Category: Diversity of ownership

EC’s Questionnaire 1 on Google/DoubleClick merger

Following press reports of a new questionnaire sent by the European Commission Competition Directorate, we thought we should place here what we believe was the initial survey sent. Eventually, Congress and others will need to investigate how well the FTC conducted its own review of the deal. Frankly, several parties–including commissioners–spoke of their concern that the agency’s loss in Whole Foods and other cases made it more difficult to confront the Google takeover of DoubleClick case. This is an ongoing story. But for now, here’s the questionnaire:

Case COMP/M.4731 – Google/DoubleClick

Questionnaire to Customers 1
Deadline for Reply: 18/10/2007

Google Inc. (“Google”) notified to the European Commission its intention to acquire control of DoubleClick Inc. (“DoubleClick”) by way of purchase of shares. The two parties to the merger Google and DoubleClick are hereinafter collectively referred to as “the parties”. Both are active in the online advertising industry.
Pursuant to the Merger Regulation , the Commission is required to assess the operation’s possible effects on competition within the common market. To this end, the Commission needs to gather relevant information from the parties to the operation as well as from other market operators, such as competitors and customers.
Therefore, your replies to the following questions as well as any other opinion on the effects of the operation you might consider relevant, are of key importance to the investigation. We should also be grateful for any additional remarks you may wish to make relating to the proposed concentration. If you consider that a particular question is not relevant, please indicate this and explain why. Please reply to this questionnaire on behalf of all companies belonging to your group.
When you reply to this questionnaire, please provide TWO versions of your reply: (i) a CONFIDENTIAL version; and (ii) a NON CONFIDENTIAL version which excludes business secrets or other confidential information.

In accordance with the Merger Regulation and in the light of the deadlines which the Commission must respect following the notification of the case, the Commission wishes to have your reply by 18/10/2007.
If you have questions of administrative nature or wish to receive this questionnaire in electronic format, please contact Ms Györgyi Nyiregyhazi (Tel.: +32 2 29 85327, e-mail: gyorgyi.nyiregyhazi@ec.europa.eu) clearly indicating the reference: M.4731 Googkle/DoubleClick – Questionnaire to Publishers.

If you have any further questions on the substance of this request, please contact Mr Bertrand Jéhanno (Tel.: +32 2 29 91048, e-mail: bertrand.jehanno@ec.europa.eu), Mr Carl-Christian Buhr (Tel: +32 2 29 86 033, e-mail: carl-christian.buhr@ec.europa.eu), Mr Flavien Christ (Tel: +32 2 29 90931, e-mail: flavien.christ@ec.europa.eu,), Mr. Peter Eberl (Tel: +32 2 29 60783, e-mail peter.eberl@ec.europa.eu), Ms Vera Pozzato (Tel: +32 2 29 93012, e-mail: vera.pozzato@ec.europa.eu).

Thank you for your help and co-operation.

A. General questions

Please give the contact details of the person responsible for replying to this questionnaire
Company:
Contact person: Phone:
Position: Fax:
E-mail:
Address:
Country:
Company web-site:

Please give a brief description of your organisation, of its size and of your activities. If your company is a subsidiary please indicate the group to which it belongs to.
Description of your organisation:

Please indicate the countries within the EEA in which you are active as online publisher (website owner):

B. The provision of display ad serving, management and reporting infrastructure technology
The provision of display ad serving, management and reporting infrastructure technology could be distinguished according to whether services are provided to advertisers (and agencies) or to publishers (including self-provisioning).
The Commission understands that advertisers create advertisements and upload them onto the advertiser-side ad server. Once a website publisher has agreed with the advertiser (directly or through an ad network or ad exchange) to run the ads on its website, the publisher enters the campaign terms of the ad (location, price, targeting criteria) into the publisher-side ad server. There is then a relationship between the publisher-side ad server – which records the “impression” generated by the user’s visit of the web site and determines the advertiser to call – and the advertiser-side ad server – which chooses the appropriate ad to deliver on the web page. The relationship between the two servers also enables the advertiser to obtain information relating to the user’s online behaviour in the context of the placed ad via browser cookie technology.
1. What is the value of the online advertising revenues generated by your website(s) in Europe?

2. Through which channels do you sell advertising space on your website/s?
Direct sales: YES/NO
And/or
Brokers, intermediaries, ad networks, ad exchanges: YES/NO

3. If you use both the direct channel and the indirect channel (ad network/ad exchange), please indicate (broadly) what % of your online revenues originate from the direct channel.

