Category: media ownership

Microsoft’s Digital Ad Vision: Part 2

From this week’s Microsoft’s “Strategic Update [Feb. 4, 2008]. Excerpt:

“Advertising is a key part of a number of the opportunities that I talked about, and the key probably right now for us to continue to grow our advertising footprint starts with what we’re doing with search and portal. We have made good progress in that business. It is growing. Since our start four years ago, we now have what I would call a very credible search product, a very credible advertising platform. We’ve got good trajectory. This was, in some senses, the best time for us to ask ourselves, what else can we do to make ourselves even more effective in this business?
And in a sense, the fact that we’re in a stronger position now than we were 12 months ago actually makes this an easier acquisition to consider, even though, as I said in my letter to Jerry Yang, we did have discussions a year ago with Yahoo! about combining the businesses. People say, what are you doing here? Well, what we’re trying to do is take some momentum that we have and ask, how do we really increase that momentum even further? What else can we do?
And the truth is, either on our own efforts or, hopefully, now that we’ve proposed this acquisition, on our efforts merged together with Yahoo!, there are really four things we get a chance to work on. First and foremost is to expand our R&D capacity. We’re going to have to innovate like crazy to get the position want to have in this market. We’re going to have to innovate in the ad platform. We’re going to have to innovate in core search. We’re going to have to invest in new, emerging user experiences —mobile, social media, video, entertainment experience. We need the R&D capability to really compete with the market leader.
We continue to hire people and transfer people. But in fact, bringing together Microsoft and Yahoo! will allow us, because of the fantastic engineering talent both at Yahoo! and at Microsoft, we get more capacity more quickly. We get a chance to not have to think so much about how do we not use the capacity we have, but how do we deploy this incredible team to make sure that we’re doing everything and more that the market leader might be doing?”

Ad Age on some of the methods used with online advertising (inc. for Google & Microsoft)

from Abbey Klaassen’s 2.4.08 article on Microsoft’s proposed Yahoo! takeover, entitled “They’ll still be Chasing Google.” [excerpt]: “The merger could also provide advertisers with a broader suite of online ad offerings and allow them to better integrate their search ads with display, video and even in-game units. In theory, at least, the combination of those formats allows marketers to influence consumers’ opinions about a product or brand, create demand for that brand and fulfill or track that demand through a transaction such as a search. It also allows them to measure and attribute the value of the different types of ads consumers encounter on the path to a purchase — for example whether John Doe has seen a display ad, and is then prompted to search for the product advertised.”

The Microsoft/Yahoo! Threats to Privacy Issues Exemplied by Ad Industry Reaction to Deal

Once again, we thank the ad industry for writing our blog (and regulatory!) copy: “”I think what we lose in being able to negotiate with both of them we’ll gain with new opportunities. The biggest opportunity would be to leverage Yahoo’s behavioral targeting across Microsoft’s relationships with Facebook, XBox and Massive, which has the ability to dynamically insert ads in console games.”–Andrea Kerr Redniss, SVP, Optimedia US.”

from: Madison Avenue: We Love MSFT-YHOO. Silicon Valley Insider. Feb. 1, 2008.

credit 3 agencies reportingcredit mortgage adverse manchesteraffinity federal credit union plusaccreditation ambulancemasters accredited online degreecard accept credit online merchant accountcredit agricultural analysispayments credit online accepting card Map

The Net’s “Long-Tail”–a Leash Controlled by Two Giants & FTC Bungles Merger Review

Just a few added thoughts on the proposed Microsoft-Yahoo! deal. We think there needs to be real soul-searching by Congress and the FTC on how it addressed the Google/DoubleClick deal and the related spate of new media mergers in 2007. We told both Hill leaders and the FTC that they needed to explore the larger dimensions of this deal–including its impact on the diversity of online publishing (that’s because whomever controls the “monetization” engine of the online ad biz becomes the critical controller). When Microsoft, Yahoo!, Time Warner and the others went on a post GoogleClick shopping spree, we said the FTC should reject these mergers until they had examined the entire online ad market. But the commission failed to do so, in our opinion.

