PPCChat | Google antitrust case & the Google Ads Merchant Center fiasco | 6th August 2024

Here is the screencap from this week’s PPCChat session, centring on the Google antitrust case and the Google Ads Merchant Center fiasco. Host Julie F Bacchini gathered experts’ opinions on the judgment against Google in the search antitrust case and the issues with the Google Merchant Center.

Q1: Let’s start with the Google Merchant Center issue…

• Were any of your accounts impacted and if so, how?
• For any impacted accounts are they back to normal?
• General thoughts on this situation?

If you look upstream in this channel, I posted information about this and the Google antitrust case so you can get up to speed if you are not already. I do not have any ecomm accounts, so I was not impacted by this issue. But holy moly it seems like a big deal with data that is not yours flowing into your account! And who knows where your data might have gone…Giant YIKES. @NeptuneMoon

Thank God my accounts weren’t impacted.  That said I actually giggled. on the error because it just feels like the platform is a dumpster fire. some days.  I know that’s mean and I don’t mean to say something like that but I think every time something happens it’s a chip from the block. @runnerkik

We actually turned off some of our features to protect our clients – we since turned them back on, but put in extra protections just in case. When I ran a poll on LinkedIn about it, some most said they were impacted if ecommerce, but when pressed didn’t actually see that much of a difference in reporting (i.e. clients didn’t notice). so it feels a bit like the threat of what it could have been was scarier than what actually happened. @navahf

Let’s go full snark shall we…How did the AI let this happen? @NeptuneMoon

None affected. Faced issues for reporting for a while. @alimehdimukadam

 @navahf when I saw a recap of the problem it didn’t look like a standard daily report I would have been running.  I was impressed it was caught and was wondering the use-case on that report. @runnerkik

Like most issues, it’s a tempest in a teapot. maybe it’s because I’m a scrub but I have never had an account where a even a week of reports being inaccessible would massively change strategy, especially given that real data wasn’t being blocked for automations, etc. The competitor data being accessible is a bit more actionable — hope everyone took screenshots. But also that kind of micro-data, how would you even use it? @ferkungamaboobo

It definitely raises some questions about firewalls between accounts though doesn’t it? I think that is the most concerning piece. Reporting and data lags happen. But data leaking is a much bigger issue/concern to me. And taking it a step further, as automation takes over more and more, will we even know if something like this happens in the future? That is also a big question @NeptuneMoon

The biggest issue I have is that it impacted feed-based campaigns – so the sanctity of the feed is compromised (cc Mike Ryan for his really great take on that). @NeptuneMoon  this is why tools (Optmyzr and other players out there) will always have a place – third-party protection and validation so advertisers can trust what’s going on @navahf

It sounds mostly like a reporting issue and client comms issue — “No it’s not down, there’s a reporting issue, here let me show you 3/6/12/36 months of account data and the insights from that so that we stay focused on the prize” I know that can be hard with clients — not saying that negatively  @ferkungamaboobo

I also think that we all assume that our accounts are secure and fully separate from other accounts and the inner workings of Google Ads do not cross those boundaries. I think we know now that they probably do, but generally not in ways that we can see. @NeptuneMoon

Yeah, I’m sure they use a smarter model than MVC but it’s easy to see how an account ID check would let a view see data from multiple ids. @ferkungamaboobo

I would like a detailed explanation from Google Ads as to exactly how another advertiser’s feed data was allowed to infiltrate another account. And what they have done to ensure it can no longer happen.Because that has not been addressed and it absolutely needs to be addressed. Even if it was some weird thing that happened. Google Ads does not have trust to burn. Just tell us what happened and we can all move forward in understanding. @NeptuneMoon

I feel like that was an honest mistake. where it became less of a mistake and more of an ouch moment, is the communication (which @ferkungamaboobo made the point brilliantly) @navahf

