This podcast is brought to you by Luma Partners.A couple months ago, Luma used AI to create a fake ad with my voice in it.So we're going to play that ad now to save a couple bucks.Here we go.This podcast is brought to you by Luma Partners.
Luma is far and away the leading investment bank for the digital advertising sector with nearly 100 completed transactions in AdTech and MarTech.I should know, I used Luma when I sold beeswax and they did a fantastic job.
My exact quote at the time was, more expensive than you thought, but the next morning you feel great.
If your business is getting inbound interest and you need a team of experts who can turn that into a competitive auction at premium prices and manage the deal through to successful completion, you need Luma partners.
I'm the real Ari Paparo and I approve that copy.
Welcome to the Monopoly Report.The Monopoly Report is dedicated to chronicling and analyzing the impact of antitrust and other regulations on the global advertising economy.
If you are new to the Monopoly Report, you can subscribe to our weekly newsletter at monopoly.marketexture.tv and you can check out all the Monopoly Report podcasts and leave us a comment or review on monopolyreportpod.com.
On this week's Monopoly Report newsletter, I focus on Google's privacy sandbox and the latest reports coming from the UK Competition and Markets Authority.So I'm Alan Shappell and I'm here with Ari Papairo.Hey, Ari, how are you doing?I'm great.
How are you doing, Alan?I'm doing fantastic.I'm excited about our guest today.Bill and I go way back.I think we overlapped at DoubleClick. back in 2001.Yeah.
Bill Wise and I were friends.
I have Adam on my other podcast, but I'm very interested to hear what his position is on some of these like antitrust and regulatory things, because, you know, Mediocre and the company he runs is a major player in the market.
They're very much in the mix on a lot of things.
Yeah.And one of the things I really like about Bill is he's not shy.I mean, he's you're going to get the you're not getting a canned response that comes through the marketing group.Bill's going to tell you what he thinks.
Absolutely.All right.Let's let's bring him on.
Hey Bill, welcome to the pod.How are you doing?Hey, thanks for having me guys.Our pleasure.
So today we're going to be talking about Google, the two DOJ cases and maybe even Google's commitments to the competition markets authority in connection with the privacy sandbox.
Bill, I saw your comments on LinkedIn, the Words to the Wise segment, which is – by the way, well done.
You had said you had no problem with Google's search dominance because they had simply out-executed the competition, kind of a don't hate the player, hate the game type of a reference. That seems aligned with what the judge was saying.
But Judge Maida also said, I'm paraphrasing, but that it's one thing to execute your way to the dominant position, but it's an entirely different thing to perpetuate that dominant position.
So I guess my question to you is, in your opinion, how did Google cross over the line from out executing everybody into doing stuff that might run afoul of antitrust laws?
Yeah, you know, it's easy to hate kind of the giant, right?And what I try to do is take, you know, kind of a logical approach to saying, Hey, Google does have two sides of their business, right?The search business, which is clearly dominant, right?
Actually, well, both sides of their business is dominant, but the search business is really dominant, right?When you're thinking about like 90 plus percent market share and, you know, a ton of markets. Then you look at the behavior, right?
So I don't disagree, right?I mean, it'd be great to have more competition in search.Guess what?There isn't.And it wasn't because of lack of competition.It is because Google crushed the competition.
Then you follow the dollars and say, have they taken advantage of that?And you could say, yeah, by writing Apple a $20 billion check every year, that may be taken advantage.Or you can say, they're actually doing good for the market, right?
They're guaranteeing publishers dollars that they otherwise, you know, would have to gain on a variable basis.
So, you know, my concern is that number one, if someone just out executes the competition, right, you know, there were a few years where the Chicago bulls, when I was, you know, younger, you know, just dominated, right.
And, you know, winning six championships, like Kansas city chiefs, as much as I hate them, you know, are crushing it, right?Don't hate the players, hate the, you know, hate the game.I don't see monopolistic behavior in Google search business.
I just don't.And I worry that if there's overarching, you know, like, you know, what's going to happen?You're going to be like, all right, now allow some piddly dink, you know, search company to like mix in their search results.
