The court filing in the case of United States of America v. Google LLC. provides a detailed analysis of Google’s advertising practices and attempts to undermine the search ad and text ad markets. In this part of the filing, it is argued that Google fails to identify an alternate advertising market and does not succeed in undermining the existing search ad and text ad markets.
One key point made in the filing is that advertisers do not view search ads and other types of ads as interchangeable. While some advertisers may use ROI/ROAS metrics to optimize their ad spend across channels, this does not mean that all digital advertising is seen as part of the same market. Advertisers typically maintain separate budgets for search ads and other channels and do not easily shift between them based on ROI alone. The filing highlights that advertisers consider a variety of factors when allocating their budgets, recognizing the differing purposes of different digital advertising channels.
The filing also discusses the challenges associated with calculating ROI and ROAS in the context of multiple channels and ads. It is noted that cross-channel ROI comparisons are particularly difficult, and many advertisers do not have the resources or capabilities to accurately measure ROI. Google’s internal documents acknowledge the complexity of cross-channel ROI comparisons and the difficulties associated with accurately measuring advertising return.
Furthermore, the filing addresses the impact of Nike’s boycott of social ads on Facebook/Meta on search ads. Despite the boycott leading to a decrease in social ad spend, there was no significant increase in search ad spending, indicating that the two types of ads are not easily interchangeable. The filing also highlights Google’s promotion of the „Performance Max“ product as a complement to text ads, rather than a replacement. Performance Max is described as technologically incapable of replacing Google’s search ads products, and Google recommends that advertisers use both text ads and Performance Max in their campaigns.
Overall, the court filing provides a comprehensive analysis of Google’s advertising practices and the challenges associated with identifying an alternate advertising market. It sheds light on the complexities of measuring ROI and the distinctions between different types of digital advertising channels. The information presented in the filing is valuable for understanding the dynamics of the digital advertising industry and the strategies employed by major players like Google.