Category: interactive advertising

Google’s Alliance with Rupert Murdoch and Fox News

We think Google founders’ Larry Page and Sergey Brin need to revisit what they personally hope to ultimately contribute to society. Google’s deal with Rupert Murdoch’s Fox, including its Foxnews.com sites, supports a media empire that has engaged in jingoistic journalism (to say the least!). Hey, Google guys. Don’t you recall what Fox did to help get us into a war that has unnecessarily cost so many, many, thousands of lives—let alone caused so much destruction?

Helping Rupert Murdoch out is exactly what Google is doing. Google’s signed a much-publicized deal with Fox Interactive Media (FIM) last month, making it the “exclusive search keyword targeted advertising sales provider” for Murdoch’s MySpace.com “community.” But Google is also working with the rest of Murdoch’s FIM properties, including Foxnews.com, fox.com, Foxsports.com, ign.com, askmen.com, etc. Google will be giving its pal Murdoch a minimum of $900 million over a three-year period, as part of its revenue sharing deal.

I know people will say it’s only business—and that if Google didn’t make the deal, a Yahoo! or MSN would. But that’s not the point. You need to be careful about who you choose as your business partners. So despite the positive PR Google gets when it creates a for-profit foundation, there is something ultimately wrong-headed about the company. Helping Rupert Murdoch sell interactive ads and promote the Foxnews brand is another indication that Google’s legacy may be one rich with cash—but not corporate moral clarity.

Microsoft’s Massive Interactive Ad Venture (with a editorial reminder for the Washington Post)

Bill and Melinda Gates receive just praise for their eponymous charitable foundation. But like so many other philanthropists, the money comes via disreputable practices. Little is ever mentioned when discussing the Gates Foundation that its resources were built on a coldly executed monopolistic business strategy. The European Commission is still trying to undo the impact of Microsoft’s monopoly. Like many other robber barons turned philanthropist, perhaps Mr. Gates has made a later-in-one’s life conversion. He is now widely viewed—by the press and others—as a saint, not a sinner.

But Microsoft’s recent acquisition of Massive—the leading provider of online advertising for video games—illustrates his company’s continued lack of a moral vision. Massive sells to a wide array of advertisers and marketers the eyeballs—and really the subconscious minds—of teens and other gamers. Video games become populated with all kinds of commercial messages to help push the marketing goals of “Entertainment, Automotive, Telecom, Packaged Goods, Technology and Retail,” explains Massive. These ads are placed before users in “real-time” and can be readily updated and revised to suit an advertisers marketing strategy. You can be sure users are tracked and profiled.

Here’s what Massive also tells advertisers: “Massive’s patent-pending ad serving technology and unique ad units guarantee that advertisers get precise, measurable exposure in their campaign. The dynamic nature of the Massive Network gives advertisers the opportunity to target gamers with different messages based upon geography and time of day. The advertising creative and campaign can be highly customized and changed quickly to meet evolving market conditions and brand priorities. Ad messages are customized to contextually fit each game environment and then served to locations within the game that are pre-selected by Massive and the game’s creative developers.”

“Types of ad units include (but are not limited to):

* Billboards and Posters
* Vehicles
* Pizza Boxes
* Soda Cans
* Screensavers
* TV Screens”

Microsoft is currently engaged in a desperate effort to catch up to Yahoo! and Google in the interactive advertising game. Massive is seen as a prime way to extend the software giant’s interactive ad clout. But, by facilitating the ability of marketers to encourage young people and others to consume more beer, pizza, and fattening soft drinks, Microsoft is making an unhealthy and inappropriate contribution to our culture. It won’t do the public any good if—say twenty years from now—Bill and Melinda Gates begin suddenly spending foundation money to combat obesity-related illnesses. They would have already helped encouraged millions of game users to identify with such products.

This week’s announcement that Microsoft’s Massive will be distributing Electronic Arts (EA) games for its Xbox, including “first person shooter” Battlefield 2142, is a good illustration why folks working for Gates should hide their heads in shame. Here’s what an EA executive said about the deal: “Consumers are increasingly engaged in deep, virtual worlds and advertisers need adapted ways to reach these audiences.”

Oy Vey!

And now for the Washington Post. The news article [9/1/06] reporting on the EA deal was very polite—and didn’t explore much the concerns over Microsoft’s use of interactive ads for games. Perhaps that’s because folks know that Melinda Gates is on the board of the Washington Post Company. Post Co. reporters and editors always need to disclose their corporate connection to Microsoft and the Gates family.

