Category: media ownership

Google Gobbling Airwaves to Expand Mobile Data Reach?

excerpt and my italics: “Google’s lobbying activities and its March move to join the Coalition for 4G in America (a consortium that joins Skype, Yahoo, satellite TV provider DirecTV, EchoStar, Intel and wireless services provider Access Spectrum) are bearing fruit. The coalition – which is widely considered to be dominated by Google – has petitioned the FCC asking for policy changes in the airwaves auction. If it has its way the auction will allow packaged bidding, a policy change that would let bidders acquire nationwide licenses…If Google does indeed go wireless, then it will control two key touch points to mobile content and apps: the network and the mobile search engine. It also will be in a prime position to dictate the mobile advertising ecosystem from end to end and not have to bother with pesky mobile operators and third-party players that demand their share of the ad revenue pie. The jury is on whether this is the plan. But if anyone can pull this off, Google can.”

from paidcontent.org

Leading Ad Exec on Googleclick: Deal Should Raise “Privacy Concerns”

Omnicom Group is a global advertising/marketing powerhouse, controlling such well known “brands” as BBDO, DDB and TBWA. They represent PepsiCo, P&G, Apple, Fedex, McDonald’s, etc. etc. They know the business. Here’s what Omnicom’s president John D. Wren said yesterday about Google’s Doubleclick deal, in a story written by Reuters (my bold and italics):
“What it’s going to raise – and this will be a very good conversation in the marketplace – are privacy concerns. The technology that exists far exceeds the laws and thinking of the people that are going to be impacted by it,” he told investors on a conference call. Wren welcomed what he said would be a healthy debate that will ultimately clarify privacy laws when it comes to consumer information on the Internet.

“I’m encouraged by the deal, because I’m most encouraged by the discussion that the deal is going to cause the marketplace to have. Any definition will be positive for us.”

In other words, even the ad industry recognizes that the powerful and intrusive tools they have developed require safeguards, rules, policies, limits. For both privacy and the interactive ad market.

Red Herring: “DoubleClick’s cookie cache is a treasure trove for Google”

excerpt: “Without a doubt, DoubleClick’s historical data is very valuable,” says Jupiter Research analyst Emily Riley. “Every time you’re online, every page visit, and every ad you see comes with the possibility that a cookie is placed on your machine. DoubleClick has all the data.”

How much data? Ms. Riley’s back-of-the-envelope calculation puts it into the fifteen figures: with more than 100 million web users viewing a quarter million pages a year, it hits the 2.6 quadrillion mark—and that’s just U.S. users. If DoubleClick’s ad network touched even half of those interactions, it amounts to the kind of database advertisers would drool over. “What it does is complete the picture for Google about what’s happening on publishers’ web sites,” Ms. Riley says.

From: “Crunching the Cookie.” Sean Wolfe. Red Herring. April 19, 2007

Doubleclick’s “Performics” division: The “largest search-marketing firm” says Ad Age [4/13/07]

“Performics, the performance-based marketing division of DoubleClick, provides online marketing services and technologies for leading multi-channel marketers. Together, Performics and DoubleClick offer clients an unparalleled range of marketing solutions and are uniquely positioned to compare effectiveness across marketing channels for valued clients. Advertisers benefit from Performics´ custom approach to Affiliate Marketing, Search Engine Marketing, Data Feed Marketing and Online Lead Generation programs. Performics’ proprietary tracking and reporting technology platform, advanced market expertise, and active account management enable clients to acquire and reacquire online customers. Performics is the only recognized industry leader providing both Search Engine Marketing and Affiliate Marketing Services.” from About Us

Clients: “More than 300 clients, including America Online, Blair Corp., Bose, Cingular, CompUSA, Eddie Bauer, Fairmont Hotels, HP Shopping, J. Jill, Jos. A. Banks, Kohl’s, L.L. Bean, Motorola, OfficeMax, PC Connection, RedEnvelope, My Sony, Quickbook, Staples, Verizon Wireless, and Wyndham Hotels.”

FeedLab: “Performics developed FeedLab to automate cross functional processes and scale data feed marketing programs… FeedLab not only scales the delivery and optimization of data feeds, but the technology integrates input from “paid search” results, search queries and third-party information to improve the relevancy of the data feed and enhance an advertiser´s results…FeedLab also manages an advertiser´s data feed with comparison shopping engines, Web publishers and participants in the Performics affiliate network. There are currently more than 100 online publishers utilizing client data feeds through Performics.”

