Scobleizer - Latest Comments in Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

wintersportvakantie — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:04:44 -0000

dont want a monopoly from one player

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

Ski — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:17:16 -0000

Another factor that might come into play, is the fact that DoubleClick and Google both share the same building in New York. This makes things that much more convenient for the merger. The question I have is "Why wouldn't Helman & Friedman want more money from Microsoft?" Once they sellaren't they out of the picture?

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

seshadri — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:40:42 -0000

@53, Yes. IIRC seattle has an average 244 cloudy days. NYC (and almost all others) have much less cloudy days.

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

LayZ — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:55:54 -0000

@51 There's a difference between annual rainfall in inches and # of cloudy/rainy days. I'm guessing the # of cloudy/rainy days is higher in Seattle than NYC.

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:18:40 -0000

I think that the Flickr scenario is highly different than the Doubleclick one. Flickr, a couple cool folks in Vancouver - so many of the above points -did- matter to them (lifestyle etc.)

Doubleclick, have no care on these points as they are equity house bound. So I think it was all about profit. I think Doubleclick was not just looking at immediate profit, but future profit; and they just -cannot- see Microsoft stock going up. I think this is the important point. They can however see the future profit in a building corporate Google.

This wasn't 'who is cool, who is evil etc.' This was profit driven. And I believe that we should pay attention to the choice they made. What can we infer given their choice, that assumes that Microsoft stock will never be getting any higher? Hmm, what do they know?

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

seshadri — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:22:19 -0000

@49 - He he...

Rain trivia on seattle - Seattle's annual rainfall is less than NYC's

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

drmike — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:18:36 -0000

Google has more experience with webbased advertising since it has Adsense I would think.

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

LayZ — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:51:21 -0000

@47 A newcomer to Seattle arrives on a rainy day. He gets up the next day and it's raining. It also rains the day after that, and the day after that. He goes out to lunch and sees a young kid and asks out of despair, "Hey kid, does it ever stop raining around here?" The kid says, "How do I know? I'm only 6."

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

Robert Scoble — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:50:25 -0000

Zer0mass: Silicon Valley's weather is way better than Seattle's. Far fewer rainy/cloudy days.

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

Zer0mass — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:26:19 -0000

Ok I can understand the rest of the reasons, but better weather? Says who? If you don't like the weather in Seattle just wait an hour, it will change.

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

Richard — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 05:11:50 -0000

No worries, I won't turn down microsofts money ;)

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

Christopher Coulter — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:43:45 -0000

Especially if your goal is to win the World Series? Easy, the Cubs. You'd go down in HISTORY. The Yanks? Big freaking deal, winning another series, whooopie do. You'd be forgotten before next season.

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

Computer Guru — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:38:33 -0000

I'd take the Cubs over the Yankees anyday, thank you very much.

The Billy Goat Curse will wear off... We just have to bring a goat to the top-box and everything will be righted once more.

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

Ory — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:22:48 -0000

Maybe DoubleClick turned down more MS money (if this is true; sounds like BS), because it'd be easier to get the deal approved by the EU. The EU despises Microsoft and would've tried to block the deal.

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

prabhagovind — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:17:52 -0000

A bundle of good reasons!

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

katovic — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:43:25 -0000

I kind of hope that advertising doesn't come to xbox since their target audience might not be that old. *Possibly*. I mean I am sure some older men and women play XBOX but I think the kids out number them. So the benifit of advertising might be lost on XBOX except to sell more xbox games, which isn't that be that great of a idea for the parents.

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

Joe Wikert — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:55:45 -0000

Keep in mind it's not just the purchase price. If I'm selling my business I'm also thinking about the price trend of the stock my employees will get options on going forward. Given trends over the past couple of years,pr 99 out of 100 people would probably prefer options on Google shares rather than Microsoft shares. So although Microsoft's cash is as green as Google's, I'd say "advantage, Google" when it comes to the stock options component of future compensation.

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

seshadri — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:57:23 -0000

"If you offered me 1,050, but $500 was in Microsoft stock, and someone else offered me $1,000, but $500 in Google stock"

Google - DC is an all cash deal.

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

hazardouswords — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:13:22 -0000

I think better deals for employees would be a good reason to go with google. From what I hear, google employees have excellent benefits.

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

Piotr — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:59:53 -0000

I would never let MS buy any company I ran. That's the beauty of staying private and not public. Once you go public, you no longer really own the direction your company takes; it's falls to pleasing the shareholders. Uh...

I would rather sell to anyone else. MS matters less and less as the years wear on. I'll be pleased when they are just another company.

Google is going to become huge, though, before this is all over, and people will start to see them as perhaps evil or similar to MS, especially when they own half the Internet.

Here's to a new search engine coming out of the woodwork that rivals them all AND stays private (I can dream).

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

Robert Scoble — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:45:45 -0000

Joe: I think you're right.

If you offered me 1,050, but $500 was in Microsoft stock, and someone else offered me $1,000, but $500 in Google stock, and I'd need to hold that stock for a period of time, say, four months, then I'd go with the Google deal cause I believe there's more upside there.

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

Joe Wikert — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:42:58 -0000

How about "better trend on buying company's stock price"? Microsoft's stock has been flatlined for years. Google's stock, despite recent volatility, is still the darling of the industry/market. If any options are included for the company being bought, or their employees, they'd be more likely to go with a suitor whose stock price still has some lift left in it.

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

Marios Koufaris — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:47:18 -0000

This rumor makes no sense. Doubleclick is owned and being sold by Helman & Friedman, the company that bought them for $1.1 billion a year and a half ago. Why would H&F care about anything other than making more money from their investment? Why would they go with a lower offer from Google if Microsoft was offering more money?

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

Joe Baressi — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:13:44 -0000

Tying together a few of the comments, I'll bet that Microsoft offered more (per the rumors Robert's in on), but that the VCs who own DoubleClick went with Google anyway to avoid the delays associated with the DoJ antitrust review that would have come with a sale to Microsoft.

Re: Doubleclick turned down Microsoft money?

David Dalka — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:04:57 -0000

Robert - I agree with you list - just not with this example.