Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Buys Ad Firm for $6 Billion

bain writes "The BBC is reporting that Microsoft has agreed to buy the digital marketing firm Aquantive, in what will be its biggest ever acquisition. The software giant spent almost $6 billion acquiring the agency, in its first bid to tackle the online advertising market. 'The deal is expected to be completed in the first half of 2008, subject to regulation. Microsoft said the expensive price tag was worth it to access the complementary technology of Aquantive. The firm will continue to operate from Seattle as part of Microsoft's online operations, and will help the software giant broaden the scope of services its MSN consumer internet unit can offer. Microsoft is the latest technology firm to pounce on the shrinking independent online advertising sector.'"

41 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Microsofts newest aquisition by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will have its addresses as the newest addition to my hosts file.

    --
    My humor is probably your flamebait
    1. Re:Microsofts newest aquisition by vimh42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Will have its addresses as the newest addition to my hosts file.

      You know what's funny about that? If you're using a MS OS, they can ignore your hosts file.

  2. Breaking news: by zyl0x · · Score: 5, Funny

    In an attempt to foil Microsoft's plans for internet advertising domination, Google has upped the bidding to eleventy billion dollars, a number which does not even exist. Yet.

    --
    Blerg.
    1. Re:Breaking news: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Google has upped the bidding to eleventy billion dollars, a number which does not even exist. Yet.

      Your Google Overloards saysotherwise:

      Results 1 - 10 of about 186,000 for eleventy. (0.16 seconds)

    2. Re:Breaking news: by Gatekeyper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find it amusing, according to MS and others, that Google "overpaid" for Double-Click...#1 in the market. Not to mention the cries from Redmond of monopoly. However now, MS dishes out nearly twice the amount for the #2 in the market. Oh the irony. Google schools MS again.

    3. Re:Breaking news: by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I find it amusing, according to MS and others, that Google "overpaid" for Double-Click...#1 in the market. Not to mention the cries from Redmond of monopoly. However now, MS dishes out nearly twice the amount for the #2 in the market. Oh the irony. Google schools MS again.

      That, and this is what I find interesting. Kmart bought Sears for $11 billion. Sears has been around for a number of years. They are known for their kenmore (albeit rebranded) and craftsman product lines. They have real inventory, real stores, and real employees. Chrysler was recently sold for 7.4 billion. Well, 80% of it, but I'm talking ballpark figures here.

      Today, MS buys Aquantive. I've never heard of them before now. I would imagine this amounts to a database and some office space and maybe a website or something.

      I saw a headline the other day where the kid who made facebook (just a website), refused to sell for $2billion.

      To me, this seems overinflated. I guess that your ROI on "real" things like sears and chrysler dwarfs databases and websites.

      I guess this makes sense when you think that we are in the information/service age and we have left the industrial age, but this still seems a bit strange.

    4. Re:Breaking news: by gutnor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Google schools MS again"

      Yeah, Google is much more efficient than MS in detecting and buying evil companies.
      After seeing what MS has done in the past, I wonder why people are so happy to see another giant outwitting MS in its own game.

      Oh, I almost forgot, Google, unlike Microsoft will not use the evil tactics of DoubleClick and they fight underground for human rights in China.

    5. Re:Breaking news: by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I saw a headline the other day where the kid who made facebook (just a website), refused to sell for $2billion.

      Actually he refused to sell for $750 million to Viacom in January of 2006 and again in September, this time to Yahoo, for $900 million (although negotiations are presumably ongoing with the offer still on the table since neither side has announced publicly that they are pulling out of the deal). I don't know what the book value of the Facebook is, but if I were in his shoes then I probably would have sold to Viacom for $750 million provided that the offer was all or mostly cash AND that I could walk away at any time with my money if I didn't like the way that Viacom was running the business or if they were interfering...same for Yahoo. You can always take the money, shore up your financial position, and then found another company or simply retire to private life. These geeks are playing a very dangerous game by trying to squeeze that last few hundred million out what is already a pretty large pot of gold. Just imagine what happens when the deal falls through because you were stubborn and the market or technology changes and you are left with the burnt out shell of a dot.bomb company? Most people would probably have difficulty recovering from that type of a psychological blow...some probably never would. If you are ever in that enviable position then take the money and run if you don't like the way that things are going.

