Category: broadband

Google’s Alliance with Rupert Murdoch and Fox News

We think Google founders’ Larry Page and Sergey Brin need to revisit what they personally hope to ultimately contribute to society. Google’s deal with Rupert Murdoch’s Fox, including its Foxnews.com sites, supports a media empire that has engaged in jingoistic journalism (to say the least!). Hey, Google guys. Don’t you recall what Fox did to help get us into a war that has unnecessarily cost so many, many, thousands of lives—let alone caused so much destruction?

Helping Rupert Murdoch out is exactly what Google is doing. Google’s signed a much-publicized deal with Fox Interactive Media (FIM) last month, making it the “exclusive search keyword targeted advertising sales provider” for Murdoch’s MySpace.com “community.” But Google is also working with the rest of Murdoch’s FIM properties, including Foxnews.com, fox.com, Foxsports.com, ign.com, askmen.com, etc. Google will be giving its pal Murdoch a minimum of $900 million over a three-year period, as part of its revenue sharing deal.

I know people will say it’s only business—and that if Google didn’t make the deal, a Yahoo! or MSN would. But that’s not the point. You need to be careful about who you choose as your business partners. So despite the positive PR Google gets when it creates a for-profit foundation, there is something ultimately wrong-headed about the company. Helping Rupert Murdoch sell interactive ads and promote the Foxnews brand is another indication that Google’s legacy may be one rich with cash—but not corporate moral clarity.

Democrats Wrong to Ask that 9/11 TV Movie Be Kept “Off The Air”—But They Should Be Asking Hard Questions About the Lack of Quality News and Entertainment and Media Policies

We don’t agree with the drumbeat coming from Democrats and others that this weekend’s Disney/ABC TV movie be pulled. Censoring such content is unhealthy in a democracy. ABC cannot afford to buckle under from Dem critics. The Dems pressure campaign, while helping to bring about some (much needed) editorial changes, appears self-serving. The Clinton Administration does bear some responsibility for the country’s lack of understanding about the rising tide of anger against the U.S. from abroad. The Clinton folks weren’t saints. Think what they did to the poor with welfare reform; how their egos bungled getting us national health care; or how they hailed the passage of the lobbyist-written (and media concentration giving) 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Democrats, by the way, were openly critical of CBS buckling under GOP pressure when the network cancelled its airing of “The Reagans” in 2003 (parent company Viacom eventually ran it on pay cable channel Showtime).

TV movies have always been confabulated affairs. Granted, Disney/ABC should have hired writers who are politically independent. And they should have stuck to the “script” of the actual 9/11 Commission report. But the real problem is that our media consolidated, ratings and right demographic audience targeted TV system isn’t focused at all on providing the public with a steady and serious examination of the world. TV lives in a fantasyland so it can better generate profits from advertisers. The networks and stations have no real public interest responsibilities, thanks to years of scuttling FCC rules. Congress keeps giving the TV networks everything they want, such as billions of free airwaves. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and at the FCC over the years have given permission for the TV industry to engage in ever-lowering standards. Except for Newt Minow’s sharp retort back in 1961 that television was giving the public a “vast wasteland,” broadcasters and cable companies have been given high-fives from a Congress satisfied with the system (meaning lots of campaign contributions and little analytical coverage of what’s really going on).

Rather than ask Disney to drop this docudrama, it would better if the Democrats called for a serious national debate about the quality of TV in the U.S. I’m not saying censorship. But they should be asking the TV industry to provide the public with more in-depth news and analysis—locally and nationally. No more 22 minute evening news broadcasts or countless headlines repeated on cable TV. We require serious investigative reports and more time overall spent on examining the country’s myriad problems—and what can be done about them. The networks should be urged to produce TV movies and series that are derived from (dare I say it) literature. TV should be asked to embrace young writers and other creators from diverse perspectives and backgrounds to develop programming that changes the dumbing down formula of television. [Are they coming to take me away yet!].

The Dems—and the GOP—should also call for public policies that ensure the public can receive a more diverse stream of content. They means network neutrality for the Internet, along with new rules that prevent the broadcast, cable, and satellite business from being TV gatekeepers. The TV conglomerates must be required to pass thru to viewers and users all news and public affairs programming–especially in this era of interactive digital media (such as video on demand, etc).

