Category: media industry lobbying

Facebook’s Partnership with Target Stores: Is this leading to its work thwarting a Boycott effort?

As news reports emerge that Facebook is preventing a group boycotting Target Stores for its political positions able to use the social network’s functionality, it’s important to connect its business relationship with the chain store.   Facebook recently made a deal with Target as part of its marketing push for its virtual “Credits” currency.  The growing relationship of the biggest brands and Facebook, and what happens to our information and how these companies get preferred treatment, must be on the policy and advocates agenda. Politico reported that: “As the number of Facebook members signed up for the “Boycott Target Until They Cease Funding Anti-Gay Politics” page neared 78,000 in recent days, Facebook personnel locked down portions of the page — banning new discussion threads, preventing members from posting videos and standard Web links to other sites and barring the page’s administrator from sending updates to those who signed up for the boycott.”

Facebook and Target stores are new partners, something which may explain its censorious efforts.  Inside Facebook also recently reported:“Following recent efforts by Zynga, Playdom and other social gaming companies to launch pre-paid cards for virtual goods in stores, Facebook is going direct — starting this Sunday, it will allow users to buy pre-paid cards for its virtual currency, Credits, within 1,743 Target retail locations across the US and on Target.com.

Cards can be purchased in $15, $25 and $50 increments, similar pricing to what you’ll see for a wide variety of other pre-paid game cards already available in Targets and other stores around the country.

Facebook itself is also helping to push the new integration, by including a Target store finder on its official Credits splash page. When users click on the “Redeem Gift Card” in the Facebook Credits gift cards section of the Credits page, they’ll see a popup window asking them to enter the scratch-off number on the back of the Credits card. Clicking “Redeem Now” will add the amount of Credits purchased to their Facebook account.”



Google, Time Warner, Washington Post, Verizon, Canoe Ventures [Comcast] Funding Online Ad Lobby’s Campaign Against Consumer Privacy Safeguards

The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) is a lobbying group that is working to oppose federal (or state) legislation and regulation that would protect consumer privacy online.  It recently led the lobbying campaign that removed from the new financial reform bill a key provision that would have enabled the FTC to better protect consumers.  What companies are helping fund the IAB’s Orwellian named “Consumer Protection and Education Campaign” battling consumer and privacy groups?  Here’s a list of the financial donors, who have ponied up about $500k so far.  Other companies are contributing free online ad space for the IAB’s campaign–1 billion impressions worth. The donors are:
AdMob
AudienceScience
Canoe Ventures
Cars.com
CPX Interactive
eBureau
Eyeblaster
Feeva Technology
Google
IDG.net
IM Services Group
Mediamath
Meredith Interactive
Microsoft
Quantcast
Sharethis
ShortTail
Simulmedia
Time Warner
Traffic Marketplace
Tumri
Verizon
Washington Post
WildTangent

Google’s new `simplifed’ Privacy Policy: More disclosure and honesty required [updated]

Last week Google announced it was “simplifying and updating” its privacy policies.  As it so often does, the announcement was framed as a `we did for your good’ kind of effort.  “[W]e want to make our policies more transparent and understandable,” it explained, noting that “most privacy policies are still too hard to understand.” But as so often with Google and other online marketers, you have to both read between the digital lines and also analyze what’s really going on.

Google’s revised policy, which takes effect October 3, fails to really explain to consumers/users what’s actually going on.  Like other privacy policies, Google claims that all its data collection is to “provide you with a better experience and to improve the quality of our services.”  But what they really mean–and what the Congress, the FTC and other regulators must require them to disclose–is that they have crafted a wide-ranging system designed to foster personalized data collection and online targeting.  Missing from the revised Privacy Policy (which Google, btw, is pitching to privacy advocates and no doubt others as a  paragon of digital virtue) is any candid disclosure on how its Doubleclick, Admob, Google Display Network, Ad Exchange, Teracent, and other services collect information from and about us.

Google isn’t alone–Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and everyone else rely on a purposefully deceptive privacy policy to engage in data collection activities that require disclosure and individual user control.  Google is also reshaping its privacy policy to better capture all the data it can collect across multiple platforms and applications. Here, just for the record, is what Google advertised in Ad Age’s recent Ad Exchange and online advertising guide [excerpt]:  No matter how you define performance, the Google Display Network offers a solution. By bringing more measurability and precision to your advertising, it enables you to create, target and optimize ads based on real-time data, meaning better returns for you.

