Category: Yahoo!

Yahoo uses neuromarketing for online ads: helping “maximize emotional connection and drive higher purchase intent” for Pepsi and others

The FTC and EU will need to develop safeguards on the use and role of neuromarketing techniques in advertising, especially when deployed for online campaigns.  Here’s an excerpt from a Yahoo post on the power of neuromarketing:

“…how do you measure the emotional connection in your advertising? Are some advertising mediums better than others in making that emotional connection? To answer these questions, Yahoo! partnered with NeuroFocus, a market leader in neurological market research. Yahoo! measured the brain waves of 74 people in real-time as they viewed online, print, and television executions of three ad campaigns from Pepsi, Infiniti, and Yahoo!…The simple answer is, consumers can’t hide their brain waves. By measuring the direct response of advertising at the brain level, we are able to observe and quantify pre-cognitive reactions
before reporting biases set in.

In this study, we specifically measured emotional engagement, purchase intent, and overall effectiveness. Ad responses were measured on a 10 point scale, with the median ad performance around 5.0.

GeographicTargeting_web

We found that the ads from all three brands performed above average across all platforms. However, when ads are optimized for the Internet, they maximize emotional connection and drive higher purchase intent. In fact, by designing ads that fully leverage the interactive strengths of the online platform, advertisers can even outperform TV in emotional engagement…When ads are optimized for the Internet, they maximize emotional connection and drive higher purchase intent
By taking full advantage of the unique capabilities of the Internet platform, the Infiniti ad scored higher on emotional engagement, purchase intent, and overall effectiveness than both the television and print version of this ad.”

from:  Making the Emotional Connection:  Advanced neurological research reveals deeper insights into ad effectiveness by medium.  Yahoo.  May 17, 2010.

Online Ads Generate Sales, says Yahoo! Underscores Power of Digital Marketing

One of the ploys online advertisers are using to help deflect the call for privacy and consumer protection rules is that all this data collection & and online marketing really doesn’t amount to much.  But we all know the opposite is true:  online marketing techniques are designed to trigger consumer behavior.  Here’s what Yahoo just blogged, about a speech to advertisers given by their CEO Carol Bartz [our emphasis]:”…a recent study Yahoo! did with a brick-and-mortar retailer that tracked the effect of online ads on more than [sic] million consumers. While everyone involved in the study expected that online ads would drive online buying, the study found that 93% of the effect of the ads caused offline purchases. And every ad dollar spent drove $10 in purchases.“

The IAB’s Targeting/Data Collection Glossary: Oh, What a Tangled Privacy Threatened Web They Weave [Annals of Geo. Orwell meets Madison Ave.]

The Interactive Advertising Bureau has released for public comment a telling document that illustrates why Congress and the FTC need to develop some rules to protect consumers.  Take a look at the definitions the IAB has embraced on targeting and data collection–and ask yourself.  Based on what they say, can this really be–as the IAB claims–non personal information? Here are some of the definitions from the Networks & Exchanges Quality Assurance Guidelines [Feb. 2010]:

*Audience Targeting:A method that enables advertisers to show an ad specifically to visitors based on their shared behavioral, demographic, geographic and/or technographic attributes.  Audience targeting uses anonymous, non-PII data.

*Behavioral Targeting:  Using previous online user activity (e.g., pages visited, content viewed, searches, clicks and purchases) to generate a segment which is used to match advertising creative to users (sometimes also called Behavioral Profiling, Interest-based Advertising, or online behavioral advertising).  Behavioral targeting uses anonymous, non-PII data.

*Attribute – A single piece of information known about a user and stored in a behavioral profile which may be used to match ad content to users.  Attributes consist of demographic information (e.g., age, gender, geographical location), segment or cluster information (e.g., auto enthusiast), and retargeting information (e.g., visited Site X two days ago).  Segment or cluster information is derived from the user’s prior online activities (e.g., pages visited, content viewed, searches made and clicking and purchasing behaviors).  Generally, this is anonymous data (non-PII).

*Behavioral Event – A user-initiated action which may include, but not limited to: searches, content views, clicks, purchases, form-based information and other interactions.  Behavioral events are anonymous and do not include personally identifiable information (PII).

*Clickstream Data – A Clickstream is the recording of what a computer user clicks on while web browsing.  As the user clicks anywhere in the webpage or application, the action is logged on a client or inside the web server, as well as possibly the web browser and ad servers.  Clickstream data analysis can be used to create a user
profile that aids in understanding the types of people that visit a company’s website, or predict whether a customer is likely to purchase from an e-commerce website.

