Category: interactive marketing

Online marketers want to track you–from click to click to “last ad” click

Microsoft and Google, along with many partners, are working to perfect a consumer tracking and analysis system so they can better figure out who gets to share in the growing online ad revenue pie. It’s called “engagement mapping.” Although if you are concerned about privacy, you might want to say, “let’s call the whole thing off.” Here’s an excerpt from the April 14, 2008 Ad Age article:

“The concept appears simple, but the technology is complex: raw log-file data, time-stamped and collected by ad-serving companies like Google’s DoubleClick and Microsoft’s Atlas, along with a short line of code known as a pixel hidden in web pages, keep a record of each time consumers enter or exit a web page, click on a link or ad and enter information in a search box or application. Those data are fed into software platforms designed by companies such as Atlas, Epic Advertising, Media Contacts and Starcom.

“It’s sort of like reading an advertising diary,” said Ben Winkler, VP-interactive media director at New York-based Ingenuity Media Group, which joined Atlas’ project earlier this year. “It’s like you opened a diary where someone wrote, ‘I saw three billboards, I heard a radio ad, saw a few banners ads, and searched through Google to find and buy the product.’ “

Rather than wait for a crisis to tell the advertising client something isn’t working, media buyers can rely on these data to identify when consumers had contact with the ads, even if it’s an hour, day or week later.

“We know the person saw ad No. 4 on Yahoo Finance an hour ago,” said David L. Smith, CEO at Mediasmith, which is participating in Atlas’ and DoubleClick’s tests with advertisers. “Embedded code in the pixels lets us track the pages and things they interact with on the site.”

source: New metrics give `credit where due.’ Laurie Sullivan. Ad Age. April 14, 2008 [sub may be required]

Microsoft-Yahoo/Google-Yahoo M&A: More data about you for targeting

excerpt from Abbey Klaassen of Ad Age’s interview with media execs, including Augustine Fou, senior VP-digital strategy at MRM Worldwide and Nathan Woodman, VP-strategic development at Havas Digital:

MR. FOU: Yahoo has a lot more personal information through its other services for which you registered. So they can cross-target with demographic information … and because Google doesn’t have similar information, Yahoo actually has better proprietary data at this point in time…

MR. KILKES: The power of optimization is that you can test all that stuff. We’ve seen that Yahoo’s registration offering leads to much more engaged audiences vs. what we have see through, say, a Google gadget. That leads us to believe that combining registration data with behavioral is just narrowing the funnel a lot more efficiently for us.”

from: So Much Info, so Much to Test Out. Ad Age. Aril 14, 2008 [sub required]

girls goo movies germansoftware editing moviecollege movies sextitty free fuck moviesmovie porn stardbz movie 12software movie editingmovies wedding fucking Map

Behavioral Targeting firm has assembled “140 million active online shopper profiles”

Behavioral Targeting watch

excerpt: “Behavioral targeting is set to reach $3.8 billion by 2011…one company is claiming to be the first online network that uses consumer purchase and browsing information to determine which ads they are presented with.

“Shopping behaviors associated with a cookie on a user’s machine provide information about their interests, and continuous modeling enables us to identify large populations with similar patterns of purchase behavior,” said aCerno CEO Tom Sperry.

aCerno, a wholly owned subsidiary of database marketing firm i-behavior, reports that it has accumulated 140 million active online shopper profiles. The data can in no way be linked to an individual but instead relies on unique cookie ID numbers placed on a user’s browser.” via BizReport.

“Behold aCerno — the only predictive targeting ad network that drives transactions, propels brand metrics, finds prospects who are in-market for your product or service, and predicts what they are interested in. Your best prospects are delivered flawlessly and efficiently to you.aCerno helps marketers motivate consumers by always putting the right message before their eyes when and where they’re receptive to your message.aCerno understands and capitalizes on the symbiosis among brands, retailers and consumers. Our predictive modeling gleans vital data from this ecosystem to target messages that pique interest and prompt the consumer reaction you seek. With aCerno, online advertising unearths greater market potential by delivering predisposed prospects…aCerno creates custom audiences from this data to suit your brand’s particular needs. Whether your objective requires targeting based on pure product- and shopping-based behaviors, or on more traditional demographics and psychographics – or any combination of them all, aCerno offers unmatched flexibility in built-to-suit audience development.” from: aCerno

More on aCerno, via today’s Clickz. article [excerpt]

aCerno, has been in stealth mode for nearly four years. It collects…information from an association of over 375 major multichannel retailers’ Web sites (that aren’t identified to one another), representing 140 million shoppers. The information is completely private and tagged only with an ID…ACerno clients’ best prospects are identified with modeling and profiling techniques, finding users who look most similar to their best customers. Once these high-value prospects are recognized, aCerno uses its massive advertising network to deliver targeted advertising messages directly to them…The company’s extensive network of high-quality Web sites, publishers, and portals is targeted exclusively at the cookie level with banner ads and rich media to achieve maximum reach within the target audience. The network reaches over 95 percent of the Internet population with more than 80 percent of the impressions served into sites on comScore’s Top 500.