4. Do you foresee that direct sales of online advertising will decrease in the future in favour of intermediation through ad networks and ad exchanges?

5. Do you foresee that numerous ad networks and ad exchanges will be able to survive in the near future (2-3 years)? Please briefly elaborate.

6. If you use a 3rd party ad serving supplier (e.g. DoubleClick, OpenAdstream, AdManager…): if the price of 3rd ad serving services was to raise by 5-10% (all else equal) would you switch part of your inventory to an integrated network like Google AdSense?

7. Do you consider the cost of switching ad serving technology supplier to be high / moderate / low?

8. If you use more than one supplier of such technology/services, please describe briefly the advantages and disadvantages of such a solution compared to a situation in which only one supplier is used. Please also indicate why your company chose to use more than one supplier for this technology/services.

9. If you only have one supplier for this particular product/service, do you consider it possible/usefull using another supplier for a comparable product/service at the same time? If yes, please name these other possible suppliers. If not, please explain the reason why you choose single homing (e.g. exclusivity clauses, cost saving, quality of service …).

10. Please name other providers of display ad serving, management and reporting infrastructure technology that you consider as competitors of your provider/s at EEA level.

If you sell advertising space through direct sales

11. Which provider/s of display ad serving, management and reporting infrastructure technology is directly supplying your company?

12. Have you ever experienced a switch of supplier for this particular product/service? YES/NO
If yes, please:
explain the reason why you made such experience:
provide the name of your former supplier:
the name of the replacing supplier:
the cost caused by the switch:
the time it took to complete the switch

13. What is the % represented by the cost of ad serving in the total revenue generated by your advertising space? Please provide broad estimates.

If you sell advertising space through brokers/intermediaries/ad networks/ad exchanges
14. Which provider/s of display ad serving, management and reporting infrastructure technology is/are indirectly supplying your company?

15. Have you ever experienced a switch of supplier for this particular product/service? YES/NO
If yes, please:
Explain the reason why you had to switch:
provide the name of your former supplier:
the name of the replacing supplier:
the cost caused by the switch:
the time it took to complete the switch:

16. If you use the indirect channel, what is (a) the % represented by the cost of ad serving in the total revenue generated by your advertising space; (b) the % represented by intermediation fees in the total revenue generated by your advertising space? Please provide broad estimates.

17. If you multi-home, why have you become member of several ad networks?

C. Effects of the merger

18. According to you, is DoubleClick’s large publisher customer base an advantage for the quality of services offered by DoubleClick to publishers? In other words, is there a direct benefit to a publisher to use an ad serving supplier with a larger publisher base? If so, please briefly describe the benefit(s) (e.g. does the ad serving service improves the monetization of inventory if the ad server processes the data on user behaviour accross numerous publishers?).

19. If Google and DoubleClick were to merge, do you consider that integrated networks like Yahoo! (with RightMedia) and Microsoft (with aQuantive) would be able to provide strong competition to Google/DoubleClick? Please briefly elaborate.

20. Would you consider open source ad serving software as a viable alternative to commercial ad serving software? If so would you consider it suitable, in conjunction with a standalone ad network, as an alternative to Google’s AdSense? Please explain.

21. What are, in your view, the main effects of the proposed operation on:
a) your company?
b) the markets for (display and text) ad serving, management and reporting services for publishers?
c) the prices of (display and text) ad serving, management and reporting services for publishers?
Please give reasons for your answers.

22. Do you have any other comments that you wish to bring to the Commission’s attention?

Thank you for your assistance!
Please do not forget to add a non-confidential version to your response.

To Cache a Thief: In their own words…Jones Day work in both U.S. and EU on behalf of DoubleClick:

This is G o o g l e‘s cache of http://www.jonesday.com/experience/experience_detail.aspx?exID=S11555 as retrieved on Nov 9, 2007 17:05:06 GMT.
G o o g l e‘s cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time….

Client(s): DoubleClick Inc.

Representation: Acquisition by DoubleClick

Principal Professional(s): Joe Sims, Thomas Jestaedt, Alexandre G. Verheyden, Michael S. McFalls, Chris Ahern

Lead Practice(s): Antitrust Mergers/Joint Ventures

Industry(s): Media

Summary: Jones Day is advising DoubleClick Inc., the digital marketing technology provider, on the international and U.S. antitrust and competition law aspects of its planned $3.1 billion acquisition by Google Inc. The proposed acquisition will combine DoubleClick’s expertise in ad management technology with Google’s internet search and content platform. The transaction is currently under review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and European Commission.

