Category: Yahoo!

excerpt: “What is an online behavior?

Every single action that a user takes on the site determines user’s behavior. Following are some of the different elements that determine the behaviors of users online

1. Every page view
2. Number of minutes on a page
3. Path taken
4. Links/Ads clicked
5. Scrolling on the page
6. Referring Sites
7. Each second in the visit
8. Each visit
9. Total Visits
10. Total Page views
11. each Product viewed
12. Each cart abandoned
13. Each step of the funnel completed/abandoned
and the list goes on……”

“Calculating Behaviors on your site.” November 19, 2006

deemed 5500 loans 72p requirementsreceivable system ac management credit123 payments online accept creditcardc credit aceptcasino 18dice casino 3credit advanced solutionsdiamonds 5 casino Map

free movies sex dildomovie cdgirlsfree sex movies samplefree movies pissmovies long lesbianmovies love lesbianmovies sweet licking sapphicmovies porn gay male Map

Driving the big online data deals (Google/Doubleclick; Microsoft/aQuantive) is the power of behavioral targeting (BT) to profile, track, and target consumers online. More major advertisers are embracing BT, adding such data collection strategies to their arsenal of demographic, psychographic, technical, contextual, and search targeting weapons. Here’s how a new (and recommended) eMarketer report defines BT (all quotes with our italics):
“…behavioral targeting segments the audience based on observed and measured information. Whether behavioral targeting is done on a single site, a large portal or across an ad network, the behavior that publishers, advertisers and providers typically identify includes what pages or sites a user visits, what content is viewed and what subjects are searched for. These data are combined with the time, length and frequency of visits.
Behavioral information can also be merged with visitor data—such as age, gender and ZIP code—derived from site registration or Web publisher surveys to assign individuals to target groups even more accurately.”

eMarketer’s report cites Tacoda’s Dave Morgan who says “what behavioral targeting means at a deeper level is serving ads to individuals based on their previous browsing or purchasing history.” Morgan also is quoted saying (in light of a potential GoogleClick): “Here’s why Google has to play it safe [with behavioral targeting], because they’re not transparent about what data they keep and what they do with it—and they expect people to rely on how they keep their best interests in mind.”

One of our concerns about Google and Doubleclick is the integration of search and BT. So, eMarketer’s analysis is useful for the FTC and other policymakers: “The Holy Grail for online ad targeting is a combination of the behavioral technique on top of other methods, especially search… the combination will be popular: 55% of search engine advertisers would pay a premium of 11% or more for behavioral projections to help target paid search advertising…”

The report suggests that such a melding of BT and search is in its “testing” stage. We believe it is likely further along that that, with Microsoft’s adLab and other efforts working full time to expand data collection and targeting for online advertisers. Coming soon, is BT tied to the deliver of video programming online. As we explained to the FTC and others, you have to understand online advertising—and all the mergers—in the context of an online ad system combining search and rich media (video) marketing.

eMarketer also reports that behaviorally targeting is “shifting away from single sites and onto advertising networks” (citing Advertising.com’s 2007 Online Publisher Survey). That’s another reason why the FTC must act soon. No time like the review of GoogleClick (once an agency is selected for Microsft/aQuantive, we will send a similar message about that deal. Btw, we think Yahoo! and WPP’s deals need to be examined as well).

Souce: Behavioral Targeting: Advertising Gets Personal. eMarketer. June 2007

excerpt: “DoubleClick, which has access to user behavior across huge portions of the Internet, could allow Google to create a still more precise picture of its users — and deliver still more targeted, and more expensive (but also more effective) advertising.

If the assumptions here are correct, then we’re looking at an attempt on Google’s part to create highly precise profiles of millions of people — and that’s a privacy dilemma.”

from: “Getting Comfortable with Less Privacy.” Mark Simon. Search Insider. June 4, 2007

[the author goes on to suggest that such data collection and targeted advertising will ultimately benefit users via a “better free Internet,” so the privacy trade-off is worth such profiling and collection]

excerpt: …RSS technology company FeedBurner is guaranteed loads of extra consumer and publisher data, along with new strategies for monetizing and optimizing its delivery systems… WITH THE ACQUISITION OF FEEDBURNER last week, Google secured a wealth of media syndication analytics, and access to a distribution channel with latent ad opportunities.

“From the advertising side, there’s a lot of room ahead in terms of monetization and optimization, which Google is going to expose us to,” Hill said during a conversation with OnlineMediaDaily on Thursday. “We’ll be learning how to incorporate their analytics and monetization strategies for advertisers.”

Much remains to be learned about RSS users and their consumption habits, according to Hill.

“The way to understand demographics has been to work with publishers, survey their audiences, and try to get representative sample sizes,” he said. “Google does some of the same things around AdSense content, so we’ll be able to combine our information and make progress faster.”…

FeedBurner has serviced nearly 432,000 publishers worldwide, according to Dick Costolo, FeedBurner CEO and co-founder. Additionally, the company is delivering 67 million subscriptions per day and counting.

“Feedburner Ad Leader on what Google Deal Means.” Gavin O’Malley. Online Media Daily. June 8, 2007

excerpt: “One interested party supplied some numbers to Ad Age, estimating that a merged Google-DoubleClick will serve ads representing nearly $8 out of every $10 on third-party websites. That estimate is based on the assumption that in the market of nonsearch ads to third-party publishers, Google is responsible for 29% and DoubleClick 49%.

Another competitor estimated DoubleClick has a 40% share of the publisher ad-serving market and a 60% share of the advertiser ad-serving market…While all the FTC considerations are private in an antitrust case, at stake is the ability of other parties to innovate and enter the online-advertising space, assuring a fair market in which a monopoly can’t drive up prices.”

