Australia, Google and Facebook are getting a valuable concession in the form of legislation focused on how the two giants pay publishers for content.
In the new status, Google and Facebook can provide value to news publishers through traffic supply. But there is a catch. There is no absolute value for publisher’s traffic in law, so Google and Facebook could argue that the traffic they deliver is the same as what a publisher’s content is worth, that is. which means Google and Facebook may not have to pay publishers anything for their content.
This justification is abusive because publishers lack bargaining power against the conglomerate of Google and Facebook on traffic.
This example embodies the two-faced behavior when these two companies hesitate between acting as a friendly “traffic driver” in one case, but also acting as an editor in the next, by presenting content on their own sites. In fact, they both are. By being both a player and a referee, these companies have a monopoly advantage over any other website. Editors can be an asset to the FTC by highlighting the seriousness and harm of this split personality.
As the FTC has ordered tech giants to provide data on how they collect, use, and present personal information, as well as their advertising and user engagement practices, U.S. publishers must demonstrate a complete argument that reflects the ability of platforms to control traffic. (via search and social feeds), content (with Google News, Facebook News, YouTube, AMP and more) and even ads (Google search algorithms and Chrome ad blocking) are inherently anti-competitive.
Categorize or divide platforms
We must remind lawmakers that these problems extend to all aspects of the media industry. Publishers have had little control over their site’s traffic for decades and now allow platforms to control content distribution as well. We must unite to stop it while we have this unique opportunity to speak out.
In the United States, the industry criticized Google for a rule rolled out on its Chrome browser in May to block “heavy” ads. This algorithmic, and somewhat arbitrary, decision directly affects publishers’ advertising revenues. The algorithm blocked the New York Times premium homepage banner. No publisher on earth can afford to stop ads from appearing in The New York Times. But Google, which owns Chrome as well as Google News, can do it. This pervasive control must end.
This argument also extends to the ability of Google (and Apple) to arbitrarily delete third-party cookies and IDFA without any revenue compensation for the publisher sites concerned.
Publishers should have the power here, because what would Facebook and Google be without them? But how do they express their contempt for the ability of these monopolies to handle almost all Internet traffic while controlling the content that people see? To date, publishers have not come together to address these issues inherent in Google and Facebook’s business models.
Now is the time to create this argument. The Better Ads Coalition, IAB, and W3C are the primary entities that exist to create standards for everything Google and Facebook. But none of these entities can provide regulation broad enough to truly address the problem.
After publishers battled Google AMP, a limited platform that didn’t compensate them fairly for mobile traffic, Google made concessions to improve it. Chrome is talking about “FloC” as a one-to-many replacement for cookie targeting in W3C discussions, but these battles are child’s play for these giants. With the FTC now paying attention to Facebook, publishers can create a full public statement on the unfair practices of both platforms and expect a more substantial response.
Editors need to be clear about the truth:
- Google search algorithms and Facebook news feeds directly determine who gets traffic and how. The percentage of traffic referred from these two alone represents the majority of the total traffic for many sites.
- Chrome browser settings block advertisements (and ad revenue) from publishers without regulation or reasoning. With the disappearance of cookies and IDFA, advertising targeting disappears on publisher sites.
- Google and Facebook compete directly with publishers for their own viewers by presenting content on their sites through Google News, Facebook News, YouTube and more.
States would have worked with publishers to put their costume together, so we have a friendly ear. With 100 great publishers working together, we might finally see some traction, some movement to expose and manage the insane control these two companies currently have over the digital media industry. Maybe the FTC is listening. Facebook and Google may be listening. Editors should start talking.
Follow Kargo (@cargo) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.
[ad_2]
Source link
