Will Microsoft See Double(Click)?
|
Rumors are circulating that Microsoft could acquire DoubleClick. Whether that is true or not, Microsoft is ready to spend what it takes to catch up with Google. |
The Wall Street Journal reported the acquisition rumors earlier today.
Two weeks ago today, Microsoft announced the acquisition of Tellme, which also was rumored beforehand. During the conference call following the announcement, Jeff Raikes, president of Microsoft's Business division, made clear the company would be making other acquisitions.
The greater context of the Tellme acquisition: Hosted voice services and mobile search are both areas in which Microsoft is looking to leap ahead of Google.
Like Tellme, DoubleClick could enhance Microsoft's competitive push against Google. Last week, Microsoft realigned its search and advertising groups, which is where DoubleClick would immediately, uh, click.
Display advertising is the one bright spot for Microsoft's Online Services group. While Microsoft may trail Google in search and advertising, display ads generate the bulk of Online Services revenue and show growth, even as other areas have receded over the last 18 months or so.
Microsoft also has more online real estate for displaying ads than does Google—and more people spend more time at the software giant's Web properties. If Microsoft were to sell display ads nowhere else, it should do so on its own real estate. Time online is a Microsoft advantage over Google, although the time online advantage for Time Warner/AOL and Yahoo properties is greater yet.
However, DoubleClick assets could help Microsoft as an adjunct to search and MSN AdCenter. According to a recent JupiterResearch report, the long-anticipated shift in advertising—from offline to online—has started. Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have been building out their infrastructures for this day, and each has been scrambling to get in front of the others to snatch ad dollars as they move online from offline sources.
Jupiter said it sees display advertising going from about $5 billion last year to around $8 billion in 2011. However, the three categories investing most in display advertising—consumer electronics, consumer packaged goods and telecommunications—will shift more of their online ad spending to search by 2011.
The broader opportunity is huge. Interactive Advertising Bureau and PricewaterhouseCoopers project that the final 2006 tally for Internet advertising revenues will reach $16.8 billion.
The point is: The online advertising market is volatile and will continue to be so, particularly as advertisers shift more spending online—and some of that money will go to ads reaching mobile devices (hence, Microsoft's interest in Tellme). Microsoft has huge desktop and Web assets it can capitalize on. But the company needs to provide potential advertisers with more than places to spend their money. What advertisers want is more value for their spending online than what they get offline—that means better metrics.
Google is a leader, leveraging off its commanding search presence. Yahoo is improving. Microsoft is trying to improve, by way of MSN AdCenter and other advertiser tools. I'm not surprised that Microsoft might be looking at DoubleClick—as it did Claria—as a possible acquisition. But DoubleClick, like Claria, is a somewhat notorious adware provider.
Still, DoubleClick tools are widely used by online advertisers. The customer relationships alone could be worth the purchase price, as Microsoft advances its online advertising efforts and competitive assault. If not DoubleClick, maybe Microsoft will buy another vendor. The company is on a shopping spree.
Comments (16)
The Ask.com search user increase due to its massive recent marketing campaign should be a sign to Microsoft that marketing Live.com a lot more (on tv) could boost the market share quite well.
Posted by Mario | March 28, 2007 8:09 PM
I love your link to the WSJ Joe ... virtually a blank screen wanting people to sign in or up as the case may be !
As for the rest of it PURE RUMOR as you yourself said !
With no facts to back this story up, it is ONLY that, a story based on rumor.
You are ready to do a story on it anyway as you said in the beginning:
"Rumors are circulating that Microsoft could acquire DoubleClick. Whether that is true or not, Microsoft is ready to spend what it takes to catch up with Google."
"Whether it is true or not" give us a break plase Joe !!!
Posted by Neil | March 28, 2007 9:31 PM
Joe, you are Paris Hilton in an IT world
Posted by Hilton | March 28, 2007 9:38 PM
Neil if you're going to count Joe's story as one based on rumor then you're going to be counting a lot if it comes to Microsoft. Although the official name on the Microsoft site is "press release".
For a detailed list of rumors go here http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/. Foley is a great source of "press releases". Or heaven forbid Coursey. Where is he now? What was his last article on eWeek? Oh yea "Will Vista Really Ship This Year?". Rumor has it that the original article was titled "Will Vista Really Ship This Year? Part III "
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | March 29, 2007 12:26 AM
Neil if you're going to count Joe's story as one based on rumor then you're going to be counting a lot if it comes to Microsoft. Although the official name on the Microsoft site is "press release".
For a detailed list of rumors go here http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/. Foley is a great source of "press releases". Or heaven forbid Coursey. Where is he now? What was his last article on eWeek? Oh yea "Will Vista Really Ship This Year?". Rumor has it that the original article was titled "Will Vista Really Ship This Year? Part III "
BTW, why is it you always attack the author (Joe) and not the facts? I'm still waiting on the Windows Vista activation count. I did notice there are references to 1.2% Vista usage in the browser records. If that is 20 million PCs online then there must be 1.6 billion PCs. Something I believe there is not.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | March 29, 2007 12:29 AM
Sorry bout the double post there is something wrong with the site or talkbacks because it showed up empty and even had 3 comments on reloading the article. Then it said 4, but only 3 comments were visible. So I reposted.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | March 29, 2007 12:32 AM
Well Gerado
I went to Mary Jo's blog and there is nothing there based on RUMOR at all, perhaps you should read more carefully next time.
