Category: media industry lobbying

Former journalist and now online ad industry lobbyist Randall Rothenberg, in a BusinessWeek commentary, suggests that the call for privacy rules ensuring individuals have control over their data will undermine the Internet. You would think a Madison Ave. trade group could craft more creative PR copy. But the online ad industry’s position is indefensible, since they built a system based on the harvesting of our information without believing they would need to get our permission first. The IAB board should realize it has embarked on a very dangerous campaign here that will undermine credibility for many marketers. Here’s my response submitted to BusinessWeek:
Mr. Rothenberg, as head of the interactive ad trade group lobbying against the call from consumer groups for the government to protect personal privacy online, fails to address the central question regarding online advertising. The call for regulation is designed to ensure individuals control their data while on the Internet or using their mobile phones—not companies such as Google, Microsoft, and AOL. Public interest groups are not opposed to interactive marketing: indeed, we recognize it as a key source of funds for online publishing. But Mr. Rothenberg’s members have created a commercial surveillance system that rivals the NSA—tracking and analyzing our every move while on the Internet, all so we can be encouraged to behave favorably to some marketing message. Responsible ad industry leaders will seriously address the privacy threats created by the interactive marketing apparatus—and not hide behind self-serving claims that unless our privacy is lost, we won’t have a robust digital medium.

credit accept paymen cardprogram accreditedcredit american collectionscredit accpet cards3 credit addresses reportdays 4 credits 3 incredit testing reform a-123account credit card merchant allinanchor Map

Newspaper industry tracking user “behavior” without real disclosure, consent

quadrantOne is a consortium of 26 newspaper companies that enable advertisers to, as its release notes, “for the first time, to buy hundreds of well-established and trusted online newspaper and broadcasting sites by placing a single order.” quadrantOne [attention antitrust types!] is jointly owned by Tribune, Gannett, Hearst, and the New York Times.

On Friday, the Newspaper Association of America filed comments at the FTC arguing that the agency’s proposed privacy principles to protect consumers could be a violation of the First Amendment. But perhaps the NAA–and certainly quadrantOne and its members–can explain what the consortium means what it tells potential advertisers that they can be given “[A]ccess to sophisticated audience targeting by context, behavior and demographics.” quadrantOne has, according to its website: “Total number of unique users: Close to 50 Million.”

The newspaper industry should be scrupulously candid about all its data collection and targeting. While we support newspaper efforts to build up online ad revenues, they should do so in the most ethical manner. Embracing meaningful privacy policies that fully disclose prior to collection, and ensuring affirmative user consent, must be incorporated into our concept of liberty and freedom in the digital democracy era.

Interactive Advertising Bureau opposes bill that would fight Internet censorship and governmental eavesdropping

On its public policy blog, the IAB proclaims its opposition to HR 275, the Global Online Freedom Act. The bill:
[excerpt of summary] “Declares that it is U.S. policy to: (1) promote the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media; (2) use all appropriate instruments of U.S. influence to support the free flow of information; and (3) deter U.S. businesses from cooperating with Internet-restricting countries in effecting online censorship. Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the President should seek international agreements to protect Internet freedom; and (2) some U.S. businesses, in assisting foreign governments to restrict online access to U.S.-supported websites and government reports, are working contrary to U.S. foreign policy interests… Directs the President to annually designate Internet-restricting countries. Prohibits U.S. businesses from locating, within such countries, any electronic communication that contains any personally identifiable information. Prohibits U.S. businesses that collect or obtain personally identifiable information through the Internet from providing that information to Internet-restricting countries, except for legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes. Requires U.S. businesses to report certain Internet censorship information involving Internet-restricting countries to the OGIF. Prohibits U.S. businesses that maintain Internet content hosting services from jamming of U.S.-supported websites or U.S.-supported content in Internet-restricting countries.”