Is there Still an Antitrust Division At FTC?: The Fox, NBC, Time Warner “NewCo” Deal

Shouldn’t Antitrust alarm bells be ringing about the new online video service being launched by NBC/Universal, News Corp./Fox, and Time Warner/AOL/Advertising.com? We think so. Time Warner’s interactive ad delivery subsidiary–Advertising.com–is handling “all the advertising for the new joint venture video service. It will provide display and video ad management and fulfillment for the new video site and for the dedicated video player embedded on that site as well as across its distribution partners,” noted paidcontent.org. The NewCo service will be, says Peter Chernin, News Corp pres. …”the largest advertising platform on Earth.” Adding to what should be serious scrutiny are the deals involving such content partners as Microsoft.

An alliance between NBC, Fox and Time Warner. Do the sleeping watchdogs at the FTC–or for that matter, the Democratically-controlled Congress–ever wake up? Or are they too busy dreaming about their next job in show biz? It’s time to get serious about both the structure and role of the online advertising business, especially as it fully embraces video distribution.

PS: Here’s a little something to help the FTC folks along: “Sales of the venture’s advertising inventory, adjacent to thousands of hours of video programming and spread across a network of distribution partners, will be shared between the new alliance and its media partners.” Oh, and since Google also owns 5% of Time Warner’s AOL unit and is a partner with Fox/News Corp. for MySpace/Fox Interactive for ad sales, we think such an investigation would be very interesting!

FCC Revolving Door for Well-Connected Media Biz “Super Lawyers”

Last Sunday,included with the New York Times, was the special ad supplement “Washington DC Super Lawyers 2007.” Listed were the “Top Attorneys in the Washington, D.C., metro area.” An ad supported homage to some of the key power brokers, the supplement included a listing of communications attorneys.

Not surprisingly, among the “top ten” of all the Capital’s Super Lawyers stood Richard E. Wiley of Wiley Rein. The former chair of the FCC (1974-77), his firm has represented practically every media and telecom company, including the NAB, Time Warner, Clear Channel, CBS and Verizon.

Here’s the “Communications” Super Lawyers, and, in many cases, their former roles in Congress or the FCC.

Kathleen Q. Abernathy, Akin Gump. Former FCC Commissioner, 2001-2005
Jonathan. D. Blake, Covington & Burling
Richard J. Bodorff, Wiley Rein. Former counsel at FCC (1974-77)
James L. Casserly, Wilkie Farr & Gallagher. Former senior legal advisor to a Commissioner (1994-99)
Gary M. Epstein, Latham & Watkins. Former FCC official, inc. chief of Common Carrier Bureau (1981-1983)
Charles D. Ferris. Partner, Mintz Levin et al. Former chair of FCC (1977-1981)
Patrick J. Grant. Arnold & Porter
Scott Blake Harris. Harris Wiltshire & Grannis. Former chief of FCC International Bureau (1994-96)
Frank R. Jazzo. Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth
Regina M. Keeney. Lawler Metzger Milkman & Keeney. Former chief of several FCC bureaus and senior counsel for communications at U.S. Senate Commerce Committee
William T. Lake. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr. Former U.S. State Department official
Andrew D. Lippman. Bingham McCutchen.
Francisco Montero. Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth. Former FCC official
John T. Nakahata. Harris Wiltshire & Grannis. Former chief of staff to FCC chair and Congressional aide
Lewis J. Paper. Dickstein Shapiro. Former FCC chief General Counsel
Henry M. Rivera. Wiley, Rein. Former FCC Commissioner (1981-1985)
Norman M. Sinel. Arnold & Porter.
Cheryl A. Tritt. Morrison & Foerster. Former chief of FCC Common Carrier bureau
Philip L. Verveer. Wilkie Farr & Gallagher. Former FCC, FTC, DOJ official.

Columbia Pres. Lee Bollinger Should Not be on board of Washington Post Co.

We need more independent scholars and public intellectuals, especially in the communications and media fields. That’s why it is disheartening to learn that well-regarded First Amendment scholar and Columbia U. president Lee C. Bollinger has agreed to become a director at the Washington Post Co. Such an involvement raises a number of critical conflicts and problems.

