Powered by InformationWeek Business Technology Network
Topics:
Google
Google Drops the Ball on Data Portability
Google is all for data portability, unless it threatens the company's dominance of online advertising. In a report published last week, Harvard business professor Benjamin Edelman takes Google to task for imposing on its advertisers restrictions that make it difficult for them to use competing ad platforms offered by Microsoft and Yahoo. The issue is that the Google AdWords API terms of use restrict advertisers from copying ad campaign data to competing platforms. Sure, you can move your AdWords campaign data to Microsoft AdCenter, but doing so requires a 17-step process. "By encouraging small to medium-sized advertisers to advertise only with Google AdWords, Google's API restriction reduces the number of advertisers using competing ad platforms," Edelman writes. "This harms competing platforms in two distinct ways. First, it reduces competitors' coverage -- preventing competitors from featuring relevant ads that pertain to obscure user searches. ... Second, by reducing the number of advertisers bidding for advertising positions at other platforms, the quoted provision dramatically reduces revenue at those platforms." Edelman also says that Google's API restriction reduces the value of advertising inventory held by third-party publishers. Google, which is usually very good about responding to requests for comment, has not yet gotten back to me to explain its position. That may be because there really isn't a good way to explain how it can support data portability for user data and social network data while opposing data portability for ad data. As Edelman points out, the AdWords API restrictions contradict Google CEO Eric Schmidt's assertion that "we would never trap user data." Certainly, Google could argue that user data is different from ad data. But Google has consistently supported "data portability" without any qualifying adjective. Google should do the right thing and compete by offering superior technology instead of by making it more difficult for advertisers to work with competitors. Update: After this post was published, Deanna Yick from Google did indeed respond. In an email, she said: Thanks for reaching out. Please note that the section of our Google AdWords Terms and Conditions that Ben Edelman cites does not apply to End-Advertiser-Only AdWords API Clients. In other words, it does not apply to individual advertisers, as they are free to take their data and do with it what they want. In addition, Yick said: Specifically, I'd like to clarify that the statement in your story that says "The issue is that the Google AdWords API terms of use restrict advertisers from copying ad campaign data to competing platforms" is not accurate. The section of our Terms and Conditions being referenced only applies to third parties as part of our co-mingling policy and does not apply to individual advertisers who are free to take their data and do with it what they want (either through the AdWords API or through the AdWords Editor). In an email, Benjamin Edelman responded: Seems like that response completely misses the point. See my article, section "Google's response", first bullet point and its two sub-bullets. « Risk Assessments In Information Security | Main | Hands-Free Laws Don't Solve The Real Issue » |
| Sign up now for the weekly InformationWeek Blog Newsletter. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||