Comments on: Did Google make a mistake with DoubleClick?

Don Reisinger has crunched the numbers and found that the Google-DoubleClick deal was a bad move for the online firm. Is he right?

[lmasanti]

quote:
"I just don't think this is a major step forward for the company.
I simply don't know how anyone can say the Google-DoubleClick deal was good for Sergey, Larry, and Eric. "

Maybe --with all due respect-- that's the reason why they are running a quite profitable company and you just writing a blog.
They can see "other things" (and also they can fail enormously without problem... in case you are right!).

[LEOPiC]

that's quite rude an unnecessary don't you think?

[aztec92154]

CNet Editors & bloggers are hammered on a daily basis. At first, I'm sure its kind of like a right of passage. Eventually I'm sure they grow a thick skin. Some CNet editors have even made shows (Molly Woods "Mail Bag") which feature upset, crazy, or critical e-mails and letters sent to [e-mail].

I think that what Don is trying to do in this blog, as in his other blogs, is to get a conversation started. He says, "I just don't think this is a major step forward for the company." So the question is, why would it (or would it not) be a major step foward for Google?

Before we do that, lets think about this comment by "Imasanti" for a second. He argues that Googles decisions shouldn't be questioned because Google is in a better position than we are to make decisions. Even if Google was wrong, again, and again, and again, they would be fine because they have a lot of money. WRONG! If Google messes up, WE the PUBLIC shareholders respond:

For example, on November 6, 2007 their stock price was $741.79 USD, a couple of days ago it was $413 USD... THAT's 94.2 BILLION that just evaporated. Take a look at their stock for the last three months. Should we be asking ourselves if Googles purchase of DoubleClick is good for Google? Hell yeah we should. Google stock is currently at 440 a share... so what gives, why the increase (blip?) in stock price?

I'm sure Google just wants the technology patents AND information that DoubleClick owns. Ryan Singal from Wired Magazine says the following: "The technology uses a DoubleClick cookie that reports back every time a user visits a site using the system, letting DoubleClick know that user 453689 likes to read motocross stories and GQ magazine and spends a lot of time playing online Flash games. Google can merge that database with its deep knowledge of users? search histories, along with its growing database of URLs visited by Google users who don?t realize that Google opts-in users to its ?Web History? program, which continually tracks their every step on the Internet." ( Check out the folloiwng website for more details http://voices.allthingsd.com/20080312/singel/ )

So will it be a good move? That remains to be seen, but stockholder confidence in Google continues ween as end-customers have begun to cut back on Google search advertising as we all head into a recession.

[SRobertRoberts]

I think it's more about strategy and tactics than it is about a direct return on investment. Had a competitor acquired DoubleClick, they would have had a platform to launch an attack on Google where it hurts. After all, Google's mission might be to make all human knowledge searchable, but it's the ads that pay the bills. Now, any would be competitor to Google in the ad space has no choice but to build from the ground up.