Category: interactive advertising

CDT & the Internet Education Foundation: Watch Out they Don’t Undermine the fight for Social Network Privacy

The Internet Education Foundation (IEF) plays an unfortunate gatekeeper role for the Congressional Internet Caucus. Jerry Berman serves as the chair of both the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) and the IEF (the two groups also have board members in common). IEF’s most high-profile project is the Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus, which organizes events for Congress on new media issues. This Wed. (Jan. 30), the group is holding its annual “State of the Net” event. Such congressional meetings really require a group independent of the special interests–especially on a topic so important as the role digital communication plays in a democracy. The event has been structured to be a tame affair–there will be little reality discussed about the real state of digital communications (since groups funding the congressional meeting–including Verizon, Google, Microsoft, AT&T–wouldn’t feel generous in their future giving if they faced a serious critique).

Take the panel on social networks, entitled: “Social Networking Privacy: An Oxymoron?” Such a title fits into the current interactive ad industry/MySpace/Facebook lobbying frame that claims young people don’t care about protecting their personal data. Social network users, especially teens, are being encouraged to place all their personal details on such sites without real safeguards. That’s why it’s time for new privacy policies that provide serious privacy protections on social networks. We urge everyone to read the recent EU paper on the subject, which should help galvanize the public into action. A responsible society should act swiftly to protect privacy online, especially for its youth. As the debate builds on social networks and privacy, it will be vital to inform policymakers about the real story.

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.

As a brief companion piece to Ken Auletta’s article on Google in the current issue of The New Yorker magazine (The Search Party), this may be of interest. Google’s goal is ultimately to be of service to advertisers and marketers; that’s how it makes 99% of its revenue. There’s a disturbing lack of candor from Google about the conflicts they have. One the one hand, they are (getting PR for) promoting responsible practices such as energy sustainability. But on the other hand, they are using all the company’s incredible resources to push the interactive marketing and selling envelope, including the sales of automobiles. Here’s excerpts from Google advertising sales job openings related to the car and truck industry:

1. The role: Industry Head, Automotive – London

As a Google Automotive Industry Head, you’ll be working with those who produce, market or sell products or services related to cars, trucks, boats or other transportation vehicles. This includes original equipment manufactures, third-party websites, dealers and after-market parts and accessories companies. This is a highly consultative position that reports directly to the Automotive Industry Leader. You’ll be responsible for presenting the team’s strategy and managing a team of experts to increase sales on a national level. Focusing on building strong relationships at the highest possible level, your goal is to help your automotive clients get as many of their marketable assets online in an affordable and measurable way. You’ll combine exceptional Automotive knowledge, deep industry and marketing agency relationships, compelling communication/presentation skills and inspired prospecting/analytical abilities to develop and close new business as well as grow existing business.

Responsibilities:

  • Develop the vision and manage the sales/account strategies that will fully unlock the potential in the Automotive sector.
  • Build and maintain relationships with senior-level clients, industry-specific direct advertisers and relevant agency contacts.
  • Educate the Automotive industry and evangelise Google, particularly at targeted events, conferences and media opportunities.
  • Understand the roles of and manage a team consisting of Industry Managers, Account Managers, Account Strategists and Sales Planners – providing team development, guidance, feedback and motivation.
  • Develop a deep understanding of the business needs of Automotive advertisers and insights into consumer behaviour.

Requirements:

  • High-calibre BA/BSc degree (MBA preferred).
  • Proven record of strategic development of major Automotive manufacturers.
  • Substantial experience in advertising sales/marketing and sales management.
  • Established relationships and presence within the Automotive industry.
  • Broad knowledge of sales and management, and proven team management experience.
  • Ability to influence product development through interaction with relevant colleagues, peers and direct reports.
  • A deep understanding of the industry’s issues, a vision for its growth, and a commitment to advance Google’s forward-looking strategies within the marketplace..

    • 2. The role: Account Strategist, Automotive Vertical (Detroit)

    As a Google Automotive Account Strategist, you’ll work primarily with large automotive clients and agencies. Most of these companies operate multiple sales channels, work with several manufacturing partners and always look to increase sales volume and efficiency. This is a creative position that calls for a strong affinity for the craft of language and a fondness for consulting closely with the auto clients. You’ll distill the essence of our clients’ products and services into targeted keyword lists and text advertisements that connect our advertisers with customers. You will also collaborate with our Sales and Operations team to work closely with clients to maximize the performance of these highly targeted ads.