The Google Display Network helps advertisers and agencies achieve performance at scale by delivering relevant, accountable ads to their target audiences—in more places, more often…Precisely target your audience: The Google Display Network’s technology enables you to find customers based on their interests, sites they visit and when they’re engaging with relevant content via contextual targeting, or show specific messages to users who’ve already visited your site with remarketing…The Google Display Network provides opportunities to advertise in all such environments—feeds, games, mobile, social networks and video streams— enabling you to create an immersive experience for your audience.

PS.  Well, Google just also announced what its interactive display ad system can do for marketers.  How come this isn’t in the privacy policy in understandable language and full consumer control? Excerpt:  Advertising with Google used to be all about four lines of text, on Google.com and on our partner sites. No longer. Did you know that, outside of ads alongside search results, more than 40 percent of the ads that we show are now non-text ads? And that doesn’t include the 45 billion ads that our DoubleClick advertising products serve every day across the web.

We get excited by display advertising for a number of reasons…Teracent’s technology can automatically tailor and select the creative elements in an ad, and adjust them based on location, language, weather and even the past performance of ads, to show the optimal ad.  We’re focused on helping advertisers get the best results from their campaigns—by enabling creative branding campaigns, precise targeting, wide reach and effective measurement. Over recent years, we’ve added a ton of new features to YouTube and the Google Display Network, to help advertisers get—and measure—the results they’re after. From remarketing to Campaign Insights to video targeting on YouTube, we’re building tools that are helping advertisers get great results and enabling them to run some of the most amazing ad campaigns the world has ever seen.

Google’s Mobile Ad Plans–A Key Reason Why No Net Neutrality for Wireless [Follow the Mobile Ad $$$]

Just a quick reminder to network neutrality supporters that Google has made a multi-billion dollar investment in its ability to deliver mobile ads.  That’s a key reason for its “let’s make a digital deal” with Verizon.  For example, in 2007 Google acquired  Doubleclick:“DoubleClick Mobile is an ad delivery system for mobile websites that delivers dynamic, interactive ads to mobile web pages based on specific criteria as determined by you. It supports a wide range of devices and boasts a full management and reporting suite. Now publishers can deploy mobile advertising with the same confidence and control as online display ads…DoubleClick Mobile enables you to manage and report on your mobile advertising campaign through every click. We’ve made it easy to set campaign dates, define mobile specific targeting criteria and get full reports on all mobile campaigns…records information on third-party destination sites…DoubleClick Mobile features support for a variety of ad networks to enable you to sell more of your inventory and maximize possible yield…”

This year Google acquired Admob:  “AdMob offers brand advertisers the ability to reach the addressable mobile audiences. Our innovative ad units will carry your brand messaging onto the top mobile sites. As one of the leading brand mobile advertising marketplaces, we have the products and the people to help you meet your campaign needs…Mobile advertising provides you with targeted access to mobile users, and is easy to buy and measure…AdMob stores and analyzes data from each ad request to serve the most relevant ad possible. AdMob Mobile Metrics offers a snapshot of this data to provide insight into trends in the mobile ecosystem.”

And don’t forget Google Adsense for mobile:  “AdSense for Mobile helps you earn money by displaying relevant Google ads alongside your mobile web pages or within your mobile applications.”  Or YouTube Mobile.

PS:  eMarketer got it right.  The Google/Verizon deal is about preserving mobile as a controlled digital territory: “By 2014, eMarketer expects the number of mobile internet users in the US to reach 142 million, a near tripling of 2008 levels. The total pool of internet users, which includes mobile and wired access, will increase over the same time period from 203 million to 250 million. By 2013, more than half of all US internet users will be accessing the web through a mobile network, either alone or in addition to wired usage.”

Online Ad Lobby Raising $1 Million to Help Fight Against Privacy Safeguards

The Interactive Ad Bureau [Google, CBS, Comcast, NBC, Facebook, Fox, Microsoft, BlogHer and many others] is fundraising to “undertake additional coordinated advocacy at the Federal and state level. IAB is nearly half-way to our goal of raising $1 million in cash…”  Funds will be used to support a campaign that includes “our ongoing advocacy efforts to combat legislation and regulation that could damage the interactive advertising industry.”  IAB calls this its “Consumer Protection and Education Campaign,” because it also includes a goal of a billion online ads (to be donated by marketers) used to “support consumer and business understanding and appreciation of the interactive advertising industry.”