And mate eWEEK owns this site (microsoft watch) try looking at the top left hand side of the banner for this site ... it says eWEEK Microsoft Watch.
And lastly when you run out of things to say, do us a favour and don't say anything at all !
Rather than this flippant statement "Rumor has it that the original article was titled "Will Vista Really Ship This Year? Part III "
Posted by Neil | March 29, 2007 12:48 AM
You just can't get it through your thick skull that the licences sold by microsoft have been sold to OEM's who are holding stock of them, and therefore have not yet all made it out to the general public as yet, but they HAVE BEEN SOLD !!
Ah ! Now theres a telling line if ever I saw one and I quote "I did notice there are references to 1.2% Vista usage in the browser records. If that is 20 million PCs online then there must be 1.6 billion PCs. Something I believe there is not."
You don't believe it so therefore it is not true !
The earth is a Globe (round) do you believe that ! Some people believe it is flat, using your premise, therefore it must be flat !!
Posted by Neil | March 29, 2007 12:58 AM
Neil, can't you understand that I'm quite aware that a license sold to an OEM is a license sold, but not a license used. What you have to understand here is that the issue is who is using the product.
What counts here is who is using it. Because as a developer I want to sell my Vista ready application to Vista users. And shrink wrapped boxes of Vista in the OEM's warehouse are not going to help me at that. Unclaimed coupons will not help me either. Only installed and running versions of Vista will help me, John developer, sell my product. And if I don't have Vista users to sell it to why should I develop it. Microsoft knows that an OS without developers is in trouble.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | March 29, 2007 1:47 AM
Gerardo, you are wrong.
If Microsoft sell an OEM Vista license to an OEM vendor. The sale is immediately recognized as revenue regardless when will the copy landed in user hand
Posted by Eder | March 29, 2007 8:12 AM
Yeah, and when they get four (4) houses...they can buy a hotel. Problem is...it's the hotel from hell.
Buying the hotel is one thing, running it into the ground...is another. Microsoft's MO is to do just that.
The Evil Empire has proven one thing over time: If it ain't a "feature" and they "didn't think of it"...it's doomed.
There is a built-in failure button at MSFT which, when pressed, rallies the collective unconscious of the facade managers to sabotage purchases like this. Until that cancer is rooted out, it'll be business as usual.
No dear hearts, Microsoft is a lost cause in all new ventures because...the same people are running them. What's Ben Franklin say? "Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results."
Microsoft is insane and...it's why I have given up talking to the Softies. It's hopeless...until a white knight arrives. Won't happen because all are buffered by the denial brought upon by the huge money bins.
Tsk!
Posted by microstiff | March 29, 2007 9:42 AM
Eder, I don't know why you and Neil keep saying I'm wrong when I do agree that a copy sold to an OEM can be counted as revenue. It can and I totally agree with that. Once a copy is sold it can be counted as revenue for Microsoft.
Problem is you guys keep hammering on the income for Microsoft. I really don't care about that. I like other readers here care about my income.
If the numbers are as Microsoft tells then there is no problem. But Joe raises very good points and if they're right I as a developer might be questioning the sanity of jumping on the Vista development track just now.
While an OEM might get a refund on his Vista packs, I as a developer need to pay wages and sell now. I hope you understand it is a different ball game and as someone in the process of investing time and money on a project I'm obliged to ask the same questions Joe is asking. It isn't Microsoft bashing as Neil would like us to believe. Just common sense. Do I put time and money this year to upgrade my XP version of the software and wait half a year to pour time and money into a Vista version? Or do I jump on it right now?
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | March 29, 2007 12:41 PM
Gerado
Big questions did you question about the "sanity" of jumping on the "XP" development track ??
Vista is the new OS from Microsoft and people will migrate to it sooner or later (just like they did when they didn't want to leave win98 and go to XP).
As one commenter said "people tend to get comfortable with one thing and don't like moving from one to another".
People did not want to move from 95 to 98, they did not want to move from 98 to XP, now it's moving from XP to Vista, and you can get your bottom dollar it will be the same again "next time" as well.
Eventually people will move, that is the important thing to think about here.
So my answer to you is ... YES take the plunge !
When new items come out for me, I have no alternative as I know that people will not want the old model in preference to the new, you think about it and you'll see that I am right.
Posted by Neil | March 29, 2007 7:28 PM
Oh Neil, please stop your Joe-bashing. Now this article should indeed fulfill all your "Microsoft-Watch"-calls in all the other annoying posts of yours and you are still not pleased. Come on. Speculation yes. Rumor yes. But it is widely published on the net, so why not cover it here? And Joe is definitely adding additional background missing elsewhere.
If you only want facts presented as MS wants them to be presented why not go directyl to
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/default.mspx
and stop bothering us.
Posted by rittmey | March 30, 2007 3:19 AM
Well Neil the jump to XP was done very slowly. We had issues with Borland's BDE and Access files. Plus certain serial port issues as well. Which lead us to have to upgrade our development tools and adjust and recompile a large set of software (with all the time and testing involved). Office XP kept crashing our Access databases in some of the applications. So we ended up using our downgrade rights and still use Office 97 on some PCs. It probably took us well into 2003 to have all issues ironed out. I see no reason for it being easier with Vista. So there will be no plunge. Just a slow slide into it as XP is discontinued.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | March 30, 2007 5:56 AM
Fair enough !!
Posted by Neil | March 30, 2007 8:31 AM