My cybersecurity husband has made me aware that an entire job role and cybersecurity cert is postmortem.  He said they know exactly who and someone sr who didn’t do it but was responsible is generally fired. @runnerkik

Shoutouts to all qa teams out there! an internal study at an agency I was at showed that spending 20% additional billable time on qa led to eliminating 90% of errors! (this was part of the issue with crowd strike – they have consistently been laying off their qa teams in favor of automated tests) @ferkungamaboobo

@ferkungamaboobo  a lot of big companies don’t have QA anymore, they have rollback strategies, testing strategies, and a bunch of virtual machines in different states. @runnerkik

Yeah, there’s a large difference between even a 20-person agency and a 1000-developer tech company multiple valid strategies exist. @ferkungamaboobo

@navahf Re: 3rd party verification tools. Yes, could not agree more. I like to have layers of protection from Google Ads Rules, Optmyzr alerts, Shape alerts, and lately our Dataops lead has been building some validation tools in PowerBI (TBD on effectiveness). I’m all about creating a web of rules/automation to mitigate. The problems I’ve seen come when we have duplicate or accidental automation that breaks another platforms rules. You almost need a flow chart to know what triggers what, etc. Something I’ve been working on for one of our larger accounts. @timmhalloran

I see this as a massive concern, as an ecomm advertiser who wasn’t impacted (that I know of, Google’s comms around this have been abysmal). The screenshots showing custom label content in the reports were chilling. For those who don’t know, those labels are entirely free-form. I’ve seen them used for margin bucketing, seasonality, stock controls, best sellers, various promotions, vendors, divisions, all kinds of things. Just one impression for a product from another account would surface all of this feed data in these reports, giving the unwitting recipient a previously unheard of view into their competitor’s advertising strategy and what they deem worth bidding on, to say nothing about the operational information encoded in there.  It’s a tremendous breach of trust. @ScottFredrickson

Q2: What are your thoughts on the newly delivered ruling against Google in the search antitrust case?

There is  A LOT of road ahead of us on this ruling! Google has already said they will be appealing and that will take a while. The biggest impact will come from the remedy phase which won’t happen until after appeals. It’s also important to keep in mind that a lot of this case was about setting the table (getting testimony on the record) for the Ads case that begins September 9th. @NeptuneMoon

It still feels very early – curious what penalties will be prescribed, but again, even then it’s only if Google loses the appeal, to @NeptuneMoon’s point. @revaminkoff

Unfortunately reading 286 pages, and then the 207-page Internet Explorer case is gonna take me a bit. On the one hand, it’s not like IE/Edge isn’t still bundled with Windows. @ferkungamaboobo

I read most of the 286 pages…it honestly wasn’t that interesting as far as the law goes. The market definition was categorically insane to me — something I don’t think gets upheld on appeal. @DigitalSamIAm

On the other, IE/Edge doesn’t have the same market share and that only is because of some of the things that came out of that. @ferkungamaboobo

So many thoughts…let’s try to put them all in one message: @navahf

1. I am disappointed in the US for not being able to make the case that search advertising is a market (I understand there’s another case in September, but the ruling makes it clear that information just wasn’t presented).
2. The fact that this case started in 2020 and that’s when PMax began to really take hold speaks to the diversification that was clearly top of mind for Google. As the ruling stated “search text ads are a monopoly” but search advertising was not. PMax gives Google the cover it needs to still have some search without running a foul of the search text ads monopoly rules.
3. I like that Google protested the existence of the funnel – that was very interesting to me. I also liked that PLAs were seen as distinct from search even though shopping campaigns are by in large thought of as search.
4. That Microsoft was brought up as a serious competitor felt disingenuous. Though it is interesting to see how CPCs trended after each other (i.e. the market drove up costs not Google itself…which I’m skeptical about)
5. There were a lot of really good points about the deals with Apple and mobile devices. I don’t know how Google will address this in a serious way, but I do suspect that Reddit is about to lose its partnership deal

