Report: Facebook Works On Buying Microsoft's Ad Serving Product

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Report: Facebook Works On Buying Microsoft's Ad Serving Product

engine

6:48 pm on Dec 6, 2012 (gmt 0)

Facebook and Microsoft are working on a deal that, if completed, would put Facebook one huge step closer to launching an ad network that could rival Google's in size, and change the way advertising is done online forever.

According to several industry sources, Facebook is in negotiations with Microsoft to buy Atlas Solutions, the ad-serving product Microsoft acquired when it bought aQuantive for $6 billion in 2007.

Our sources are outside of Facebook and Microsoft.

Report: Facebook Works On Buying Microsoft's Ad Serving Product [businessinsider.com]

SevenCubed

8:23 pm on Dec 6, 2012 (gmt 0)

Okay you know I love jumping into Facebook threads to ask some common sense questions about press releases surrounding anything to do with Facebook.

...and change the way advertising is done online forever.

So, why didn't this Atlas Solutions ad serving product change the world of online advertising while the original advertising company (aQuantive) owned it? And, if it was that fantastic of a "game changer" why is Microsoft trying to unload it? What can Facebook do with it that the 2 previous owners have failed with? I admit it might just be my baised view against Facebook that is preventing me from seeing the glory in this but with my blinders off it just looks like more nonsense?

Microsoft bought it for $60,000,000,000 (billions) but couldn't find a buyer for it at the bargain basement price of $30,000,000 (millions) when they decided they don't want it and has written it off since then. It must be quite an extraordinary platform?

Facebook is going to spend all their reserves buying damaged goods. If they do buy it -- that's an expensive PR promotion, at whatever price.

There is plenty of other fluff in the article though to distract investors from asking the tough questions if they are unable to read past the first 140 characters of the headline while reaching over and clicking on their buy FB shares button through their broker :)

engine

8:52 pm on Dec 6, 2012 (gmt 0)

I agree, it was sensasionalistic.

The angle I found interesting was Facebook taking something they don't have. They may be able to make use of it.

Importantly, it's a report and may not have any truth to it.

[edited by: engine at 10:59 am (utc) on Dec 7, 2012]

ken_b

9:00 pm on Dec 6, 2012 (gmt 0)

Microsoft bought it for $60,000,000,000 (billions) ....

Ummmm ... the OP says 6 (6) billion, not sixty (60).

SevenCubed

9:13 pm on Dec 6, 2012 (gmt 0)

Importantly, it's a report and may not have any truth to it.

True and that's one of the drawbacks of stock investing in this digital age. There is so much opportunity to manipulate stock prices (not just Facebook but all of them) by sources that have influential microphones.

It used to be, loooong time ago, that you really had to have connections to get breaking news as it was happening. I never had those connections and always depended on newspapers like The Financial Post or The Financial Times. By the time I read about it, it was typically old news because they were published once or twice a week. Plus a published story had to have depth to it -- something more than hearsay like this article is. But that wasn't such a bad thing because it lent more stability to share prices for serious investors.

The digital information age and all the gossip that comes along with it has changed the landscape tremendously. Mom and Pop investors have been thrown to the sharks. The markets have become more of a gambling playground for (mostly) uninformed speculators who have absolutely no interest in the company's long-term outcome. They just want the money that comes through short-term swings. And, right now Facebook with it's large common share float and uncertainty makes them giddy with glee -- it's an ideal short-term playground.

SevenCubed

9:14 pm on Dec 6, 2012 (gmt 0)

Thanks for the correction ken_b! It's still lots.

moTi

7:17 am on Dec 7, 2012 (gmt 0)

and change the way advertising is done online forever

this blurb sums up everything i hate about mainstream tech media. what a pile of bullsh*t.

Clarence

8:09 pm on Dec 8, 2012 (gmt 0)

What Atlas ad servings was missing was all the data and users Facebook has. aQuantive couldn't compete with DoubleClick + Google. Mircosoft couldn't compete with Google with out getting into hot water with the dept of justice for Monopoly or Anti-Trust issues.

For online marketers this could potentially change our entire business model.

We will have to go where the money is going, and with so much tracking available this would have a stronger offering then Google Adwords and Advertisers will realize it, and start switching.

SevenCubed

8:21 pm on Dec 8, 2012 (gmt 0)

Clarence all that is still not going to change the fact that Facebook is a destination filled with users who have ad blindness rather than Google searchers who are in ripe buying mode. It's going to be a total struggle every step of the way.

Clarence

9:21 pm on Dec 9, 2012 (gmt 0)

Facebook users don't have ad blindness. I run Facebook ads with CTR as high as 3%.

Don't forget: The same people performing a Google Search also use Facebook, and they are in "buying mode" rather they are on Facebook or Searching.

Facebook strategy is re-targeting. They rolled it out a few months ago. If they use Retargeting + Ad Network, Advertiser can reach them on the content site after the search "our sites" and re-target them while on Facebook "or another site they visit in Facebooks' content network.

The true beauty would be reaching them on Facebook where they stay logged in, after they show interest in a purchase "beating them to Google", and being able to track that purchase to a specific user online or in-store.

Clarence

9:21 pm on Dec 9, 2012 (gmt 0)

moTi

12:53 pm on Dec 10, 2012 (gmt 0)

Facebook users don't have ad blindness.

of course they have. people there aren't in buying mood, they are naturally occupied with social networking. that's why they are there, that's the purpose of the platform. it's pointless holding billboards between conversations. consequently, facebook ad performance is abysmal.

otoh, users signalizing purchase intention through a search, that's what google is for. that's where the ad revenue is. basic marketing theory really.

skibum

7:10 am on Dec 11, 2012 (gmt 0)

So, why didn't this Atlas Solutions ad serving product change the world of online advertising while the original advertising company (aQuantive) owned it?

Atlas was junk, especially the search product. Don't know if it still is but if MSFT is trying to unload it then it probably hasn't improved at all since they bought it.

skibum

7:18 am on Dec 11, 2012 (gmt 0)

Retargeting kinda works but you generally have to come up with some really creative measurements to show that it makes financial sense. Generally when measuring a search campaign, users who click and buy are counted in the ROI calculation.

With retargeting, sales from users who "see" an ad and buy at some point after "seeing" an ad are counted as sales revenue attributable to the ad campaign. They are also referred to as view through conversions.

If the conversions from the ad campaign and the search campaign are added together sometimes the total sales from the search and ad (banner) campaigns are greater than the sales for the entire site.

There is some fuzzy math that goes on there.