2g ringtonesstooges 3 ringtonesgitano ringtones amorcountry ringtones $0.99ringtones parris aliceringtones 8525aaa warrington10 ringtones free Map

FTC, You Better Turn-on (then Quickly Shut-off) Your TiVo

As the FTC readies a review of online commerce, including privacy, it should examine TiVo’s new plan to turn over “second-by-second” viewer data to major advertisers. The TiVo-Omnicom deal, as reported yesterday by Ad Age and others, will also include “behavioral data” derived from our personal video recorder (PVR) viewing. That data will form the basis of an “engagement” study that TiVo and Omnicom will do together. (Engagement is a relatively new ad industry initiative that is attempting to design, deliver and measure more effective ways of branding.) Omnicom, of course, is an advertising and marketing octopus, operating such agencies as BBDO Worldwide, DDB Worldwide, and TWBA/Worldwide. The TiVo deal is with the Omnicom Media Group, which includes OMD (which is interested in new media), PHD Network, Icon International and others.

Almost from the start, TiVo has positioned itself as an ad-friendly technology (to help allay fears from the media and ad industry it brought in many investors from those fields, such as Time Warner, CBS and NBC). Last month, TiVo announced “the creation of a new line of business, TiVo Audience Research and Measurement (ARM), offering advertisers, marketers, networks and advertising agencies second-by-second data and analysis on DVR viewing. With this unique data, advertisers will have key insights into the viewership and effectiveness of their TV advertising by network, genre, day-part, time-slot, day of week and pod position. The initial research product, Commercial Viewership Report, provides a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the creative and media planning strategies that are most effective to reach a fast forwarding consumer.”

This should sound alarm bells. No matter what they (or others) claim are sufficient privacy policies, analytical data about unique habits are being turned over to marketers. The FTC and state attorneys-general should demand that TiVo stop any such “second by second” collection and behavioral analysis until they have submitted detailed information so its plans can be evaluated. TiVo’s subscribers must be given full-disclosure and the ability to opt-in to any new data analysis arrangement. All of this, of course, is part of the ever-growing system of personalized data collection and targeting that is shaping all media delivery platforms. Our privacy and more is at risk. But, we have to admit. Does the FTC really care about growing threats to privacy via our broadband world?

This is an issue will be writing about (and actively working on) in the months ahead. And an issue that is the focus of our new book—out in January (apologies for the marketing here!).

PBS will revise website to provide more Ad disclosure. But more needed

Communications Daily [Aug. 29, 2006. subscription required] reports that PBS plans to “revise its website as early as today (Tues.) to explain “sponsored links.” The Daily quotes PBS VP Lea Sloan saying that “we agree there could be more precision in describing what happens to users when they leave the PBS site and are looking into how best to articulate that.”

In a letter I wrote last week to the PBS ombudsman Michael Getler on behalf of the Center for Digital Democracy, we asked for an investigation into how users of the site are having data collected about them from third parties (including the placement of cookies). The letter said that such undisclosed data-collection via the PBS site was a ‘deceptive” practice. We have not yet heard from Mr. Getler.

But while we are gratified that PBS is listening (after a series of stories in newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times and complaints from advocates), we are not satisfied. PBS should not be engaged in any interactive advertising—on its website, via its digital broadcast airwaves, or by any method (such as wireless). PBS must not be allowed to become an digital ad-addicted junkie. It should offer the public a totally commercial-free environment as it enters the broadband communications era. We hope that Congress will consider legislation restricting PBS, NPR and other federally supported public broadcasting entities from running any ads at all—including interactive outlets.

We believe that PBS’s future more fruitfully lies in building up a site that users will financially support–grateful that it will be one of the few places on the planet where they aren’t the target of personalized interactive marketing.

camel toe moviesporn length full movieface hardcore fucking moviesnude lopez movies jennifermovie silviasex amatuer moviesmovies beastalitymovies bignaturals Map

galleries adult free pornadult porn screensaver freevideo free porn adultadult trailers porn freefurry adult pornporn girl free adultporn hardcore magazines adulthunt site adult porn Map

Disney’s Branded Entertainment Scam: Pushing its Mobile Phone Biz Via a Program-Length Commercial

This is a good example of why a PBS should avoid even the taint of commercialism. Public broadcasting needs to be a safe haven from the kind of show/ad-biz industry mishegas we are increasingly witnessing in the interactive marketing era. Take the announcement via the crazy folks at Burbank. Bob Iger must be channeling Michael Eisner in the bad taste department. But it’s also a great example of why there needs to be beefed up federal safeguards protecting kids from targeted digital marketing. Read on:

“Disney to Debut ‘Storymercial

Disney plans to launch a half-hour TV program based entirely on its branded mobile service, in order to let parents know about the variety of features the service offers, on ABC Family sometime before November.