Ultimately, we need a more informed U.S. public if we are to better understand the real path to 9/11, so many other critical issues, and what we must do to address them. That should be the drumbeat of the DNC and others.

pay 500 loans dayadjustable rate loans realestateadverse online loans creditalaska consolidation loans debt100 loans refinance21 loans paydayloans online 500 paydayloan amount of Map

agriculture livestock credit loansloan 9 direct consolidationloans 401k rulesloans administrator veterans ofalberta loan cheap car1000 canada payday loanloan ace brokerage businessalabama loan unsecured Map

Microsoft’s Massive Interactive Ad Venture (with a editorial reminder for the Washington Post)

Bill and Melinda Gates receive just praise for their eponymous charitable foundation. But like so many other philanthropists, the money comes via disreputable practices. Little is ever mentioned when discussing the Gates Foundation that its resources were built on a coldly executed monopolistic business strategy. The European Commission is still trying to undo the impact of Microsoft’s monopoly. Like many other robber barons turned philanthropist, perhaps Mr. Gates has made a later-in-one’s life conversion. He is now widely viewed—by the press and others—as a saint, not a sinner.

But Microsoft’s recent acquisition of Massive—the leading provider of online advertising for video games—illustrates his company’s continued lack of a moral vision. Massive sells to a wide array of advertisers and marketers the eyeballs—and really the subconscious minds—of teens and other gamers. Video games become populated with all kinds of commercial messages to help push the marketing goals of “Entertainment, Automotive, Telecom, Packaged Goods, Technology and Retail,” explains Massive. These ads are placed before users in “real-time” and can be readily updated and revised to suit an advertisers marketing strategy. You can be sure users are tracked and profiled.

Here’s what Massive also tells advertisers: “Massive’s patent-pending ad serving technology and unique ad units guarantee that advertisers get precise, measurable exposure in their campaign. The dynamic nature of the Massive Network gives advertisers the opportunity to target gamers with different messages based upon geography and time of day. The advertising creative and campaign can be highly customized and changed quickly to meet evolving market conditions and brand priorities. Ad messages are customized to contextually fit each game environment and then served to locations within the game that are pre-selected by Massive and the game’s creative developers.”

“Types of ad units include (but are not limited to):

* Billboards and Posters
* Vehicles
* Pizza Boxes
* Soda Cans
* Screensavers
* TV Screens”

Microsoft is currently engaged in a desperate effort to catch up to Yahoo! and Google in the interactive advertising game. Massive is seen as a prime way to extend the software giant’s interactive ad clout. But, by facilitating the ability of marketers to encourage young people and others to consume more beer, pizza, and fattening soft drinks, Microsoft is making an unhealthy and inappropriate contribution to our culture. It won’t do the public any good if—say twenty years from now—Bill and Melinda Gates begin suddenly spending foundation money to combat obesity-related illnesses. They would have already helped encouraged millions of game users to identify with such products.

This week’s announcement that Microsoft’s Massive will be distributing Electronic Arts (EA) games for its Xbox, including “first person shooter” Battlefield 2142, is a good illustration why folks working for Gates should hide their heads in shame. Here’s what an EA executive said about the deal: “Consumers are increasingly engaged in deep, virtual worlds and advertisers need adapted ways to reach these audiences.”

Oy Vey!

And now for the Washington Post. The news article [9/1/06] reporting on the EA deal was very polite—and didn’t explore much the concerns over Microsoft’s use of interactive ads for games. Perhaps that’s because folks know that Melinda Gates is on the board of the Washington Post Company. Post Co. reporters and editors always need to disclose their corporate connection to Microsoft and the Gates family.

2g ringtonesstooges 3 ringtonesgitano ringtones amorcountry ringtones $0.99ringtones parris aliceringtones 8525aaa warrington10 ringtones free Map

FTC, You Better Turn-on (then Quickly Shut-off) Your TiVo

As the FTC readies a review of online commerce, including privacy, it should examine TiVo’s new plan to turn over “second-by-second” viewer data to major advertisers. The TiVo-Omnicom deal, as reported yesterday by Ad Age and others, will also include “behavioral data” derived from our personal video recorder (PVR) viewing. That data will form the basis of an “engagement” study that TiVo and Omnicom will do together. (Engagement is a relatively new ad industry initiative that is attempting to design, deliver and measure more effective ways of branding.) Omnicom, of course, is an advertising and marketing octopus, operating such agencies as BBDO Worldwide, DDB Worldwide, and TWBA/Worldwide. The TiVo deal is with the Omnicom Media Group, which includes OMD (which is interested in new media), PHD Network, Icon International and others.

