<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Joins Battle to Buy DoubleClick</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/04/google-joins-battle-to-buy-doubleclick.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/04/google-joins-battle-to-buy-doubleclick.html</link>
	<description>Internet Marketing News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:00:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonix</title>
		<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/04/google-joins-battle-to-buy-doubleclick.html/comment-page-1#comment-24048</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 05:04:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/04/google-joins-battle-to-buy-doubleclick.html#comment-24048</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s very difficult to M$ win google search engine war. They invented live, but live is almost the same that msn was, for me it&#039;s worst (at least for now). If M$ doesn&#039;t adopt another strategy it&#039;ll continue to loose and will stay light-years away from google, year after year.
It&#039;s time for a turn-round, but i doubt that M$ will do it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s very difficult to M$ win google search engine war. They invented live, but live is almost the same that msn was, for me it&#8217;s worst (at least for now). If M$ doesn&#8217;t adopt another strategy it&#8217;ll continue to loose and will stay light-years away from google, year after year.<br />
It&#8217;s time for a turn-round, but i doubt that M$ will do it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Kingston</title>
		<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/04/google-joins-battle-to-buy-doubleclick.html/comment-page-1#comment-23992</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Kingston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:14:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/04/google-joins-battle-to-buy-doubleclick.html#comment-23992</guid>
		<description>Whilst I love Google, I think it&#039;s best (for all of us) if M$ wins this battle. We need competition amongst these scalable advertising networks and M$ appears to be losing their grip in the search marketing war.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whilst I love Google, I think it&#8217;s best (for all of us) if M$ wins this battle. We need competition amongst these scalable advertising networks and M$ appears to be losing their grip in the search marketing war.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonix</title>
		<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/04/google-joins-battle-to-buy-doubleclick.html/comment-page-1#comment-23972</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/04/google-joins-battle-to-buy-doubleclick.html#comment-23972</guid>
		<description>Finally! Has i asked in the last post about this, why wasn&#039;t google on the &quot;fight&quot;. And here it is. Let&#039;s see what will be the results, but i most bet that google will win this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Finally! Has i asked in the last post about this, why wasn&#8217;t google on the &#8220;fight&#8221;. And here it is. Let&#8217;s see what will be the results, but i most bet that google will win this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Mothner</title>
		<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/04/google-joins-battle-to-buy-doubleclick.html/comment-page-1#comment-23968</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Mothner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:31:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/04/google-joins-battle-to-buy-doubleclick.html#comment-23968</guid>
		<description>This move is surprising to me; I believe that Google is throwing their hat in the ring but really does not have the intent to make the purchase.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This move is surprising to me; I believe that Google is throwing their hat in the ring but really does not have the intent to make the purchase.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Schramm</title>
		<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/04/google-joins-battle-to-buy-doubleclick.html/comment-page-1#comment-23964</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Schramm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:57:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/04/google-joins-battle-to-buy-doubleclick.html#comment-23964</guid>
		<description>Isn&#039;t DoubleClick famous for flashy ads? I would think it wouldn&#039;t really fit in with Google&#039;s clean and simple approach, though they have been straying from their initial ad layouts. I&#039;m a little hazy on them since they dropped off the scene for a while. And I block ads by default anyway.

I would like to see Google going back to not doing evil.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Isn&#8217;t DoubleClick famous for flashy ads? I would think it wouldn&#8217;t really fit in with Google&#8217;s clean and simple approach, though they have been straying from their initial ad layouts. I&#8217;m a little hazy on them since they dropped off the scene for a while. And I block ads by default anyway.</p>
<p>I would like to see Google going back to not doing evil.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Barrera</title>
		<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/04/google-joins-battle-to-buy-doubleclick.html/comment-page-1#comment-23938</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Barrera</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:06:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/04/google-joins-battle-to-buy-doubleclick.html#comment-23938</guid>
		<description>I think Google can benefit from buying DoubleClick.  It seems a logical extension for them to get into the brokerage of the ads and take a larger share of online ad spending.

It has been rumored though that Google has been developing a system similar to DoubleClick that they are supposed to be launching this year.  If that is the case, I don&#039;t see how the high price would be justified.  I think Google needs to be a little more careful when making these billion dollar purchases.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Google can benefit from buying DoubleClick.  It seems a logical extension for them to get into the brokerage of the ads and take a larger share of online ad spending.</p>
<p>It has been rumored though that Google has been developing a system similar to DoubleClick that they are supposed to be launching this year.  If that is the case, I don&#8217;t see how the high price would be justified.  I think Google needs to be a little more careful when making these billion dollar purchases.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon Heseltine</title>
		<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/04/google-joins-battle-to-buy-doubleclick.html/comment-page-1#comment-23935</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon Heseltine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:43:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/04/google-joins-battle-to-buy-doubleclick.html#comment-23935</guid>
		<description>On page B4 of the WSJ today they say that if it goes north of $2 billion MSFT will drop out.  They also mention that TimeWarner is interested as doubleclick has a healthy partnership with AOL that they want to protect.  Yahoo is also mentioned as a suitor in the article.  They all no-commented when asked, except for the statement that it was going to be sorted out in the next few days...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On page B4 of the WSJ today they say that if it goes north of $2 billion MSFT will drop out.  They also mention that TimeWarner is interested as doubleclick has a healthy partnership with AOL that they want to protect.  Yahoo is also mentioned as a suitor in the article.  They all no-commented when asked, except for the statement that it was going to be sorted out in the next few days&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

