Category: interactive advertising

Congress and Anti-trust Officials Must Take Action on Google-Yahoo! Deal: Competition and Privacy Issues at Stake

The government must take swift action to prevent the creation of a digital combine that merges assets and services of the first and second leading online search advertising companies—Google and Yahoo!
Google is the country’s (and world’s) leading search firm. Yahoo is ranked number two and says it is the foremost online display advertising company. This combination potentially threatens user privacy, as more data (including behavioral and mobile) about consumers are shared or pooled by the two leading online giants. Competition in the online ad sector—already weakened by a series of takeovers and acquisitions—is seriously threatened. This deal will have a significant impact on the advertising industry, including agencies. Both Google and Yahoo also provide critical search advertising services for many of the nation’s leading newspapers. Congress will need to explore how this deal impacts journalism, especially at a crucial marketplace juncture for the traditional media industries. Yahoo is permitting Google to extend its reach into one its significant assets–paid search. Shareholders will also suffer, as Yahoo! will be viewed by advertisers as a less effective means to target consumers.

Statement on behalf of the Center for Digital Democracy

Tracking You Offline and Now On: Acxiom Database Targeting Products Integrated into ComScore

We are rushing headlong to the seamless integration of consumer tracking and targeting across all “platforms.” We believe the further blending of more traditional “offline” segmentation and targeting tools into the online marketing system raises disturbing privacy and consumer protection issues. Yesterday, Comscore announced that “the addition of Acxiom’s PersonicX segments to the comScore Segment Metrix service for the U.S. market. This powerful new offering is targeted at advertising agencies and marketers seeking higher performing online media plans… PersonicX is a household-level segmentation system developed by Acxiom and used by marketers that groups consumers into 70 different lifestage-based segments based on several demographic variables… Predictive of U.S. consumer behaviors, media preferences, shopping patterns, and financial needs, marketers rely on Acxiom’s PersonicX to target more specific segments in an offline environment than is possible using simple age breaks. comScore Segment Metrix – PersonicX now enables marketers to reach these targeted segments via online as well as offline media, helping marketers better hone their messaging strategy, value proposition, and media placement… said Tim Suther, Acxiom senior vice president for digital marketing services. “The unparalleled insight into the interests of various lifestage interests created as a result of this partnership will allow marketers to generate enhanced planning strategies driven by improved segmentation and better execution by using targeting approaches that accurately align their online and offline marketing efforts.”

IAB’s Lobbying Against Privacy Safeguards: Trade Group Will Add New Members to Help Fight Consumer Protection Legislation

The trade lobbying group Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) plans to add new members to help it generate “grassroots support against proposed legislation in New York and Connecticut that would ban the collection of data about online consumers without a person’s specific consent.” According to ClickZ, the IAB will create a new low-dues membership structure which will enable smaller online advertisers to swell its ranks. What is IAB’s pitch to its prospective members about privacy safeguards offered by state legislators in New York and Connecticut? ClickZ says that “[T]he IAB contends that the proposed measures would have a disproportionate negative impact on small publishers that rely on ad networks to manage advertising sales.”

The IAB’s leadership is off on a irresponsible mission to persuade online marketers and the public that privacy rules would “kill the web.” Such an self-serving view of why privacy rules are required in the age of online marketing will only further diminish the credibility of the IAB.

Wal-Mart Tracks & Targets its Customers Online via Behavioral Targeting

Wal-Mart has signed a behavioral targeting deal with Yahoo!  DM News reports that “when a shop­per puts a digital camera into a shopping cart and then takes it out, Walmart.com will be able to deliver an ad for a digital camera the next time that shopper returns to the site. If a shopper performs a search for digital cameras, an ad for digital cameras will be pre­sented with the results.”

We haven’t examined Wal-Mart’s privacy policy yet. But they should be held to a standard where its customers are treated fairly, not like retail guinea pigs. For example, will Wal-Mart tell its users what Yahoo! says it can do with its behavioral targeting product:

“With more behavioral data, real-time updates and audience modeling, Yahoo! Behavioral Targeting can deliver larger audiences and better performance than before.

