Google acquisition of youtube research paper

Google, Mergers And Acquisitions, Revenue, Paradigm Change

Excerpt by Research Daily news:

Google acquisition of YouTube in 2006 to get $1. 66 billion. The deal will be examined in both financial and strategic situations. With respect to the ex -, the net present value of YouTube’s future cash runs will make up the basis of the evaluation. With the latter, there are many of factors including the industry position of every of the companies at the time of the merger and during the post-merger period. The analysis causes the conclusion that YouTube was a money-losing entity in 2006 and remains therefore today, offering it a negative inbuilt value. The business does have significant strategic worth for Google however. Although this strategic value could possibly be difficult to evaluate, it should be taken into consideration, especially as Google could easily pay the deal.

Advantages

In August, 2006, Net giant Google purchased the young startup company YouTube for $1. sixty-five billion. In spite of being only a year-and-a-half old, Vimeo was already probably the most popular sites on the web, with 72 mil users since August 06\. The deal was financed completely by share. At the time, Google claimed that the two sites were “natural partners” in entertainment media, but for now the two companies were slated to continue operating separately (BBC, 2006).

When coming up with mergers, there are many of considerations that organizations must take into account. These include the book benefit of the organization, the present benefit of foreseeable future cash runs, the degree of synergy between the two companies, other bidders and the cost of loans. For the acquiring company, it would not need to pay out the PHOTOVOLTAIC of long term cash moves because the chance cost of doing so would be reinvesting in its personal business – there is not gain via a purchase with no net present worth and the low cost rate for Google during the time would have been very high. Pertaining to the firm being attained, it would not want to take market value, but something much higher. Equally firms need to feel that there may be value inside the combined entity that will in the end be shown in the value of the firm being acquired. Clearly, Yahoo felt that was the case, but it may possibly have had less to do with the inherent value of YouTube than with the strategic value of outbidding Yahoo!, the rival firm that was reportedly involved in a bidding process war with Google to get YouTube (Arrington, 2006).

This kind of paper will certainly investigate the offer from the strategic and financial points-of-view in order to identify the value of the offer – was $1. sixty five billion a good price during the time, and has it proven to be a fair price in hindsight? Certainly, both parties sensed that there was clearly considerable tactical value in tying up. YouTube’s CEO felt it had a paradigm-shifting service that would add benefit to Google, while the latter’s size and financial power would allow YouTube to create “the next-generation program for portion media worldwide” (Google Press Release, 2006).

Background on Both equally Companies

Google was founded over 10 years ago on the basis of work by a couple of Ph. M. students creating a search engine. Yahoo has grown rapidly since its invention, going public in August of 2004, a similar year the corporation moved into its current business headquarters. The opening cost was $85 per reveal (Google. com, 2011) but it really moved up immediately to $100 (New York Times, 2004). The business had come to rule Internet search and has progressively added to their service offerings. It even now dominates search, with a 66. 6% discuss, compared with sixteen. 1% pertaining to Yahoo and 13. 1% for Microsoft (Kell, 2011). At the time of the acquisition, Google was searching intended for ways to not merely leverage it is high inventory value, that was around $375 at the time, unfortunately he looking for ways to increase the company. Google’s cash loge at the time had been around $10,50 billion (MSN Moneycentral, 2011), so it could have purchased Vimeo for cash rather than stock – this kind of decision will be analyzed further in the record. For Yahoo, however , there were also the consideration that it needed to consolidate its position in the marketplace because actually at the time of Google’s IPO the widely-held market view is that it was going to face intense competition coming from both Microsoft and Google on search, with the superior engine in the end prevailing (New York Times, 2004).

Vimeo was founded at the begining of 2005 and by the summer of 2006 the business had come to 100 mil video views per day and 65, 500 new online video uploads each day. By September, just a couple of months before the combination, YouTube started out its 1st advertising – the company was financed to that particular point entirely by capital raising. The company now had hardly any revenue and probably had a high burn up rate. Vimeo was, however , clearly founded as a favorite of the Internet community in much the same method that Google was. The only issue was to find a way to monetize that traffic. YouTube could have qualified another round of venture capital, gone public or perhaps allowed itself to be obtained.

Situation at the Time of the Combination

Google was flush with cash, growing rapidly, using its stock not really too far from its all-time substantial. The company was seeking in order to grow. Nevertheless , internal progress opportunities had been primary to get Google at the time. The company’s speedy growth charge would have implied a very high price cut rate for almost any project, which includes an acquisition. YouTube would have been able to overcome this based on the meteoric rise to Internet dominance, which in many ways mirrored that of Yahoo. Google was facing ongoing competition looking, which would have naturally generated a pair of strategies: bolstering their search choices (adding mapping, new dialects, new areas like China and tiawan, and news like photo and online video search) and related variation. YouTube could have fallen into the latter category.

For YouTube, the company’s fast growth got clearly put it on the acquisition map. The company was going to want an injection of capital to finance not only its future progress but its current operations, since the company experienced just barely began to generate income by advertising during the time of the merger. By contrast, Google recorded income of $10,50 billion in 2006 and working cash goes in excess of $3. 5 billion (MSN Moneycentral, 2011). The corporation clearly recently had an advertising model that could capitalize on high targeted traffic volume. Yahoo must have experienced that if it could apply this model to YouTube’s visitors, that exclusively would put value to the video site.

The young YouTube was facing a difficult situation with respect to legal action, as articles was often the property of third parties. The business was not able to handle this kind of legal action, and behind the scenes there was significant concern with value to YouTube’s impending legal liabilities. Unofficial sources experienced significantly more to talk about on the subject (Cuban, 2006), yet part of the impetus for the offer for Vimeo in particular was your need to gain the ability to resolve these legal issues, particularly with the major press companies.

Causes of the Merger

Strategically, Vimeo needed the merger since it needed money – for continuing functions, for growth and for it is legal issues. Pertaining to Google, there are many of potential reasons for the merger. The simplest theory of MA activity is that the purchase should be depending on the deliverance of a great net present value of future cash flows. The valuation of the deal will be addressed in a different portion of this statement, but the fundamental concept is that Google would have the ability to apply its expertise by monetizing website traffic to YouTube’s 100 million daily online video views. Vimeo had been unable to do this, so any advertising revenue obtained post-acquisition would be incremental for the deal. Details simply be investing in the visitors which it would apply it is standard advertising.

There are a few several strategic explanations why this offer would be noticed by Yahoo as using a positive net present benefit. In terms of expansion, Google would gain a business with an rapid growth curve. Google would be familiar with this curve from the own development and would have a sense of the particular future of YouTube’s business might look like. Google had a viable video business already at the moment, making it one among YouTube’s competition, but if Vimeo survived, it was the market head and is likely to continue to be and so. As YouTube’s CEO noted at the time of the acquisition, the organization had changed the way people were consuming multimedia, “creating a brand new clip culture” (Google Press Release, 2006). While using purchase, Yahoo solidified by itself as the very best player in online online video.

Just as important, Google ensured that nobody more became the dominant online video player. Vimeo had a volume of suitors, which includes Yahoo, Microsoft and Reports Corporation (AP, 2006). At the time there were a number of video homes online, yet non-e got the