Related Services
Professional Representation

Google & the Public Interest Policy Pod People

They’re coming. The “Google Policy Fellows” to help staff an array of public interest groups and policy think-tanks. “As lawmakers around the world become more engaged on Internet policy,” says Google, “a robust and intelligent public debate around these issues becomes increasingly important…The Google Policy Fellowship program offers undergraduate, graduate, and law students interested in Internet and technology policy the opportunity to spend the summer contributing to the public dialogue on these issues…Fellows will… work at public interest organizations at the forefront of debates on broadband and access policy, content regulation, copyright and trademark reform, consumer privacy, open government, and more. Participating organizations… include: American Library Association, Cato Institute, Center for Democracy and Technology, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Internet Education Foundation, Media Access Project, New America Foundation, and Public Knowledge.”

It’s wrong for public interest and consumer organizations to take Google’s money and especially provide a “Fellowship” in its name. We need to build more consumer advocacy capacity to address Google’s growing power, especially its threat to privacy. No matter what these groups say (and some already take money from Google; others receive broad media industry support), there are digital strings attached, as subtle as they may be. The Fellowship program is just another lobbying and PR effort coming from a company that has a broad policy agenda. Many of the groups above should be training people to represent the public versus companies such as Google, and other big online advertisers and new media conglomerates. Giving Google a say on the training of policy advocates, let alone a funding role, undermines the public interest movement.

The image “http://blowyourheadoff.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/invasion-of-the-body-snatchers.jpeg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

EC Second Phase Investigation of Google & DoubleClick: Good for Consumers, Competition and Privacy

Today’s announcement by the Directorate for Competition (DG Comp) underscores that the EC recognizes the serious consequences of the proposed Google takeover of DoubleClick. Competitors, consumer groups, and privacy advocates have provided sufficient information to the commission to warrant this relatively rare phase two inquiry. Google is quickly becoming the key digital gatekeeper for the online publishing and advertising marketplace. At stake here is more than just the skyrocketing Google share price, the convenience of our online searches, or even the current state of online advertising competition. The online marketing system is at the core of the dramatic changes transforming global communications–from broadband PC, to mobile, eventually even to television. If we are to have a more democratic and diverse digital marketplace of ideas and commerce, there must be meaningful competition and consumer protection in the online ad sector. This means Google should be prohibited from buying DoubleClick. Or, that at least meaningful safeguards are imposed that limit Google’s ability to leverage DoubleClick’s vast treasure trove of consumer data and its business relationships with many of the world’s largest companies.

Consumers need to be assured that they won’t be unfairly treated in terms of pricing and choice when buying online; advertisers will need protections to ensure that online marketing remains both affordable and competitive, especially when using Google. Privacy must be considered as well, with appropriate safeguards enacted

IAB creates new post: "SVP, Thought Leadership and Marketing."

As the IAB ramps up its political operation to defend the interactive marketing industry from consumer-friendly privacy safeguards, it has created a new senior position. The SVP for Thought Leadership and Marketing is… “to help drive the growth of interactive advertising through enhanced communications with marketers, agencies, and others about the power of interactive media to reach and influence consumers.” In another words, a seasoned PR hand. David Doty is now in that position; he came from Booz Allen Hamilton where he was Director of Corporate Branding and Creative Services.”

But what IAB requires is “thought leadership” that recognizes that interactive marketing can’t run a-muck. Consumer protections are required, as well as a socially responsible approach to digital advertising in a global environment.

consolidaton loans charege americancollege american loan corporationservices american online loan payment educationloan $3,000 cashapr 0 auto loanadvance california 14 payday loan 10loan day pay dollar 1000personal bad credit 10000 loan Map

3 5 loans bankday 2nd pay loanhome advantage loansacceptance loansadvance cash cost loan100 loan landfree loan payday 1sta payday loan Map

Cable’s 70/70 Rule & the Public Interest: Programming diversity is what should matter

Our friends and colleagues have worked for years to ensure that the monopolistic-run cable television industry be required to operate in a more competitive and–dare I say–democratic manner. So Bravo! to Media Access Project, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, and everyone else. But the focus of any FCC rules changes should be on how to ensure real programmatic diversity, including shows and channels owned and managed by women and people of color. If all we get is an a la carte system where one can merely pick and choose from the narrow content choices now offered us, then we will not be making real progress. How one should measure success of any cable TV regulatory change should be on what we see on the screen. That’s more important, in my opinion, than a focus on lowering cable rates (or offering new options for cable consumers to block programs and channels they find undesirable).

