Posts Tagged ‘Margrethe Vestager’

Google’s Uncertain Trumpet: Why is YouTube still hidden in the search alphabet?

August 13, 2015 2 comments

You’ve no doubt heard that Google has rearranged the deck chairs to reorganize the company.  The general idea is that Google is establishing a holding company titled “Alphabet”–please resist the urge to point out that Google now owns the alphabet.  What underlies the restructuring is that Google has essentially succeeded in its initial business play to organize the world’s information whether the world likes it or not.  Now Google is setting about commoditizing all of it.  Not just music, books, movies, television programming.

All of it.

With the European Commission breathing down their necks in what appears to be a vigorous antitrust indictment, one can’t help noticing that breaking up Google will be that much simpler after the Alphabet reorganization than before.  So while the spin that Google is putting on the reorganization is that of confidently going a new direction into the future, there may actually be greater uncertainty about the future at Google than ever before.

It’s an odd coincidence that Google is announcing the Alphabet reorganization at the same time as they are seeking a delay in responding to the EC’s antitrust indictment.  Jamie Gorelick can’t help them with this one apparently.

As Re/Code’s insightful journalist Kara Swisher said on Charlie Rose’s show:

You will hear Google saying — the most powerful and sometimes frightening company on the planet — saying oh, we`re just a startup. And so it`s kind of perplexing at the same time… they want to be young and so this maybe gives them a little youth and innovation….I think that it`s just another way to state what they were already doing and it makes for great headlines and then we can all make Alphabet jokes and things like that. But in general, it`s just a statement of what they were doing before.

What Google is essentially accomplishing is moving its riskier business lines under separate managers under the new Alphabet holding company but is leaving search, Android and YouTube in Google.  (It remains to be seen exactly how this will all work as a matter of corporate formality, not to mention that pesky shareholder voting business.  Since the Google insiders have 10 times the voting power of folks like you and me–to the extent ordinary shareholders get a vote at all–we can be pretty confident that when the dust settles, the insiders will still be in control.  If not more so.)

One also can’t help noticing that the European Commission is currently prosecuting Google for antitrust violations in search, is investigating Android for potential antitrust violations and also has a complaint against YouTube pending from IMPALA (the European indie label association).  Pure coincidence, I’m sure.

While we can speculate on these high level machinations, we have much more mundane aspirations.  I’m watching Google reorganize our money and thinking about what all this means for YouTube.

What About YouTube?

So why is YouTube still combined with search?  We don’t know the exact reason because no one is talking (yet).  This is Google after all.  One way to think about this is that YouTube is simply a format based version of search that extends Google’s monopoly power over the video vertical subsidized by Google’s monopoly rents from search.  As we have learned from various investigations and experience, Google clearly favors its own products in search, so it’s not surprising to see YouTube results at the top.

As Matthew Ingram observed in a thoughtful article in Fortune:

Since both YouTube and Google are involved in search (if you see YouTube primarily as a vertical search engine devoted to video) and both depend on advertising for the bulk of their revenues, it arguably makes sense to have them part of the same company, where they can share resources. The flaw in this theory is that YouTube wants to be much more than just a search engine, and real investment in video and the creative economy requires very different skills….A couple of ex-Googlers speculated that YouTube may not have been broken out as a separate unit because Google’s revenues and growth rate are flattening, and therefore it needs to keep all of that YouTube cash and growth inside the search company until it can figure out how to grow faster through mobile and other means. Once that transition has been made successfully, then YouTube can be spun out.

What this may mean for Margrethe Vestager the European Commission’s antitrust regulator is that any prosecution of Google for search must necessarily include YouTube.  We’ll see what the future may hold on that score.

But what this means today for artists and songwriters is that we need to be much tougher on YouTube in royalty negotiations.  Music is a huge part of YouTube’s success and revenues.  Morgan Stanley produced this chart after some green eyeshade working over of Google’s publicly disclosed revenues in an effort to break out YouTube’s contribution to revenue (which neither Google nor YouTube provide directly).  Morgan Stanley thinks YouTube’s revenue is growing 38% year over year.  You know–that revenue we’re supposedly sharing in.  I’m sure your YouTube royalties are growing at the same rate.

