Episode 7: Bill Wise on the Google monopoly and what to do (or not do) about it

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 Market 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 the Google's privacy sandbox and the latest reports coming from the UK Competition and Markets Authority.

So I'm Alan Chappelle and I'm here with Ari Piparo.

Hey, Ari, how 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 the DoubleClick back in 2001.

Yeah, 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, Media Ocean, the company 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 gonna get the, you're not getting a canned response that comes through the marketing group.

Bill's gonna tell you what he fakes.

Absolutely.

All right, let's, let's bring him on.

Hey, Bill, welcome to the pod.

How 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.

And you know, Bill, I saw your comments on LinkedIn, the words to the Wise segment, which is, by the way, well done.

And you had said you had no problem with Google search dominance because they had simply out executed the competition.

Kind of a, you know, don't hate the player, hate the game type of a reference.

And that seems aligned with what the judge was saying.

But Judge Maida also said, I'm paraphrasing, but that's one thing to execute your way to the dominant position, but it's an entirely different thing to perpetuate that dominant position.

And 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 in, you know, a ton of markets, then you look at the behavior, right?

So I don't disagree, right.

I mean it's, 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, you know, 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 that, 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 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 cover this from an entirely different perspective, I suppose.

I am a lifelong die hard 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 bing 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, you know, what do you think is going to happen here?

What's the most likely outcome?

You know, there's, there's, you know, initially there's some talk of breaking up Google.

But, 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, 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.

Right.

So you know, 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 that 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 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 American.

Yeah, yeah, I, when I hear that, I hear blah blah, blah.

It's like commission based in Geneva that will dole out the search data to parties on equitable basis.

It's just like, just offensive to be.

And by the way, even like co mingling 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 it's coopetition, right.

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, they 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 isn't all the search engines.

It's AI, right?

Google is, 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, chatgpt 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, like you can imagine that Google would have to do a real time call out to n 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, to a fund that will make governments around the world happy.

Yeah, well Elon will like that.

Yeah, it'll 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.

And I'm not going to get into the, you know, whether publishers have gotten screwed because they have but like ultimately whenever you create that type of fund, you know, you just allow somebody is going to manipulate where that money is going to go.

And, and chances are it's not going to end up going into the Amir using air quotes here.

The right place.

Let's switch gears.

I'm not the host now, but let's switch gears to the problem where Google is a monopolist.

Let's talk about that.

Which one's that?

Mobile phones.

Oh, you're talking ad tech.

Okay, I thought you were talking about mobile phones or self driving cars or something.

Bill, just as a precursor there, you guys bought Flash talking in what, 2021, which was two years after Google had announced their intention to deprecate third party cookies.

And so I'm kind of curious, like what were your thoughts there?

You know, recognizing that potentially at least the advertiser ad serving business could be a fraction of what it was even, you know, a couple years later.

So one of the things I was most excited about is, you know, MediaOcean's business is not relying on cookies.

Never was.

Flash Talking had built the only cookieless ad server in 2019.

John Nardone did a masterful job.

His team, Pat DeAngelis, the CTO did a wonderful job kind of thinking ahead of the market and built the first cookieless ad server.

And as far as I know, maybe still the only cookie less 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 own.

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, 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 this is the Bill Wise.

Podcast and the, and the media Ocean commercial.

But you know, the buy side isn't.

You asked the question, Google answering question.

Google's buy side is not a monopoly.

It's not even alleged to be a monopoly.

It's the sell side.

No, no, no.

But here, here's what 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 listening to podcast and knows anything about ad tech knows it's 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?

You know, I've heard a lot of posturing in the eu.

You're hearing that there's some, know, 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, 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 we in the industry know, like, hey, we all wink, wink, we know what they're doing.

Right, Right, right.

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 flash talking is number two.

And flash talking is technically number three.

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 marketers don't want Google serving their video and CTV impressions.

Right, right.

Because of the conflict with.

Because YouTube is the recipient of most of that.

So Innovate has a pretty high market share for that particular market.

Yeah, we're, I mean we're working on it.

We're, we're, we're stealing share from both.

Well, Innovid's 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 it $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 U.S.

a billion.

In the U.S.

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 publicly that it was going to be folded into DV360 at some point.

Yeah, yeah.

So because 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 personalized and creative, you need the ad server.

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, 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, sorry.

We went into an ad tech rat hole which is what happens when me and Bill are on a podcast.

We're going to talk nitty gritty.

Well, I, I want to go back to the Google AdTech case.

I mean, you know, how do you see this shaking out and what other, you know, what are the various scenarios that you think are most likely?

Bill.

Yeah, listen, I, I, I think, I think a breakup here is more likely or more structure is More likely than the search case, you know, and, 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.

And 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 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 Vyant is two.

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 it'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 will say that Google's opportunity to get a favorable deal just changed.

I don't know about that.

I don't know about that.

I don't know why not.

You know what, I was talking to someone who's working on a deal and they were like, oh, well, now we're going to be able to 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 Big Tech is actually one of them.

So it would not surprise me if Lina Khan stays in her job.

That's crazy.

That's crazy talk.

No, it's not crazy talk.

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.

No, no, listen, I, I actually think she's been doing.

I, I think it took her a little while to get going, but I, I think she's been doing a great job.

I, I think the people.

I'm a big Amy Kar 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 about 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 Lina Khan's actions of consumer protection have been very popular, whereas her activities on antitrust have sort of.

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'd be my guess.

Yeah.

At the end of the day, though, anyone who goes into government 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.

You know, 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 said this, you know, when GDPR and ccpa, like, you know, sometimes you got it, 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?

Ad 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 we were, we were active participants in all of it.

Right.

And, and listen, 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 was 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, 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 now.

I 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 strategy for ingesting, you know, multiple IDs plus the cookie, 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 conversation, says 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 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.

Wow.

I didn't.

Wait, hold on.

I did not think we're going to 1776.

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 red coat, George Washington analogy here.

That was awesome.

That was awesome.

Tell me I'm crazy here.

Google said, I guess it, 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 and 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?

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, 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 dc?

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 headcount 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 ed 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.

Ari and I have turned like, I love how Ari started saying like, hey, I'm just going to play call of 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.

Alan invites all these people on like, as if their guest 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.

I have no real knowledge.

It's just that, like, I think you're right.

I think of 100 lawyers.

I can think of 100 lawyers just on the privacy front that I personally.

Could you imagine being trapped in a room with like a thousand Google lawyers?

That would be the worst the everyone's worst case scenario.

So why can't they just tell me what's in this dialogue screen and why are the regulators.

If I just.

Does the CMA have the ability to Just ask for this 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 there being a little.

The word feckless might come to mind, I don't know.

But I don't feel like they're hrithigs.

You know, power not used is not really power.

So they came out with like a 230 page report last week on this whole subject that my, my TLDR was.

It didn't say anything, but you had a different opinion, Alan.

Well, okay, so yeah, and I'm going to cover this in the newsletter, but just to tee it up here, like they closed something like, or provisionally closed something like 100 separate issues.

And if you go through the issues that they close, 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, 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?

You know, that's a really good question.

So you should get on it.

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, but one of the things that they have that the US doesn't have is that the access to government is significantly different.

Like if you want to, if you have a beef with the Justice Department, good luck because you got to hire like a whole cadre of white shoed law firms in Europe.

You can like 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.

James Rosewell will get on.

I don't know.

Incredible.

I'm not holding my breath.

That was fun, guys.

By the way, you gotta ask.

You gotta 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's.

And it doesn't take a lot of time.

Oh, I'm always, I'm always at the top of the charts.

Always.

Like, I, you know, I get good free agent pickups.

I do research in the draft.

You know, I'm, I'm, you know, I, I, 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.

One, which I love, is all Media Ocean employees, and it's been a league 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, I joined one with, like, Matthew Berry and a couple of celebs, you know, because when you can, you do.

So that's my hobby right now.

Fantastic.

All right.

It's no wool or derby, though.

No other derby?

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 got into the podcast business.

Yeah, 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 the Monopoly Report podcast over the next few weeks.

Next week we'll have Garrett McGrath of Magnite and Pre bid to talk about the latest report from the UK Competition and Markets Authority.

In the upcoming weeks, we'll have David leduc from the 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@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.