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.'"

Holy crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is teh loser.

Let me be the first one to say...

[logixoul]

Google is the new Microsoft. :^)

No Evil?

[Therin]

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...

Hmmm

[huckamania]

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...

What ever happened to ...

[LorenzoV]

... "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.

"Don't Be Evil?"

[ewhac]

Great. Now which of the myriad of Google's cookies will I need to block?

Schwab

Re:Hmmm, the beast grows

[hostyle]

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".

It's f*****d company all over again.

[mauledbydogs]

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.

[Araxen]

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:What ever happened to ...

[dreamchaser]

"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:D'OH!

[mikeisme77]

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:What ever happened to ...

[dwater]

> It actually probably went away, again if it ever was even a real credo, long before that.

Right. It's nothing to do with China; it's to do with American greed, plain and simple. It started (IMO) at the IPO.

Re:Sad to say, but

[bberens]

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.

Re:Within a few years.

[Anonymous Coward]

No need to pay all that money, just buy some senators; much cheaper!

Re:Sad to say, but

[Anonymous Coward]

> I haven't made an http request to doubleclick in years, on account of m4d hosts file management skillz.

Right, but you don't have google in that hosts file, do you?

Re:Holy crap

[pacalis]

No, consumer privacy is the loser.

Is the google's share of online ad market large enough to warrant a Justice investigation?

Re:D'OH!

[rm69990]

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:It's f*****d company all over again.

[Idbar]

3.1 Billion dollars won't change my hosts file:

...
127.0.0.1 atdmt.com
127.0.0.1 adbrite.com
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 googlesyndication.com
...

But if they can get the money from doubleclick customers... good for them.

Re:D'OH!

[Paradise Pete]

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."?

a vicious regress

[sidemouse]

If you can't be evil, buy 'em.

Re:Won't change much for me

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:whoa

[Curtman]

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.

Well do ya click, punk?

[FormOfActionBanana]

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.

Re:whoa

[ceejayoz]

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.

Re:Holy crap

[mrchaotica]

No, consumer privacy is the loser.

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.