Monopoly: A not so popular game anymore

The Department of Justice recently filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google for maintaining monopolies through exclusionary practices, and all I can say is: it is about time!

These laws are statutes developed by the U.S. government to protect consumers and competitors from manipulative, untrusty, anticompetitive, and predatory business strategies to preserve an open market.

To better explain this concept, I found the perfect example: Antitrust laws are like the NFL preventing all of the best athletes from playing on a single team… That would not be fair and motivating for the rest of the teams and players, right? Who would be interested in watching football when they know only one team can win? Those laws want to provide equal competitive opportunities for every company within each industry.

So, why is healthy competition so important? Without it, we would not benefit from the diversity of choice. With market dominance, there is an entry barrier for new and better products and services that might better suit consumer needs and wants. When healthy competition exists, there is an open space for innovation and entrepreneurship within each marketplace. Unfortunately, companies like Google are making it difficult to happen.

We all know that Google focuses its core business on digital advertisement, using its Google search engine and its huge data advantage to sell millions of search ads every day. The company is accused of frustrating competition by acquiring the whole ad tech stack that connects buyers to sellers, forcing them to rely only on Google services to be positioned on the search engine and generate sales. Because of their “cheap or free” services, Google also raises competitors’ costs, increases the entry barrier for new ones, and decreases the survival rate for existing ones.

Of course, the big-tech company has denied all accusations, affirming that “People use Google because they choose to — not because they’re forced to or because they can’t find alternatives.” How are we supposed to have alternatives when, according to The Wall Street Journal, Google controls about 80% of search distribution channels in the U.S.? But that is not even the real problem.

The big problem relies on the fact that there is a “search bias,” where Google prioritizes and favors its own services, downgrading direct competitors. Like Rand Fishkin explained in his blog, the only way to rank #1 in the Google Search results is to be owned by Google. How unfair is that? Besides, it is not a secret that Google services are not the most efficient and accurate, but they always rank at the top of the search results.

Google does not provide a transparent and fair search result that benefits strong rivals that might otherwise offer better customer queries and solve their needs. Somehow, Google is hiding and controlling the information to their convenience, and that is precisely what The Department of Justice should stop from happening.

What does it mean for marketers?

We can not deny that Google has provided an excellent opportunity for marketers to purchase and gather valuable users’ data and daily internet usage for targeting real-time advertisement within Google’s search pages. They have also benefited from the Google Analytics system by tracking the effectiveness of their online ads. But is that the best marketers can get? Should they settle with the high prices that Google offers them in exchange for user information?

I consider that the big-tech company has taken advantage of its market dominance and has increased its bargaining power over suppliers, buyers, and advertisers. By being the predominant provider, Google has elevated its selling prices, earning higher returns while lowering the marketer’s total income.

Let us suppose The Department of Justice decides that Google has violated the antitrust law. In that case, I believe there will be several benefits for marketers, consumers, and the economy. For instance, Google might be forced to divestiture the market to new search competitors, which will lower its prices and give away active distribution and scale to other companies.

By taking it back to healthy competition, marketers will be less dependent and finally choose from different providers based on competitive prices or service quality that suits their needs the most. In addition, there might be a higher pressure to enhance search quality, usage, and gathering of consumer data so new firms will have an equal opportunity to reach and introduce their businesses to online target audiences.

Google is an outstanding company, filled with excellent strategies, innovation, resources, and capabilities that have helped it achieve its long-lasting success. If they plan to be number one in the search engine race, they should earn it in a healthy competitive environment. Google competition should always be welcome, no matter how fierce it is, as long as it is transparent, non-manipulative, fair, and unbiased.