      Of course, I am not in that position and it could be argued that given the amount of risk he took on to build the company to the point where he *could* sell it that he is either one of those people that thrives on insane risks and has a pair to match, he knows some *crucial* piece of information that we don't, or he is just plain stupid (unlikely). I tend to favor the risk taker hypothesis myself, that is probably why he controls an almost billion dollar corporation and I do not. On the other hand I would like to save enough money to die someplace warm when I am old and I don't fancy the idea of going broke a couple of times along the way on the outside chance that I might be in exactly the right place with exactly the right product at exactly the right time to make a killing, but that is just me I suppose.

    6. Re:Breaking news: by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Funny

      The facebook owner doesn't read Slashdot Semel, quit trying your luck and fork up the extra hundred million.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    7. Re:Breaking news: by slashqwerty · · Score: 2, Insightful
      he knows some *crucial* piece of information that we don't

      It may be that he knows the true value of his company. Perhaps he has already stashed away enough money for the rest of his life so he isn't worried about the company going broke. Perhaps he is expecting his company to continue to grow in value. Maybe he just doesn't like Viacom. Perhaps he loves his job and the respect it garners; and perhaps that's worth more to him than $750 million.

  3. Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by Rosyna · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if Microsoft is still going to complain about Google's purchase of Doubleclick....

    In fact, all replies to this story should be immediately compared to the comments of Google's purchase. It'll be interesting to see the people that backed Microsoft's position that Google did something evil now commenting on this news.

    And people say there's no Microsoft-cult.. Pftt.

    1. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I agree. This action by Microsoft is just proof that Microsoft screaming 'anti-trust' over the Google-DoubleClick deal was going nowhere.

      Good move for Google, they paid half the price for a better known entity.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    2. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder if Microsoft is still going to complain about Google's purchase of Doubleclick....
      Well to be fair in this case MS did have a point. DoubleClick gives a lot of insider track knowledge to Google and they do have the existing infrastructure to leverage it to squeeze out competitors should they choose. For this reason I did think that Google wanted DoubleClick more than MS and were prepared to pay over the odds to acquire it despite the talk of MS just trying to drive the price up. It's interesting now that having baulked at the DoubleClick price MS are now paying almost double for this acquisition. I don't know if Aquantive is a better fit for them or if they have just decided to get in the ad game at all costs.
      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    3. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by Ucklak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've never heard of Aquantive until now.
      I've heard of Doubleclick and they're blocked in my router.

      I just wonder what patents that Aquantive has that aren't in use that could be used to compete with Doubleclick.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    4. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by Jason+Earl · · Score: 3, Informative

      If Microsoft wanted to use Aquantive's patents against Google the last thing that it would do is buy the company. Microsoft almost certainly infringes on some patents that Google owns, especially if you throw in Windows and the rest of Microsoft's software. The Holy Grail of patent litigation is to produce a patent that is being infringed by Windows as the potential payoff can be enormous. If Aquantive sues Google then the possible damages from a counter suit are much lower than the possible damages from a counter suit against Microsoft. If this was about patent litigation then Microsoft would announce a "partnership" (or maybe it wouldn't even do that) and Aquantive would sue Google.

      Microsoft is not going to sue any organization that has software patents over patent infringement as Microsoft almost certainly has more to lose than any other player.

    5. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by fermion · · Score: 2, Interesting
      My reply to the google deal was the purchase of the unsavory doubleclick made google a much less trustworthy operation. Google was always not absolutely trustworthy as one is never sure if the data they store is going to come back to haunt a user. BHut at least they are providing a service at only indirect costs, and users often have a choice of thier service or others service as their is no lockin. My actualy response was to go through my cookie permission file and deny permission for most of the google cookies to match the denial for all doubleclick cookies.

      Now MS, the company that will sue it's customers, charge for products and then claim the products are not genuine, and write software so that every possible browser request is routed through MS first, is buying this company that I have never heard of before. My trust and state of MS cookies remains unchanged.

      The wisdom of the purchase is indicated by MS falling stock price.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  4. how innovative by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ahh, I see they've decided to innovate some more to compete with Google...

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  5. And google got DoubleClick for "just" 3.1B by vivaoporto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just so you see that was a bargain for Google to acquire Doubleclick for that amount, and how much Microsoft was yearning for acquiring an advertising company, in order to better compete with Google on other fronts (instead of letting the real battle go to the "software as a service" front).