On the third hand, the market for general search engines and the market for web browsers are so very different that I assume I have a lot of citation chasing. @ferkungamaboobo

@DigitalSamIAm there are a lot of openings for appeal issues, I agree. But I really think the testimony they got and internal Google documents are going to be a tough hill for Google to climb in the Ads case. So I can’t help but wonder if this case was more about making that one stick? Time will tell…@NeptuneMoon

Google be like: hey judge, thanks for acknowledging we are the best.  XOXO.. See you around. @alimehdimukadam

It likely was. But I think if I gave any reasonably competent and well-funded legal team 3+ years and carte blanche to go look in every corner, they’d find similar examples at any other reasonably large company. @DigitalSamIAm

@alimehdimukadam OMG that statement was so cringe. In case you didn’t see it. @NeptuneMoon

@DigitalSamIAm  could not agree with you more. @navahf

@DigitalSamIAm  That of course is probably true. It is also true that there has been essentially zero appetite to pursue antitrust here in the US since the 1980s. So we are reaping what has been sown in the last 40 years too on that front.@NeptuneMoon

My main grievance is that we’re calling out search (which is objectively helpful) as a monopoly, but were not going after the revenue. @navahf

So at a certain point, I need to stop gaslighting myself into thinking Google is great because they built my career.  This is a capitalist-driven company that lost sight of any values and it sucks. I think we all remember Microsoft and I would like to think that’s the outcome but I don’t actually think any penalty of any significant difference will happen especially under our current administration and court system. @runnerkik

My question is, what is a meaningful penalty. you can’t break google up like the bells. @ferkungamaboobo

@ferkungamaboobo  likely they’ll try to invalidate the distribution agreements. Which is beyond stupid @DigitalSamIAm

If YouTube was forced out of Google that would be a start. @navahf

@navahf  I think it is hard to make the case that the ads are a monopoly (their revenue) without establishing that they have an effective monopoly on search itself? @NeptuneMoon

Right, vertical de-integration is one idea. @ferkungamaboobo

But it’s beyond stupid. @DigitalSamIAm

@DigitalSamIAm What is stupid @navahf

The communication was SO CRINGE @runnerkik

Having courts invalidate existing, priced-in revenue contracts. @DigitalSamIAm

I think the argument has been that link-based search is a natural monopoly. @ferkungamaboobo

@runnerkik SO CRINGE. My tweet about it: @NeptuneMoon

@NeptuneMoon  the judge ruled “search ads are not a monopoly, text ads are, and search advertising isn’t a market” – I don’t know how they walk that back in September. @navahf

Yeah, it’s a real victory lap statement. @ferkungamaboobo

That was actually great news for Google @navahf  – their core business isn’t going to get challenged. @DigitalSamIAm

Also if you’re Google and you hear “the helpful “free” thing is under attack, but the money is fine” you’re going to double down on the money and pull resources from the free – humans suffer. @DigitalSamIAm exactly – this is ultimately a win for Google and as “cringe” as the statement is, it reflects what happened. @navahf

Google’s organic search has been their loss leader in the same way as amazon’s retail business is their loss leader. @ferkungamaboobo

I also think it’s quite disingenuous to target the distribution agreements with the “If Google is so great, why are they paying?” and the answer is: because this is a competitive market, and others could pay, too.  @DigitalSamIAm

By winning the search engine wars of the late 90s, they created a better Yahoo and AOL in the sense of an ecosystem. @ferkungamaboobo

Exactly. @navahf

I do think they’re going to target the distribution agreements though…@revaminkoff

Google (and our industry at large) needs intelligent regulation and intervention and we’re not getting it. @navahf

When I started in ppc my coworkers were all former AOL employees so yes. @runnerkik

Yeah again i think it’s valid to look back at IE on the target of the suit. the real intent of those was to prop up os/2, neXt, and mac. I’m not sure if red hat was involved. @ferkungamaboobo