Almost from the start, TiVo has positioned itself as an ad-friendly technology (to help allay fears from the media and ad industry it brought in many investors from those fields, such as Time Warner, CBS and NBC). Last month, TiVo announced “the creation of a new line of business, TiVo Audience Research and Measurement (ARM), offering advertisers, marketers, networks and advertising agencies second-by-second data and analysis on DVR viewing. With this unique data, advertisers will have key insights into the viewership and effectiveness of their TV advertising by network, genre, day-part, time-slot, day of week and pod position. The initial research product, Commercial Viewership Report, provides a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the creative and media planning strategies that are most effective to reach a fast forwarding consumer.”

This should sound alarm bells. No matter what they (or others) claim are sufficient privacy policies, analytical data about unique habits are being turned over to marketers. The FTC and state attorneys-general should demand that TiVo stop any such “second by second” collection and behavioral analysis until they have submitted detailed information so its plans can be evaluated. TiVo’s subscribers must be given full-disclosure and the ability to opt-in to any new data analysis arrangement. All of this, of course, is part of the ever-growing system of personalized data collection and targeting that is shaping all media delivery platforms. Our privacy and more is at risk. But, we have to admit. Does the FTC really care about growing threats to privacy via our broadband world?

This is an issue will be writing about (and actively working on) in the months ahead. And an issue that is the focus of our new book—out in January (apologies for the marketing here!).

Will "Expanded" Microsoft/Verizon Alliance Spell Problems for Net Neutrality?

We await to see if Microsoft continues to play a leadership role in the battle for Internet Freedom now that it has expanded its broadband business dealings with Verizon (including a “co-branded portal”). With the upcoming Senate vote, now’s a crucial time for action. If Microsoft doesn’t play an serious leadership role backing network neutrality legislation, it will reflect poorly on the legacy of Bill Gates. Will this deal with Verizon mean a Microsoft pull-back from the issue?

aircraft down 0 loansaffordable loan constructionloans state student alaska90-day loancollection loan student agency454 home loan equity$5000 loan unsecured500 loan credit need score purchase Map

Disney’s Branded Entertainment Scam: Pushing its Mobile Phone Biz Via a Program-Length Commercial

This is a good example of why a PBS should avoid even the taint of commercialism. Public broadcasting needs to be a safe haven from the kind of show/ad-biz industry mishegas we are increasingly witnessing in the interactive marketing era. Take the announcement via the crazy folks at Burbank. Bob Iger must be channeling Michael Eisner in the bad taste department. But it’s also a great example of why there needs to be beefed up federal safeguards protecting kids from targeted digital marketing. Read on:

“Disney to Debut ‘Storymercial

Disney plans to launch a half-hour TV program based entirely on its branded mobile service, in order to let parents know about the variety of features the service offers, on ABC Family sometime before November.

The show, or “storymercial,” will incorporate viewer-suggested storylines about the phone service, highlighting the features that could help families keep track of their minutes – and keep track of each other, writes Brandweek. Footage from the show will also end up in other media such as online, on DVDs and on television commercials.

The long form – or infomercial – is coming back into vogue thanks to a couple of factors such as the rise of video sites such as YouTube and the availability of inexpensive bandwidth (which makes it possible to reuse and recycle content). And because retailers are facing mounting pressure to “start selling from day one,” long form advertising is necessary to build online and offline buzz for complex products such as the Disney Mobile service, before they hit the shelves, says Dave Merton, vp for Meteor and consultant to manufacturers.

However, long form can be disastrous if it is simply a 30-second spot stretched to last a longer time. Rather, it must be exclusive, brand correct content that makes for great watching, says Doug Garnett, president of Atomic Direct and creator of the successful Drill Doctor long form campaign.”

[Source: www.mediabuyerplanner.com] The story broke, we understand, in Brand Week. It is online.

It’s the 64 [Fill in the Amount] Question: Will Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, Diller’s IAC, eBay, and Amazon Spend What it Takes to Sound the Alarm about Network Neutrality?

