Category: Yahoo!

Google positioned to offer behavioral targeted ads, boosted by

Via JP Morgan’s “Nothing But Net” January 2008 report:

“As the leader in search market share, Google has much information about user preferences for hosting behaviorally targeted ads…With the pending acquisition of DoubleClick, Google gains ownership of two key technologies:
* the DART suite: a comprehensive set of technologies that enable advertisers to effectively manage their online advertising campaigns while providing publishers with the ability to dynamically place ads on their sites.
* the DoubleClick Advertising Exchange: a platform for buyers to gain immediate access to inventory… DoubleClick has relationships with both publishers and advertisers that enable it to serve hundreds of billions of ad impressions per year. In 2004 (the most recent fullyear data available), DoubleClick served over 800 billion online ad impressions (we expect it will serve ~2 trillion impressions in F’07).”

IAB’s new “Privacy Principles”=A Failure to Protect Consumer Privacy

The IAB has embraced a `circle the data collection and micro-targeting digital wagon’s’ with its new privacy principles. Instead of embracing a policy that truly protects consumer privacy, IAB members are trying to hide behind the same failed approach they have led to governmental inquiries in the US and the EU. The IAB should have adopted rules so that no data can be collected without full disclosure and prior consent of the consumer, as well as other fair information collection principles. The IAB’s proposed new PR campaign to promote the role of interactive marketing will undoubtedly by slick–but won’t be honest. That’s why my CDD will keep telling the FTC, the EU and the public about what really goes on with data collection and digital marketing. These slightly refurbished fox-watching-the-data-hen-house-privacy principles won’t provide any substantive protections for consumers. The failure of the IAB to acknowledge key issues related to sensitive data–including children, teens, financial (think subprime mortgage-related) and health–is a glaring failure of the group’s ability to do what is required to protect consumer privacy.

The IAB is trying to help its members dodge the digital privacy data bullet. But privacy advocates and officials concerned about consumer welfare in the digital age will eventually force the needed changes. What’s sad is that instead of playing a leadership role in the privacy debate, the IAB is attempting to stick with the past. Don’t they realize that change is coming?

In response to growing global criticism about Google’s corporate inability to adopt 21st Century privacy protections for its many users, the company attempts to hide behind so-called “technical” postings from its staff. For example, Alma Whitten’s Feb. 22, 2008 post entitled “Are IP addresses personal” is part of Google’s campaign to counter recent moves by European Union privacy officials to have search engines using IP addresses to come under the safeguards of the European Data Directive. The Article 29 Working Party issued the following statement last week: “Search engines fall under the EU data protection directive if there are controllers collecting users’ IP addresses or search history information, and therefore have to comply with relevant provisions.”

Google shouldn’t be asking Ms. Whitten to defend the company’s business practices. They should have someone who is willing to acknowledge that Google’s business model depends on the collection and use of a broad range of personally-related data. After all, Google is in the micro-targeting part of the advertising business–that where 99% of all its revenues come from. Its acquisition of cookie-tracking giant DoubleClick is all based on its plans to expand the company’s ability to collect user data for micro-targeting. Google’s recent moves on privacy haven’t been done because the company is benevolent: it’s being forced into this posture by pressure from regulators and privacy advocates. Every time Google isn’t candid about its operations, plans and its public policy implications, it damages the company’s reputation. Who at Google cares more about taking honest responsibility for its business practices, than resorting to a feeble attempt to distract the debate?

Candidates harness ad and data micro-targeting to help foster "anger points"

The role of data collection and interactive marketing needs to be thoroughly examined in relation to political campaigns, as it will contribute to the further manipulation of voters and the political process (an issue we track). This excerpt from this week’s New Yorker on John McCain’s campaign, via comments from his aide (and former VP Cheney staffer) Steve Schmidt, reflects what was going on back in 2004. Note the phrase “anger points,” and consider how the growing role of interactive data collection and behavioral targeting could be used to stroke the flames of irrationality [something both parties and others will use]. Schmidt said that while working for Pres. Bush’s re-election in 2004 [our emphasis] “we targeted voters not where they lived but how they lived their lives, in the same way that credit-card companies do.” He went on, “And so we know, for instance, that among independent voters there are life styles and behaviors that identify them as Republicans or Democrats. For example, the GMC Yukon is a Republican vehicle, and Volvos and Subarus are the most Democratic vehicles. Republicans have Fiji water preferences, versus Democrats, who have Evian water preferences. You have a huge grouping of consumer data, so you can micro-target messages to common groups, finding pleasure points and anger points on issues.”

From: On the Bus: Can John McCain Reinvent Republicanism? Ryan Lizza. New Yorker. Feb. 25, 2008.

Google Helps GOP Presidential Convention to Have "Wow" Factor

Google has been named the GOP’s “Official Innovation Provider” for the forthcoming 2008 Republican National Convention. It’s a huge ad for Google (and stealth campaign contribution to GOP). Take a look, via (natch) YouTube.