This is predictive analysis; scoring million of cookies against hundreds of variables to create models.”

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.

Google, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and Time Warner in coalition to fight state-based public interest and consumer protection issues

Scratch a media conglomerate–old or new–and you reveal a political agenda that is all about the aggrandizement of power–consumer and data privacy be damned. Here’s are excerpts from a Kate Kaye story on the roll-out of the state-based coalition designed to protect the interests of the online advertising industry.

“From California to Utah to New York, state legislators regularly propose laws with major implications for the online ad industry. A once-loose collective of companies including Google, Yahoo, AOL and eBay finally incorporated officially this year after four years of collaborating to influence state policy.

The most recent target of the State Privacy and Security Coalition’s efforts is New York Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, sponsor of a bill preventing third parties from using sensitive personally identifiable information for behavioral ad targeting.

The coalition doesn’t like it. A missive sent to the legislator April 7 by the coalition’s lead counsel calls the bill “unnecessary,” and “most likely unconstitutional.”…Jim Halpert, partner in the communications, e-commerce and privacy practice at law firm DLA Piper, penned that letter. As head counsel for the coalition, he also recently facilitated its incorporation.

“There’s much more state activity than federal activity,” said Halpert. Not only does that create more laws or proposed laws to deal with; the state process moves much faster.

According to Halpert, the coalition also includes Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and organizations such as the Internet Alliance and tech trade association AeA, formerly the American Electronics Association. With Halpert at the helm, coalition members conduct weekly phone calls, and sometimes meet in-person with other members or with state lawmakers to influence legislation involving online privacy and data security, Internet advertising, online child safety, content liability, spam, spyware, and taxation…

“We see the coalition’s role as helping state legislatures understand the technology policy area. I think we all recognize the technology environment can be complicated,” said Adam Kovacevich, Google’s senior manager, global communications and public affairs. Google Director of State Public Policy John Burchett is the firm’s primary liaison to the coalition.”

source: Google, AOL and others make state policy coalition official. Kate Kaye. clickz.com. April 14, 2008

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!’

CDD and USPIRG File Comments on

Although not yet on the FTC website, CDD/USPIRG filed comments in the proceeding. They are available here. Our submission makes clear the commission must immediately enact policies to protect consumers and the public, especially to protect their health/medical, financial and family information. It provides, I hope, a very good overview and rich detail on the latest digital marketing developments that threaten privacy and consumer autonomy.

With european privacy regulators also now looking into behavioral targeting and interactive marketing, there is growing awareness on both sides of the Atlantic about these powerful privacy threats. Hold on IAB, wherever you are, it’s going to be a bumpy ride!

gambling merchant p account credit cardand for address gamble proctorpathological linked abilify gambling tomcilwain gamble aaroncoupons 30 protor gamble 12gambling day cruise 1350 court texas gamble districtfarm ohio gamble payment 2006 steve Map

IP addresses +Cookies+Tracking/Targeting & Retargeting [esp. cross-platform]=You

Here’s a brief excerpt from a FTC filing my Center for Digital Democracy will submit today for the commission’s online advertising and privacy guideline proceeding.

“Google and most other online advertisers would prefer to hide behind the erroneous claim that IP addresses and cookies don’t reveal an individual’s physical identity (place of residence, phone number) or specific economic identifyer (social security number). But they know that in today’s digital marketing era, the very tiny bits of personal behavior they have identified are parts of individual human identity. Our “virtual” identities may be composed of discrete and disassembled bits of information about ourselves: —what we like to read, watch, buy; our problems and concerns (such as health or our children’s education) or our political interests—, but they are very much living aspects of ourselves. The goal of interactive marketing is to collect, analyze, and use such information to serve the interests of those paying for the targeting. The technique uses one, two or multiple individual data points in a variety of ways (search ads, broadband videos, virtual worlds) to get individual consumers to behave or act in ways that favor or reflect the marketer’s goals. The record makes clear that IP addresses and cookies provide the technical means for the one-to-one targeting of consumers.”

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