Microsoft to Buy DoubleClick?

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."

Micosoft?

[jamesl]

Edit please.

Seriously, who doesn't filter DoubleClick?

[KingSkippus]

If you use Firefox, snag Adblock Plus [mozilla.org] and the Filterset.G Updater [mozilla.org]. If you're using Internet Destr-- Er, I mean Internet Explorer, woe is you, but at least snag the Google Toolbar [google.com], which I think blocks DoubleClick ads.

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS

[daeg]

Which makes them a perfect advertiser in my books. They are easy to block. Their ad spaces on client websites generally collapse very neatly, too.

That said, I wonder what Microsoft could bring to DoubleClick. I'd hate to see Microsoft add various "stealth" techniques that other advertisers use, e.g., frequently rotating hostnames, formats, etc.

If customers are going to block your ads, at least make it easy. They're going to do it either way. The easier you make it, the more those people will remain on those websites, which at least brings you minimal value as an advertiser. When I worked in media, we typically gave clients two different sets of stats for this exact purpose. You don't disclose your traffic count based on your advertising banners/etc, instead you tell them your server stats traffic, which is always higher. Of course, you're selling impressions/clicks/referrals, so the advertiser doesn't actually care if the site users are blocking their ad as long as they get what they paid for. The website, of course, may or may not care, depending on who they are.

Re:Valuations

[mpapet]

If the two were in the exact same segments, this is kind of how acquisitions go. The first one goes relatively cheap and the price of acquisitions rise in a given segment while the last few acquisitions are astronomically priced.

But they aren't the same sort of acquisitions so I think it's a coincidence.

Re:Seriously, who doesn't filter DoubleClick?

[ZiZ]

Or you could use the EasyList and EasyElement [adblockplus.org] filter subscriptions with Adblock Plus - no extra extension needed, and they're simpler and easier to maintain (and, at least subjectively, faster) than the Filterset.G is. I was a huge fan of Filterset.G for a long time, but I've been even happier with Easy*.

Re:Seriously, who doesn't filter DoubleClick?

[yoyhed]

Thanks for the tip, it was encouraging to hear that from someone who actually used Filterset.G.

I've been using Filterset.G for a long time too, but I just switched to EasyList and EasyElement. This [adblockplus.org] part of the Adblock Plus FAQ helped me make that decision (in summary, Filterset.G sometimes whitelists ads, and it uses complicated regexes that slow down browsing).

Re:follows the MS motto

[jrockway]

What exactly is evil about DoubleClick? If you don't want the cookie, you can either not visit sites that use DoubleClick, or you can opt out of the tracking cookie:

http://www.doubleclick.com/us/about_doubleclick/pr ivacy/dart_adserving.asp [doubleclick.com]

DoubleClick is pretty darn non-evil, unless you hate advertising for some reason.

Re:Feel free, MS...

[CodeBuster]

Yeah, but they keep changing their domains from ad1.doubleclick to ad2.doubleclick or some such combinations to try and stay one step ahead of the host file blockers. This would not get by a regular expression of course, but the windows hosts system does not support regular expression based filtering. Fortunately, AdBlock [mozilla.org] does support regular expression based filtering and it manages to keep double click out despite the games they try to play.

Re:Feel free, MS...

[AndroidCat]

Get a cheap router, then throw all the DoubleClick domains into the "parental blocking" filter.

Re:Yawn

[SeaFox]

I already block them in my hosts file. This changes nothing.

If you're using Windows and blocked Microsoft sites on your hosts file, Windows will ignore it and still connect to them [slashdot.org]. If they get DoubleClick, I wont be surprised if the same thing happens with their servers.

Re:Seriously, who doesn't filter DoubleClick?

[rainman_bc]

If you use Firefox, snag Adblock Plus [mozilla.org] and the Filterset.G Updater [mozilla.org

FYI, Adblock Plus advises against Filterset.G [adblockplus.org] - they have their own sets of filters that work better.

I still use it out of ignorance because it works just fine for me TYVM.

Re:MS should know when to give up

[clontzman]

It's just a bunch of hoo-hah, dedazo. There's no magic APIs in Windows that magically make Word run better than WordPerfect or Excel run better than 1-2-3. It's just FUD that doesn't ever seem to die. I mean, seriously, do people believe that there are APIs in Windows that make Office run better than, say, SmartSuite? It's wishful thinking. If that was the case, MS would have crippled Adobe and Macromedia (yeah, yeah, they're the same company now) long ago so that Photoshop and Dreamweaver don't lead their very lucrative markets. MS had tried to unseat them many times and failed because -- get this -- their products haven't been as compelling.

Office won because it had a coherent (and, at the time, new) concept: all of your office applications in a single box with a common and comprehensible brand and interface. They've always -- except for XP -- launched major new versions of Windows (95, 2000, Vista) with a new version, and they've kept adding functionality that makes their big business customer base happy.

The whole "hidden API" thing is just kerfluffle. WordPerfect runs fine, as do any number of other third party office products. People just don't spend money on them.

Re:Micosoft?

[Goaway]

You expect me to actually put in any more effort than copypaste when telling people this?

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS

[toddhunter]

Then it better learn to bypass the hosts file. umm
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/16/13 51217&from=rss [slashdot.org]

Yes, but, fear the other possibilities

[oGMo]

I totally agree with what you said. However, there is another angle. People are going to mind seeing all of these things in a web browser, and they're going to use firefox and various plugins to get around them. Yes.

But my guess is Microsoft has more insidious plans. (Don't they always?) They control your desktop, remember? Now imagine instead of those ads popping up in the browser you can pick and control, they pop up on your desktop. They become part of the OS, such that you can't remove them without breaking the system (MS has never claimed this before, right?).

Sure, corporate desktop licenses won't have these; high-dollar corporate licenses will be ad-free. Home desktops, however, will. But just use the corporate desktop, you ask? Except that one won't play games... and will only run Microsoft-signed code, or maybe even code signed with a special corporate key you'd have to buy. Expect to see similar ads appear on XBOX Live! as well.

I encourage Microsoft to do this. They should go all-out and control the desktop experience. It should become like television, where consumers are the product, and getting their eyeballs is the goal. Let them play games or type a letter, but make sure those ads appear everywhere.

That way everyone may finally hate it enough to switch.