On Camera, UP Cop Slaps Woman, Pulls Out Gun In Road Rage

https://ift.tt/cyZKXlt https://ift.tt/L7Xmu4G

Video: People Loot Milk From Tanker That Collided With Truck In UP

https://ift.tt/cyZKXlt https://ift.tt/e43bFjg

Google declared a monopoly: industry reactions and implications

Yesterday the ruling passed that Google is a monopoly after the 10 week trial that occurred last year.

Here are the key reactions from search advertisers:

Google’s Appeal and the Future Legal Battle

Julie Bacchini, president and founder, Neptune Moon, underscores that while the court ruling declaring Google a monopoly is significant, the real impact will emerge during the remedy phase and Google’s inevitable appeal.

• “Google will appeal (and they said they will in their comically bad statement about the ruling) and that will be a slow process. But it is the remedy phase that will ultimately decide what this ruling will actually mean in practical terms.”

• “Also, this case was as much about setting the table for the Google advertising case that goes to trial in September. This case got A LOT on the record that will likely be used in the upcoming trial.”

• “Monopolistic behaviours have gone essentially unchecked in a lot of industries since the Reagan administration and maybe that hasn’t been such a good idea. These cases are starting to try to act on that. The App store cases run along the same lines.

• “If the Sherman antitrust act had been enforced over even the last 25 years, the business landscape would look very different. It wasn’t and we have what we have.”

• “To be fair too, Google is like any other publicly traded company today – their primary goal is to make sure the meet analysts expectations every quarter. That’s it. And I think we often forget that. Their decisions all come back to that core. And what that makes them do can make it feel like they are a big, kinda evil corporation.”

Oscar Ford, CEO and PPC specialist finds the ruling’s development fascinating and anticipates a prolonged legal battle due to Google’s appeal.:

• “Google are appealing the ruling, so this will roll on for a while longer. I’m not sure what the outcome is, but to break up an existing monopoly the only option surely is to split it into separate companies?”

• “Google’s response to the ruling is amusing but they have a point – they have made the best search engine and nothing else has come close for decades.”

Chris Ridley, Head of Paid media predicts a resolution similar to that of Google shopping in 2017:

• “What I do see happening is an echo of what we saw happen to Google Shopping in 2017. A similar EU ruling regarding Google’s Shopping that led to Google opening up their Shopping space to third-party Comparison Shopping Services (CSS), which were granted a 20% discount on cost-per-clicks (CPCs) to ensure they could fairly compete.”

• “This could lead the way to Google introducing Comparison Text Advertising Services to the Google text ad market to dismantle Google’s monopoly on the text advertising market, which may also benefit from a similar discount on CPCs as a gesture of Google encouraging competition on their SERPs.”

Market Dynamics and Google’s Competitors

Chris Lloyd, B2B SaaS Marketing consultant, points out that Google’s market share has been declining due to its inability to innovate:

• “I think we are already seeing their decline, and it’s not due to regulatory rulings. Google has been losing market share for a couple of years now. Quite simply they can’t build and innovate and will continue to be outplayed by Perplexity, OpenAI, Meta, Apple.”

Sam Tomlinson, Executive Vice President and Digital strategist, criticizes the legal reasoning in the 286-page ruling, particularly the market definition, which he believes won’t hold up on appeal.

• “The market definition was categorically insane to me – something I don’t think gets upheld on appeal”

• “It isn’t like the winner today is always the winner tomorrow. Google even admitted that (and the court agreed) in this ruling, where they highlighted that Google has innovated massively, at great expense, despite having a ‘monopoly'”

• “Every other company, hedge fund, investment bank and PE fund does the exact same thing — which is why this feels ridiculous. It isn’t good or bad, it’s just profit-driven, because profit is an existential imperative for any business”

Navah Hopkins, Brand evangelist and PPC influencer, is disappointed that the US failed to establish search advertising as a distinct market:

• “I am disappointed in the US for not being able to make the case that search advertising is a market (I understand there’s another case in September, but the ruling makes it clear that information just wasn’t presented).”

• “The fact that this case started in 2020 and that’s when PMax began to really take hold speaks to the diversification that was clearly top of mind for Google. As the ruling stated “search text ads are a monopoly” but search advertising was not. PMax gives Google the cover it needs to still have some search without running a foul of the search text ads monopoly rules.”