Will it be .64 cents or $6.4 million? With Congress soon coming back—and a possible Senate vote on network neutrality legislation just a few weeks away—it’s time for those who care about the democratic nature of U.S. digital communications to put up or…We think the public deserves to know what’s at stake (including, but beyond what Google felt it had to tell investors in its SEC filing). There should be full-page newspaper ads; 30-second spots on TV and radio; a major on-line ad campaign. The Works. Let’s tell the public what the companies know. That without network neutrality, the U.S. will not have a democratic Internet. That both diversity and competition will be harmed. That Congress is about to approve a massive give-away to a few special interests. That only a few years ago the Internet was rightly hailed as the “most participatory form of mass speech yet developed.” But that was the Internet with network neutrality. Without it, the Internet could become just a souped-up interactive cable TV-like service.

So. Messrs Gates, Schmidt, Semel, Bezos, Diller, and Ms. Whitman. What will be your legacy when it comes to network neutrality? Will it be that you courageously sounded the alarm—alerting the country to a real threat to our freedom? Or that you looked the other way, making deals while the Net’s future was decided behind closed doors?

Business for Social Responsibility: At Annual Conference, Guest Speakers Feature Anti-Internet Freedom and Obesity Boosting CEOs.

The Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) group has an ad touting its annual conference in today’s New York Times business section [the Times Co. is a BSR “media sponsor”]. Featured as keynote speakers are Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons and Coca Cola’s chair and CEO Neville Isdell. The conference is supposed to help executives “learn about the best practices in corporate social responsibility (CSR) today — and what lies ahead.” The program has panels with titles as “Being Green is Glorious,” “Replicating Better Factories Cambodia,” and “Strategic Decision-Making on Climate Change: Exploring Voluntary and Regulatory Approaches.” H-P, Altria (Philip Morris), GE, McDonalds and many other heavyweights are sponsoring the conference. NGO’s also appear to play a role at BSR, as evidenced by the session entitled “Strategies for Improving Business Impact on Poverty: Unilever and Oxfam Look Ahead.”

But the idea of featuring keynotes from Parsons and Isdell, who are positioned as some kind of global corporate role model, is absurd. Parsons leads a company fighting against Internet Freedom in the U.S. Time Warner, as we know, is opposed to broadband network neutrality. Instead of being honored, Dick Parsons should be scolded. Parsons was also the key executive helping his former boss Gerry Levin and eventual partner Steve Case fool shareholders and investors (including pension funds) when they engineered the AOL-Time Warner deal [Washington Post may require registration]. Parsons was a key leader of the Time Warner effort to further media consolidation in the cable TV business—despite its consequences to freedom of expression and ownership diversity.

Now, Time Warner is working with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other allies to thwart the passage of network neutrality safeguards. Instead of being honored, Parsons should be roundly criticized for his lack of real corporate social responsibility.

As for Mr. Isdell. Well, let’s just say that Coca-Cola is actively promoting a digital media-saturated global youth obesity epidemic. Take a look here.

Among the funders of BSR include the Ford Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the (get ready for this!) U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I think we should ask for a taxpayer refund and also urge those charitable foundations to press for some serious change at BSR. [The confence has one breakout session titled “The Internet, Freedom of Expression and Privacy.” It should be made a plenary event with both Parsons and Isdell required to listen to real leaders fighting for social justice, including an open and democratic Internet].

Heart [less] Institute: Part of the Telecom/Cable Lobby Support System

The Heartland Institute is one of the never-ending series of groups that attempt to place the interests of big phone and cable monopolies before those of the average American. Ideology shapes the findings of this group. If it had a MySpace page, its “friends” would include the Progress and Freedom Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, Cato, and the Pacific Research Foundation. They are a well-connected and networked web of organizations used to advance the narrow, monopoly-building agendas of Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and a few others.

