The Association of National Advertisers, that represents large consumers advertisers group such as Procter & Gamble, General Motors, Apple and others opposes Google-Yahoo tie up. On Sunday The Association of National Advertisers sent a letter objecting to the proposed Internet search advertising partnership between Yahoo Inc and Google Inc to government regulators reviewing the deal. In the letter noted that – "Google-Yahoo partnership will control 90 percent of search advertising inventory and states ANA’s concerns that the partnership will likely diminish competition, increase concentration of market power, limit choices currently available and potentially raise prices to advertisers for high quality, affordable search advertising".
So the Google Spokeperson replied
Remains steadfast in its belief that this deal, in which prices are determined by advertiser demand-driven auctions, not by collaboration between Yahoo and Google will strengthen Yahoo’s competitive position and will help to drive a more robust, higher quality & marketplace for our advertisers.
Adam Kovacevich said
"Numerous advertisers have recognized that this agreement will help them better match their ads to users’ interests, and that ad prices will continue to be set by competitive auction. While some have raised questions about the agreements’ potential impact on ad prices, advertisers care far more about getting a good return on their advertising dollar than they do about buying cheap ads that don’t bring in customers, and this agreement will clearly help advertisers reach Yahoo users more efficiently".
But do advertisers really have a logical case for saying Yahoo shouldn’t be allowed to do a deal to make more money on its search operation? Especially when it had a deal with Google several years ago? And spent years developing a system that apparently still doesn’t match Google in ad relevance?