Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Google In Bidding To Buy DoubleClick

Posted by kdawson on Mon Apr 02, 2007 09:52 PM
from the no-bargains-left dept.
Google Businesses Microsoft IT
A number of readers clued us to the latest development in the saga of te sale of DoubleClick: Google has thrown its hat into the ring against Microsoft and (reportedly) Yahoo and AOL. Most of the stories quote a Wall Street Journal piece that is only available to subscribers. Google's entry into the bidding may boost the price for the remaining pieces of DoubleClick (parts of the company having already been sold off) to $2 billion, twice what its current owners paid for the whole thing. Some reports speculate that this figure could give Microsoft pause.

Related Stories

[+] Microsoft to Buy DoubleClick? 195 comments
roscoetoon writes to tell us Bloomberg is reporting that Microsoft is in talks to buy DoubleClick. Seen as a move to compete against the Google advertising engine Double Click owners Hellman & Friedman are seeking a $2 billion payday. "The purchase would give Microsoft tools to battle Google Inc. for ads that appear on Web sites. DoubleClick works with advertisers to create online campaigns, such as streaming video clips to promote New Line Cinema's movie "The Number 23." The New York-based company's Dart technology monitors the performance of Internet ads for marketing companies."
[+] Google buys DoubleClick for $3.1 Billion 351 comments
marvinalone writes "The New York Times reports that Google has purchased DoubleClick. That seems to be the conclusion to the speculation we've talked about earlier. From the article: 'Google reached an agreement today to acquire DoubleClick, the online advertising company, from two private equity firms for $3.1 billion in cash, the companies announced, an amount that was almost double the $1.65 billion in stock that Google paid for YouTube late last year.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Google In Bidding To Buy DoubleClick | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 120 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • Great... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geminidomino (614729) * on Monday April 02 2007, @09:54PM (#18582423)
    (http://www.mangaschool.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday January 03 2006, @07:51AM)
    Mr. "Don't be evil" in the running to buy one of the most Evil and Rude companies on the 'net.

    Somehow I doubt it's to dismantle them and slowly kill the bastards responsible...
    • Re:Great... by QuantumG (Score:2) Monday April 02 2007, @09:56PM

    • "Buy double click" double-click ad? (Score:4, Funny)

      by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Monday April 02 2007, @10:01PM (#18582469)
      Why don't double-click just put out a "buy double-click" ad. Then everyone can play!
      [ Parent ]

    • Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Checkmait (1062974) <(moc.erawerahp) (ta) (noryb)> on Monday April 02 2007, @10:20PM (#18582567)

      I agree: Google probably put the bid in to stop its rival Microsoft from entering the online advertising market in force. Plus, with with Microsoft menacing with its touted eye-tracking ad technology [slashdot.org], Google may be anxious to keep MS out of the ring, at least through merger or acquisition.

      As for the union of the opposite ends of the online ad spectrum, I think Google will influence DoubleClick more than vice-versa simply because it is the acquiring company and has the prerogative of tossing out all of the old management. I hope.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Great... by stratjakt (Score:1) Monday April 02 2007, @10:29PM
      • Re:Great... by cyphercell (Score:2) Tuesday April 03 2007, @01:07AM

    • Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Monday April 02 2007, @10:48PM (#18582777)
      Or, it is to make Microsoft over-pay for Doubleclick. Their warchest has dwindled to under $30B for the first time in something like a decade. If they over-pay for Doubleclick, then it might just be one big brick in the wall, ultimately contributing to the death of two of the greatest evils ever to walk the Earth! Muahahahahaha!
      [ Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Hmm... by EmotionToilet (Score:1) Monday April 02 2007, @11:03PM

    • Re:Great... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by billcopc (196330) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Monday April 02 2007, @11:23PM (#18583007)
      (http://fnarg.com/)
      Haven't you guys ever played Monopoly ? Google probably doesn't want the glorified pile of funk that is DoubleClick, because AdSense is far friendlier and more successful than DoubleClick ever was. However, Microsoft DOES want DoubleClick because they want to compete with AdSense, somehow, in a bastardized half-assed rip-off kind of way like everything else they've released in the past 30 years. If Google ends up buying DoubleClick, just to keep it away from Microsoft, it's a smart strategic move and one that Google can afford, especially if it means protecting their ad business. We all know how Microsoft plays... they don't care if they lose tons of money, as long as they drag everyone else down with 'em, then when the time is right they' pounce on their tired enemies. They're like chinese computer importers, only less puny!

