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.'"
Now Microsoft's anti-spyware will absolutely flag it!
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Google is the new Microsoft. :^)
DoubleClick got owned!
no, really!
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Doubleclick is still blocked in every way, shape, and form available on my browser.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
...as if millions of chairs suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
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.
I sincerely hope Google will simply replace all DoubleClick-crippled sites with AdSense. DoubleClick's tracking cookies are the reason I block web ads.
Gootube was easy.....
Doogleclick?
Doobleclick?
Goobleclick?
Youtoogleclick?
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.
Here you go. The PDF FAQ they put there confirms the terms: $3.1 billion. Apart from that, I second/third/fourth the previous comments: zero impact here, DoubleClick has been on my blacklist for years now, by any means available.
(this is not a
...it's still called shit.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
As I said above, no Google don't have a monopoly on online advertising. Not even text based pay-per view.
Yahoo have got into the business as well (when they bought Overture I think). There are also heaps of others, from my Adblock list,
adsdk
fastclick
bluestreak
adsfac
mediaplex
serving-sys
tribalfusion
And heaps more. Not to mention all the individual site advertising (http://ads.guardian.co.uk for example).
I wank in the shower.
I was once looking for information on Nigerian scams, a.k.a. 419 scams, a.k.a. advance fee fraud scams. And, I kid you not, among the ads on the Google results page for "nigerian scam" was an ad that read:
I found the same type of ad for "419 scam," then did some random searches, and at the time, eBay seemed to have picked up a whole bunch of two-word phrases.
I thought it was Google who would bring balance to the Force, not leave it in Darkness.
:)
You think you are in pain for having to swallow that our great Google bought doubleclick?
Ha, you could imagine it like this: The people at doubleclick just got paid 3.1 BILLION dollars.
By Google.
Have a great weekend.
This may have been part of a strategy to make sure that nobody else bought DoubleClick first. The last thing Google wants is for Microsoft to try to take over their most profitable field. Even if Google never touches DoubleClick's materials after this, they don't have to worry about someone else having that "advantage" over Google.
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.
Although I also wandered what Google was getting itself into buying a company that notoriously places tracking cookies on computers everywhere, I can see what they're trying to do. I only hope that Google will clean them up instead of Doubleclick dirtying Google. They should stop putting tracking cookies on people's computers, remove any tracking cookies already on the computer, and deny any overly flashy banner ads. That would strongly increase Google's credibility and help eliminate some of the garbage on the Internet.
Hydraulic pizza oven!! Guided missile! Herring sandwich! Styrofoam! Jayne Mansfield! Aluminum siding! Borax!
The best one I saw was something like
Babies
Looking for Babies?
Find exactly what you want today
www.ebay.com
A good point, if poorly executed.
The cynic in me is wondering: What if this was a Microsoft ploy. Everyone said Google was bidding to drive the price up for MS... what if MS was only feigning interest so that google would drop 3 Gigabills on something that is pretty much blocked to hell and back by anyone with clue.
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
Official Google Blog: Next Step In Google Advertising
The Official FAQ for the announcement claims that they did this because "Our goal is to make advertising on the internet work better: better for users with less intrusive ads and better privacy protection, better for advertisers with greater accountability and effectiveness, and better for publishers with improved monetization and cleaner site integration." In other words, they thought DoubleClick was intrusive, but they're too nice to say it.
I don't know anyone who doesn't block doubleclick.
..."Advertise no evil"
Hope so. But then again, I hope for world peace as well.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
I dont know anyone who doesn't block either BUT to be fair I generally only know smart educated people.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
You post on Slashdot so you probably don't know too many people in the first place :-P
In reality though, I know a lot of people who didn't even have a pop-up blocker until it was finally added to Internet Explorer. Blocking ads on web pages? I don't know a single non-geek who has an adblocker installed. If they're not interested, they just ignore them.
Is the google's share of online ad market large enough to warrant a Justice investigation?
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.
[javac] 100 errors
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."?
Pretty soon yahoo and such will move from storing their ads on ads.yahoo/com/ad/ad.jpg to yahoo.com/$RANDOMSTRING.jpg. That way you won't be able to block them using filters unless you also want to block all images from that site. Which would be kind of annoying, especially if they stored their email interface graphics in the same format.
Hasn't happened yet though... six years ago when I started blocking ads I thought it would become inevitable.
They traded stock for YouTube, they paid cash for DoubleClick.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Sigh...
After calming me down with some orange slices and some fetal spooning, E.T. revealed to me his singular purpose.
If you can't be evil, buy 'em.
Are you shitting me? Google's tracking is far more nefarious. I quote another post from this thread by an Anonymous Coward:
Google ad sense operates on a different level...using cookies is just part of the game. Via IP pingbacks, toolbar tracking, and account identification, users may unkowningly be giving out alot more data than they realize.
Say for instance that you use Gmail. or any Google service that requires login. Google can track you via that login to each site you visit that has a google ad (70% of the net from what I understand). See, doubleclick never had this part of the equation...they never had account info. Google can tie your IPs, usernames, email content, and web browsing activity...and you can't do jack about it (short of blocking the google scripts themselves). Even without login account info, Google has the ability to track your individual machine via IP pingbacks. If you nav to page one, the google ad gets your exposed ip, then the next page you visit that has a google ad...yep..that ip is used to track that navigation. No cookie needed. Of course, if your behind a firewall, only the firewall ip would get exposed. But still...do you really want to give anyone that much information about you?
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
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' !!
$ cat /etc/hosts
127.0.0.1 localhost mymachine
127.0.1.1 mymachine
127.0.0.1 *.google.com
127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.*
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I don't think anyone wants to take this step forward in the arms race. Once ad filters get Bayesian, it's only a matter of time that techniques developed for spam filtering will be used to find and refuse to display text ads. Then Capitalism collapses.
We already lost when we started thinking of ourselves as "consumers" instead of "citizens" or "people." Whether Google bought DoubleClick or not, that wouldn't change.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz