Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google buys DoubleClick for $3.1 Billion

Posted by Zonk on Fri Apr 13, 2007 06:00 PM
from the still-waiting-for-my-buyout-offer dept.
Google The Internet Businesses
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.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] IT: Microsoft to Buy DoubleClick? 195 comments
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."
[+] Google In Bidding To Buy DoubleClick 120 comments
A number of readers clued us to the latest development in the saga of te sale of DoubleClick: Google has thrown its hat into the ring against Microsoft and (reportedly) Yahoo and AOL. Most of the stories quote a Wall Street Journal piece that is only available to subscribers. Google's entry into the bidding may boost the price for the remaining pieces of DoubleClick (parts of the company having already been sold off) to $2 billion, twice what its current owners paid for the whole thing. Some reports speculate that this figure could give Microsoft pause.
[+] MS Urges Antitrust Scuttling of DoubleClick Deal 234 comments
Microsoft contends that Google's $3.1 billion deal to buy DoubleClick would hurt competition in the online advertising market. And Microsoft expects AT&T, Yahoo, and other companies to join them next week in protesting the proposed sale.
[+] Outcry Over Google's Purchase of Doubleclick 242 comments
TheCybernator writes to mention that several activist groups have cried out in protest of the Google buyout of Doubleclick reported in recent news. "'Google's proposed acquisition of DoubleClick will give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world,' said the complaint lodged with the Federal Trade Commission. 'Moreover, Google will operate with virtually no legal obligation to ensure the privacy, security, and accuracy of the personal data that it collects.' The complaint was filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center along with the Center for Digital Democracy and the US Public Interest Research Group, all of which are involved in online privacy issues."
[+] Google Experiences EU Antitrust Friction Over Doubleclick 62 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Here in the US, the Google purchase of Doubleclick is old news. Despite a few hiccups, the news of April and May seems well in the past. In the European Union, though, the discussion begins anew again as Google seeks permission from EU antitrust regulators. From the article: 'The European Commission said it had set a review deadline of October 26, when it could approve the deal, give a two-week extension or open an in-depth, four-month investigation ... The Commission has already sent questionnaires asking competitors and customers what they think about the deal. Google has already filed with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and with the Australian competition regulator.'"
[+] Your Rights Online: Google Attempts to Allay US Privacy Fears 101 comments
Ian Lamont writes "Google is in the midst of a full-court privacy effort in Washington that involves pushing consumer privacy legislation in U.S. Congress, reaching out to privacy advocates in an effort to allay concerns about its acquisition of DoubleClick, and working with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to 'fine-tune online advertising principles' that the agency proposed last year. Google has been under fire in Washington in recent years — the FTC investigated the Google/DoubleClick deal and the EFF has issued warnings over Google services in the past. Is Google being sincere about these issues, or is this effort mostly paying lip service to its 'do no evil' policy and an attempt to head off future clashes with policy makers?"
[+] News: Google Plans To Sell Part of DoubleClick 61 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Google buys DoubleClick for $3.1 Billion 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • whoa (Score:5, Funny)

    by rbochan (827946) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:01PM (#18726107) Homepage
    Now Microsoft's anti-spyware will absolutely flag it!

    • Re:whoa (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rei (128717) on Friday April 13 2007, @07:01PM (#18726841) Homepage
      Heh, Microsoft should be concerned with Google; they're everywhere that Microsoft wants to go, and if you don't keep moving as a corporation, you lose investors.

      When I saw this headline, all I could think was "Google buys up another chunk of the internet." Seriously -- DoubleClick is everywhere. It's almost like google's trying to become the web.

      • Re:whoa (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Duhavid (677874) on Friday April 13 2007, @08:42PM (#18727631)

        if you don't keep moving as a corporation, you lose investors.


        I always thought the name of the game was to keep your focus
        and not dilute your efforts. And as far as I can tell,
        the only reason Google is everywhere that Microsoft wants to
        go is because they see what Google does, and want to emulate
        that. That is reactive, and seems like a sure way to lose
        your way. I dont like Microsoft much as a company, but
        in the past you had to give them credit for not losing
        focus. They kept after things they started until they got
        it basically usable, and mostly solid. And did a better
        job of that than many other companies. Microsoft should
        be concerned with finding the ( lawful ) strategies and
        tactics that get them where they want to be, and stop letting
        other companies define so much of thier roadmap.

        • Re:whoa (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Curtman (556920) on Saturday April 14 2007, @03:30AM (#18729489)

          Google offers close to no actual content.

          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.

      • Re:D'OH! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mikeisme77 (938209) on Friday April 13 2007, @07:47PM (#18727211) Homepage Journal
        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.

      • Re:D'OH! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by geminidomino (614729) * on Friday April 13 2007, @08:01PM (#18727321) Homepage Journal
        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.

        • Re:D'OH! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by rm69990 (885744) on Friday April 13 2007, @09:20PM (#18727877)
          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.

      • Re:D'OH! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Paradise Pete (33184) <(mf.liamtsaf) (ta) (rehctactsil)> on Friday April 13 2007, @10:21PM (#18728229) Journal
        Now $300-$500 million might be more acceptable.

        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."?

  • Let me be the first one to say... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by logixoul (1046000) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:02PM (#18726121)
    Google is the new Microsoft. :^)

    • Re:Let me be the first one to say... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Hawthorne01 (575586) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:20PM (#18726377)
      I, for one, welcome our new online advertising overlords, and I'd like to remind them that as a trusted member of Slashdot, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground click farms.

      • Re:Sad to say, but (Score:5, Interesting)

        by FutureDomain (1073116) on Friday April 13 2007, @07:48PM (#18727219) Homepage

        Does DC have something technologically interesting under the hood somewhere?
        Think a minute about all the advertising capital that Doubleclick has! It has banner ads everywhere, and advertising partners to buy all those ads. Now every Doubleclick advertising partner is also a Google advertising partner. Google is positioning itself as the Internet advertising company.

        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.

        • Re:Sad to say, but (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Prune (557140) on Saturday April 14 2007, @05:51AM (#18729993)
          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?

  • obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 (568564) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:02PM (#18726125) Homepage
    DoubleClick got owned!

    no, really!

  • Won't change much for me (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigtangringo (800328) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:02PM (#18726131) Homepage
    Doubleclick is still blocked in every way, shape, and form available on my browser.

    • Re:Won't change much for me (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Hatta (162192) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:09PM (#18726229) Journal
      What happens when google absorbs doubleclick and starts sending ads from google.com instead of doubleclick.net?
      • Then you jsut block google's own ad servers, which Ive been doing for years with a simple hosts file. [everythingisnt.com] Works for all browsers/applications on my system. Also set your google never-expire tracking cookie to get deleted once per session [everythingisnt.com] and you're set.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by daeg (828071)
          I had the same opinion until retarded eBay ads started showing up everywhere. No, just because I'm browsing an article about "postfix bugs" doesn't mean I want to buy a "BUG COLLECTION GUIDE at eBay" or "POSTFIX FOR DUMMIES EBOOK at eBay", etc.

          Likewise, browsing website A will often give negative opinions of it, sponsored by website B. "Toolset A buggy? Try Toolset B!" etc.

          That's when they got blocked.

          Bad ad-approval monkeys. No banana for you.

    • Re:Won't change much for me (Score:5, Funny)

      by alphamugwump (918799) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:26PM (#18726457)
      I block ads at my firewall with moblock/bluetack. Then, I block them again with privoxy. Then, I use the pgl blocklists with konqueror. I also change my MAC address every 3 hours, do all my browsing through Tor, and clear my cookies when I'm done.

      Yeah, I'm a little obsessive.

  • I felt a great disturbance in the Force... (Score:5, Funny)

    by h4ter (717700) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:04PM (#18726155) Homepage
    ...as if millions of chairs suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

  • Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by huckamania (533052) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:04PM (#18726159) Journal
    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...

    • Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)

      by apathy maybe (922212) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:29PM (#18726513) Homepage Journal
      Hate them now. Use their products if you want, but hate them anyway.

      Seriously though, Google doesn't have a monopoly on on-line text advertising (even pay per-click), Yahoo has got into that business (formally Overture)[http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com] and I'm sure other companies have as well. This [http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/executiv e_tech/article.php/3395571] article has some interesting comments on the matter of fraud.