In fairness, these numbers are estimates of YouTube gross revenues and does not take into account YouTube’s operating costs.  However–when a “startup” is booking $6 billion, we are well past the point that we should feel we need to cut them a break on royalties.  As Kara Swisher noted, Google’s “we’re just a startup” smokescreen is a bit hard to take.

The Alphabet reorganization is further confirmation that YouTube is a mature business and should be treated as such.

I’m Ready as Anybody Can Be

Here’s the reality:  This business of taking a mysteriously calculated revenue share is bullshit.  The idea that a $6 billion company is paying a royalty that requires a scientific calculator to determine is madness.  The whole YouTube royalty structure has to go.  Do we say to CBS, well pay us a part of what you get and if you decide to sell low that’s OK.  If you decide that some uses of our music aren’t going to be “monetized” (a vile concept), hey, that’s up to you.

No we don’t do that.  We say here’s the price, pay it or don’t use the music.

If YouTube wants to get a license for the premium music videos then guess what?  Drop the sham positioning on DMCA safe harbor.  Why on earth should they get both?  If they want to be in business with artists and songwriters, then act like it.  And if you consider that video search is just branded search under a different name, then why should Google get to hide behind the sham safe harbor at all, particularly now that they’ve told the world that YouTube and search go together.

It’s also nearly impossible to determine whether we’re being paid correctly as upstream royalty compliance is essentially blocked by Google and wrapped in NDAs.  This is a petrie dish for fraud on a massive scale that would make Morris Levy blush and someone needs to investigate it–like Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood is trying to do while being sued by Google at the same time.

It’s time to stand up and be counted on these issues.

You’ve Got to Stand for Something or You’ll Fall For Anything

This is not going to be easy.  Somehow we have gotten into business with the most litigious company on the planet that is running an Enron-level laundry inside the darkest of all black boxes.  YouTube has somehow gotten our marketing folk believing that somehow they need YouTube to market artists.

This assumption needs to be tested.  Taylor Swift has already done a great job of showing us all that YouTube needs hits and hits don’t need YouTube.  The Man 2.0 behind the curtain did not dig that at all. My bet is that it’s about to start happening a lot more frequently.  It’s really very simple–we just need to get it in our job descriptions that hits still need to happen and if we can’t use YouTube to our advantage we will not allow YouTube to use us to theirs.

The Alphabet reorganization should be plenty of proof that YouTube is not a music video service–it’s a search vertical and a data honey pot that is skinned to look like a music operation.  And it books a fortune.

It’s time to get serious.  Google has shown that they are very serious and we should be, too.

Wouldn’t you like your royalties to be growing 38% year over year?

Will the European Union Break Up Google and Should They Include YouTube?

November 22, 2014 Comments off

When Kim Dot Com was arrested, a reporter asked me if I was surprised.  This reaction completely went against the mood of the moment about the fellow.  You’re not? (Incredulous)  Why not? (Scandalized).

Because if you get down on your knees and beg to be punished, don’t be surprised if you are.

I have the same reaction to news that the European Parliament is considering a resolution that Google should be treated as a monopoly in Europe and be “broken up” or required to divest itself of its search business.  According to Reuters:

The European Parliament is preparing a non-binding resolution that proposes splitting Google Inc’s search engine operations in Europe from the rest of its business as one possible option to rein in the Internet company’s dominance in the search market.

European politicians have grown increasingly concerned about Google’s and other American companies’ command of the Internet industry, and have sought ways to curb their power. A public call for a break-up would be the most far-reaching action proposed and a significant threat to Google’s business.

The draft motion does not mention Google or any specific search engine, though Google is by far the dominant provider of such services in Europe with an estimated 90 percent market share.

So how did this come to pass?  It’s simple:  Once again, Google overplayed their hand.  Supposedly the master of public relations and behind the scenes play, Google–and in particular Eric Schmidt (call sign “Uncle Sugar”)–dragged out the European Commission’s antitrust investigation for four years.  But oopsie–that also coincided with the term of the antitrust official of the EC with whom Schmidt had become BFFs.  Uncle Sugar left out the closing part.  When you spend four years working on a deal with a guy, you want to be thinking in terms of that closing bit.  Especially when you know going in that the guy you’re schmoozing is LEAVING ON A DATE CERTAIN.

What Google was truing to avoid was/is something called a “Statement of Objections” that is an administrative proceeding in EC law that allows the imposition of a fine for violating the EC competition law.  That should be a huge amount of money–in Google’s case some estimates are $10 Billion–and it comes with service after the sale, meaning regulatory oversight.