Here’s what the IAB–the online ad industry trade group that includes the New York Times, Washington Post, Google, Yahoo, News Corp., NBC, Yahoo, and many others– said in the letter it sent to Congress (that was signed by other groups as well) [excerpt]:
“Despite the good intentions behind the Global Online Freedom Act, we are very concerned that the legislation would actually undermine the stated goal of the bill by effectively limiting the legitimate business activities of U.S. companies in parts of the world. Such restrictions on U.S. participation in global Internet operations would have the effect of limiting the very means of free speech and communication the legislation intends to protect. One example of the practical problems associated with the bill is that it could prohibit U.S. companies from maintaining certain customer information on a computer in any number of foreign countries. As indicated by the range and number of associations represented as signatories to this letter, we believe that this bill would have a negative impact on a diverse and broad range of United States businesses.”
Call it IAB’s `freedom to promote interactive marketing in China despite the human rights consequences Act!’

Newspaper lobby [NAA] trying to hide behind First Amendment as its members threaten privacy via behavioral targeting

That’s the headline from what the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) is basically saying to the FTC, in comments filed for the agency’s online advertising and consumer privacy proceeding. We don’t have time this weekend to respond in full to such absurd claims. All we want to say is that the NAA is the same group which has campaigned for FCC media deregulation and consolidation policies. We believe the NAA’s short-sighted and self-serving efforts has contributed to the newspaper biz’s meltdown.

Any reasonable person should see that giving readers and users [hello newspapers losing audience] control over their data and information is not a First Amendment conflict. The news media that end up on the wrong side of the privacy debate will further lose readers and supporters. We will be back to this topic next week. By the way, the FTC has not yet put up the CDD and USPIRG comments. But they are available (along with the coalition of children’s health and advocacy group filing) at:www.democraticmedia.org

Google, AOL, Yahoo, Facebook and Comcast Fear NY State bill protecting online privacy

Oh, what a tangled web when you build a business mode based on the collection and unfettered use of microtargeting data. New York state Assemblyman Richard Brodsky has proposed some modest safeguards–but has scared the supposedly privacy-respectful companies such as Google with it. Google, AOL, Yahoo and others sent the letter below to Brodsky. Yesterday, we are told, AOL and News Corp lobbyists met with Brodsky’s office and claimed that the online ad industry would have to flee New York if consumers are protected in that state. Perhaps they plan to relocate Madison Avenue to a digital green zone outside the U.S.! Btw, note the addition of Comcast, which also wants to protect its TV version of behavioral targeting via its Spotlight service.

The letter:

State Privacy and Security Coalition, Inc.

April 7, 2008

The Honorable Richard Brodsky
New York General Assembly
Legislative Office Building
Room 422
Albany, NY 12248

Re: Opposition to A. 9275

Dear Assemblyman Brodsky:

We are writing to express our strong opposition to A. 9275, which is
unnecessary, most likely unconstitutional, and would have profound
implications for the future of Internet advertising and the availability of free
content on the Internet.

A. 9275 would subject advertising networks to an extremely
detailed, unprecedented array of notice, consent, and access obligations
relating to “personally identifiable information” and “non-personally
identifiable information ” that is used for “online preference marketing.”
Every website that an advertising network contracts with would be subject
to detailed notice requirements.

This bill is unnecessary because advertising networks have already
agreed to self-regulation commitments relating to most of the components
of this bill. If they fail to live up to these commitments, then the Federal
Trade Commission and the New York Attorney General’s office would
have enforcement authority. Moreover, the bill appears to be based on
Network Advertising Initiative principles that will soon be outdated, as new
principles are expected to be released in the near future.

This self-regulatory system is continuing to advance. The Federal
Trade Commission has issued further self-regulatory principles relating to
behavioral advertising on which it will receive extensive comments later
this week, and several major network advertisers have announced new self-
regulatory initiatives. New York does not need to, and should not, jump
into this process.

