For years, Google took the same 20 percent commission for ad transactions that ran through its platform, even though it was higher than what any other industry player charged. Executives privately worried the fee was difficult to defend. Now, the Justice Department argues it\u2019s a key sign of Google\u2019s monopoly over online ads.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Google\u2019s so-called take rate took center stage on the last day of week one in the Justice Department\u2019s second antitrust trial against Google. Citing internal Google documents and the testimony of former Google sell-side ads executive Chris LaSala, the DOJ sought to demonstrate that Google never experienced any real pricing pressure due to its unshakable dominance in the market<\/a>, despite knowing its fee was higher than competitors\u2019 and being aware of customer complaints about its tools<\/a>. The trial continues this week, with YouTube CEO and former Google ads executive Neal Mohan testifying on Monday.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n According to emails presented in court, Google executives wondered whether the 20 percent fee their AdX exchange charged for facilitating transactions was sustainable and worried about how they\u2019d continue to justify it. Jonathan Bellack, another ad executive at Google, wrote in one 2018 exchange<\/a> that the fee was \u201cnot long term defensible.\u201d He also acknowledged in a different 2018 email<\/a> that the fee should get in line with market value and that it \u201cshouldn\u2019t be double the price.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n But the pricing persisted, largely because Google could control access to a huge advertiser base through the Google Ads Network, only allowing publishers the fullest access to that market through AdX. In one 2018 email<\/a>, <\/strong>responding to another executive\u2019s question about disclosing Google\u2019s buy-side fee and how much it should be, LaSala noted that the fee for buying and selling ads \u201cholds today not because there is 20% of value in comparing 2 bids to one another, but because it comes with unique demand via AdWords that is not available any other way.\u201d He said he believed \u201ca sell-side rev share should probably top out at 10%\u201d for the open auction and that the \u201cunique demand\u201d from Google Ads was \u201cthe only reason we can sustain 20%.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/div>\n Jonathan Bellack, another ad executive at Google, wrote in one 2018 exchange<\/a> that the fee was \u201cnot long term defensible.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n