With Engagers, advertisers can target consumers specifically interested in a product category, moving them down the sales funnel and eliminating waste. With Shoppers, advertisers can target consumers based on likelihood to click, improving response and conversion rates.
Yahoo! offers:
• The most experience with behavioral data and targeting, and the most sophisticated targeting technology online
• The largest online user base & the most detail about users (what they do, not who they are)
• The largest volume of behaviorally targeted ad impressions”

Will Wal-Mart tell its customers that can be classified under such Yahoo! behavioral categories entitled:

“Female Fashion Freaks
Consciously Cruising (Alt. Fuel Vehicles)
Seeking out the Silver Screen
Female Electronic Gurus
Home Hopping
Hunting for Trucks
Female Gamers (18-24)
Planning for the Golden Years
Nutrition Nuts
Aspiring African Adventurers”

ATT: DoJ, EC and Congress: Yahoo!’s own claims should raise alarms about a Google or Microsoft deal

No one should sit by and let either Google or Microsoft carve-up or take-over Yahoo! without a serious examination of the competition, privacy, and other consumer protection issues. This week, Yahoo! ran a four-page ad inserted in Advertising Age. Here’s some of Yahoo!’s own copy for regulators and the public to ponder:

“Yahoo! delivers the largest audience in the U.S.-the most 18-34 year olds, the most 35-54 year olds, the most women….Today, Yahoo! reaches over half the world’s Internet users. And with our growing network of premium publishing partners, including over 625 leading newspapers, we’re working with the other half…Our insights and understanding of our users lead to smarter targeting, so we can connect the right audience with the most relevant message–yours…With more ways to connect to your customers more deeply than ever, the future is wide open.”

From Yahoo! Advertising Age insertion. June 2. 2008 entitled: “What Happens When You Can Connect To More Than 550 million People From Over 170 countries Who Spend 2 Billion Hours Each Month In One Place?”

Digital Marketers Plans for China Emblematic of Global Ambitions

We view the rush to advance digital marketing in China as a key example of how the forces of interactive advertising are being deployed globally. China is more than a “test-bed” for broadband and mobile advertising campaigns, given the growth of its Internet connected population. But we should be concerned about the impact of such marketing campaigns. Here’s an excerpt from a story appearing in Advertising Age China on Procter and Gamble’s (P&G) work there:

“The battleground now is branded entertainment and media innovation,” said Alfonso de Dios, P&G’s Guangzhou-based associate director for media in Greater China. “Globally, we are focusing on digital marketing to build long term and meaningful consumer relationships. We’ve escalated the spending and the quality of what we do online.”

That means going beyond web pages to internet protocol TV, known as IPTV, as well as mobile phones, social networks, search marketing and other high-tech applications. China has become a “learning lab in an ecosystem of providers and platforms,” he said. “We’re following a directive set by [P&G’s Global Marketing Officer] Jim Stengel, who wants the company to go beyond telling and selling, i.e. the 30″ spot, and go towards building more meaningful consumer relationships.”

source: China is P&G learning lab. Normandy Madden. Ad Age China. June 2008 [sub required]

Facebook Fails to Address Privacy Concerns, as Powerful Canadian Complaint Documents

They ought to change the name of a corporate position entitled chief privacy officer to chief data collection protector. That’s our response to the comment from Facebook’s Chris Kelly, who serves as its chief privacy officer. According to the Associated Press, Mr. Kelly responded to the privacy complaint filed by the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) with the following comment: “We’ve reviewed the complaint and found it has serious factual errors — most notably its neglect of the fact that almost all Facebook data is willingly shared by users…”

We find such a remark incredibly revealing about Facebook, and it raises questions about how well they have structured the role of its “chief privacy officer.” For example, does Mr. Kelly believe that Facebook users understand, as pointed out in the very important CIPPIC complaint on page 22, that outside developers are given access to a wide range of user information. As the complaint notes:

“(a) Information That May Be Provided to Developers. In order to allow you to use and participate in Platform Applications created by Developers, Facebook may from time to time provide Developers access to the following information: (i) any information provided by you and visible to you on the Facebook Site, excluding any of your Contact Information, and
(ii) the user ID associated with your Facebook Site profile.
(b) Examples of Facebook Site Information. The Facebook Site Information may include, without limitation, the following information, to the extent visible on the Facebook Site: your name, your profile picture, your gender, your birthday, your hometown location (city/state/country), your current location (city/state/country), your political view, your activities, your interests, your musical preferences, television shows in which you are interested, movies in which you are interested, books in which you are interested, your favorite quotes, the text of your “About Me” section, your relationship status, your dating interests, your relationship interests, your summer plans, your Facebook user network affiliations, your education history, your work history, your course information, copies of photos in your Facebook Site photo albums, metadata associated with your Facebook Site photo albums (e.g., time of upload, album name, comments on your photos, etc.), the total number of messages sent and/or received by you, the total number of unread messages in your Facebook in-box, the total number of “pokes” you have sent and/or received, the
total number of wall posts on your Wallâ„¢, a list of user IDs mapped to your Facebook friends, your social timeline, and events associated with your Facebook profile.”