This is particularly true because the Dormant Commerce Clause of
the U.S. Constitution prevents any State from dictating activity across the
Internet. Yet network advertisers and websites across the country and
operating in other countries would have to attempt to change their practices
to conform to the very specific notice, consent and access requirements in A. 9275. It is simply not feasible to comply with Internet advertising regulations that vary from state-to-state. Time after time, state laws that have attempted to impose this sort of broad Internet regulation have been struck down by the courts, doing nothing more than making taxpayers bear the expense both of defending the lawsuit and paying the successful plaintiffs’ attorneys fees.

For all these reasons, we urge you to oppose A. 9275 and allow self-regulation and federal initiatives to address online behavioral advertising.

Sincerely,

Jim Halpert
Counsel

[Members]

AOL, LLC
Comcast
eBay Inc.
EDS
Facebook
Google
Internet Alliance
Monster Worldwide
NAi
NetChoice
Reed Elsevier, Inc.
Yahoo!
500 8th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
202.799.4000 Tel
202.799.5000 Fax

Simpson, Thatcher &

Here’s an excerpt from an article in GCP, the “Online Magazine for Global Competition Policy” by Peter C. Thomas, entitled “Lifting the Fog: Google/DoubleClick Demystified.”
“In the end, both the FTC and the Commission cut through the fog of the complaints surrounding the proposed merger to get to the right answer, namely that Google and DoubleClick operate in different, already competitive markets, and that their complementary services, when combined, will not harm competition in any relevant market.”

But readers should follow the asterisk next to Mr. Thomas’s byline, which reads [our emphasis]: “∗ The author is the Managing Partner of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP’s Washington, D.C. office…Simpson Thacher represented Hellman & Friedman and DoubleClick in the acquisition by Google.”

We love objectivity!

ringtone 3gfor freeringtone 6111 nokianokia ringtone 7650 free8310 ringtoneringtones 8310phones ringtones for adult verizonafter phone fire the ringtone cellnokia 1110 ringtone free Map

What AOL’s Proposed `Privacy Penguin’s’ Won’t tell You (or, this campaign needs to go into turnaround)

Time Warner’s AOL division needs to reconsider its forthcoming campaign that will use cartoon penguins to inform users about data collection. I have been told, by the Penguin Committee for Honest Disclosure, that they would like Time Warner and AOL execs to address concerns about consumer privacy seriously. Humor is fine–so is candor. So to help Time Warner rework its upcoming campaign, here’s some of the language its Advertising.com is using to pitch EU marketers about its behavioral targeting “solutions.”

“Behavioural Targeting is the most dynamic way of reaching the right audience online. Using our Behavioural Network and LeadBack technology, we can target a pre-defined audience segment based on user behaviour on the internet.

There are a number of different ways we can create these audience segments:

* Advertiser LeadBack
We are able to target users across our network based on their behaviour on advertiser websites (e.g. partial conversion, abandoned shopping cart).
* Audience LeadBack
We are able to target users across our network based on their behaviour on publisher websites (e.g. viewing product review sites).
* Search LeadBack
We are able to target users across our network based on their search engine activity.
* Creative LeadBack
We are able to target users across our network based on their interaction with ads served outside the Advertising.com network.

By establishing certain user traits or demographics within an audience we are able to target those individuals with the most relevant advertising or simply reach those same users in a different environment…”

AOL’s Privacy “Penguins”–Time Warner Skating on [Very] Thin Consumer Protection Ice

The senior management over at Time Warner must be `in treatment’ with some of their Looney Toon characters. How else to explain the ludicrous use of cartoon penguins that will soon be deployed to really misinform consumers about how and why their data and personal information are being collected and harvested for microtargeting purposes. It’s really shameful that the Time Warner, its Platform A targeting service, and the AOL division are hiding behind these well-liked creatures. But they are doing so because the company doesn’t want to be honest with its users. What Time Warner should be telling consumers are some of the things it pitches to perspective and current advertisers. For example, it should tell consumers that they are being tracked and followed online so advertisers will know they are “demonstrating a specific behavior.” Or that it’s “an advertisers dream–the ability to target consumers…across thousands of websites…[while they] research their options…Through behavioral targeting–and retargeting–we keep your brand top of mind during this crucial consideration phase.” Or that when we are watching online video, Time Warner informs advertisers that it can tell them “[H]ow long did consumers view your ad? Did they visit your website as a result? Better yet, did they visit your store? Online video takes the best of TV and the best of online to create the ultimate solution–high-impact advertising with measurable results.”

