Category: media industry lobbying

Google/Yahoo! Combine also raises questions about Publicis and WPP deals

Officials need to examine the recent deals made both by Google and Yahoo! with advertising agency powerhouses, Publicis and WPP, respectfully. The Google/Yahoo! combine reduces competition in the online ad sector, and these agreements need to be part of the analysis. Google and Publicis completed their deal last January “based on a shared vision of how new technologies can be used to improve advertising.” Last month, Yahoo! and WPP formed a “multi-year strategic partnership” that is connected to the online ad trading Right Media Exchange.

Search should not be considered a “natural monopoly,” as some cynics suggest. Nor should search by viewed as separate from display; increasingly the two are intertwined. Marketers desire cross-platform strategies. Perhaps that’s one reason Google is hiring cross-platform ad specialists. To quote from a Google job posting: “The Cross Platform Solutions team forms partnerships with advertisers and agencies to build brands online. We strive to deliver the most efficient and effective digital platform upon which the world’s leading brands are built. We connect advertiser’s brand messages to their target audience through innovative, precise and accountable online marketing solutions whose reach can extend around the world.”

It’s hard to keep up with the online ad world, so it’s not surprising that regulators have been slow to address the critical consumer and competition issues. But much is at stake in how diverse and consumer-friendly the new media world will become. That’s why the DoJ and the Hill need to look at these ad agency deals, among other issues we will discuss soon.  Btw, privacy is a serious issue in the deal, no matter how Yahoo! may be spinning it.

Trade Analyst on Google/Yahoo!: Google becomes “monopolistic gatekeeper”

From Diane Mermigas June 18, 2008 column in Online Media Daily [excerpt]:

excerpt: The deal puts more than 90% of the search ad market in Google’s hands, and raises the likely prospect that Google and Yahoo will work together on display ads. Executives from both companies have suggested as much, calling the partnership “good for competition;” when they should have said that it is “good for the competition.” The deal is a Trojan horse that makes Google the monopolistic gatekeeper, sucking the democracy and free capitalistic process out of advertising and e-commerce. The nonexclusive clause in the deal seems meaningless…Deutsche Bank, CitiGroup and Merrill Lynch are among investment banks reducing their estimates on Yahoo in anticipation of its advertisers shifting their business to Google. “This effectively signals the end of Yahoo’s competitive entry in the paid search business and signals to advertisers /agency customers to simply work with Google to purchase ad impressions from Yahoo longer term,” said Deutsche Bank analyst Jeetil Patel.

Yahoo opposed Google/DoubleClick Deal a few months ago: Tales of corporate turn-around

via Paidcontent.org. October 15, 2007:

“Yahoo (NSDQ: YHOO) has made its first public comments on the European Commission’s review of Google’s (NSDQ: GOOG) $3.1 billion purchase of DoubleClick, and, as you can probably guess, its take is pretty negative. In a submission to the Commission, Yahoo says the purchase, if approved, will mean higher prices for online display ads and less competition in the digital publishing sector. Andrew Cecil, public policy head for Yahoo Europe: “Combining Google’s search business with Doubleclick’s ad technology will strengthen Google’s dominant position in Europe. The competitive landscape for online advertising will be negatively impacted.”

and via Search Engine Watch: “Meanwhile in Europe Yahoo is heading the push with the EU. Yahoo has longer online advertising standing in Europe.
“Combining Google’s search business with DoubleClick’s ad technology will strengthen Google’s dominant position in Europe,” Andrew Cecil, head of public policy for Yahoo! Europe, said in an e-mailed statement today, Bloomberg reported. “The end result will be higher prices for Internet publishers and advertisers and less choice for European consumers.”