So now as a proposed Yahoo! takeover by Microsoft is considered, one serious concern is that a merger brings with it newly acquired assets that further add to concerns over consolidation and data privacy. The FTC approved without safeguards the $6 billion takeover of aQuantive by Microsoft. The FTC approved without safeguards the takeover by Yahoo! of behavioral targeting ad network Blue Lithium. The FTC approved without safeguards Yahoo!s acquisition of online ad exchange (and data collection system) known as Right Media. There have been other purchases as well by the two companies.

Congress will need to investigate the implications to both competition and consumer privacy: neither the FTC nor DoJ can be trusted to address these concerns. There are also human right issues, given Microsoft’s own work in China. We will be following this deal closely, including examining the implications of a Yahoo!-Microsoft digital combine.

EC’s Questionnaire 1 on Google/DoubleClick merger

Following press reports of a new questionnaire sent by the European Commission Competition Directorate, we thought we should place here what we believe was the initial survey sent. Eventually, Congress and others will need to investigate how well the FTC conducted its own review of the deal. Frankly, several parties–including commissioners–spoke of their concern that the agency’s loss in Whole Foods and other cases made it more difficult to confront the Google takeover of DoubleClick case. This is an ongoing story. But for now, here’s the questionnaire:

Case COMP/M.4731 – Google/DoubleClick

Questionnaire to Customers 1
Deadline for Reply: 18/10/2007

Google Inc. (“Google”) notified to the European Commission its intention to acquire control of DoubleClick Inc. (“DoubleClick”) by way of purchase of shares. The two parties to the merger Google and DoubleClick are hereinafter collectively referred to as “the parties”. Both are active in the online advertising industry.
Pursuant to the Merger Regulation , the Commission is required to assess the operation’s possible effects on competition within the common market. To this end, the Commission needs to gather relevant information from the parties to the operation as well as from other market operators, such as competitors and customers.
Therefore, your replies to the following questions as well as any other opinion on the effects of the operation you might consider relevant, are of key importance to the investigation. We should also be grateful for any additional remarks you may wish to make relating to the proposed concentration. If you consider that a particular question is not relevant, please indicate this and explain why. Please reply to this questionnaire on behalf of all companies belonging to your group.
When you reply to this questionnaire, please provide TWO versions of your reply: (i) a CONFIDENTIAL version; and (ii) a NON CONFIDENTIAL version which excludes business secrets or other confidential information.

In accordance with the Merger Regulation and in the light of the deadlines which the Commission must respect following the notification of the case, the Commission wishes to have your reply by 18/10/2007.
If you have questions of administrative nature or wish to receive this questionnaire in electronic format, please contact Ms Györgyi Nyiregyhazi (Tel.: +32 2 29 85327, e-mail: gyorgyi.nyiregyhazi@ec.europa.eu) clearly indicating the reference: M.4731 Googkle/DoubleClick – Questionnaire to Publishers.

If you have any further questions on the substance of this request, please contact Mr Bertrand Jéhanno (Tel.: +32 2 29 91048, e-mail: bertrand.jehanno@ec.europa.eu), Mr Carl-Christian Buhr (Tel: +32 2 29 86 033, e-mail: carl-christian.buhr@ec.europa.eu), Mr Flavien Christ (Tel: +32 2 29 90931, e-mail: flavien.christ@ec.europa.eu,), Mr. Peter Eberl (Tel: +32 2 29 60783, e-mail peter.eberl@ec.europa.eu), Ms Vera Pozzato (Tel: +32 2 29 93012, e-mail: vera.pozzato@ec.europa.eu).

Thank you for your help and co-operation.

