Google ruled a monopoly, but the remedy may arrive too late
Brian opened with news that the FTC ruled Google a monopoly for paying to be the default search engine on browsers like Safari and Firefox. Andy drew parallels to the Microsoft case in the 1990s, when Microsoft paid PC manufacturers like Compaq to embed Internet Explorer on desktops. The finding noted that Google achieved dominance because it had the highest quality search engine, which earned the trust of hundreds of millions of users.
They got the best mouth trap out there by the finding of fact.
Andy Hoar, Master B2B
The irony is that Microsoft, which owns Bing, was a key witness against Google. Andy noted that by the time any remedy takes effect, the search landscape may look entirely different. ChatGPT and other AI tools are already changing how people find information, and Google’s search dominance may erode on its own.
The centralization question for global B2B companies
The main topic was whether ecommerce functions for large global B2B companies with diverse lines of business should be centralized or decentralized. Andy explained why the question matters: the way a company designs its team produces certain outcomes. A centralized team gets one set of results; a decentralized team gets another. At a previous Master B2B summit, participants drew their org charts on paper. The hosts collected 96 different versions.
Factors that drive the decision
Several factors shape whether centralization or decentralization makes sense. Local customer preferences and behaviors matter: if different markets have different languages, currencies, or product requirements, some localization is unavoidable. Brian recalled working with Epson across 18 countries, where product data had to accommodate local power configurations. Service and installation needs also push toward localization, while fulfillment logistics may require a mix of central and local distribution.
The most important factor, in Brian’s view, is talent. Building a center of excellence requires concentrating expertise in one place. If digital and ecommerce talent is available in certain cities and wants to live there, centralizing functions in those locations makes hiring easier.
What should be centralized
Tech infrastructure is a strong candidate for centralization. When companies acquire brands and inherit legacy systems, or when different markets have different platform instances, the result is technical debt, maintenance headaches, and no leverage with vendors. A single centralized platform avoids these problems and allows the company to negotiate better contracts.
Data and analytics also benefit from centralization. Companies cannot have data scientists in 14 different countries all working independently. Centralizing data allows teams to collaborate, apply best practices, and harness information more effectively. Andy drew an analogy to finance: companies centralize financial tracking because it flows through the organization, and data flows the same way.
What may need localization
Marketing requires some decentralization. SEO, paid search, and analytics expertise can live at the corporate level, but messaging, language, and campaign execution often need to be local. Brian mentioned the classic example of the Chevy Nova, whose name translates to “does not go” in Spanish, as a reminder that local knowledge matters.
Customer support is a hybrid question. Offshoring, nearshoring, and onshoring have all been tried. The answer depends on whether customers expect local language and local understanding of workflows. Operations and fulfillment are inherently local in many cases, though common goods can sometimes ship from a central distribution center.
The messy hybrid is often optimal
Ian Heller, founder of Distribution Strategy Group and formerly of HD Supply, summed up the consensus.
The optimal solution is the messy one, which is often the case, a hybrid that is unique to the company based on its talent profile, market, and business model.
Ian Heller, Distribution Strategy Group
Tim Peterson of Spear Digital recommended centralizing at the top with country, area, or brand leaders around the organization, which gives both local expertise and global cost savings. The LinkedIn poll showed 64% of practitioners favoring centralization, though the hosts noted this may reflect confirmation bias among respondents who already work in centralized structures.
Control, talent, and the case for centralization
Andy closed by noting that beyond cost savings and vendor leverage, centralization offers control. Decentralized teams can run 25 different experiments, but they can also create 25 different messes. Talent remains the overriding driver. If building a center of excellence is the goal, concentrating people and expertise in one place is usually the right starting point, with selective localization where customer needs demand it.