Whoa! Do users really know this and give away their data consciously? We think not. Our friends from Up North have ignited a campaign which will grow throughout the world.

Privacy Oxymoron: “Anonymous” but “custom ads for each and every individual”

We file this in the `FTC has to change its definition of what should be considered personally identifiable information’ department.

Via adknowledge. “Our Targeting: Adknowledge use behavioural targeting technologies behind the scenes to deliver the most appropriate ads. Our system processes billions of calculations a day to deliver ads to the right user at the precise moment that they are most likely to purchase…These systems are strictly anonymous and operate without any specific user-level data (non-PII data). Our systems work with over 200 million behavioral data points and 100 terabytes of storage to calculate custom ads for each and every individual.”

Online Ad Firm Agrees that Cookies Can “Be Matched to Specific User Details”

The online ad industry has been hiding behind the claim that cookies, IP addresses, pixel tags, and other methods of tracking don’t identify users. But inside the industry, a different conversation occurs. That’s why it’s always important when an industry official offers us a glimpse of how they view online ad industry data collection practices. In “Digital Brands 2008,” a UK-based publication, there’s such a helpful comment: “Rob Watt, media director at digital agency Avenue A/Razorfish, says, “If users fully understood how cookies work and how they can be used for behaviourial targeting, for example, then they’d probably opt out. Although data is anonymous, it could be matched to specific user details.” [Digital Branding-Privacy Issues. Nicola Smith, NMA Magazine. April 3, 2008. sub required].

sub. required

A Yahoo! & Google Deal is anti-competitive, raises privacy concerns

Based on news coverage [reg. required], it appears that Google and Yahoo! will attempt to team up in some way. We will await to see the details. But we want to point readers to Yahoo! 2008 annual 10K report. It discusses Google’s role as a competitor–something which would basically vanish in any outsourcing of its search ad business. As Yahoo! explained, “[W]e face significant competition from companies, principally Google, Microsoft, and AOL, that have aggregated a variety of Internet products, services and content in a manner similar to Yahoo! Google’s Internet search service directly competes with us for Affiliate and advertiser arrangements, both of which are key to our business and operating results…Additionally, Google and Microsoft both offer many other services that directly compete with our services, including consumer e-mail services, desktop search, local search, instant messaging, photos, maps, video sharing, content channels, mobile applications, and shopping services.” Yahoo! also made clear that search was an integral part of its business plan: “We believe that we can expand our communities of users by offering compelling Internet services and effectively integrating search, community, personalization, and content to create a powerful user experience. We leverage our user relationships and the social community the users create to enhance our online advertising potential, as well as our fee-based services.” Once Yahoo!, in our view, cedes part of its search ad business to its leading competitor, it will not have the viability to pursue growth relying primarily on building out its display business. Search and display, cross-platform and application, are increasingly inseparable necessities in order to survive in the online ad business.

Why too, would Yahoo!, in essence, neglect its investment to improve its search ad technology–known as Panama. In its annual 10 K, Yahoo! explained that it “launched its new search marketing system, known as Project Panama, in the fourth quarter of 2006. This system provides advertisers with additional tools for budgeting, testing, and optimizing their marketing campaigns. This new system also provides a new ranking model launched in early February 2007 as the second phase of Project Panama that ranks ads by relevance in addition to keyword bid price. We believe the new search marketing system provides a more relevant search experience to users, more valuable customer leads to advertisers, and additional opportunities to our distribution partners. We have completed the global roll-out of the technology across all relevant geographies.”

As Yahoo! told shareholders and the SEC in 2007, “[O]ur Search offerings are often the starting point for users navigating the Internet and searching for information, whether from their computer or mobile device. In Search, our goal is to provide the world’s most valued and trusted search experience for users, advertisers and developers…” Undermining its own business by outsourcing search ads to its leading competitor will weaken Yahoo!s ability to be a “starting point” for both users and advertisers. Permitting Google to operate a portion of its leading competitor’s business would be harmful to online diversity as well. Having Microsoft acquire Yahoo! also raise serious competitive concerns, although they require thoughtful examination in a post `Google now owns DoubleClick’ environment.