Category: Google

Google’s letter to Congress on its Privacy Practices: An Attempt to Shift the Focus to Deep-Packet Inspection Issues

Late last evening (10:06 p.m. eastern), I received an email from the Google policy blog list announcing they had submitted a letter to House leaders on privacy and online ad issues. (There’s a case study on media management that can be made about late night-Friday releases designed to avoid weekend or even Monday press scrutiny.)

Google’s letter attempts to shift the focus of the privacy debate to companies engaged in deep-packet inspection–the cable and phone broadband providers. While ISP monitoring and control over a users data flow is inexcusable–and should be prohibited–Google’s data collection and targeting system is of equal concern. There is a purposeful strategy by some to make the only online privacy problem ISP deep-packet monitoring. We don’t buy that–nor should Congress. Like Yahoo!s submission, we don’t believe Google was forthcoming in what it collects and uses for its digital marketing systems. This blog has covered some of what they do in the past–and we will return to the issue early next week (because even bloggers have to take some time off on the weekend).

In its letter, for example, Google should have discussed the privacy implications of opening up its network to third party ad servers engaged in behavioral targeting. It should have provided Congress with information on the data DoubleClick collects and analyzes for target marketing. Or it could have explained how it tracks our use of YouTube so it can inform advertisers which videos are going “viral.”

More on Monday.

Yahoo! fails to address privacy concerns about its behavioral targeting apparatus. Letter to Hill not candid

The spinmeisters who wrote Yahoo!’s letter to House leaders didn’t do a real service for the troubled online company. They weaved and dodged the issue. Yahoo! took a trick from George Orwell by trying to reframe the privacy-threatening interactive data collection & targeting system by calling it “customized advertising.” Yahoo! also tried to hide behind the First Amendment by suggesting, as others have done, that without online ad revenues we would lose what “has made Internet content and services available to millions of people in the United States and around the world(3) – for free.”

Hold it Yahoo! No one is saying there shouldn’t be online advertising and targeting. But what is needed is full control by individual users who can decide what can be collected and how it should be used. That’s called opt-in, and it’s the approach Yahoo should have announced–instead it is trying to protect itself by resorting to an “opt-out” process that it knows won’t really safeguard users.

Yahoo should have told Congress exactly what it collects and how it does it. For example, they should have told Congress what it said to advertisers in 2007: That “Yahoo’s pinpoint targeting capabilities can zero in on a large concentration of precisely the prospects you want.” They should have added that in the same document they explained that advertisers could use Yahoo to “Motivate consumer behaviors (registration, trial, purchase, store visit, frequency, brand loyalty).” It could have explained the “data collection ad units” it offers to advertisers. Missing too, for example, was any discussion of so-called Yahoo “Smart Ads.” The company should have told Congress that these behavioral ads provide “Ease of micro-targeting and segmentation of campaigns…Using an offer management database and user insights…”

Instead of claiming that it doesn’t really do local targeting, Yahoo should have cited from its “Spot Marketing” materials, telling Congress about its “4 Steps to Local Media Efficiency…Reach!–Use Geo/Demo targeting on a State, DMA or Zip Code Basis; Relevance!–Behavioral Targeting, Yahoo! Maps and Contextually Relevant Properties; Creativity!–Maximize Engagement By Combining The Best of Offline & Online Creative Into A Single Rch Media Ad Unit; Insights!–Measure Campaign Effectiveness With Yahoo’s Analytics Suite Including Rich Media Engagement Metrics.”

Yahoo could also have told Congress what it says to pharmaceutical and health marketers:
“Treat with Surgical Precision.
Utilize purchase data from Yahoo! / AC Nielsen Consumer Direct to target actual buyers of related and competing products – while monitoring offline sales impact.

Find consumers by health condition with Yahoo!’s anonymous Behavioral Targeting – drawn from search, editorial, registration and more.”

Yahoo should have done better, especially at this time of real crisis over its future and management. By the way, we also believe that Yahoo was engaged in doing political damage control. With the Department of Justice currently reviewing the proposed Google/Yahoo joint venture, we think Yahoo is attempting to head off concerns about the merging of two of the world’s largest data sets on user behavior.

Google studies the online behavior of tweens (10-14 year olds) with message to target them via search advertising

When Google acquired DoubleClick last year, they also took over its search marketing division called Performics. A new study commissioned by Performics focuses on the media behaviors of 10-14 year olds, so-called tweens. The aim of the study is basically to get more online targeted marketing aimed at young people. The senior VP of search operations at Performics–Stuart Larkins–recently wrote an article on the new study that appeared in Chief Marketer. Here are some excerpts.

