Posted September 15, 2008 9:26 am by with 4 comments

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on FacebookBuffer this page

Most objections to the Google/Yahoo ad deal tend to focus on the potential for an increase in advertising rates–something I’m not convinced will happen. The World Association of Newspapers (WAN) just lodged its objection with the US Department of Justice, and along with it some additional reasons why the deal could be bad for advertisers (emphasis added):

To date, competition between both these two search companies has provided a necessary check to any potential market could have the potential of reducing the incentive for Yahoo to vigorously compete against Google across the globe.

Google and Yahoo today are the two leading suppliers of content ads and syndicated search ads to online news sites, and they compete intensely for that business. This competition forces each company to offer the best possible terms and helps ensure that newspapers earn a fair market return for the right to display ads and search boxes on their sites.

WAN does jump on the "increased prices" bandwagon, and its arguments tend to ignore the fact that Yahoo is free to consider other deals–this is not an acquisition. Still, I like the "reducing the incentive" argument.

As more objections roll-in the question is this: Does Google care if the deal gets approved or not? After all, just by its announcement, Google has managed to block Microsoft from acquiring Yahoo–perhaps that’s all the search engine giant wanted. 😉


  • I don’t think prices would increase either. Everything that Google has done in the past has shown that they are shooting for long term growth in their ad market. It would be foolish and counterproductive to raise prices after acquiring such a large chuck of the market.

    Joe Hall’s last blog post..Bloggers deserve real tips not stolen goods!

  • Just glad there will be no Microsoft acquisition. Thank God and thank you Google. As someone who has sweated blood trying to build websites that work properly on Bills broken-ass software, the thought of M$ acquiring a sizable chunk of prime web real estate makes me want to hurl. Microsoft is not qualified and has no business administering the social web.

    Google on the other hand offers services complimentary to Yahoo’s community offerings. No reason I can see why they shouldn’t be partnering on advertising if it means more relevant ads for users.

    Luke’s last blog post..jQuery, document.ready and the Prototype equivalent

  • Well, seeing as how YSM has done very little to change since buying Overture aside from the one change of becoming more like Google in the way it puts bids into the black box… I’m not convinced that Yahoo having incentive or not has any bearing on whether it will provide a better user experience with better traffic quality than what it has had.

    Honestly, I’ve been reading a lot of opinions about this from organizations and writers who I’m pretty sure have NEVER logged into any PPC service and I find their viewpoints pretty much without a shred of validity.

    Case in point, the World Association of Newspapers having anything to say about anything internet related other than “man, we sure are stoopid on the subject” is laughable.

    Terry Howard’s last blog post..Brevard County Set to Charge Fire Rescue Fees

  • Sorry, but Google stands alone. Not really healthy competition like they claim.

    Utah SEO Pro’s last blog post..Building an SEO Friendly Site – SES San Jose 2008 Presentation