      Google buying DC is kind of like a good monopoly player buying a single lot they don't want, just to keep someone else from completing their set and building friggin hotels. Believe me, buying St. James Place for $180 now is way better than paying your opponent $950 rent later. Same idea here!
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Great... by Handover Phist (Score:2) Tuesday April 03 2007, @12:30AM
    • Re:Great... by grcumb (Score:3) Tuesday April 03 2007, @01:00AM

  • Makes sense (Score:3, Informative)

    by _merlin (160982) on Monday April 02 2007, @09:57PM (#18582451)
    (http://www.vastheman.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 02 2005, @01:30AM)
    It makes perfect sense - Google and DoubleClick both make money from inserting ads into web sites. But while Google have some of the least intrusive/annoying ads, DoubleClick are at the opposite end of the spectrum. But then both of them have a reputation for gathering personal information, too. If this does happen, I hope Google makes DoubleClick ads less irritating, and not the other way around.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • I don't care who buys it. I'll never see a DoubleClick ad again as long as Adblock Plus can be set to *doubleclick* . Whoever gets them gets a losing business model.

  • Where'd all the DoubleClick fanatics go? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02 2007, @09:59PM (#18582459)
    I remember a few years back, before Google's advertising services became popular, that using DoubleClick's ads on your site was all the rage. There used to be large groups of people who'd defend DoubleClick to the death, it seemed. Whenever talk of competitors' offerings arose, even the early ones of Google, these folks would come out in force just to prove you wrong. Sometimes they bordered on insanity. I recall one fellow asking me if I'd "shave my balls" for Google after I remarked that I liked how their ads were unobtrusive and relevant.

    Now we hear virtually nothing from these people. I think that this whole situation just goes to show how some of the most significant online media companies can become irrelevant so quickly. The MySpaces and YouTubes of today will likely be long forgotten even in as little as two to three years.

  • Good... (Score:1)

    by soccerace09 (908351) on Monday April 02 2007, @10:08PM (#18582497)
    Now my NoScript can block Google along with many other services!

  • Its a sad day when... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Ariastis (797888) on Monday April 02 2007, @10:13PM (#18582533)
    ...people fight to buy DoubleClick.

  • Microsoft pauses at $2billion? (Score:2)

    by biocute (936687) on Monday April 02 2007, @10:29PM (#18582621)
    (http://xmoo.com/)
    They probably pay more than that in fines.

  • google? (Score:1)

    by axel2501 (1083451) on Monday April 02 2007, @10:40PM (#18582715)
    Google is getting seduced by the dark force...

  • Patents? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02 2007, @10:45PM (#18582751)
    Perhaps Google wants doubleclicks patents, with it they could potentially scare away any new comers into their cash cow ad business....

    #

    DoubleClick's "DART" Patent

    # 5,948,061. This is DoubleClick's "DART" patent, entitled "Method of delivery, targeting, and measuring advertising over networks." Here is the abstract:

            Methods and apparatuses for targeting the delivery of advertisements over a network such as the Internet are disclosed. Statistics are compiled on individual users and networks and the use of the advertisements is tracked to permit targeting of the advertisements of individual users. In response to requests from affiliated sites, an advertising server transmits to people accessing the page of a site an appropriate one of the advertisement based upon profiling of users and networks.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Oil and Water? (Score:1)

    by bblboy54 (926265) on Monday April 02 2007, @10:46PM (#18582755)
    (http://www.bobkmertz.com/)
    Google: "Don't Be Evil"
    DoubleClick: "Be Evil"

    This actually scares me... Google buying YouTube was a question of intelligence... seeing this is really a question of morals....

  • Is google as good as the used to be? (Score:2)

    by walterbyrd (182728) on Monday April 02 2007, @10:47PM (#18582759)
    I don't think google's search engine is nearly as good as it used to be. These days, I seem to be flooding with ads which have nothing to do with I type.

    As I understand it, the cost of using google's adsense is sky-rocketing.

    Is google now going the way of doubleclick?

    I guess I can't blame googe. They exist to make a profit. But, I might start looking elsewhere.

    • Re:Is google as good as the used to be? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rm69990 (885744) on Monday April 02 2007, @11:12PM (#18582931)
      I often hear this "flooded with ads" argument, but generally anything I look for I find on the first page. I'm willing to bet that no less than 99% of my searches require me to look beyond the second page at the worst. What exactly are you looking for all of the time? Any examples so I can see what you're talking about? (I've tried Yahoo! as well and don't have any issues with them either).

      As for Adsense, if you're paying to use adsense, you need your head examined. Google pays you to use Adsense :-P (I'm assuming you meant Adwords).
      [ Parent ]

  • I can understand Google bidding on Doubleclick.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by neonmonk (467567) on Monday April 02 2007, @10:58PM (#18582825)
    I guess Google are looking at it like this.

    1. They manage to win the bidding war = one less adspace competitor and quite possibly more customers.
    2. They manage to up the price by millions maybe even billions of dollars and one of their major competitors (Microsoft or Yahoo) ends up spending an inflated amount on something they would have bought even if Google didn't enter the race.

    Google can't lose.

    I seriously doubt they'd continue the marketing style of DoubleClick.