It's going to be bad for consumers.It might screw up publisher payments.Like, you know, like what, what's the means to the end?I don't understand it.
No, that's a fair point.I mean, just so you know, I'm a lifelong Jets fan, so I take this from an entirely different perspective, I suppose.
I am a lifelong, diehard, season ticket holder, Miami Dolphin fan.And I live in New York.So there's nothing worse than getting on a plane all the time to see your team lose.
Are the Jets the being of football?100% they are.That's an insult to Bing, probably.Yeah, yeah.
Well, let's just turn to the remedies in the search case.I mean, what do you think is going to happen here?What's the most likely outcome?
Initially, there's some talk of breaking up Google, but more likely, in my view at least, that we're going to be exploring things like access remedies and maybe providing at least some data.But what's your take?
What do you think is going to happen here and how is it going to play out?
I think how it's going to play out is like nothing material will happen.I think Google will have to share, you know, some data, as you said.
I also believe on the search side, you know, there's a lot of talk of like, Hey, you know, they own the browser that like, by the way, you know, owning a browser is actually a terrible business, right?
Unless there's some other reason why you own the browser. So, any talks of Google selling the browser is a loser.Who's going to buy that, right?To be honest with you, I actually don't think much is going to happen in this case.
I would tend to agree.The thing that I'm a little worried about is the access remedies because just knowing how Google operates, the idea that you're going to turn over data or even inventory on your search ads business to somebody else,
That's going to get subject to a whole bunch of restrictions.And Google is really good about creating a process around that, which gives the appearance that they're providing access.
But then sometimes that isn't really borne out in the actual reality.
Yeah, the idea of Google being forced to give its data to competitors seems wrong in some sort of moral way.It's just – why?If you can't collect the data yourself, what's the issue?I like the interoperability remedies better.
The idea that someone else might be able to sell ads on Google searches or something along those lines.
I also think maybe some restrictions on the amount of data they're allowed to collect from their browsers and operating systems might be an interesting remedy.
But this idea, we had a guest on, I think, our second pod, I forget the fellow's name from the UK.Oh, Tim Cohen.Yeah.
And he was talking about creating a institution that would license the data to all parties, that would be a public good, and it just struck of creeping socialism to this America.
When I hear that, I hear blah, blah, blah.
It's like a commission based in Geneva that will dole out the search data to parties on an equitable basis.It's just offensive to me.
And by the way, even like commingling other partners in the search results, it's like, good luck to you, right?Maybe you'll end up on page 11, right?Like, you know.
Well, yeah, I mean, you guys are business owners.I mean, how does the interoperability stuff work in practice?And is anybody really going to sign up? to be competing against Google search ad business, even if you get the opportunity to do so?
Yeah.Well, if you, if, if it's coopetition, right.If, if, if there is, you know, an opportunity to advertise alongside Google or compete with them in the listings on a yield basis.
But my point is that nobody can drive higher yields than Google because they have, you know, have a million advertisers.Right.And so it will be impossible and it'll just further, you know, like then there'll be another hearing on that.
Why is nobody else being listed?Yeah, because Google out executes everyone when it comes to search.Period.The end.Let them do it.And they do it well.And everyone benefits because they do it well.
And by the way, the other competition is another search.And as I said, it's AI, right?Google has competition.It's called AI.
And I how many people do you know now that instead of like they would normally Google it, now they're going into, you know, chat, GBT, and they're asking the question. So I actually think that's the competition.
And that's what we should focus on, not this search crap.
The search battle is, to some extent, you know, yesterday's war on the interoperability stuff.
It's technically possible that you can imagine that Google would have to do a real time call out to a number of advertising platforms on every search, and they would have to pass data about the user, which would be privacy destroying behavior.
And then they'd have to return ads.And the odds are Google's ads would be better almost every single time. So that would be limited.
I think a different angle, non-structural relief, is just financial, which is you ban the payments to Apple, you ban the payments to anybody, and you say Google has to pay $10 billion a year for the next 10 years to a fund that will make governments around the world happy.
Yeah, well, Elon will like that.Yeah, it will go into Elon's special fund to go to Mars.Go into Doja.
Yeah, but it's not sort of similar to all the initiatives going out there that publishers need to get paid.I'm not going to get into whether publishers have gotten screwed because they have.
But ultimately, whenever you create that type of fund, you just allow – somebody is going to manipulate where that money is going to go and chances are, it's not going to end up going into the – I'm using air quotes here, the right place.
Let's switch gears.I'm not the host now, but let's switch gears to, to, uh, to like the, the, the problem where Google is a monopolist.Let's talk about that.
Which one's that?Mobile phones.Oh, you're talking about ad tech.Okay.I thought you were talking about mobile phones or, or self-driving cars or something.
Bill, just as a precursor there, you guys bought Flash Hocking in what, 2021?Correct.Which was two years after Google had announced their intention to deprecate third party cookies.
I'm curious, what were your thoughts there, recognizing that potentially at least the advertiser ad serving business could be a fraction of what it was even a couple of years later?
So one of the things I was most excited about is, you know, MediOcean's business is not relying on cookies, never was.FlashTalking had built the only cookie-less ad server in 2019.John Nardone did a masterful job, his team, Pat DeAngelis, the CTO.
Did a wonderful job kinda thinking ahead of the market and built the first cookie was ad server and as far as i know maybe still the only cookie was ad server.
And so we were probably the only company upset when google kept moving the goalposts and the genesis really is the fact that. You know, you have, you know, Google, Google's revenue is $350 billion this year, right?
And a vast majority of that is advertising related.So let's call it 300 billion, 290, 300 billion.And that's their net revenue, right?
So then when you gross up like what they see, my estimation is that Google sees $600 billion of ad spend through their DSP, their SSP, their ad exchange, their ad servers, and their O and O. Right.So they basically see everything.
If you are on the buy side, how can you allow the largest seller at that level of scale to be your infrastructure on the buy side?
And so our thesis was, and it still is the buy side needs independent technology companies at scale who aren't conflicted. And that's our mission.You know, Flashdog acquired 4C.We acquired protected media.And, you know, and we're not done.
And we believe we can be that independence to the buy side.And it's a struggle.It sucks.It sucks competing with Google.But
So there's the Bill Wise podcast and the MediOcean commercial.But, you know, the buy side isn't a monopoly.
I'm just answering questions.Google's buy side is not a monopoly.It's not even alleged to be a monopoly.It's the sell side that's a monopoly.
No, no.But here's what it is.I talked about kind of their scale and their dominance. you know, what is monopolistic is when they acquired invite media and their DSP was the number seven ranked DSP.
And then they said, Oh, by the way, the only way you get to buy YouTube inventory is through our DSP.And they went from number seven to number one, right?That is absolutely monopolistic behavior.
Okay.Yeah.Let's talk about this because it's not alleged to be, it is.We all agree.Everyone who's listened to this podcast and knows anything about ad tech knows it's a monopolistic behavior.
yet it is not present in any of the suits around the world.Maybe it's a question for Alan.
So the only glimmer of hope I've heard about breaking the YouTube DV360 connection, it might be a case with the DSA in Europe because YouTube is covered under the DSA as a whatever they call it, the large entity.
Have you heard anything that might break free DV360 and YouTube?
I've heard a lot of posturing in the EU.You're hearing that there's some activity going on within the EU Commission, which is the entity that's mostly enforcing the DSA and the DMA.
There may be some activity there over the next month, but as of right now, I'm skeptical until it happens.
you know, you guys did a masterful job covering kind of the case and stuff.And I get that it geared more towards the sell side and, you know, around their SSP and ad exchange and bid landscape.
But, you know, we, in the industry know like, you know, Hey, we all wink, wink, we know what they're doing.
Right, right, right.What the legally DFA or whatever it's called nowadays, probably what market share do you think DFA has of buy side ads?CM, it's a campaign manager?Yeah, whatever it's called.
Campaign manager, I would say has 80% market share.Really?That high?Okay.Yeah, I would say 80% overall.And Flashtalk is number two? And flash talking is technically number three.Um, who's number two, you know, innovate.Okay.Right.
So, because the one thing that the market has been incredibly rational about is because Google owns YouTube, they don't really want, you know, market large markers don't want Google serving their video and CTV impressions.Right.Right.
Because of the conflict with, because YouTube is the recipient to most of that. So Innovid has a pretty high market share for that particular market?Yeah.I mean, we're working on it.We're stealing share from both of them.
Well, Innovid's a public company, so we know how much revenue they have.It's like $125, $150 in annual revenue.
So if you're saying that they're like a 15% market share, then you're implying the buy-side ad-serving business is a billion-dollar business without DSPs. without DSPs is a $2 billion business.Really?That seems way high to me.
I mean, I was the DFA product manager back in the day.
A billion in the US.It seems way too high for me, but I will accept your estimate.I think they're smaller than that.Anyway, sorry.
And by the way, here's the other part is like, I actually believe, and I don't believe, I know that Google looked at closing their buy-side ad server.
Yeah, they said so.They said so publicly that it was going to be folded into DV360 at some point.
Yeah, yeah.So because, you know, they make more money on the DSP than they do the ad server, the ad server is almost a lost leader at this point.And the reason why you can't
Which is why the ad server market from a TAM perspective is actually much higher than 2 billion is because of creative personalization and creative orchestration.So if you're a marketer who cares about personalizing creative, you need the ad server.
And, and maybe that's the, maybe that's the only reason going forward, you know, well, you know, bean counting is important.
Yeah, I think the tie between DCM and the Ads Data Hub is the killer app right now.Like it used to be back in the day when I was running it, that it was just counting.
It was basically getting the data and sending it to your billing system was the main use case of DFA.
But over time, with multi-touch attribution and with Google Analytics and things like that, a more complex data system came out and then Ads Data Hub became the most important product in the suite. Okay.We're sorry.
We went into an ad tech rat hole, which is what happens when I'm me and bill on a podcast.We're going to, we're going to talk nitty gritty.
Well, I want to go back to the Google ad tech case.I mean, you know, how do you see this shaking out and what other, you know, what, what are the various scenarios that you think are most likely bill?
Yeah, listen, I think I think a breakup here is more likely or more structure is more likely than the search case, you know.And by the way, at a certain point, it's almost like, you know, maybe some of this stuff gets spun out.
Now, I also believe a ruling will come down.Google will fight it and nothing will happen for years, which is good for you guys because you guys can keep this podcast and endless amounts of content.Yeah.
And so I think it will be years before anything happens, honestly.But I do believe it's a likely scenario that says, hey, listen, You can't be, you know, the defense, the prosecution, the jury and the judge, right?Google is trying.Right.
So it's like you can't have the buy side, the sell side, the ad exchange and analytics and Google Cloud.Right.So I do believe there's going to be structure around that. To me, it's weird because Google is a sell side business.
It'd be weird to have them break up some of their sell side solutions that actually might hurt the market, which is why I keep bringing up the buy side, you know, which is if they start untangling the buy side and the sell side together, that's where some of the magic happens.
You know, they, they kind of, you know, tie people and publishers are forced to use them and the buy side is forced to use them.So I think more choice there.And by the way, there's, there's competition.
We now have two publicly traded SSPs who do a good job.We have one publicly traded DSP that does a phenomenal job.
And I think Viant is doing a valiant effort, valiant effort at becoming that number two, but you know, a little bit more openness there, I think makes sense.
So I don't think it's going to be a radical change and whatever change it is, Google will fight it and they'll get stuck for years.But I actually think a little bit more openness and interoperability there would make sense.
I'm not sure I disagree with you.The one thing I would say is that the current political environment has changed.And as such, Google may see this as their opportunity to make a deal.
I was hoping we'd end up with politics here.