• “That Microsoft was brought up as a serious competitor felt disingenuous. Though it is interesting to see how CPCs trended after each other (i.e. the market drove up costs not Google itself…which I’m skeptical about)”

• “There are a lot of openings for appeal issues, I agree. But I really think the testimony they got and internal Google documents are going to be a tough hill for Google to climb in the Ads case. So I can’t help but wonder if this case was more about making that one stick?”

Ethical and Practical Concerns

Sarah Stemen, Paid search specialist reflects on her disillusionment with Google and doubts any significant penalties will arise:

• “I need to stop gaslighting myself into thinking Google is great because they built my career. This is a capitalist driven company that lost sight of any values and it sucks.”

• “I think we all remember Microsoft and I would like to think that’s the outcome but I don’t actually think any penalty of any significant difference will happen especially under our current administration and court system.”

Reid Thomas, Marketing strategist, observes that the US ruling aligns closely with the EU’s mandate & questions a meaningful mandate:

• “Our point of views are all very US focused – isn’t this ruling very aligned with the EU ruling from a few years ago that mandated search engine choice?”

• “My question is – ‘What is a meaningful penalty?’. You can’t break google up like the bells.”

• “I also think it’s quite disingenuous to target the distribution agreements with the ‘If Google is so great, why are they paying?’ and the answer is: because this is a competitive market, and others could pay, too.”

The diverse opinions highlight the complexity of the issue and the far-reaching implications of the ruling for the tech industry, digital advertising, and antitrust law. As the legal process continues and potential remedies are considered, many in the industry are watching closely to see how this decision might reshape the future of search and digital advertising.

from Search Engine Land https://ift.tt/9yAp6Df
via https://ift.tt/XWPGkxl https://ift.tt/9yAp6Df

Advertisers react to Google Reporting and Product Listing glitch

Last week Thursday after reports from several advertisers, it was confirmed by Google that there was a major reporting blackout. Report Editor, Dashboards, and Saved Reports in the Google Ads web interface were down. On top of that Products, Product Groups and Listing Groups pages were down across the web interface, API, and Google Ads Editor.

The glitch, which Google claims affected only “a small fraction” of advertisers, exposed sensitive data across accounts and disrupted normal reporting services.

Advertisers had a lot to say about these issues varying from gratitude that they don’t look after e-commerce and so were not affected to those who found the lack of listing/product group data as a massive obstacle. 

Practical Challenges

Greg Finn, Partner at Cypress North, highlighted the practical challenges:

• “The lack of listing/product group data last week was a massive obstacle for those shopping advertisers. Specifically, we have some campaigns (PMax) that feature monthly deals and sale items for some clients and were unable to confirm that campaigns were working correctly.”

• “While I understand that there was an error on Google’s behalf, flying blind without seeing any product data is beyond scary. As an advertiser, I would much rather see a mistake and continue to work than to know that there is a mistake and have no way to view product data.”

Data usage/Breach

Paid Search Specialist, Sarah Stemen, raised questions about data usage in Google’s auction system:

• “Well, we know Google knows prices of all products, profit margin, msrp, sales etc. But seeing the data cross contaminated makes me wonder if data is being leveraged in the auction more than Google will admit.”

Kate Luke, Head of Digital, emphasized the gravity of the data breach:

• “Let’s not gloss over the fact that this sensitive data is paramount to the businesses affected.”

She called for Google to “address those affected directly rather than deliver generic ‘resolutions’.”

Transparency/Timing

Performance and marketing consultant, Meriem Nacer expressed concerns about Google’s transparency:

• “Will they notify affected brands and reimburse them, or only respond if contacted? Many might not check their accounts or know how to. How did this happen?”

Nacer also feels that due to timing, it can’t be completely unrelated to the Merchant Center Next rollout –

• “They claim it’s unrelated to the Merchant Center Next rollout, but the timing coincides with updated PMax reporting and the upcoming migration. Is it just a coincidence, or did someone push that “big red button” we’ve always joked about? The situation raises many questions.”

Mike Ryan, Head of ecommerce, summed up the severity of the situation, with a particular concern that the issue began earlier than Google is claiming:

• “This is a serious potential breach of advertiser confidentiality, and seemingly also a huge billing fuckup. Google maintains that these errors only occurred from July 30 through July 31, however I have team members who state that this may have been occurring for two weeks or longer.”