    3. [based in Santa Monica, CA]  The role: Account Strategist, Automotive Vertical.   As a Google Automotive Account Strategist, you’ll work primarily with large automotive clients and agencies. Most of these companies operate multiple sales channels, work with several manufacturing partners and always look to increase sales volume and efficiency. This is a creative position that calls for a strong affinity for the craft of language and a fondness for consulting closely with the auto clients. You’ll distill the essence of our clients’ products and services into targeted keyword lists and text advertisements that connect our advertisers with customers. You will also collaborate with our Sales and Operations team to work closely with clients to maximize the performance of these highly targeted ads…

loans 321500 loans cashloan payday 500loan 500 day paypayday 10 best loan 7 companyfast loan cash advance 20loan 6 payday cash link advanceservice cash payday advance 20 loan Map

IAB and its Proposed Privacy Guidelines: Will Fail to Effectively Protect the Public

So relieved where some in the interactive ad business when they read the FTC’s staff proposed privacy principles released last month that commentators described the reaction as the industry had “dodged a bullet” and “breathed a sigh of relief” [“FTC Online Ad Targeting Guidelines: Industry Breathes A Sigh Of Relief”].

Now Paidcontent describes plans underway by the IAB to offer “privacy standards,” via a “15-member working group,” that includes Time Warner, Microsoft, Yahoo! and others [“Online Ad Industry Groups Take Steps To Self-Police”]. According to the January 4, 2008 article by David Kaplan “[T]he IAB task force will address issues of consumer notice and choice, in terms of deciding the context for selecting opt-in or opt-out.”

IAB lobbyist Mike Zaneis says in the article that “[T]he level of appropriate choice needs to be flexible…consumer regulation will prove to be more efficient and powerful than government regulation.” Zaneis considers the campaign against Facebook that resulted in some modest–and ineffective in my view–changes in its data collection system as an illustration of “consumer regulation.” It’s clear that the IAB is incapable of developing a policy that will protect consumers. Anyone who understands the contemporary dimensions of the interactive marketing industry–and has the public welfare in mind–should recognize what is required. The IAB will not be taken seriously if it can’t deliver the truth (it’s so far failed to protect the public from troubling online lead generation practices, for example. See our November 1, 2007 FTC filing). Yahoo!, Microsoft, Time Warner and others on the committee should lead–and not follow–advice from the IAB that will lead to prolonged political conflict–in Europe, in Congress, at the FTC and FCC, and with the incoming Administration.

Real governmental rules are required–including measures that effectively protect every consumer and also address vulnerable groups and sensitive marketing issues. The IAB’s old school Beltway mentality will likely give online advertisers a bad name. Where are the ad industry’s thoughtful leaders who can help steer the IAB in an honorable direction?

DoubleClick tracks 50 different consumer data metrics now; what happens after Google merger?

Something to think about, here and in the EU. From a 2006 Businessweek story [excerpt, our italics]:

“The race is on to find new ways to track customer behavior. Advertisers and agencies are progressing far beyond the standard arithmetic of counting clicks and page views. They’re tracking the to-and-froing of the mouse on Web pages, and they’re finding new ways to group shoppers by age, Zip Code, and reading habits. CEO David S. Rosenblatt of DoubleClick Inc., which serves up some 200 billion ads a month for customers, says that every campaign now allows for 50 different types of metrics.”

source: “Wiser about the web.” Businessweek. March 27, 2006

movie long sexteens for auditions movierental prop moviewomen movies nakedpooping moviesporn movie blooperscartoon demented the movietrish movie porn stratus Map

Why We Need Real Privacy Protections for Online: Read this “Risk Factor” from new SEC filing

ExactTarget is an email marketing company, working with such companies as “Careerbuilder.com, Expedia.com, Florida Power and Light, Gannett Co., Inc./USA TODAY, the Indianapolis Colts, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Liberty Mutual Group, Papa John’s and Wellpoint, Inc.” They just filed for an IPO (known as S-1). Here’s a important excerpt:

“The ability of our clients to solicit, collect, process and use data derived from their customers may be restricted by existing and future privacy laws and regulations. In turn, we may be restricted from providing certain services, required to implement additional procedures and security systems and be exposed to the costs and liability associated with complying with or violating those regulations, all of which could harm our business.

