The U.S. Department of Justice scored a victory last month, with a federal judge ruling that Google illegally monopolized key parts of the ad tech market—its second major antitrust loss in under a year. As the focus shifts to potential remedies, including DOJ calls for divestiture, the ripple effects are being debated. But according to one expert, the group most likely to feel the pain isn’t necessarily consumers or large advertisers, but the small businesses that rely on Google’s integrated ecosystem.
Thomas J. Thompson, Chief Economist at Havas Edge, the performance marketing arm of global communications group Havas, specializes in integrating behavioral economics and AI into marketing strategies. His role involves analyzing external factors impacting predictions and advising clients on navigating market shifts (or, as Thompson cheekily puts it, his job is to “say everything’s great till it’s not.”) He believes the nuances of the Google ruling’s impact are being overlooked.
Consumer indifference: When considering the Google ruling, Thompson argues it’s crucial to identify who actually feels the effects. While the case touches on fairness, the immediate impact on the average user is likely minimal. “Consumers may have a vested interest in this because there’s a sense of unfairness that Google is monopolizing and we’re Americans and we tend to push back hard against anything we perceive as unfair,” Thompson notes. “But to a consumer, you split off [Google’s ad business] and I still just type in ‘restaurant near me’ or something and it pops up some options, you didn’t notice anything.” Google’s brand equity is so immense, he adds, that competitors like Bing often feel like an afterthought.
Agency preparedness: Large advertising agencies, particularly the “Big Five,” were likely already adjusting their strategies long before the ruling. Agencies like Havas were already preparing for shifts in the digital landscape, driven by factors like the move to a cookieless environment and a belief in transparency. “I would bet all five of the Big Five agencies had already begun to sort of structure that this is how the future of digital would be,” Thompson states. “There are too many digital options not to.”
The small business squeeze: Thompson believes the antitrust ruling wasn’t likely intended to harm the small businesses who benefit most from Google’s integrated system, but this will be an unintended consequence. The group most likely to be dramatically impacted by changes to Google’s ad business, he argues, are small businesses and individual sole proprietors. Google has simplified the advertising process significantly for these smaller players, allowing them to easily set budgets, estimate clicks, and direct traffic.
“They make everything so easy. So you have a group of people that don’t qualify for the big five ad agency,” Thompson explains. “And suddenly this loss of how they would be able to interact to sell their product I think will have a dramatic outsized impact on small businesses because that’s the people that have come to rely on the dominant system Google created.”
Unintended fallout: While the legal battle focuses on market dominance and potential divestitures of Google’s ad server and exchange, Thompson’s analysis highlights a potential downstream effect: the small players who found an accessible advertising engine in Google’s current structure may face new complexities and barriers if that system is significantly altered. The quest to curb a monopoly might inadvertently make digital advertising harder for those who need its simplicity the most.