What has become apparent in the not one, not two, not three but an unprecedented four settlement negotiations with the OUTGOING competition commissioner, is that Google has in fact violated the laws that they are avoiding prosecution under.  And even if Google is prosecuted now, they’ve still had an extra four years of operating profits, an extra four years of expanding their control over European governments and an extra four years of extending what Public Citizen called Google’s “soft power”.

However, what has also happened in the intervening four years is hockey stick increase in the public distrust of Google and extreme dissatisfaction with the way the EC was handling the Google investigation.  All the supposed “settlement” proposals that Google made were that special kind of “we think you’re an idiot” approach that anyone who has dealt with Google will immediately recognize.  A fish rots from Uncle Sugar down, don’t you know.

What has happened instead is that there is a full throated movement now among Members of the European Parliament to do what’s worse for Google than paying almost any fine:  Divestiture.

It is possible for governments to require extremely large (check), arrogant (check) and unrepentant (check) violators of antitrust law to divest themselves of certain assets.  This is a relatively normal process with mergers (we’ve even seen record companies required to do this as a condition of approving the merger), and that’s a different breed of cat altogether as it’s part of an overall negotiation.

But to cause divestiture with a company that has violated the antitrust laws is far less common.  We saw this with the break up of the Bell system in the US (United States v. AT&T, 552 F.Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982) for those reading along).  The reason for the AT&T case was that the FCC accused the company of using monopoly profits from its Western Electric subsidiary to subsidize the costs of its network.  Sound familiar? I’ll come back to this.

It’s important to note that the way that this break up would be accomplished is not through the European Parliament as Deutche Welle reports:

While the European Parliament lacks the authority to break up corporations and has no power to initiate legislation, such a resolution would increase the pressure on the European Commission to take action against Google.

“It’s a strong expression of the fact that things are going to change,” Gary Reback, a United States attorney who has filed complaints against Google on behalf of companies said, adding “The parliament doesn’t bind the commission for sure, but they have to listen.”

According to Reuters, the resolution was co-sponsored by German center-right Christian Democrat lawmaker Andreas Schwab and Spanish centrist Ramon Tremosa earlier this week. Schwab told Reuters it was “very likely” to be adopted by his own parliamentary group and it was also supported by the main center-left group.

The new anti-trust chief for Europe, European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, said she would take some time to decide on the next step in a long-running investigation into Google, after her predecessor, Joaquin Almunia, had rejected a proposed settlement with Google which would have ended the matter.

Regardless of whether the European Parliament has the authority to break up Google, it is not a good thing on many levels for even a nonbinding resolution to be adopted in favor of that result.  It’s like the Parliament is telling the public we don’t like Google, we’re keeping an eye on Google and we really don’t trust Google.  And the signal it sends to the new European Competition Commissioner is–go for it.

But that’s not really the end of it.  What about YouTube?  Extremely large (check), arrogant (check) and unrepentant (check) violators of antitrust law.

If Google dominates search in Europe, YouTube is just another search vertical–video search.  And we know that Google used its monopoly profits from search advertising to subsidize YouTube for years.  We’ve seen in the indie label case filed against YouTube with the same European Competition Commission that YouTube certainly behaves like a monopolist–because YouTube is a monopoly.  So Google used its monopoly profits to create a new search monopoly with YouTube and then used its monopoly control to try to bully independent labels.

It also appears that YouTube was unable to use the brass knuckle negotiation tactics it’s so famous for to bully the indie labels into dropping their complaint in Brussels as a condition of closing the Music Key license.  But the case stands out as a prime example of what should be done if the divestment train gets rolling.  Google search and YouTube are just two sides of the same coin.

And of course what it all comes down to is that Google uses its monopoly position to dominate smaller players, all the while harvesting data to profile Google’s search users and music fans on YouTube.  And we all are contributing to Google’s ultimate monopoly–data.

Google shares data across all its platforms which itself a kind of monopoly subsidy across all it’s platforms.  So you can’t really accomplish the goal if all you do is divest the search platform.  YouTube itself must also be spun off with separate management and transparency in data sharing.

As Garth Brooks said, “I’m telling you, [YouTube is] the devil.”  Who never would have survived without subsidies from Google’s monopoly profits.

%d bloggers like this: