Category: Brandwashing

When Do Google, Washington Post, Time Warner, Disney, Microsoft, Cox et al. work together lobbying? As they help IAB make the U.S safe for Internet Advertising practices

The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has stepped up its efforts as a lobbying force in D.C. The group wants to make sure we don’t have laws and regulations which would meaningfully protect the public, including consumers. Here’s how the IAB describes its “Public Policy Council” (one of the groups many standing councils and committees):

“Proactively lobby Congress and Federal Administrative agencies on privacy issues, with a focus on educating key decision-makers on the importance of the interactive advertising industry. 2. Help craft meaningful legislative proposals that protect consumers’ privacy interests without unduly burdening legitimate interactive advertising practices. 3. Engage the Federal Trade Commission to influence future enforcement proceedings, potential rulemakings, and public workshops on issues central to the interactive advertising industry.”

Here is their mission statement and a list of the policy council members:

Mission

Lead the advocacy efforts of IAB’s membership as they engage all levels of government on key policy issues in order to ensure continued growth of the industry.

Committee Leadership
  • Dave Morgan, Tacoda, Chair
Committee Participants
  • Alan Davidson, Google, Inc.
  • Alan Roth, Zango
  • Alexandra Wilson, Cox Newspapers, Inc.
  • Alissa Kaplan, 24/7 Real Media, Inc.
  • Andrew Moskowitz, Vizi Media
  • Anne Lucey, CBS Digital Media
  • Bennet Kelley, ValueClick Media
  • Bennett Zucker, Right Media Inc.
  • Bill Bailey, Walt Disney Internet Group
  • Bob Filice, Blue Lithium
  • Brad Aaron, Q Interactive
  • Brent Thompson, IAC Media & Advertising
  • Brooks Dobbs, DoubleClick, Inc.
  • Bryce Harlow, CBS Digital Media
  • Caroline Little, Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
  • Charles Curran, AOL
  • Chris Kelly, Facebook
  • Chris Lin, comScore
  • Cliff Harris, Cablevision Advanced Systems
  • Colin Johnson, Motive Interactive Inc
  • Craig Spiezle, MSN (Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions)
  • Dan O’Connell, WeatherBug
  • Danny Choriki, ADTECH US, Inc.
  • David Cancel, Compete, Inc.
  • David Green, NBC Universal Digital Media
  • David Payne, CNN.com
  • Diane McDade, MSN (Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions)
  • Don Mathis, Azoogle Ads, Inc.
  • Erin Miranda, Weather Channel Interactive (Weather.com)
  • Frank Torres, MSN (Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions)
  • George Pappachen, Dynamic Logic
  • Greg Berretta, Zango
  • Gregg Pendola, Walt Disney Internet Group
  • Henry Goldstein, CNET Networks, Inc.
  • Hillary Smith, Right Media Inc.
  • Ho Shin, Advertising.com
  • Jeff Long, Revolution Health Group
  • Joey Lesesne, Cox Newspapers, Inc.
  • John Barabino, Google, Inc.
  • John Hopkins, WebMD
  • John Orlando, CBS Digital Media
  • John Wilk, WorldNow
  • Jonathan Meyers, Forbes.com
  • Josh Brown, CBS Digital Media
  • Jules Polonetsky, AOL
  • Karl Gallant, ValueClick, Inc.
  • Ken Levin, Edmunds.com
  • Ken McGraw, Zango
  • Laura O’Daly, iVillage, Inc
  • Lesley Grossblatt, I/PRO
  • Leslie Dunlap, Yahoo!, Inc.
  • Linda Chan, SourceForge Inc.
  • Linda Schoemaker, aQuantive, Inc.
  • Lisa Anderson, AOL
  • Louis Hengen, Tacoda
  • Marilyn Cade, AT&T
  • Mary Berk, MSN (Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions)
  • Matt Kaminer, WebMD
  • Matthew Stern, Musicloads
  • Melissa DeVita, MediaFLO USA, Inc.
  • Michael Drobac, Ask, Inc
  • Pablo Chavez, Google, Inc.
  • Pesach Lattin, Vizi Media
  • Phil Stelter, Range Online Media, Inc.
  • Richard Bates, Walt Disney Internet Group
  • Rick Lane, News. Corp
  • Robert Gratchner, Atlas Solutions
  • Sarah Deutsch, Idearc Media Corp.’s SuperPages.com
  • Shayne Bryant, Idearc Media Corp.’s SuperPages.com
  • Shayne Wiley, Yahoo!, Inc.
  • Sheri McGaughy, Weather Channel Interactive (Weather.com)
  • Sherrese Smith, Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
  • Steve Emmert, LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell
  • Susan Fox, Walt Disney Internet Group
  • Tom Bartel, Return Path
  • Tom Beck, Enlighten

5500 loans 72p requirements deemedreceivable system ac management creditaccept payments credit 123 onlinecardc credit aceptcasino 18dice 3 casinocredit solutions advanced5 casino diamonds Map

Facebook’s new Digital Ad Plan: FTC Needs to Act Now!