  6. crazy by grub · · Score: 5, Interesting


    $1/per pair of eyeballs on the planet.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:crazy by iknownuttin · · Score: 2, Funny

      According to this site, it's actually $0.89 and decreasing per eyeball. So I guess as the population of the Earth increases, the deal looks better and better?

      --
      I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    2. Re:crazy by MMC+Monster · · Score: 3, Funny

      Heck. For $1 you could probably buy a pair of eye balls in certain parts of the world.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    3. Re:crazy by ntsucks · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually that $5.45 for every Internet user on the planet (1.1 billion).

      --
      Those who can do. Those who can't sue.
  7. Lemmings.... by TechNit · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well I wonder if Google sold it all and jumped off a cliff if M$ would blindly do the same?? What is up with this rampant battle to out do each other?? If Google started making washing machines would M$ follow suit??

    --
    Sig?! Sig?! We don't need no stinking sig!!
  8. What are Aquantive's domains? by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What domains do Acquantive ads come from? I need to update certain tables. Thanks.

    1. Re:What are Aquantive's domains? by Fearless+Freep · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorta suprised you would need to block an advertising firm just because MS bought them. Would think most ad firms would already be blocked as a matter of course

    2. Re:What are Aquantive's domains? by moore.dustin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now if Acquantive is bad now that MS owns it and DoubleClick is good because Google owns it, you need to seriously reexamine your thinking here.

  9. a bid to unseat flash? by pohl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This strikes me as an expensive (but possibly effective) way to ensure that silverlight-based adverts get shoved in our faces.

    --

    The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    1. Re: a bid to unseat flash? by aichpvee · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know, this might even be a good thing. If it looks like silverlight is just being used for annoying ads maybe people will avoid it at first and it'll never take hold!

      In related news, has Miguel de Icaza tried to buy a bankrupt ad agency for $6 yet?

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
  10. You must be new here by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    MS has been copying or buying anyone else that is considered a leader in the marketplace since day one, if not before that. The only originality (if you can call it that) from MS has been their marketing strategy of forcing the world to buy their software when buying a pc. Had it not been for that kind of originality, MS would have been an also ran long ago... well, it could have happened that way. At this moment in time, Google and a few others have managed to carve out a spot in the marketplace before MS could buy them or run them out of business.

  11. In Other News . . . by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Funny

    As a gesture to welcome the new acquisition, Aquantive received a shipment of new office furniture at their soon to be headquarters in the Microsoft complex. A welcome note from CEO Steve Ballmer was attached to the shipment. Current Aquantive employees were happy about the gesture but questioned why there appeared to be disportionately more chairs than employees. The estimates were a 5 to 1 ratio. In a separate shipment, bolts, bars, and steel plates were also delivered to the offices. An attached, unsigned note read: "You're going to need these for the chairs. Good luck and Godspeed."

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  12. Colour me confused.. by ratboy666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    aQuantive has ~900 million in assets, and a current shareholder equity of ~600 million. Net revenue is the first quarter of this year was ~14 million.

    Microsoft is aquiring them for 6 billion? Sounds about as dumb-ass as Google with DoubleClick (what, 31x premium?).

    aQuantive stock is now 64.75 *up 27.88*. I missed it.

    As a Microsoft shareholder, I don't like this. What a waste of money! I mean, paying 3 billion would be high, but 6 billion?

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    1. Re:Colour me confused.. by mcguyver · · Score: 4, Informative

      Doubleclick was bought at 15x premium of revenue! Not profit. That's just amazing. Aquantive is going for 13x revenue. I wonder if these deals are going to work out or have the same stink of AOL-Time Warner.

    2. Re:Colour me confused.. by Rolgar · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're forgetting to use the synergistic multiplier to figure out the value added benefits of having turbo charged the money flux capacitor.