Congress and Anti-trust Officials Must Take Action on Google-Yahoo! Deal: Competition and Privacy Issues at Stake

The government must take swift action to prevent the creation of a digital combine that merges assets and services of the first and second leading online search advertising companies—Google and Yahoo!
Google is the country’s (and world’s) leading search firm. Yahoo is ranked number two and says it is the foremost online display advertising company. This combination potentially threatens user privacy, as more data (including behavioral and mobile) about consumers are shared or pooled by the two leading online giants. Competition in the online ad sector—already weakened by a series of takeovers and acquisitions—is seriously threatened. This deal will have a significant impact on the advertising industry, including agencies. Both Google and Yahoo also provide critical search advertising services for many of the nation’s leading newspapers. Congress will need to explore how this deal impacts journalism, especially at a crucial marketplace juncture for the traditional media industries. Yahoo is permitting Google to extend its reach into one its significant assets–paid search. Shareholders will also suffer, as Yahoo! will be viewed by advertisers as a less effective means to target consumers.

Statement on behalf of the Center for Digital Democracy

IAB’s Lobbying Against Privacy Safeguards: Trade Group Will Add New Members to Help Fight Consumer Protection Legislation

The trade lobbying group Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) plans to add new members to help it generate “grassroots support against proposed legislation in New York and Connecticut that would ban the collection of data about online consumers without a person’s specific consent.” According to ClickZ, the IAB will create a new low-dues membership structure which will enable smaller online advertisers to swell its ranks. What is IAB’s pitch to its prospective members about privacy safeguards offered by state legislators in New York and Connecticut? ClickZ says that “[T]he IAB contends that the proposed measures would have a disproportionate negative impact on small publishers that rely on ad networks to manage advertising sales.”

The IAB’s leadership is off on a irresponsible mission to persuade online marketers and the public that privacy rules would “kill the web.” Such an self-serving view of why privacy rules are required in the age of online marketing will only further diminish the credibility of the IAB.

Facebook Fails to Address Privacy Concerns, as Powerful Canadian Complaint Documents

They ought to change the name of a corporate position entitled chief privacy officer to chief data collection protector. That’s our response to the comment from Facebook’s Chris Kelly, who serves as its chief privacy officer. According to the Associated Press, Mr. Kelly responded to the privacy complaint filed by the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) with the following comment: “We’ve reviewed the complaint and found it has serious factual errors — most notably its neglect of the fact that almost all Facebook data is willingly shared by users…”

We find such a remark incredibly revealing about Facebook, and it raises questions about how well they have structured the role of its “chief privacy officer.” For example, does Mr. Kelly believe that Facebook users understand, as pointed out in the very important CIPPIC complaint on page 22, that outside developers are given access to a wide range of user information. As the complaint notes:

“(a) Information That May Be Provided to Developers. In order to allow you to use and participate in Platform Applications created by Developers, Facebook may from time to time provide Developers access to the following information: (i) any information provided by you and visible to you on the Facebook Site, excluding any of your Contact Information, and
(ii) the user ID associated with your Facebook Site profile.
(b) Examples of Facebook Site Information. The Facebook Site Information may include, without limitation, the following information, to the extent visible on the Facebook Site: your name, your profile picture, your gender, your birthday, your hometown location (city/state/country), your current location (city/state/country), your political view, your activities, your interests, your musical preferences, television shows in which you are interested, movies in which you are interested, books in which you are interested, your favorite quotes, the text of your “About Me” section, your relationship status, your dating interests, your relationship interests, your summer plans, your Facebook user network affiliations, your education history, your work history, your course information, copies of photos in your Facebook Site photo albums, metadata associated with your Facebook Site photo albums (e.g., time of upload, album name, comments on your photos, etc.), the total number of messages sent and/or received by you, the total number of unread messages in your Facebook in-box, the total number of “pokes” you have sent and/or received, the
total number of wall posts on your Wallâ„¢, a list of user IDs mapped to your Facebook friends, your social timeline, and events associated with your Facebook profile.”

Whoa! Do users really know this and give away their data consciously? We think not. Our friends from Up North have ignited a campaign which will grow throughout the world.

Google Opens its Network to 3rd Party Ad Servers, but Fails to Candidly Address the Privacy Issues

Google announced Tuesday that it [our emphasis] “is accepting third-party advertising tags on the Google content network in North America. This will empower advertisers to work with approved third parties to serve and track display ads, including rich media ads, across the Google content network through AdWords, giving them more options, flexibility and control over their campaigns.” Among the companies it lists that can track us through the Google network includes its own DoubleClick, as well as Eyeblaster, Eyewonder, Pointroll, Unicast, Dynamic Logic, and Interpolls.