Automation/Feed security

Julie Bacchini president and founder, Neptune Moon pointed out the broader implications including automation & questions the sanctity of the feed:

• “It definitely raises some questions about firewalls between accounts though doesn’t it? I think that is the most concerning piece.

• “Reporting and data lags happen. But data leaking is a much bigger issue. And taking it a step further, as automation takes over more and more, will we even know if something like this happens in the future?

• “The biggest issue I have is that it impacted feed based campaigns – so the sanctity of the feed is compromised. I would like a detailed explanation from Google Ads as to exactly how another advertiser’s feed data was allowed to infiltrate another account. And what they have done to ensure it can no longer happen.”

Competitive Intelligence

Marketing Director, Scott Frederickson detailed the potential competitive intelligence leaked:

• “The screenshots showing custom label content in the reports were chilling. For those who don’t know, those labels are entirely free-form. I’ve seen them used for margin bucketing, seasonality, stock controls, best sellers, various promotions, vendors, divisions, all kinds of things.”

Finally advertisers like Reid Thomas, Marketing Strategist, viewed the issue as “a tempest in a teapot… because I have never had an account where a even a week of reports being inaccessible would massively change strategy, especially given that real data wasn’t being blocked for automations, etc.”.

Majority of responses however indicated serious concerns about data privacy, competitive intelligence, and Google’s handling of the situation. As PPC specialist Chloe Varnfield, put it, “Trust in Google is low anyways, so it’s just another letdown.”

The incident has left many advertisers demanding more transparency and better safeguards from Google to prevent similar issues in the future.

from Search Engine Land https://ift.tt/f0pMVSQ
via https://ift.tt/XWPGkxl https://ift.tt/f0pMVSQ

80 Students Fall Ill Due To Food Poisoning In Uttar Pradesh

https://ift.tt/zmY1d0k https://ift.tt/3hlDUTt

Future-proof your content by Edna Chavira

The digital world moves fast. What drives results today may not be effective tomorrow. To stay ahead, businesses must ensure their content is dynamic, engaging, and impactful.

To address this challenge, Adobe, REVOLT, and Protiviti Digital will be presenting “Embrace the Future of Content Management with a CMS Makeover,” on Thursday, August 8. This live panel discussion will explore strategies to maximize content impact, increase audience engagement, drive conversions, and boost brand awareness.

Our expert panel will delve into navigating the complex CMS landscape, identifying critical replatforming elements, and sharing REVOLT’s successful experience with Adobe Experience Manager.

Attendees will gain invaluable insights to future-proof their content strategy. Don’t miss it! Save your spot today!

from Search Engine Land https://ift.tt/Yj0H2AO
via https://ift.tt/7aSJX46 https://ift.tt/Yj0H2AO

Federal judge rules Google violated antitrust law

A federal judge ruled that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in search and advertising markets, marking a significant victory for the Department of Justice.

Why it matters. This is the first major decision in a wave of tech monopoly cases brought by the U.S. government in recent years, potentially setting a precedent for future rulings against other tech giants.

Key details:

• Judge Amit Mehta found Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits monpolies
• The court focused on Google’s exclusive search deals with Android and Apple devices as key to its anticompetitive behaviour.
• The ruling focuses on Google’s liability, not remedies
• Decision comes after a 10-week trial last fall

Why we care. While immediate changes are unlikely, advertisers should start preparing for potential long-term impacts on their digital marketing strategies.

Between the lines. The case revealed Google pays Apple $20 billion annually for default search status on iPhones.

The big picture. This ruling could influence how century-old antitrust laws are applied to modern digital markets in pending cases against Amazon, Apple, and Meta.

What’s next:

• Remedies to address Google’s monopoly will be determined in future proceedings
• Google faces another DOJ trial over its ad tech business, starting September 9th

What they’re saying. “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Judge Mehta wrote in his decision.

The bottom line. While a major setback for Google, the full impact on its business practices remains to be seen as the case moves to the remedies phase.

from Search Engine Land https://ift.tt/Gtw9n5M
via https://ift.tt/7aSJX46 https://ift.tt/Gtw9n5M