Category: media criticism

Ball State University, Privacy, and Research Sponsorship by Marketers

Ball State University has developed a reputation for engaging in interactive media research, often working with marketing companies such as Nielsen.  Its Center for Media Design just released research on privacy, suggesting in their comments that the debates on privacy have been over-simplied, including by advocates.  Like many others, Ball State examines privacy and fails to fully explore how online data collection really works in the context of contemporary digital marketing.  But given Ball State’s close ties with online marketers–including the staff of the Center for Media Design–perhaps it’s not surprising that its review didn’t place the issue under the appropriate critical lens.

For example, Sequent Partners, which works on online marketing and other related issues, is a partner of Ball State.  Sequent explains that:
Sequent Partners is the majority shareholder in Media Behavior Institute, a consumer-centric and media-neutral multimedia research company formed in 2008 and which enjoys a uniquely close relationship with Ball State University. Media Behavior Institute applied the University’s observational research and conducted the Nielsen Council for Research Excellence Video Consumer Mapping study, the most ambitious multi-media measurement ever conducted.

Sequent Partners is also a shareholder and active member of the Media Trust LLC. This team was formed specifically to analyze in-market advertising and media response, and best-of-class sources of single-source data. Media Trust offers the most insightful set of evaluation tools for media and advertising.

Sequent Partners also has a long-term development and product management relationship with OTX Research (Ipsos ASI) in the area of multimedia advertising research.

Working at the Media Behavior Institute is Mike Bloxham, the long-time research director for the Center for Media Design, who just left the university to also work at a digital media start-up.

The privacy debate is an important one, as are many of the issues at stake in the digital communications era.  The public needs independent research to help address these serious and complex issues.  Scholars and universities have an important role to play.  Ball State is not the only school with its hand-out for grants and research contracts.   But such relationships create conflicts that need to be addressed, including ensuring the research is designed to serve the broader public–not just the special interests supporting the school.

U.S. Online Marketers Want Obama Adm. to Press for Weaker Privacy Safeguards for EU, Asia-Pacific & Other Global Citizens & Consumers

The U.S.’s larger marketing, advertising and media lobbying organizations want the Obama Administration to help them continue to engage in behavioral data profiling and other digital marketing techniques without meaningful safeguards.  Trade groups–including the Direct Marketing Association, Interactive Ad Bureau, and the 4A’s–  told the Obama Commerce Department it wants it to negotiate a trade deal with the EU and elsewhere that would give U.S. online ad companies, in essence, a free pass on data collection and tracking.  Can you believe they want U.S. self-regulation (ineffective and a cover to permit the expansion of consumer data collection) to be the global standard.  File this under digital Chutzpah!  They wrote in a [my emphasis]  filing:

We support the Department’s recommendation that the U.S. government continue to develop a framework for mutual recognition of an international data privacy framework. The Department has an important role in representing and advocating for the interests of American businesses.  We believe that the Department has the experience and expertise needed not only to represent the interests of U.S. industry, but to lead the global privacy policy debate.  We recommend that the Department advocate for a global framework consistent with U.S. privacy standards, including the Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising, which have allowed U.S. companies to lead the world in innovation and to remain economically competitive.  In addition to decreasing regulatory barriers to trade and commerce, global interoperability should promote—or at a minimum not impede—economic competition and innovation.  We believe the U.S. approach to privacy policy meets these goals.

Here’s who signed the filing.  Attention EU–watch out.  And a question for the Obama Administration.  Which side of the keeping the online medium a real reflection of democratic potential will you be on?

American Advertising Federation
American Association of Advertising Agencies
ASAE
Association of National Advertisers
Coalition for Healthcare Communications
Direct Marketing Association
Electronic Retailing Association
Interactive Advertising Bureau
MPA — The Association of Magazine Media
National Business Coalition on E-Commerce and Privacy
Newspaper Association of America
Performance Marketing Association
TechAmerica

IAB Gets a new Chance to Play Constructive Role as Randall Rothenberg Goes to Time Inc.

The departure of Randall Rothenberg, the head of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, provides a critical opportunity for the IAB to revisit its position on protecting consumer online privacy (including Do Not Track).  Under Mr. Rothenberg, the IAB lobbied Congress to restrict the FTC’s ability to protect consumers, including on privacy.  With new leadership, the IAB could begin playing a more constructive role by working with consumer groups to build a consensus on federal privacy rules.  Instead of confrontation and denial, we hope the online ad lobby pursues serious engagement with privacy advocates.   The IAB has become just another inside the Beltway lobbying group–and has lost credibility among many policymakers.  A new IAB leader should be someone who can really help the mission of the industry by engaging in the kind of diplomacy and debate that supports the higher purposes of online advertising, digital publishing, and the public interest.
At Time, Mr. Rothenberg will now be in charge of its online ad network, which uses behavioral targeting and other interactive data techniques.  How Time responds to the growing call for better consumer privacy will be one of Mr. Rothenberg’s new challenges.