“String of Digital Deals Leaves Ad World Baffled.” Abbey Klaassen. Advertising Age. June 4, 2007 [sub required]

We believe that Google’s response to our amended complaint to the FTC illustrates a problem with the interactive online advertising market leader: it can’t own up to concerns about protecting individual privacy. In a statement released to reporters yesterday, as noted by the San Francisco Chronicle, Google said that:

(Electronic Privacy Information Center) and other critics have so far failed to identify any practice that does not comply with accepted privacy standards, and their complaints are unsupported by the facts and the law. Google aggressively protects user privacy, and user trust is central to Google’s values and essential to the success of our products.”

Google went on to say that it has discussed privacy issues with several groups, but that the center has so far refused its invitations. The only conclusion, Google said, is that the organization “would prefer not to be informed about the erroneous claims it is making.”

We urge people to read our complaint (PDF) and then ask: why isn’t Google owning up to these issues? Why isn’t Google admitting that current U.S. online privacy safeguards are weak, vague and arcane? Why can’t Google say that the current privacy regime for consumer protection is really `window dressing.’ More to the point, why is Google failing to engage in candor. Isn’t the take-over of the country’s leading online ad firm utilizing profiling technologies–Doubleclick–cause for legitimate concern, debate, and the enactment of meaningful safeguards? Is the failure to admit to the problem due to Google’s earnings being 99% driven from online advertising and data collection?

We think Google’s silence on this question underscores why our work to have Google’s proposed take-over of Doubleclick properly vetted by policymakers and the public is so important.

Excerpts from two recent Ad Age articles [sub required]. First, from “Why Google’s Universal Search Is Brand-Friendly” (Danny Sullivan. May 28, 2007): “With [Google’s] universal search, it’s no longer just 10 matching web pages that show up in response to searches. Instead, the results might include news articles and photos, local listings with a map, book results, images and video… Google’s search results are the bedrock of its success, and any type of nontextual material has been largely restricted out of fear of upsetting Google’s core users… The problem with those pesky pay-per-click ads is they don’t pull in enough money from the big brand advertisers, who prefer flash and gloss over three lines of haiku-style text. Google’s already been experimenting with video ads, both the stand-alone, click-to-play variety as well as in-stream ads in editorial video content. If Google searchers show no adverse reaction to the addition of video to search results, you can expect video ads of both types to follow.”

And from “Google AdSense Launches In-Stream Video Ad Test” (Abbey Klaassen. May 23, 2007): Google has launched its latest video offering to AdSense — advertising in the videos that the network’s publishers air on their sites. Google is testing in-stream ads in video through its AdSense program…Google said it hopes to take what it learns in this trial and use it to figure out what kinds of ads work in videos. It won’t take ads longer than 30 seconds, and viewers can skip ads if they chose. “Just as AdSense adds value to the text content on your website and is useful for your users, we think these in-stream ads in video will add value to publishers’ video content and help to deepen engagement with users watching the videos,” said Google in a posting on its AdSense blog.

.

mp3 dal3ona 3alamp3 diab 3amr3araby jamed mp33askouri mp3 younessloans accs nmp3 320kbps buymp3 3awd lil2furious 2fast mp3 Map

all resort inclusive casinocasino albertacasino aladdin sweet louiebest casino 5000 onlineresort acquarius casinobonus 200 casinochips 13g clay casino pro pokerhigh ace casino Map

Ad Age reports that the American Association of Advertising Agencies and the Association of National Advertisers wrote a letter to both antitrust agencies. According to the article, the agencies were urged to conduct a “careful, wide-ranging and comprehensive perspective” of the mergers and the online ad industry market. Ad Age quotes from the letter: “During the past month, there have been several major acquisition announcements in the online advertising marketplace. These mergers, if approved, certainly would change the online advertising marketplace. As such, those proposed combinations deserve careful scrutiny. It is essential to ensure that none of these combinations restrict competition in the internet advertising marketplace. Advertising on the internet is one of the fastest-growing sectors of marketplace promotion; therefore, ensuring its competitiveness is critical for all participants.”

Even the ANA admits that the breathtaking nature of all the recent deal-making raises fundamental questions that require a serious examination. The Ad Age piece quotes ANA’s Bob Liodice: “It’s not just Google-DoubleClick,” Mr. Liodice said. “We looked at the whole portfolio of acquisitions and said the whole thing is moving very, very quickly. We don’t have the ability to understand the implications. … We asked in a very neutral kind of way to say, ‘would you please take a look?'”

One hopes that the FTC–and the Congress–will be responsive to this direct mail pitch from the ad lobby.
Source: “4A’s, ANA Weigh in on Google-DoubleClick, Online Ad Deals:Urge FTC, Justice Department to Apply ‘Careful’ Scrutiny.” Abbey Klaassen and Ira Teinowitz. Advertising Age. May 30, 2007 [sub may be required]

via 77lab [May 17, 2007]:

“As soon as the content tags of YouTube videos are objectively verified by the new Google team, advertisers can target specific groups of people interested in certain themes, such as independent movies, videogames, or cola (and mentos). Marketers can then attach advertisements to certain tags, much like they now attach advertisements to site content keywords.

Google is putting together a team of ‘video content verifiers’, who will have the task of checking YouTube videos for having the right tags, a spokesperson for Google told 77Lab yesterday. This will make sure the videos have the content that is described by the tags and can sort the videos for marketers’ sake. It seems there is a long way to go before videos can be placed in categories automatically but Google recognizes the importance of verifying the content of YouTube’s videos.”