Comments on: Perception and Reality: Why It Makes Sense For Google To Pay $3.1B For DoubleClick http://blog.simeonov.com/2007/04/13/perception-and-reality-why-it-makes-sense-for-google-to-pay-31b-for-doubleclick/ Simeon Simeonov on entrepreneurship, innovation & venture capital Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:31:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: JoeDuck http://blog.simeonov.com/2007/04/13/perception-and-reality-why-it-makes-sense-for-google-to-pay-31b-for-doubleclick/#comment-5826 Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:13:45 +0000 http://simeons.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/perception-and-reality-why-it-makes-sense-for-google-to-pay-31b-for-doubleclick/#comment-5826 Good points Simeon. It’s no longer enough to look at fundamentals or even company potential. In the Google v MS battle one must also consider how these aquisitions diminish or delay the ability of the competition to catch up.

]]> By: will http://blog.simeonov.com/2007/04/13/perception-and-reality-why-it-makes-sense-for-google-to-pay-31b-for-doubleclick/#comment-4680 Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:32:25 +0000 http://simeons.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/perception-and-reality-why-it-makes-sense-for-google-to-pay-31b-for-doubleclick/#comment-4680 the problem is that DoubleClick is no longer a true marketplace . . . with network effects . . . but an ASP . . .

]]> By: Simeon Simeonov http://blog.simeonov.com/2007/04/13/perception-and-reality-why-it-makes-sense-for-google-to-pay-31b-for-doubleclick/#comment-4628 Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:37:21 +0000 http://simeons.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/perception-and-reality-why-it-makes-sense-for-google-to-pay-31b-for-doubleclick/#comment-4628 Hey, Vlad, I’ve also programmed in Occam. Spelling-wise, both Occam and Ockham are correct.

]]> By: Vladimir Dimitroff http://blog.simeonov.com/2007/04/13/perception-and-reality-why-it-makes-sense-for-google-to-pay-31b-for-doubleclick/#comment-4609 Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:42:12 +0000 http://simeons.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/perception-and-reality-why-it-makes-sense-for-google-to-pay-31b-for-doubleclick/#comment-4609 Hats off to old Okham (Occam was a language we used to program transputers :) ) but real life is often a little more complex. For just one dimension of this complexity:

I would say that buying Performics as part of DoubleClick is in itself a business case, in the light of Google’s drive towards CPA (or PPA, as they call it). They were already seen as a threat to the affiliate networks, now with a large such network ‘in their pocket’ they get good ROI from the DoubleClick deal. Not to mention the ‘split loyalty’ of Performics between Google and Yahoo (until now, that is)…

IMHO the deal has a multi-variable business case and the ‘shaven’ press releases they make are an attempt to hold their cards close to their chest – for a while.

Cheerz,
V.

]]> By: Valuing Google’s acquisition of Doubleclick: 10x revenue, 60x EBITDA (trailing) | Zenrob: Biz Dev in NYC http://blog.simeonov.com/2007/04/13/perception-and-reality-why-it-makes-sense-for-google-to-pay-31b-for-doubleclick/#comment-4569 Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:48:00 +0000 http://simeons.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/perception-and-reality-why-it-makes-sense-for-google-to-pay-31b-for-doubleclick/#comment-4569 [...] Google preferred not to comment on Doubleclick’s standalone performance, except to say that they foresee substantial “synergies” to drive value that make the purchase extremely attractive to them. The blogosphere is abuzz about what these synergies might be – and merit a post in its own right. See Fred Wilson, Hipmojo, Donna Bogatin and Phil Wainwright, Sim Simeonov. [...]

]]>