DoubleClick

The New York Times (and others) reported yesterday Google's announcement that it was launching a "Gadget ads" program  which is essentially display-ad-serving to "widgets' which are essentially "mini-websites" within websites.

It is getting harder and harder for Google antitrust lawyers to argue with a straight face that Google does not compete in the market of "display-ad-serving" with DoubleClick.

• Google is the world leader in "serving":
  • search text ads
  • contextual ads;
  • video display ads through YouTube,
• And is now entering: 
  • mobile ad- serving;
  • and widget ad-serving to these mini-websites withing websites.
• Google's definition of "ad-serving" is increasingly becoming too-cute-by-half semantic wordplay and not a functional or factual definition.

Antitrust officials should ask Google if they are colluding with DoubleClick to not compete while the merger is pending.

So what are the implications of Microsoft losing its antitrust appeal in the EU's Appeals court -- which was a page one story in all the major papers?

More and different than most may think.

The EU is signalling in it's harsh treatment of Microsoft, that the EU is going to be tough on "dominant" firms. 

The New York Times has twin articles today that provide fresh additional evidence of why the Google-DoubleClick merger is anticompetitive: "Google to sell Webpage ads on Mobile phones" and "Times stops charging for parts of its website." 

The first article is yet more compelling evidence that Google's main merger defense -- that Google and DoubleClick don't compete in serving ads -- is simply bogus.

Google calling for global privacy standards is like the fox guarding the henhouse calling for better chicken wire standards. 

In a public relations ploy, Google, is now calling for international privacy legislation; see AP's "Google launches global privacy crusade."

• It appears Google is finally cognizant that privacy is an issue they can no longer brush under the rug.
  • Privacy International recently did a study which ranked Google the worst in the world on privacy, calling the company "hostile" to privacy concerns.
  • EPIC and other privacy groups has filed suit with the FTC to block the Google-DoublClick merger charging Google's privacy practices constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices.

My analysis of Google's call for International privacy standards is that it is a transparent PR ploy to try and lead the protest march for the cameras while trying to distract people from the fact that the privacy "march" is actually heading directly towards Google headquarters. 

Kudos to the New York Times for their front page article "Google claims ultimate perk: NASA runway."

• The truth is often stranger than fiction... and a lot funnier.

Seems that Google and NASA have created a special "two-tiered" information super-runway conveniently 7 minutes away from Google's Silicon Valley Headquarters, where only Google's co-founders planes can land takeoff and park, but no other private planes can.

Evidence continues to mount that the Google-DoubleClick merger presents serious anti-competitive concerns.

Let me share a series of antitrust developments over the last several days that cumulatively are very significant.

First, and most ominous, is that Yahoo, the weak #2 in the search market, which used to use Google's search engine, has been actively considering exiting the search business and outsourcing to #1 dominant Google or distant #3 Microsoft, because investors want the greatly expanded investment returns such a revenue-enhancing and cost cutting move would generate for shareholders.  

It is never a good omen for a merger's approval outlook, when EU antitrust authorities can't wait to investigate the impact of the merger and proactively inititiate their own antitrust investigation -- before their official process even gets started.

Google's antitrust lawyers have to be bummed by the development reported by Reuters that: "EU questions customers over Google-DoubleClick deal."

The Financial Times had a noteworthy article about Google's role as an editor of content and defender of free speech -- when Google finds it convenient: "Thailand lifts Youtube ban after Google agrees to block some clips."

This article is an interesting juxtaposition to Google CEO Eric Schmidt's very recent comments on the importance of free speech at a speech before the Progress and Freedom Foundation. 

• "We need to defend freedom of speech as more speech comes on line. ...Let’s do this in the right way. Let’s preserve the openness and the freedom of speech principles. You could use Internet censorship, for example, as a non-tariff trade barrier, which we all need to fight because governments, especially non-U.S. governments, have an incentive to some degree to control the populations -- to do all the things that are obvious if you’re afraid of empowering your citizens."

 The FT article is a good opportunity to review if Google's actions support Google's rhetoric when it comes to Google defending free speech...

A major reason why the stakes are so high in the FTC's review of the Google-DoubleClick merger is how remarkably fast online advertising is overtaking other advertising industry segments that have been around for decades.

An important development occurred just before the long Labor day weekend that I didn't want people to miss. Media Daily News reported that: "Internet displaces radio as fourth largest ad medium."

By far the most interesting Internet development I have seen in weeks was a New York Times piece by Noam Cohen called: "Whiting out the ads, but at what cost?"