A. General questions

Please give the contact details of the person responsible for replying to this questionnaire
Company:
Contact person: Phone:
Position: Fax:
E-mail:
Address:
Country:
Company web-site:

Please give a brief description of your organisation, of its size and of your activities. If your company is a subsidiary please indicate the group to which it belongs to.
Description of your organisation:

Please indicate the countries within the EEA in which you are active as online publisher (website owner):

B. The provision of display ad serving, management and reporting infrastructure technology
The provision of display ad serving, management and reporting infrastructure technology could be distinguished according to whether services are provided to advertisers (and agencies) or to publishers (including self-provisioning).
The Commission understands that advertisers create advertisements and upload them onto the advertiser-side ad server. Once a website publisher has agreed with the advertiser (directly or through an ad network or ad exchange) to run the ads on its website, the publisher enters the campaign terms of the ad (location, price, targeting criteria) into the publisher-side ad server. There is then a relationship between the publisher-side ad server – which records the “impression” generated by the user’s visit of the web site and determines the advertiser to call – and the advertiser-side ad server – which chooses the appropriate ad to deliver on the web page. The relationship between the two servers also enables the advertiser to obtain information relating to the user’s online behaviour in the context of the placed ad via browser cookie technology.
1. What is the value of the online advertising revenues generated by your website(s) in Europe?

2. Through which channels do you sell advertising space on your website/s?
Direct sales: YES/NO
And/or
Brokers, intermediaries, ad networks, ad exchanges: YES/NO

3. If you use both the direct channel and the indirect channel (ad network/ad exchange), please indicate (broadly) what % of your online revenues originate from the direct channel.

4. Do you foresee that direct sales of online advertising will decrease in the future in favour of intermediation through ad networks and ad exchanges?

5. Do you foresee that numerous ad networks and ad exchanges will be able to survive in the near future (2-3 years)? Please briefly elaborate.

6. If you use a 3rd party ad serving supplier (e.g. DoubleClick, OpenAdstream, AdManager…): if the price of 3rd ad serving services was to raise by 5-10% (all else equal) would you switch part of your inventory to an integrated network like Google AdSense?

7. Do you consider the cost of switching ad serving technology supplier to be high / moderate / low?

8. If you use more than one supplier of such technology/services, please describe briefly the advantages and disadvantages of such a solution compared to a situation in which only one supplier is used. Please also indicate why your company chose to use more than one supplier for this technology/services.

9. If you only have one supplier for this particular product/service, do you consider it possible/usefull using another supplier for a comparable product/service at the same time? If yes, please name these other possible suppliers. If not, please explain the reason why you choose single homing (e.g. exclusivity clauses, cost saving, quality of service …).

10. Please name other providers of display ad serving, management and reporting infrastructure technology that you consider as competitors of your provider/s at EEA level.

If you sell advertising space through direct sales

11. Which provider/s of display ad serving, management and reporting infrastructure technology is directly supplying your company?

12. Have you ever experienced a switch of supplier for this particular product/service? YES/NO
If yes, please:
explain the reason why you made such experience:
provide the name of your former supplier:
the name of the replacing supplier:
the cost caused by the switch:
the time it took to complete the switch

13. What is the % represented by the cost of ad serving in the total revenue generated by your advertising space? Please provide broad estimates.

If you sell advertising space through brokers/intermediaries/ad networks/ad exchanges
14. Which provider/s of display ad serving, management and reporting infrastructure technology is/are indirectly supplying your company?

15. Have you ever experienced a switch of supplier for this particular product/service? YES/NO
If yes, please:
Explain the reason why you had to switch:
provide the name of your former supplier:
the name of the replacing supplier:
the cost caused by the switch:
the time it took to complete the switch:

16. If you use the indirect channel, what is (a) the % represented by the cost of ad serving in the total revenue generated by your advertising space; (b) the % represented by intermediation fees in the total revenue generated by your advertising space? Please provide broad estimates.

17. If you multi-home, why have you become member of several ad networks?

C. Effects of the merger

18. According to you, is DoubleClick’s large publisher customer base an advantage for the quality of services offered by DoubleClick to publishers? In other words, is there a direct benefit to a publisher to use an ad serving supplier with a larger publisher base? If so, please briefly describe the benefit(s) (e.g. does the ad serving service improves the monetization of inventory if the ad server processes the data on user behaviour accross numerous publishers?).

19. If Google and DoubleClick were to merge, do you consider that integrated networks like Yahoo! (with RightMedia) and Microsoft (with aQuantive) would be able to provide strong competition to Google/DoubleClick? Please briefly elaborate.

