Slashdot Log In
Google Plans To Sell Part of DoubleClick
Posted by
Soulskill
on Fri Apr 04, 2008 08:15 AM
from the look-we're-not-evil-see dept.
from the look-we're-not-evil-see dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Google buys DoubleClick for $3.1 Billion 351 comments
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.'"
[+]
Politics: FTC Investigating Google-DoubleClick Deal 81 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is covering FTC interest in Google's purchase of the DoubleClick service. The investigation is in response to privacy group concerns over the amount of information Google will have available to it via its ad service and DoubleClick. Between a few days and a week from now the FTC should either declare the all clear, or elevate the process to a 'second request' stage. That would indicate more serious issues the federal body has an interest in. Google stated it was confident the purchase would hold up under scrutiny. 'In the complaint, the groups noted that Google collects the search histories of its users, while DoubleClick tracks what Web sites people visit. The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world.'"
[+]
Technology: 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.'"
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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
In related news (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What does DoubleClick do? (Score:2, Interesting)
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 sear
Re:What does DoubleClick do? (Score:5, Informative)
They then sell the advertising space, and provide web apps that allow the advertisers to see how effective the campaign is, and site owners to see who's buying their ad space, and how much they're paying.
That's also the reason there was so much scrutiny of this deal, since the largest banner advertising company has now been bought by the largest text advertising company.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now... when is Adblock going to get updated for Firefox 3 Beta 3!
Re: (Score:2)
a lot of ads don't show, and are blocked, but a bunch are making it through, even though they should be blocked.
there are still a couple of other bugs
Re:What does DoubleClick do? (Score:4, Informative)
DoubleClick is certainly the most visible to the public, though.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
they do not want to appear... (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that the entire world is already divided between people who believe the conspiracy theories circulating about Google and people who love Google unconditionally, I doubt they really care too much about appearances -- people are going to think whatever they want.
More likely this is to keep them out of court.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the entire world is already divided
I don't think that most of the world cares about Google all that much. Now you would be right about the people here at slashdot.between people who believe the conspiracy theories circulating
about Google and people who love Google
unconditionally,
Re: (Score:2)
Re:they do not want to appear... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Piffle (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Do they?
Which part are they selling? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Which part are they selling? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
How does that even work? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like Google is crippling DoubleClick's search business to provide a dubious benefit.
Danny Sullivan on Google's SEO Dilemma (Score:3, Interesting)
Finally! I'm through the.... (Score:5, Funny)
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
and can now preview this comment...
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
and post it.
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
Nope.
Apparently I need to put more text here to beat the postercompression filter. So here goes: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Phasellus non erat eu dui dignissim dictum. Integer iaculis nulla at nisl. Proin ut enim non ipsum varius laoreet. Integer feugiat, ante fringilla blandit convallis, leo sapien egestas velit, non condimentum nulla sem vitae risus. Mauris aliquam auctor quam. Sed ac enim. Donec mattis dui id ligula. Integer vel sem eget ante cursus tristique. Nullam vel orci vitae sem interdum placerat. In eget lectus. Donec blandit. Quisque lacus urna, malesuada vel, mollis sit amet, rutrum nec, est. Proin blandit ornare nibh. Duis et felis.
Done
Re:effective marketing (Score:4, Insightful)
This is similar to the recent two-finger salute [theregister.co.uk] given to the BPI (British equiv. of RIAA) over their proposed "Three strikes and you're out" strategy.
By putting the customer's desire/need first, they gain the customer's trust.
This used to be called good business.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:effective marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
The bean counters create a probability curve to estimate how much revenue they could lose if the perception were to become that GOOG is manipulating their results and giving preference to the customers paying DC for search engine marketing.
That is, how much would they lose by looking amoral.
Subtract that from the projected revenue from that DC unit.
If the number is negative on most points in the probability curve, then it's a no-brainer.
But even if it's in the "barely positive" territory, say, less than $10MM a year, I could still see an enlightened manager, thinking of that motto, making the decision to forgo that marginal revenue to maintain brand cachet that is difficult to value but that could be negatively impacted by the perception of conflict of interest.
So, certainly, it's an issue about money. But that doesn't preclude accounting for the morality of it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)