Time Warner Cable Funds Scholars to Boost Big Cable Goals on Data Collection and Consumer Targeting [Annals of Buying Access to Scholars]

Lobbyists like to hire academics in order to give their agenda the patina of scholarly respectability.  Many academics are ideologically aligned with the interests of major media and telecom companies–supporting an unregulated environment (and like to reap the bucks as well).  Some academics want to schmooze with deep-pocketed special interests.  So it’s not a surprise to learn that Time Warner Cable has a “Research Program on Digital Communications.”  They have already released a volume of papers on the “Future of Digital Communications: Policy Perspectives.”  Time Warner’s so-called research agenda is so self-serving that it would be laughable if the goal wasn’t ultimately to undermine the public interest and consumer protection.  Luckily, there are scholars and other policy experts who care more about their integrity and the academic issues and wouldn’t consider taking such funding.  Here’s what the first “research question” is for those seeking funding to ultimately help undermine consumer privacy by enabling Time Warner and other digital marketers to expand their behavioral targeting approaches:

Topic One: Advertising, Two-Sided Markets, and the Role of Network Operators (ISPs, MSOs)
The emergence of more precisely targeted (interest-based or so-called “behavioral”) advertising offers potential benefits to consumers while at the same time raising possible concerns about privacy. Application providers, network owners, advertisers, content providers, and other interested parties may play a role in allowing these potential benefits to be realized. By facilitating two-sided markets, or platforms that enable two distinct but related groups of customers (such as advertisers and consumers) to obtain value, service providers can expand the scale and scope of their offerings to consumers. Industry groups and the Federal Trade Commission have developed principles for self-regulation online, while some advocacy organizations and members of Congress have pointed to potential harm from more targeted advertising and are calling for new government mandates.
Key questions concern the types of disclosures and the level of consumer consent that should be required.
Questions
• What are the benefits of more precisely targeted advertising, and how prevalent is the practice?
• What technological innovations support the development of more targeted advertising over digital media?
• How are consumers affected by increasingly prevalent forms of targeted advertising, and what is the appro-
priate public policy response?
• What is the role for self-regulation, government intervention, and industry standard-setting?
• What role should network operators play in regulation (voluntary or prescriptive)?
• Describe the future of the advertising marketplace and the role of new and potential entrants, such as
Internet service providers (ISPs), cable operators, and other multichannel video programming distributors
(MVPDs) offering interactive television services.
• How can two-sided markets help encourage the development of new broadband and video services?
• How can regulation of advertising or privacy affect, promote, or retard the development of these new
services?

ITIF’s psuedo and self-serving analysis of Info Politics. Note they like Federal funding

The idea that ITIF places itself as a “moderate” in its newly released “taxonomy” of Internet policy is laughable.  The group is part of the elite and mostly corporate funded lobbying apparatus.   It classifies many public interest groups and academics as “social engineers,” in order to disparage their legitimacy (talk about a tactic designed to protect their own narrow interests!).  But what they ignore is that groups such as my CDD and many others actually know about the workings of the industry and the issues we address.  We don’t form baseless and knee-jerk ideological positions that protect the people paying the bills.  We stand up for the public and what we believe is right, based on the facts.  Groups like ITIF have failed to intellectually engage with the real dynamics of the privacy issue–conveniently ignoring what’s actually going on.  Meanwhile, next time ITIF disparages the role of gov’t and regulation, remember how enthusiastic they are taking a $500K federal grant (however worthy the subject matter).

*****
ITIF Consortium Wins Federal Grant to Make Voting More Accessible for Injured Soldiers
October 4, 2010
WASHINGTON – The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) consortium is the winner of the Military Heroes Initiative grant competition, sponsored by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The $500,000 grant will help advance efforts to improve voting technology and processes for military service members disabled in combat operations.

“ITIF welcomes the opportunity to pioneer new research that will help ensure that the brave men and women injured in our military are able to exercise their right to vote,” said Daniel Castro, ITIF senior analyst. “This research will ultimately help increase voting accessibility for the approximately 50 million Americans with disabilities.”

EAC is an independent commission created by the Help America Vote Act. Under the terms of grant, ITIF will partner with Georgia Tech Research Institute, a leading research organization with extensive experience working with military institutions and conducting accessibility research, and Operation Bravo Foundation, a pioneer in developing voting alternatives for military and overseas citizens.

ITIF and its partners will undertake a review of current voting access and offer recommendations to improve the voting needs for military personnel with disabilities. The evaluation of current voting practices and emerging technologies to assist with balloting will not only be valuable for military personnel but also for others with disabilities that make it challenging for them to exercise their Constitutional rights.  Recommendations will be delivered by early 2012 for potential use in the 2012 federal election.

