The deal is still subject to approval from US and European regulators, so Google’s big competitors have unsurprisingly been registering their complaints.
Aside from its noticeable lack of irony, the software giant is entitled to be feeling a little narked off.
It was the first to be named as a suitor when news leaked of DoubleClick’s sale plans, and has missed out on a golden opportunity to cap the growth of Google’s digital ad empire.
Microsoft’s interest – along with Google’s mountainous cash pile and the chance to instantly gain a big display ad client base – goes a long way to explain why Google was prepared to pay more than $3bn for a firm purchased for only $1.1bn in 2005. And that’s twice as much as it paid for YouTube last year.
The Times also ran an interesting article yesterday which suggested Microsoft matched Google’s bid but was snubbed, although we don’t know if the Redmond-based company offered the all cash deal Google was prepared to.
It is also not the only big media company to have expressed concerns about the potential impact of the acquisition.
Much of the concern in the marketplace seems likely to focus on the effect the deal will have on the neutrality of Google’s sprawling portfolio of services, and whether it is equipped to take a sufficiently independent perspective of what is in an advertiser’s or publisher’s best interests.
Paul Mitchinson, UK MD of online marketing group DGM, said that that the DoubleClick acquisition “marks a significant U-turn in Google’s traditional philosophy towards banner advertising“.
He added: “Whilst the move is being viewed positively by some, questions have been asked about whether Google possesses the necessary skills and independent view to ensure advertisers, agencies and media owners achieve their online marketing and e-business objectives.
Our recent search marketing survey shows that Google’s power is now being seen as a risk by some businesses. So although there will be concern among DoubleClick’s main ad serving rivals, such as Atlas, it will be an opportunity for them to market themselves as being in a better position to act in the best interests of both publishers and advertisers.
The flip side of this is that the deal could also potentially provide advertisers with a huge boost in efficiency through better online reporting capabilities.
“For us as an ad agency, it will hopefully provide us with a seamless tool for measuring not only search but also display ads.
There are plenty of sub-plots in this saga which are worthy of attention.
DoubleClick, for example, recently announced plans for an online ad exchange – but with Google behind it, will it get the backing of big publishers or ad networks?
Questions are also likely to be raised about the future of Performics, DoubleClick’s search and affiliate marketing agency.
“How Google manage this is going to be very interesting. Performics can’t say they are engine neutral when they are owned by Google.
For Google, the benefits of the deal are pretty clear – as they are for DoubleClick’s private equity investors.
It will extend its potential ad sales network, as well as offering it another opportunity to build up its agency relationships – something it has been focusing on recently in the UK.
Google is less willing to open up about how it will integrate its ad tools with DoubleClick’s services, but boss Eric Schmidt is unsurprisingly delighted, and outwardly unworried about the anti-competitive claims.
“The wheel always turns. Five years ago, nobody in their right mind wanted to ‘own’ ANY part of the internet. Seven years ago people would have said AOL owned the internet. Nine years ago, Netscape owned the browser market, they were even selling NN in shrinkwrapped boxes.