“>YouTube.

Watch Larry

Lawrence Lessig is a national treasure. A public intellectual who has greatly advanced the cause of freedom in the digital era. As always, he has composed a very thoughtful and important examination on the crisis created by the corruption of our political system through special interest campaign donations, etc. His new movement will make an important contribution helping restore some accountability and balance to a system out of sync with the needs of the people.
I urge everyone to watch or listen to his very powerful 10-minute video.

Digital and Public Interest Policy Tea Leaves: Media Industry Employment at 15 Year Low

We think this Feb. 18, 2008 article from Advertising Age discussing how “one in four media jobs have disappeared since 2000” is extremely important. Here are excerpts [subscription may be required].

“U.S. media employment in December fell to a 15-year low (886,900), slammed by the slumping newspaper industry. But employment in advertising/marketing-services — agencies and other firms that provide marketing and communications services to marketers — broke a record in November (769,000). Marketing consulting powered that growth…Since media employment peaked in dot-com-infused 2000, media companies have eliminated one in six jobs (167,600).

Newspapers, TV and radio all cut staffing last year. The only media sectors to add jobs: magazines (up a meager 400 jobs) and internet media companies (up 9,200)…

The big problem is newspapers, which account for half (82,800) of media jobs lost since 2000. One in four newspaper jobs have disappeared since newspaper employment peaked in 1990.

Newspapers, saddled with heavy costs of printing and distribution, last year accounted for 38% of U.S. media jobs, down from 50% in 1990.”

source: “Media Work Force Sinks to 15-Year-Low.” Bradley Johnson. Ad Age. Feb. 18,2008/

Facebook harnesses its user data to offer "Return on Involvement"

Few social network users know about the data collection and use schemes at the core of the “monetization” model for Facebook, MySpace, etc. Last month, Tom Arrix, VP media sales east for Facebook, told a executive crowd that they should redefine how they view the marketing definition of ROI. It shouldn’t be return on investment, but “return on involvement” he explained. Mr. Arrix was on a panel with Google/YouTube “client solutions and ad programs” exec Jamie Byrne. Facebook’s Arrix, in discussing the involvement paradigm, noted that “[R]eturn on ‘involvement’ looks at what users are saying about your brand. For example, are users taking your message and sharing it with their friends? Every client we do business with, we tell them, ‘You have to divorce yourself from what you’ve done before.’”

Both Byrne and Arrix reflected, noted paidcontent, on the “tons” of user data they have. An interesting note from Mr. Arrix: “We’re seeing custom research and holding companies coming to us to partner on studying the data.”

Comcast+NCTA+Dick Wiley=A "Symposium" on Internet Video Designed to Trash Network Neutrality and Content Diversity?

Beware the Ides of March for the Internet’s future. That’s because we notice that cable giant Comcast and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) lobbying group are the sponsors of the “Internet Video Policy:The Future of a New TV Medium” symposium scheduled for March 18-19. Super big media lobbyist (and former FCC chair) Dick Wiley is giving the keynote .

Here’s how the session on network neutrality is described in the program:

“Unlimited Access to Content versus Network Owner Control: Dialing Down the Rhetoric on Network Neutrality

No issue in communications generates more emotion – or more vitriol – than network neutrality. Behind the scary scenarios painted on the one side and the indignant denials on the other side are genuine questions about how to balance the benefits of an unlimited Internet against network owners’ rights to manage their businesses and technological infrastructure in a rational way. This discussion will screen out the noise and highlight the real network-related problems, potential and prospects emerging from the new Internet TV medium.”

The cast of characters lined up for this event, for the most part, won’t offer a far-reaching analysis designed to enhance the public interest in the broadband era. It underscores how the permanent communications policy K Street lobbying crowd will have to be seriously challenged–no matter who is next living in the White House or runs the Congress.

Google Disses Privacy at New York Times editorial board meeting

All along, we have warned that Google’s business model is at odds with its public posturing as a company concerned about democratic communications. Google’s plans to expand its data collection and targeted marketing apparatus threatens privacy. In a editorial commentary today in the New York Times supportive of online privacy, Adam Cohen reveals that “in a visit to the editorial board not long ago, a top Google lawyer made the often-heard claim that in the Internet age, people — especially young people — do not care about privacy the way they once did.” Green refutes this claim, noting that ” [I]t is a convenient argument for companies that make money compiling and selling personal data, but it’s not true.”

Companies such as Google are opposed to meaningful privacy policies because, they fear, it would reduce revenues by making its micro-targeting and branding system less effective. But they have to engage in more soul-searching here. Wouldn’t it be better to provide its global users with maximum freedom and security? Is Google a leader–or does it have to be dragged into taking a more pro-democratic position through regulatory action, public shaming, and an eventual public privacy backlash?