Or that it can help them get “leads” for future pitches (think mortgage loans, etc). Will AOL’s Penguin say that it will give marketers “a high-volume” of leads that will “convert into an actual customer…that perform best for your goals.” Or that it can identify our behaviors and then place us for sale as part of consumers profiles to be targeted (such as whether they consider us to be a “Traveler, Health Seeker, Entertainment Buff, Auto Intender or Trendy Homemaker”), which include information about whether we have children at home, how much money we make, or our gender? I hope our Penguin will be telling consumers (and the FTC and the EU’s Article 29 Working Group) that its “insight Reports” provide marketers with “deep knowledge” [our emphasis] “[B]y combining TACODA behavioral segments with comScore’s MediaMetrix® database of online consumer demographics, Web site visitation patterns, and eCommerce buying power index, TACDOA is able to discover previously unknown key behavioral traits that may be non-intuitive and even counterintuitive behaviors. Our pre and post campaign analyses will help you identify your strategically important audiences in a snap.”

When asked to testify before Congress, as it debates privacy safeguards, we hope Time Warner’s Penguin will be able to explain its “Audience Point” service, which promises advertisers that they will be able to “[R]each the right audience….without waste…the first precision targeting solution giving audiences direct interaction with their likely customers.” Or that Time Warner, via Leadback.com, promises to “helps you reach your site visitors after they exit your site – reinforcing your brand positioning and driving users back to your site to complete a desired action. LeadBack.com – converting browsers into buyers, and buyers into repeat buyers.”

Time Warner and the online ad industry have to be honest with consumers and citizens. They shouldn’t engage in playing games when it comes to protecting privacy. Here’s the real penguin Time Warner and AOL should be using:


The Penguin, as seen in Detective Comics

The EC approval of Google’s DoubleClick takeover

Statement on the EC Decision on Google/DoubleClick
Jeff Chester, Center for Digital Democracy

By failing to impose safeguards, EC regulators have helped strengthen a growing digital colossus that will now be in a dominant position to shape much of the global future of the Internet and other online media. The EC [DG Comp] appears to have embraced the FTC’s flawed analysis of the online ad market. It represents the failure of antitrust regulators to understand and respond to the growing consolidation of control over online ad delivery, data collection, and the funding of content. This decision will have profound and unfortunate consequences for the Internet’s evolving role as a democratic communications medium.

EU and US antitrust regulators have also perversely set the stage for Microsoft’s goal of acquiring Yahoo!, furthering more concentration of control in the new media sector. Instead of ensuring competition, DG Comp and the FTC have literally paved the way for the emergence of a global digital duopoly over online advertising (which is the principal way online content is funded). By permitting Google to dramatically grow in clout, regulators will have to likely enable the further growth of a # 2 competitor to Google—which will be Microsoft.

US and European policymakers must reform the antitrust process to reflect the realities of the digital market era, where competition, data collection, and content creation are seamlessly intertwined. In today’s digital marketplace, the company that controls the most data about consumers and has the global reach to connect to them raises both anticompetitive and privacy concerns. An antiquated and piecemeal antitrust approach fails to protect citizens, consumers, and competition.

The Center for Digital Democracy, which opposed the Google/DoubleClick merger in both the U.S. and in the EC, will continue to press policymakers to play a more responsible forward-thinking approach to competition and consumer protection for online and interactive media.