Today’s Wall Street Journal story on Facebook’s plans to expand one-to-one interactive ad targeting is just the latest example of the growing threats to personal privacy online [“Facebook Gets Personal With Ad Targeting Plan.” Vauhini Vara. Aug. 23, 2007. sub. required]. The story notes [my italics] that “Facebook Inc. is quietly working on a new advertising system that would let marketers target users with ads based on the massive amounts of information people reveal on the site about themselves. Eventually, it hopes to refine the system to allow it to predict what products and services users might be interested in even before they have specifically mentioned an area.

As the industry watches the Palo Alto, Calif., start-up to see if it can translate its popularity into bigger profits, Facebook has made the new ad plan its top priority…”

Online marketers such as Facebook and so many others want to harvest the ever-flowing rich vein of personal/ behavioral-related info flowing over websites–our friends, interests, media consumption and buying habits, etc.–all so we can be targeted by precision multimedia marketing techniques. The FTC’s recently announced “town hall” meeting about online marketing and privacy–spurred principally by this blogger’s group and US PIRG with our 11/06 complaint–is a completely inadequate response to the problem. Frankly, the FTC cannot act as if they are clueless here, or suggest that the town meeting is part of an intense analysis. The problems are glaring and evident, as we’ve been making clear to the FTC for almost one-year now. It’s time for major policy action to protect the public from unscrupulous marketing techniques designed to invade our privacy and manipulate our behaviors. Facebook should be a wake-up call to the folks at 600 Pennsylvania Ave. and the Hill. If we can’t especially protect Facebook’s young users, (as well as with other social networking sites) it reveals how inadequate our governmental watchdogs are.

PS: It’s worth watching this Ad Age video on how marketers are flocking to Facebook. But a sub. may be required.

Latest stats on Facebook, via MediaPost:”

Facebook has grown three times as fast as MySpace in the past year, according to Nielsen//NetRatings. Seeing a massive influx of first-timers, Facebook U.S. visitor numbers reached 26.6 million in May–up a full 89% year-over-year and 3.6 million more than in April, according to comScore.  Worldwide, comScore reported, Facebook reached 47.2 million visitors in May–8.4 million more than in April, and with an average of 20.6 visits per user.”

PPS! Yesterday, the Financial Times had an important story about the CIA using Facebook and other sites to target their recruiting. Here’s an excerpt [my italics]: “Underscoring the power of social-networking sites, the Central Intelligence Agency recently used Facebook to help boost applications for the national clandestine service. The move sparked concerns that the CIA was monitoring members, which the agency denies.

”Earlier this year, the CIA used Facebook – an excellent peer-to-peer marketing tool – to advertise employment opportunities with the agency,” said George Little, a CIA spokesman. “This effort, part of a much broader campaign leveraging traditional and new advertising media, was used strictly for informational purposes.” [source: US launches ‘MySpace for spies’. Demetri Sevastopulo. FT. Aug 21, 2007. ]

New York Times Co. & Behavioral Targeting: When will the paper really cover the privacy and related threats?

The New York Times Co. has long been a leader in the online advertising field. But it has consistently failed to cover/meaningfully report on the implications of what it has been doing and intends to now do. The emergence of online advertising is one of the most important stories affecting our society, in my opinion. More than privacy is at stake, although that issue should be at the forefront of our concerns. We have spoken to reporters and others at the Times about the lack of coverage. We believe that there is a major problem at the paper seriously examining this issue (which, frankly, the paper shares with other major news organizations that also use behavioral targeting technologies, including USA Today and the Wall Street Journal). As we have stated before, the Times Co. is also on the executive committee of the board running the key online advertising issue trade lobbying group working to protect the industry from criticism and policy safeguards.

Yesterday, the New York Times Co. announced a partnership with behavioral targeting firm Revenue Science. The release from Revenue Science explained that: “Revenue Science, Inc., offering the most widely adopted, powerful, and flexible targeting platform for digital media, today announced that The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT) has selected the company to provide its best-in-class behavioral targeting capabilities for NYTimes.com, About.com and IHT.com.

The addition of The New York Times Company increases Revenue Science’s roster of leading media brands, which includes the Wall Street Journal Online, FT.com, Nikkei Net and Reuters. Revenue Science’s ability to reach high-value audiences makes it the industry’s premier targeting provider.”

Here’s what Revenue Science says it provides its clients. Tell me, after reading it and other information on its website. Don’t you think it cries out for a very serious story, with continued follow-up? There also must be consistent disclosure from the Times and its news outlets as it covers the online ad industry that they are both politically and financially involved with the issue.
From Behavorial Science (excerpt): As a Revenue Science advertiser, you can take advantage of our Revenue Science Targeting Marketplaceâ„¢ with our Audience Connectâ„¢ solution. Audience Connect enables you to find key audiences for your message across thousands of sites in the Revenue Science Targeting Marketplace, using any of these proprietary targeting techniques:

  • Search Re-Targeting™—You spend a large part of your budget driving search traffic to your site. Once they get there, are they staying? How valuable would it be to reach them again? Now you can find out.
  • Re-Targeting™—Use sophisticated re-targeting technology to move your prospects through the buying cycle.
  • Reach—Segment and qualify people based on interests, behaviors, workplace attributes, geography, and results.
  • Behavioral Segments—
    • Revenue Science Behavioral Segments
      Revenue Science Segments enable advertisers to reach high-quality audiences across the Revenue Science network. Revenue Science provides marketers with access to hundreds of distinct behaviors within each segment. Our industry-leading targeting platform identifies the specific behaviors that best achieve your campaign goals and optimizes your campaigns to use only the strongest-performing behaviors. We offer segments in automotive, travel, technology and finance to name a few.”

Google & Doubleclick: Merging the No 1. Video Platforms

It’s important to follow the online ad marketplace for video-based advertising. Note what a Doubleclick top exec said in a ClickZ interview: ” We claim we do the most video on the Internet.” The same exec also said that “[A]ccording to all the figures, as far as we can tell, we’re the second largest rich media vendor.”

Of course, Google’s YouTube is the number one online video brand as well [a Google rep. is quoted saying that it’s now the eight largest website]. As YouTube explains, it is “the world’s largest online video community allowing millions of people to discover, watch and share originally created videos. YouTube… acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small.”

In other words, the merging of Google with Doubleclick will create an online video and search advertising and marketing powerhouse–one which threatens both competition and privacy (among other issues).

excerpt:
A Multi-Party System or a Monopoly

While Google looks at spending potentially $4.6 billion on the wireless auction, it has another multi-billion dollar matter it would like to have settled. That, of course, is its acquisition of DoubleClick. Announced in April, the deal has been met with significant backlash and questioning from all corners. Currently the deal awaits Federal Trade Commission approval. At stake is potential control of the Web advertising ecosystem. A marriage of Google & DoubleClick creates a clear pecking order for all advertising online — an order that would once again put Yahoo and Microsoft in a trailing position…To date, Google employees have out-contributed Microsoft employees toward the 2008 presidential candidates — a stark contrast to the 10:1 contribution margin that existed in 2006…As Google tries to rewrite the rules on how advertising is done and expands its reach into all spectrums of communications, the importance of Washington will only grow. Over the past two years Google has grown its Washington lobbyists base from 0 to 12 (a sizable number for a technology company), hosted four 2008 presidential candidates on its campus (three Dems, one Republican) and established its own political action committee that has already out-raised its 2006 total.”

from: “The Next President: Sponsored by Google.” Chris Copeland. Search Insider. August 10, 2007.

goo movies german girlsediting software moviemovies college sexfree titty fuck moviesmovie star porn12 dbz moviesoftware movie editingmovies fucking wedding Map

CDT’s Privacy “Report”—Full Disclosure is Missing

CDT has long been an ally of the various data collection companies it purports to oversee on behalf of consumers. It’s funded by a number of them. In fact Microsoft’s Bill Gates helped raise money for the group just last March.

The report released today fails to address the wide-ranging privacy threat coming from the major search engines and their advertising clients. It fails to acknowledge that it’s only because of policy-related pressure from privacy advocates—including the FTC complaint filed last November by my Center for Digital Democracy and US PIRG—that there have been modest corporate changes. [As well as the work of these two groups and EPIC in the case of Google’s proposed merger with Doubleclick, and the role of European Commission authorities]. CDT’s report also fails to acknowledge that it’s because of the unprecedented series of mergers in the data collection sector over the last few months, including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, AOL [$33.4 billion in the first half of 2007 alone, according to Ad Age. sub may be required.] —and the subsequent US and international regulatory scrutiny—that has created the “pressure” to bring about a few modest changes in data collection and retention practices. Without real advocates pressing—and regulators taking up their demands—we would have no changes at all (as minimal as they are). The marketplace’s approach isn’t protecting consumers.

Most troubling is that CDT fails to acknowledge that the widespread and evolving role of interactive advertising practices by these companies—including behavioral targeting, “rich” immersive media, and virtual reality formats—pose a serious threat to privacy and personal autonomy. It is not just the “bad” actors that require federal legislation, as CDT’s report suggests. If all Americans are to be protected online, the entire industry must be governed by federal policies designed to ensure privacy and consumer protection.

