Slashdot Mirror
Google buys DoubleClick for $3.1 Billion
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.'"
Microsoft is teh loser.
Google is the new Microsoft. :^)
Huh? Anyone remember when DoubleClick tried to tie their cookies to privacy data a few years ago - now those people are in Google management. I fear the evil is creeping in the side door...
John 17:20
3.1 billion to pretty much lock up the on-line advertising market. I wonder what percentage of the on-line advertising market will push Google into Monopoly territory. I would guess they are getting pretty close.
I wonder how long until it becomes obligatory to hate Google...
... "Do no evil?"
Every doubleclick host that I can identify is permanently blocked here for web bugs and Dartmail. I don't see that changing any time soon, either.
One could hope that Google will change Doubleclick's behavior before putting their own name on the services.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
eh. i am actually a rocket scientist (and yes my talent is wasted here). The answer to your rather obvious question is "when people stop buying their shares".
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
Ok - so maybe that's harsh. But $3.1billion for the company? That provides a technology Google have already? I'm sure the decision makers over there know a lot more than me (hell, I've been drinking for the last eight hours) - but key Doubleclick partners (such as News Corp) aren't going to be too hot on Google suddenly knowing their ad business inside out. This smacks of splashing the cash to kill competition - had Microsoft picked up Doubleclick, that would have presented a serious challenge to Google's display ad syndication business.
While I agree with the $3.1 billion probably being far too much for DoubleClicks assets... I disagree with the block list thing, as the vast majority of Internet users do not use AdBlock or any other similar ad blocking software. Yes, a lot of us geeks use that stuff (I don't, as I just ignore them), but then a lot of us geeks are the ones least likely to click on ads and buy the stuff they're selling. Now as to the reason why they would be willing to pay the $3.1 billion for DoubleClick, it's clearly to prevent Microsoft (and/or Yahoo!) from buying a sizable chunk of the online advertising business, plus it now increases the size of Google's very profitable ad business.
Read my blog posts on usability.
I agree. The price is so high not because Doubleclick's advertising is so high, but because Google wanted to pick them up before Microsoft or some other advertising company bought/merged with them. It might have been expensive, but if you're looking to monopolize the online advertising market, no price is too high to sweep the feet out from under competitors.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
No need to pay all that money, just buy some senators; much cheaper!
Right, but you don't have google in that hosts file, do you?
something that is pretty much blocked to hell and back by anyone with clue.
You mean 1% of the population? Outside of my household, I haven't seen a single ad-blocker installed on anyone's computer. Most people just ignore the ads.
Doubleclick is still making hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue every year, so they clearly still have a viable business model, however evil you think it is.
Based on your careful due diligence, no doubt. Or is that just some number you pulled out of your ass that "seems more reasonable" to you.
So what you think happened? Google called them up, got a quote of 3.1 Billion, and said "OK, if that's what you think it's worth."?
If you can't be evil, buy 'em.
You are actually bragging about steal^H^H^H^H^H^H^H blocking ads?
I think it's morally wrong. The people who create a site and have banners/ad words/whatever on it want to make money that way.
VOTE WITH YOUR FEET! If yo don't like the crap they do, send an email explaining to the web-master(mistress) saying "I don't appreciate the crap you have up, I'm out".
What you're doing is not helping anyone. You're hurting the little guys (blog with 1 ad word) and driving ad supported businesses to either:
a) Add more ads (not making enough money? add more!!)
b) Go pay instead of free
c) B & A together!
People who created ad blockers were because of annoying ads that jumped all over the place, crashed your browser, poped a new window, etc.
There is no sane reasoning behind blocking ad words other than being a pompous prick (excuse my French).
And no, I don't work for google, nor do I have a website or a blog with ads on it.
I am a web programmer though, so I'm closer to the "business".
I don't know about that. GMail, and Google Earth/Google Maps are very useful content. Sure, they are just another way to push more advertising, but it is content.
Do you click on the ads?
You know you're not doing your blogger any favors if you don't click through, and buy something.
Take off every 'sig' !!
Microsoft Office isn't content; your documents are.
Absolutely. Office's help files are content, though. Office apps are content containers, just like Gmail.
MSN (or whatever it's called these days) isn't content; your instant messages are.
Absolutely.
Windows isn't content; your data are.
Absolutely.
What's your definition of "content" then?
There are dictionary definitions for such things:
"Something contained, as in a receptacle. Often used in the plural: the contents of my desk drawer; the contents of an aerosol can." (Gmail and Office are like desk drawers or a pad of paper, as an analogy)
"The material, including text and images, that constitutes a publication or document."
"The substantive or meaningful part."
You've probably heard the phrase "content is king". Clearly, whoever said that didn't mean that an empty website is great and will attract visitors. No, the container - the website - needs actual content - good articles.