*Cookie – A small text file sent by a website’s server to be stored on the user’s web- enabled device that is returned unchanged by the user’s device to the server on subsequent interactions.  The cookie enables the website domain to associate data with that device and distinguish requests from different devices.  Cookies often store behavioral information.

*Cross-site Advertiser Analytics – Software or services that allow an advertiser to optimize and audit the delivery of creative content on pre-bought publisher inventory.  Data can range from numbers of pages visited, to content visited, to purchases made by a particular user.  Such data is used to surmise future habits of user or best placement for a particular advertiser based on success.


*Deep Packet Inspection – A form of computer network packet filtering that examines the data and/or header part of a packet as it passes an inspection point. In the context of online advertising, it is used to collect data, typically through an Internet Service Provider, which can be used to display targeted advertising to users based on previous web activity.

* Retargeting (or re-targeting) – The use of a pixel tag or other code to enable a third-party to recognize particular users outside of the domain from which the activity
was collected. See Creative Retargeting, Site Retargeting.

*Creative Retargeting:  A method that enables advertisers to show an ad specifically to visitors that previously were exposed to or interacted with the advertisers’ creative.

*Unique User – An individual user that has interacted with online content, which is smaller than or equal to the number of cookies observed.  The number of unique users to a website is usually an estimate.  

Yahoo to Pharma Marketers: Come `Engage’ & Target Health Consumers Online


As my CDD has explained to both the FDA and FTC, the digital marketing of drugs and health information require serious privacy and consumer protection safeguards.  What may be acceptable when selling cars & travel online using the online ad tool-set is not appropriate when transferred wholesale to such sensitive categories as drugs.  Here’s an excerpt [pdf] from Yahoo!s promotional piece entitled “Social Media:  Pharmaceutical Marketing in the Age of Engagement.”

Social media marketing is a compelling opportunity for pharmaceutical companies to reach their most influential audience. Recent research conducted by Manhattan-based Hall and Partners Healthcare found that online health consumers are hyper-engaged and leverage almost twice as many information sources

to learn about disease states and prescriptions than the average consumer… For every creator of content – a physician writing a blog, for example – there are

roughly 10 synthesizers actively commenting, sharing, rating and reacting. For each group of synthesizers, roughly 100 consumers read, watch, listen and enjoy

while participating only occasionally. All three of these groups have a valid place within the community. event forms. Just as we have built communities of physicians who speak openly with each other about our products, we have an opportunity to nurture and learn from consumer communities as well. First, we must listen with intent…Analyzing what you hear can reveal a gap in consumer awareness. What’s more, a number of tools have emerged to help consolidate the vast array of social media input, from free online evaluators like Intelliseek, to sophisticated and customized tracking services like Cymfony. Once marketers have a firm grasp on the language, attitudes, brand perceptions and key COLs in their consumer community, pharmaceutical company participation can range from targeted media placement to integration and empowerment. All approaches are open to branded or unbranded programs…

MicroHoo & Digital Data Consolidation: Despite DoJ okay, FTC Needs to Act and Protect Consumer Privacy

Today’s announcement that Microsoft and Yahoo have received clearance from the DoJ and EU to proceed with its partnership continues the global trend towards online marketing consolidation.  Given Google’s dominance in search, the Microsoft `helps save Yahoo deal’ creates what some hope will be more robust competition in the search market.  But the real issue with the deal is data privacy.  That’s why the Federal Trade Commission needs to dig into this new partnership and ensure consumer privacy is protected.

Where Does Google and Microsoft Really Stand–with the IAB and ad lobby or for Consumer Protection?

Both Google and Microsoft serve on the executive committee of the Interactive Ad Bureau, a trade association fighting against consumer privacy proposals in Congress and the FTC.  The IAB just sent a letter signed by other ad and marketing industry lobbyists opposing Obama and congressional proposals to expand the ability of the FTC to better protect consumers.  My CDD just sent emails to officials at both Google and Microsoft asking them to clarify where they stand on the IAB’s letter [see below].  Do our two leading online marketing leaders support financial and regulatory reform, including protecting privacy?  Or does the IAB letter–and Google and Microsoft’s own role helping govern that trade lobby group–really reflect their own position against better consumer protection? Not coincidently, the IAB’s PAC has expanded its PAC contribution giving to congress.