Here is a comment from my colleague Jennifer Harris: “When a group – with as close ties to the industry as CDT has – calls for government oversight, it is necessary to recognize just how much slack the online advertising and marketing industry has been given with our personal information. The main point is that consumers are at risk; updated federal consumer protection policies are essential to an environment that increasingly uses personal data as its commodity.”

Yesterday, the FTC sent out a release announcing its November town meeting on online advertising and privacy. The hearing is in response to the formal complaint my group Center for Digital Democracy and the USPIRG filed last November.

It’s clear that the FTC is fearful of really tackling the privacy and consumer-manipulation problems intrinsic to the online ad field. Behavioral targeting, which we also address in our complaint, is just the tip of the proverbial data collection and target marketing iceberg. Policymakers at the FTC, the Congress, and state A-G’s must do a better job in addressing this problem. Chapter seven of my book covers the topic, along with recommendations. As we noted in our statement yesterday, CDD has given the staff at the FTC a ton of material since November, further making the case for immediate federal safeguards. There is so much at stake regarding the future of our (global) democratic culture and its relationship to online marketing. We hope others will join with us and raise the larger societal issues, in addition to the specific online ad marketplace concerns.

porn dominican shootsxxx dominican porn picschico donavan phillips porndonita dunes pornlist porn donkeyshow porn donkeydonky clip porn punchdonna star porn bella Map

Google Expands its Behavioral Targeting for Interactive Advertising

excerpt via ClickZ, July 31, 2007:

“Many have expected the behavioral targeting shoe would eventually drop at Google, and now it has. Technically, anyway, though a new behavior-based ad system enhancement from the company’s ad quality group doesn’t resemble the segmentation-based approach to behavioral targeting most marketers are familiar with.

A few weeks ago, Google began delivering ads based not only on the current search, but also on the searches immediately preceding it, and sometimes a combination of more than one recent query, according to Nick Fox, Google’s group business product manager for ads quality. Fox told ClickZ this week that the feature, which has no official name, aims to capture a more robust understanding of user intent and thereby deliver a better ad.

“The current query the user is issuing is pretty useful, but in some cases it misses the context of what the user is doing,” said Fox. By studying the larger context of queries relating to a consumer’s “overall task,” he said, Google can boost relevance…

Fox doesn’t like the term “behavioral targeting,” partly because it’s a loaded phrase in marketing and privacy circles. Additionally, he said, Google’s intent-based approach doesn’t employ the audience segmentation favored by Tacoda, Revenue Science and other behavioral targeting tech firms, not to mention BT-friendly media sites like Yahoo, that serve ads based on recent Web pages seen…

Google introduced the feature without fanfare, and most if not all marketers whose ads are affected by it have no idea the targeting is taking place. That’s true to form for Google and potentially irritating to advertisers, according to Anna Papadopoulos, interactive media director for Euro RSCG 4D…

Papadopoulos also finds it remarkable that Google has changed its tune with regard to behavior-based ad serving.

“I think it’s a total turning point for them,” she said. “Now I’m curious how they’re going to handle this for AdSense. They were pretty steadfast about not wanting to play in the behavioral targeting space.”

Google didn’t immediately respond to questions about where else on the Google network the company might consider delivering ads based on consumers’ prior search or surfing behavior. But it’s something the company opened the door to some time ago, according to Dave Morgan, founder and chairman of Tacoda.

“As an observer in the market, certainly Google’s move into behavioral targeting appears to have been happening incrementally over the past couple years,” he said. “Certainly they’ve modified their privacy policy over time to permit it.”…

Google’s new ad quality feature uses referrer information rather than cookies to track user queries at this time, Google’s Fox said. In most cases the ads will only appear to users for searches performed back-to-back or “within seconds or minutes of each other.” He added the company is looking at other possible tracking and targeting methods to capture “full intent,” including, perhaps, cookies.”

source: “Google Targets Search Ads on Prior Queries, à la Behavioral.” Zachary Rogers. ClickkZ.

The 700 MHz Auction: It’s about Online Advertising, Mobile Targeting, Commercialism and Threats to Privacy

We are glad Google is pushing a more open system for wireless. Cable and the phone monopoly want to run a closed shop. But we also believe that Google ultimately has the same business model in mind for wireless. Google wants access to more mobile spectrum so it can advance online advertising via data collection, profiling and one-to-one targeting. Missing in most of the debate about wireless is how can we ensure the U.S. public has access to non-commercial and community-oriented (and privacy-respectful) applications and services. There should be well-developed plans simultaneously advanced with the auction that will ensure the spectrum really serves the public interest (we see some have made such proposals). Such spectrum should be community-run and help stimulate a new generation of broadband public interest content and network services. But we fear that all that will happen is that Google and others will further transform what should be public property into a crazy maze of interactive [pdf] advertising-based content. This will further fuel a culture where personal consumption takes further precedence over the needs of civil society.