Well, I don't want to get into the whole politics thing, but I, but I will say that, that, that Google's opportunity to get a favorable deal just changed.I don't know about that.I don't know.Why not?
You know what?I, I was talking to someone who's working on a deal and, and they were like, Oh, Oh, now, you know, now we're going to be able to, you know, like rubber stamp now that Trump is elected.I don't think it's true.
There's very little that the far left and the far right can agree on.And, you know, big tech is actually one of them.So it would not surprise me if like Lena Khan stays in her job.
That's crazy.That's crazy talk.No, it's not crazy.It's not crazy.
One thing I would say is, though, that there was she was making some rather conciliatory statements about the current administration as early as yesterday.And I was really shocked.
I'm still not convinced that she's staying, but I was really shocked at how positively she seemed to be viewing the incoming administration.And maybe that's just a natural reflex to, you know, trying to keep her job.But yeah.
I don't know.Listen, I actually think she's been doing, I think it took her a little while to get going, but I think she's been doing a great job.I think the people, I'm a big Amy Klobuchar fan.
Like, you know, she's doing a great job around some of this stuff.And again, find something that Ted Cruz and Amy Klobuchar agree on. you know, wholeheartedly, it's, it's like, you don't find much here.And I think this is one.
And I think, I don't think the current administration is going to change the fact that everyone is concerned or at the dominance of big tech and social media and everything else.
When Terry Quadra was on a couple weeks ago, he made the point that the FTC has sort of a dual mandate, the consumer protection and the antitrust, and that Lena Kahn's actions of consumer protection have been very popular, whereas her activities on antitrust have sort of a, well, there's a lot of backlash from the business community, let's just say that.
So in a Trump administration, I think we should expect no consumer protection activity at all.They're pretty anti-consumer, whereas they'll probably be aggressive on antitrust, which probably wouldn't be a good match for Ms.
Khan, and I'm sure she would not enjoy working in this administration very much.That would be my guess.
Yeah.At the end of the day, though, anyone who goes into government is, you know, works for the people.And I wouldn't put it past, you know, people who are gifted and, you know, want to do that, you know, that service, they got to fight the fight.
I look, I look forward to being either wrong or correct.
Well, let's shift from US dysfunction and move across the Atlantic to the UK and their dysfunction.What's your take on the whole privacy sandbox initiative?Because that has an impact on flash talking, at least on some level.
Yeah.So privacy sandbox was interesting.
The whole, you know, CMA and listen, I, I, I said this, you know, when GDPR and CCPA, like, you know, sometimes you got like, you start out something for good and it ends up hurting the people you want to help.Right.
Like, you know, GDPR just made people who own first party data stronger.Right.So it basically made big tech grow market share. That's the global cause and effect of GDPR.
You know, and so the CMA, I thought was thoughtful, you know, having voices heard, you know, who got hurt most by cookies going away at tech companies.Right.And there's hundreds of these little rascals.
And so I thought they did a good job having their voices heard.I think Google did a fine job acting like they were listening. And, and we were, we were active participants in all of it.Right.
And, and listen, I, I think the double-edged sword with Google is they are an incredible partner to me, even though they're my biggest competitor, they're an incredible partner and we work with them daily and we need to continue working with them daily.
And so in the end, I think that I think the right decision was made. But here's the other part is cookies are just a huge problem.
And so the fact that everyone's like, okay, you know, like now let's just go back to, you know, business as usual when business as usual just isn't good enough, right?Like cookies aren't good enough.
Yeah, one of the things that I'm really trying to focus on as I talk to folks in the industry is to like, what do we mean by moving away from cookies?I get that there are technical – that there's a functionality thing here.
But like if the goal here is to move towards better privacy, somebody has got to define for me what better means.
Because what happens is that every vendor talks about the one or two areas in which they are great on privacy to the exclusion of everything else.And that's not really a way to move the ball forward on privacy.
100% agreed, 100% agreed.And I think we as an industry over the last couple of years, you know, have made strides, right.Anticipating this.And I think it would be a shame for us to now give up on those strides.Right.
