DoubleClick didnt want Microsofts money?
It's heartening to know that money isn't everything when deals are on the table. Some interesting new discoveries have come out of the Google DoubleClick deal, and it seems as though Microsoft may have put more money on the table than Google did. John Battelle discovered that Microsoft did offer to match the $3.1 billion that Google paid for the company, and was willing to pay more to ensure that Google did not get a stronghold on the online ad market. For some reason that private equity firm that owns a majority stake in DoubleClick decided to go with Google. Could it be because of it was a better cultural fit, reputation, or was it for the employees as Robert Scoble points out?
Just goes to show us that money isn't everything, and there are different priorities that have to be met when building or buying top notch properties.












Comments
3
Subscribe to commentsSven SchoeneApr 23rd 2007 3:58PM
I followed the fight for DoubleClick (even though I don't really understand the value for either parties, Microsoft or Google) and it really looked like Microsoft snatched it from Google right under their noses. Seems like money isn't everything and maybe the consultants on Google's side are better to work and easier to deal with. Maybe MS was too pushy on this one?
Sven Schoene,
http://www.SvenSchoene.de
AdamApr 23rd 2007 4:40PM
I'm not a fan of all these mergers happening nowadays. I think DoubleClick would've been fine on their own. Now Google will dominiate the internet advertising arena. Haven't you ever noticed all those doubleclick URL's in your status bar Sven?
-WebMaster Adam.
http://www.computersite.com/blog
RPApr 23rd 2007 8:49PM
More chairs are being thrown in Redmond... :-(