So I think that, as I said earlier, there is realization that monopolistic behaviours have gone essentially unchecked in a lot of industries since the Reagan administration and maybe that hasn’t been such a good idea. And these cases are starting to try to act on that. The App store cases run along the same lines @NeptuneMoon

But the finding that people are also choosing it because it’s better is a real thing – it doesn’t help anyone to be stuck with a lower-quality product. @revaminkoff

So instead we keep finding loopholes to exploit and humans suffer for it. It really bothers me that the useful parts of Google came under fire while the darker parts got a free pass. @navahf

But @NeptuneMoon  I don’t think (a) that’s necessarily true or (b) that it actually matters in the same way. Microsoft was a “monopoly” – right up until  social + search + mobile happened. Then Amazon was talked about as an ecommerce monopoly, right up until everyone else (Walmart, Shopify, Albertsons, Dicks, etc.) became eComm companies. @DigitalSamIAm

Our POVs are all very US-focused — isn’t this ruling very aligned with the EU ruling from a few years ago that mandated search engine choice? so the question as to actionability — and things not just being a litmus test — chrome and Google (iirc) is more entrenched over there @ferkungamaboobo

Markets evolve. It isn’t like the winner today is always the winner tomorrow. Google even admitted that (and the Court agreed) in this ruling, where they highlighted that Google has innovated massively, at great expense, despite having a “monopoly”. Right, @ferkungamaboobo – and that should scare the living daylights out of anyone who believes in the innovation economy. @DigitalSamIAm

If the Sherman Antitrust Act had been enforced over even the last 25 years, the business landscape would look very different. It wasn’t and we have what we have. But the stats in a lot of industries about one company controlling a substantial percentage are pretty wild.Every now and again a merger gets denied, but a hell of a lot happen that create giant orgs controlling a lot of a market.I think like a lot of things, we are seeing a pendulum swing on attitudes about this stuff. @NeptuneMoon

The other big unknown is what impact this will have on AI. @navahf

I do worry – deeply actually – about the way the industry is taking this. @ferkungamaboobo

The EU has essentially become irrelevant in innovation. Most of the Series-A / Series-B companies I speak with are prioritizing APAC over the EU because of how batshit insane their regulatory regime is. @DigitalSamIAm

It’s much like the cookies thing. i know i’m a downer, but we as an industry intentionally misinterpret things to FUD up everything. @ferkungamaboobo

It is easy to think of Google as “the big bad” for sure. And they have certainly done some things to earn that rep. BUT they have also created the standard for a lot of what we expect in search and search ads. @NeptuneMoon

I don’t think of anyone as “the big bad” @navahf

I feel like most people just want to be mad at big corporations. @DigitalSamIAm

Correct me if I am wrong
TLDR:
Fundamental flaw or miss by prosecution and judge in defining the marketThis ruling will get reversedTo save face – Google/Apple etc will start prompting users by giving them an option to select default search engine on new devices. Nothing really changes, we are back to normal. @alimehdimukadam

I don’t know enough law to say the first two. @ferkungamaboobo

Yeah, pretty much @alimehdimukadam Just add: sometime around 2030. @DigitalSamIAm

The reason I’m neutral good instead of lawful good (even though I have a strict moral code) is I have yet to see a government/regulatory body that can survive human bias, corruption, and occasional incompetence. @navahf

@DigitalSamIAm with rich af attorneys (your Twitter take) @runnerkik

This case 100% backs that up – the things that needed to be addressed weren’t and the things that Google does that are actually useful came under scrutiny. @navahf

I think they were already rich…they’ll be wealthy now. @DigitalSamIAm

It’s silly. @navahf

To be fair too, Google is like any other publicly traded company today – their primary goal is to make sure the meet analysts expectations every quarter. That’s it. And I think we often forget that. Their decisions all come back to that core. And what that makes them do can make it feel like they are a big, kinda evil corporation. @NeptuneMoon