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and, more recently, the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, recognized the necessity for improving the voting process for people with disabilities and military personnel. The Military Heroes Initiative will help further these vital goals. Funding from this grant comes from appropriations made available under the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L. 111-8).
…

Danah Boyd, COPPA, Online Marketing Targeting Youth, the role of Microsoft

Danah Boyd, like many other digital media researchers, fails to examine the business practices which shape and construct most of contemporary online media.  Ms. Boyd is quoted in last week’s Boston Globe about the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act saying “[I]t’s well-intentioned, but this legislation has failed on every level.”  Ms. Boyd is incorrect.   A whole range of interactive ad practices and techniques commonly found on most digital sites has not been embraced by the under-13 online advertising market.  The goal of COPPA was to help structure the commercial online data collection and targeting practices aimed at young people–and it’s done so (just see what kind of data collection and targeting practices occur the minute anyone reaches 13.  From that age onwards, everyone is fair game for a wide range of very disturbing practices, most of which collect and use our information). Ms. Boyd and the Globe article are also incorrect claiming that “Congress is considering renewing” COPPA.   The FTC is currently conducting a periodic review of COPPA’s rules and the Congress has held hearings on the law.  But Congress doesn’t have to “renew” COPPA.

Finally, a challenge to Ms. Boyd.  She is working for Microsoft–which is targeting youth across the globe via its advertising division.  Microsoft Advertising is collecting data and targeting teens for junk food and other products.  See Microsoft’s “How to Target Young People Online” and other materials, for example.  Ms. Boyd needs to analyze what her employer–and other financial backers from the online ad industry supporting Berkman–are doing regarding youth–and hold them and herself accountable.

Future of Privacy Forum: Funded by Facebook and other online data companies [Need to disclose when discussing social networks and privacy department]

In an August report, the Future of Privacy Forum told its supports that [our bold]: “We welcome Bering Media as a new sponsor of FPF… Thanks to our existing sponsors for their on-going  support: Adobe, AOL, AT&T, The Better Advertising Project, BlueKai,  Deloitte, eBay, Facebook, Intel, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, The  Nielsen Company, Qualcomm, TRUSTe, Verizon and Yahoo.”

When the Forum was launched, we feared that its role was to serve as a kind of quasi-research organization that sanctioned the online data collection status quo. So far it has failed (like most in the online ad industry), in our opinion, to provide an accurate analysis of the online data collection landscape–which would, of course, alienate its corporate backers.  But whenever the Forum speaks to the press (as it recently did on Facebook Places) or policymakers–it must first identify these financial connections.

PS:  Forum co-founder and corporate attorney Chris Wolf identifies how his group isn’t really focused on privacy from a public interest and democracy perspective.  In his Hogan Lovells law firm blog he writes that the Future of Privacy Forum is “focused on advancing consumer privacy in ways that are business practical.”   Business Practical!   That means created by lobbyists for their special interests.

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.

Progress & Freedom Foundation Comes to Aid of Comcast/NBCU Deal [But Doesn’t Say it’s Funded by both Comcast and NBCU!]

Progress and Freedom Foundation’s Ken Ferree issued a press release today that, amazingly, claimed “the deal raises no general antitrust or diversity issue.”  But there was not a word or mea culpa that his salary is partly paid for by PFF’s supporters Comcast, NBCU and the cable industry.  Beyond the conflict question, there is also Mr. Ferree’s peculiar history with media consolidation.  He was Michael Powell’s chief staffer when the FCC tried to end all the media ownership safeguards.  Powell and his allies failed then to understand the complexities of the issue, which resulted in a huge public and political backlash.  It appears it’s rerun time!

Comcast’s Pathetic “Public Interest” Commitments to Regulators for its NBCU Deal

Comcast released a memo this morning summarizing what it will promise regulators in order to win approval of its NBCU mega-deal with GE.   It’s a laughable document that demonstrates a cable monopolist mentality.  As the country’s most powerful cable and residential broadband company, they likely feel that they don’t have to really  provide a serious array of public interest commitments.   Even though the broadcasting business is in transition, and film distribution is changing, the sale of NBCU to what is arguably the dominant TV giant isn’t on its own a meaningful public interest benefit.  Indeed, the recent history of media consolidation in the U.S. is one that has actually harmed the public–through cutbacks in news and public affairs, more tabloid programming and higher cable TV rates, for example.

Comcast’s memo today [available via here] says nothing on the key (and crucial) issue of network neutrality and online programming access.  Nor are there any  safeguards for privacy and interactive ads, meaningful concrete funding commitments for local and national news,  and support for truly diverse (non-Comcast/NBCU owned) minority programming.   Today, Comcast demonstrated it’s only fit to perhaps be allowed to operate Comedy Central.