So as advocates and others consider policy changes, here’s what I suggest we consider. What rules are required so that there are new, unaffiliated, international, national, and local news channels available on cable systems? How can we foster independent programs and channels owned and operated by African-Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, and other groups? What needs to be done to ensure that five to seven years from now, there’s channels reflecting the rich cultural and artistic experience of the country? And, finally, what rules can be enacted that will aid these new media outlets to become sustainable, cross-platform (online, mobile, TV) services? That will require they have access to the full-functionality of cable–and not be placed in some digital backwater.

American Antitrust Institute warns FTC about Google and Doubleclick merger

The AAI sent a report entitled “Google Acquisition of Doubleclick: Antitrust Implications” to the FTC today (November 6, 2007). They noted that “[P]ublicly available information suggests that Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick, which is presently being considered by the Federal Trade Commission and European Commission, raises serious competitive issues under several different antitrust theories. In this white paper, we present some background and brief analysis of the principal competitive considerations under U.S. antitrust law.”

Here’s are some key excerpts (our italics):


“The integration of search, contextual, and display advertising, even if it offers efficiency benefits, may have exclusionary effects if advertisers using rival search engines or advertiser tools cannot replicate the benefits of such integration. For example, post-merger, advertisers using DART for Advertisers or other DART advertiser tools may be unable to get the same quality of access to data and reporting on their search or other campaigns with non-Google search engines or ad networks as they can with Google search or AdSense. Moreover, advertisers that use non-DART advertiser tools may be unable to get the same quality of access to data and reporting on their Google search or AdSense campaigns that is available to advertisers using DART’s advertiser tools. In these cases, Google’s dominant position in search (and contextual) advertising will be further entrenched, and DoubleClick’s leading position in advertiser tools will be cemented. As a result, the lessening of competition in the search market and advertiser tools market may outweigh whatever efficiency benefit may result from integration…Based on the information presented here, AAI believes there is a good argument that Google and DoubleClick are horizontal competitors in two relevant markets. The first is the market for distributing online advertising space of third party (non-search) web sites, where Google’s AdSense is the market leader. The second is the market for publisher ad serving tools, where DoubleClick’s DART for Publishers is the dominant product. While the competition between Google and DoubleClick in these markets may be more potential than actual, the two companies are perhaps uniquely positioned to capture significant market share in each other’s markets. If the evidence confirms that these markets are concentrated and that entry is otherwise difficult, as appears to be the case, then the merger presents a relatively straightforward case for challenge under the horizontal and non-horizontal merger guidelines. We see little in the way of merger specific efficiencies that would offset the loss of competition…If foreclosure were the only issue, it might be resolved by placing conditions on the merger, even though there are costs involved in enforcing a regulatory decree. But unless the horizontal concerns are rebutted, AAI believes that the prudent course is for the FTC to block the merger.”

UK trade magazine reports on Google’s “sheer dominance.”

key excerpts from New Media Age, 11/1/07. “NMA Report – Competition.” Greg Brooks. Sub. required:
“One of the biggest problems facing search engines is Google’s sheer dominance of the sector. How have the latest moves from Yahoo! and Microsoft affected this?

Google’s domination of the UK paid-search market has gone unbroken since AdWords burst onto the scene in 2000. Advertisers would like nothing better than to see some healthy competition for their search budgets. But six months since Yahoo! introduced Panama, and over a year since Microsoft launched AdCenter in the UK, Google’s grip is tighter than ever…
“Google’s lead in terms of volume continues to grow, as the latest statistics from Hitwise show (see graph). Agencies say it’s the only must-have for clients…

The emergence of Panama is a strong indication that a competitive market is driving improvements to relevancy and forecasting. But it remains to be seen if anyone can challenge Google’s position,” says Michael Stroud, head of online marketing at Lloyds TSB…

Daniel Kerzner, regional director for north-west Europe at Starwood Hotels, adds, “Google remains a solid, reliable volume driver for us. Its dominance is a potential threat to business, however, if it continues to exploit its lone position in the marketplace”…

…the figures don’t make a pretty picture for Google’s rivals. Hitwise data for September 2007 shows that Google handled 85.2% of all searches in the month, with Yahoo! on 4.91% combined, Microsoft own-brand search commanding 3.95% of search, and Ask.com down to 3.55%…

“AdCenter has tried to leapfrog Google with more targeting features to drive efficiency, but has left basics like attracting more customers behind,” says Paul Bongers, head of paid search at BT, which uses Zed to plan and buy its search campaigns. “You can have the greatest search engine in the world, but if the customers aren’t there it won’t matter…
So far the new features haven’t enabled Yahoo! and MSN to gain on Google, which has actually increased its dominance of UK searches

BBC Signs up with Doubleclick: Privacy out the window, along with Beeb staff?