      And there are still heaps of other advertisers out their, and you know what, I block almost all of them (Adblock and NoScript, 'tis great). (For most sites, it is seriously, if they can't cope without my viewing their ads (even if I'm never going to ever buy anything), then I guess I can do without them. For sites like this, I like to think that I am helping to contribute to more people coming here by having insightful and interesting comments. After all, that is what gets the people looking at the site, and thus the ads.)

  • What ever happened to ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LorenzoV (106795) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:05PM (#18726175)
    ... "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.

    • Re:What ever happened to ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dreamchaser (49529) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:34PM (#18726571) Homepage Journal
      "Do no evil", if it was ever anything other than clever PR, went away the moment they caved to China. It actually probably went away, again if it ever was even a real credo, long before that.

    • Re:What ever happened to ... (Score:4, Funny)

      by suv4x4 (956391) on Friday April 13 2007, @08:32PM (#18727551)
      ... "Do no evil?"

      Stop crying about it. This is yesterday's news, as we know all corporations are evil by definition.

      The new rage is corporations which are open to how evil they are, such as Microsoft's new slogan for 2008 "We're evil", and Yahoo's campaign "Tell us how we can be evil for you today", trying to tighten Yahoo's communication with their users.

      Google is also planning a new PR image, but since it would be quite shocking to their existing fans, the search engine plants a gradual transition, where they will change their slogan every month such as "Evil 5%", "Evil 10%", "Evil 15%" until they reach 100%.
  • I sincerely hope Google will simply replace all DoubleClick-crippled sites with AdSense. DoubleClick's tracking cookies are the reason I block web ads.
    • You do know that adsense keeps tracking cookies too, right?

    • Re:I hope it was for the client list (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2007, @07:23PM (#18727013)
      Um, might want to know more about how ad sense works then before making that statement.

      Doubleclick operated under the '3rd party' cookie system. Sites hosted thier cookies, and users of modern browsers had the ability to decide, or 'opt in' to being tracked by third party cookies. Of course, most browsers by default blocked them, and life was good.

      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?

  • Now slashdot needs a new meme (Score:5, Funny)

    by bugnuts (94678) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:10PM (#18726245) Journal
    Gootube was easy.....

    Doogleclick?

    Doobleclick?

    Goobleclick?

    Youtoogleclick?

  • "Don't Be Evil?" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ewhac (5844) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:13PM (#18726299) Homepage Journal
    Great. Now which of the myriad of Google's cookies will I need to block?

    Schwab

  • It's f*****d company all over again. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mauledbydogs (853179) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:22PM (#18726405)
    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.

    • Re:It's f*****d company all over again. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Araxen (561411) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:27PM (#18726479)
      3.1 Billion or let Microsoft automatically become the #2(Maybe #1?) On-line advertising service on the Internet? Which do you think Google is going to choose?

      • Re:It's f*****d company all over again. (Score:5, Funny)

        by coredog64 (1001648) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:55PM (#18726787)
        Microsoft bidding on DoubleClick brings to mind the following joke:

        A duck hunter is out early one morning hunting ducks. He's not having a lot of luck and he's about ready to pack it in and go home.
        Then he catches a break and shoots a duck. The duck falls to the ground on the other side of a fence. He hops the fence to grab the duck
        and a farmer appears from nowhere and asks "What are you doing with my duck?" The hunter says "That's my duck! I shot it." The farmer replies "Doesn't matter -- it's on my land. But I'll tell you what. We'll take turns kicking each other in the nuts as hard as we can until one of us gives up. The winner keeps the duck. Oh, and I kick first." So the farmer winds up and kicks the hunter square in the nuts. The pain is so awful the hunter throws up and then collapses. 10 minutes later, he tentatively gets to his feet and says "Okay, my turn." To which the farmer replies "That's okay, you can keep the duck."

        I have a sneaking suspicion Microsoft wasn't that interested in DoubleClick. But they wanted to make damn sure that Google overpaid for it.

  • Confrimation on the Google Blog (Score:4, Informative)

    by stereoroid (234317) on Friday April 13 2007, @06:22PM (#18726411) Homepage Journal
    Here you go [blogspot.com]. 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.

  • they never said BUY no evil... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2007, @07:03PM (#18726849)
    :)

  • haha (Score:5, Funny)

    by Traa (158207) on Friday April 13 2007, @07:11PM (#18726911) Homepage Journal
    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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by apathy maybe (922212)
        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).

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.