The show, or “storymercial,” will incorporate viewer-suggested storylines about the phone service, highlighting the features that could help families keep track of their minutes – and keep track of each other, writes Brandweek. Footage from the show will also end up in other media such as online, on DVDs and on television commercials.

The long form – or infomercial – is coming back into vogue thanks to a couple of factors such as the rise of video sites such as YouTube and the availability of inexpensive bandwidth (which makes it possible to reuse and recycle content). And because retailers are facing mounting pressure to “start selling from day one,” long form advertising is necessary to build online and offline buzz for complex products such as the Disney Mobile service, before they hit the shelves, says Dave Merton, vp for Meteor and consultant to manufacturers.

However, long form can be disastrous if it is simply a 30-second spot stretched to last a longer time. Rather, it must be exclusive, brand correct content that makes for great watching, says Doug Garnett, president of Atomic Direct and creator of the successful Drill Doctor long form campaign.”

[Source: www.mediabuyerplanner.com] The story broke, we understand, in Brand Week. It is online.

PBS to Run Commercials Online, including at PBS Kids site. Doesn’t it know there soon won’t be a real difference between the Web and TV?

PBS intends to run online advertising this fall at its PBS.org website. The so-called non-commercial network says it seeks to benefit from the “explosive growth and rising demand” of interactive advertising. In an example of how out of touch PBS executives are with its non-commercial mandate, a PBS VP explained that the move is a response to the demand of the market. He said that such ads would generate “positive financial results” for the network, helping it fulfill its “mission-based activities.” They claim there will be “guidelines” helping determine what ads can run. But an ad’s an ad. Incredibly, PBS will also seeks advertising for its kids website homepages—PBSkids.org and PBSkids Go!

PBS should not be seeking commercial opportunities in the broadband market. Instead, it should be pioneering new forms of non-commercial content readily available throughout our ubiquitous digital system. PBS must recognize by now that online and TV (as well as mobile) are merging. The distinction about whether content is delivered via any specific platform no longer matters. Whether received via TV, cellphone, or PC, public broadcasting content should be fully non-commercial. PBS, and its stations, (and NPR) should not attempt to replicate what commercial media companies are doing online and with mobile networks. It will be a U.S. media universe saturated with advertising. If PBS is to remain distinctive at all—it has to strictly adhere to non-commercial formats in all forms of distribution. Certainly, new PBS president Paula Kerger can do better than this. PBS officials think they have a loophole because they aren’t prohibited from running ads online (they are restricted in terms of commercials and their TV licenses). Congress must step in to bar PBS from running any ads—in any medium.

[source: “PBS to resume Online Ads to Exploit Market Demand.” Dinesh Kumar. Communications Daily. Aug. 24, 2006. Subscription only].

PS: In response to those who say that PBS needs money, so hence it must run online ads. In my view, only by creating meaningful interactive non-commercial formats can PBS hope to raise money from viewers/users. Its future is with the audience increasingly using social media web sites. It has to provide those users with distinctive content. A fully non-commercial service is likely to be appreciated with viewer support. Foundations might like it too.

PPS: Read the Campaign for Commercial-Free Childrhood’s alert on PBS ads here.

And Commercial Alert’s here.

PPPS!: See a good overview article on PBS’s deal with Google’s Adsense service. The piece includes an interview with PBS’s VP for Interactive and Education. It’s at paidcontent.org and called “PBS.org Starts Accepting Contextual Ads From Google; More Coming.” See another piece about the PBS station in Cincinnati that has “re-launched its web presence as an ad-supported on-demand video site.”

