From MediaPost:

Google bought ad technology start-up Invite Media, a 3-year-old “demand-side platform” designed to help buyers navigate high-volume display-advertising exchanges-like the one Google launched last year. The price is estimated in the $70 million range.

I read this article a couple months ago, shelved it and didn’t get a chance to revisit it until today.  Articles like these make me happy to have moved along from the ad network game.  I enjoyed my time with Admax, and it was a fun ride.  I believe that Admax will continue to be successful over the next couple years.

Admax has a great technology platform, really bleeding edge optimization technology and some of the smartest people I have ever met in one group.

My concern is that between Google’s recent push of display advertising (instead of their traditional Adwords CPC product), and Invite Media, it is clear that Google will start targeting the display ad networks.  And it isn’t Admax that should be concerned; it should be the larger networks like Tribal Fusion, Right Media and Glam Networks.

Google already has a huge footprint of websites in its network through Adwords.  If/when by using those same tags, publishers can monetize via CPM display campaigns, and advertiser/agencies can bid on CPM rates (via Invite Media’s technology), it will be difficult for smaller ad networks to compete.  They will then have to compete with Google on technology (difficult), service (possible in developing markets) and brand strength (forgetaboutit).

I am a huge fan of Google the company.  The search engine itself is probably not much better/different technically than Bing or Yahoo.  In my honest opinion, the big three search engines pretty much have the same level of technology.  Google just got there first, and branded themselves as the undisputed leader of search.

My heart goes out to the underdogs at Bing and Yahoo.  It really does.

But it is not because of search I like Google.  It is because of its:

• Hacker culture
• Belief to not do evil

Now, for the most part, I think they have done well in pursuing both.  Google continues to be a beacon of independence and freedom in parts of the world where censorship is the rule of the day.  (Note: I write this before understanding all of the new issues regarding Net Neutrality).

However, there is one product that Google has that I am confused about, and maybe a little bit concerned.  That product is Google Street View.

My understanding is that when a company comes up with a new product, their ideation follows this process:

• Is there a need for this?
• Does it help people more than it hurts?
• Has it been done before?
• Why has it been done?
• How much would it cost?
• What do we get out of it?

These questions are normally asked and answered, though not in that order.

So when I ask these questions, I get:

• Is there a need for this? – No
• Does it help people more than it hurts? – No.
• Has it been done before? – No.
• What do we get out of it? – Unsure.

But my feeling for Google Street View, is that these questions were not asked.  There is no real business need for Google Street View.  They do not make more money in offering it, and most people use it for nothing else than to spy on their neighbors. (Ok, that last statement may have been an exaggeration).

Without a doubt, Street View is cool.  People like to screw around with it.  In essence, it enables a “Sliver”esque voyeurism.   Certainly, it isn’t live, but certainly I would not want total strangers (or even my friends and family) knowing where I was unless I wanted to.

Google is getting in trouble in a lot of different countries for accidentally harvesting personal data, including names, birthdates and emails.

Dear Google,

Stop invading my privacy.

Yours,

Chris