Why does the IAB and other ad groups want to scuttle a more capable FTC?  Think online financial products, including mortgages, pharmaceutical operated social networks, digital ads targeting teens fueling the youth obesity crisis, ads created by brain research to influence our subconscious minds, a mobile marketing system that targets us because it knows our location, interests and behavior.  The IAB is terrified that a responsible consumer protection agency will not only peek under the ‘digital hood,’ as the Obama FTC is currently doing.  But actually propose policies and bring cases that rein in irresponsible and harmful business practices.  So Microsoft and Google:  who are with?  Consumers or the special interest advertising lobby?
*****

letter to Google:  22 January 2010

Dear Pablo, Jane, Peter and Alan:

As you may know, the Interactive Advertising Bureau recently sent a letter  to Congress, along with other ad related groups, opposing the expansion of FTC regulatory authority as proposed in the Consumer Financial Protection Agency bill and related reauthorization [http://www.clickz.com/3636212].

Google serves on the executive committee of the IAB’s board.  For the record, does Google support IAB’s stance that, as news reports say, if the FTC is given additional enforcement and penalty-making authority, “the FTC could essentially act as an unelected legislature governing industries and sectors across the economy.”

If Google disagrees with the IAB’s letter, I ask that it make its position public as soon as possible.  I also respectfully request Google state its position regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposal, as well as its position on expanding FTC authority.

Regards,

Jeff Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
www.democraticmedia.org

letter to Microsoft:  22 Jan. 2010:

Dear Mike and Frank:

As you may know, the Interactive Advertising Bureau recently sent a letter to Congress, along with other ad related groups, opposing the expansion of FTC regulatory authority as proposed in the Consumer Financial Protection Agency bill and related reauthorization [http://www.clickz.com/3636212].

Microsoft serves on the executive committee of the IAB’s board.  For the record, does Microsoft support IAB’s stance that, as news reports say, if the FTC is given additional enforcement and penalty-making authority, “the FTC could essentially act as an unelected legislature governing industries and sectors across the economy.”

If Microsoft disagrees with the IAB’s letter, I ask that it make its position public as soon as possible.  I also respectfully request Microsoft state its position regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposal, as well as its position on expanding FTC authority.

Regards,

Jeff Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
www.democraticmedia.org

Google, Microsoft, China, Digital Advertising and Human Rights.

It took the equivalent of a Chinese digital Watergate break-in before Google reconsidered its position on China and their anti-democratic and censorious policies.  Google should never agreed to a censored version of itself in the first place.  But China represents what will be the world’s number one online marketing gold mine, irresistible for those in the interactive advertising business.  l hope that Google will actually withdraw from China, until democracy is assured.  But meanwhile, it’s interesting to briefly explore what Google and other online marketing companies are doing in the China market, including Hong Kong.

Google’s research division in China has been investigating “”Large-scale data mining and its applications for information retrieval.”  Google is still, as of today, listing job openings for its China operation. Google’s DoubleClick features its Hong Kong work (as part of its Asia Pacific focus).  [It’s also important to see what kind of data collection might be done by Google’s DoubleClick Ad Exchange in that market].

But policymakers and the public should also focus on Microsoft.  Microsoft has a key research lab on interactive ads based in Beijing; Microsoft Advertising has a major focus on China and online ads. Microsoft and many others research the online behaviors of Asians, including young users.  Yahoo operates in China as well. Finally, U.S. online ad companies focused on data mining are opening up branches in Hong Kong, in order to better position themselves with the Asia-Pacific market.

Google’s withdrawal from China would be a model for other companies–we hope it does it.  But the focus should be on how the online marketing industry at large, including ad giants such as WPP, are facilitating a system that deprives its citizens of their rights.

Consumer and Privacy Groups at FTC Roundtable to Call for Decisive Agency Action

Washington, DC, December 6, 2009 – On Monday December 7, 2009, consumer representatives and privacy experts speaking at the first of three Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Exploring Privacy Roundtable Series will call on the agency to adopt new policies to protect consumer privacy in today’s digitized world. Consumer and privacy groups, as well as academics and policymakers, have increasingly looked to the FTC to ensure that Americans have control over how their information is collected and used.

The groups have asked the Commission to issue a comprehensive set of Fair Information Principles for the digital era, and to abandon its previous notice and choice model, which is not effective for consumer privacy protection.