Time Warner’s AOL: Bad Broadband Karma

No matter how Richard Parsons and company spin it, AOL is ultimately a loser. What the press coverage on AOL’s ever-changing business model ignores is that the online service doesn’t have legal access to broadband. AOL is frozen in digital time, able to offer most users only outmoded dial-up access. But AOL’s ignoble demise is fitting—given the company’s abandonment of its call for non-discriminatory “open access” to broadband (the key issue underlying today’s network neutrality debate).

It was AOL, after all, that led the corporate campaign in the late 1990’s calling on the Clinton FCC and the Congress to require non-discriminatory access for ISPs to cable broadband. AOL argued—as net neutrality proponents are today—that the Internet’s success had been based on federal policies requiring phone networks to serve everyone in a fair and open manner. AOL’s Steve Case understood that soon high-speed Internet service would replace dial-up and that cable systems would be the leading provider of broadband. Case desperately sought to have cable operate its Internet access service under the same federal policy safeguards that governed phone company dial-up. (He even backed a non-profit group called “No Gatekeepers”).

The cable industry, including Time Warner, used its political clout to prevent any policy that would have ensured the U.S. broadband system be operated in a non-discriminatory and more competitive manner. Recognizing that AOL would be shut out of broadband and that its future was doomed, it engineered a take-over of number two cable giant Time Warner. Both AOL’s Steve Case and Time Warner’s Gerry Levin shared a similar view for the future of the Internet—to turn it into an even more powerful advertising medium than television. To achieve this goal, Case quickly dropped his call for “open access” for broadband. He foolishly believed that by having AOL merge with Time Warner it would be part of the cable “costa nostra,” its broadband access assured.

On the day the merger deal was announced, Case stood by Levin as open access to broadband became another victim of corporate greed. Levin declared that the new AOL Time Warner was “going to take the open access issue out of Washington, and out of city hall and put it into the marketplace, into the commercial arrangements that should occur to provide the kind of access for as much content as possible.” That was shorthand for: “AOL will have access through us. Everyone else forgetaboutit.”

So now Dick Parsons—who was part of the team that created the most infamously unsuccessful merger in U.S. media history—is once again re-engineering AOL. It may in the short term bring in more ad dollars, helping it fulfill the Case/Levin/Parsons vision that the Internet’s future is interactive TV-like marketing. But AOL’s real problem is that it can’t offer its users broadband since it has no legal access to it—a political cause it gave up when the going got rough in the (admittedly) politically corrupt culture of Washington, D.C. media politics. That’s why we believe the eventual demise of AOL is a fitting conclusion to its own self-serving role in the U.S. broadband debate.

Earning Digital Dollars and Backing Dictators: Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and Interactive Advertising in China

As Bill Gates prepares to fete the Chinese President at his home—and as last week’s headlines remind us that the “do no evil” motto of Google is meaningless [“Google defends censorship in China”], we thought it would be useful to focus on a little discussed aspect of the “we will do anything to market in China” tech story. It’s the role which interactive advertising is playing driving companies such as Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google to do anything to please the Chinese government; even the censoring of search content and the turning over of personal user data to the police.

Microsoft, in fact, has selected China as its primary location to create the next generation of interactive advertising technologies. adLab, based in Beijing, was launched by Microsoft in January. Its mission is to use its “state-of-the-art” facilities, and “top-notch group of more than 50 researchers” to “incubate advanced technologies …designed to provide advertisers with rich targeting capabilities based on audience intelligence information…” Among the expertise assembled at the Microsoft China lab are researchers expert in “data mining, information retrieval, statistical analysis, artificial intelligence, …and visual computing.” The Beijing facility is working (along with Seattle colleagues) on forty projects or so—including on what they call “social network mining” and “video hyperlink advertising.” These technologies will be used to more precisely target us with personalized advertising. They will give advertisers a rich set of personal information based on the tracking and analyzing of our behavior. Such data in the hands of marketers is bad enough. But it will also be likely turned over to governments, including authoritarian regimes.
By selecting Beijing as the location to help develop the company’s online business future, Microsoft has made a powerful statement about the importance of the China market itself. They—as do Google and Yahoo—see many billions of dollars from the online targeting of billions of Chinese computer users. The three are all competing to dominate the China market. Microsoft even sued Google for stealing one its executives who is setting up its China-based research center.

Bill Gates, Jerry Yang, Eric Schmidt and the other executives should be challenging repressive regimes by refusing to operate in countries where search is censored and information about dissenters has to be turned over to authorities. But these companies see the digital future and it’s about targeted ads—along with new forms of commercial and political surveillance.