Google has created a three-part video series on YouTube to “explain” how ad serving works. But like so much of Google’s privacy PR, it doesn’t really explain what the goals are of its expanded ad service. It also attempts to minimize the very real privacy concerns. Google uses its online ad industry Orwellian-like Doublespeak to suggest that the profiling and targeting of users is “enhancing their web experience.” Google could have included in its YouTube script what it is telling prospective YouTube ad sales persons: “that Google technology enables the world’s biggest advertisers to enjoy immediate and accountable communication with the consumer…to drive revenue… to top-tier brand advertisers and agencies…[via]… a next-generation advertising platform.” It could have said that its expanded online ad platform was designed, as its job announcement for a New York-based “Google Financial Services Account Executive” states, to help “the biggest financial services companies in the world. This includes investment, credit card, tax, banking and insurance companies.” Or as it explains in its “Google entertainment account executive” job announcement, “you’ll help to provide integrated, cross-platform advertising solutions for media and entertainment clients including TV, movie, gaming, music and web publishing companies.”

Google’s blog announcement for the opening up of its network to 3rd party ad servers, and its three-part series, could have detailed the range of data being collected and tracked by its DoubleClick and now other companies. That would include DoubleClick’s “Rich Media’s Audience Interaction Metrics package,” which “lets you analyze data on more than 100 unique interactions in every creative unit including multiple exit links, counters, timers and video metrics.” Or Eyeblaster’s “advanced …powerful tracking and optimization capabilities” that examine “unique viewer behavior– why look at impressions and clicks when you can look at the behavior of individual customers.” Or Unicast’s “User Engagement Index (UEI), that measures a user’s interaction with a rich media ad and provides a score made up of key engagement metrics.” Or what its now 3rd party approved from Eyewonder collects, such as “track all video interactions, rich media interactions, brand interactions and time, and …Custom tracking… to also measure metrics critical to your specific campaign.”

Google really requires both a privacy and online marketing ombudsman, to say the least. They have a very hard time being straight-forward about what information about us is being collected, how it’s really used, etc. Perhaps independent observers and consumer advocates whose mission is to help the company be more honest with itself, its employees, and its users would help. Meanwhile, we will just have to help regulators, policymakers, and the public better understand what Google isn’t really telling us.

PS: This announcement also has implications for mobile privacy. We think this quote from Mobile Marketer is very telling (hey, Google. Put him on your GoogTube channel!): “As mobile advertising evolves and matures, advertisers will demand consistent, in-depth analytics and immersive consumer engagement frameworks,” Mr. Rahav said [Amit Rahav, VP, Marketing, Eyeblaster]. “…To be able to retain client confidence and quality of user experience, Google defined a process for certifying trusted partners like Eyeblaster and other companies. Defining such rules of engagement creates the win-win ecosystem that helped scale Web advertising and stands to do the same for the mobile world.”

PPS: Perhaps Google should have addressed this, from its new 3rd Party approved partner Interpolls: “Interpolls is the only rich media company providing a complete end-to-end suite of integrated marketing solutions. In addition to rich media advertising, Interpolls provides clients with interactive promotions, live on-air voting, site polling, online sweepstakes and more. All of Interpolls services can be integrated into its proprietary platform, offering customers tremendous convenience while maximizing reach, awareness and results. “Expanding our distribution network to include the Google content network was a critical piece needed to provide our clients with the industry’s largest rich media distribution to reach their customers and prospects without limitations,” said Peter Kim, CEO and president, Interpolls. “The agreement opens the door for our clients to increase their distribution through the Google content network, and provides Google publishers and advertisers access to our innovative rich media advertising and widget solutions.”

PPPS (and we promise this is the last one!). Google also announced that several research firms were now allowed to work with its network and, we assume, help “measure performance” of Internet ads. They include Dynamic Logic, IAG Research, InsightExpress, and FactorTG. For example, IAG (now owned by Nielsen) says it “is the only panel-based measurement service that provides continuous evaluation of Internet ad performance and a direct comparison to TV ad effectiveness.” In another words, to help grow Google’s ad business it has, understandably, opened up its service to the network of tracking, analysis, and interactive media delivery services which comprise the world of marketing. But, we believe, Google should have explained all this clearly to users, and not–in our view–gloss over what this all means.

