Slashdot Mirror
Google Plans To Sell Part of DoubleClick
mudimba writes "Google has announced that they will be selling the search engine marketing branch of recently acquired company DoubleClick. Google's reason for the sale is that they do not want to appear to be giving preferential treatment in search rankings to DoubleClick customers. Tom Phillips, director of Google's integration with DoubleClick, said, 'Maintaining objectivity in both search and advertising is paramount to Google's mission and core to the trust we ask from our users.' Google was under scrutiny from the European Union and the FTC over their purchase of DoubleClick, but both eventually approved the deal."
DoubleClick has always been one of those weird companies that seems like they are everywhere, putting cookies in my cache, and tracking my online habits. But I've never been clear what their actual business model was.
I see now what Performix, the subcompany that Google is trying to sell, does. It sounds like SEO (search engine optimization => A process aimed at improving the search result ranking of a site by augmenting the site content and other factors to be more search engine friendly) for online search engine advertising. Oscar Mayer would hire Performix to get an idea of what keywords are most likely to be used by people interested in hotdogs or lunchables.
But I still don't get DoubleClick.
What the hell is the difference if Google gives preferential treatment to DoubleClick customers or simply customers who pay more? Either way, the benefit to them is the same -- more money in their pockets. And neither course of actions seems to make them any more trustworthy, IMHO. The only thing that makes Google (as a search engine) trustworthy to any extent, in my mind, is that they don't try to disguise paid advertisements as search engine results.
My blog
Prominent search expert Danny Sullivan outlined the reasons Google should divest Performics in a post last month at Search Engine Land. He also notes that Microsoft has a similar conflict since it owns Aquantive, whose Avenue A/Razorfish unit offers search engine optimization.
Google has three things going for them:
1. They have technically sophisticated folks (not just someone who has worked with computers for a few years) in executive management.
2. They made a point of scooping up the best and the brightest at a time that they could afford it.
3. They have the phrase "do no evil," and a clear, financial explanation of what that means in their S1.
Most people think that point number 3 is just PR. It's not. What it is is lawsuit insurance. Every other public company in the world is required to do everything that they can possibly describe as "not quite illegal" to enhance shareholder value. Google's shareholders, on the other hand were warned up-front and in SEC filings that they can't expect that, and that shields Google from reprisals when they don't do something because they don't like where it's going (e.g. when the DoJ asks them to turn over search records and say, "but Yahoo! and MSN were only too happy to comply!")
It doesn't mean that they're not evil. It just means that, unlike everyone else, they're not required to be.
I don't love Google. However, I don't see any reason to fear-monger over them, which is what I see on Slashdot all too often.