On a more serious note, from what I have read of Google acquisitions, the first order of business is to trim the fat. Since Google is about as efficient as you can get, that means that there is a lot a fat to trim. The question here should be why did Google acquire Doubleclick in the first place.

perfect movie.. recomended use .. all people

Whether or not that’s true, Mike, I would argue an even more important fact: The business model at Doubleclick probably doesn’t fit into the mold that is (supposedly) a Google business model.

Google got to where it was today because it uncompromisingly REFUSED serve to a user any information, SERP or advertisement or otherwise, that was NOT RELEVANT to the user’s information need. For the dozenth time, I’ll quote from Google’s “10 Things” corporate philosophy: “Google firmly believes that ads can provide useful information if, and only if, they are relevant to what you wish to find.”

Doubleclick’s advertising, on the other hand, is “gaudy and irrelevant”.

Now, we could get into big discussions anyway, about why Google bought Doubleclick. We could talk about the head vs. the long tail, and how Doubleclick addresses the head and Google addresses the tail. We could talk about the recently hot topic of branding, and how relevance-based advertising is a difficult space in which to “brand”.

Therefore an advertising agency (such as Google) might want to have a solution that is non-relevance based, in order to grow its ad agency capabilities.

But such capabilities are distinctly not in the Google spirit. They are not relevant to what I wish to find. They are, in short, un-Googly.

Fancy that. Google itself has become un-Googly.