On CBS MoneyWatch: 5 Things You Should Buy at Walmart
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

April 15th, 2007

Microsoft and DoubleClick: What if Redmond wanted to lose?

Posted by Mary Jo Foley @ 8:00 am

Categories: Corporate strategy, Google, Search, Web 2.0

Tags:

In Focus » See more posts on: DoubleClick

The pundits have spoken: Chalk up another win for Google and another loss for Microsoft in the bidding war for display-ad vendor DoubleClick.

Many industry watchers believe Google was wiling to pay a whopping $3.1 billion as much because of its desire to keep DoubleClick out of Microsoft's hands as for DoubleClick's customer and partner lists. And if you thought Microsoft was doomed before in the online advertising market, the Redmondians are really toast now thanks to the DoubleClick loss, some sages are claiming.

But what if Microsoft bluffed? What if the Microsoft didn't really want DoubleClick and simply wanted to bid up the price that Google had to pay to make its latest acquisition? I know I might sound like a Microsoft apologist trying to explain the DoubleClick loss. But think this through:

If you look at Microsoft's spending patterns, as of late, the company is leaning more toward doing less-than-$1-billion-sized acquisitions. In the increasingly rare cases when Microsoft does shell out big bucks (like close to $800 million for TellMe), it's because it envisions the target as a technology acquisition, not an advertising/customer acquisition. Did Microsoft view TellMe as more of a mobile-search purchase or a voice-technology buy? I'd bet the latter….

As Don Dodge, director of business development with Microsoft's Emerging Business Team, blogged:

"DoubleClick was a publicly traded company two years ago and valued at less than $1 billion. Anyone could have acquired DoubleClick, but a private equity firm took them private less than two years ago for $1.1 billion. They later sold off two divisions for $525 million. Yesterday Google paid $3.1 billion for what remained of DoubleClick. Why did Google wait two years and pay billions more?"

Sure, Dodge's reasoning could be nothing more than sour grapes… "Microsoft never really wanted 'em anyway!"

What do you think? Was DoubleClick a Microsoft bluff or a muff?

Mary Jo FoleyMary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 20 years. Don't miss a single post. Subscribe via Email or RSS. You can also follow Mary Jo on Twitter.

Got a tip? Send Mary Jo your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. For disclosure on Mary Jo's industry affiliations, click here or to see Mary Jo's full profile click here.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 8 Talkback(s)
I don't see it as it matters a great deal to MS
MS has a very broad financial investment infrastructure which really puts the issue of DoubleClick on a lower list of priorities.
DoubleClick would have been a nice to acquire but it's importance i... (Read the rest)
Posted by: intrepi@... Posted on: 04/16/07 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
It wouldn't be the first time  wolf_z | 04/15/07
Yes, for Microsoft technology trumps market share...  Anton Philidor | 04/15/07
Why?  AdebisiTheGamer | 04/15/07
Microsoft didn't want to ruin another product  genadyb | 04/15/07
Bluff  giveuntocaesar | 04/15/07
It Doesn't Negate...  swhiser | 04/16/07
Microsoft's $8 Billion Problem  vcookj | 04/16/07
I don't see it as it matters a great deal to MS  intrepi@... | 04/16/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

Order Microsoft 2.0

Pre-order Microsoft 2.0

Order 'Microsoft 2.0' by Mary Jo Foley at Amazon.com.

Recent Entries

advertisement
Click Here

Archives

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

Click Here