Existing laws regulate the solicitation, collection, processing, transfer, use and other exploitation of consumers’ personal information and other types of information. Such laws and regulations may require companies to implement privacy and security policies, permit users to access, correct and delete personal information stored or maintained by such companies, inform individuals of security breaches that affect their personal information, and, in some cases, obtain individuals’ consent to use personal information for certain purposes. Additional privacy laws and regulations are possible and they could, if enacted, prohibit the use of certain technologies that track individuals’ activities on web pages or that record when individuals click through to an Internet address contained in an email message. Such laws and regulations could restrict our clients’ ability to collect and use email addresses, page viewing data and personal information, which may reduce demand for our products and services. Some regulations may cause our clients to insist that we adopt or implement certain security and privacy policies and procedures, or to implement certain security measures. The cost to comply with such demands or regulations could be significant and would increase our operating expenses, and we may be unable to pass along those increased costs to our clients.”

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

Microsoft cooks your data: Gatineau and behavioral targeting

As our online behaviors are continually tracked and analyzed, more about us is known–by marketers and others. Web analytics–software that analyzes how one interacts with a site, is being merged with behavioral measurement and other identifying technologies. Microsoft is moving further in this area, including with its “Gatineau” product. Explains Online Metrics Insider:

“Once demographic information is captured in a registration database, it can be joined with behavioral data in the Web analytics system and reported on. For a real-world example of analytics/demographic integration, take a look at what Microsoft is doing with Gatineau, the company’s free Web analytics offering currently in beta. Microsoft is joining Web site behavioral data with rich demographic data from MS Live profiles.”

What can Microsoft collect? The Micro Marketing blog explains that “Gatineau provides unique insight into the age, gender, and occupation of your site’s visitors…Microsoft stores demographic and behavioral targeting data about a person separately from their contact information with strong safeguards in place to prevent “unauthorized correlation” of the separate data sets…What kind of data is accumulated? Certainly the information you supply when signing up for Hotmail or any number of Microsoft services. As well, your behavior on Microsoft web sites—which sites you visit, which parts of those sites, and how often. Also, publicly available data supplied by third parties may be used to complete your profile…From this data a site can build a detailed profile of the content that interests you and then use that profile to provide additional content or offers relevant to your interests.”

In another words–where is the FTC, the EC, and other privacy regulators!

ametuer porn clipsporn ametuer forumsporn vidios ametuerporn ameturporn ameture gayporno interatial ametureameture pornporn ameture community Map

Statements on Mark Zuckerberg’s “Thoughts on Beacon” announcement

From: Jeff Chester, Executive Director, Center for Digital Democracy [202-494-7100]

Kathryn C. Montgomery, Ph.D. Professor of Communication, American University. Author of Generation Digital: Politics, Commerce, and Childhood in the Age of the Internet (MIT Press, 2007) [202-885-2680]

Jeff Chester: “Today’s announcement that Facebook users will be able to turn off Beacon, following last week’s opt-in changes, is a step in the right direction. But Mr. Zuckerberg isn’t truly candid with Facebook users. Beacon is just one aspect of a massive data collection and targeting system put in place by Facebook. It’s not really about the company’s desire ‘to build a simple product…lightweight’ that would, as he writes, ‘let people share information across sites with their friends.’ Mr. Zuckerberg’s goal, as he explained on November 6, 2007, was to transform Facebook into ‘a completely new way of advertising online.’ Facebook has rewired its social network to better serve the data collection interests of marketers who, promised Mr. Zuckerberg, are now ‘going to be a part of the conversation’.

“Mr. Zuckerberg can’t simply now do a digital “mea culpa” and hope that Facebook’s disapproving members, privacy advocates, and government regulators will disappear. Nor should Facebook’s brand advertisers permit this statement to diminish the real privacy and security concerns embodied by Facebook’s new targeted ad system. CDD will continue to press U.S. and EU regulators to address Facebook’s significant privacy problem.”

Kathryn Montgomery: “Facebook’s announcement today is a stopgap measure designed to quell the huge public outcry from consumer groups and users over its ill-advised new marketing scheme. The move to allow users to turn Beacon off entirely may restore a small measure of control to Facebook’s members, but it is by no means an adequate safeguard for ensuring privacy protection on this and other social networking platforms. These companies are continuing full steam ahead with new generation of intrusive marketing practices that are based on unprecedented levels of data collection and personal profiling. Regulatory agencies in the U.S. and in Europe need to conduct a thorough investigation of these new forms of social network marketing and develop rules to ensure that consumers are fully protected in the emerging broadband era.”

script action mp3 timepolka mp3 aambeeldsau aaine mp3 kemp3 aazmale aazmaleaao hazoor tumko mp3aassi mp3 helanyocx activex id3 mp3aamer hussain mp3 liaquat Map