Specifically, at the Roundtable on Monday, consumer panelists and privacy experts will call on the FTC to stop relying on industry privacy self-regulation because of its long history of failure. Last September, a number of consumer groups provided Congressional leaders and the FTC a detailed blueprint of pro-active measures designed to protect privacy, available at: http://www.democraticmedia.org/release/privacy-release-20090901.

These measures include giving individuals the right to see, have a copy of, and delete any information about them; ensuring that the use of consumer data for any credit, employment, insurance, or governmental purpose or for redlining is prohibited; and ensuring that websites should only initially collect and use data from consumers for a 24-hour period, with the exception of information categorized as sensitive, which should not be collected at all. The groups have also requested that the FTC establish a Do Not Track registry.

Quotes from Monday’s panelists:

Marc Rotenberg, EPIC: “There is an urgent need for the Federal Trade Commission to address the growing threat to consumer privacy.  The Commission must hold accountable those companies that collect and use personal information. Self-regulation has clearly failed.”

Jeff Chester, Center for Digital Democracy: “Consumers increasingly confront a sophisticated and pervasive data collection apparatus that can profile, track and target them online. The Obama FTC must quickly act to protect the privacy of Americans,including information related to their finances, health, and ethnicity.”

Susan Grant, Consumer Federation of America: “It’s time to recognize privacy as a fundamental human right and create a public policy framework that requires that right to be respected,” said Susan Grant, Director of Consumer Protection at Consumer Federation of America. “Rather than stifling innovation, this will spur innovative ways to make the marketplace work better for consumers and businesses.”

Pam Dixon, World Privacy Forum: “Self-regulation of commercial data brokers has been utterly ineffective to protect consumers. It’s not just bad actors who sell personal information ranging from mental health information, medical status, income, religious and ethnic status, and the like. The sale of personal information is a routine business model for many in corporate America, and neither consumers nor policymakers are aware of the amount of trafficking in personal information. It’s time to tame the wild west with laws that incorporate the principles of the Fair Credit Reporting Act to ensure transparency, accountability, and consumer control.”

Written statements and other materials for the roundtable panelists are available at the following links:

CDD/USPIRG: http://www.democraticmedia.org/node/419

WPF: http://www.worldprivacyforum.org/pdf/WPF_Comments_FTC_110609fs.pdf

CFA: http://www.consumerfed.org/elements/www.consumerfed.org/File/5%20Myths%20about%20Online%20Behavioral%20Advertising%2011_12_09.pdf

EPIC: www.epic.org

Google’s Teracent Acquisition: Why so-called `Smart’ Ads are on the privacy agenda

Yahoo has its smart ad product; now with its acquisition of Teracent so does Google.  Smart ads learn about you and can dynamically change form so the display ad can better target you.  Here’s how Google explained what the technology can do:

Teracent’s technology can pick and choose from literally thousands of creative elements of a display ad in real-time — tweaking images, products, messages or colors. These elements can be optimized depending on factors like geographic location, language, the content of the website, the time of day or the past performance of different ads.

This technology can help advertisers get better results from their display ad campaigns. In turn, this enables publishers to make more money from their ad space and delivers web users better ads and more ad-funded web content.

We’re looking forward to welcoming the Teracent team to Google and to making this technology available to our display advertising clients — including those who run display ad campaigns on the Google Content Network and our DoubleClick clients.

“Cookie Wars, Real-Time Targeting, and Proprietary Self Learning Algorithms: Why the FTC Must Act Swiftly to Protect Consumer Privacy”

That’s the title of comments filed at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission by my Center for Digital Democracy and U.S. PIRG.  I also just gave a presentation with the same name at last week’s meeting of data protection commissioners in Madrid, Spain.   It’s available here.

Here’s an excerpt:   Today, consumers online face the rapid growth and ever-increasing sophistication of the various techniques advertisers employ for data collection, profiling, and targeting across all online platforms. The growth of ad and other optimization services for targeting, involving real-time bidding on ad exchanges; the expansion of data collection capabilities from the largest advertising agencies (with the participation of leading digital media content and marketing companies); the increasing capabilities of mobile marketers to target users via enhanced data collection; and a disturbing growth of social media surveillance practices for targeted marketing are just a few of the developments the commission must address. But despite technical innovation and what may appear to be dramatic changes in the online data collection/profiling/targeting market, the commission must recognize that the underlying paradigm threatening consumer privacy online has been constant since the early 1990’s. So-called “one-to-one marketing,” where advertisers collect as much as possible on individual consumers so they can be targeted online, remains the fundamental approach.