Corporations aren’t inherently evil. People are flawed and people work at corporations. @navahf

And every other company, hedge fund, investment bank and PE fund does the exact same thing — which is why this feels ridiculous. It isn’t good or bad, it’s just profit-driven because profit is an existential imperative for any business. @DigitalSamIAm

But good people work at corporations too. @navahf

That is why I said feel like – I did not say they are evil. @NeptuneMoon

The only winner from yesterday was Google’s statement. Turned it into a win. @alimehdimukadam

I also agree with @navahf on the regulatory bit – I have more confidence in the market to pick winners + losers than I do in any regulator to do so. @DigitalSamIAm

I know we need to wrap up soon but it’s important to acknowledge all of us showing up and @NeptuneMoon for creating the space to talk about this. When there’s transparency and respectful discussion a lot can be accomplished. @navahf

Is there a good book on the baby bells? @ferkungamaboobo

Thank you @navahf I appreciate it. And I appreciate us all thinking this through together. Love hearing everyone’s thoughts so I can think about them too as I process. @NeptuneMoon

Feel like that might (maybe) be a good model to compare/contrast w/r/t tech antitrust law. I dunno that’s also a very “lol trust law 101” take. @ferkungamaboobo

All the bells case did was make 7 smaller, regional monopolies, which….made everything more expensive for customers. @DigitalSamIAm

One thing I think of too. How does s korea work? it’s been almost a decade since I was in that space. but Sogou/naver split might be worth examining. back then iirc it was 15%/85%? @ferkungamaboobo

It’s one of those classic cases of “this is such a good idea!” right up until you think 3 moves ahead and realize that when you create 7 separate companies, all of the economies of scale (executive compensation, administration, pricing power in materials, labor costs, etc) go poof….and now you need to either accept dramatically lower profit margins (LOL good luck) or raise prices on consumers (that’ll do!) @DigitalSamIAm

Also, I do find it amusing that everyone is very concerned (TM) about privacy, but then everyone also wants to break up big tech so that their information is now spread across MORE companies with less money to invest in things like cybersecurity. Very logical. @DigitalSamIAm

Oh oops Sogou is china, not s korea. @ferkungamaboobo

@DigitalSamIAm we could do a whole chat about the privacy theater that exists. @NeptuneMoon

I’d be happy to weigh in there though i don’t think my POV is shared by the majority of the industry. @ferkungamaboobo

Yeah, china antitrust is whatever Xi doesn’t like. They don’t even need hearings. it’s quite efficient. Same-day decision @DigitalSamIAm

Quick research shows the same %ages – 15/85 for Sogou/Baidu. fuzzy memory. naver is 75% of korea’s. I know it’s super over time, but bringing those up as potential counterfactual examples for comparison. @ferkungamaboobo

Late to the party. Catching up. Question: Did this ruling change your opinion on Google or day-to-day? For me, this just confirmed a lot of what I assumed about how Google operates. @ppcClickShark

@ppcClickShark  my glacial pace still has me in the “findings of fact” section but there’s a lot of nice numbers that are summarized w/r/t things like exact percentages. nothing very earth-shattering and mostly very inside-baseball, but may eventually be nice to turn into a cheatsheet later. @ferkungamaboobo

PPCChat Participants

• Julie F Bacchini @NeptuneMoon
• Reva Minkoff @revaminkoff
• Reid Thomas @ferkungamaboobo
• Navah Hopkins @navahf
• Ali Mehdi Mukadam @alimehdimukadam
• Sarah Stemen @runnerkik
• Tim Halloran @timmhalloran
• Scott Fredrickson @ScottFredrickson
• Sam @DigitalSamIAm
• Derek @ppcClickShark

Related Links

• Introducing the Google Ad Preview Tool for Amazon Products
• Digital Ads Benchmark Report by Tinuiti | Q2 2024 | Key Highlights
• Navigating the New Look: How to Use Google Ads Experiments in the Updated Interface