“At DoubleClick Performics, we sought to better understand the online search and purchase behaviors of seven influential demographic segments and commissioned ROI Research to study these habits across 10 different product categories. Results just arrived for one of the most dynamic segments – Tweens, consumers between the ages of 10 and 14…Tweens consume information through many channels, but the Internet leads. When asked how much time they spent with various media types, 83% said they spend at least an hour per day online, and 68% reported at least an hour per day watching TV. Radio, magazines and newspapers came in much lower…

Nearly half of respondents go online many times per day (more than three), and 87% usually spend at least a half hour each time. Looking closer at this time spent online, the survey found:

72% have a profile on at least one social networking site
· 54% have a MySpace profile
· 35% have a Facebook profile…

For search engines, Google was the overwhelming choice among tweens, with 78% indicating they use Google most frequently…

Tweens reported varying levels of involvement across product categories…

To capture the demand generated in complementary channels, marketers should incorporate search ads into other online and offline marketing campaigns. While a nice rule of thumb for any marketing program, this golden rule is especially true when targeting tweens.”

A story on the Performics study in today’s Marketing Daily noted the research came just as kids were getting ready to get their back- to- school gear. As reporter Tameka Kee explained, the study showed that “search marketing in the media mix is crucial to snagging the attention and influence of tweens, as they are increasingly using search to make product recommendations and find pricing info for their parents...Peformics also found that tweens were using search to find specific product information and store locations across multiple product categories. Nearly half of all respondents said that they used search to find product Web sites in the electronics, telecom, apparel and CPG categories, while nearly half said that they used search to find out where to purchase said products online.”

Marketing is a fundamental part of our lives–and will be increasingly so with digital media. But researching the online media behaviors of young people so they can be targeted with interactive digital marketing raises a number of policy issues, as well as parental concerns. We know that Google has announced plans to sell Performics, although it will incorporate some of its activities within its business operations. But Google’s senior executives should play a leadership role in addressing how to ensure the healthy development of young people. Consumer and childrens’ advocates in the U.S. and the EU-among other places–will be watching closely.

Update. The announcement just came from the Google press office that global ad giant Publicis will acquire Performics. Of course, Google and Publicis are also working together and announced an alliance earlier this year.  Here’s an excerpt from today’s email to the press: “Publicis Groupe and Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) announced today that Publicis Groupe has agreed to acquire the Performics search marketing business (Performics) from Google. Chicago-based Performics, one of the leading search marketing services providers, helps to improve the performance of advertisers’ investments and maximize
client campaign effectiveness. Its profit-driving suite of marketing solutions includes Performics’ reporting platform, local platform, advanced market expertise and active account management….Publicis Groupe has been a leader in the advertising industry for decades, and we believe Performics’ growing business will benefit from being part of it,” said Eric Schmidt, Chairman and CEO, Google. “We look forward to working with Performics as a partner.”

The IAB (US) “mobilizes” to Fight Against Consumer Protections for Online Media

Watch this online video of Randall Rothenberg speaking before a June Federated Media Publishing event. In Mr. Rothenberg’s worldview, demon critics of advertising (such as myself) are deliberately trying to undermine democratic digital media. This would be absurd, if it wasn’t so sad. Mr. Rothenberg is using scare tactics to whip up his members into a frenzy-all so they can fight off laws and regulations designed to provide consumers real control over their data and information. Luckily, Mr. Rothenberg will be on the losing side of this battle to protect consumers in the digital era. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic understand how the digital marketing ecosystem raises serious concerns about privacy and consumer welfare. We have to say we are disappointed in John Battelle, the CEO of Federated (who wrote a very good book entitled The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture). Mr. Battelle should know that the online marketing system requires a series of safeguards which protects citizens and consumers. There is a balance to be struck here. Online advertisers have unleashed some of the most powerful tools designed to track, analyze, and target individuals–whether on social networks, or watching broadband video, or using mobile devices. We have never said there shouldn’t be advertising. We understand the important role it must play, including for the underwriting of online content. But the online ad system should not be designed and controlled solely by ad networks, online publishers, trade groups and online ad lobbying groups. It must be structured in a way which promotes as much freedom for individuals.