20. Would you consider open source ad serving software as a viable alternative to commercial ad serving software? If so would you consider it suitable, in conjunction with a standalone ad network, as an alternative to Google’s AdSense? Please explain.

21. What are, in your view, the main effects of the proposed operation on:
a) your company?
b) the markets for (display and text) ad serving, management and reporting services for publishers?
c) the prices of (display and text) ad serving, management and reporting services for publishers?
Please give reasons for your answers.

22. Do you have any other comments that you wish to bring to the Commission’s attention?

Thank you for your assistance!
Please do not forget to add a non-confidential version to your response.

To Cache a Thief: In their own words…Jones Day work in both U.S. and EU on behalf of DoubleClick:

This is G o o g l e‘s cache of http://www.jonesday.com/experience/experience_detail.aspx?exID=S11555 as retrieved on Nov 9, 2007 17:05:06 GMT.
G o o g l e‘s cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time….

Client(s): DoubleClick Inc.

Representation: Acquisition by DoubleClick

Principal Professional(s): Joe Sims, Thomas Jestaedt, Alexandre G. Verheyden, Michael S. McFalls, Chris Ahern

Lead Practice(s): Antitrust Mergers/Joint Ventures

Industry(s): Media

Summary: Jones Day is advising DoubleClick Inc., the digital marketing technology provider, on the international and U.S. antitrust and competition law aspects of its planned $3.1 billion acquisition by Google Inc. The proposed acquisition will combine DoubleClick’s expertise in ad management technology with Google’s internet search and content platform. The transaction is currently under review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and European Commission.

Related Services
Professional Representation

The Jones Day, Google/DoubleClick & FTC conflict of interest: a higher standard is required by the agency

Our lawyers are advising my organization on this matter, but I want to remind readers of one point. John Majoras of Jones Day is listed on its web site as the “Partner-in-Charge of business development in the Washington, D.C. Office and is a member of the Firmwide Business Development Committee.” [better read it now before Jones Day removes it!]

In that position, his role raises conflicts of interest with cases involving the FTC, in my opinion. With an issue involving the future of the Internet and the fate of digital media in a democracy, the highest standards are required. Chairman Majoras should have recused herself in this case. Jones Day should not have taken on DoubleClick as a client. Jones Day’s removal of the web pages discussing its role as advising DoubleClick in both the U.S. and EU raises serious questions about the firm’s activities in this merger case. There are so many key questions that must be publicly resolved. When did Jones Day begin representing DoubleClick? When did it announce, via its website, internal communications system, and through its representation with clients, regulators, and other outside parties, that it was representing DoubleClick? Did the FTC staff learn of the relationship between their boss’s husband’s law firm and the merger? (Please don’t tell me that such a relationship, even if spread informally, doesn’t have an impact on the proceeding.)

The public requires the highest standards of conduct from its public officials and leading law firms. This incident illustrates that more must be done to make such institutions accountable. Yesterday’s FOIA request by EPIC asking that the FTC provide it with all records related to its communications with Jones Day in this merger case (and related privacy issues) is a step in the direction of obtaining some sunshine.

Over the last six months, we have been focused on the business and privacy issues related to the Google and DoubleClick merger. We knew a huge lobbying operation was in effect, with Google having added significant political capacity in D.C., and various competitors (Microsoft, the phone companies, Yahoo!) jockeying for position. Our job at CDD was to provide some honest analysis about the realities of the online advertising business–its market structure, goals, and privacy threats. We didn’t have the time–nor the resources–to dig into the political aspects of the issue. Sadly, there was little serious journalism on the deal as well. But last Monday we decided to examine what role Jones Day was playing in the Google merger and learned–via its website–that it represented DoubleClick.