We are sure that there will be many–such as the growing interest of the news media in the issue—that will follow this special interest money–especially as the Congress and FTC focus on protecting consumers online.

Google and Verizon Digital Double-deal-making or Net Neutrality:”Get Lost!”

Neither Google or Verizon should be privately negotiating the future of the Internet by private, closed-door, dealmaking.  Both companies have a tremendous conflict of interest–because they are involved in distributing multimedia content and collecting user data to target consumers across the Internet, mobile and digital TV platforms.  To exempt wireless from any safeguards is a good example of how self-serving this deal is–everyone knows that mobile will operate the same way the wired Internet does–in terms of behavioral targeting, for example.  That’s why the “deal” announced has loopholes that will benefit their special interests over others online.  What’s needed are strong federal safeguards that keep the Internet open and free from under the influence of the most powerful online giants…This deal was written with purposeful “digital” loopholes so companies like Verizon and Google, and other well-endowed players,  can dominate the future of the Internet.  It potentially would enable them to create the kind of special first class web distribution service that undermines the goals of network neutrality.  Instead of the Internet, we have a special interest web.

Google’s interest in better bandwidth access for video and interactive ads—do negotiations with Verizon reflect recent changes for YouTube?

Google recently made an announcement that will require likely greater bandwidth for Google’s YouTube.  According to its July 9, 2010 post, “Today at the VidCon 2010 conference, we announced support for videos shot in 4K, meaning that now we support original video resolution from 360p all the way up to 4K…We’re excited about this latest step in the evolution of online video.” Also perhaps relevant to its Verizon dealmaking is Google’s move towards long-form ad supported videos on YouTube, to better position itself as a commercial video provider. If they want to ensure they are first in the `que’ with other entertainment companies, then reversing its position on network neutrality is part of their business plans.  They are ultimately in the same show biz/advertising space as everyone else is.   Btw, given that the media/telecom companies really don’t see a difference when marketing and distributing across multiple platforms, inc, mobile, it’s outrageous mobile would be exempt from network neutrality rules.  But perhaps blame it on Google’s Admob acquisition and its [and everyone else’s] plans for mobile location ad targeting!

Here’s an excerpt from today’s Ad Age article on Google’s new higher resolution and more bandwidth system for YouTube:  “YouTube recently announced support for “4k video,” meaning video files with a dimensional size up to 4096 x 2304 pixels — in other words, much larger than your computer can handle.  Online video is booming, and marketers are still trying to figure out how to create the optimal user experience and achieve the best results for their campaigns…YouTube mentions that watching videos in 4k requires an “ultra-fast high-speed broadband connection,” but this is actually the least-important requirement. While users on slower broadband connections can always wait for enough of the video to download and buffer before watching it (though why would a marketer force consumers to do that?)…

Google Exec on Behavioral Targeting: “massive benefit for advertisers” [note he didn’t call it “Preference” Marketing!

Online industry reaction to the Wall Street Journal privacy series, and generally, illustrate a basic disconnect in how they view the privacy concerns raised by digital profiling, tracking and targeting.  Leading online marketers frequently claim that behavioral targeting and related data-focused techniques are actually good for the consumer.  The problem, they argue, is that consumers lack basic information about the process.  Presumably, they believe, if we really understood how it worked, we would be relieved.  In truth, of course, the opposite is true.  The more one knows about the processes underlying what the online ad industry claims is a digital marketing “ecosystem,” the more a consumer and citizen should be alarmed.

In the UK, EU and in the U.S., companies like Google and Microsoft are working together on PR campaigns to convince both the public and policymakers all is well with behavioral profiling for marketing.  One Google executive in the UK recently told New Media Age that “The use of behavioural targeting is growing and is a massive benefit for advertisers wishing to serve more relevant ads. It also helps pay for content and services. But there is user confusion about how it works…Lack of understanding is the biggest problem facing behavioural targeting in the UK. There’s a knowledge gap between those who work in the industry and are familiar with terms such as cookies, remarketing and aggregated data, and users who search the web for information and goods. It’s our job, along with the rest of industry, to inform those users about how online advertising works and the choices they have.” 

But in reality, the industry–including Google–has failed to be candid with consumers and policymakers about all the data collection practices that are deployed–such as by Google subsidiaries Doubleclick, Admob, & Teracent, for example.

