Hi, Read this interesting article titled "Is google a monopoly" http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2127654,00.asp
From wiki: * Single Seller: For a pure monopoly to take place, only one company can be selling the good. A company can have a monopoly on certain goods and not on other goods. google is not a pure monopoly but has a huge share. In fact I believe that the government classifies a monopoly as a firm having a share which is a lot les than 100% * No close substitutes: Monopoly is not merely the state of having a unique or recognizable product, but also that there are no close substitutes available for the function the good fills. There are certainly no close substitutes to google ads (people will come back at me on this one with all the other ad providers but they are kidding themselves) * Price maker: Because a single firm controls the total supply in a pure monopoly, it is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price by changing the quantity supplied. Most certainly - You don't go to another ad services firm because google control the prices. They don't have to lower te price they give publishers due to other firms) * Significant Barrier of Entry: In a monopoly, it is usually harder for other firms to get into the industry to provide the same goods or services as the company who is already the dominant firm of the industry. Google ads have network externalities. there are lots of publishers and lots of advertisers. For another firm to over take google they would have to steal a lot of publishers and advertisers - certainly not gonig to happen given the training that people have taken in learning google ads. I agree with the articles arguments but come to a different conclusion. Google is certainly in a monopolistic position with regards to its advertising network. Notting
This one is a very valid point you've made. I've tried other ads and haven't found a system better than google yet.