    (I too didn't even realise doubleclick was still around *hugs adblock*)

  • Shorting GOOG may pay out eventually (Score:1)

    by Chryana (708485) on Monday April 02 2007, @11:07PM (#18582889)
    I don't mean to be a troll. I swear. But who thinks here that buying youtube, a company with a net profit of 0 was worth 1.65 billions? It may pay off, in the very long term. I'm willing to yield that. And I'll go as far as to say that doubleclick is a much, much better fit for google, it's an advertising company. However, the question we should ask now is, how profitable is doubleclick? It's not publicly traded anymore, so recent numbers are hard to come by (or at least they are hard to come by for me, feel free to correct me here). The best information I could find was their 2004 Q1 earnings report, at http://sec.edgar-online.com/2004/05/10/0000950123- 04-006076/Section7.asp [edgar-online.com]. Their net earning for that period, if I read the document correctly, were 7.693 millions. That's not a huge profit, even if you multiply it by 4 to get a rough yearly earning. Unless their business has grown a LOT, it's unlikely to be worth 2 billions, especially if "parts of the company having already been sold off". Of course, they may not buy it at all, and this whole comment will be moot. However, if they do buy doubleclick, and if it hasn't grown has not grown a whole lot more profitable since 2004, I really think that these acquisitions of dubious value may will bring google stock way down from it's current value.

  • Genius! Google is Shill bidding? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by XenonOfArcticus (53312) on Monday April 02 2007, @11:08PM (#18582897)
    (http://www.arcticus.com/)
    Isn't it possible, that Google is engaged in a little eBay-style shill bidding? Google doesn't really want Doubleclick. In fact, Google would probably prefer NOT to have DoubleClick, and not to have DoubleClick EXIST at all. Google just wants to deny Microsoft an opportunity, or failing that, make them pay WAY more than fair value for the privilege. Google can play the table for a few rounds in a bidding war with Microsoft, and then back away at the last second when they think Bill has reached his table stakes. Not that Bill can't afford to pay some amount, it's just that at some point, Microsoft will really regret lining Hellman & Friedman's pockets any more than they had to. Google doesn't care if H&F get rich, as long as it makes Bill poorer. ;)

    And in Google's mind, it might not even be evil. It might be PREVENTING evil. If I were Google (and I'm not, darn it) I'd totally play it that way.

  • Ok, it starts being irritating (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Monday April 02 2007, @11:23PM (#18583009)
    Google is buying more and more companies that harvest user preference information. With their own service they know what kind of things people are looking for, what people they are in contact with and (if they're so inclined) what topics people discuss, with YouTube they know what kind of entertainment people enjoy to watch and what kind of content interests them, with doubleclick they'd know what "pathes" people take on their way through the WWW.

    And to be honest, I don't even have an idea what other companies they scooped up on the road that we didn't even hear about. I'm quite sure a decent profiler has no trouble putting the puzzle together.

    So my question is why. At least I know, I wouldn't collect that amount of data just for kicks.

  • Does That Mean... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jschmerge (228731) on Tuesday April 03 2007, @02:26AM (#18584161)
    (http://www.speakeasy.net/~schmerge)

    Does that mean I get a reduction in the number of cookies I tell FireFox to reject?

    Darn... I was getting used to saying no.

    :p

  • this is it (Score:1)

    by StripedCow (776465) on Tuesday April 03 2007, @02:37AM (#18584237)
    Okay, this is it. I've had it with the "don't be evil" crap. I'm moving to an open-source variant of search engines. Can anyone forward me a link?

  • So who is gona buy Single click? (Score:1)

    by JackMeyhoff (1070484) on Tuesday April 03 2007, @02:53AM (#18584357)
    So who is gona buy single click?

  • Waiting... (Score:2)

    by Killshot (724273) on Tuesday April 03 2007, @03:22AM (#18584537)
    (http://www.awfulporn.com/)
    Waiting for ads.doubleclick.net..............

  • One way to kill competition is buying it (Score:3, Informative)

    by subzero_ice (624972) on Tuesday April 03 2007, @04:35AM (#18584957)
    Bottom line they are in the race to buy out the competition. DoubleClick is Googles closest competitor.

  • Well, I mean... (Score:2)

    by caudron (466327) on Tuesday April 03 2007, @06:13AM (#18585507)
    (http://tom.digitalelite.com/)
    ....it's not like their corporate charter says "Buy no evil". :)

    Tom Caudron
    http://tom.digitalelite.com/ [digitalelite.com]

  • Watch Google over pay for Doubleclick like YouTube (Score:2)

    by notaprguy (906128) * on Tuesday April 03 2007, @01:56PM (#18591959)
    Google is the varacious acquisition machine that Microsoft never was. It's going to be very interesting to see how they cope with this growth. My prediction: in a year or so Google is floundering in terms of managemenet because they're trying to absorb so many different entities with different cultures and losing their focus on Search.

  • maybe Google isn't really interested in buying (Score:1)

    by Walter Carver (973233) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @08:05AM (#18603261)
    (about:blank)
    Maybe Google is just interesting to raise the bid and slow down the buyer. Maybe the do want to buy them in order to "dismiss" them.
  • 7 replies beneath your current threshold.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2008 SourceForge, Inc.