  13. Re:wRong nAme by owlnation · · Score: 3, Funny

    The capitalization of the company name should be "aQuantive" not "Aquantive."
    And good luck to everyone in MS forced to try and type this in Word with intellisense switched on.
  14. yuck by AchiestDragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    now next thing you know they will be having those advert boxes just below the login box.
    and special offer notifications popping up during your screensaver
    not to mention linking with some telesails.
    so whenever you login and start to surf you will get a call

    dam will have to pattent that before m$ does , dam prior art in public domain above

    what was that deal they where on about for discounted versions for schools that the users
    would be compelled to watch advert streams before they could use it
    looks like that may be on the way to full price versions

    by the way , if using hotmail ,, messages from msn / microsoft cannot be put in junk

    wonder if this will be the same for all things owned my microsoft including junk adverts

    and no way to block it , then improve there add blocking for all other sites
    no wonder they wanted it bad they payed more than dubbel the share price for it

  15. Don't Panic...(or maybe Do Panic) by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But I think this is a sign of Microsoft Panicing.

    IMHO is that since Google bought Doubleclick(Yuk) they have been lookin at getting slice of the Online Advertising Market.
    However (Dons invertment managers hat) to pay a premium of 68% over yesterday's close for each shae is just plain crazy.
    Ok, I know that there are billions of dollars in cash sitting in the Bank of Microsoft but really...
    If I were a Microsoft shareholder (and thankfully, I'm not) I would be looking for some detailed explanations as to why the paid so much over the odds for this business. Its not as if they were in a bidding war (or were they?)

    68% is just too heavy a premium to pay.

    This has all the signs of panic.

    Balmer wants to buy up an Ad company before Google buys them all. but 68%, Really. this is really bad economics and seems like we have returned to the Dot.Com Bubble days.

    Google must be laughing their socks off.

    --
    I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
    1. Re:Don't Panic...(or maybe Do Panic) by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 2, Informative

      Companies have a statutory duty to their shareholders to operate their business properly.
      This especially includes their M&A activity.
      Paying a premium of say 10% is usually as high as you can go before shareholders start asking awkward questions.
      A premium of 68% is way beyond that level.
      It is the sort of level that could get shareholders angry. If enough of them sufficiently angry they can force a company to hold an EGM.
      It does not matter who the company is. One worth Billios or one worth a few Millions. The same rules apply to any company with publicly traded shares.
      A public Company has to operate according to certain rules. Shareoholders are a huge but largely silent force in the way a company operates. I wish more shareholders stood up and asked the company they own those really awkward questions that can keep a company ethically sound. It is obvious (from their past record) that Microsoft's owners don't really care about how the company operates. In view of the share performance of Microsoft(public record) over the past 3-5 years I think they should do so and with a big degree of urgency.

      If I were an analyst (I'm not so don't take this as any form of informed or authorised advice whatsoever) I would not give Microsoft anything but a SELL rating. Naturally you might have other views and opinions. For every seller there has to be a buyer.
      I would also rate Novell as a Sell but that is another long and complicated saga that has been discussed to death here and in other forums.

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
  16. Re:And TV? by Tarlus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just edit your TV's hosts file.

    --
    /* No Comment */
  17. Dot Com Boom 2.0 by rlp · · Score: 3, Funny

    New exit strategy - sell to Google, Microsoft, or Yahoo.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  18. Re:And TV? by mickwd · · Score: 2, Funny

    localhost 127.0.0.1
    tedrogers 3.2.1.0
  19. Real things are hard to make and profit from. by Mahjub+Sa'aden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    See, here's the thing. Real Things are really hard to make. Research, development, testing, certification, more testing, marketing, shipping, storing, selling, and maybe even shipping one more time make for a lot of money invested to not a lot of return, considering all the effort that goes into them. Sure, you might say that Sears makes a lot of Real Things and has a lot of Real Assets and employs a lot of Real People, but at the end of the day, are its profits in line with the amount of money invested to do all this Real Stuff?

    For an investor, your ROI in Google is higher (now) than Sears because Google doesn't have as much Real Whatever to build and maintain. Sears does. Are the amounts of money pouring into these databases and websites inflated right now? Yeah, probably. But the returns are at least theoretically there. The same thing happened with railroads and electricity around the turn of the century, but these things are now so legacy and so embedded that they've become nothing but commodities.

    The web is essentially the boomtown of the 21st century, like all the other industries (manufacturing or service) that have passed into the sphere of commodity. After information has -- and it will, I think, someday -- become a commodity, we'll find something else to form another speculative bubble around with a high ROI. It's the way of things. Today is no different from yesterday. The numbers just look bigger now.

    --
    What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?