Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Having only one ad network means that the monopolist holds all the cards. They can extract huge margins from advertisers while passing on very little to websites. And they can make all the rules. Websites have to comply no questions asked. If the monopolist closes your account it may be the end of the road for your business.

That said, Google is not actually a monopolist in online advertising. There's also Facebook, Amazon and a couple of smaller ones like X and Microsoft. The problem is that the big ones appear to have cleanly divvied up the space without stepping on each others' toes much.

For instance, Amazon does compete with Google for advertisers' money, but it has very little effect on the choice a website like Apportionment Calculator has as they can't sell their site on Amazon.

Similarly, I'm not sure how much of a competition Facebook Audience Network actually is for AdSense. I think it's mostly interesting for sites that have a significant Facebook/Instagram presence. Again, not much of a choice for small web apps like Apportionment Calculator.




All the risks of basing your income on a single supplier are true.

But that's not the real complaint here. The real complaint is that Google did not consider the original site to be "ad supplier worthy".

As you say, there are other advertising players - but if none of them see value (in the original site) then maybe that's telling us something?


>The real complaint is that Google did not consider the original site to be "ad supplier worthy".

No, that was not the complaint. The complaint is that Google demanded changes that made the site worse for users. These changes are clearly meant to optimise ad revenue.

Google is in a position of power that allows them to make these demands. More competition between ad networks would reduce the power of each individual ad network and give publishers more negotiating power.

>As you say, there are other advertising players - but if none of them see value (in the original site) then maybe that's telling us something?

As I understand it, no other ad networks have even seen the site. Amazon and Facebook are clearly unsuitable. Microsoft may have been worth a shot. For this type of site I think Google has a nearly complete monopoly.


Their point is that if there were more ad companies then the chance they would have allowed the site to go up as the original. Not to 100% of course but drastically higher than 0%




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: