Facts about the Yahoo-Google advertising agreementFacts about the Yahoo-Google advertising agreementTim Carter, AsktheBuilder.com
“The tens of millions of consumers each day who visit the Yahoo website are going to see ads that solve their problems. Many will click those ads. Hundreds of thousands of businesses who sell the products and services to these consumers will increase their revenues when those ads are clicked.” (Senate testimony, 7/15/08)
Maurice Levy, Chief Executive Officer, Publicis Groupe
“Levy…said that the search advertising deal between Yahoo and Google will be ‘very positive’ for advertisers and does not believe there is any competition threat that will raise marketing costs for clients. ‘It is something that isn't threatening to clients, they are not merging, they are independent and they remain competitors,’ [he said]” (The Guardian, 6/20/08)
David Kenny, Chief Executive Officer, Digitas Inc.
“We are happy with that agreement. It has been mis‐communicated. It's not a lack of competition. It's actually they both agreed to work out on an open platform. We think that's okay because it means it's like all open markets, when you buy an equity, you can buy it anywhere and the more open and transparent it is, the more accurate the pricing is.” (Reuters, 6/20/08)
Richard Lent, CEO, AgencyNet Interactive (online ad agency)
"[The deal...] does not ensure that [Yahoo and Google] will utilize that advantage to control pricing structures or gain an unfair market advantage. Until something is proven to the contrary, I would personally deem any governmental obstruction as premature. With today's economic state, America needs innovative and astute corporations to support a dynamic and fast changing global economy and to date, Google has proven to me that it will not rest on its laurels." (Prepared Testimony before House Small Business Committee, 6/25/08)
Geoff Atkinson, Vice President, Overstock.com Inc.
“The agreement between Yahoo and Google should help the relevancy of our advertising on Yahoo, which should actually make the dollars we spend more efficient.” (Bloomberg, 6/20/08)
George Michie, Rimm‐Kaufman Group
“Google doesn't set the prices any more than the New York Stock Exchange does. It simply presents a single marketplace in which advertisers can compete with each other for prominence.” (searchengineland.com, 6/20/08)
Jim Lanzone, former CEO of Ask.com
“’They get to continue to sell ads through (Yahoo's) Panama (ad platform), and backfill with Google when it will make more or
additional money,’ Lanzone said. ‘In some senses, it's a 'why not?' deal.’” (MediaPost.com, 6/18/08)
Rob Snell, Co‐Owner, GunDogSupply.com (online advertiser)
“My understanding of the Yahoo‐Google deal...is that it's an inventory situation. When I do a search on Yahoo, Yahoo's going to check their own search marketing engine, Panama, to display those ads. But Yahoo will also be able to choose to display Google's inventory as well. I have a good analogy: If I went to Target and I needed a T‐shirt, I'm going to need a double extra large tall. And if Target doesn't have my size, I sure hope that Wal‐Mart or the Gap or somebody else is going to be right there in the store. It would be so awesome if they could go, here's your T‐shirt. And I think that's what the situation is. It's not a merger, they're not taking over their search engine. It's just a partnership on the advertising.” (Oral Testimony before House Small Business Committee, 6/25/08)
Michael Learmonth, Silicon Alley Insider
“We don't see how the deal could possibly warrant government intervention…but that doesn't mean Microsoft's legal army won't be able to slow it down or scuttle it.” (Silicon Alley Insider, 6/13/08)
Ed Black, Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA)
“Antitrust regulators look at the impact on competition and consumers. This is not a merger. It does not seem that either competition or consumers are harmed by a non‐exclusive business deal, which does not eliminate Yahoo from any of the marketplaces it is active in. With no dimunition of Yahoo's competitive ability, we don't see where competition gets harmed and we don't see where consumers get harmed.“ (CCIA Press Statement 6/13/08)
Henry Blodget, Silicon Alley Insider
“[This is a] perfectly defensible deal structure that the regulators shouldn't have any real cause to block.”
“…Yahoo can now focus almost all of its efforts on revitalizing its properties and display business, which is where its future lies.” (Silicon Alley Insider, 6/12/08)
Stephen Axinn, Axin, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP
“’I can't visualize [the deal] being a problem,’ said antitrust lawyer Stephen Axinn, of the firm Axinn,
Veltrop & Harkrider LLP. “’It seems to me not to be an anti‐competitive contract on its face.’”
“The main question antitrust officials will look at, Axinn said, is whether the arrangement would lock out competitors or eliminate competition. ‘And I don't think it does either one,’ he said.” (Reuters, 6/12/08)
Henry Blodget and Dan Frommer, Silicon Alley Insider
“But if this test merely leads to a partnership in which Yahoo runs AdSense on its pages, it's hard to see why anti‐trust folks would prevent such a deal...This isn't like previous anti‐trust examples, where, say, Microsoft pointed a gun at Dell's head and said ‘take IE or you don't get Windows.’” (Silicon Alley Insider, 4/9/08)
James B. Stewart, Columnist, Wall Street Journal / Smart Money
"Naturally, the antitrust police are already on the prowl, and you can expect Microsoft to be egging them
on. But Yahoo and Google shouldn't be deterred. They will still compete vigorously for display advertising
and in other areas. It isn't like they are merging. There is nothing in antitrust law that says a company has
to pour money into an enterprise just to maintain the appearance of competition when someone else can
do it more profitably and efficiently." (Wall Street Journal, 5/7/08)
New York Times
“These collaborative deals tend to be easily approved by American antitrust authorities, and Google presented the Yahoo plan as such a deal in response to initial inquiries by the Justice Department.” (New York Times, 5/22/08)
New York Times
“‘There is nothing in antitrust law that says a company can't use the best technology,’ said one person
involved in confidential discussions of the deal. ‘It can't be bad for competition to help a company
become more efficient.’” (New York Times, 5/22/08)
Glenn Manishin, Duane Morris
“Antitrust experts said the non‐exclusive arrangement between Yahoo and Google appeared to be crafted
to stand up to regulatory scrutiny...Glen Manishin, a partner with Duane Morris, said he thought the deal
would increase competition because advertisers would be able to get roughly the same service from
Yahoo or Google.” (San Jose Mercury News, 6/12/08)
Scott Kessler, Standard and Poor's
“Basically it will enable [Yahoo] to generate more associated revenues and earnings from search queries and it will make them more competitive from the perspective of doing better vis‐a‐vis search. The bottom line is a deal with Google, it won't enable them to gain share, it won't enable them to gain standing in the search market, but it will enable them to be more profitable and that's pretty important, too.” (Nightly Business Report, PBS, 6/12/08)
Hance Haney, Discovery Institute
“An outsourcing deal between Google and Yahoo could be profoundly pro‐competitive because Yahoo makes less than it could in search ads.” (TechLiberationFront.com, 5/23/08)
dealReporter
“The approach the DoJ will take in evaluating a search‐outsourcing deal will be different than evaluating a full‐blown merger, an industry attorney said. Unlike mergers or business combinations where the acquirer
is getting full operational control of an entity, this arrangement is likely to be reviewed as an original equipment manufacturing (OEM) relationship or a commercial one, he explained.” (dealReporter, 5/16/08)
New York Times
“People involved in shaping Google's approach say the deal under consideration would be a
straightforward supplier arrangement, similar to ones in the markets for computer printers, appliances and cell phone service."
“The printer industry, they say, is a perfect example. Canon supplies printer engines to about 80 percent of the laser printer market, including its rival Hewlett‐Packard.” (New York Times, 5/22/08)
New York Times
“In its antitrust guidelines for partnerships among competitors, issued in 2000, the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission said: ‘In order to compete in modern markets, competitors sometimes need to collaborate. ... Such collaborations are not only benign but pro‐competitive.’” (New York Times, 5/22/08)
dealReporter
“…if one company has a more efficient technology than the other, with one wanting to outsource to the other, a deal can be structured that still leaves a lot of independent competition, the industry attorney
explained.” (dealReporter, 5/16/08)
Stephen Shankland, CNET News
"...people on Yahoo's IM network will be able to chat with those on Google's and vice‐versa. That's a big step in the right direction." (CNETnews.com 6/14/08)
Neil McAllister, PCWorld
"…the IM market could certainly benefit from a little more interoperability. Despite the fact that IM use is on the rise among home users and businesses alike, each separate IM network remains a walled garden, independent of all the others. Getting them to work together ‐‐ similar to how e‐mail works ‐‐ would benefit everyone." (pcworld.com, 6/15/08)
Randall Stross, New York Times columnist and Professor, San Jose State University
"Everyone who wants to see Yahoo, the No. 2 search engine, regain some of its lost luster has abundant reason to cheer the deal on." (New York Times, 9/21/08)
Jeff Jarvis, Seeking Alpha
"... if the Feds rule against the Yahoo deal, it is in essence stealing hundreds of millions of dollars not from Google but from Yahoo. It is restricting Yahoo's access to the marketplace." (Seekingalpha.com, 9/4/08)
David Kenny, Managing Partner, VivaKi (a unit of Publicis Groupe)
"Kenny ... says the deal offers Yahoo access to advertisers that it simply does not have. He also notes that Google has been supplying some search ads to Ask.com, helping another rival remain viable. 'Google could do the same for Yahoo,' he said." (Red Orbit, 9/22/08)
Professor Joshua Gans, Melbourne Business School
"... it is hard to see what the anti‐competitive problems might be with this deal but for some broader consideration like a market for innovation or a market for assets ... this stuff is really speculative." (Core Economics Blog, 9/17/08)
Danny Sullivan, SearchEngineland.com
"How are [Google and Yahoo] going to collude ‐‐ on millions of terms, where the prices differ for each term for each and every advertiser? ... It's like some [advertisers] think Google's got a single rate card that it will compare to Yahoo's rate card and then the both agree to mark things up. It doesn't work that way, folks. ...
To me, that's sort of like wanting to buy a car, going to a Toyota dealership to get a Prius but being told you can't have one, since the government has decided those have sold too well. In the name of competition, you have to instead buy some GM hybrid for twice the Prius price." (SearchEngineLand.com, 9/21/08)
Curt Hecht, VivaKi (a unit of Publicis Groupe)
"I'm not a politician or a regulator, so I’ll leave the legal aspects of this debate to others. What I am is a consumer‐contact expert. I connect brand messages to people – ideally with people who find the messages relevant and meaningful. From my perspective, the Google‐Yahoo deal only enhances my ability to do my job, please my client and turn consumers into customers." (Advertising Age, 7/18/08)
Stephen Axinn, former lead counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division
“’First I would pray,’ Axinn responded when asked how he would handle the case if he were hired by the DoJ. … ‘I think it’s a hard case.’” (Wired, 9/10/08)
“This is not a conventional transaction. This is not a price‐fixing deal, or a tie‐in or a boycott, or any of the things that are standard anti‐trust meat and potatoes kinds of litigation. And courts will be reluctant, I believe, to interfere with this transaction. Without some solid evidence that it is in fact causing competitive harm…there is no such evidence at this time.” (CNN Money, 9/9/08)
Mark Botti, former Senior Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
“According to Mark Botti … the DOJ has to consider a range of issues and generally has been cautious about stopping competitor collaborations … before it [is] clear whether the activity would help or hurt consumers.” (Thedeal.com, 9/8/08)
Charles Cooper, CNET News
“… If the Justice Department is mobilizing to battle Google, it better make sure that it's got an airtight case. Otherwise, it's going to be another fruitless exercise, one that also will leave disillusioned entrepreneurs wondering whether this is the inevitable reward for building a better mousetrap.” (CNETNews.com, 9/9/08)
Rob Hof, BusinessWeek
“… is this competition really a bad thing, especially for consumers? Presumably, consumers are getting more relevant ads, so it’s hard to see harm there. And if they click on them, advertisers are getting more of what they want—potential customers.
Randall Stross, New York Times columnist and Professor, San Jose State University
"One company has done more than any other to publicly disparage the Yahoo‐Google deal: Microsoft, the same company that did not succeed in acquiring Yahoo earlier this year. Hell hath no fury like a suitor scorned." (New York Times, 9/21/08)
Mike Masnick, Techdirt.com
“This is increasingly looking like a political attack on a company that is ‘big’ rather than looking to see if its success actually harms or helps consumers.” (Techdirt.com, 9/9/08)
Stephen Axinn, former lead counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division
“I think it’s been made clear in the press that Microsoft is the ultimate mover and shaker behind this deal.” (CNN Money, 9/9/08)
Benjamin Schachter, UBS Securities analyst
“The fallout of a [Google‐Yahoo!] deal being blocked would be financial and immediate, Mr. Schachter said. Yahoo shares, which are at a five‐year low, could drop even further, leaving the company vulnerable to a new bid from Microsoft, or from another party, Mr. Schachter added.” (New York Times, 9/10/08)
Ned May, Lead Analyst, Outsell Inc.
“… if regulators blocked the Google deal, it still could have the perverse effect of diminishing competition by depriving Yahoo of an opportunity to make more money than it could invest in its own technology.” (Associated Press, 9/9/08)
Rob Hof, BusinessWeek
“Do advertisers really have a logical case for saying Yahoo shouldn't be allowed to do a deal to make more money on its search operation? Especially when it had a deal with Google several years ago? And spent years developing a system that apparently still doesn't match Google in ad relevance?” (BusinessWeek, 9/8/08)
Deborah Corey, Editorial Board, Washington Times
"Word is that Microsoft used Astroturf [tactics] to get back at Google for forging a deal with Yahoo because they could not do it...well Microsoft is just crying bitter grapes at this point. And they are hypocrites since they fought against the same things they are doing to Google, years ago." (PoliReport.com, 10/9/08)