Opposition to Google/Yahoo! (or other mergers) Should be Based on Principle: Digital Pawns in Play?

Yesterday, we were contacted by a reporter asking our position on the possible Google/Yahoo! search advertising deal (we are opposed to such an arrangement, on both competition and privacy grounds). When we read the story online, we learned that one of the groups sending a letter to the DoJ was the Black Leadership Forum. That raised our concern, since we know that the Black Leadership Forum has had relationships with phone and cable companies. It has also, in the past at least, worked with Issue Dynamics (a company which helps phone, cable and other interests “organize” support from not-for-profit groups. I cite Issue Dynamic’s role with the Black Leadership Forum on page 75 of my book.).

We have not read the letter to the DoJ. Nor do we know of any financial or other relationship between the Forum and any of the many interests who are fighting Google (phone and cable companies, for example, are opposed to Google’s positions on network neutrality). But we believe that all financial relationships, even from the recent past, need to be identified. I know this is Washington, where too many people “lease out,” as we say around my office. But there are important issues at stake with the new media marketplace. Reporters will need to do more to identify whether there are financial and other relationships with groups from Google, Microsoft, phone and cable, etc. But the real focus should be to examine the state of competition in the online ad market–and what it means for the future of communications in the digital democratic era.

IAB’s Response to Calls for Consumer Privacy Rules: Hire More Lobbyists to Protect the “Wild West” of Data Collection & Ad Targeting

Granted, the IAB’s Washington, D.C. lobbying shop, opened last year, is a small operation. Now the IAB is in the process of hiring a second person for the office. No doubt IAB wants to protect the data collection and micro-targeting digital turf of its members. Former Tacoda and Time Warner exec. Dave Morgan perhaps revealed why the political stakes are so high for IAB members such as Google, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Disney, CBS, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. in Media Post. As Morgan explained, “.. Everybody now knows that data is the fuel for growth. Everyone is starting to mine it and make it available to third parties…The big four (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL’s Platform A) are all opening up their networks and systems to leverage third-party data; so are the ad servers like WPP’s 24/7 Real Media; and so are the ad networks…We’re moving into a wild, wild west in monetizing real-time marketing data, and we’re going to need many more people that know how to do this…As we see this data take on more value and play a bigger role in our industry, the public policy implications are going to become much more pronounced.”

U Penn Prof. Joseph Turow responds to the

Randall Rothenberg of the Interactive Advertising Bureau lobbying group wrote a commentary where he made a number of misleading statements. He incorrectly characterized the work of Professor Joseph Turow. Prof. Turow, a leading academic expert of the online marketing industry, is on the faculty of the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania. Here is Professor Turow’s response:

“In one sentence, Mr Rothenberg manages to make two fundamental misrepresentations. What I really say on page 2 of my 2006 book Niche Envy (where the quote originates) explicitly relates to marketers use of surveillance technologies without consumers understanding: “Over the long haul, however, this intersection of large selling organizations and new surveillance technologies seems sure to encourage a particularly corrosive form of personal and social tension.” Nor do I anywhere lament the passage of the three network universe. For example, I explicitly state in Breaking Up (on page 199, for example) that three network era had its own forms of social exclusions and state that “that “the proper response to this hypersegmentation of America is not to urge a return to the mass-market world of the 1960s and 1970s.” My conclusion: when I see Mr Rothenberg quote someone I will be sure to check the source to make sure the passage has not been wrenched from its context. I should add, too, that I accept the need that digital interactive media have for target marketing and database marketing. But there are many creative ways to meld data analytics and their implementation with openness and public engagement. I fear that Mr Rothenberg”s policies and writings indicate he will lead this important organization in directions that are misguided for marketers and for society.

free porn blowjobporn blowjob picturesvideos porn blowjobclips porn blowjobsblowjobs porn picsporn blowup dollblu cantrell days pornblu-ray pornography Map