Month: February 2008

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.

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/

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.”

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.

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?