It’s interesting to watch the tandem work of Google and Doubleclick, even prior to the proposed merger. Doubleclick was just signed-up by the BBC to handle its forthcoming interactive display paid advertising on BBC.com (the Beeb better explain to all its users what will happen with those digital crumpets placed on their computers–I mean cookies, pixels, and other digital spy techniques). Here’s how NMA magazine [sub required] reports it: “BBC Worldwide has appointed DoubleClick to handle display ads on BBC.com, following last week’s green light to allow advertising on the international site... It will also be responsible for the pre-roll advertising on BBC.com through its existing BBC World deal. DoubleClick will work with BBC Worldwide’s internal sales team…The ads will only be served to users outside of the UK…” (Doubleclick already works with the BBC, handling ads for BBC World and the Beeb’s magazine).

Last March, the BBC signed a deal with Google’s YouTube, calling it a “ground-breaking partnership.” Meanwhile, the BBC is drastically cutting staff and reducing news budgets, as it faces reduced public funding. The reduction in funds for the world’s premier public service programmer–and the staff cuts–is a story unto itself–which we will eventually address. But the BBC should not be permitted to endorse a business model for online marketing where its users–even if not UK citizens and residents—are tagged, tracked, targeted, and sold to the highest behavioral targeting bidder. Unless safeguards are imposed, online advertising could have an adverse impact on the diversity and integrity of the news. This deal should also behoove the BBC news staff to launch a major investigation into the Google and Doubleclick merger, inc. how such a merger will impact public affairs programming.

9 joy ringtone downringtone miles 5008525 ringtones makebarrington 30 amcringtones aaron tippinhetherington hong kong alastair1953 marmon ford herringtons ringtones 70 Map

Google Becomes a member of the Nielsen "family." Threats to our Privacy as we watch TV

Few readers may recall when Norman Lear’s “Mary Hartman” realized that she and her fellow patients at a psychiatric facility watched a Nielsen ratings-connected TV set. Lear’s critique that the TV rating system that has determined success for the TV business is deeply flawed and–frankly, crazy– is still true. But Google (and Doubleclick’s) move to monitor and analyze our viewing on TV and other platforms is just as insane–if we want to protect our privacy. “Google has been reporting millions of second-by-second data points to its TV Ads clients,” explains MediaDaily News. “Ultimately, Google expects TV’s interactive capabilities to improve to the point that it is generating the same kind of immediacy and backchannel as the Internet.” [from an interview with Mike Steib, director of Google TV Ads].

We doubt cable and DBS subscribers recognize that they are now involuntary members of the Nielsen/Google data tracking combine. Here’s how Multichannel News reports on the deal: “By combining Nielsen demographic data with aggregated set-top box data, Google plans to provide advertisers and agencies with comprehensive information…We have millions of set-top boxes that belong to EchoStar from which EchoStar is pulling data and is providing it to us for the Google TV Ad system: It’s a lot of data points,” Steib said…Advertisers can better understand exactly how their ad is performing and make near real-time changes to their TV advertising campaigns to deliver better ads to viewers, according to Google.

“One of the things we haven’t been able to provide to our advertisers to date, when we report back the very next day the impressions that they’ve received from the set-top boxes, we have not yet reported demographics and audience composition,” he said. “We are now going to be able to make that information available to our advertisers”…Google and Nielsen claim that as a result of their new partnership, this is the first time that advertisers and agencies will have such a level of detailed measurement available in a single place and at such a large scale.”

We hope Congress and the FTC will step in to prevent the entire TV viewing population from becoming involuntary drafted into the Nielsen/Google data collection, profiling, and targeting system.

casino free download adultrules casino card poker 3casino resort acquariuscasino nm travel accommodation directoryreview casino addpoker real 105g casino chipsresort acquarius casinoaccount florida merchant offshore casino Map