EU Approves Google-DoubleClick Merger

A number of readers sent word that EU regulators have cleared the Google-DoubleClick deal. "The commission said Google and DoubleClick 'were not exerting major competitive constraints on each other's activities and could, therefore, not be considered as competitors,' and even if DoubleClick could become an effective competitor in online intermediation services, 'it is likely that other competitors would continue to exert sufficient competitive pressure after the merger.'"

Re:Globalization

[geminidomino]

Considering that Google is based in the USA, is there any reason why they would even need the EU's approval for something like this?

Point about the article being nonexistent notwithstanding, the answer is that they don't technically *need* the EU's approval, except that they would probably like to actually do business IN the EU

Re:Did I miss something?

[scubamage]

Nothing. Google's primary business is still being a search engine. Doubleclick is an advertising framework and analytics (hence google wanting to acquire it). Search engine != advertising framework. Therefore they don't compete. Funny how things work just like they're supposed to sometimes.

Re:Did I miss something?

[scubamage]

Mmmm, your tears sustain me. Cry more, please, cry more. So sweet and salty. You also miss the fact that while google may make its revenue off of ads, it still is not considered an advertising framework and analytics package. Google analytics is nothing compared to doubleclick, which is their primary reason for the acquisition. As mentioned elsewhere in this story's discussion, the analytics are whats important here. Every website makes money off of advertising, google does it with searching. Doubleclick, however, makes their money off of the analytics it offers along with an advertising framework. They are two different things. If you want to say they're the same thing, you may want to ditch the sour grapes and get your head checked.

Re:Globalization

[TubeSteak]

But, Google never has to step physically into Europe for anything. It is just data across some tubes.

Google has local offices across the world.
Or do you really think they coordinate advertising in England from California?

If the EU Commission had said no, could they really stop the merger? European companies would be told, "Don't buy from Google-Click or else"? As if all internet servers for European companies are even hosted in Europe?

If [company] went ahead with a non-EU regulator approved merger, I imagine the regulators would start fining [company] for whatever reason they turned down the merger.

Re:AdSense Terms now requires privacy policy

[scubamage]

In theory it can only help you as an advertiser. By using the beacon, google's robotic voodoo machine can figure out what kinds of stuff a visitor is most likely to click on when he or she visits your site, thus increasing the liklihood of a successful click and maybe even some purchases. The only people who really lose are privacy purists who are terrified that cookies = virii (a common misconception). The fundamental flaw with that logic is of course that to google and other advertisers, you are a potential wallet. It is in their best interest to keep you safe and browsing. Sadly, google hasn't had the best history in not caving to government demands... though nothing quite so bad as the yahoo case where they got a bunch of people thrown into chinese prisons.

Re:AdSense Terms now requires privacy policy

[scubamage]

Forgot to mention, while tracking is a valid concern for end users who are worried about anonymity, again, this really will be a boon to anyone who uses adsense.

Re:Globalization

[nbert]

In addition (to what TubeSteak already said) google is way too big and very present on the European market. To give a counter-example: Facebook used to be quite safe from EU regulations, because even though they had many registered users in the EU they were operating solely from the US. And since their service is "for free" there was no money trail to go for. However, this changed recently: They now have venues in the UK and Germany (and Spain IIRC).

A company has to obey the laws in the countries they do business in. Even if the laws are stupid (China, anyone?), but that's a different story...

Re:Did I miss something?

[scubamage]

If Microsoft had a factory store that sold copies of windows, yes.

Re:Government too powerful

[WaZiX]

the ability to charge whatever you want for your services with the only price control being supply and demand

There are natural flaws in the market such as asymmetric information, moral hazard, adverse selection, collusion, monopolies, etc... The ridiculous stance that is getting more and more popular these days (Ron Paul, etc... ) to adhere to the principles of the capitalism and the free market without acknowledging its fundamental flaws is astonishing to me.

The economics and more specifically the political economics are more and more being shifted from science to philosophy if not ideology; as sound as it is to recognize the fact that free markets are the optimum way to prosperity and technological progress, uncontrolled markets would rarely if ever tend towards an optimum equilibrium for the society.