Technology & Innovation

Madder Men

January 23, 2020

Global

January 23, 2020

Global
Michael Gold

Managing editor

Michael is a managing editor at Economist Impact. Although Michael has roots in Montreal, he grew up in Palo Alto, California and attended Yale University, where he majored in anthropology. Prior to joining the Economist Group, Michael was a correspondent for Reuters in Taipei, where he covered the technology sector. He has also worked in Beijing and is fluent in Mandarin. 

Contact

Does the digital advertising industry need a shake-up?

Log in to social media, perform a Google search or watch an online video, and before long you’ll almost certainly encounter an advert. Hawking goods and services over the internet has become such a ubiquitous practice that few casual users even take note of it anymore, despite the the average person is served every month. Except for those discerning surfers who employ ad-blocking software, digital advertising is now akin to salt in the ocean—an unavoidable part of our daily online plunge.

And just as one can’t desalinate the ocean without damaging its ecosystem, so too would ridding the internet of ads prove massively disruptive. Two of the internet’s largest titans rely heavily on advertising: in third-quarter 2019, adverts accounted for of Google’s revenue and an eye-watering for Facebook. That year worldwide advertising expenditure on digital platforms— which —eclipsed that of traditional media . Google accounts for about a third of that spend, and Facebook roughly a fifth. According to a 2018 , “the part of America’s economy that is ad-centric has become systemically important, with a market value that is larger than the banking industry”.

All these statistics raise uncomfortable questions about the future of digital advertising given that the market appears deeply imbalanced yet remains, in many respects, the backbone of the digital economy. Much like financial trading, the process by which digital advertising space is priced and allocated is , involving a huge network of buyers, sellers and brokers. Much of this is driven by machine-learning algorithms that automatically pair advertisements with internet users based on data collected about their online behaviour. The dominance of a few large players in this space has prompted an in the US, and some have even advocated in order to unleash competition. Concerns abound that the vertically-integrated nature of these firms’ ecosystems limits transparency and may . “A helpful metaphor is the stock market—Google is the buyer, the seller, the stock market and the stock,” says Sally Hubbard, director of enforcement strategy at the Open Markets Institute, a think-tank.

Monopoly money

Yet few agree on what the solution should be, or even where the problem lies. Nicco Mele, a lecturer in public policy at Harvard University, believes the innovations of the past few decades have allowed Google and Facebook to form a “natural monopoly” over digital advertising. In large part, this is due to the vast amount of data they hold on nearly every internet user on the planet. This has brought “ruthless efficiency” to the point where it becomes hard to imagine any meaningful new entrants to the market. Upstart challengers would be unable to offer comparable services to potential advertisers due to a sheer lack of data and user insight.

At the same time, it is difficult to prove harm to the consumer—a clear hurdle of any antitrust investigation in the US—from the current practices of internet ad giants. “The ‘harm to the consumer’ benchmark may be outdated, but it is the law of the land,” says Mr Mele. “You would need either new laws or a pretty dramatic change to judicial precedent in order to move the needle.”

Some hope that affect how technology companies collect and leverage user data may lead to a solution, although this too may be wishful thinking. Ms Hubbard advocates a multi-pronged approach to fostering competition but notes that any push by regulators to force Google or Facebook to share more data with potential competitors would—perhaps ironically—be countered on privacy grounds. “You don’t want user data spreading around to anyone who wants it, and you have to allow users to have a say in who gets their data,” she says. “If, upon its purchase of Instagram, Facebook had been required to make its [trove of user data] available to competitors, we’d probably have more innovation in the market.”

Regulators could also force the digital ad giants to share their targeted-advertising algorithms with competitors. This concept, known as “”, recently . “This says that you may patent [the algorithm], but it’s so important to the marketplace that you’re required to share it,” explains Mr Mele.

Yet it is unclear whether unlocking more competition in the digital advertising industry would address two major and interrelated concerns: the decline of traditional sources of news and the spread of “toxic” content on social-media platforms. The latter is often seen as a consequence of the tech giants’ ad-driven business model. Much of the data required to systematically match ads with the right audience is the result of millions of users’ deep engagement with these outlets. Facebook and YouTube (which is owned by Google) have been often proffering increasingly-extreme versions of similar content.

Greater time spent on social media fuels the so-called “persuasion architecture” these firms have built, which both targets ads more effectively and syphons attention away from other sources of information, including traditional publishers. There is no doubt that the advertising duopoly has had an impact on this beleaguered group: , according to the Wall Street Journal, despite to .

Adding it up

Then there is the bigger question of whether digital advertising--as large and crucial as it is to the internet economy--even "works" at all. Though no one wants to live in a , expectations of growth in the US advertising industry are likely , even as other tech giants like Amazon start to muscle into the space. Meanwhile, digital ad fraud is . Advertisers often have to guess if an impression means a consumer actually saw the ad or simply scrolled past it, or if a person, rather than a bot, clicked on it. Meanwhile, non-traditional forms of customer engagement like content marketing are , leading to some to predict the in the not-too-distant future. "The old saying was that 'half of my advertising is effective, I just don't know which half'," says Mr Mele. "Turns out it's not half, it's 0.00001%."        

Enjoy in-depth insights and expert analysis - subscribe to our Perspectives newsletter, delivered every week