Microsoft is also very bullish about behavioral targeting–especially since it’s in a global digital fight with Google to deliver data-enriched ad targeting for the biggest brands.  In the same New Media Age issue [22 July 2010], Zuzanna Gierlinska, head of Microsoft Media Network at Microsoft Advertising explains that:  “We’re not saying you should use targeting – whether that’s behavioural targeting or re-messaging – just to push conversion.  But it can have a strong brand uplift. People come into a channel, see a nice creative with high-impact imagery and then go away. But that message stays with them.”  The article goes on to explain that: It’s this ability to talk to people on an ongoing basis, and give them a better experience, that’s the key to why combining re-messaging and behavioural targeting with a standard brand buy works, argues Gierlinska. For example, with re-messaging, users are already a warm lead, while behavioural targeting tightens the focus on users who are demonstrating an interest… This positive experience benefits both conversion and brand uplift among the target audience. “Targeting benefits everyone,” Gierlinska says. “It benefits the publisher because it’s not wasting impressions or serving ads to just anyone. It benefits the advertiser because it has efficiencies with its media buy. But it’s also really beneficial to the users because they’re getting relevant messaging that’s timely and ideally helping their productivity in what they’re doing online, rather than just being served random messages.”

Much of how the industry addresses the behavioral targeting and its related data mining application are rationalizations [maybe all their therapists are on vacation or Freudians!  Just kidding].  But it reflects a failure by industry leaders to recognize a serious problem that affects the public.  That’s the same kind of `it’s all good for us, regardless of what we do’ behavior that led to the recent–and ongoing–global financial collapse.

Ad Lobby Research Says Vast Majority of Online Ads Involve Behavioral Profiling & Targeting

The online ad industry lobbying group–the Interactive Advertising Bureau [IAB]–has revealed results from its own research that show the widespread use of behavioral targeting.  In a post on its criticisms of privacy legislation introduced by Chairman Bobby Rush, the IAB explains that:

“In an IAB survey of ad agencies conducted earlier this year, we found that 80% or more of digital advertising campaigns were touched by behavioral targeting in some way.”

That means the majority of what consumers do online–including when they deal with sensitive transactions involving their finance, health or other family matters–are being closely tracked and profiled.  In addition, the IAB attacks the important civil rights provisions in both the Boucher/Stearns and Rush bills.  That provision would ensure that data collection about a consumers racial, ethnic or sexual orientation would be better under the control of the individual.   You would think that the IAB leadership, including Google, NBC, CBS, and Disney, would support a policy that would restrict the potential use of online racial profiling.  But the IAB claims these provisions protecting multicultural and other consumers “could constrain multicultural marketing and media…These types of services provide great benefits to their audiences and the proposed restrictions would actually harm the very group of people they seek to protect.”  That’s an irresponsible position.  We should be able to protect civil rights and promote diverse online publishing.
The IAB’s claims that behavioral targeting is anonymous doesn’t hold up to the facts, as well.  The time for action by both the FTC and Congress has arrived.

Teens and Online Privacy: Empowering Adolescents to Control How Online Marketers Can Stealithily Target Them and Collect Data

Some commentators–and groups funded by online marketers that target teens–are worried that proposals to the FTC and Congress that adolescent privacy be protected will somehow create a system that requires forms of age verification online.  The coalition of leading consumer, child advocacy, health and privacy organizations filing comments at the FTC last week aren’t calling for the parental permission paradigm used by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act [COPPA] be extended to teens.  But there are many online commercial services specifically targeting adolescents–that’s their target market.  It’s those sites and services specifically focused on adolescents that we want to have better privacy safeguards.   We want those sites to be governed by an opt-in regime that gives teen users meaningful control of how their information is collected and utilized.  Those sites should be required to engage in the Fair Information Principles known as  “data use minimization.”  Commercial sites targeting adolescents should make its data collection practices fully transparent and under the control by the teen (including a truly accessible privacy policy).  In another words, a privacy safeguard regime that really should be available for everyone.  Teens are ‘ground zero’ for much of digital marketing–for examples see our site: www.digitalads.org [especially the update section].  If you look at the reports on that site, you will see that the most recent scholarly thinking is that brain development in adolescents occurs much later than what was once thought.  They don’t have the ability to effectively understand the intent of highly sophisticated interactive marketing and the corresponding data collection which underlies contemporary digital advertising. That’s why empowering them so they can protect their privacy strengthens their rights.