This case illustrates something we all know. That the big money and special interest nature of Washington politics is at odds with the concerns and needs of the average American. As I said, a higher standard is required–for public service, disclosure and intellectual rigor (something we believe the FTC has failed to do in this case and related privacy matters). It’s a story that not going away. That’s why we are writing about it–and keeping a watch as well!

sexploitation moviesshakeela uncensored moviesmovies silk pantywhite movie single femalexxx smokin moviessoundtrack movie philadelphiain spankings moviestgp squirt movies Map

NYU Legal Ethics Expert Says FTC Chair Majoras should recuse in Google/Doubleclick review

Before we run this legal comment, we want to make something clear. This is about ensuring transparency and accountability in the process. It’s not about political ideology or trying to affect the outcome of a proceeding. There are standards that must be adhered to when one is serving the public (oh, and btw, the idea of disappearing web pages from the Jones Day website reflects, I suggest, their own ethical confusion as well). Here’s an important perspective from today’s Online Media Daily:

“Legal ethics expert Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University Law School, maintains that there’s no question that Deborah Platt Majoras should recuse herself, regardless of whether Jones Day appeared before the FTC in the matter. John Majoras “stands to gain from the success of Jones Day, especially in a high-profile case like this and, therefore, her decision can affect his interest and therefore her interest,” Gillers said.”

“DoubleClick Law Firm Accused Of Concealing Involvement In Merger.” Wendy Davis. December 14, 2007

about xanax withdrawlsadiction to xanaxxanax htp 5pill xanax 029 id100 30 xanaxdrug xanax methadone test acetaminophenbars xanax amylan a1 xanax Map

Google & the Public Interest Policy Pod People

They’re coming. The “Google Policy Fellows” to help staff an array of public interest groups and policy think-tanks. “As lawmakers around the world become more engaged on Internet policy,” says Google, “a robust and intelligent public debate around these issues becomes increasingly important…The Google Policy Fellowship program offers undergraduate, graduate, and law students interested in Internet and technology policy the opportunity to spend the summer contributing to the public dialogue on these issues…Fellows will… work at public interest organizations at the forefront of debates on broadband and access policy, content regulation, copyright and trademark reform, consumer privacy, open government, and more. Participating organizations… include: American Library Association, Cato Institute, Center for Democracy and Technology, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Internet Education Foundation, Media Access Project, New America Foundation, and Public Knowledge.”

It’s wrong for public interest and consumer organizations to take Google’s money and especially provide a “Fellowship” in its name. We need to build more consumer advocacy capacity to address Google’s growing power, especially its threat to privacy. No matter what these groups say (and some already take money from Google; others receive broad media industry support), there are digital strings attached, as subtle as they may be. The Fellowship program is just another lobbying and PR effort coming from a company that has a broad policy agenda. Many of the groups above should be training people to represent the public versus companies such as Google, and other big online advertisers and new media conglomerates. Giving Google a say on the training of policy advocates, let alone a funding role, undermines the public interest movement.

The image “http://blowyourheadoff.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/invasion-of-the-body-snatchers.jpeg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

EC Second Phase Investigation of Google & DoubleClick: Good for Consumers, Competition and Privacy

Today’s announcement by the Directorate for Competition (DG Comp) underscores that the EC recognizes the serious consequences of the proposed Google takeover of DoubleClick. Competitors, consumer groups, and privacy advocates have provided sufficient information to the commission to warrant this relatively rare phase two inquiry. Google is quickly becoming the key digital gatekeeper for the online publishing and advertising marketplace. At stake here is more than just the skyrocketing Google share price, the convenience of our online searches, or even the current state of online advertising competition. The online marketing system is at the core of the dramatic changes transforming global communications–from broadband PC, to mobile, eventually even to television. If we are to have a more democratic and diverse digital marketplace of ideas and commerce, there must be meaningful competition and consumer protection in the online ad sector. This means Google should be prohibited from buying DoubleClick. Or, that at least meaningful safeguards are imposed that limit Google’s ability to leverage DoubleClick’s vast treasure trove of consumer data and its business relationships with many of the world’s largest companies.

Consumers need to be assured that they won’t be unfairly treated in terms of pricing and choice when buying online; advertisers will need protections to ensure that online marketing remains both affordable and competitive, especially when using Google. Privacy must be considered as well, with appropriate safeguards enacted