First, Mr. Bollinger will be working to help a company that has substantial interests and investments that run counter to a truly open and diverse communications system in the U.S. Through the Post’s Cable One subsidiary, the company is working to maintain the cable industry’s control over both the multichannel television and broadband marketplace. The Post via Cable One is a member–and has served as a –of the lobby group National Cable Telecommunications Association. The NCTA’s record is strongly anti-First Amendment in terms of the rights of the public, especially its stance against network neutrality (non-discriminatory access).

The Post is also backing the elimination of the key federal safeguard promoting diversity of media ownership–the broadcast and newspaper cross-ownership rule. Through the Post Co’s membership in the lobbying trade group Newspaper Association of America, it is helping to promote consolidation and, more critically, the further erosion of journalistic quality. Finally, the Post is a member of the board of the Interactive Advertising Bureau–a group opposed to the kind of consumer safeguards that would protect our privacy online.

Too many academics have ended up working with media conglomerates, helping their consolidation agenda. We are at a crucial moment in the history of U.S.—and global—media. Much work needs to be done to protect the First Amendment rights of the public in the digital era; ensure the openness of the Internet; and help revitalize professional journalism. The country requires independent voices from outside institutions who can speak beyond the narrow self-interests commonly evoked by media companies. We need scholars who are not schmoozing with (such current Post directors) as Melinda Gates, Barry Diller, and Warren Buffet.

Lee Bollinger is a distinguised intellectual and author. But he should be on the outside of the media lobby, examining it critically on behalf of the public interest. Instead, he will likely be swallowed up by it.

Washington Post’s K Street Connections

We hope the Post fully discloses its own relationships with lobbyists as it unfolds its major “Citizen K Street” series [reg. required]. Right from the beginning, readers should learn that the Washington Post has had a long relationship with super-lobbyist Tony Podesta. All the various wheeling and dealing which Tony’s firm has and is doing for the company must be disclosed. The Post should also identify how it is supporting the lobbying agendas of the newspaper, broadcast, and cable industries. For example, through its Cable One subsidiary, the Washington Post plays a leading role aiding the National Cable & Telecommunications Association political agenda (such as opposition to broadband network neutrality). Via its Post-Newsweek TV group, the Post is on the board of directors of the National Association of Broadcasters (think opposition to media ownership rules). The Post is a member of the Newspaper Association of America; that trade group is fighting to eliminate the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership safeguard. Finally, the Post Co. has a representative on the board of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (opposed to online privacy rules, etc).

The series should also examine the role Cassidy has played in weakening media ownership safeguards, including its work for NBC, Fox and CBS back in 2003. As Cassidy’s firm stated on its web site at the time, it had key connections to the then top GOP leaders, including “the Speaker, Majority Leader Conference Chair and seven other leadership offices.” [Source is my book, Digital Destiny, p. 5].

Backing Further U.S. Media Consolidation: State Pension Funds, Foundations and Universities Help Providence Equity Partners New $12b Shopping Spree

Compounding problems with media consolidation is the role that private equity firms are playing buying major media, telecom and advertising properties. We are not only ending up with fewer owners of key newspapers, stations, networks, channels, and digital portals—but these private firms are even more unaccountable to the public. That’s why its disturbing to learn that what has been described as one of the largest funds to buy up media properties—the new Providence Equity Partners VI fund–is financially backed in part by groups which should know better. Investors of the new media merger fund include state pension funds, university endowments and private foundations (in addition to contributions from other pension funds, “high-net-worth” individuals and “funds of funds”). These investors are partnering with Providence’s plan to see more media properties are swallowed up. But likely missing from such buy-outs is any commitment to the public interest, let alone serious support for journalism. Ironically, foundations, unions, and a few university leaders have been part of the “media reform” effort combating further consolidation of “old media” and also working to restore “network neutrality” for U.S. broadband.

Former FCC Chair Michael K. Powell is a senior advisor at Providence, another irony (especially if any of the pension or foundation investment comes from groups backing the public interest media effort). Providence, as we’ve noted previously, has sought to acquire Clear Channel and Tribune. Its new fund will enable it to acquire more cable and other holdings, likely making it a fierce opponent of the effort to ensure broadband cable and phone networks are required to operate in a non-discriminatory manner.

We hope that there will be some serious soul-searching in the foundation, union, and pension investment community. More is at stake than a good return on a dollar. It’s the future of free expression, democratic participation, and civil rights.