Google’s EU Research: And the Brand Played On

Google’s ambitions to deliver for big brands includes paying for the kind of research that demonstrates its power to capture consumers. Google hired market researchers for a “pan-European” effort to “prove search can have a big impact on branding.” According to New Media Age, “[T]he findings…showed coming top of organic listings raised purchase consideration of a brand 4%… exposure to a listing in the top paid position, with no organic listing on the page, increased purchase consideration 20%. The findings provide advertisers with the most complete picture to date of how the entire online journey affects consumer buying… It found search has a positive effect on brand measures such as awareness, recall, brand affinity and even brand communication…

Henry Eccles, Google EMEA product marketing manager for its Market Insights team, said,… “We’ve seen the same lifts for all verticals, including FMCG, retail and technology, and all markets, so we believe this is brand, vertical and market agnostic”…

source: Google provides proof of search’s branding value. Will Cooper. NMA. July 10, 2008 [sub. required]

Google/Yahoo deal and its impact on newspapers

One of the issues the Center for Digital Democracy has asked the Department of Justice to investigate is the impact of the proposed deal between Google and Yahoo and its impact on the already endangered newspaper business. Both Yahoo and Google provide online search ads or related services for the majority of the country’s newspapers. Analyzing how the pairing of Yahoo and Google may affect payments to newspaper publishers, and whether there may be the potential loss of competition, is necessary. Given the current financial pressure on newspapers, CDD urged ‘DoJ to examine the deal to address whether it will contribute to a loss in revenues necessary to ensure Americans have access to print-oriented news resources.” (It’s also interesting to note that Yahoo was reported in the trade press in February 2008 as seeing the potential of its newspaper ad platform to even compete with DoubleClick–which at the time was already acquired by Google

Google/YouTube/Viacom & Privacy: Everyone tracking our online video use

The stories on a judge’s order for Google to turn-over to Viacom data on YouTube users have largely ignored a key issue: why is Google–and almost every other leading broadband video provider tracking and analyzing our online viewing habits. It’s because–like with broadband generally and with television–the goal is to know exactly what we are viewing in order to better target us with advertising. In the case of broadband video, whether it is YouTube, Hulu, or Joost, for example, it’s about tracking our viewing so well we can be micro-targeted.

Google sees huge profits for YouTube doing this. They now call YouTube a “next-generation advertising platform,” something we think reflects how they really view the service. Google is pitching the branding and sellling of YouTube to advertisers. Google is now tracking YouTube views as it promotes to advertisers a scheme to take advantage of the “viral” marketing capabilities of YouTube. Finally, it’s also useful to consider how Google’s recently acquired DoubleClick also has a product tracking and analyzing broadband video. Users and policymakers should expect their online viewing will be private–and not to be spied upon. Whether by Viacom, the government, or Google itself.

Google’s online video clout bigger than the TV networks

Just a friendly reminder that the new media world is here–and that it should be the primary focus of public interest communications policy strategies. Via Variety (excerpt):

More signs of the Internet apocalypse for TV’s old guard: U.S. Web surfers viewed some 11 billion online videos in April, a gain of 33% from the same month last year.

According to just-released Web traffic stats from comScore, the most ominous stat is how ardently the next generation has taken to watching video on the Internet.

Online vid viewing is highest among 18- 34-year-olds, who averaged 287 minutes in April…And make no mistake, YouTube is CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox combined on the Internet.”
source: Net traffic signs suggest TV offramp: Web surfers ride YouTube, MySpace wave. Cynthia Littleton. Variety. June 23-29 2008 [print edition. sub required].

Google’s new online ad-suppported animated venture:“We feel that we have recreated the mass media”

That’s the headline here–“We feel that we have recreated the mass media,” said Kim Malone Scott, director of sales and operations for AdSense in a New York Times article on Google backing a “Calvalcade of Cartoon Comedy” for online. Google is likely using its resources which can track how long users are likely to watch a video, and how they interact with a slew of interactive advertising pitches. They can measure each click too, so they can better determine what works for the commercial sell.

But, of course, the analogy to the “mass media” is what is interesting. Google is leading the way to recreate the mass media in the digital age. They are right about that. But with such an ambitious plan comes responsibility–to ensure there is funding for serious and diverse independent news, investigative reporting, and quality cultural programming. Google should also help ensure that women and people of color–now cut out of ownership in media–actually own significant parts of the new digital content landscape. And there must also be a serious privacy policy which covers broadband video as well. Google, its advertisers, and partners shouldn’t automatically know what we watch and how we respond (without our permission–and with special rules for children and adolescents).

source for quote: Google and Creator of `Family Guy’ Strike a Deal. Brooks Barnes. NYT. June 30, 2008

Google “Platinum Sponsor” at Ad Research Event

excerpt: “At the Advertising Research Foundation measurement conference… Google’s designs on establishing a leadership position in advertising research were evident… It was the event’s “platinum sponsor,” and the stage, halls and registration area were festooned with Google signage and promotions that made other dominant industry players such as Nielsen Co. look circumspect by comparison…

a Google executive gave a presentation about the capabilities of the TV Ads service–which provides a detailed next-day report on where an ad ran, how many impressions it received, and viewer tune-in levels over the course of a particular spot via second-by-second data.”

ARF Talk: Google Stalks Research Walk, May Balk On Accreditation. David Goetzl. Media Daily News. June 26, 2008