Analysis: Websites Using Prebid.js Without Google Publisher Tag

Executive Summary

Our investigation into websites using Prebid.js without Google Publisher Tag revealed a surprising trend: despite extensive testing across multiple categories of websites, we found no major publishers that exclusively use Prebid.js without Google Publisher Tag. This finding is particularly relevant in light of recent anti-trust litigation against Google in the digital advertising space.

Key Findings

Testing Results

• Tested over 60 websites across multiple categories (news, tech, entertainment, gaming, newspapers)
• Found that nearly all websites using Prebid.js also use Google Publisher Tag
• No websites found using Prebid.js without Google Publisher Tag
• Some websites use neither technology

Industry Context: Google's Anti-Trust Issues

Recent developments in the ad tech industry provide important context for these findings:

1. Department of Justice Lawsuit (2023-2024): The U.S. Department of Justice filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Google, specifically targeting its dominance in the digital advertising ecosystem. The lawsuit alleges that Google has monopolized ad tech markets through anti-competitive practices. [^1]

2. European Union Actions: The EU has also taken regulatory action against Google regarding its advertising practices, including concerns about preferential treatment of Google's own ad tech products. [^2]

3. Publisher Dependency: The lawsuit has highlighted how publishers have become heavily dependent on Google's suite of advertising tools, creating barriers to adopting alternative solutions. [^3]

Analysis of Findings

Why Publishers Continue Using Both Technologies

1. Market Dominance: Google's dominance in the ad tech ecosystem means publishers often feel compelled to use Google Publisher Tag to maintain access to Google's demand sources and ad exchange.

2. Revenue Optimization: Publishers may use Prebid.js for header bidding to increase competition among demand sources while still relying on Google's ad server for guaranteed deals and direct-sold inventory.

3. Technical Integration: Many publishers have legacy systems built around Google's ad tech stack, making it difficult to transition to alternative solutions.

4. Demand Access: Google's ad exchange provides access to significant demand that publishers may be reluctant to forgo.

The Paradox of Independence

Despite the anti-trust concerns and the availability of alternative ad servers, our findings suggest that publishers are not moving away from Google's ad tech stack. This could be attributed to:

1. Switching Costs: The technical and operational costs of migrating to alternative ad servers may outweigh the benefits for many publishers.

2. Revenue Risk: Publishers may fear revenue loss if they abandon Google's demand sources.

3. Technical Complexity: Managing multiple ad server technologies can be complex and resource-intensive.

Implications for the Ad Tech Industry

Impact of Anti-Trust Litigation

The ongoing anti-trust litigation against Google has brought increased attention to the concentration of power in the ad tech industry. However, our findings suggest that:

1. Behavior Change Slow: Despite legal challenges, publisher behavior has not significantly shifted toward abandoning Google's ad tech stack.

2. Market Inertia: The complexity and risk associated with changing ad tech infrastructure creates significant market inertia.

3. Alternative Solutions: While alternatives like Amazon Publisher Services, Index Exchange, and other non-Google ad servers exist, adoption appears limited among major publishers.

Future Outlook

The relationship between anti-trust pressure and publisher behavior remains complex:

1. Potential Regulatory Changes: If the anti-trust lawsuit results in regulatory changes that limit Google's ability to favor its own ad tech products, we may see more publishers exploring alternatives.

2. Industry Evolution: The ad tech industry continues to evolve, with privacy regulations and changes in browser behavior driving innovation in alternative solutions.

3. Publisher Empowerment: Initiatives to promote publisher independence and competition in ad tech may gain momentum as regulatory pressure increases.

Conclusion

Our investigation reveals that despite anti-trust concerns and legal challenges facing Google in the ad tech space, major publishers continue to use both Prebid.js and Google Publisher Tag. This suggests that while publishers may embrace header bidding solutions like Prebid.js to increase competition among demand sources, they remain reliant on Google's ad serving infrastructure.

The lack of publishers using Prebid.js without Google Publisher Tag highlights the entrenched position of Google in the ad tech ecosystem and the challenges facing alternative ad servers in gaining broader adoption. As regulatory scrutiny continues and the industry evolves, it will be important to monitor whether publisher behavior shifts toward greater independence from Google's ad tech stack.

This finding underscores the importance of continued regulatory oversight and industry initiatives aimed at promoting competition and publisher independence in digital advertising.

Code

Github repository: https://github.com/lsiu/sites-with-prebid-without-gpt

References

[^1]: U.S. Department of Justice. (2023). "Justice Department Sues Google for Monopolizing Digital Advertising Technologies." https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies

[^2]: European Commission. (2019). "Antitrust: Commission fines Google €1.49 billion for abusive practices in the area of online advertising." https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_19_1770

[^3]: Miles Kruppa, Dave Michaels (2023). "DOJ Sues Google, Seeking to Break Up Online Advertising Business" The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/u-s-sues-google-for-alleged-antitrust-violations-in-its-ad-tech-business-11674582792