Now with a yearly budget in the millions, the Heartland Institute is keeping up a steady attack on the public interest campaign to restore online freedom [net neutrality] and broadband competition for the U.S. Internet. Take its most recent IT&T newsletter [no. Not named after the infamous super-conglomerate and scandalous company. It stands for Info Tech & Telecom News. But we think Heartland’s Freud must have slipped a lot when it chose that acronym]. In the September 2006 issue of IT&T, managing editor Steven Titch defends the upcoming mega-merger between AT&T (formerly SBC) and BellSouth. “This merger should be allowed to proceed,” he writes, because AT&T will provide “new investment and a growth strategy.” He attempts to make the case that poor BellSouth needs a government-approved mega-buyout to save its declining revenues. But Heartland’s analysis is distorted, designed to help out AT&T. So ignored, for example, is what Bell South told the SEC—and investors– in its 2005 10K report (before the pending merger helped shaped what it now claims). “We are a Fortune 100 company with annual revenues of over $20 billion. Our core business is wireline communications and our largest customer segment is the retail consumer. We have interests in wireless communications through our ownership of approximately 40% of Cingular Wireless (Cingular), the nation’s largest wireless company based on number of customers. We also operate one of the largest directory advertising businesses in the United States. We have assets of approximately $60 billion and employ almost 63,000 individuals…During 2004, we realigned our assets towards domestic wireless and increased investment in broadband to better position the company for the future. Specifically, our wireless joint venture, Cingular Wireless, purchased AT&T Wireless in October 2004, causing Cingular to become the largest wireless company in the United States and increasing the percentage of our revenue from wireless operations on a pro forma basis to approximately 40%. To further this realignment in strategy, we sold our Latin American operations to Telefónica Móviles in transactions that closed in late 2004 and early 2005…. As use of the Internet grows and as corporate data applications increase in sophistication and scope, the market for broadband and data services is expanding and evolving. BellSouth will continue to expand its capabilities in order to maintain a leadership position in the broadband and data communications market. Investment in service infrastructure is strategically managed to enable delivery of services offering increasing capacity and functionality. In parallel, we continue to use new advances in digital technology to bolster the broadband capabilities of our entire network. The emergence of high-performance broadband and digital infrastructure offers the ability to use these networks for real-time communications including voice and video using various technologies such as softswitches (software-based switching platforms) and voice over Internet protocol (VoIP).”

Doesn’t sound like a corporate version of the Titanic to me.

What Heartland and its big telecom-supported “think tank” minions want is a system where the public has no rights. An AT&T—in Heartland’s view—should be able to do what it wishes, regardless of the costs to our democratic society. Journalists and consumers beware. Heartland has constructed an artificial view of the world based on fantasy spun from corporate lobbyist’ playbooks.

PBS to Run Commercials Online, including at PBS Kids site. Doesn’t it know there soon won’t be a real difference between the Web and TV?

PBS intends to run online advertising this fall at its PBS.org website. The so-called non-commercial network says it seeks to benefit from the “explosive growth and rising demand” of interactive advertising. In an example of how out of touch PBS executives are with its non-commercial mandate, a PBS VP explained that the move is a response to the demand of the market. He said that such ads would generate “positive financial results” for the network, helping it fulfill its “mission-based activities.” They claim there will be “guidelines” helping determine what ads can run. But an ad’s an ad. Incredibly, PBS will also seeks advertising for its kids website homepages—PBSkids.org and PBSkids Go!

PBS should not be seeking commercial opportunities in the broadband market. Instead, it should be pioneering new forms of non-commercial content readily available throughout our ubiquitous digital system. PBS must recognize by now that online and TV (as well as mobile) are merging. The distinction about whether content is delivered via any specific platform no longer matters. Whether received via TV, cellphone, or PC, public broadcasting content should be fully non-commercial. PBS, and its stations, (and NPR) should not attempt to replicate what commercial media companies are doing online and with mobile networks. It will be a U.S. media universe saturated with advertising. If PBS is to remain distinctive at all—it has to strictly adhere to non-commercial formats in all forms of distribution. Certainly, new PBS president Paula Kerger can do better than this. PBS officials think they have a loophole because they aren’t prohibited from running ads online (they are restricted in terms of commercials and their TV licenses). Congress must step in to bar PBS from running any ads—in any medium.

[source: “PBS to resume Online Ads to Exploit Market Demand.” Dinesh Kumar. Communications Daily. Aug. 24, 2006. Subscription only].

PS: In response to those who say that PBS needs money, so hence it must run online ads. In my view, only by creating meaningful interactive non-commercial formats can PBS hope to raise money from viewers/users. Its future is with the audience increasingly using social media web sites. It has to provide those users with distinctive content. A fully non-commercial service is likely to be appreciated with viewer support. Foundations might like it too.

PPS: Read the Campaign for Commercial-Free Childrhood’s alert on PBS ads here.

And Commercial Alert’s here.

PPPS!: See a good overview article on PBS’s deal with Google’s Adsense service. The piece includes an interview with PBS’s VP for Interactive and Education. It’s at paidcontent.org and called “PBS.org Starts Accepting Contextual Ads From Google; More Coming.” See another piece about the PBS station in Cincinnati that has “re-launched its web presence as an ad-supported on-demand video site.”