Um, now I know, you know, what we're doing is like, there's not going to be one ID, like a cookie that like, you know, rules the roost.Right.And so it's going to be a multi ID. You know, you have to be able to ingest, you know, first party IDs.
You got to integrate with UID ramp ID.We have our own F track ID.Right.And so if you don't have a, a strategy for ingesting, you know, multiple IDs plus the cookie, you, you, you know, you're just going to fail.
I feel like the CMA is just getting rope-a-doped by Google.Like Google, they run a process.They put out substantial concerns with the sandbox and its progress.
And Google, instead of addressing the concerns, changes the conversations as they're doing something totally new.And by the way, CMA, you need to focus on this new thing that we are intentionally slowing down any progress on.
And forget about the old thing, which you were already had your teeth in. And now we have two things that are both in limbo, and Google is totally controlling the pace of both of them.
I agree completely.So I'm going to drop a little history on you.When the US started the revolution against the United Kingdom, they didn't actually win.
I did not think we're going to 1776.But no, I'm making a point here.
The US didn't win.They just exhausted the UK and to the point where the UK had other things to focus on. And I think that's exactly what's happened here.
Google has exhausted the good folks at the Competition and Markets Authority who have multiple issues, and they are doing everything they can right now to close issues and move this and get this off their desk.
I agree with that, but I don't think it needed a Redcoats, George Washington analogy here.That was awesome.That was awesome.Tell me I'm crazy here.
Google said, I guess, I don't remember when, it's like four months ago, they said, oh, we're just going to give consumer choice about cookies and more details to come. And there hasn't been an iota of more detail to come.It's a dialogue.
You're going to put it in the browser and it's either going to be opt-in or opt-out.It's going to say something.Does that take four months while you're under regulatory scrutiny?If I was a regulator, I'd be like, fax it over, baby.I want to see it.
What's the screen?Like, give me the screen.What's going on?What's taking so long?
No, I do think there's something to be said for trying to get this right in terms of the choice screen, but the bigger point here, this entire effort of moving to the choice screen and going quiet basically for three or four months was Google's attempt to avoid all of the negative press that was absolutely going to be forthcoming regarding testing of their tool.
And so they've managed to do that.I mean, it's kind of brilliant.I mean, build a year, you know, don't hate the player, hate the game thing. Like they've been brilliant at this.
And so they're going to talk to you about all the testing they're doing and all the careful and how much they care about privacy.But the real game here is to get people to stop talking about how crappy the privacy sandbox tool is.
Let me ask you a question.How many lawyers and people do you think Google employs in D.C. ?
Oh, a thousand.I thought you were going to start with a bottom of the ocean comment with lawyers.So I was a little worried to be honest.
No, no, no.So, so in terms of like advocacy fighting this, you think it's a thousand thousand people Google has in DC.That's by the way, just for the record.So them managing this is far greater than 90% of the head count of an ad tech company.
Like, you know, like, yeah, you know, they have more lawyers than, than your company has engineers probably. Yes, on the same subject.
Thanks for the insult.I was talking about smaller ad tech companies don't have a thousand employees, but you went there and insulted me.I also love that.How, you know, you get a lot done with your tiny little engineering.
Harry, Harry and I have turned like, I love how Harry started saying like, hey, I'm just going to play call a commentary.And now. Myself and Ari have turned this into an interview of Alan, which is like, you know, well, he's the one who knows stuff.
I know.I love it.We're just off on the side.I love it.
It invites all these people on like, as if they're guests and was like, Hey, listen, I don't know this stuff.You know, this stuff, tell us, tell us, by the way, that is remarkable.A thousand.Just imagine that.
Like, you know, by the way, I have well over a thousand employees.
I have no real knowledge.It's just like, I can think of a hundred lawyers.I can think of a hundred lawyers just on the privacy front that I personally know.
Could you imagine being trapped in a room with like a thousand Google lawyers?That would be the worst, everyone's worst case scenario.So why can't they just tell me what's in this dialogue screen?
And why are the regulators, I mean, does the CMA have the ability to just ask for this and to force it?Because it feels like they could.
So it's funny you say that.The CMA was granted—it hasn't, I think, quite taken effect yet, but they've been granted unprecedented powers.
Now, whether they're going to choose to use them in this case is an open question, but they can do just about whatever they want.They tend to be—they're being a little—the word feckless might come to mind.I don't know.
But I don't feel like they're really—you know, power not used is not really power.
So they came out with a 230-page report last week on this whole subject.My TLDR was it didn't say anything.But you had a different opinion, Alan?
Well, OK.So yeah.And I'm going to cover this in the newsletter.But just to tee it up here, they closed something like, or provisionally closed something like 100 separate issues.
And if you go through the issues that they closed, a lot of them were like, oh, we're closing this because Google disagreed. And like the whole point of this process was to try to find a resolution.
And if ultimately, you know, four and a half years later that you're just going to start closing stuff because Google says so, then what was the point?But that's not even the worst part about this.
They're taking all of the really, really challenging issues that nobody's been able to solve in four and a half years and they're punting them to a blue ribbon committee run by, guess, Google.
And so now they're setting up a separate set of committees where they'll run all these super important issues by Google and then Google can pretend to listen to those issues in that forum and then do whatever the heck they want.
Wow.Can I get on that committee?What's the application process?
That's a really good question.You should get on that.Why do you say that?Well, no, it's funny you say that.
So one of the things about EU law, and I know you're all about to go to sleep, but one of the things that they have that the US doesn't have is that the access to government is significantly different.
If you have a beef with the Justice Department, good luck, because you've got to hire a whole cadre of white-shoed law firms.In Europe, you can fill out a form, and then they have to respond to that. Right.And it's an entirely different mindset.
So who knows?Maybe I'll get on.Maybe James Rosewell will get on.I don't know.
I'm not holding my breath.
That was fun, guys.By the way, you got to ask me my hobby, though. Yeah, what's your what's your semi-secret hobby?So I thought a lot about this.First off, I have five kids and a demanding job.And so it was hard thinking about my hobby.
And I also want to state for the record, like, you know, these people who like their hobbies are like training for triathlons or like, you know, they're like a scratch, low handicap golfer.
I don't trust those people because they're either not a good parent or not good at their job.They got like, you can't run triathlons and not be skimping on something.Right.
So my hobbies tend to be things I can do on the slide, like here and there doesn't take a lot of time.And my current hobby right now is I am obsessed with fantasy football. Obsessed.And it doesn't take a lot of time.
Oh, I'm always at the top of the charts.Always.Like, you know, I get good free agent pickups.I do research in the draft.You know, I've been in the Super Bowl the last two years.
Is everybody there?Are they all media ocean employees?And then talk about manipulating the process bill.Of course you're winning it.
No trust up.No, I have, I'm in four leagues.Uh, one, which I love is all media ocean employees.And it's been a league, uh, that's been around for, I think, 14 years.So it's, it's awesome. That one is very competitive.
I have one with my boys from growing up.And then, you know, I joined one with like Matthew Barry and a couple of celebs, you know, because when you can, you do.
So that's my hobby right now.
All right.It's no Wohler Derby, though.
No, no, no, no, no.But, but, but by the way, the real answer is like, like who has time for fucking these hobbies?
You should have retired like me and gone to the podcast business.
Yeah.It's exhausting.The podcast business is exhausting.So awesome guys.
All right.Well, that was a fantastic conversation.Thanks so much, Bill.We've got a bunch of other fantastic guests coming up on Monopoly Report podcast over the next few weeks.
Next week, we'll have Garrett McGrath of Magnite and Prebid to talk about the latest report from the UK Competition and Markets Authority.
In the upcoming weeks, we'll have David LeDuc from the NAI who will share his predictions around the privacy and regulatory landmines the digital ad market is going to encounter in 2025.
Please subscribe to the show at monopolyreportpod.com or on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, or wherever you listen to your podcasts.Bill, thank you so much for being here.Thanks, guys.
Yeah, thanks, Bill.Later.
Sign in
