ValueClick's VP of digital marketing outlines the critical, debatable issues raised by recent big-name industry consolidations and asks if you agree.

With the recent major industry consolidation announcements (Google/DoubleClick, Yahoo!/Right Media, WPP-24/7 Real Media and Microsoft/aQuantive), there has been plenty of speculation about the impact on the online advertising landscape. The flurry of interest, implications and issues has created a lot of confusion; so much so that perhaps only one thing seems clear: The combination of these firms is magnifying and accelerating the debate on some critical industry issues, the results of which may well define the next phase of relationships in the online marketing community.

As a simple framework for that dialogue, below are what seem to be the four main topics of speculation: detachment, disintermediation, data and distraction.

Detachment
One of the most important traits marketers and agencies look for in their marketing services partners, and that publishers look for in their network partners, is neutrality. It is essential these clients have utter confidence that a partner is truly objective when providing advice or implementing and tracking programs. Without unwavering confidence, the risk to marketing budgets and marketing strategy would be unacceptable, and tantamount to grading one's own test. Some of the potential conflicts that have garnered attention include:

• Google, Yahoo and Microsoft being major publishers themselves as well as managing networks of arguably competitive publishers through the DoubleClick Exchange, Right Media and DrivePM 
• DoubleClick's Performics unit managing search marketing programs when its parent company Google is the largest search engine
• DoubleClick's DART and aQuantive's Atlas ad serving systems reporting on media buys that might include placements on on media properties owned by their parent companies
• aQuantive's Avenue A| Razorfish and WPP's agencies designing media plans that might include media properties that are part of their corporate family

So the question is, quite simply, will marketers be able to have complete confidence that perceived conflicts of interest can be managed impartially?

Disintermediation
Much has been written speculating that Google is on a path toward eliminating -- or at least marginalizing -- agencies. As Google's senior management talks about the possibilities for automation, about technology being able to do work faster, cheaper and smarter than it is now being done by people -- across both online and offline channels -- it has begun to send warning signals to the media professionals in the agencies.

Both Yahoo and Google are also embracing automation with the respective advertising auction networks being acquired in these transactions. Is online media buying really as easy as these two giants are making it seem with these moves? And are these moves being made to deliberately evolve this critical function away from agencies over time?

As BusinessWeek put it in its April issue, "The fear is that in the end, a Procter & Gamble Co. will simply turn over its annual ad budget to Google, which will dole it out to wherever the most lucrative consumers are. Essentially, Google becomes the nexus of all advertising and media."

Data
The marketing world is becoming increasingly aware of the importance of data in planning and analyzing programs. Pat Fallon was once quoted as saying, "Imagination is one of the last remaining legal means you have to gain an unfair advantage over your competition." Today's most sophisticated marketers would say that the intelligent application of data is another.

But with the increasing awareness and appreciation of the importance of data has come the realization of the need to zealously protect it in order to protect competitive advantage. Given Google's quest to "organize the world's information" and the robust pools of data now coming under one Google roof and one Yahoo roof and one Microsoft roof, will marketers, agencies and publishers have comfort that their secrets are protected?

Distraction
Mergers and acquisitions are notoriously difficult to complete successfully, with studies pegging the failure rate of such transactions as high as 75 percent. Most deals look good on paper but it all comes down to execution; and the larger and more established the companies are, the more difficult it is to assimilate them successfully.

Distraction is inevitable, and unless an acquiring company has a successful track record in acquisitions, one or both of two fates generally awaits it: the merger never realizes the synergies the two companies involved envisioned when coming together, and/or they experience a spiral of key employee attrition, delayed or abandoned product roadmaps, disjointed marketing activities and dissatisfied clients. So in these cases, can the companies involved manage the unavoidable distraction and continue to service clients and partners? 

The dialogue
While no one can be certain how these issues will play out, I think we can all agree that it will be very interesting to both watch and take part in. I invite you to chime in with your thoughts. Have I accurately rolled-up the major topics? Have I missed anything? How concerned are you with these issues? How do you think it will all play out?

John Ardis is VP, digital marketing for ValueClick. Read full bio.